Archives For civil rights for the unborn

An African American man questioning healthcare workers about abortion is making its way around the internet. The group had lined up outside either a healthcare clinic or Hospital, brandishing placards in a show of “woke” solidarity with Black Lives Matter.

As one of the healthcare workers moves forward to kneel, the man in the video asks the group whether “all black lives matter or just some black lives?” The crowd responded, “All black lives matter.

The unknown individual then asks “the black lives killed by black men matter right?” Again the healthcare workers respond, “Yes! Oh, hell yes!”

He then asks, “black babies killed in abortion clinics matter, right?”

Unwilling, unable or unsure of how to respond, the healthcare workers go silent. The man replies, “thought so.”

He continues with, “that black officer killed in Minnesota matters to right?” To which the group also gives their loud, resounding “yes!”

The yet to be identified man in the video then rhetorically asks, “but the black babies that are killed in the abortion clinics don’t matter do they, medical people?”

Healthcare workers once again go silent.

The man in the brief video then closes with this thunderous punch line,

 “Do their lives matter? Does the future of our black babies matter? What’s up? Huh? Awful quiet now aren’t they? Ah. Huh! It’s okay if we kill them in the womb, right? But you don’t seem to really have a problem when we [black people] kill them on the streets. Yes, well we know that they’re the same issue. If we don’t respect the lives of our unborn children, enough to save them and fight for them, our lives mean nothing once we’re born.”

American Civil Rights group The Radiance Foundation posted the video to Facebook & Twitter yesterday, with a caption saying:

“These (pandering) healthcare professionals become awfully silent when their “wokeness” is called out. So “woke”. So “blind”.

The questions within the video are consistent with the Radiance Foundation’s rejection of “race”, and its own self-titled “factivist” criticisms of Leftist activism, including the Black Lives Matter movement, racism, abortion, and LGBT ideology.

On June 5th, founder, Ryan Bomberger penned an outstanding ten point article listing reasons for why he’ll never support B.L.M. stating,

‘Yes, black lives matter. But truth matters. As a Christian, the Church should be leading on these issues instead of sheepishly following a movement hostile to the Gospel.’

As part of this rejection he cites the B.L.M’s Marxist manifest, its focus on ‘black power, the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism. It ignores the fatherlessness epidemic of our age, includes the demand for reparations, abolishing of law enforcement, and is pro-abortion.’

They aren’t the only African Americans speaking out against the shackles put on them by the Left’s reigning, toxic leftist hegemony.

Brandon Tatum hit his Youtube channel hard with a range of dialogue about it, including “White Privilege is MADE UP by leftists”, “Enough with the anti-White narrative” and the (must watch) panel discussing B.L.M  featuring Derrick Gradenigo, Chi Brown, and Anthony Logan.

The latter also came down hard on the subject. Logan’s been prolific in his criticism of people genuflecting to leftism, B.L.M., people capitulating to cancel culture, and Antifa; including one post called ‘PLEASE STOP WHITE GUILT’ (caps are his).

There’s more.

Darrell B. Harrison and Virgil Walker, the voices behind the Just Thinking Podcast, put up a ‘free style episode’ called ‘George Floyd & the Gospel’ addressing the ‘tiresome’ leftist narrative of white vs. black perpetuated by mainstream media.

Harrison & Walker also discussed the serious theological error of equating sin with the shade of a person’s melanin; and how the importance of the Imago Dei confronts us with God’s “no” to the concept of “race”, and the sin of racism.

The episode has hit over 100k shares, making it their biggest podcast to date.

The theme all these voices have in common is that the genuflecting has to end. The bad theology supporting the Black Lives Matter movement (as opposed to the sentiment of the statement) has to end. The tip toeing, kneeling, feet kissing, constant apologizing, agreeing to cancel anything deemed racist by a mob leaping before it looks, has to end.

If the African American voices I’m hearing are correct, none of this is helpful to the black community. Instead of being an expression of love for neighbour, it becomes a self-serving, harmful deification of neighbour.

