Kay Hagan's Liberal Church

A couple of days ago, I posted regarding an article about Kay Hagan that had appeared in the News and Record; and a discussion about liberal churches (and synagogues) ensued.  I discussed the church Hagan attends-- First Presbyterian in Greensboro; and the denomination of which it is part-- the Presbyterian Church USA.

This particular church is located on the edge of downtown; and has a reputation for being fairly influential, with a number of movers and shakers among its congregation over the years.  It is fairly large and wealthy.  Within the last dozen years or so, I remember that it spent oodles and oodles of money on its pipe organ.  I remember visiting to hear a recital after it was installed.

Today, Doug Clark of the News and Record chimed in with the following comment in response to that post and the thread that ensued:

Joe, I invite you to attend the Bible-study Sunday school class I teach at First Presbyterian Church in High Point and worship service there so you can see for yourself the biblical Christianity that is taught and preached. You may find that your characterizations here are inaccurate.

The idea that the N&R should have informed readers of the "distinct brand of faith" practiced at FPC Greensboro strikes me as absurd. Wouldn't the paper have to assign a reporter to attend that church for, say, a couple of years to gain a full understanding of its "brand of faith," or should it simply have run with someone else's view that it's "godless"?

There is much to discuss here.  And I should state that I have enormous respect for Doug Clark, and do not doubt even for a moment the sincerity of his faith.

But here goes:

1. There is a history.  The Presbyterian Church USA-- of which Hagan is part-- is only one of several Presbyterian denominations.  For purposes of our discussion, let's consider it the current manifestation of the "main strand" of historic Presbyterianism in the United States.  (The history is a bit complicated, with numerous forerunner organizations, mergers and splits).  There are at least three other Presbyterian denominations represented among all the churches in the city of Greensboro of which I am aware.  Local blogger Joel Gillespie had been affiliated with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which had separated from the main strand of American Presbyterianism a couple of decades before the Civil War.  This was, in some respects, a north/south split.  But two other denominations represented here in Greensboro-- the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church-- separated from the main strand because of what they perceived to be its drift into liberalism and modernism.  During the period 1920-1950, there was a struggle between liberalism and conservatism in the northern branch of what is now the Presbyterian Church USA.  And in 1968, it published a Confession-- in some respects, an update of its historic Westminster Confession-- but some perceived the 1968 update was watered down. (Source: Handbook of Denominations in the United States, Mead and Hill).

2. Let's talk about the Presbyterian Church USA some more.  Here is its position on abortion, which I think is fairly relativistic.  In its statement on social issues, it says it wants to "resist the forces that tyrannize".  It also says the following, on the matter of justice and compassion:

We are called to address wrongs in every aspect of life and the whole of creation, intentionally working with and on behalf of poor, oppressed and disadvantaged people as did Jesus Christ, even at risk to our corporate and personal lives.

Hmmm.  Think about that-- "address wrongs in every aspect of life and the whole of creation".  That seems pretty open-ended to me, and suggests no limits on the areas in which such advocacy should take place-- or the extent to which it should take place.  They talk about the "promotion of social righteousness".

The Presbyterian Church USA two years ago moved to ordain openly gay and lesbian ministers.

3. The Presbyterian Church USA is part of the National Council of Churches.  This particular web page lends a sampling of the National Council of Churches' particular brand of advocacy.  The Council is comprised of numerous denominations that tend to shade liberal, which are listed here. 

4. Ed Cone agrees with me that First Presbyterian is "pretty liberal".  I like Ed, but if he thinks it is pretty liberal, it must be really liberal.

5. Local blogger and former News and Record editor Lex Alexander belongs to First Presbyterian.  Here are a couple of his recent posts that touch on church/state issues.  I like Lex, but he also happens to be "pretty liberal", as Ed would say.

Now, let's get back to Doug Clark's comment.

First, it has been my observation that even within Protestant denominations, there can be a certain amount of variation among churches and ministers and even Sunday School teachers.  Some can shade more liberal, and some can shade more conservative.  I think it is entirely possible that Doug's church might be fairly conservative, even though it is part of a liberal denomination.  And I would bet that Doug teaches a biblically solid Sunday School class.  But that does not disprove the overall premise or the general rule I am advancing. 

Second, I still think there was a problem with Kay Hagan using her church as a prop in response to the "Godless" ad; and there was a problem with the News and Record giving her a big-time assist when she did this without questioning what she was doing.

