Friday, May 22, 2009

Obama at Notre Dame: The Long Term Effect

I have held off commenting on Obama at Notre Dame. I had a few things to say in the run up, but I've been reading the reaction from a number of commentators. I think the award for most perceptive analysis goes to George Weigel, who discusses Obama's attempt to re-define true American Catholicism. The money quote:

"What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are."

As Father Z puts it: "Who needs The Tudors? This was like watching Henry suborn the English Church away from the interference of Rome. . . As one person put it, 'America has a new pope!'"

If you think this is far-fetched, read Hans Kung's worshipful words about Obama expressing the wish that Obama were pope instead of Benedict XVI. For the Catholic Left, politics is everything and theology is a trivial matter. Yes, they really want to follow Obama rather than Benedict XVI. Obama represents a serious threat to the unity of the Church and an actual, heretical, false messiah-figure who is perfectly capable of leading many astray.

Here are two excerpts from the speech, which, I believe, sum up the essence of the Obama position and the Obama problem.

"As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."

And another:

"Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable."

Notice what Obama has done here. In response to a doctor who sounded like a likely convert - someone who just needed to be stroked a little in order to be reeled in - Obama changed some words. Not his position. He just took out some inflamatory rhetoric designed to demonize his opponents. But he did not change his position one iota. He does not want dialogue; he wants converts. His offer is that he will respect you and not call you names if you promise not to oppose what he is doing. And what he is doing is the bidding of the most extreme, pro-abortion groups in America.

In the second quote, he winks at his base just to let them know that he is not getting swayed by all the Catholic atmosphere at ND and giving up the fight. Oh, no, the differences are irreconcilable. In that case, what hope is there in dialogue? When Randall Terry says this, he is a narrow-minded, intolerant, violent fundamentalist. When President Obama says it, he is wise, conciliatory, realistic and nuanced. How must Fr. Jenkins have felt to have his plea for "dialogue" thrown back in his face? After all he risked in inviting Obama, now the President just says his views and those of the Catholic Church are "irreconcilable."

So the message is, given that the two views are irreconcilable, are you going to get with the program and stop insisting that abortion must be banned, in which case you can be regarded as "reasonable," "nuanced," "inclined to dialogue" and "realistic?" Or are you going to act as if the debate were still going on and as if there was still a possibility of change? Are you with me or with the evildoers, he might as well have said.

UPDATE:
OK, Jon Shields has said it far more reasonably and calmly than I did. He deftly dissects Obama's contradictory statements on Roe v. Wade and asks for a philosophically coherent argument from a President who is, after all, a constitutional law professor. Read him and you may understand why people like me get so upset with Obama.

26 comments:

Thom Stark said...

More ridiculousness from Craig Carter.

1. He didn't put the "right-wing ideologue" language on his website. His staff did and he wasn't aware of it. The doctor brought it to his attention for the first time and he removed it. You know full well that the doctor didn't ask him to change his position on abortion. He specifically said he wasn't asking that. He asked Obama to facilitate a more respectful dialogue, which Obama has done better than anyone on either side of this issue, including if not especially you. To you, abortion is just "murder," plain and simple. No room for dialogue.

2. Saying the positions on both sides may ultimately be irreconcilable is precisely NOT a covert way of belittling the position of the pro-lifers. (You're a very discourteous reader of your opponents, Craig, on a consistent basis.) Saying they might ultimately be irreconcilable is a way of preserving the integrity of both positions. It shows he ISN'T willing to convert pro-lifers by fooling them into a watered-down version of their original position. Moreover, all those ridiculous words you put into his mouth are just outlandish. He didn't say ANY of that, precisely because he didn't MEAN any of that. He said very clearly that he doesn't want the debate to go away. He's not trying to silence pro-lifers. He's trying to advocate for a culture that recognizes both sides of the issue have integrity. You're the ideologue trying to convert people by distorting the views of your opponents.

Look, Obama can be critiqued for a lot of things, Craig. I have a lot of critiques to make of him--serious ones. You really don't have to make stuff up, puts words in his mouth, or demonize him to critique his policies.

Grow up.

Craig Carter said...

Thom,
One would have thought that you would notice the inconsistency between insulting and berating me on the grounds that I am too discourteous to people you agree with.

You are completely overlooking the fact that O. is president of the US, which means he has real power in this situation (eg. he can abolish the conscience clause that allows nurses to opt out of doing abortions if they oppose it on moral grounds, which he is in the process of doing), whereas his opponents, including me, have no legal or political power.

Furthermore, when his position is entrenched in law and supported by the whole social establishment, it is easy for him to call for calm, rational, open-ended debate. While all this calmness is going on, babies are dying. But O. doesn't care because he is on the side of power and his position is being imposed on us. How easy it must be to be "thoughtful," "nunanced" and "open" in that situation. It is like the abusive father & husband asking the abused wife for more "dialogue" while he continues to beat the children.

When O. actually agrees to support some laws that do really reduce thoughtless or impulsive abortion, such as parental consent laws, cooling off period laws, required counselling laws, etc. then I will believe he might have a moderate bone in his body. When he starts to oppose late term abortion, partial birth abortion and agrees to require medical care for babies that survive botched abortions, then I'll believe he really sees two sides of the issue. When he agrees to appoint a Supreme Court Justice without a pro-abortion litmus test, then I might see him as someone who is not simply in the pocket of NARAL.

But never in his career to date has he had less that a 100% NARAL voting rating. NARAL actually endorsed him over Hilary Clinton - a woman for crying out loud - because he is the most pro-abortion politician to rise to such prominance in America - ever.

You can drink the Kool-Aid if you choose. But O. is not going to win over, or even neutralize, the pro-life movement with sly words, talk of peace when there is no peace and absolutely no action to back up his "moderate" image. It is all "image" and no substance.

Thom Stark said...

Craig,

You said, "One would have thought that you would notice the inconsistency between insulting and berating me on the grounds that I am too discourteous to people you agree with."

The inconsistency is in your head, Craig. Just because I'm not polite with you doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth and misreading you. Being "discourteous" and offering a "discourteous reading" are two rather different things. My point was not that you're not nice (I could care less) but that your readings of people are not faithful to them, whether it's your reading of Yoder (ask Yoder's daughter) or Obama or me or Halden or whomever.

Your rants are polarizing. You're accusations are sloppy and unsubstantiated. You're a pundit, not a theologian, and not an academician. I think you should therefore grow up. I can say that and consistently tell you to offer more courteous readings of your opponents. So stop trying to pass the buck off to me.

Moreover, who said I agree with Obama? Not me. You. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. You're misrepresenting me, just like you misrepresent Obama. Just because I pointed out that you misrepresented Obama doesn't mean I agree with him.

Look, the only response I have to give to the rest of your comment is that I never suggested Obama wasn't trying to do what he believes is right. What do you expect? If you were president, you would do the same thing. The difference between you and Obama is that Obama is calling for more respectful dialogue on an issue that is highly divisive, even among believers in Jesus Christ, while you are insisting that there is only one rational position on the issue. Obama disagrees. So do I, even though I don't take Obama's position. Obama is obviously going to use his power to do what he thinks is moral. But the thing he's not doing is demonizing those who disagree with him, which is what Bush &co. did, and what you do.

Your writing is vitriolic and careless.

Grow up.

Craig Carter said...

Thom,
You wrote:
"The difference between you and Obama is that Obama is calling for more respectful dialogue on an issue that is highly divisive, even among believers in Jesus Christ, while you are insisting that there is only one rational position on the issue."

This is true, I am, but I fail to see what why you object to that. Do you actually think there are two rational positions on abortion? How exactly can that be? Are you saying both sides are right simultaneously? Or that no one can know? Or that the laws of non-contradiction don't apply? You seem to think that if I only gave O. a more "courteous" reading then I would see that one can believe that abortion is murder and not murder at the same time and reasonable people should agree to disagree as long as abortion is permitted and publicly funded. What a pile of sophistry. (You will probably say I'm putting words in your mouth again. Well, all you have to do is actually say what you believe and defend it and I'll be glad to respond to your arguments. But I'm getting tired of so-called "pacifists" giving Obama cover on the abortion issue. It is not right and it is unseemly.)

Obama's rhetoric, which is designed to marginalize those who speak up for the unborn and characterize them as "extreme", is itself a form of the violence it enables. I'm surprised that someone who fancies himself a Yoderian does not see that.

Obama's position is anti-science and unreasonable. Show me an embryology textbook that identifies a point between conception and birth (or adulthood for that matter) where we change from being not a human to being a human. There is no such point. So when pressed during the campaign, he claimed not to know when a fetus becomes a person. Well, if he really thought that, then he could not logically be in favor of abortion. You don't shoot something in the woods because it might be a deer. You hold your fire until you are absolutely sure. Only then do you go ahead. To justify blazing away (40 million deaths so far) when you don't really know if you are committing murder or not - well, that is hardly a logical or reasonable position. It is either confused or mere sophistry.

You don't like my conservative views and so you argue with everything I say. I wonder why you bother to keep coming back. I wonder if you aren't perhaps looking for some better answers than the ones you have now. I hope so. But really, if you hate everything I say, the Internet is a big place and no one is twisting you arm to hang around here.

Thom Stark said...

"Do you actually think there are two rational positions on abortion? How exactly can that be? Are you saying both sides are right simultaneously? Or that no one can know? Or that the laws of non-contradiction don't apply? You seem to think that if I only gave O. a more 'courteous' reading then I would see that one can believe that abortion is murder and not murder at the same time and reasonable people should agree to disagree as long as abortion is permitted and publicly funded."

First, I can't believe a professed MacIntyrian is asking these questions. Second, Obama never said the solution was to agree to disagree. That's you putting words in mouths again. Clearly the issue is different from a straightforward case of murder, otherwise the disagreement wouldn't make any sense. Third, yes I believe there are multiple rational positions on abortion. Does that mean I think all rational positions are morally right from the perspective of the Christian tradition from which I reason? Of course not. Your position on this issue is Constantinian, if you're a MacIntyrian.

"What a pile of sophistry."

What a piece of rhetoric.

"(You will probably say I'm putting words in your mouth again. Well, all you have to do is actually say what you believe and defend it and I'll be glad to respond to your arguments. But I'm getting tired of so-called 'pacifists' giving Obama cover on the abortion issue. It is not right and it is unseemly.)"

What I believe is not at issue here. And the fact that you construe what I'm doing as "giving Obama cover on the abortion issue" just displays your inability to hear and absorb criticism. I am not defending Obama's position on abortion, nor his policies. I am critiquing you for a sloppy, unhelpful and (I'm beginning to believe) dishonest appraisal of Obama's remarks. Notice that you never responded to my actual critique of your interpretation of Obama's remarks. So far you haven't shown yourself to be capable of acknowleding when you've been in error. You believe more in your own rhetoric than you do in the truth.

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

"Obama's rhetoric, which is designed to marginalize those who speak up for the unborn and characterize them as 'extreme', is itself a form of the violence it enables. I'm surprised that someone who fancies himself a Yoderian does not see that."

