The missing peace in the Democratic Party convention

Ted Grimsrud—August 1, 2016

It seems that the recently concluded Democratic Party convention (DNC) was a success. Clearly, the convention was orchestrated to show a direct contrast with the Republican Party convention the previous week—highlighting diversity, care for the poor, positive hope for the nation, and the like. And unity. The threat of major disruption from supporters of Bernie Sanders proved to be minimal—beyond some random “no more war” chants that were ignored by the people in charge. Sanders helped with his explicit support for Clinton.

Sanders’s speech was a model in how he affirmed Clinton’s candidacy going forward while he also reemphasized the core themes of his campaign. He received a kind of affirming echo from Clinton in her speech, as she lifted up many Sandersian points. Surely, the success of his insurgency campaign pulled her in his direction—and one can fantasize that Sanders and many others will help keep her to her word on many of the issues: vs. harmful free trade agreements, for economic justice, for greater access to higher education, for an increased minimum wage, for criminal justice reform, challenging the big banks, et al.

However, there was something crucial missing from Sanders’s speech—and he perhaps lost the one opportunity possible at the convention to challenge the worst of Clinton’s politics. Sanders said nothing about opposition to war and militarism. And, so, the empire continues to hurtle toward brokenness—and to take all of us with it. There are many angles one could take in decrying this lack of opposition—I write as a Christian theologian. Though it was indeed remarkable how visible explicit Christian faith was at the DNC, I take little comfort in a phenomenon I normally might have welcomed. This Christian presence runs the danger of being just another baptism of empire, even if “kinder and gentler” (ironic allusion to George H.W. Bush intended) than previous baptisms, if it won’t lead to an explicit commitment to “no more war.”

Clinton’s open embrace of warism

One of the big contrasts between Hillary Clinton and both of our most recent Democrat presidents (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) in their initial campaigns is that she openly advocates for more warism. Bill mostly stayed away from military issues in his first campaign, focusing on the economy (“it’s the economy, stupid!”). There is reason to think that he actually initially hoped to diminish the power of the military industrial complex (see James Carroll’s account in his book House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power) . But he wasn’t very committed to that and his relatively weak appointees soon gave up resisting militarism.

Obama, famously, exploited his opposition to the Iraq War to gain an advantage over Hillary in the Democratic primaries. And he early was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Like with Bill Clinton, though, he did little to resist the militaristic spiral and also came to accept warism as a definitive element of his administration.

Hillary Clinton, though, is not making any pretense at all. Her very first speech of her campaign against Donald Trump several weeks ago emphasized her “national security” bonafides, and struck a tone she will no doubt continue to play up—that Trump doesn’t really stand for a strong America (we see this just now in the hysteria about Trump’s link with Russia—with the implication that a rekindled Cold War is the best way to deal with Putin).

Though Hillary has made some nice gestures toward the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party on important issues, there was no hint of any lessening of her commitment to warism. This is terrifying to me. I suspect in part that this is a legacy of Obama’s warism. The “liberals” now, so pleased with the upbeat narrative concerning Obama’s legacy, are not interested in pointing out just how harmful this warism has been and will be.

The most important issue

It seems to me that there is no single issue as important to the well-being of the United States and the rest of the world as the issue of our nation’s militarism. Any other issue—climate change, racial justice, economic equality, the power of corporations—is made worse and often intractable due to our militarism. Not to mention the direct devastation caused by what our military does.

So, I have a feeling that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be disastrous in relation to militarism, likely even more than Obama’s presidency. Of course, a Trump presidency would be even more disastrous. As would a Pence presidency should Trump not complete his term. That seems certain. We’re in a mess, and I am more pessimistic about the future than I have ever been.

I’m thrown back to the basics: To say it theologically, trust in God and the way of peace, not in kings, emperors, or neo-liberal presidents. That is to say, simply disbelieve in the “national security consensus.” Do not give consent to that “consensus” in any way. Simply and directly say no. And do so as publicly and explicitly as possible. Recognize that a vote for Clinton is a vote for empire and warism. As is a vote for Trump.

To me, this is a call to explicit, self-conscious, well thought-through Christian pacifism. Others might agree with much of what I’ve said but not want to frame it this way. One of the appeals of pacifism to me though, recognizing many limitations to the term and what it stands for, is that it helps one better resist the tendency to sugarcoat something like Clinton’s warism.  A person thinking as a pacifist, it seems to me, has no choice but to reject that part of Clinton’s agenda—and to recognize that it is indeed a major part of everything about her perspective.

