I started thinking about this topic last year 3 weeks before the US elections after I read a short piece about the Pope denouncing nationalism in an article on the Catholic Peace Fellowship website. As a committed Catholic and a committed pacifist, I spent over a year feeling the growing sadness that many of us Christians felt in this country as we witnessed our potential government officials bombarding us with one negative campaign ad after another, and I watched as the body of Christ was severed into many tiny pieces as Christians debated which party is the true party of God. In the midst of this absurd and un-Christian melee I began to see that Christians were missing a much larger directive that comes straight from the New Testament itself. What Christians were missing is that Christians are not allowed to be nationalists, nor are they allowed to buy into the dreaded doctrine of American Exceptionalism. Since the Pope recently dealt with the former, let’s spend our time dealing with the latter.
American Exceptionalism is nothing new. When the late President Ronald Reagan called America a “city on a hill,” he was echoing sentiments about our country that have been around for over 100 years. The concept of American Exceptionalism was coined by the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America. We can define it along with Seymour Martin Lipset, who writes in his book American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, that to be “exceptional” is to be “…qualitatively different from all other countries.” In the race for the White House last year both Sens. Obama and McCain showed that they believe that America is “qualitatively different from all other countries.” The difference is, the Obama campaign never came right out and said that we are “exceptional,” while the McCain campaign coached Gov. Sarah Palin to use the words “American Exceptionalism” when she debated Sen. Joe Biden in the 2008 Vice Presidential debates. (It seems to me that the Obama administration still thinks America is “exceptional” for we are THE answer to the world’s problems–especially in terms of the world’s economic problems).
Though there is a lot of talk these days about America turning into a “socialist” country, Americans shouldn’t fear socialism, what they should fear is exceptionalism–especially if they are Christians. (Yes, I’ll save you the time and energy–I do know that Catholic Social Teaching condemns socialism. And, no, I’m not a socialist! It’s too violent!). And if the old saying is true, then, “America is a socialist country for the rich, but a capitalist one for the middle-class and the poor.”
One of the problems with American Exceptionalism is that it leads to violence. In a recent article on AlterNet by Ira Leonard entitled “Violence is the American Way,” Leonard argues that if a country really believes it is “God’s country” or that it has been granted the gift of “Manifest Destiny” or that it really is God’s “city on a hill,” then the mindset of the government and the people becomes: We can do no wrong! The results of this are appalling since it means that an exceptionalist country knows what’s best for the world, since an exceptionalist country is “qualitatively better than all other countries.” Thus, as Leonard explains, an exceptionalist country like America can rationalize its wars and its collateral damage, because it–unlike unexceptional countries–knows what is best for the world. It’s SPECIAL! And, lest we forget, America is exceptional because God said so.
This all may sound well and good, but the problem is, once we interject the Bible into the discussion, everything falls apart. First of all, when I teach in seminaries I often tell students, “DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PREFORM ISEGESIS ON THE TEXT!” “Isegesis,” you ask? “That’s a new one,” you say! Yes, “isegesis!” In other words, “Don’t read into the text what isn’t rightfully there!” If we apply this logic to American exceptionalism, we’ve got to conclude that in no sense did Jesus ever once refer to America as the “city on a hill” (Matthew 5:14). The biblical “city on a hill” is Jerusalem, and as Michael Cavanaugh has pointed out, in the Christian tradition, the “city on a hill that brings light to the world” is the body of Christ. When American Christians buy into the political rhetoric of former President Ronald Reagan, which was recently renewed by Gov. Sarah Palin and the Republican party, they commit a type of political idolatry. Let me explain.
There is one body of Christ, which is the church–however we may define it. The body of Christ isn’t America, nor is it an American political ideology. The body of Christ is the body of Chirst–period! For Christians to subscribe to the belief that America is the “city on a hill” means that Christians have replaced the body of Christ with America. Honestly, I think this violates the first of the 10 Commandments: You shall have no other gods before me, which should perhaps be scrawled all over our courthouses to remind Christian exeptionalists that exceptionalism is idolatry. Furthermore, Christians should take seriously the wisdom of Paul in Philippians (Phil. 3:20).
In Philippians 3:20 Paul tells the Philippians “your citizenship is in heaven.” In Paul’s day the term “citizenship” was politically loaded. Without going into all of the historical details, Paul tells those at Philippi that Roman citizenship is irrelevant, for citizenship in God’s Kingdom is what really matters! If, as the Book of Acts tells us (22:28), Paul in fact had Roman citizenship, he is now throwing away something political, something nationalistic, that many people longed for throughout the Roman Empire. The point is, citizenship in any earthly kingdom is null and void for someone like Paul. Yet, we were bombarded throughout last year’s election with images of Christians holding up signs that said “Country First!” which only led me to ask, “Doesn’t God and God’s kingdom come before country?” I think Paul would respond with a resounding, “YES!” (Then again, what’s with all the bumper stickers today that proclaim Obama as America’s new “anti-war President?” UGH!!!)
Second, we must never forget Paul’s ethical challenge in Galatians 3:28. To say that there is “no Jew and no Greek in Christ” is the equivalent of talking about ethnocentrism in our own day and age. Or, to be more precise–exceptionalism. “Jew” and “Greek” are ethnic terms. For Paul this means that a Jewish believer in Jesus is no different from a non-Jewish believer in Jesus. In fact, Paul’s radical vision of humanity includes a one world family of God made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe in Jesus. American Christians need to realize that Galatians 3:28 speaks volumes to the church! (If you don’t believe Paul, try reading Deutero-Paul. Ephesians 2 will do nicely; it’s all there even in the later Pauline communities!).
