MORE ON THE CONFUSION OF THE ORTHODOX
Fr. Patrick Reardon writes on the Touchstone Blog:
Two days ago James Kushiner included in this place his own criticism of the essay of Dr. Peter C. Bouteneff, “How Should Orthodox Christians Vote?” which was posted on Beliefnet. Boutneff’s very confused and confusing essay, we regret to say, has now been posted on the web page of The Orthodox Church in America. In response to it, other Orthodox Christians are weighing in. Yesterday Dr. Jonathan Chaves, professor of Chinese at The George Washington University, sent around to some friends the following sage comment, which he has given us permission to post here:
My take would be this: This essay is yet another example of the false “angelism” that afflicts so many of our contemporary intellectuals: “you can’t pin me down, I’m above the polarities of the moment.” But there is no “above;” at this point in history, the ideas that activate conservatives, certainly the traditionalist conservatives, are grounded ultimately in the great Christian heritage; contemporary liberalism is equally grounded in the Enlightenment and its essentially anti-Christian conception of human nature. A believing Christian today will have a very tough time accommodating to the current liberal doctrines, and will find that to do so will eventually necessitate relinquishing one Christian teaching after another.
80 comments Friday 24 Sep 2004 | Jacobse | Orthodox Christianity |
[...] one blog comments that I listed in that original posts, I later found a debate going on on here, and Matt also posted this reply. If you are an Orthodox believer who leans Democrat or [...]
[...] have interest in a much better answer to the article by Dr. Bouteneff, consider this from George Strickland at the Orthodoxy Today blog. If you don’t want to do any [...]
I am at a loss as to how many “Christians” purport to know the inner workings of Professor Bouteneff’s mind. I’ve seen him attibuted with the most amazing motivations. Today’s is the most absurd of all – intellectual arogance. Anyone who ever met and spoke with Bouteneff (as I have) would know that he is a very thoughtful and humble man. He may in fact be wrong (although I don’t think he is) but we can at the very least accord him the respect of ceasing to attibute false motivations to him.
With all due respect to Fr. Patrick and Dr.Chaves to assert that the “ideas that activate conservatives, certainly the traditionalist conservatives, are grounded ultimately in the great Christian heritage” is more problematic than Dr.Bouteneff’s common and obviously well intentioned confusion.
Traditionalist conservatives can be and often are just as dogmatically wrong about the nature of man in society as are the liberals, they are just better a wrapping it in theological language. They are just as guilty of a materialistic/rationalistic approach as are the liberals. Theophany plays no role in their understanding of man,culture,nature or society.
Our bishops have to stop dithering around with ecumenism, old country politics, and petty power sqaubbles and start teaching the true Orthodox heritage. After all, they are the ones responsible for “rightly dividing the word of truth”.
Ann, what “false motivations” have been attributed to Dr. Bouteneff?
Dr. Bouteneff’s statement was unsatisfactory on several levels, primarily because such a complex subject was discussed in such a short essay. However, this response to Dr. Bouteneff partakes of a false dilemma reminiscent of the modernist/fundamentalist debates of a century ago. The extreme right is identified with Christian tradition, while the extreme left is identified with the Enlightenment, the failure of which is evident to many intellectuals. The implication appears to be that only the extremes are available options. I do not accept the false dichotomy, and I find Dr. Bouteneff’s statement, though rather less than satisfying, far more comprehending of the contemporary intellectual life of Orthodox Christians.
I think it is clear that he is being accused of intellectual arrogance, or at the very least elitism. And knowing Professor Bouteneff I can tell you he is neither of these things. I agree that his reponse leaves me with no more answers than I had before I read his article. On the other hand, should we have either the church, leaders of the church, bishops, or church teachers telling us how to vote? I think our faith must inform our decision making – and certainly I think Bouteneff would agree.
And with regard to my own personal politics – I tend to favor some of the social policies (health care, etc.) of the Democrats but I don’t think I’ll be able to bring myself to vote for Kerry. He is a disappointing cantidate. However, neither do I find myself entirely happy with the other choice. I think I am a reluctant Democrat who will be relucantly voting Republican.
Ann, perhaps I should make my question more specific. Where, in any of the posts or responses on this blog, has anyone accused Dr. Bouteneff personally of being intellectually arrogant and elitist? Unless I’ve missed something, every response has been to his article, not to him. You are stating, or at least implying, that he is being attacked ad hominem.
There are at least two other people who contribute to this blog who also know Dr. Bouteneff personally. I am one of them, as I noted earlier. Neither of us have attacked him ad hominem, so who are the others?
The ad hominem jabs are indirect and implied, a snide, academic way of getting around the ad hominem charge. When Dr. Chavez writes, “This essay is yet another example of the false ‘angelism’ that afflicts so many of our contemporary intellectuals: ‘you can’t pin me down, I’m above the polarities of the moment,’” it is entirely logical to infer that he is ascribing this affliction to Dr. Bouteneff. You just cannot then infer that he is attacking Dr. Bouteneff, because, technically, he has only attack Dr. Bouteneff’s writing. It’s an academic loophole that laymen see right through.
Basil, why do you think that Dr. Kushiner’s critique of Dr. Bouteneff’s thinking is inferred? It’s very direct and unambiguous as I read it.
And what in the critique causes it to be an ad hominem attack? Is it because the critique is directly aimed at Dr. Bouteneff? If so, how does it differ in substance from the critiques made toward Dr. Kushiner by yourself and others here?
Dr. Kushiner’s thesis is that contemporary liberalism has abandoned its Judeo/Christian moorings and adopted the values of the secular Enlightenment project. He argues that contemporary intellectuals avoid the conflicts this shift inevitably engenders by assuming a posture of benign neutrality (he calls it “angelism”), particulary towards divisive social issues of moral character. He names Dr. Bouteneff as one commentator that does this, but his comments are not any more an ad hominem attack than, say, calling Dr. Kushiner a conservative (which he clearly is).
I should point out that Dr. Kushiner argues elsewhere that the posture of benign neutrality has consequences of its own. See his latest editorial First Things First for example.
One final point. Anyone who treads the waters of social commentary has to expect flak here and there. Dr. Bouteneff, I assume, can defend his ideas against the critiques that come his way if he is so inclined.
“Ascribing an affliction” to a person’s intellectual work on the evidence of a document they have written does not qualify as an ad hominem attack. It qualifies as a critique of that person’s ideas. This line of argument reminds me (to use a vulgar example) of the Hollywood stars who criticize politicians and then, in the face of counter-arguments, whine that their First Amendment rights are being infringed. They seem to want debate to be limited under the First Amendment, a dizzily self-contradicting notion.
I am surprised that those who have written in defense of Dr. Bouteneff have assumed that he is being personally attacked. He is not. His ideas are, and he is perfectly free to defend them on his own, as Fr. Jacobse said. I wish he would come and defend them on this blog. We’d have a lively debate, and we all might learn something.
Dr. Bouteneff’s article has stirred a great deal of debate in these pages. My response is drawn from Bouteneff’s statement: “Neither is there any one system of governance, be it monarchy, democracy, plutocracy, or theocracy, which the Church would sanction as such to be the Christian way of estasblishing and maintaining a state…Christians are not ipso facto socialists, capitalists, or monarchists. And such as we Americans are accustomed to the logic of democracy, democracy is neither the way in which the Church is govers itself, nor is it the only or obvious Christian kind of state…Christians…have to decide in each particular case what best meets the criteria of Christian life.”
There are many ideas packed in this statement, and I am limited in time in commenting on them. I start with a question. Through her long experience in history, has the Church had a period (until the time of America’s great experiment in democracy) in which the state has not directly attempted to control ecclesiastical affairs? Emperors, Czars, and dictators have all had their hands inside the doors of the Church, attempting to muzzle the voice of the Gospel. As an Orthodox Christian, I cannot imagine wanting to live in a state governed by the whims, greed and power-madness of absolute rulers. Christians for Czarists? No thank you.
Bouteneff is dimissive of the importance of democracy for the Church,simply categorizing it among the various types of state. We only happen to be Orthodox Christians living in a democratic style of government. It appears to me Bouteneff is values- neutral when it comes to democratic institutions. They just happen to be. What account do they have for the Church?
American style democracy is based on the principle of the “limited state.” Governmental coercion is strictly limited by the expressed guarantees of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There are built-in checks and balances, the safeguards that work well on occasions and fail in others. To be sure, American democracy is a messy business; it is highly competitive in both the markeplaces of economics and ideas. For some people, this is disquieting and assaultive of the ideal. All in all, what would replace it?
This leads me to to the question of the proper relationship between Church and state. Bouteneff is off-center here. The state should not confess a faith. It does that, however, when, in hostility to the faith confessed by its people, it confesses the ersatz religion of militant secularism. The great antidemocratic danger comes from the secularist creeds imposed by governments that recognize no higher (transcendent) sovereignty.
That was the reality of Nazism and communism. That danger is also present in our democracy when “the separation of church and state” is taken to mean the separation of religion from public life. The public square, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If it is not filled with the lively expression of the most deeply held convictions of the people, including their convictions grounded in religion, it will be filled by the quasi–religious beliefs of secularism. Christians should be encouraged to lively, sometimes heated, debate and decision-making in the public square.
One may well ask whether Bouteneff’s perspective is capable of informing democratic deliberation and decision by reference to an Orthodox grounded moral discernment.
Democratic deliberation and decision–making is necessarily conflictual. Short of the End Time, even among people of the best will (and it will never be that everybody will be of the best will), there will be different and frequently conflicting understandings of moral truth and the common good—and, increasingly, there is disagreement over what might be meant by words such as “truth” and “good.” The public square must always be open to all—at least in theory that is supported by determined effort.
Democratic discourse can be sustained by an awareness that God calls us to care for the earthly polis, and by the knowledge that opponents have access to truth and a capacity for reason even when they seem determined to prove that they don’t. And again, it helps to know that the most important things to be communicated and agreed upon are not in the realm of politics.
