Talk:Consistent life ethic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Revision as of 30 April

Seeing as a lot of this content has been lost and I think it could be useful if sourced I'm reproducing it on the talk page here;

The Consistent Life Ethic is an

opposed to abortion, capital punishment, economic injustice, assisted suicide and euthanasia, and unjust war; there are some who hold that the Consistent Life Ethic opposes all war
.

In the

Feminists for Life of America and Democrats for Life of America
.

The movement is difficult to define in terms of the

left wing
over abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia.

Others who would fit into the Consistent Life Ethic would be anti-war, anti-abortion conservatives/libertarians such as Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, Laurence M. Vance, ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifenik (talk • contribs) 10:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Notable exponents include novelist

Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff.[reply
]


See also

External links

(Categories were removed so as not to show up on Talk page.) HG 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources -- after the article is restored

After the article is restored, as it should be, we may want to use or include some of the following sources. HG 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Belief and Attitude Constraint TG Jelen - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1990 - JSTOR

Catholicism and Abortion Attitudes in the American States: A Contextual Analysis EA Cook, TG Jelen, C Wilcox - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1993 - JSTOR

Assisted Death and Martyrdom DC Thomasma - Christian Bioethics, 1998 - Taylor & Francis

The Politics of the American Catholic Hierarchy TA Byrnes - Political Science Quarterly, 1993 - JSTOR

Building a Culture of Life: A Catholic Perspective JT McHugh - Christian Bioethics, 2001 - Taylor & Francis

http://www.consistent-life.org/ contains this info:

A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue (pdf) by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. The famous "Seamless Garment" speech.

The Nightmares of Choice by Rachel MacNair.

If Our Leaders Had Seen 9/11 as a Crime Against Humanity by Lowell O. Erdahl.

The failure of war by Wendell Berry.

The Dalai Lama's letter to the President of the United States of America regarding the events of September 11.

Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House statement on the 9-11 attacks

Achieving Peace in the Abortion War by Rachel MacNair.

U.S. Shouldn't Fight Violence With Violence by Stephen Zunes.

I'm currently reading God's Politics by Jim Wallis, which has a few chapters devoted to consistent life. I hope to add some material sourced to Wallis as I go. Fishal 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

'Ethical stance' needs rewording or removal

CLE has already been defined as an ideology, making the "ethical stance" section somewhat redundant. In any case, it is deeply POV. Perhaps Wikipedia requires a separate definition for "ethical stance", which could be linked here, but such a definition would certainly not include such an obviously POV sentence like "An ethical stance is a coherent combination of value judgments about the world, God, and self". I propose to remove the section to the talk page until someone has time to figure out if there's a neutral way to present this material.--

Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with this. I first added the "ideology" definition, because the CLE is self-evidently a "coherent system of ideas" and "a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions" (WP); a "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group" (Random House); a "systematic set of ideas, doctrines" (Online Etymological Dictionary); and a "Form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones" (Britannica). Now I suppose it would be better if an outside source defined the CLE as an ideology. But it seems implicit in the definition, and uncontested. And in that case the ethical stance section, indeed, is redundant. Fishal (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I just removed it. Here it is, in case anyone wants to look at it.
===Ethical stance=== Specifically, the Consistent Ethic of Life (or CEL) is an ethical stance. An ethical stance is a coherent combination of value judgments about the world, God, and self. A stance is the focus for determining between right and wrong, and also a search for consistency between and among a range of judgments of value and oughtness.
Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


References

  1. ^ Walter, James J. and Shannon, Thomas A.: Contemporary Issues in Bioethics: A Catholic perspective, Rowan and Littlefeild Publishers, 2005.