Craig, the only reason I feel compelled to respond to this nonsense is because I'm convinced you actually believe what you're saying. Go back over all your blog posts on Obama on abortion and pay attention to the language you use to characterize Obama and tell me this isn't the very rhetorical violence you here accuse Obama of. This statement of yours right here is an example. Obama has tried, contrary to your claims, to help lefties see that conservative opposition to abortion is rational, and important. He's the only politician on the left in recent history who hasn't just ignored the right on this issue. He's actually willing to talk about it. He characterizes as extreme only those who aren't willing to talk about it--who see it as murder and castigate abortion doctors and mothers as murderers. Frankly, I agree with him. That's extreme. But he has not tried to marginalize or castigate as extreme those pro-lifers who are willing to hear the other side out. In fact, he's done the opposite and encouraged the dialogue. An actual Yoderian (that is, not a Carterian Yoderian) recognizes that a pacifist is committed to noncoersively and respectfully engaging in dialogue with those who believe it can be in their best interest to kill another. That's why Yoder was a little ashamed to have Hauerwas as a convert, and you're at least a dozen times more shrill and violent than Hauerwas. What does that imply?

"Obama's position is anti-science and unreasonable. Show me an embryology textbook that identifies a point between conception and birth (or adulthood for that matter) where we change from being not a human to being a human. There is no such point."

Right. Because notions such as "personhood" are perfectly at home in the scientific domain. Sure, Craig. The issue isn't what kind of animal a fetus is. The issue is when it can be said that a fetus has become a "person," not a "human," and that is a matter of philosophical and theological debate, to be played out in dialogue with biology to be certain. But it is not a question that can be answered solely or even primarily by biology. So, yes, rational people can disagree about when personhood begins. You reason as a conservative Catholic baptist former-Yoderian. That's fine. But not everybody does. We don't live in a conservative Catholic baptist former-Yoderian culture. We live in a pluralistic one.

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

"So when pressed during the campaign, he claimed not to know when a fetus becomes a person. Well, if he really thought that, then he could not logically be in favor of abortion. You don't shoot something in the woods because it might be a deer. You hold your fire until you are absolutely sure. Only then do you go ahead. To justify blazing away (40 million deaths so far) when you don't really know if you are committing murder or not - well, that is hardly a logical or reasonable position. It is either confused or mere sophistry."

Ridiculous. First, his statement that the question of when a fetus becomes a person is "above his paygrade" does not mean what you're construing it to mean here. First and foremost, this was his way of saying that the question is not a political one, but a philosophical or theological one. It was an ad hoc remark which meant simply that it was not his proper domain to decide on the matter on behalf of the nation. His statement doesn't mean he doesn't have a position on when a fetus becomes a person. It means it's not the kind of question to which a definitive answer can be shown to be true in a way that will demand the assent of every rational person. Most importantly, Obama's position is that this is an issue that can't be decided in one way for everyone but that must be made in and with the aid of the mother's respective communities (he has been consistent on this point). Even if his religious convictions did tell him that a fetus is a person and that therefore abortion is a species of murder, his position is that his view on the matter is at base religious or philosophical, and that therefore it is not the domain of government to decide that for every citizen. He does not believe abortion is a species of murder, of course, but he understands and respects why many people believe that it is. Obama recognizes the complexity of the situation in a way that you don't seem capable of doing. He recognizes that there are significant arguments and concerns on many sides of this issue. So he wants to protect the rights of as many as he can, especially while the question of whether a fetus has rights, or rights equal to born children, is still in dispute.

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

Look, there are a lot of people in this country who believe that deer (to stick with your hunting allusion) as living creatures have just as much a right to live as human beings do. You disagree with them and think they are wrong for equating the value of human life with the value of the life of a deer. But is their position less rational than yours? Is yours less rational than theirs? How would such a thing be determined? If there is no way to determine conclusively which position is the more rational, what is left to do? Should the animal rights activists pursue political power in order to criminalize the killing and eating of animals? Should the hunting activists pursue power to block PETA from infringing on their right to kill for food or sport? Obama has it right. The only thing that can be done at this stage is to try to sustain a dialogue in which each side is at least willing to acknowledge the other's integrity and rationality. If you think this doesn't compare to the issue of abortion, you clearly don't think like an animal rights activist. Well, are you a MacIntyrian or aren't you? True, MacIntyre didn't say critcism of other traditions' rationalities was impossible. He just said... what did he say? ... oh yeah... That it would take patient, respectful dialogue. What a pile of sophistry, Alasdair!

"You don't like my conservative views and so you argue with everything I say. I wonder why you bother to keep coming back. I wonder if you aren't perhaps looking for some better answers than the ones you have now. I hope so. But really, if you hate everything I say, the Internet is a big place and no one is twisting you arm to hang around here."

This is just a big cop out, Craig. And about 200 pounds of patronizing. (Good thing I couldn't care less.) Some of my friends have given up on engaging you. I can understand why. But I'm here because the issues are important, and because I don't think your approach does the issues justice. I'm here because you speak in the name of Yoder, and of Jesus, and I think you're saying stuff that isn't faithful to them. I'm here to challenge you to dialogue, rather than to diatribe. If you don't want me here, say so. But don't keep pulling this bullshit trying to make me look needy or desperate for engaging you, just because you can't bring yourself to face that I might be saying something you need to hear. Such tactics are beneath you, and that's a compliment.

Craig Carter said...

