Being on God’s Side: An Open Letter to the Religious Right
December 22, 2010
Joe Carter
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was purportedly asked if God was on his side. “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side,” said the President, “my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”
Although Lincoln is often praised for this remark by those who oppose the mixing of religion and politics, it contains three of the most controversial ideas in American politics: that it is legitimate to invoke the name of God within the realm of political discourse; that God’s existence isn’t merely symbolic, but that he is always right; and that since God takes sides on certain issues, some people will be divinely justified while others will stand in opposition not only to their political opponents but to the very Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.
If you find these ideas absurd and repugnant, you are most likely a secularist. If you find them to be embarrassing truths, you may be on the religious left. If you find them so obvious that they hardly need stating, you are probably a member of the so-called “religious right.”
I embrace them wholeheartedly—with reservations about how they are applied—which makes me a certified member of the religious right. Although I’ve often been uncomfortable with that term, I find that as my political convictions develop, the term fits me more and more, as if I’m growing into it. So be it.
Over the past several years I have served in various positions that have allowed me the opportunity to engage with people who express firm religious and political convictions. My experiences with the religious right have been, at various times, aggravating, encouraging, fulfilling, funny, frustrating, provocative, and, on occasion, downright weird.
In general, I remain optimistic about the role of politically conservative evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews. There are, however, a number of issues that still give me pause. It is worth reminding ourselves of lessons we’ve learned that can easily be overlooked. Here, then, are nine thoughts I want to share with my fellow religious conservatives:
1) As a matter of political liberty I believe there are justifiable reasons to support such issues as prayer in schools and public displays of religious symbols. But I can’t imagine that on the Day of Judgment I’ll hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant—you have faithfully fought to keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.” It’s more likely we’ll all be asked why we didn’t spend more time concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the global AIDS pandemic. Perhaps we should rethink our priorities and put first things first.
2) We have ideological enemies (such as Islamic terrorists) and ideological opponents (such as secular liberals). While our ideological opponents want us to lose political debates, our ideological enemies want us to lose our lives. That’s a crucial distinction that we should always keep in mind. While we are called to love them all, we shouldn’t lump them all together.
3) In a classical statement of ecumenicity, St. Augustine once said, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.” Those of us on the religious right should adopt a similar principle and clearly define the boundaries between what is essential and what is non-essential in matters of policy and politics.
Protecting the sanctity of innocent human life and defending the traditional definition of marriage are clearly essentials. Those matters are based on principles that can be clearly derived from our traditions and holy texts. Other issues, however, are less opaque. For example, can someone be a part of the “religious right” and not support the war in Iraq? The fact that question can even be asked shows how we’ve muddied the waters. While I personally think that, on the whole, the war was morally justified and necessary as a humanitarian intervention, I can respect those who disagree. Indeed, the alternate opinion may be as rooted in Biblical and conservative principles as I believe my own position to be. We must be careful and deliberate about where we draw the lines of political heresy.
4) We must keep in mind that the term “religious right” encompasses two unique spectrums. Because of our commitment to the faith, we often find ourselves in agreement with the religious left. And because our conservatism is informed by our religion, we will also find ourselves in disagreement with the secular right.
Our political alliances, therefore, will often be tenuous and shift based on particular issues. Adherence to our principles trumps loyalty to those who simply share our religious identity. Several years ago, at Family Research Councils Values Voter Summit, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land said he’d vote for a Jewish pro-life politician who promised to raise his taxes before he’d vote in a Christian pro-choice candidate who promised to cut them. The rousing applause he received was as disturbing to many Republicans as it was to many Democrats. But Land knew how the issues should be prioritized. We should too.
5) Our allegiance to any political party should be modest, contingent, and made with a full awareness that both the Republican and Democratic parties will attempt to distance themselves from us as soon as elections are over. Both parties have always done so and will likely continue that tradition until the Eschaton. Our goal, then, should merely be to usher in the side that will slow the process of disorder, allowing us the room to maneuver to re-strengthen and fortify society’s other institutions.
6) Cultural reform is needed more urgently than political reform. As Andrew Fletcher, an 18th century Scottish patriot, once boldly proclaimed, “If one were permitted to make all the ballads one need not care who should make the laws of a nation.” Fletcher understood that cultural influence was vastly more important than political power. We once understood this point too. It’s time to remind ourselves that, to paraphrase James Carville, “It’s the culture, stupid.”
7) It is not enough for religious conservatives to simply baptize the conservative agenda; our political beliefs must be derived from our religious worldview. Deriving them, however, requires a complementary worldview and knowledge of how to our worldview and principles translate to sound political policy. While the difficulty of the task makes it easier to accept off-the-rack conservatism, we need to be able to tailor our policies using the fabric of our faith as a guide.
8) There are those who call us “Christianists” and claim we are attempting to “impose a theocracy”—because name-calling and scaremongering are easier than engaging us in debate. But there are also those who make such claims out of honest ignorance. For example, many of them are likely unaware that the largest Protestant denomination in America, Southern Baptists, cannot even tolerate a centralized church government, much less a central government controlled by the church. Thinking that a nation full of Southern Baptists wants to establish a theocratic regime is about as absurd as believing anarchists want to create a centralized government. Absurd or not, communicating this reality and addressing misunderstanding is a task we must take upon ourselves.
9) Our beliefs are often informed by tradition and sacred texts. This does not, as our ideological opponents often claim, make them invalid. But it does make it necessary to translate them into common political vernacular when we bring them into the public square. Premising a political argument on “Because the Bible says so . . .” is rarely effective or convincing—even when presented to our fellow believers.
Fortunately, God provides us general revelation—conscience, rationality, empirical observation—which is often effective in expressing his foundational principles in a way that anyone can accept and understand. We must use these tools to make obvious the overlooked connections between secular and religious argument. For instance, we can use logic to show how same-sex marriage affects children and religious liberty, or use empirical research to show how family structure influences poverty. It is not enough to be correct in our views; we must also be persuasive.
And finally, we must recognize that America is not a “Christian nation,” though we should aspire to be a nation whose Christians are admired as good and noble citizens. America is not a “shining city on a hill,” though we should let our light of freedom be a shining example for the entire world. America is not the “greatest blessing God gave mankind,” though it is a great nation worthy of our faithfulness. Patriotism has a role but must not be allowed to expand beyond certain intellectual borders. We are citizens of both the City of God and the City of Man, and must always be sure not to confuse the one for the other.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
Comments:
12.22.2010 | 8:45am
SteveW says:
Well said, Joe. First Things is one of my favorite web sites, even though I am probably to the left of the typical First Things reader. I think it's the tone of reasoned faith and conservatism, which your letter so eloquently expresses, that keeps me coming back. Your point 5 could be turned around for someone like me, so that I can say "Because of my faith, I often find myself in agreement with the religious right, and because my liberalism is informed by my religion, I often find myself in disagreement with the secular left (emphasis on often)." Keep up the great work and best wishes for 2011 to everyone at FT!
12.22.2010 | 9:02am
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Well put, and I have essential agreement. We seem to have trod similar paths.
I politically designate myself "Postliberal," as that is a better descriptor than any of the brands of conservatism or libertarianism for me. One distinction I find myself making often is support for a political idea for practical reasons - because it works - versus support for an idea because it is good. Even back to the 1970's this was a distinction the religious right often failed to make. I recall, for example, a chapter of Falwell's first political book which advocated dismantling the Dept of Education and returning those functions to the states. As a practical matter, I agreed then and I agree now. But it is only a moral issue at several removes.
That the left is far worse on this is an equal frustration. They use the language of moral imperative for their programs and are quick to condemn those who disagree as evil. The secularists do not invoke God directly, both because of their own wooliness on the foundations of their morality, but also because it sounds creepy to them, like the ignorant yahoos they oppose. They do like to grad a scripture verse or two when it suits them, or make general references to Jesus loving the poor and the outcast, as if that settled the matter. The religious left oblige them, doing little more than quoting longer sections of scripture in support of ideas they want to be true.
Yet, Mr. Carter, it has ever been thus in the world, as one's allies and opponents are similarly infuriating.
I politically designate myself "Postliberal," as that is a better descriptor than any of the brands of conservatism or libertarianism for me. One distinction I find myself making often is support for a political idea for practical reasons - because it works - versus support for an idea because it is good. Even back to the 1970's this was a distinction the religious right often failed to make. I recall, for example, a chapter of Falwell's first political book which advocated dismantling the Dept of Education and returning those functions to the states. As a practical matter, I agreed then and I agree now. But it is only a moral issue at several removes.
That the left is far worse on this is an equal frustration. They use the language of moral imperative for their programs and are quick to condemn those who disagree as evil. The secularists do not invoke God directly, both because of their own wooliness on the foundations of their morality, but also because it sounds creepy to them, like the ignorant yahoos they oppose. They do like to grad a scripture verse or two when it suits them, or make general references to Jesus loving the poor and the outcast, as if that settled the matter. The religious left oblige them, doing little more than quoting longer sections of scripture in support of ideas they want to be true.