What are the options?

So, then, what about voting. I do not find any kind of purity narrative attractive. I see nothing wrong with voting, and definitely plan to vote myself. But I haven’t decided how to vote. I think of four options:

(1) Vote for Clinton. I live in a swing state (Virginia). In 2000, Al Gore didn’t even bother to campaign in Virginia. Knowing how the electoral college works, I felt I would waste my vote if I voted for him, though I was horrified with George W. Bush (who was just as bad a president as I expected him to be already in 2000, but no worse). So I voted for Ralph Nader without qualm and would do so again under the same circumstances. Now, though, the stakes are different here. So I could vote for Clinton and commit myself to speak against her warism as much as I can—not seeing my vote as in any way a commitment to her but rather a simple way to keep things from being even worse.

One problem with this option in practice is that most of the people I know (and these are mostly progressive Christians) who advocate voting for Clinton seem to be doing so uncritically. It seems as if once one decides to vote for her, one feels some level of obligation (perhaps not even self-consciously) to paint her in as positive a way as possible. So, they celebrate the unifying DNC though it was warist and in effect, give Clinton a blank check. I’d respect this approach more if these people were more open in protesting her warism every step of the way.

This short piece by a former Sanders supporter illustrates my point. Clinton’s agenda is reduced to two themes—immigration reform and investing in infrastructure. I do hope for genuine immigration reform, but after seeing the absolute disaster of the Obama years where deportations have significantly increased despite humanistic rhetoric from the president, it’s hard to imagine Clinton turning very sharply in a different direction. I feel strongly in favor of infrastructure investment and actually if Clinton is indeed serious about this, it would be a good reason to vote for her. However, though the article is titled “The moral case for Hillary Clinton,” any argument in her favor that ignores her warism will strike me as profoundly immoral.

So, if I do vote for Clinton, it will joined every step along with way with as voluble a protest versus her warism as I can raise. Right now, I find myself increasingly unlikely to take this option. I am especially interested in emerging voices that challenge the narrative that questioning a vote for Clinton is luxury only available to privileged white males. Here’s an oral commentary by Mumia Abu-Jamal. And a written commentary by Morgana.

(2) Vote for Clinton and pair with someone in a non-swing state. They vote for Jill Stein even though they would otherwise vote for Clinton. Then I think of my vote for Clinton as actually being a vote for Stein—except it might also help Clinton keep Trump from winning.

(3) Vote for Jill Stein. This would be to reject limiting the choice to two corporate lackey militarists and to focus instead on a positive agenda—to help expand the reach of the Green Party, the only place right now where a consistent peace message is being voiced.

(4) Vote only on down-ticket candidates; skip the presidential vote. We have a genuine choice in my district for the House this year and an opportunity to defeat a longtime right-wing Congressperson who has been a point of darkness for quite some time. This option would include a recognition that the presidential choices are simply too negative; a vote for either Clinton or Trump is a vote for Wall Street and warism and a vote for Stein is irrelevant.

Eddie Gaude makes a case for this option. He’s clearly engaged and aware. He’s opposed to Trump. But he believes the neo-liberal agenda Clinton has embraced is so harmful that it simply can be supported, even as a “lesser evil.” See also this fascinating debate between Gaude and his fellow African-American progressive Michael Eric Dyson—Gaude voices many of my concerns and challenges Dyson for not being critical enough of Clinton.

A voting history

As I think about my presidential voting history, I can see a pattern. To describe it as follows probably imputes too much rationality on a process that has admittedly often been gut-feeling-driven. But for what it’s worth. Let’s give presidential candidates from the two major parties in the November vote a score—1 is terrible, 10 is excellent. Let’s say that a candidate with a “4” has deserved my vote. They will likely be more bad than good, but the damage they will do will be small enough that a vote for such a candidate (which is actually with that score more a vote against the other candidate) is appropriate.

But a candidate with a “3” will, in my estimation do too much damage to deserve support. This evaluation is not about purity, not about avoiding being complicit with “evil.” No, it’s pragmatic. At what point does the damage done by a potential candidate become great enough to where that candidate has to be resisted—even if on the infinitesimally small level of withholding a vote to that person.

