Pythagorean said:
His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/
I think all the things you listed are conservative values, and not limited to Fundamentalist values.
As for the first Vote you listed, I see no reason the federal government should be paying for optional after the fact birth control. I do support funding for rape, incest, and to save a mother’s life. I’m not a Fundamentalist, but I think someone that has willful unprotected/under-protected sex and gets pregnant just exercised their “Freedom of Choice” and should live with the choice, just like the man. As a guy, I look at this issue differently, and here’s why. If a woman gets pregnant she can decide to keep it or not. She ALSO gets to decide whether the man is going to be a parent or not. The man has no “Freedom of Choice’. Is it fair for the man to get stuck with support for a child he doesn’t want, when the woman has a right to make the decision for herself? Should the man also have “Freedom of Choice” and be able to tell the woman, if you want it, it’s all yours along with all the bills and all the responsibility? If you don’t think the man should have the same right to choose to be a parent, why not? Mine isn't a Fundamentalist point of view; it's about fairness.
As for the second and third Votes you listed, I don’t have a problem with stem cell research, but I don’t think Federal dollars need to go into what will ultimately be high profit private business lines. I do think it will ultimately lead to questions like how far do we develop and embryo before we harvest what we want? Do we let it develop organs and use the organs on patients? At what point will the unborn be a source of spare parts for the born? IMO, it has the potential to be an ugly future. Look at the Controversy section of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood?bloodsPage=15 so see issues of who should be able to bank cord blood and why. Consider the following from an ethics publication from the University of Alberta
http://www.uAlberta.ca/~pflaman/organtr.htm (FWIW, there are similar discussions for other circumstances.)
“[
U]d) From Human Fetuses [/U]Is it ethical to transplant brain or other tissues from human fetuses to benefit others (e.g. those suffering from Parkinson's Disease)? If the fetus has died of natural causes, the ethical issues would be similar to other transplants from the deceased. When the fetus has died or will die as a result of procured abortion, however, other ethical issues arise. The Catholic Church considers direct abortion (the intentional killing of an innocent human being) to be gravely immoral. Some argue that to use tissues from a fetus killed by abortion could be done without approving direct abortion (cf. using tissues or organs from a murder victim). Such use, however, could "justify" abortion (i.e. to benefit others) for many women who otherwise are unsure about having an abortion. A good end though does not justify an evil means (see Rm 3:8). The timing of the abortion may be influenced as well. The widespread usage of electively aborted fetuses would establish an "institutional and economic bond between abortion centers and biomedical science..."(Post, 14; cf. CHAC, 15, re unethical cooperation)
Some argue that transplanting fetal brain tissue would require the fetus to be still alive, that is, the tissue would not be good for transplant purposes after the fetus has experienced total brain death.(cf. Duncan, 16-22) Some say that other means of treating such diseases as Parkinson's can and should be developed.(cf. Dailey)
Another issue involves consent. Anyone involved in procured abortion would not qualify as the fetus' guardian since they hardly have his/her best interests at heart. The Catholic Health Association of Canada (CHAC) concludes that, "Transplantations using organs and tissues from deliberately aborted fetuses are ethically objectionable." (45; cf. SCDF 1987, 16-18)”
IMO, looking at the date of this paper, the discussions of fetus and people as a source of spare parts is well under way. Slippery slope. Again, I'm not looking with a Fundamentalist view, but as a human that is seeing a decline in the value of one life over another.
Regarding the fourth Vote, from the Declaration of Independence:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Given this country’s history and values at the founding of the country, I can see this going either way. Even people of good will can view the same circumstances with a different eye. We declared our right to be freedom from England evoking Nature's God and the Creator. We also wrote a Constitution that precludes the government from endorsing a religion, but also precludes the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. IMO, this is a tossup, and I can appreciate both sides, but support the inclusion in the pledge as written. When I was young (late 50s early 60s), it was common for some in school to omit the "one nation under god" when the pledge was said (I think it was a Catholic thing, but too long ago to be sure) because it was not considered appropriate for their beliefs. No one ever made an issue of who did or didn't say it.
Regarding the fifth and sixth VotesWe are each entitled to our beliefs, and so long as Rep. Ryan was reflecting the will of the people he represents, I support that decision. This is a representative form of government, so, IMO, he is bound to vote the will of those that he represents. If that happens to be his belief, I’m ok with that too.
Regard the seventh vote, I’d have to give the same answer as the one above. He is a Representative of his constituents, which are the people of his state and not DC, and he must vote accordingly. However, IMO, I don’t think this is a decision that should belong to Congress. IMO, child psychologists and more capable people trained in the field should make these determinations on a case by case basis. Congress should butt out here.
In my somewhat long explanation of your points supporting "His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists", I merely point out they maybe consistent with fundamentalist positions, but not exclusively the view of fundamentalists. As I see it, in this representative form of government, as long as he votes the will of the people that elected him, he's doing his job correctly as the founders intended.
?
.
though we should probably use my full username to avoid confusion with the very different Ryan being discussed in this thread 
