In his 2010 book To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter argued that both the Christian Right and the Evangelical Left were guilty of trying to change the world through the acquisition of political power. I have written a lot about how the pursuit of power led conservative Christians into the hands of Donald Trump. But today, after I learned about a new group, “Evangelicals for Harris,” I revisited Hunter’s book. Here is what Hunter had to say about the Evangelical Left:
p. 143:
The problem, from the progressive point of view, is not just the “dangerous liaison with political power'” witnessed in “the almost total identification of the Religious Right with the new Republican majority in Washington.” The subtext in all of this and, it would seem, the larger complaint of politically progressive Christians has to do with their own eclipse from the realm of power…They are as certain as their conservative counterparts that they are on the side of good. They also believe that they are smarter and more sophisticated than their conservative counterparts. Yet these things have not translated into either public authority or significance.
What is to be done about this? Given the harm done to the nation and to the Christian faith, the obvious solution is to seize power back from the Right. As Jim Wallis puts it, “For decades the religious right has held the upper hand in religion and politics. This is changing and they must share the stage.”
p.144:
The ultimate goal [for the Evangelical Left]…is to give appropriate attention to the needs of the poor. But how? Through politics. As the Sojourners community advises, Vote. The simple act of voting is one of the most empowering actions you can do to create a just and peaceful world.”
p:144:
There is also no doubt that underlying the call to “take back” the faith and the nation is a basic will to power that is not unlike what one finds within the Christian Right. Katha Pollitt, writing in The Nation, made precisely this observation. ‘”In this sense,” she wrote, “Wallis’ evangelicalism is as much a power play as Pat Robertson’s. And Wallis is as much a power player.
On the Evangelical Left’s use of the Old Testament prophets:
p. 147:
The problem, of course is that Amos, Micah, Isaiah, and the other prophets were living in a Jewish theocratic setting. The only way that Wallis and others can make these strong statements is to confuse America with Israel and the political dynamics of modern American democracy with the divine laws mandated for ancient Israel…Thus, when he accuses Falwell and Robertson of being “theocrats who desire their religious agenda to be enforced through the power of the state,,” he has established the criteria by which he and other politically progressive Christians are judged the same.”
Hunter’s thesis about the Evangelical Left has played-out many times over the last fifty years. There was “Evangelicals for McGovern” in 1972 and “Evangelicals for Biden” in 2020. Now there is “Evangelicals for Harris.” Is this another example of progressive evangelicals trying to change the world through political power?
I wonder if those speaking at the August 14th “Evangelicals for Harris” meeting (advertised in the image above) will be discussing Catholic moral philosopher Charles Camosy‘s recent piece in First Things. It is titled “VP Nominee Tim Walz Supports the Right to Infanticide.” Camosy is no partisan hack. He is one of the country’s most intellectually responsible pro-life thinkers. “I’d be delighted,” Camosy says, if Walz’s position on abortion “could be dismissed as a right-wing fever dream. Unfortunately it is all too real.”
Here is a taste of his piece:
Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has picked Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota as her running mate. Walz recently legalized infanticide in the state of Minnesota. As someone who does not identify as conservative, I’d be delighted if this claim could be dismissed as a right-wing fever dream. Unfortunately, it is all too real. And by infanticide, I really do mean aiming at the death of newborn infants…
In 2023, Walz supported an omnibus health bill that radically changed his state’s abortion law. This health bill, in a callback to the ancient practice of abandoning newborns, intentionally and explicitly legalized the denial of life-saving medical care to infants born alive after botched abortions. State law used to explicitly protect these babies. But Walz and his supporters changed it, insisting that references to abortion be removed and that “medical care” be changed to mere “care.” In addition, while the original law required medical personnel to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant,” the Walz-supported change struck that whole line—it now requires medical personnel merely to “care for the infant who is born alive.”
No more requirements to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant after a botched abortion. Got it.
New York state did something similar in passing its Reproductive Health Act. That state originally required two physicians to be present at an abortion after viability to “ensure the health and safety of the mother and viable child” if there were an accidental birth. But the 2019 law explicitly removed this requirement of protection for the newborn infant.
Read the entire piece here.
I am guessing Walz’s position might even make some pro-choice people cringe.
There is a lot to think about here. Especially for those evangelicals who are so willing to jump on the Harris-Walz bandwagon in such a public way.
