RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Discovering Common Ground

by Jim Wallis 05-21-2009

The media coverage and analysis of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame on Sunday largely focused on the issue of abortion. And he did speak on that issue, clearly and strongly reiterating his own approach of finding the common ground of abortion reduction between the polarized options of “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” and naming practical solutions that many on both sides of the divide can support.

Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually; it has both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions; let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause …

But the speech was much more than a culmination of another abortion controversy in the media. After re-reading it, I think it was likely the most significant speech Obama has made in his presidency so far in regard to many of the concerns and work of the faith community. As columnist E.J. Dionne wrote:

There were many messages sent from South Bend. Obama’s opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He doesn’t. They would reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refused to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to certainty. He opted for humility.

President Obama began by recognizing that our difficulty in finding common ground too often lies in our imperfections – our sin – dominating us rather than calling us to work together.

We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

But, at the same time, he emphasized the importance of civility and how we should engage in public dialogue on issues where strong, conflicting opinions can lead us to discover that common ground.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? … When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground. … Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

And the new president reminded us all that the strength of faith should produce genuine humility, rather than easy certainty, in our views, and can help lead us to a commitment to social justice.

Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It’s the belief in things not seen. It’s beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what [God] asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that [God's] wisdom is greater than our own.

And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.

As I wrote on Monday, this president’s willingness to confront controversy with an appeal to common values could help to change the way we address a number of divisive and controversial issues. We live in a country where we certainly know everyone will not agree on everything. In fact, it is quite an accomplishment to even get half of the country to agree on anything. Our differences, and our ability to maintain this union in spite of them, are some of our country’s greatest strengths.

President Obama laid out a strong and positive vision for how people of faith, and the nation as a whole, can work together to face the most difficult moral questions of our time in both disagreement and unity. If you have not yet read the speech, I urge that you do.

Sojourners has a long history of promoting this common-ground approach and does so again in the cover feature of our June 2009 issue, “Bridge Over Troubled Waters,” by Julie Polter.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • A pro-life/anti-abortion stance does exist among secularists without its source or inspiration being found rooted in religious belief. Whether a secular case can be made against abortion is the topic of this debate.
  • I totally agree with you!

    Rina
  • Don't worry about "civility". These are important issues, and emotion is
    thoroughly natural and acceptable. Believe me, I am not always civil either!
    We always need to keep talking to each other about these things. Thanks for
    continuing the dialogue.


    You seem to be sure (beyond a reasonable doubt?) that abortion (at any stage?)
    is murder. If you are, I can understand why it might be hard for you to see
    the importance of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard as it applies to
    criminal law--or at least as it applies to me, and the dilemma I would face if
    I were on a jury having to decide the fate of a woman who had had an abortion.


    In fact, I actually find it hard to believe that a fertilized egg is really "a
    person", although, as I think I said, I prefer to consider it so, for many
    reasons, some of which probably are very similar to yours. But preferring to
    consider it so, and believing it so, are different things, especially when it
    comes to criminalizing abortion (even at very early stages of pregnancy).
    That's why I feel I must vote pro-choice. If I have doubt, real doubt, about
    the "personal" status of a fertilized egg (and perhaps some very slightly more
    advanced stages of pregnancy), then how do I convict a woman of murder for
    having an abortion and still meet the requirement of "beyond reasonable
    doubt"?

    I understand how it would be possible to give the fertilized egg "the benefit
    of the doubt", and I think there are very good reasons for doing so, that is,
    for assuming that it is "a human person" right from the get-go. It elevates
    respect for life; it challenges "mere convenience" as a justification for
    ending another life (any life, even non-human life); it nips the "slippery
    slope" in the bud; it helps us to keep from judging the value of human life
    according to shape, size, utility, etc., and instead encourages us to value it
    absolutely, as human life....

    And for these reasons, and more, I would advocate the kind of heartfelt
    spiritual attitude that values life from the point of conception; and the
    kinds of life changes that go with that attitude (responsible sexual life;
    socio-economic re-structuring to help women who choose to carry pregnancies to
    term; etc.).

