Two recent news items caught my attention because they focus on uncivil public discourse. First, opponents of the current Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, DC, and bishop of Arlington, VA, have used remarks made by the head of the Vatican’s supreme court as a cudgel with which to bash the two clerics. Archbishop Raymond Burke, formerly head of the St. Louis diocese and now at the Vatican, said that American clergy should refuse to give Holy Communion to politicians who support abortion. The archbishop obviously expects, perhaps wishfully, for politicians to take the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church more seriously than voter preference. Voters repeatedly have expressed support for a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion, a perspective that I find consonant with Christianity. (I reject the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching that God gives a fertilized egg a soul at the instant of fertilization.)
To outsiders, the Roman Catholic Church can easily appear monolithic. In truth, the Roman Church, like every human institution constitutes a plurality of views and opinions. Cudgeling those with whom one disagrees, even verbally, very rarely if ever causes the other to change her or his thinking or behavior. Nor are such tactics likely to inspire widespread interest or support among the undecided or searching.
Incidentally, Archbishop Burke made his comments in an interview with Randall Terry, the organizer of Operation Rescue, a group involved in bombing abortion clinics. Regardless of one’s views about the morality of abortion, bombing abortion clinics is immoral and illegal; some of the attacks have injured clinic staff. Burke granting an interview to Terry was at best ill-advised and at worst implies tacit support for the actions of Terry and Operation Rescue. (Jacqueline L. Salmon, “Bishop Apologizes for Use of Abortion Remarks to Attack D.C. Archbishop,” Washington Post, March 27, 2009)
Second, a church in Topeka, KS, announced that it will picket Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, MD, because the school bears the name of a man who may have been gay. Apparently, this congregation frequently announces such protests but often fails to show. The tactic garners the congregation publicity at the cost of causing concern among students, parents, and school employees. (Daniel de Vise, “Kansas Church Says It Will Protest at Whitman High in MoCo,” Washington Post, March 27, 2009)
I decline to play that game and refuse to allow that deeply misguided church to manipulate me into furthering their uncivil discourse. Hence, I intentionally do not name that congregation in this blog. People and organizations certainly have the right to hold and disseminate any opinion, as long as their dissemination does not violate the law. One of the reasons I proudly served a career in the U.S. military was to defend the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.
However, people and organizations, especially those who identify themselves as Christian, have a moral responsibility to exercise their right to free speech in a civil manner. The name of a high school, for example, is ultimately the choice of voters in a school district. Persons residing in other districts who object to a school’s name should voice their protest in a way likely to be heard (utilitarianism) but more importantly in a way that respects the dignity, worth, and rights of others. Picketing a school, for example, does not target the relevant voters, school board members, or school authorities but seems intended primarily to benefit the protesters by attracting media attention. Doing so on the basis of Whitman’s uncertain sexual preferences amounts to character assassination, the church compounding its wrong-headed prejudice against gays with a lack of solid information about Whitman’s sexual orientation.
The polarization of national politics, the inability of groups on different sides of many contentious issues to engage their opponents in meaningful dialogue (abortion, gay rights, etc.), and the disengagement of many people from public discourse are all, at least in significant part, a reflection of our widespread inability to engage in civil discourse. Civil public discourse is fundamental to community and to democratic government. Civil discourse is also a basic expression of respect for others, a foundational virtue common to all of the world’s great religions.
3 comments:
George - I'm from Topeka, and have had first hand experience with 'that church' - which is really only a family that calls itself a church. They are truly evil people, believing in a God that hates. You are correct to refuse them publicity, for they thrive on it - indeed, when people lose their temper and attack them, they have succeeded in driving people to their own level of ugliness and thereby 'win.' I always pray that folks not judge Topeka - a fine city - by these ugly people.
We don't believe in personal rights unless the person wants to do what we approve. The power to choose should not be denied a woman. Do religious people ever read the bible except to find fault with others. I'm not a bible reader but there is a little verse that should mean a lot to true Christians. It is in Genesis, chapter 2, verse 7 and it states "7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Does that not mean the life starts when you take your first breath?
I watched a series about two men who live with the natives of foreign countries who rarely if ever have seen a white man or civilization. The chief's wife was having a baby and there culture required men to stay away from the birthing and not to interfere until the baby was taken out of the hut. The baby had problems and the two men were at a dilemma about whether they should interfere and see if they could help the baby. Medical help was several days away and they had only a few medicines.
After several days, the baby was brought out of the hut a given a name. Their culture required them to only give a baby a name after it was felt the baby would survive and was healthy. If not, the baby was killed by the women as they could not support it in their sustenance only environment.
It seems the natives made choices we could never make.
In my experience, you should never make recommendations unless you are volunteering to do the work by yourself. Step up catholics if you want to take care of all possible abortions. Sell the church and preach from tents.
Roman Catholic opposition to abortion often seems hypocritical because of their opposition is so strong and their efforts to support adoption and other alternatives so relatively weak.
Post a Comment