The Right Opinion
Joe Biden's Religion: Catholicism or Leftism?
In the vice presidential debate, the two candidates, both Roman Catholics, were asked about their religious beliefs, how they impact the candidates' political positions and specifically about abortion. This was the response of Vice President Joe Biden:
"My religion defines who I am. And I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can't take care of themselves, people who need help.
"With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a -- what we call de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life.
"But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and -- I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.
"I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women, they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court -- I'm not going to interfere with that."
Let's analyze this response.
- "My religion defines who I am."
If a conservative, evangelical Christian candidate for national office said that he defined himself by his religious beliefs, liberals would be screaming that the wall between church and state was in danger of being taken down.
Here is the rule in American politics: When the left uses religion to promote liberal policies, it is a beautiful thing. When the right uses religion to promote conservative policies, it threatens the separation of church and state and may lead to the creation of a theocracy.
- "It has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help."
This illustrates my previous point. Biden's Catholicism leads him to promote liberal social policies, specifically an ever-expanding state to take care of "people who need help." What else could his statement mean? After all, what religion doesn't expect its adherents to take "care of those who can't take care of themselves"? Protestant Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Mitt Romney's Mormonism?
Since all religions do, what is the difference between Romney's religious call to help the less fortunate and Biden's religious call to help these people?
The difference, as seen in the enormous difference between Biden's charitable donations and Romney's, is the difference between conservatism and liberalism: Conservatism holds that we all have to take care of ourselves and our fellow citizens; liberalism holds that the state -- funded by some of us -- has to.
- "I accept my church's position on abortion ... I just refuse to impose that on others."
This sounds beautiful to liberals. But it is as un-thought-through as it is un-Catholic.
Why is Mr. Biden completely comfortable with policies that "impose on others" what he understands as Catholic "social doctrine"? He will use the government to forcefully take people's money away and impose whatever policies he thinks Catholic social doctrine favors. Why, then, will he not impose on others his church's definition of the worth of human life from conception?
There are three possible answers. One is that he doesn't really believe in his church's position on abortion. A second is that he does believe in it but would have to leave the Democratic Party if he tried to implement that policy. The third is that he believes that the Church's views on abortion only pertain to Catholics -- and even then, only on a "personal" basis.
If we are to take him at his word, that latter is what he believes: that his church's view on abortion only applies to him personally: "Life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life." But if that is his opinion, his religiosity is not morally meaningful. If an act is moral or immoral only for him, then it is not moral or immoral. Either something is immoral for everyone (in the same circumstance) or it is not immoral.
Which is why the Church's teaching is that abortion is morally wrong for everyone, just as neglecting the needy is morally wrong for everyone.
But Joe Biden would never say that the Catholic Church's social doctrine is only valid "in my personal life." So, what does Joe Biden, the Catholic, believe about abortion?
These statements by the vice-president of the United States provide one more example of the fact that leftism -- not Christianity, not Catholicism, and not Islam -- has been the most influential religion in the world for the last century.
Only when Catholicism agrees with leftism is Joe Biden prepared to impose it. When his Catholicism does not agree with leftism, it is reduced to being a matter of personal matter of faith, no more binding on non-Catholics than receiving the Eucharist.
And in this regard he is no different from many Jews and Protestant Christians. Their religious expression may be Judaism or Christianity, but their religion, like Biden's, is leftism. Which is why liberal Jews and liberal Christians have much more in common than liberal Jews have with conservative Jews or liberal Christians have with conservative Christians. They share what they deem truly important -- leftism.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

16 Comments
wjm in Colorado
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Joe Biden is as confused with his religion as he is with the successes of Marxist ideology. He is not qualified for public office, and should be excommunicated for his sins against humanity.
Jayve in ABQ, NM
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM
I'd rather go with "put down like a rabid dog". The world could get along just fine without this asshat.
Robert James in Virginia
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Mr. Prager discerns three possibilities vis sanctity of life issues. I suggest these three are really only two.
1) Biden doesn't really believe the Church's teachings on life. In that case, he is a liar.
2) Biden does believe the Church's teachings, but through either political expediency or vincible ignorance, refuses to act accordingly. In that case, he is a moral coward.
So, Mr. Vice President, which is it?
Old Sarge in Hinesville, GA
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 12:47 PM
I don't understand how you can say you agree with the church's doctrine and then turn around and say it is a personal choice. If you believe the doctrine there is no way you can make it a personal matter. You either believe it or you don't. However, the Catholics aren't the only ones spouting about church doctrine and then violating it. If you believe in the bible's teaching there is no way you can condon abortion or gay marriage. You can't have it both ways!
Stopthe Super PACS in Arkanslaw
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Excommunicated? Thats going on the list for new stupid thing of the day. And if you knew anything about Karl Marx you would know he cared deeply about his country, and is right about the direction this country is headed. Rhe people that are buying up our politicians only care about themselves in the short term, and if the trend continues our country truly is doomed. I beg you to separate the owned media (here), from the owned politicians (most of them) from whats in you and your families true best interests! Super PACS have marked a new low for our democracies propaganda system!!
Joe in Texas
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM
You write without facts.
First, Marx may have "cared deeply about his country" (puke), but he whined about what his country or the wealthy wasn't doing for his lazy ass, no job havin' s.o.b.
Second, this website isn't "owned media". It's made possible by the people that donate to The Post. It's not owned by any corporation.
Third, super PACs represent free speech. People donate money to have their voice heard. If they didn't exist, the "Super-est PAC", known as the media, would never be challenged.
So, who's really owned on this post? You are...by me! How did you enjoy school today?
Austin in Indiana
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM
So saying that if you believe something you must push it on others or your a bad person? He is helping to unite people no matter their personal beliefs. If you don't like that it's sad. But hey i'm not going to PUSH my beliefs on you
Old Sarge in Hinesville, GA
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 7:40 PM
Austin, Just how is he uniting people? I'm sorry but you completely lost me on that one. He has played he race card every chance he getsl. He tells a crowd of blacks that Romney and Ryan will "Put you'all back in chains". I'm sure that helped the rest of the country unite. The man is a buffoon and totally unqualified to hold any elected office much less the Vice-Presidency.
Rutiger in Denver
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM
In several places the Bible mandates a "shmita" year once every seven years, and a "Yovel" or Jubilee Year every 49 years, when all debts are to be forgiven, property is returned to original owners, and slaves are released. The fields lay fallow and anyone can pick what they want.
So why don't we do that? If Catholics decide to believe that the Jewish/Torah/Old Testament and the Greek "New Testament" rules on abortion [which they don't] I guess they can believe anything.
People who pretend to understand both the Bible and Politics shouldn't be so sure of themselves, especially when what they think they know comes from Rush Limbaugh. They should stop bandying around big words like "Communism, Socialism and Marxism" when they have such an obvious poverty of knowledge.
pete in CA
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Rutiger, if you knew the Bible, Torah, or Koran as well as you like to think you do you would understand that the responsibility to "care for others" was placed on us individually, not corporately or governmentally. Only the individual can give full, from the heart, help. Corporations and governments can only help themselves. They give some to those in need, but take off the top to help themselves. Case in point: recent CBO and GSA accounts that 80% of taxes destined for the poor go to running the government agencies charged with distributing it.
That means that for all the billions of dollars given (taken) for the needy, only twenty cents ($0.20) per dollar actually gets in the hands where it's needed.
Bo in From Texas
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM
"I won't impose my religious views on others." How about, "Thou shalt not kill?" Most of us happily impose that "religious view" on others because we do not wish to be murdered. How about, thou shalt not steal my stuff? Another religious mandate that virtually everyone with a brain agrees with. So, liberal fruitcakes, where do you draw the line? Has to be drawn somewhere, so-o-o- it appears that your arguments, and Joe Biden's, are without any reasonable foundation.
oneSTARman in Walla Walla
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM
RELIGION and Politics - What a Country! I don't know why with all this talk about Religion no one has noticed that Ayn Rand - The Patron Saint of the Tea Party Right expounds a Philosophy that is IDENTICAL to the that outlined in Anton LaVey's manifesto of SATANISM. It is a Philosophy that is the ANTITHESIS of the teaching of Christ - to Love our Neighbor as Ourselves and that our Neighbors are those we meet 'on the Road' like the Good Samaritan whom we are Obliged to HELP because in doing so for even the LEAST among US we are doing this for Christ Himself.
Brett Hunter in Long Beach, CA
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Dear Mr. oneStarman, You might not have noticed that Jesus in this parable (the Good Samaritan) and throughout His teachings ALWAYS advocated using ones OWN MONEY AND RESOURCES to help the poor and needy and not taxing OTHER PEOPLE and forcing one to do good. I'm all for being charitable and I do contribute to others, but I do not want to force you to contribute to anything. That's the difference!!!
Mike R. in NoHo in No. Hollywood, CA
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Biden's rationalization for Abortion to be okay with his view of Catholicism is the most hypocritical remark of the campaign. He agrees that human life begins at conception but he also believes he has no right to force his beliefs on anyone else. Using that template, it follows then that the vice president condones cold blooded murder. Did the arrest and conviction of Chas. Manson offend his sensibilities? Is it none of his business as V.P. that the Manson gang chose to wipe out Sharon Tate and her guests plus her unborn child, then kill the LoBianco's not a week later? Apparently, no politician in history has had the right to punish the millions of murderers who have infested this planet since Cain did his number on Abel.... After all, none of the Biden family were slaughtered!
He's no Catholic by any measurement, and he certainly isn't fit for high public office.... Wasn't he the one that plagiarized an entire speech from another politician a few years back? But that was just a minor indiscretion.... Wasn't it? I can't believe we are really discussing the possibility of giving this "party" a place in our governance; let alone a re-run in our highest office!.
sunforester in left coast
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 7:42 PM
Out of all of Biden's comments in the debate, the only statement of Biden's that I liked was that he refused to impose his beliefs about abortion on others. I would heartily recommend that attitude to everyone else living in this country.
You are entitled to your beliefs about what is immoral, as long as you don't force me to act according to those beliefs against my wishes. I find it highly immoral of anyone who is so self-righteous and self-important to declare that anyone's beliefs which do not similarly conform should be sanctioned, penalized or prohibited. You do not need to be a leftist to feel that way - all you need to be is American.
Just saying in Idaho
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM
Sunforester, if pro-life people believe that life begins at conception, then they HAVE to fight abortion the way they do, because for them, abortion is murder. If we go by your standards, then we should legalize murder as well, and leave it to each individual's conscience to murder or not. Otherwise, what you are asking them is in fact to not believe the way they do, to not believe that life begins at conception. It is you who are imposing your belliefs on them in this case. For how can a religious person believe +the the foetus is a living being, and be for killing it?