The Church must acknowledge the limits of her competence in political and economic life. In relation to politics she strives to maintain a principled, firm, and nonpartisan stance. Admittedly, that is not easy. In specific circumstances of partisan conflict, even the most carefully crafted statement of principle will be viewed by some as partisan. Therefore, a good rule of thumb when it comes to statements that intend to invoke the Church’s moral authority is this: When it is not necessary to speak, it is necessary not to speak. At stake is the danger of turning the gospel into an ideology or party platform. Politics is not the vocation of the Church. The Church is to help equip the faithful for the exercise of their vocations in the public square. The vocation of the Church is to help sustain many different vocations.
American democracy may not be the ideal, but is there an adequate replacement? Approximation to the ideal is the best we can hope for this side of the Kingdom of God.
So maybe I’m reading you wrong. When you say his essay is an example of the “angelism” that afflicts many modern intellectuals, the first part of that sentence refers to his essay but the last part refers to people. I don’t think it I would be the only person to assume that this critique of intellectuals was being applied to Dr. Bouteneff. Further, Fr. Reardon on his blog implies that Professor Bouteneff should not be educating students at St. Vlads. Naturally I may be making assuptions here, but they are at least marginally based on evidence. Also, I am quite sure Dr. Bouteneff can indeed defend himself. I merely assumed that this comments forum was to express ideas from both sides, not merely for disagreement with the essay.
Ann, both parts of that sentence refer to the ideas that many modern intellectuals espouse in their writings. They refer therefore not to the persons themselves, but to their functional actions as modern intellectuals. Yes, Dr. Bouteneff is on the receiving end of this critique, but not personally, only intellectually in a professional sense. The arguments are not trying to undermine his essay through accusations of personal deficiency, and are therefore not ad hominem. Fr. Reardon expresses doubts about the teaching at SVS, but not about the teachers themselves as persons. Identity is incidental to the issue.
And yes, this forum is for expressing ideas from both sides, as anyone who has read posts from long-time readers like Dean, Jim, and James is aware. Without these guys, this blog would be a lot less interesting (I hope they would say the same about Fr. Jacobse, Daniel, Michael, Missourian, and the other conservatives). But those who participate should expect to be challenged.
Fair enough.
Fr. Johannes,
Father, bless. First let me be clear that in these comments, I am referring to the post you quoted above, which is the Priest Patrick Henry Reardon quoting Dr. Jonathan Chavez, not the original post wherein James Kushiner tackles Dr. Bouteneff’s article directly. Second, in the quote above, Dr. Chavez does not directly attribute the affliction to Dr. Bouteneff, he implies it. Thus, I must infer it.
Second, when I opine that “[t]he ad hominem jabs are indirect and implied, a snide, academic way of getting around the ad hominem charge,” I mean, he did not directly describe Dr. Bouteneff’s thought as being afflicted by a malady. He only implied it. Sure, it’s not textbook ad hominem. It’s perfectly acceptable in the academy. It’s fun, in fact, to use sharp words like that and narrowly escape namecalling. The thrill is in seeing just how far we can go before someone accuses us of argumentum ad hominem. If we couldn’t use sharp verbal jabs like that, academic discussion would be more boring than the Hollywood stereotype of a history professor’s lecture.
Kissing your right hand, I remain your unworthy servant.
Ann: Thanks!
Basil: The comment wasn’t a jab, or meant as an exercise in academic fun, but a serious and direct claim. But this still doesn’t make it ad hominem. See my last post above. I think your definition of ad hominem is too broad. Nobody is attacking Dr. Bouteneff in personal terms. They are simply arguing with a professional publication of his thought in a public arena which they take very seriously.
Basil, I see it the same way that Bill does.
Bill, I recognize the seriousness of the subject. However, in my own experience, there have been countless times when the first thing I wrote was probably ad hominem. Thus, I revise, keeping the tone sharp while deflecting the criticism away from the man. (There are, also, many instances where I should have done more revision before hitting the “Submit” button.) Frankly, if public discussion must be dull, I’d much rather just escape from it altogether. Thank heavens for sharp tongues and clever wits.
I agree, Basil, but prefer to limit the wit and sharpness to the material at hand rather than the contributors. The only place I can think of where ad hominem argument is expected and enjoyed is the British House of Commons!
Basil, the “unworthy servant” of Fr. Johannes,
Kind regards for your elucidation of the intriguing and subtle twists that prevail the narrow escapes of the argumentum ad hominem. It is well said.
Going back to Dr. Chavez’s comment, though, he points out that liberalism is “grounded in the Enlightenment and its essentially anti-Christian conception of human nature”. However, from an Orthodox point of view, couldn’t the same be said against American conservatism?
American conservatism and its principals are also born out of the Enlightenment and Reformation, and Dr. Bouteneff’s article points out that Othodox theology recognizes a different view on the nature of man than most conservatives believe.
Stephen,
You are absolutely correct! The conservative/liberal split in the U.S. is a secular version of the Reformation and Enlightenment. Two bifurcations of man that became popular during the Dis-enligthenment and the Reformation still are prevalent in much of the political and social debate today. Before any one hits the roof, the following analogies are over-simplified approximations only, but IMO show the continuing influence of the great debates in Western Europe’s intellectual hey-day (the structure of them does reflect my own bias): #1. Man must act as an individual and all hierarchy is to be miss-trusted [Protestantism/humanists] (today’s political conservatives and libertarians) vs all authority flows from the state [today’s liberals] (Rome and the monarchists). #2. Man must act on the belief of the heart–logic and reason are secondary [Pietists] (modern day liberals) vs logic and reason must rule over the heart [humanists, early Protestants, and Enlightenment scholars] (modern day conservatives).
The influences can be difficult to recognize and follow because the have become so twisted and intertwined with each other. Classic Orthodox anthropology holds that both dichotomies are false—they give an inaccurate and incomplete vision of who man really is. At best, they describe aspects of our fractured fallen nature and are the result of sin. Perhaps Dr. B’s confusion is the result of being unable (as most of us are) to apply the Church’s understanding of man in a political landscape that seems to force us to choose between two inaccurate and incomplete visions of man in society.
Gee, Michael, I wish YOU would write an article!
Greetings –
Now that I’ve been alerted to this blog, and the Touchstone one, I thought I’d come in with some responses.
First, a clarification on the genesis of my short piece. I was asked by the OCA to write something on this subject for their website. That this article was then taken up by Beliefnet, Orthodox News, and who knows where else, was none of my doing. The article reached way past its intended audience.
That it was solicited by and intended for the website of my church explains why it had to be short – and I agree that its short length is one of its main liabilities. It’s hard to do justice to complex issues in a few paragraphs, to address them without sounding sketchy or shallow. It also explains why it does indeed smack of “angelism.” I didn’t feel that the OCA website was a place for me, who (for better or worse) teaches at SVS, to deliver a position paper, advocating this or that party. I considered it my job, in this case, to set out issues on both sides.
Still, there is a de facto position being argued, namely that neither party in its current manifestation and context, has a monopoly on Christian values. I maintain this position without confusion or hesitation, though with regret.
Nearly everyone who has responded with objections has simply quoted the platforms of the two parties, where it’s pretty easy to make a case for the Republicans. But the platforms aren’t everything.
I believe that looking at the candidates today and not just the party lines, “abortion” as such might not the make-or-break election issue that some people think is. Bush himself has said that the hearts of Americans would need to turn before abortion was made illegal — he’s not about to overturn Roe v. Wade, and none of his Republican predecessors did either. No matter who’s been in office, from Reagan to Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush, you look in the yellow pages and see all the clinics are open for business. To say that the lives of millions of unborn hang in the balance with this election is hyperbole. (Please read on.)
I believe the strongest argument for voting against the Democrats has to do with late-term and partial birth abortion. That is something which may indeed be affected by who is in office. All abortion is wrong, but these are particularly horrible acts whose legalization should be resisted fiercely. The stem cell issue is another one where Republicans have the more Orthodox Christian approach, and I take that with utter seriousness as well. I completely respect people for whom these issues alone would tip the balance against the Democrats. In any case, our common objections to abortion and stem-cell use should lead to intense lobbying, regardless of who is in power.
To raise questions about the effect of a given candidate’s abortion policy (and I’m sure that there are some important responses to that), as well as raising the issue of how we got into Iraq (that’s what I was hinting at, poorly, in the article by mentioning “war”), that of economic disparity (the beneficiaries of Bush’s economic and tax policies are shamefully obvious), and that of gun control, is not “making a huge mush of things.” These are life-and-death issues that need to be considered by any thinking person. To dismiss them as “secular,” “academic,” “signs of being imprisoned by the Enlightenment,” or whatever people’s preferred demonization-word might be, is simply wrong.
In fact, it’s wishful thinking. Most of the objections to my article effectively state that I’m clouding up an issue that is in fact completely clear. In the words of one respondent who wrote me personally, George W Bush and the Republicans today will “uphold the universal practice of humanity and the teaching of Orthodoxy.” I maintain that such a view, rather, is making false clarity out of a situation that is in fact not clear at all. Unclarity makes a lot of people very nervous, and, apparently, pretty angry too.
(BTW, to see a compelling case for sitting this election out entirely, I recommend Fr. John Garvey’s excellent piece in the current issue of Commonweal.)
Anyway, thanks for reading. Let the discussion continue.
PB
Michael,
I like your comment about how the “political landscape … seems to force us to choose between two inaccurate and incomplete visions of man in society”. We are certainly obligated as Christians to be good citizens, to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we are not obligated to bow to Caesar by accepting and condoning the “genius” of the American political system and how it bastardizes morality. It seems too often that political involvement leaves us defending a corrupted view of mankind and morality.
At the same time, George S. asks in his post above, “American democracy may not be the ideal, but is there an adequate replacement?” To this I would have to respond, “What business would the Church have in speculating about a better form of government?” Yes, we pray that the “laws of our land would be just” and for the “pacification of the ragings of the heathen”, but the Church also teaches that governments are put in place by the hand of God and as the servants of God. The early Christian church believed this, even though their government was pagan, commiting almost every atrocity imaginable, and even feeding Christians to lions. Even amidst their martydoms, the early Christians did not see themselves as battling against the government. The business of the Church is the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom not of this world. The saints of the Church show us that being involved in the Kingdom of Heaven has far greater social and cultural implications than by attempting to do battles according to earthly laws which only bring about death.
I find that Dr Bouteneff started off reasonably but in the end resorted to knee-jerk polemics. It is shamefully obvious that my middle class family benefited from the tax cut that it received last year, and it is shamefully obvious that my family and other middle class families would suffer under another Democratic administration.
Anastasios
“I believe that looking at the candidates today and not just the party lines, “abortion” as such might not the make-or-break election issue that some people think is. Bush himself has said that the hearts of Americans would need to turn before abortion was made illegal — he’s not about to overturn Roe v. Wade, and none of his Republican predecessors did either. No matter who’s been in office, from Reagan to Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush, you look in the yellow pages and see all the clinics are open for business. To say that the lives of millions of unborn hang in the balance with this election is hyperbole. (Please read on.)”
I would just like to add that this is very far off. President Reagan tried to stack the Supreme Court with those who would overturn Roe V Wade but made some judgment mistakes with the people he picked. President Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban. President Bush cut funding to the UN’s population control policies–several million dollars were slated to be sent to China to murder its civilians. These are concrete steps. The Democrats would never do this, as Clinton increased funding on abortions overseas.
3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have said that they would overturn Roe V Wade. That means we need 2 more justices. And those 2 might come in the next 4 years if some of the others retire. Are we willing to take that chance? President Bush also voted to stop funding further murder of embryos! Truly, millions of lives hang in the balance.
Anastasios
A quick description of the main political parties:
Democrats: Steal from the rich and give to the poor
Republicans: Let’s make enough rich so that the Democrats can steal from them.
Libertarians: “Let’s party!”
Green: Let us pray to the earth and keep the cancer,man, from harming her.
Socialist: Let’s make everybody poor except us.
But you get the idea.
Anastasios, to refute your claim that Reagan tried to stack the court with justices that would oppose abortion, I present Sandra Day O’Connor and her record.
Basil,
I clearly said, “he tried but made some judgement errors.” Sandra Day O’Conner was the biggest error Reagan made. I watched a biography on Reagan once and one of the contributors said that Reagan always regretted appointing her.
Dear All,
Because my comments of yesterday were somewhat strong, I would like to make it clear that there is no perceived personal animosity on my part towards Dr Bouteneff, whom I know personally and respect just like other posters here. I will admit that certain choices of words in his posts got me riled up but that doesn’t change the fact that I think he is a very sincere, thoughtful, and intelligent man.
Anastasios
As an Orthodox Christian who happens to believe that man’s judgments should always be seen as some degree of evil in comparison to God’s kingdom, I clearly understand the intent of Dr. Bouteneff’s article and fully agree in principle. I am thankful to the leadership of the OCA for posting it.
Why would man’s judgments be defacto evil, even to a small degree? Further, what is the source for determining the precepts of God’s kingdom that enable us to render this first judgment? (Do you really mean man’s judgments are “evil” here, or do you mean you are cautious or skeptical of them?)
As Orthodox Christians (with the Catholics and against, say, the Calvinists), we believe that God’s grace empowers us to make good judgments in obedience to him. Luke, your comment is more than a little dualistic.
Why would man’s judgments be defacto evil, even to a small degree?
Because man is….a sinner?
“Render the things of Caesar unto Caesar, and the things of God unto God”. This eternal Gospel truth ought to be understood dynamically, and not statically. The difference and the delimitation of the two kingdoms remains eternal, but the relationships between the two kingdoms within the history of Christianity do not remain inalterable, they change at various stages of Christianity. Christianity does not know petrified forms, which might define for always the Christian ordering of the kingdom of Caesar. One only doth dwell unshakable. Christianity does not deny the kingdom of Caesar whether it be mechanical or revolutionary, it recognises it as a particular sphere of being, distinct from the kingdom of God, but necessary too for the ends of the Kingdom of God. The Church of Christ has its own particular foundation, independent of the elements of this world, it lives according to its own particular law of spiritual being. But the Church of Christ at the moment of its appearance was surrounded by the elements of this world and was compelled to live in a pagan state, which fiercely persecuted Christians. The “kingdom of Caesar” does not signify a monarchy, it is a figure designating the kingdom of this world, the order of sinful nature. – N. Berdyaev
Also I find it interesting that the following, which is very reminiscent of the theme of Dr. Bouteneff, is posted elsewhere on this web site:
But there is a difference between being a sinner and being evil (although can lead to evil when a lie is created to masquerade a sin as a good). It doesn’t follow though that everything a man does is sinful. Sometimes he does good.
I’m fighting two things in the current cultural climate: 1) ideology (a closed system of thought that purports moral and thus social perfection); 2) the notion that if a system is not closed (if moral perfection is not attainable), movement towards relative good — ie: making the world better, is essentially pointless. The second is a corollary of the first, but one adopted by many, including Christians. I argue in the end, that Christianity repudiates ideology. The commandment to love God and neighbor is entirely existential, never philosophical.
This is deep structure stuff with tightly held assumptions we often don’t realize we hold. As a result, I’m often perceived as advancing a counter-ideology, which I’m not, but this is not apparent until discussion starts. (IOW, people read my words through the lens of their own ideology, even if it functions no more than the corollary.) This is why the precise meaning of words is very important and why I asked you if you really mean “skeptical” instead of “evil” above.
This is one of the words I push Dr. Bouteneff on as well.
Luke,
IMO, Berdyaev’s statement that you quote reflects the dualism which Bill caution’s against. One must always guard against the error. The Incarnation radically altered the way in which we live, Christian or not. The Incarnation re-created to a limited degree the Theophany and communion of the Garden. It is not just man’s soul that is saved, the entire creation is redeemed and restored. We see the redemption more clearly and experience its reality more fully the more we repent and participate in the sacremental life of the Church (not just the litrugical sacrements). The ordering of human society (Caesar) is also effected. It is a demonstratable historical fact that (with some monstrous exceptions) human government has become more just and less destructive since The Incarnation.
The separation proposed by Berdyaev and that you seem to agree with, is more of a western position (both Catholic and Protestant) than Orthodox. To maintain such an idea requires either as a result or as a precursor a belief in an anthropology that is profoundly non-Orthodox. [BTW Such an anthropology really has more to do with the continued divisions in Christianity than any of the more widely discussed theological questions.] Such a dualistic anthropology is also at the heart of the culture war and political idelogies (see my post #20 on this topic).
Fr. Hans has undertaken a daunting task, trying to activate the Orthodox anthropology in a pluralistic, hedonistic political culture with the hope of bringing healing and positive change. There are many who do not see the possibility or the worth of such a task. Certainly in human terms, the task is not possible, but in Jesus there always is hope and in fact the victory has already been won, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
I thought you all would be interested in Dr. Betendeff’s response posted on the “orthpol” list on Yahoo Groups.
___________________
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/index.php?p=437#comment-1733
Greetings –
Now that I’ve been alerted to this blog, and the Touchstone one, I thought I’d come in with some responses.
First, a clarification on the genesis of my short piece. I was asked by the OCA to write something on this subject for their website. That this article was then taken up by Beliefnet, Orthodox News, and who knows where else, was none of my doing. The article reached way past its intended audience.
That it was solicited by and intended for the website of my church explains why it had to be short – and I agree that its short length is one of its main liabilities. It’s hard to do justice to complex issues in a few paragraphs, to address them without sounding sketchy or shallow. It also explains why it does indeed smack of “angelism.” I didn’t feel that the OCA website was a place for me, who (for better or worse) teaches at SVS, to deliver a position paper, advocating this or that party. I considered it my job, in this case, to set out issues on both sides.
Still, there is a de facto position being argued, namely that neither party in its current manifestation and context, has a monopoly on Christian values. I maintain this position without confusion or hesitation, though with regret.
Nearly everyone who has responded with objections has simply quoted the platforms of the two parties, where it’s pretty easy to make a case for the Republicans. But the platforms aren’t everything.
I believe that looking at the candidates today and not just the party lines, “abortion” as such might not the make-or-break election issue that some people think is. Bush himself has said that the hearts of Americans would need to turn before abortion was made illegal — he’s not about to overturn Roe v. Wade, and none of his Republican predecessors did either. No matter who’s been in office, from Reagan to Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush, you look in the yellow pages and see all the clinics are open for business. To say that the lives of millions of unborn hang in the balance with this election is hyperbole. (Please read on.)
I believe the strongest argument for voting against the Democrats has to do with late-term and partial birth abortion. That is something which may indeed be affected by who is in office. All abortion is wrong, but these are particularly horrible acts whose legalization should be resisted fiercely. The stem cell issue is another one where Republicans have the more Orthodox Christian approach, and I take that with utter seriousness as well. I completely respect people for whom these issues alone would tip the balance against the Democrats. In any case, our common objections to abortion and stem-cell use should lead to intense lobbying, regardless of who is in power.
To raise questions about the effect of a given candidate’s abortion policy (and I’m sure that there are some important responses to that), as well as raising the issue of how we got into Iraq (that’s what I was hinting at, poorly, in the article by mentioning “war”), that of economic disparity (the beneficiaries of Bush’s economic and tax policies are shamefully obvious), and that of gun control, is not “making a huge mush of things.” These are life-and-death issues that need to be considered by any thinking person. To dismiss them as “secular,” “academic,” “signs of being imprisoned by the Enlightenment,” or whatever people’s preferred demonization-word might be, is simply wrong.
In fact, it’s wishful thinking. Most of the objections to my article effectively state that I’m clouding up an issue that is in fact completely clear. In the words of one respondent who wrote me personally, George W Bush and the Republicans today will “uphold the universal practice of humanity and the teaching of Orthodoxy.” I maintain that such a view, rather, is making false clarity out of a situation that is in fact not clear at all. Unclarity makes a lot of people very nervous, and, apparently, pretty angry too.
(BTW, to see a compelling case for sitting this election out entirely, I recommend Fr. John Garvey’s excellent piece in the current issue of Commonweal.)
Anyway, thanks for reading. Let the discussion continue.
PB
Comment by Peter Bouteneff — September 27, 2004 @ 8:56 pm
Al, that response was posted first on this blog, as response #22 in this thread (see above). Also, it’s “Bouteneff,” not “Betendeff.”
Michael,
It is not just man’s soul that is saved, the entire creation is redeemed and restored.
This is true enough. But I believe it is a false dichotomy to set it up against Berdyaev, whose propositions are more nuanced. The anti-dualistic tradition of the Church has more to do with the salvation of man (through Christ’s person via the Incarnation) than the ordering of civil society, although they are interrelated as Romans 13 indicates. Berdyaev goes on to write:
The Kingdom of God cometh unperceived, its comes neither through monarchy nor through revolution. But both an outwardly stable order of life and an outward upheaval of life always denote events of the inner spiritual world, they are not situated outside my own particular destiny, as merely something begotten of the lower material world. Christianity is not dualistic, or more precisely: Christianity acknowledges a religio-ethical dualism, but not at all an ontological dualism.
Christianity does not deny the state and the rule of authority. From the lips of the Apostle Paul, the Christian Church has recognised, that the rule of authority issues from God and that rulers bear not the sword in vain. The rule of authority has an ontological source, it possesses a positive mission within the sinful world, it averts the chaotic disintegration of the world, and prevents the ultimate triumph of anarchy within it. The ontological principle of the rule of authority plays within society the same role, that conformity to law plays within nature, — it upholds the cosmic order within the sinful chaos.
The separation proposed by Berdyaev and that you seem to agree with, is more of a western position (both Catholic and Protestant) than Orthodox.
I don’t know that to be the case. But I don’t want to get bogged down on this point in any case. Your point is understood.
Fr. Jacobse,
Your statement that “Christianity repudiates ideology” is true. The saints of the Church are testament of this. The twentieth-century reality of somebody like Saint Silouan of Mount Athos is a complete victory over present day ideologies. His words may not have anything direct to say about communism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, etc., but his monastic witness and deification completely repudiates them.
I have heard it said before that “to be American is to be ideological”. I don’t think this necessarily means that American hubris has become overly “liberal” and/or “conservative”, but rather it seems to be a reference to the underlying political and cultural architecture of America itself. As you have pointed out:
“America is primarily a nation of laws, not class”
and:
“There is no institution of moral arbitration in the American system, no designated cultural elites, no monarchs, and no national church.”
I agree that America presents itself this way, but I also believe that if we accept and live as though this is true, then we have succumbed to an ideology of Americanism. My concern with political involvement in America is that it seems to ask us to accept these notions in order to participate. Religion can inform the system, and to be sure, the system will be altered, but the end result doesn’t justify swallowing the ideologies of Americanism. Certainly America exercises great power in the world, and the stakes may seem insurmountably high when presented to us at the voting booth. However, if grappling with this power causes us to be engaged as part of another ideological system, then we will have damaged, and possibly even destroyed, ourselves and many others.
Fortunately, as Orthodox Christians in America, we are blessed to have a real spiritual heritage for this country which repudiates Americanism. This can be found in the lives of the American saints: St. Herman, St. Peter the Aleut, St. Juvenaly, St. Innocent, St. Iakov, St. Tikhon, St. Raphael of Brooklyn, St. Alexis Toth, and St. John Maximovitch (I assuredly missed some too). These are the people who have sanctified this land, some even with their blood, and these are the people who have given us an Orthodox vision of America, although admittedly, it is a different vision than the popular and ideological ones.
Stephen, first off let me say how inspiring it is to talk to someone who grasps the concepts. They are important. I develop these ideas a bit further in the latest issue of “Again”, btw.
I don’t think however, that religious freedom necessarily leads to an ideology of “Americanism” however. It certainly could, but that would be a perversion of the intent and direction laid by the Founding Fathers, rather than its inevitable fulfillment. American cannot prosper apart from a virtuous citizenry, and Christianity is the source of this virtue they believed.
For that reason the Saints you mentioned are particularly appropriate because they taught how to live the Orthodox faith in a particularly American context — a statement also entirely appropriate because every Saint did the exact same thing in their respective country.
We agree on much, although I probably see the founding of America a bit differently.
BTW, I develop the them of a vituous citizenry a bit more in my articles on Sept. 11 if you are interested:
Revisting Solzhenitsyn after September 11 and Terrorism and Liberty.
I am truly astonished at the number of comments generated by my own on Dr. Bouteneff’s piece. It may simply be that Democratic voters are struggling to reconcile their faith with their politics, even as they intuitively grasp that a party which has embraced the public validation of homosexuality is at odds with Christian morality. Changing political loyalty indeed requires a huge leap, almost like a true religious conversion.
But deeper than this lies what I see as the unfolding of a wrong turning in modern thought, tracable directly to the Enlightenment doctrine of the innate goodness of human nature (Rousseau especially). This is turn I think has evolved from a false ontology and epistemology. Nothing less is required for believing Christians and indeed for anyone interested in truth is a counter-revisionist intellectual history. I have attempted to lay this out in some detail in an on-line article which readers may find of interest, “Kicking the Stone and Viewing the Icon.” It may be accessed directly at http://www.literatevalues.org/prae-3.2.htm The editor of Praesidium, John Harris, PhD, disagrees with certain of my arguments, and has written a most interesting rebuttal immediately after my own piece. One word of caution: the last section deals with intellectual historian Eric Voegelin, beloved of many conservatives today, because the paper was prepared for a conference on Voegelin. I actually find his reputation to be overinflated, as will be seen.
Orthodox co-religionists will notice that I do not assume the key dichotomy to be “Western” vs. “Eastern = Orthodox” Christianity. On the basic level of ontology and epsitemology, I find the differences to be far outweighed by the common axioms. Overcoming its anti-westernism is the single biggest challenge facing the Orthodox Church today, certainly in the West. The melt down of many Protestant churches and some Catholic dioceses results not from some kind of innate flaw in them, present through all of history, but on the contrary from the BETRAYAL of these churches by their own clergy and hierarchs, eagerly importing what are really anti-Christian ideologies into the church and thus undermining it from within.
I might note that I am a Jewish convert to Orthodox Christianity. My name, Chaves, is the anglicized version of the genetive of Khava, “Eve” (as in Adam and Eve) in the Yiddish rendition. You may recall the charater Khava in Fiddler on the Roof. The spelling identity with the Portugues CHAVES is purely coincidental.
Corrections to my own comment: 1) THAN a counter-revolutionary etc.
2) GENATIVE of Khava
3) PORTUGUESE
Sorry! I can’t seem to write anything without making mistakes.
Correction to my correction, and then I stop.
Than a counter-REVISIONIST etc. [Although yes, this is part of a larger counter-revolution against the appropriation of historiography by the intellectual and cultural left.)
Jonathan, I have not read your article yet, but your ideas are intriguing. I too believe that the anti-Western bias is an unsustainable assertion. Regarding Rosseau (who Solzhenitsyn argued was the father of modern totalitarianism), the primay contribution, if we can call it such, was the rewriting of the west’s cultural narrative, ie: rewriting Genesis to place the point of the Fall at the socialization of man rather than in the Garden.
And yes, mainstream meltdown is largely due to capitulation to the modernist ethos. There are plenty of responsible Protestants who moved in the opposite direction, Thomas Oden to name one.
Jonathan writes: “It may simply be that Democratic voters are struggling to reconcile their faith with their politics”. As a registered Democrat and dues-paying church member I’m not struggling at all. I’m a multi-issue voter who may agree with some positions of my of my party and disagree with others, but on the balance think the general philosophy and current Presidential candidate of my party is superior to that offered by the other party. Many Republicans feel the same way – they are troubled by some specific positions of their party, but remain loyal due to affinity for its general philosophy and candidate.
The first presidential debate once again clarified the degree to which all Americans to some degree rely on pleasing lies. Defending the neccesity of national commitment to Orwellian double-think, President Bush stated that if we admit that invading Iraq was a mistake, our troops in Iraq may question the mission, so for the sake of the troops we all have to go on pretending like it was not a mistake despite all evidence to the contrary.
The Democrat who supports Roe v. Wade must brainwash his or herself into believing that the fetus is not a person and ignore the little face revealed by the Obstetrician’s ultrasound scanner. The Republican who supports President Bush has to convince himself that tax cuts that result in permanent structural deficits are necessary to balance the federal budget, that global warming is a liberal lie despite the melting polar ice shelves, and that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9-11 attacks and had weapons of mass destruction.
In truth it is impossible to reconcile faith with politics without making compromises.
Dean,
Your comment that, “it is impossible to reconcile faith with politics without making compromises” is interesting, because most people view their political choice as a moral choice, an expression of their belief or faith. I think many would agree with your comment, but would also assume that the compromise they are making is somehow purely political. They would believe they are making a political compromise based upon some sort of “moral calculus” of their own devising. However, the political system is not actually compromised by whatever choice they make. Instead, the political system is empowered. Votes empower government. What actually seems to be compromised then is the morality, or faith, of the person engaging the political system.
Conversely, it could be said that if people do not vote, then this would compromise the political system and empower some dangerous form of anarchy or worse. The problem with this view point is that it emphasizes governance as a separate entity outside of man. It emphasizes that the responsiblity of governance comes from outside of man rather than from within.
