RSAC to NL: Concerns For Unborn Unwarranted And Irrelevant

Imagine if the Vote Life, Canada! press release had centred on the charge that religious leaders had refused to condemn child abuse that was taking place in the province, yet now were pressing for poor children to receive three square meals per day. What might we expect as a result of such charges of double standards and hypocrisy?

A good guess would be to expect religious leaders to immediately deny the charge and cite their unequivocal opposition to child abuse. Some would certainly refer to past statements and initiatives already on the record in order to deflect such criticism. And, granted, this would be the proper response.

But in respect to the recent charges by Vote Life, Canada! that the Religious Social Action Coalition (RSAC) was risking charges of blindness and hypocrisy by pressing for the abolition of poverty without first being on record as opposing legalized child killing, no such response was forthcoming.

So what was the message communicated to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by the RSAC in this situation?

A fair guess would be that, in light of the actions taken against Eric Alcock by the RSAC, they found the charges to be not only without credibility and unworthy of comment, but also they judged that Mr. Alcock’s presence at the press conference posed a real threat of some kind. If indeed his charges were without warrant and unworthy even of rebuttal, then Mr. Alcock must be an unbalanced individual requiring police presence to ensure the public peace.

I ask again—what then was the message communicated to NL by the RSAC in this situation?

Obviously, with respect to Vote Life, Canada's message, clearly it was that Vote Life, Canada! had no message worth mentioning.

So to spell this out even more clearly, the RSAC was saying that a concern about legalized child killing in our province is a message not worth mentioning, let alone discussing.

Thank you, RSAC, for qualifying the matter as you did.

It’s really a challenge to imagine that religious leaders who have risen in their ranks have not heard or thought about legalized child killing going on in their very midst. We may safely assume that they have done so. Yet it’s obvious—by the previous logic—that they have no concerns about this NL reality.

Looking further into their logic, they are saying it’s ok to be concerned about a child’s needs for food, clothing, etc. and, at the same time, it’s ok to be selective in which children are entitled to these rights.

Since such attitudes result in the deaths of the most innocent of NL’s citizens, they are saying something much more substantial—something insidiously evil—when they communicate their message. Doesn’t this constitute the worst kind of double standards imaginable?

[Assuming, of course, the most important question has been answered and the Unborn are considered to be fellow human beings.]

On Wednesday, September 5, the first day of school in St. John’s, the police were called to a local school for acts of violence by youths against one another.

I found it ironic that the police were called to an incident of violence on the first day of school while I sat in the paddy wagon, being confined there for seeking to highlight the greatest violence taking place in our society against children. I heard the call come in over the police officer’s radio while he stood guard outside the door of my detainment cage on wheels.

Afterwards I posed a question to the constable. “Do you know why kids resort to violence in their dealings with one another?” He said, “Tell me.”

I explained that it was because of poverty—the poverty of the Unborn—the very reason I came today to the Conference and the police had me removed. I explained that we teach mothers that it’s ok for them to use violence to kill their children in the womb when it suits their purposes but then we wonder why kids are so violent and cruel to one another. Our children are simply acting out what they have learned from their parents.

The officer said, “I don’t see any connection there at all.”

No, and most likely he won’t either, as long as religious hypocrites keep control of the message. As long as the truth is not spoken by Christians (who know the Truth) or by other leaders entrusted with the common good of society it will never reach to the common Joe or to the common constable.

Keeping Canada’s Christian leaders accountable is a necessity and Vote Life, Canada! will be doing its part to sound out warnings.

Accusations of being uncharitable have already been leveled. In my interview with Randy Simms on VOCM radio, he seemed to be calling for a more polite approach. Did Randy forget that I never got to say one single word at the RSAC press Conference?

Think about that for a moment. I guess Randy thinks a person can be impolite for just showing up and wanting to express a viewpoint. And no doubt about it, the thought police were there to lock up that idea (and me along with it).

Others have condemned me for laying charges of hypocrisy in the first place. Apparently we have become so polite in Canada that we should never use the word “hypocrite.” It’s almost as though no hypocrites could possibly exist in Canada.

hyp·o·crite

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.