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

[JDPriestly]

1. The question was completely inappropriate.

The Constitution, Article VI states:

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

That question posed a religious test: how does your religion inform your decisions.

It is bad enough that it has become commonplace to expect politicians to talk about their religion.

Oh, but there is one exception. No one would dare ask Romney much about his religion.

That question was inappropriate. It brought an issue into the election indirectly as a test that the Constitution does not allow to be considered.

[niyad]

2. thank you

[niyad]

3. . . .