Now, every Republican candidate since 1976 has been a “1”—not because they are Republicans (I happily voted for Mark Hatfield, a Republican US Senator from Oregon) but because of their ideas and practices.  A few have been high “1s” and George W. Bush was a low “1.” But all have been “1s”. So, the question has been whether the Democrat would be a “3”—or better.

Based on my votes, Jimmy Carter in 1976 was a “4,” maybe even a “5.” He said many attractive things about bringing change following the excesses of Richard Nixon. He mostly failed, and by 1980 had started a sharp trajectory toward military expansion, voiced the disastrous “Carter Doctrine” committing the US to militarism in the Middle East, and had spearheaded the terrible boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. So in 1980 he was a “3” and I voted for a third party candidate. In 1984 and 1988, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis were both “3s” as well. I left the ballot blank one of those times and voted Green Party the other.

For me, Bill Clinton dropped permanently below “4” when he returned home to Arkansas during the 1992 campaign to oversee the execution of a convicted murderer so mentally deficient that he asked for the dessert that came with his last meal to be saved to he could eat it the next day. Clinton confirmed the validity of that low rating with his own warism, welfare reform, crime crackdown, and free trade policies.

Al Gore was a high “3” in 2000, but in the end I voted for Ralph Nader. A key point was that Gore conceded Virginia, so it seemed like a vote for him would be wasted—even though I knew Bush would be a disaster.

In 2004, the fact that Virginia seemed to be in play was enough to elevate John Kerry to a “4” (barely). I drank the Obama cool aid in 2008, and gave him a “5.” He disabused me of that by reiterating the warism of the latter Bush years and passing on holding Wall Street accountable for the financial meltdown. But still, in 2012 he was a “4,” given, again, that Virginia was by then a bluish swing state.

What to do?

I have not decided what to do this year. I think any of the choices one through four that I outline above could be morally responsible—and consistent with high ideals of pacifism, humanism, and faith. I’d certainly rate Trump a “1” on my 1–10 scale. I actually don’t think he is as dangerous as George W. Bush was (more on this in my next blog post), but he is definitely terrible. But what will I decide to give Clinton—a “3” or a “4”?

What makes me despair as much as anything, though, is that there is little talk at all about these problems among progressive who now seem to be all in for Clinton—hence, the “missing peace.”

18 thoughts on “The missing peace in the Democratic Party convention

  1. I have not voted for President for sometime. They all end up being what I term “Butchers”.
    I don’t believe Trump is in the same category as Clinton though. Your comments about Trump’s warusm is purely speculation, although I understand your concern. Whereas with Hillary there is a clear record of of her barberism…Central America..the Balkins..Libya..Syria. The blood of thousand and thousands cry out from their graves against this Butcher. As a famous Anabaptist once commented…Those (like Hillary), see swine blood and human blood as one and the same.

    1. Jim, I’m not sure where your remarks on Trump are intended to lead. But the track record he DOES have (business and interpersonal relations) is certainly very violent in the broader sense, if not physically so. The trajectory of how he has acted through his entire career indicates an extremely high risk of continuing the same if he were President… and it’s impossible to know what that could lead to… almost certainly nothing good.

  2. Wonderful article, Ted. I love the detailed explanation of your thinking as to how to cast your vote. Oh, that even a strong minority of voters would go through such careful and systematic analysis, and have it based on good knowledge of the issues, track records of candidates, etc.! (I’m not optimistic about that in the foreseeable future.)

    I’m pretty much in agreement, and especially concur about the scariness of Clinton’s “warism” (I like the term.) Neither major party is much different on this. I want to reinforce your call for pacifists, Christian and other, to continue to refine and assert their concepts. Seems to me that unless people hear (those who will take time to listen) a fairly detailed explanation of “national security” within a pacifist framework, they won’t buy in… especially with any vigor. I don’t know if the Green Party has done that, but may look into it. I’m in a VERY solidly Clinton state so I may just vote Stein. However, a major slap-down of the Trump mentality (not just the candidate) I also think is important, so not sure yet. Such a repudiation I think will register more via a strong Clinton victory than a spread among Dem., Libertarian and Green Parties. Anyway, keep up the good work re. pacifism and political theory/practice.

    And NOW, a point I consider fully relevant, if a bit indirectly so: The biggest immorality reinforcing our militarist practices has been largely avoided and left unexplored for almost 15 years now. I refer to the “9-11” events. They not only reinforced but served to enable the wars in Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq. I’m always careful about my wording re. this: it is abundantly clear that all 3 (!) towers did NOT fall because of impact and fire (“Building 7” included… not even heavily damaged). The photographic and scientific evidence, personal witness and materials analysis supporting, along with engineering science, makes clear that some kind of controlled demolition was required and DID happen. (The best single source organizing a whole, whole lot of this data, but in digestible “bites” of videos, etc., is at a site started and run by a large group of architects and engineers.)

    I believe that only if we show enough courage and determination to force a truly independent and thorough investigation (not done, even with the “9-11 Commission Report”) and unravel who is responsible, do we have any hope of turning around the kind of militarism you rightly are decrying! And I’m open-eyed as to how much major disruption of our systems this would involve…. I’m not sure there will ever be a “good time” for it to happen, so it might as well be soon. In several more years, too many involved will have died and/or emotions have subsided such that ever understanding how and through whom this massively evil plot could have been pulled off will be highly unlikely.

  3. Ted, you have performed a huuge service by publishing this essay. Thank you!

    I heartily agree with this sentence: “It seems to me that there is no single issue as important to the well-being of the United States and the rest of the world as the issue of our nation’s militarism. Any other issue—climate change, racial justice, economic equality, the power of corporations—is made worse and often intractable due to our militarism. Not to mention the direct devastation caused by what our military does.”

    And this sentence, that brought me out of my chair: “(A)ny argument in [Clinton’s] favor that ignores her warism will strike me as profoundly immoral.”

    I do wish you hadn’t declined to examine Trump’s foreign policy statements. He has criticized the proliferation of U.S. force projection bases around the globe (800 and rising); questioned the need for NATO; called the invasion of Iraq a mistake; described the effect of U.S. involvement in the wars against Syria, Yemen and Libya as major errors that have destroyed those societies and driven up U.S. debt; said he would end the confrontation with Russia over Ukraine/Crimea; and has explicitly rebutted U.S. efforts to stigmatize Putin in the manner that it has stigmatized Saddam Hussein, Mohamar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad.

    These are positions long held by the faith-based peace movement. Trump’s comments are truly a new thing and must be acknowledged, Trump’s volatile personality notwithstanding. If we don’t talk about the positive aspects about Trump’s foreign policy, then this election will drive a stake through the heart of the US peace movement. That’s because the practical positions we hold will be regarded as evidence of our craziness.

    What gives warism its power? In part, it is setting each imperial intervention within a moral narrative of justice and humanitarianism. This is why Howard Pepper’s brief discussion of 9/11 is so very important. It is the moral narrative that justifies more wars of aggression. Unless those who seek peace strip away that veneer, the warists will always be viewed as the lesser evil, no matter how evil their actions.

    I live in a highly contested state (PA). I will vote for neither Trump nor Clinton. Between now and November, I will pay very close attention to what Trump is saying about foreign policy, and I will talk to others about the good stuff that I hear.

    1. Just curious… may have further comment later… but for now, can you tell me what you know about the Green Party and Stein in regards to militarism and national security, etc.? (Or any other readers can also…. I’ve never bothered to look into them. Maybe also Gary Johnson tho I’m relatively more informed about the Libertarian party.)

    2. Berry, thanks for the list of Trump’s surprisingly good-sounding foreign policy “positions.” I had heard some of these, but not all. The ones you list are strikingly non-Empire-supporting.

      But I am skeptical; thus my use of quotes around “positions.”

      Israel-Palestine is a key example. Months ago, DJT sounded reasonable on the conflict, as if he hadn’t taken a side. He was all about negotiation and deal-making to solve the problems. But as he’s gone along, he and his foreign policy advisers have been sounding more and more like too many other Republicans — increasingly supportive of a one-state solution that supports Israel’s right to settle “Judea and Samaria,” aka the Palestinian West Bank.

      This and other examples of his rather fluid “positions” makes me wonder if all the good things you hear him saying are things he really believes or supports.

      Still, I support your goal of pointing out to others the genuinely good things he does say.

