Our Greatest Sin: Quick to Judge, Exclude and Comdemn

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/jesus/final-ministry/trial-before-sanhedrin/

Good people can rightly disagree on a number of issues. We often forget that. Our culture is heavily polarized. We've grown accustomed to the culture wars. Our political parties have drawn hard lines between each other to where working across the aisle can be considered scandalous instead of wise and prudent. Both the professional media and social media have a role to play in these divisions, as well.

What bothers me the most is not that people disagree on important issues. Disagreement will happen. It's that we can be so quick to judge, exclude and condemn.

For example, anyone who has looked at the hard issues around war, peace and violence knows that there are rarely easy answers. This is specially true with nations with long and complicated histories. I've been in academically tedious debates over the nuances of Just War Theory. Folks may argue from a Christian perspective either for or against war. I can appreciate the points on all sides. But what I can't understand is that some folks are just so eager to go to war. At the drop of a hat, it's All Systems Go.

It's the eagerness to go to war that keeps me up at night.

My own Catholic Church has a long history of theological debate over this issue. But even if war is somehow deemed to be "necessary," it should always be a last resort. It should always come with great sadness. It should always be seen as a sin that all else has failed to prevent it, including our own individual efforts. But when we go to war, I just don't see much regret or sadness. I see triumphalism. I see blood lust. I see dehumanizing of the opponent and cheers over bombings.

I see this playing out around other issues:

Anyone who has looked at the issues around immigration knows that there are no easy answers. There are desperate, hungry people at the border. At least some of their desperation (if not all) is the result of our own policies. But there are points to be made about maintaining borders and knowing who comes and goes. Good people can rightly disagree. But what bothers me is that some of my fellow Americans are just so eager to shut the door to our neighbors before hearing their concerns. They find some technicality in the laws as an excuse to shut their hearts and minds, but let's be honest: The law isn't the real reason for their push to exclude.

Take the death penalty. Sometimes a person on death row has another story to tell. His legal team may be screaming, "Wait! Don't execute! We found new evidence!" I'm shocked by how often they have great difficulty even getting the testimony heard. Before even seeing the new evidence, others say, "Sorry, too late, the case is closed!" They don't even want to hear the evidence. I've worked with groups petitioning the state governor just hours before an execution trying to halt the process so it can be re-evaluated. What's the rush? A life is at stake!

Abortion. Anyone who is a parent knows the great responsibility that comes with parenting. It's an enormous life vocation that challenges every fiber of your being--and that's even if you have a supportive family, access to medical care, gainful employment and are in a socially-acceptable relationship. You don't have to convince me how difficult the life circumstances of some folks may be. But what bothers me the most is how quick many are to devalue the life in the womb and find a reason to abort. Maybe we'll never agree on when life truly begins, but there are many medical indicators that it's very early, and many faiths teach that it's conception. Why the rush to devalue that life?

Take the current NFL protests against police brutality started by Colin Kaepernick. Virtually all the opposition is focused on the method of protest while all but ignoring the stated reasons for the protest. We should all be saying, "Gosh, something extremely important must be going on to compel these players to make such a bold and dramatic statement, even to the point of risking their entire careers over it." It should make us stop in our tracks and listen to their concerns. The whole nation should proverbially sit down and talk this out. Instead, many are quick to shout them down before hearing their concerns. These athletes are practically shaking us, trying to tell us that something big is going on that we aren't paying enough attention to. But we're still avoiding it, so quick to deny before hearing what they have to say.

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.
- James 1:19-20

By contrast to these examples above, God is slow to anger (Psalms 103:8 and 145:8). God is eager to love (John 3:16), eager to forgive (Matthew 18:21-22) and eager to include (Mark 2:13-17). Jesus was constantly including people that society wanted to exclude, marginalize or offer only a secondary status. Dozens of verses directly attest to this. This is not just a description of God's behavior, but rather we are called to follow their example (James 1:19-20).

People often cite the example of Jesus overturning tables in the table as an example of biblically-justifiable anger.  Yes, but we forget that Jesus was also slow to anger. This does not mean we rush in angrily as a general way of life. Jesus' one example of anger does not mean that all of our anger is justifiable. It means that righteous anger has a role, but that role is not open-ended. The same is true with teachings about war and violence. Perhaps they are justified in some rare instances, but we should be very slow to choose them and always do it with sadness and much regret.

Probably no other instance in the Bible speaks to this more than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus himself. It was a sham trial, a mockery of justice. There was no case against Jesus, Pilate even said so. The crowd shouted "crucify him!" When Pilate tried to reason with them, the crowd only shouted louder. Mob mentality ruled. Nothing puts the masses into a rage more than challenging the social hierarchy. Jesus was constantly putting the last first and including where society wanted to exclude. How different is that from us today who want to exclude the immigrants, condemn the prisoners, dehumanize the unborn or the people in other nations, and shout down those kneeling for justice?

In every one of the examples above, I see a reenactment of the same sham trial. It's the same mockery of justice and mob fervor. The same mob fervor that put Jesus on the cross is the same impulse that puts immigrants in detention centers and separates their families. It's the same impulse that rushes a person to the execution chamber despite compelling evidence of innocence. It is the same sham trial that finds the flimsiest of excuses in the law (or in Church Teaching) to rationalize evil and rush to war, rush to abortion and rush to exclude, condemn and dehumanize. Those who work with the poor, the suffering and the marginalized know that the crucifixion is an ongoing reality in their lives.

"Black lives matter."
"Crucify them!"
"This prisoner may be innocent."
"Crucify him!"
"This fetus is a child."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These immigrants are our brothers and sisters in need."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These Islamic nations are our neighbors too!"
"CRUCIFY THEM!!!"

Good people can disagree. Even though I have pretty strong opinions about all of these issues, I can at least respect the points from people who differ. But what I can never be comfortable with is the resistance to even hearing the points on the other side. It's the eagerness to exclude, condemn and judge before hearing what others have to say that is so hard to reckon with. Those are signs there is something more going on than mere disagreement. It means that people are resisting the message and resisting the messenger. Where is the resistance coming from? Where is the real discomfort coming from?

Would the real pro-life candidate raise your hand?

I present the following moral dilemma. Which is the true pro-life (read: anti-abortion) candidate?

Candidate A: 

He says he is pro-life on abortion.  However, he wants to reduce abortions solely through the mechanism of making abortion illegal. It is questionable how many opportunities this person will have once in office to address this issue. However, there may be some small legislative battles that can be fought.

However, he does not support legislative measures to improve rights and standards for workers and he is against any notion of a social safety net. He fears these would reduce "incentive to work" and interfere with the workings of the "free market." He believe people are poor and struggling principally by their own choice rather than through a lack of opportunity or systemic pressures of any kind.

Candidate B: 

He says he is pro-choice on abortion. He wants to "keep abortion legal" as part of his political platform. If the opportunity were to come up, he would support legislation further cementing abortion as part of our legal structure.

However, he supports policies addressing poverty and social alienation, such as higher wages and abundant social services. He wants to keep families together rather than see them split through mass incarceration or immigration enforcement. His policies promote strong workers rights, robust maternity/paternity leave and healthcare for all.

Which of these deserves the "pro-life" vote?

As the above illustrates, the issue is not so simple. Both candidates can claim that they are pro-life on abortion.

Candidate A wants to make abortion illegal but his other economic and social policies only serve to intensify the reasons people choose abortion in the first place. In other words, while working to make abortion illegal, he may create an environment where more abortion happens in the meantime.

The reverse is true for Candidate B. He clearly wants abortion to be legal, but his other policies directly alleviate the stressors that drive people to consider abortion. Fewer abortions may actually happen as a result of his policies.

If you vote pro-life, is your goal to reduce the number of abortions or is it to make abortion illegal? Those are not the same thing. Ideally perhaps you would want to do both, but those are not usually available options in the current partisan U.S. political climate.

It also highly questionable whether making abortion illegal would actually stop actual abortions from happening--probably some but not all. People could travel or find an underground provider.

The above illustrates a rough snapshot of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Usually, it has been assumed that the "pro-life" candidate is the one who wants to make abortion illegal. But if that person also promotes policies that may actually increase abortions, then that changes everything--especially when you consider that making abortion illegal may be an unrealistic goal at this time in history.

As a Roman Catholic, we are taught that the intentional taking of innocent human life is always wrong and should never be supported. So how do we apply that teaching to the two candidates above? Having legal abortion does not require anyone to have an abortion, but it does make it easier. In a very likewise, parallel manner, having good economic and social safety net policies does not force anyone to carry their pregnancy to term, but they make it much easier to do so. It has often been assumed that the person who merits the pro-life vote is the candidate who strives to make abortion illegal, but I hope the above illustrates that this should not be taken for granted. This becomes even more complex as there are many other ways that life is threatened besides abortion--the death penalty, euthanasia, war, immigration, poverty, etc.

Putting too much energy into legislative battles while supporting policies that drive people to consider abortion in the meantime is profoundly short sighted, to say the least. This is what gives the pro-life movement a bad name. This is what causes people to point out its hypocrisies. By having a single-minded obsession with making abortion illegal, they turn their backs on very effective ways of saving lives right here today. They support politicians and policies that may actually increase abortions. 

Some have told me this isn't a fair critique of the pro-life movement. They say it IS invested in pregnancy centers, prenatal support and so forth. While I know this to be true, I also know that the phenomenon of the "one-issue voter" tells us where the real priorities lie when the rubber meets the road--it's about legislative action.

Some Concluding Thoughts

I am not suggesting that the pro-life movement should simply give up the struggle for legislative support for pro-life positions. However, I do think it is counter-productive to attempt that when grassroots support for this legislation has not reached a high enough mark. There are many who resign themselves to thinking we should "keep abortion legal" and just try to reduce as many as possible. No, I am absolutely not saying that, but I also don't believe that legislative victories will yield the results the pro-life movement expects. But I am saying that as a strategy I think pro-life voters could prioritize reducing the numbers of actual abortions by alleviating the stressors, promoting a culture of life in the minds and heart of people and put legislative goals on the back burner. This is very feasible. Even though poverty is a huge, complex problem, we know from history that big improvements can be made in the short term with immediate results. We know what those stressors are and we know there are effective ways of addressing them.

What If Roe v. Wade Were Overturned? 4 Recommendations for the Pro-Life Movement

Justice Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court. President Donald Trump is poised to appoint Justice Brett Kavanaugh who could tip the scales and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

The pro-life crowd is excited about the possibilities--not only of overturning Roe v. Wade but an even more ambitious dream of a Constitutional amendment in their favor.

However, the single-minded determination of the pro-life movement to abolish legal abortion has blinded many to the complexities of the situation as well as other avenues of being pro-life. It is unlikely that overturning Roe v. Wade would deliver the results they anticipate.

I write as someone committed to protecting life from conception to natural death but standing outside the formal pro-life movement. Let's think through some likely scenarios:

What would happen if abortion were illegal? 

First, abortion would not automatically become illegal nationally just with a Supreme Court ruling. That decision would go to each and every state. The issue would continue to be complex at both the federal and state levels, as this link details. A simple outcome is not realistic.

In states that criminalize abortion, women of means who want an abortion will simply travel to another state or country to have to procedure done. That would be fairly easy to do. It isn't the 1950s anymore--even global travel is relatively simple and inexpensive.

In addition, there will no doubt be an underground market of abortion providers for those of lesser means.

Despite that, making abortion illegal will almost certainly stop some abortions and save some lives--but only in the short run, in my opinion. I have doubts about whether that would be true in the long run.

A culture with illegal abortion would be a lot like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s. An illegal market would thrive and it would also come with other secondary negative consequences. When alcohol was illegal it created an environment that allowed mobsters like Al Capone to proliferate. It wasn't just the prohibition of alcohol itself but rather the whole underground culture that went along with it that was the problem. Something similar would probably happen if abortion were to be illegal again. The whole effort will so thoroughly hated by so many people that a Constitutional amendment will indeed come, but I predict it will be on the pro-choice side. In other words, legal abortion will return with a vengeance and it will be legally cemented more than ever before. The pro-life movement will be set back decades, if not permanently.

How do I know this?  It's easy:

I've done a lot of grassroots organizing. You always have to build a base before you attempt to pass a law. That's just Grassroots Organizing 101. Otherwise, the law won't be accepted by the people and passing it will just erode the credibility of our institutions (government, law enforcement, etc). Forcing a law upon people who clearly do not want that law will end in disaster.

A law will not stand unless the hearts and minds of the people have been opened to support it. After all, a law is only an attempt to codify the will of the people, especially in a representative democracy. Perhaps some obscure laws can be pushed through by a small group of determined activists unbeknownst to the rest of the population. But the issues around abortion impact so many people in such a visceral way that any laws around it must have the support of the people. That is simply not the case right now.

We know that over two-thirds of Americans favor some access to legal abortion. The pro-life movement need not despair, because those same polls also show that similar numbers want some limits on abortion. There is a lot of room for growth here, but the culture is not ready for a dramatic law reversal, yet. However, there are many life-saving things that can be done in the meantime.

Trying to force people to change their behavior by imposing a law on them is short-sighted and would only have limited success. You have to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the people.

Recommendations for the Pro-Life Movement:

In light of the above, here is a strategy I would recommend for the pro-life movement. None of this requires anyone to change their beliefs about abortion. It is simply a prescription for a different method of approaching the issue. This is not a "watered down" approach. In fact, I believe this may very well be more successful than current methods.

1. Work to reduce the number of actual abortions by addressing the drivers. We know what the drivers are. There are social factors--such as social stigma, shame, isolation and social pressure. There are also economic factors, such as access to health care, job security, ample pay, reliability of child support, maternity/paternity leave, etc. We know we can reduce abortions by directly impacting these factors. Let's do that. I even think both pro-choice and pro-life supporters could join together on this.

One example of a social factor: Much of Christianity may be staunchly anti-abortion, but it is also staunchly shame-based when it comes to a pregnancy that occurs outside of certain parameters (marriage, etc). It may preach an anti-abortion message from the pulpit and have some success convincing people. However, the fear of facing scorn and shame from family and community members may drive others to consider abortion, thereby neutralizing the pro-life preaching.