Yet, Mr. Carter, it has ever been thus in the world, as one's allies and opponents are similarly infuriating.
12.22.2010 | 9:55am
Sean says:
"Richard Land said he’d vote for a Jewish pro-life politician who promised to raise his taxes before he’d vote in a Christian pro-choice candidate who promised to cut them."
Money quote right here.
There has to be a way to make that sentiment fit on a bumper sticker. They'd look great pasted over people's COEXIST stickers.
Money quote right here.
There has to be a way to make that sentiment fit on a bumper sticker. They'd look great pasted over people's COEXIST stickers.
12.22.2010 | 11:02am
jason taylor says:
"Richard Land said he’d vote for a Jewish pro-life politician who promised to raise his taxes before he’d vote in a Christian pro-choice candidate who promised to cut them."
Money quote right here.
There has to be a way to make that sentiment fit on a bumper sticker. They'd look great pasted over people's COEXIST stickers. "
==========================================----
"The dead pay no taxes, the dead argue no theology, vote for life, vote for Yoni Doestein. "
Money quote right here.
There has to be a way to make that sentiment fit on a bumper sticker. They'd look great pasted over people's COEXIST stickers. "
==========================================----
"The dead pay no taxes, the dead argue no theology, vote for life, vote for Yoni Doestein. "
12.22.2010 | 11:18am
Citizen Jerry says:
Regarding point two, our ideological opponents, the secular liberals, don’t just want us to lose political debates. They want to enslave us to generations of debt and government dependence. They reject God, but still need something large to take care of them – something as big as God, if God existed. So an ever-growing government becomes their god.
12.22.2010 | 11:33am
Boze says:
"I can’t imagine that on the Day of Judgment I’ll hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant—you have faithfully fought to keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.” It’s more likely we’ll all be asked why we didn’t spend more time concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the global AIDS pandemic. Perhaps we should rethink our priorities and put first things first."
Well, maybe. But I would argue He will be more likely to inquire how much time we spent pursuing the knowledge of God in prayer and the experience of grace that He unreservedly pours out on the broken and humble. That is what animates our service towards others, whether around the world or across the house. But none of those services are of any worth unless we daily live in fellowship with Christ (Mt. 22:36-40). We can't be distracted by our ministries that we forget the heart of life - relationship with Him.
Well, maybe. But I would argue He will be more likely to inquire how much time we spent pursuing the knowledge of God in prayer and the experience of grace that He unreservedly pours out on the broken and humble. That is what animates our service towards others, whether around the world or across the house. But none of those services are of any worth unless we daily live in fellowship with Christ (Mt. 22:36-40). We can't be distracted by our ministries that we forget the heart of life - relationship with Him.
12.22.2010 | 1:03pm
Michael says:
Interesting article, Joe. Thank you.
I suppose you would place me in the religious left, though, like you, I believe my positions are “divinely justified” and that those of the right stand in opposition to “the very Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.” I don’t know how a Christian could operate otherwise.
Contrary to your claim, I don’t find that many of us on the Christian left find your three “controversial ideas” to be “embarrassing truths.” I think the Christian right takes as embarrassment our general practice of your tenth thought: we typically “translate” our beliefs “into common political vernacular when we bring them into the public square.”
Like you, I’m interested in seeing how well we Christians left and right can put St. Augustine’s ecumenical maxim into practice, so let me propose a third candidate in Land’s scenario. This candidate has spent a lifetime creating economic opportunities, reducing teen pregnancy, improving child care, boosting adoption, and encouraging marriage for those with the highest abortion rates, but he hasn’t taken a stand on the continued legality of abortion. Like you, this candidate believes that “cultural reform is needed more urgently than political reform,” and so he has abandoned the quest to make abortion illegal and devoted his energies to creating a culture that cares for and supports families.
There’re a significant number of people like this on the Christian left, but the Christian right sees us as having our “priorities” wrong when in fact we share the same values and priorities. Where we differ is in our approach to achieving those priorities. And because we have taken this approach, we have allied ourselves with groups that we otherwise share little with just as the Christian right has allied itself with groups you otherwise share little with. As a result, the Christian right believes that the Christian left has abandoned the Augustinian essentials when in fact we have not.
And if you’re looking for allies who are actively “concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the global AIDS pandemic,” you’ll find plenty on the Christian left. Our approaches to Darfur will be nearly identical, but there will be more differences on AIDS. These will be less insurmountable if all arm themselves with charity.
One thing that concerns me, and I’ve seen in spades in the comments on First Things is the identification of Islam as our “ideological enemy.” You have carefully said that it is the “Islamic terrorists” who are our “ideological enemies,” but many have asserted on the First Things website that Islam itself is the enemy, and I have seen very little pushback from other readers. The Christian right must join the Christian left in distinguishing between the terrorists who must be rooted out and the good, faithful Muslims whose communities must be encouraged.
Finally, let me say that, like you, I find Lincoln wise on this subject, though I keep a different quotation in front of me. This is from his second inaugural address: “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party.”
Both the Christian left and the Christian right may be wrong in their approaches to particular issues, and one must be. But it is also “quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party.”
In the meantime, merry Christmas, Joe.
I suppose you would place me in the religious left, though, like you, I believe my positions are “divinely justified” and that those of the right stand in opposition to “the very Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.” I don’t know how a Christian could operate otherwise.
Contrary to your claim, I don’t find that many of us on the Christian left find your three “controversial ideas” to be “embarrassing truths.” I think the Christian right takes as embarrassment our general practice of your tenth thought: we typically “translate” our beliefs “into common political vernacular when we bring them into the public square.”
Like you, I’m interested in seeing how well we Christians left and right can put St. Augustine’s ecumenical maxim into practice, so let me propose a third candidate in Land’s scenario. This candidate has spent a lifetime creating economic opportunities, reducing teen pregnancy, improving child care, boosting adoption, and encouraging marriage for those with the highest abortion rates, but he hasn’t taken a stand on the continued legality of abortion. Like you, this candidate believes that “cultural reform is needed more urgently than political reform,” and so he has abandoned the quest to make abortion illegal and devoted his energies to creating a culture that cares for and supports families.
There’re a significant number of people like this on the Christian left, but the Christian right sees us as having our “priorities” wrong when in fact we share the same values and priorities. Where we differ is in our approach to achieving those priorities. And because we have taken this approach, we have allied ourselves with groups that we otherwise share little with just as the Christian right has allied itself with groups you otherwise share little with. As a result, the Christian right believes that the Christian left has abandoned the Augustinian essentials when in fact we have not.
And if you’re looking for allies who are actively “concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the global AIDS pandemic,” you’ll find plenty on the Christian left. Our approaches to Darfur will be nearly identical, but there will be more differences on AIDS. These will be less insurmountable if all arm themselves with charity.
One thing that concerns me, and I’ve seen in spades in the comments on First Things is the identification of Islam as our “ideological enemy.” You have carefully said that it is the “Islamic terrorists” who are our “ideological enemies,” but many have asserted on the First Things website that Islam itself is the enemy, and I have seen very little pushback from other readers. The Christian right must join the Christian left in distinguishing between the terrorists who must be rooted out and the good, faithful Muslims whose communities must be encouraged.
Finally, let me say that, like you, I find Lincoln wise on this subject, though I keep a different quotation in front of me. This is from his second inaugural address: “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party.”
Both the Christian left and the Christian right may be wrong in their approaches to particular issues, and one must be. But it is also “quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party.”
In the meantime, merry Christmas, Joe.
12.22.2010 | 1:46pm
Sean says:
"so let me propose a third candidate in Land’s scenario. This candidate has spent a lifetime creating economic opportunities, reducing teen pregnancy, improving child care, boosting adoption, and encouraging marriage for those with the highest abortion rates, but he hasn’t taken a stand on the continued legality of abortion."
That isn't a third option, that's a typical liberal candidate granting their positions divine approval. You've just described Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al.
That isn't a third option, that's a typical liberal candidate granting their positions divine approval. You've just described Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al.
12.22.2010 | 1:59pm
Mack Hall says:
He(ck) hath no fury like Catholic bloggers, each bearing, it appears, an infallibility never granted to any Bishop of Rome.
12.22.2010 | 2:05pm
Sean says:
'but many have asserted on the First Things website that Islam itself is the enemy'
In point of fact, Islam does consider you an enemy. Individual muslims may not, but the religion itself considers non-muslim lands to be the dar al-harb, 'the house of war,' the eternal foe of the dar al-islam.
A little looking into it will disabuse you of the notion that Islam fits into your multi-culti, liberal christian schematic.
