Going about our business, part 2

In a post on April 16/08, I posited that the pro-life movement in Canada needs to think seriously about the ways in which it goes about its business. I took particular aim at three areas:

1. Making theological and moral statements in either overt or barely disguised Judeo-Christian language. I'm a devout Christian and seminary graduate, but I have had to learn to speak to a pluralistic society, particularly in my many years in municipal politics and in my blogging. Fellow pro-lifer Suzanne Fortin suggested that among the more professional pro-life advocates there is improvement in this area:

I think this is true among grassroots, non-involved, "amateur" pro-lifers.
But less so among people who are involved in the movement on a day-to-day business. If anything, I see a lot less biblical references. Especially among the younger set.

I hope she is right. But even if she is, it does not appear to have caused the pro-choice and pro-abortion activists to see pro-life arguments as secular. Typically they associate such remarks with a religious right. Of course, this alleged political grouping is an American phenomenon with no genuine Canadian equivalent, but the media seem to like it, so it gets repeated.

2. Relying on political parties and political processes to achieve our objectives. It's my opinion, as humble as that is, that the institutions that most shape public opinion today are public education, the courts, and the media (both news and entertainment). Government is more likely to be influenced by these forces than to influence them in turn.

David Suzuki has had his environmental pulpit parked in the television studio since the mid-seventies. Al Gore had eight years to make statements as American vice-president, but it was via his Oscar-winning movie that he became a celebrity. The gay community has used the courts and public education to bring its message to younger society. Ralph Nader was vastly more influential in his consumer rights campaign in the 1960s and 1970s (remember Nader's Raiders?) writing books and making television appearances than he has been as a presidential candidate.

3. Living at the margins of the media and sniping, rather than becoming mainstream media participants, Margaret Somerville and a few others being wonderful exceptions. Educating the media is a huge task that the pro-life movement, by and large, is not doing successfully. And by educating, I don't mean sending out press releases.

There are one or two additional areas that I would like to mention, although I realize that I will doubtless draw a good deal of gratuitous criticism for doing so.

The first is, the pro-life movement has to unhook itself from the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical Protestantism (full disclosure--I attend a Baptist Church, graduated from an evangelical seminary, and was raised Plymouth Brethren), and to a lesser degree the Conservative Party of Canada (further disclosure--I don't belong to any federal party, although I am a member of the BC Liberals). I look at a good number of pro-life and all-purpose blogs, and find that I am getting a steady diet of denominational exposure, and political bashing of everybody except the Conservatives.

Consider these three examples.

1. Pro Life BC and Comox Valley Pro Life are hosting the 2008 pro-life annual conference. These are wonderful groups and I count their members as colleagues and friends. But the line up of speakers comprises three R.C. priests, three R.C. laypeople and one lonely Reformed Protestant.

2. The annual Focus on Life Dinner in Vancouver is a project of Pro Life BC and the R.C. Archdiocese of Vancouver, as well as the Christian Advocacy Society. [I have done some consulting for Focus on Life. I admire what they do very much. But that is not my point.]

3. On May 8/08 BC Pro Life is sponsoring the first annual Marching for Women's Lives at the BC legislature in Victoria. Co-sponsors are Campaign Life Coalition BC (led by devout Catholic and all around good guy Joh Hof), Redeemer Pacific College (a Roman Catholic liberal arts college on the campus of Trinity Western Univ.), and the Knights of Columbus. The only non-RC speaker is my good self.

What's wrong with this? In and of itself, nothing. The problem is that it reinforces the impression that the pro-life movement is all about pushing RC and evangelical morality. Like it or not, the court of public opinion has associated a good deal of baggage with those two groups that creates significant distractions from the pro-life message. Where are the Muslims-for-Life? The atheists-, gays-, Jews-, Hindus-, socialists-, and feminists-for-life? Why this narrow focus? The pro-life arguments stand on their own merits, regardless of the denominational or political affiliations (or not) of the speakers.

My second observation is that the pro-life movement displays a "remnant" mentality. What do I mean by this? Remnant is often associated with something left over, like cloth. But it also refers to a small surviving group of people. The Bible, for instance, distinguishes between Israel as a nation of people or an ethnic group, and the spiritual (or remnant) Israel made up of true believers.

Remnants are a minority who are not necessarily appreciated by the majority. They have to fight for recognition, feel misunderstood and unappreciated, and can develop either a pessimistic and defeatist attitude, or a smug, "We're the only ones who know", mentality. Seldom do they seem to know how to fight it out in the big leagues, as it were.

Yet as I see it, the view that all life is sacred is a winning proposition. Despite the lunatic ravings of the pro-abortionists, the Quebec National Assembly, Joyce Arthur, the Bloc Quebecois, etc., the idea that society is better off when the most vulnerable lives are the most deserving of protection seems to be gaining ground.

Look at the great work that M.P. Ken Epp has done in soliciting pro-choice advocates to speak for his Unborn Victims of Crime Act. Consider the ways in which public opinion is going more and more in the direction of greater concern for the sanctity of life (and thank you to Life Canada for commissioning such polls). Much progress has been made. There is a big task ahead, but there are those who are equal to the task.

My advice is twofold. First, lighten up. The cause is right. And it is becoming more and more persuasive. Live and write and speak and argue as if that were true. I get tired of the pessimism, the remnant rhetoric, the lack of gratitude for the advances that have been made.

Secondly, smarten up. We need to be cultivating more Dr. Somervilles. What is our strategy for taking our rightful place in the universities, the media, the curriculum departments of educational bodies, government, school boards, medical bodies, and so on?

Put these matters on the agenda of your next provincial or national conference. And invite a few atheists, gays, and feminists, please.