Thom,
OK. I'll tell you what. Let's make abortion illegal again. Then let's have all this rational dialogue and discussion you want to have for as long as you want it to go on. And every time, somebody wants to break the law and go ahead, you tell them: "No, we are civilized Obama types who don't get all fanatical and come to drastic and extreme conclusions overnight. We have to discuss some more."

How you go from "this is a pluralist society" so we have to humour those who see murder as OK when the child is unwanted is completely inexplicable. Is the fact of a pluralistic society sufficient reason to relax laws on wife-beating? I don't think so. What is different with abortion other than fear of the extremism of those who are determined to get their own way on this issue?

Let us take the issue from abortion back to the Iraq war. Will you take the same line? Rational people do disagree on that issue. But since Bush was in power (as Obama is in power now) his view was put into practice. How much patience did you show with the on-going parsing of the fine points of just war theory when the neo-cons wanted to endlessly complexify that issue before anyone took a stand? (Arguing for example that a pre-emptive strike could be considered defensive?) Were those who accused Bush of going ahead with an unjust war (like me) just fanatics, extremists, non-MacIntyrians because we did not believe more dialogue was necessary to establish what was right in that situation?

You know, the reluctance of Yoderians in general to stand strongly against abortion (and euthanasia) really makes their pacifism look suspicious to the people I rub shoulders with every day. It looks for all the world like it isn't really an issue of opposing the killing of human beings that is the concern, but a general liberalism that is partisan and ideological. Most conservatives think that people who support legal abortion and oppose the Iraq war do not do so because of the teachings of Jesus on killing, but because of their general commitment to liberalism as an ideology. And when they see Yoderians not opposing Obama on abortion as ferociously as they opposed Bush on war, they just roll their eyes and dismiss pacifism altogether.

I think they are wrong, but I see why they are having a hard time seeing the truth.

Thom Stark said...

"You know, the reluctance of Yoderians in general to stand strongly against abortion (and euthanasia) really makes their pacifism look suspicious to the people I rub shoulders with every day. It looks for all the world like it isn't really an issue of opposing the killing of human beings that is the concern, but a general liberalism that is partisan and ideological. Most conservatives think that people who support legal abortion and oppose the Iraq war do not do so because of the teachings of Jesus on killing, but because of their general commitment to liberalism as an ideology. And when they see Yoderians not opposing Obama on abortion as ferociously as they opposed Bush on war, they just roll their eyes and dismiss pacifism altogether. I think they are wrong, but I see why they are having a hard time seeing the truth."

Okay, so because your friends are quick to classify biblical pacifists as left wing liberals I'll shut up about my convictions on the issue of abortion in order to give the impression that by someone else's standards I'm a consistent pacifist, so that they can say, "Well at least the liberal is consistent."

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

"OK. I'll tell you what. Let's make abortion illegal again. Then let's have all this rational dialogue and discussion you want to have for as long as you want it to go on. And every time, somebody wants to break the law and go ahead, you tell them: 'No, we are civilized Obama types who don't get all fanatical and come to drastic and extreme conclusions overnight. We have to discuss some more.'"

Martyr complex. Plus, we're not in that situation. My commitment to dialogue isn't dependent upon whether or not my moral worldview is the dominant position.

"How you go from 'this is a pluralist society' so we have to humour those who see murder as OK when the child is unwanted is completely inexplicable. Is the fact of a pluralistic society sufficient reason to relax laws on wife-beating? I don't think so. What is different with abortion other than fear of the extremism of those who are determined to get their own way on this issue?"

Quite a bit, actually. The human dignity of wives is not in dispute--certainly not in any court of law. How many wife beaters do you know who are organizing and lobbying to legalize wife beating, on the grounds that their wives "have it coming," or "need to learn their place"? I'm willing to bet none. Certainly there are men in the U.S. who may in part believe their wives are property, but most of them also in part know that they're in the wrong. In a fundamentalist Muslim society, this issue is closer to the abortion issue (though still significantly different), with a minority of people standing up for a woman's right not to be beaten. But the logic of wife-beating is ingrained in a people's entire worldview. (Not that this is true of all Muslims by any means, or that it is even the logical extension of the teaching of their scriptures. It is, however, a sociological reality.)

In North America, the moral status of wife beating is not seriously in dispute. Abortion is. And science can't decide the issue. As long as we all agree not to enshrine one religious tradition as authoritative for the national community, there is going to dispute here.

But your reading of Obama is just ridiculous. I read about two dozen blogs by ardent lefty pro-choicers after Obama's speech at Notre Dame, and every single one of them was disgusted with Obama for giving props to the pro-life position. They called him the weakest pro-choice president ever. So you're reading of him was rather startling when I came across it. I gave it a couple of reads before I concluded you had nothing to substantiate your uncharitable reading of Obama's remarks.

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

"Let us take the issue from abortion back to the Iraq war. Will you take the same line? Rational people do disagree on that issue. But since Bush was in power (as Obama is in power now) his view was put into practice. How much patience did you show with the on-going parsing of the fine points of just war theory when the neo-cons wanted to endlessly complexify that issue before anyone took a stand? (Arguing for example that a pre-emptive strike could be considered defensive?) Were those who accused Bush of going ahead with an unjust war (like me) just fanatics, extremists, non-MacIntyrians because we did not believe more dialogue was necessary to establish what was right in that situation?"

Again, this does not compare to the abortion issue. Bush &co. broke U.S. and international law with their war in Iraq. The human dignity of Iraqi soldiers and civilians was not in dispute either, even if the human dignity of terrorists was. There was and remains plenty of raw data to display quite plainly that Bush's policies and actions contradicted international law, U.S. law, and basic, shared assumptions about human rights. But America was in a stupor and couldn't see it until it was too late. And while you point out that rational people were able to disagree on the issue, you fail to acknowledge that all the rational arguments in favor of the war on Iraq were based on demonstrably false premises to begin with. The "rationality" of Cheney and Bush was composed of lies, falsehoods and deceptions. The logic of preemption is rational, even though it's not the rationality I affirm. If a man is pointing a gun at the wife of a just war theorist and talking like he's going to shoot her, the just war theorist is rationally justified in shooting first. The problem with the preemptive position of Cheney and Bush is that they made it sound like Hussein was pointing that gun, when in reality they knew not only that it wasn't loaded, but that the bullets he used to have came from their own gunrack.

Abortion is fundamentally and qualitatively a different issue. Here there is no basic point of agreement to appeal to. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers both agree that human rights are paramount. The disagreement is about at what about in human development the animal becomes a person about whom it can make sense to speak of as possessing rights.

I hear your sentiment. I'm all against wife-beating and war, just like I'm unequivocally against abortions of convenience. But I can't pretend to think these issues are comparable in any illuminating sense. They're not. I've read too much Yoder to be content just slotting them all together under the same category.

Craig Carter said...

Thom,
Do you really want to get into the dubious business of arbitrarily deciding to deny personhood to a class of human beings? (As you said, science shows we are human during the time we spend in our mother's womb.) Once native Americans were not considered persons under the law. Once African American persons were not considered persons under the law. Once women were not considered persons under the law. Peter Singer and the euthanasia movement want us to consider newborns not persons under the law. Yet newborns, women, native Americans and blacks all are persons and always were persons even when the law unjustly discriminated against them. The same is true of unborn babies.

But this is the part of the argument you do not seem to be able to acknowledge: that they always were persons even when a social consensus said they were not. You appear to be embracing a form of cultural relativism because your ultimate reasons for not worrying about wife beating is htat no one is NA is for it. But what about Saudi Arabia? Is it right there? Do you really want to say that?

The fact is that abortion has no rational arguments in its favor. This is where we fundamentally disagree. You appear to see the moral truth as shifting, evolving and as dependent on social consensus. Is that true or not?

I see moral truth as inscribed on the universe by the Creator and human beings as created in His image and able to see what is right in front of them on key issues like murder.

The only reason you have given so far for your contention that abortion is an issue on which rational people disagree is that many people do in fact disagree on it. But that does not make abortion proponents either rational or right. Hitler was democratically elected in 1933. Could the entire population of Germany make a mistake? Obviously they did.

You dismisss the arguments in favor of the Iraq War even though the overwhelming consensus in America supported the invasion at the time. Even Democrats voted for it. They were wrong on the war and they are just as certainly wrong on abortion. Denying personhood and equal protection under the law to a class of human beings is irrational and evil.

Thom Stark said...

"Do you really want to get into the dubious business of arbitrarily deciding to deny personhood to a class of human beings? (As you said, science shows we are human during the time we spend in our mother's womb.) Once native Americans were not considered persons under the law. Once African American persons were not considered persons under the law. Once women were not considered persons under the law. Peter Singer and the euthanasia movement want us to consider newborns not persons under the law. Yet newborns, women, native Americans and blacks all are persons and always were persons even when the law unjustly discriminated against them. The same is true of unborn babies."

I'm quite aware of the history of our treatment of the indigenous, Africans and women, and I denounce the moral depravity it represents. That doesn't mean the question of abortion is comparable, just because you assert it is. If it's just so obvious that the issue of abortion is the same as the issue of our treatment of the Native Americans in the Spirit of Manifest Destiny, why don't pro-abortion people just say, "You know what? You're right! I never thought of that"? Why is that argument not persuasive to them? Is it because they're all irrational sinners with a lust for the blood of the innocent? Is everybody just so selfish that they'd rather do the equivalent of murdering a Native American so they can keep a job? Your position implies that you think so. I don't. I think there are other issues here, issues you and your position are incapable of considering.

"But this is the part of the argument you do not seem to be able to acknowledge: that they always were persons even when a social consensus said they were not. You appear to be embracing a form of cultural relativism because your ultimate reasons for not worrying about wife beating is htat no one is NA is for it. But what about Saudi Arabia? Is it right there? Do you really want to say that?"

In fact I didn't say that. Did I? When I addressed places like Saudi Arabia. And my ultimate reasons for "not worrying" about wife beating is not "no one is for it." I said the cultural ethos here doesn't permit such a view. In Saudi Arabia it does. Does that make wife beating right there but wrong here? No. That makes it a discussion that needs to be had there but not here. The only way you could forcefully stop wife-beating in a place like that, without the discussion, is to take away the wives. But I also said that despite the similarities, wife beating in Saudi Arabia is still a significantly different issue than abortion. Muslim law affirms the humanity of women, even if in a less than satisfactory way. But there are resources there to appeal to critique the practice internally. Point me to the resources here that tell an American that a two month old fetus is in fact a person with rights. That's a moral question that cannot be decided scientifically. Again, saying that the type of animal a fetus is is a human is not the same thing as saying that it's a person. Look, I don't believe a fetus is properly called a person at all, but I do believe that is not license to terminate what will naturally grow into full personhood. Others disagree. Other Christians disagree.

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

"The fact is that abortion has no rational arguments in its favor. This is where we fundamentally disagree. You appear to see the moral truth as shifting, evolving and as dependent on social consensus. Is that true or not? I see moral truth as inscribed on the universe by the Creator and human beings as created in His image and able to see what is right in front of them on key issues like murder."

