« March 8, 2007 | Main | March 10-11, 2007, weekend »

March 09, 2007

Comments

Gentle Ben

There is a direct line legally between slavery and abortion in that both slavery and abortion reduce human life to being property. In the case of slavery, the slave is the property of its owner, and in abortion the baby is treated as the property of it's owner, to be disposed of, terminally, by its "owner".

There are no other options at law. You either deal with persons, or you deal with property. Either the slave(baby) is a person, or they're property.

Keith

"There are no other options..." Well, Ben, there are. The direct line you claim to see? It doesn't appear very straight to everyone who views it.

Bill used the term "pro-life," and I cringed when I read it. Just like I do every time I see it. I generally find it to be not about life but about birth.

Dolores Lear

As long as there is Mis-bred Body Birth reproduction, that makes all types of flesh lust of the body, and killing, there will be slaves, abortion, human property, Haves and Havenots. Many marriages are also human property, slaves, Haves and Havenots. There is no Equality in Body Birth.

We now know how to join the egg and the sperm in the lab, but those people are still born by Body Birth, and join this Unequal Killing Society of Brothers/Sisters of Life.

As Bill says, 'why is there suffering and evil in the world', and what can be done about it.

We are all slaves to the Original Sin, and until we acknowledge what that Sin was that was done by Pure-bred Humans, we will go on having a God and a Satan. Which Lifestyle, Life or Death, are we following, by producing over 6 billion people to overload for our spaceship planet, and enough nuclear bombs to blow up our Home? Is this Serving God or Satan? What does it mean to Serve GOD/LIFE?
LIFE is for the Living, not the Dead.
United In Sharing We Live. Divided in Greed We Die

Patricia

Wilberforce's name and tactics have been appropriated by conservative Christian forces as a way to legitimize their own initiatives. The sad irony is that these are often the same conservative Christian forces that spent much time and effort defending and protecting slavery in its time and who made civil rights initiatives tough to enact. The Southern Baptist Convention, at the forefront of the "Wilberforce is Ours" marketing campaign, has gained notoriety for keeping women from its ranks, been responsible for outrageous statements concerning Islam, and is also on the frontlines in denying rights to gays.

I again urge all who are genuinely concerned about the equality of all individuals, including women and gays, to boycott this film.

Here is a commentary from Alternet (a liberal blog)that outlines a bit of the background of the PR campaign to claim Wilberforce's name. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48665/

Patricia

So the one time I somehow miss reading your column on the Saturday it is published, Bill...........it is on Darfur! My apologies.

Thanks for noting the gross contrast between a week filled with the detailed descriptions of a pink rhinestone shroud on AN's coffin but little news on the people who are being killed en masse. A great admonition to faith communities to ask for more from news agencies.

For anyone who isn't aware, things are critical in the Sudan region, because it has become so dangerous that aid agencies may have to leave. Please call your congresspeople and ask them to press for intervention.

There is a story in the NYTimes and WashPo today on the ongoing rape: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-War-Crimes-Darfur.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Mary Behr

PATRICIA: "Wilberforce's name and tactics have been appropriated by conservative Christian forces as a way to legitimize their own initiatives... The Southern Baptist Convention, at the forefront of the "Wilberforce is Ours" marketing campaign, has gained notoriety for keeping women from its ranks, been responsible for outrageous statements concerning Islam, and is also on the frontlines in denying rights to gays."

I again urge all who are genuinely concerned about the equality of all individuals, including women and gays, to boycott this film."

PATRICIA: I went back and copied
this from Bill's entry today:

BILL:"Apparently there's an effort by some folks in the pro-life movement to use this movie as a rallying point. I think that's a misuse of it. Rather, the William Wilberforce story should be taken on its own terms. Yes, it should inspire us to confront the moral issues of our day -- and many people, including me, would put abortion on that list. But "Amazing Grace" is not a pro-life movie in disguise."

"William Wilberforce story should
be taken on it's own."

Patricia: What do you think of Bill's take? Have you seen the film? I don't expect to get a chance to do so. But I wonder about the wisdom of boycotting because some might be led to misunderstand. Perhaps letters stating your position to the newspapers that list it might be more useful. Take out an add or write all your friends. Is free speech too dangerous, even though it is misused?


Dolores Lear

Patricia said, "I again urge all who are genuinely concerned about the equality of all people, including women and gays, to boycott this film."

I say boycott Unequal Body Birth Reproduction that divides all people, by making Mis-bred Bodies, and all the Ethnic Races and Nationalities we have on Earth from Inbreeding.

Boycotting a movie will not change our Unequal Fallen Human Nature Bodies, and our Unequal Sharing and Killing Lifestyle. Only the High Tech Knowledge and Use of Pure-bred Equal Sharing Reproduction, will again Unite Humans into 'One' Equal Government on Spaceship Earth, with Liberty, and Justice for All.


Just Thinking

Gentle Ben wrote: "In the case of slavery, the slave is the property of its owner, and in abortion the baby is treated as the property of it's owner, to be disposed of, terminally, by its "owner"."

That's an excellent point. Maybe someday people who argue that though the Bible does not specifically deal with the abortion issue will recognize that nearly all cases of abortion are an offense to those who use their brains and hearts in the way that God intended. But everyone today shold at least recognize that terminating a pregnancy is not excused by being too lazy, ireesponsible or lustful to acquire and use birth control.

All throughout history people find convenient excuses to do what they want, selfish heuristics concocted without the bounds of decency, respect or God. I guess it's no different today. You can still spot the error by it's main symptom: selfishness.

Patricia

"What do you think of Bill's take? Have you seen the film? I don't expect to get a chance to do so."

I'm guessing that Bill's take concerning the film being misused as a treatise comparing slavery to abortion is correct. But that may well be because I find the comparisons of abortion to slavery as being incorrect or faulty reasoning.

"But I wonder about the wisdom of boycotting because some might be led to misunderstand."

I suppose that I think that there are times when boycotting because something is being misunderstood is righteous, but that's really not the reason I urge boycotting this film. It's because of the marketing. The film is being SOLD to Christian groups as a film that they should back because of their appropriation of Wilberforce for their own marketing campaigns. It's not clear if the film was created just to appeal to those audiences or not.

It's the "selling" of the film "product" for what I consider........bad and wrong purposes that really turns my stomach. I just feel that people of conscience should see to it that one less ticket dedicated to the lie that these Christian groups/politicos are in the same league as Wilberforce OR abolition, will be sold.

Your questions are good ones, Mary, but for me, boycotting is an important implementation of free speech. Especially when it comes to films that rate their success on the amount of money they make. A newspaper ad only serves to strengthen a film by boosting attendance.

Dolores Lear

J.T.
And all those convenient excuses are made by Mis-bred people by Body Birth, that were not aborted.
Our High Tech Ancestors do not Kill or they would have aborted Cain and Abel, and put Adam and Eve in solitary confinment.

But we needed this physical experience in Mis-breeding and Inbreeding Body Birth reproduction, to see what this type of reproduction does to the Life on their Home planet.

Adam and Eve were to be Equal Caretakers of Life, not Unequal Birth Machines, that Kill the Life they reproduce, by abortion, greed, inhumanity, inequality starvation, etc.

Dolores Lear

On my above post, ]
I can not believe I left out killing, war, and nuclear bombs on land and sex.

Dolores Lear

Oh Oh, I mean sea.

Patricia

"being too lazy, ireesponsible or lustful to acquire and use birth control."

"selfish heuristics concocted without the bounds of decency, respect or God."

"it's main symptom: selfishness."

These words are typical responses from anti-Choice people and the reason no woman should entrust her reprodutive rights to them. The words belie disdain, bigotry, and misogyny(hatred of women).

Transpose these words into the 19th century and you have:

"Niggras are "too lazy, irresponsible or lustful to be given the same freedom as white people."

"Niggras are sex-driven heathens with selfish heuristics concocted without the bounds of decency, respect or God."

Keith

"Maybe someday people who argue that though the Bible does not specifically deal with the abortion issue will recognize that nearly all cases of abortion are an offense to those who use their brains and hearts in the way that God intended."

Well, that typically settles things. There's only one thing, one view, one belief, one way. Anyone who doesn't share it fails to use their brain and/or heart.

How....Hitlerian! Perhaps we should expand the FBI's powers to include brain/heart usage monitoring, and we can throw people in prison for being Impious under the Piousness Act (the faith-equivalent legislation to the Patriot Act.)

