Virtues, Public and Private

The discussion on religion & politics continues! Bill Keezer weighs in with a response to Kevin‘s remarks (here and here) which were partially a response to some comments made by the Smallholder at Naked Villainy. (Some of my earlier posts on these issues are here, here and here.)

One of the issues that keeps coming up is whether John Kerry is being principled in taking the personally opposed/publicly pro-choice position with respect to abortion. Let me just offer a few points of attempted clarification.

1. Is John Kerry really “personally opposed” to abortion? He gave a speech to some blue-collar Catholic union members where he said that he believes life begins at conception. But when asked to clarify by, I think, Peter Jennings, he said that, well, the process of life begins at conception. I’m not sure he’s ever unequivocally said what he thinks the moral status of the fetus is (which, as someone who depends on large contributions from NARAL and the like, is probably wise).

2. Kerry says that opposition to abortion is “an article of faith” that he can’t impose on others. But is this actually what the Roman Catholic Church itself teaches? My understanding (which, as a non-Catholic is likely to be flawed) is that Catholics hold that the natural law, not faith, teaches that abortion is the taking of innocent human life. This is not something that requires faith to know. This is precisely what people like Richard John Neuhaus have argued — that the moral law is accessible to all people regardless of religious faith and that opposition to evils like abortion and euthanasia should be based on that rather than an appeal to sectarian religious belief.

3. What sort of political actions or rhetoric might someone engage in if they were personally opposed to abortion but nevertheless thought that they couldn’t impose that belief on others? That is, aren’t there a lot of other things they might do short of criminalizing abortion if they really believed it was a grave evil?

For instance, I would think that someone who personally opposed abortion might, at the very least, oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, since that compels those who share this belief to fund something they consider to be the equivalent of murder (this used to be known as the “moderate” pro-choice position). Or he might even speak out against this practice, calling it a crime that in the richest nation in the history of the world so many women feel compelled to dispose of their children. There are a lot of things a “pro-choice” politician might do short of advocating the criminalization of abortion. So, I think a principled position in this respect is possible (for a fuller description of such a position see here). What I’m less sure of is that John Kerry exemplifies this kind of principled position.

I also agree with Kevin, though, that the line between “moral” and “sectarian” is not always easy to draw. I don’t think this is something we can resolve a priori in fact. I think what happens (or should happen if democracy is functioning properly) is that we reach out to others who may be coming from very different starting points and try to build some kind of consensus. This won’t always be possible – for instance, most Catholics have given up on the possibility of building a consensus to restrict contraception, but many still see a consensus in opposition to abortion and euthanasia as possible.

What I think many religious believers rightly object to is the notion that religious beliefs are ipso facto illegitimate reasons for advocating a particular policy. It may not be prudent to argue publicly in religious terms (or then again it might), since that will likely convince fewer people. I’m inclined to see all this as much messier than a strict church/state separationist would allow. I’m also on record as questioning the very faith/reason dichotomy that often drives these discussions. That is, I don’t think “secular” moralites are necessarily any better founded than many religious ones.