Posted on 06/29/2006 2:27:32 PM PDT by Pyro7480
The Hell of Gates Shall Not Prevail
In what seems like a well-scripted one-two punch of the culture of death, the world’s two richest men have dazzled our fawning media and society with their dangerous magic in the past several weeks. The sequential announcement of the pending retirement of Bill Gates from Microsoft and the gift of some $40 billion from Warren Buffet to the Gates’ foundation ought to strike fear in the heart of every unborn baby in the world. This is truly an unprecedented event: the world’s second richest man giving the bulk of his immense fortune to the world’s richest man for the singular purpose of population control. Wow.
We ought not to forget who these two men are. It was Warren Buffett who funded the deadly abortion drug RU-486 and has sent suction machines to the Third World to make sure that the poor would not proliferate in his eugenic vision of a white-dominated world. He has an unfiltered bias toward population control and abortion. Mr. Gates is hardly less of an anti-lifer though his philanthropy tends to be better-disguised. He dedicates millions to Planned Parenthood and their abortion machine. He funds condom-distribution efforts, youth education and “reproductive health” schemes all of which are disguised in compassionate terms as AIDS programs and women’s rights initiatives. Needless to say, chastity is not his main concern. He is still young and has made it clear that his second career will be expending these vast resources in generous anti-life measures; he is a formidable force to reckon with.
There is nothing that fuels the anti-life movement more than money. It exists, perhaps symbolically so, on filthy lucre, and with this one mammoth financial windfall I believe the abortion-promoting elite have pushed the already-imbalanced life vs. death battle beyond the point of no-return. With Buffett’s billions Gates may be, in a strictly worldly sense, unstoppable. The culture of life simply cannot compete with this kind of money.
And this is precisely the point where the pro-life movement has needed to be for a long time: the point where all strictly human solutions are rendered impotent and we have no choice but to turn to an even greater power than the combined fortunes of the world’s two richest men. Simply put, they have money, we have God; which means we live in hope for the definitive solution to this mess and they live in fear of a stock market crash.
While we can never cease our human efforts to labor on behalf of the poorest of the world’s poor, the unborn, neither can we pretend that our best efforts towards a worldly solution to the anti-life movement will be sufficient. Only God can win this fight, presuming our cooperation. He is not impressed by the wealth of men; in fact, He scoffs at it. He is impressed, however, with humility and wants us on our knees every spare moment while we work for the unborn. Prayerful humility reminds us where our strength lies. It is not in money or in our efforts or cleverness. It is in Him.
The prayers of the faithful will eventually undo the culture of death in much the same way that the prayers of the faithful toppled the institutions of Communism. We must always, in all ways and at all times make it our priority to buffet the gates of death with assiduous prayers for deliverance from this present darkness and trust that the hell of Gates shall not prevail.
What exactly is the issue? I thought it was the overwhelming billions - but it isn't. So what is it that you are advocating? That Buffet and Gates take back all the money?
On the contrary, no one has suggested ignoring the one percent they are devoting to abortion-related grants. What I and several others have objected to is mischaracterizing that one percent as a hundred percent (the "singular purpose of population control"). That would be equivalent to accusing the priesthood of having the "singular purpose of molesting children" and condemning all priests and everything they do on that basis.
Employing such lies and incredible exaggerations do not help one's cause. We can criticize the evil that child-molesting priests do without having to condemn all priests or claim that they are all child molesters.
The central problem with Euteneuer's article is that his conclusion does depend on making just such a sweeping and inaccurate generalization. He is positing that it is futile to fight in a worldly away against such overwhelming financial resources, i.e., the addition of Buffett's $37 billion to the Gates Foundation's $29 billion. But if less than one percent of that money is involved in abortion or population control, then his argument falls apart.
It would be similar to arguing that the Catholic Church should be abolished because all of the priests in it are child molesters and therefore it is futile to try to root out the corruption. That argument falls apart if only one percent of the priests are child molesters. Nor would pointing out the ludicrousness of such an argument in any way imply that the one percent of priests who are indeed child molesters should not be rooted out.
OK. I can understand that. However, to me that is a minor issue, as the population control aspect is probably the most important. Once you get into that activity, nothing else one does can erase that.
Why would 1 million to do this be ok but not 1 billion?
Either it is OK to fund abortion for population control under the guise of alleviating poverty and disease or it's not.
What do you think?
No kidding. It's as if he'd like to see all the other good wiped off the board. Might be his fascination with that foreign Linux software, which competes with Microsoft, you'll see it mentioned in his tagline.
And your proof it is a "guise" is? Are you saying none of the money went to disease test or contraception? That's where Gates says it goes. It is a small part of what he gives, so I would imagine he would have pretty tight control over it.
I would of course prefer he left no question about it, and didn't donate to these causes at all, including contraception, but that is a definite need in many places in the world, to prevent STD if nothing else.
I don't think so...
The criticism in the priestly-paedophilia cases was ultimately directed against the Church higher-ups who chose to cover up the problem rather than dealing with it.
...because the criticism of the priests involved was taken as a given. Everyone here condemned what they did and no one here praised the priests for the previous (or current) good works.
When we take the principals in each case (Buffet and Gates, and the priests in my analogy), then we should be criticizing each equally.
I can only assume that he's honestly confused on this point. He just has no motive to make a cynical attempt to mislead -- if anything, cynicism would lead him to paint the situation as desperate, but no so bad that it can't be turned around if folks will just open their checkbooks a bit wider.
It's usually considered bad form to talk about another FReeper without pinging him/her to the post.
Translation please.
Sure glad God has everything in His hands.
Still . . . Don't think I'd willy nilly take any vaccinations from those two.
And your proof it is a "guise" is?
This is harping to avoid the question. So OK. Assume it is not a guise and that it will indeed alleviate poverty and disease. Change it to:
Either it is OK to fund abortion for population control and in doing so alleviate poverty and disease or it's not. What do you think?
Not when you have one case where the Priests admit it, and another where Gates claims his money is prohibited from paying directly for abortion. Also, one is against the law, and one isn't. These two things just aren't equivalent, in so many ways.
Irrelevant, since money is fungible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.