Economic factors: We know that there are legislative solutions that increase rights for parents in the workplace and a safety net for people who fall on hard times. Many women say they would not have chosen abortion if they didn't fear losing their ability to care for themselves and their families. They simply don't see a way forward. Can we help them?

2. Build a grassroots support for a culture of life. The current pro-life movement is never going to do that. Admittedly, it has done the impossible: It has engineered a cultural stalemate. That's amazing given that many assumed the pro-life movement would have disappeared by now. However, it will never really "win" as it is now. But a holistic, consistent ethic of life approach can build the credibility the movement needs.

I know that sounds counter-intuitive, as it seems few Americans hold a truly consistent ethic of life, but it is the only position with sound theology--the individual wins when the community wins, and visa versa. Current ideological debates have the mother pitted against the unborn child in a zero-sum scenario. America is individualism on steroids, but one individual's freedom often impacts another individual's freedom. We have to be realistic about the limits of individualism and instead embrace a communitarian vision that seeks the common good. A new paradigm is needed, or perhaps an old one. 

3. Limit legal interventions for now. The movement can spend some energy on legislative outcomes but should limit its focus on extreme cases for now, such as late term abortions. You could argue that Roe v. Wade as it stands now allows for more abortions than most Americans would support, and that is a fair point. I'm not a big believer that we can address abortion legislatively, but if folks want to go that route, the key here is to only advocate for legislation when grassroots support has reached a critical mass.

4. Reconsider legislative approaches for the future. Once that grassroots culture of life from #2 above has been nurtured and grown, there may come a time in the future to introduce legislation around abortion once again. However, if the culture of life were really strong, a law might not even be needed.

Hypothetical question: Does it really mater if abortion is legal or not if no one has one? I get it that the laws on the books say something about who we are as a people and what we value, and some would argue that if something is legal there are people who will utilize that option. But there is no law preventing anyone from supporting and safeguarding life right here and right now.

Conclusion

Many in the pro-life movement have been so focused on trying to make abortion illegal that they have become blinded to these other realities. I am convinced that a law at this time would be mostly unsuccessful and certainly unsustainable in the long run. I am also doubtful that this is an issue that can be addressed primarily legislatively.

The focus on making abortion illegal while ignoring the drivers just gives credence to the notion that the movement is more about shaming women than saving lives. This is especially true when the politicians who want to make abortion illegal are the same ones who are likely to increase the factors the drive people to consider abortion in the first place--withdrawing economic safety nets and chipping away at workers rights, for example. This puts people into impossible situations while others sit back and judge if they make the "ethical" choice or not. It feels like watching gladiators in the Roman coliseum. Let's not play games with lives! Instead, let's "create a society where it is easier to be good" (Peter Maurin).

Further, the focus on making abortion illegal is a way, I believe, for the pro-life movement not to get its hands dirty. To create a culture of life would require ALL of us to change, not just "those people over there." Most of us find it easier to point fingers than do the interior work on ourselves. If the pro-life movement wants to be successful, the only path forward is to embrace a consistent ethic of life. It will require everyone's "all in."

Abandoning Trench Warfare: 8 Ways to Find Common Ground in the Abortion Debate

Trench warfare.

More than any other issue, abortion is the poster child of the polarized culture wars. People just scream at each other. They recite talking points, often with their fingers firmly in their own ears. They lob verbal grenades at each other while staying lodged within their respective bunkers. Neither side gives an inch, and, perhaps because of this, neither side advances an inch. These steps are repeated ad infinitum. Many are weary of the fighting but don't know how to stop.

Trench warfare is getting us nowhere fast.

Literal trench warfare didn't work well in World War I, either—it mostly left a wake of immense trauma and loss of life while battle lines moved only a few meters back and forth. As the war lingered on, no side abandoned the trenches all at once, but each starting putting resources into other strategies. It was obvious that the trenches were a losing endeavor.

This analogy works quite well for the culture wars today, too. Incredible energy is expended by both sides. All this effort may enable each side to hold its ground, but each also gains very little with no end in sight. For every small "victory," you have to wonder how many people are forever alienated by the brutal conflict.

Can we open pathways for discussion so that energy can move more freely? Is there any way to tip the scales to encourage people to talk in a different way?

A number of people are hard at work trying to figure this out. Some great examples are these articles in Nurturing Faith and Secular Pro-Life Perspectives. The organization The New Pro Life Movement is also an attempt to find a new way. Along with this blog, that includes Baptist, Catholic and non-religious viewpoints, suggesting that people from multiple backgrounds are trying to re-think how we approach this issue.

