paxculver

http://manhattandeclaration.org/decdocs/ManhattanDeclaration.pdf

On Friday November 20, 2009, a document known as the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience” was released to the American public for the first time. The document attempts to serve as a call-to-arms for socially conservative Christians to stand their ground and not back down in the face of adversity. In reality, the article actually employs scare tactics, utilizes the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy, and deliberately spreads misinformation and lies. Additionally, the Manhattan Declaration heavily borrows from novel ideas set forth by several other historical and literary works and attempts to pass these ideas off as its own. This essay will attempt to expose and dispel the myths set forth by the Religious Right and religious fundamentalism. As this essay will critique the article in sequence, I encourage you, the reader, to follow along. A link to The Manhattan Declaration is given prior to this essay.

The Manhattan Declaration begins with a “Preamble,” a term most synonymous with our nation’s Constitution. The preamble briefly describes the two thousand year history of the Christian Church and describes how the Church has arduously labored over these two thousand years in an effort to end slavery, put a stop to child labor, and advocate for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. The preamble also speaks of how the Church is working in modern times. The Church is striving to bring care to sufferers of AIDS in Africa, stop sex trafficking, and provide support to those stricken by poverty, both domestically and overseas. From here, The Manhattan Declaration transitions to the title-referencing “Declaration” section.

The Declaration calls together all Christians, regardless of their respective Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, or any other beliefs (though the article itself seems to imply that the call to unity is a call to unity for those of more conservative belief systems). Additionally, the writers of the Declaration note that their inspiration is drawn from “St. Paul” and not Christ himself as the term “Christian” etymologically implies. The reliance on Paul for wisdom and inspiration, rather than Christ himself, is arguably one of the biggest problems within the Christian Church today. Finally, the Declaration addresses the three focal points that the Manhattan Declaration bases itself upon affirming:

“1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life;

2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and nonbelievers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and;

3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.”

These three clearly stated points separately comprise the three core sections of the Manhattan Declaration. The article ends the Declaration section with what it calls an “obligation” to defend the three aforementioned beliefs before transitioning to a section entitled “Life.”

Though the next section of the article is in fact entitled “Life,” the sole focus of the section is not on all life as the title would lead one to believe, but rather on the life of babies in the fetal stage of development. Though abortion prevention is one of the few social issues that I happen to agree with conservatives on (for the most part), I disagree with the approach the Manhattan Declaration takes to the situation. This approach is not only taken by the article itself, but it is an approach I oftentimes find embodied by a majority of other Christians as well. The Manhattan Declaration uses emotionally captivating speech in an attempt to condemn abortion using emotive terms such as “eugenics,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “infanticide,” the latter of which is defined as the killing of newborn children. Due to the work of “pro-life” activists, however, the term infanticide has come to colloquially be defined as the abortion of prenatal children at any stage of fetal development.  Indeed, the term “pro-life” is one that is self-assumed by anti-abortion activists. However, when examining most of these activists’ political views, one would generally find that anti-abortion activists are only pro-life with respect to the subject of abortion.

Approximately eight hundred fifty thousand abortions take place every year. Out of those, only one and eight tenths percent are due to rape, incest, risk to maternal health or life, or fetal abnormalities. In other words, about fifteen thousand abortions in the United States are performed for non-elective reasons each year. Adamant anti-abortion crusaders will oftentimes attempt to polarize the abortion issue as simply being one of two stances: “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” Given these two options, a slight majority of Americans would choose the latter of the two options, but when a third option is thrown in with the pro-life stance (an option of opposing abortion in the elective cases that comprise approximately ninety-eight and two tenths of all abortions in the United States), Gallup polls then show that pro-life support garners the support of about fifty to fifty-five percent of Americans whereas pro-choice support is only embraced by forty to forty-five percent of Americans. While I am not necessarily suggesting that abortion is ever justified in these rare situations, I do believe that more lives could be saved if stubborn activists who support the pro-life view in all situations would be more willing to compromise on the issue. Indeed, fifteen thousand annual abortions in the United States are certainly much better than eight hundred fifty thousand annual abortions in the United States. Also, pro-life activists often do little to support or help women that are put in these tragic situations. Though many do in fact offer support, the amount of support offered is still not nearly enough. What is perhaps most troubling about the pro-life stance, however, is the fact that social conservatives, while being anti-abortion activists, do not take the pro-life stance on any other political issue.

