May 12 2009
The Search for Political and Moral Values in America
A few years ago, I was working out at Curves. Someone then told me that Curves is owned by a right-wing pro-life activist couple, and that the whole Curves spiel about the empowerment of women was pretty much null and void considering the owners were pro-life. I was also urged to cancel my membership.
While I agree with the pro-choice sentiment, I’m not sure if I agree with the rest. Should I really cancel a membership at a gym just because the gym owners happen to spend their legally-earned money on something with which I disagree?
Really, how many drugs did The Beatles consume during their time in the band? Who do you think paid for the habit? Every fan that bought a record, whether they were into drugs or not. Does that make each fan responsible for The Beatles’ drug use? What if it had resulted in the death of one of them? After thinking about it that way, I decided to continue my membership at Curves.
Today I heard about a Catholic institution thrown into controversy by a pro-choice politician and president–Barack Obama. Some do not want to hear Obama speak because he is pro-choice. In other words, his position on one issue, to them, invalidates his worthiness to address a graduating class.
My thinking was simply that the Curves owner wanted to spend his personal profit on something with which I disagreed. His money, his choice. Now I’m not so sure I made the right decision.
What do you think? Is it okay to patronize (or boycott) an organization or individual on this point? Are the above-mentioned situations any different from each other? Do your religious or spiritual viewpoints reflect on your feelings on this issue?
IT is ok to do whatever you want in regard to boycotting or patronizing. I would not knowingly go to an event or support a business that was fundamentally against what I stand for.
Barack Obama and the Catholic Church are fundamentally against each other. President Obama is pro-abortion, and has done something to prove his pro-abortion stand every other day on average. The Catholic Church is against abortion morally. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a grave moral evil. This is why he shouldn’t have been invited to speak at Notre Dame. To go there for a debate on the subject is one thing, but to make a speech is another. There will be no dialog. Furthermore, he is being given an honorary law degree to this Catholic University, when he supports laws that do not protect the most innocent human beings in the place where they should be the safest. It’s not one issue, it’s the fundamental issue of life.
We could argue semantics all day, starting with “pro-abortion” versus “pro-choice.” We could also argue about schools and their affiliations. Some Catholic schools see acceptance and tolerance as a Christian value. Others might be blindly patriotic. The same can be said for people. Some will follow any president, just because he’s a president. Just because I happen to like Obama doesn’t make that any less true.
Many people who say abortion is a human rights issue also deny that gay rights is a civil rights issue. That simply makes no sense.
The Catholic Church is an institution; so is the university, and the government for that matter. All of them have a bottom line, and all of them have to deal with ethics.
As someone who voted against Obama in the Democratic primary, I understand the disagreements people might have with him. However, I don’t think he’ll make a speech having anything to do with abortion when he is speaking in commencement. If he had to tackle an issue there, it would probably be the economy, as he will be sending recent graduates out into a very harsh economic environment.
What this really comes down to, after all the semantics, is something you touched on: Notre Dame is a Catholic-affiliated school and therefore shouldn’t have invited a speaker who happens to be pro-choice. Out of everything, I think that’s the key issue here–is ND sending a message that abortion is acceptable to all Catholics? Perhaps they are instead capitulating to the trend of generally becoming more secular as an institution? Maybe they feel that being a president makes enough sense to make Obama a speaker.
I don’t go to ND and I am not Catholic, so I can’t say if I agree or disagree on any of the things mentioned in the above paragraph. I’m just raising the questions and getting to the real center of debate here–it’s about the school and their affiliation more than the actual issue of abortion.
Although I would personally love to hear the president speak, I completely agree that the students who do not wish to hear him should make or be able to attend an alternate ceremony–that’s certainly within their rights and I think it would make the kind of statement that they want to make in a positive way. It’s good to see more of this type of activism versus clinic bombings (because generally bombings can kill people, so how is it “pro-life” to do that?)
From the bottom up:
-When is the last time you heard of a Catholic sponsored clinic bombing? Yes we stand outside and pray and try to change people’s minds. I agree, violence is counterproductive, and never endorsed by the Catholic Church.
-Notre Dame is not Catholic affiliated. It is operated by Jesuits who are ordained Catholic priests. It is known as a Catholic school. The invitation to Obama goes against what the hierarchy says is acceptable. Priests are supposed to be obedient to their hierarchy. The hierarchy is concerned that this invitation and bestowal of an honorary degree says that the Church is ok with abortion. It is not.
