Comments on: Against idea bundling in the pro-life movement: PLAGAL on Prolife Unity radio

By: Ted Kennedy, Salt + Light, Fr. Rosica, Politics and the Pro-Life Movement « UofT Students for Life

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:09:32 +0000

[...] approach to bash and blame the “hard right” isn’t exactly setting up a big tent either. I wish he’d better follow the advice he so aptly highlights (”If any cause is [...]

By: Blaise Alleyne

Blaise Alleyne — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:51:06 +0000

Well, sure, it isn’t distracting if you’re Christian, but is the MFL a Christian event or a pro-life event? Does MFL oppose homosexuality?

“Are they there to be homosexual or are they there to be pro-life?”

Well, if they’re their to promote a gay agenda, I agree that’s a problem and MFL should crack down. Anything to do with same-sex marriage at a pro-life event would be distracting, for example — that’s definitely idea bundling.

But if they’re there as a gay organization, are they really there to be homosexual? Or are they gay people who are there?

I don’t think that being gay is a distraction enough, in and of itself. It shouldn’t be.

I’d like to think that we can disagree about things like same-sex marriage or homosexuality, but still agree that abortion is wrong. No? I don’t think that they should have to hide their identity or affiliation to participate, even if it suggests other ideas that I might (strongly) disagree with.

I suppose that the banner was just the rainbow flag then?

By: Peter Shinn

Peter Shinn — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:35:26 +0000

a cross or a church/school affiliation banner with the words pro-life on it isn’t distracting if you are Christian. a banner that supports something you oppose is. again, it’s a matter of hundreds of thousands of people seeing a banner and behavior that would be the opposite of the values of MFL.

let me put it this way…are they there to be homosexual or are they there to be pro-life?

By: Blaise Alleyne

Blaise Alleyne — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:46:38 +0000

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the comment. I did hear that argument in the interview. Surely, MFL was well within their legal rights.

How was the PLAGAL banner distracting from the main message though? Was it the rainbow flag, or were there other messages on the banner?

It seems to me that if it were just the rainbow flag, then that would be as distracting as anyone carrying a cross or other Christian symbols which aren’t directly related to the abortion issue. But, if PLAGAL was guilty of idea bundling themselves and carrying signs with unrelated messages, I’d have to agree with MFL.

What was distracting about the banners?

By: Peter Shinn

Peter Shinn — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:19:43 +0000

I’m Peter Shinn, president of Pro-Life Unity and an anchor on Pro-Life Unity Radio. While Michael Crone, our other anchor supported Cicilia Brown and her right to carry a banner, Michael Hargadon, our other anchor and my position was more in line with that of the March for Life. Allow me to explain.

The March for Life Education and Defense Fund is a registered corporation and secured the rights to that location. Anybody who joins with the March for Life on that day obviously does so with the permission of MFL. If a group such as PLAGAL comes along and wants to fly a banner that distracts from the main message, MFL has the right to tell them to pull it down.

MFL has never denied PLAGAL access to the MFL, only their banners. It is their right to do so.

If MFL didn’t refuse the banners, it would appear as if MFL were endorsing PLAGAL.

You can listen to that part of the 06/13/09 show here – http://www.prolifeunity.com/index.php/site/article/pro_life_unity_radio_archives/