Worse, it fuses the false concept of race to the Gospel; measures evil by the shade of someone’s melanin, and deifies ethnicity. It raises one group up as superior over against the other. This is a theology of glory preaching the fascist concepts of the superman (ubermensch), blood and soil (blut und boden) and life unworthy of life (Lebensunwertes Leben). It’s not the Gospel. It’s not the theology of the cross.

As Virgil Walker wrote on Instagram today,

“When you follow the BLM/Social Justice Gospel, the lengthy list of “works” required to atone for the sins of others NEVER ends. Furthermore, it changes every day as someone more WOKE (woker than thou) provides you with a new list.”

In order words, you’ll never be woke enough.

Since the death of George Floyd we’ve all been asked to pause and listen, but are we genuinely hearing the voice of ALL African Americans?

Or are we only hearing from those who’ve been pre-approved to speak on behalf of our would-be Marxist overlords?

It should be well noted that in the case of the latter, all appearances suggest that our African American brothers and sisters are seen as a possession, powerless and inferior; an instrument for Cultural Marxists to plough through Western Civilization, further establishing the false promise of a Utopia, via hidden power brokers within the Western Marxist hegemony.

Are we truly listening?

Or is it that the only black lives that matter are those who can be used to keep the paralyzing, oppressive, and divisive, leftist hegemony on life-support, and it’s soon to be defeated, toxic ideological paradigm alive?

[VIDEO]


First published on Caldron Pool, 20th June 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

In her 1981 magnus opus, ‘Public Man, Private Woman’, American political scientist and Lutheran, Jean Bethke Elshtain presented a painstaking analysis of feminism.

Her work as a political theorist is one of the best all rounded academic introductions to the origins and branches of feminism, which comes from within the feminist movement.

Elshtain is best described as a classical feminist. Although she accepts certain criticisms made by feminists, Elshtain is honest about the fact that feminism can, and does go too far. Her chief aim was to present the ideological nuances and obvious contrasts of each branch of feminism.

What makes ‘Public Man, Private Woman’ unique is how her experiences within the feminist movement, particularly radical feminism, allow her a high degree of objectivity.

In the late 1960s, Elshtain and a friend were confronted by the exclusionist ideology of feminist supremacism.

They both linked up with a feminist group, only to find themselves silenced because they raised genuine questions about the prevalent anti-familial force within feminism. According to Elshtain, they attended the group, looking for a community who could help them embrace both the healthier side of early feminist critique and motherhood. However, they soon found out that for some within the feminist movement, there was no reconciling of the two. In the middle of her friend’s turn to speak, the group’s facilitator ‘abruptly and publicly’ cut off their discussion declaring, “We will have no diaper talk here. We’re here to talk about women’s liberation”.

Elshtain recalled, ‘my friend and I left, for we could not treat our children as abstractions, as nuisances to be overcome, or as evidence of our “sad capitulation” to the terms of patriarchy.’

Alarmed by her confrontation with female supremacist exclusivism, Elshtain not only saw the dangers it presented to those outside the feminist movement, but how female supremacist ideology threatens legitimate feminist criticisms about what defines a woman, and how women define themselves in the traditionally male dominant public space.

Other than a general analysis of the state of feminism in 1980-81, Elshtain was also preoccupied with a personal quest, seeking to answer the nagging question about whether feminism could be reconciled with motherhood. And if so, what kind of worldview would this look like?

Her conclusion rejects Marxist feminism, Liberal Feminism and Radical feminism, and instead embraces a politics of compassion which works towards reconstructing a woman’s place in public and private, by ‘truth-seeking’, not ‘truth-construction’.

Elshtain describes a ‘politics of compassion’ as a ‘robust opposition to despair and cynicism’, noting it as being a ‘recognition [on the part of feminists] that no good can come from the widespread dehumanization and destruction of others.’ This would help protect legitimate parts of feminist criticisms, because a politics of compassion recognizes that feminism is undermined by a radical feminist supremacism which feeds on ‘the enchanting lures of resentment and the poisonous destruction of rage.’

Abortion isn’t a key concern for Elshtain. However, her conclusions and personal experience are relevant to the abortion debate.