Jim Wallis

It was me who added Jim Wallis to the list of notable exponents but after some research I find it at least very arguable to consider him that way. First, the Consistent Life Ethic stands for the right to life from conception to death. From what I have read I didn't find any evidence that Jim Wallis believes that life should be protected by law since conception or what is his general stance in the Consistent Life Ethic philosophy. From what can be read in the Wikipedia article about him, he seems to support a sort of common ground between the pro-life and the pro-choice sides of the abortion question, but there is not a single reference if he believes that the current abortion law in the United States should be changed. That is one of the main Consistent Life Ethic objectives. In a Newsweek article from 2006 he states to believe in 'protecting unborn life in every possible way, but without criminalizing abortion.'" This is rather dubious and I don't think it qualifies him as an exponent of the Consistent Life Ethic.Mistico (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to analyze the situation on your own? Why not settle the matter with reliable sources and go with what they say? Michael McGough writes in the book A field guide to the culture wars: the battle over values from the campaign trail to the classroom, that "Jim Wallis of Sojourners advocates what he calls a 'consistent life ethic' that seeks a decline in abortion 'without criminalizing what is always a tragic choice and often a desperate one.'" (This is a quote from a 2007 Wallis article in Huffington Post.) The Encyclopedia of American religious history, Volume 3, associates Wallis with Sojourners and a consistent life ethic.
I imagine that you will find difficulty in locating reliable sources saying Wallis does not have a consistent life ethic. People attacking Wallis for his centrism are typically not reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have is own CLE, this is true, but my point is that it seems not to be exactly the same that is being promoted by the Catholic Church in the United States, which is the one that the article deals with.Mistico (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article deals with any instance of "consistent life ethic", not a particular dogma promoted by a particular religion. One of the most consistent of the ethicists is Quaker, for instance: Rachel MacNair. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was started by a cardinal, Joseph Bernardin, and it is certainly non-denominational, but I think Jim Wallis own Consistent Life Ethic legitimates abortion while this present Consistent Life Ethic doesn't. We can't please everyone on controversial life issues and one of the main purposes of the Consistent Life Ethic is to overrule Roe Vs. Wade. Do you have any evidence that Jim Wallis supports that? I don't want to start a edit warrant. The Consistent Life Ethic official website lists other supporters, even Nobel Peace Prize winner, who I think are more suitable as "notable exponents" of this philosophy. Please remember that it was I who originally added Jim Wallis in the first place.Mistico (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you added Wallis in the first place has no bearing on whether he is suitable as a notable proponent of CLE. The article text says, "Notable exponents, according to the Consistent Life organization, include..." Our source is http://www.consistent-life.org/, which lists a bunch of people including Wallis. So the cite supports inclusion.
Your interpretation that CLE's main purpose is to overrule Roe v Wade is not supported the article or by references. I submit that CLE is a description of an attitude or philosophy rather than a recipe for political change. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of their purposes is the protection from life since conception. I said one of the main purposes, not the main purpose. What that means? Please read more the article: "The consistent life ethic, or the consistent ethic of life, was a term coined in 1983 by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin to express an ethical, religious, and political ideology based on the premise that all human life was sacred and should be protected by law." I will email the Consistent Life Ethic for clarification of who they accept as members. I think the article also needs expansion about their stances on abortion and euthanasia, not only the death penalty. I don't think a person that supports the death penalty only for extreme cases can claim to be a member. A person to support it needs to be altogether anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty. If call for abolish the death penalty, ban euthanasia and legal abortion isn't the support for political changes I don't know what it is then. 81.193.27.46 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that your opinion is what shapes article content. I think that reliable sources shape the content. Wallis is said to hold a consistent life ethic by the cited source, consistent-life.org, and by two other sources, Michael McGough and the Encyclopedia of American religious history. After we see that to be true, it does not matter that Wallis holds more moderate opinions than hardliners. The article is big enough to contain the spectrum of consistent life ethics.
So let's stop trying to remove Wallis because he is moderate. If you care to dig deeper into the matter, you can add text about the position Wallis holds and how it differs from Bernardin. Such an effort, though, will have a Streisand effect, bringing more notice to Wallis who you apparently wish to hide from view. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my opinion, it is the respect for Consistent Life Ethic and what it stands for. I always taught Jim Wallis to be pro-life and that is why I added him. You seem to forget that my objections came from the fact that is own views seem to be distinct from other CLE proponents. I have nothing against Wallis and if you want and have material about it, you can help to improve the Wikipedia article about himself.Mistico (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source that is usefull to explain Consistent Life Ethic philosophy and objectives [3].Mistico (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source has nothing about Wallis, so it doesn't apply to our discussion. It's also a primary source, not the preferred
WP:Secondary type. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Criticism

I think that the main criticism, often done by social conservatives, that the CLE provides cover for pro-abortion politicians in itself its not totally correct. A politician only can support the CLE if he or she is pro-life on abortion. In fact, there arent many CLE supporters in American politicians, if you take a look at their official list endorsers, being the most notable example Sargent Shriver. In fact, the main criticism is that it provides cover to support pro-abortion politicians, considering that anti-abortion legislation can be seen this way as less relevant than other legislation to protect human life after birth. There are several cases that can be presented for the usage of the CLE for support of pro-abortion politicians, like when Andrew Greeley supported and donated for pro-abortion politicians, even for Barack Obama, in 2008, or when the National Catholic Reporter, a dissident pro-life Catholic newspaper, endorses regularly these kind of politicians. Other criticism is that some of the CLE endorsers stances on abortion are at least dubious, like it can be noticed by the presence of Joan Chittister and actor Martin Sheen at their list.Mistico (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk page is for discussion about how to improve the article, not the relative merits of CLE or its critics. Am I misunderstanding you? Daask (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

My point is that the CLE can't be supported by pro-abortion politicians but its often used to support them. Its not the same thing. This is still related to the content of the entry.Mistico (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistico: I understand now. Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I'll keep this in mind in future edits to this article. Daask (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bryan Hehir

Charles Curran credits J. Bryan Hehir, staff writer for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on political affairs with coining the term "consistent ethic of life"[1] I have added this fact to the article and been reverted twice by Mistico, on the basis that Curran is pro-abortion. It is not apparent to me that this has bearing on his credibility in this matter.