While fifteen thousand non-elective abortions that take place every year in America certainly seems like a large number at first glance, the figure pales in comparison to some of the other numbers on various preventable deaths that take place in the United States each year. An estimated thirty thousand gun-related deaths take place every year in the United States. In spite of this, most socially conservative Christians actually oppose gun control legislation. While I think that the ownership of guns can be justified in certain situations such as having an antique gun collection or using guns for game hunting (something I see as a necessary evil due to the overpopulation of certain species of animals), the justifications that many Christians try to make for gun ownership and opposition to gun control legislation can sometimes be quite disturbing. Many advocate for the right to their respective guns and say that they could use it for self-defense. This, however, is contrary to what Christ taught. When Christ is being led to his crucifixion, one of His disciples (commonly believed to be Peter) reaches for his sword and cuts off the ear of one of the Roman soldiers that came to seize Christ. Christ however tells the man to put the sword back in its place as “those who draw the sword will die by the sword.” While swords are obviously not prevalent in modern American society, one can easily draw a comparison between this scenario and gun usage today. Also, Christ emphasizes pacifism by teaching His followers that though it was once said “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth,” “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Despite Christ’s teachings, so many American Christians seem enamored with getting revenge on America’s enemies and waging war against other nations.

Conservative Christians claiming to be pro-life often support our military occupation in other countries. Again, they will attempt to justify this by stating that we are presently in Iraq or Afghanistan to restore order and police the countries, but I believe that Benjamin Harrison put it best when he stated that “we Americans have no commission from God to police the world.” While I certainly wish no harm whatsoever on our troops overseas and continue to pray for their safety, I simply cannot agree with our military occupation of other countries and what we as a country are doing overseas. Thousands have died since the wars began just a few short years ago. Few seem concerned about the true infanticide of children in Iraq and Afghanistan despite their concern over abortion in the United States. The Manhattan Declaration claims “to speak for those who cannot themselves speak” and wishes to help the weak and oppressed.  I must now address why I believe this statement to be untrue as I begin to segue to the second decree of the Declaration and continue explaining how the Religious Right is not as pro-life as they claim to be.

A third group of individuals so often oppressed by Social Conservatives claiming to be pro-life, in addition to those affected by gun-related deaths and war-related deaths, are people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). Nearly thirty thousand suicides take place every year in the United States and while it is hard to tell exactly how many of those are LGBT suicides, it is estimated that LGBTs are four times as likely to take their own lives as their straight counterparts. With this figure, one could probably estimate that about five thousand LGBT suicides take place every year in America. In addition to suicide-related deaths amongst LGBTs, numerous hate crimes are waged against LGBTs in this country daily that all too often sadly end in death. One such noteworthy death is the 2008 school shooting of Lawrence “Larry” King in Oxnard, California. King was an openly gay eighth-grade student who was shot in the computer lab of his school as point blank range by a classmate who was uncomfortable with King’s sexual orientation. Though the majority of socially conservative Christians would not attempt to justify the shooting, their spiteful, homophobic rhetoric that is often used to decry LGBT rights can be just as damaging.

While I will speak more on oppression LGBTs face in everyday life in the next section of this essay, I must first briefly review all of the deaths that could be prevented if social conservatives were truly pro-life. As many as thirty-five thousand to forty thousand people die every year in America as a combined result of gun-related deaths, war-related deaths, and LGBT suicides and hate crime deaths. This does not even include other causes of death that are the result of legislative action such as capital punishment. In fact, an increase in technology has allowed DNA evidence to clear many persons from death row that had been wrongly convicted of crimes that they did not commit. Surely countless many others have been sentenced to an execution that was unwarranted and unnecessary due to the work of crafty lawyers. Though countless hours could certainly be spent discussing these issues in greater detail, I feel that it is time to move from discussing a literal death to a figurative death as the Manhattan Declaration next discusses what it believes to be the death of marriage.

