Kathleen Parker editorial

We all know where Kathleen Parker stands on abortion; obviously she is opposed to the procedure. Following the visit of Pope Benedict the 16th to America, of course Ms. Parker had to discuss his visit and even further discuss his messages about the church doctrine in opposition to that medical procedure. It is fine by me if the church wishes to oppose abortion. However, when using such “uplifting and enlightened messages” as life begins at conception, it really only means one thing. Instead of the church directing its doctrine to the faithful within its own congregation, parish or whatever; the church prefers to demand from government that women have no choice but to make babies. No matter what the religion of the woman or if she has none at all. She must by church decree dictating through government legislation make babies. That is quite a separation from the Paulian doctrine that Christian women bear children for their own salvation. Salvation no longer enters into the argument unless the church is hell bent on “saving the nation from itself” through the offices of government.

So, when the sperm commingles with the egg as Ms. Parker argues, “life begins at conception.” According to the bible however, life began when God created it and provided males and females of various species so that they could continue their species. Or not, if they opposed God through their sins of not having the faith he wanted them to have. If they did not build alters to him, if they worship other Gods instead of him, if they lived as they chose instead of how he commanded, life need not continue at all. Especially according to Old Testament scripture. Life continued as plainly described in scripture, only on the condition that man is righteous.

Well, government legislation that furthers church or Papal decree does not make men more righteous than they already are! No more than God could force men to be righteous even though he could and did severely punish them for their moral lacks. Nor does government legislation force people to worship at one church as opposed to another. But what it does do is to say that the government is prepared to obey the decrees of a specific church and pass those decrees or doctrines of that church onto the people by force of law. That is not a democratic argument nor does it have constitutional support. There are some things that government should not do, including allowing one faith to intrude into the private matters of other faiths and dictate how people should believe. That is exactly why the founding fathers very specifically said that Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Isn’t the abortion argument only the establishing of religion? By making a church doctrine the law of the land, prohibiting the free exercise of other beliefs?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: