The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Buy the Book

Faith of Our Fathers

By from the December 2008 - January 2009 issue

A tool for enlightened debate on the Establishment Clause and other church-state issues that continue to confront our nation.

Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America
By Steven Waldman
(Random House, 205 pages, $26)

THE PLACE OF RELIGION IN AMERICA is a problem as old as our republic. It has been a flash point of debate between liberals and conservatives on a wide range of issues—such as aid to parochial schools, prayer at civic gatherings, nativity scenes on public property, government assistance to faith-based organizations, and many other concerns. The locus of the problem is interpreting the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment (1791), which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”

Constitutional originalists hold to a strict interpretation of this text. They contend that when the First Amendment was ratified it simply prohibited the federal government from declaring itself in support of a national religion or acting in favor of a particular faith. On the other hand, proponents of a dynamic Constitution contend that what the phrase really means is that a strict separation must be maintained between the state and all religion in any form.

In Founding Faith, Steven Waldman, editor in chief of the popular online religion journal Beliefnet.com, investigates the genesis of the Establishment Clause. He presents the religious, philosophical, and political beliefs held by the authors and promoters of the Bill of Rights when the First Amendment was drafted. And while this highly readable trip back to the clause’s roots doesn’t necessarily resolve the conundrum that religion presents in our civic life, it can help us to discern and more fully grasp the arguments made by both sides in the ongoing church-state debate.

Like most writers who delve into the First Amendment, Waldman explores the thinking of the great figures behind the Constitution, in particular the “Big Five”—Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Washington—that small circle generally thought of as the key Founding Fathers. He notes a bottom-line fact: the “Big Five” were decidedly pro-religion, and not at all the vague, quasi-secular, hands-off-God deists they are often represented as being. Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Washington all agreed on the importance of religion to a healthy democracy.

All to some degree believed that God intervened in the lives of men, and had chosen America for special blessing (the idea often referred to as American exceptionalism). That included Jefferson, whom Waldman presents as the least conventional of the five in his religious sensibilities. The Founders’ real concern was determining how religion could flourish best in America. Madison, whom Waldman paints as the most traditionally pious of the group, was the prime agent behind the First Amendment. He held a strong desire for a strict separation between church and state, because he believed that government presented the greatest potential obstacle to its flourishing. His view reflected his disgust with the European model of national churches, the history of which ultimately proved damaging to religion and an impediment to the freedom of conscience that was sacred to all the Founders.

BUT WALDMAN MAKES THE IMPORTANT POINT that constitutional study has tended to focus too narrowly on the thinking of the “Big Five.” As much as Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Washington believed in God and His providential care (both for human beings and for our country) and agreed on the importance of religion in buttressing public morality, Waldman insists that their personal opinions are not the only standard by which the words of the Establishment Clause are to be understood. Indeed, to grasp fully the clause and its implications for religious freedom, it is essential to explore the views of a much wider group, including the members of the committee that drafted the Bill of Rights, as well as the congressional ratifiers.

The input and votes of all these men were vital in bringing the document to its final form and passage. And as Waldman wisely emphasizes, they all had their personal preferences regarding church-state relations, and moreover, represented states with widely divergent approaches to the concept of religious establishment. Some states, like Virginia, had prohibited funding of the Anglican Church as early as 1776, while Massachusetts continued to support the Congregationalist Church until 1833. That the First Amendment emerged from the framing process as it did reflects the fact that the Founders were, first and foremost, politicians willing and able to compromise in order to accomplish what was doable under the circumstances.

Waldman explores the ways in which the culture and denominational composition of each state, as well as the politicians’ personal beliefs, influenced how the Establishment Clause was understood. Pressure from Jefferson and Madison certainly provided encouragement to Virginia’s disestablishment law, while the views of Massachusetts’s John Adams and Fisher Ames, who considered government support for religion essential, had its effect in their state. Participation by men of such conflicting outlooks in the constitutional process argues forcefully that a narrow reading of the agreed-upon amendment is the only fair assessment that can be made. In other words, the First Amendment was intended only to prohibit a federally sponsored religion. Individual states could make their own laws.

But if that minimalist perspective reflects how the Constitution’s authors understood the First Amendment, passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 opened the door to much broader interpretation. This post-Civil War amendment sought to guarantee due process of law in order to secure the rights of former slaves. It effectively accomplished “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) into the constitutions of all the states, subjecting state governments to the same restriction under which the federal government had to operate. State-established churches were now unconstitutional, and subsequent legal history has seen a seemingly endless series of church-state disputes.

