In the past, AHA has said it eschews violence. But it recently posted this:
"What Christ says is to love my neighbor as I love myself. If someone were coming to kill you, you would do more than stand up and shout, 'Help!'. If someone were trying to kill you, you would oppose them with everything you have, because you love yourself. I ask that you think in those terms when you consider the pre-born child who is slated to die."
What is this if not an open incitement to violence? It's an argument from analogy. It considers verbal dissuasion inadequate. Rather, you'd oppose the assailant with whatever you've got.
It presumes the right of self-defense, then extends that principle to protection of the unborn. According to the right of self-defense, you're entitled to use violent means, up to and including lethal force, if necessary, to protect yourself from being killed or maimed by wrongful aggression.
By parity of argument, that's permissible and, indeed, obligatory, in defense of your neighbor (i.e. unborn babies).
Moreover, protecting the unborn by the same means you'd use to defend yourself can't be qualified without destroying the analogy, which is the basis of the argument.
I've often thought AHA's typically incendiary rhetoric to be inconsistent on this point, it was only a matter of time before cool logic prevailed.
ReplyDeleteIt's especially concerning when individuals afflicted with reflexive group think and a deeply felt self-righteousness fueled by a messiah complex begin to think and speak along these contours because some in their midst are at risk of acting on the strength of their convictions.
All of this is as deeply troubling as it is predictable.
I tried to read that AHA post charitably enough to come to a different conclusion, but I was unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteThe brother who made this statement is staunchly non-violent. However, I understand that that doesn't resolve the problem. If you are trying to look at this post with an open mind, considering the absolute true peril in which the unborn presently find themselves, maybe you'd consider this: just because "opposing with everything you have" means something in one context, doesn't mean it means the same thing in another. I heartily acknowledge that though violence would not get me in jail for self-defense, it would in fighting abortion these days. Given that, we are to judge what methods we should use. If we love this crushed, oppressed, and neglected neighbor who is killed on a daily scale that would cause international uproar if applied to born children, we should oppose their killers with everything we have. And I'd say we don't "have" violence in the Christian paradigm for this situation. We have voices and we have the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if feet have been dusted off between yourself and other abolitionists, but I would be glad to reason further with you if need be, brother, because I'm the one who posted this quote.
i) Is that your interpretation of his argument, or your reformulation of his argument?
Deleteii) Even if he didn't intend to promote violence, that was what he implied. In that event, the implication of his argument contradicts his intention.
iii) The problem with your reformulation is that you're saying that under the circumstances, we should be prepared to do *less* to protect our unborn neighbors than we'd do to protect ourselves.
But even if that's a valid concession in its own right, that's diametrically opposed to the original argument. His argument was explicitly based on *parity*: you should love your neighbor as yourself. Do as much to protect your unborn neighbor as you'd do to protect yourself.
If, however, you're going to change the argument to say you shouldn't be prepared to oppose them with everything you've got when defending your unborn neighbors, whereas you should be prepared to oppose them with everything you've got when defending yourself, then that destroys the parallel on which his argument from analogy was explicitly based.
iv) The only alternative reformulation would be to say you should renounce violence in both situations. That would retain parity. You'd be doing just as much in both cases, only you'd be doing less in both cases. Pacifism.
That, however, would dilute the contrast between verbal dissuasion and opposing them with everything you've got.
v) The original argument can't be fixed. If AHA still foreswears violence, then the only consistent solution is to post a retraction.
You could say the original argument was poorly worded or not properly thought out. You could say it doesn't accurately represent the nonviolent philosophy of AHA.
That's assuming AHA does, in fact, have a monolithic position.
"..we are to judge what methods we should use."
DeleteIncluding incremental legislation, right?
The nuanced response is a non-sequitur. To any reasonable person JI's conclusion doesn't fit the premise of the original argument.
DeleteCan anyone honestly read the original argument and conclude that the "everything we have" statement was an oblique reference to "our voices" and "the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ"? Really? Does that fit within the contours and context of the original comment?
Let's try:
"What Christ says is to love my neighbor as I love myself. If someone were coming to kill you, you would do more than stand up and shout, 'Help!'. If someone were trying to kill you, you would oppose them with YOUR VOICE, because you love yourself. I ask that you think in those terms when you consider the pre-born child who is slated to die."
"What Christ says is to love my neighbor as I love myself. If someone were coming to kill you, you would do more than stand up and shout, 'Help!'. If someone were trying to kill you, you would oppose them with THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, because you love yourself. I ask that you think in those terms when you consider the pre-born child who is slated to die."
So once again AHA shows itself to be intellectually dishonest, and unable to argue in good faith against valid criticism.
Very well put. The nuanced response isn't a valid interpretation of the original argument, but a replacement for the original argument.
DeleteHey brothers, I'm sorry I never thought to provide the clip from where I got the quote. Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEGYI9KN3pI
ReplyDeleteMultiple other admins on the page were concerned that, out of context, this wasn't an entirely safe quote to post. But I still think it's worth defending because I think you are being unfair with the quote and not considering the scope. If you go to 3:45 in the clip (though I suggest watching all 6 minutes), he throws violent action right under the bus and makes the case for the action of speaking truth.
I know this doesn't answer all of your points. I will try to get back to this thread soon and see if we can flesh out other points which I'd say are valid. Leaving town at the moment actually.