Dia de los Muertos

This article in the San Fernando Valley Sun website,http://www.sanfernandosun.com/sanfernsun/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4406&Itemid=2, discusses the new Day of the Dead tradition of having “window alters” honoring those who have passed away. The old tradition was for people to go to the cemeteries of their loved ones and put the favorite things of the people who have passed away, including food and games. The reason behind this is to keep the memory of their loved ones alive.
Many parents try to keep the memories of their parents and grandparents alive through their children, who may or may not have been able to meet them. It is believed that the spirits of their loved ones can return to earth and enjoy the things they enjoyed when they were alive. I never understood this holiday, because most of the people celebrating this holiday are Catholic. And Catholics believe in Heaven, so I don’t understand why they would want the spirits to come down from Heaven just to do the mundane things they did when they were on Earth. It just seems mean if it’s true; their ancestors are in Heaven having a good time and then their descendents bring them down to eat pizza. But overall, this idea of having window alters is a very good idea, because it would be difficult for many to go to the cemeteries of their loved ones if they immigrated.

Samhain

This article from the Washington Post website, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/starhawk/2009/10/the_true_spirit_of_halloween_for_real_witches.html, discusses the Samhain holiday that Wiccans celebrate instead of Halloween. The article is written from a Wiccan herself and is written to urge people to learn more about Wiccans and their holiday.

Since the article is by a Wiccan, it does not include anything negative about the Wiccan religion. The article made their Wiccan religion seem sort of hippy like, as if they were all just easy going people who celebrate “art, music, poetry and dance.” I was surprised that the writer claimed that a spiral dance at their San Francisco celebration can include over a thousand people dancing together, because I’ve only met one Wiccan in my whole life.

The article mentions that they honor their ancestors and mourn for those lost throughout the year and it reminded me of the Catholic’s day of the dead in which the Catholics go to the cemeteries of their lost ones.

Nativity Scene on the Side of a Public Road

This article on the Fox News website, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570308,00.html, is about a lawsuit that concerns the banning of a Nativity display on the side of a public road. The Nativity display has been put up every year during the Christmas season since 1945, with the exception of one year when there was construction being done.

I feel really bad for the person who was instructed to put the sign down because of its religious themes. The only reason why the display is on the public road is because it couldn’t fit inside the church (the church is supposedly really close to the display). The argument against this is that it violates the First Amendment because it would respect an establishment of religion. I understand this dilemma, but I hope the city can sell this little property to the church so the church can continue their tradition. I feel like whoever squealed on the display was really looking for something, because if the display is as close to the church as the article makes it seem, how would the person know that it wasn’t church property? I think Christians are sometimes hurt by how well people know their religion, because if another religion put up something like a dog statue(if there’s a religion who has dogs as their gods) outside of their worship house, people might not notice because it isn’t overtly religious.

Jewish School Admission Criteria

The article ‘Jewish school racial discrimination case goes to supreme court’ on the Guardian website, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/jewish-school-discrimination-case-court, discuses ongoing suit against a Jewish school who denied a student admittance, possibly due to religion.

The court of appeal said that the admission criteria were unlawful because children with Jewish mothers were given priority. From the article, it is unclear if this is true or not, but the school did say that it does give priority to children of Jewish faith. I think the article could’ve been stronger by including more information about the child like his faith or his school record. According to the article, this school is the best Jewish school in Britain and it is only natural that they can’t accept everyone who applies. He could’ve just been a bad student. But it is important for a private school with religion to try to get as many people from that religion, because the parents’ intentions of putting their children in these kinds of schools is to help them develop their faith and meet more people who share the same faith.

Hate Crime Bill

The article, After 10-year dispute, expansion of hate crimes law to gays signed, on the Washington Post website,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804909.html, discusses the Hate Crimes bill that was just signed by President Obama. It will“…help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are..”

I don’t really understand the use of a bill like this. The article starts off with mentioning the murder of a gay college student and the murderers did get lifetime terms in prison. The article does not mention what kind of protection the bill will provide and I don’t think there is anything else to protect, because the person is already dead and these murders will never get out of prison. If a bad crime is done, it is usually punished. The murderer shouldn’t get more time if the person they killed was a Muslim or a homosexual. And how would they determine a hate crime from a normal crime? It’s possible that a robber stole from a Christian because he saw he had nice things, not because of his religion. It just seems unfair that a person could possibly get more time for a crime because the victim is different.

Anglicans Joining the Catholic Church

This article in US News, http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2009/10/23/anglican-deal-could-lead-to-married-catholic-priests.html, discusses about the Pope inviting “Anglicans who are dissatisfied with their church” to join the Catholic Church and the issue that Anglicans priests are allowed to marry while Catholics priests cannot.

I think that it would be wonderful if the Catholic priests would be allowed to marry, but they would have to start giving salaries to their priests. Right now, priests don’t make money, because the church provides everything to them including housing and food. If they get married, the wives (and possibly children) will have nothing. The article mentions that allowing priests to marry will make scandals less likely to happen. I agree with this because not allowing people to have sex seems a little unnatural to me and marriage will help the priests keep everything under control. I think the Catholic Church originally did not allow priests to marry to prevent their land from being taken by their priests’ wives and children. But if not allowing marriage makes some priests rape people, it’s wrong to let the tradition continue.

10 Commandments in a Courthouse

This article on the Fox News website, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/20/counties-seek-court-approval-courthouses-secular-commandment-display/, covers the story of a courthouse’s trouble of getting approval to have a display about the “Foundations of American Law and Government,” because it includes the 10 Commandments in the display. The display consists of various things related to American history including the Bill of rights and the Declaration of Independence.

This has been an issue for a long time now. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious materials could be allowed as long as it is part of an educational or historical display. The attorneys argue that the display is for “educational and historical purposes”. And the ACLU(http://aclu.org/) argues that the only reason why the court wants the display is to display the 10 Commandments.

Even though the 10 Commandments is a religious thing, I think it is okay to have it included in an American history display because it is a part of American history. Even though the Puritans were not the founding fathers of our country, our history still starts with them landing on Plymouth Rock. And the Puritans came to America to practice religion freely and I think it is important to remember that. I know it sounds ironic that the 10 Commandments can represent freedom of religion, but I feel that it does in this display. I think many people always stress that the Pilgrims were Christians instead of as Christians who wanted the freedom to practice their religion freely.

Religion and Healthcare

The article in USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-10-15-catholic-health_N.htm, discuses how the Catholic Bishops might not support healthcare reform if it will include abortions and contraception.
The article confirms we discussed in class that Catholics, in general, feel that universal healthcare is a government responsibility because we’re supposed to take care our neighbors. But even though most Catholics are for universal healthcare, the Bishops might not support it because there’s nothing explicit written in the bill about abortion and birth control.
I don’t really know the duties of a bishop, but I understand how they can influence politics by urging the members of their churches to come together to boycott something. But I don’t think they should try to stop healthcare reform if the majority of their members support it because it might alienate their members. Even though the members wouldn’t leave the church, they might start questioning these high positions. And if the bishops are able to pressure a senator to vote against the bill, the people who voted for him or her will think that the senator doesn’t stand for his or her beliefs and will not vote for the person again. I know how in class, we discussed that the Catholics are powerful in politics, but it would look really bad if they went against something and didn’t get much support from their own members.

Diwali

This article in the Washington Post website,http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2009/10/president_obama_lights_white_house_with_diwali_lamp.html?hpid=talkbox1, discusses how Obama’s participation in a Diwali celebration, a Hindu holiday, somehow made Hindus seem more welcome in America. The White House Diwali celebrations started during Bush’s administration, but he never attended any of the celebrations.

First off, I don’t really know that much about Diwali; I just know that it’s Diwali when I see all the Christmas lights out before December(I live in Artesia, so I don’t know if it’s different in other areas.) But I feel that there is a double standard here because Hindus are a minority when compared with Christians. For example, when there’s a cross on government property, there’s at least 1 group complaining but if there’s a Hindu celebration on government property, it’s praised for cultural diversity?

But I think this shows the religion will always be a part of government because around 88% of Americans still associate themselves with a religion. (http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_234_2.asp) And it’s only natural to feel proud of your religion when you see certain aspects of it mentioned in the media and it would be unnatural to vote for things you think are wrong because someone says that your religion is clouding your judgment.

Abortion in Hospitals

This article on abc 7’s website, http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1009/669383.html, covers the dispute of an hospital expansion between the hospital, which is Catholic owned, and pro-abortion groups. The article briefly mentioned that the Mormons were also in the bid to open up a hospital in the same county so I found another article(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Pro-choice-groups-try-to-stop-Catholic-hospital-expansion-8384376-64235367.html) that discusses the bid between the 2.
After reading everything, I want the Catholics to win(but I might be biased because my mom is Catholic), but I don’t understand why both can’t be approved. The Catholic hospital would not allow abortions to be done at the hospital while the Mormon hospital would allow them. The first article notes that the abortion thing isn’t that big of a deal, because only a few percentage of abortions are done in hospitals, the most of them being performed in clinics. Also, even though the Mormon church would be cheaper to build($200 million), the Catholic church would pay for it all($267 million) while the Mormons will only finance a portion. The Mormons argue that their location is better because there are less medical services available in that certain area. I don’t know what location they’re looking at, but the Catholics want their church on a community college(so it would be on government owned property).
If only 1 hospital should be chosen, I think the Catholic one should be chosen because the only cost to the city would be the land and they would be a full service hospital with the exception of abortion. While the other option might cost taxpayers extra just for the added option of having an abortion at a hospital. I understand that religion and government shouldn’t cross, but abortion is murder(my pov). And the Catholic one is experienced and seems to be doing a lot of good; the 2nd article says that “more than 70 percent of uninsured women having children from upcounty” gives birth at the Catholic hospital’s other location. And the bio students in the community college can get experience while interning at the hospital.
I couldn’t find any articles about the actual bid and if the Mormons have another church at another location.

Obama's New "Pastor"

This article on the Washington Post website, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101303601.html, discusses the church(and its Pastor, Pastor Cash) that President Obama and his family have been attending for a while. They are trying to keep everything on a low profile, especially after everything that happened with Reverend Wright. They’re being very cautious by not really joining the church and just attending once in a while. But the problem is that their new “pastor” is also controversial; for example he called Islam a dangerous religion and is said to have acted as a missionary while serving as a chaplain in the Iraq war.
It’s funny how they jumped from one controversial preacher to another, but maybe all high profile religious figures receive more criticism after they’ve reached a certain successfulness. I don’t really think Obama and/or the White House really have to try to hide anything. I mean Reverend Wright was racist and I doubt Pastor Cash is as bad. I know he’s against a whole religion, but he served in our forces and many people would recognize him as a hero. If anything, I think the White House should try to get as much publicity out of this as they can. I think this would earn President Obama a lot of brownie points with the Republicans, because Pastor Cash seems like a person who is on the extreme right(because of his views on Islam), so they might be able to recognize him as one of their own.

Evangelicals In Hawaii

This editorial on the Star Bulletin’s website, http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20091013_Religion_risky_for_GOP.html, is about getting more “conservative”(Evangelical) voters in Hawaii. So the Evangelicals are aiming to get 80% of Christian churchgoers to register to vote and to get 80% of those registered to vote for Christian values. The author wants to Republicans about a possible ‘hijacking’ by religious activists who aren’t quite uniform in their beliefs. I just think this is all very strange, because I don’t understand why anyone would not want to vote. So I’m kind of worried that these people who never cared to vote will start voting because another person urged them to.
This article seems biased; the author tries to say that many of these church goers do not agree with the preachers on certain political issues, but the statistics he uses at the beginning is not really comparable. He compares people the percentage of people who are against abortion to what issue they put more emphasis on more(the war, energy, etc). These church goers can feel the same about a certain issue, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they all put the same emphasis on it. And the author does cite statistics on the same general population, he compares white evangelicals 18-34’s voting records to their elders’. I don’t understand why they can’t do all evangelicals regardless of age and ethnicity to see if there really is a big percentage that favors one side. Because what if there are only a few white evangelicals compared to the elders? Or vise versa? Or what if the evangelicals are predominantly pacific islander people and Caucasian people are the minority? Selective statistics always makes me suspicious of things, because you never really get the drift of things. I would’ve liked to see what the whole population of the Evangelicals who were polled feel, not just some selective thing based on their church position, age or ethnicity. But I’m still worried that some people have never bothered to register to vote; I feel like these people should vote by themselves without interest groups telling them what to do(I feel the same about unions telling their members to vote certain ways). And if something they cared about was voted for a differently way, then hopefully that would make them care enough to vote.

Wearing Veils in Public

This article from Bloomberg’s website, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aVnzt_V.3sr0, is about a Canadian Muslim group asking their Prime Minister to ban veils that women wear to cover their faces, “because of concerns they oppress women and can compromise security.” This particular group argues that these veils have “..got thing to do with Islam..” I looked up burqa’s, which is just one example of a type of veil, on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa) and it said that
“Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities (see Women and Islam); the burqa is not specifically mentioned in the Quran.[2]”
After reading this, I feel that if a particular Muslim group’s reading of their holy book calls for a veil, it’s not really up to the government to decide whether to ban it or not, because they are just practicing their religion.
One of the arguments against the veils is that women are allowed to vote without showing their face in Canada. And I think this is just wrong; It’s one thing to walk around in veils, but it’s another thing to have them allowed to wear veils during events that require proper documentation. The women should not be able to take picture id’s with their veils on and they should not be able to vote with a veil, because how would the person know that they are really the ones voting? I’m not saying that they would have to walk around the whole DMV(or the Canadian equivalent) without their veils. You can probably have a female employee verify the person and have the woman put their veils back on.
One the other hand, I wouldn’t blame a police officer for looking at these women who are wearing the veils with more scrutiny, because it’s usually robbers(and I guess sports fans) who cover their face. It just comes with the practice, because it makes a person less identifiable.
I don’t know much about the Muslim belief, but just because one group’s reading of their scripture does not call for veils doesn’t mean they should ban it for other Muslim groups. But, it should also be up to the girl to decide if she wants to wear a veil or not, not a family forcing their religion views on the daughters/wives.

Politics in Church

This story on the Alliance Defense Fund website, http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5075, is about an agreement between more than 80 pastors to deliver sermons in their congregations that will cover biblical perspectives on current political candidates and leaders. These pastors are arguing that the IRS is limiting their First Amendment rights by threatening to remove their churches’ tax-exempt status if they incorporate political talk during church.

My problem with this separation of church and state is that it is the individual’s decision to join a denomination and it’s their problem if they don’t believe in the denomination they joined. For example, I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran and we believe that everything in the Bible is true. So I don’t really see what the problem is if our pastor comments that abortion is wrong, because it’s what we believe. If people in our congregation disagree, they’re in the wrong denomination. There are just so many denominations with varying views on the Bible, religion, etc that it would be wasteful to join a denomination you don’t believe in. I’m in a funny situation in that both my parents have different religious views than me (my dad is an Evangelical while my mom is a Catholic), but we’ve all agreed to go to my church. It’s a given that they will disagree with certain aspects of our church, but they don’t try to change it, because it was their decision to go to a Missouri synod church.

And it’s such a waste that we can’t discuss politics in church, because churches are missing out on opportunities that can make them stronger as a unit. I was happy when the Mormons(I can’t believe I’m saying this) rallied for Prop 8, because it was something the churches were to afraid to touch.(But I’m still confused as to how they still have their tax-exempt status). I think people are just afraid that pastors will tell people how to vote, and people will blindly follow them. But people are rational beings and if they don’t agree with what a pastor says, they can go to their scripture(or look into themselves) to find the answer. I understand that people can argue that people like me blindly follow the Bible, but if there’s something wrong in the Bible, I would assume (and hope) that we would have the sense of mind to recognize it. Being a Christian isn't like some kind of cult in which they brainwash you into beleiving everything they say; You still make decisions based on experience, education, etc. And I don’t know if it’s just me, but I think even if I wasn’t a Christian, I would still have the same views as I do now. I would still consider murder wrong(and would still classify abortion into that category). I would probably still disagree with the earth being more than a million years old, because of a lack of evidence of any culture that date back for even fifty thousand years. Even if they were a bunch of apes, we should still be able to find various things like hunting tools. And I've always attributed my views on income tax, public health care, etc to the environment I grew up in(I don't see how religion really fits into those).

Religion in High School Football

This article at the Fox News website, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,558820,00.html, discuses a Georgia school’s decision to ban displaying religious signs at its football games. It’s been a tradition for school to display religious-themed banners, which the “school’s cheerleaders hand-craft during the summer”, since the 9/11 attacks. I think it’s sweet that these cheerleaders(and anyone else who helped them) took the time to make these banners, but I think the decision was fair since it is a public school and doing this can make people of other religions(or atheists) upset. But I find it strange that the school decided to ban these signs without receiving any complaints from any of the players or students.

As a solution, the school has designated an area around 50 yards away from the football field for anyone to display religious signs. There’s a quote in the article by the principal, which I just find hilarious.
"We've designated an area to hold the 'run-through' signs outside the stadium for those who want to display Christian signs or Muslim signs or whatever they want to do.”
I could just imagine the players dodging certain banners while they struggle to figure out which sign represents their religion so they can run through it. But their principal comes off as blasé; His tone makes it sound as if he didn’t care if the students displayed Christian signs or if they had an open bar in the designated area. He might’ve also just been tired of arguing of this particular topic.

The article includes a picture of one of the banners, which says "I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called in me Christ Jesus." If I was a student at their school, I would not be offended(maybe because I am a Christian). But if I was a student at the opposing team’s school, I might’ve been mad. Because they’re using the verse to say that the win is going to be given to them by God. And it’s Georgia! For me personally, I always have the stereotype in my head that Georgia is predominately Baptists. So it’s not like the opposing school is worshipping baal! There’s a huge probability that the opposing team is Christian as well, so I can definitely understand the other schools being unhappy about this. On the other hand, they might think “Awesome! More Christians!” It really depends on their personalities. Unfortunately, the article does not mention anyone who is against the signs except the school district superintendent(and the article makes it seem as if she’s just avoiding a future lawsuit) so we can't really see the opposing views.

Religious Symbols in Govt Property

This article from the LA Times, Supreme Court debates legality of Mojave cross (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-cross8-2009oct08,0,2065193.story?track=rss), discusses the Supreme Court’s dilemma on determining whether the cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California violates the first amendment or not. Congress was sneaky in that they transferred the land on which the cross stands to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, so the cross is on a part of the preserve that is not government owned anymore.

What Congress did was sneaky, but I think the cross should be left alone since it’s not on government property anymore. The government is always giving money to special interest groups who do just about anything they want with the money, so I think that it’s okay for them to give a small unprofitable piece of land to another organization just to maintain a cross. Also, the cross is somewhat a historical figure, dating back to 1934. If it wasn’t a religious figure, some national historical organization might have tried to ensure its preservation somehow.

One of the arguments posed in the article is that the cross only honors Christian soldiers, but the article also mentions that there are other religious symbols in the cemetery other than the cross like the Star of David(for Jewish soldiers). The article also mentions a request to have a Buddhist symbol was denied, but it doesn’t mention if it was proposed to be on government or private property. I think that they should just leave the cross alone since it is on private property. But they should allow the families of the soldiers to be able to put little signs of symbols of their faith in the individual areas of their loved ones or the designated areas commemorating a certain troop.