An example is the 1971 Pennsylvania case Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Supreme Court found that state aid to parochial schools (most of which were Catholic) for teacher salaries, textbooks, and educational materials in non-religious subjects was unconstitutional. That decision introduced what has been called the “three-pronged test” by which state involvement in religion-related activities may be deemed permissible: (1) it must have a secular purpose; (2) the primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) it must not result in government entanglement with religion.

Many conservative jurists believe Lemon went beyond the original intent of the First Amendment (and even superseded the 14th), but the justices left application of their decision to lower courts, which has resulted in a farrago of interpretation and enforcement in the various circuit courts. Interestingly, in another case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court upheld a Cleveland program that gave low income, inner-city parents vouchers they could use to send their children to non-public schools, including religious schools. Such contradictions underscore why it matters who sits on the Court.

HOW FAR THIS HISTORY of First Amendment reinterpretation has brought us is evident in the recent passage by the Michigan state House of a bill requiring Catholic hospital staffers to inform rape victims about emergency contraceptives and to make those items available. Such a demand clearly contravenes Catholic moral teaching. But because Catholic hospitals are the recipients of public funds, channeled through various state and federal programs, they must abide by government conditions. Unless this legislation is reversed by the courts, all faith-based organizations receiving government monies run the very real and imminent risk that their mission and identity will be destroyed.

The Establishment Clause has served religion in America well—from the time of the Founders, right up to today. According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Americans are overwhelmingly religious. Some 78 percent identified themselves as Christians (with 4.7 percent belonging to religions other than Christianity), while 92 percent claimed to believe in some sort of universal spirit. Other studies, such as those done by sociologists Rodney Stark and Roger Finke (see The Churching of America, 1776-1992), demonstrate unequivocally the extent to which churches in America have proliferated. History also shows how the nation has profited from religion. Faith has always played a role in the public square, with generally positive effect. Many of America’s social justice concerns were motivated by religious sentiment, for example, the call for an end to slavery. And the leadership in the civil rights movement was provided by religious figures.

Waldman sees the ongoing tension regarding the reach of the First Amendment as a good thing. He believes in the reasonableness of the American people and in the courts’ ability to compromise when prudent and necessary. Waldman finds no indication of government hostility toward religion in America. If anything, he says, the opposite is true. This book is an invaluable historical resource, but more so, a tool for enlightened debate on church-state issues as they continue to confront our nation.

About the Author

Rev. Michael P. Orsi is a chaplain and research fellow in law and religion at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (46) |

Alan Brooks| 1.6.09 @ 10:38PM

big five were, well, big. then there's the sixth, Coolidge, who had the answer, or to be more accurate, the non-answer, the silence, to everything.
but to digress even more, i came to this interest in a convoluted way, mostly after 30 years as a 'futurist'. i know now the future will be cold, but am loathe to mention it publicly. "Hush this cry of progress", but of course we know progress cannot be hushed. After all, we're blindly typing into cyberspace.
But how cold the future will be without God!

You might possibly feel the chill already.

Bob| 1.12.09 @ 8:27AM

We seem to treat the founders of our country as deities. The assumption is made that they knew better than any of us today. If you believe they were right about the need for religion in government, then you must also think they were right in allowing slavery, preventing women from voting, counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person, etc.

It's nice how you can selectively choose something you agree with and talk about the "founders" in one breath and then claim they were wrong on other matters. The truth is that the founders were not always right or all knowing. The country is a different place today than it was in the late 1700's. We are far more diverse, are more interconnected to the world, know far more about "nature", and have access to data and analysis that our founders could not possibly imagine. They also did not envision political parties and most thought that was divisive and wrong.

Therefore, the question is not whether the Constitution is "dynamic", it must be. The real issue is how dynamic it should be.

Alan, it is your reactionary belief in religion and our country that is your problem. As with all economic cycles, while it may take a number of years, we will get out of it. The U.S. will continue to be creative and start new businesses. Evangelicals may well decline in importance for elections, but I find younger people to be increasingly moral, but in a different way than in the past. They are less apt to have racial and immigration bias. They are open to new solutions. They have no problem looking for solutions that bring us together rather than pulling us apart. They look forward more than the social conservatives and Republicans look backward. I have a great deal of hope for our future -- we just have to be smart and non-ideological so we can find pragmatic solutions.

I don't feel chilly at all...

Deborah | 1.12.09 @ 9:16AM

Thanks for this article, Mr. Orsi. Religion has been, and I hope always will be, one of things that sets this country apart and has made it the most moral of countries IMO. An excellent piece on the country that partially makes that point can be found on the new website: Big Hollywood (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/). The column itself can be accessed here: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bwhittle/2009/01/08/the-workshops-of-identity/. It's beautifully written by Bill Whittle.

Ryan| 1.12.09 @ 9:50AM

A couple of things:

1. There used to be a sort of governmental policy that I wish we could go back to - something along the lines of "Government sponsorship (or maybe allowance) does not equal government endorsement." If we actually followed that, we would be in a lot less trouble.

2. I am always disturbed when I hear that a politician "won't let his faith influence his politics" or something along those lines. If one says that, what is the faith WORTH? As a Christian, if I hold that I follow an infinite, powerful, and flawless God, I MUST use those lenses as my primary determinant. If I have a tool greater than myself, why wouldn't I use that tool in every area of my life? How can my faith ever be irrelevant?

3. Bob - As a Gen X-er, I honestly agree with you on your generational stance. We actually (as most generations do) have more in common with our grandparents than our parents. We're a bit less wishy-washy on morality and religion, wanting solid answers instead of pie-in-the-sky whatevers; though we're more libertarian by nature than our grandparents, I think that we have a similar sense of morality and at least want solid answers. We've effectively changed the face of Christianity (some of the best modern music in Christianity is Gen-X driven, and we're more inclined toward Calvinism and historic roots of faith).

Vern Crisler| 1.12.09 @ 10:35AM

"[The 14th Amendment] effectively accomplished “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) into the constitutions of all the states, subjecting state governments to the same restriction under which the federal government had to operate. "

This is an example of what one scholar described as "organized ignorance."

It is absolutely outrageous that the American Spectator would be perpetuating this incorporation myth. Haven't you guys ever read Raul Berger's "Government by Judiciary"? He was a liberal democrat who proved beyond doubt that the 14th Amendment DID NOT incorporate the Bill of Rights to the level of the States.

Sheesh! Come on American Spectator! Don't be part of the organized ignorance of judicial activism.

Alan Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 10:42AM

America isn't the most moral of nations, it is the most free of nations.
and it goes without saying liberty and license are close, perhaps even one and the same.
im tired of philosophy and pedanticism, so will merely seek to preserve a microscopic shred (i.e. God) of decency via religion, no consensus on morals will ever exist, hence no virtue.
we'll just stumble through and some will fall and not be able to get up. Some will of course die.
you cant trust anyone except God, religious leaders are out for themselves yet that is all the more reason to turn to God as who else is there in a tasteless vulgar increasingly cold world? you can have everything today except virtue, you can have any sex you want, go to any secular college university and say "i'm gay and have herpes". the response will be a smile, the reply will be "oh! well let me give you the address of the university's clinic".
you don't even have to go anywhere, click the mouse and your screen, it can show you the local swingers club contacts; photos; and offers of nudist ("naturist") camp DVDs-- so a guy can see young kids displaying everything in public... used to be called cp.
isn't that sweet? the market covers everything.
or uncovers

but just you all wait until transhumanism really kicks in, it is just starting, how cold it will be and how you will miss God.

Bob| 1.12.09 @ 10:43AM

Ryan, I am always talking about how reason informs belief as well as vice versa. The problem here is that when reason disagrees with belief, rather than knowing that man is fallible, social conservatives cling to their beliefs. "Social conservatives" (or their equivalents) at the beginning of this country thought that slavery was fine and that women need not vote. It wasn't until the 1960's that we really addressed civil rights. I lived through that period and there were many "Christians" who believed that God made blacks to be inferior. If "Christians" were wrong then, why shouldn't they be wrong about certain things now?

In the middle ages, you would be called a heretic by saying the world was not flat. Today you are a heretic if you believe that gays should not have the same civil rights as straights.

My argument is that in the public square, given how diverse our society has become, only reason can accomplish consensus. You cannot argue with belief so belief is, by its very nature, divisive. I have no problem with you being a devout Christian -- if that helps you become a better person, then I encourage it. But we are never going to agree on the issues of choice and gay civil rights. Being a person of reason, I am certainly willing to compromise on these issues to find some common ground, but you are not. Intolerance is a byproduct of a belief only system.

