Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Interview Transcript with Former Militant Anti-Abortion Minister

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by AzCatFan, Jul 11, 2018.

  1. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    7,597
    282
    263
    Apr 9, 2007
    Very long read, but very interesting. This Minister was very active in the anti-abortion crowd for many years starting in the late 80's, but more recently had a change of heart. From his own words:

    SCHENCK: Certainly, I think there must be space for people to safely emotionally and physically resolve their crisis personally. Reality is that even if abortion were to be criminalized, to be made illegal across the United States, there would still be abortion, and it would be supremely unsafe. It would be criminal. It would be exploitative. It would be extremely dangerous.

    And that's a reality all of us must face. We can deny it. We can wish that it weren't so. We can imagine that it won't be. But reality proves - and I'm going back millennia. We don't have to go back to the 1960s. We can go back to ancient Rome and Greece and find evidence that there will always be a way to procure abortion, and that should be a reality all of us care deeply about.
    Also has an opinion on the what he calls Faustian bargain evangelicals made with President Trump much later on in the interview:

    GROSS: Why do you think that the alliance between Trump and evangelicals might lead to the demise of the evangelical community as we know it?

    SCHENCK: Because Donald Trump is a deal-maker, and he made a deal with evangelicals. He said, I will give you everything you want if you give me everything I want. And what I want is a religious imprimatur. I want a pass on moral accountability. And I want a full-throttled embrace of my policies and my movement - my political movements. And you will give that to me. And in return, I will give you your laundry list of demands. That's the deal that's being worked out right now. And that's supremely demoralizing to a faith that is to speak to the conscience of the political realm - not to be its errand agents, to be subservient to and subject to the political forces. It's to speak to the conscience of the nation - not to be its agent for carrying out what, in many cases, is an immoral agenda.

    There is a lot in there that I agree with, and personally, I hope he's right about any next wave of evangelicals about being more spiritual and less political. It's one thing to let your religion guide you when you're a politician. It's another to impose those views on everyone, including those who aren't the same religion as you.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  2. ursidman

    ursidman GC Hall of Fame

    4,636
    1,613
    483
    Sep 27, 2007
    I heard this today on NPR. Thought provoking interview. Here is the link:

    On what he hears from some politicians who voted for Trump but have doubts

    I would never name names ... but I have heard that many times over. You know, "I can't embrace him," sometimes even say very vulgar things about him, certainly paint him as a reckless, irresponsible and deeply offensive individual. I've heard even top level officials including members of Congress call him "insane, crazy, a lunatic — but he's our lunatic, and he's going to help us achieve our objectives," and they're willing to make that deal. To me, that equates to selling one's soul.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. gatorev12

    gatorev12 GC Hall of Fame

    11,510
    562
    648
    Jan 27, 2009
    NPR is useless: they just browse a list of DNC talking points to every story out there and find someone to parrot the "progressive" line to make it seem apolitical and mainstream, when the reality is anything but.

    They did a segment once in Jax interviewing an openly gay "Christian" minister who was claiming that gay marriage is sanctioned by the Bible. The entire point of the show was to try and cast shade on a very popular non-denominational church here in town that *gasp* taught what the Bible says on the subject and one of the ultra-liberal print magazines here got their panties in a wad about it. I mean, come on: they pick the only "Christian" church in the entire town that's run by an openly gay female minister and try and use that as a credible Scriptural voice? ANY other minister would have had a far different message, which of course is why they didn't try and interview them.

    It's ridiculously obvious to see what the agenda is. And why I have no time for that garbage.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Creative Creative x 1
  4. ursidman

    ursidman GC Hall of Fame

    4,636
    1,613
    483
    Sep 27, 2007
    OK. On the infographic we had posted here a couple of weeks ago, NPR scored only slightly to the left of center on the biased scale. High information, low bias. Of course, that is overall and not to say that any one piece is or isn't biased but overall they do a good job.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. gatorev12

    gatorev12 GC Hall of Fame

    11,510
    562
    648
    Jan 27, 2009
    Informative..yes.
    Low bias..laughable.

    I used to listen to NPR for years: their agenda became patently obvious to anyone who isn't a card-carrying leftist. I can't comment how they were before; but take any story and actually analyze their reporting and you'll see it pretty much perfectly aligns with whatever the DNC's stated position is.

    I mean: look at the above story...how many Christian ministers would share that opinion? Very, very few.

    How many women end up regretting their abortion and suffer terrible mental and emotional depression for years afterwards? Many. But NPR never bothers to interview *that* side of the story. It goes against the agenda they're trying to set. On this and many other issues.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. g8orbill

    g8orbill Old Gator VIP Member

    98,976
    12,668
    3,683
    Apr 3, 2007
    Clermont, Fl
    the guy either never had any Faith or lost it along the way
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. ursidman

    ursidman GC Hall of Fame

    4,636
    1,613
    483
    Sep 27, 2007
    Hence the human interest necessary for an interview? Also - a book. He seemed like a sincere Christian to me. Had spent years and years being a human blockade in front of abortion clinics - yelling at workers and clients trying to enter. He said he finally realized that kind of behavior was all about him and not all about God.

    edit: also was not NPR news - it was on the show Fresh Air
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. gatorev12

    gatorev12 GC Hall of Fame

    11,510
    562
    648
    Jan 27, 2009
    Right. And years and years of stories with cookie-cutter "human interest" interviews that *shocking twist* always seem to promote a liberal or super liberal viewpoint...one might arrive at the conclusion that there's an agenda.
     
