Religion in the Public Square

I am not anti-religion. I couldn't care less which equally ridiculous creation story you believe in, as long as you don't force your enlightenment on others via the barrel of a gun (or other instrument of violence).

The fact of the matter is that we live in a christian country and there are significant number of people (though not the majority of voters) who vote for president based on which candidates flavor of christianity is perceived to be closest to their own. So, I applauded when mega-church pastor Rick Warren decided to have both Obama and McCain over for a chat (Bob Barr sued, and lost, to be invited to this nominally private event). This gave both candidates a chance to answer questions that christian conservatives supposedly care about. For McCain, it was a chance to burnish is anti-abortion bona fides (more about that later) and for Obama to espouse his faith to the 'true' believers.

The candidates were true to form. Obama gave longer answers which were either more nuanced or showed a lack of conviction (depending on how you feel about Obama) and McCain was more glib and went to his frequently used quotes. There are some who feel that McCain also may have had an advantage of going on after Obama.

For you pro-choice Hillz supporters who are thinking of not voting for Obama, I've got this for you:

Asked at what point he believes life begins, McCain immediately said: “At the moment of conception.”

“I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies,” he said, after receiving thunderous applause.

Just saying.

Elsewhere, there was an interesting CA supreme court ruling about a doctor's right to not provide services (in this case, non-emergency artificial insemination) to people who's lifestyle conflicts with their religious beliefs (in this case, the doctor claims it's because the woman's not married, when it reality it's probably because she's gay). The court says that the doctor cannot discriminate as to whom she provides services based on sexual orientation. The case can now go to trial.

If the doctor is accepting state money to provide the services (and the LA Times article does not specifically mention this) or worked in a state facility, then I agree with the court. If the woman was going to pay through private insurance or out of her own pocket and the doctor is in private practice, the doctor should have the right to refer her to another provider. I don't see how in an non-emergency situation that doesn't involve public money that the rights of the person seeking treatment trumps those of the person providing it.