We are in a battle for life---put me down on the side of life

We are in the middle of debate for the soul of the country. It is as close to a civil war as we have come since the 1860s. Back then the moral issue was slavery. Today, it is life.

On one side are those who want to turn the US into a secular nation. They want to accept everything, including abortion, homosexual marriage and the elimination of God from every sentence and corner of the public square.

On the other hand of this debate are the traditionalists who want to promote the Judeo-Christian heritage in schools and public places. They believe that we should encourage a culture of life rather than death. They are angry that traditions are under siege by movies and TV. They want marriage between a man and a woman. They see abortion as the taking of a human life rather than some legal choice.

As John Podhortetz writes, the seculars see:

"...life as a natural phenomenon a collision of egg and sperm that gives rise 280 days later to a baby. That baby is the product of human interaction, deriving genetic information equally from mother and father and recombining it into a new human form. It's a wonder, but it's not a miracle."

Podhortez goes on. The traditionalists see life:

"...as a gift a treasure beyond value that has been bestowed upon us and that we therefore have no right to squander. The giver of the gift cannot be seen by the human eye, and the essence of the gift cannot be seen either. "

To be fair, both sides have their extremists and "crazies". Neither side has a monopoly on good behavior. I agree that both sides have idiots who will throw a rock through a window to make their point.

In this battle, you can put me down on the side of the traditionalists.

Let me close with David Brooks:

"If you surveyed the avalanche of TV and print commentary that descended upon us this week, you found social conservatives would start the discussion with a moral argument about the sanctity of life, and then social liberals would immediately start talking about jurisdictions, legalisms, politics and procedures. They were more comfortable talking about at what level the decision should be taken than what the decision should be.

Once moral argument is abandoned, there are no ethical checks, no universal standards, and everything is left to the convenience and sentiments of the individual survivors."

Once the moral arguments are exhausted, then we will start to look like secular Europe and that's a frightening concept!