I chose my words very carefully. In my heart, if you support abortion, you support murder. There are two sides to this issue. You’re either pro-abortion or anti-abortion; either pro-life or anti-life. Semantics? Is it a baby in there? Is it human? Or is it a fetus, or embryo. It’s not a choice, it’s a human being, created by God.
You try and equate this with the gay rights issue, it’s nothing close to the same. But gay people are human too, and the Catholic Church is not trying to stamp out gay people, just trying to show them how they are called to live. There is no “right to marry”. You can choose your own lifestyle, though the Church would say that you’re committing sin, just as having an abortion is committing sin. You can do it, though, can’t you?
God loves all people equally, whether they’re in the womb, or near the end of their life, no matter what wrongs they have done, no matter what. He doesn’t love what they’ve done, whether it’s having an abortion, living a gay lifestyle, committing murder, or not loving him fully. That’s not to say that these or any sins aren’t forgiveable-they are. That’s also not to say that we’re to judge mankind-that’s for Him to do.
From the top down:
Point on bombings: Agreed. I do not believe that causing violence in this manner is generally within a Catholic agenda or true to Catholic principles, nor is it in line with any mainstream version of any major religion.
Obama at Notre Dame: Understood. That was my reason for posting in the first place. I see how one might find it to be a contradiction. I am just asking readers to ask themselves where they draw the line, as I personally had to think about the issue. I commend your solid and decisive response on the matter. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter much what we think, anyhow–as you said, the priests follow a hierarchy. They will (or in this case, perhaps will not?) do as told by the pope and presumably by God.
Pro-life/pro-choice: I don’t think this is a fundamental issue we will agree upon. I do happen to have specific views on the issue. There are few situations in which I myself would have an abortion and I actually think the practice is wrong as well, so I agree with you on that point (probably for some similar and some different reasons). However, it’s a rights issue. For example–I used to be a vegetarian. I thought it was wrong and disgusting to eat meat, and my belief system supported that thought. However, I did not think that gave me the right to be one of those obnoxious vegetarians who tries to enforce what other people eat. It’s their choice. If they want to make the wrong choice, it saddens me, but it is their choice to make. I think that’s the detail of our differing opinion.
I feel that the Catholic church and all institutions have the right to believe what they want to believe, whether I agree with them or not, especially in America. That is what makes America wonderful. However, when opinions on certain matters (based on religious belief or not) infringe upon people’s rights, that’s where I have an issue with it. Having a belief system can be very helpful in life.
I do not like abortions. I wish there was never a reason to have one. I think they’re disgusting and unnatural–but you know what? As you say, it’s not my place to judge, so why would I legislate against it?
The ability to marry within a belief system or church may/should/can be dependent upon that belief system. If Catholics do not want to allow gay marriage, that’s totally their right, and if someone wants to take away that right, I would stand up for the church because they have a right to make and break their religious rules. It does become a civil rights issue, however, when it is legislated in a secular forum concerning civil marriage. Although I happen to be a supporter of gay civil unions and gay couples, I would still support gay civil unions even if I disliked or disagreed with gay people. If a church does not want to let a gay individual into their folds, that is fine–that is their choice, and that is why we have different churches and other places of worship.
Although we have different belief systems, I am not going to disagree with what you have to say about God. While I think of it in different terms, I do agree that we need to do the best we can with these issues and in living our lives–whether there is a judgment or not, or an afterlife (or not). Whether we have one chance or the opportunity to be judged for eternity is beside the point–we should be striving to do the right thing.
I also wanted to say that this is the type of discussion I’d like to encourage by asking questions of readers on this blog–we can find commonalities and still respect each other’s differences.
My only comment on the abortion issue…the “rights” issue–who bestows rights on us? To a Catholic, God gives us everything. God bestows life on each of us. So there can be no right to kill the baby. I understand that some Christians and many others don’t agree. But the baby in the womb is a human being, I don’t think there’s any question about that.
The problem with secular marriage vs Church marriage…that’s where the gay marriage “problem” lies. I don’t think that it should even be called a marriage if it’s not done by a religious entity. Call it a civil union. Then, if the state wants to bestow ‘marital rights’ on two people, so be it. People haven’t needed the state’s ok to live together for 50 years, except to be allowed to have joint health care. I’m not sure what rights gay people are looking for. The problem is how some Church’s define marriage, that’s really where the sticking point is (at least with Catholics).
As a Catholic, I truly try to love everyone, regardless of ideology. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with them, but respect is a key.