Ciao for now~!

http://members.soundclick.com/kevinwayne
http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne
http://kevinwaynesongs.com

 Ciao for now~!

http://members.soundclick.com/kevinwayne
http://www.myspace.com/kevinwayne
http://kevinwaynesongs.com

The 'pro life' movement focused on criminalizing abortion.
This tactic only galvanized a 'pro choice' opposition.

The pro life movement focused on stacking the court system with anti abortion judges.
This tactic placed politically corrupt judges on the bench from which they try to legislate.
Their anti abortion decisions have mostly been reversed.

The pro life movement uses pro life litmus tests for political candidates.
This has failed to produce legislation, while dumbing down our Congress with incompetent, corrupt politicians whose anti abortion rhetoric passes the litmus test.
I'll be happy to provide names on request.

The pro life movement has used inflammatory rhetoric, harassment, fear, intimidation, arson, bombing and murder against family planning clinics and women patients — acts of terrorism by domestic terrorists.
Dr. Tiller's clinic has been subjected to relentless harassment, intimidating protests, vandalism, arson, bombing and murder.
Did these tactics stop Dr. Tiller?
No, but, whether this is fair or not, they have discredited the pro life movement.

Perhaps the pro life movement will find that re framing their cause as:
“Reducing Unwanted Pregnancies”, will produce positive results.
If they do this, I will join their movement.
Because it will be successful.

The 'pro life' movement focused on criminalizing abortion.
This tactic only galvanized a 'pro choice' opposition.

The pro life movement focused on stacking the court system with anti abortion judges.
This tactic placed politically corrupt judges on the bench from which they try to legislate.
Their anti abortion decisions have mostly been reversed.

The pro life movement uses pro life litmus tests for political candidates.
This has failed to produce legislation, while dumbing down our Congress with incompetent, corrupt politicians whose anti abortion rhetoric passes the litmus test.
I'll be happy to provide names on request.

The pro life movement has used inflammatory rhetoric, harassment, fear, intimidation, arson, bombing and murder against family planning clinics and women patients — acts of terrorism by domestic terrorists.
Dr. Tiller's clinic has been subjected to relentless harassment, intimidating protests, vandalism, arson, bombing and murder.
Did these tactics stop Dr. Tiller?
No, but, whether this is fair or not, they have discredited the pro life movement.

Perhaps the pro life movement will find that re framing their cause as:
“Reducing Unwanted Pregnancies”, will produce positive results.
If they do this, I will join their movement.
Because it will be successful.

Try clicking on OPTIONS at the bottom of the original post, then click on COMMUNITY.
The Community format will allow you to scroll down to the bottom of the thread.

I hope you can take a few moments to allow me to clarify some things
that are pretty important, for they have to do with whether or not any
opposition to abortion that doesn't just “shut up” will be allowed
dialog, which is what I believe Obama encouraged us to in his Notre Dame
speech. And I will
definitely show that this is not “avoiding the issue,” but engaging and
answering it fully

First of all, I'm not the one who first posted the link to Os Guinness'
book review of “Crazy for God”
to the blog here. Please check – you will find it was someone else on
here to do that – I wasn't aware of it until then. I did refer to that
link in subsequent postings as it had become part of the dialog.
Os Guinness, its author, is not some intolerant Pharisee, nor is
Christianity Today, founded by Billy Graham, some right-wing publication
given to shrill one-sided screeds. Guinness himself has written
“The Case for Civility,” a serious book which lays out the reasons our
common future depends on temperate discourse.

Secondly, the fragment paragraphs that Gareth quoted Frank Schaeffer
from, if taken by themselves, are not in themselves problematic – if
they were true. And therein lies the crux of the issue. They are
distortions.

I suspect that Gareth, due to his comparative youth and non-American
roots, didn't have the historical context to know just what happened
with Christians from 1972 to 1984 in the U.S. Perhaps he could chat with
Jim Wallis or Ron Sider who were there too – and by no means were
antagonists of Francis Schaeffer. However, that is the timeframe in
which some of us were saved and then sought, just as many others here
have, including Wallis, Sider and Schaeffer – to engage the society
positively from a Christian worldview.

Francis Schaeffer's seminal works exhorting engagement with the culture
were “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” which dealt with how human
life's value have been demeaned in our death culture and “How Then Shall
We Live?” offered dialog of possibilities for engagement in making a
real difference in a life-denying society. He then wrote a call for
Christians to be involved called “A Christian Manifesto,” as a humane
and Christian alternative to “The Communist Manifesto” and “The Humanist
Manifesto.”

I myself was the managing editor of a Christian publication and reviewed
and wrote about Francis Schaeffer's works of the time. Schaeffer was
highly influential to many for he provided a humane, generous, open,
respectful and intellectually open vision for possibility of positive
Christian engagement with our culture and society – a way to emerge from
unengaged pietism to practically serve the suffering – to make a
difference as servants. I also positively reviewed Ron Sider's “Rich
Christians in an Age of Hunger,” part of the same impetus to social
awakening of the sleeping Christian conscience which was stirred in us.

As for Gareth's brief excerpt from Franky's Huffington Post blog,, I
always make it a point to try to place comments in their context, so the
link given, I read Frank's entire posting – which has an entirely
different, highly one-sided political and ideological thrust quite apart
from simple “repentance.”

I noted Franky can apologize for himself, but he doesn't have the right
to claim to be accurate by apologizing for evil on the part of others
who do not share in blame whatsoever and who never did what he claims
they all did.

His purpose in this is not to apologize for his personally inciting to
murder, but to make the false accusation, which I refuse, that
Christians and pro-lifers in general incite to murder, thereby
discrediting a whole movement and religion he now despises.

Frank alludes to being a Christian in his posting here, but in fact his
“Crazy for God” memoir ends on a note of disbelief, that the God of his
parents might be possible after all, against all his instincts, but only
in one anomaly of a multiverse where all possibilities, no matter how
crazy, could exist in differing alternate dimensions.

To quote T. Bone Burnett, for Frank “science fiction and nostalgia have
become the same thing.”

Frank was once an angry young man and now in age his rage has been
projected towards the Christianity and Christians he now loathes, who he
has said in his writings he was always contemptuous of at the time he
sought to deceive us. Like the enemies of the Jews did against them for
no cause, he has made a blood libel through distortion against
Christians who believe abortion is a great evil and have in agony of
conscience forcefully but peacefully spoken out against it.

The intemperate nature of many postings on here – such things as
claiming Christians opposed to to abortion are “terrorists” – a
demonizing, loaded word meant to demean and dominate and end all
possibility of dialog, making us morally pathetic cretins beyond the
pale – or calling an assassination yet another “pro-life murder” are
distortions and polemics meant to shut down conversation in favor of one
self-righteous side. The truth is no longer important – it's the utility
of using whatever can be misused to win, by any means. Now even our
ability to speak out is to be taken from us, by racketeering acts
originally designed for use against drug cartels.

Let me point out that whatever else he or she might be, a person who
willfully takes, or advocates taking, the life of another cannot be by
definition “pro-life.” Nor can such a person be following Christ, who
ordered us to love, not just our putative neighbors, but those we think
are our enemies.

The model for Christians opposing evil, as Francis Schaeffer reiterated
in his works, is the same one followed by Martin Luther King –
non-violent resistance. It is the only effective and practical answer to
addressing evil – because it aims at reconciliation rather than
domination – and it requires sometimes the courage to sacrifice one's
own life – but never that of others.

This may be pathetic to some – but it is for me the only place to stand.