The votes are in. The political pundits agree that the Democratic ticket lost this election because it could not appeal to a religious base across this nation. Although the economy is tepid at best and the nation is at war, the majority of voters believe that the country is in better hands with a president who espouses religious beliefs than a candidate who gives lip service to his faith while supporting a hands-off social philosophy.

Where was the turning point? It was during the second debate when Sen. Kerry was asked by Mrs. Christian American how his votes in favor of abortion squared with his religious beliefs. He professed to be a Catholic who was personally opposed to the practice. However, he stated that he would not preclude women from seeking an abortion since morality is an issue to be decided by the individual and, because abortion is a constitutional right, he would guaranty federal tax dollars to provide abortions to the needy. For the first time, President Bush’s childlike mirth during the debates was justified – Kerry had just lost the moral high ground with the electorate.

The debate now raging within the Democratic Party is whether to pursue the religious base or to abandon any pretense of doing so. An editorial in the New York Times a day or two after the election derided the believers of “the Virgin Birth” and suggested that the only means for the party’s electoral salvation was to abandon any hope of gaining the religious vote and to unabashedly pursue the secularist agenda. Similarly, Ardis Cameron’s op-ed in the Nov. 13-14 Bangor Daily News posits that because the Founding Fathers were deists who pursued reasoned Enlightenment, it does not make sense for the party to seek its moral grounding in religious principles

I must question the premise of these authors that Democrats have to commit to the secular agenda to prevail in national elections. Nothing could be farther from the truth! We certainly thought Bush would go down to ignominious defeat over his handling of Iraq and the dreadful state of the economy. Even the ultimate political pragmatist, William Jefferson Clinton recognizes that the party must reach out to the church-going folks in this country if it ever hopes to have a chance to prevail again at the national level.

I was brought up, like many Americans, to believe in God and country, in one breath. In God we trust had meaning as a national motto. There was indeed, “one nation under God”

Many Christian Americans perceive that there are those within the Democratic Party who truly believe that God is a four letter word. They hail the decision to strike down the reference to “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. They fear any federal subsidy to provide books or transportation to parochial school students as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. They view any attempt to court the religious vote as an abdication of the secularist principle that moral questions must be decided on an individual basis.

It does not make sense for the Democratic Party to declare war on those who believe in God. The Democratic Party I knew as a child of the sixties was firmly committed to the values that align with Judeo-Christian beliefs – care for the poor and the oppressed, true equal rights for all, human compassion, and war as a last resort, only to protect true national interests. However, when the plight of bear cubs receives more attention from the left than does the fate of human embryos, it is time to wonder if the party has lost its moral bearings (I realize that the party did not necessarily support the bear referendum but we know that there are many pro-Choice adherents who voted to support the ban).

The Democratic Party must decide whether there is a place for religious values in its platform. It appears that the Party has become synonymous with ethical relativism where individual desires outweigh conceptions of moral living. Indeed, how can there be any basis for liberal government – a belief that government can advance the good of society – if we deny that government has a police power that can be used to legislate against partial birth abortion or other moral evils?

Commentators keep coming back to the abortion debate because it is the crucible where we as a society must test our values. Abortion is the modern equivalent of slavery, women’s suffrage, and civil rights. Is the Democratic Party truly supporting the most unprotected elements of our society, or do we allow the ethos of individual expediency to control? If it is indeed the latter, where is there any justification for imposing any laws that regulate individual morals like gambling, drug use, prostitution etc.? No one has ever satisfactorily explained why the Legislature can tell me to wear a seat belt, not to smoke in my personal office, (and possibly not to trap bears and shoot them at point blank range), while we cannot even consider the abortion question.

I am not advocating that the Democratic Party adopt the Catholic catechism or any other particular theology. My first suggestion is that those within the Party who deride Judeo-Christian values should practice the same tolerance toward “us” as they do toward any other social group. In short, if you want my vote, don’t “dis” my beliefs. The Party should recognize that there is a whole lot of political power out there among those who are sporting “God Bless America” bumper stickers on their cars.

The Democratic Party should also develop a moral basis for its platform. A laissez-faire approach to moral questions may seem like the price to be paid for individual freedom, but then, how are any lines ever drawn? Right and wrong, good vs. evil, God and Country should matter to the Democratic Party. Democratic values should not become an oxymoron.

Brett D. Baber of Veazie is an attorney.