In point of fact, Islam does consider you an enemy. Individual muslims may not, but the religion itself considers non-muslim lands to be the dar al-harb, 'the house of war,' the eternal foe of the dar al-islam.
A little looking into it will disabuse you of the notion that Islam fits into your multi-culti, liberal christian schematic.
12.22.2010 | 3:04pm
Michael says:
It is a matter of whether we live according to our beliefs. No one is going to believe it if we don't; otherwise our words are empty. To the end of justification, however, it is important, I think, to be mindful of the Jewish prohibition of speaking His name outside of a worship setting in such a superflous, callous, careless way. It is akin to speaking His name "in vain". My experience with anyone who continually attempts to justify themselves and their personal opinions by invoking His name are usually not interested in His glory more than their own. In the end, they and the Lord don't really "shine" in the eyes of non-believers.
My 2 cents, anyway.
My 2 cents, anyway.
12.22.2010 | 3:46pm
Jasper says:
"And finally, we must recognize that America is not a “Christian nation,”"
baloney. we do have a secular government, but over 80% of americans are christian. This is a Chrstian nation....Obama..
baloney. we do have a secular government, but over 80% of americans are christian. This is a Chrstian nation....Obama..
12.22.2010 | 4:29pm
Michael says:
Thanks for writing, Sean.
Carter has done us all the service of describing both his tentative steps toward identifying himself as a member of the Christian right and describing the nuances of what such an identity means. I have tried to broaden his meditation into a meditation on how Christians, right and left, might regard both each other and the issues. In your three posts, however, you have brought out the knives, trying to make simpler and more divisive what Carter and I have tried to make more complex and charitable.
You say that my third position is “a typical liberal candidate granting their positions divine approval.” Two points. One: We all believe and hope that our positions meet with “divine approval.” We wouldn’t be Christians if we did not.
Two: You’ll find three types of positions toward abortion on the Christian left. One believes that women have the moral right to abort. A second believes that Christians don’t have the moral right to abort but that the state has no or little say in the matter. A third believes that ending legal abortion is a waste of effort at this time in the United States and that we should put our efforts into reducing the number of abortions. Some in this third camp look forward to making abortion illegal at some later time, while others in it think the legality of abortion is beside the point for any number of reasons.
Because the Christian right lumps all three groups together, you see no one you’d be willing to work with. I’m in the third camp, which is growing, but many—not all!—on the Christian right dismiss out of hand.
As for Islam, you’ll find that it is and always has been nearly as divided as Christianity is over the proper interpretation of scripture and over the proper constitution of the state. In addition, I have a cynical appreciation of the power of Western materialism, that potent blend of capitalism, markets, and consumerism. Western materialism chews up any ideology it encounters. It has chewed up every form of Christianity it has met, it chewed up Soviet communism, and it is currently chewing up Chinese communism. It will chew up Islam as well. Western-style democracy and individual rights will pile on, and Islam will forget its jihad-driven scriptures as surely as it forgot those scriptures whenever a particular Islamic state got the least bit prosperous.
Have a blessed Christmas.
Carter has done us all the service of describing both his tentative steps toward identifying himself as a member of the Christian right and describing the nuances of what such an identity means. I have tried to broaden his meditation into a meditation on how Christians, right and left, might regard both each other and the issues. In your three posts, however, you have brought out the knives, trying to make simpler and more divisive what Carter and I have tried to make more complex and charitable.
You say that my third position is “a typical liberal candidate granting their positions divine approval.” Two points. One: We all believe and hope that our positions meet with “divine approval.” We wouldn’t be Christians if we did not.
Two: You’ll find three types of positions toward abortion on the Christian left. One believes that women have the moral right to abort. A second believes that Christians don’t have the moral right to abort but that the state has no or little say in the matter. A third believes that ending legal abortion is a waste of effort at this time in the United States and that we should put our efforts into reducing the number of abortions. Some in this third camp look forward to making abortion illegal at some later time, while others in it think the legality of abortion is beside the point for any number of reasons.
Because the Christian right lumps all three groups together, you see no one you’d be willing to work with. I’m in the third camp, which is growing, but many—not all!—on the Christian right dismiss out of hand.
As for Islam, you’ll find that it is and always has been nearly as divided as Christianity is over the proper interpretation of scripture and over the proper constitution of the state. In addition, I have a cynical appreciation of the power of Western materialism, that potent blend of capitalism, markets, and consumerism. Western materialism chews up any ideology it encounters. It has chewed up every form of Christianity it has met, it chewed up Soviet communism, and it is currently chewing up Chinese communism. It will chew up Islam as well. Western-style democracy and individual rights will pile on, and Islam will forget its jihad-driven scriptures as surely as it forgot those scriptures whenever a particular Islamic state got the least bit prosperous.
Have a blessed Christmas.
12.22.2010 | 4:55pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Jasper: It depends on what you mean by "Christian nation". I agree the numbers are there but I don't think the culture is. And certainly the government is intentionally secular or, better put, non-denominational. I suspect that phrase is controversial became too many talk past each other.
12.22.2010 | 5:01pm
Timothy Dalrymple says:
I had to skim, so I might have missed a clever literary tactic, but otherwise...where's #3? Sorry if this has already been mentioned.
12.22.2010 | 5:02pm
Reader John says:
"Our goal, then, should merely be to usher in the side that will slow the process of disorder, allowing us the room to maneuver to re-strengthen and fortify society’s other institutions." I'm not sure that either major party will slow the disorder. Republicans lip service is meaningless since they DO distance themselves, and their foreign policy adventurism is marginally worse than the Democrats. "Too big to fail" is a bipartisan cave-in. I'm ready to align with an anti-Plutocrat revival of the Mugwumps (if they're pro-life).
As for marriage? I think SSM is a lousy idea on policy grounds partly because "marriage" as a term has religious facets. Because I think we're losing, I'd like to win the concession that the government will simply get out of the "marriage" business, and then we can argue about whether its stake in same-sex pairings off is sufficient to support an institution like civil unions that give the tax, insurance, social security, inheritance and other benefits now associate with "marriage" (even deliberately barren marriages).
As for marriage? I think SSM is a lousy idea on policy grounds partly because "marriage" as a term has religious facets. Because I think we're losing, I'd like to win the concession that the government will simply get out of the "marriage" business, and then we can argue about whether its stake in same-sex pairings off is sufficient to support an institution like civil unions that give the tax, insurance, social security, inheritance and other benefits now associate with "marriage" (even deliberately barren marriages).
12.22.2010 | 5:19pm
Sean says:
Michael,
I've heard the old "but we all agree on the importance of reducing the number of abortions" line spoken by liberals so many times that it's fairly obvious to me by now that, in view of our society's left-driven loosening of sexual mores, not one liberal politician who's spouted the line has ever believed it.
As for Islam, I think you've been misled. Yes, there is diversity in Islam. But there are four legal rites in Islam, different rites in different countries, and every right and every Islamic theological tradition holds that you are the enemy, and inferior. It doesn't fit with what you think about Islam, because you probably know some nice muslims, and anyway don't all religions teach their followers to be nice? But it's not like that.
I've heard the old "but we all agree on the importance of reducing the number of abortions" line spoken by liberals so many times that it's fairly obvious to me by now that, in view of our society's left-driven loosening of sexual mores, not one liberal politician who's spouted the line has ever believed it.
As for Islam, I think you've been misled. Yes, there is diversity in Islam. But there are four legal rites in Islam, different rites in different countries, and every right and every Islamic theological tradition holds that you are the enemy, and inferior. It doesn't fit with what you think about Islam, because you probably know some nice muslims, and anyway don't all religions teach their followers to be nice? But it's not like that.
12.22.2010 | 5:44pm
journeyman says:
"My experiences with the religious right have been, at various times, aggravating, encouraging, fulfilling, funny, frustrating, provocative, and, on occasion, downright weird."
You made no mention of the religious left. Why not? Because may be you're scared...one description that was missing from that of the "religious right" perhaps?
You made no mention of the religious left. Why not? Because may be you're scared...one description that was missing from that of the "religious right" perhaps?
12.22.2010 | 6:42pm
Damion says:
What Mr. Carter has overlooked in all this is how the Religious Left's devotion to the biblical anawim--God's injunction to care for the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger--has morphed over time to incorporate secular ethics based on defensive fears, absolute physical equality based on a "god-free" interpretations of science and, oddly, a secular revulsion for religion in public.
Also, the main error of the "religious right" went unmentioned here. The widespread scandal of how a lil' Hindu child, who never heard of Jesus, will burn in Hell for all eternity. The religious Right must first shore up that huge theological breech! Perhaps, with the idea of the applied grace of the Cross of Christ being able to save even those who seem to reject our Lord Jesus.
Also, the main error of the "religious right" went unmentioned here. The widespread scandal of how a lil' Hindu child, who never heard of Jesus, will burn in Hell for all eternity. The religious Right must first shore up that huge theological breech! Perhaps, with the idea of the applied grace of the Cross of Christ being able to save even those who seem to reject our Lord Jesus.
