Originally published by San Diego Rostra: 5-12-10
Nancy Pelosi, our representative who really knows how to put the “speaker” into the “house” decided recently that she has even more to say about issues relating to present day America. As Forrest Gump might tell us, “Nancy opening her mouth is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re going to get.” Yes, the mystery is always suspenseful. Will her words contain at least a kernel of truth this time? Will they be consistent with other verbal gymnastics from previous Pelosi workouts?
OK. Here’s the latest: On Thursday, Pelosi encouraged Catholic clergy to “instruct” their parishioners to embrace immigration reform. According to our incredibly religious Speaker, clerics should “play a very major role” in supporting Democratic ideas.
“The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’ and I said, ‘I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your’ — whatever the communication is.” Catholic herself, Pelosi, was speaking at the Nation’s Catholic Community conference.
Nothing really new here. Hillary Clinton explained long ago that Jesus would want to show compassion for illegal immigrants. Wow! So much for separation between church and state. Please don’t misunderstand me. I personally do not believe in such separation. The fact that those words aren’t found in our constitution might have something to do with my belief. And so, as far as I’m concerned, if Nancy or Hillary feel that laws should be passed in the name of Christianity, I’m fine with their constitutional right to make an appeal, even though I disagree with their interpretation/application.
There is one problem, however. Do we or do we not have the right to challenge our politicians to a measure of consistency when they shoot off their mouths? For decades now, we’ve been listening to a lot of political claptrap from the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and others about how they are personally against abortion but because of separation between church and state, they cannot impose such views on others. And yet, when Jesus can be brought over to the left, His place in politics is somehow more welcome. “Separation” never bothered presidential candidate, Kerry when he went into black churches, and said from the pulpit, “Faith must be genuine. Faith must be exhibited in the voting booth.” And now, following this rich tradition, Pelosi sees no problem invoking the Bible for her Democratic cause:
“I would hope that there’s one thing that we can do working together as we go forward that speaks to what the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person – and that is on the subject of immigration…Because I think the Church is going to have to play a very major role in how we, in how people are treated.”
Those words carry so much meaning from a woman who voted to lift the ban on partial birth abortion, a procedure that literally sucks a baby’s brains out when this same baby, already two thirds out of the womb, could just as easily have been delivered. Supposedly the only reason for late term abortion is the health of the mother. Exactly how the death of a baby two thirds of the way out saves the life of the mother, I’m sure I don’t know. And when Nancy dearest supports such a practice, all the while talking about the “dignity and worth of every human being,” it brings a tear to my eye.
The time has come to hold our politician’s feet to the fire when they give this tired line about being “personally against abortion but still needing to support it.” Supposedly, every single Democrat in congress is against abortion. “We’re all against it, but we must all keep it legal.” That makes so much logical sense. The conspicuous cherry picking of this particular issue while they merge religion and policy in so many other ways is only one element to spotlight. One could also inquire about why they claim abortion is wrong. If it’s because abortion is the taking of a human life, well then, I must ask; “Since when is it a matter of religion alone to defend human life?” The Bible also says, “Thou shalt not murder.” Do we refuse to make laws against murder because it violates the Establishment Clause? And if abortion isn’t the taking of a human life, then why are you against it? Had you lived in the Pre-Civil War south, would you have said, “Personally I’m against slavery, but who am I to impose my religious views on others? True, the Bible calls slave trading evil but not everybody in our country is a Christian and we must protect separation between church and state.”
Nancy, how shall I put this? You simply do not have the moral authority to be lecturing the church or anyone else on what the Bible calls us to do. But cheer up. It’s not as if people like you and ideas like yours are not discussed in scripture at all. You may want to turn to those many places where Jesus lectured against religious hypocrisy.
Share this on