    But here is where you and I seem to diverge: I would advocate for these
    things on a voluntary basis, that is, as women deciding for themselves that
    this is how they will look upon their preganancy, giving the fertilized egg
    the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it is a person; or, at least, assuming
    it may become a person, and wanting to give it that chance, and being willing
    to adjust one's life to that possibility.

    But I do not really know that the fertilized egg is "a person". And, as I
    said, I actually have trouble believing that it really is a person. There is,
    I believe, reasonable doubt about this. And so....

    It would seem that I have two choices:

    1. Defend the being that MIGHT be "a person", but without really knowing that
    it is a person, and punish the woman who has an abortion. However, if I do
    this, I am doing harm to someone (the woman) that I absolutely know to be "a
    person", and I am punishing her for something that I do not (and perhaps can
    not) know is really "murder".

    2. Leave the choice up to the woman. If I do this, I can still try to bring
    about that state of society in which most would choose to respect the growing
    life within (whether viewed as a potential, or an actual, human being). And I
    can avoid doing harm to the women, to people I KNOW are human beings, and whom
    I know are capable of having a rational, but different, viewpoint on the
    matter.

    And, while I do not believe that the fetus is "part" of the woman's body, it
    is, nevertheless, undeniably "in" the woman's body. And that, too, makes me
    feel even less justified in making the decision for her.

    Anyway, feel free to keep arguing for your point of view! And I will try to
    listen and respond.
  • JaneinWNY
    rryand35:

    "If you take a look at all of Obama's cabinet appointees, they are almost all pro-abortion."

    Nobody is pro-abortion. They might be opposed to criminalization of abortion. They might be pro-abortion rights. They might call themselves pro-choice. None of that means they are actively promoting the act of abortion, or that they think abortion is the desired end of every pregnancy.

    Jane
  • Very interesting read, thanks a lot for posting this, I could see the discussion around, so many people are willing to get into the discussions like this!

    Debra
  • rryand35
    As we see once again, Obama confronts a controversial subject with empty rhetoric that accomplishes nothing!!!
    *Applause*
    If my sarcasm isn't glaring I don't know what is. I'm sorry Mr. Wallis but you called his speech "his most brilliant" speech. But its just that, a speech.
    If you take a look at all of Obama's cabinet appointees, they are almost all pro-abortion. At least all the ones who have any relation to the abortion issue. If you take a look at the FOCA bill Obama promised to sign, it completely demolishes all restrictions on abortions. Finding common ground my foot.
    Obama has mastered the empty words characteristic of a manipulative politician. He says things that look pretty when in reality there is a dark shift taking place.
    Personally, I don't think Obama should've talked about abortion at all. He should've addressed how the graduates of Notre Dame could help rebuild our ECONOMY!!!!
    Alas, he choose to make a commencement speech his soap box. Tis a shame.
    Obama's Speech: A
    Record on Abortion: F
  • domc83
    arthurpena,

    I'll do my best to address your various comments:

    >> Martin Luther King was no theocrat. Not sure what you're trying to say there....? Could you elaborate? <<

    I was commenting on your words: "And if you want to say that it is 'a person' at the moment of conception because your church tradition says so, and therefore the law should reflect your church's teaching, then, well, you are probably on the slippery slope to theocracy."

    I then quoted MLK in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", showing that he based his arguments on the very thing you said was a slippery slope to theocracy. I'll post the quote again so you don't have to go find it:

    “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law… Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality." (MLK, Letter from a Birmingham Jail)

    Now I agree with you: MLK was no theocrat. However, he appealed to the "law of God", which, according to your comment, would put him on the "slippery slope to theocracy". So what I was trying to say was that just because people appeal to higher standards than law (some form of absolute morality) does not mean they are headed toward theocracy. MLK made the point elsewhere in that letter that the holocaust was "legal", as was segregation. Those who opposed such horrible laws appealed to something higher, but that certainly didn't mean they were headed toward theocracy. The same holds for those of us who oppose the legalization of abortion. We appeal to a higher law which says that the taking of innocent human life is invalid, but that doesn't make us theocrats any more than it did MLK.

    Furthermore, MLK said that laws (in his case segregation), were unjust if they "degrade the human personality". That's exactly what legal abortion does. Exactly.

    >> "But, of course, abortion is not always about mere convenience." <<

    93% of the time, according to stat's I found online (I know, I know...). That's an atrocity. Our current laws legitimize this.

    >> "...if we balk at executing women or giving them life sentences because they have an abortion, then I think it is because something inside us knows that it is not quite the same thing." <<

    First off, in the same way that I'm against abortion, I'm against the death penalty. That's another issue, though. Either way, you've cited the absolute most extreme punishments we have for murder. Our laws are much more nuanced than that, and there are a variety of other penalties that various "forms" of murder result in (e.g., involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc.). Criminalizing abortion would require the same thoughtful, nuanced, approach. Harsher penalties, in my opinion, would be much more appropriate for an educated doctor who performs the abortions with the full knowledge of what's going on. A frightened teen who hasn't had time to give the issue much thought and has been indoctrinated with our culture's claim that killing the baby is a legitimate option would certainly not deserve the same level of punishment.

    >> "A single fertilized cell...a group of undifferentiated cells...a being without nervous system.... At any of these early stages of pregnancy, there really is no human way of knowing whether it is 'a human person'... Isn't there a difference between a single cell, or a small group of cells, and a person?" <<

    First of all, how may abortions are of single fertilized cells? Even a group of undifferentiated cells? Please take a few minutes to view this video from National Geographic, it's absolutely amazing. Notice, at the very end, what we see at just 8 weeks. The baby is already making its first movements. Even at 6 weeks, it's more than just "undifferentiated cells". The first trimester, where apparently 90% of abortions are performed, ends at 12 weeks; significantly beyond either of those.

    http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/i...

    >> "...it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the 'being' in early stages of pregnancy is 'a human being', a 'person'. To compare a single fertilized egg, or a group of undifferentiated cells, with an Alzeiheimer's patient, or a black person, is, I think, unjustifiable. Isn't there a difference between a single cell, or a small group of cells, and a person? Perhaps there is a human soul at the moment of conception. But that is just not humanly knowable. At least, I, personally, feel I cannot know." <<

    This, I feel, is the crux of your argument; so my response to this point is the most important of everything I say in this response. If you cannot know, you are obligated to be cautious instead of irresponsible (when you're dealing with human life, anyway). We have a responsibility, in the face of doubt, to prohibit potential murder. In other words, it is precisely because we cannot know that abortion should be illegal. If you're speeding and see something in the road that looks like it might be a human, you have a responsibility to assume it is and slow down. Speeding up and running it over because of doubt is not acceptable; It is reckless endangerment, and rightly illegal. The same should be true of abortion.

    And beyond that, reasonable doubt has to do with whether the person committed the crime or not. The physician undoubtedly ended life. No question. Whether the life of the victim is legitimate in the eyes of the person who performed the muder is essentially irrelevant. Again, who's to say lynch mobs didn't question the humanness of their victims? You say that we can't justify making that link, but I strongly disagree. Do you doubt the humanness of the 32-month-old yawning in the National Geographic video? What about a child a day older? A day older? A day older...? Where you end up drawing that line is totally arbitrary, and no less arbitrary than using criteria like Alzeiheimer's or skin color. For a clear example of this, look at the first paragraph in this document:

    http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/SCopinionGonza...

    So it's acceptable to cut the same child up while it's inside the womb, but not acceptable to pull it out first then kill it? This nonsense is the logical conclusion of using doubt as justification for murder. I would hope you see how ridiculous and arbitrary these statutes are, and that a child's location and development are no less arbitrary than a person's skin color.

