what does the church think? women's rights framed as religious question in vp debate

[niyad]

What Does the Church Think? Women's Rights Framed as Religious Question In VP Debate
by Robin Marty

Two debates into a four debate format, we have now seen all four members of the opposing campaigns debate the issues most important to the American voters. In that total 180 minutes of debate time, topics traditionally considered to be "women's issues" have been discussed for exactly six minutes.

That's 3.3 percent of the total discussion.

In less time than it takes to smoke a cigarette, in less time than the federal government mandates for bathroom breaks, in less time than it takes to listen to "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones, last night the Vice Presidential candidates paid lip-service to a woman's right to choose not just whether to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, but even the right to prevent that pregnancy in the first place with easy access to affordable contraception. Her right to do so wasn't presented as a given -- even though legally and ethically both should be. Instead, it was couched as a question of morality under a religious framing, as if Catholicism, and not a woman's personal autonomy, should be the deciding factor of a woman's right to control her body.

"How does your faith shape your position on abortion?" should never be a question asked of political candidates. For one thing, a person's faith shouldn't be an issue that voters need to be wary of when it comes to choosing a candidate to support. What a person believe personally and what is legal, what is constitutional, and frankly, what is fair and just, is how a politician needs to promise to govern.

But even more so, it frames a woman's choices as something on which the church is allowed to be the final authority. In essence, the moderator is saying, "Will you let the leaders of your faith dictate what rights women have or will you buck your bishops and let women have the same right to control their bodies that men are allowed?

. . . . .

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/12-3

[robinlynne]

1. I thought the repsonses to that question were superb. which kind of makes it a great question.

two Catholics with absolutely starkly opposing views. It became very evident that being anti-abortion is not about religion. It is about values.
It demonstrated so clearly a good way and a bad way to use religion. It can be for the betterment of all people, or it can be to abuse power.

i thought it created one of the really well articulated moments of the debate.

I'm a atheist, and would NEVER think of asking that question. but the answers were so clear.

[enlightenment]

2. I liked politics a lot better when

we actually believed that you should not apply a religious test to a candidate. Those questions are religious tests; designed to establish the religious viewpoints of the candidates.

It's wrong and a violation of the Constitution.

Article Vi, para. 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[niyad]

3. thank you

[niyad]

4. . . .