Zealots on the March

Just when it looked like the forced departures of the Reverends Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee from the political stage would usher in a modicum of sane religious discussions in the campaign, the Reverend James Dobson took to the airwaves yesterday to re-introduce an unhealthy dose of zealotry to the campaign. Dobson is the founder of Focus on the Family, a severely conservative evangelical group that has enjoyed close ties to the Republican party. He was evidently unnerved by remarks Sen. Barack Obama made in 2006, in which the senator urged religious voters to "translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." One can argue with Obama’s construction. Certainly, there are religion-specific values that are also universal, so setting the two at odds is not always necessary. On the other hand, there are religious beliefs that have only relatively remote implications for the political world, or which require several intermediate steps of rational application. But, the point Obama was making is undoubtedly a valid one. In a pluralistic society, voters must remember that not everyone shares the same premises, and that crafting arguments to appeal to fellow citizens should acknowledge that fact. Dobson would have none of it. "Am I required in a democracy," the minister asked, "to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Who said anything about conforming anyone’s views? Obama’s point was that basing any political position, including opposition to abortion, upon divine revelation is not the same thing as a constitutional or empirical argument. And, the pro-life movement might have been more successful these many years if it focused on the constitutional and empirical arguments for its position. Diversity does not require that we all run to the lowest common denominator in our religious beliefs. It does require that we not demonize those who do not share our religious beliefs. In the interests of protecting the unborn, or the elderly, or the long suffering citizens of Iraq, it is fine to be motivated by religious conviction, but the political necessity of persuading one’s fellow citizens in a democracy requires that one go beyond that source of motivation and find common ground. Common ground need not be lower ground, though it often requires compromise. Abortion is an issue that does not admit much in the way of compromise. The issue is, at heart, a categorical one: if the unborn child is a person, that child has rights, including the right to life. Certainly, we Catholics believe that. But we have a moral obligation to be intelligent also, and simply shouting our belief in the dignity of the unborn has not done much to diminish the number of abortions in our society. It is time to tune out the zealots, roll up our sleeves, and find creative ways to persuade our fellow citizens that there are better ways to deal with crisis pregnancies. This is work Dobson does not want to do. He won’t admit it, but he is part of the problem and he is criticizing Obama for trying to be part of the solution. Michael Sean Winters