Of course those who want to use Camosy’s piece to justify a vote for Donald Trump will need to remember that Walz’s views are perfectly acceptable under Trump’s “leave it to the states to decide” abortion policy.
There is a lot more to unpack here, but I’ll leave it at that for now.
I’d like to give a little bit of perspective on Walz’s views based on my own experience. In 2016, my 19-year old son was hit by a car. He was immediately taken to the hospital and put on life support while receiving treatment. The doctors did what they could, but, after a couple of days, it became clear that his injuries were so severe that there was nothing they could do. However, he was not dead; the ventilator he was attached to was keeping him breathing. We were offered a choice: we could keep our son attached to life support, and the medical staff could continue to provide “maintenance care.” Or we could detach him from life support and see if he was able to breathe on his own, and the hospital could provide palliative care. We chose to remove him from life support. Thirty minutes later, my son was dead.
Here’s the question: did I murder my son? I made a conscious decision to take actions that directly caused his death by suffocation. This outcome was not inevitable. It seems likely that he could have survived for quite some time on life support, at least until the bills got too high and insurance decided that they would no longer pay. My family could have had to endure the near-death ordeal for months. Should I have been forbidden from choosing to withdraw “medical care” of my son or is it acceptable that “mere” “care” was permitted.
I realize that my situation was not an abortion, but I believe the situations are comparable. Late-term abortions are never abortions of convenience. They are medical emergencies and tragic nightmares for the parents and families involved. Such abortions are performed because the something very severe, akin to my son’s being hit by a car, happened to the unborn child. In almost all cases, the condition is incompatible with life, as my son’s was. Occasionally, the surgery required to remove the doomed fetus from the womb leaves the child alive, but no less doomed. The child will die soon, unless artificially maintained, like my son. Again the question is: should the family have any choice in how their child meets their end? Should they be forced to endure prolonged medical support that will end in death regardless and continue their nightmare? Is it really unacceptable that they spend the last moments with their child receiving only palliative care that will ease their suffering as they pass? Is a law that allows the family that dignity really monstrous? If it is, then perhaps I am a monster too.
I am so sorry for your terrible loss that was compounded by possibly being accused of infanticide. The abortion issue is not black and white. We should not apply black and white thinking to it.
Justin: I echo, Ron. I am so sorry this happened to your son. Thanks for sharing your story. I probably would have done the same thing. Indeed, these are complicated issues and my family has faced at least one situation like this as well.
Camosy’s piece does indeed make the law sound horrific: “Walz recently legalized infanticide in the state of Minnesota. … This health bill, in a callback to the ancient practice of abandoning newborns, intentionally and explicitly legalized the denial of life-saving medical care to infants born alive after botched abortions.”
However, when I looked up the actual law, it doesn’t sound much like that description: “145.423 RECOGNITION OF INFANT WHO IS BORN ALIVE. Subdivision 1.Recognition; care. An infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to care for the infant who is born alive.”
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/145.423#:~:text=An%20infant%20who%20is%20born,immediate%20protection%20under%20the%20law.
The links in Camosy’s piece however, that are supposed to prove his interpretation of the law, give me pause. One takes me to an organization called Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, whose web site provides no information I can find regarding who staffs or leads the group. The other link is to a tweet from Roger Severino, who describes the law as “ghoulish.” Severino is a VP at the Heritage Foundation and a former member of the Trump administration.
The centerpiece of the law–which mandates that all living infants must be “fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law”–is unmentioned in Camosy’s article. Given that and the potentially questionable sources he cites, I need to see a more about this law from other commentators.
That’s fair, John. Camosy has responded to these issues on Twitter. His points about the edits made to the text are worth considering. What bothers me is that folks on social media are suggesting that Camosy is some kind of partisan hack because he published the piece at First Things.
Publishing in the homophobic ‘First Things’ makes you a partisan hack even if you weren’t one before. It’s just hate propaganda for literate people.
Camosy’s article is just more sexist propaganda for white patriarchy from someone who has always inhabited patriarchal organizations.
Is he suggesting that a women who has just delivered an infant that is unlikely to survive long, and their medical teams, are all so eager and callous as to want to commit infanticide? That caring for such an infant is infanticide? Are all such infants that are born with conditions to make it unlikely to live long caused by ‘botched abortions?’ Are women so callous as to just shrug off that painful and tragic experience off as just an inconvenience?