The Dignity of Man

I have been reminded recently of how we use words to dehumanize people. I recently read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Schirer. It chronicles the heinous crimes committed by Hitler and how he held an entire nation in his sway. It always amazes me how he used the power of words to form people's perceptions.

In the business world, there is much talk about "creating efficiencies within FTEs" (Full Time Equivalents). In the common parlance, this simply means that a company will be firing people.
In the world of abortion, a decapitated baby is known as a fetus. In the world of war, a slaughtered and broken human being is known as collateral damage. In the world of politics, the mentally ill are known as liberals. In the world of project management, a bright young person is reduced to being called a mere resource (an expendable item).

While some of these terms may not seem insidious at first, all of these words represent a movement away from recognizing the personhood of an indvidual. It is much easier to reduce FTE, than to throw Bob on the street with no way to provide for his family. It is much easier to perform dilation and curettage, than to murder a small, helpless child.

All of these words are the words of the furnace. The words that paved the road to Auschwitz and Treblinka. They slowly steal our humanity and allow human beings to act with rapacious cruelty. Once the dignity of man is lost, anything is possible.

This is why the Christian worldview most adequately preserves the proper notion of humanity. Man is created in the image of God and therefore has immense dignity and profound purpose. On the other hand, mankind is also fallen and prone to despicable acts. The dignity of mankind insures that I treat every human being with respect and honor, but the fallen nature in everyone curbs unfounded trust.

Abortion and the Democrats

I'm currently watching the entirety of the Democrat debate from Las Vegas on CNN's website.

The abortion question came up and the candidates were asked if they would support a litmus test for pro-abortion Supreme Court justices. One-by-one, the candidates waffled and stated that they would put forward Supreme Court nominees that "protected a right to privacy." They all assiduously avoided stating that they would make abortion (not privacy) their litmus test. Do words mean anything?

I am continually stunned that the ability to take a human life is shrouded in a right to privacy by politicians. The general abortion debate has long gone beyond whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life. Liberal ethicist are now coming out and supporting infanticide. Do you want to try out a child? Peter Singer of Princeton says he'd kill disabled babies if it were in the "best interests" of the family.

Several area pastors have decided that being a "single issue voter" is too divisive. They are beginning to embrace liberal politicians and unwittingly they are also beginning to embrace liberal theology. These pastors believe that world hunger, ecological issues and poverty should be the highest agenda items for the Church (Jim Wallis and his local friends).

I, for one, believe that abortion is an immense evil that will speed God's judgment. Is it a sin for the Church to ignore the hungry, imprisoned and hurting? Absolutely. But the mere existence of these injustices should not make us think that we must choose between the poor and the abortion issue.