Prayer In City Council Meetings

The article ‘Lodi defends its public prayers’ from the LA Times website, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prayer3-2009oct03,0,327624.story
, covers the story about a California city who voted to allow prayer at city council meetings.
I thought it was interesting to see a California city approve this, because California is usually known to be a liberal state. Even though, I think people should be able to pray wherever they want, I don’t think it’s a good idea to pray as a whole especially if there atheists or people who don’t share the same beliefs as you. The article also mentions that these prayers usually include references to Jesus, which alienates some people even though the city requires the prayers to be “nondenominational and nonsectarian.” But the article also mentions that out of the past 10 years, only 2 non-Christians said prayer and many non-Christians choose not to lead the prayers.
There are certain bits in the article that makes it look like the writer favors this ruling. The writer describes an atheist who blames Christianity for the “oppression of all non-Christians” and for the Salem trials. He didn’t account for other atheists in the meeting except this one who seems a little crazy. Also, he ended the article with a quote from an atheist saying how “pleasant” a Christian woman was at the rally when she gave him a DVD about a born again Christian. I would think that many people would’ve gotten mad if someone tried to change their views on religion, but it's nice to know that some people are open enough to be grateful that someone tried to help them even though they don't believe.

Religion in Politics

In his article, from the LA Times website, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler2-2009oct02,0,7817347.story?track=rss, Neal Gabler argues that religious conservatives are beating the liberals in every single way.
According to Gabler, conservatives are crazy unrational beings who can't be negotiated with. He goes on to say that they are zealous fanatics,comparing them to jihadis. He later argues that the media is even too afraid of these conservatives to put them in a bad light.
I think the purpose of this article is to scare liberals to fight against the conservatives who are coming together to voice their unhappiness with the current administration, because he uses certain scare tactics saying that [the conservatives] are "winning many battles" and "nothing will work". Even though he says that the conservatives have been winning many battles, he didn't cite any. I can't think of anything that conservatives have won recently. We have a Democrat President, and an overwhelming Democrat Senate and House of Representatives. I think he's trying to turn the tea baggers' protests (http://www.teapartyexpress.org/) into some kind of a victory for conservatives even though nothing concerning the tax or the healthcare has changed towards their liking. He also claims that these conservatives have always been loud and zealous, but I have only seen them pop up when they were arguing against tax increases in April and again in September. He makes them seem like these crazy people who are always complaining and protesting, but many of these conservative protestors(at least the ones on tv) have said that it was their first time protesting anything and that they just thought the administration were accumulating to much debt for future generations. Also, many of these original tea baggers were also mad at the Bush administration because they felt that he also contributed to the the deficit problem, so it's not as if they're only mad at the Obama administration. Protesting was also done by many liberals during Bush's administration, because they were against the wars, but I don't remember anyone comparing them to crazy jihadis. Also, he claims that the media are intimidated by these conservatives; I admit that I didn't hear any negative things about the protests in September, but I remember negative comments made about the teabaggers in April like that they were a bunch of rednecks, extremists, lousy losers, etc. I think Gabler's purpose in writing this article in a tone of defeat is enrage liberals, making them bind together against the emergence of these conservatives.

Support For Abortion Dwindling

According to an article by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/us/02abortion.html), a large number of Americans have changed their stance on abortion(54% supported abortion in 2008 while only 47% supported abortion in the new 2009 poll). It noted this shift occurred among many demographic groups except for 2 groups, African Americans and people with no religious affiliation. The article mentions attributes the shift to President Obama, who supports abortion but wants to reduce the quantity of them.

I think this shift is due more to Americans becoming more religious(and hence conservative) as a whole. There was an article in the Washington Post in 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502053.html) that observed that in general, people became more religious during times of financial hardship. Due to the economic crisis of this year and last, I think more people have turned to God(or some other deity) for guidance and became more in tuned with their religion and its set of beliefs. Since this change happened mostly to people who were already affiliated with a certain religion, I think these people started going to church more often and started to turn to scripture. By doing these things, they started identifying themselves strongly with their religion. And with this, it makes it easier for them to decide that abortion is wrong, especially when one of the commandments explicitly says that it is wrong to kill.