R.P. BenDedek
Education, Propaganda and Abortion!
By R.P. BenDedek
Mar 14, 2006 - 9:16:00 AM

I was reading this evening an article in the Courier Mail Online Newspaper in Queensland Australia, entitled: Hecklers harass US troop funerals By Mira Oberman in Flushing, Michigan.

The article stated that 'The fringe group of fire and brimstone Baptists from Kansas has been courting controversy for more than 15 years, travelling the country with their hateful signs and slogans.' I'm sure you have all read about it in your local papers.

I sent in a little feedback comment to the courier mail something along the line that these people don't seem to be any different to the 'anti-straight' crowd who get upset when we don't support 'their' agendas.

I've written before that some people care less for truth and accuracy, than for pushing their own agendas, and quite often, the very argument that they put forth to nullify the contrary philosophical position, can actually be turned right back at them to demonstrate the inanity of their own viewpoint.

On the issue of abortion, one Courier Mail reader criticised another person's feedback on an article by saying that the fertilized human ova was no more a human being, than one cancer cell is cancer. I thought this remark so interesting, because one cancer cell is in fact cancer. Her argument, which meant to dispose of the concept that a fertilized human egg was human, actually supported the concept. So I put pen to paper so to speak, and whizzed off a further comment. I wrote:

• In a comment From: Jade McKay to Laurie on the issue of Abortion, Jade wrote: "Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that abortion is legal, it cannot be murder." By this standard, when Paedophilia is made legal, it will no longer be a criminal act. So it will be OK.
• Jade says: "Furthermore, the embryo/zygote/blastocyst is no more a human being than a cancer cell."
• This is a really interesting statement. By Jade's standards, the ONE CANCER CELL then is not really cancer, and so if it is not really cancer, there is no need to remove it - yes?
• In fact, that one cancer cell IS cancer, and will have a detrimental effect on the host if it is allowed to grow to maturity - just like those pesky bloody babies!

I don't know if 'Jade' ever read the comment, but I find it interesting that when people start vocalising their philosophies, they often either 'check out' their brains, or 'log out' from that section marked 'truth and decency'.

In an article entitled: Political Correctness : Corrupting Democracy, I wrote: What matters in today's world, is not 'truth', not 'fact', but perception. Political Correctness DENIES the truth, covering it under layers of deception. It is a 'pathological illness' affecting millions of people with little knowledge of or interest in 'truth'.

Winning is the goal of many activist agendas, and truth plays a very minor role in the process. Should activists fail to win, then they start up the process all over again, refusing to accept the truth that they lost, or the democratic process which denied them their 'win'.

In a recent article entitled: Pro-Life Activist Scheidler Beats NOW in Supreme Court. By IPR, with supplementary information by Ken Anderson, two statements in particular were made in relation to the pro-life and pro-abortion campaigns.

• �I am mystified that I had to go to the trouble and expense of appearing before the Supreme Court three times,� said Scheidler. �The Court was right when they ruled for us 8-1 in 2003, but the National Organization for Women refused to acknowledge defeat. They convinced the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the case alive, in spite of the Supreme Court's clear mandate to end it.�
• NOW v. Scheidler was filed in 1986. It underwent innumerable revisions of the Complaint, additions and subtractions of Defendants and Plaintiffs, and went from an anti-trust charge to RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) before going to trial in 1998. NOW's lawyers relied on perjured testimony and unsubstantiated claims against unnamed individuals to win a "guilty" verdict from the jury in a seven-week trial in March and April 1998. {The History of this case can be found at Pro-Life Action League : Scheidler Wins in Supreme Court�Again!}

As I was researching the issue of abortion, I came across an interesting article, which points out a truth that some would do anything to deny. In Abortion Facts.Com Public Schools Can Teach Pro-Life few realize this; fewer still do it By J. C. Willke, MD, we can read that:

• The Court has said that public institutions can teach children informed choice on this issue, i.e., both sides, and that the primary purpose of this teaching can be to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion.
• The Court has said that minors are not prepared sufficiently to make a choice on abortion. It has spoken about the welfare of young citizens "whose immaturity, inexperience and lack of judgment may impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely."
• If all of the above is true, why is it that nothing has changed in the overwhelming majority of public schools in the United States? Well, certainly the National Education Association has had a major part to play. It has been zealously pro-abortion and anti-family at every turn in the road.

One of the things that activist groups like to use, is statistics and other academic backing for their agendas, but as you might have read in the article Those Who Can't Do... Teach By Bob Parks, Academics no longer appear to be educationalists, but rather 'propagandizers', pushing their own causes down people's throats, as if they were the God in whom they declare they have no belief.

One of the reasons that people trust in academics, is that historically, they were the ones who knew everything, and could be relied upon for legitimate information on specific topics, but as Michael Strong in his article entitled Put Your Money Where Your Theory Is comments:

• The credibility of academia is based on the notion that professors are "experts in their field" who have achieved their position by means of a track record of exemplary scholarship.
• In the hard sciences, where "exemplary scholarship" is based on scientific work that is consistent with empirical research, this credibility is based on a solid foundation.
• Outside the hard sciences, the foundation for the credibility is more tenuous.
• We have been mistakenly led to trust academics outside the natural sciences because of the extraordinary achievements of the natural sciences.
• For the past hundred years we have assumed that the university "brand name" that gave us science and technology could also supply high quality thought, decisions, and judgment regarding politics and society.
• We were wrong.
• What to do now?

Well, we can take some advice from Sarah Honig who, in an article at King's Calendar entitled: Sarah Honig article from Women in Green had the following to say in relation to Ehud Olmerts proposed leadership of Israel.

• History is replete with examples of calamitous and cowardly choices paraded as pragmatic. Conversely, sometimes bold, nonconformist and unfashionable responses prove in retrospect to have been truly pragmatic.
• The gullible are enticed over and over. The seeds of WWII germinated on the ostensibly sane and safe middle ground. Its allure facilitated the global cataclysm. Quintessentially moderate and pragmatic Neville Chamberlain was the middle ground's then-iconic high priest. In his gentlemanly manner, he was the consummate champion of cop-out. It wasn't a personal failing or idiosyncrasy. He wasn't pursuing a private agenda, which eventually collapsed catastrophically.
• Chamberlain popularly reflected his nation's zeitgeist. Most Britons wanted to disengage. That's why middle Britons en masse supported the 1934 Peace Ballot.
• It made Europe's ensuing bloodbath inevitable, having assured Hitler that - much as the Brits abhorred him - they didn't want to fight.

Her point is that all too often, we choose to 'give ground' in the face of hardliners, and just hope for the best, because we have a philosophical viewpoint that makes us feel uneasy if we act against it. But in reality, when forces amass against you, you only have two choices, Fight or Surrender. In psychology it is called 'fight or flight'.

Everyone in a democratic society has the right to voice their opinions and their concerns, and has the right to fight for what they believe. The problem is that too many people don't like to fight for what they believe in. They just surrender!

Anyone who didn't vote in the last election has no right to complain about George W. Bush or his actions. You only have a right to complain, if you made an effort to do something. And if you voted for him and don't like what he is doing, you can vote for the other guy at the next election.

If you don't like the pro-abortion 'power' in society, then stop complaining about it and do something. If you don't like the way Christianity is maligned, then follow the example of the Muslim world and raise merry hell.

How do you think all these activists got their power?  They lifted up their voices, expressed their ideas and never accepted 'No!' for an answer. Neither should you!

The price of Liberty starts with getting off your rear end. It's extreme price is your life! One never knows the price one must pay to see their dreams and beliefs shine through. But sitting on a sofa gets you nowhere!

Get informed! Be courageous! Don't take 'No!' for an answer! Fight the good fight of faith! Oh! and Be of good cheer! At least go down fighting with a smile on your face!

R.P.BenDedek

Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com

Note: Because of the recent Server change, some links may not work. This file was amended September 2007.

King's Calendar Social Commentaries may be found at: http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=331

The King's Calendar' is a computer generated mathematical synchronous chronological presentation of the history of Ancient Israel, as principally recorded in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles. It sets forth Apologetics for and the results of R.P.BenDedek's discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Books of the Bible, Josephus,the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah. www.kingscalendar.com