More Heat than Light: Randall Terry’s ‘Burn in Hell’ Protest

by Chuck Gutenson 10-28-2009

Sometimes the things you read are so outrageous that you simply sit at your desk, unclear how to respond. I had that experience when I read this article:

Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry is calling on people to burn effigies of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this Halloween, as part of a “Burn in Hell” video contest to protest the health care legislation in Congress.

What I found particularly interesting was this quote:

“If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid force us to pay for child killing and they die unrepentant, they will burn in hell for this,” Terry said in a telephone interview.

What a remarkably distorted and over-simplified take on a very complicated issue. The problems here run so deep, one hardly knows where to start with response. First, it sweeps under the rug many subtle nuances in favor of inflammatory rhetoric. Of course, Terry’s abandon of anything approaching nuanced and careful treatment of a topic are well known. One wonders why we even take the time to respond. Yet one of the main obstacles to reasoned and civil discourse on health-care reform is the lack of challenge to such ridiculous claims as we see here.

Second, the facile implication of abortion here, without inviting the broader discussion on what current health-care plans allow and how they would be changed under various versions of reform, is highly problematic. What does “abortion neutrality” mean and can it be accomplished? These are reasonable questions to ask and debate. Of course, Terry seems to have no interest in such dialog — easier to toss the rhetorical Molotov cocktail. In the end, discussion is foreclosed, and we are all impoverished.

Finally, though, one wonders: Is Terry willing to be judged by his own standard? By that I mean, is he willing to own the deaths that will be a consequence of a failure to undertake serious health-care reform? If he “forces us” to leave millions upon millions without coverage (and here is the irony, millions upon millions that are disproportionately children!), thus killing many, does he accept that “burning in hell” would be a consequence for him? I doubt it.

Chuck Gutenson is chief operating officer for Sojourners.

Categories: Abortion, Health

Palosaari

Um, sure, but I think your sermon there was more to yourself, as my comment didn't really apply to Randall Terry, a guy I haven't heard much about, and was quite clearly more a comment within my own ruminations.

Simon

I had a great time reading around your post as I read it extensively. Excellent writing! I am looking forward to hearing more from you.

Regards,
Hydroponics

Chris "Jesdisciple"

I for one don't begrudge or blame you -- after all, everyone needs to survive. Who knows where you'd be without them; I have no problem paying taxes in that context.

Interestingly, this is where I seem to hold a collectivist worldview while you go individualist.

Well, my own church is on the front lines of that, and we do teach financial responsibility. That said, we understand that there's more to the abortion issue than personal irresponsibility; there are environmental issues that justice requires us to address. It's not an either/or; its a both/and.

You misunderstood me. I meant I wonder how much of one's living expenses should go to such a cause. Downsizing for that would eventually start to look irresponsible to others.

BlueDeacon

And it is actually tempting to just settle for this, but I know there's more life waiting in the real world and I hate the thought that I'm part of the problem with our economy.

I for one don't begrudge or blame you -- after all, everyone needs to survive. Who knows where you'd be without them; I have no problem paying taxes in that context.

I truly wish churches would do much more for poor mothers than condone abortion. Yours probably does, but I mean all-out. I think taking it to the level of financial irresponsibility might be best...

Well, my own church is on the front lines of that, and we do teach financial responsibility. That said, we understand that there's more to the abortion issue than personal irresponsibility; there are environmental issues that justice requires us to address. It's not an either/or; its a both/and.

Chris "Jesdisciple"

That's just what I was getting at. It was never really about the money proper, just the power that comes with it.

I was actually thinking of benefits to the system rather than the individual. And I don't understand how you can conceptualize money as anything but ... power tokens.

Spoken like someone who's never been on welfare.

Lol. Actually, I am on SSI, Medicaid, and housing assistance (and was in a government job-placement program). But I prefer not to mention that because I'm ashamed of it and I think it skewers how people read my posts. And it is actually tempting to just settle for this, but I know there's more life waiting in the real world and I hate the thought that I'm part of the problem with our economy.

The reality is that no one gets rich off it and virtually everyone who is really wants to leave (and indeed manages to do so).

I'm not sure about lately, but before I started driving (traveled on bicycle or with parents) I had surplus income every month and had to prune it off to avoid going over $2,000. That would be fine if it still happened now that my costs increased.

However, trying to raise children on a minimum-wage job, especially in "at-risk" areas, is virtually impossible; my church understands this. However, Terry is trying to foment a sense of resentment toward people on the bottom, which is another reason he needs to be taken to the woodshed.

I truly wish churches would do much more for poor mothers than condone abortion. Yours probably does, but I mean all-out. I think taking it to the level of financial irresponsibility might be best...

I understand neither this statement nor the context. And besides, I don't understand what's wrong with regulation; even the Scriptures condemn what Gandhi called "commerce without morality" because God does not endorse cutthroat capitalism. But that's exactly what we're talking about in the health-care insurance debate.

Libertarianism posits that when government regulates, the free market is usually rendered less competitive. I think this is only due to the overhead required of new competitors. If someone could find a way to regulate without doing this, that might become my new mantra.

But the comment was actually directed at subsidization - absolute regulation. When government subsidizes an industry that was previously competitive or at least had the potential to be so, it will replace free-market restraints with the relatively weak democratic restraints.

The context was that liberals don't like how anti-competitive some businesses are. I don't either, but that kind of regulation only aggravates the problem.

BlueDeacon

Why does this always have to be about the voter not wanting any more taxes? Granted, that's one of the conservative's pet peeves, but it's not conservatism. The conservatives who believe that conservatism is simply better than liberalism have more concerns than raw cash.

That's just what I was getting at. It was never really about the money proper, just the power that comes with it.

Of course, some on the top are of the order of the rich young ruler - then again some currently on welfare (a friend of mine included) see no reason to get a job when everyone else's money is delivered to them each month. And I'll bet some not on welfare would like to be for the same reason.

Spoken like someone who's never been on welfare. The reality is that no one gets rich off it and virtually everyone who is really wants to leave (and indeed manages to do so). However, trying to raise children on a minimum-wage job, especially in "at-risk" areas, is virtually impossible; my church understands this. However, Terry is trying to foment a sense of resentment toward people on the bottom, which is another reason he needs to be taken to the woodshed.

I recently saw a remark that I consider very accurate - something along the lines that liberals are disappointed at the lack of competition so they'll let the government handle it. Government tends to decrease competition, not to mention other ill effects on the market, so this is absurd. Regulation = centralization, and centralization = bad.

I understand neither this statement nor the context. And besides, I don't understand what's wrong with regulation; even the Scriptures condemn what Gandhi called "commerce without morality" because God does not endorse cutthroat capitalism. But that's exactly what we're talking about in the health-care insurance debate.

Chris "Jesdisciple"

Why does this always have to be about the voter not wanting any more taxes? Granted, that's one of the conservative's pet peeves, but it's not conservatism. The conservatives who believe that conservatism is simply better than liberalism have more concerns than raw cash.

Of course, some on the top are of the order of the rich young ruler - then again some currently on welfare (a friend of mine included) see no reason to get a job when everyone else's money is delivered to them each month. And I'll bet some not on welfare would like to be for the same reason.

And then there's the issue of too much power in too few hands. I recently saw a remark that I consider very accurate - something along the lines that liberals are disappointed at the lack of competition so they'll let the government handle it. Government tends to decrease competition, not to mention other ill effects on the market, so this is absurd. Regulation = centralization, and centralization = bad.

No, find another way. As much as I'd like to see America 100% prosperous, it's not worth the nation.

kansasmennonite

I would suggest not arguing anymore if you don't even know what Hannity sounds like. Pretty mute. Arguing for the sake of arugument is getting nowhere for both of us. Listen for a week to his program and report back.

BlueDeacon

Hannity might be a liar as you describe him. But what I wonder is, if a conservative solution were to be rolled out that made sense to him, would he support it? Is his support for a conservative solution necessarily a lie? Why would he not tell the truth about a viable solution that didn't conflict with his listeners' principles?

Because his listeners would prefer the situation just go away.

