The Algerian novel The Last Summer of Reason provides a powerful and strangely beautiful reminder of the danger of letting violent ideological fundamentalism fester. We would do well to heed this reminder now, not later.
Pillar: The Human Person
The first pillar of a decent society is respect for the human person, which recognizes that all individual human beings have dignity simply because of the kind of being they are: animals whose rational faculties allow them to know, love, reason, and communicate. It also recognizes that human beings are persons, members of the human family who flourish in a community that respects their fundamental rights and who long to discover transcendent truths about the nature of reality.
Freedom of conscience is an important, though limited, right. In some cases a state may prevent someone from acting on her conscientious judgments. But in other cases—such as those in which a pro-life doctor is required to perform an abortion—the violation of conscience is intrinsically unjust.
While abortion opponents decry the deliberate destruction of human embryos, as many as half of all embryos are lost naturally. How should pro-life advocates address this problem?
The German government’s attempts to promote moderate Islam may have the opposite effect.
The advice of a recent report by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists seeks to impose one contested moral view on an entire field of medicine.
John Haldane has reminded social conservatives in America of important political and moral truths, but he overlooks the necessity of engaging in partisan politics with eyes wide open to political realities.
Spend some time traveling in this “Axis of Evil” nation and you’ll meet many people who will challenge conventional wisdom. Understanding the mixed-bag of Syrian social, political, and cultural allegiances will be key for U.S. foreign policy.
One need not be religious to oppose abortion. A simple look at what it does to new human life and what it has done to contemporary society is more than reason enough. New horrors loom on the horizon, but there is reason for hope.
Michael New's criticism of a recent study has come in for criticism itself. He responds that the study suffers from methodological mistakes and faulty presentation.
As the recent film "Obsession" points out, Islamist radicalism poses a grave threat to the freedoms of constitutional democracies. But "Obsession" largely ignores potential solutions and a host of moderate Islamic voices that have gone unheard.
The author of a recent abortion study answers Michael New's criticisms.
Social Conservatives in America would do well to consider recent events in the U.K.
Archbishop Chaput writes to the editors of Public Discourse
Doug Kmiec writes a public letter
The Obama apologists are at it again, this time attacking Archbishop Charles Chaput for speaking out against their candidate's pro-abortion views. But the latest salvo from Doug Kmiec is a tangled web of falsehoods and fallacies.
Can the Democratic Party's awkward position on infanticide and abortion be regarded as simply a lesser matter in an ensemble of "other issues" of higher standing? Or does that position challenge the very coherence of everything else that a liberal party proclaims itself to be?
Catholics in Alliance recently released a study questioning the effectiveness of pro-life legislation and arguing that greater spending on welfare programs was a better strategy for reducing abortion. Unfortunately, their study is seriously flawed. Rigorous analysis of their own data indicates that increased welfare spending only has little to no impact on abortion. Public funding restrictions and informed-consent laws, however, are effective at reducing abortion rates.
Nearly half of all African-American pregnancies end in abortion, and social inequality isn't the only reason why.
During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made real progress. The number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation.
The Golden Rule should serve as a guide to those weighing a vote for "pro-choice" politicians.
In an address delivered on October 17, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput stated that ''Prof. Douglas Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation in his past. But I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.''
Obama's latest excuse for opposing the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is that the law was "unnecessary" because babies surviving abortions were already protected. It won't fly.
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.