If we as Christians are to modernize this text for today’s world we would have to see it as an admonition from Paul to let go of our American ethnocentrism. Or, to be more precise, our American exceptionalism. Nothing makes us US Christians better because we are Americans, and nothing gives us the right to think that we American Christians are better than Iraqi Christians. In fact, one of the most deplorable things about the Iraq war is how few of us American Christians have taken notice of how many of our Iraqi Christian sisters and brothers have been killed or displaced because of our country’s conflict with Iraq. Even if we American Christians refuse to read about the plight of Iraqi Christians, we can watch it in living color, for HBO recently made a documentary film entitled Baghdad High, that chronicles the journey of a Christian family in Iraq along with several Muslim families. Like so many Iraqi Christian families, the one in this documentary ends up fleeing north to Kurdish territory in order to escape the mess created in Baghdad by American exceptionalism, which ostensibly comes from one of the most Christian countries on earth. To those of us Christians, then, who buy into the doctrine of American exceptionalism, it’s easy to dismiss Iraqi Christians as collateral damage as Clinton’s secretary of State Madeleine Albright did in the 1990s, but for those of us Christians who follow the biblical mandates that cry out against exceptionalist doctrines, we must take note of what’s happening to Iraqi Christians because all Christians–all of humanity–are equal in Christ! (Unless we think we know more than St. Paul). But anti-exceptionalism isn’t exclusive to Paul. Even those who came into conflict with Paul in the first-century CE had much to say about exceptionalism. (Yes, I think Bauer was on to something).
In the Petrine epistles first century Christians are told that they are “aliens and strangers” on this earth (read all of 1 Peter 2). If the merits of this are taken seriously by us 21st C Christians then “Country” can’t come first, nor can any American Christian believe that “Change” will come just because the church helped to elect one candidate over another candidate. Again, for the Christian, citizenship is not of this world, just as Jesus told Pilate his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Why so many American Christians pay so little attention to these “radical” teachings from our Scriptures is beyond any explanation I can think of, except to say that a large portion of Christians in this country are not following their own God! (And this is absolutely deplorable among the Catholic hierarchy of bishops in this country that has recently shown its partisan loyalties to the Republican party!).
When I’ve taught religion courses at a state university in Ohio (which will remain nameless), I’ve been amazed at the backlash from students when I ask them to compare Marxist class-conflict theory to this or that episode in the Bible. On my essay exams I usually receive one response per class that says: I don’t have to answer this question. All I know is that Marx was a bad guy and that Communism is evil. As I said somewhere up above, people should fear “exceptionalism” more than they fear socialism or any other “-ism,” but few of my students listen to this advice. Unfortunately, there is one datum from Marx that my students and the American church–Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox–need to take much more seriously, for, as Martin Luther King, Jr. opined, “It’s a prophetic utterance from Marx…” Marx was right, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” That may sound surprising coming from a practicing Catholic, but allow me to explain my point. (And, yes, I’m an orthodox Catholic. I’m against abortion! I’m pro-life, Vatican II compliant… etc. etc. etc.).
I would update Marx’s statement so that it reads in the following way: The Church is drugging the masses. What I mean by this–and I think Marx meant this as well–is that when a church, whether it’s Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, begins to sell itself out to a government or a particular political party, all it does is create drones in the name of Jesus. In this past election American churches did this by trying to explain to its members why Jesus would’ve voted for this candidate because s/he is against gay marriage or because s/he is more Pro-Life than the other candidate. Most of us Christians are doing the same thing right now with healthcare! What happens at this point is what Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer hints at in his book Saving Christianity from Empire. As baldly as I can state it: This is the “hijacking” of the church by the US government. All that’s really going on is that both dominant political parties in this country end up using us in the church to spread their various ideologies, which really aren’t all that different from one another since they both espouse “exceptionalism.” Thus, the propaganda of the American government is filtered down to the clergy who then filter it on down to the members of their churches. Viola! The church is just another vehicle that is in the drug smuggling business, giving a hit or two here and there to parishioners in order that the status quo be maintained.
Though I may pay greatly from the powers that be for saying this, not much would’ve changed for Christians if McCain had been elected, nor have things changed for Christians since Obama was elected. Again, for the sake of bluntness, we had a very devout Christian in office for 8 years. His name, if you’ll recall, was George W. Bush. What happened? Did abortions end? Was there an official constitutional ban on homosexuality? No… instead we just ended up in two wars, where, ironically, we sent 40,000 Iraqi E. Catholics into exile.
In America we suffer from what Howard Zinn calls “historical amnesia.” Because we are so prone to forgetfulness, American Christians won’t see any real change in this country until they realize that “exceptionalism” is a sin.
May the Churches in America “seek first the Kingdom of God” instead of the exceptionalism of the “Empire of America!”
Amen
David Wheeler-Reed
July 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Amen.
July 26, 2009 at 7:35 pm
I’m thinking of doing a post exploring the connection between the heresy of Americanism (as defined by Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century) and many modern-day American Catholics’ approach to politics. I just need to find the time to peruse the papal writings on the topic :)
July 26, 2009 at 8:08 pm
If one is a literalist about Scripture, then one cannot credibly substitute (or even liken) “The United States of America” for references to “Israel”, “Judah” or “the Church” in Scripture.
July 26, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Yes, and many Protestant fundamentalists who claim to take the Bible literally do just that. Of course, that’s just one of the many instances of selective literalism among our fundamentalist friends.
July 26, 2009 at 8:41 pm
David,
If what you write is what you mean by American Exceptionalism then I would agree with your conclusions. I would go further and say that the foreign policy of the last eight years have more than demonstrated the fallacious nature of that belief.
But there is a deeper strain of this trait that should not be dismissed so easily. Perhaps I will write more about this at some point. Over the last eighteen months, I’ve dropped bits and pieces of my thinking on this matter in various comment boxes.
Remember this much: it was the power of American example that INSPIRED the actions of millions throughout Captive Nations to take steps that would bring about the near bloodless collapse of the Soviet Union and its East European Empire.