The “Marriage” portion of the Manhattan Declaration describes how America’s marriage culture has eroded over the past several generations: how divorce rates are nearing fifty percent, how out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed, and how unmarried sexual relationships have increased. I feel as if I must agree with all of these traits of America’s eroding marriage culture, though I do so not at the risk of sounding like a judgmental moral overlord. Divorce rates are in fact at an all-time high with the majority of couples choosing to get divorces over matters as frivolous as financial issues, lost romance, or irreconcilable differences rather than more pressing issues such as infidelity or spousal abuse. Out-of-wedlock births have also increased and can leave children to be raised by a single parent sometimes without the child ever even knowing who the other parent is. The slow abolition of a two-parent family is having a crippling effect on children. Unmarried sexual relationships have also proven to lead to a higher divorce rate; one problem is symptomatic of another problem. I also agree with the Manhattan Declaration in the Declaration’s belief that sexual promiscuity is wrongly being glamorized by American society. I disagree, however, with the Manhattan Declaration’s statement that “the impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture.”

For the most part, the authors of the Manhattan Declaration do well in acknowledging that other Christians have a disagreement with them on the issue of same-sex marriage. What soon follows, however, is a tone of disappointment and condescension at those Christians who disagree with the beliefs of more traditional, conservative Christians. The authors of the Manhattan Declaration write as if their belief on the matter is a divine revelation from God Himself. The writers lecture to those holding opposing viewpoints with doctrine that is homophobic, misogynistic, and simply ignorant. What is perhaps most quizzical about this section of the Manhattan Declaration is the fact that the writers of the document use Biblical Scripture to affirm their viewpoints after having already established that the document itself is a declaration from “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians.” Sola Scriptura (the belief that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and is therefore sufficient for the basis of all other Church doctrine) is an explicitly Protestant belief, however. It goes without saying, then, that the viewpoints on marriage that are expressed in the Manhattan Declaration are not part of the two-thousand year history of the Christian Church, but are instead derived, albeit indirectly, from the less than five hundred year history of Protestantism. Again, Sola scriptura was never established by Christ himself (though He did predicate the authority of certain Old Testament scripture), but the doctrine was instead part of a movement put forth by the collective works of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli during the Protestant Reformation. Even so, I must now more closely examine some of the statements regarding marriage that the Manhattan Declaration makes and explain why I believe those statements to be untrue.

The writers of the Manhattan Declaration “acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct.” There are several problems with this “acknowledgement.” Firstly, the statement uses the term “homosexual” as opposed to “gay” or “LGBT.” In fact, the document uses some form of the word “homosexual” thrice without ever mentioning “gay” or “LGBT” once. Though the term “homosexual” in and of itself is not necessarily disparaging nor derogatory, the deliberate, continued usage of the word homosexual in lieu of gay or LGBT can have negative connotations to it. Contrarily, it could be argued that the word homosexual is the most etymologically accurate of the three terms as it is derived from combining the Greek prefix “homo-“ meaning same with “sexual” thus providing the word homosexual to be defined in a literal sense as one who engages in sexual relationships with his or her own gender. The word “gay” on the other hand, would traditionally be used to describe someone or something that is showy or flamboyant. As men who professed attraction to their own gender began developing an identity that mirrored the very definition of the word gay, the term evolved and began to apply to these men. One could in fact argue that this is actually an inaccurate stereotype of these men in that not all gay men assume an effeminate, camp, catty identity. It could also be noted that the term “lesbian” (the “L” in “LGBT”) is a misnomer in that the word was originally attributed to the Greek poet Sappho and her writings about relationships with other women. Since Sappho was an inhabitant of the Greek isle of Lesbos, “lesbian” the demonym for any person living on the isle (usually capitalized in that sense) became the primary term applied to women who expressed attraction for their own gender. The word lesbian is a misnomer because, in spite of Sappho’s writings, no historical evidence exists suggesting that Sappho was attracted to women nor does any evidence exist to suggest that Sappho had even one significant romantic relationship with a woman. Given the immediately preceding evidence, one would most likely conclude that “homosexual” is in fact the most accurate term of the three. However, the reason for avoiding consistent usage of the word homosexual lies not in the literal definition of the word itself, but rather in the negative connotations that the term can imply as previously mentioned. Until the 1970s, “homosexuality” was believed to be a mental illness by both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. As new scientific evidence emerged disproving this theory, the “disorder” or homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. Therefore, to deliberately and intentionally use the term homosexual to refer to someone who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is a throwback to the notion of homosexuality being considered to be a mental illness and is akin to describing someone who is black as being “colored.” Additionally, the word “homophobia” is a misnomer in that a literal definition would define the word as meaning fear of the same or fear of conformity. I could spend all day picking apart the English language and the language’s inherent faults and discrepancies, but I must now move on.