What then is our moral relationship with our external government? Certainly we should pray for our government, be thankful for it, respect it, and pay our taxes. I would draw the line at empowering it though. Even if it would appear that my external government is trying, or is even capable, of doing something good, I would not want to empower that. I think its better to emphasize more my own need for internal government.
I think participation in voting is the current holy grail of political correctness. It has to be the most unfashionable thing of the moment to be a non-voter. Although I try to be as politically correct as I possibly can, I do have a problem with this one.
Pardon me, I meant to say that voting is the current “sacred cow” …
Dean, apology accepted on the other post. Your comments here though construct a false moral template.
Abortion can’t be lumped in with the other policy issues like taxation, deficit spending etc. Abortion transcends the polar categories you construct (here shaped as political parties) because it violates the commandment not to kill — a commandment that transcends politics, thus parties, thus the polar categories. I’m pushing here for a responsible hierarchy of values. Thus your conclusion — one that requires the necessary although illegitimate claim that party affiliation requires the acceptance of a “lie” — is incorrect.
There is a world of difference between abortion, taxation, false intelligence, all the factors you threw into the stew. The only way to reconcile the disparate mix is to argue that none, ultimately, have any value. Clearly they all do, but their value differs and on some responsible people can hold to opposite sides of the issue. No compromise can be made on the morality of abortion however (which is not to say that implementation of policy concerning abortion ought not to be discussed). Compromise here, and your erode the foundation for any moral clarity whatsoever.
(Don’t fall into the same relativism Dr. Bouteneff fell into. There is no “lesser of the two evils.” There is no, to put it in your words, a lesser or greater lie. Yes, lies can infect public discourse and sometimes do, but if everything is a lie, there is no use for the truth, and the belief in truth is something we cannot relinquish even when it hard to discern or even find at times.)
Putting abortion into a different moral category than the rest of the issues with which government deals is easy to do. I’m always surprised that Dean doesn’t see it readily. Euthanasia also.My priest made one such distinction clear to me the other day. We have division in our parish concerning the proper approach to Iraq, both may approach the Chalice, however, my priest has mde it clear that any one who supports “abortion rights” may not approach the Chalice.
However, there are other life and death issues that just as easily might appear to be in the same category such as immediate access to free life saving medical care, war is obviously not in the mind and heart of my priest.
I am sure Dean will be more than willing to argue the point however, perhaps greatly expanding what “health care rights” should be included. With the proper assumptions and the proper political/moral rhetoric, any policy that aims at providing essential care or avoiding enmity can be dragged into the discussion and a moral equivalency created. Unfortunately, just saying that abortion is a violation of the commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” is not sufficient.
One of the first steps we must take is to recognize the profound nilhism at the base of almost all of today’s political thinking. Two books I can recommend that address the topic: Fr. Seraphim Rose’s “Nilhism>, and a book I just started, “The Architects of the Culture of Death” (don’t remember the authors).
In order to have a political and morally effective argument, we have to assert an anthropology that includes a clear idea of the responsibilities a society has a right to demand of its citzens, a community of its members. St. Paul said, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat”. Annanais and Saphira found out real quickly what happens if one lies to the Holy Spirit.
There are clear distinctions that can and should be made in order to create a politically and morally sound hierarchy of values, if there is a clear hierarchy of behavior as well. As tempting as it is to “opt out” in order to maintain our spiritual purity as I think Stephen is suggesting, we really do need to “opt in”, but in a way that eschews easily identifiable party labels and relies on the truth about ourselves contained in the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost.
Michael writes: “Putting abortion into a different moral category than the rest of the issues with which government deals is easy to do.”
I think it is in a different category, but probably not for the same reasons.
The fact is that most of the people in the country don’t think that abortion is wrong, in an absolute moral sense, though they do believe that there is a moral component. Related to that, most people don’t think that a fertilized ovum is a person. Even people who oppose abortion don’t necessarily want the government involved in that decision. In other words, there is a fundamental disagreement over the basic ethics and metaphysics involved, and the people who come down on the pro-choice side are not necessarily hitlerian monsters. They simply do not agree with the conservative Christian viewpoint — a viewpoint that has not even been consistently held throughout church history.
To oppose abortion rights for all is to insist that the moral perspective of certain conservative Christians be mandatory for all. Ok, great. But what about all the other religious moral ideas? For example, the arguments used by the Catholic church against artificial birth control are remarkably similar to the arguments used by the Orthodox church against abortion. Do we then outlaw birth control? Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose blood transfusions, do we outlaw those as well? Since a number of Christian denominations, as well as a number of individual Chrisitans, are total pacifists, perhaps we disband the military? How about if we outlaw meat-eating because certain Christian groups are persuaded that the use of animals for food is immoral?
In other words, why should *this* particular instance of religious morality be mandatory for all people, even people who completely disagree with it? If a Jehovah’s Witness doesn’t want a transfusion, that’s fine. But how would you like it if your wife or child died from lack of a transfusion because the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses on this issue were the law of the land?
In other words, there is a huge difference between personally not doing something because of religious values, vs. mandating that all others — whether or not they hold those values — not do it either.
Abortion “rights?” This notion has to be unpacked first before we talk about your stew of abortion, birth control, blood transfusions, pacificism, vegetarianism, whatever. Your make the same mistake Dean did, but from a pro-abortion position.
Abortion is a watershed issue, much like slavery. It creates the divide and can’t be washed (or minimized) away.
Jim, in your comment I see the presupposition that there is the “neutral ground” that most people hold to, and that superimposed on this are various “religious values” which are limited to a certain section of society and therefore cannot be considered normative, and which also, because they are thusly limited, must be considered on equal terms (read: “dismissed as equally irrelevant”). But this is a distortion of the true situation. The world is composed entirely of competing ideologies. No less ideological, and therefore no less limited to a certain section of society, are the secular-nihilist assertions you make about “fertilized ova,” birth control, and so forth. It’s no longer valid to assume that progressive secularism is the universal base from which all opinions start. It’s triumphalistic and false.
Actually I never intended to minimize the moral urgency of abortion. My objective was to discuss the process of denial and rationization that people from all political viewpoints undertake to make reality conform to their ideological beliefs. Because denial that the fetus is a person is one of the most egregious examples of this process I mentioned it first. My wife and I saw our daughter for the first time during an ultrasound at just 12 weeks into pregnancy and it was a powerful, overwhelming event for both of us. How can anyone say that if we had seen her a week earlier she would have been any less worthy of protection as a person?
Accepting that the aborting of unborn human life is an issue of greater moral gravity than others however, does not give it the power to eclipse or cancel out other issues as objects of our concern. We can’t say “I’m right about abortion, so I can be wrong about everything else. I care about human beings while they are in the womb, but not after that.”
Jonathan suggested that Democrats have to worry about reconciling their party affiliation with their faith, but Republicans do not, and I reject that. We all have to about reconciling their party affiliation with their faith because both parties fall so far short of the mark. Which is why Michael Baumann is so correct to remind us that our time is much better spent worrying about matters of the soul, and not the latest political poll.
Case in Point: Marshall Wittmann who has served in various positions with the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, and in the administration of President George H. W. Bush has endorsed John Kerry.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252914&kaid=127&subid=173
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ “THE ADULTS START SPEAKING UP”
Wittman writes: “When I was at the Christian Coalition, I witnessed first-hand the alliance of the deregulation, no-tax crowd with the religious conservatives. Ironically, the rank and file of the religious right are hardly the country club set. They are largely middle-class Americans who don’t rely on trust funds or dividend checks for their livelihoods. But the leaders of the religious right have betrayed their constituents by failing to champion such economic issues as family leave or access to health insurance, which would relieve the stresses on many working families. The only things the religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment. The religious right has consistently provided the ground troops, while the big-money men have gotten the goodies.
The realization that the religious right had essentially become a front for the money men of the Republican Party was a primary source of my disenchantment with that movement. And without a doubt, the GOP has merely become a vehicle for unbridled corporate power. Such a party cannot provide a home for a movement that strives for national greatness.
.. There is no remaining shred of doubt that another four years of a Bush presidency would have a toxic effect on American politics. If George W. Bush is re-elected, unlimited corporate power, cynicism, and division will ride high in the saddle.
….on the key issues of progressive economics and a muscular and smart foreign policy, John Kerry’s ideas are far preferable to George W. Bush’s. And, with his gesture this summer in approaching McCain about the vice presidency, Kerry demonstrated that he is committed to a new politics of national unity.”
Dean, no one is arguing that different issues of moral character don’t exist. No one has argued that abortion absolves one of responsible deliberation on all other issues. The original point was that a hierarchy of values exists, and that abortion ranks higher than, say, a sales tax increase or garbage removal.
As for Wittman, well, if he wants to throw his lot in with Kerry, be my guest. I don’t really buy the hype but Whittman apparently does.
Bill writes: “The world is composed entirely of competing ideologies.”
I would like to address this statement, because I think it illustrates an important and common feature of the conservative worldview.
Throughout its history, Christianity has defined itself through opposition to other groups. Even by the end of the first century we see the proto-orthodox Christians opposed to judaizers, Judaism, gnostics, and “the world” in general. By the third and fourth centuries the opposition turned inward, and there were battles over various versions of the doctrine of the Trinity, and there were even riots in the streets of Alexandria over the issue. At one point it was difficult to say anything at all about the Trinity without being accused of heresy. Opposition to various ideas and groups continued, leading most notably to the split between protestants and catholics. Protestants have since carried on the tradition of opposition to an extreme, and there are now, what, something like 30,000 different protestant denominations, with splits based on every conceivable aspect of doctrine and practice.
The tradition of opposition lives on as well in the Orthodox church. For example, I recently told a friend about this site. After reading through a number of the articles and posts, he said “I have a very good idea of what these people are opposed to, but little idea what they are *for*.”
What’s interesting to me in this whole discussion over abortion, is that the entire discussion rages over the manner and extent to which one should be *opposed* to it. Dean always gets in trouble here — not because he is recruiting women to be patients at abortion clinics, not because he works at an abortion clinic, not because he does abortions, not because he is personally paying for abortions, and not because he is encouraging a wife or daughter to get an abortion. No, Dean gets in trouble here because he fails to show the right kind of opposition to abortion. He is not “scorched earth” and “take no prisoners” enough. He is not outraged enough. He lacks vitriol.
And so for certain Christian believers there exists a culture of outrage and opposition, and this ties in very well into the current political climate. This opposition carries over into virtually every issue. For example, I recently heard a piece of a political ad while flipping through the radio dial. It was an ad for Republican What’s-His-Name, some guy I’d never even heard of. As soon as I heard the word “republican” I knew instantly that this guy was against taxes. I knew it even before another word was spoken. I knew that he would be against taxes regardless of where he lived, regardless of the economic conditions there, regardless of current tax rates, regardless of anything. And sure enough, as the ad continued, we were informed that What’s-His-Name would fight for Lower Taxes, unlike his l-i-b-e-r-a-l opponent. It was an ad that could be played anywhere. Just copy and paste in a different name.
So I am not surprised to see that you perceive the world as a collection of competing ideologies. Jews, gnostics, and judiazers being of no interest now, the new agents of Satan are the secularists, liberals, and nihilists. These have now filled in the gap left by the Communists as they departed the world stage.
You say that there is no “neutral ground,” but only ideology. I would say that this view is a result of having a flavor of religion that relies on opposition and the maintenance of conflict with “the other,” whoever the other happens to be. Thus, were all homosexuals, liberals, secularists, nihilists, and Democrats to leave the country, were abortion, divorce, and sex outside of marriage eliminated, that would not be enough. Somehow, somewhere, there would be yet another Enemy to be confronted, yet more opposition, yet more conflict of Good against Evil. I don’t know who the enemy would be, but I know there would be one.
The culture of outrage has spread across vast stretches of conservative politics and religion, and in reaction to that it is now spreading to moderates (Democrats, really, who the new moderates, the Republicans having largely moved to the right) and to liberals. What has happened is that people now expect to be maintained in a continual state of outrage, and this is the net effect of all the political propaganda. Just as people who go to hockey games expect to see fights, people who listen to political information increasingly expect not to be informed but to get outraged.
Jesus said that the peacemakers are “blessed.” At this point I’m not sure who the peacemakers are, but they certainly are not conservative Christians. In order to be a peacemaker you have to assume at least the possibility of neutral ground. Once you lose that working assumption you lose the possibility of real peace, and substitute for that the “peace” that comes from the conquest of enemies. It may have the appearance of peace, but it certainly is not the “peace that passes all understanding.”
“Atque ubi colitudinum faciunt pacem apellant.” (They create a desolation and call it a peace.) — Tacitus
Jim,
I agree that much of the religious right’s opposition to abortion is odd. I don?t hear people within these churches arguing whether or not abortion is wrong, and the Church’s position doesn’t seem to be faltering. Perhaps I’m just out of the loop, but people in the Church don?t seem to be having high rates of abortions either. It might be interesting to see statistics on this, but I would presume that the vast majority of people having abortions do not refer to themselves as Christians of any kind. Christian who do have abortions, or had them, would have to admit that it was wrong in order to remain Christian. Rather, what seems to be argued here is the Church’s direct involvement in government politics regarding abortion, and I have to emphasize “direct”. If people in the Church are not having abortions, then this itself is a tremendous moral witness. That moral witness can have an affect on politics. However, if the Church is trying to directly stop pagans from having abortions through coercive government action, then this strikes me as a questionable virtue.
St. Innocent of Alaska (today is his feast day) had to address the problem of abortion in regards to the native Alaskans he was evangelizing. St. Innocent was aware of the common practice of mothers in nomadic tribes to abandon their newborn infants on the ice if they couldn’t be carried. How did he address this? As bishop of Alaska, he forbade his priests from condemning this practice. He realized that as a priest, he couldn’t place a burden too great on a people who were just fighting for their own survival. To condemn one of these nomadic mothers from this practice could have meant compromising that mother’s own survival and thus her other children’s as well.
I have to wonder that if the evangelical and moral thrust of the Church is in trying to stop pagans from having abortions through direct government action, then perhaps the Church is actually suffering from a spiritual abortion.
Stephen, do you have a citation for the St. Innocent reference? This differs from the practice of early Christians who would take abandoned newborns in. Also, abortion in America is, of course, far from a question of survival. It’s really a method of post-conception birth control.
The issue here is not stopping “pagans” from having abortions. It’s turning back the tide of the culture of death of which the public acceptance of abortion (abortion presented as a social good instead of the private shame it was in times past) was the first salvo in a dangerous dehumanization of mankind, starting first with the most defenseless.
Abortions don’t stop until hearts and minds change — a challenging task but certainly possible as abolition proved. If the current dehumanizing trend continue, other problems (infanticide, sexual slavery, etc.) will only get worse.
Stephen writes: “However, if the Church is trying to directly stop pagans from having abortions through coercive government action, then this strikes me as a questionable virtue.”
I understand how someone with certain religious beliefs and values would oppose abortion on a personal level. I also understand that such a person would desire that other people would not get abortions. What I don’t understand is why they desire legally and politically to impose these values on those who do not hold such values — on people living in under a non-Christian, areligious, pluralistic government. I especially do not understand why one’s position with respect to law and policy on this issue has become virtually the ultimate litmus test in some churches.
The typical argument is to compare abortion to other significant issues, such as slavery and genocide. But there is an important difference. The strong anti-abortion position primarily relies on theological and metaphysical assumptions that the majority of people simply do not hold, even after having been presented with them for years.
Having actively tried to inform myself on the strong anti-abortion position over a period of years, I can honestly say that I simply do not see that a fertilized egg cell is a person. As far as I can tell, the majority of Americans join me in this opinion.
That said, I do believe that there is a moral component to abortion, but it is a component that must be left to the individual. Albert Schweitzer said that anyone who had what he called “reverence for life” would prefer to sit in a hot and stuffy room with the window closed rather than leave the window open, thus attracting insects who would burn themselves as they approached the flame of a lamp. If the person who had reverence for life would do that for insects, how much more consideration should there be for human life!
But in my view that is a personal moral decision that the person herself needs to come to. It is something that neither I nor the government should mandate for anyone. In other words, there are some moral decisions that must be left to the individual, even though we know that individuals often will not make the best or the right decision.
Though most people believe that a decision on abortion should be left to the individual, based on having a sense of reverence for life most people also have a natural aversion to abortion. For example, the Salon.Com web site, certainly quite liberal, recently had an essay on the “I had an abortion” t-shirts available through Planned Parenthood. The reaction to that message was unambiguously and overwhelmingly negative. The anti-abortion folks would be better-served by appealing to and building upon that sensibility rather than saying that anyone who would permit abortion in any circumstance condones murder and genocide.
This is the difference between the strong pacifist who calls soldiers murderers, vs. the one who makes the case for peace. As Stephen notes, the “tremendous moral witness” of the church could be extremely valuable. The key is how such a witness is presented. Saying “please join with us in valuing life” is very different from saying “you are participants in the culture of death.”
Because reverence for life is an intrinsic part of our faith, the church has a moral duty to speak out against abortions, particularly those abortions performed for social convenience. Every human life is special and loved by God whether it resides within a womb or outside.
Where I disagree with many in the anti-abortion movement is not in their goal, in their tactics and strategy. The moral case against abortion has been lost and drowned out in the shrill, divisive and emotionally inflamed “culture war” which seeks to pit American against American. Its time to stop using the abortion issue as a wedge issue to attack and divide people.
Instead we need to speak in a voice that is kinder and softer (but just as firm) that draws listerners in so we case make the against abortion in a more convincing and compelling manner. We want to tell women that it is not restrictions on access to to abortions that oppresses their lives so much as the irresponsible sexual attitudes and behaviors that cause them to be impregnanted by men who have no interest in, or ability to help them raise the child.
As to Jim’s comment on Christians defining themselves by what we are against:
I posted a comment many moons ago that attempted to answer the question What are Orthodox for? Fr. Hans even posted a part of it as an “article” for comment. It did not seem that most people were interested in pursuing the matter. In many of my posts, I attempt to argue from a position of Orthodox belief in man as Theophany and microcosm. To put it succinctly: We Orthodox are for the redemption of man and creation through the process of theosis. Theosis is only possible because of the grace-filled events of Jesus life–The Incarnation, the kenotic sacrifice on the Cross, His Resurrection, His Ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. While theosis is an individual event in many ways, it cannot be accomplished in isolation from other people, but only within the communion of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church–the living Body of Christ(such communion is not limited to just Orthodox by the way). Theosis entails, among other responsibilities, living a life of repentance, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. There is extensive literature on each one of those facets of sacramental living if one cares to look for it.
Since the essence of my statement is at the heart of most of the posts by Fr. Hans, the Missourian, and others, and empowers Dean in his compassion for the poor and powerless, I am forced to conclude that Jim’s objection is not a real one, but a pretense to avoid seriously examining one’s opposition to authentic Christianity. However, as I have tried to remind people from time to time, we would all be better served if our arguments were more explicitly grounded in the revealed truth of the Church, rather than modern nihilist political doctrines no matter how attractively labled.
If the Church teaches anything, it is that the only real dichotomy is between Jesus and the World. Yet, unlike Buddhism or other Asian spiritual paths, Jesus did not call us to leave the world, ignore it, or neglect it. He commanded us to be “in the world, but not of it”. We cannot just withdraw to some fake spirituality of bliss, to do so would to be to deny all that Jesus did and continues to do. He assumed our nature and our physical reality. He still has our nature and our physical reality, but totally transformed and transfigured.
In some ways, Dean is probably more true to the direction that Christ calls us to, but is still justifying that direction with worldly politics–such justification makes him wrong in the end. To comprehend what we Orthodox are for, one has to recognize, at a minimum, that man is corrupted by sin and in need of salvation. You see, sin is an addiction, and just as no addiction can be overcome until one first realizes and admits that one is powerless by oneself to overcome, so it is with sin. We are either slaves to the unfathomable love of God (and so are set free and healed), or we are slaves to the rebellion against God and so are bound to suffering for eternity. We Orthodox are for real freedom through a willing submission to the love of Jesus Christ.
We can and must make the living connection between the core reality of the Orthodox Church and the putrid, decaying culture in which we live. Even if we achieve no worldly “success”, we will be doing the Will of our Father in Heaven.
Remember Dean, that the help for pregnant women (pre- and post-abortion) comes only from the pro-life side. The shrillness comes from those who demand unrestricted abortion yet never lift a finger except to open the door of the clinic. If you could get your liberal friends to compromise a bit, the wedge would blunt a bit but with pro-life views outlawed at the last Democratic convention, I don’t see much chance of this happening.
Jim, if abortion could be reduced to just the question of the personhood of the fetus your argument would make more sense. Of course it goes beyond that, way beyond in fact, so that full term children have their skulls pierced and brains sucked out in the birth canal. Sorry for the graphic terms, but unless you are willing to allow some restriction on abortion (and you would have to provide the moral ground as well), your argument defends this practice too. These issues require a deeper moral analysis than you give it.
Jim, you say “That said, I do believe that there is a moral component to abortion, but it is a component that must be left to the individual.” That way runs anarchy, loneliness, despair and destruction. There is no such thing as “individual morality”. Morality is a component of our nature because we are called to community, to inter-relationship with others in a profound way. Morality is precisely that which gives a beneficent structure to society, protecting the weak, providing a foundation of justice to the wronged, and guidance to us all.
If, as a society, we cannot simply agree that the most vulnerable, innocent human life has transcendent value and therefore has a transcendent right to protection, nothing else will matter. No other argument for law, justice or temperance will be upheld. Strength, power, money, and carnality will be the rule of day.
God is three distinct persons in One. His being shows us that without communion and community, there is nothingness. Certainly, we have individual identity and worth, but only as we live and act in community. A basic principal of ecology is that no act of any living being is without consequence in the ecosystem. Such consequence may be large or small, but it exists and often times is multiplied across the system in unpredictable ways.
When a mother chooses to abort her unborn child, she commits an act of betrayal against not only her child, but against her very own nature. To choose abortion is to choose death over life, ugliness over beauty, violence over peace, the will to power over self sacrifice, cowardice over heroism.
Government policy now is such that it encourages, endorses, and provides special protection for death, ugliness, violence, power, and cowardice. Such policy degrades us all and our society.
Does making abortion an illegal act cure the problem. NO! Does it help the problem–perhaps not, if that is all that is done. Governement policy should always be directed at the protection of its citizens and the encouragement of acts that support one another in times of trouble. “Individual morality” will never do that.
Fr. Jacobse,
This St. Innocent reference comes from Paul Garrett’s now out-of-print St. Innocent, Apostle to America published by St. Vladimir’s. I will get an exact citation.
This example is in no way a justification for abortion, but rather, I believe, an example of a responsible hierarchy of values under severe circumstances. I’ve read that St. Innocent also dealt with other issues such as polygamy. Again, he advised his priests not to outright condemn this practice, but rather to gently encourage monogamy and above all to be cautious in not angering or embittering the natives over their customs. St. Innocent saw his role as not to condemn this culture, but rather to bring to them the light of Christ.
I think that one of the reasons abortion is thought of by some people as a social good, or a “right”, is because of the tremendous political opposition against it. I believe that this political opposition has lead many people to a position of despair, and to feel that they have been cornered like an animal. Its really not suprising then that these people will also fight back like animals.
Stephen, you say “I think that one of the reasons abortion is thought of by some people as a social good, or a “right”, is because of the tremendous political opposition against it.”
In my rememberance of the growth of abortion “rights” in this country the pressure has always been from those fighting against established norms. The political pressure you see came afterwards as a response to those wishing to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ethical foundation of our culture.(I’m not saying we are or ever were a Christian country).
That the response has perhaps hardened those who wish to allow women to kill their unborn children without restraint, condemnation, or guilt is possible but I don’t really believe it.
Michael Bauman’s comments are correct. This is evident by the growing movement of women who have had abortions and now work against the normalization of abortion in the culture. Abortion has more than one victim as I pointed out in my review of Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion.
Archbishop Anastasios also dealth with polygamy while he was serving in Africa. His solution was to keep the polygamous marriages already in place, but teach the unmarried people that one wife was preferred.
The normalization of abortion was part of sophisticated public relations campaign launched decades ago by NARAL (now “Pro-Choice America” — a backdoor admission that prochoicers are slowly losing the war, BTW) that deliberately cast abortion as an issue of personal freedom against religious prejudice. They set opposition to abortion as a “Catholic issue,” a tactic that worked for a while until Catholicism articulated their opposition to the culture of death in clearer terms. Bernard Nathanson, a founding member of NARAL (along with Kate Michelman) and now a pro-lifer (and convert to Christianity) chronicles NARAL history in a series of books and articles. Some relevant links:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/media/nathansoninterview.htm
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/nathanson.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0002.html
Interestingly, Nathanson said if the Catholic priests were more united and organized when NARAL started it’s pro-abortion activism, they never would have been as successful as they were.
Michael writes: ” . . . Since the essence of my statement [positive description of what Orthodoxy is for] is at the heart of most of the posts by Fr. Hans, the Missourian, and others, and empowers Dean in his compassion for the poor and powerless, I am forced to conclude that Jim?s objection is not a real one . . . ”
It may be “at the heart,” but the positive aspects are seldom mentioned. Also, you yourself note that “I posted a comment many moons ago that attempted to answer the question What are Orthodox for? . . . It did not seem that most people were interested in pursuing the matter.” My point exactly.
Actually, in what I have read about Orthodoxy or have read that was written by Orthodox writers, I have found that most of the material presented is positive. It is my contention that regardless of religion, as people move toward the ends of the political spectrum, that the negative aspect dominates. While you see this on both the left and the right, you especially see it on the right. Add conservative Christianity into the mix and that amplifies everything.
I’m not referring to any particular individual here. But in my observation the “juice” for many conservative Christians has become cultivating and maintaining a sense of outrage, even to the point that being outraged about things becomes an end in itself.
When you get into a mixture of fundamentalist Christianity and conservative politics, the negatives go way up. A few months ago I was listening to one of the many conservative talk shows. The host and callers were denouncing “tax and spend liberals.” I called in and asked the host a simple question: if you think taxes should be lowered, to what level should they be lowered? In other words, what programs should we pay for? A simple question, but the host had no answer. All he could say was “we pay too much for education.” Again, a negative. Why? Because that’s all he has. That’s the point of the program. And the point is to maintain the faithful in a continual state of outrage.
Michael: “If, as a society, we cannot simply agree that the most vulnerable, innocent human life has transcendent value and therefore has a transcendent right to protection, nothing else will matter.”
I don’t think it’s true that “nothing else will matter.” Societies struggle with all sorts of moral issues, and it can take decades or even centuries for certain moral sensibilities to develop. Societies can develop in selected areas of morality while remaining stagnant or regressing in others. To this day people look to the ancient Greek and Roman authors as sources of great wisdom, even as we know that they existed in societies that practiced slavery, infanticide, genocide, and various other flavors of cruelty and oppression. Our own society, compassionate in many areas, is marked by extreme moral blindness in other areas, and not just in abortion.
The key to having a moral society, inasmuch as that is possible, lies in the development of a moral sensibility. Everyone here likes to compare abortion to Hitler and the holocaust. But what made the holocaust possible was pre-existing anti-semitism that permeated the culture (in the same way that slavery in American was made possible by racism that permeated the country.) What is significant about the holocaust is not just the fact that millions of people were systematically murdered, but that the murders were often accompanied by great cruelty. It’s one thing to kill a person. It’s quite another thing to torture someone, kill him, and and then laugh about it.
But with abortion, that simply is not the situation. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Again, though most people approve of having abortion as an option they also perceive a significant moral aspect to the issue — thus the deep revulsion expressed by readers of the “t-shirt” article at Salon.Com. Here are a few comments that were posted after the article:
“I support legalized abortion, but I hope the stigma never goes away. It is a regrettable option, and it should be discouraged in our society. . . . The subjects want open dialogue? That’s fine too, but the crux of the conversation should be making abortion more rare, not a fashion statement celebrating ‘no regrets’ for the fetus dismembered because it was convenient, but pregnancy was not.”
“I was raised with the idea that the right to legal abortion was sacrosanct. However, my gut reaction while reading “The A-word” was outrage. . . . I’m not in favor of eliminating abortion, and I never bought in to the right’s propaganda that abortion is being used as birth control by irresponsible women. However, faced with numbers like those cited in this article, I confess it is hard not to wonder if that is what is going on. I’m not hearing these women talk about personal responsibility, but I do hear a whole lot about personal entitlement.”
“I had an abortion in my 20s, which was an enormous relief at the time. I didn’t think much about it much in my 30s, but now in my late 40s, I think about it almost daily. After watching friends struggling with fertility and miscarriage, after watching other people’s babies grow into astonishing human beings, I began to think very differently about abortion. I wonder what kind of person my offspring might have become. I wonder why there were so many women encouraging me in 1980 to have the abortion, and why there wasn’t anyone encouraging me to have the baby and give it up for adoption.”
Remember, these are not fundamentalists. These are liberal, pro-choice people. It should be obvious that they are not little Hitlers-in-the-making. But if you want to insist that all abortion has to be outlawed, you’re going to lose these people at the start. It would be vastly smarter and more effective instead to engage them where they are and build upon their existing thoughts and feelings. What will accomplish this is the positive witness, not the right-wing propaganda.
Jim, different forums discuss things differently. Here the discussion of abortion often touches on the deeper cultural ramifications which necessitates a challenge to abortion ideology and the deeper decline it portends (infanticide, pediatric euthanasia etc.). To characterize opposition to this cultural drift as an unfair labelling of pro-choice progressives (“Hitlers-in-the-making” were the words you used) shifts the ground from the debate of ideas into the realm of personal attack with the implicit demand that the pro-lifers in this discussion defend themselves against it.
But no pro-lifer has made such an attack. In fact, as my review of the book “Forbidden Grief” makes clear, the aborted child is not the only victim of the pro-abortion culture. And as I have mentioned to Dean, pro-choicers don’t do anything to help women in problem pregnancies. The support for women comes solely from the the pro-life side.
One final point. You wrote:
“The key to having a moral society, inasmuch as that is possible, lies in the development of a moral sensibility. Everyone here likes to compare abortion to Hitler and the holocaust. But what made the holocaust possible was pre-existing anti-semitism that permeated the culture (in the same way that slavery in American was made possible by racism that permeated the country.) What is significant about the holocaust is not just the fact that millions of people were systematically murdered, but that the murders were often accompanied by great cruelty. It?s one thing to kill a person. It?s quite another thing to torture someone, kill him, and and then laugh about it.”
This glosses over the history of the Holocaust, particularly the acceptance of euthanasia by the medical establishment before the rise of Hitler — a development well documented in many places. (See my review of War Against the Weak.) Anti-Semitism existed before the Holocaust, but the moral justifications and mechanisms that found final expression in the Final Solution were relatively new. Remember too that the Holocaust killed 13 million people total, of which 6 million were Jews.
So getting back to ideas: the ideas informing the culture of death were identical to the ideas that informed the Final Solution, paticularly in terms of preparing the German culture for the mass extermination of people — some of which you have defended, BTW. Any challenge to these ideas must be crystal clear, lest we too go down the same road. To characterize these challenges (“right wing propaganda”)as an attack on people unsure of how private morality affects public culture (their views will shift with the dominant culture) doesn’t answer the challenge, it merely shifts the ground.
Father Jacobse: Of course I am disappointed that the statements of Clinton and Kerry that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare”, have not been accompanied by concrete proposals by any Democrat to actually make abortions rare. Similarly disappointing is the silence on the moral aspects of the abortion issue. Isn’t there anyone in the Democratic party with the courage to say, “You know terminating a human life because it’s birth would interfere with someone’s social calender in just wrong.”
In this respect the Democrats are as guilty of pandering to the more extreme elements of their party as is Karl Rove to his. While Republicans have to kow-tow to the NRA, Democrats are genuflecting to NOW and NARAL. Maybe this suggests that there is something dysfunctional about our political system – a calculation for victory that gives added weight to the views of the most vocal and militant, while discounting the views of the siilent majority in the center.
There are a few Dean, but they are not allowed to speak anymore. There has to be a fight to return the party to what it once was. A couple more years of major losses and the left wing McGovernites will be vulnerable to an overthrow. It won’t happen unless Hillary loses however. If she wins, the current regime retains control probably for another decade.
BTW, Frontpage is running an interesting expose on Democrat 527 money. Jane Fonda has contributed $13 million to Soros’ efforts. The Shadow Party.
Just started reading quite an interesting book:
The Architects of the Culture of Death
A series of brief biographies of many of the most significant contributors to the death culture from Darwin to Peter Singer. Despite the brevity of each account much is revealed concerning what have become underlying assumptions of the death culture which even those of us who are working for a culture of life share to some extent.
Michael, any info on the web about it? I’d like to suggest it to Townhall for a review.
Fr. Hans Here is a link to an inteview with the authors: http://ignatiusinsight.com/features/intvw_demarco_wiker_july04.asp
You are asked to find a school bus driver to take children from the Sunday school on a field trip. Two men are available. Smith and Jones. Smith has a spotty driving record with many traffic violations and several collisions, but also belongs to a local anti-abortion organization. Jones has never had a traffic citation and has glowing references from a local school bus company, and he supports Roe v. Wade.
Who are you going to hire? It has to be the one who can take better care of the children. Likewise when we elect a President we cannot decide only on the basis a of a candidate’s poistion on abortion, exclusive of all considerations. When all is said and done we have to elect the person who can best take care of our nation, and rid ourselves of any President whose policies have harmed, or could continue to harm, the nation.
George W. Bush has performed poorly in his job as President, and by launching a costly, deadly and unprovoked attack against Iraq on the basis of false information, he has stained the pages of American history with dishonor. A vote for George W. Bush is a statement that says there is no level of incompetence, failure and lying too great to disqualify a candidate from your vote.
Let us review:
1) HE FAILED TO PROTECT THE NATION. Despite numerous warnings during the summer of 2001 of an impending terrorist attack on US soild George W. Bush took no actions to safeguard the nation. Former CIA chief Tenet has remarked that during the summer of 2001 “the board was flashing red”, with reports of a planned terrorist attack. On August 6, 2001 President Bush received a (PDB) President’s Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Ladin determined to strike withing the United States.” Bush took no action and resumed a month-long vacation. Today President Bush continues to grossly underfund important Homeland Security measures here in the United States.
2) HE IS FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. President Bush began his term with a budget surplus of over $200 billion and quickly turned it into a permanent structural deficit of over one half trillion dollars a year which threatens our nation’s economic security. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker recently remarked that because of the massive deficits there is a 75% chance of a major financial crisis in the United states within the next five years.
3) MANY THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SERVICEMEN AND IRAQI CIVILIANS HAVE DIED IN A WAR BUSH BEGAN ON THE BASIS OF FALSE INFORMATION. As the report released last week by Chief Weapons Inspector Inspector Charles Dueffler indicates Iraq stopped making weapons of mass destruction in 1991, and did not possess stockpiles of any on the eve of our invasion in March 2003. Yet the imminent threat posed by the alleged existence of these weapons was the primary reason offered by President Bush for going to war. Another reason offered by Bush, an Iraqi role in the September 11th attack, was disproven by the September 11th commission which found “no collaborative relationship” between Iraq and the september 11th attackers.
4) THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ HAS BEEN MANAGED WITH GROSS INCOMPETENCE. Last week we heard Paul Bremer former head of the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) admit that we never had enough troops in Iraq to secure the country. From not stopping the looting, to disbanding the Iraqi army, to allowing torture and abuse at US operated prisons in Iraq the occupation has been marked by miscalculation, arrogance and cultural insensitivity. There are over 50 attacks on US personnel a day, and bombing and vilolence that kill thosands of Iraqis every week. As result the CIA reported to the president this summer that Iraq will most likely experience continued instability and violence verging on civil war in the years ahead.
5) BUSH WILL BE THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO LOSE MORE JOBS THAN HE CREATED SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich have not created jobs as he promised. There has been a net loss of over one million jobs since Bush was installed in the White House, and current job growth rates are not even great enough to satisfy new monthly job market entrants. Because of rising gasoline, health care and tuition prices middle class families are coping with heavy economic stress and struggling just to keep thier heads above water.
Anyone who demonstrated a similar level of incompetence, failure and lying in the private sectorr would be fired, regardless of their religious views. It should be the same with the office of President.
Dean:
First, your analogy is flawed. You contrast a pro-life bad driver with a pro-abortion good driver. You analogize Bush to the “bad driver.” By implication, Kerry assumes the role of the “good driver.” However, your analogy assumes, without argument, that Kerry is a good driver.
Even if Bush is a bad driver, you have not proved that Kerry is a better driver. You have assumed he is a better driver, he may be even worse.
Plus, the bus driver’s position on Roe v Wade is of no actual consequence to the children riding in the bus. A better way to look at it is that as flawed as the bad us driver is, he will do everything in his power to protect all the children on the bus. The “good” bus driver will take the most vulnerable children on the bus and throw them out the back door at 65 mph if they become a nuisance–especially the poor ones. While he will only do this “rarely” he does insist that the choice should be his and in fact he has a “right” to that choice.
Michael:
I have completely lost track of the bus analogy.
I don’t understand how people believe that the United States has any option but to proceed forward with the best plan that can devised to pacify Iraq. Whatever the merits of the original decision, whatever the merits of the conduct of post-war operations, the United States must go forward. At this point, the issue is whether Bush or Kerry will be a better leader in the future. Kerry has been incoherent on many issues. He’s hopeless. I simply don’t see any leadership qualities in him. He expouses moral incoherence and hypocrisy on the abortion issue, among many. That leaves Bush… I wish we had Churchill or Lincoln or John Adams or Andrew Jackson …. we have Bush.
War makes for cruel choices. We cannot walk out of Iraq after 1,000 combat deaths. These brave individuals were volunteer, professional soldiers, not civilians. We should honor them as heroes who died for a cause, not treat them as victims. It should be noted that we lose 50,000 people a year in highway accidents. No one suggests shutting down the interstate system. In WWII we lost 450,000 soldiers in combat. About 2,000 per week of the war. No one suggested that this cost was too high to stop Hitler and save Britain. Thousands of American soldiers were killed before they even took 10 steps onto Omaha beach. Tragic, but true.
There is no way out of this but forward, and it will be a long, hard fight. On this point Bush has been totally consistent. This isn’t an academic debate, it is real war for our civilization’s existence.
Missourian, I was trying to add to your comment on Dean’s analogy. Since it was a totally false analogy, it was probably better to leave where you left it. In any case, my comment had no relation to Iraq at all, just the attitude of supports of Roe v Wade and the abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.