Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]

CatholicEducation.org ^ | May, 2006 | Ted Harvey

[Delphinium]

the way folks are reacting on this thread,

There seems to be only a couple of them.

Probably offended by his message

[beezdotcom]

If a woman you didn't know asked to be let into your church pulpit to "witness" and you, acting in good faith, let her and then she turned out to be a radical feminist from PP would you feel like you've been lied to?

Another bad analogy, since she would never be allowed to take the stage without knowing what topics she would cover. Besides, this isn't about what the woman said or did. Remember that.

But I'll play. If a random, unknown woman was sponsored by a deacon to come speak on the gospel of John, and we welcomed her, and she then SPOKE on John, and everyone enjoyed the message, and she sat down, and then the deacon said, "Oh yeah, nyah nyah, her area of expertise is MATTHEW" - well, little would happen.

But see, it's not like that. A better analogy would be if my church was an Episcopal church, and the occasion was the anniversary of the ordination of the first gay priest, and someone on the lay committee wanted to bring a woman to give a homily on inclusion and unity, and she did, and everyone loved it, and then AFTERWARD, the sponsor stood up and said, "oh, by the way, she used to be a lesbian but she has since renounced homosexuality"...THAT would be a closer parallel.

So long as the messenger was the person promised, of the character promised, and delivered the promised message, I'm not sure there's much to beef about. If there's a standing policy that "no messenger shall be A", and you lie and say "they're not A", that's bad. However, I think there's good precedent for saving 'inconvenient but not disqualifying' truths for later. Unless you think that Judge Alito shouldn't have been confirmed...

[Locomotive Breath]

So, to combine your last two posts, having not checked her out in advance, the legislature should not have allowed her to speak under any circumstances even though they had faith in their legislator's words about what she would do?

Does your church have an ideological truth scanner in the vestibule where you can tell what people are going to say? Or is it a "members only" club.

In my book, holding back information and willfully and knowingly allowing someone to misunderstand your meaning and intentions is every bit the same as a direct lie.

[beezdotcom]

Our soldiers practiced gorilla warfare,

Minor nit:

GUERILLA:


GORILLA:

[beezdotcom]

So, to combine your last two posts, having not checked her out in advance, the legislature should not have allowed her to speak under any circumstances even though they had faith in their legislator's words about what she would do?

It's just not sinking in. THE LEGISLATURE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING, ANYTHING THIS WOMAN DID. It was the "postlude" that sent them into a tailspin.

Does your church have an ideological truth scanner in the vestibule where you can tell what people are going to say? Or is it a "members only" club.

I'm really interested to find out exactly what type of church you go to, because these questions are somewhat odd. Our "free form" worship tends to take place in smaller groups; our larger congregational meetings don't really lend itself well to random people running up to the pulpit on a whim. So, yes, if you're going to speak to the congregation at large, we pretty much like to know in advance what your message is, and why. Once again, I will note that the woman in question DID NOT DEVIATE FROM THE PROMISED PERFORMANCE TO THE LEGISLATURE. You're still not using a correct analogy.

In my book, holding back information and willfully and knowingly allowing someone to misunderstand your meaning and intentions is every bit the same as a direct lie.

In my Book, Jesus pretty much avoided calling Himself the Son of God unless He was directly asked (at least until very late in the game). He rode into Jerusalem knowing full well that most of the people celebrating His entry expected a rebellion against the Romans, not a willing crucifixion - and He let them wave the palm branches anyway. I guess you find Him guilty, also.

[Locomotive Breath]

Another bad analogy, since she would never be allowed to take the stage without knowing what topics she would cover.

You continue to make my points for me. Harvey/Jessen represented this as a celebration of a CP survivor.

I wrote a quick note to the speaker of the House explaining that Gianna is an advocate for cerebral palsy.

It was checked out in advance. But Harvey/Jessen lied about their intentions and, having gotten the microphone, did something different and completely unrelated. Jessen was promised as "A" which was accurate and "A" was acceptable but Jessen was "A" and "B" when it was known by Harvey that "B" would be unacceptable.

The enduring message delivered to the Speaker of the House and anyone listening was that "Harvey the Christian" cannot be trusted. But the Speaker's a baby-killing infidel and it's OK to lie to them? You only have to be truthful to other Christians? Is that your point of view?

[Locomotive Breath]

All these jobs require sneaking, and misrepresenting, and in some cases actually lying.

All these jobs require sanction of the higher civil authority and many Christians turn them down as a matter of conscience and many do not. Some who turn them down are subject to penalty by the civil authority. Each person can be guided only by his/her faith and conscience.