    >> "But when it comes to the law and whether or not to criminalize abortion, I vote 'pro-choice': I feel I have to leave it up to the woman to decide, because I could not sit on a jury and say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the woman has committed murder. My position is pro-life, anti-abortion, AND anti-criminalization of abortion." <<

    Again, I've just addressed using doubt as a criteria. Beyond that, however, when you do take the position described above, you are keeping some cases of murder in which there is NO reasonable doubt legal. Again, look at those videos. In the US, I believe the legal cutoff is 24 weeks or "viability". At 23 weeks, to doubt that the baby is human is just as rediculous as to doubt someone with Alzeiheimer's is. I personally have no doubt about children in the first trimester. However, let's say, for the sake of argument, that such doubt is reasonable. While you say that you're voting pro-choice for single cell cases, 23 week old babies are being aborted because of that legislation. I hope what I'm trying to say here is clear.

    >> "Perhaps, ultimately, I will discover that this position is untenable." <<

    I hope that you do, arthurpena. I can tell that you (unlike some of the other commenters) are at least thoughtful. I hope that you consider what I've said about using doubt as a valid reason to keep abortion legal, and that I've argued persuasively to the contrary. I hope you take your strong convictions and stand with those of us who say abortion must be made illegal. That is truly a necessary step in abortion reduction (although certainly not the only step, as I've argued elsewhere), and also a necessary step in the formation of a just society. It will take much effort and nuance to develop what penalties are fitting for the various members involved, but that should not stop us from moving in that direction. I appreciate the civility of your response to my comments. I wish I were consistently as civil. It's something I continue to strive for.
  • WaveTossed
    "For some reason, I can not read all the posts on this. So, I can't read what you said. At any rate, God Bless."

    I sent my reply to you privately. The software being used is quite frustrating.

    You might want to try and click on "options." Select "read newest first" or else "read oldest first." And then click on "Community Pages."
  • DHFabian
    When it comes to the abortion debate, we tend to overlook several important points. Adoption is rarely an option for the woman who spent nine months carrying a baby. A baby is not a consumer product. For most, giving the baby away is simply beyond what they can do; it would be easier to give away their own arm or leg.

    As a nation, our welfare "reform" policies clearly define how little value we place on the lives of babies born to the poor. When we can collectively choose to (a) impose punitive policies against the poor, and (b) subject primarily women with children to severe poverty, the arguments about the "sanctity of life" pretty much fall flat. It is apparent that Americans support welfare "reform" as we got it. As a direct result of these policies, the infant mortality rate among America's poor now equals that of some Third World nations, and the life expectancy of America's poor has actually fallen below that of some Third World nations. During one's life, a citizen might be able to receive up to 12 months of aid; after that, tough, regardless of circumstances.

    Based on these facts, America simply doesn't have a legitimate argument against abortion.
  • domc83
    arthurpena,

    I'll do my best to address your various comments:
  • gjkbear822
    For some reason, I can not read all the posts on this.  So, I can't read what you said.  At any rate, God Bless.




    ________________________________
  • squeaky
    I think you make good points. I also think many on the pro-choice side of the issue think that all pro-life advocates want to do is enact laws to end abortion.

    It may be a strawman in that sense, or it may be a misconception. Either way, it seems we have a major communication issue, and I would argue we have a major trust issue. It comes from both sides, of course.

    What I have been arguing is that we need to concentrate resources where they will do the most good. Resources are limited, and to rely on politics to solve this problem seems misguided to me, especially since we have made very little political progress since RvW.

    My hope is that if we focused on more practical responses to abortion, we just might start to gain the trust of our adversaries. If we ever hope for lasting legal solutions, we can't do it without working with our adversaries, anyway, so what is the point in the exclusionary rhetoric many ( not you) on this blog have employed?In fact, if we somehow did manage to pass anti-abortion laws without working with pro-choicers, how long will those laws even last?

    I really think there are things we can do to build trust with each other. I really think we do share common concerns.