Why was the Godless Americans PAC interested in Kay Hagan?  Because they felt she would be in agreement with their views regarding separation of church and state.  Here is an example of the PAC's political interests:

The PAC does not want government to associate with religion in any way; it opposes Christmas being a federal holiday or any mention of God on currency or in the Pledge of Allegiance.

But there are other issues with church/state implications on which the Godless Americans PAC would likely agree with Kay Hagan.  Why?  Because the point is not that she is "Godless"; but rather it is that she possesses a political worldview with which they were comfortable. 

And it is an eminently reasonable question for anyone to ask whether Hagan's political worldview is shaped by her religious worldview.  If she is truly a faithful, deeply committed member of that congregation, as we are led to believe, it would seem almost unavoidable that her religious faith would inform her political worldview.

And so, when she used her church as a prop to defend herself against the Godless ad, she was waving before the world a church that espouses certain social teachings with which the Godless Americans would be entirely comfortable.  That is the irony.  She was using it as evidence of her faith-- but in fact, the truth about First Presbyterian's political stance helps confirm the message of Elizabeth Dole's much-maligned ad.

There is somewhat of a tension between liberal churches and orthodox churches in the United States on some important matters of belief and practice.  That tension is reflected in a brief article in the currently posted issue of Touchstone.  I recommend that readers interested in this topic check it out.  

Comments

[Bubba]

Why do you hate Presbyterians, Joe?

[jo]

Jeez, Joe. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. This is out of bounds. Leave Hagan's church out of your political witch hunt. By the way, if Hagan is so liberal why doesn't she support the "Public Option" in the health care debate? Why is she such a strong advocate of the RX industry. She's a corporate democrat and always has been.

[Stormy]

Hagan is a strong supporter of the RX industry, because Obama made his devil's deal with them for Obamacare. The Dems can demonize RX and other medical industries all that they like, but in truth, Obama previously co-opted them with cash with behind closed doors deals. As an example, Obama is demonizing health insurance companies, but they made a deal with Obama last year that they would take all-comers, and he would unconstitutionally mandate that citizens had to buy insurance. A devil's deal that they will live to regret. They, along with Big Pharma and AMA, believe that they can lie down next to the predator without getting eaten. They can't. Hagan, as a freshman Senator, whose election is beholden to Chuck U. Schumer, is going to do whatever leadership tells her to do.

[Stormy]

Aren't a lot of Roman Catholic clerics now taking liberal views, even approving of abortion?

[JC]

"She's a corporate democrat and always has been."

Right.

How Jo?

[Doug Clark]

Joe,

Thanks for addressing this interesting subject in more detail.

I think you've understated the amount of "variation" exists between churches within the PCUSA denomination. This variation is most apparent in attitudes toward some of the social issues you mentioned, not so much in our confessions and creeds, which have stood for centuries and unite us as believers. Unfortunately, there are activists who have pushed change on these social issues at the denominational level, often well beyond the awareness of most people in the pews.

In individual congregations, it is my observation that Presbyterians follow mainstream Christian theology and devote themselves generously to ministries and missions at home and abroad. In my view, the vast majority of individual Presbyterians and Presbyterian churches have no affinity with atheist organizations.

The Dole "godless" ad leapt across the bounds of truth and decency into outright deception when it concluded with a woman's voice declaring "there is no God," no doubt trying to give the impression that it was Hagan talking. The ad was a last-ditch, desperate attempt by the Dole campaign to reverse a fatal slide in the last days before the election, and it backfired. Methodist Elizabeth Dole never should have approved of it.

[cheripickr]

Both Joe and Doug,

from a curious and undereducated reader's perspective, thanks for that informative and respectful dialogue. Sure is more useful than the "Joe Guarino-BAD!!!---Presbyterian Church-GOOD!!" link that first brought it to my attention.

[John Burns]

Answer me this:

In your opinion, is it possible to be what you define as a "liberal" church and still be what Doug has called "Biblically-based."

[jaycee]

"...no doubt trying to give the impression that it was Hagan talking." No doubt in whose mind...yours?
I saw the ad before the media brouhaha and NEVER got that impression. Perhaps, Doug, you should preface your statement with "In my opinion..." because there is absolutely no evidence of it being anything otherwise. Most folks never expressed an opinion about it (or probably even thought about it) until after the news media told them what to think. ("Who ya gonna believe...your own ears or your local newspaper?")I believe the liberal media ginned up the controversy in an attempt to sway support for the Dem candidate. Unfortunately it worked, and look how worthless Hagan has turned out to be.

[Doug Clark]

Yes, that was my opinion.

Dole didn't lose that election because of the media, she lost in large part because voters hadn't seen much of her in six years, didn't think she'd done much to help them and associated her with unpopular Bush policies and outcomes.

None of those issues had much to do with whatever point the "godless" ad was trying to make. I think the ad was trying to distract voters from what they didn't like about Dole's performance.

Voters can and should evaluate Hagan on her record and the condition the state and country are in if she runs for re-election in 2014.

[John Burns]

Doug, I find it amusing that a church that counts both you and me as longtime and active members is suddenly, in the opinion of some, too "liberal" and one-sided in its views.

The church is not about resolving political questions in a certain way. It is about being the living word in the world. Those who try to pigeon-hole that call to support a given political agenda are missing the point entirely.

[Stormy]

It seems to me that conservatives and liberals can both have spiritual faith in a higher being. In that regard, they are no differences. But, when it comes to social issues, or social justice, they have a major difference. Typically, conservatives of faith believe that it is their duty, as Christians, to help others directly, or through contribution of their time and/or money to charitable organizations or their church. This is the historical approach of Christians to social issues. Liberals of faith tend to believe in a progressive approach, which is that it is necessary for the government to intercede and provide for the poor and disadvantaged, by taxing those with and giving it to those without. Liberals or progressives think that government can provide social justice better than individual citizens. This is simply the approach of Obamacare. In the end, Obamacare is spread the wealth at its worse. And, it will provide for taxpayer-paid abortions, if passed. Conservatives of faith oppose that, liberals support it. Senator Hagan wants to be perceived as a moderate, but the truth is she is a progressive.

[Doug Clark]

John, I agree completely.

Stormy, not so much. Just an example: My church is taking its turn hosting homeless families overnight next week. I'm sure the volunteers who participate in this ministry run the gamut politically. So what? We're just trying to show our love for God by showing our love for our neighbors as we're called to do as a church. Some of us, outside church, might believe the government should do more to provide for the homeless and may be willing to support that through taxes. Some of us might think that should be left entirely to organizations like the Salvation Army, Urban Ministries and Interfaith Hospitality Network and are willing to support those efforts through personal contributions and volunteerism. While we may disagree about those questions, we're united in our interpretation of the Gospel and what it requires of us individually as Christians and collectively as the Church.

[cheripickr]

Never thought of it quite that way, Stormy. Kind of tosses the usual characterization of liberals' and conservatives' relative positions on separation of church and state on its ear, doesn't it?

[Timur]

Joe,

The mother church of First Presbyterian , PCUSA, besides being ultra liberal has a long history of anti-semitism. The local church and it's members must share those strident views otherwise they would sever the relationship.

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/02/24/presbyterians-usher-in-the-jewish-holiday-of-purim/

[bubba]

"Dole didn't lose that election because of the media....."

Actually, the main credit for that task should go to Chuckie Schumer's funding, and the Dem apparatus that got out the party faithful vote.

[bubba]

".....we're united in our interpretation of the Gospel and what it requires of us individually as Christians and collectively as the Church."

What does it require you to believe about the Bible and its interpretation, and the way such interpretation should be carried out? How does it require you to conduct your relationship to God and Jesus Christ?

[Doug Clark]

You're welcome to visit and begin to see for yourself.

I don't claim to have all the answers personally or that my church has. We're trying to work out our salvation every day, to use Paul's phrase.

I do wish people would not suggest we don't have any of the anwers without investigating.

[Joel Gillespie]

Somewhat of a tension? That's an understatement. Although there is some variation within congregations of the PCUSA, on balance it has long shifted from its adherence to fundamental historic Christian orthodoxy and from any remote sort of consistent adherence to the authority of the Christian Scriptures. One can pretty much deny every line in the Apostles' Creed and still be ordained in many presbyteries of the PCUSA, but God forbid one deny the correct "positions" the church has taken on various ecclessiological or social issues. Seems to me the authors of the cited article opened the door to this conversation. They were trying to up Hagan's cred by bringing up her membership in First Pres Greensboro.

