A recent opinion by Kathyrn Lopez in the Port Arthur News suggests another reasons why — or further evidence of — Christianity, these days, being more show than evidence of changed hearts. What is most troubling is that, for most Christians, this is not part of a deliberate effort to deceive: These Christians actually believe they are right, and are, hence, less likely to change their opinions.

Nevertheless, I'll try — again.

Lopez begins with the question: Can a Catholic be for Barack Obama? She then attempts to make a case for why a Catholic can't.

She called attention to a speech by Pope Benedict XVI in which he offered "for the Catholic conscience." (I don't believe he did not mean Christian conscience.) Anyway, she reports his saying: "As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages...recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family...and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children."

Lopez goes on to emphasize "that 'not negotiable' is not to be missed."

The problem is that she chooses to make "not negotiable," as it relates to "life in all it stages," apply to abortions but not the death penalty. Certainly, aborting unborn infants ends innocent lives but so does killing innocent adults. This is a typical Republican or Christian conservative position. But liberal Christian Democrats are equally conflicting by supporting abortions but condemning the death penalty.

Jesus' commands that all Christians love our enemies, and do good to those who despitefully use us. The Old Testament teaches that vengeance belongs to God. These also seem "not negotiable."

Lopez also misrepresents the intent of Obama's remarks about unwanted pregnancies being punishment. The fact is, many of those who deny sex education in our schools — and even the issuance of condoms to sexually active youth — do so hoping that unintended pregnancies, sexual disease and often death will serve as punishments for both one-time mistakes and promiscuity. Not only is "vengeance" theirs but so is the right to judge.

Because we are a diverse nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, other religious groups, atheists and others who either just don't know or don't care that "We the people" means all of us. Consequently, the Supreme Court must make decisions based on its interpretation of the Constitution, and not on their interpretation of Holy Books of the various faiths. Despite his or her own personal feelings about abortions and the death penalty, the laws of the land must be enforced by whomever is president.

The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights. The Supreme Court recently has said that among those rights is the right of habeas corpus, to determine if one is being imprisoned lawfully. And it, in effect, says that The Creator did not limit those rights to Americans. He just granted Americans the vision to recognize it.

Barack Obama is being accused by John McCain and others of flip-flopping (changing his mind) over his decision to continue funding his campaign with small contributions from supporters rather than taking public campaign financing that would have put him on a par with John McCain, who has not been nearly so successful.

Many of these small contributors are people who need help, and have sacrificed so they could invest in some hope. Did Obama owe it more to McCain to keep a promise made before Obama knew how strongly small contributors would want him to be president? Or did he owe more to the millions who trusted him to be the standard bearer of their hopes by giving both him and them the best chance to win?

To me, it's not even close: Accepting public financing would have been stupid as well as disrespectful. In a sense, it would have been a rejection of the enthusiasm, confidence and financial support of those millions of contributors.

And, finally, some people claim they are still wondering if Michelle Obama was proud to be an American before Barack's success. (She had said that for the first time in her life she was "really proud to be an American.") They claim not to know what "really proud" means.

Well, in a recent Time Magazine cover page, referencing the wall between the U.S and Mexico, the question is asked "does America really need to wall itself off"? The writer could have merely asked: does America need to wall itself off?