The claim seems highly probably to me, given that he is crediting a largely unknown figure, instead of the well-known Bernardin. Usually mistaken attributions work the other way around. Furthermore, I see no really good source which claims that Bernardin himself coined the term. I cited one source,[2] but it's on a largely unrelated topic. Finally, Curran seems like a good source for insider information on Catholic advocacy and thought in this era. I am not aware of him having a strong opinion for or against CLE as such, and don't see why he would be biased on its history. What am I missing? Daask (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would advice a better source than Charles Curran about what he claims. He doesnt seem to be a very RS. He is a notorius dissident and has written on topics like his support for abortion rights based in incorrect facts, like the alleged support for abortion in the first centuries of Christianity, which its totally untrue. I think I will email the Consistent Life Network about the origin of this naming. Mistico (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I make no claims about Curran's writings on church history before the 20th century or his moral views, I continue to believe he is a good source in this case and would like to restore this section. What do others think? Daask (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ISBN 978-1-58901-363-6
    . Retrieved 25 July 2017.
  2. ISBN 978-1-60833-631-9
    . Retrieved 25 July 2017.

Euthanasia

The article still misses the stance and the important activism that the CLE has done against euthanasia and assisted suicide. I will do my best to add this to the article.Mistico (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Not political? Not religious?

Someone using IP addresses from the Poconos has been adding text saying that consistent life ethic "is neither a religious nor a political concept" which is supported by some sort of user-uploaded PDF that I can't open, a FAQ page from rehumanizeintl.org, and the main page of consistentlifenetwork.org. These are all primary sources, whereas Wikipedia is built on

WP:SECONDARY
sources. The Rehumanize FAQ page does not contain the word political and its variations, and it does not contain the word religious and its variations, so I'm flummoxed as to how our friend from the Poconos can see it supporting the desired statement. On the other hand, the Consistent Life Network page says explicitly that they are political, as they "seek... all the political and structural changes that this will bring about."

The non-political/non-religious statement is ridiculous on its face. Everything about CLE is political and much is religious. If one takes a position on government-sponsored capital punishment then that's a political position with possible religious underpinnings. If one takes a position on the legality of abortion then that is of course a political position, and the issue often has a religious basis.

So my stance is that we are not hosting any such statement as is wished by the Poconos oontributor. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Binksternet on all points. I can open the PDF, and it describes the Consistent Life Network organization, not the Consistent life ethic as such. Daask (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I edit the page with one of the following, will anyone participating in this talk find it unacceptable?

CLE is not an inherently religious or partisan ethic.

OR

Support of the CLE does not require adherence to a faith or political ideology. -- Notes: The point I am trying to make with my edits is that one may believe in the CLE for reasons that have nothing to do with politics or religion. And many people do. And this is supported by references already in the article.

Just because many practitioners of a religion believe in something, even if it is taught by their faith, doesn’t make it an inherently religious belief. Inherently religious beliefs might include things like “Lord Krishna is an incarnation of the god Vishnu”, or “Christian baptism is necessary to go to heaven”.

Example: Most faiths teach that those who have material means should help the poor. Many people who believe in helping the poor, and/or practice this belief, are religious. Does that mean it’s an inherently religious belief? If so, tell that to the atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, etc. who do it.

Binksternet stated on my talk page, “CLE is religious because many advocates believe in CLE for religious reasons.”. OK. I say “CLE is non-religious because many advocates believe in CLE for non-religious reasons.”

Politics is a little trickier. Certainly all the forms of violence that the CLE opposes have a legislative aspect. But opposition to them does not require a political orientation. One can believe in keeping euthanasia legal for extreme cases and have no interest in what political leaders or candidates think or do about it, but still might hate it and vow never to do it to themselves or a loved one, and they may even work to convince other people not to do it, or they may support the elderly and ill in ways that make it less likely they’d choose that act. War and the death penalty are harder because they are committed by governments, but believing that they are wrong is not an inherently political belief, and certainly there are ways to oppose them that do not involve voting or participating in government activities.

In the US, many CLE advocates are independents or apolitical.

The Wikipedia policy on primary sources does not forbid them: “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Therefore, it may be used under the stated conditions. The fact that two organizations whose core mission is promoting and defining the CLE state that their adherents include non-religious individuals/groups, and that these groups are welcome, would seem to make it a statement of fact.

