Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]

CatholicEducation.org ^ | May, 2006 | Ted Harvey

[Locomotive Breath]

Well MHGinTN you've nailed it. Sneaky Christians don't hold much water with me.

[beezdotcom]

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

Tricky. In this context, yes I have, and yes I do. That's simply because in my church, I can not innocently present someone as 'Christian' who teaches that 'sin is not sin'. In our parlance, "Christian" and "unrepentant lesbian" would be mutually exclusive - unlike "CP advocate" and "abortion survivor".

But it's a straw man, anyway - and besides, if I should engage in such shenanigans, OUR pastor would probably just use it to draw a contrast betweed the sin and the sinner - and dress me down in the parking lot afterwards. It's the band I'd have to worry about...

[beezdotcom]

Sneaky Christians don't hold much water with me.

"sneaky" Jesus, included? Going to places secretly, not announcing himself as the Son of God, letting people think he was going to help overthrow Rome, being all cagey when Pilate was questioning him...man, what a deceiver.

[MHGinTN]

LB is just so far superior that LB can misrepresent what happened and should not be called on it. Must be thin air up there in superior land.

[JWinNC]

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

I don't think that is a valid comparison, but I'll answer anyway.

Is it the usual and accepted procedure for members to make announcements at that point in time without permission or prior knowledge of the subject?

If yes, then I would have no basis to call it deceitful. (I could easily agrue that it is wrong on other grounds, but that's another matter.)

jw

[exile]

That was so good it's got to be fattening. I'd have loved to see the face of every Commie Democrap in the place.

[Locomotive Breath]

I don't concur with your interpretation. Isn't it dark under that basket of yours?

[Locomotive Breath]

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?

I'm arguing that Christians should be honest and aboveboard in all their actions. Do you think that's doctrinally unsound? Do you think that Christians should pretend to be something they're not so as to gain an advantage? Would you seek to dismiss my skill as an engineer if you found out that I'm a member of the "wrong" denomination?

Conspring to hijack a proceeding for your own agenda is not honest and aboveboard. Try hijacking a thread on FreeRepublic and see if it gets you anywhere with the other people on the thread.

[Locomotive Breath]

I argue that you are misrepresenting what happened. As for me "not being called on it" we're at 208 posts (not all responding to me, of course) and counting.

[beezdotcom]

I'm arguing that Christians should be honest and aboveboard in all their actions. Do you think that's doctrinally unsound?

No.

Do you think that Christians should pretend to be something they're not so as to gain an advantage?

No - and that didn't happen here. She is a CP advocate. She's probably also many other things which weren't mentioned, but which would not have drawn rebuke had Harvey mentioned them instead. It's only one "inconvenient truth" which angered some.

Would you seek to dismiss my skill as an engineer if you found out that I'm a member of the "wrong" denomination?

No - but even if I would, are you obligated to volunteer that information if I don't ask? (You haven't yet, by the way, and I _DID_ ask.)

Conspring to hijack a proceeding for your own agenda is not honest and aboveboard.

Conspiracy, hijacking - nothing like peppering your argument with a little al Qaida language. Doesn't make it true, however. Harvey spoke at the time he was allowed to speak. That's hardly "hijacking".

Try hijacking a thread on FreeRepublic and see if it gets you anywhere with the other people on the thread.

Non sequitur.

[Locomotive Breath]

Why is the comparison invalid?

Suppose, having sponsored the performer, it were your assigned role to introduce the performance and then thank the performer afterwards? If you must, take it out of the sanctuary and put it in some other church-related setting that is more extemporaneous than the regular service.

If you did this, you would have with malice aforethought disrupted a church meeting simply because you disagree with the doctrine expressed at the meeting. Isn't that what Harvey did at the Colorado legislature?

[MHGinTN]

Well, argue all you like, LB, but the simple truth is the Rep. didn't hijack anything, and in fact had every right to make the remarks he made and was about to make when the chair cut him off. That you keep trying to misrepresent that fact shows us all a great deal about your style ... as a last worder, you may now have the last word. Try to be fully honest with it.

[Delphinium]

Okay you caught me, truth is out. I had too much fun in my school years.

[Delphinium]

What in the world? standing up for homosexuality and standing against abortion are totally different.

I am beginning to wonder? What kind of "Christian" church do you associate yourself with?

[JWinNC]

”Why is the comparison invalid?

I think it’s invalid on several grounds… going into the “apples and oranges” of it would throw the current discussion off track.

" sponsored the performer, it were your assigned role to introduce the performance and then thank the performer afterwards?"

Then I would certainly be within my bounds to introduce and then thank the performer. In the process, if I announce she is a “homosexual,” that’s going to make a lot of folk uncomfortable but if she is, then she is and I think I would still be within my bounds. That’s not a deception. (It could very well be disruptive, but that’s not relevant.) …this is all taking us off track …the difference between a church and a legislative body is huge.

"If you must, take it out of the sanctuary and put it in some other church-related setting that is more extemporaneous than the regular service."

Instead of trying to agree on what is a valid comparison and what is not, why don’t we stick with what actually and precisely happened?

"If you did this, you would have with malice aforethought disrupted a church meeting simply because you disagree with the doctrine expressed at the meeting. Isn't that what Harvey did at the Colorado legislature?"