    To address a point you made in another response to me:

    "The current framing of prolifers as being the "unwilling to talk" crowd versus the righteous dialogue crowd IS the language of demonization."

    I agree, and I hope I have not been doing that. That said, if you look at some of the responses I have gotten from the pro-life people on this blog, many have expressed complete unwillingness to dialogue. I have tried to include them in the discussion, I've tried to ask for solutions, I've pointed out areas that are potential common ground, and they refuse to come to the table--one has even scoffed at such attempts. So, although I agree with your point, at the same time, there really are some pro-lifers who have shown themselves to be unwilling to talk, and even show righteous indignanation towards those of us who think there is common ground. How do you propose getting through to them? Do we include such in the dialogue, or do we ignore them and move on without their help?
  • WaveTossed
    "I guess I am very lucky. I was adopted at the age of 2 weeks by a loving mom & dad. I grew up in a very small town and I really didn't know any gay people - we didn't have any African Americans either. (My Dad tells the story of a black family who wanted to move into our small town after I graduated. The town fathers said no, so they moved to a small town 10 miles away. The son turned out to be a powerhouse of a football player & they were our big rivals - we usually didn't care if we got anywhere near state or not as long as we beat their team. That pretty much ended segregation in our town)."

    I bet that these same town fathers would state that they "aren't prejudiced against Blacks."

    "I grew up Methodist"

    I grew up Episcopalian. But there was a time during my spiritual journey when I joined a Methodist church. This church was one of the "reconciling" congregations that welcomed everyone. Their pastor was de-frocked after she came out and stated that she was Lesbian. The Methodist establishment is now quite purturbed because this congregation's current pastor is a Female-to-Male Transexual and they cannot find any laws in their books (or any Bible verses) that can help them oust this pastor. The Methodists de-frocked a Straight pastor for the horrible crime (?!) of giving a blessing ceremony for two Gay men (not a "marriage," just a "blessing ceremony"). Shortly after that, I left the Methodist denomination over their liberal homophobia. As far as I know, they are still as liberally homophobic as they were back then. One of their churches denied membership to a Gay man and the denomination upheld this exclusion. The Methodist establishment will sit there and condemn racism, the death penalty, war, guns, despoiling the environment -- all of the "progressive" causes. Save one. To them, there are those who truly must be cast out and excluded.

    I went back to my Episcopal roots. We have some exclusionary sorts within the Episcopal church and within the Anglican Communion. But at least they don't de-frock Straight priests (such as my pastor) who give blessing ceremonies to Gay couples.

    " - married a guy who was Baptist (boy was that a culture shock) and when we divorced, went back to Methodist. My present husband is Unitarian Universalist and I found that this was probably what I was all along. We have 7 Principles the 1st of which is the worth and dignity of all human beings. Long before I was UU, I found that there were gay people in the world. I have always been the type of person who believed that people were people and you treated them as you would be treated. I also always tried to see the good in everyone. One reason I like the Unitarian Universalist religion is that they are very social justice minded and I have always been upset with things that I considered unfair and to me 'dumbthink'. For instance it makes no sense to me that whom someone has consensual sex with should matter in how one does a job - you are either competent or incompetent and with whom one sleeps has little to do with that unless you are about 17 years old - and even then both straight & gay are affected with stupidity..."

    Recently, some Unitarian Universalists were murdered in a religious hate crime in Tennessee. This attack happened right in the middle of a church service. The murderer was upset because the Unitarians were "too liberal" and they supported Gay people. And thus several members of your denomination were martyred for their beliefs in social justice. I truly respect the UUs, though I am not one of them.

    As for alcoholism/addiction: this is sort of a paradox. We don't "conquer" alcoholism/addiction. We don't use will power. Instead, we learn to surrender ourselves to a Higher Power who will keep us clean and sober if we follow His Will instead of ours. We gain strength through this surrendering to God.