I don't believe it's a stark either/or like this, Craig. Some issues are more complicated. Some moral issues are purely cultural. Some are universal (even if there isn't universal access to moral truth). Some have elements of both. I see moral truth inscribed on the universe by the Creator too, but it's not just that simple. Regardless, the issue isn't whether (all) abortions are morally coherent to those believe who believe in a Creator God who created humanity in God's image. You just displayed why your position is rational. You believe human beings are created in God's image. There's the source. Not everybody believes that. Others believe human beings evolved through natural processes and that there is no god to be made in the image of. From that standpoint, abortion is rational and the notion that terminating a fetus is "murder" is crudely irrational. Don't tell me there's no rational argument for abortion. You display your liberal enlightenment (either that or your Constantinian) sensibilities when you do.

Look, I'm not saying legislating against certain kinds of abortion (most kinds even) isn't something we should seek. I'm just agreeing with Obama that it's a conversation we need to have respectfully and patiently if we're going to get anywhere as a nation. There's going to be no progress as long as one side keeps chanting, "Murder!" while the other keeps chanting "Patriarchy!" There's more to it on both sides. There are rational positions on both sides. Hell, there are more than two sides to begin with (that's where I distance myself from Obama's formulations).

"The only reason you have given so far for your contention that abortion is an issue on which rational people disagree is that many people do in fact disagree on it."

Not so. I've said it before, I just said it, and I'll say it again. Rational people disagree on this issue because they have different sets of first principles. The fact that they do disagree is just confirmation that they're not speaking the same moral language.

"But that does not make abortion proponents either rational or right. Hitler was democratically elected in 1933. Could the entire population of Germany make a mistake? Obviously they did."

Irrelevant to my position, but I was wondering when you'd draw Hitler into it. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of American Christians claim to be just war theorists; they also claim that abortion in America is a new holocaust. The only consistent evangelicals who hold these two convictions are the abortion clinic bombers. The fact that the majority of evangelicals hold these two convictions and that abortion clinic bombers only represent a miniscule minority of evangelicals displays to me that evangelicals know deep down that the mass killing of unborn babies by their own parents and the mass killing of Jews by non-Jews are in quite different moral ballparks. Either that or they are all cowards.

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

"You dismisss the arguments in favor of the Iraq War even though the overwhelming consensus in America supported the invasion at the time. Even Democrats voted for it. They were wrong on the war and they are just as certainly wrong on abortion."

Democrats always vote for war. Nevertheless, you completely ignored my point. And I did not "dismiss" the arguments in favor of the Iraq War. I argued that they were not relevant to the discussion. The arguments in favor of the Iraq war were made based upon spurious and intentionally falsified information. Show me how the verifiability of the existence of WMDs in Iraq is comparable to the verifiability of the personhood of a fetus. All you do is assert, based upon your religious beliefs. We don't live in Christian nations, Mr. Rethinking Christ and Culture.

"Denying personhood and equal protection under the law to a class of human beings is irrational and evil."

Prove it.

Look. I'm not saying don't make your arguments that abortion is an evil. I'm not saying don't seek to get the power to legislate against it. That's your right, and as a Christian it's part of your duty to defend the helpless. What I'm saying is, don't pretend like you have the only rational position when you know full well that you don't. Acknowledging that other people are rational does not mean conceding that they are "right too." But it does temper the way we talk to them, at the very least. Your brand of social transformation alienates more than it inspires transformation.

Grow up.

Craig Carter said...

Thom,
I still don't think that you have demonstrated that those who are pro-choice to kill have a rational position. I would ask you to consider again the implications of our own words:

"Regardless, the issue isn't whether (all) abortions are morally coherent to those believe who believe in a Creator God who created humanity in God's image. You just displayed why your position is rational. You believe human beings are created in God's image. There's the source. Not everybody believes that. Others believe human beings evolved through natural processes and that there is no god to be made in the image of. From that standpoint, abortion is rational and the notion that terminating a fetus is "murder" is crudely irrational. Don't tell me there's no rational argument for abortion."

I disagree that those who believe that humans are simply evolved animals and that there is no god are really being rational in believing that. And I doubt that many people really do believe it. Anyone who really believed it would be in a serious state of mental anxiety.

For one thing, it means that there is no standard of right and wrong. For another it means that if the strong wish to exploit or kill the weak, there is no moral reason not to do so. For another it means that humans are just animals and have no inherent value beyond what others choose to bestow on them.

These beliefs can be held in a logical fashion by an anti-social monster, but they cannot be the rational basis for the lives 99% of people want to live. Most people do not think of themselves or their loved ones in the terms demanded by this stern materialistic creed. Hence they claim beliefs that are inconsistent with the beliefs on the basis of which they live their day to day lives.

Perhaps Hitler or Stalin lived this way. Most Americans don't, even if they claim to hold such beliefs. Barth said something about not taking the unbelief of the world so seriously and we should not lest we end up in irrationality.

Despite the fact that most people don't really believe this materialistic creed, many people find it useful to invoke it and pretend that they do just long enough to justify sluffing off whatever particular moral law or restraint on their hedonism they want to get rid of today. But wouldn't you admit that that behaviour is irrational?

Thom Stark said...

"I disagree that those who believe that humans are simply evolved animals and that there is no god are really being rational in believing that."

Well, they disagree with you that they're not being rational. Obviously what we have here are two different sets of criteria for what gets to count as "rational." These criteria are obviously based in different basic assumptions.

"And I doubt that many people really do believe it. Anyone who really believed it would be in a serious state of mental anxiety."

No. Your beliefs dictate that such a position would lead to a serious state of mental anxiety. There's a big difference.

"For one thing, it means that there is no standard of right and wrong."

No it doesn't. It means that there is no standard of right and wrong as understood by the likes of Christians. But there are plenty of ways to talk about right and wrong rationally without recourse to God, or monotheism, and without ending up with nihilism. Your flat assertions that such accounts of morality are impossible would frankly strike those who espouse such accounts as quite humorous.

"For another it means that if the strong wish to exploit or kill the weak, there is no moral reason not to do so."

No it does not. Nietzsche is not the only atheist out there, and he's not even the most consistent. Why don't you try having this conversation with Jeff Stout! See how that irrational son of a bitch responds.

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

"These beliefs can be held in a logical fashion by an anti-social monster, but they cannot be the rational basis for the lives 99% of people want to live."

These beliefs are not the only options. Try talking to actual people.

"Most people do not think of themselves or their loved ones in the terms demanded by this stern materialistic creed. Hence they claim beliefs that are inconsistent with the beliefs on the basis of which they live their day to day lives."

According to you, and your exposition of what "they" believe.

Look, many people see the development of religion and the development within religion to be a natural process within evolution. So to say that atheists can't be moral without stealing from monotheism or from Christianity is to violently impose your paradigm onto theirs. For them, the good things that religion came up with were really expressions of human beings evolution and survival instincts. An atheist can ask the question, "What kind of humanity is worth preserving?" An atheist can be against war, against murder, against theft, against the oppression of the weak, against the destruction of the environment, all on grounds that such things are essential not just to the survival but to quality of the survival of the planet and everything in it. Arguing that many of their assumptions are "borrowed" and therefore that their atheism is inconsistent doesn't put a dent in their system.

And as for people who profess to believe in some sort of god or higher power but also think abortion can be morally rational, they're not necessarily inconsistent with themselves either. When I pointed out that your belief in a Creator who created humanity in its image was the basis for your position on abortion, I did NOT say that everyone who professes belief in a Creator God is logically obliged to accept your position on abortion. You're just going to keep asserting that they are. You are a part of a tradition in which your position is the only one that makes sense. Not everyone is.

And I'm going to challenge you again, as I did in an earlier thread of yours, to seriously consider how inconsistent your view of Scripture is with your position on the sacredness of the life of unborn and infant children. If ALL life is sacred, and the life of unborn and infant children is especially sacred life given its defenselessness and innocence, why does Yahweh command his people to slaughter such life indiscriminately? If every child is made in the image of God, and that means that the life of every child should be protected at all costs, why does the Holy Spirit inspire the author of Psalm 137 to identify the dashing of the heads of Babylonian infants against rocks as justice? Either the Bible isn't ALL right, or being created in the image of God does NOT mean all human life is necessarily worth protecting. Which is it? Or rather, I suppose you could hold a consistent biblical view if you argued that it is evil for a mother to terminate her own pregnancy but it is acceptable, perhaps even morally courageous, to the kill the unborn children of their enemies.

Point is, your position isn't rational by your own standards, and your confidence in it reflects a violent streak similar to that found in Psalm 137. Acknowledge that our Scriptures often portray our God in a way that is dramatically UNFAITHFUL to his true character, and do so from the perspective of the writer who is supposed to have been Spiritually inspired, and then we can have a real conversation about abortion. But then you'll recognize that the primary and only "infallible" source from which you derive your notion of the imago dei and its significance is quite flawed, and doesn't mean what you want it to mean. I think at that point you might be humble enough to look at this issue from multiple perspectives, and thus to formulate better, more accessible reasons why abortion is a real evil.

I would start by arguing that it is symptomatic of a more serious disease, and I would focus my attention on the root cause... capitalism.

Craig Carter said...

Thom,
Would you recognize your beliefs in the description of radical liberal theology given by Peter C. Hodgson in his book "Liberal Theology: A Radical Vision"? I summarized this book in a recent post (2 after this one).

I ask because it may be that the reason you and I cannot even find enough common ground on the basis of which to have a clear disagreement may be that we have such totally different religous starting points that dialogue is extremely difficult.

I ask because a lot of what you write makes sense within the framework he advocates, but makes absolutely no sense to me, given the framework in which I think. In the interests of understanding each other, would you call yourself a liberal Christian according to his definition?

Thom Stark said...

Craig,

I appreciate your (first real) attempt to understand where I'm coming from, but I find it hilarious and quite telling that you're only able to make sense of my remarks (my denial of biblical inerrany and infallibility) within the framework of Hodgson. My short answer to your question is N-O. I am not a liberal by his definition. Not by a longshot. You're just going to have to try harder.

The long answer is as follows:

With you (YAY!) I would critique Hodgson for never giving a definition of freedom. I do think that Christianity is all about freedom, but I'm a Wittgensteinian so I'm going to want to offer about thirty or forty different definitions of freedom and situate them within different contexts in the drama of redemption. I was critiquing Halden just the other day for assuming the Augustinian definition of freedom is the only relevant definition of freedom vis a vis a liberal account of freedom. I argued that more than one account is necessary if we're going to have a holistic and an embodied ecclesiology.

With you (DOUBLE YAY!) I would also critique Hodgson for his uncritical acceptance of an enlightenment, Kantian epistemology. Like I said, I'm a Wittgensteinian. Hopefully, 'nuff said. I think Hegel has some important things to say and to add to my understanding of the world, but I wouldn't privilege him over very many thinkers.

On God, I am no where near a pantheist. I believe God created the world. I believe the processes we call evolution were certainly involved. I do not believe in creation ex nihilo, but that's an exegetical issue, and not that significant really. Anyway, none of this amounts to pantheism. Hodgson clearly doesn't believe in a personal god. I'm not sure if he made that explicit, but that's what it the features you described indicate. I do. I believe God is a person, analogically speaking of course.

I affirm the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

On the salvation issue, that is a big can of worms of course. Let's just say I think orthodox formulations of what salvation is leave out A LOT. That's as much as I'd say though, outside of a monograph on the subject. My views are close to those of N.T. Wright on this issue.

"Jesus, who employs this metaphor [the kingdom of God] centrally in his preaching, accomplishes emancipation or redemption not in place of us but with us and through us; he does not bring the kingdom on his own but gets us involved in the project. Of course it is God who is involved in our involvement and God's power that empowers our always fragile and unfinished efforts." (67-68)

I do agree with this one statement, but this is what the Bible itself teaches, so...

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

"In the context of inter-religious dialogue, Hodgson speaks casually of God becoming incarnate in 'Jesus and other saviour figures,' which makes it clear that his concept of 'incarnation' is far from orthodoxy and means something more like: a person in whom God works to attain his purposes."

I believe God works outside the church and that God can be incarnate wherever God chooses (and is), but not at all in the same sense in which God was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not uncatholic here.

My view of the church is that the church is doxological, that it is the body of Christ, and that it is also here to participate in emancipation projects. The church is the vanguard of the New Creation. I am wary of ecclessiolatries that talk about the world as though it exists for the Church, rather than the other way around. With Yoder I believe that the Church is here primarily as a servant to the world. But it is holy, set apart, and specially empowered. Of course, the Church often fails and when the Church fails it is subject to judgment and displacement for a time. God will use people and groups outside the Church to do some of the Church's work when the Church isn't doing it. But that is not to say that just any group can do everything the Church can do. And that is also not to say that the only thing God wants done on earth is supposed to be done in and through the Church. The Church can also do the Church's work when it works outside the Church.

(To be continued...)

Thom Stark said...

The issue of authority seems to be the real crux of the debate here. I do not believe in individual autonomy. I believe in the God-givenness of authority. I also believe in the God-givenness of the human capacity to think critically and bring that to bear on the claims of a given authority. I believe authorities can be wrong, just as I believe they can be right. That is why I don't advocate throwing out the Scriptures just because they are sometimes morally and theologically problematic. They are still an authority, and they must be wrestled with, therefore, rather than simply dismissed out of hand. This wrestling must take place in communities which are led and empowered by the Spirit who was given to lead us into all truth, and to remind us of the things that the only perfect Word of God said to us. Just because I reject certain texts in Scripture as morally or theologically authoritative does not mean I reject Scriptural authority. It just means the struggle to embody the truth of God's character is more difficult than orthodoxy has traditionally made it out to be. I don't enjoy the fact that my own Scriptures often portray God in a way that contradicts the image of God as displayed in the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. I wish they were consistent. I wish the diversity in the Scriptures was always only that--diversity, rather than at times stark contradiction and radical disagreement. But being honest I believe my commitment to certain authorities makes my commitment to certain other authorities problematic, and I have to choose--between Yehoshua and Yeshua for instance. They're not the same. Their ethics clash. Their vision of God is at odds. So precisely because I accept scriptural authority I am forced to deny certain scriptural texts their authoritative position. I have come to this position in community with fellow believers. My thoughts can't help but be my thoughts, but they are subject to the critique of many communities. If I didn't believe in the authority of internal Christian fellowship, I would not be wasting my time arguing with you.

I do believe, however, that "nothing can be taken as true simply because an external authority such as the Bible, the church, or the state says that it is so." But that's a critical consciousness I have taken up in part because of the urging of the apostle Paul. I don't accept a Catholic view of authority. Neither did Yoder. That doesn't make either of us liberals.

Regarding ethics, I don't have a relativistic approach, if by that you mean that I think all moral axioms are equally valid, even if they are contradictory. Just read Kallenberg. You're spending too much time in natural theology. Re-read Yoder's critiques of Natural Theology. Re-examine With the Grain of the Universe if you have to. You are sounding less and less Yoderian in this regard. Perhaps you think that's a good thing. I don't.

Nathan said...

I am beginning to question the value of blog comments. =P

Craig Carter said...

Thom,
You don't have to take all the extreme positions of Hodgson in order to have crossed over the divide from Evangelical to Liberal. He isn't really a Christian at all in any meaningful sense except that he claims to be one. But so do the Mormans and so did Marcion etc.

The key issue is biblical authority. The pre-Enlightenment theological consensus and conservate RC and Protestant theology down to the present (representing the vast majority of the world's Christians) agree that the Bible is the Word of God and authoritative, even if we disagree on the relative authority of Tradition and definitions of Tradition.

Liberalism places itself outside this consensus along with the many heterodox movements of church history. I cannot believe you actually want me to deny Biblical authority as if that were either spiritually safe or reasonable.

What this means is that we don't have enough agreement on the issue of what counts as authority in theology even to have a fruitful disagreement and debate on specific theological and ethical matters. No matter how convincingly I might argue, at the end of the day you can just invoke your "opting out" clause and selectively deny whatever your personal reason and conscience incline you to reject.

I think it is time to bring this thread to a close.

Thom Stark said...

Fair enough. I'll let you continue to mischaracterize my position and use your commitment to "biblical authority" as your own opting out clause.

I'm taking the hint. You can't have dialogue with people too different from Benedict.

Peace out.