BlueDeacon

More accurately, they don't want any reform of any kind that costs them
anything, and I don't mean just money, either -- the insurance companies don't
want their windfall touched and are lobbying heavily against it. For that
reason there's going to be no effective reform without government intervention
in this case.

Chris "Jesdisciple"

Conservatives generally don't want government-based reform. But reform isn't inherently government-based, and that's what most here seem to keep forgetting.

Chris "Jesdisciple"

No, I don't have a radio and the online stream doesn't work on my computer.

Hannity might be a liar as you describe him. But what I wonder is, if a conservative solution were to be rolled out that made sense to him, would he support it? Is his support for a conservative solution necessarily a lie? Why would he not tell the truth about a viable solution that didn't conflict with his listeners' principles?

Check out who bankrolls the heritage site and you'll begin to see things a little clearer.

All I could find for Heritage's sponsors is this: http://www.heritage.org/about/

Should the Heritage site be viewed by guilt by association. I would say they both believe in "the end justifys the means".

What end justifies what means? A bullet is a poor means, but the end of preventing a murder justifies it. Means and ends must be weighed against each other for justice to be revealed. So you'll have to be a little more specific.

Like I said, Hannity has the ability to be positive but somehow it comes out negative for me. To him, anyone who doesn't believe like he does isn't a "true American" and thus unpatriotic, etc. A real turnoff. Extremely narrow view of mind.

I wasn't impressed by what I heard from some of the Republican pundits either, before I moved out of my parents' or even for some time after. I don't think that weakens my point.

kansasmennonite

The heritage site is not a bipartisan site by any means. Have you listened to Hannity? I can only stand a couple minutes of him. In that couple miutes I can tell what he's trying to do (distort truth with half truths, hate, etc.) Letjusticerolldown described him acurately. When one spends 95% of air time demonizing with half truths I call that hate speach. Is it lying? Are half truths lying? I'll let you judge that but I don't want any part of it.
Check out who bankrolls the heritage site and you'll begin to see things a little clearer. Should the Heritage site be viewed by guilt by association. I would say they both believe in "the end justifys the means". Like I said, Hannity has the ability to be positive but somehow it comes out negative for me. To him, anyone who doesn't believe like he does isn't a "true American" and thus unpatriotic, etc. A real turnoff. Extremely narrow view of mind.

jonabark

God is not a torturer. That is a human invention. Life holds much suffering and much joy, the spirit connects us to eternal truth and beauty, but there is no place of eternal torment; it is an invention of priests and politicians. It is a distortion of Jesus message that has produced nothing but fear , slavery and cruelty. God is love. Fear not.

Mennoman

Hmmm...it looks like an apology might be in order from somebody.

Chris "Jesdisciple"

I don't know what you mean by movement. This isn't a movement. It's a propaganda site.
You say it's a propaganda site because Hannity is on it. I just wonder why you discredit it because of Hannity. Maybe he's not only a Republican pundit? Maybe he has his own ideas about what would work? Maybe he's right?

An ad hominem attack is one that discredits an opinion by demonizing the speaker. I wouldn't call it ad hominem if I agreed with you about Hannity's intentions, but I doubt he's pure evil like you seem to think.

EDIT: There's also an element of guilt by association. Hannity is pure evil and Hannity likes the site so the site must be pure evil.

Morna

Were all the articles you refer to written by this specific author? Though Sojourners does have some established positions on issues, it's unfair to assume that any one author shares all the views of all other authors. Some probably see more nuance than others.

BlueDeacon

No, this is the real one. So let me rephrase: I believe that the
anti-abortion movement won't have much impact until the conservative movement
falls apart, for no other reason that that the latter specializes in
confrontation and refuses to cooperate with anyone it doesn't agree with.
That has truly hurt the former in ways it doesn't understand.

WitnessforPeace

When Mitt Romney's dad, Michigan Governor George Romney, ran for President, the press would hassle him about Mormons and polygamy. When asked “How many wives did your grandfather have, Governor?” he was very well prepared with this comeback: “Enough to keep him away from the neighbors' wives.”

WitnessforPeace

Thanks for that observation. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, but tries to de-emphasize the fact out of concern for anti-Mormon prejudice, I suppose.