It is my hope that this essay can contribute to that discussion. Let me suggest the following 8 points:

1.  Reflect on how we talk to each other.

We can bravely set aside our talking points for a while and just reflect on how we regard each other and talk to each other. Take a step back—instead of talking about "the issue," talk instead about how you talk about it. That can be a difficult thing to do when your hands have been clenched around your weapon for so long, when you can pull out your talking points faster than Bill the Kid could pull out his six-shooter. Yet, there are stories in every war where this happens. After fighting each other in battle after battle, sometimes soldiers put down their weapons and say, "We can't keep doing this, we've got to find another way." Do you practice active listening and nonviolent communication when someone with contrary views talks to you? Is it more important for you to "be right" and "change people" than it is to help others? Would you like being talked to in the way that you talk to others?

Check out The Story of the Christmas Truce, which incidentally occurred in the trenches of World War I.

Perhaps we can learn to speak the language of conversation and conversion rather than condemnation.

2.  Admit it: People of goodwill exist on either side of this debate.

The culture wars have gotten to the point where it has become impossible for people on either side to say anything good about the other side. They are afraid of giving ground or appearing to soften their viewpoints. Personally, I have strong views on this issue, but I can still affirm the people and perspectives on the other side.

I've met a lot of people on either side of the abortion debate and in every position in between. I've come away from that with a strong belief that there are simply good people of good will on either side, as well as in the middle. They aren't monsters. They simply disagree on a very contentious issue. I still think some people are very, very wrong and have huge blinders on.  But I respect them as people. I like them. I love them.

People can often be so disgusted by differing views that it can be hard to even acknowledge each other's humanity. They look at each other in disgust, thinking, how could someone possibly hold that viewpoint? 

Admittedly, it is a fair question. I sometimes find myself asking it, as well. We may never fully understand how or why someone could take the opposite view in this debate. But we also have to admit that millions and millions of people do. We also have to realize this debate is probably not going to be settled anytime soon. We may want it to go away, but it's not. Yet, somehow we have to live together, share this world together and function in society together in the meantime. That's simply a fact.

3.  I can understand and affirm the concerns on either side. 

Even though I may not completely understand why someone could hold a differing view on abortion, I can still sympathize with the profound issues in play on either side of this debate. It is not hard to see why people are passionate about this issue.

People on either side should be able to at least affirm that the other side has valid concerns. You may not think their conclusions are good, but I'm talking here about their concerns.

For example, I am a strong proponent of peace and nonviolence, but I can certainly understand why someone would choose to go to war.  I think that in most (if not all) cases, war and other forms of violence come from an unenlightened place. However, I can at least understand the emotions and fears that go into that decision, even though I hold out for a still more excellent way (1 Corinthians 12:31). There are all sorts of actions that would make violence a tempting response for me, and I don't lose my nonviolence credentials by acknowledging this temptation.

4.  Understanding the other side does not mean I have to lessen my own views.

We are afraid that if we affirm the people on the "other side" and validate their concerns, that our own argument will lose something. That does not sound like a person who is confident in his or her point of view. Odds are, my position will be strengthened because I have the courage to face the points from both sides.

But you can still respect the other side even if you think they are totally missing the boat.

5. Some people do a good job of living up (or down) to the stereotypes—but most don't.

Some spokespeople for both sides are all to often caricatures of their positions. There are some pro-life people who seem to have an anti-feminist bent and there are some pro-choice supporters who express a lot of anti-male fervor. So what?

These people do not represent everyone. There are good, decent people who have arrived at their viewpoint on either side of this debate through the hard road of life. 

6.  People on both sides can be accused of being inconsistent.

There are some pro-life supports who are very inconsistent—they seem to be against abortion but rarely invest time or energy in other "life" issues, even those that may yield less abortions. You could make the same argument on the other side—why are some on the left so concerned with just about every social injustice except for the unborn baby in their own body?

Contradictions are sometimes useful to point out, but most of this is just deflection. Instead of addressing the argument, people instead try to discredit the people on the other side. These arguments usually assume people fall along political party lines, but many people fall somewhere in between the two parties.

7. Find a goal we can share

There is possibly one thing that pro-choice and pro-life activists have in common: Many are weary of the culture wars but don't know how to end them. They feel they can't give up, but they see little hope in continuing the battles.

Can we all commit to ending the trench warfare? Can we all apply ourselves to the task of melting the stalemate? In other words:  Can we try to figure out how to figure this out?

What's interesting is that many people on both sides want to live in a society where no abortion occurs. Let that sink in for a moment. The linked articles above go into more detail about this. Do you agree? If so, this seems like a profound unifying platform to work toward!

8.  Redefine victory.

Ardent activists on either side might define victory as convincing the other side to change its stance. I'm not asking anyone to give up this goal. But perhaps we need other short-term goals along the way: Can we at least agree to disagree and find a way to respect each other in this? Maybe that's not the magic answer anyone was looking for, but don't knock it till you try it. Simply agreeing to disagree can be an immensely healing experience:  The plates shift. The whole discussion may not be resolved, but it could graduate to a higher level, laying the groundwork so that a more substantive change may happen later.