12.22.2010 | 7:53pm
Fr J. says:
Interesting!
The quote, however, that you attribute to St. Augustine in no. 3 dates--I believe--from the Reformation and its oldest occurence is in a Lutheran context.
The quote, however, that you attribute to St. Augustine in no. 3 dates--I believe--from the Reformation and its oldest occurence is in a Lutheran context.
12.22.2010 | 8:26pm
TeaPot562 says:
"Religious Left" might be those who refer to various texts in the Bible, in papal letters, etc. to justify expansion of government, presumably to meet human needs. My problem with these activities is that the result seems to be; the government does expand - more agencies, more govt. employees; but the problem that was supposed to be addressed by the govt. expansion (see "War on Poverty" by President Lyndon Johnson; or "No Child Left Behind", advanced by Bush II and Sen. Edward Kennedy) still exists.
The "Religious Right" tries a bit harder to recognize local needs and meet them by voluntary action - homeless shelters, programs for pregnant women, etc. - rather than through direct govt. programs. Some would hold that the closest political recognition to these actions were the "thousand points of light" mentioned by the first President Bush.
When the push for increased govt action involves causes such as a need for countering environmental change - Anthropomorphic Global Warming, aka AGW - one finds that more than both religious citizens and secular citizens, there exists a political faction that worships "the environment", before humans of European descent moved in. This faction, politically very active, favors abortion of humans because that will lessen the environmental effects that future humans can cause. This group tends to form alliances with the Religious Left, a/c their belief that larger govt. can be useful in advancing their agenda.
Just an opinion from the "Religious Right" - BTW, I lobbied against invading Iraq in January 2003 as likely to cause more deaths than leaving Saddam in power; so do not assume that members of the Religious Right are monolithic in their opinions.
TeaPot562
The "Religious Right" tries a bit harder to recognize local needs and meet them by voluntary action - homeless shelters, programs for pregnant women, etc. - rather than through direct govt. programs. Some would hold that the closest political recognition to these actions were the "thousand points of light" mentioned by the first President Bush.
When the push for increased govt action involves causes such as a need for countering environmental change - Anthropomorphic Global Warming, aka AGW - one finds that more than both religious citizens and secular citizens, there exists a political faction that worships "the environment", before humans of European descent moved in. This faction, politically very active, favors abortion of humans because that will lessen the environmental effects that future humans can cause. This group tends to form alliances with the Religious Left, a/c their belief that larger govt. can be useful in advancing their agenda.
Just an opinion from the "Religious Right" - BTW, I lobbied against invading Iraq in January 2003 as likely to cause more deaths than leaving Saddam in power; so do not assume that members of the Religious Right are monolithic in their opinions.
TeaPot562
12.22.2010 | 8:45pm
X Contra says:
You expect something to continue "until the Eschaton"? Very impressive language! However, you go against your own admonition #9. Good move, genius.
Unimpressive language: anytime someone uses the cliche, "It's the _____, stupid." It's worn out now, and when new it was insulting. What's next? How about using the phrase "at the end of the day" or some other buzz. Bah.
Any time I see "Open Letter to... X" it means someone condescends to group X with mother-in-law advice or worse. In this case, it is worse than nagging advice from the old battle axe. You seem to be a thoughtful person, but try to work on decreasing the smugness level.
Unimpressive language: anytime someone uses the cliche, "It's the _____, stupid." It's worn out now, and when new it was insulting. What's next? How about using the phrase "at the end of the day" or some other buzz. Bah.
Any time I see "Open Letter to... X" it means someone condescends to group X with mother-in-law advice or worse. In this case, it is worse than nagging advice from the old battle axe. You seem to be a thoughtful person, but try to work on decreasing the smugness level.
12.22.2010 | 9:51pm
Alex says:
Joe is out there sitting on the fence. He appears to be above President Reagan who worked with John Paul ll to "Tear down" the Berlin Wall, and defeat communism in Western Europe.
This country really was founded on Christian principles. Our founders were of several Christian denominations. It is only until recently that the atheists, agnostics and liberals have convinced Joe that this is not a Christian nation. That was echoed by President Obama, i.e. Reverend Wright "Damn America."
As Reagan said, this is a "shining city on the hill." Millions of would be immigrants try to enter our borders every year. There is great abundance and freedom yet. A cursory look at history has not revealed anything better unless Joe wants to return to abandon his backing of the Iraq War. Why anyone such as Joe would agree to send young men to war, and not think that his country was anything but a shining city on the hill. He needs to spend more time in Ameican history and more visits to Arlington National Cemetery.
This country really was founded on Christian principles. Our founders were of several Christian denominations. It is only until recently that the atheists, agnostics and liberals have convinced Joe that this is not a Christian nation. That was echoed by President Obama, i.e. Reverend Wright "Damn America."
As Reagan said, this is a "shining city on the hill." Millions of would be immigrants try to enter our borders every year. There is great abundance and freedom yet. A cursory look at history has not revealed anything better unless Joe wants to return to abandon his backing of the Iraq War. Why anyone such as Joe would agree to send young men to war, and not think that his country was anything but a shining city on the hill. He needs to spend more time in Ameican history and more visits to Arlington National Cemetery.
12.22.2010 | 9:51pm
mmdr says:
Well done Mr. Carter. A letter conservatives and non-conservatives alike should reflect upon.
12.22.2010 | 11:49pm
Patricia Cornell says:
IMHO, Michael who wrote on 12-22 re his belief that it is not the time to try and make abortion illegal...if I correctly paraphrased his words.....if not I apologize.... it appears that nooooo place in his comments does the word 'baby' appear. Maybe I missed it.
I am pro-life to the max. So I take this time to compare killing of innocent babies with having slaves. The sadness of our USA culture to continue to debate this issue has no bounds. Over 35,000,000 innocent babies since 1973. Who woud not seek to make killing illegal when the solution is to give the baby some clothes, the mom and dad some housing, a job, a place to live.
End the sadness immediately.....and love is now the answer...no more arguing, fighting, debating the pros and cons, trying to find cures for breast and cervical cancer, praying at Planned Parenthood, coining phrases like 'Get your Rosaries off my ovaries' (how crass is that phrase!).
Love is the answer.....what is the question....say that 100 times without laughing out loud!!!
In Christ, Patricia in St. Louis, MO
I am pro-life to the max. So I take this time to compare killing of innocent babies with having slaves. The sadness of our USA culture to continue to debate this issue has no bounds. Over 35,000,000 innocent babies since 1973. Who woud not seek to make killing illegal when the solution is to give the baby some clothes, the mom and dad some housing, a job, a place to live.
End the sadness immediately.....and love is now the answer...no more arguing, fighting, debating the pros and cons, trying to find cures for breast and cervical cancer, praying at Planned Parenthood, coining phrases like 'Get your Rosaries off my ovaries' (how crass is that phrase!).
Love is the answer.....what is the question....say that 100 times without laughing out loud!!!
In Christ, Patricia in St. Louis, MO
12.23.2010 | 12:06am
Michael says:
Sean,
Your cynicism toward liberal politicians is no doubt warranted in most cases. I like how Carter puts it, “Our allegiance to any political party should be modest, contingent, and made with a full awareness that both the Republican and Democratic parties will attempt to distance themselves from us as soon as elections are over.” The same is true between liberal politicians and the Christian left.
But the fact is that electoral politics should not be the center of Christian politics. Christian politics is best manifested in congregational activities in the neighborhood.
I wouldn’t say that the loosening of America’s sexual mores is driven by the left. Everywhere and in every age, cities and prosperity have brought the loosening of sexual mores. This cultural constant was made even worse in the 1920s when mass culture made the illusion of prosperity available to people who weren’t and when consumer culture encouraged most Americans to center their lives around materialism. All of these developments were driven by business and technology. Some on the left and right have supported these changes, some have not.
You haven’t said yet what exactly concerns you about Islam, whether it is terrorism, war, or immigration. Terrorism has never succeeded at anything. It is an act of weakness and desperation. As for war, no Muslim country poses a territorial threat to the US or any Western country. For more than thirty years, oil-rich Muslim countries have had the capability to disrupt and bring to its knees the Western economy, and that threat is real, but it’s never been done. Muslim countries have been divided amongst each other and allied with the West. Witness the Wikileaks revelation that Saudi Arabia has encouraged us to take out Iran, a nation which has some support from some Western countries. As for immigration, I’ve already said that I have complete confidence that consumerism will take care of that. It won’t be long before an imam becomes a contributing editor to First Things, making common cause over loosening mores.
It’s easy to claim that the left is the root of all problems, but go back and reread Carter’s eighth point, and reverse it for the left. Take any single issue that concerns you, and you’ll find someone on the left who agrees with you on that particular point. Hate Islam? Christopher Hitchens is your friend, though you might not agree about God.
