I’ve been waiting for it for a couple of days, knew it would come, and here it is–a smear of the pro-life movement by a Christian pro-abortionist. It turns out to be the ever-reliable Susan Thistlethwaite, who in the “On Faith” column at the Washington Post demonstrates that she was absent from Old Testament 101 class the day the Ninth Commandment was discussed:
“Pro-life” as the self-description of the anti-abortion movement has a fundamental flaw at its heart. The moral absolute of “life” is not applied consistently, in my view, by the majority of those in this movement. Many in the “pro-life” anti-abortion movement seem to me to only be pro-life in the case of abortion — unlike those who hold an ethic of life across a range of moral issues, not only abortion but also war and the death penalty, This makes “pro-life” in regard to abortion not only an inconsistent ethic, but an unstable one.
Translation: if your politics aren’t straight down-the-line liberal (like Susan Thistlethwaite, who gave up her seminary presidency to become a political activist at the left-wing Democratic Party think tank Center for American Progress), you can’t have a consistent ethic of life.
The Washington Post is reporting that an arrest has been made of a man matching the description of the shooter. Scott Roeder, the suspect in the murder of George Tiller, “is known in anti-abortion circles as a man who believes that killing an abortion doctor is justifiable.”
Roeder was known among a handful of pro-life extremist and militia-type groups. Putting it the way Thistlethwaite does is the equivalent of saying that the 9/11 hijackers were “known in Islamic circles.”
Violence has been a part of the anti-abortion movement from the beginning, from the overt violence of the murder of other abortion providers to the covert violence of harassing women trying to get to clinics for reproductive services.
“Covert violence” is actually referring to those seeking to talk to women entering abortuaries. In Thistlethwaite’s world, any attempt to persuade someone to act in a way other than the one they’ve set their mind on is “violence.”
As for violence being “a part of the anti-abortion movement from the beginning,” one could with equal justice say that “violence has been a part of the anti-war movement from the beginning” because a nut killed a military recruiter in Arkansas yesterday, or that “violence has been a part of the gay rights movement from the beginning” because an anti-Prop 8 lunatic assaulted a supporter, or that “violence has been a part of the environmental movement from the beginning” because of the actions of the Earth Liberation Front. But Thistlethwaite would never make those ridiculous leaps in logic, because she supports the anti-war, gay rights, and environmental movements. It is only those whose politics she disagrees with that are eligible for the smear treatment.
Violence is a logical outcome of the extreme self-righteousness of those who claim the “pro-life” label as an absolute and yet who do not have an actual, consistent ethic of life such as the views held by pacifists.
“Extreme self-righteousness.” I’m not sure what you call it when the deeply held moral beliefs of tens of millions of utterly non-violent people are smeared using the actions of a lone gunman, but the expression “extreme self-righteousness” does come to mind. Imagine how high the orbit is that Thistlethwaite rockets into when she hears people say (wrongly) that 9/11 or the London subway bombings or Madrid or Bali or Mumbai proves that violence is the “logical outcome” of Islam. And there’s no doubt in my mind that she puts herself in the camp of those who have “an actual, consistent ethic of life,” despite her unwavering, absolutist support for the destruction of life in the womb.
Dr. Charles Kimball, a Baptist minister and professor of religion at Wake Forest University, well explains this logical connection in his book When Religion Becomes Evil. According to Kimball, two warning signs that indicate a religious viewpoint is becoming evil are “absolute truth claims” and “the end justifies any means.” Violence, in Kimball’s view, is an evil.
I’m glad Kimball cleared that up for us. As for his contention that “absolute truth claims” lead to violence, I’m sure there are lots of Quakers and Mennonites, among many, many others, who would respond that such a statement is horse hockey.
I also believe that if the anti-abortion movement were honest with itself, and with the American people, it would admit that its “absolute truth claims” lead inexorably to attitudes held by those who commit crimes against abortion providers: “the end justifies any means.”
There is not a single pro-life organization or leader that has not condemned the Tiller murder. Nor are there any that have not made clear that the end doesn’t justify the means, that murder is wrong, and that violence in the service of pro-life goals is completely outside the bounds. But then, they aren’t being “honest.”
I’ll tell you who isn’t being honest: Susan Thistlethwaite. In her attempt to make political hay out of a despicable act, she mutilates logic, offends charity, and lies about the motives and methods of tens of millions of people, people who now, according to Gallup, make up a majority of Americans. If that isn’t “extreme self-righteousness” combined with the lowest form of political hackery, I don’t know what is.
June 2, 2009 at 11:02 am
“… unlike those who hold an ethic of life across a range of moral issues, not only abortion but also war and the death penalty, This makes “pro-life” in regard to abortion not only an inconsistent ethic, but an unstable one.”
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve never understood the inconsistency of being anti-abortion but pro-torture, pro-death penalty, or pro-war. Just as inconsistent as being pro-choice but anti-death penalty, if you ask me. A mother should have the choice to abort a child because it is “inconvenient”, but society shouldn’t have the choice to kill people they find inconvenient? That makes no sense either.
I’m also not sure how being anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-torture, and anti-war is “straight down the line liberal”, as you suggest, David. Or are you suggesting that liberals are anti-abortion? More inconsistency, I guess. Probably hard to keep the positions straight when they don’t make any sense together, eh? 🙂
Anyway, I can’t agree more that hearing a consistent ethic of life from religious and political leaders would be refreshing, one that doesn’t amount to “It’s all just a matter of timing” might be nice.
June 2, 2009 at 11:28 am
Pro-life, nuanced pro-death penalty, pro strong military in support of “Just War” doctrine.
Consistent and Biblically sound.
June 2, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Alan: Terms such as “anti-torture” and “anti-war” are really flabby, and are meant to cover a variety of political nuances that all work out to be politically liberal. “Anti-war,” for instance, as Thistlethwaite uses it doesn’t mean pacifist, it means “anti-Iraq war.” (At least I’ve never seen anything in her public writing that calls for total pacifism.) Does she think that FDR made a grave moral mistake fighting the Nazis and Japanese imperialists? If not, then she is not “anti-war,” she’s against certain wars, and has no more a consistent ethic of life than most Christians–if you define a consistent ethic of life in a certain way.
And by the way, I would dispute the notion that Thistlethwaite is “anti-abortion.” She says she wants to reduce them (since that’s the current mantra coming out of the White House), but is against absolutely any restrictions, including the partial-birth abortion ban. That means she rejects measures that definitely would reduce abortions in favor of others that might or might not. This doesn’t have to be an either/or, yet that’s how political liberals, following the president’s lead, have framed it. To me, that says that they goal isn’t actually reducing abortions, but making the public believe you are in favor of doing so, regardless of whether it happens or not.
June 2, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Well, I’ve never heard of this person, so I wasn’t commending her particular positions since I’m unfamiliar with them, nor did I anywhere state that I was, I was just going by what you wrote, and I was simply agreeing that it would be nice if most folks, particularly Christians, had some sort of consistent ethic on life; instead of the inconsistent, anti-Biblical situational ethics they tend to espouse.
BTW, I’d say “anti-war” and “anti-torture” is no more flabby than “pro-life” has become, which hardly means “pro-life” anymore, for most so-called “pro-life” folks. Anyway, that confusion is why I never use the term “pro-life” to describe my own positions (even though it’s more consistently true for me than it is for many folks) because it’s a phrase that has lost its meaning.
June 2, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I don’t think it is very logical to be “pro life” and “pro death penalty” either. All life is precious in the sight of God, no matter how much an evil mess we make of it, and I don’t think it is right to allow the state to take away a person’s life.
June 2, 2009 at 5:53 pm
See, Alan, I agreed with you. It happens sometimes.
June 2, 2009 at 6:20 pm
It does indeed. And I’m always happy to find some common ground, Kate. 🙂
June 3, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Kate and Alan,
What do you do with Rom 13, specifically verse 4?
Now for full disclosure I am not in favor of how it is meted out in the U.S. as it is done inconsistently and often capriciously but do think the Death Penalty is Biblically warranted.
June 3, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Rom 13:4 is just talking about the state having the authority to punish lawbreakers. I think “the sword” is a metaphor, since surely the passage is talking about all kinds of different laws, not just the ones the Roman’s punished with death. I don’t think it mandates capital punishment. I am mostly against the death penalty because it denies the criminal the opportunity to repent and save his soul. I don’t think that we have the right to do that to anybody. (Yes, a murderer has done exactly that to his victim, ie, cut the person’s life short, but “two wrongs don’t make a right”)
June 3, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The above should read “Romans”, not “Roman’s”. I know how to use an apostrophe, really, I do….
June 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I would agree with Kate.
First of all, I think it’s quite a stretch to try to proof-text the death penalty as “Biblically warranted” with one phrase “bear the sword”. Second of all, there is nothing in that chapter that makes the death penalty required, the “bear the sword” phrase is clearly descriptive (the ruling authorities at the time, the Romans, had the death penalty, that’s simply the state of affairs Paul is describing, not necessarily demanding), and there is nothing in the verse or the chapter that would lean one to conclude that one phrase is proscriptive. If we read the verse and the chapter *in context* the point he is making is to obey the ruling authorities, he is quite obviously not making a point about the death penalty.
I’m sure we could come up with quite a list of established Roman civic and cultural practices that NT writers mention; however, the mere mention of such practices should not be construed as approval. For example, this verse is no different than the various places in which Paul mentions slavery, but does not condemn it, which doesn’t mean he condones it either.
Finally, Christians have always tread the “obey the governing authorities” line carefully; it does not grant us carte blanche to do anything just because the government sanctions it. Just because the governing authorities make something legal hardly means that it is “Biblically warranted.” Abortion, for example.
June 9, 2009 at 8:15 am
[…] CULTURE OF DEATH: Smear Artists Flinging Mud …. […]