Secular fundies and the Cap College pro-life club

I grew up in a fundamentalist church, emphasis on damn (i.e., damning everything that was fun). We were raised with the notion that the Christian religion was composed of one very big DO (do get saved), and an extensive list of DONT'S (don't drink, smoke or chew, or go with girls that do). Faith was not a combination of devotion and a group of broadly-based principles that were applied consistently to life in all of its facets, but rather the simple adherence to a set of moral rules that dealt with only certain areas of one's life. In other words, morality was a very limited concept.

This approach led to a remarkably inconsistent lifestyle. For instance, one didn't go to movies (because we would be supporting the repugnant lifestyles of movie stars), but one could attend hockey games (fortunately, no hockey player ever made morally repugnant choices). One couldn't smoke or drink, but obesity and lack of physical fitness never got you in trouble. Certain churches were ruled out as bible-believing because they forsook evangelism for helping the poor, exploited, hungry and oppressed. That Jesus advocated helping the poor, exploited, hungry and oppressed was conveniently overlooked.

I could go on, but my point is that only certain activities were viewed as moral imperatives, almost all to do with lifestyle choices. The idea that there was some underlying principle that might have wide and consistent application beyond the limited menu was never thought about.

I often think of my upbringing when I listen to the points of view expressed by certain secular and politically correct groups. Let's take some pro-choice spokespeople, for instance. The label 'pro choice' to me means that one is tolerant of various points of view and allows for individuals to make up their own minds. That is not to say that one does not have a personal preference or conviction, but that one allows for the fact that there are differences of opinion and does not insist that only one choice be permitted.

But what makes me want to label such people as secular fundamentalists is because we find an inconsistent tolerance (which is to say, we find intolerance), and an undermining of one's own position through the arbitrary application of choice.

Therefore we see this set of remarkable positions all taken by the same pro choice groups:
1. Abortion is a viable option. There should be no limits placed on a woman's right to choose. We gave Henry Morgantaler an honourary doctorate for espousing just this principle.
2. The emotional, physical and economic circumstance of the pregnant woman trump any right to life of the fetus. Woman are persons and unborn babies are not. Therefore the rights are stacked on one side and can't be questioned or restricted. This is the current legal state of affairs in Canada.
3. Abortion is OK even when the reason for the abortion is that the child will be born with physical/mental challenges. This applies equally to male and female babies.
4. Abortion is not OK if the reason for having the abortion is to avoid giving birth to a female child, as is often the case in certain communities such as in China, which has a one baby per family policy. I can't afford a baby right now--fine. My emotional health couldn't handle giving birth--no problem. The baby has Down's Syndrome--abortion will look after that. But, I don't want a girl because a boy will be better able to look after me in my old age--no way. You must have that baby.

If you can see any consistent application of principle in that list, you are employing an approach to logic that escapes me. No, it's secular fundamentalism.

I see the same inconsistent and intolerant approach taken by the pro-choice Students' Union at Capilano College in North Vancouver, British Columbia. A pro-life group that rejoices in the name of the Heartbeat Club has twice been denied official club status because of their alleged goal of advancing a "pro-life/anti-choice political agenda" (Vancouver Province, Sept. 4, 2007).

Now surely the Students' Union can't be opposed to something having a political side to it. They have a gay and lesbian group on campus. Who is more politically active than the various pro-gay groups? Doubtless there have been feminist groups with a political agenda on the Cap campus. I suspect that they would receive a full students' union endorsement. I note that there is a Liberal club. A club aligned with a political party is by definition political. Or is political activism acceptable for all but one sort of group--pro-lifers? But that would be inconsistent, wouldn't it?

So if it's not the political aspect that is bothering the Students' Union, is it the pro-life one? But isn't a pro-life group simply expressing a preference (like the pro-Liberal club)? Is having a pro-Liberal club anti-choice? Surely, we're not all supposed to be Liberals are we (as much as the club members might like that)? Is having a pro-gay group anti-choice? Presumably we're not all supposed to be gay? Why are preferences like Liberal, gay, feminist, or chess versus checkers all acceptable expressions of preference, but pro-life is not?

Did the Heartbeaters say that they wish that women would not resort to abortion? So did Hilary Clinton, and she will probably be the next Democratic president of the United States. Would the Capilano Students' Union allow Ms Clinton on campus? I am only speculating here, but I'll put up good money that they would leap at the opportunity.

Come on, students' union fundies. If you are pro-choice, prove it. Allow for expressions of preference for everyone, not everyone but...