Excellent commentary from Michael Novak in today's National Review Online.
The primary subject of the opinion is the Democrats' use of a religious test, and of this, Michael Novak is rightfully critical, however there are some other points made.
Michael Novak touches the subject of faith and reason that is relevant to the recent discussion of the Brights. Can people of faith contribute to a meaningful way to a society that is supposedly based on reason? Of course they can:
Reason and faith are not the same thing, but they are a fitted pair. They belong together, and each of them works better when paired with the other. That at least is the way the American Founders employed both reason and faith, in mutual accommodation.
He brings another point home in comparing Roe vs Wade to the Dred Scott decision (a comparison that caused me to question my formerly-held pro-choice outlook about three or four years ago). Those who believe that the Roe vs. Wade decision constitutes a fundamental human right forget that our rights come from our Creator, not from fiat or decree. Supreme Court decisions have been overturned before, indeed the recent Lawrence decision overturned a 1986 decision, Bowers vs. Hardwick, (anyone hear any complaints from the left about that?)
Attorney General Pryor has been very frank in stating what many Americans believe — that the current abortion regime of Roe v. Wade is as bad as, or even worse than, Dred Scott, because it reduces the legal status of a whole class of Americans to a level less than human. Just the same, Roe v Wade is the law of the land, and even those of us who believe deeply that it is an abomination must respect it as the law. We will do so until, like Dred Scott, it is properly and by the will of the people, using due process, overturned.