Your cynicism toward liberal politicians is no doubt warranted in most cases. I like how Carter puts it, “Our allegiance to any political party should be modest, contingent, and made with a full awareness that both the Republican and Democratic parties will attempt to distance themselves from us as soon as elections are over.” The same is true between liberal politicians and the Christian left.
But the fact is that electoral politics should not be the center of Christian politics. Christian politics is best manifested in congregational activities in the neighborhood.
I wouldn’t say that the loosening of America’s sexual mores is driven by the left. Everywhere and in every age, cities and prosperity have brought the loosening of sexual mores. This cultural constant was made even worse in the 1920s when mass culture made the illusion of prosperity available to people who weren’t and when consumer culture encouraged most Americans to center their lives around materialism. All of these developments were driven by business and technology. Some on the left and right have supported these changes, some have not.
You haven’t said yet what exactly concerns you about Islam, whether it is terrorism, war, or immigration. Terrorism has never succeeded at anything. It is an act of weakness and desperation. As for war, no Muslim country poses a territorial threat to the US or any Western country. For more than thirty years, oil-rich Muslim countries have had the capability to disrupt and bring to its knees the Western economy, and that threat is real, but it’s never been done. Muslim countries have been divided amongst each other and allied with the West. Witness the Wikileaks revelation that Saudi Arabia has encouraged us to take out Iran, a nation which has some support from some Western countries. As for immigration, I’ve already said that I have complete confidence that consumerism will take care of that. It won’t be long before an imam becomes a contributing editor to First Things, making common cause over loosening mores.
It’s easy to claim that the left is the root of all problems, but go back and reread Carter’s eighth point, and reverse it for the left. Take any single issue that concerns you, and you’ll find someone on the left who agrees with you on that particular point. Hate Islam? Christopher Hitchens is your friend, though you might not agree about God.
12.23.2010 | 2:12am
ENOUGH ROPE says:
"While our ideological opponents want us to lose political debates, our ideological enemies want us to lose our lives."
No! Our ideological opponents have not yet progressed to being our ideological enemies overtly, but they WANT TO. Don't believe me? Death panels, net neutrality, cap and trade, and food regulations are SOME of the attacks on "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." which are the warning signs of an aspiring dictatorship. Read Friedrich von Hayek on page 2 of Monty Pelerin's site. The Welfare State masks its dictatorial socialism. Do the elites of recent dictatorships care about the people or about the elites' power and life style?
No! Our ideological opponents have not yet progressed to being our ideological enemies overtly, but they WANT TO. Don't believe me? Death panels, net neutrality, cap and trade, and food regulations are SOME of the attacks on "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." which are the warning signs of an aspiring dictatorship. Read Friedrich von Hayek on page 2 of Monty Pelerin's site. The Welfare State masks its dictatorial socialism. Do the elites of recent dictatorships care about the people or about the elites' power and life style?
12.23.2010 | 11:10am
journeyman says:
Liberals [progressives] are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.
- AnnCoulter.
So who's really on God's side? The religious right or the religious left?
- AnnCoulter.
So who's really on God's side? The religious right or the religious left?
12.24.2010 | 7:06am
Joe McCarthy says:
On your overall observation, I have mixed emotions, I see your argument as the perennial, "dog chases tale." There is much to be said of "siding" for the sake of conformity, my words, your text.
The Religious Right has much to be envied. I prefer the small, personal and reflective faith of Catholicism, acquired pre Vatican II. I enjoyed the spiritual majesty and magnificence of the Latin Rite, a lot to be said for that purity of faith.
The outreach, as it was then seen, was just and as full of the fallacy of the 1960's delusional love, and breach of norms we all strive in 2010 to recapture. It has taken, from what I see, an obnoxious and odious slant, to the discussion on exercise. This is a position which some will see as too liberal and I see as very conservative. While we are not a Christian Nation, that liberty issue found in the Constitutional, "exercise thereof" is too precious to either circumvent or otherwise dilute for political correctness.
The Mass, is still central to our faith, it is the overt "exercise," any capitulation for the sake of no clear voice on the differences, as Magisterial Authority, which the Religious Right "mouths"disfavors and denies discussion. It is a matter of personal "justification" to acquire their moral righteousness, but far, far too often cannot live .
The controversy on Ecclesiastic Authority in Phoenix give my concerns voice, tough being a Universal Church with all the attendant views and chaotic positions from those more vocally "righteous." While a faith more ardent on the issue of life cannot be found.
Pastor Land i admire, his Baptist Convention, has recently changed their identity, joined the phenomena of Community Church, and very much antagonistic against the Catholic Church and very much "siding" within their spiritual morass.
This "dog" can hunt, and yearns for the ardency of truth through Jesus Christ, rarely stated in blog format, but as firmly believed as ever.The "hunt" benefits but one side, the prey don't see their demise, with the same relish as others, both are ardent participants, nonetheless..
The Religious Right has much to be envied. I prefer the small, personal and reflective faith of Catholicism, acquired pre Vatican II. I enjoyed the spiritual majesty and magnificence of the Latin Rite, a lot to be said for that purity of faith.
The outreach, as it was then seen, was just and as full of the fallacy of the 1960's delusional love, and breach of norms we all strive in 2010 to recapture. It has taken, from what I see, an obnoxious and odious slant, to the discussion on exercise. This is a position which some will see as too liberal and I see as very conservative. While we are not a Christian Nation, that liberty issue found in the Constitutional, "exercise thereof" is too precious to either circumvent or otherwise dilute for political correctness.
The Mass, is still central to our faith, it is the overt "exercise," any capitulation for the sake of no clear voice on the differences, as Magisterial Authority, which the Religious Right "mouths"disfavors and denies discussion. It is a matter of personal "justification" to acquire their moral righteousness, but far, far too often cannot live .
The controversy on Ecclesiastic Authority in Phoenix give my concerns voice, tough being a Universal Church with all the attendant views and chaotic positions from those more vocally "righteous." While a faith more ardent on the issue of life cannot be found.
Pastor Land i admire, his Baptist Convention, has recently changed their identity, joined the phenomena of Community Church, and very much antagonistic against the Catholic Church and very much "siding" within their spiritual morass.
This "dog" can hunt, and yearns for the ardency of truth through Jesus Christ, rarely stated in blog format, but as firmly believed as ever.The "hunt" benefits but one side, the prey don't see their demise, with the same relish as others, both are ardent participants, nonetheless..
12.24.2010 | 3:00pm
Michael says:
Thank you for your thoughts, Patricia.
Yes, you correctly read my sentiments. I didn't write "baby"; neither did I write "fetus." I purposely tried to avoid the terms usually used in the debate because I'm interested in uniting what can be united.
You say you are "pro-life to the max," but I'm asking you to see that there are many like myself who do not believe that making abortion illegal again is the first or only way of being "pro-life to the max."
You make the common comparison that being pro-life today is like being anti-slavery. I would remind you that, in 1860, while the South considered Lincoln an "extreme abolitionist," other abolitionists considered him to be a moderate because he believed that the Constitution forbade abolition. Thus Lincoln fought not for the emancipation of slaves but for the non-expansion of slavery. Lincoln's position is closer to those who want to reduce the rate of abortion than it is to those who want to make abortion illegal again.
I am scandalized not only by the millions of lives ended by abortion in the United States but also by the pace of the killings. The abortion rate in the US is two or three times higher than it is in other industrialized countries. The rate in Holland of all places is far lower than the US. Facts like this suggest to me that the right answer lies not in making abortion illegal but in transforming the culture more broadly.
I am not asking you to accept this approach, but I am asking you to respect it as a serious Christian response to a grave cultural crisis.
Yes, you correctly read my sentiments. I didn't write "baby"; neither did I write "fetus." I purposely tried to avoid the terms usually used in the debate because I'm interested in uniting what can be united.
You say you are "pro-life to the max," but I'm asking you to see that there are many like myself who do not believe that making abortion illegal again is the first or only way of being "pro-life to the max."
You make the common comparison that being pro-life today is like being anti-slavery. I would remind you that, in 1860, while the South considered Lincoln an "extreme abolitionist," other abolitionists considered him to be a moderate because he believed that the Constitution forbade abolition. Thus Lincoln fought not for the emancipation of slaves but for the non-expansion of slavery. Lincoln's position is closer to those who want to reduce the rate of abortion than it is to those who want to make abortion illegal again.
I am scandalized not only by the millions of lives ended by abortion in the United States but also by the pace of the killings. The abortion rate in the US is two or three times higher than it is in other industrialized countries. The rate in Holland of all places is far lower than the US. Facts like this suggest to me that the right answer lies not in making abortion illegal but in transforming the culture more broadly.
I am not asking you to accept this approach, but I am asking you to respect it as a serious Christian response to a grave cultural crisis.