The second problem with the Manhattan Declaration’s statement is that it parallels homosexuality with both polygamy and with what the Declaration calls “other forms of immoral conduct.” I agree that LGBTs are “predisposed” toward their sexuality, that is, that human sexuality is a relatively immutable, unchangeable part of a person’s identity that is determined at the earliest stages of human life. I disagree, however, that human sexuality varies along numerical lines and I disagree with one’s sexuality being a type of “immoral conduct.” To reiterate a point made earlier, “homosexuality” was removed from its incorrect status as a mental illness in the DSM nearly forty years ago. Therefore, to liken human sexuality with the “immoral conduct” by comparing homosexuality to problems such as alcoholism, gambling addiction, or illegal drug usage (all of which can be tied to actual mental illnesses in the DSM) represents an archaic way of thinking, is blatantly dishonest, and defies intellectual integrity. Furthermore, the desire to be with multiple people (the polyamory that the Manhattan Declaration draws comparisons to) is not considered to be a normal sexual orientation and fails to gain the support of most anyone that does not desire this type of relationship. The Manhattan Declaration reverts to the age old “love the sinner, hate the sin” cliché to try and justify the more conservative views on the subject. What is perhaps even worse about these beliefs is that the authors of the Manhattan Declaration are not satisfied with comparing same-sex relationships with multiple partner relationships, but that the authors feel the need to liken same-sex relationships with incestuous relationships as well. I find this comparison quite laughable yet, all the while, disturbing. Once again, one would be hard pressed to find anyone lobbying for the right to marry his or her sister or brother, respectively. Anyone who does lobby for incestuous marriage and relationships is regarded as foolish, to put it lightly, by those having the most diverse of sexual orientations and sexual identities.

Oftentimes, the emerging legalization of same-sex marriage is labeled a “redefining of marriage.” Those who oppose same-sex marriage often do so with the excuse that they don’t want to change what they believe to be a several thousand-year-old definition of marriage. While it is true, for the most part, that most cultures have collectively regarded marriage as being between people of opposite gender, the definition of marriage has changed significantly at least twice in the past thousand years. Two thousand years ago it was commonplace for men and women to get married in adolescence. Women would often give birth to their first children in their teens and the women would continue to produce children with their husbands until the woman tragically died while giving childbirth in her thirties. Though such a marriage culture certainly sounds horrific by today’s standards, the high infant mortality rate and relatively short life spans of humans during this time period necessitated the marriage culture for the purpose of propagating the earth. Scientific advancements and new technology allowed the average human life span to increase while female mortality during child birth and infant mortality decreased. As a result, the prevailing marriage culture gradually shifted to a second definition of marriage. Young men, usually in their late teens to early twenties began paying the father of the bride they wished to marry, thus “buying” her from her father. Large families were still commonplace under this marriage culture and women’s death during childbirth was certainly not unheard of, but the new marriage culture that had emerged was distinct from the original one. It could even be argued that a third distinguishable marriage culture existed when the men stopped paying the father of the bride and rather the father selected a prospective groom for his daughter. In today’s marriage culture, men and women typically court or date one another, eventually fall in love, and the man, by way of tradition, proposes that the two get married. Though an argument could be made that the act of the man traditionally proposing to the woman is sexist and negatively reinforces gender-roles, modern marriage culture is less misogynistic than the concept of a man “buying” a woman from her father and is therefore a third distinct marriage culture. There have arguably been many more changes to the definition of marriage then these two or three examples and certainly more time could be spent elaborating more specifically on the dozens on minute changes to marriage culture (specifically American marriage culture) that have taken place over time.

What is even more shocking than the Manhattan Declaration’s objection to “redefining marriage” is that the authors of the Declaration believe that the ultimate reason for a couple consummating their marriage is to procreate. While reproduction is obviously an important part of most marriages and while reproduction is necessary for the prosperity of the human race, this is not the only reason for a couple to get married. What about couples who are too old to biologically produce their own children? What about couples who are infertile? What about couples who elect not to have children or choose to adopt children instead? Is the Manhattan Declaration putting those types of couples in the same boat as those who desire same-sex marriage? And by doing so, does that not create a no-win situation for same-sex couples? By marrying someone of the same gender an individual cannot fulfill the marriage “requirements” or producing biological children between the two partners. By not marrying someone of the opposite gender because he or she has no desire to do so, a person fails in that respect as well. By carefully examining the dilemma this creates for LGBTs, it is easy to see how the Manhattan Declaration’s opposition to same-sex marriage is based upon faulty logic. Now, I shall review the last of the three proverbial “bullet-points” of the Manhattan Declaration, entitled “Religious Liberty,” that the document attempts to tie in with the first two sections.

