A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on May 18th, 2009 in Progressive Faith

Three stories hit the news in the last week or so that have to do with religion and its place in the public sphere. The first was Barack Obama’s decision to deliver the commencement address at Notre Dame. This caused some Catholics to despair over their private university. After all, President Obama backs abortion rights, and that isn’t kosher Catholic. But some of the rhetoric is just over the top:

“While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life,” said D’Arcy in a statement.

Obama has separated American policy from the ethical cell of the far right – but it isn’t released from all ethics. As far as the “destruction of innocent human life” is concerned, D’Arcy needs to explore the meaning of “collateral damage” in the military lexicon. Nor is it the first time a pro-choice President has spoken at Notre Dame – both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were there.

I have to say, though, that those Catholics who are protesting have every right to do so. They are members of the Catholic Church and Notre Dame is a part of that organization. I think it’s just a bit of a two-faced move to not protest President Bush, whose orders are responsible for thousands of innocent human lives being lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to protest someone who simply wants to let a woman choose to have a legal abortion or not. It’s almost as if this sub-group of Catholics (mirroring a rather large group of Evangelicals) simply ceases to care for humanity once they have exited the womb.

The text of President Obama’s can be found here. But other stories were conspiring to make people of faith look like idiots this week.

The first was the decision to not let a kid graduate from a private, Christian school after he attended his girlfriend’s prop at another school. First of all, I don’t think this was worth the time it spent in the news cycle. But even if it was, this was why the kid’s parents shelled out extra money to send him to a “Christian” school. He even signed a contract to that effect at the beginning of the year. The real story is the fake outrage that the kid and his parents now have at the school living up to its end of the bargain.

I think it’s a stupid thing for the school to do, but people are free to be stupid.

The final story is that of the Minnesota parents who are now court-ordered to give their kid chemotherapy. If they refuse to do so; then the state will place their kid in protective custody and force him to receive chemo anyway. So their decision is whether they violate their faith and keep their kid or let the state do it by proxy.

But, when you dig deeper, you find out that Daniel Hauser is, at the age of thirteen, considered to be a “elder” and “shaman.” But if you download the Nemenhah Constitution, you’ll find this explanation:

The Nemenhah Band and Native American Traditional Organization is a union of Medicine Men and Medicine Women who follow the ancient Sacred Sahaptan Healing Way. As such, technically, they are all considered “Elders” of the Band. The term “Elder” shall carry no especial distinction in general use among the Nemenhah. In special use, such as in the Councils of the Nemenhah, “Elder” shall designate responsibility. The Elders of the Lodge, in this context, are the Principle Stone Carrier, Unipi Leader and the Itsipi Leader, for they constitute the Lodge Council. The “Elders” of the Community shall be the members of the Community Council. The “Elders” of the General Councils shall be the Delegates participating in the Council. The “Elders” of the Great Council shall be the Delegates participating. The “Elders” of the Sacred Shahaptian Healing Way shall be the Elected Principle Medicine Chief and those individuals whom he/she calls to counsel in that responsibility, and so forth.

So either the kid is part of the governing council, or he’s just part of the group. “Elder” is pretty well meaningless. The word “shaman” is never used. Now, I’m not sure if the error is in the journalist or if its with the family, but to get at the underlying issue, we’ll pretend like it was all the fault of some silly journalist. Should the government be able to force you to give your child a medical treatment that your religion forbids? In other words, how does the government balance your right to practice your religion, and trasmit it to your children, with the requirement to protect the life of a child?

I think part of the answer lies in the details of the case. The judge found that the kid didn’t know much about his supposed position as shaman and elder, and he didn’t know much about chemotherapy, either. In fact, the kid had actually received a single round of chemotherapy, so the protest that it wasn’t allowed under his religion didn’t seem to hold up.

I would guess the desire to escape treatment is behind the kid’s religious beliefs. Not that I blame him. Chemo must suck beyond anyone’s ability to describe it. My heart goes out for the kid. But there is a reason why parents are entrusted with the responsibility to make the decisions about their kids’ health treatment. I can’t imagine – and hope I never discover – the pain this family has gone through. But I can’t condone using religion as a fig leaf in this case. God bless, Daniel, and I hope for the best.

Sphere: Related Content