I can't believe it took me this long to realize this. I must be going senile. Perhaps I can blame this 'failing' on my pregnancy. Then again, as I haven't specifically seen anyone else writing about it, perhaps we have all simply fallen into a certain level of taking things for granted.
This morning I was getting ready for the day while talking to my husband, who was also getting ready for his day, and it occurred to me to wonder about the community response to President Obama rescinding the Mexico City Policy. This policy, for those of you either hiding under a rock or not involved in the abortion debate, prevented the U.S. from funding abortions overseas. This is a definite blow for those on the pro-life side, and so controversial among many Christian and/or conservative groups that he even signed it secretly and off-camera.
So I sat down to chat with a friend of mine. "Hey, you hear more from the mainstream media than I do," I typed. "Over this past week, have there been an upswing of stories about pro-life violence against pro-choice groups/people/abortion clinics/abortion doctors? White powder sent to clinics, people trying to enter a clinic being knocked down and beaten, things like that?"
"Not that I've heard of," he answered.
I told him that it was interesting, but also what I'd expected to hear. He wanted to know why, and I pointed out that the Mexico City Policy had been rescinded a few days ago. "So?" he responded.
"That's the second interesting thing I noticed," I typed.
See, when the gay activists don't get their way, they go on a rampage. They threaten, they cause violence, and they not only boycott places, but they prevent other patrons from entering. Interestingly, nobody's surprised when they react this way, and I have heard more than once the phrase "I can understand their anger." However, when pro-lifers don't get their way, nobody goes on a rampage, and nobody is surprised.
The same thing happens when Christians are marginalized in the media. When Muslims are marginalized, the protests invariably start. Places are set on fire, people are injured or killed, guns fired, knives used... it's not a pretty picture. Parts of Europe refuse to even criticize Islam anymore for fear of seeing death and destruction. However, people are allowed to speak downright blasphemously about Christianity without fear, because Christians do not respond with violence, and nobody wonders why.
In many cases, groups that used to claim their way as the peaceful solution are bullying their way into society merely by making people afraid of the violence that they'll visit upon us if they are not given their way. Meanwhile, the groups marginalized in society as mean and violent and evil are simply remaining civil... and what's more, nobody's surprised by it!
I honestly believe that the Christian response (just to pick a general example) comes out of a faith in their fellow people and a belief that in the end, God will not be thwarted and will see His purposes fulfilled. Moreover, and I think this is the absolute more critical point of all, the civil and peaceful groups know that their cause is right. Unlike the violent and scary groups, they don't feel the need to frighten others into agreement because truth cannot be hidden forever since the rightness of their cause is true, they're certain that it will come to be embraced.
ReplyDeleteIf I may drift tentatively into a controversial statement, I believe that the scary groups feel the compulsion to be violent and loud because they proceed from an uncomfortable feeling that their cause is not innately moral and right and thus proceed from the understanding that the only way to bring about an unjust result is with a big enough stick. There has yet to be an instance of popularly-instituted gay marriage and the chances of it will remain slim for a long time. Activists know that allowing the populace to regulate abortion would be disasterous for their percieved crusade. As a general matter, the most violent Muslim protests outside the Middle East are in places where they know their cause is regarded with disdain and smug dismissiveness. The fact of the matter is that the loudest person in a room is the one with the least to say and this has been my experience with all these groups seeking justice with a torch and noose clutched in their hands.
I completely agree with you, and I'm glad you wrote that comment. :)
ReplyDeleteAlways glad to help out. :) But you're right to say that your friend's lack of surprise that upset anti-abortion folks were being peaceful says quite a bit about the anti-abortion folks. Namely, that when they're peaceful and respectful, no one notices because they've established that type of behavior as their modus operandi and the opposite is true for other groups like the gay activists and pro-abortion people.
ReplyDeleteOut of curiousity, why do you suppose that the pro-abortion people called the policy that Obama reversed (in the dark of night because he knew what the voters actually wanted) the "global gag rule"? Last I checked, you don't need the United States or any government entity giving you piles of money to be allowed to speak or, in this case, advise women to seek an abortion. Yet the pro-abortion people pretended that by not giving money to these groups, the United States was actively preventing them from advocating abortion. What absurdity!
Another very good point on your part. :) Yes, I had to explain to a friend of mine from Europe who had been idly watching the U.S. news on the stem cell issue that President Bush was not actually deciding that companies were not allowed to do embryonic stem cell research at all. All he was doing was preventing government funding.
ReplyDeleteThe rights issue actually goes in the opposite direction, you know. When government refuses to fund abortion groups, nothing is stopping the taxpayer from funding abortion groups. However, when the government DOES fund abortion groups, the taxpayer has no choice but to fund abortion groups.
Of course I am in favor of seeing government funding of as little as possible, even that which is beneficial. Reduce government taxes, and let the PEOPLE fund their OWN pet causes. With more of their own money to work with, they'll be better able to do so!
Well, see, if you did that, morally questionable or outright stupid things wouldn't get funded anymore and that would make lobbyists sad. When lobbyists are sad, their pet legislators are sad too and they say it with votes and inane speeches. Why else do you think that we witness hysterical and downright false claims about Bush's stem cell decision? Even the terminology is deceptive; embryonic stell cells are the ones that are being referred to but there are other stem cells as you probably know. The OTHER stem cells (adult stem cells and umbillical stem cells) are the ones that are curing the sick, helping the lame to walk and the blind to see (and I mean that literally) but they don't need government funding because they have scientific merit and are provably capable of helping people. It's the stem cells that have proven dangerous as a cure that need the government to fund them. Yanno what the result of a Parkinson's experiment was when embryonic stem cells were used? The patients immediately began experiencing Parkinson's symptoms with the volume turned up, flailing and twitching wildly while the horrified doctors stood helpless. Also, ESC have produced monster tumors in laboratory experiments. Naturally, the stem cells that are held out as a miracle cure are the ones that medical science has shown to be very dangerous to patients. Only government could justify funding such a thing. And only a pet legislator with more power hunger than honesty could get up in front of the press and issue sad-eyed statements about the tragedy of government funds not used for ESC research. It's like a saying I saw once on a poster about government: "If you think the problem is bad, wait till you see our solutions!"
ReplyDelete