I believe in religious training. Given that the U.S. is statistically a religious country, children are at a disadvantage without this training. I don't care whether they become Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics or atheists, as long as they make their decisions based on knowledge and experience.

This is why we need to get religion out of politics. Not because it is irrelevant, but because it subjugates reason and common solutions and promulgates hate against "libs", "Muslims", gays, etc., and eschews intellectualism.

Alan Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 10:54AM

Bob, you don't fell chilly now, but you will. this is no utopia, you cant have everything.. and you wont.
you have to choose this and that, like choosing to be lib or con-- you cant be both. unless you want to be a futurist, read $19.99 (on sale now, Bob) books on the technetronic future receding into the distance.
you want heaven on earth? you might live to see it.
perhaps in the 22nd century. or 23rd.

Bob| 1.12.09 @ 10:54AM

So, Alan, whose religion is "right"? Aryans who think that whites are superior? Islamic extremists who want to kill Christianity? Jews? Scientology? Christian Science? This is the specific problem with religion in the public square because devout people will not compromise on their beliefs -- the very definition of intolerance.

That said, we do have a moral base to this country. It is based upon common beliefs and reason. We don't outlaw abortion, but we do have increasing limitations. Most states do not allow gay marriage but are becoming increasingly friendly to legal civil equivalencies. We think that murder is wrong as is racism. We almost all stop at traffic lights to let the other person through. Most of us follow laws. We have charities funded primarily through private means. We take care of our old people. We don't turn people away from hospitals.

I don't know about you, but I'd consider this to be a highly moral country and we achieve consensus on many of these issues even with different religious beliefs.

Bob| 1.12.09 @ 10:57AM

Actually, Alan, I can certainly be a "lib" on some things and a "con" on others. I'm what you call a swing voter. The problem is not that I can be both, the problem is that you can't understand how that can be. It is a function of reason.

Alan Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 11:02AM

Bob or Jeremiah got it just so: base. thats the world, base.
its feels coarser today than in the '60s.
almost 50 years on!

separating crutch and steak scarcely matters anymore..

Ryan| 1.12.09 @ 11:24AM

I think that part of the problem from parts of the left is that they are unable to fathom that someone of faith can incorporate BOTH reason and belief, and that the two are by no means mutually exclusive. So many have watered down faith to mean "blind faith," when it is more along the lines of something derived from both experience and reason instead of ignorance and stupidity. Only in recent history - the past 100 years or so - have the two been seriously separated, and the cause is on the shoulders of both the religious and their critics. Historically, men of faith were ALWAYS learned, and many in the sciences - "men of reason," - were often men of faith. As a Christian, I don't follow "a belief only system," but I have a standard upon which to base my beliefs.

Yes, there have been often times where we have been wrong on certain moral items, but it doesn't point to the incorrectness of that which I base my beliefs on, it points to the matter that man is fallen and prone to sin.

Actually, I find comfort that there is something solid to believe in. I would make a VERY awful person were I not a Christian - the way I see it, if God doesn't exist, nothing matters. Not murder, rape, war, death, women, men, - I cannot fathom a reason for a moral code other than what I could get away with.

Alan Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 11:43AM

reason, Bob? what does God-- pardon-- religion have to do with reason? perhaps common sense, but cs isnt reason.
you want reason? wait until intelligence is deanimalized decades (or is it centuries?) from now.

"We dont outlaw abortion, but we do have increasing limitations".
so who are those responsible for the limitations on abortion, who spent 35 years pushing for those limitations? reasonable people?
what does it matter anymore if gays can marry? little gays and their little gay divorces (wont the 21st century court system be sweet?) gay property rights, gay couple health benefits. you've come a long way baby. remember virginia slims cigarettes for women? soon gays will have their own cigarettes, Elton John xtra lites.
would Butch prefer full flavor?
you think brave new world is just a book? clockwork orange merely a film? they have a basis in reality.

every problem you solve causes other problems. now the economy is such you help one person you are harming someone else.
the future? do you know the timeframe for social evolution? and evolution to what? whose future? where? outer space? on earth as it is in heaven? when? 400 years from now? why?
i dont know.
i dont know is on third. who is on second.
what?
third base!

Alan Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 12:13PM

forgot, what is on first base.
Base. you got it so right. base. you don't know how how right you are.
it's a tradeoff, we lost the Old School and we got base.
you can't pray in publik skools but you can smoke maryjewanna on the baseball field. progress. a kid can look at any image on the screen, any. however it is fortunate we know progress, just think of what life would be without progress
too bad you cant predict anything about the future until AFTER it occurs. even brilliant Newt fell for it. his mind was playing tricks on him.
self deception is the most powerful force there is in terms of effect on us.
but be patient, patience is a virtue. progress takes time. progress is time. time is progress.
don't waste time. time down the drain. time you can't get back. daylight's wasting, Mr. Hooper.
"well it does prove one thing Mr. Hooper: you wealthy college boys don't have the education to admit when you're wrong"

ddc| 1.12.09 @ 3:10PM

As long as social conservatives continue to perceive "penumbras and emanations" of the the constitution permitting government to mandate religious worship they will continue to demand that big government subsidize their beleifs.

Alan Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 4:28PM

yeah thats a huge problem, it is destroying the social fabric, increasing crime, destroying families left and right, sapping our medical system, ruining our skoolz, melting our icebergs, putting filth on TV, sabotaging my daughter's wedding.
govt subsidization of religion is the gravest of threats to social cohesion, the costliest drain on our national treasure that could ever be devised by man or beast.

***TREMBLE WHEN I CONSIDER THAT LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST***

Alan Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 4:32PM

we got to do something about all those preachermen on welfare having babies out of wedlock and cooking meth in rundown projects.

A. Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 7:47PM

"wanting solid answers instead of pie-in-the-sky whatevers"?

you wont find solid answers.

Don| 1.12.09 @ 8:36PM

""Social conservatives" (or their equivalents) at the beginning of this country thought that slavery was fine and that women need not vote. It wasn't until the 1960's that we really addressed civil rights. I lived through that period and there were many "Christians" who believed that God made blacks to be inferior."

Bob,
You need to check your history...The driving force of the abolition and civil rights movements was the Christian church. (And the biggest obstacle to both of them was the Democrat Party!)

ccc| 1.12.09 @ 9:21PM

Since the vast majority of the country has been christian for the past 200 years, the driving force for and against slavery and civil rights has been christians and their churchs.

Alan Brooks| 1.12.09 @ 10:48PM

Bob,
think there is a risk anymore of state religion or that the barrier between church and state will erode too intensely? do you really believe that?
'reactionary'?
that just means conservative; like one can say 'progressive' or squishy liberal. if you want to insult a conservative you call him reactionary because it has a sharp edge to it.
you have "faith in humanity" as you wrote last week? how can you have faith in humanity if there is no true civilization but only semi-barbarism? were you surprised at this war in Gaza? or Iraq, Afghanistan? the wars in Africa? war is the natural state of man.
so why is faith in God less valid than "faith in humanity"?

Deborah | 1.13.09 @ 5:43AM

Regardless of what one believes, regardless of whether one has faith, it is my opinion (which is just as valid as anyone else's) that this country benefitted because those who founded it had a belief in a power greater than themselves. Our country is not and was not ever perfect, but it has been informed by a sense of morality toward others. Yes, you can point to slavery, but the whole world thought slavery was "okay" at one time. It's called the evolution of morality and philosophy. And, to look backwards at where this country has been and only find the bad things it has done, is cruel and unjust to where the country was in the evolution of thought and unjust to those who came before us.

Bob| 1.13.09 @ 8:41AM

Alan, I have no concerns about a state religion. That is not the issue. I do have a concern about the expansion of government, whether it is into more welfare or telling me what to believe about abortion and gay marriage. These are things that government should not legislate. The choice to do these things should be left up to the individual.

Regarding "faith in humanity", this has nothing to do with religion. I've traveled to well over 50 countries and talked about these issues with many people of other cultures and religions. I've come to the conclusion that virtually all people's motivation is local, i.e., they want to be safe, have a roof over their heads and enough to eat. Unless they are under duress, they don't want to fight. Yes, there are ideologues here and in other countries that find a reason to fight, but they are in the minority. It is in everyone's self interest to live in peace. That's why, in the longer term, I have faith in humanity. It has to do with human behavior, not religion.

The problem I have with "faith in God", is not that people celebrate religion because fundamentally, if being religious makes you a better member of society, I'm all for it. I have a problem when one person's dogma is forced on another. It is not a question of validity -- that's a personal decision. It is the role of religious dogma in the public square.

And yes, from what I see here at AmSpec, conservatives in general, and social conservatives specifically, are reactionary. They want to bring back the past (Reagan) rather than finding new solutions for the future. They want the religion of the 1950's rather than the religion of the 21st century. So yes, they are reactionary.

Don| 1.13.09 @ 3:13PM

Bob,

It's interesting that you believe that government should not legislate abortion -- that it should be left up to the individual...

Which individual? The killer or the victim?

Do you also think that government should not legislate murder? Or theft? After all, we might want to leave the choice to murder and steal up to the individual -- the murderer or the thief, no?

And if you have such a problem with legislating abortion, which deprives one individual of their life, why do you have a problem with slavery? Wouldn't it be the slaveholder's prerogative whether he owned another human being or not? Is it only legitimate to legislate the activities you disagree with?

You don't have to look too far back at history to see that your faith in humanity is misplaced.

I'll grant you that people have done horrible things in the name of God and Christianity. But to do those things, including U.S.-style slavery, they were/are either not Christians or very misguided, because the Bible does not support it.

Bob| 1.13.09 @ 4:30PM

There is a difference in abortion between secular science and religious belief. I believe the current laws on abortion are reasonable as a fetus becomes viable in the 3rd trimester. But if you are telling me a few cells after conception is the same as the murder of a 2 year old, then I must send that to the realm of mysticism, or in your case, religion. So yes, in the realm of a few cells to viability, the government should stay out of it.

Most conflicts in this world have religion tied into it either in a major or minor fashion. Calling people who, in the name of God and Christianity have done horrible things "un-Christian" is logically inconsistent and laughable. They obviously thought that what they were doing was Christian. In 50 years, you will be called "misguided" because you stood in the way of gay marriage. It's called evolution, my friend.

Don| 1.13.09 @ 6:55PM

I'm glad I could provide you with a good laugh.

As usual, your side defaults to the extreme to illustrate your argument: There's a big leap from "a few cells" to third trimester. If it's mystical to you that the "few cells" are human, how about the second trimester? Are you still surprised that a fetus is human? If not, why not preserve that human life?

As to valuing a life, is the murder of a 2-year-old the same as a 20-year-old? The implication in your argument is that they're different. How do you quantify that?

I'm sorry, Bob, it's not evolution...It's devolution.

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 8:49AM

So, Don, you must also be against in vitro fertilization and collateral damage in a conflict. Where do YOU draw the line????? By the way, you don't make me laugh, you make me feel sad for a country where you have the power....

Nick| 1.16.09 @ 12:53PM

Bob,

You are a liar and coward.

You said: "I have a problem when one person's dogma is forced on another." A lie. Don nailed you on it. You have no problem forcing your morality on others when it comes to murder, stealing, fraud, etc. That is what laws, ordinances, regulations do.

Don asked: "If it's mystical to you that the 'few cells' are human, how about the second trimester?" You could not answer him so you cowardly throw out straw men like invitro and collateral damage. Science and reason prove human life begins at conception. It is the mystic who says: "I don't know when life begins so I'll pick some arbitrary time like the third trimester." If your so positive a couple of cells aren't human life and that viability happens in the third trimester then it is incumbent on you to tell us, through reason, what week, day, minute human life begins. Please enlighten us with your logic how one minute a feutus is not human, then magically becomes human based on how long it has gestated.

By the way, you are also ignorant. If you're going to comment on abortion, try doing some research instead of relying on what you think you know about it. Doe v. Bolton ( the companion decision to Roe) said any pregancy could be terminated to save the life or health of the mother, effectively giving us abotion on demand. The former Soviet Union had more restrictions on abortion than we do. Bob you are a propagandist or a dupe.

G| 1.28.09 @ 7:49PM

Watch FREE full length Movies, TV Shows, Music (over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, and FREE College Educations @ InternetSurfShack.com

hjkjjh| 11.18.09 @ 8:21PM

Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows

uyiuy| 1.11.10 @ 2:12AM

FLV to WMV Converter,
Free FLV to WMV converter

More Articles by Rev. Michael P. Orsi

More Articles From Buy the Book

Shah Na Na

June 17, 2013 | Mark Tooley

Overheated Frauds and Fools

June 13, 2013 | Clark S. Judge

Lean Feminism

June 12, 2013 | Florence King

Agents of Influence

June 6, 2013 | Robert Stacy McCain

Bart Brightman vs. The 50 Ft. Democrats

June 5, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/12/faith-of-our-fathers

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|51 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|45 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|27 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|63 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|16 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|19 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Obama's Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara | 6.19.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.