R.A.G.E. Media

I admit, this reaction comes late, as this article appeared in the January/February 2007 issue of Touchstone Magazine. It’s not available in their online archives, however. Still, better late than never.

[tag]Anne Barbeau Gardiner[/tag] wrote a review of [tag]Vasu Murti[/tag]’s The Liberal Case Against Abortion, published by R.A.G.E. Media, for [tag]Touchstone Magazine[/tag] earlier this year, titled “Brahmin Bull.” While I am grateful for Gardiner and Touchstone Magazine giving us a one-and-a-half page review, I am appalled that such a review appeared in a periodical claiming to be [tag]pro-life[/tag] and [tag]Christian[/tag].

Gardiner takes one paragraph to give Murti’s background, a descendant of South Indian [tag]Brahmin[/tag]s, member of the ACLU, Feminists for Life, Amnesty International, and PETA, who has written a “rational, secular” case against abortion. The rest of the review could be described as an anti-vegetarian, anti-liberal rant.

Don’t get me wrong here - I’m biased as I published the [tag]book[/tag]. But I also don’t agree with Murti on many issues. We do share a pro-life (or [tag]anti-abortion[/tag], if you prefer the term) perspective, but disagree on several other topics. We have different fundamental religious beliefs, that’s a given. But we cooperated to put a one-of-a-kind book from a textbook left-wing liberal Democrat denouncing abortion.

But Gardiner cannot seem to get past the fact that Murti doesn’t ascribe to Christian theology or [tag]conservative values[/tag]. She completely misses the fact that Murti did not waste time preaching to the choir - that is, conservative Christians who are already pro-life - and instead wrote a book for people that DO NOT have conservative Christian values to back the pro-life movement.

Gardiner writes:

“Similarly, he [Murti] argues that recognizing the rights of unborn children just like ‘the rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays, children, animals, and the environment’ would be a sign of ’secular social progress.’ Here he puts the right to life of unborn children, foundational to every other right, on par with civil rights and the imaginary right of a farm animal not to be killed for food.”

Just because Murti listed the right to life of the unborn among a host of other left-of-center values doesn’t mean he equated them - he is writing to convince those who already hold and accept those values as true that the right to life for the unborn ought to be embraced by the left as much as those other civil liberties issues are already.

Gardiner goes on:

“To make the defense of the unborn dependent upon [tag]vegetarian[/tag]ism and the belief that animals possess similar rights does not help the unborn.”

Wow. Again, Murti is trying to convince vegetarians to be pro-life, and Gardiner says that the unborn children don’t need that. If I were unable to speak in my own defense, with my life on the line, I’d welcome any help I could get. What the unborn don’t need are self-righteous Christians disqualifying non-Christian, liberal pro-life advocates on the basis of their other beliefs.

Gardiner further exemplifies this principle by ridiculing Murti for his criticism of the current pro-life movement as being too “religious.” Granted, I shouldn’t expect better from the periodical that criticized Guerrilla Apologetics for Life Issues for making a similar recommendation. Sorry, Touchstone - if you’re trying to save another person’s life, you have a better chance of saving them by reasoning with their attacker not to kill them, then trying to “save” the attacker, or convert him to Christianity first.

Furthermore, propagation of the idea that opposition to abortion is a “[tag]religious issue[/tag]” (typified by religious pro-lifers people telling non-religious pro-lifer’s to shut up) paves the way for politicians to say they oppose abortion, but don’t want to “impose their religious beliefs” on others. Christian pro-life magazines and writers that think their theology has a monopoly on the movement make that kind of reasoning possible. If more liberals and [tag]Democrats[/tag] and “non-traditional” pro-lifers could stand up without being knocked down by the likes of Gardiner, it’d be harder for Kerry, Obama, and Giuliani to make such ridiculous statements.

Anyway, at the end the article gets very ugly, dare I even say sloppy.

Gardiner writes:

In making his argument, Murti exalts beasts above their place in creation. It is a flight of fantasy to say that animals have beliefs, desires, and a consciousness of themselves. Christians call the exaltation of the beast idolatry [sic], since faith teaches us that only humans are created in the image of God, have been redeemed, and are promised eternal life.

I’m not sure what sect that calls itself Christian that Gardiner considers herself, but every definition of idolatry I have seen definies the term as worship of idols, creatures and the like - not simply the equating of animals with humans. In other words, idolatry is the equating of what is not God with God. (I seriously wondered for a while if Touchstone and Gardiner might be part of some sect that worships mankind, as then equating beasts with humans would be idolatry, but then, of course, so would the sect’s worship of humanity.)

But such a crass display of ignorance to Christian theology and English vocabulary is topped shortly thereafter:

“In the introduction to this little book, Carol Crossed, president of Democrats for Life, endorses Murti’s ‘universal argumentation’ and opposes those whose ‘divisive faith beliefs’ promote the ‘inequality’ of animals and unborn children. So there you have it: Idolatry brought to you by Democrats for Life.”

As if it wasn’t bad enough when Democrats for Life gets shunned by their own political party, but it is absolutely disgraceful that someone, in the name of Christianity, would denounce a pro-life organization simply because of its liberal political affiliation. It is just plain embarrassing that they would go out on a limb to accuse the organization of promoting idolatry, especially when the accuser seems to not understand the meaning of the word.

Well, at least we can be grateful that not everyone subscribes to Touchstone and Gardiner’s “Christian Bull” - or their magazine.

But to end on a positive note, here is a list of [tag]Liberal[/tag] organizations who have received complimentary copies of The Liberal Case Against Abortion, since the book was written for them, after all:

Sexual Freedom Coalition
Sierra Club Catholics for a Free Choice
Code Pink
United for Peace & Justice
Progressive Democrats of America
Freedom From Religion Foundation
American Friends Service Committee
The Green Party of the U.S.
National Organization for Women (NOW)
Center for Constitutional Rights
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Gold Star Families for Peace
Bread for the World
Children’s Defense Fund
Texans for Peace
Alameda Democratic Club
Public Citizen (Ralph Nader’s group)
American Federation of Teachers
Million Mom March
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
American Association of University Women
College Democrats of America
NARAL/Pro-Choice America
National Council of Jewish Women
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Feminist Majority
Young Democrats of America
Progressive Policy Institute
Center for American Progress
Center for Science in the Public Interest
United Farm Workers
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
Population Connection
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Campaign for Peace and Democracy
Greenbelt Alliance
International Women’s Health Coalition
Democratic Governors Association
Holistic Mom’s Network
Peace Action
Jews for Racial & Economic Justice
The American Prospect
Progressive Christian Witness
Bob Linden of Go Vegan Radio
Planned Parenthood
California Wellness Foundation
Center for Biological Diversity
….and others, including many pro-abortion Democrats in political office.