Few would have guessed it, but Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become quite the outspoken Catholic. In last month's Catholic Community Conference in Washington, she testified that amnesty for illegal aliens would be a "manifestation of our living the Gospels," and that our legislative paths should be paved by the concepts found in the word of God. Specifically, she alluded to the scriptural reference of Jesus Christ, the embodiment of "the Word made flesh."
But Pelosi's legislative record does not suggest there is any truth to this spiritual proclamation. She has actually been one of the biggest obstacles to the passing of legislation supported by Christian doctrine, and it takes only a brief glance at Pelosi's history to deduce that this speech was just lip service to a group of people that would find such notions agreeable. There have been many occasions on which Pelosi has failed to protect Christian values when she has had the ability to do so.
Take, for example, an incident in September 2007, where the Concerned Women of America organization petitioned elected officials to take the city of San Francisco to task for their offensive advertisement for the Folsom Street Fair. The city had agreed to use taxpayer dollars to promote an advertised corruption of Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper, with Jesus Christ replaced by a shirtless man surrounded by homosexual sadomasochists. Furthermore, there was photographic evidence from past years to prove that San Francisco police sat idly by during the event while young children watched public displays of sex and debauchery. The group implored that Pelosi address the offensive use of taxpayer funds and that she ensure that public lewdness laws would be enforced during the event.
How did devout Madam Pelosi respond to the taxpayers' moral concerns about such public depravity and offensiveness? Her press secretary released the statement, "As a Catholic, the speaker is confident that Christianity has not been harmed."
In what interpretation of the scripture could Madam Pelosi possibly find it acceptable to portray Jesus Christ as an alleged homosexual that would condone or engage in deviant sex with other men? Practicing Christians of even the most liberal dispositions would agree that such representations of Christ are sacrilegious. And in what sect of Christianity is it harmless to subject children to the viewing of wanton sexual acts? Certainly not in Catholicism, and human decency alone dictates that this is vile and immoral.
But rather than protecting basic Christian values, Pelosi used her religion as a shield, granting herself immunity from condemnation by employing the preface "as a Catholic." Her press secretary's response suggests to her Christian constituents that if they are offended by public sexual acts or the defamation of images of Jesus Christ, then they should just relax. If there was anything to be offended about from a Christian point of view, Pelosi would know about it, because she's Catholic. In this way, Pelosi avoided upsetting her homosexual constituency and simply ignored the assault upon Christianity by feigning devotion to Catholicism.
Despicably as Pelosi handled this, some of her past actions warrant far worse than a simple rebuke from American Catholics for not protecting Christian values. Many would argue that she deserves outright condemnation for her direct attacks upon the faith's most fundamental principles.
So antithetical to the Christian faith are these attacks that not even proclamations of adherence to Catholicism can vindicate the Speaker. There is an unmistakable message in the Bible that unborn children in the womb represent human life in the eyes of God, belonging to Him. In Psalms 139, we find this to be markedly so.
Certainly you [God] made my mind and heart;
You wove me together in my mother's womb.
I will give You thanks because Your deeds are awesome and amazing.
You knew me thoroughly;
My bones were not hidden from You
When I was made in secret.
If the scripture is truly Pelosi's moral litmus test for implementing social policy, as she has claimed, how on Earth could she be such a staunch advocate of abortion practices? There is no lucid interpretation of these verses that could be woven into an argument that a Christian God would condone the act of abortion. Yet in the face of this incontrovertible truth of the scripture, Pelosi has made deliberate efforts to make acceptable the act of destroying life in the womb. She has supported the expansion of abortion and has shown refusal to support a ban on the practice of infanticide. She has even suggested that contraception and abortion be preferred methods of stemming the welfare and education cost created by the poorer classes.
Nancy Pelosi's legislative record does not indicate that she follows any established religious doctrine, but rather, it seems that she has shaped a loose construction of personal and religious beliefs to meet the needs of an ideology of liberalism and self-satisfaction. And despite the fact that she disavows many parts of the faith that she doesn't like, she still calls herself a Catholic, which she hopes will lend her some sort of moral credibility to the Christian community.
But most Americans see through her lies and rhetoric. And therefore, we simply denounce Pelosi's invocation of God and Christianity as false, and we condemn her as the hypocrite that she is.