  9. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,073
    160
    638
    Apr 26, 2007
    News flash! Con doesn't like media outlet that publishes stories that con doesn't like.
     
  10. Bushmaster

    Bushmaster GC Hall of Fame

    4,276
    510
    373
    Apr 9, 2007
    #walkaway ring a bell? You all were claiming this was fake and yet you believe this guy whole heartedly.

    Which is it?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. gatorev12

    gatorev12 GC Hall of Fame

    11,510
    562
    648
    Jan 27, 2009
    Breaking!! An "intellectual" "progressive" completely failed to grasp an elementary point because they assume everyone lives in the same bubble they do.
     
  12. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    Apr 8, 2007
    I think the issue is what the minister says, not simply that you don't like the organization that did the interview.
     
  13. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    7,597
    282
    263
    Apr 9, 2007
    Typical and expected response from the right. Don't like the message? Attack the messenger and the medium. Forget about even reading or listening and just dismiss.

    The man has been close to the anti abortion movement and seems to have had a sincere change of heart. And he makes a good point about outlawing abortion not stopping or even putting a dent in the abortion rate.

    But hey, the interview was on NPR so you can just attack him and ignore any salient points he makes. Right?
     
  14. gatorev12

    gatorev12 GC Hall of Fame

    11,510
    562
    648
    Jan 27, 2009
    1) He's entitled to change his opinion.
    2) We are also entitled to our opinions in response to #1 and in response to the source.

    Don't act all butthurt about those two basic facts. Especially since you damn well know that NPR is trying to falsely use his moral authority as a "Christian minister" to promote its agenda.

    Would you have given complete deference to a speaker from Silent No More--a large anti-abortion group composed of women who have aborted babies and later regretted it? Including btw the woman who sued for the right to have an abortion in Roe vs Wade.

    Of course not. You would have done the exact same thing.
     
  15. gatorev12

    gatorev12 GC Hall of Fame

    11,510
    562
    648
    Jan 27, 2009
    It's a valid question to ask why a publicly funded organization only seeks to promote a certain viewpoint whether you want to admit it or not.

    If they wanted balanced viewpoints; then give equal weight to women who had an abortion and now regret it. But they didn't, now did they?
     
  16. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    7,597
    282
    263
    Apr 9, 2007
    He is entitled to his opinion, has an interesting perspective, fascinating story, and a book to promote. He has first Amendment rights and if he can find an outlet to make his voice reach a larger audience, then good for him. The fact it's with NPR, a left leaning group shouldn't surprise anyone.

    I believe there is wisdom and knowledge to be gained by at least listening to those you disagree with. And refusing to listen and living in an echo chamber usually leads to ignorance. If a member or members of Silent No More was interviewed, it would likely be on Fox. And I would listen, decide if there were any salient points, and respond accordingly. What I wouldn't do is attack the source. We all know Fox promotes a right wing agenda, but that doesn't mean I should discount every guest on every Fox News show just because they appeared on Fox.

    For the record, I have read and listened to Silent No More members and sympathize with them. But I don't believe the overwhelming majority of women who had abortions feel the same regret, and there are stories from women who do not regret their decision to abort at all. Couple that with the fact that outlawing abortion doesn't drop abortion rate, then I believe SNM doesn't speak for all women, nor do they have the right to take away the decision to abort from other women.
     
  17. gatorev12

    gatorev12 GC Hall of Fame

    11,510
    562
    648
    Jan 27, 2009
    Right...wasn't contesting any of that. I was taking issue with both him and NPR falsely trying to convey his message as having moral or spiritual authority by virtue of his title. Let's face it: his is a decided minority viewpoint among Christian ministers and you'll likely find less than 1% of pastors or priests who would speak favorably on abortion.

    This is a pattern that NPR regularly engages in when they DO interview religious figures on many issues. I used to listen to them for years and found it impossible to ignore. It's all well and good to present minority viewpoints and opinions...but trying to pass it off as mainstream is deceptive and misleading. Which is why I don't place a lot of credibility in NPR or their handling of many issues and stories.
     
  18. Gatormb

    Gatormb GC Hall of Fame

    8,992
    497
    558
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bradenton, Fl
    1 John 2:19: 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

    Jesus also says if you leave the faith (for example become a Buddhist) you can't come back because he will not be crucified twice.

    Hebrews 6:4-6
    4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. BigCroc

    BigCroc Premium Member

    845
    139
    218
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jesus really said that a Christian who falls away from the faith would not be allowed to return if he/she later had a revelation/change of heart? That sounds pretty contrary to what I've always thought was claimed to be his teaching.
     
  20. JerseyGator01

    JerseyGator01 GC Hall of Fame

    15,379
    293
    558
    Apr 10, 2007
    I could debunk his primary point in seconds via a conversation with him. For such an activist, he's quite uninformed about recent studies on the issues. I guess he isn't reading books.