    And if I ever think that Gays are so sorely oppressed: I think of others throughout the world who are truly oppressed. I have mentioned the Dalits (the "untouchables" of India) because I have read about them and their plight. Here are some people who truly are systematically de-humanized and oppressed, even oppressed by non-Dalit Christians in India. Many Dalits are Christian and yet they are excluded from various Indian Christian churches:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2008/05/india-caste...

    Many Christians within the U.S. try and support the Dalits. However, what would their support be for a Dalit who is also Gay? Would these people welcome a Gay Dalit with open arms? Or would these people tell us that some people truly are untouchable?

    "Please, if you ever feel down and discouraged, don't hesitate to e-mail me. I can't promise that I can solve any problems - but I can listen and sometimes that is enough. There are silver linings! May your higher power bless you and may you find peace and Love."

    Thank you very much. And may you also fine peace and Love.
  • WaveTossed
    Hello! I have a few more words to say. But we're being squeezed by the software. So I put my reply at the end of the entire thread.
  • WitnessforPeace
    I don't think Hammerud or I are anywhere close to saying slaughter is something to be emulated today "in some circumstances". While Old Testament faith, like Gideon's, is clearly to be desired, the Holy Spirit empowers us to use Gideon-like faith in OUR situation, on this side of the Cross, in the third millennium, NOT to see how many soldiers we can cause to be slaughtered in one day. As for justifying it, I'm saying it's a mystery to me, while Hammerud seems to be throwing out one or the other of the various less than satisfactory explanations of “Why in the world did God command that?!” But command it He did! Am I to judge God? It is certainly OK for you and me to scratch our heads and say “I don't get it” and to ask God why he did so, either now or in Heaven!
    I hope to continue this discussion, but I can only read your comments if you use the “reply” button, as you just did; there is some browser issue where I only see the first 2 or 3 frames of comments. You may also post anonymously at www.joyfulreality.blogspot.com
    Blessings,
  • Hammerud is one such person: he fully feels that the various genocides portrayed in the old testament are justified because the Bible says that God instigated them. Apparently, you do not. Good.

    Did I say your concerns about abortion weren't valid? Wasn't I writing to Hammerud? And did I say his concerns were not valid? I don't think so. I certainly didn't mean to. I myself have very serious concerns about abortion!
  • Martin Luther King was no theocrat. Not sure what you're trying to say
    there....? Could you elaborate?

    But as for your arguments about abortion, I definitely hear you. And your
    arguments are very well-worth consideration. And you're right: it is a
    slippery slope. And a very dangerous one. When people start killing anything
    at all (even non-human life) out of mere convenience, we have begun to slide
    down the slope which leads to disaster. But, of course, abortion is not
    always about mere convenience.

    The issue I was addressing, however, is whether or not to criminalize
    abortion. If you were to criminalize abortion because it is the "murder" of a
    human person, then the punishment would have to fit the crime, wouldn't it?
    And if we balk at executing women or giving them life sentences because they
    have an abortion, then I think it is because something inside us knows that it
    is not quite the same thing. A single fertilized cell...a group of
    undifferentiated cells...a being without nervous system.... At any of these
    early stages of pregnancy, there really is no human way of knowing whether it
    is "a human person". The question then becomes: should abortion at these
    early stages be criminalized, and, if so, what should the punishment be? To
    convict someone of a crime, especially of murder, you really do have to prove
    your case beyond a reasonable doubt. And I do not think that is possible with
    abortion: it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the "being" in
    early stages of pregnancy is "a human being", a "person".

    To compare a single fertilized egg, or a group of undifferentiated cells, with
    an Alzeiheimer's patient, or a black person, is, I think, unjustifiable.
    Isn't there a difference between a single cell, or a small group of cells, and
    a person? Perhaps there is a human soul at the moment of conception. But
    that is just not humanly knowable. At least, I, personally, feel I cannot
    know.

    For me, it comes down to this question: am I willing to sit on a jury and
    deliver a verdict of "guilty of murder" to a woman who has had an abortion? I
    am not. To me, the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" has not been
    satisfied. I, personally, do in fact prefer to give the fertilized egg the
    benefit of the doubt, that is, to assume the fertilized cell is "a person";
    but, at the same time, I recognize that I, personally, do not know that the
    fertilized egg is, in fact, a person, and cannot say, beyond a reasonable
    doubt, that the woman has in fact committed murder. It's an emotional thing
    with me: I'd rather assume that the fertilized egg is "a person". But when
    it comes to the law and whether or not to criminalize abortion, I vote
    "pro-choice": I feel I have to leave it up to the woman to decide, because I
    could not sit on a jury and say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the woman has
    committed murder.

    My position is pro-life, anti-abortion, AND anti-criminalization of abortion.

    Perhaps, ultimately, I will discover that this position is untenable. But, so
    far, it seems the best answer to me.
  • gjkbear822
    I guess I am very lucky.  I was adopted at the age of 2 weeks by a loving mom & dad.  I grew up in a very small town and I really didn't know any gay people - we didn't have any African Americans either.  (My Dad tells the story of a black family who wanted to move into our small town after I graduated.  The town fathers said no, so they moved to a small town 10 miles away.  The son turned out to be a powerhouse of a football player & they were our big rivals - we usually didn't care if we got anywhere near state or not as long as we beat their team.  That pretty much ended segregation in our town).

    I grew up Methodist - married a guy who was Baptist (boy was that a culture shock) and when we divorced, went back to Methodist.  My present  husband is Unitarian Universalist and I found that this was probably what I was all along.  We have 7 Principles the 1st of which is the worth and dignity of all human beings.  Long before I was UU, I found that there were gay people in the world.  I have always been the type of person who believed that people were people and you treated them as you would be treated.  I also always tried to see the good in everyone.  One reason I like the Unitarian Universalist religion is that they are very social justice minded and I have always been upset with things that I considered unfair and to me "dumbthink".  For instance it makes no sense to me that whom someone has consensual sex with should matter in how one does a job - you are either competent or incompetent and with whom one sleeps has little to do with that
    unless you are about 17 years old - and even then both straight & gay are affected with stupidity...

    Some of the gay people that I knew have since died of HIV/AIDS and I mourned the loss of friendship. One man I knew was gay, then married a woman, then decided he was gay & divorced, then decided he was not and married another woman.  I lost track of him but his family was very religious and I am sure that only added to his confusion - and they were good people.  I have lost track of him & I don't know what his status is now.  I know of 2 men who have been in a committed relationship for over 15 years now.  There are people in both UU churches in my city that I know who are GLBTQ.  I can't say that when I am with them that I ever think about how they have sex - but then I don't think about how my straight friends have sex either.

    I can see where you are coming from, and I feel your pain.  I am so glad that you were able to conquer your demons - of alcohol and drugs.  But, I can understand why you might have turned to them.  I am sorry that there are factions in your religion that would deny you the right to love whom you wish.  I am hoping that someday, this will be a bad chapter in history and will be another of those things that our decendents will shake their heads over and wonder what some of us were thinking.

    Our church also has a remarkable film group. I will look for this video, "The Bible Tells Me So".  We recently showed Religulous by Bill Mahr and it was very enlightening.  If you haven't seen it, I recommend it.

    Please, if you ever feel down and discouraged, don't hesitate to e-mail me.  I can't promise that I can solve any problems - but I can listen and sometimes that is enough.  There are silver linings!  May your higher power bless you and may you find peace and Love.

    GJKBEAR
    Glenna Jones-Kachtik
    gjkbear822@yahoo.com

    PS - Keep repeating to yourself, I am a human being, and I am normal.  What is normal, anyway??? Perhaps, you are normal and they are not, did you ever think of that?



    ________________________________
  • WaveTossed
    You have some good points here. Sometimes I speak just a bit out of weariness and perhaps a bit of bitterness. I get tired of seeing and hearing people who call themselves Christian, who claim to be against racism and against injustice and poverty. And then they reveal their own prejudices, their own forms of spiritual violence.

