A reader sent me a link to a video of pro-life display vandalism at Michelle Malkin’s site.
It has happened again. In January 2006, pro-abortion thugs destroyed a pro-life memorial of wooden crosses at Louisiana State University. In April 2006, a nutball feminist professor at Northern Kentucky University led another destructive raid on a pro-life Cemetery of Innocents. And this week, at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, pro-abortion vandals struck–pulling up hundreds of crosses from a display sponsored by Pointers for Life. College Republican Ryan Wrasse sent me a video of one of the pro-abortion thugs gone wild– a student government senator named Roderick King:
. Jill Stanek is also covering the story and has plenty of info.
The display was rows of crosses called the Cemetery of the Innocents to commemorate babies killed by abortion.
Unbelievably, even after a university security guard showed up and told King to stop, he didn’t, and the wimpy campus cop just let him continue ripping up crosses. King’s illogical excuse was, "If there is a student on this campus that has had an abortion or that might be having an abortion, might be going through this, you want this up in front of them? Are you crazy?"
Well maybe the Security Guard thought he heard the guy name was Rodney King vice Roderick King. Seriously thought there is a large trend in vandalizing pro-life displays especially when they are rows of crosses. In my own diocese where they display multi rows of crosses once a year in front of the Mission of Nombre de Dios and Shrine of Our Lady of La Leche this has also happened.
You have to wonder what leads to this type of rage in the first place. It this some kind of rage of denial where some are outraged to see a symbolic representation of the reality of what abortion means. I also wonder if just using the representation of the cross in the first place adds to this anger? But a culture that supports killing the innocent is a violent culture in the first place so it isn’t exactly a shock that someone who supports violence against the unborn will also react violently if reminded of this. They mostly play semantic games with words such as choice, tissue mass, product of conception, etc so they are not forced to confront their own views to their logical conclusion. Rows of crosses in memorial of the innocents surely jolts them and some become unhinged.
Let’s is pray for Mr. King.
18 comments
Tearing down displays like that just constitutes a horrible limit on academic freedom, IMHO, and in the case of the church constitutes destruction of private property.
That said I will assure you that I would consider it absurd to believe pro-choicers are just playing with semantics–I am more than willing to venture that many of them sincerely believe that the fetus is not a human being and is as such not deserving of protection.
I think it’s Jill Stanek rather than Stank. Stank would be a rather unfortunate last name. 🙂
I was at Notre Dame when some students did the same thing, only in the dead of night. Then they had the gall to hold up some pro-abortion signs by the wrecked cemetery the next day. Unlike this case, however, the culprits were caught and got a write up at the Office of Housing and Residence Life (not a small thing, as any write ups over three may result in suspension) plus community service hours, if I remember right. In addition, the campus police patrolled the cemetery every night thereafter. Somehow I’m not hopeful for a similar response here.
I am more than willing to venture that many of them sincerely believe that the fetus is not a human being and is as such not deserving of protection.
Actually in my experience, many pro-abortionists have abandoned the fetus-is-not-human argument and freely acknowlege the fetus is human but it is justifiable to kill it.
The fact that a monstor like Mr. King was ripping away crosses and casting them aside like yesterday’s trash actually probably made the protest more effective.
An interesting, almost opposite, situation in RI:
http://chronicle.com/news/article/1364/students-accuse-rhode-island-college-of-free-speech-violation-over-signs
The case was settled in favor of the “Keep your rosaries off our ovaries” signs, citing the First Amendment.
Something tells me that the First Amendment is only invoked to protect popular sentiments, especially anti-Catholic and anti-Christian sentiments.
Maybe Rodney’s statement that “we have no right to challenge the law” though untrue, has become a reality.
His letter to the editor in today’s Stevens Point Journal:
“On May 1, 2008, I removed the crosses from The Pointers for Life display. I felt that this display was disrespectful and for the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, allowing this kind of display in the confinements of an educational setting was more than wrong.
There are a number of reasons for which I took it upon myself to remove these crosses (I did not destroy any of them nor did I cut any of their signs). After speaking with several students pertaining to this display on April 30, 2008, I was informed that a few other groups on campus were being questioned regarding their involvement in the construction of this display. The responsible organization was later asked to put up a sign that identified them. My understanding is that any student organization reserving spaces on campus must do this.
The Pointers for Life organization, has come before the Student Government Association (SGA) and asked for my resignation, suggesting I am more than a mere student on this campus, but someone who should be held to different standards.
The Pointer for Life’s grievance against me as a UWSP student senator is that I was not representing the student body. On the contrary, many students agree with my actions. The fact is that Pointers for Life’s real motivation to demand my resignation is based on our opposing views about abortion.
Further, I was not acting in the name of UWSP Student Government Association, but as an individual who believes one person’s right to freedom of speech stops when it infringes on another person’s right to a secular education.
Roderick King
Stevens Point”
Hmmm…. But apparently a woman’s “right to choose” doesn’t stop when it infringes on another person’s right to live.
Since the incident at Notre Dame described above by Cole, our Cemetery of the Innocents has been guarded overnight by the campus Knights of Columbus (we only have it up for a few days each year). And despite this, there was at least one guy during my watch who tore up a cross, broke it over his knee, and chucked it away. In his defense (sort of), I think he was drunk and not as militantly hostile as Mr. King.
“one person’s right to freedom of speech stops when it infringes on another person’s right to a secular education.”
Since when does a memorial to the dead infringe on a person’s right to secular education? And since when does “secular education” imply that no one may express an unpopular truth, or even any message that might offend someone?
If Rodney is correct, then they can’t put up signs about not smoking, or eating healthy food, or domestic abuse, or peace, or global warming (some of those students might be sons of Exxon employees), etc. Rodney is confused.
Many of these people are simply attempting (rather unsuccessfully) to be in denial about the reality of abortion. They have been active participants in one or more abortions and are fighting their consciences. In their mind, “as long as there is nothing wrong about abortion, I didn’t do anything wrong.”
This has been going on for a while. When I was in college – back in 1992 – we set up a cemetery of the innocents on campus. We got such a vicious reaction on the first day that we stationed people to protect the display 24/7. It was clear that if we did not someone would have destroyed it.
Youtube video of the incident:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t5NeLyMZUYM
So much for the marketplace of ideas, eh??
How saddening that there is so much outrage about troops dying abroad, but not enough outrage about innocents dying on our own shores.
…freely acknowlege the fetus is human but it is justifiable to kill it.
Indeed. The latest arguments I’ve heard are that, yes, the unborn child is in fact a human, but isn’t actually a person (ontologically as well as legally). The historical parallels are apparently obscure to these people, but the general attitude seems to be “Well, we refuse your position, so we have to settle for something like this.”
I read in “Forbidden Grief” that post-abortive grief can take two forms, repentance and pro-life sentiments, OR repression and militantly pro-abortion activism.
When I watched the video, I was struck by Rodney’s misguided compassion for post-abortive women who would be hurt by the display. Perhaps HE is post-abortive himself, that would explain the rage.
So much healing is needed in our nation, one third of women and men out there are suffering from post-abortion trauma. Thank God for Rachel’s Vineyard programs, and Silent No More Awareness Campaign. I believe that these people, once healed will lead the way to outlaw abortion in our nation.
Many of these people are simply attempting (rather unsuccessfully) to be in denial about the reality of abortion.
That is *exactly* right. Often, and increasingly, liberals (not all, but a large portion of them) will not only engage in projecting their own behaviors onto those with opposing ideologies, but acting with downright fear at letting anyone with an opposing point of view express themselves in public.
There is fear of the truth.
I would ask Mr. King and anyone who is pro-abortion to sit through the process of an abortion or watch “Silent Scream” and see if their attitudes are changed.
Most, however, would still consider that horror justifiable.
In happier news, I noted that the Duggar family is expecting child #18 later this year…
A great response to King’s letter; from this morning’s Stevens Point Journal:
‘This is in response to the letter sent by student “senator” Roderick King. First of all, as a student senator, he should be held to a different set of standards seeing as he is representing the entire student body.
His actions reflect on all of us, and his destruction of a peaceful and beautiful demonstration that so many people put many hours of work into is abhorrent. And speaking of the secular education that he thinks we all deserve, we do deserve it. Abortion rights no longer have anything to do from religion, but rather politics.
The university should be a place for free thought and ideas and not one-sided liberal hypocrisies that destroy the ideas and rights of others to a peaceful protest.
Lastly, if you think that Pointers for Life is asking for your resignation because of your opposing views on abortion you are delusional. You know that has nothing to do with it. Quit trying to get the sympathy vote. A formal apology to the organization would be the best thing. Be tolerant of other ideas. That’s what leads to progress. Not having one’s own idea, and then shunning everyone else’s because they don’t fit with one’s own agenda.
Jacob Mathias
Stevens Point’
My mother was visiting me when I lived far from her. The TV was on and some conservative was, you should pardon the expression, pontificating on abortion in a congressional hearing – this was in the early 80s when Roe v. Wade was still new. My mother turned to the TV and said “Shut the hell up.” This stayed with me because my mother just NEVER swore. Years and years later, I learned from my little sister that she (sister) had gotten pregnant and our mother didn’t discover this until sister was well along and into the second trimester. Mother sent sister (with our drunken father no less) to a hospital in the nearest big city where they did late abortions. Mother’s response when sister got back home was “Don’t you ever do that to me again.”
So the answer to your question, “Why do they tear up these displays” is narcissism. The pregnancy might inconvenience, it might embarass, it just might cause a spot of trouble. That awful accidental pregnancy might disarrange the pretty picture they have convinced everyone else is their true life. They are more than willing to sacrifice an innocent child on the altar of what the neighbors might think.