Maybe we can even have Moral Matzos and Correct Communion Wafers.

kayceewolf

I'm grateful for Bill's take on "Amazing Grace." When I first saw the previews, I thought it looked like an interesting film. Then all the hype began about anti-abortion forces claiming the film was really an allegory about "their side" made me shy away from seeing it. Who would want to subject themselves to sitting through a thinly disguised polemic expounding a position with which they don't agree?

Abortion foes do the film a disservice by claiming it promotes their agenda. Such a move will keep more people away from it. In the best of all worlds the movie would be allowed to open a dialogue among those who have seen it rather than being claimed by either side before people who might be interested judging the film for themselves have had a chance to see it.

On a related note ...

Did anyone see the "Bad Blood" documentary on KCPT Sunday night? It's a locally produced documentary on the border conflict between Missouri and Kansas in the years leading up to the Civil War.

Among the information I found interesting was the fact that both anti-slavery and pro-slavery people claimed God was on their side in the conflict. Not much as changed since then since opposite sides on modern hot-button debates often claim to have God and moral authority on their side.

Dolores Lear

Supernaturally Pure-bred Adam and Eve Clones were given Free Will to be Caretakers or Killers. What could have caused Pure-bred Clones, to reproduce by Body and become Killers?

That is one answer to my questions that I do not have as yet. Any ideas?

Just Thinking

Why in the world I boycott a movie that someone else fears MIGHT contain a message that is objectionable to THEM? How about a good old-fashioned book-burning while we're at it! It is so typical of those who claim to believe in unlimited free speech: they really only want THEIR say while they cover their ears to your message and loudly say, "lalalalala .... I'm not listening .... lalalalalala." That is right in line with putting sexual gratification above all else, treating gratification as a fundamental human right, to the point where it can become the sole justification for terminating a pregnancy (or boycotting a movie they've never seen).

I think we need a movie about the sheep in this world who are guided by any random and stray voice as they're lead through life in the dark, as if in a foggy maze. We could call it "A Grazing Maze." ... excerpt ... "Remember, you must not let a little thing like abortion stand in the way of your sexual gratification?" And they all bleated, "Baaaaahahhaaa ... Baaaahahhahahah."

The Bible talks about those who are not reborn, how they have become callous to everything and then they turn to lusts with a greediness. They just can't get enough, and nothing is going to stand in the way of those lusts. It's an apt description of those who believe that sexual gratification is a fundamental human right, even above the life of an unborn child. Only God can bring about any meaningful change in any of us, but He also expects us to participate in the process.

Ephesians 4
17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

kayceewolf

"Why in the world I boycott a movie that someone else fears MIGHT contain a message that is objectionable to THEM? How about a good old-fashioned book-burning while we're at it! It is so typical of those who claim to believe in unlimited free speech: they really only want THEIR say while they cover their ears to your message and loudly say, "lalalalala .... I'm not listening .... lalalalalala.""

What a typically over-the-top right-wing view of it. No one said anything about boycotting the movie. I simply mentioned that once I heard that the anti-abortion folks were claiming the film as their own propaganda, I wouldn't be paying my own good money to see it. A "boycott" by one person can hardly be considered an organized boycott.

But now - just to knock J.T. off his high-horse - I'm curious how many movies J.T. paid admission to see if he knew ahead of time that he was goinog to disagree with the message. How 'bout it, J.T.? Did you pay money to go see Farenheit 911, Brokeback Mountain or An Inconvenient Truth?

Michael W. Kruse

I had not seen or heard any of the hoopla about pro-life types appropriating the film for their purposes. The only movement I have seen connecting with movie is "Amazing Change" which is organizing people to fight modern day slavery around the world.

It did occur to me that an anti-abortion advocate might find inspiration in this movie. I could also see a Christian environmentalist or a Christian championing gay rights equally being inspired by the movie. The movie is ultimately not about a particular political agenda. It is about a man, in community with others, struggling to work out his relationship with God in the public arena.

The idea that this is a propaganda piece for the pro-life movement is ludicrous. (The movie is a Bristol Bay, Samuel Goldwyn productions. Not exactly an auxiliary arm of the pro-life movement.) I have seen the movie twice and I agree with Bill that it is very well done. I have been encouraging everyone to see it.