Personally I don't much care where our public officials go to church or even if they go to church. But if you're going to pull out the "she's goes to such and such church" card then you've opened the door to these questions.

Joe is entirely justified in noting the irony. It is pretty rich indeed.

[John Burns]

Joel,

THis is pretty unChristian of me, but your ignorance on this issue is astounding.

[John Burns]

and what, pray tell, is "fundamental historic Christian orthodoxy"?

[Joe Guarino]

John, I have not had much time for this discussion today; but I think you should know that Joel had been a minister for many years and a pastor within the Associate Reformed Presbyterian denomination. I think he knows the subject.

[John Burns]

To little evident effect.

[John Burns]

makes his divisive position even more appalling.

[Bubba]

"We're trying to work out our salvation every day, to use Paul's phrase."

Philippians 2:12-13 and Paul aside, some One else worked that out for you a long time ago, assuming you believe in the underlying principal of biblical Christianity.

[Bubba]

"THis is pretty unChristian of me......."

Surprise, surprise!

[Doug Clark]

Paul aside?

Are you sure you understand what he meant?

[Brian Penn]

When I studied under the great Father Guido Sarducci, we discussed at length RSC; Religous Superiority Complex. There seems to be a lot of that going around these days. Maybe I'll give Father Guido and his friend Joey Ratzinger a call to rehash old times and gin up a discussion on RSC.

[Hugh]

Years ago a divorced friend of mine went to a singles class early one Sunday morning at the FPC downtown and got hit on three times by men she had just met. Feeling the creepiness of the situation she never went back.

[Hugh]

Joe, Fecalstench has a masturbatory screed about this thread.

[Bubba]

"Are you sure you understand what he meant?"

Quite positive.

Do you understand the difference between "for us", as opposed to "in us"?

[Bubba]

More appropriately, "for you", as opposed to "in you"?

[Dave Ribar]

Has Bob G. just claimed bubba-cal inerrancy for himself?

[Kim]

What's with this anti-Semitism crap. Just because the national governing body takes a stance, it does not mean every congregation is in agreement. As an American are you in 100% agreement with everything our government does?

Temple Emmanuel and 1st Pres have had very tight bonds for generations. If memory serves me, The Temple helped finance the completion of the current 1st Pres sanctuary when the Depression hit. There is even a Star of David in the stained glass of the sanctuary to aknowledge these bonds.

[Stormy]

Doug, I agree that my comment is not universally accurate, but it is to the degree that there is a difference in viewpoint of conservative and progressive Christians. Progressive Christians believe that government should have a big role in social issues. Obamacare proves the point. Progressives think that it is a "right" for everyone to have health care. Conservatives do not see it as a "right", as it was not provided for in our constitution, but agree that it is desirable for everyone to receive health care. As a matter of fact, everyone in this country, whether citizen or not, does receive health care in some manner or the other. Obamacare is just a program that forces people with resources to buy a product that they may not want, and it funds the health care for those without the means. Conservatives are against a government mandated solution to the issue.

Most conservatives are willing to accept some involvement of the government in social issues, and progressives may contribute personally of their time and money helping as well. But, when it is said and done, conservatives prefer less involvement of the government and progressives prefer more and fund it with taxes.

I suspect that Christians tend to go to churches that reflect their basic view, conservative or progressive.

[Dave Ribar]

Stormy:

"Conservatives prefer less involvement of the government?" How does this square with conservatives' preferences for a larger military, more law enforcement, and more restrictions on personal behavior.

[Jon Firebaugh]

I think Doug Clark has it the nail on the almost squarely on the head as far why Liddie Dole lost the election......she wasn't responsive to her constituents. Additionally, Hagan ran at the right time when publc opinion was squarely against the adminstration for what was rightly or wrongly an unpopular war. That begs the question of whether or not Hagan will be responsible to her constituents, and I feel quite confident that she has and will continue to espouse beliefs and positions that will limit her to one term. Dole's ad was a cheap shot and even a conservative Republican like me could recognize that.
I don't make a practice of defending any particular religious belief as "true doctrine", and won't do so here. FPC and many other church's across this country are the main driving force for charity and outreach in ways more effective than the government.
However, when any church or the demonination it is affiliated with, be it "orthodox" or "reformed", enters the political fray by taking political stances (as pointed out by Timur above), then they become fair game for criticism or praise depending on your beliefs.
When Doug states that "we are called upon to address wrongs in every aspect of life" I am reminded that what one person deems to be injustice may be thought by another to be justice.
When Joe bring's up the "liberal" stances of the PCUSA, he is as perfectly justified in doing so as the mainstream media questioning the "evangelical Christian right". Whether a literal or liberal view of religious documents is more proper, I think cannot be determined with any finality. It will always remain personal choice. As Stormy has said, people will attend the church that most reflects their personal views.

[Kim]

Jon it is a shame that the national governing bodies have become political, that is not the mission of the church. There has always been a lot of grumbling at the local level of the positions PCUSA takes. It is very unfair to to paint with such a broad brush for folks trying to simply do good works.

[Jon Firebaugh]

Dave,
The problem with your position is that provisions for the military and law enforcement are provided for by the constitution as proper duties of the government, and in fact the "liberal or progressive" positions taken in recent years are more restrictive of personal freedom and behavior than conservative positions. This is off the subject of this thread. If you want to start a thread on your blog to debate the above, you may get some takers.

[Fred Gregory]

"How does this square with conservatives' preferences for ..... more law enforcement"

So Dave what does the Dept of Education need with 27 shotguns? Control of rowdy students ?

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cb68cf9f3fa2fe18a83d1c3dee0039b2&tab=core&_cview=0

[Dave Ribar]

Jon:

You'll recall that the 16th amendment to the Constitution states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." As a ratified amendment, this is every bit a part of the Constitution as the portions you mention. As income taxes are constitutional (especially if they are from Congress), conservatives must be in favor of them.

[cheripickr]

"'Conservatives prefer less involvement of the government?' How does this square with conservatives' preferences for a larger military, more law enforcement, and more restrictions on personal behavior."

Those exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, are you seriously trying to argue with a straight face that conservatives prefer a stronger role for government than do liberals?

[Joe Guarino]

Wow, what a thread.

I had a busy day, and was unable to respond to every point made, but I would like to say a few things:

1. Kim and Doug make some good points that the national stance taken by the Presbyterian Church USA is not necessarily reflected in all its churches, and among all its people. I expect that Presbyterian USA churches in the south might be a bit more conservative overall than those in other parts of the country. I am aware of at least one Presbyterian USA church in this region that has taken a very active, public pro-life stance. First Presbyterian in Greeensboro is liberal, however-- as Ed Cone suggests. It seems to follow the national organization, even though some of its people may not. With the national church, there seems to be a "social gospel" that ultimately is intended to get translated into governmental action.

2. Yes, some conservatives and Republicans attend liberal churches. I used to attend more liberal Baptist churches for quite a number of years, so I know what this is like from the inside. Nearly all of the Christian faith traditions have conservative and liberal denominational options, and sometimes there are factions within denominations. And it is not just Presbyterians who have been divided in this manner.

George HW Bush was an Episcopalian; and George W. Bush attended an Episcopalian church when he was President, and also attended Methodist churches before he became president. Nixon, I believe, was raised a Quaker. These Republican presidents all were part of liberal denominations.

3. I have visited Presbyterian USA churches in the past, so I have a feel for what they are like. One point is that this denomination tends to be more heavily represented in urban areas. You typically don't find many of these with a strong presence out in rural areas. Smaller towns, yes, but not as much in rural areas.

4. My post is not intended to malign these churches. Instead, it was intended to expose certain political inclinations and activities; and to relate that to the Godless incident and the media coverage of Kay Hagan. Presbyterian Churches USA do many good works of a charitable nature-- as do many other liberal churches-- and they deserve much credit and appreciation for that.

5. Nonetheless, the orthodox vs. reformed dichotomy is of real significance. It is not just a matter of personal preference. While people might have individual preferences for various reasons, I think it is important that church leaders see thing clearly, lead well, set legitimate priorities, and get things right on the essentials of the faith. There are some negotiable, less essential matters related to faith and practice-- but churches need to get the "big stuff" right. I am going to post a bit more about this later, since there appears to be some interest. This is not a matter of "my church is better than yours"; but instead there are a set of consistent principles that should apply to any Christian faith tradition.

6. It should be noted once again that Kay Hagan's politics are entirely consistent with the political profile of the national Presbyterian USA church, and of the National Council of Churches.

7. The stance taken by the national church on Israel was a bit of a surprise, but it makes sense. Many progressives have been abandoning Israel for quite some time. But I acknowledge Kim's statement that there has been a special historic relationship locally between First Pres and Temple Emanuel.

8. The point is not the political effect or even the motivations of the Godless ad. The point, instead, is why the Godless Americans were attracted to Kay Hagan's political profile-- and what that means with respect to the manner in which her faith tradition approaches the public square.

[Stormy]

Dave, my posts were dealing strictly with social issues, as regards conservatives preferring less involvement of the government. As was indicated earlier, national security and defense is the one important function assigned to the federal government by teh constitution. Law enforcement is the most important function of local governments. Restrictions on personal behavior, or not? That's more of a libertarian vs. statist issue, than conservative.

John Hammer made an interesting observation in the Rhino today on this portion of the story on Senator Hagan:

"Hagan thinks more time, not less, with congressional colleagues is the cure."

"She noted that many senators return to their home states on weekends. She wants to host dinner parties in Washington in the hopes building relationships with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle."

Does anyone else find it interesting that Hagan feels that more time with her Washington colleagues is time better spent than with constituents? Hosting dinner parties in Washington is her job? Her job is not to "reach across the aisle", it's to negotiate legislation for the benefit of the people that elected her. And, I do not mean pork and earmarks.

[Jon Firebaugh]

Dave,
How you jumped to the subject of Income Taxes from my post is beyond me but as I stated before, if you want to debate the issue of the proper role of government and which political views are more restrictive of freedom then start a thread on your blog. I'd be happy to chime in as would a few others on both sides of the argument. Your way off the subject here.

Joe,
Just what the "big stuff" is is always subject to interpretation. I have at times in my life felt that if a "religion" modifies its tenets to suit the "times" it then fails the test of being a religion. At other times I have thought that to take any scripture too literally as "gospel truth" fails to reconcile the fact that there have been different versions of "scripture" promoted and denigrated by the all too fallible people that had sway at their particular era in history.
As for PCUSA "abandoning" Israel, they're entitled to act stupidly, and stupidly is what it is. Does PCUSA think that Christians would be treated as fairly in the region in any Arab Nation? When they take the stance that Israel is a racist country, when most of surrounding Islam threatens to annihilate them, PCUSA has mistaken the real racists for the imagined ones and taken the de facto position that dictatorships are superior to democracy.

[Joe Guarino]

Jon, I think it is possible to define what the "big stuff" is, through the ages, across Christian traditions-- and it is probably a very limited set of principles. But that is a task for another day. I bet Joel Gillespie can define that much better than I can. I think many liberal churches have lost their way-- and probably some orthodox churches as well.

[Stormy]

Dave, the constitution does give Congress the power to levy taxes. No one is arguing that fact. Conservatives are neither in favor of or against legally levied taxes. The issue is that Congress is levying taxes to pay for programs that conservatives do not believe are within their authority within the Constitution. Here is an example:

"Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

"What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Congress is debating using taxes to pay for abortions? You can argue either side regarding whether abortions are appropriate, but when you discuss using taxes to pay for them, that is a different matter. And, I agree with Stupak that the Democrat Party has achieved new lows. Arguing to spend tax revenues to pay for abortions so that not too many children will be born, and many of them minority children at that, is nothing but population control or eugenics. I do not think that eugenics is what the framers had in mind when they authorized Congress to levy taxes. Article 1, Section 8 - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Taxpayer-paid abortions are not likely what teh framers had in mind for general welfare of the United States.

[John Burns]

Bubba,

please stop "contributing" to this discussion. You have no idea what you are writing about. Really. You just perpetuate the image of the ignorant fundamentalist, when I know many conservative evangelical Christians who act in love and do not share your evident distaste and hatred for all things that disagree with you. I humbly suggest you reread the book you claim to know so well.

[Joe Guarino]

I deleted a couple of comments from a pseudonymous commenter because of a combination of vulgarity and name-calling.

John, I noted your extremely unkind comments to Joel Gillespie above-- a minister of the Gospel-- and your words about the "image of the ignorant fundamentalist". I am concerned you are speaking in a prejudiced way. I would suggest you argue your case in a legitimate way, using facts or persuasion, because otherwise you are merely casting aspersions.

[Bubba]

"I humbly suggest you reread the book you claim to know so well."

There's nothing humble about you.

By all means, tell me the error of my ways. Or just shut up.