2 of 5

But the real story here is that Kerry doesn't believe his comment is a biological observation. For him, it's only religious. He calls it "my article of faith" and says that he's barred from making political decisions based on that believe because of the "separation of church and state in America."

At a rally on Sunday, Kerry stressed this separation. "I'm a person of faith, and I know I'm surrounded by people of faith," he said. "But there's nothing conservative about allowing your administration to cross that beautiful line drawn by the founding fathers that separates affairs of church and state in the United States of America."

Kerry's words don't suggest ridiculous political ploy. He's actually being consistent with his earlier comments—not on abortion, but on church and state. Back in April, Joseph Bottum's excellent Weekly Standard piece on Kerry's Catholicism explained that Kerry's views on the First Amendment are much more radical than his views on abortion:

When Kerry claims that pro-life teaching is inherently sectarian—when he suggests it is, as George Weigel notes, "something analogous to the Catholic Church trying to force everyone in the United States to abstain from eating hot dogs on Fridays during Lent"—he has carried the separation of church and state into strange, new dimensions: The fact that the Catholic Church supports a position somehow becomes a reason a Catholic politician has to oppose it.

Kerry's comments on separation of church and state deserve much more attention—from actual scholars and analysts, not from partisan pundits trying to score points. The political theory he's promoting here is truly remarkable. If Kerry is not voting according to his conscience, what's he using as his matrix? Not public opinion, or he would have voted for the partial-birth abortion ban. What makes an issue religious? Kerry has, in the past, (wrongly) equated Catholic teaching on abortion with teaching on other issues, such as capital punishment and the war in Iraq. But on those issues, he's on the same side as his church. Why does "separation of church and state" not come into play on these points?

We probably won't get an answer, unless these questions get asked in a presidential debate. Meanwhile, they won't get asked by abortion supporters. So far, it looks like the Boston Globe's Eileen McNamara is the sole writer on that side of the debate even talking about Kerry's comment. She says she

mistakenly assumed that, on this very personal issue, Kerry's conscience was at odds with the teaching of his church. … Now, I don't know what to think. I cannot respectfully disagree with him as I do with an abortion opponent whose conscience prompts her to work to unseat lawmakers like Kerry. I understand her. She is acting on principle, lobbying to change laws antithetical to her conscience. I don't understand him, voting consistently in opposition to what he now tells us is one of his core beliefs.

But she hasn't been able to ask Kerry for further explanation, and Betsy Cavendish, interim president of NARAL Pro Choice America, told her to shut up about it. Cavendish, McNamara wrote,

was offended that I wanted to discuss Kerry's abortion comments on ''such a great day." Why, she asked, would I spin a ''minor comment" into a ''minicyclone" when abortion rights supporters should be keeping our ''eye on the prize, defeating Public Enemy Number One, George Bush." For all we know, she said, Kerry sees life as a continuum, with conception the acorn and childbirth the oak. Shouldn't she ask him, I wondered. ''Why?" she asked. ''Our job is to get Bush out."

next page... |  2 of 5

share this page

July (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48