In the spirit of an administration which allowed this sickening distortion of history and science, this side-show of the far-right agenda to usurp our frisbee yard, on behalf of [administrators] Joe Johnson, Phil Shuerer, Bill Synder [sic] and especially Tim Rogers, I invite the Ku Klux Klan to come and burn a cross on the humanities lawn; the neo-Nazi party to erect a swastika on the humanities lawn (hey wait, CBR already did that …) and every other abomination of the human imagination to come to our campus to agitate the student body.
Mr. Quinn also fails to appreciate the difference between Nazis “erecting a swastika” to glorify genocide and CBR (including two of our five pro-life Jewish staff volunteers) “erecting a swastika” to condemn genocide. It would be silly to interpret the display of swastikas by Jewish director Stephen Spielberg in his movie “Schindlers List” as a veneration of evil. And it is no less preposterous to interpret CBR’s use of that same symbol as anti-Semitic. Either Mr. Quinn is ignorant of the purpose and context for our use of this sinister emblem or he knowingly twists both – not unlike the swastika twisting the cross.
CBR TO THE GULAG
Mr. Quinn wasn’t done being silly:
Damn straight I have a double standard. I am a hypocrite …. I am prejudiced …. Groups that preach hate, groups that support groups that preach hate and groups which incite people to hatred … are groups I hate. They have no place in a progressive humanistic society and should all be sent to a nice cold Gulag in Siberia (if they can’t be re-educated, that is). BUT! If a pro-life group (such as Priests For Life or the possibly now bankrupt Operation Rescue) came to campus with a pro-life information and education drive, you would not see me out protesting, you would not see me posting to this discussion page, you would not see me demanding their removal from campus. With CBR on the other hand …well, you’ll sure see my ‘hypocrisy.’
First of all, it has become fashionable among the far left to dismiss as “hate” any point of view which offends thin-skinned liberal sensibilities. As a means of changing the subject, “hate” allegations are a crafty, if cowardly, rhetorical device but they are no substitute for a well reasoned argument. Secondly, CBR hates only injustice. Mr. Quinn must not realize that he is making our point concerning the indispensability of ugly pictures by admitting that without our GAP signs, he would have ignored our presence. In fact, without GAP, there would be no wide ranging discussion of abortion on any campus – there hasn't been for years. He hates our signs but he inadvertently concedes that it was they which shook him out of his lethargy and motivated him to unwittingly help CBR stimulate dialogue. Of course we aren’t going to change his mind but his participation in our event helps focus attention on our display and attracts those who are much more open minded than he. Finally, it might interest Mr. Quinn to know that Priests For Life, a group of which he apparently approves, is headed by Fr. Frank Pavone, who not only serves on the board of CBR but has described GAP as the most effective pro-life project in the country. As for Operation Rescue, another group Mr. Quinn lauds, he may be shocked to learn that former and current Rescuers are using GAP signs all over the country.
With a point of view as different as night from day, G. Dunn posted the statement “I will have to say as graphic as the CBR posters were, their [staff’s] understanding and knowledge impressed me…. We as Americans need to face the reality that abortions are horrific events."
POST-ABORTION DENIAL
Lori Richardson (lricar7@utk.edu), on the other hand, wrote to say:
I think that this display is potentially harmful to those who have recently undergone abortion and may not be ready to face their feelings, not that all find that this is their experience. But some do – and those people NEED their defenses in place. To take them down (their defenses) by subjecting them to pictures of baby body parts is cruel and indecent. Really. I think that we all know what’s going on and for whatever choice we make in our belief systems we have good reasons for them. We are smart and concerned as students and do not need fantical [sic] display to “help” us along.
Where do we begin with Ms. Richardson? Because the Centers For Disease Control report that 45% of women who abort have had one or more previous abortions, post-abortive women are the very women we most need to reach with the truth that abortion is an act of violence which kills a real baby – so they are less likely to do it again. The whole point of the GAP display is to destroy the denial defenses which are allowing America to ignore abortion and or trivialize it as a morally inconsequential “choice.” If Ms. Richardson is correct (she isn’t) and women who abort already know the truth about killing their babies and have “good reasons” for killing them anyway, her argument that they need to pretend about abortion to cope with their "choice" makes no sense at all.
Ms. Richardson has an equally lost soul mate in Liz Albertson (ealberts@utk.edu) who also shockingly contradicts herself: “I felt the display in front of humanities is offensive and should not be allowed on this campus. I firmly believe in Free Speech, but this is ridiculous.” Apparently her definition of “free speech” is speech she finds inoffensive and that, however, is the only speech which never requires the protection of the First Amendment. She basically ends by adding the usual allegation that the aborted baby photos were so disturbing that they had to have been “false.” Nothing encourages us more than pro-aborts who are shocked to learn that even the embryo and early fetus really are babies and abortion really is a brutal atrocity. People of this sort can only deal with these revelations by denying them. They are, in essence, conceding that if the pictures are real, their position is indefensible – which, of course, is our point.
Casey Carmical (brick@utkux.utcc.utk.edu) reinforces our perspective with this comment:
I am appalled at the audacity of some of the UT students’ response to CBR. If you do not like the pictures on display, why? Is it because they are gross? I agree but people need to see them, because organizations like Planned Parenthood are lying to the American public and saying that abortion disposes of a blob of cells. Do these pictures look like a blob of cells?
Beacon columnist Darrell Carson was back in the paper December 3rd with this: “Although the CBR organization has come and gone, it is obvious that they did what they set out to do; get people on this campus to talk about abortion. If you need evidence, check out the student discussion page on the UTK Web site.”
|
