Replies

But I'm sure neither you nor I think it's ok for Christians to go around living their lives and getting through life under false pretexts, backdoor slams, and blindsiding people.

I think you're making an unfair comparison. If Harvey had made false statements about her to get her in the door, I would be more likely to agree that he did something wrong. However, the legislature believed they were getting a singing CP victim and advocate, that's what they were given, and they were completely satisfied with her. This entire argument is about what Harvey chose to say about her AFTER she was finished.

This entire scenario reads like one of those 'surprise-ending' parables, like the shrewd manager in Luke 16:8, or the guy buying the field with hidden treasure in Matthew 13:44. However, the way folks are reacting on this thread, I soon expect to see God's judgement pronounced on O. Henry.

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?

I think you've got that right. There was no deception. If the fact of her abortion survival had not been mentioned the oppostion would have had no objection. The mere mention of who she is as an abortion survivor set them aflame.

No motions, no arguments, no legislation, just the mere mention of her abortion survival at the hands of PP.

If honoring planned parenthood is a good idea, then why would the mere mention of how this woman survived be a problem?

The only reason it's a "problem" is because PP and it's supporters cannot honorably stand in the light of this one simple truth. They can only be honored in the dark.

I say hurrah for these brave folks.

jw

I think we're on relatively the same page here. As I said, I don't think anyone had a problem with HER, I think the problem was with HARVEY, and the way he got her on the platform.

Yes, false pretext was a misnomer on my part, because as you said, he presented the truth about part of her story. Just like Harvey himself said, he's not Paul Harvey, but there was "the rest of the story."

That's my only beef with the whole thing - and the whole system and the way it has become so full of animosity that people can't simply state the truth and be given equal floor time. Harvey should have been able to say "This woman has CP, she has overcome many obstacles in her lifetime, and she is an abortion survivor, and since that is apropos to our topic today, I'd like to have her open the session by singing the National Anthem." And that should have been allowed and welcomed and applauded in exactly the same way that it was. Harvey SHOULD have been able to tell the whole story up front, but sadly, in today's animous world, he knew he probably would be shut down if he did that.

The same way that you and I are able to have a civil discussion, why can't the two parties in our Govt do the same? Why can't two sides to a different issue do the same thing?

In other words, why can't people just behave like grown-ups? :-)