The Religious Liberty portion of the Manhattan Declaration introduces us to another commandment from Christ to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” The Declaration then contradicts itself by complaining about several different scenarios in which Christian Churches or organizations were allegedly stripped of tax-exempt status by refusing to honor same-sex relationships. Though the Church may disagree on the supposed morality of these same-sex relationships, the Church should not have a problem with paying taxes in the first place as Christ commanded. The Church then goes back to the issues of abortion and LGBT rights and acts as if the Church is the victim. It is unfair for the Church to masquerade itself behind a position of being oppressed when the Church is more often than not the oppressor. As the Manhattan Declaration concludes, the authors call for civil disobedience. This call to action is especially baffling because the very concept of civil disobedience is more of a socially liberal concept than it is a socially conservative one.

The philosophy of civil disobedience arguably came to light as a result of Henry David Thoreau’s 1849 essay of that very title. Thoreau was imprisoned overnight for refusing to pay a poll tax because Thoreau disagreed with the nation’s stance on slavery and the Mexican-American War. Thoreau was willing to humbly accept his punishment as a result of his act of disobedience to the American government and in fact found the punishment to be rather rewarding. Though Thoreau became imprisoned in the physical sense, he expressed a lack of imprisonment in the mental sense. Thoreau did not feel trapped while in prison and said of his stay in jail:

“I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar.”

Thoreau scoffed at the government’s belief that they had imprisoned him. He generally supported the theory that “that government is best which governs not at all,” but saw that having no government whatsoever was impractical. Instead, Thoreau claimed that men were pawned by governmental authority figures and that most societies were ones in which the physically strongest rule. This societal standard for authority was a cause for misogyny and women’s inequality for several hundred years in this nation and continues to be one today to a degree. Such a society can also lead to tyranny of the majority over an oppressed minority. Thoreau wrote of the government:

“Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority?”

The Manhattan Declaration calls its prospective signees to “civil disobedience” despite the fact that this phrase is actually antonymous with what the Manhattan Declaration is trying to accomplish. The Manhattan Declaration even has the gall to compare its constituents struggle with that of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. when during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s Such a movement is one that they would have actually been diametrically opposed to during this time period. Instead, the Manhattan Declaration oppresses minorities as its signees are helplessly used by authority figures in the Church who act like puppeteers toying with their parishioners. According to Thoreau, the idea of Church leaders viewers the Bible and other religious literary works from their own respective vantage points is not a new idea:

“For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written.”

Indeed, the New Testament has been subjected to biases, both intentional and unintentional, from its translators, its writers, and its readers. These misunderstandings were used to oppress others and deny people their civil rights. Thoreau’s works would eventually inspire famous civil rights leaders for decades including Mohandas Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and many of those in opposition to South Africa’s infamous Apartheid amongst others. Gandhi was committed to nonviolence and passive resistance through his personal policy of “Satyagraha,” a portmanteau word comprised of the Sanskrit words “satya” meaning truth or love and “agraha” meaning force, in an attempt to free India from the rule of the British Empire. Dr. King also supported nonviolent resistance as he paved the way for civil rights for blacks and this country while also opposing the Vietnam War. Nelson Mandela only resorted to violence after several years of nonviolent protest had proven unfruitful in ending Apartheid in South Africa.

In conclusion, I have a different call to conscience today, not only to my Christian brothers and sisters, but to those of diverse religious backgrounds and to those of irreligion as well. I call you to peace, to put an end to war and violence even if that violence were to be out of self-defense. I call you to love, to love everyone regardless of race, nationality, religion, creed, age, disability, social status, sexual orientation, or gender identification. I call you to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Stand up for those who are oppressed so that you too will have someone to stand up for you when you become oppressed. Perhaps you think that these ideas are foolish, that I am unwise, that it is blasphemous to promote these ideas. I assure you, however, that these are not novel ideas that I write to you about today for once again these progressive-sounding concepts that are not novel concepts, but rather are the very concepts that came from Jesus Christ himself. Finally, these ideas that I have conjured up do not stem from the inner workings of my mind, but instead these words I write from the heart.