      1. Thanks for the referral link. I’ll give it a look. Green may represent possibilities for local and broader future elections. But for this one, it really is a two-party race and I think the safer/better choice is clear.

      2. Dave, I read carefully through the 10 points on that page of the Green Party, via your link. I am impressed with the concepts and careful wording there. I’ll plan to keep up on their efforts.

        One thing that was reassuring was the definite stand against governmental centralization. Also, overly large/strong corporations are opposed, though I believe it may prove difficult to get specific on how to limit them. I’ll be interested to see how they propose doing that. But overall, the “decentralization” value would seem to remove Green from the label or process of “socialism” (as historically defined in political dynamics of national scale).

        I’d recommend to you or others (maybe even Green Party formally) to pursue a possible alliance or mutual cross-promotion with the most impressive “movement” I know of for local and national democracy, which is NOT a party: Voice of the People. If not familiar, you must see their work via Some notable people involved and fascinating, potentially workable processes, pilots already run or in process, etc.

  4. Good article, Ted. I’ve got a few reflections to add.

    The argument that opposing Clinton is a sign of white privilege annoys me too. Brother Cornel West is another clear voice smashing this bogus criticism.

    Does Clinton’s being a woman affect how she enacts her warism and how we perceive it? One good challenge I’ve heard to my critiques of HRC are that male presidential candidates are not critiqued the same way when they do or say the same things she does. It seems obvious to me, from a realpolitik perspective, that she needs to act “strong on defense” to convince many people (especially men) to support her over the stereotypical sexist assumption of “female weakness.” That doesn’t mean we have to keep silent about her warism, but it does mean I should try not to respond differently to her war-supporting activities than I did to Obama’s, GWB’s, or WJC’s.

    Taking the case down to a personal level, as a government employee I have a very strong opinion (that I probably can’t share, legally) about the effects on my agency and other executive branch non-military agencies that each major candidate would have. Where we see similarity on the Big Issues (war and Wall Street), I see huge differences on the day-to-day running of government issues. Is that enough to affect my vote? Might be.

  5. Ted, I often read, but seldom comment on, your articles. But I couldn’t pass this one up. A couple of days ago I posted a blog article titled “Advocating Lesser Evilism.” (Here is the link: In that connection, I found great agreement when you wrote, “I could vote for Clinton and commit myself to speak against her warism as much as I can—not seeing my vote as in any way a commitment to her but rather a simple way to keep things from being even worse.” This, it seems to me, is the best choice–even for us pacifists.

    At this point I am planning on my November 10 blog article to be titled “An Open Letter to President Hillary Clinton.” After congratulating her for winning the election, which I certainly hope she will because it will be, without question, either her or Trump, I will express strong concern that she will not think that she has to show how strong she is, an “Iron Lady,” by flexing the nation’s military muscles but that will follow the example of President Obama and be restrained in the use of force.

    In spite of my opposition to the widespread use of drones by the Obama administration, at least he did not start a war against Syria or against Iran as a large majority of congressional Republicans wanted him to do–and as would have almost certainly been done under a President McCain or President Romney.

    While we pacifists must always, and relentlessly, seek for nonviolent ways to address the world’s problems, I think it is also imperative that we support the “lesser evil” in the political arena. Why, pray tell, would we want the greater evil to be in power?

    1. Leroy, you said “I think it is also imperative that we support the “lesser evil” in the political arena.” I would want to respectfully disagree :
      – Who of us has Divine insight as to who/what the lesser evil is? I think Ted’s articles on WWII and the unexpected legacy’s of the Allies’ ‘victory’ there testifies to the foolishness of thinking any warism at all can ever lead to more positive/less negative outcomes.
      – I think voting for a candidate whose platform is idealistic pacifism is a better advertisement of the commitment of pacifists to pacifism, ESPECIALLY when people know the vote is cast despite the candidate having no chance of winning. However, the support in terms of votes may raise the candidate’s profile and encourage anyone with a pacifist vision to go on further raising consciousness & sowing the seeds of peace.
      – It takes a lot of time to think about secular Politics – time that could be spent better. I don’t see Jesus in the NT political hypothesising and manoeuvring. I reject Luther’s “God has two kingdoms” doctrine. Why lose our ‘saltiness’ as Christians by engaging in Not-tKoG politics? Why not just research which candidates/party is the least warist and vote for one of them? or don’t vote at all and invest that time saved more directly in pacifist versions and examples of the KoG at hand?
      At this point in the history of the world, it is not realistic for pacifists to set a goal of installing a secular government that is pacifist. But I think pacifists living in democracies who vote simply for the least warist, are using their vote to promote peace in the medium to LONG term. Ideally there might in our great grandchildren’s day be pacifist Christian candidates who openly state they are willing for themselves, their family, friends & nation to ‘die rather than kill’ for the cause of love and peace. Of course, they will never in 100+ years get voted into control of the country, rather they will all be long vilified as unpatriotic lunatics. Even so, as such candidates, continue to preach peace, they will surprise (& concern) many by their growing number of supporters decade by decade. I think that, even though the percentage figure is low (like salt on one’s food), the political centre would necessarily swing gradually away from warism. Then overall, regardless of which person or party is in control, militarism of any kind will be less acceptable. God willing, as pacifist Christians around the world believe in the God of Peace and preach His Word, they will together influence all nations to move toward disarmament, etc.

      1. Jub, thanks for responding to my comments.

        To begin with, none of us are omniscient, of course, but we must choose whom to vote for. If that choice is not made largely on the basis of whom we consider to be candidate embodying the “greater good” or, at least, the “lesser evil,” on what basis do we make that choice? Surely it is not sufficient just to vote on the basis of Party affiliation.

        How has that worked out through the years, though, voting for the idealistic candidate with no chance of winning. Those voting for such a candidate might feel better (or more righteous) by casting such a vote, but I do not see that has helped the cause of peace at all.

        I agree that thinking about politics takes up a lot of time–probably too much time for most of us–and I also do not agree with Luther “two kingdoms” theology. That is why I find the old Anabaptist position of complete separation from political affairs to be appealing. But I also find that to be inadequate for contemporary times. I think we need to be responsible citizens, even though that is secondary to being part of the Kingdom of God. In contrast to the old Anabaptist position of complete separation from the world, I think what we need most now is “engaged Anabaptism.”

        Even though voting is important, it is certainly not the most important thing we do; in fact, I think the importance of voting is probably highly over-rated. Our work for peace has to be done mainly in a different venue . But, still, it is something we should do, and do responsibly. And in the U.S. to vote the major party candidate who represents the “greater good” or the “lesser evil” is, I still contend, the most responsible–and the most Christian–thing to do.

  6. Ted — Thanks for the “missing peace” article! Again, I would like to submit it to our local paper — would you have any objections? The paper always wants to know if they have your permission to publish. Hope all is going well in retirement. Don

  7. Thanks Ted, for your excellent analysis and sharing your own carefully reasoned process and possibilities. Cornel West rightly notes that Trump would be a neo-facist catastrophe as president and Clinton a neoliberal disaster. I share your concern about warism as key and the perils of Clinton. MLK’s April 4, 1967 defining sermon at Riverside Church prophetically called out America’s three-fold sin as racism-materialism- militarism and named it as spiritual death. That is as true if not more true now then it was a half century ago. And, of course exactly a year later king was assassinated by assassination nation for revealing that truth.

    I have undergone a long and continuing deep discernment and struggle over whether or what presidential candidate to vote for. I intend to share something like you have shared in the coming weeks. A significant factor for me that has evolved from deep discernment with others who have shared a long pastoral and peacemaking journey on our neighborhood streets and in war zones has to do with who dies. My experience confirms for me that even more people will die on our streets and around the world with Trump than with Clinton. I will have more to say about that when I share my own struggle over this decision before long.

    I would only add that I consider one of the most significant sermons I ever preached was in the fall of 2008, following a disastrous era of presidential war crimes and looking forward with hope to a new era of “change we can belive in.” I was both hopeful and skeptical of what Obama would or could do as president. The title of my sermon was “The delusion of democracy and the illusion of voting.” Weldon Nisly

  8. I agree Ted that the militarism piece is a major flaw in the DMC and the “no more war” chant from Bernie supporters highlighted a major difference. However, there is another “missing peace” in the DMC which you did not mention. That is the explicit support of abortion resulting in the killing of the unborn at a time when they should be the most safe. To be consistently pro-life, I believe, one must de-cry the violence of war and the violence of abortion. When the director of Planning Parenthood was invited to speak at the DMC, I deeply grieved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s