Between Easter, the mailing of college acceptance letters and the start of the new baseball season, it seems as if we are in the middle of a period of change and new beginnings. With the end of the snow and the arrival of sunshine on the Dartmouth campus, there is an almost palpable shift in the atmosphere, both meteorologically and metaphorically. This anticipation of change can also be seen on a national and international level, as a string of recent deaths and illnesses have brought latent religious issues to the surface. And while these opportunities for change must be embraced, we should not lose sight of the personal aspects of the events. We cannot allow our need to create symbols out of both beloved and controversial figures obscure the tragic and private elements of this atmosphere of change.
The first harbinger of change was the death of Terri Schiavo on March 31 after weeks of passionate debate. It brought issues of religion and morality to the forefront of the American consciousness. And while questions about the sanctity of life are nothing new in our society, there was a change in the shift from debates about where life began to questions about when life ended. Additionally, once the issue became one of national partisan concern, the Democrats and Republicans seemed to deviate from their traditional roles. The normally pro-states rights and pro-small government Republicans made an issue that was personal at best and local at worst into a national one. The Democrats, who have supported abortion for years as part of the right to privacy, in turn impinged on the privacy of the Schiavos for political gains. In the quest to make a symbol out of Schiavo and her suffering, her privacy and that of her family was compromised. And while the changes may be seen as indicators of the new flexibility of the two parties, they also result in part from opportunism.
While Schiavo had become an unwitting figurehead, two influential leaders were also ailing. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, conservative Christian figure and founder of the Moral Majority, was hospitalized earlier this month after a serious health crisis. While he has since recovered, his status as one of the most prominent leaders of the religious right means that anything that reduces his visibility or ability to control his party could herald a change in conservative Christian leadership and thus within the movement in general. This chance for change may be appealing to those who oppose his views, but one cannot lose sight of the human element of the situation. Even though as a public figure Falwell has to accept living his life in the spotlight, he should still be allowed privacy.
Internationally, the death of Pope John Paul II, who was both beloved and influential, has caused widespread mourning. It is in many ways an indicator of the passing of an era, since Pope John Paul had been a symbol of the fight against communism and of the world view of the last quarter of the 20th century. It also leaves open the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, another instance in which change could be effected. There is much talk of the appointment of a Pope from the third world, where Catholicism is rapidly growing. This could reorient the focus of the Catholic Church. A new pope also lays open the chance for changes in dogma and rules.
Additionally, while Pope John Paul II was very involved in international politics, some feel that the new pope should avoid such a role. The extent to which a new pope becomes involved in politics outside of the Vatican City, particularly in America, could combine with the changing climate toward religion to influence and redirect the role of faith in American life. As evidenced by the Schiavo case, the Supreme Court cases about religion and the emphasis on values, our country seems to be increasingly religious, with faith becoming very much a public issue. This too is a change that, while important in terms of opening up national discourse, is disturbing in that it impinges on the privacy of every American, not only those who have become national symbols. We have a right not to have the government interfere in our beliefs, and no amount of symbol creation should be used as an excuse to change this right. Just as we must remember the human element in the stories of Terri Schiavo, Jerry Falwell and Pope John Paul II, we must recognize the personal nature of religion. Thus, it is only with a cautious optimism that we can embrace this atmosphere of change, since we cannot lose sight of the danger of making symbols out of people's grief.
