Of Morality, Politics and Tolerance

I've been thinking recently about the confusion that exists on both sides of the culture war between morality and politics. This confusion, or better stated, blending of the two makes rational discussion of how the legal structure of a country should (or should not) respond to moral questions.

First, some definitions. Morality refers to the personal choices one makes based on a standard of right and wrong. Some of these standards may be personal. For instance, I do not drink alcohol at all. That's a moral standard for me, but I would not be willing to say it would be wrong for everyone. Why? Because there is not definitive Biblical guidance on the subject, beyond not drinking to excess. Other moral standards are absolutes and should be held as absolute. The taking of a human life, stealing, lying, hating another, worshiping any God but Yahweh, etc. These are Biblical absolutes. These are the sort on which there can be no personal compromise. In other words, I can say, "Well, I don't drink, but if you don't feel guilty about it, go ahead." (Which is consistent with the guidelines in Romans 14). But I can't say with a clean conscience, "Go ahead and lie to get that contract. I wouldn't do it, but if it works for you fine."

Now, of course, I may well make a choice which violates my own moral standards. I may take a drink because of peer pressure or I may lie to get that contract, but I will feel the pangs of conscience over doing so.

The Law (which is formulated in most western cultures through some form of representative democracy through a political process) attempts to influence human behavior in such a way as to ensure the survival and prosperity of the society as a whole. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution states this principle well:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The emphasis is on society as a whole rather than on the control of the individual. As a practical matter, though, to provide for justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare and ensuring liberty, laws are often made which attempt to influence the moral choices people make such as forbidding robbery, controlling corporate monopolies, banning rape, prohibiting drunk driving, etc.

Laws attempt to be a practical response to a perceived societal need. Two individuals may see the same need, yet disagree about how to resolve it. For instance, a married couple may be facing financial difficulties. The wife may have taken a hiatus from her job until her children reach school age. She may feel the best way to resolve the financial problem is to go back to work. Her husband may think taking a second mortgage on the house is a better solution. They both agree on the problem, but disagree about how to solve it. Neither in such a situation would accuse the other of wanting the family to go under financially, they would simply be disagreeing about how to solve the problem.

Unfortunately, in the current culture war mentality such can be the case. As a Christian, I feel abortion to be a sin. However, I do not believe putting desperate women in jail for making a tragic mistake will solve the problem. I believe that we will do better by making the case against abortion as a personal choice rather than as a legal issue. Now, other pro-life Christians disagree with me believing that only the penalty of the law will bring about a solution. I respect their position, but cannot agree with them. Yet, I don't consider them evil people. I would hope that they could say the same about me.

In the culture war, though, such is wishful thinking. Whatever the issue abortion, death penalty, war, prayer in the schools, homosexuality both sides prefer to demonize the opposition instead of finding our common ground of understanding and debate without rancor the practicality of different approaches to helping people make the proper moral choices and how the law can and cannot help in that process.

This brings us to the issue of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean agreement. It means to be willing to allow a diversity of viewpoints to be shared without vilifying the proponents of those points of view. This is especially important to do when the point of view is being expressed by a fellow Christian. We must remember, just because a Christian disagrees with a particular legal solution to a moral question does not mean s/he doesn't have a moral standard. S/he may just not feel that enshrining it in the law is the best way to solve the problem.

Conversational Intolerance

I got this in an email earlier today:

http://blog.wired.com/biotech/2007/01/clone_me_clone_.html

C. Ben Mitchell, director of the Center for Bioethics
and Human Dignity, says, "The answer is in the
question itself. A cloned human being would in fact be
a person and would therefore be ensouled. To be human
is to be a person is to be a soul." This is neither an
argument in favor of human cloning nor the final
answer to various theological questions about the
existence or nature of a human soul, topics best left
to mouthbreathing Pentecostals, infallible men in
funny hats, and Mitch Albom. It is simply to say, as
Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical
Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania does, "If
humans have souls, then clones will have them, too."

It reminded me of a presentation I saw by author Sam Harris speaking on C-Span. He used a term about the religious right, but I think it applies to all parts of the culture war. He spoke about "Conversational Intolerance." In the field of conflict resolution we call them stoppers. They stop the conversation.

He used the example of stem cell research. He said, in essence, when you begin a conversation about stem cell research immediately someone raises the issue that a three-day old embryo is a soul and therefore use of those cells constitutes murder. No proof is offered. It is expected to be accepted on their word. No further discussion is possible. One cannot even continue the conversation about whether or not a handful of unformed cells is a human being with a soul. Thus, with a whole segment of society, the discussion ends right there.