No, that is not what he did... not even close as I see it. He made a point… a very strong point using the rules and procedures they have in place. He did not deceive. He did not disrupt. If there was an improper disruption, it was not due to him, but rather to those who are offended by the mere mention that this woman survived an abortion at the hands of PP.

jw

[Locomotive Breath]

p.s. (JWinNC: Post originally to beezdotcom. If you don't like my analogy in post #215 then use the hypothetical in this post)

No - and that didn't happen here. She is a CP advocate. She's probably also many other things which weren't mentioned, but which would not have drawn rebuke had Harvey mentioned them instead. It's only one "inconvenient truth" which angered some.

He was given the floor on the basis and premise that he would introduce a CP advocate about which there is no controversy or disagreement. If she had been suffering from some life shortening disease (CP is not?), and if it had been the Alabama legislature and if he had introduced her and then said "Oh, by the way, she's a lesbian with a partner and two children and how can you possibly think of depriving her survivors of their rights?" because he was against the Defense of Marriage legislation that was certain to be passed later in the day, well, that would have been wrong too. In that case it would have been all the leftists going "SWEET - they tried to stop him but he got it in" and some in FR would be condeming him. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored. All I'm saying that we must all follow the rules, especialy in something as important as a legislature, or the whole thing falls apart. And just because we feel that God's on our side and we're not getting what we want doesn't give us the right to do what Harvey did.

No - but even if I would, are you obligated to volunteer that information if I don't ask? (You haven't yet, by the way, and I _DID_ ask.)

You go first. Then, instead of responding to your arguments, I can take the easy way out and dismiss you out of hand for being a member of some "doctrinally incorrect" group that are not "real" Christians. Are sneaky tricks good doctrine in some denominations? Please let me know so I can avoid them just like you'd avoid me if I'm the "wrong kind". Maybe the solution to our troubles is to have all the Christians with law degrees pretend to renounce their faith and then join the ACLU and NARL. Once we have enough people in positions of power on the inside we can launch a coup from within and destroy the organization. Would that violate some tenet of Christianity? "I'm a mole for Jesus!" would make it all OK?

And you've got it backwards. Supposing, as engineers, we were discussing whether a bridge were properly designed and I supported my argument with "I'm a Christian in a state of grace and so my calculations are better than yours." I would have introduced my faith into a situation where it did not belong.

As an aside, I've had a sincere Christian engineer tell me that he prayed over his design and, on that basis, he was certain that it was right. I had to disabuse him of that notion. Faith will not keep a bridge from falling down. If there are no atheists in foxholes then there are not so many in engineering labs either because a whole lot of praying goes on but in the end, the bridge stands or falls.

Conspiracy, hijacking - nothing like peppering your argument with a little al Qaida language. Doesn't make it true, however. Harvey spoke at the time he was allowed to speak. That's hardly "hijacking".

The word "hijacking" was meant as a direct precursor to the common and universal "highjacking a thread" reference that followed.

Try hijacking a thread on FreeRepublic and see if it gets you anywhere with the other people on the thread.

Non sequitur.

Not at all. If people have congregated to discuss topic "A" you don't break in and insist they discuss what you want to discuss. You start a new thread. The difference is that with FR you are free to come and go as you please and many threads can happen simultaneously. In a legislature you can't go "start a new thread", they have rules of order, and Harvey couldn't handle that they didn't want to talk about what he wanted to talk about. So he lied to them, got the floor, and then talked about what he wanted to talk about. Frankly, the high merit of what he wanted to talk about is completely irrelevant to me because EVERYONE thinks what they want to talk about is in the same category.

[FJ290]

No offense, but that's the kind of arguing that Liberals do.

What? Just because I asked him why he's so upset? And you certainly didn't address the other questions I asked either:

Do you think the Holy Apostles cared one whit if they caused an agitation? Do you think Jesus cared that he stirred up the scribes and Pharisees?

I think homicide is just as evil as lying, and I can imagine cases where homicide is licit -- for example: I have very good reason to believe that that spare tire you're toting is actually a suicide bomb -- VERY GOOD reason.

Um.. I saw in a recent post where you have converted to the Church. Is your conversion recent? I don't mean to offend you, but the Church doesn't agree with you about lying being just as evil as homicide. Homicide and abortion are considered as crimes crying out to Heaven for vengenance. Lying is not on the same plane.

Catechism:

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

I hardly think Mr. Harvey's actions rose to the level of injuring anyone nor did he do grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

Abortion and homicide on the other hand:

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

On the other hand, Harvey confronted those who support what the Church has deemed a criminal practice. As I said earlier, they are aiding and abetting a crime. Who bears the greater sin here? Harvey or the Democrats? His sin was venial, theirs is mortal!

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

I hope that has changed your mind that lying is just as evil as homicide.

[Locomotive Breath]

It was a hypothetical. I'm not standing up for homosexuality. But if it's your own ox being gored you apparently have a different standard of behavior.

[FJ290]

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.

It's a story worth repeating and thanks for sharing as I am fairly new here and haven't heard it before.

[Locomotive Breath]

Are you now going so far as to say that I have been dishonest up to this point? Please point out where I have been so. If anything I have been too honest.

Read my post #216 and see if you agree that with a different legislative issue at stake Harvey's behaviour would have met with far less approval from the people in this thread.