The shocking details of the "set-up" to arrest Eric Alcock by leaders of the Religious Social Action Coalition in St. John's, NL.
Labels: Christian leadership, hypocrisy, poverty, RSAC, YouTube
posted by ELA @ 9/07/2007 11:40:00 PM
12 comments
Christian since 1978. Former Protestant and pastor. Received into the Roman Catholic Church in 2004. A thought for your day: "For a small reward, a man will hurry away on a long journey; while for eternal life, many will hardly take a single step." Thomas a' Kempis (1380-1471)
We will win more converts each day: We will grow strong by the violence and the injustice of our adversaries and unless truth be a mockery and justice a hollow lie, we will be in the majority."
Abraham Lincoln
No social evil has been reversed, except by warfare or disciplined, committed non-violence. The cost is high.
John Cavanaugh O'Keefe
Today I have set before you life and death, blessings and cursings. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.
God, Deut. 30:19
Of all the rights of women, the greatest is to be mother.
Lin Yutang
GOD OF ALL GOODNESS, you have entrusted us with the gift of life. Help us to appreciate that gift from the first moments of conception to the last breaths of old age. Send your strength to all those who defend the unborn, the weak, and the dying against attempts to cut short their lives. May your Holy Spirit touch the hearts of those who are tempted to choose the way of death rather than life. Grant that your people may always be a sign of your love in the world. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
You can see its mouth open in a silent scream...
From then on there is the stalking of the victim...
followed by the actual quartering, the dismemberment
of the child before your eyes. You can see the spinal column slipping down the suction
tube and the head is left with a piece of spine on it. And then you can see the
abortionist searching for the head...
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist, describing the suction abortion of
a twelve week old unborn baby shown on an ultrasound.
Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do so is not less a sin than to encourage them.
Pope St. Felix III
The Truth About "Emergency" Contraception
Excuses Christians Use
What do I mean? Simply that some Christians always find reasons not to get involved in certain issues or 'hot topics.' Many claim to have a solid rationale from the
scriptures to support their position. In the case of abortion, all arguments to
remain neutral, to ignore the issue or to deal with the issue indirectly by promoting
more 'spiritual' approaches are seriously flawed. Christians must take a long hard look
at themselves when honestly discussing abortion.
Are you ready for an honest look?
Over a year ago, Nick Cannon released an awesome new music video "Can I Live?"
It's really the story of Nick's life, or at least what might have been his very short life. When Nick's mother was 17 years old and carrying Nick, her unborn child, she went to the very brink of abortion before running out of the clinic at the last minute. This is the story Nick sings about in his music video. It's a very powerful story.
Click below, go and view it now!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Winston Churchill
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.
Ronald Reagan
Fellow Canadians, Why Do We Remain Silent About This?
Partial Birth Abortion Exposed
Diagram 1: Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
Diagram 2: Baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
Diagram 3: Abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
Diagram 4: Abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. Scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
Diagram 5: Scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted.
Child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. Dead baby is then removed.
Thousands of these abortions are done yearly in North America on healthy babies of healthy mothers.
The unborn child is usually 24 weeks or more but the
procedure is also done on viable unborns who are in their seventh month or more.
Partial birth abortion is another gruesome version of the daily merciless killing of unborns by
their mothers and a supremely selfish society.
How long will we bear such monstrous butchery?
Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.
Unknown
12 Comments:
Who's in charge of this Religious Coalition? They should know that a lot of religious people are not happy with the treatment that you got.
I really liked the little note you put on at the end (after all the scary, creepy synth music) about the information that omitted in the news coverage. I guess that's because they decided not to support your attempt to use disrupt the meeting in an effort to piggyback your message onto their media coverage.
But the question of omission is interesting, isn't it? Here, for instance, is SUZANNE'S article about your attempt to hijack the meeting.
"The Religious Social Action Coalition is a social justice group from Newfoundland that held a press conference. Eric Alcock of Vote Life, Canada! went to this conference to bring up concerns about the most vulnerable of our population: the unborn child.
But before he had a chance to speak, he was 'detained'.
I find it ridiculous that a Catholic could not bring up human rights issues at a conference held by a religious coalition, whose members include at least two Catholics. It would be nice to find out whether Sister Mary Tee of the Mercy Ecology and Justice Committee, and Pat Kennedy of Development and Peace are also concerned about the poverty of the unborn and whether they approve of the Coalition's course of action towards Mr. Alcock."