America has something uniquely powerful to share with the world. This “something” radiates through our good example and our “warts”. The civil strife on American streets during the civil right era inspired the world like nothing else. MLKs strategy of nonviolence shaped national movements everywhere, from the Philippines to South Africa, from Chile to Moscow. When President Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire”, he unleashed moral and spiritual forces in the hearts and minds of people that had been long contained by the strategy of Detenté. The time of peaceful coexistence had ended; the time of revolution had begun. Inspiration is a powerful force.
But, and here is where I agree with you, the tendency to CONTROL should always be resisted. It does no good for the controller or those being controlled. It is always oppressive and wrong.
July 26, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Though not that Catholics, as a whole, are any better than our Protestant brethren when it comes to American Exceptionalism. I always do get annoyed when I’m forced to sing “America the Beautiful” during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
July 26, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Oppression is the first act of violence. It is so unfortunate that you have to fight to be free, but to deny this reality is foolish. How pathetic to condemn the acts of this country with regards to Iraq and the impact on the local Christians – your support of their position is no less nationalistic.
The oppression of Christians in countries goes on without real comment. China aborts children daily as an act of population control. This must be condemned and stopped before the acceptance of abortion becomes global. But they will not listen to words.
” I saw a truck carrying Jews to a concentration camp and I had a gun with a bullet. Do I kill the driver?”
Interesting question from my Catholic morals class. We never could answer it.
July 26, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Those who know thoughtful Protestants do not recognize them in the descriptions and accusations in this collection of comments. It borders on generalizing about the French being “cheese eating surrender monkeys.”
And non-thoughtful Protestants? Well, sure. They’re non-thoughtful. All kinds of idiocy to see, there.
But it’s not realistic to identify a group, generally, with that subgroup of hangers-on who know the least about the group’s ideology and mantra. Or, at the least, I resent it when it’s used against Catholics.
Standmickey, does your parish do “America the Beautiful” literally during the sacrifice; i.e., in place of the Agnus Dei? That’s totally wrongheaded. Or by “Mass” were you referring to the whole service; i.e., they’re singing it as an Introit or hymn of thanksgiving?
If the latter, then does your parish do “America the Beautiful” on any day other than July 4th or thereabouts? If so, then that’s weird. (But if not, then I can’t see the problem. The lyrics, so far as I recall, are just as orthodox as those of the also-used-at-Mass “A Mighty Fortress,” but without the anti-Catholic history, and mention of one’s country doesn’t seem out-of-place when the occasion of the founding of one’s country makes an expression of thanks and prayers to God appropriate.)
July 26, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Nick C:
The answer to the morals question is: Yes, provided you have a reasonable chance to get the Jews to safety. What you are talking about is Just War on a small scale. Chance of success is important.
There is of course a question of your authority to make the decision, but the circumstances mirror those usually called “in the gravest extreme”: Given one cannot possible appeal to valid authority in time, you are the local authority, and are obligated to defend the innocent, just as if a murderer had broken into your home to kill your family.
July 26, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Lots of thoughts on this, some of which may become a post, but for now, let me just say I’m glad someone is “making it plain,” as MLK Jr. used to say.
When I served in the US Army, there was a feature of US military culture that made me uneasy – for reasons I could not really fully articulate at the time.
Every theater on every US Army post is named after a posthumous recipient of the medal of honor. I used to go to the movies pretty regularly when I was in garrison, and would read the citations of the actions that caused the particular soldier to receive the medal of honor, and it seemed to me that there was a subtle narrative being communicated, and that narrative was designed to evoke the virtues of Christianity (self-sacrifice, “no greater love hath any man…”) but which was, at its heart, pretty foreign to me as a Christian.
What I read in the narrative – the values being expressed – was “all for country.” Those medal of honor recipients died doing heroic things (in the classical sense) but from a Christ perspective, also in the commission of horrific violence against their brothers and sisters.
Through my military experiences, I came to see nationalism as the idol it surely is, and like all idols, it demanded, finally, my immortal soul. That I would not surrender.
July 26, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Standmickey, “America the Beautiful” is one of the most non-nationalistic, genuinely patriotic hymns we have (it is in fact written in the form of a prayer). The relevant third refrain is:
America! America! God mend thine ev’ry flaw;
Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.
Also no one forces anyone to sing anything at Mass; if you find the music objectionable you are welcome not to join in… although if you really find it that terrible I wouldn’t recommend world travel as many historically Catholic countries also have a tradition of patriotic hymns! (Poland for instance).
July 26, 2009 at 10:25 pm
We must be careful not to swing to the other extreme of moral relativism (i.e. the values and cultures of all nations are equal).
And if all nations/cultures are not morally equal does that not imply that some may superior to others? And does that not imply that there could be one that is morally superior to all the others or, in other words, “exceptional?”
And why can’t one nation(or culture) be morally superior to another? Such a supposition does not have to mean that the individuals of the two countries have a greater or lesser value in the eyes of God. But, perhaps, a nation could.
The United States has been a greater influence/force for good in the world over the last two centuries than any other nation. And I can think of no other nation which has sacrificed as much blood and treasure to advance human rights around the world as the United States has.
Does that make the US exceptional? Perhaps it does. Perhaps it does not. Does the American system of values which has brought about the liberation of 100’s of millions around the world make the US exceptional? Perhaps it does. Perhaps it does not. I do not know. But, I am certainly not going to readily dismiss the idea out of hand.
After all, how can we mere mortals, be sure God would not use a nation as an instrument of his will? Perhaps he would.
Perhaps, the US is that country.
Can one say that something providential did not happen in the time of the American Revolution? When such an incredible assemblage of men came together in one place at one time? An assemblage perhaps unparalleled in all of history? A fluke? A coincidence? Or providence?
Interesting questions to say the least.
