8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Mr. Gregg Cunningham of the Center of Bioethical Reform (CBR) has written two blistering commentaries about Randall Terry and his “support and promotion of violence towards abortionists”. In these pieces, Mr. Cunningham takes the liberty of distorting what was actually said and then takes it upon himself to insert terminology that does not exist. To make my point, I will do an exercise at the end of this piece and use the exact liberties and language changes on Mr. Cunningham’s piece as he did with Randall Terry’s statements.
First of all, Mr. Cunningham accuses Mr. Terry of ‘condoning and supporting” Roeders killing of Tiller. Mr. Terry certainly does not. I have read every word of Mr. Terry’s press releases, and the gist of the press releases seemed to revolve around two principles: 1) motive for the killing, and 2) the principle of blood guilt.
The first principle is motive, and it is so tied into American jurisprudence that it is presumes motives are major considerations, as is evidenced by hate laws that now impose stiffer penalties if one can determine motives are raced based, etc. As I have posted on my site, there are many, including scholars, who have defended Roeder’s right to present his defense and motives and have them considered, as is the legal standard of this country. Mr. Terry was one of them, but is the only one that Mr. Cunningham has decided to attack. Mr. Cunningham, by your standards, are all of us who demanded a fair trial for Roeder, guilty of “supporting and condoning murder” of abortionists?
The principle of blood guilt is an edict from God, and not a point of negotiation with mankind. Mr. Terry posed this as a question to be contemplated and his writings posed some ethical and Biblical questions that have value in debating. The questions Mr. Terry was posing would have been commonly posed and contemplated about a century ago, before the modern Christian became “sophisticated” and too smart for God (see quote above from Isaiah). The problem is, as Mr. Cunningham is reflecting, too many moderate and well meaning Christians have little to no tolerance for perspectives outside of their comfort zones, and instead would rather water down the Christian message than contemplate judgment or the scorn of their peers. (Wait until God’s judgment appears)
Mr. Cunningham then goes on to erroneously compare the alleged “support and condoning of murdering abortionists” to animal rights and tree huggers committing violence and potentially killing those who don’t support their views. Well, Mr. Cunningham, they already do violence, and it was going on way before Roeder did what he did. Also, Mr. Cunningham, did it ever dawn on you that the CAUSE OF ALL VIOLENCE is the taking of the most innocent of lives? And Mr. Cunningham, what is your personal liability in all of this, since you see yourself as one of the mainstream pro lifers, who has and is going along with the ‘company’ line, and we still have this curse upon us. What have you and the mainstream pro life movement done to end this? Help elect Scott Brown?
You truly give Mr. Terry almost deity status by laying the blame of the potential for increases in violence on him, while simultaneously stating he is marginalized, isolated and a fool. You can’t have it both ways.
It also seems, Mr. Cunningham, that you are painfully unaware that over the past 37 years, homicide, violence against women in every way, child abuse, sexual crimes, the pandemic of substance abuse, the homosexual agenda and advances have all taken root since Roe v. Wade, now do you think there are any spiritual connections to these? Did Randall Terry cause all of this?
It never ceases to amaze me how people like Mr. Cunningham ca represent himself as a Christian, and quote scripture on his behalf to make whatever bizarre point he is trying to make, while bludgeoning another with extremely harsh rhetoric, that he is not willing to use on the enemy. Mr. Cunningham then hides behind the Christian moniker and justifies his poor behavior by then stating how he will ‘pray’ for Mr. Terry and his conversion. Actually, Mr. Cunningham, I will pray for YOUR CONVERSION as you need to demonstrate the behavior you are expecting (demanding) others to follow.
Now, we will look at some of Mr. Cunningham’s ‘double speak” Below is a partial copy of Mr. Cunningham’s post dated February 2, 2010. Link to full post:
“You have every right to bring discredit upon yourself and the organization you represent. But when your self-promotional excesses discredit the entire pro-life movement with reckless theatrics, it would be irresponsible for the rest of us to signal indifference, or worse, agreement, by our collective silence.
There is much more I could say but to the extent that one believer can properly exempt another from the prohibition against lawsuits found in 1 Corinthians 6:1- 8, I do so with this rebuttal. Sue me.
I am more than willing to submit for judicial review my conclusions concerning your outrageous remarks. But in the mean time, be assured that many people are praying that you will abandon the erratic, destructive extremes toward which you seem increasingly inclined.
You greatly underestimate the injury caused by ill- considered remarks which encourage further violence on both sides of this volatile issue. You say "the sky is not falling" but it fell indeed on CBR volunteer James Pullion when he was murdered by an abortion rights extremist whose defenders will attempt to make his trial about the public display of abortion photos in the same manner you tried to make Scott Roeder's trial about abortion. It is clear that you don't begin to understand the forces you are unleashing here. “
The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform
www.abortionNO.org firstname.lastname@example.org- 0600
Mr. Cunningham has taken the liberty (and falsely so) of Mr. Terry’s statements about not condoning or condemning Roeder’s actions as “condoning”. No, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Terry was clearly making the point that Roeder should get a fair trial and have the ability to openly discuss his motive, and have a jury of peers determine the outcome which is normative in American jurisprudence. It is unfortunate that you ignored this and twisted it around or in your own words: You are either being intentionally deceptive or wildly negligent.
Concerning the point of the child killers position of using the graphic signs as a reason for killing (murdering) Mr. Pouillon, the pro life side is already doing this, in droves. In fact, I have seen multiple pro life sites and organizations making statements that Mr. pouillon is the first ‘martyr’ in the cause, thus making a direct link of his death to his activities of showing graphic signs. So of course the other side is going to use this in their defense, but there are potentially two critical differences: 1) Pouillon never murdered anyone, and 2) the biased society and media may very well allow or demand this defense to stand, unlike Roeder. And you know what, Mr. Cunningham; jurisprudence mandates that this individual receive his day in court, no matter how repulsive it may be.
Mr. Cunningham then goes on to make statements pertaining to the need to speak up when the reputation and credibility of the pro life movement is at stake. Mr. Cunningham seems to have no problem making his case that Mr. Terry is unhealthy, reckless, self promoting and excessive, but Mr. Cunningham is totally blinded to his own biases. What do I mean? Well if we follow Mr. Cunningham’s logic to its conclusion, we could say that he, along with the mainstream pro life movement is actually pro abortion, due to the fact that they openly supported Scott Brown, lead by Right to Life of Massachusetts, and all the other proponents of the ‘Great Scott” movement when they knew that Mr. Brown is a proponent of Roe V.Wade. By not ‘Condemning” Mr. Scott’s position, they have “condoned” it, and according to Mr. Cunningham’s logic, now support this position.
Mr. Cunningham has also been clear on the need to speak up if the ‘entire pro life movement is discredited’, and did so with Randall Terry. However, it is noted that Mr. Cunningham has stayed silent on the Brown position and victory, and would have to conclude by his silence on this matter, that Mr. Cunningham does not see this as a discredit to the whole pro life movement and thus signals his tacit approval of this election and position by Scott Brown.
Congratulations! Mr. Cunningham and the mainstream pro life organizations: you are all now pro death and pro abortion!
This idea of incrementalism is a doctrine straight from the pits of hell, but is embraced by the mainstream pro life movement. Where in scripture does God mandate or even allude to incremental obedience to his laws? Who or what gives the right to any human being to determine what policies to follow, when the price of following them is sacrificing babies? The election of Scott Brown is incrementalism, and it is a concession of babies’ lives for the idea that we cannot win. If you believe in what the Bible says, we know we have truth on our side, and it is not to be toyed with, and needs to be set forth by our side, and not hidden from, like it is some dreaded disease.
Again, God’s thoughts are not ours, and it is man’s wisdom that states “we must go gradually” and not rock the boat. This doctrine from hell will bear its fruits, and only then, will we see that it is people like Mr. Cunningham and many in the mainstream pro life movement that have actually marginalized and misaligned others by their faulty logic and double speak. I would rather follow the ‘misguided and extreme” antics of Randall Terry than the pompous, disingenuous and prideful stance taken by Mr. Cunningham and much of the mainstream pro life movement who embrace contradictory and unbiblical positions, on my worst day. We all will be in front of God’s judgment seat some day, and it is his distain I fear, not those who cannot even see the war we are in and then condemns anyone who does not agree with their narrow views.