[Previous entry: "Michael Moore: font of wisdom"] [Next entry: "Bible "translator" speaks"]

06/29/2004: "Trivializing abortion and democracy"

The Jewish newspaper Forward undertakes to castigate Catholic bishops for telling Catholic politicians that they are violating Catholic moral teaching by publically advocating unfettered abortion. The presumption in that is astounding, but so is the editors' view of democracy:

We've long held the view that the campaign to ban abortion, resting as it does on a particular view of when human life begins, violates the rights of others whose view of life differs. Civil law does not and should not require Catholics to undergo abortion if their conscience forbids it. But those whose faith–or lack of one–tells them that life begins at some other point should equally be free to follow their consciences. The law should not bar citizens from access to a medical procedure they consider ethical and essential, simply because it violates the religious principles of another group of citizens.

Imagine what that first sentence would look like with just a couple of tweaks:

"We've long held the view that the campaign to ban slavery, resting as it does on a particular view of human dignity, violates the rights of others whose view of dignity differs."

"We've long held the view that the campaign to ban infanticide, resting as it does on a particular view of when human life begins, violates the rights of others whose view of life differs."

"We've long held the view that the campaign to ban polygamy, resting as it does on a particular view of marriage, violates the rights of others whose view of marriage differs."

But it gets worse combined with this:

To be sure, every individual is free to advocate his or her opinions in a democracy, including the opinion that abortion is wrong. That's democracy.

Translation: you have every right to advocate any opinion you want, even on the most serious of moral issues–but you have no right to gather together a majority of citizens to try to enact that opinion into law. That's not democracy–it's the Oxford Union debating society. And that's not even remotely a serious view of free speech or moral advocacy.

(Thanks to Mark Shea for the link.)

Replies: 8 Comments

on Tuesday, June 29th, Alcuin said

With a little thought, maybe the author will recognize that American democracy is not equivalent or reducible to the "right to gather together a majority of citizens to try to enact that opinion into law." This idea is as vapid as the idea that every religious opinion is an equal criterion for protection under the law. The very "tweaking" performed above itself puts the lie to the standard of democratic governance posited at the conclusion of the post. And anyway, how is it any more or less presumptuous for a Moravian Minister to excoriate a Jewish publication for expressing a political opinion on a political matter? Neither is being "presumptuous" here, but merely political. But in any case, it sounds like both parties need to go back to school on how laws work. Most blogs of any political or theological stripe tend to become embarrasing because they quickly remind us of how mediocre most people are at forming useful or unique political or theological opinions. Instead, they become places where regular people with regular ideas convince themselves that they have big ideas, and that they make a big difference. Blogs are the waste bin of the tried, true, and tired. No wonder they are so popular, so redundant, and so sad.

on Wednesday, June 30th, Greg S said

An awful lot of words were just used to say, "Hey, Athanasius, you're an idiot!"

I'm glad online discussion normally doesn't work like this. Suppose I said the following in a forum about food:

"You can usually identify good barbeque by it's smokey flavor and pinkish hue"

The following would be Alcuin's critique:

With a little thought, maybe the author will recognize that barbeque is not equivalent or reducible to "it's smokey flavor and pinkish hue."

on Wednesday, June 30th, Athanasius said

It's certainly an excess of verbiage for what amounts to an ad hominem attack. Listen, if you don't like blogs, especially this one, here's a solution: don't read them!

That said, let me take on a couple of points. One, there's nothing presumptious in my responding to the Forward editors, who in the quote above weren't talking about internal affairs of Judaism, but secular public policy. I wouldn't presume to tell a rabbi how to discipline a member of his or her flock, any more than Forward should be telling the bishops how to do their jobs.

As for the second, you obviously didn't like (or understand) my shorthand. All I was saying is this: in a democractic and republican system of government, to grant your political opponent the right to voice his opinion, but not to seek to change public policy, is contrary to the nature of the polity. Having the right to speak, but not to have the right to persuade elected officials to change the law, drains both our form of government and the First Amendment of its meaning. Forward said that "the campaign to ban abortion" violates the rights of others. That's essentially saying that taking any political action on an issue where others disagree is somehow a violation of the latter's rights, which is patently ridiculous.

on Thursday, July 1st, Alcuin said

Ad hominem? You would like to think so! If you were not so offended as to fail to read what I have written, you would notice that I have not called you presumptuous, but only said that you are wrong in calling Forward presumptuous. But let's set this aside, and have you read the quotation again: "The law should not bar citizens from access to a medical procedure they consider ethical and essential, simply because it violates the religious principles of another group of citizens" is true, regardless of whether or not you feel this is a sufficient test by which to decide the actionability of a ban on abortion. You have made the mistake of projecting a theory of democratic polity onto the authors that does not show up in the quotation! The quotation does not even invite your critique! You are using the Forward piece to make a point that, regardless of whether or not it is true, is
unrelated to the argument of the piece! Talk about ad hominem!

on Friday, July 2nd, Katherine said

The statement is NOT true. Let's say the law refers to female "circumcision," that is, genital mutilation. Some things are right, and some things aren't. In the case cited, when life begins is not a religious opinion. It was in the MIddle Ages, but with present scientific knowledge, there is no question that a child growing in her mother's womb is alive and human.

The saddest thing is that this article is from a Jewish publication. Christians inherited their ethics on human life from their Jewish teachers; a primary difference between Jews and Christians and pagan cultures was the reverence for human life.

on Saturday, July 3rd, Alcuin said

So, the simple fact that a medical procedure violates the religious principles of a group of citizens is sufficient reason to bar citizens from access to it is true? You may want to rethink this, Katherine! If this is true, how would you like J's Witnesses writing our national medical policy?!

on Sunday, July 4th, Athanasius said

That a medical procedure violates the religious principles of a group of citiznes is sufficient reason for them to seek to change the law. I'm not worried about JWs convincing the voters that blood transfusions need to be banned. But they'd have a right to try. The Forward's editors don't grant the validity of that same right to pro-lifers.

on Sunday, July 4th, Alcuin said

Yes, Athanasius, because you do not agree with the legal principle to which the Forward is appealing. I did not assume that you agreed with Katherine, because to do so would be a little bit cracked! But that does not give you cause to project a theory of democratic polity onto the Forward which is not there! Call it a straw man, ad hominem, I don't care! It just goes to show you don't take much care to get the people you disagree with right so long as you come out sounding savy! Man, I hope you don't say stuff like this to your congregation! These Limbaugh antics may work for your "anonymous congregation," but I can't imagine they would work too well face-to-face.