NFL quarterbacks and educators are both relentless. The former because of their relentless pursuit of excellence that leads to victory, the latter because of their relentless search for argumentation that produces enlightenment. It is debatable as to whether a strong defense is a more formidable opposition for the quarterback than pride and passion are for an educator. John Henry Cardinal Newman did not underestimate the strength of the educator’s opposition when he said, “Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk; then you may hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man.” In writing these words, the author of The Idea of a University did not mean that education is impossible, only difficult. And so are Super Bowl victories.
In a previously published article, I suggested that the President Obama might be guilty of hypocrisy. On the one hand, the American President proclaims, “I believe in choice”. On the other hand, he insists that if certain African nations, contrary to their own choices, refuse to accept the homosexual agenda, he will withdraw American assistance in their fight against Boko Haram. I received mail from people saying “I don’t get it!” Nor did they understand how I could criticize the Democratic Party for not imposing personal values, such as abortion, on others. Was not the display of such unselfishness a virtuous act? Once more to the drawing board.
Hypocrisy is not difficult to understand. Nor is it uncommon. It is a species of pride, the most deadly of the deadly sins, along with bragging, ostentation, and blind ambition. The hypocrite tries to appear better than he really is. But when his practice is clearly out of sync with his preaching, the word hypocrite applies. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. The Bible warns against wolves in sheep’s clothing. When a person, even of high rank, preaches tolerance and then shows that he cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with him to the point of punishing them for their beliefs, he looks like a dead ringer for the title of hypocrite.
“I refuse to impose my values on anyone else,” which has become the pro-abortionist’s classic line of defense, at first blush seems to reflect an attitude of genuine self-restraint. In other words, it seems to be the very opposite of pride. Nonetheless, it is simply a matter of fact that one cannot impose a value on any else even if his life depended on it. A value is not something that is imposable. We communicate ideas. We express values. But we cannot insert them in anyone’s head. We can make certain values seem commendable. We can praise them. We can urge them. But we cannot impose them. It belongs to people to choose values through their own freedom. Education can only propose; it cannot impose.
So, too, a gentleman proposes marriage. He cannot impose it. He presents his case humbly and nobly to his loved one, and then must wait upon her freedom. He cannot say, “I am imposing marriage on you whether you like it or not”. This is not the language of a lover, for it denies an essential part of that other, namely, her freedom.
One can hardly take credit for something that cannot be done. I cannot take credit for not imposing my values on another because that is something that cannot be done. Yet, people who proclaim that they would not impose their values do take credit for their presumed restraint. They make this assertion and then take a bow. Is this not a subtly concealed example of pride? They seem to be indicating that they are taking a high moral ground. And yet, they are doing nothing.
Pro-abortionists who claim not to impose their values actually promote abortion. Although they do not impose (something that cannot be done), they nevertheless do promote (which is something that can be done). They do this chiefly in two ways. The first is through seduction. They seduce people into thinking the choice to abort is fully in line with freedom and to deny a woman an abortion is to deny her the freedom that is an essential part of her being. What is omitted, however, is the notion that freedom is genuine only to the extent that it is based on knowledge. A free choice is something different than a guess or a stab in the dark. But when that relevant knowledge is suppressed, as it is in many cases, the reality of “manipulation” better characterizes what is taking place than does the word “choice”. Women, routinely, are not apprised of the physical and psychological dangers associated with induced abortion. Nor are they routinely informed of the many women’s groups whose members have come to regret bitterly having chosen abortion.
The second mode of promoting abortion is through intimidation. Many woman have abortions because they are threatened either by the husbands or by their boyfriends. Many fear that their careers will be ruined if they carry their child to term, or that they will not be able to provide adequate care for the child if they choose to raise him. Intimidation can be a most effective agent in promoting abortion.
Returning to my published article that occasioned criticism, I hope I am now making my point more clearly. Simply stated, values cannot be imposed. They can only be accepted. Despite the hypocritical stance of those who disdain imposing values, they nonetheless promote abortion either through seduction or through intimidation. I believe that education, rather than seduction or intimidation, is the better approach. A woman contemplating abortion has the right to know about the nature of abortion, and its consequences to her and to people close to her. In other words, she has the right to be educated. In stating this, I am not inferring that she has a moral right to an abortion (though she does have a legal right). My article was intended to help people to recognize hypocrisy when it occurs, and to value the irreplaceable significance of education. Let us be dedicated to education.
Dr. Donald DeMarco is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, CT, and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His latest works, How to Remain Sane in a World That is Going Mad and Poetry That Enters the Mind and Warms the Heart are available through Amazon.com.
Articles by Don:
