Since we seem to have forgotten

Ampersand takes on perpetual complicator David Blankenhorn's latest argument regarding religion and policy. This time, Blankenhorn is trying to assert that Kerry is being inconsistent to say that his faith forbids abortion but he doesn't think the law should. He bends this way and that, trying to pretend this is an inconsistent argument. Ampersand takes him on each bend, so read that, it's interesting.
But now to keep it perfectly simple for Blankenhorn, who might benefit. One can be against something on religious principle, but also be against making laws against it for one very simple reason. Because one lives in America and believes in, um, what was that called? It's that thing the terrorists hate us for, Bush said. Thinking, thinking....

Oh, yeah. FREEDOM. Because you believe in FREEDOM. Kerry can believe abortion is wrong because his religion says so. And no one will make him participate in an actual abortion, because we live in a FREE country, god bless. There are many, many of us who disagree strongly with the latest official Catholic stance on abortion, and thank god we have religious FREEDOM or we might be forced to build our lives around someone else's religious beliefs.
Blankenhorn says this is different, though, that this is an important religious belief, when life begins.

So it makes no sense at all for Sen. Kerry (and Gov. Cuomo)to expect to be taken seriously when they tell us, on the on hand, that they sincerely and "personally" believe that abortion is the wrongful taking of innocent human life, but that on the other hand, something called the separation of church and state requires them to become tireless champions in the public square of a completely unrestricted right to abortion, such that they receive campaign contributions and Good Guy Awards from all the leading pro-choice organizations.

As far as I remember, all religious beliefs are important, though. Like it or not, Blankenhorn, just because you think this is an important issue doesn't make it so for everyone. For instance, I am an atheist. I don't believe that there's a point where a fetus is ensouled, because I don't believe in a soul. So these arguments are not only not important to me, an American citizen, they are rather silly. Because it's a matter of life or death in your personal belief system doesn't make it so for everyone. And you can't go around making laws that say we have to think it's important, because this is a FREE country.
But for those who think that non-religious people don't get a say (of which, I'm afraid, there seem to be many), let me bring a religious point into this. Hindus hold cows to be sacred. This is extremely important, a real life or death issue. As far as I know, they feel far more strongly about this than Blankenhorn probably feels about abortion. By his argument, since this is a deeply moral issue to them, if Hindus get elected to office they should agitate to ban the eating of beef. Except that's an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion clause. And so it is with abortion and the bugaboo of same sex marriage. I have no religious beliefs forbidding abortion or same sex marriage. Since there is no non-religious reason to ban them, you are oppressing my religious freedom to do so. Period.
Blankenhorn brings up air pollution, but that's really unfair. Air pollution isn't wrong because of a Biblical interpetation. It has measurable effects that are measurably negative. Like it or not, abortion not only doesn't have measurably negative effects, it probably does have measurably positive effects. Baby or not debates aside, the less unwanted babies born to our over-populated world, the better.

The troubling thing about the whole laws-by-morals meme is that it's a back door way of causing liberals to accept the basic premises of theocracy. If wingnuts can get us into accepting that the terms of the debate are whether something is moral or not, then they have won a larger battle stating that laws are based on an outside morality. And from there it's a short hop to saying that if they are based on morality, it must be the Bible, ergo we're a Christian nation. So we cannot concede a single morality argument. Government policy is based on practicality and fairness, period. All liberal arguments can be based in practicality better than morals, anyway.
Kerry gets this, so I respect the hell out of him for it. We are a FREE country, and you have freedom of conscience. Abortion is an individual decision based on one's personal beliefs, and as a free country you are allowed said conscience. Religious wingnuts are trying very hard to float the argument that if they don't get to shove their beliefs down your throat, they are being oppressed. Kudos to Kerry for seeing that as the lie that it is.