From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:25:07 -0500
At 03:57 PM 11/11/2003 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>She may very well be right, yet I found no evidence of any official
>statement condemning violence against anyone except unborn children anywhere
>on their very comprehensive website. What's curious to me is that since
>(afaik) the NRLC is _the_ most prominent mainstream pro-life organization in
>the US, I would expect that such a stance *would* be prominently highlighted
>on their site.
In fairness, the last anti-abortionist violence was a long time ago..... I'll check back the next time that issue is in the news.
Likely due to aggressive enforcement of the FACE act.
Threats are still going strong though. For instance, between the end of 2001 and the end of 2002, more than 300 women's clinics received anthrax threats. Just this summer, Florida state employees (the DA, for one) received death threats regarding the impending execution of Paul Hill.
Moreover, I would not *NOT* think that such a statement would be prominently highlighted on their site. I mean, it is nice that priest-for-life has that statement highlighted, because it wins us kudos from those people who only oppose killing already-born children - but it is hardly necessary. I don't think that the people who commit violence against abortionists are going to be influenced by an official statement on the NRTLC webpage.... and good luck finding any statement on the NRTLC webpage that could be even remotely twisted as to be inciting violence.
The point I am making is not whether these organizations are _inciting_ violence by not speaking out against it. It is that they are _failing to condemn_ acts that are being committed in the name of causes they represent. By doing so, they are giving either the impression of tacit approval or of indifference. Neither act speaks well for them.
This sounds a lot like the "seriousness of the charge" school-of-indictment, which is in direct contrast to the "preponderance of evidence" school of indictment that is the usual for free societies.
My original statement was a personal observation. Research on their websites seemed to back up my opinion.
When violence has occurred, I have not seen or read about representatives of the organizations mentioned speaking out against it. I read multiple newspapers every day (on weekdays anywhere from 2 to 15, mostly online editions) and watch some TV news. The absence has been consistent and always surprised me. Considering the nature of pro-life organizations, you'd think they would (logically) be quite vehementl in their condemnation of people committing murder in the name of their cause.
>As I said earlier, I wish more organizations would be so outspoken, whether
>their members feel that way or not. They have a responsibility to speak out
>against those who pervert their ideals, you know?
No, I do not know, actually. I think that it is very dangerous to hold that these type of people create responsibilities.
I'll refer you here to what Gautam said: "When people claim to act in your name, you have a responsibility to actively disavow their actions if you disagree with them." I couldn't agree more.
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more. http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
