‘Please Talk Personally About This’: Abortion at the vice-presidential debate

REUTERS Vice President Joe Biden listens as Congressman Paul Ryan speaks during the vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky. Moderator … Continued


Vice President Joe Biden listens as Congressman Paul Ryan speaks during the vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky.

Moderator Martha Raddatz has been justly praised for her commanding performance at Thursday’s vice-presidential debate. Permit me to suggest, however, that her treatment of faith and values issues may have left a little to be desired.

During a short segment on religion, a cathedral-like solemnity suddenly overcame the previously animated Vice President Joe Biden. That’s because the issue at hand was abortion. When Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan skillfully pivoted that conversation to “religious freedom,” the vice president’s grand high spirits continued to dissipate. The Democrats, the deflated veep’s body language seemed to acknowledge, must tread cautiously here.

Biden’s troubles began when the moderator asked the candidates to specify “what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion?” She then encouraged Ryan with the words, “please talk personally about this, if you could.”

The problem is that such an appeal, inadvertently and subtly, bolstered a core conviction of the Religious Right. Namely, that personal religious convictions should–nay, must–serve as a politician’s guide to policy formation. Ryan, for his part, was more than happy to talk personally about this. “I don’t see,” he intoned “how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do.”

Those who are not on the Christian Right, however, don’t feel that one’s personal feelings on a given issue must dictate one’s political stance. And here is why Biden struggled. He couldn’t just speak personally about abortion. In fact, his entire approach to the issue rests on not engaging the abortion issue from a personal level.

Advocating a position strikingly reminiscent of former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (a Catholic), Biden opined: “I accept my church’s position on abortion . . . Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here.”

Notice that Biden cast his argument in terms of severing the personal from the political. He would not force (religious) others to live by his private religious scruples (which are, apparently, pro-life). He couldn’t, then, just speak personally on the issue, insofar as public service is not, for him, about endowing one’s personal convictions with the force of law.

Under cross-examination from Raddatz, Ryan offered that “we don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision [regarding the legality of abortion]; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination.”

Thus, the representative from Wisconsin intimated that the repeal of Roe v. Wade would occur in either the legislative branch or on the state level (Of late, Ryan has suggested that decisions about school prayer should be left to the states). When the congressman reiterated his belief that life begins at conception, Raddatz missed the opportunity to ask a crucial follow-up as to whether he favored the controversial “personhood amendments.”

Truth be told, once Raddatz limited her questioning to abortion, she placed Biden on the defensive. For Ryan skillfully pressed his advantage by widening the discussion to include the administration’s HHS mandates and its assault “on the religious liberties of this country.”

Given the opening, Ryan pounced: “They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties.”

Biden’s mood darkened—as I have noted elsewhere the Obama team would be very happy to never address the sensitive question of “religious freedom.” The vice-president’s two attempts at a redirect to the more Democratic-friendly terrain of Catholic social teachings on the poor failed to click. Had Raddatz followed Biden’s lead Ryan’s mood might have darkened as well.

Jacques Berlinerblau is an associate professor and director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and author of “How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom .”

  • DanH

    The problem the Christian right has with the public is the fact that most Americans do not want a Christian version of an Ayatollah dictating laws based on whatever their veiw of Christianity is.The Bible clearly states that adulterers are to be stoned to death.So when are going to line up and start throwing the rocks(bring out Gingrich first).Be very sure what you want before you start wanting religion to dictate policies for a country of many religions,cultures, and beleifs.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    the old testament has all that “stone the infidel” crap. the new testament leaves the punishment for being an infidel to an eternal afterlife in hell.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    “Biden opined: “I accept my church’s position on abortion . . . Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here.”

    that’s perfect. the framers would be proud. your religious beliefs ARE NOT to be a matter of federal law. DUH…. that’s the great thing about america!

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    i said, “your religious beliefs ARE NOT to be a matter of federal law.”

    and republicans understand this. remember the (sometimes still ongoing) “accusations” that obama is… (imagine sinister music here) … a MUSLIM? so… they’ve got no problem with a candidate’s religion informing public political decisions, as long as the candidate has their religion. god literally forbid the candidate is muslim or worse…. atheist.

  • jack824

    Except apparently when it comes to gays in which case the OT rules.

  • jack824

    This was as clear a distinction between the Pharisee’s version of Catholicism and the Social Justice/Sermon on the Mount version as we’re ever likely to hear.

  • Carstonio

    The reason for the distinction between the personal and the political is because we are a nation of many different positions on religion. And rightly so, for the citizen is accountable in his religious beliefs only to the gods he worships, if he does worship. People like Ryan talk about religious identity in the US as though the theocratic Pilgrims and Purtans were the real founders, and those groups saw church and state as the same thing where people who criticized ministers were sentenced to jail.

    No reasonable person expects voters to simply ignore their positions on religious questions when forming opinions on religious issues. However, if anyone is going to propose laws and present arguments for them to others, those arguments cannot depend on the assumption that the person’s religion is true and all others are false. That would be disrespectful to citizens of other religions because there’s no way to prove that any religion is true or false, and any arguments for laws have to be open to challenge and debate.

  • walter-in-fallschurch

    “or will we retain the freedom of choice *and* sacred expression while sheltering *under* Judeo-Christian laws ?? ”

    what judeochristian laws are you talking about?

Read More Articles

Top 10 Reasons We’re Glad A Catholic Colbert Is Taking Over Letterman’s “Late Show”

How might we love Stephen Colbert as the “Late Show” host? Let us count the ways.

God’s Not Dead? Why the Good News Is Better than That

The resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of private faith — it’s a proclamation for the whole world.

An Untold Story of Bondage to Freedom: Passover 1943

How a foxhole that led to a 77-mile cave system saved the lives of 38 Ukrainian Jews during the Holocaust.

Friend or Foe? Learning from Judas About Friendship with Jesus

We call Judas a betrayer. Jesus called him “friend.”

Fundamentalist Arguments Against Fundamentalism

The all-or-nothing approach to the Bible used by skeptics and fundamentalists alike is flawed.

Mary Magdalene, the Closest Friend of Jesus

She’s been ignored, dismissed, and misunderstood. But the story of Easter makes it clear that Mary was Jesus’ most faithful friend.

The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

How to Debate Christians: Five Ways to Behave and Ten Questions to Answer

Advice for atheists taking on Christian critics.

Heaven Hits the Big Screen

How “Heaven is for Real” went from being an unsellable idea to a bestselling book and the inspiration for a Hollywood movie.

This God’s For You: Jesus and the Good News of Beer

How Jesus partied with a purpose.

Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.

Dear Evangelicals, Please Reconsider Your Fight Against Gay Rights

A journalist and longtime observer of American religious culture offers some advice to his evangelical friends.