***

We don't trust each other.

I can't promise that in any of this there is a magic bullet that will break the stalemate. But perhaps if we did the recommendations above we might get somewhere over time. This is a marathon, not a sprint.  But one thing is clear to me:  The current trench warfare is getting us nowhere fast. We need to be brave and try something else.

Listening deeply to the concerns on either side has not changed my mind on this issue a whole lot. I still hold the views I held previously, and actually my viewpoint is stronger because I am no longer afraid of what the other side might say because I have had the courage to hear them out.

But it has helped me see the human beings behind those views.  And that matters.

It's Time for a Pro-Life Rethink

The 45th Annual March for Life was held last week: Another year, another march and another long stalemate in these longstanding culture wars.

I've been observing the pro-life movement from both the inside and sidelines for years now and I've come to a stark realization:

The pro-life movement (overall) is not dedicated to the task of reducing abortions and saving lives. Let that sink in for a minute. Rather, the movement is focused on making abortion illegal. 

They may seem the same at first, but those are actually two very different goals. They require very different courses of action.

There are exceptions to this, of course, but I'm talking about overall trends in the movement itself, especially on the national level.

I understand why people would want abortion to be illegal. It makes sense for the unborn to have the protection of the law, pure and simple.

But you have to look no further than the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s to see what happens when a law is forced upon a population that does not support it. Despite being illegal nationwide, many people still drank alcohol. An entire industry of organized crime, backwoods 'stills and urban speakeasies sprang up to meet the demand. This underground economy gave opportunity to gangsters like Al Capone and Machine Gun Kelly. The experience was such a colossal failure that it ended up killing the movement against alcohol. The movement not just for prohibition but also for temperance and moderation has been set back decades, if not forever. When is the last time you heard a sermon on temperance? I hope you have, but from what I can tell, they are much rarer than they used to be.

The pro-life movement can and must evolve into a movement that encourages a holistic culture of life—creating a society where abortion would simply not make sense anymore to anyone. Other options and other ways of looking at unplanned, unwanted or problematic pregnancies would be so prevalent. That's going to require everyone's "all in." Making abortion illegal is actually easy by comparison—it doesn't require most of us to change our lives, attitudes or behaviors. We can sit back and judge "those people" from what we think is a safe moral distance.

It is worth asking whether making abortion illegal in this time and place in history would have the net effect of saving lives. Those with resources would simply go abroad to have the procedure done (it's not the 1950's anymore, flights are readily accessible anywhere). There would no doubt be an industry of back alley abortions outside of any kind of regulation or oversight. Offenders could be punished by the law, but I wonder how many additional lives would be lost by botched procedures? Despite that, I'm sure that abortions would probably be significantly reduced  if it were made illegal, but that could get negated when you look at the long-term trajectory: Eventually, our pro-choice culture would revolt against this legislation, putting such strong nails in the coffin to make it hard to ever resurrect it again, with the pro-life movement no doubt in full retreat and unable to mount much of any resistance at that point (just like with the prohibition of alcohol). If by some miracle Roe v Wade were overturned and each stated voted against abortion, it still wouldn't stay illegal for long and that's the piece I never hear anyone mention.

Making abortion illegal would punish people (mainly women), but it may not stop abortions from happening. Those on the pro-choice side often accuse the pro-life movement of being punitive toward women. Making abortion illegal without an underlying culture of life to support it could potentially have that effect.

However, changing the goal of the pro-life movement from "making abortion illegal" to "saving lives" would be very freeing—and at the same time, challenging. Everyone would have to do their part, not just people in difficult pregnancies. It would be about nurturing and supporting people in all stages of life, rather than making life as difficult as possible as some kind of a moral test to see what they will do—we can all do some pretty rotten things when pushed to our limits.

It might also ease some of the tunnel vision. The pro-life movement has thoroughly been used and taken advantage of by politicians. They appreciate the votes but give very little in return outside of occasional showmanship and lip service. Pro-life voters are held hostage because of the distant possibility that politicians might actually do something about abortion rather than just use it to win elections and then play political football with later, always blaming the other party for failures. Pro-life voters have shown they will support the most vile candidates who do the most vile things in office (including murderous policies) in exchange for the *possibility* of anti-abortion legislation.

Stopping abortion does not have to happen legislatively. In fact, it probably cannot happen that way if it is going to be a sustainable cultural change. In our current cultural context, a legislative overturn of Roe vs. Wade would be punitive but not corrective, judgmental but not life-giving.

A final note: If the movement is going to carry the name "pro-life," then it must be a champion of just that—life. All life, all the time, everywhere. From conception to natural death. Otherwise, it is the "anti-abortion movement" but not the "pro-life movement." Words matter, and we need to be honest about what we are about.

