In every possible policy position, Democrats are hypocrites. Why should the Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate be any better?
When asked about reconciling his Catholic faith with his stance on abortion, Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine claimed that he was, in fact, personally opposed to abortion due to his Catholic faith. However, he asserted that he does not believe that his convictions ought to play a role in his jurisprudence.
The astounding idiocy of such a claim is simply stunning: if moral evaluation has no place in determining law, what does? What is any law but a moral evaluation? If he is so averse to religion-based law, would Kaine also argue that murder should not be outlawed because it is forbidden by Christianity? Are laws against theft null and void because of the 8th commandment?
But Kaine is certainly willing to draw upon his faith for his approach to the poor; he thinks government should be used as an instrument to eradicate poverty due to his “Christian” beliefs. Apparently Kaine is not familiar with Mark 14:7: “The poor you will always have with you,” accepting the alleviation of poverty rather than the salvation of souls as the central theme of the Bible—a common Jesuit fallacy (Kaine himself a product of Jesuit education).
So from where exactly does Kaine believe the law is derived? Does God’s law have no place in our body politic? Is there no law higher than the decree of whatever regime is in currently in power? Does there exist an enduring, transcendent moral order, from which all temporal law is derived, or is the law mere convention?
Kaine may not be able to answer these questions, but the men who founded this nation did so emphatically. The American Founders, unequivocally yet without precedent, believed they were acting in accord with a higher moral order. The American Revolution itself was, in fact, an act of obedience to that order. The Declaration acknowledges this obedience: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”
The “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” therefore take precedence over any decrees from an elected official, and direct the very course of civilization. All human action must be subject to this higher order, as this higher order calls government itself into being. This very concept is clear in Scriptural passages like Galatians 2:21: “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
I can only wonder if Kaine would have been unwilling to act against slavery because metaphysical equality is a foundational Christian dogma. Would Kaine have helped Hitler in his goal of exterminating the Jews because Christian morality has no place in law? Perhaps if Kaine read Scripture a bit more carefully, he would have come across this passage: “But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:33).
Let it be very clear: the law either sanctions one’s convictions, or it rejects them. There is no middle ground. There is no such thing as “neutrality.” Religious beliefs ought to be held higher in higher regard than political beliefs, yet remain foundational to the pursuit of justice (justice being the good of the state in the view of Aristotle). And if a man will not stand by his religion, his belief in the most fundamental questions of human life, will he stand by anything? If he is not accountable to God, the highest being, can he truly be accountable to any mere human? Hence, the pivotal question: is a man unwilling to act on his deepest moral convictions truly fit to lead?