1. The beginnings of the anti-abortion movement after Roe v. Wade were much more solemn than what we see today. Originally, the movement was led by men such as Randall Terry and John O'Keefe, who envisioned peaceful protests. This seemed like a straightforward system to them; it was the abortionists who were on the side of violence. The anti-abortion movement, they believed, should be on the side of peace so that they could save lives. The idea of using violence to save lives seemed counter-intuitive. In the decade following Roe, this philosophy seemed to be fairly successful, as the movement continued to grow and receive coverage.
In time, a new aspect of the movement emerged. Vandalizing and tampering with abortion clinics in time escalated into bombings and arson under the leadership of men such as Michael Bray and Thomas Spinks. This new wave of protesters did not hesitate to use intimidation or threats of force to both frighten abortion doctors and attract attention. While they were certainly quite successful in these attempts, they did a lot of damage to the anti-abortion cause. When these leaders were tracked down, they became the face of a movement that was now viewed as radical and violent. Many of those who had followed John O'Keefe no longer wished to be associated with it.
While other movements, such as Randall Terry's in the late 80s, have sprung up to repair the movement's image, no unified national movement has been established since the days of O'Keefe's leadership. Frustration has led to further violent protest incidents, such as the exploits of Michael Griffin and Paul Hill, which have only served to fragment and divide the movement further.
2. Michael Bray's actions seem to have been motivated by “…a belief that individuals should not have the right do deviate from Christian moral standards.” (McVeigh and Sikkink) It is surprising to examine Bray's religious background and see that it is marked with confusion. He spent time among Baptists, Mormons, and Presbyterians before he finally started down the path to becoming the first truly radical anti-abortion leader.
The seeds for Bray's passionate objections and violent protests were sown when he turned to fundamental Calvinist beliefs. Risen and Thomas succinctly explain the implications of these convictions: "That meant a return to concepts that had been out of fashion in mainline American Protestant churches for generations: a return to the Puritans, to predestination and Godly election, and finally, to "Dominion" teaching. Ultimately, it led fundamentalists back to the Augustinian view that God intends his followers to build a City on a Hill: a Christian city."
With such beliefs, there was clearly no room for differing religious interpretations. To establish a Christian society, it was necessary to force other ideas out of the way. After all, as John Calvin asked, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Bray read these beliefs, and followed faithfully the implications (which were reinforced to extreme measures by John Knox) that if he was doing God's work, he could do no wrong.
3. The differences in coverage of Michael Griffin's shooting of David Gunn between The New York Times and Wrath of Angels are significant. Risen and Thomas cover the murder from Griffin's perspective. They use Griffin's claims about the events. "Right to Life" and "The Death of Dr. Gunn", two Times articles, take a much different angle. They condemn Griffin's actions, as well as the actions of all anti-abortion protesters.
No comments:
Post a Comment