Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
X-VMS-To: CHRISTIA
X-VMS-Cc: PSYROBTW
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:49:32 -0500
From:         Robert Weiss <PSYROBTW@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Operation Rescue and the Dans

Dan Graham wrote:

dg> The argument is being made that Operation Rescue is in no way like Act
dg> Up because their tactics are different.  I couldn't care less about Act
dg> Up in this context, no comparisons need be made in order to indict
dg> Operation Rescue.
dg>
dg> The simple facts are that people who call themselves Christians were
dg> engaging in the disruption of a Christian worship service, how they did
dg> it is irrelevant.

[...]

dg> Let's stop defending Operation Rescue and see it for what it is, a
dg> Satanic delusion that is tearing Christians away from their God.

     I feel, since I have written on this subject, that this is addressed
     towards me. As such, there are a few points that need some
     minor clarification.

     No one is defending Operation Rescue's actions.

     A post was sent in that compared Operation Rescue with the group ACT UP.
     My response was that there was no comparison between the tactics of ACT
     UP and Operation Rescue. It was not in defense of Operation Rescue's
     actions. It was simply that those actions contrasted instead of compared
     with the actions of ACT UP.

     If you have a need to indict Operation Rescue for interrupting a worship
     service, go for it. I won't intercede.

     But you did indict them for something far more grievous. You said that
     they were following a satanic delusion that was tearing them away from
     God.

     How can someone who is following:

       Deliver them that are taken forth unto death, and withdraw not from
       them that stagger to slaughter.  (Proverbs 24:11)

    be following a satanic delusion?


Dan Holzman wrote:

dh> Me:
dh> According to the article, they were attempting to "disrupt the worship
dh> services by trying to drown out the church's minister."  Note that this
dh> was a Free Methodist minister leading the action at a Presbyterian
dh> Church, not members of the congregation, not even concerned bretheren
dh> approaching the minister to speak.
dh>
dh> Robert:
dh> Speaking to a minister during a service and being drowned out is not
dh> what ACT UP does.
dh>
dh> How you read a group of people trying to drown out the Presbyterian
dh> minister as speaking to a minister, or a Methodist minister speaking to
dh> a Presbyterian minister is beyond me.

     Dan,

     The original article from the _Windy City News_ (bastion of objective
     news reporting that it is) had so much spin on it that you could
     measure it with torque wrench. It tried to compare a group that was
     only using their voices to the actions of the militant group, ACT UP.
     My response was to indicate that that this is not the sort of action
     that has made ACT UP famous. The comparison is erroneous.

     If you are offended that my portrayal of the actions of Operation
     Rescue does not parrot the portrayal in the slanted article, so be it.
     We know that the group was using their voices, and that they were
     addressing the minister. That certainly covers the definition of
     `speaking to the minister.' Perhaps I should have said `yelling at the
     minister' in the original, but I wasn't sure if that was accurate.
     Given the fact of the erroneous comparison, what else in the article
     had a twist to it? If the author of the article had distilled it of
     presumed intent or presupposed projectives, it would probably have
     sounded like my portrayal.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU