![[Chalice]](../pictures/chaliced.gif){kind=small}
Politics, Violence, and the Dignity of Life
The Quincy Unitarian Church Home
Page.
The list of Selected Sermons.
Politics, Violence, Listen to a recording of "Politics, Violence, and the Dignity of
Life."
19:57 minutes - 7.99 MB - Politics, Violence, and the
Dignity of Life .mp3 file.
Presented January 6, 2008, by Liz Alonzo
Catholic monk and mystic Thomas Merton wrote in his collection of essays, Faith and Violence, "to take sides with massive power is to take sides against the innocent." In my experience with the two major political parties of the nation, coming from my perspective as a life-long Catholic, Merton's statement holds true. In this case, to side with either party is "to take sides against the innocent." Faith endorses violence today, just as it did in the Vietnam Era when Merton declared that his side was not with the majority of American Christians for the war, or with the Communists, but with the innocents. Likewise, my side is not the Democratic or the Republican-both claiming moral reasons for their own policies-but with the innocent, the voiceless, and Body of Christ in "the least of these." Anyone concerned with humanity and the well-being of the entire circle of life to which we all belong needs to take an honest look at where they may be siding with "massive power" as Merton says over the vulnerable and marginalized. In way of example from my own life, let us look at the issues of abortion, the war in Iraq, and gay marriage.
Both political parties use moral reasons to support their doctrine and policies. The Republicans are more obvious about it-especially about the issue of abortion. Many Catholics, and even Catholic clergy, express vocal support for the Republican candidates at each election because of the Republican platform stance against abortion. In the past, I was more apt to enthusiastically and simplistically take sides, especially in this issue. I championed the reasons that abortion was a moral evil through out high school against pro-choice classmates. I went on the pro-life march protest the first year at college; during the trip, I became a founding member of QU's Dignity for Human Life group. I was president of this group the next year, leading another trip to the nation's pro-life march. I voted Republican for several positions at the state level because of the abortion issue, though I could not bring myself to do so at the national level because of the war.
Though I have always felt compassionate towards women who feel that abortion is their best option and uncomfortable with insensitive campaigns that demonize such women, one of the experiences that turned me off from the Catholic-Republican-abortion connection was the national pro-life march. At both of the protests I have participated in, there is a definite "us-them" mentality. At all of them, political candidates' signs are present-those are always of Republicans. Though it is an overall peaceful protest physically, the rhetoric of the day is loud, moralistic, and (dare I say it?) violent to the other "side" of a legal battle. The most disturbing part of the experience was the pro-life Mass with the bishops the night before. It seemed more like a rally than a worship service. The "prayer" was condescending-to the affect of "that the other side will repent, that women won't be duped by them, and that pro-life candidates will finally triumph." I felt so disconnected from any experience of dialogue with God that I actually left the main area of the large basilica and went to a small chapel for silent prayer with another similar minded person. This experience illustrated to me the danger of mixing faith and violence. I believe that meaningful, respectful dialogue with others and with God is integral to mature faith-this dialogue was missing. What was also missing was the focus on who is hurt by abortion: women, children, and families.
I have come to believe that progressive social programs to aid women in caring for unexpected children would do more to remedy abortion than law. Though I still agree with the premise that abortion is a social evil, I will not vote for someone based solely on that. Being a Catholic with ties to St. Louis with quickly leftward shifting political views was not easy with Archbishop Burke using his pulpit as a political tool to back the Republicans, and many "good" Catholics toeing the party line, as good pro-lifers.
In think that Merton would say that being pro-life should extend beyond the womb and mean a policy of non-violence. I certainly would say that. Another issue that is charged with faith and violence is war, both Vietnam and Iraq. While the Republicans can ostentatiously claim the side of life over abortion, the Democrats claim the side of life in the war (at least now). I cringe at the Cardinal Spellman proclamation of "my country, right or wrong," but this is the attitude of many people, especially in time of war. The sides of the war are engaged in quieter animosity now than in the Vietnam era, but the animosity remains. Moving away from the protest lines, bumper-stickers seem to define the debate. The "support our troops" stickers are almost ubiquitous-they define the reason for the quietly held animosity-one is never sure who has family overseas in the military. People do not want to offend, or engage in a volatile discussion in public. I never realized how seriously these were taken until a close friend and mentor in the military expressed how hurt he was that I did not include a "support our troops" bumper-sticker on my car. In addition, he expressed horror that I had an anti-war (with no qualifications) bumper-sticker-indicating my alliance with those devious and stupid pacifists, no doubt. The sides in the Iraq War are not the U.S. versus the Insurgent anti-democracy forces. The people in Iraq that are caught in the cross-fire violence, the children that will grow up in a decade of constant violence and unrest, and the soldiers who must fight a war that they may not support are the side I will support. The way to support the troops would be to minimize our presence in Iraq.
The leadership of the churches all came out against the War in Iraq, however, the congregations have overwhelmingly bought the Republican propaganda and moral doctrine and supported the war. This is partially a hangover from Reagan and Neoconservatism. The tolerance by people of the Republicans dominating "pro-life" and morals seems to have clouded their vision. The majority of Catholics were no different than the rest of the population: they supported the war against the admonitions of the clergy.
Another issue related to dignity of life that is relevant in this coming election is gay marriage. The only two candidates to vocalize support for both civil unions and marriage for homosexuals are trailing in the single digits, with mostly independent voter support. All other candidates would either outlaw gay marriage or only allow civil unions, which would not extend the same legal rights as marriage and would not extend rights beyond one's state. Though this issue does not involve life or death, it does involve the dignity of human life. This is one issue in which the Catholic Church and most other Christian denominations fall short in following the Gospel message of love and the respect for human dignity. Though I was once ambivalent on the issue of homosexual marital unions, as I have made friends who were homosexual, I realized that they couldn't be ambivalent on this issue-and so neither could I. They were "the least of these" in the Body of Christ, the marginalized. I have come to finally see that supporting gay marriage is a part of respecting the dignity of life. Unfortunately, the candidates backed by the major power of the nation's two political parties have not had the courage to stand up to conservative voters in this regard. Yet again, to side with either party is to side against the innocent and marginalized.
There are many other issues that concern the dignity of life that are relevant this election year-education, the economy, the environment, health care, and many others I'm sure you could name. These are the examples that spoke the most to me.
Democrats hope to gain a major victory in the next election-and for the sake of the war, I hope they do-but a Democrat win will not solve the problem of two opposing sides that both fail to address fully the plight of the innocent, those whose life and dignity require protecting. The problem is the "us-them" mentality. Though history supports the two party system, it has never made sense to me. The right-left spectrum has the same limitations. There are more points of view than two on any given issue. Also, choosing either of the current parties will inevitably support a major source of violence.
What is the solution? People need to start voting their conscience, not their party ticket. None of us can afford to be single-issue voters. Also, there need to be more suitable candidates with multiple viewpoints. That would be a good start for the political issues. Maybe a system like in Europe with multiple parties vying for control could work in the future in America.
More generally, people define themselves by the other. They define the other as negative, foreign, and immoral. When religions invest stock in defining themselves against a negative other, they become locked into a cycle of "us-them." In this cycle, there can be no dialogue to come to the best solution to violence. By extreme animosity between the two sides, there is an increase in violence.
The Gospel advocates on behalf of the most vulnerable members of the body of Christ; humanist thought advocates for the well-being of the human family. The clergy remembered this on the issue of Iraq. The congregations seem to have been misled by the media and their anger. Now the responsibility is ours to find some way to bring the best solution in Iraq. On the issue of abortion, I'd like to see the pro-life movement do more to address the root causes of women getting abortions and stop spending so much frenzied time and energy in a violent battle over legality. If women felt that their communities were ready to support them and their children, adopt their children, get them and their children out of abusive situations, and stop shaming them for how the children were conceived, the number of abortions would plummet. As for gay marriage, there is no legal reason why two consenting adults should not be able to enter into the union of marriage.
Merton's reminder of how dangerous faith and violence can be when combined is a good one. Especially on the issue of taking sides, it is harder for me to take sides now, like Merton. I do not fit into a political party-I am not a single-issue voter.
Thank you.
The Quincy Unitarian Church Home
Page.
The list of Selected Sermons.