Regarding the Rehumanize page, FAQ #4 does addresses the religion question.

I paste here some dialog on my talk page and on the revision history for this article that might be relevant…

Binksternet wrote on my talk page:

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Consistent life ethic. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

My response on my talk page: This is not a personal point of view or personal analysis. Not only do the refs I added document it, but the majority of the second paragraph of the "Other Supporters" section is already devoted to listing secular organizations that support the consistent life ethic.

Binksternet soon afterward wrote the following comment when undoing my edit:

      • contemptible nonsense false pretentious*** stance. [emphasis added] Everything is political about this topic, and much is religious.

My response on my talk page:

If "everything" about the consistent life ethic (CLE) is political, then exactly what political parties in the US, or anywhere, advocate the CLE? Certainly no major ones. There actually is a minor one that does, the American Solidarity Party, but they are too new and small to possibly be seen as the root of the ethic. And what religion does? Catholicism comes close but official Catholic Church teaching, as it currently stands, is seen by many CLE advocates as falling short on war and the death penalty. The Mennonite denomination supports the CLE pretty comprehensively, but again is not large or influential enough that it can reasonably be seen as the driving force behind most CLE advocacy.

Binksternet replied:

It doesn't matter one whit whether a political party advocates CLE or not – that doesn't stop it from being political. CLE is political because it addresses legislation, and legislation is political. CLE is religious because many advocates believe in CLE for religious reasons.

My response to this last statement is above.

My comment on the above discussion:

I question whether the motives of Binksternet in continuing the edit war that took place are pure. When one calls someone’s very simple edit a “contemptible nonsense false pretentious stance” and “ridiculous”, one either loves drama or has some personal, emotional reason for destroying others’ additions. Is either of these reasons in the spirit of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.15.18 (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You spend a lot of time here talking about what I said that made you mad, but you have not pointed to
independent secondary sources to back up your stance. I already pointed out that the Consistent Life Network page says explicitly that they are political, even though this was used by you as a reference to say that CLE does not have to be political. What you will need to do is find solid sources for the text you wish to insert. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It made me "mad"? Am I the one who called someone's edit "contemptible nonsense false pretentious"?

Please explain what is "unreliable" about my sources. Just because they are "user-uploaded documents" does not mean they are not published as part of Web sites. I have already addressed the primary/secondary source issue.

Consistent Life Network's Web site refers to seeking political change--among other types of change. That does not make the organization inherently political, and even if it did, it doesn't make the ethic inherently political. I explain all of this above. But anyway ... In my latest edit, I did not use the word political, but rather partisan. It makes sense that that the things the CLE opposes are all tied up in some way with politics, but as discussed above, there are no major, long-standing political parties that support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.15.18 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and weird template?

I don't understand why the Christian democracy template is on this page? Christian democracy is an essentially conservative political movement most prominent in Western Europe (Italy, Germany, Austria) after the Second World War. It is a specific thing. The theory in this article has no connection whatsoever to that political movement.

This is a specifically 1980s American idea, from the Archdiocese of Chicago, where Bernardin was attempting to ingratiate himself to the socially liberal Democratic Party which runs Chicago by downgrading the abortion issue to just one among many other issues, including anti-capital punishment (traditionally supported by the Church) and support for "refugees"/immigration (Church has historically gone either way on this one).

Also, this article should be located at "Seamless Garment" since that is the most prominent name. Claíomh Solais (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some Christian Democratic political parties, such as the American Solidarity Party, advocate a consistent life ethic as part of Christian Democracy political ideology. Based on this information, User:Binksternet's restoration of the template makes perfect sense. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The American Solidarity Party are quite an obscure grouping and only recently founded though (2011). This theory is much older than them (late 1970s) and most of the proponents are fellow travelers of the mainstream Democratic Party. What other Christian democracy groups are associated with this theory other than the ASP? The main aim of this theory is to shoehorn American Catholics with liberal tendencies into supporting the US Democratic Party despite their leaderships support for abortion, rather than anything to do with the (mainly European) Christian democracy ideology covered by the template. The introduction of the below template to the article would appear to be more relevant, since this is a US-specific thing. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the Consistent life ethic is used to downplay the abortion issue has been around since it was created but in fact it can be interpreted as being rooted in the Catholic Church "culture of life". Very strong pro-life activists like Frank Pavone and Abby Johnson are their endorsers. But its true that it can be used to minimize the abortion issue and often covers for support for pro-abortion politicians, like the liberal National Catholic Reporter continuous endorsement of them proves it. There are those who refuse these claims, like Charles Camosy, in this article: [4]Mistico (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Consistent_life_ethic&oldid=1217918001"