He seemed to imply that only religious individuals are guilty of this conversational intolerance. I contend that the conversation stops not only because the religious right won't listen, but that the irreligious left won't either.

The above quote is a prime example of this "conversational intolerance" on the left. It implies that if you don't believe as he does you are a stupid, a religious fanatic, or don't think for yourself. I happen to be one of those "mouthbreathing Pentecostals," and a good friend of mine became a nun. Neither of us are idiots or fanatics. But by using that term, he cuts off any chance for a rational discussion of the merits of his logic.

Basically, it is an argument from definition and a circular one at that. If a human is cloned, then the human would have a soul because by definition a human is a creature with a soul. The argument avoids the possibility that someone might claim that a clone would not be human because it would not have a soul. In other words, he claims the clone is human and therefore has a soul because human beings have souls. The other side though could just as easily take the same logic and say the clone does not have a soul because by definition a clone is not human and only humans have souls. Therefore, a clone does not have a soul.

Regardless, of the merits of the argument, no one has time to evaluate it because the opposing side is characterized as unintelligent and therefore one should discount their arguments out of hand.

Perhaps it is only natural for us to avoid difficult ethical issues. By calling it sin by religious people or by simply labeling it as reactionary by the left we can avoid dealing with these tough issues and blame the other guy at the same time.

Truthfully, as a Christian, I feel in some groups intimidated by expressing anything other than the "party line" laid out by a handful of powerful televangelists and Christian activists. If I opposed the death penalty, say, in certain groups, or expressed an opposition to the war in Iraq, there would be no conversation of the merits of the argument, but a rather summary dismissal of my point of view as being unAmerican or even unChristian. We could not even engage in a Bible study on such questions. The article of faith is grounded more in a political religion than a Biblical one.

But I have found myself equally intimidated by the left. I am a college instructor. If I expressed a view that said that I believed that homosexual behavior is a sin, it would not be seen only as my opinion which I had formed through a study of my religion, I would be villified as a homophobe and bigot. It would be assumed I also opposed equal rights for gays and lesbians, job protection, fair housing and marital rights. Thatwould be wrong. I support all of that. One does not exclude the other. But the conversation would be stopped as soon as I expressed the less favored opinion among my peers.

In fact, the mention of God in any context other than some vague lifeforce of the universe in some settings causes people to pull away. Being a little religious is okay. Just don't let it interfer with your real life. And above all don't talk about a living, daily relationship with God. Certainly, don't talk about Jesus as anything more than a good man or prophet.

I remember back in college having some wonderful arguments with an atheist on the debate team. We were pretty evenly matched in terms of debating skill. Neither of us were ever condemned for our beliefs. Indeed, we didn't even condemn each other. I doubt such conversations would be approved of on either side of the political spectrum today.

It's time we start conversations about these difficult issues instead of stopping them by refusing to listen to the opposite site.

Who's Really Pro-Life? The Stem Cell Controversy

I have to admit that I have not totally settled about whether embryonic stem cell research using frozen embryos which would be discarded by fertility clinics should be allowed or not. My problem with this is that I am Pro-Life and it seems like this is a no-win Pro-Life issue.

On one hand, we have embryos consisting of a few cells which might become human beings if implanted in a woman, although there is no guarantee that they would. But you have at the very least potential human beings here who would be destroyed. On the other hand, though, treatments for life-threatening diseases probably could be developed using lines of stem cells produced from embryos which would likely be destroyed anyway.

In other words, whatever way you turn on this issue, lives are at stake. Is it pro-life to deny research that might produce life saving treatments for living human beings to save potential lives. Or do we destroy potential lives in order to develop potential treatments which may or may not work?

Sloganeering won't bring us close to resolving this type of ethical dilemma. We have to decide which lives are more important frozen embryos likely to be destroyed or kept frozen indefinitely or children and adults with diseases which might be cured by treatments which would certainly deny those embryos any chance at life.

Frankly, I don't have a good answer for this. But I suspect that as we continue into the future more such dilemmas will emerge and simply saying you are "pro-life" or "pro-choice" won't bring you any closer to making a rational assessment of the ethical consequences.

I must say, I'm disturbed by the idea that either way you go on this issue, you are denying someone the right to life.