Sunday, 28 June 2009

The zealots' hate rages on.

Anger is not a "bad" emotion; it is in fact the necessary fuel for social change. There's an Anglican community in Ottawa that displays inspiring quotes and thoughts outside the church for all to see. This one in particular caught my attention: "Hope is the daughter of anger and courage." Yes, it's a transformation of the original St Augustine aphorism; I find it so much more relevant these days.

Celia Murray is a columnist writing for the Morgan County Citizen in Georgia. She was attacked - verbally - for the views she expressed after the public execution of Dr George Tiller. This, in part, is her response:

The retaliation for expressing my opinion was swift and vicious. Last week, in two published letters, I was accused of “spewing hatred,” of being full of “anger and bitterness,” and the question was posed as to whether I should be labeled a “terrorist.”

There are two distinct issues presented by these letter writers – the abortion issue and what I will call the “debate” issue – and I want to address both, after which I will say no more on this subject. First, with regard to the abortion issue and those who consider it a moral and/or religious issue, I encourage them to read the opinions of Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations.

Prior to joining the coalition, Veazey spent 33 years as a pastor at Zion Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. Surely we all agree with Rev. Veazey when he states that “men and women are moral agents and equipped to make decisions about even the most difficult and complex matters.” Rev. Veazey goes further: “We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether to have children according to her own conscience and religious beliefs and without governmental interference or coercion. We must also ensure that women have the resources to have a healthy, safe pregnancy, if that is their decision, and that women and families have the resources to raise a child with security.” ...

Although the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a very difficult one, it can be a responsible decision. Depending on the circumstances, it might be selfish to bring a child into the world. Pat Gillespie and Brenda Thompson undoubtedly believe that every child conceived must be carried to term. It has been my observation that many like them are 100 percent supportive while the child is in the womb, but as soon as the child is born, their support disappears. Too often those who are most vocal in their “pro-life” positions are also those who oppose taxpayer funding for healthcare, education, housing, family assistance programs and other anti-poverty programs. Essentially, in the words of Rev. Veazey, they “abort” that child by driving him or her into generational poverty, drugs or the criminal justice system. It has often appeared to me, based on fiscal policy, that the Right’s concern for the “unborn” ends at the birth canal.

Murray's original column was Politics of Hate.

There's a big difference between anger and hate. Anger can be channeled into community-building, into respect for others who are also angry for different reasons, yet wish to work to find solutions to the situations and problems that provoke anger.

Hate is cowardice, it is passive aggressiveness that explodes in violence, propaganda used to demonize and destroy those who are cast in the role of the enemy.


Mike said...

So, how long before the Common Scold tracks you down and begins regurgitating his well practised mantra?

He seems to personify everything in this post...

deBeauxOs said...

Mullet-boy seems a bit obsessed with JJ these days, which keeps this blog free from the 'broken-record that types with one finger'.

Luna said...

So how do you argue with the ones who say, "Well, better impoverished than dead!" and "So, are you saying that it would be better for poor people to abort?!" etc.

There's something clearly wrong with that argument, but I'm having trouble combating it.

deBeauxOs said...

Do pro-choice advocates say that it would be better for wealthy people who have a documented family history of violence, child abuse, alcoholism, drug-dependency and high-risk behaviour to abort?


Those concerns that Celia Murray raises in her column about a pregnant woman evaluating if she has "the resources to raise a child with security" address more than financial stability - though in the US right now, poverty is increasing, causing hardship for more and more families.

Post a Comment