In some ways, the anti-abortion movement has no choice. The moral strength of the movement is based on the fact that abortion is the taking of life. It is the taking of life that is wrong. Abortion is simply one instance where the taking of life happens. But if abortion is wrong, then the taking of all life is wrong. Moral theologians make distinctions and add qualifiers such as the "intentional" taking of "innocent" life, but the faith teaches us that all life has dignity. Activists need to pick and choose which causes to dedicate their limited time, talent and treasure toward, and some may chose abortion and not other issues. But it is important when doing so not to deny the legitimacy of other issues. If the pro-life movement is going to carry that name, then it needs to step up to the plate and be a champion of life itself. Those are big shoes. Either fill them or just call yourselves what you actually are. And by supporting other issues, such as ways to reduce poverty, reform immigration and address injustices in the criminal justice system, we may find that rates of abortion also go down in the wake.

My recommendation: The pro-life movement could get out of its stalemate by focusing more on saving lives than making abortion illegal—a subtle but significant distinction. This involves creating a widespread, holistic culture which is life-affirming from conception to natural death. Addressing poverty, immigration, criminal justice and wage theft are proven ways of reducing abortion rates, as well as simply being good neighbors who reach out to the people around us. You may never know how many abortions you might prevent by being a good mentor, neighbor, uncle or teacher, but statistics say you would be directly alleviating the stressors that people claim are the primary reasons that drive them to consider abortion. The movement would have an easier time seeing these connections if it adopted a truly holistic, consistent ethic of life.

Addendum:  I am not suggesting that the movement should entirely give up its goal of making abortion illegal—not at all.  But if that is going to be successful, the culture has to be willing to accept it or else a purely legislative change without the support of the people would most likely seriously backfire and send the movement back decades.

Why We Hate the Poor (It's Not What You Think)

It's easy to say that people are selfish when they don't support efforts to help poor people.

You can just scroll through your Facebook feed and read people on conservative and liberal sides of the spectrum making these accusations about each other.

"Those conservatives don't care about anybody!" The poor, the homeless, the immigrant--people in our culture find ways to turn a cold shoulder and even mock them. Conservatives say the same about liberals on issues like abortion.

My uncle once said that the entire approach and philosophy of radio host Rush Limbaugh was basically "an attempt to justify selfishness." I think he's onto something.

Rush is an vocal example of a larger movement that is trying to say something like:

I have what I have, and I don't have to help you. I don't even have to care about you, because you have the power to improve your life. In fact, it would be bad if I did help you, because I would be depriving you of the opportunity to work hard, pull yourselves up and gain the self-confidence and spiritual growth that comes by triumphing over adversity.

That's a fine hypothesis, but does it match reality? Sure, a few people can develop an unhealthy dependence, but it is fair to assume that is true for all who are poor?

Perhaps my favorite quote of all time is the one that leads this post: 

"If wealth were the inevitable result of hard word and enterprise,

every woman in Africa would be a millionaire."

-- George Monbiot, The Self-Attribution Fallacy.

There have been countries where people have been desperately poor for century after century, and no amount of hard work or free enterprise was able to pull themselves up. The societal structure worked against their efforts--political structure, business climate, wars, famine, you name it.

If time travel were possible, I would dare you to visit any of my relatives from East Europe and tell them that their poverty was a result of not working hard or smart enough. They would put a pitchfork right through your face. I don't know if anyone else has worked harder than these people or were more enterprising, yet they barely managed to survive from one season to the next.

It's common sense that there's far more than just personal motivation responsible for poverty, yet the myth persists rather strongly. It's easy to write off people for simply being selfish and cold to the suffering of others.

But I think something deeper is going on.

For instance, why is there so much rage toward people on food stamps (SNAP)? It's one thing to disagree with the policy of food stamps, but the level of rage seems to indicate something else.

The entire food stamps program is folded into the Farm Bill, and the entire Farm Bill is less than 1% of the annual Federal budget. The rage is out of proportion to the situation. We pay many times more for much less useful programs.

A significant number of people are helped by this program. Studies will show that these are hard working people who hold jobs. Their jobs don't pay enough and better jobs are unavailable, so they have no choice but to use food stamps as a supplement. But the myth of the "lazy food stamps recipient" persists.

Why? I'll tell you, and you'll be shocked:

The reason we hate the poor is because we love the poor.

What?? How can this be?

We know, deep down in our being, that we are all connected. We have this fundamental knowledge. It's instinctive. It's just something that is just known in the universe.

We know all humans are brothers and sisters. It follows that we have a responsibility to each other that stems from that relationship.

