With Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry in supporting roles.

[image: Daily Kos]

Me and My Sister Joan

To my astonishment I find myself in agreement with a person of religion. We agree on at least one subject: We both favor life for everyone. Why, you may be asking, is that so startling? That is because I learned from childhood and onward to not trust the wisdom of anyone who professes his or her faith in religion openly, boldly, and unashamedly. I also learned early on to never trust anyone who would impose his or her religious beliefs on me. Notice that I said “religion,” and not in things spiritual or universal or godly. There’s a big difference. The first person has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth handed to him, he is expected to follow it, and he does. The second person is curious about issues for which there are no verifiable answers, but he prefers to seek his own guiding principles about them in his own way.

Now let’s return to Sister Joan Chittister, a Catholic nun, a religious person who speaks wisely on at least one subject: life—who favors it, who does not, and why. In one simple quote, Sister Joan summed up the hypocrisy in the so-called 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Perhaps we can frame Sister Joan’s issue this way: How can anyone be in favor of life before birth, but against life after that person is born? We might also ask if there is any such reference in the Bible or any religious document that supports such a belief.

There is a non-religious document that indirectly condemns such a belief, one that I have yet to hear a compelling objection to in my entire lifetime—the Declaration of Independence. Namely, that part which states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I am comfortable also in believing that God is quite approving of these words penned so well that enclose the guiding principles on which America was founded.

It requires only a small bit of logic to infer that no man or woman can reasonably pursue life, liberty, or happiness without the wherewithal to do so. Implicit in that inference are these needs: food, housing, education, jobs, income, freedom of mobility, freedom to marry, freedom to seek out knowledge, and freedom to choose wisely and occasionally even foolishly. If life means anything at all that is moral and godly, it means all those things. Those who vote for candidates who would deny any of those freedoms to others are as guilty as are the legislators who vote their restrictions into law. And those who support such restrictive laws are as guilty as are the deniers and the legislators.

We need to ask: "Would Thomas Jefferson approve of how today's legislators are tearing the Declaration asunder?" Or, "Does Heaven and all those who live there approve?" Today we have $100 trillion of wealth, but the top one percent hold more of it than does the bottom 99 percent combined. We could be more expansive, not less, in meeting the needs of the bottom 99 percent.

I cannot speak for God or for Heaven, but as for me, I stand with Sister Joan, with Thomas Jefferson, and with Patrick Henry who also spoke with some clarity when he said: “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”