BARF BoardRoom/Soapbox Archive
Defining our terms
Lauren Sabina Kneisly
Time: Mon, 23-Aug-1999 20:28:19 GMT
I just wanted to interject two brief defintions
of terminology that BARF uses, lest there be any
Myth # 1. "BARF bills itself as a forum for
seperating Christian influence from the nation."
WRONG! Obviously reading comprehension isn't
taught in christian homeschools. At the top of
our page in that little yellow box directly under
our name it says:
"Biblical America: the social movement that seeks
to use the bible as the sole basis of governance"
"Biblical America Resistance Front: a resource
for all who work to monitor and counter the BA
Please also see our old mission statement at
(More realistically, BA is a movement using THEIR
PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION of the bible for the
basis of all social and governmental
So unless one confuses christianity with the
notion that all of society must run along the
lines of a particular interpretation of the bible
(which many christians would strongly dissagree
with) BA does not equal christianity.
Most interesting are the christians who defend
BA, thereby admitting 'ownership' of that agenda.
Additionally 'influence' in society is not the
same as state mandated repression on all
others. 'Influence' all you like, we shouldn't
HAVE to (mandated by law) listen.
Myth # 2."a forum for Sabina and Mike to espouse
their pro-abortion and anti-adoption neurosis"
You're only half right. We are unapoligetically
pro-abortion. Perhaps more appropriately put as
'pro-abortion and proud'.
But as far as the label anti-adoption goes:
Wrong. As Bastard Nation so correctly puts it 'we
are not anti-adoption, we ARE adoption.' Being a
Bastard myself, the very notion of trying to
separate my existence from a the very social
structure from which I came is deeply
offensive. So, unless you're a Bastard yourself,
you know not of which you speak. Attempting to
put the words 'anti-adoption' in my mouth is
tanamount to saying Sabina is anti-Sabina!
Do I agree with adoption structures as they are
currently practiced in this country? No. Do I
stand against many of the current practices? Yes.
I stand against the efforts by a social movement
to grow their movement through stealing other
people's children. If you don't have a problem
with one group of people stealing
non-consensually other people's children, then I
have a problem with you.
'Justifying' it in the name of a 'god', or out of
'for their own goodism' likewise, is no
excuse. Many christian 'adoption agencies' demand
a statement of faith from perspective parents and
pastors references etc, what this amounts to is
only other christians found suitable by the
agency are allowed to adopt the child, and the
child must also be raised within the faith. This
decimates the myth of 'any good home', rather it
is movement growth plain and simple, and an
outright admission that their conversion efforts
on grownups are simply not getting in the