Elshtain agrees that reproduction doesn’t define women. However, feminism shouldn’t reject the stability of the familial unit. It should be mature and flexible enough to embrace the unique-to-woman, gift of reproduction and maternalism. Motherhood shouldn’t be so easily thrown out by the feminist critique. This is because motherhood is the quintessential definition of an empowered, liberated woman. Strength and servant leadership are a core elements of being a mother. The woman capable of choosing to look, not just to their own needs, but also to the needs of others is not only liberated, but engages in the act of liberating others.

What Elshtain offers is clarity. Her criticism of the feminist crowd, which was ironically awakened by the feminist crowd’s rejection of her (as a patriarchal cliché, because she was married and had children) gives us a vantage point from which we can join with her and say,

‘the presumption that some universally true, ubiquitous, and pervasive misogynistic urge explains everything is simplistic and wrong.’ (p.xv)

When it comes to abortion and the feminist death grip on it, there will be disagreement, but that disagreement doesn’t have to be destructive. There is another way around the ‘radical and destructive social surgery’ pushed by those who demand uniformity in an ideological alignment with abortion and its accompanying progressive platform.

Elshtain’s inherent “no” to this kind of forced allegiance, especially to supremacist ideology is something to applaud. Her “no” is spoken from under the shadow of remembrance, as she recalls the blood that followed the ‘Nazis and Stalinists, the most destructive instances so far of this sort.’

Noting,

‘if everything every basis of human existence, every rule and prohibition not excluding  the incest taboo, is “up for grabs,” those who unscrupulously grab will inherit the earth and we will no longer have  the earth as out inheritance…Each successive generation must respect some moral necessities, must have some “taken for granted,” rules without which even the minimal aspects of a human existence that propelled our prehistoric ancestors to place flowers on the graves of their beloved, will be jeopardized.’

This supremacist ideology is seen in abortion advocates adoption of Simone de Beauvoir’s incongruent use of the term ‘parasite’ in reference to both women and the fetus (The Second Sex).

Supremacist ideology is prevalent in the inherent historical parallels between the Nazi doctrine of “life unworthy of life” and deceptive new term for abortion, “reproductive healthcare”. Abortion is an outworking of radical feminist supremacism. The “choice” argument underpins this because it advocates the totalitarian supremacy of a mother over against the life of her unborn child and the choice of his or her father.

How is a woman living out her liberation, if she’s coerced to kill her unborn child because of pressure from a pro-abortion society, state and peers, in the name of what they deceptively call freedom?

How is a woman living our her liberation if all the information necessary to make the best “choice” possible is hidden from her by her pro-abortion society, state, and peers– “for her own good”?

It would seem that the liberated woman, under the shadow of pro-abortion and the supremacist ideology of Marxist, liberal and radical feminism, is not so liberated after all.

We cannot miss this point. We cannot afford to overlook the fact that pro-abortion, and even pro-euthanasia laws, remove protections for the citizen against a tyrannical state. They remove protections for citizens from supremacist ideology.

Anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia laws are restraints that don’t just apply to one individual having absolute power over another; they hold back the overreach of despotic, crony corporations and these laws restrain the creation of authoritarian governments. These are necessary limitations which protect freedom, rather than being a denial of it.

So it is that we should, and can legitimately stand with Jean Bethke Elshtain and those like her, such as the brilliant Dr. Mildred Jefferson, and say:

“Today it is the unborn child; tomorrow it is likely to be the elderly or those who are incurably ill. Who knows but that a little later it may be anyone who has political or moral views that do not fit into the distorted new order?[i]…I am not willing to stand aside and allow this concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged and the planned, have the right to live [ii]…I say “no” and I am not willing to give up the role of doctor as healer to become the new social executioner…If the destruction of life is permissible for social and economic reasons, why not for political reasons? [iii]


References (not otherwise linked):

Elshtain, J. 1981, ‘Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social & Political Thought’ Princeton University Press

Photo by Cassidy Rowell on Unsplash

First published on Caldron Pool, 13th August, 2019

©Rod Lampard, 2019