Interestingly, what SUZANNE omits from her article is that the meeting had nothing to do with the unborn. It was announcing a specific initiative to end poverty.
You'd think that little detail might be relevant, wouldn't you?
Heh. Carry on. You're great fun.
balbulican,
It's obvious that you don't see the connection between abortion and child poverty, i.e. between promoting the rights of children to proper food, clothing, housing, etc. but turning a blind eye to rights of children to even live.
Is it that difficult to see the hypocrisy in those who speak loudly to end "politically correct" poverty but who would never consider joining a coalition whose aim was to end child-killing?
My former postings and press release went deeper into the subject but I am planning another posting to specifically address it on a deeper level.
Thanks for your interest.
suzanne,
I don't know who the actual spokesperson is for this coalition and it remains to be seen whether they are prepared to discuss the treatment which I received, or if they are prepared to look at the wider perspective on poverty which I was seeking to raise.
Well, here's what I see.
A group of people announced their intention of holding an event to announce a new anti poverty initiative.
You're an activist and a propagandist (both perfectly fine things to be, but let's be clear on that.) You decided that this event might provide you with some free media coverage.
You issued a release which made a couple of things clear:
- you intended to attend the meeting and promote your own issue
- you intended to be disruptive.
That's a little old fashioned, but it still works, sometimes.
Now, had they allowed you to make an off topic statement at the meeting, you would have garnered a moment's embarassed silence. However, your actual intent was to get hustled out of the building, on camera. Which you did. It worked, sort of.
(I say "sort of" because you blew the one actual line you had time to say to the camera. Did you notice that you reversed the sentence? Heh.)
However, you've been grimly trying to promote this non event as some kind of free-speech martyrdom. Now, I suspect the limited readership of your blog may actually buy that, which is fine. If this little play was staged for the already converted, well, that's cool.
But really (and I'm doing you a favour here, from one old activist to another)...you won't really convince anyone with this kind of transparent, mock-60s political theatre. Even with folks like SUZANNE grimly trying to take it seriously, it's a bit too transparent.
balbulican,
Vote Life, Canada! is committed to communicating the truth regarding abortion, which, for those who don’t readily connect with the meaning of the word, always results in the violent death of a fellow human being, and a most defenseless one at that.
Furthermore, Vote Life, Canada! works primarily in the area of educating and informing Christian leaders about the injustice of child killing and assisting them in getting their congregations mobilized to vote in accordance with principles which will ensure truly pro-life candidates get elected to office. The interests of the Unborn are best served by having politicians in power who truly respect the rights of unborn, as well as born, children.
These facts are well stated on the Vote Life, Canada! website at www.votelifecanada.ca and I urge you to look a little deeper into our goals and rationale.
Bearing those things in mind, I hope you can see that when the top religious leaders in a province or state launch a unique initiative aimed at addressing a justice issue pertaining to children, which poverty is, it is close to the heart of Vote Life, Canada’s concerns. This coalition was promoted as being the very first of its kind in bringing such a diverse group of leaders together to address what they considered to be a serious and intolerable situation.
Now consider that in our province, as far as I am able to ascertain, no group of religious leaders has ever undertaken such a huge and ecumenical effort to address the issue of child killing which is the most serious violation of justice toward children currently taking place in our province and in Canada. In fact, none of these leaders, some of whom are known personally by me, have gone on public record to say they recognize or oppose the injustice of abortion. They remain silent as far as I know and as far as the public knows, lending support to the thought that they may actually be “pro-choice” clergy.
Any person or group convinced of our viewpoint would be negligent and irresponsible not to bring it to the attention of these leaders and caution them, as well as the public, of the possible charges of double standard [hypocrisy] which could be applied in their current initiative. Remember that these are the leaders appointed to set (and sustain) the stage for the moral and spiritual thinking of an entire province.
Obviously you disagree with the approach taken in this instance and claim that I did what I did because I’m “an activist and a propagandist” and that I “decided that this event might provide you with some free media coverage.” Fair enough, but I am not convinced that you want to seriously debate the principle at stake, which is that unborn children have the first and fundamental right to life, after which other issues of justice pertaining to them, such as “poverty,” may be rightly considered.
So I ask you: How do you suggest the situation should have been handled?
Which "situation", ELA?
Perhaps you thought that was a flippant dismissal. It was not. I am asking: what specific situation are you asking for feedback on?
- your strategy for gaining airtime for your message?
- the situation of the meeting organizers, seeking to get their own message out and confronted with a disruptor?
I'll gladly provide you with feedback (and will do so on your subsequent postings on this event), but I need your clarification as to which "situation" you are requesting feedback on.
balbulican,
I cut and paste the following from my last comment in order to clarify the question:
"Bearing those things in mind, I hope you can see that when the top religious leaders in a province or state launch a unique initiative aimed at addressing a justice issue pertaining to children, which poverty is, it is close to the heart of Vote Life, Canada’s concerns. This coalition was promoted as being the very first of its kind in bringing such a diverse group of leaders together to address what they considered to be a serious and intolerable situation.
"Now consider that in our province, as far as I am able to ascertain, no group of religious leaders has ever undertaken such a huge and ecumenical effort to address the issue of child killing which is the most serious violation of justice toward children currently taking place in our province and in Canada. In fact, none of these leaders, some of whom are known personally by me, have gone on public record to say they recognize or oppose the injustice of abortion. They remain silent as far as I know and as far as the public knows, lending support to the thought that they may actually be “pro-choice” clergy."
My question, balbulican, is this: In light of the above "situation" and the mission statement of Vote Life, Canada! what do you believe would constitute an effective (and acceptable to you) response?
Ah.
Well, there's two levels of response possible here. One is engage in a discussion about the sustantive issue from your perspective. But that's not what I was talking about.
You're soapboxing to me because we're speaking here in a public forum, and this is the medium through which you propagandize. So you've chosen simply to repeat a long chunk of mission statement back at me.
That's okay. But it points out the fatal weakness in your strategy. You're not actually engaging in a real discussion. You believe that your cause is best served by simply repeating your mission in every possible medium.
Now, that's great for the folks who already agree with you. And since there is virtually no discussion anywhere else on your blog, I suspect that constitutes pretty much your entire readership. So if your goal is simply cheerleading...i.e, preaching to the already converted...then carry on.
But if you hope to convince those who DON'T already agree with you...and since you're engaging in public advocacy, I assume you are...then I have to tell you that folks like are simply offended by your behaviour.
I understand you are acting according to what you feel are divine imperatives, and that's certainly cool. But if your goal is to convince, then the spectacle of you disrupting a meeting of good folks trying to do a good thing is simply offensive. It's a turnoff. It's a Very Bad Strategy. It doesn't work. It's enjoyable theatre for the already convinced, and no doubt terrific validation for you...in your circle, you have no doubt enhanced your stature with this spectacle. But if you're trying to persuade...it's a bad approach.
Just a tip from a pro.
balbulican,
We all have our agendas. You being a pro surely know this. I make no secret whatever of my agenda. It fills the pages of this blog and the Vote Life, Canada! website, all carefully put together to create one message:
I, and those who support me, aim to put an end to the legalized killing of children in Canada through lawful and peaceful means. Furthermore, as Christians, it is our God given duty and mission to do so.
I take no issue with being called a propagandist or of grandstanding if necessary to highlight the crimes against the Unborn. But only in the positive sense of these words. I don’t mind in the least offending Canadians who are not troubled by the killing of innocent human beings that goes on in their backyards. In fact I hope to aggravate them, if necessary, into action—again only through legal and peaceful means.
If you have a problem with my agenda, fair enough. But don’t cry about it here on this blog. Start promoting your own agenda on your own blog.
"I take no issue with being called a propagandist."
Nor was it intended as an insult. It's an honourable thing to do, especially when undertaken on behalf of a heartfelt cause.
"If you have a problem with my agenda, fair enough. But don’t cry about it here on this blog. "
Cry? Not at all, my friend. This dialogue is being conducted at high level of civility.
However, you have chosen to portray last week's events in a certain light that I feel is unfair to some good hearted people who dont' share your sense of priorities, but who, nonetheless, were trying to make the world a better and more Christian place. I am simply pointing that out for the benefit of your readership.
Post a Comment
<< Home