If you've been following evangelicals and the environment, then you've probably come across this letter to the National Association of Evangelicals. There are twenty-five signers, but James Dobson is getting most of the credit for the letter, which criticizes Richard Cizik, the vice president of the NAE, for his outspoken leadership on environmental issues.
There are hundreds of responses that could be--and probably have been--made to this attack, but in the interest of time, I'm just going to tackle one paragraph. Though the letter mostly addresses the issue of global warming, which Dobson and the other signers believe is an issue that the NAE should steer clear of, they surprised me by mentioning an even more controversial issue in this brief paragraph:
"Mr Cizik," they write, "not only believes that global warming is an indisputable fact, but he also holds related views that he has not been willing to reveal to the membership at large. In an alarming speech...he said: 'I'd like to take on the population issue...But population is a much more dangerous issue to touch. We need to confront the population issue and we can--we're not Roman Catholics, after all--but it's too hot to handle now.' We ask, how is population control going to be achieved if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where Richard Cizik would lead us?"
I was expecting the argument about global warming, but I confess I was shocked by this remark about population control. Do Dobson and his friends really think that abortion and condoms are the only means of population control? Whatever happened to self-control? Abstinence? Or have they given up already on the Christian approach to sex ed? I can usually find at least some common ground with their perspective, but I have to admit I'm utterly at a loss to understand how abortion became the only viable method of population control for evangelicals.
And I hate to be overly critical of Dobson--I think enough environmentalists have probably done that--but the best explanation I can come up with for this strange accusation is that it's just another example of the Americanization of Christianity. We have to have everything we want, and now; self-denial, or self-limitation, are simply not options. It's a very American view. But it's not in any way a Christian one.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Interesting thoughts, though I would seem to think that Dobson's comments come less from thinking that abortion and condoms are the the only means of population control and more from distrust of "Those liberals" (includes anyone concerned of the environment) who they always accuse of supporting some of the above methods. The Christian right seems to me to always paint with too wide a brush and I see this as just another example. I mean seriously, what rational, noteworthy American is going to promote infanticide as Dobson suggests?!? Or am I being overly optimistic? I must admit I am ignorant as to the history of Cizik or his motivations regarding his statement, but at face value (And from what I can tell all the NAE has is the one quoted statement as the transcript hasn't been released...) is there any question that population control should be pursued in regions of the world that can't support their existing population? And as you have said that can certainly be done through less dubious means than infanticide and abortions... We could start with a thermometer and basic education.
Regarding global warming, why is whether someone acknowledges global warming, for Evangelicals(TM), such a freaking issue? The closest thing I can think of is, a) "Those scientists who want us to believe evolution also promote global warming" or b) "Liberals believe in global warming."
Regarding infanticide, etc., I have actually heard some people call for infanticide, etc. as a means of population control. In fact, historically, this is how population control has been achieved, and, IIRC, in many places still is. China, for instance, already gives benefits for having fewer children (and penalties for having too many), which, IIRC, has lead to a large number of abortion/infanticide cases.
Sadly, implementing population control is likely to lead to infanticide, abortion, and whatever the term is for killing old people and those deemed "useless to society." Maybe not where Christianity has much say, but in other places, well, it already happens.
So, I can see where the concern might be regarding population control, though I'm not saying it's not blown out of proportion.
I agree: population control is a serious issue, one we should all be concerned about. But at some point we are going to have to realize that population control is inevitable. Unlimited population growth is impossible for any species, and humans--unique though we are--are not exempt from this very basic law of nature. At some point (probably in the not-so-very-distant future), the human population will overrun the earth's ability to support it. In many areas, as Justin points out, it probably already has. At that point, we get to choose among bad options: do we want to die by disease, famine, and war? Or abortion, euthenasia, and infanticide? Or do we want to prevent births by thermometers, education, abstinance, or hormones? Eventually, something's got to give.
Yeah, but my point was that Dobson's criticism of Cizik's support of population control, while perhaps hyperbolic, is a somewhat valid criticism. The question of population control seems inevitable. As I see it, we have the options of a) nature's population control, b) voluntary population control, or c) colonizing Mars.
I, for one, am rooting for option c, because I think it'd be cool.
But, barring that, we really can't break down option b into 1) abortion, euthanasia, etc., and 2) abstinence, thermometers, etc., because we cannot control how others will implement population control.
Currently, among the general public in the West, abortion seems more popular than abstinence and thermometers or adoption. If the government were to attempt something like making it beneficial to have fewer children, the most likely scenario would be increased abortions.
I'm not trying to say that Cizik is wrong, and that we should be opposed to population control. To be honest, though, such terms do bring up, in my mind, thoughts of 1984 and other dystopia stories. However, if we do decide to support it, we have to be careful, because, again, I don't believe it can be separated from abortion, euthanasia, etc.
Thanks for posting the letter. I'd heard about it, but not seen a copy. It really just baffles me. Why in the world would Dobson & Co deny the connection between human action and global warming? Why would they say that the NAE, or any other group of Christians, is unqualified to speak about God's creation? Who the heck is funding the co-signers of this letter? Incredible!!
Post a Comment