12.25.2010 | 7:07am
Jacob Astudillo says:
Michael,
You say that making abortion illegal is not the first or only way to be fully pro-life.
I would say that it's certainly not the only concern for the pro-life cause, not even the most important one, yet I can't see how it can be anything but indispensible. To say that the unborn children have the same value as other human beings and yet deny them the protection of the law does not seem to be consistent with a view that claims to be "pro-life to the max".
Merry Christmas.
You say that making abortion illegal is not the first or only way to be fully pro-life.
I would say that it's certainly not the only concern for the pro-life cause, not even the most important one, yet I can't see how it can be anything but indispensible. To say that the unborn children have the same value as other human beings and yet deny them the protection of the law does not seem to be consistent with a view that claims to be "pro-life to the max".
Merry Christmas.
12.28.2010 | 1:55pm
Michael says:
Thanks, Jacob. It's been a lovely Christmas. I hope you've had one, too.
There's a lot that can and has been done around the edges of the law: parental notification, conscience clauses, late-term, etc. But there are two things that dissuade me from thinking that illegality is "indispensible." The first is practicality. Returning women's bodies to state control remains a very hard sell to a lot of Americans. I just don't think Roe will be overturned any time soon.
The second concerns creating communities of activists. I know a lot of bright, young activists who think the best way to help desperate pregnant women is to provide abortions. If these activists met more regularly with those in the pro-life movement who are working on issues other than the legality of abortion, then they might gradually give up their commitment to legal abortion. I’ve already met some folks like this in various third-way groups. A lot of young people (and older people for that matter) want to go beyond what they perceive to be the extremism of pro-life and pro-choice politics. They want to get things done and see fewer desperate women. I think these third-way groups are our best hope.
There's a lot that can and has been done around the edges of the law: parental notification, conscience clauses, late-term, etc. But there are two things that dissuade me from thinking that illegality is "indispensible." The first is practicality. Returning women's bodies to state control remains a very hard sell to a lot of Americans. I just don't think Roe will be overturned any time soon.
The second concerns creating communities of activists. I know a lot of bright, young activists who think the best way to help desperate pregnant women is to provide abortions. If these activists met more regularly with those in the pro-life movement who are working on issues other than the legality of abortion, then they might gradually give up their commitment to legal abortion. I’ve already met some folks like this in various third-way groups. A lot of young people (and older people for that matter) want to go beyond what they perceive to be the extremism of pro-life and pro-choice politics. They want to get things done and see fewer desperate women. I think these third-way groups are our best hope.
12.31.2010 | 2:16pm
Dean Clancy says:
While life is certainly the foundational right, without which there can be no liberty or property ("the pursuit of happiness"), all three rights are unalienable and, properly understood, should be at the core of every Christian's (and every American's) political philosophy. We should not have to choose among -- and we should resist those who attempt to make us choose among -- our unalienable rights. I would cheerfully vote for a Muslim or atheist who clearly supports the right to life and limited, constitutional government (which by definition means low taxes in peacetime, and local self-government), over either Mr. Land's hypothetical pro-life, tax-raising Jew or his pro-abortion, tax-cutting Christian. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is the best ground for everyone to stand on.
1.1.2011 | 5:25pm
Jacob Astudillo says:
Thank you for your response, Michael.
I'm certainly not saying that making abortion illegal should be the only efforts made by the pro-life movement, I thought I was clear about that. So I don't see why a pro-lifer couldn't do the things you suggest and work to make abortion illegal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
I don't see how the practical issue is a factor here, I imagine it must be "impractical" to enforce any kind of law, yet every society sees the use of it, without rules there's chaos. I must say that your description of giving legal recognition of the unborn child's value as "Returning women's bodies to state control" seems to convey the kind of rhetoric that the "pro-choice" movement often uses to justify their position. Of course this is a distortion, because the issue at hand here is the life of the unborn baby. Yes, a woman has a right to her own body, but she does not have the right to do what she wants with the bodies of other human beings.
I don't oppose the idea that we can work together with others to help women in desperate situation. But if we don't also seek to give the unborn the recognition and right to life they deserve, which includes the protection of the law, I don't see how that would be 100% pro-life. That being said, not everybody who's pro-life has to occupy him or herself with legal issue of abortion, one can certainly build the culture of life in many ways. I'm just saying it's not consistent to claim a pro-life position while holding the view that there shouldn't be a law giving unborn babies the recognition as human beings with the right to life that we also enjoy.
I'm certainly not saying that making abortion illegal should be the only efforts made by the pro-life movement, I thought I was clear about that. So I don't see why a pro-lifer couldn't do the things you suggest and work to make abortion illegal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
I don't see how the practical issue is a factor here, I imagine it must be "impractical" to enforce any kind of law, yet every society sees the use of it, without rules there's chaos. I must say that your description of giving legal recognition of the unborn child's value as "Returning women's bodies to state control" seems to convey the kind of rhetoric that the "pro-choice" movement often uses to justify their position. Of course this is a distortion, because the issue at hand here is the life of the unborn baby. Yes, a woman has a right to her own body, but she does not have the right to do what she wants with the bodies of other human beings.
I don't oppose the idea that we can work together with others to help women in desperate situation. But if we don't also seek to give the unborn the recognition and right to life they deserve, which includes the protection of the law, I don't see how that would be 100% pro-life. That being said, not everybody who's pro-life has to occupy him or herself with legal issue of abortion, one can certainly build the culture of life in many ways. I'm just saying it's not consistent to claim a pro-life position while holding the view that there shouldn't be a law giving unborn babies the recognition as human beings with the right to life that we also enjoy.
1.2.2011 | 10:14am
Michael says:
I think we’re on the same page here, Jacob.
“I'm certainly not saying that making abortion illegal should be the only efforts made by the pro-life movement, I thought I was clear about that.”
You were being clear, and I agree.
“So I don't see why a pro-lifer couldn't do the things you suggest and work to make abortion illegal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.”
I agree with you here, too. I would only add that lots of pro-life folk use illegality as a litmus test for seriousness. If someone doesn’t promote illegality first, then they are regarded as not serious about abortion.
“I don't see how the practical issue is a factor here”
I do see practicality as a factor. I don’t imagine that abortion will be made illegal in my lifetime. I’d like to see it made illegal, but I don’t get everything I want.
“I must say that your description of giving legal recognition of the unborn child's value as "Returning women's bodies to state control" seems to convey the kind of rhetoric that the "pro-choice" movement often uses to justify their position.”
Yes, I used that rhetoric purposefully, and it’s one reason why I don’t see illegality happening in my lifetime. I think lots of Americans find this position as unshakably right, and I don’t see them budging.
“Yes, a woman has a right to her own body, but she does not have the right to do what she wants with the bodies of other human beings”
I agree that the pro-choice position is wrong in making this assumption, but many Americans are deeply attached to this assumption, and I don’t see them letting go of it, which is why illegality is impractical.
“I'm just saying it's not consistent to claim a pro-life position while holding the view that there shouldn't be a law giving unborn babies the recognition as human beings with the right to life that we also enjoy”
If you’re asking me whether I would like a law, then yes, of course I would. But I’m not going to bring up law when I’m trying to motivate people from all quarters to do the kinds of concrete things we can do to lower one of the highest abortion rates in the industrialized world. The people who work the hardest on improving the living conditions of poor young women are often dead set against abortion laws, but they are eager to do many other things that will lower the abortion rate. Working with these people on poverty, crisis, child care, and marriage will reduce the number of abortions faster than continued agitation for the perceived quick fix of illegality.
“I'm certainly not saying that making abortion illegal should be the only efforts made by the pro-life movement, I thought I was clear about that.”
You were being clear, and I agree.
“So I don't see why a pro-lifer couldn't do the things you suggest and work to make abortion illegal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.”
I agree with you here, too. I would only add that lots of pro-life folk use illegality as a litmus test for seriousness. If someone doesn’t promote illegality first, then they are regarded as not serious about abortion.
“I don't see how the practical issue is a factor here”
I do see practicality as a factor. I don’t imagine that abortion will be made illegal in my lifetime. I’d like to see it made illegal, but I don’t get everything I want.
“I must say that your description of giving legal recognition of the unborn child's value as "Returning women's bodies to state control" seems to convey the kind of rhetoric that the "pro-choice" movement often uses to justify their position.”
Yes, I used that rhetoric purposefully, and it’s one reason why I don’t see illegality happening in my lifetime. I think lots of Americans find this position as unshakably right, and I don’t see them budging.
“Yes, a woman has a right to her own body, but she does not have the right to do what she wants with the bodies of other human beings”
I agree that the pro-choice position is wrong in making this assumption, but many Americans are deeply attached to this assumption, and I don’t see them letting go of it, which is why illegality is impractical.
“I'm just saying it's not consistent to claim a pro-life position while holding the view that there shouldn't be a law giving unborn babies the recognition as human beings with the right to life that we also enjoy”
If you’re asking me whether I would like a law, then yes, of course I would. But I’m not going to bring up law when I’m trying to motivate people from all quarters to do the kinds of concrete things we can do to lower one of the highest abortion rates in the industrialized world. The people who work the hardest on improving the living conditions of poor young women are often dead set against abortion laws, but they are eager to do many other things that will lower the abortion rate. Working with these people on poverty, crisis, child care, and marriage will reduce the number of abortions faster than continued agitation for the perceived quick fix of illegality.
1.2.2011 | 6:41pm
Jacob Astudillo says:
Thanks again, Michael. I've appreciated our conversation.
I must say that I don't share your pessimistic view regarding the sentiments of the American people on the abortion issue, doesn't a majority declare themselves to be pro-life? And didn't the last president a few years back manage to put a ban on partial birth abortions? All this seems to indicate that the American pro-life movement is strong and vibrant. I really don't see that the situation is as hopeless as you make it out to be.
But yes, one can certainly contribute to the pro-life cause by doing other things than promoting that abortion should be illegal. And yes, some of those things could be done in collaboration with "pro-choice" people. I just hope you realise the limitations of that. As St. Thomas Aquinas said: "a little error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end."
So be aware that those efforts made to improve the lives of human beings will in the final analysis be destructive if they are not motivated by sound philosophy and sound ethics. "Ay, there's the rub", as Hamlet would say. That is indeed the major flaw of those pro-abortion people seeking to reduce the abortion rate.
Princeton professor Robert P. George put it very well when he said that those kind of people we're talking about does not seek to reduce abortions, but the "need for abortions". That is a very important distinction to make. They're not saying that abortion is a bad thing per se. It's like bypass surgery, it should certainly be avoided by trying to live healthy and so on, but such an operation in itself is not a bad thing, it's not evil.
If we're improving a quality of life that is not properly grounded in the sanctity of life I don't see why we couldn't be moving towards a dystopic society like the one described by Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World". Indeed, you could just look at a country like Sweden that has a well established welfare system and yet has very high abortion rates to see that improving living conditions doesn't necessarily lead to fewer abortions.
I must say that I don't share your pessimistic view regarding the sentiments of the American people on the abortion issue, doesn't a majority declare themselves to be pro-life? And didn't the last president a few years back manage to put a ban on partial birth abortions? All this seems to indicate that the American pro-life movement is strong and vibrant. I really don't see that the situation is as hopeless as you make it out to be.
But yes, one can certainly contribute to the pro-life cause by doing other things than promoting that abortion should be illegal. And yes, some of those things could be done in collaboration with "pro-choice" people. I just hope you realise the limitations of that. As St. Thomas Aquinas said: "a little error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end."
So be aware that those efforts made to improve the lives of human beings will in the final analysis be destructive if they are not motivated by sound philosophy and sound ethics. "Ay, there's the rub", as Hamlet would say. That is indeed the major flaw of those pro-abortion people seeking to reduce the abortion rate.
Princeton professor Robert P. George put it very well when he said that those kind of people we're talking about does not seek to reduce abortions, but the "need for abortions". That is a very important distinction to make. They're not saying that abortion is a bad thing per se. It's like bypass surgery, it should certainly be avoided by trying to live healthy and so on, but such an operation in itself is not a bad thing, it's not evil.
If we're improving a quality of life that is not properly grounded in the sanctity of life I don't see why we couldn't be moving towards a dystopic society like the one described by Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World". Indeed, you could just look at a country like Sweden that has a well established welfare system and yet has very high abortion rates to see that improving living conditions doesn't necessarily lead to fewer abortions.
1.3.2011 | 11:46am
Michael says:
You're welcome, Jacob. Me, too.
I prefer to think my view is realistic rather than "pessimistic." It's taken forty years to get a slim majority to call itself "pro-life," and even then, the poll depends on how the question is framed. The achievements of the anti-legal wing of the pro-life movement have been plucked from such low-hanging fruit as late-term abortions. A legal ban on first trimester abortions seems as distant as ever, at least to me.
"some of those things could be done in collaboration with "pro-choice" people."
I would say that all achievements in limiting abortion and reducing rates have been done with the collaboration of pro-choice people. Only a few Americans identify strongly as either pro-life or pro-choice. Most are in the muddy middle, and it's the muddy middle that has been mobilized whenever anything is accomplished. They're the ones who ultimately won't support illegalization but who can be encouraged to create a culture of life in broader ways.
"Princeton professor Robert P. George put it very well when he said that those kind of people we're talking about does not seek to reduce abortions, but the "need for abortions". That is a very important distinction to make."
I don't mind working with the people George is criticizing if they are actually reducing the abortion rate and thus saving lives. I don't require ideological purity from my allies, just shared practical goals. I think Carter is saying something similar in the article that prompted this thread.
"Indeed, you could just look at a country like Sweden that has a well established welfare system and yet has very high abortion rates to see that improving living conditions doesn't necessarily lead to fewer abortions."
True enough, but Sweden isn't the model here. Holland and Belgium are.
I prefer to think my view is realistic rather than "pessimistic." It's taken forty years to get a slim majority to call itself "pro-life," and even then, the poll depends on how the question is framed. The achievements of the anti-legal wing of the pro-life movement have been plucked from such low-hanging fruit as late-term abortions. A legal ban on first trimester abortions seems as distant as ever, at least to me.
"some of those things could be done in collaboration with "pro-choice" people."
I would say that all achievements in limiting abortion and reducing rates have been done with the collaboration of pro-choice people. Only a few Americans identify strongly as either pro-life or pro-choice. Most are in the muddy middle, and it's the muddy middle that has been mobilized whenever anything is accomplished. They're the ones who ultimately won't support illegalization but who can be encouraged to create a culture of life in broader ways.
"Princeton professor Robert P. George put it very well when he said that those kind of people we're talking about does not seek to reduce abortions, but the "need for abortions". That is a very important distinction to make."
I don't mind working with the people George is criticizing if they are actually reducing the abortion rate and thus saving lives. I don't require ideological purity from my allies, just shared practical goals. I think Carter is saying something similar in the article that prompted this thread.
"Indeed, you could just look at a country like Sweden that has a well established welfare system and yet has very high abortion rates to see that improving living conditions doesn't necessarily lead to fewer abortions."
True enough, but Sweden isn't the model here. Holland and Belgium are.
1.3.2011 | 2:06pm
Jacob Astudillo says:
OK Michael, I think this will be my last input because I don't have much more to say.
I don't mind shared practical goals, that's pragmatic and a certain amount of that is not a bad thing. But as I wrote before, it has its limitations. As G.K. Chesterton once said: "The most pragmatic thing for us is what's beyond the pragmatical". Surely it's not incomprehensible to you the idea that a nation can prosper materially and yet decline in sound values, i.e. become decadent? Christ said: "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?" Not everyone are Christians, you might say. True, but isn't it just sound philosophy, isn't it common sense that our happiness lies beyond the material?
Now, right actions come from right principles if we're talking about progress from a metaphysical point of view, and we better do that because metaphysics reveal the basic structures of existence that ultimately motivates our actions.
So what I'm trying to say is: collaboration with others according to shared practical goals, yes. But, it is not enough. If you realise that it's more important to change people's hearts than their material living conditions, then you got it right.
From that perspective the legal issue is not the most crucial thing, but it will be included in the pro-life agenda if we are serious about it.
So I do encourage you to build the culture of life in the way you feel you can be of most use. I just hope you will encourage the efforts of those who are working with the legal issue and not scoff at them(not that I'm accusing you of doing that), and that you will not stand in the way should there be possibilities to advancement in the legal situation regarding abortion. Remember; "a little error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end". So your commitment to the pro-life cause better consist of more than practical goals.
Anyway, I've enjoyed our discussion, I've found it interesting. God bless you.
I don't mind shared practical goals, that's pragmatic and a certain amount of that is not a bad thing. But as I wrote before, it has its limitations. As G.K. Chesterton once said: "The most pragmatic thing for us is what's beyond the pragmatical". Surely it's not incomprehensible to you the idea that a nation can prosper materially and yet decline in sound values, i.e. become decadent? Christ said: "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?" Not everyone are Christians, you might say. True, but isn't it just sound philosophy, isn't it common sense that our happiness lies beyond the material?
Now, right actions come from right principles if we're talking about progress from a metaphysical point of view, and we better do that because metaphysics reveal the basic structures of existence that ultimately motivates our actions.
So what I'm trying to say is: collaboration with others according to shared practical goals, yes. But, it is not enough. If you realise that it's more important to change people's hearts than their material living conditions, then you got it right.
From that perspective the legal issue is not the most crucial thing, but it will be included in the pro-life agenda if we are serious about it.
So I do encourage you to build the culture of life in the way you feel you can be of most use. I just hope you will encourage the efforts of those who are working with the legal issue and not scoff at them(not that I'm accusing you of doing that), and that you will not stand in the way should there be possibilities to advancement in the legal situation regarding abortion. Remember; "a little error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end". So your commitment to the pro-life cause better consist of more than practical goals.
Anyway, I've enjoyed our discussion, I've found it interesting. God bless you.
1.3.2011 | 4:34pm
Michael says:
I think we might have be having two conversations, Jacob.
You want to make sure that I am being ideologically pure. And so you warn me that practical goals have their limitations, that prosperity differs from sound values, that right actions derive from right principles, that "your commitment to the pro-life cause better consist of more than practical goals."
All of these warnings ignore my repeated statements of commitment to creating a culture of life as a Christian must. You and I don't differ in terms of ideology, commitment, or principles. We only differ on the practical matter of where to place the illegalization of abortion on the priority list.
The Christian right places the legal remedy right at the top of the priority list. The Christian left places it a good bit lower.
I've never had a conversation with a member of the Christian right without having my motives or commitment questioned. And yet I don't question your motives or commitment at all.
You conclude by asking me not to scoff at those who are working on the legal issue and not to stand in the way of any advancements there. I appreciate that you assume I wouldn't. (And you're right!) I do feel we have lost valuable energy that would have better spent elsewhere and have needlessly alienated allies.
And so in turn I ask that you not scoff at or stand in the way of people who are helping women make a whole host of better decisions. What I mean by this will be clear in the next paragraph, which is pulled from an academic paper explaining why Holland is so successful against abortion.
"People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world. Between 1965 and 1975, a shift from a largely agricultural society to an industrial society, rapid economic growth and the establishment of a welfare state, a reduced influence of the church in public and personal life, introduction of mass media, and a rapid increase in the educational level of both men and women brought about a rapid change in traditional values and family relations in the Netherlands. These changes and the introduction of modern contraception effected a breakthrough in family planning and sexual morality. Factors facilitating the rapid transition to a contraceptive society in the Netherlands were a voluntary family planning movement, fear of overpopulation, role of general practitioners in providing family planning services, and inclusion of family planning in the national public health insurance system. Acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion. Society accepts abortion as only a last resort. The sexual sterilization rate is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%). Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception. Sex education has largely been integrated in general health education programs. The mass media address adolescent sexuality and preventive behavior. Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics."
You want to make sure that I am being ideologically pure. And so you warn me that practical goals have their limitations, that prosperity differs from sound values, that right actions derive from right principles, that "your commitment to the pro-life cause better consist of more than practical goals."
All of these warnings ignore my repeated statements of commitment to creating a culture of life as a Christian must. You and I don't differ in terms of ideology, commitment, or principles. We only differ on the practical matter of where to place the illegalization of abortion on the priority list.
The Christian right places the legal remedy right at the top of the priority list. The Christian left places it a good bit lower.
I've never had a conversation with a member of the Christian right without having my motives or commitment questioned. And yet I don't question your motives or commitment at all.
You conclude by asking me not to scoff at those who are working on the legal issue and not to stand in the way of any advancements there. I appreciate that you assume I wouldn't. (And you're right!) I do feel we have lost valuable energy that would have better spent elsewhere and have needlessly alienated allies.
And so in turn I ask that you not scoff at or stand in the way of people who are helping women make a whole host of better decisions. What I mean by this will be clear in the next paragraph, which is pulled from an academic paper explaining why Holland is so successful against abortion.
"People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world. Between 1965 and 1975, a shift from a largely agricultural society to an industrial society, rapid economic growth and the establishment of a welfare state, a reduced influence of the church in public and personal life, introduction of mass media, and a rapid increase in the educational level of both men and women brought about a rapid change in traditional values and family relations in the Netherlands. These changes and the introduction of modern contraception effected a breakthrough in family planning and sexual morality. Factors facilitating the rapid transition to a contraceptive society in the Netherlands were a voluntary family planning movement, fear of overpopulation, role of general practitioners in providing family planning services, and inclusion of family planning in the national public health insurance system. Acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion. Society accepts abortion as only a last resort. The sexual sterilization rate is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%). Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception. Sex education has largely been integrated in general health education programs. The mass media address adolescent sexuality and preventive behavior. Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics."
1.3.2011 | 8:49pm
Jacob Astudillo says:
OK, maybe more things need to be said.
I apologise if you feel I was questioning your motives, that wasn't my intention.
I just wanted to explain why the legal issue is important, that it is connected with other considerations beyond what's practical.
Although I must with regret say that if you hold Holland as a model(and you did say that), then I'm having a hard time seeing how that would be building a culture of life. I don't see how pills, condoms and sterilisation fit into that picture. Not only are those things in themselves not life affirming(their function is in fact to stop life), their effects on society are disastrous to the population rate, and this is going on all over Europe. They're aborting and contracepting their way into extinction, the only group that's dramatically increasing are, surprise surprise, the muslims. This seems to concern a considerable amount of the Dutch people, making the party of the infamous Geert Wilders the third largest party in their house of representatives. These measures made by the Dutch and many other European governments have led to a crisis in the population rate and if these trends continue Europe as we know it will cease to exist because the majority will be muslims. In other words, contraception is not the answer, because it is also abortive, albeit in a different way than abortion(except things like the morning after pill and also regular birth control pill sometimes have that effect).
I apologise if you feel I was questioning your motives, that wasn't my intention.
I just wanted to explain why the legal issue is important, that it is connected with other considerations beyond what's practical.
Although I must with regret say that if you hold Holland as a model(and you did say that), then I'm having a hard time seeing how that would be building a culture of life. I don't see how pills, condoms and sterilisation fit into that picture. Not only are those things in themselves not life affirming(their function is in fact to stop life), their effects on society are disastrous to the population rate, and this is going on all over Europe. They're aborting and contracepting their way into extinction, the only group that's dramatically increasing are, surprise surprise, the muslims. This seems to concern a considerable amount of the Dutch people, making the party of the infamous Geert Wilders the third largest party in their house of representatives. These measures made by the Dutch and many other European governments have led to a crisis in the population rate and if these trends continue Europe as we know it will cease to exist because the majority will be muslims. In other words, contraception is not the answer, because it is also abortive, albeit in a different way than abortion(except things like the morning after pill and also regular birth control pill sometimes have that effect).
1.4.2011 | 11:20am
Michael says:
Thanks for the apology, Jacob. I appreciate it.
Here are some things I keep in mind. Countries in South America that have made abortion illegal have higher abortion rates (39) than the United States (22) and Holland (7). These profound differences suggest that law is not the answer to abortion. The answer is the kind of networks of care that are seen in Western Europe, especially in Holland.
In both Europe and the US, kids start having sex at 17, but pregnancy rates in the US are three times higher, and STD rates in the US are 20 times higher than in Holland.
The US typically approaches sex as a force to be reckoned with, while public health policies in Holland describe sex as an expression of love. The result is that 74% of Dutch teens are in committed relationships and 80% enjoyed their first sexual experience. Because of their positive, loving experiences, only 5% of Dutch boys and 12% of girls wish they had waited to have sex while 63% of American boys and 69% of girls wish they had.
I think Dutch society has done a better job of handling sex. Now, that is not the same thing as building a culture of life, but that job belongs to the church, for only the church can explain the deeper purpose of love or sex.
As for the birth rate, that is the result of prosperity. All prosperous societies in every place and time have seen falling birth rates. As Muslim immigrants become prosperous, their birth rates will decline, too.
Yes, Dutch xenophobia is painful to watch. The US has its share of xenophobes, but historically, we are much, much better at accepting immigrants than Europeans are.
Here are some things I keep in mind. Countries in South America that have made abortion illegal have higher abortion rates (39) than the United States (22) and Holland (7). These profound differences suggest that law is not the answer to abortion. The answer is the kind of networks of care that are seen in Western Europe, especially in Holland.
In both Europe and the US, kids start having sex at 17, but pregnancy rates in the US are three times higher, and STD rates in the US are 20 times higher than in Holland.
The US typically approaches sex as a force to be reckoned with, while public health policies in Holland describe sex as an expression of love. The result is that 74% of Dutch teens are in committed relationships and 80% enjoyed their first sexual experience. Because of their positive, loving experiences, only 5% of Dutch boys and 12% of girls wish they had waited to have sex while 63% of American boys and 69% of girls wish they had.
I think Dutch society has done a better job of handling sex. Now, that is not the same thing as building a culture of life, but that job belongs to the church, for only the church can explain the deeper purpose of love or sex.
As for the birth rate, that is the result of prosperity. All prosperous societies in every place and time have seen falling birth rates. As Muslim immigrants become prosperous, their birth rates will decline, too.
Yes, Dutch xenophobia is painful to watch. The US has its share of xenophobes, but historically, we are much, much better at accepting immigrants than Europeans are.
