4:20 PM
Consider: the announcement by the White House of today as National Sanctity of Life Day and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Now, there are some who say that the First Amendment is a one-way street, that it simply means that the government should not have influence upon religion, while the opposite is entirely fine ("Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose?").

Personally, I'm for what essentially boils down to Secular Humanism--not as a weapon against religion but as a doorway between all beliefs, religious or otherwise, that everything should be weighed and considered rather than accepted blindly. Individuals should absolutely be allowed to come to their own conclusions after those considerations* (e.g., I join those who found the Taleban's interpretation of Islamic law reprehensible), but that just as absolutely shouldn't close them off from future consideration of others' beliefs--or their own; as Socrates said, "The unconsidered life is not worth living."

The President's declaration of National Sanctity of Life Day worries me especially because of its manipulative language, equating via analogy pro-choice supporters to the terrorists of September 11 (terrorists=evil=no respect for life=no respect for the life of the unborn=(unspoken but present) pro-choice). The entry of the word "terrorist" into the rhetoric of expediency has become a worldwide phenomena since September--see how Israel constantly places the label "terrorist" on the Palestinians, how India and Pakistan both label each others' forces in Kashmir "terrorists", how Russia has suddenly reframed the Chechan rebels as terrorists. I'm not arguing for or against the labelling in any of these particular situations--those are other discussions--but I do think "terrorist" is becoming a dangerous shorthand used to justify violent action against oppositional beliefs. This seems to be being done by the U.S. because they know that "actions against terrorists" are so strongly supported by the public, and by foreign countries because they believe that if they label their conflicts similarly the world community may not stand behind them, but will at least stand aside.

The links above show that a few minutes with Google allow you to go and consider the facts and make a decision for yourself one way or another, but will the average person do that? Many will likely hear the word "terrorist" and shove them, unconsidered, into that pidgeonhole in their opinions. To begin using that language casually and domestically is, I think, a dangerous thing. It's just as easy to replace "pro-choice" with "pro-life" in the argument for respecting the sanctity of life, just as easy to label pro-lifers terrorists (indeed, a 1998 story by ABC News did just that.)

The word "rhetoric" is a double-edged sword. In one sense it can mean language used wisely and convincingly. But in another it can mean language used with shallow intentions simply to manipulate. I think we need to be careful that "terrorist" doesn't fall into such confusing territory. We don't want to come to a time when we have to stop and consider: is a terrorist evil, or just someone we disagree with?

Hopefully it's not too late.

(By the way--for those whose emotions pinged when the abortion issue was raised, I highly reccommend Carl Sagan's article on the issue. It paints pretty clearly where I sit--which is to say, right in the middle, as did Roe v. Wade--no matter how extremists on both sides of the issue like to paint it.)

UPDATE: Apparently now Tolkien fans in Kazakhstan are being called a "counter-cultural group"--just a police press conference away from "terrorist". Granted, the fans should probably stop calling themselves "the Tolkienisti", but still...

* Acting upon these conclusions is quite another thing; for this conversation let us remain in the rarefied environment of debate, okay?