Mr. H
http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/
July 26, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Excelsior: My intent was not to paint all American Protestants with a broad stroke. I have many Protestant friends who are better Christians than I could ever hope to be. I was referring specifically to Protestants of the fundamentalist, megachurch variety who often do, as David points out, believe and teach that America is synonymous with the Biblical Israel (or, alternatively, that the modern political entity that is the State of Israel is synonymous with the Biblical Israel). Looking back on my comment, I realize I could have been more clear with regard to the fact that I was speaking exclusively about this small but vocal minority of American Protestants. For this, I apologize.
July 26, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Magdalena: Perhaps it’s a matter of personal preference for me. Even if it is America the Beautiful (which, I agree, is probably the least nationalistic patriotic hymn out there), and even if it is sung as the recessional rather than during the Mass per se, I still find it jarring to go from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ to singing a hymn to a secular political entity. The transition from the spiritual to the temporal is just a bit too abrupt to me. Even if we don’t completely agree on this point, do you understand where I am coming from?
By the way, I should mention that I have no idea what the rubrics say about the issue of patriotic music in church. I suppose that as long as it’s liturgically licit, I’ll just have to grin and bear it :)
July 26, 2009 at 11:06 pm
it is in fact written in the form of a prayer
It is in fact NOT written in the form of a “prayer,” unless you mean that it is a prayer addressed TO the united states of america.
And the fact that the heresy of mixing “patriotism” and the Eucharist is quite common throughout the world does not make it less heretical.
July 26, 2009 at 11:29 pm
standmickey,
My mother was the principle church organist in our parish from age 11 to age 82. Having had to listen to the Mighty Wurlitzer blasting away daily in our house through all my years at home, I almost feel as though I’ve heard more church music than anyone in history. LOL
As for America the Beautiful, my critical sense is that if it is good enough for Ray Charles it’s good enough for anyone.
But, I have to agree with you about its place in Church. Personally, I’d rather listen to finger nails scrapping on a blackboard than have to hear America the Beautiful being sung by the church choir, no matter where in the service. Even if all the Popes in Church history were to cry from the heavens: “perform America the Beautiful during Sunday service,” I’d probably get up and walk out.
I’m not going to try to explain this reaction. But for some reason, its performance at Mass seems way out of place to me. But then I wouldn’t want to hear “Onward Christian Soldiers” or “A Mighty Fortress” either.
July 27, 2009 at 12:06 am
It would be out of place at Mass because such songs are sectarian in contrast to the transnationality of the Body of Christ.
July 27, 2009 at 6:35 am
“not much would’ve changed for Christians if McCain had been elected, nor have things changed for Christians since Obama was elected. Did abortions end? ”
Even if abortions would not have gone down much under McCain, they are going up tremendously because of Obama, by his foamingly strident promotion of abortion internationally, and funding abortionists by reverse of the Mexico City policy, and paying for abortions in DC with tax dollars, and paying for abortions in the federal health plans, and Sotomayor’s pro-abortion votes for the next 30 years (because of her view that is more extreme than Souter and considers FOCA to be embedded in the Constitutuion), and the radical abortion enthusiast Sebelius in charge of HHS, and Emily’s List, NARAL, and PP people filling important administration posts (and the new science czar who believes in forced abortion), and increased funding for Planned Parenthood at home especially through the upcoming “common ground” measures, and maybe making abortion covered for everyone in America under healthcare. And that’s just 6 months of work. (for the a fuller list see http://lifenews.com/obamaabortionrecord.html .) There is a big difference–the failure to see that is related to the common mistake of thinking that pro-life legal efforts are nothing more than opposing Roe. That’s the view that Kmiec sold during the campaign and it is a deception. Don’t fall for it.
July 27, 2009 at 7:55 am
Matt,
I would vote for Obama (with joy) over a candidate who repeated what you just posted in a New York minute.
July 27, 2009 at 8:35 am
“Even if abortions would not have gone down much under McCain, they are going up tremendously because of Obama”
Matt, this is nonsense. Where is the data that supports your statement.? The truth is there is none. Nor will their be for way more than a year, maybe two. I believe the latest statistics from CDC are for 2006.
Second, the article you referenced in your comment says nothing whatsoever about the number of abortions. It talks only about policy and personnel actions.
Finally, you continue to conflate pro-choice and pro-abortion. These two notions are not the same. Yet your entire comment depends on equating them.
Please be honest in your assessment. Unless you are everyone will consider you nothing more than a crackpot.
Haven’t we had this discussion before?
July 27, 2009 at 8:41 am
To Matt Bowman & Kurt:
I would vote for Matt (with joy) over Kurt (considering what they each just posted) at this moment.
The observation that abortion didn’t end in the last 8 years under G.W. Bush as a justification for supporting a pro-choice candidate is absurd. In the last 8 years we were able to get (most people believe) to within one vote of an anti-Roe court. McCain would have been able to nominate at two new justices. (I tend to think that Souter would have stayed on had Obama lost.) Even if he had (like Bush pere) only a 50% success rate with his nominees- that would still have been enough.
Of course, you might prefer the Catholics United and CACG view of proportionalism to Kaput’s- so it would be appropriate to consider the issue of the wars as well. I’m not convinced (and judging from the recent post on Afghanistan, others here may not be either) that there will be less loss of life in Afghanistan under Obama than there would have been under McCain. The Iraq war is really a moot point as far as the election is concerned- there was no ‘change’ in the SoFA.
On the whole, I think that Matt makes a good point.
July 27, 2009 at 8:52 am
Gerald–perhaps you are unfamiliar with the facts. Everyone, except perhaps yourself, agrees that public funding of abortion increases it. Obama is about to fund abortion in DC and through federal health insurance. That’s just for starters, six months into what his supporters want to be an eight year rampage. All the Obamacare bills in Congress will cover abortion and he will sign any of them if they get through. Perhaps also you are unfamilar with the fact, recognized by the Holy Father in his latest encyclical, that international pressure to expand abortion actually works, especially when it comes from the richest most powerful nation in the world colluding with international abortion NGOs and the pro-abortion UN bureaucrats, and that’s why it must be opposed. Perhaps you are also unfamiliar with the fact that Obama has deleted conscience protections for pro-life health personnel. So if you refuse to deal with reality, then sure you can continue to claim that all of Obama’s uncountable and rabid pro-abortion actions lead to more abortion. The simple fact is that there is a difference in abortion results between what McCain would have done and what Obama is doing and plans to continue doing. If this is not pro-abortion, you’ve got one up on George Orwell.
As for Kurt, I must say that based on your previous comments I am not really shocked that you would express enthusiasm in favor of promoting abortion internationally and domestically. If you claim to be a pro-life Catholic at the same time, that is a contradiction you will ultimately have to deal with.
July 27, 2009 at 8:52 am
“On the whole, I think that Matt makes a good point.”
What is the point?
July 27, 2009 at 9:29 am
It is glaringly obvious that America is not some sort of new Israel, and American exceptionalism is wrong in that regard.
But there is nothing wrong with a healthy patriotism. Look it up in the Catechism. I am proud that America has ended slavery, worked to improve race relations, resisted global communism with a good measure of success, and has engaged in global humanitarian assistance. One doesn’t have to believe in American exceptionalism to be thankful that one lives in the United States of America.
In the name of combating American exceptionalism, however, the current administration is doing its best to turn us into a bankrupt global backwater that prints devalued money to avoid its financial obligations. Indeed, that should put the nails in the coffin of American exceptionalism!
If American Exceptionalism is a sin, is hating America not also sinful?
July 27, 2009 at 9:36 am
Where is the evidence that Sotomayor is a radical pro-abort? Her words on the subject during the confirmation hearings were almost identical to those used by Alito and Roberts. On the two abortion cases that have come before her as a judge, she ruled in favor of the pro-life side. Now, is she pro-choice? Probably. But she has a positive history on, among other thing, the issue of conscience rights and religious liberty. Neither should we forget that Souter was supposed to be pro-life, but ended up upholding Roe.
Bottom line: pro-lifers (particularly Randall Terry et al.) are making a big mistake by going after Sotomayor. There is no way she is not getting confirmed, and we really need to pick our battles wisely given the current political situation. Not to mention the fact that it makes us all look like idiots given her less-than-radical history on abortion.
July 27, 2009 at 9:36 am
Of course, as Henry pointed out a while back, some of these people would have opposed Mother Theresa if she was appointed by Obama.
July 27, 2009 at 9:36 am
To Gerald L. Campbell:
The point was that the ‘8 years of GWB didn’t fix the problem of abortion- therefore electing Obama is no worse than electing McCain’ reasoning is ridiculous (literally worthy of ridicule).
My reaction was that the years after those 8 are critical to the shape of SCOTUS, but Matt (correctly) argues that money makes a difference too. The Mexico City policy and D.C. budget are good examples of policies that affect the numbers with funding rather than court rulings.
In arguing for more public funding, the Guttmacher Institute said that “more than one in three women (37%) who would have obtained an abortion if the state had paid for it instead carried the pregnancy to term.”
July 27, 2009 at 9:44 am
To standmickey:
I think that this gives an even handed account of tat least part of the Sotomayor controversy…
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOTOMAYOR_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
July 27, 2009 at 10:03 am
Here is the abstract of the original study that Guttmacher was citing:
The appropriations for North Carolina’s abortion fund have proven inadequate during five of the years between 1980 and 1994. This on-again, off-again funding pattern provides a natural experiment for estimating the short-run effect of changes in the cost of abortions on the number of abortions to indigent women. Using an unusually detailed dataset. we estimate the effects of funding termination on the monthly abortion and birth rates. Overall, approximately one-third of pregnancies that would have resulted in an abortion, had state funds been available, are instead carried to term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Health Economics
July 27, 2009 at 10:27 am
Well I’m just going to try to bring this back to DWR’s topic because I respect the issue. He seems to be arguing that a symptom of “American Exceptionalism” is the ““hijacking” of the church by the US government”, and from there as far as I can tell he transitions to describe the hijacking of the church by the Republican party, though even if true I’m not sure I see how that is connected to his critique of American Exceptionalism, and from there he tries to rebut the hijacking of the church by the Republican party by suggesting that there’s not really a difference between what Obama is doing on abortion and what Bush did or McCain would have done. This latter point is simply factually untrue, for the reasons I mention. So maybe DWR can make his point by other evidence, I’m not saying he can’t. But to the extent he is saying that it is blindness to church-hijacking, rather than facts, that lead someone to claim a difference between what Obama is doing on abortion and what Bush did or McCain would have done, then he’s simply incorrect (and he’s not alone in being incorrect, since this is what the Obama Catholics falsely contended during the campaign and ever since, and perhaps DWR has accepted their word on it). I think maybe another example could serve DWR’s point better.
July 27, 2009 at 10:48 am
Matt,
I don’t claim to be a Pro-Life Catholic, a movement of which is clearly controlled by people of like-mind with your views. I am a baptized Catholic and a regular communicant and part of the majority element of that faith who support the President.
I don’t share your opposition to Planned Parenthood, the Mexico City Policy or the DC Appropriations rider. I support the President’s health care plan.
July 27, 2009 at 10:59 am
Kurt–it’s good to know where you stand, though of course it’s not good that you stand for murder, nor that you consider your stand consistent with being a member of Jesus Christ’s Church. I am curious to know whether your position is considered a legitimate expression of Catholic social justice. Do the other contributors here consider support of Planned Parenthood and its 300,000 abortions per year in America to be consistent with the Catholic “consistent ethic of life” or “seamless garment” of social justice?
July 27, 2009 at 11:03 am
ockraz,
Thanks for the clarification and reference.
I suspect if a nation wants to coercive poor black women to forego an abortion it would have some effect. But, probably not as much as might appear. There are too many factors that come into play in a woman’s decision to make a straight-forward prediction. And many of those factors will be changing throughout the course of the current administration. I still await the statistics because the entire strategy is shifting. My sense is that it will be more successful than the previous strategy but I can offer no proof.
Guttmacher also said: “The primary way to lower levels of abortions is to take aim at the proximate cause, unintended pregnancy.”
This, of course, leads to policies and practices that many would not support — contraception. But what is the greater evil: contraception or abortion? In cases like these, doesn’t sound ethical decision-making involve the principle of the choice of the lesser of two evils?
In a Pluralistic society such as ours, there is often times a point where the State has to engage in formal cooperation with things neither you nor I would approve. Given this imperative, there still remain creative ways to reduce the incidence of abortion. Progress is never a straight line.
July 27, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Matt,
I’m not seeking an Imprimatur for my views on legislation and public policy, so I can’t tell you if they are legitimate CST.
My views are as follows:
Congress is not renewing a rider on an appropriation bill that restricts DC from using its own tax dollars to fund abortion, a restriction Congress could, but does not, apply to any state. It does not fund abortion with federal tax dollars and does not force DC to fund abortions but lets local government decide for itself. While I believe in DC Home Rule and I refuse to falsely claim this is federal funding of abortion, I still support the rider. Yet this is not enough to escape your accusation that I am pro-murder.
The federal government makes grant money available to private NGOs under international assistance. None of these funds can be used for abortion. Groups make grant applications and are awarded grants based on their ability to fulfill the criteria in set by law. Groups that use grant money for purposes other than the grant (i.e. for abortion) would be subject to criminal or civil sanctions. Under the Mexico City Policy, groups that provide abortions with their own funds were prohibited from submitting applications for these non-abortion grants. Because of my strong opposition to abortion I support the Mexico City Policy but I refuse to falsely claim it gives federal funds for abortion. Further, while supporting the MCP, I acknowledge that I am uncomfortable with the general principle of denying funding to the best applicant because of what else they do (a principle when applied elsewhere is sometimes strongly supported by my conservative friends). Yet this is not enough to escape your accusation that I am pro-murder.
I have the same views on domestic policy where the Pence amendment banned one organization by name (PP) from government grants that did not fund abortion. I support the Pence amendment but again have the reservations I mentioned above. Yet this is not enough to escape your accusation that I am pro-murder.
Despite the fact I often come to the same conclusions as you, it has made it clear that because I see complexities in these issues, there is no room for me in the Pro-life movement. I accept that. I think you and the Pro-Life Movement are in sorry shape when someone who comes as far as I do cannot be embraced as a brother but instead is called, as you say, “pro-murder.”
Some of the liberal Catholic bed-wetters and hand-wringers at Vox Nova will get very upset when you and others say they are not Pro-Life. I’m not one of them. You have your movement. You have established your dominance of it. You have made it clear that people like me that come a long way but not all the way to your views are not welcome and are “pro-murder.” The Pro-Life Movement is yours. You are welcome to it. I’m done being bullied. You can list among your accomplishment that you have made the Pro-Life Movement ” smaller and more orthodox.”
July 27, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I watched as the body of Christ was severed into many tiny pieces as Christians debated which party is the true party of God.
I suppose there might be a very small number of people out there who believe that one of the American political parties is the “true party of God”, but I cannot help thinking that the number is so perishingly small as to not be worth bothering about.
What there is a much greater number of (and what I think you are actually referring to) is the number of people who believe that living according to God’s moral commands requires them to oppose some particular candidate. More rarely, people might assert that voting for a particular candidate is morally the right thing to do, but generally these imperatives seem to be stated in the negative rather than the positive. (e.g. “It’s not possible for a serious Catholic to vote for Obama” etc.)
Now, I suppose you could object to the bringing moral imperatives into the political square at all, holding that to insist that God’s commands, applied to our particular place and time, lead us to vote (or not vote) a certain way in some way sullies those commands and suggests that they are of but one place and time. But if we shouldn’t bring our moral sense to the political debate, I’m not really sure what we should bring.
Why so many American Christians pay so little attention to these “radical” teachings from our Scriptures is beyond any explanation I can think of, except to say that a large portion of Christians in this country are not following their own God! (And this is absolutely deplorable among the Catholic hierarchy of bishops in this country that has recently shown its partisan loyalties to the Republican party!).
It seems to me that this attack on the bishops is perhaps based on perception much more than facts. I can think of very few bishops who have in any way expressed a political preference for the GOP, much less strong partisan loyalties. Even those often accused of being “political hacks”, such as Archbishop Chaput, are in fact quite willing to attack the GOP on issues ranging from immigration to war to healthcare when they see the need.
What has gained them the reputation of being partisan, however, is their insistence on treating support for legal abortion as being a serious moral issue which Catholics cannot morally lend support to — which many “social justice” Catholics seem to consider to be unfairly stacking the deck against their preferred progressive political candidates. It does not necessarily seem to me that this is at all an inappropriate thing for the bishops to do.
July 27, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Kurt says “I often come to the same conclusions as you.” Namely?
Please, anyone can spin all day to make it sound pro-life or Catholic or whatever to support giving federal money to abortion itself and to the abortion industrial complex. But don’t insult people’s intelligence by proposing your sophistic reasoning makes you any less of a supporter of pro-abortion policy, or to make what you support consistent with Catholic social teaching. I would offer you congratulations on not being a bed-wetter but you’ve got plenty of congratulations to offer yourself already.
July 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Matt Bowman – enough.