    I've seen so many GBLTQ youth run away or commit suicide because of the spiritual violence done against them. Same with GBLTQ adults. When I was growing up, my church (the Episcopal church) never mentioned anything about homosexuality. And yet I received the same messages from our society about how "sick" and "perverted" we are. I wanted so badly to be "normal" (i.e. heterosexual) but it just didn't happen.

    I am in recovery from alcohol/drug addiction. I've been sober and clean for several years due to my God (my Higher Power) and my fellows in recovery groups. I've seen too many of my GLBTQ people drown themselves in booze and drugs because of the discrimination. I used all that discrimination myself as an excuse for many years. In truth, anti-Gay discrimination is no more an excuse for addiction than anything else. Fortunately, groups like AA welcome people without regard to race, religion, class, gender, or sexual orientation. The ONLY requirement is a desire to stop drinking/using.

    I participated extensively in the fight for African-American civil rights in the middle 1960s. Fortunately, most of my civil rights comrades also support Gay civil rights. Coretta Scott King supported our civl rights until she died. Then in South Africa, there are Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu.

    I recently purchased a video. I watch it every so often. It's name is "The Bible Tells Me So." What a wonderful film. It tells us what the Bible truly says, which is quite different from what the anti-Gay Chrstians will say. More than that, there are stories of reconciliation. Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson tells his story. He grew up dirt-poor on a Kentucky farm and his parents were both fundamentalist Christians. However what was so uplifting was seeing his parents joyfully rejoicing and expressing praise for Jesus at Bishop Robinson's consecration.

    Then there was a fundamentalist Lutheran couple. Their son turned out to be Gay. After some soul-searching and praying, they ended up joining Soulforce with their son in a non-violent act of civil disobedience at the headquarters of the American Family Association.

    I attended my church service this past Sunday; I still belong to an Episcopal church. Our pastor told us about celebrating the blessing of two Gay men who are happily a part of our congregation. Our pastor re-emphathized that ALL are included in Jesus' Love.

    Jesus told us: Matthew Chapter 5:

    11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

    43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

    Thank you for your comments. God bless and keep you.
  • gjkbear822
    Your statement is true in some cases; but I think those of us who are "standing on the side of love" also might have our blinders on, too.  If we say all Christians, that is not true for some are merely uncomfortable with the fact that 2 men or 2 women live together.  They believe in the prime directive of out of sight, out of mind or DADT.  Some of them might truly not have any experiences with gay people to draw upon - so, they believe all the propaganda. 
    One reason some of them are so vehement about it has everything to do with the old trick of dehumanizing our enemy - because it is easier to hate if the person is less than human.  So, they resort to parroting ideas that they have heard.  I hope that, even tho they say they would disown a child who said they were gay - that when it actually hit very close to home that they would rethink how they actually felt.
    It is really easy to be for something when it is in the abstract and another matter when it is actual reality.  These people actually feel very threatened by the fact that gay couples have the same problems that straight people have.  It is really not even the fact that they are living together - it is only the sex act that they can't get over & they dwell on that to the exclusion of the reality that gays 'have the same problems over whose turn it is to take out the garbage, whose turn it is to pick up the kids, whether to go to a movie or stay home, to join the PTA or the homeowners association - in other words all the same little things that straight people discuss.  For some reason, they can't see past the sex part to the fact that these are people.
    But we can not lump them all together, just as they can not lump all of us together - because we are all different.  Mostly, I think they are decent people who are just afraid and fear makes people do strange things.  They don't see themselves in the same mirror as you or I would.
    Perhaps, someday, they too will become enlightened - it has happened  for interracial marriage & for civil rights for African Americans and one day, it will happen for the GLBTQ community.  For the most part, it is happening with the children already.  Kids only know who loves them and treats them with kindness, dignity and respect.
    So, I urge you not to be discouraged and not to begrudge those who believe differently.  We think it would all be so nice if everyone believed just like we did; but then, so do they.



    ________________________________
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008