Political Issue or Human Rights Issue?

This year, as in no other recent year, what are known as "life issues" vs. "choice issues" have been brought before us as has not been seen in recent campaigns for re-election, and now, in President Obama's second term in this year 2013. You know this if you follow the news. The issues I'm talking about are those that seem to be viewed by many as the "central" battleground life or choice" issues. I'm talking about mainly abortion and, to a lesser degree, euthanasia or physicial-assisted suicide (lesser because there is somewhat, I think, less controversy surrounding end-of-life issues than beginning-of-life issues). It began last year, last summer, during the primaries when some candidates called for legislation that would make contraception illegal and for the mandating of vaginal-probe ultrasounds for women considering abortion. I know that there is very strong emotion wrapped up in these issues on both sides and that differences are seen as personal attacks. I find this quite unfortunate. But, with the possible exception "marriage equality for LGBT people, nothing divides us more than the issue of abortion. Just this past week, there were demonstrations in Washington, DC, including the annual March For Life.

How is it that abortion and euthanasia came to be seen as the cental "battleground" life issues, especially the former? I don't think that abortion would ever been politicized and become so polarizing had it not been for the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1973 and became legal. And since then, the Church of the people of faith and many nonprofit organizations have seen ending abortion as the "primary moral or "life" issue of the day and everything else has been seen as only secondary. The argument has always been, "We are talking about our right to life in the womb and unless this right is kept safe for all of us, all the other rights we want and cry out for become meaningless." These hard-core "right-to-life" advocates do have a point, that our lives as unborn humans must be kept as safe and sacred as our lives outside the womb should be. My question is that are our lives outside the womb actually so sacred or so safe anymore, either? I wonder. Our murder rate is the highest of any country in the developed world. Many born children die daily, from things as varied as card accidents, drowning, serious childhood illness and even murder at the hands of adults or peers. This is not to mention all the other deaths that occur daily of teens and adults that are untimely and unnatural. Why does not anyone talk about being "pro-life" about these most serious matters? And poverty typically breeds crime, including murder. And it causes much hunger and illness and lack of access to health care and all of thse can kill. Why do we not use the word "pro-life in reference to poverty and related issues like access to health care for all?

I know what the argument is by confining abortion as the life issue of focus. The argument is: "The most vulnerable person is the unborn because he or she is totally helpless and totally unable to speak of for self." This is true, that the unborn are 100 percent unable to advocate for themselves. The argument that hard-core "right-to-life" advcates give for not treating the lives of others as top priority is this: "At least they are alive and are able to cry out for themselves." Well, up to a point they can. But we know that society makes it very hard to "find your voice" if you lack money or social connections. I am seeing this firsthand as I daily struggle to gather signatures for my petition for a group of people whose needs, in many ways, are going unmet because of ignorance and lack of resources. My frustration is that, to support a certain candidate and political party, and support the life issues that they oficially stand for, we have to withdraw support for the other candidate and for the life issues that they support. To stand for conservatives, we protect the unborn and infirm, dying people. But we withdraw support for the protection of the lives of everyone else from birth to old age. To support liberal candidates, we protect human life from birth to old age. But we withhold support from the protection of unborn human life and from those who are infirm or dying. I find this most frustrating and confusing. It has made me just want to stay at home on Election Day. I find it almost impossible to choose, pitting some lives against others.

I happen to belong to a Church body that, like so many others, has implicitly, if not explicitly, sent a strong message that to be true to God and His teachings, we should be "conservative" and this implies that we vote conservative. And to do that means to vote for Republicans and to support Republican "values." We are told in such church bodies, "Protect the unborn with your votes." Well, which party is oficially "anti-abortion"? The conservatives in the Republican party (there are liberal Republicans who support abortion just as there are conservative Democrats who oppose abortion). Those in the Republican party have, especially since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, made the lives of the unborn their central life issue through for calling for restrictiong abortion, even criminalizing it. The official stance of Democrats has been to safeguard all life from birth to death, through government programs and funding of vital services for the public's protection. Those who are "pro-choice" (whether democrats or Republicans) are more convinced that life in the womb may be "potential life" as opposed to "actual life" and therefore, that the expectant mom should, in crisis situations, have "choice" available. Even hard-core "pro-choice," liberal Democrats are NOT "pro-abortion" in the sense that they affirm this procedure as the best "choice" for anyone. They simply, for the most part, believe that this "choice should be available" for those who find themselves in difficult or crisis situations. Yes, there are hard-core "abortion-on-demand" proponents but I see them as being in the minority. Even "pro-choice" people merely see abortion as an unfortunate "choice" of last resort. As I read it in my Bible, I see that the lives of ALL people, at all stages of development, are equally vluable and sacred to God. So what does this mean for electing candidates where we have to pit some lives against others? And God, unlike "pro-choice" advocates, definitely sees unborn human life not as potential humanb life but as ACTUAL human life.

In the Church body to which I belong, the life issues espouses by the Democrats are seen as "secondary issues." The "primary issue" as seen by my Church body, is ending abortion and defending the unborn. We should be doing this! But what about all those other lives that are just as important and sacred to God? This question was posed to a prominent Christian leader who appeared on a major news network. The Host asked this Christian leader something like,"What about the Republican attempts, through their proposals, to cut back on services like firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, veterans, the elderly and the disabled?" His response to that was, "Those are secondary issues." The main issue? "We need to defend traditional marriage and defend the lives of the unborn." For purposes of this post, I will NOT be going into GLBT issues but only into the "life issues." Who is to determine what lives are "primary" and which are only "secondary"? I know that Catholic nuns and others who call themselves "progressive Christians" have been speaking out against the Ryan budget plan which calls for cuts in essentail services which we need and which benefit all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us: the poor, senior citizens, veterans and those with disabilities. But I see the almost TOTAL silence on the part of those among "conservative Church bodies, Christian leaders and pastors about the Ryan plan, as disturbing and depressing. It seems that most in conservative "religious right" circles are refusing to see the moral big picture and see it reduced to just two issues: protecting the unborn and safeguarding tradional marriage. We ought to do this, I fully agree! But what about all the other moral issues that are embraced by "liberals" such as poverty, justice/injustice, education, ending corporate greed and political corruption, health care for all, and the other important issues? Must thse go begging if we embrace one set of moral values? Why must we choose?

I find it most unfortunate that abortion is seen along political party lines, with Republicans being officially "against abortion" and Democrats being "proabortion," with Republicans being "prolife" and Democrats being "prochoice." Many years ago, I was listening to a denominational radio show where the talk show host was taking live phone calls. One person was discussing abortion and was saying, "We should not call the proabortionists prochoice; we should call them pro-death." At a former congregation where my spouse and I had attended, a member had a bumper sticker which read, "Friends do not let friends vote Democrat." For one things, many people, including in politics and who are Republicans, lean toward "prochoice" views. And many people, including in politics, are Democrats who lean toward the "prolife" view. So the stereotype of either party being for one view or the other is most unfortunate. So is lumping all "prolife" people as those who do not like women, think their only role is in the home and should keep being "barefoot and pregnant." Nor should all "prochoice" people be lumped together is being "anti-family people who desire to put  all children in day care centers, destroy families and trash men, and stop population growth.

I have heard it proposed that abortion be removed from the political arena and placed in the human rights arena. I agree with this totally. As long as this keeps being seen as a hotly divisive political issue, I do not see that the "culture wars" surrounding it will ever end. I know that there are very strong feelings on both sides, one being a people group's right to full, private autononmy over their lives and bodies, the other people group's right to life even when the person (the mother or her family) does not want to let that happen. As long as both sides, the "life" side and the "choice" side continue to declare how right they themselves are and do not listen the the concerns and objections of the other side, there will always be a bitter debate. When abortion comes up for discussion, especially on TV or in politics, one cannot help but see how each side is screaming about how right I am and how wrong you are and you better listen to me! Each side has very valid points that the other side needs to consider. The unborn have the right to live and their human right needs to be defended from those who would take it away. Their mothers have the right to be offered all the support and guidance they need so that they are not even tempted to go to the most available abortion clinic because they could not find support and resources to not only complete their pregnancies but for years afterward. And the "hard cases" of rape and incest? I would not wish on anyone a a rape, much less one that results in conception! Those who advocate that babies conceived of sexual assault also deserve to live are correct, but one politician was not only scientifically incorrect but offended many when he said, "During a legitimate rape, the female body has a way of shutting that whole thing down." Putting our feet in our mouths when engaged in controversies like this does nothing for such debates.

So, when I went  to the polls on November 2, as always, I was be torn and conflicted. I know that many people fall solidly on the side of liberal or conservative and that, if they exercise their right to vote, their minds will be made up. In fact, many of such people may already have their minds made up at this moment. That is fine. What is NOT fine is when people, whether individuals, Church bodies, Christian leaders or organizations tell me how I "should vote." I do not tell anyone else how they should vote and they should not tell me how to vote. And how can Christian leaders or Church bodies make any claims that God has any monopoly on any political party, that He is Republican or Democrat? Oh, they never come out and say it like that; they just say, "But Biblcal values are consistent with what Republicans stand for." That is true of SOME of the things that this party stands for. But this same things can be said about SOME of the things that the Democrats stands for. And There are things about BOTH parties that are not consistent with Biblical values. Call me biased, but I see most of the hate and nastiness, whether you talk about the political campaigns or their supporters, as coming from the "Tea Party" element of the Republican party.

As I stated in an earlier post, someone in my social networks saw a past status update of mine and told me to state my political party for all to know. I will go on the record as saying that I am what some would call a Pro-life Democrat, a moderate, and an Independent who supports many Democratic values. I believe that we should shout out about what we are FOR, as the Bible does, whether than scream about what we are against. I see far too much screaming and railing, from politicians and from so many in "real life" and online. Even the nicest and most rational and proper of people can, if they get on political or politicized issues like abortion, find themselves engaging in nasty, uncivil, bullying, hateful and bullying behaviors. This is the reason why abortion needs to stop being seen as a political issue and instead be seen as a human rights issue, with the human rights of both the mother and the child being equally as important. This same holds true of any other "life issue." And I want to shout for what is called a "consistent life ethic" that upholds and affirms ALL life, starting from concetion to death.

Consistent Life.
This website is set up for a nonprofit of people who seek to pull together all life issues and to unite people from all poltical viewpoints and to declare all life as sacred. This site is full of information, it educates and links to other helpful resources.

Which of the Presidential Candidates is Truly Pro-Life?
This article examines how both the past Presidential candidates actually relate to life issues, especially abortion and gives perspective. Photo Courtesy of MorgueFile.com Photo by Alvimann. This photo can be found here.

God, the Church, Autism, and Other People With Disabilities

     Yesterday, I read two articles that bothered me and I know that they also bothered many other people; I also commented on both of them. Both articles discuss autism and faith in God, or the lack of it, and spirituality. One article is titled, "Autism May Diminish Belief in God" and the other is titled, "Are Atheists More Autistic Than Believers?" The very titles suggest that people with autism are inherently less spiritual than others and have less capacity for God, than other people in the population. What is are the authors' explanations for their findings? The writers cite the well-known finding that "theory of mind," the ability to comprehend the feelings and thoughts of other people, is deficient in autism and at the root of so many autistic social difficulties. The writers tell us that the parts of the brain that are involved in appreciating and contemplating God as a Person with thoughts and feelings, are "theory of mind" traits. This "theory of mind" and the involved parts that enable us to see ourselves in relationship with God, are damaged by autism, reason the authors. The conclusion of all this? Autism means a reduced capacity for God and faith.
     The first article, "Autism Diminishes Belief in God," focuses on the supposed reduced capacity for God that autistic people have. Their conclusions are based on asking people with autism and those with traits of autism who are not diagnosed, questions about God, spirituality and faith. The writer bases his findings on what his subjects said in the surveys and the more autistic trait, the more the answers leaned toward diminished belief in God. The second article, "Are Atheists More Autistic Than Believers?" focuses on the supposed autistic traits of many atheists, asking whether many of them many have a form of high-functioning autism. These would include Asperger's Syndrome and Pervasive Development Syndrome--Not Otherwise Specified (PDD--NOS). Many who count themselves as atheists are no doubt offended at the suggestion that they may be considered to have traits of autism, but what is far more of a concern, even offense, to me, is the notion that atheism and autism are being compared in this fasion and the suggestion that autistic people are more likely to be atheists. What should be taken away from articles such as this?
     Let me answer this question with another question. If autism hinders faith in God and spirituality, who bears much of the responsibility for this? I suggest that much of this is because congregations and people of faith, have not known how or have not tried to learn how to welcome people with autism and many other disabilities, especially invisible ones) into their congregational life. What does feeling and being welcomed into the Church (the community of the people of God) have to do with faith in God? I suggest that it has to do everything with it! It is a serious matter when people feel chronically unwelcomed by the Church! It can harm them spiritually.When individuals, autistic or not, or families don't feel welcomed into the Church or a congregation, they rarely stay. And when individuals, autistic or not, or families feel shunned or not accepted by the people of God, they are going to find it easier to feel shunned or not accepted by God Himself. Let's face it, God is invisible and His people are all we can see. Being human, though we know that God is perfect and His people are imperfect, it is all too easy to confuse God with His people. And when autistic people (who are often  challenged in "theory of mind" and higher-order thinking skills) feel unwelcome in the Church, they will be even more likely to question and to doubt God. Why? It is so much easier to believe the message being sent out by the perceived (or actual) rejection of God's people, than it is to believe in the unseen God, His love and His assurance that His favor toward us is not based on what other people think or feel about us.
     Let me cite my own experience with this issue in my adulthood. When my our family became members in the Church and in a local congregation, I soon became uncomfortable there. The members themselves were nice, pleasant, respectable people, many being young professionals and these were typical "church people" with traditional, family values. But this came as rather of a "culture shock" to me, as I had spent much of my youth and early adults years with diverse people, and people with various learning, behavioral and physical disabilities. And I was used to them. But in congregations we visited or became members of, I saw much less diversity. Very few people had disabilities with the exception of more severe ones where the need was obvious and where they were much more likely to be welcomed. Yes, I'm sure that there were more than a few members (as in son many congregations) who had invisible disabilities and feared "coming out of the closet" with them because of possible stigma.
      I'm not blaming the members (or even the leadership) of any such congregation, as I'm sure so many may not have been exposed to the disability community and may often not know about any disabilities, especially the more complex, easily misunderstood and invisible ones. In this setting of people who were not much like so many I had known and grown up with, I became acutely aware of my differences and my background, which I knew were not "normal." I did my best to "stay in the closet" and when anyone asked me anything personal where I might have to share those "unsafe" subjects, I would clam up. And yet, judging from the reactions of others and even from what I heard from my spouse, people still sensed that "something was up" with me. I felt like a misfit and not accepted. And it wasn't that I didn't become involved so I could make a contribution. I did. Still, this did little to ease my feelings of not being welcomed. And, even today, though I know better, my natural tendency is to confuse God, Whom I cannot see, with His people, whom I could see. I tend to wrestle with doubts about my relationship with God; after all, if I have so often "struck out" with His people, what does this say about my relationship with Him? What does it say about my own faith and "spirituality" if I don't feel welcomed by His people?
     And I'm not speaking only for myself here. I know that many other people, autistic or not, disabled or not, have not felt welcome in congregations. I'm positive that this happens with people with disabilities much more often and who have often not felt welcomed in the Church. In the case of those with physical disabilities, welcoming them requires that the Church make their premises accessible: ramps for those unable to walk without difficulty, sign language interpreters for deaf people who use sign language, the allowance of service dogs for those who use them for various disabilities, and I can add more and I'm sure some of you can. And congregations can create a supportive environment where people with invisible disabilities will feel less afraid to "come out of the closet" with their unseen differences and will find that they will not be judged but will be accepted. But I know that many congregations, especially large ones, feel that it is a churchgoer's or member's responsibility to reach out, get involved and make a contribution and that, as a by-product, they will be included and accepted. There is truth to this, that all of us, disabled or autistic or without disabilities, should reach out and seek to contribute to out congregations. However, in the case of people with disabilities, obvious or invisible, more support and often accommodations are needed for most to feel and be welcomed into the Church.
     I know that providing physical accommodations needed by so many with visible disabilities, often costs money or may be seen as inconveniencing others, such as allowing service dogs or other service animals. And in the case of invisible disabilities, especially the complex, more easily misunderstood ones, congregations will need to take time and effort to educate themselves about these. Yes, I recognize that, unfair as it may be, those of us in the disability community and with these conditions, will probably have to lead the way in this, advocating for ourselves and for so many others.
     Getting back to the topic of autism and faith in God, I can't help but but believe that much of this perceived "reduced capacity for God" and even comparisons with atheists, says something also about how autistic people have often not felt welcomed in the Church. I recognize that the Church often does not feel equipped to deal with a complex neurological condition like autism and so often don't know how to welcome autistic people. And since autism means a different way of thinking and different wiring, the Church needs to find out how to make God real to autistic people according to their different wiring. There are no easy answers to this, obviously. But I think that when the Church will try to reach out to autistic people, we may see more come to our local churches and want to know our God. The writers of these two articles seem to be boxing God in, suggesting that He is not able to reveal Himself and make Himself real to those with different wiring or thinking. These articles insult God as much as they do autistic people. Is God limited by the way someone is wired? Didn't He make the brain in the first place? Who is the Creator of those with disabilities, including autism? And doesn't His call to "go into all the world" with His message include those with autism and other disabilities?
     Is the Church listening?