(5)
To Be Truly Pro-Life
We are separated by time and distance from the evil that we create.
-Andrew Kimbrell, author of 'Fatal Harvest'
A particular question has been bothering me for a long time. Why are almost ALL evangelical Christians Republicans? Conservative Republicans? It can't be solely about abortion, can it? Gay marriage? I understand why a Christian would be pro-life, as I am too. It seems, though, that the Religious Right has narrowed down the entire moral values field to two issues, abortion, and gay marriage. While both of these issues are important, especially the abortion issue, there is so much more to discuss and be passionate about in the vast arena of moral or family values.
More importantly, though, is the idea that if one claims to be truly pro-life, then that person must take a hard look at how our nation is treating innocent people around the world. If you are truly pro-life, how can you justify the bombing and killing of innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians in pursuit of our enemies? High-altitude bombing is much like our view of it; too far away to really see the effects of what we're doing, it enters an almost surreal realm. This is referred to as "The Pilot's Dilemma." Disconnected from the actual killing by the enormous distance created by altitude, this sort of bombing loses its meaning that one is actually killing another God-created human being–it is easier to call these killings by their euphemisms, such as "collateral damage". How is the killing of some poor Afghan or Iraqi mother and her children any less of a murder than the killing of a stockbroker in the Twin Towers? Intent? Is this the way God sees it? Are their lives any less valuable in God's eyes? "But," it might be claimed, "we don't intend for innocent civilians to die in these bombings. These are the unintended consequences of war–a war that we did not want to fight but were forced to in self-defense." Mahatma Gandhi said, "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
Let's take a look at intent for a moment. What if our government, with no consent from us, harbors murderous war criminals for whatever reason; let's say that these war criminals might help our country gain an advantage of some kind over one of our nation's enemies. Our government knows the whereabouts of these war criminals, but for security reasons refuses to divulge their location to anyone. Let us then say that the country that was initially harmed by the war criminals finds out that these bad people are in our country. A diplomatic fight ensues over whether the criminals are to be extradited to the wronged country. Our government, for whatever reason, (sovereignty?) refuses to turn the war criminals over. After a quick ultimatum, the wronged country then proceeds to invade our country, but not before it drops the equivalent of the total amount of TNT dropped on Germany in WWII on towns, suburbs, cities and farms, killing thousands of people who were only vaguely aware that these war criminals were even in our country, much less had a voice in their being there. The wronged country justifies the killing of our children and friends by calling it collateral damage in the act of self-defense; after all, these war criminals were responsible for the killing of thousands in their country.
This sounds like a specious argument, but is it? What if the wronged country was Israel, and the war criminals were German scientists and SS military officers brought into the US after World War II to help us in our fight against the Soviet Union? I know that on the face of it, this couldn't have happened, but that is only because we were much stronger than Israel was then. Israel had as much of a moral reason to go after these guys, certainly, as our country did in going after bin-Laden. So, in reality, the only thing that makes the bombing of Afghan or Iraqi civilians justifiable is that we're more powerful than they are. Or is it justifiable because of revenge? Is revenge a Christian concept? What did Jesus say about revenge? He said something about turning the other cheek. Gandhi also said, "An eye for an eye soon makes the whole world blind."
This, however, goes beyond revenge, because simple revenge would be the actual killing or capturing of bin Laden and his associates. We have entered into the realm of indiscriminate killing, because we know without question that innocent people are going to die when we drop high explosives from 35,000 feet. As much as we try to mitigate the circumstances with "precision, laser-guided munitions," civilians who have nothing to do with what we are angry about are going to die. They always do. This also enters into a concept that is ugly to even bring up. This is that somehow the life of a human being born in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Rwanda, or Darfur, does not possess the value of the life of a human being born in the United States, or Great Britain, or Canada, or Italy. This is an idea as quickly denied as it is spoken, but the facts speak much louder than the denials.
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
-Romans 3:9-10, Ps. 14:3
There comes a moment in a nation's history, especially a strong nation like the United States, where it becomes inevitable that in order to satisfy its own citizens, and show the rest of the world that it will not stand by idly while it is brutally attacked, that it embarks on a violent act of retribution. After September 11th, we had to do something. The nature of the attacks in New York and Washington and the elusiveness of the perpetrators of these acts were both entirely new paradigms for our government. Was this a
war or a
crime? Attacking Afghanistan was as inevitable as the leaves changing in October. As an American, it was hard not to have a feeling of solidarity with the victims of 9/11 and with the Bush administration as it struck out at the perpetrators of this horrible crime. As a Christian, my feelings became conflicted and confused. Justice is one thing, revenge, another. The bombing of innocent civilians, no matter what strategic purpose it may serve, is simply not something that we, as Christians, should tacitly condone under any circumstances. It is hard to maintain this position in the face of our own feelings of revenge, and surrounded by the sounds of fear, anger, and the lust for blood.
I'm afraid that if we are
truly pro-life, then we have to care about the sanctity of
all human life, not just the unborn children. It's unfortunate, in a way, that abortion gets 95% of the ink in the Christian pro-life discussion. It would seem to me to be a wonderful opportunity to turn the tables on Christian labels by pronouncing abortion to be just one of the many ways that we are pro-life. We are also against indiscriminate killing of all civilians in military operations, and we stand ready to
hold our elected leaders accountable for these kinds of murders. After all, a life is a life is a life. We also stand in the front lines fighting world hunger, poverty, and disease, the triple killers of millions of children
and babies every year, and we support politicians who support this issue. Being truly pro-life, we oppose the death penalty because only God has the power to decide to take a life, and as much as it might quench a deep desire for revenge to see a murderer put to death, no human form of investigative justice is infallible. We therefore leave the 'ultimate' penalty in God's hands. For it says in 1Peter 3:9, "Do not repay evil with evil".
What non-Christians see is our passion about abortion, which is justified, but then they don't see a similar passion when it comes to the sanctity of other kinds of human life. This appears hypocritical.
If we are truly pro-life, then we care about the violence that Hollywood feeds our kids in movies and TV shows, and
especially the video game market, but also we care about gun control. The argument over guns is probably second only to abortion in passion on both sides. The concept of 'The Right To Bear Arms' is a deeply embedded one particularly immune to any recitation of facts. The United States regularly ranks right up with the most violent nations on earth in gun-related deaths per year. The statistics relating to violence committed by gun use from nations with strict gun control laws are overwhelmingly lower than ours. I urge you, though, to look at the facts. Look at the raw statistics. These statistics on gun violence have no bias. They don't come from the left or the right. Many Conservatives do support some level of gun control, mainly centered around who can own a gun and the consequences of allowing kids access to the guns. The
fact remains, though, that since 1963, more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century.
Being pro-life is a wonderful, Christian concept. It can't be applied discriminately. I would hope as Christians we might take a closer look at the politicians that we support and just what their positions are concerning all of these pro-life issues.
