From the Biblical America Resistance Front website
URL: http://www.barf.org/boardarch/0032/print.html
 
HOME  ·  FEATURES  ·  ARCHIVE  ·   LINKS

BARF BoardRoom/Soapbox Archive
On Saying "No"
By Mike Doughney



Time: Tue, 24-Aug-1999 01:29:47 GMT     
IP: 207.239.111.82

:You can obscure the issues by hiding behind your
:blatent hate of all things Christian

Nick, as usual, you're not listening.

It is not hatred to say, "leave me alone."

It is not hatred to say, "I will make my own
decisions, thank you very much."

It is also not hatred to say "no" when someone
comes up and tries to sell you something, no
matter how convinced the seller may be that you
really, really need what he's selling.

:but you can't obscure the fact that you are
:supporting genocide.  You notice that so many
:people in this world would like to deny that this
:is a human life yet when faced with the fact that
:it is a life, slink away and try to hide behind
:their predjudices and poor world-view.

I will refer to your following sentence and your
remark about "name-calling."  If the best you can
do is to insist that I am "hiding behind my
prejudices" (that word only has one "d", Nick)
and "poor world-view" I don't think you have much
to say, since you yourself are doing the
name-calling.  Assuming your prospect is in some
way "broken" is second nature to the evangelist
though, since otherwise you have nothing to sell,
right?

Now if you were to say that I was acting out of
self-interest, you would be on the right track.
I would prefer not to have my house looted and
burned because a band of people thought that "the
wealth of the wicked [is theirs] for the taking."
(Actual book title, by the way.)  I would prefer
not to be stoned to death for blasphemy, as some
people advocate.

You are also acting out of self interest, since
your entire identity is centered around
converting others and you will feel unfulfilled
if you aren't somehow doing something to convert
others all the time.  Right?

On the other hand, you face no real threat to
your existence from any well-organized group or
government, in most countries.  This discussion
is lopsided - I lose, I die. You lose and the
status quo continues.

:Mike you can't support your arguments without
:resorting to name- calling and infering that my
:decisions are solely based on my Christian
:principles.

Certainly your presence here as a lay evangelist
is in keeping with "Christian" principles in as
much as the need to proselytize is an evangelical
Christian principle.

:I base my arguments on fact not emotion.

Inasmuch as the "facts" are delivered in
emotionally-charged settings on a once or twice a
week basis...

:You try to appeal to the mindless robotic,
:anti-Christian bigots that can't think for
:themselves.

Now, what was I saying about name calling?

:Abortion is genocide.

So is poultry farming, for some. How can the word
"genocide" apply to a medical procedure that is
freely obtained (and demanded) by women all over
the planet?  "Genocide" is a corporate act, by a
class of people acting in unison.  It does not
apply to individual decisions made by autonomous
individuals in private; to women who have decided
for whatever reason that they choose not to take
a pregnancy to term.

I don't see armies of evangelists for abortion in
this country insisting that women have one when
they don't want to, and insisting that they can't
say "no."  (I do on the other hand see plenty of
Christian evangelists that never take no for an
answer, ever, and aren't above using coercive
tactics in places where prospects can't walk away
to fill their churches.)

:It primarily (but not exclusively) is used to
:avoid an increase in people in the lowest and
:middle rungs of the economic ladder.

Again, you assume that all those women who've
individually decided that their body will not be
used for reproduction at the present time are in
some way being orchestrated in concert to
eliminate classes of people.  There is very
little evidence that such a conspiracy exists,
though perhaps this myth fills the needs of those
with a conspiratorial mindset.

Although certainly there have been some who've
been involved with providing abortion services
who were in it for what might be called "eugenic"
reasons.  Bernard Nathanson is one such person;
the personal needs of individual women (including
his girlfriend!) did not, and still don't intrude
on his thinking.

: It is an immature "me-first, me-only" viewpoint
:that makes absolutely no allowance or demand for
:good personal decision making.

And in this sentence Nick sums it all up.
According to you, autonomous decision making must
be subservient to someone else's dogma, or else
it isn't "good."  Unless you can show me that
some harm has come of it, you have no right to
"demand" "good personal decision making" from
anyone at any time.  Is that clear enough?

The bottom line for you is subversion of autonomy
by any means.  The bottom line for us is support
for autonomy.  Any questions?

: It is taking out your problems on a defenseless
:child

A thought virus that didn't raise its head among
evangelical Christians (much) until Francis
Schaeffer and others, including the proprietor of
drkoop.com, decided that it would provide a good
strategy to revive a declining Christianity.

:and it is bullying, child abuse.

Oh, okay, I was wrong last time.  The best way to
provoke vigilante action is to allege "child
abuse."  Alleging "murder" is a distant second.

:If you weren't so wrapped up in your hate of
:Christianity you could address this issue
:clearly.

I'll say it again, just in case it wasn't clear
enough last time.

It is not hatred to say, "leave me alone."

It is not hatred to say, "I will make my own
decisions, thank you very much."

It is also not hatred to say "no" when someone
comes up and tries to sell you something, no
matter how convinced the seller may be that you
really, really need what he's selling.


Home · About Us · Features · Archive · Links · Contact
 
© 1997-2006 by the authors.