July 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Matt,
Fine. As I said, I support the MCP, the DC abortion rider and the Pence Amendment. I presume you do as well. That is all I meant by “same conclusions.”
But I also recognize that because I do so while insisting there are some complexities to these particular issues and that I deny of some of the “facts” you use in support of these bills, there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between the two of us. I don’t claim to be with you in the Pro-Life Movement. I don’t think our respective views allow for any collaboration and you think the same, it seems.
I’m not asking that you see me as a practitioner of CST. I was baptized in the Catholic Church, I attend Mass, I receive the sacraments and occasionally serve as an Eucharistic Minister. As to if I am Catholic or not, it’s not a point I’ll argue so long as I have practical access to the sacraments (So far, I do and I’ll resign as EM if asked by a legitimate authority).
July 27, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Yes standmickey I do see where you are coming from! Believe me I have my own list of pet peeves when it comes to music at Mass :) Grin and bear it is right!
July 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Matt Bowman:
Suggestion: If you refrained from the kind of personal criticism you lace most of your messages with, you could write a lot more about the pro-life cause. You can’t seem to resist trying to demonstrate not merely how wrong people who agree with you are, but how bad they are. Aren’t Catholics supposed to be charitable?
July 27, 2009 at 9:33 pm
David–you and I have exchanged comments long enough to know that we have a different views even on meta-analysis. You criticize my comments and not Kurt’s or Gerald’s, or in other threads not MZ’s and MM’s, and such one-sided finger-wagging is not to be considered a coincidence given your substantive agreement with them on the points at issue. My own view is to lead with substance, which is what I have done in this thread and others, but nevertheless usually seeming to result not in substantive responses but in name-calling.
July 27, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Kurt, thank you for clarifying a bit. I think I got a little confused on your views. First you said you “would vote for Obama” over my list of criticisms of what he has done on abortion. Then you said you “don’t share your opposition to Planned Parenthood, the Mexico City Policy or the DC Appropriations rider. I support the President’s health care plan.” So I took you as reaffirming that you did not oppose PP, you did not oppose Obama’s change of the Mexico City Policy, and you did not oppose his change of the DC abortion rider. Such a positions are pro-funding for abortion. If you are saying instead that you hold the opposite positions, then that’s good. I’m describing the positions, but where you stand on them is something only you can speak to.
July 28, 2009 at 6:20 am
To Gerald L. Campbell:
“I suspect if a nation wants to coercive poor black women to forego an abortion it would have some effect. But, probably not as much as might appear.” The data from the study was a 37% overall increase, which is sizable. Since the funding was available for parts of individual years, but then ran out before the next budget was passed, it would be hard to argue that any factor other than funding was responsible.
Why poor black women? That’s a very odd thing to say.
“Guttmacher also said: ‘The primary way to lower levels of abortions is to take aim at the proximate cause, unintended pregnancy.’”
Guttmacher is biased first of all. It has no interest in decreasing abortion. Its interest is in seeing to it that no woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant be burdened with carrying to term. That goal is often at cross purposes with decreasing abortions.
Moreover, what difference does it make? Policies to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancy are not mutually exclusive with policies to prohibit funding for (or even criminalize) abortion. Public funding plus efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancy result in more abortions than pregnancy efforts alone. I’m in favor of reducing unwanted pregnancies, but I’m also in favor of anything that reduces abortions and opposed to anything that increases them.
“what is the greater evil: contraception or abortion?” If I were emperor, here is what I’d do- provide free multi-year contraceptive implants (and multi-month injections, and patches) to anyone over the age of 15 who wanted one; give refundable tax credits or living wage stipends as well as full one year scholarships to public universities to any woman who carries a child to term or who has a natural miscarriage; nationally criminalize abortion, abortifacients, and contragestives except in ‘hard cases’ (mothers life, severe birth defect, and let states decide on rape).
I’d do that.
July 28, 2009 at 6:49 am
To DarwinCatholic:
Kudos! I think that everything you said is spot on!
July 28, 2009 at 10:48 am
Matt,
Your statements have gone beyond mere oppositon to MCP, PP, or the DC rider. They include both claims I find to be factually inacurrate and opinions I disagree with. When I state those finding, I am accused of being pro-murder (a charge I deny) and against the Pro-Life Movement (on that point, since the Movement is a human initiative that can define itself as it wills, I accept the charge. I am not part of the Pro-Life Movement given it requires me to subscribe to things I do not believe).
July 28, 2009 at 10:55 am
Kurt, are you saying that you oppose a mandate or funding of abortion in healthcare? Or are you saying that the bills won’t actually mandate or fund abortion? Or are you saying that you support them despite such a mandate or funding but for other good reasons?
July 28, 2009 at 11:00 am
Matt,
When I previously posted my views, you labeled me “pro-murder.” If they were clear enough to you to make such an accusation about another person, I don’t know why you are now asking questions. See my post of July 27, 12:40 pm.
July 28, 2009 at 11:10 am
Kurt–I stand by the position that someone who supports funding Planned Parenthood here and abroad, funding abortions in DC, and a healthcare plan that funds or mandates abortion, is pro-murder. What you had said up to that point indicated you supported these things. You subsequent statements seem to be backing away from those positions, and it is those subsequent qualifications that make your position unclear.
July 28, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Matt,
You want to try to point to a comment of mine above where I said I support those things?
July 28, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Kurt I already did,
July 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Kurt, I’m not trying to pile on, but you did leave me confused as well.
July 27, 2009 at 10:48 am- “I don’t share your opposition to Planned Parenthood, the Mexico City Policy or the DC Appropriations rider.”
July 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm- ” Fine. As I said, I support the MCP, the DC abortion rider and the Pence Amendment.”
July 28, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I don’t share Matt’s oppositon which includes assertions that are factually untrue and other assertions that are opinions I disagree with. And when people dare point out his mistruths, they are called “pro-murder.”
July 28, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Matt and ockraz,
Kurt obviously garbled something in his message of July 27, 2009 at 10:48 am, since he is on record a number of times speaking in support of the Mexico City Policy and the Pence Amendment. Also, since Matt supports the Mexico City Policy, why would Kurt say, “I don’t share your opposition to . . . the Mexico City Policy”?
I can’t suggest what Kurt meant to say when he said, “I don’t share your opposition to Planned Parenthood, the Mexico City Policy or the DC Appropriations rider.” But clearly it doesn’t make sense, so instead of trying to use it to prove that Kurt is “pro-murder” — which is slander and has no place here anyway — why don’t we give him a chance to clarify it?
July 28, 2009 at 4:49 pm
For my part, I never called anyone pro-murder. (I try to use the term pro-choice because I expect the other side to use my preferred term in kind.) I don’t know anything about what was ‘on the record’ if that means something aside from this post- but with regard to the comments in question, I did find it confusing.
I don’t know if ‘don’t’ was accidentally used instead of ‘do’, or if the idea was that ‘your opposition to’ was different from ‘my opposition to’ even if they were both cases of opposition. At one point I wondered if it were a case of, ‘I personally oppose’ such and such, but ‘I don’t want to impose my beliefs on others’. I don’t think that is the case anymore.
July 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm
ockraz,
Let me repeat myself. In addition to some matters he and I might agree on, Matt adds a series of other assertions as essential features of his position, some of which are just out and out false.
Matt and others with his views have not allowed this to be unessential differences among allies. In fact, they offer nothing by accusations of the vilest sort to people like me. They almost seem to enjoy their abusivness. Rather than continue to play Tina in this Ike-and-Tina marriage, I choose to walk.
July 28, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Rather than continue to play Tina in this Ike-and-Tina marriage, I choose to walk.
With less fabulous legs, though, I’m sure.
What bugs me about many in the pro-life movement is that they make an easy argument when a more difficult one is necessary. For example, time and time again, even people like George Weigel (who should know better) say that the United States is paying for overseas abortions because Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. It’s just not true. It would be a violation of the law. An argument can be made against rescinding the Mexico City Policy, but it is a more difficult argument. But many pro-lifers are happy to use the “shorthand” argument and then, when challenged, say that US dollars are funding abortions, just indirectly. But there are all kinds of ramifications for other situations if that argument is valid.
July 28, 2009 at 6:52 pm
David,
Don’t be so sure about the legs!
But you are exactly right on the second point. But I think much of it is more than just a tendency to use shorthand or an easy arguement. It is about power and control.
It is the same tactic the American Communists used in the 30s and 40s. Their cadres would simply disrupt the meetings of progressive organizations and behave rudely until others simply left out of disgust, allowing them to take control of such organizations (UE, NY Labor Party, American Student Union, etc). Some have a need for power that trumps making the Pro-Life Movement an effective legislative force.
A weak, smaller movement in which they are in charge is more important to them than a large, broad, pluralistic and effective movement actually protecting the unborn.
July 28, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Yep I think that clarifies it Kurt. Enjoy your opinions.
July 29, 2009 at 9:19 am
Kurt,
“It is about power and control.”
What you say here is true but permit me rephrase your statement a bit and see what you think.
My view is that it is about a deep and abiding FEAR that the outcomes they seek will not materialize UNLESS they have power and control. There is some residual impact of Calvin’s notion of the Elect operating here.
So, as you say, it is about power and control. But the underlying need for power and control flows out of a spiritual abyss that is devoid of Hope.
To me, the underlying dialectic in American politics has always been a struggle between those who need “power and control” to GUARANTEE change and those who turn to “inspiration” as a vital political force to ENCOURAGE change.
The use of language and leadership in American politics has the potential to unleash heroic acts in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. Citizens themselves, when properly inspired, will bring change into their own lives and, collectively, in the life of the nation.
July 29, 2009 at 10:40 am
Gerald,
You are right on target and far more articulate than I could be. Have you thought of contributing to a blog? :)
In my work on legislative issues, I’ve always considered it a given that in a parliamentary democracy, you want to bring as much support to your cause as possible. Therefore you avoid anything that divides those who support your core goals or that unnecessarily alienate potential supporters.
July 29, 2009 at 10:57 am
Kurt,
Absolutely correct.
The genius of the American system is compromise. Compromise requires prudential judgment.
Check out my comment on trends in American politics relative to Henry’s post this morning:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/07/29/quote-of-the-week-jacques-ellul/#comments
July 29, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Kurt-
Okay, I take it then that “I don’t share your opposition to” could mean ‘I also oppose what you do, but in a different manner’, but you have to admit that it was confusing.
More significant though is your criticism of the pro-life movement and the way that it presents itself or uses rhetoric. Even if it were fair to characterize an entire movement on the basis of the speech of individuals (perhaps it is- I’m not sure), what are you comparing it to? I’ve mentioned elsewhere that my father is a strident pro-choicer. If you think that the pro-life movement uses rhetoric in a manner which is worthy of disapproval, then what is your opinion of the rhetoric the pro-choice movement uses?
July 30, 2009 at 10:51 am
Ockraz –
Since you were confused by my comments and you are a sincere person, then it must have been confusing to some degree.
If Matt Bowman was my singular experience, it would be unfair to characterize an enire movement. However, his commentary has been a fiarly consistent pattern in my experiences.
I don’t have extensive interaction with the pro-choice movement and I have never made any attempt to be a part of it, so I would not know what it is like to try to participate in that movement nor do I have direct experience as to what is tolerated and untolerated within it. I obviously don’t agree with their fundemental beliefs. As far as their rhetoric, from what have seen from the outside, some I find offensive and some of it includes factual errors, as Matt employs. More of it I simply find to be weak thinking, which would give me hope that respectful dialogue could lead them in the right direction.