When we see someone suffering, we instinctively feel it, too. We know they are a part of us. We feel their pain, too. Their pain is our pain. Despite the unjust world we see before us, with its patterns of death, decay and misery, in ways we are at a total loss to explain, despite all evidence to the contrary, we know deep in our bones that nobody wins unless everybody wins, and that this is a fundamental law written into the very fabric of the universe.

But we turn away. It's too hard to go there.

It's hard, because we are attached in this world to our baser instincts. It takes a lot of spiritual growth to move beyond that. We're attached to our money. We're attached to our comfort and security. We are attached to our fear. So we hoard our money, we just want to live our lives and not deal with anyone. We don't want to engage with their pain and trauma.

Why jump into someone else's life struggles?  I've got my own.

We are afraid of the poor--they threaten us by their very presence! It makes no logical sense, but they threaten to open us up to our true nature. They remind us of what we all mean to each other. That's why we are so enraged by the homeless person who comes up to us asking for money. He's not likely to hurt us in a physical sense, but he threatens to expose our lifestyle for the lie it is. The way we are living is not true to our nature. The poor remind us of that, but it drives us into a rage.  We wish they would just go away.

We find ways to hate them and blame them so we don't have to love them, because deep down, if we could only get past our fear, loving them is all we really want to do.

The reason we hate the poor is because we love the poor, but we refuse to enter into that love.

We all have a deep empathy. Some of the people who hate the poor the most have the biggest hearts. But they can't admit that. They can't open themselves up to the possibilities that may come if they dare open themselves.

Once you open the floodgates of empathy and compassion, we are afraid there would be no stopping it. God only knows what would happen--literally! Heck, we might give away all our possessions, we might live close to the poor, we might have to stick our necks out advocating for causes important to them--in other words, we might get in the middle of their pain and suffering and incur some pain and suffering of our own, even to the point of our own death. We're so afraid we're going to lose everything.

Jesus reminds us that we're only going to gain by doing this. The things we are holding onto are not real. That's the paradox--in this life, the things that seem "real" are what we can taste, touch, hear, see and hold, like money and possessions. Spirituality seems to promise imaginary things. But the truth is that what's spiritual is eternal and what we see in this world--however tangible it may seem--is imaginary.

It's easy to say that Republicans hate the poor and liberals hate the unborn. That's not true at all. We love them all, but we are afraid of entering into that love and going where that love may take us. We are afraid of losing control. 

Time and time again, people who have committed themselves to the cause of love have said they wouldn't trade it for the world. Yet, we're so afraid, we're holding on. We're huddled up in our fortress, trying to keep everyone else out, when Jesus, and all the spiritual masters from around the world, have told us to let go. Jesus tell us: You are going to find yourself by giving yourself away, not by hoarding your time, hoarding your love or hoarding your possessions. 

Admittedly, it's easy to see why people hoard and close themselves off. There are safety concerns. You want to raise your children in health. You want to protect your loved ones. These are noble pursuits. There's a scarcity mindset where people think if they give away what they have there won't be enough to go around. There is a time to be discerning and not just haphazardly jumping into a risky situation unprepared.

We worry that we might give away all that we have, deplete ourselves in the process and still be unsure whether all that sacrifice would even accomplish anything at all. It's easy to wonder if Jesus had similar thoughts while hanging on the cross.

But again, Scripture tells us over and over again--the lives of the saints tell us over and over again--it's a good life to give yourself in service to others. You find your true self that way, because you get the false self out of the way. Our true nature is one of unbelievable oneness--perfect unity in perfect diversity--but our false self pretends there are divisions. We mistakenly believe that the only way to maintain what we are and what we have is to keep our distance from others.

So the reason we hate the poor is because we love the poor. We know deep down we're all connected. It tugs on us. It tugs on our conscience. It can tug on us in an unhealthy way through guilt and shame. But a small amount of guilt can open the door to your conscience. The five dollars I spend on dessert today is not a big deal to me, but that $5 could mean the difference between life and death to a family faced with impending starvation. It's hard to justify my $5 dessert when there are people out there who need it more. It's too bad we approach this out of guilt, because it's just a matter of simple economics. But we have to understand our true nature before we can see it that way.

So that's what the phenomenon of hating and blaming the poor is all about. It's a way to try to manage the guilt that comes with privilege. The guilt pops up like the groundhogs in the Whac-A-Mole game, and you keep hammering them down, but they keep popping up over and over--until maybe, you give in and go where it takes you.

It's a nice partnership with corporate America. Corporations want to make money and citizens want to assuage their guilt. You see this unholy marriage in our modern political parties. The "Rush Limbaugh ideology" is one example this--make money and don't worry about anyone else.

It's too bad. I would like to think this post can help break the stalemate in America--between rich and poor, between conservative and liberal.  Maybe we aren't so different after all, we are just choosing to cope with our lives differently. We're all just afraid of how deeply we are all connected and how rich that love is and how meaningless our separation from each other is.