[Locomotive Breath]

You continue to focus on Jessen. I'm talking about Harvey's behavior and remarks.

[Locomotive Breath]

And to be more specific he told them he wanted to introduce her as a CP survivor when in fact he principally wanted to introduce her as an abortion survivor. He did this with her collusion of course.

[JWinNC]

”So, to combine your last two posts, having not checked her out in advance, the legislature should not have allowed her to speak under any circumstances even though they had faith in their legislator's words about what she would do?”

No, I wouldn’t say that. Perhaps I need to re-read the story. I thought the only thing she did was sing the anthem and for that there was permission. I was not aware that she also spoke? I thought she did exactly what the legislator said she would do?

”Does your church have an ideological truth scanner in the vestibule where you can tell what people are going to say?

Anyone can say anything they like, just not from the pulpit. Anyone who is given the pulpit is either vetted in advance or they are already known. It would be unwise to not know.

”Or is it a "members only" club.”

Not.

“In my book, holding back information and willfully and knowingly allowing someone to misunderstand your meaning and intentions is every bit the same as a direct lie.”

I would agree with that in some cases and possibly not in others, but regardless, I don’t believe that is what happened in this matter at least as far as I know what happened.

jw

[Locomotive Breath]

I would agree with that in some cases and possibly not in others, but regardless, I don’t believe that is what happened in this matter at least as far as I know what happened.

See my post #189.

[JWinNC]

re: 189

"...to be more specific he told them he wanted to introduce her as a CP survivor..."

I have read it five times now and cannot find this.

[Locomotive Breath]

I wrote a quick note to the speaker of the House explaining that Gianna is an advocate for cerebral palsy.

OK the actual language was "advocate" but not "survivor" but by the descriptions given apparently one look at her would indicate that she was both.

[MI]

Blessed Bump!

Blessed be God forever!!!!!

[Locomotive Breath]

So, using your post as an analogy springboard.

Suppose your church announces that Sunday's sermon is "The Abomination of Homosexuality". You're a church member, you don't agree, and you want to "spoil the party". So, at the last minute, you discover a lesbian woman who's a Christian singer and you want to use her to make a point. She has a history as a Christian signer and has produced several CDs of traditional hymns. Her lesbianism appears nowhere in her music. You ask the pastor if she can perform and, since time is short, based on the strength of her work and based on faith in your recommendation he agrees.

She performs traditional hymns and enthralls the congregation. The pastor and all the congregation are all clearly pleased at her great faith as expressed in her music. At that point, just before the sermon, you pounce and announce she's a lesbian and that the pastor is about to condemn her.

Have you behaved in a deceitful manner? Will you deserve the condemnation that is sure to follow from the other members of the congregation?

[beezdotcom]

You continue to make my points for me. Harvey/Jessen represented this as a celebration of a CP survivor.

Did they not celebrate that? Did SHE as a speaker cover anything else?

You insist that Harvey lied. He did not. You don't like the fact he didn't disclose everything. Fine - that's your right. There's an awful lot about yourself you haven't disclosed here. Maybe there's something about you which, if I knew it, would completely discredit you in my eyes.

Are you a Christian? Do you attend church regularly? What denomination? SHOULD any of these answers matter to how I perceive your logic? MIGHT they?

[JWinNC]

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm confused. That "note" was to get permission for her to sing the anthem, which was given and that's all she did.

The introductions, according to the story, were later.

"...proceeded as usual to allow members to make any announcements or introductions of guests."

According to that he could have introduced her at the time he did without permission and without prior knowledge. It was their regular procedure. He didn't have to do anything to make that happen. It was the usual procedure, no deception.

Then the Speaker stops him from "debating" an issue at that time, to which he replies he understands and gives a one sentence explaination and then stands down.

It sounds to me like he used the rules and procedures to great effect without breaking them or using deception. What was so upsetting was not anything she did or said, not anything he said or did, just the simple revelation that she survived an abortion. That's all! Why could that one final fact not be celebrated as well as all the preceding?

jw

[MHGinTN]

Oh my, you've stated the truth of the situation ... and that will really tic off LB because misrepresenting will no longer work. Duck, incoming ...

[red irish]

I have told this story before. Once I met a beautiful 16 year old girl was was a result of a rape and her mother did not want to kill her own daughter even though what happened to her was very ugly. Every once in a while I think of this beautiful girl and then wonder how many other young women and men did not get the chance to live because of someone else's evil act. That beautiful girl did nothing to bring on a death sentence but so many do every day. She started out as just the being the potential of life,Gods gift.For me as a christian I believe life is given by a man and a woman and the blessing of God. Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

[Locomotive Breath]

See my post #195. Would the scenario described there be a problem for you?