Q. "I am a life Long republican who is thinking about voting for Tim. I just have one question. How can Tim say that he is morally and religiously opposed to abortion and then turn around and say he wouldn't work to change the law? It's like saying that he is morally and religiously oppopsed to slavery but wouldn't work to change the law. Slavery was once, after all a constitutional right.(right to own property. A man who is morally convicted about something should act on those convictions....shouldn't he?"
A. Your question is an interesting one philosphically. If one believes in something, shouldn't one act on it? In general, I'd tend to say "yes," but it gets complicated when you think about it a bit. For example, I believe that we are trashing the environment and that this should stop. What should I do about this situation? The options, it seems to me, include: 1) do nothing; 2) live my life PERSONALLY in a way to minimize environmental damage; 3) give money to groups that help the environment, like the Nature Conservancy; 4) get more involved, possibly as a volunteer for an environmental group; 5) write and advocate for environmental causes; 6) gear my entire life around protecting the environment, including living "low on the food chain," working for an environmental advocacy group, etc.; and 7) take "direct action," such as protests or even civil disobedience. Of all those options, I personally feel that "do nothing" is not a great one, but some combination of the other ones, especialy #2-#5, makes sense for me. However, I don't believe there is one right answer on this for everyone.
On abortion, it's probably even more difficult. Many people believe abortion is wrong, primarily for religious reasons, and wouldn't have one themselves or encourage others to have one. Some of those people would go further and actively discourage others from having an abortion. Some would discourage abortion by addressing the "root causes," such as unwanted pregnancies and lack of access to family plannning infromation, adoption options, etc. Other would go further, protest abortion clinics, pass laws restricting or even outlawing abortion, etc. Some would resort to civil disobedience or even violence (or threats of violence). Again, a wide range of possible options.
In Tim Kaine's case, his religion (Roman Catholicism) teaches him that abortion is morally wrong. And Kaine is a devout Catholic. However, many American Catholics are devoted to their church yet do not adhere to all (or even most) of the edicts the church espouses on women, abortion, gay rights, whatever. Also, I would point out that a PUBLIC OFFICIAL swears an oath to the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. In my opinion, that oath supercedes one's personal beliefs when one is a public official. Thus, if the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal under certain circumsntances, a public official in this country MUST adhere to that, no matter what they believe personally.
To me, this is all about separation of "church" (or personal belief, if you'd like) and "state" (civic responsibility, secular law). Personally, I'm very happy when my public officials know the difference between their personal and professional responsibilities, and adhere to the oaths they swear to the U.S. Constitution. I certainly would not want people pushing their beliefs on me, just because their religion or ideology or whatever tells them to do so. That's why I say, with all seriousness, thank God (and the Founding Fathers) for the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the "checks and balances" system, and our nation's tradition of Church-State separation.
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Lowell Feld
RaisingKaine