The one debate question on women's rights

So, apparently, last night we had a debate between Smokin Joe Biden and Lyin Paul Ryan.

A lot has been made about Biden interrupting Ryan (GASP - WHO would do that in a debate?!), but finally... finally Martha Radditz got to a question about women's rights. She asked about their Catholic faith and how it relates to abortion. Here are the answers as well as a few other thoughts from me and others.

Ryan on why he can't separate his faith from his politics (and he never really did answer the question; another shock, I'm sure):

"Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.

You know, I think about ten and a half years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven week ultrasound for our first born child, and we saw that heart beat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day we have nick named our first born, Liza, bean.

Now I believe that life begins at conception. Those are the reasons why I’m pro-life.

Now I realize that this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don’t agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother."

So, reason and science are what named his daughter Bean? Ok. I can dig that. My oldest was flipping me off during his first ultrasound. It sure explains a lot if I go by Ryan's theory.

Also this: "My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life." This doesn't say a whole lot about Ryan's interpretation of Catholicism if his policies reflect how he believes he should take care of the vulnerable. SUFFER, ASSHOLE!! AYN RAND 2016!

What I'd love is for one of these guys to just have the balls to stand up and say that he believes in life at conception and that he's more important than me so his beliefs are more important than mine. Therefore, I have to do what he wants. That's the bottom line of their thought process anyway. Cut out the bullshit and say what you mean. Then people could make a more informed decision.

Biden on why he separated his religion from his politics:
Joe Biden's answer is far more in line historically with other presidents and thought leaders. He has his own beliefs and lives his life by them, but also realizes that it isn't his role or the role of government to impose his religious beliefs on anyone else.

"My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. People who need help.

With regard to abortion, I accept my Church’s position on abortion as a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. I accept that position in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, and Muslims and and Jews…I just refuse to do that, unlike my friend here, the Congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women that they cannot control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor in my view, and the Supreme Court. And I’m not going to interfere with that."

John F. Kennedy was asked about how being Catholic might bring on an imposition of faith based upon the papacy. He gave this answer, in part, during his speech on the issue. (Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960):

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

Watch the speech in its entirety. Seriously. he was a truly awe-inspiring speaker. And it's so interesting to me that back then (only 50 years ago!), the answer that he MUST give in order to be accepted as a viable candidate was that his religion wouldn't impinge upon his politics. And now? It seems the required answer is the opposite. Which sucks big hairy donkey balls. It just does.

Jimmy Carter, a self-admitted evangelical Christian, in his book Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (which I reviewed here), contends that religion has its place in politics in the same way that it has its place in everyday life - by guiding our hand toward being valuable, moral and compassionate human beings - not by guiding public policy and law.

He also said this in Christianity Today, March 2, 1998:

"Last year I was on Pat Robertson's show, and we discussed our basic Christian faith - for instance, separation of church and state. It's contrary to my beliefs to try to exalt Christianity as having some sort of preferential status in the United States. That violates the Constitution. I'm not in favor of mandatory prayer in school or of using public funds to finance religious education."

I like this page of presidential & thought leader quotes on the separation of church and state.

This one, though, sums it all up, in my opinion. Damn, they sure were smart back then...

"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
~ Benjamin Franklin