That’s probably where I disagree most with George’s otherwise spot on comment: a politician doesn’t have to be particularly moral (though it’s usually quite helpful and makes him more consistent), he just has to vote correctly. For example, I don’t care if a bunch of Republican senators are gay, as long as they’re willing to set aside any personal feelings on the matter (even if only for political expediency) and vote the right way. If they’re breaking the law, that’s different.

If a politician is merely pandering for my vote, but backs it up in his voting record, what do I care what his motives are? And this is a very Biblical idea… God routinely used people for good when they were doing it for their own selfish reasons. For example, read John 11:49-52.

But you do need to understand that even the entire apparatus of the Democratic party is focused like a laser beam on our courts – and they want to fill every court in the land with activist judges who will make decisions just like the one made in California yesterday (same sex marriage ban overturned). I wish more Christians understood this. I hope you understand this.

What is more, the Democratic party leadership embraces this radical restructuring and fully understands that the way to do this is through the courts, via radical, activist judges who have passed their dogma, that morality is ultimately based on mankind and society and is therefore subjective and evolving.

I don’t think that most Christians understand how corrosive this is and how damaging it is to the future of our nation and subsequent generations. Herein lies my fundamental problem with the Manifesto – not that it damages the pro-life cause – but that it alleges that the moral framework of the left and the right are ultimately equal and/or flawed. This obscures the reality that the two frameworks are polar opposites.

There are probably many pro-life Democrats out there (especially in the African American communities) who diligently fight on a grassroots level against pre-marital sex, rape, and the wanton killing of all innocent life–whether by abortion or by gang violence.

George, I wish that were true. I think we all wish that was true. There are indeed some Democrat citizens and a handful of politicians who support life and oppose things like gang violence. They should be applauded. But I don’t think you understand how tough the litmus test is for you to rise through leadership in the Democratic Party – there are good men and pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey, Zell Miller and Glenn Poshard (who I voted for a few years ago here in Illinois). But the unfortunate reality is that the entire fundraising and strategic apparatus of the Democratic party is so fundamentally opposed to life issues and a traditional Christian worldview, that these men were extremely limited in their ability to move up through the ranks of the party. Casey is allowed to remain in the party b/c he is in a Catholic, mostly pro-life state, Zell Miller was basically pushed out (he wrote an interesting book about this) and Glenn Poshard’s candidacy was met with utter indifference as well as hostility by his fellow Democrats, so he lost when a number of Democrats crossed over to vote for George Ryan, the corrupt and now jailed former Illinois governor.

In other words, we are so selfish, concerned with feeding our sensual appetites and asserting our wills, that the life of an unborn human doesn’t mean anything to us. What America needs to do is repent of its idolatry, of worshiping the self, the gods of sex, drugs, and rock’n'roll, and every other thing under the sun. Unfortunately, the government can’t pass that into law (unless you hold to Postmillennialism/Christian Reconstructionism/Theonomy).

So, yes, it is not either/or! Let the church fight for the rights of the unborn! But let this fight not be the PRIMARY (or ONLY) association that is made with the term Evangelical (or Christian)–which I believe is what the EM is trying to say.