During the 19th century, French political and liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville went to America to study the prison systems adopted there. His visit culminated in two volumes titled Democracy in America. Tocqueville was sceptical about extreme views. He believed that the United States offered the most advanced example of equality in action. This, in his view, was the result of a strong culture of civil dialogue. Sadly, recent developments have plagued Americans with strongly polarised views.
Polarisation is toxic. When we treat each other with contempt, it makes it difficult for one to forget. In his book entitled Love your enemies: how decent people can save America from the culture of contempt, Arthur C. Brooks states that “just as a fire requires oxygen, the culture of contempt is sustained by polarisation and separation. It is easy to express contempt for those with whom we disagree when we view them as ‘them’ or never see them at all.”
In their quest to give meaning to the world, journalists are often trapped in the use of labels and boxes that are intrinsically divisive. It is human nature to compartmentalise and label but the world offers more than two options.
People who advocate fluid liberal views are often portrayed as champions of human rights. Conversely, those who do not share these views and are driven by values are classified within the realm of fighters of a ‘holy war’.
If one argues in favour of protecting the lives of indefensible or vulnerable people, that person is labelled as ‘religious or close-minded’. The other options that this person might suggest are often ignored.
For many, the word ‘pro-life’ has the connotation of opposing nothing but abortion. The term has a much larger scope. Pope Francis often stresses that we must always be pro-life, in all situations and everywhere, not just in one moment, in one country or one aspect. We must rediscover the prophetic call to defend life in its concrete situations, not as an abstraction, by defending human beings from the very beginning of life to its end.
Being pro-life means opposing abortion, euthanasia, hunger, poverty, human exploitation, capital punishment, arms trafficking and war
In simple terms, being pro-life means opposing abortion, euthanasia, hunger, poverty, human exploitation, capital punishment, arms trafficking and war. Human fraternity and respect demand that we strive to promote peace, provide for a more caring society, help out and show real mercy towards people fraught with life challenges.
Placing opposing viewpoints in a kind of competitive arena only diminishes the inherent value of every human being. These questions have to do with public values and are not simply questions of religion. The big question in these matters is whether we value life in its entirety and not how things suit us most.
It is about finding a long-term solution to a problem rather than opting for the shortest route, which we may regret and carry a sense of guilt for our entire life. It is how we can reignite a strong sense of a compassionate society and strive to improve the quality of life.
Our politicians should first and foremost seek the common good, not bow to populist demands.
The key question is whether the state should sanction the massive disposal of human life as against providing better means to support life, helping women faced with difficult choices and improving palliative care.
Therefore, putting the debate on issues like abortion and euthanasia on the level of those who are for and against is a disservice as it polarises these issues.
Following the award of the prestigious Templeton Prize in 2016, the late chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks said: “We owe it to our children and grandchildren not to throw away what once made the West great... We need to restate the moral and spiritual dimensions in the language of the 21st century, using the media of the 21st century and in ways that are uniting rather than divisive.”
Claudio Farrugia is a member of Catholic Voices Malta.