Letters

Christian Century, Nov 22, 2000

Unilateral view

I AM JEWISH and am in almost complete agreement with Marc Ellis's call for justice for Palestinians ("Jews vs. Jews," Nov. 8). I would love to see Jerusalem shared, even made into an international city. But the truth is that it takes two to dance.

I love hearing about an Israeli soldier who refuses to take part in military action against protesting Palestinians. But where are the Arabs who refuse to commit violence against Israel? Many former Israeli soldiers have become part of a peace movement. Where are the Arab soldiers who do likewise? Jews criticize Israeli policies constantly and Israelis create theater groups to examine Jewish injustices toward Arabs. Where are the Arabs who criticize the intifada or who question whether they have done enough to welcome Jews? All that Israelis hear from the Arab side is unending hatred. They see Israeli Arabs cheering from rooftops when Saddam Hussein's missiles come shooting in at Israel.

When Baruch Goldstein murdered many Muslims in a mosque, most Jews that I know lamented and condemned this act in no uncertain terms. Afterwards, a National Public Radio reporter interviewed Arabs in Israel. He had heard that one of the things that set Goldstein off was hearing Arabs in the streets chant "Death to Jews!" the day before. Not that this is any excuse for what he did, but the reporter was curious about what Arabs had to say about this. They were puzzled. "Why should this upset anyone?" they asked. "We chant `Death to Jews!' everyday." Where are the Arabs who examine their conscience about this sort of thing?

Unilateral holiness will not produce peace in the Middle East or anywhere else. It takes two.

Leon Zitzer New York, N. Y.

Abortion pills ...

IN "SWALLOWING the pill" (Oct. 18), the CENTURY offers more of a commentary on abortion itself than on mifepristone, the abortion-inducing drug.

To claim that "Christians can hardly be enthused about any form of abortion" suggests that advocates for abortion rights are gung-ho, energetically encouraging the procedure, and that all Christians truly consider abortion with reluctance at best, if not distaste. The effect of your assessment on any woman who is making the decision to end a pregnancy will almost certainly be damaging. You betray an attitude that tends to forget the woman for the sake of a political or theological point. Such an attitude is heinous because of the hurt it can cause. Moreover, it is precisely anti-Christian: any time doctrine becomes more important than your relationship with an individual you have lost your faith.

Furthermore, you describe abortion as a "moral catastrophe." Either you use language loosely or you are intimating an antiabortion position without stating it directly. Abortion is a crisis: a moment of irrevocable decision or change of direction. To call it a catastrophe is to imply that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not only sad but also reprehensible. Clearly, your writing is not antichoice. But however you intended for that sentence to be read, it threatens to punish anyone who has chosen abortion.

John A. Nelson Dover Church, Dover, Mass.

With the arrival of RU 486, those who favor legal abortion face some new challenges. One is the need to bring down the cost of abortion by RU 486. That an abortion primarily produced by pills will cost the same as a surgical procedure is troubling. Abortion providers justify this cost by noting that FDA-mandated procedure requires substantial oversight of the RU 486 abortion process. While there is some merit to this argument, I doubt that there is enough to fully justify the high price. Women's health advocates need to work to reduce the cost of RU 486, both by advocacy with providers of abortion services and by insisting that, over time, the FDA-required procedure be modified to make the administration of RU 486 only as restrictive as necessary to preserve women's health and safety.

One benefit of RU 486 is the fact that it can be administered very early in the pregnancy. It would be unfortunate if low-income women were denied access to this service because it took them longer to raise the funds for the procedure than the time span in which it is most effective.

Frances Kissling Catholics for a Free Choice, Washington, D. C.

Messianic purpose ...

IN "MARK: The movie" (Oct. 11), Stacey Elizabeth Simpson views Mark's Gospel a bit narrowly. In commenting on Mark 10:32-45, she says, "In all of Mark's Gospel, this is the only time Jesus says a word about his purpose: `For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'" Has she forgotten Mark's summary in 1:14-15? Or Jesus' response to the disciples in 1:38-39?

These passages suggest that Jesus' acceptance of the cross developed as he struggled with the news that he was God's beloved son, a message delivered in the context of messianic excitement over John the Baptist. John, after all, wore the uniform and ate the diet of Elijah, a miracle worker who managed to avoid dying. In the first seven chapters, Jesus "tries on" this miracle-worker model, only to discover that it does not produce the repentance required for the coming of God's kingdom. After an encounter with a foreign woman who persists in her request that Jesus heal her daughter, Jesus begins to downplay miracles and to prepare for his coming death in Jerusalem. It is in this setting that Jesus speaks of laying down his life.