Keith

I guess it’s a matter of perspective, JT.

From my perspective, the most sexually obsessed people I've ever met were those who are obsessed with the lives of others. They always seem to be so vitally concerned and morally righteous about someone else's crotch. (Can I say that word?)

Newt Gingrich has been a great example. So has Ted Haggard. And how can I omit Phred Felps?

Gentle Ben

Patricia, religious evangelicals were at the core of the anti-slavery movement, just as now they're at the core of the anti-abortion debate. Isn't it amazing that the media in both eras portrayed them as "anti" and not for the positive messages about life and liberty they were about?

And Keith, if you express a belief in terms of your faith will that make you Hitlerian? In this case how are those who are trying to get people to understand that an unborn child is no more subhuman in this era than the Jews were (and are still considered) in Europe "Hitlerian"? Also, what other legal theories are there besides treating things as human, or property? Saying they exist doesn't make it so.

Finally, Patricia, I agree that it is difficult to ascribe the same motivation to everyone getting an abortion, although I'm neither convinced that what was being said, nor do I think your analogy to racism holds up well.

That said, certainly in the vast majority of the cases choices were available at the time of conception. I recall an interview Katie Couric did regarding abortions in some third world country and found they were being doen for gender selection once the parents found out the child was a girl.

In any case, the attempts to portray those who oppose abortion as monsters who are either trying to oppress woman or some of the other wild-eyed claims is a reach. The ultimate issue is how much we value the taking of innocent human life.

Ron

"From my perspective, the most sexually obsessed people I've ever met were those who are obsessed with the lives of others. They always seem to be so vitally concerned and morally righteous about someone else's crotch. (Can I say that word?)"

I think the "battle of the crotch" has been lost, Keith. Abortion is just one aspect of the battle. Premarital sex is the norm today. A recent news article about a scholarly study reported that only rich people can afford to get married and have children. Everyone else just finds a convenient crotch and has children without worrying about marriage. It's ironic that gay people are so interested in getting married these days. Heterosexual people who aren't rich could give a rip less about marriage. I wonder why gay people believe the civil benefits of marriage are so dang important, while heterosexual people seem to believe there are absolutely no benefits of marriage, since large numbers of heterosexuals don't bother to get married.

I guess it's a matter of the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.

Gentle Ben

KC

There's a difference between not going to a movie because you find the subject matter boring or tedious and urging others to not watch something.

I didn't see any of the 3 movies simply because i have no desire to go see movies that are purely a vehicle for propaganda. however, I could care less if you want to part with several of your hard earned, after tax dollars to go see them. They're probably better than most of the tripe Hollywood puts out in the name of entertainment.

Just Thinking

kayceewolf, do a search for the word boycott and you will find:

"I again urge all who are genuinely concerned about the equality of all individuals, including women and gays, to boycott this film."


Keith, preaching personal responsibility is resaonble. Abortion is a savage procedure, both physically and psychologically, and everybody knows knows how you get pregnant in this society. Birth control is available to people of all ages these days. Using abortion as a means of retroactive birth control is ridiculously stupid and irresponsible in an enlightened society.

And, Keith, the Jews are as obsessed with what's between a man's legs as ANY other group on the planet; so you shouldn't go there.

Keith

JT, did I say there is a lack of "Jewish" fascination with the crotch of others?

No, I did not.

I did state a few things from my personal perspective, using 3 very public figures as examples, each of whom has taken the attitude that they could speak as THE Maven of Morality, 2 of whom did exactly what they preached against while they stood in their pulpit.

I also didn't make some grandiose claim that I was speaking for God or proclaiming Her will or intention.

As for the issue of abortion, JT, it is quite possible to favor choice AND to be generally opposed abortion. You may find that conflicting, but that would be your limitation, not mine.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

About Me

  • Who is Bill?
    I'm the former Faith columnist for The Kansas City Star. For a more detailed bio, look under the "Check this out" headline below. My Twitter handle is @BillTammeus. Friend me on Facebook and you'll see this blog every day in your feed.

Become a Fan

MoJo Blog Ring

  • MOJO Bloggers
    Bloggers with connections to the University of Missouri School of Journalism.

Answers.com

Blog powered by Typepad

Google analytics

.

  • .