I love elephants. I hope to finish writing a
short novel this year using elephants to explore certain spiritual
and philosophical truths that I find fascinating. As a result, HBO's
short documentary An Apology to Elephants piqued my interest. Last
week, when I had a little time, I pulled it up On Demand and watched
it.
This isn't a review for that film. It
has an obvious point of view and excludes any opportunity for those
they are accusing of an evil abuse of our stewardship
responsibilities toward animals to respond on screen. It is also
difficult to imagine anyone who appreciates these emotionally complex
and obviously intelligent animals not being outraged at the images of
abuse and violence. This magnificent family of animals once roamed
the world in vast numbers, and we live in the age of their last
moments as a wild animal if something doesn't radically change.
The film makers show us images of
circus trainers abusing them, of elephant carcasses littering the
savannahs of Africa where they are killed by the thousands to feed
people's desire for ivory trinkets, and even the infamous film of
Thomas Edison electrocuting Topsy the elephant to try to scare people
away from Nikola Tesla's alternating current. It is awful.
When I checked for critical reaction,
several people suggested that as awful as these images are they are
appropriate to be shown to children on Earth Day. They argue that children need to be
radicalized into protecting elephants and standing up to zoos and
circuses that abuse these majestic creatures even if it means
upsetting them with graphic images of elephant abuse.
An Apology to Elephants is admittedly
politically motivated and one sided. It centers on graphic images of
abuse and the destruction of innocent life and is recommended viewing
for children by many cultural commenters. And yet, when it comes to
graphic images that accurately represent the physical act of abortion
we are told they are too upsetting. Showing them is
divisive and unnecessary to making our point and the worst possible
thing imaginable is for kids to see them.
For the record, anyone at LTI will tell
you that I am the least animated person on the team when it comes to
the graphic images. There are several reasons for this. The
biggest reason is that, unlike many of my friends, the images had
nothing to do with my becoming radicalized in the pro-life movement.
What gets my hackles up is to see a
culture that bathes itself in brutality and violent imagery for any
number of reasons (entertainment, education, emotionally activating
people toward causes, etc.) through every conceivable medium (TV,
movies, video games, books, etc.) suddenly pretend to be so prim and
easily damaged when the images center on abortion. The stink of this
hypocrisy is unbearable. When prime-time and cable television are
filled with shows about serial killers in an apparent race to
demostrate who is the most shameless in portraying the rape and
murder of innocent victims, when the vile murder porn TV show The Following comes up on Netflix as "Popular Right Now", when I have to mute all commercial breaks for fear of what may be thrown up on the screen at any moment for my young children to see and hear, the pretense at sensitivity to violence
as it pertains to abortion ought to embarrass us all.
The images that
LTI uses comprise less than a minute of our entire presentation. We
offer the opportunity for every person in the room to look away. We
discuss the forgiveness of sin and the equal guilt before God of all
human beings. We explain that every social justice movement
celebrated today for helping humanity to morally advance made use of
upsetting images, and we make it clear that this issue must be
engaged in a manner that honors Christ. None of this is enough for
some people. Some people insist that abortion should not be talked
about and certainly must not be seen.
A young man at a major American
university approached me after a talk, identified himself as
pro-choice, and raised objections to the use of images and
descriptive language. His argument was that I do not think
abortion is wrong because it is ugly. If we could develop a clean and
bloodless manner of killing the unborn that had none of the visually
upsetting aspects of the current practice I would still object. So
the only reason to show the images or talk about them is to upset
people.
I agreed with him about the nature of
my objections, but I asked him the following questions, “Are the
images an accurate depiction of the aftermath of abortion? Do they
truly represent an aspect of the practice of abortion?”
“Yes.”
“Is what I said about how they must
account for all the body parts of aborted human beings true?”
“Yes.”
“So you are asking me, and all of the
people arguing that abortion is wrong, to withhold information from
our presentations that accurately reflects an aspect of the issue at
hand because the audience may have an emotional response to that
information that, while I argue is in line with our moral intuitions,
might undermine your position.”
“I guess that is right.”
“Do you think that all presentations
regarding moral issues ought to refrain from images and language that
might provoke emotional responses? Do you think a presenter talking
about female genital mutilation or sex slavery ought to be careful
not to illicit an emotional response from the audience?”
“No, of course not.” And he
immediately saw the problem with his position. He fully supported the
use of graphic images that awakened emotional outrage when he was
against the practice. What he objected to was others using images to
make his position look bad.
As I told him that day, we have a
responsibility to be certain that what we are saying is true. If any
image used is in some way dishonest then critics need to make that
case. I know how the images we use were acquired and have full
confidence in their validity and the means by which they were
attained.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.