Posted on 05/07/2013 5:25:13 AM PDT by scottfactor
Liberals are masters of hypocrisy, and when it comes to freedom of speech, they valiantly embrace the old double standard. They’ll bring lawsuits till the cows come home to defend some pervert’s “right” to distribute pornography or other offensive materials to the public or to engage in displays of nudity and obscenity on public streets, even though children may be present, but they’ll fight like maniacs against public displays of pro-life messages and disturbing images of aborted babies, because—they claim—children might see them and be upset.
We have seen numerous cases in which leftists have prevailed at gaining court permission for “teachers” to use profanity in the classroom, to discuss all kinds of sexual behavior and obscenity and to expose children to homosexual indoctrination during school hours. We have seen cases in which courts have determined that children have a “First Amendment right” to play violent video games that contain gruesome, gory imagery like amputation, decapitation, and dismemberment, as well as sexual intercourse.
All this is good and well to the Left, but when it comes to pictures of aborted babies, now there’s something they believe should be outlawed to protect “children’s sensibilities”!
On March 4th, The Thomas More Society filed a petition of the Supreme Court to hear such a case. From the Society’s report:
… Chicago’s Thomas More Society petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn a Colorado state court decree barring Denver pro-lifers from “displaying large posters or similar displays depicting gruesome images of mutilated fetuses or dead bodies in a manner reasonably likely to be viewed by children under 12 years of age attending worship services…at plaintiff church.” The church, Denver’s St. John’s Church in the Wilderness, was picketed several years ago by Ken Scott, Clifton Powell, and others during an outdoor Palm Sunday procession for having “go[ne] astray from the original teachings of the Bible” and for “supporting abortion.”
The “gruesome images” ban was entered in a lawsuit for private nuisance and civil conspiracy filed by the church after Scott and Powell held graphic signs featuring photos of aborted human beings on a public sidewalk across the street from the outdoor procession. This upset parishioners – including children – as they processed on the opposite sidewalk. Scott and Powell had given prior notice of their protest, and they did not enter the church, go onto church property, or disturb the services inside the church where their protest couldn’t be heard. No violence, trespass, physical obstruction, or criminal conduct occurred. Police were present, and neither Scott, nor Powell, nor any other protester was cited for any noise or other law violation.
Despite recognizing that the “gruesome images” ban was a content-based restriction on speech, the Colorado’s Appellate Court upheld it as “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling government interest,” namely, “protecting children from exposure to certain images of aborted fetuses and dead bodies.” Colorado’s Supreme Court denied review, but Chief Justice Michael Bender and Associate Justice Allison Eid dissented.
So, we have a leftist, Episcopal “church” that supports abortion, and we have a group of pre-born life defenders who are protesting that church’s stance. Any church that supports abortion is not a church of Jesus Christ. You cannot claim to be in the body of Christ and at the same time approve of killing pre-born babies. The two positions are mutually exclusive.
What about the gruesome images? Oh, they’re certainly offensive on the deepest, most visceral level. They stir revulsion in the hearts of those who see them, as well they should. Even people who support abortion can be moved by the obscene image of a mutilated, aborted human baby.
Our world has a history of people using disturbing images to push for societal reforms. As the report from the Thomas More Society notes, photographs of lynching victims and the mutilated body of black teenager, Emmett Till, caused such public outrage that the Civil Rights Movement was propelled forward.
The Society report also notes:
Photos of Holocaust victims “similarly helped show the evil of Nazism in ways words could not easily convey.” Other examples cited in the Petition include photos of a Buddhist monk immolating himself in Vietnam, a napalmed Vietnamese girl running in terror along a highway, and a terrorist being shot by a general – all of which impacted national policy on the Vietnam War. More recently, Time magazine’s cover boldly depicted the brutal disfigurement of an Afghan woman – a controversial step defended by Time’s editor who said he “would rather confront readers with the Taliban’s treatment of women than ignore it.”
In his March 8th report on this story, Matt C. Abbott quoted Frank Pavone, who is the national director of Priests for Life, as pointing out the unconstitutionality of the Colorado court’s ruling and the need for the world to see these kinds of images:
It doesn't take years of law school to see the unconstitutional nature of this Colorado decree, especially given the fact that free speech is protected precisely because the speaker often needs protection from those who will try to shut down his message because it is disturbing.
... The need to disturb the public with graphic images of abortion, furthermore, is simply another incarnation of a longstanding history of social reform in which reformers have disturbed the public with images of slaves in the slave ships, or children in sordid working conditions in mines and factories, or holocaust victims, or the damage smoking does to the lungs, or the disastrous results of drunk driving. The list goes on and on. One cannot rationally ban 'gruesome images of mutilated fetuses or dead bodies' without striking a blow against the entire history of social reform.
And that's the point about the use of these images. It is not a question of whether we like to use them. It is a question of whether history teaches us any principles of social reform, and whether there is reason to think that the pro-life movement is somehow exempt from those principles.
Here is the bottom line on why the Left opposes the display of gruesome photographs of aborted babies: it exposes the obscenely grotesque reality of abortion. Americans are not used to actually seeing the truth of what it means to abort a baby. For many people, “out of sight and out of mind” means not fully comprehending the barbaric evil that is abortion. There are truly no words that can convey this reality as these horrible images do.
The devil-inspired Left is fully dedicated to preserving the practice of killing pre-born babies, and they know that the freedom to show the ugly face of abortion will only reduce public support for it. So, they fight against that freedom.
In the twisted minds of leftists, it’s fine for children to be exposed to abominable, public displays of blatant, sacrilegious obscenity like the homosexual Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco, but when it comes to defending pre-born human life, pictures worth a thousand words should be outlawed. The hypocrisy is sickening.
Libs are nothing but hypocrits.
Very few sinners want their works to be seen in the light of day, especially the most egregious ones.
I’m sorry, but displaying those images outside of a church is just classless. We shouldn’t need a law or court case to tell you not to do that.
If that "church" supports abortion "rights" it's as valid a target as any other. The argument about children carries more validity (the probably hypocrisy of its proponents notwithstanding); I'd like to see the protesters take care to turn those images away from view when children are approaching the church. Although one also wonders how many children are in the congregation of a pro-abortion "church."
“If that “church” supports abortion “rights” it’s as valid a target as any other.”
The Westboro Baptists think that our military funerals are “valid targets” too, but that doesn’t make them any more right than you are. There are certain things you just don’t do, if you have class, and this is one of them.
Ripping the limbs off of babies offends me, yet churches promote it with bloodthirsty lust. Is it not incumbent upon us as humans to decry this crime, and to show the sin no matter the 'cost'? I mean, really, you're worried about offending people?
There are plenty of “churches” that have no class and are not part of the body of Christ. Ones that support abortion, like the church in the above column, are among them.
My column PING!
“Is it not incumbent upon us as humans to decry this crime, and to show the sin no matter the ‘cost’?”
It’s incumbent on us to decry the crime, but it is not incumbent on us to do it through such a tasteless method. That’s a choice, and I think it’s a foolish one.
“I mean, really, you’re worried about offending people?”
No, I’m worried about sullying ourselves by engaging in reprehensible tactics.
“There are plenty of “churches” that have no class and are not part of the body of Christ.”
I don’t think that means we need to lower ourselves to their level.
Showing the barbaric truth and gruesome reality of abortion is not “lowering” yourself to the level of those who support abortion. It’s truth-telling, and it needs to be done.
The Westboro Baptists think that our military funerals are “valid targets” too
There's a difference between telling the family of a dead soldier that he died because he fought for a nation that supports gay rights, and telling the congregation of a church what it is that church supports.
There’s no difference in that the venues chosen for protest are inappropriate and the protests are tasteless.
“Showing the barbaric truth and gruesome reality of abortion is not “lowering” yourself to the level of those who support abortion.”
Sure it is. You are using the brutality of what you are protesting to excuse actions which would otherwise be seen as reprehensible.
When protesting a "church"'s support of abortion, how is the "church" itself not the appropriate venue?
It’s clear we will never agree on this.
It’s just not seemly to hold a protest outside a place of worship, where people are gathered to worship. You want to protest the church’s policies, maybe you should go protest the bishops’ or elders’ conferences, or go protest outside the pastor’s house. Intentionally trying to disrupt their services is just not appropriate.
"The Cathedral of St. John in the Wilderness in Denver, Colorado is the seat of the bishop" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_St._John_in_the_Wilderness
Have to agree with IncPen ,
That “church” is a valid target,, and they’re indoctrinating those very children you’re so worried about upsetting... how upsetting is it belonging to a church that is OK with killing their next brother or sister if they’re deemed inconvenient ... I have a whack job liberal Episcopal church in my neighborhood ... some of their youth ministers cars are plastered in gay agenda, Obama and pro abort bumper stickers ... there just might be some people in the congregation that will bring pressure on the pastor or leave them for a real church...
You’ve got to put them on notice ,, give them a chance to turn around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
