Claire Kelly believes (2/17/16) that religious beliefs are out of bounds in politics. For her this truth is self-evident. On the basis of her belief, all beliefs that oppose abortion are ruled out. This would seem to end the debate. However, if we who oppose abortion persist then we risk enmeshing the U.S. in open warfare.
I believe she would agree that abortion is a difficult issue. Furthermore, I am happy that we agree that partial birth abortion is murder. However, if I go one step back, and postulate that the “clump of cells” from which the fetus developed is also human and deserving of equal protection from murder, then by her standards, I have registered a mere religious opinion and have stepped out of bounds. But could not some third party argue that our belief that murder is a crime is a mere religious belief, and thus also out of bounds?
I hope this brief reflection helps to demonstrate why Kelly’s position is neither reasonable nor coherent. As a Christian who holds my religious convictions to be the highest and noblest ideals by which I can live, I am stymied by her position. Am I to order my political convictions according to some lower, secondary standard? What is that standard?
In her closing Kelly seems to raise the specter of warfare if anti-abortion factions persist in pushing their “religious beliefs.” I wish she would clarify her position. Is she threatening that the pro-abortion camp will drag the U.S. into open warfare if current abortion laws are ever overturned?
I wish to suggest that a better way by which we may proceed is to refuse to muzzle any beliefs, religious or otherwise. Allow them all a place at the table, a voice in the process. By God’s grace may the best ideas prevail.
Danny Tomlinson
Hamilton