Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 11:23:38 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: rally and various

Urban Research Institute
Phone: 502-588-6626

Marty:
>That is true but irrelevant.  There is no reason to assume that every
>appointment in every department is checked to determine the candidate's
>views on abortion.  Also, while cabinet members and other top
>officials are appointed, many administrative positions are civil service
>positions.  There is no reason why a militant pro-abortionist could
>not pass a series of civil service tests.  It is possible that that 500,000
>figure is correct, but it is by no means certain.  We have no way of knowing.
>Fortunately, even if the number were several times larger it would not
>affect the fact that morality is based on God's law, not majority vote.

Should have made myself clearer.  This was NOT my point at all.  Sorry.
The only reason I submitted the post about the Parks Service estimating
the crowd at 500,000 was because every time there is such a rally,
the estimate of attendance usually gets attacked as being artificially
inflated by the "liberal media".  I was simply trying to point out that
the number did not come from the media, but from what I would consider
if I were pro-life as a more reliable source, although it is true that
pro-choice people are in every office.

As for morality, that is a question still to be decided.  The people at
the rally were not there to debate God's law, but U.S. legislation, which
IS decided by majority vote.

I do not want to drag myself into this thread AGAIN (does it ever stop?)
because I do not find it profitable.  However, I would like to make
one simple request.  I use the term "pro-life" because many of you
identify yourself as such, not because I agree that it is an appropriate
term.  After all, a vast majority of those who identify themselves
as "pro-life" favor the death penalty and support militant activities
such as the Persian Gulf war.  However, at the same time that you
request the term "pro-life" for yourselves, many of you use terms
such as "pro-abortionist", "pro-abort", or even "pro-death" (thank
goodness I haven't heard that one lately).  You may disagree with
the label "pro-choice" but it is one preferred by your opponents.
And it is quite possible to be "pro-choice" and yet not be "pro-
abortion" (I find myself here).  Out of respect for opinions that
differ, can we use labels that do not disparage or offend?  After all,
I think we must be extra careful in the terms we use to describe
people on such an emotionally charged topic as abortion, particularly
when one point of view is clearly the majority on the list.  Given
such a climate, it becomes easy to use terms that may be offensive.
But how does that further God's kingdom, or even persuade those who
disagree that they are wrong (my bets are that they will bristle
with resentment and defensiveness instead)?  This goes for BOTH sides.

>If jet plains were available in the 1850s so people could assemble from
>all over the country, I wonder how many people would have attended a
>rally to protect "property rights" when the "property right" in question
>was the right to own slaves.

Sigh.  So much to say, so unprofitable to say it.

Brenda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU