With the 2008 presidential campaign already heating up, issues of religion and religious faith are already being discussed by political groups, op-ed pundits, and the candidates themselves. In an effort to convince many conservatives/evangelicals to back some not so attractive but “winnable” candidacies, some are advocating that traditional divisive issues – such as the nasty social issues – be set aside for debate in order to better secure perceived chances of victory.

One such voice comes from a Mr. Raymond Kraft, an attorney associated with the Family Security Foundation, Inc. In an article posted on www.FamilySecurityMatters.org, Mr. Kraft essentially chides the conservative/evangelical wing of the Republican Party who are already not satisfied with the current crop of front-runners for maintaining “rigid” positions on issues that he deems as hopeless.

What I wish to discuss are the philosophical arguments which Mr. Kraft puts forth as supporting his positions. The arguments truly strike at the heart of the “Great Divide” within the Republican Party and are important for all involved to understand and to confront.

The first issue which Mr. Kraft tackles – you can probably guess immediately – is the nasty matter of abortion. Since Mr. Giuliani makes no bones about his pro-choice stance and Messrs. Romney and McCain have checkered pasts on the subject, Mr. Kraft makes rather blunt assertions as to why abortion needs to be eliminated from any debate. As a conservative evangelical of the Reformed persuasion, I will present his view and then respond by showing the fallacies of his position.

Note the directness with which Mr. Kraft makes his main points:

“A world without abortion, in which every child is born to a loving mother and family would be a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, it has never been, and will never be, and one of the issues raised in Roe v. Wade was the thousands of women who died each year from the complications of illegal abortions, because they couldn't get legal and safe abortions. Women who, for their own reasons, were willing to risk their lives rather than have a child they did not want.

It is not possible for any law or legislation to eliminate abortion. Women who do not want a child will find a way. They always have. They always will . . . The fight to "end abortion" is futile. It is a Sisyphean battle that cannot be won. The simplest and most effective way to minimize the number of abortions is to provide ready access to contraceptives, contraceptive information, and "morning after" pills, such as Plan B, to everyone who asks for them, and to encourage those who cannot, or will not, abstain from sexual activeness, to ask.”

While I will not spend much space discussing the “thousands” of abortion related deaths prior to Roe v. Wade – it is difficult to come up with any number for things done “privately” or in “back alleys” – it is first disturbing to see Mr. Kraft so readily accepting the questionable and unverifiable propaganda which the abortion industry has spewed forth for years.

Second, the fact that an act is being committed does not determine its morality or immorality or the validity of any law concerning the act. We have laws against murder, rape, theft and its many variants, arson, perjury, and so forth. Because people still commit these acts despite existing laws, does that mean that we should eliminate the laws because people still commit the acts? I know Mr. Kraft does not believe that, but his logic certainly points in that direction.

Third, he commits the same error which Barack Obama committed at the Rick Warren AIDS conference last fall. Because people cannot control themselves, argues Obama, we need to provide condoms and other protection from AIDS and other STDs. Could not such logic be provided for other acts of immorality? The thief cannot control himself, so proper instruction as what and what not to steal and perhaps how to steal nicely might be required. A liar cannot control his lying, so he needs to know what does or does not constitute perjury. Where does such thought logically end?

Fourth, Mr. Kraft, along with millions of conservatives and (sadly) evangelicals, does not properly understand the role of government administration of criminal and civil law. The role of government is to restrain evil, not eliminate it! That is a crucial distinction missed by many.

Fifth and finally, Mr. Kraft again needs to understand the key issue behind abortion: is it murder or not? For the one millionth time, if what exists inside the womb from conception until gestation completion is nothing more than meaningless protoplasm, then there is no debate. BUT, if what is in the womb is a human being (which ultrasound technology has convincingly proven) no different from you, me or Mr. Kraft except for time and maturation, then that life needs to be protected like all others. Should murder as a criminal act be debated? Of course not. But when you see the casual disregard for life that exists in our culture and that people cannot even clearly define murder – whether it applies to abortion, Terry Schiavo, or other euthanasia situations - the debate cannot be set aside.

Next, Mr. Kraft wants the “gay marriage” debate and all other debates regarding homosexuality removed from consideration. Again, what matters here is the philosophical worldview from which such a position is taken. Who defines and decides what constitutes a marriage? For thousands of years, Christianity defined what marriage was. But with the American and European rejection of the very Christianity which caused it to thrive and prosper, the political leftists and secularists have made marriage a political issue to advance their agenda. Mr. Kraft needs to understand that conservatives/evangelicals did not go looking for this fight; but now that the issue is firmly in the political and public square, we must resist.

What is consistently amazing about this ongoing debate is that Mr. Kraft and others within the Republican Party – namely the “country clubbers” Gary Bauer described in the 2000 election – don’t understand that all issues, whether social or economic, have a moral foundation to them. Excessive taxation and regulation are just as much moral issues as abortion or homosexuality.

Part of the “Great Divide” in the Republican Party is that non-conservatives and some conservatives cannot seem to understand that strong conservatives/evangelicals are TIRED of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Why? Because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Moreover, can anyone really show conclusively how compromise has helped the conservative/evangelical cause over the past 100 years? The slide toward moral decay and degeneracy has always been downward over that period. Conservatism – whether on moral, social, or economic issues (the Reagan years offered only a brief respite) – has always moved toward the liberal left, with the left never giving in to move to the right. Frankly, I am not convinced whatsoever that Giuliani, McCain, or Romney can reverse this trend.

What is needed is a strong conservative candidate who can step forward, courageously approach the American people, and paraphrase Ronald Reagan to ask the following question: has the moral decay and degeneracy of the last 45 years made your life better off?

If a vast majority answer ‘yes’ or ‘don’t know’ to such a question, then it will not matter who is elected in 2008. The nation will be too far gone. As the late Malcolm Muggeridge said many years ago, a nation that abandons its morals and the consequences for its immoral actions, will only have a certain time left before that nation incurs the same fate of the ancient antediluvian world – collapse and death.

So do all those nasty and sticky social issues – abortion, homosexuality, pornography, drug abuse, no-fault divorce – really matter? Yeah, they do. Let us hope that conservatives/evangelicals in the Republican Party do not heed Mr. Kraft’s advice.