Culture Jam for Life

pro-life book coming soon!

Relevant Magazine and Pro-Abortion Propaganda

Written by admin on | February 13, 2008 | No Comments


An Open Letter to Relevant Magazine:

Relevant Editorial;

I’ve written a few online articles for you back when you were first starting.

I am just writing to ask why you use misleading pro-abortion vernacular in your recent issue with the huge mug of Rob Bell on the front cover. You mention the pro-abortion politicans’ stances on abortion as “pro-choice.” The term “pro-choice” was cynically concocted by population control advocates such as Lawrence Lader of the Population Council (and founder of National Abortion Rights Action League) when selling the idea of abortion to the 60′s feminists, in order to reduce the populations of the poor and minorities. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of NARAL, later became pro-life after “performing” thousands of “abortions” and detailed all of this in interviews and his book, Hand of God. ALL early feminists, including suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony to Alice Paul Walker were pro-life. They saw abortion as just another way to dehumanize women. Even recently, the husband of the lawyer in the Roe v. Wade case wrote then-President Bill Clinton to legalize the morning after pill in order to kill more poor people (this letter was found in the Clinton presidential library and exposed by Judicial Watch).

The Associated Press style guide, while somewhat biased itself, suggests using “abortion rights advocate” to describe pro-abortion politicians and “anti-abortion” to describe pro-life politicians. That would be better than using the propagandistic and misleading term, “pro-choice.” Pro-choice to do what? Own a slave? You’d be pro-slavery then, not the simplistic and misleading “pro-choice.” It’s insane that some people who call themselves Christians object to genocide in Darfur then turn the other way and ignore the genocide of abortion, the killing of an innocent, living human being. According to one of your polls, over 50 percent of people think that Christians can be pro-abortion (or for abortion “rights” as your magazine put it). That is sickening and evil. Can Christians be for the raping and killing of darfur refugees? No. And they can’t be for the killing of innocent human beings. I know that was just an unscientific poll and not your writing, but that points to a sad and ignorant culture that doesn’t know what the euphemism of abortion is or doesn’t care and is therefore morally vapid.

You call pro-abortion politicians “pro-choice” but say that pro-life politicians “consider themselves pro-life,” as if they really aren’t and that’s their own label. Why add the “consider” tag to just the pro-life candidates, as if their label is somehow innacurate but the other one isn’t? Please be honest in your labeling: pro-life people are against abortion and also infanticide, the killing of newborns and infants, euthanasia, and the killing of embryos for research and experimentation (embryonic stem cell research, which isn’t needed at all due to recent scientific advancements). In other words, “pro-life” is, indeed, an honest description of the position, while “pro-abortion” is also honest and much more accurate than the misleading and incomplete “pro-choice” mantra.

You feature a hi-res face of Rob Bell, who teaches that the Bible isn’t really all true (like Mary being a virgin) and other heresies. Bell, adopting the vernacular of 9-11 insider wackos, states that the war in Iraq is “for oil.” If it were for oil, then why are we losing billions of dollars because of the war and not making money off the oil? That’s just pure propaganda. I was against the Iraq War from the start because I was afraid of the sectarian violence that would ensue afterwards: I actually knew what Shiite and Sunni were before this whole mess. But that doesn’t mean I believe irrational and illogical fantasies about the war being “for oil.” Only a truly ignorant person who is not well-read would believe such Michael Moore-style nonsense and misinformation. Just because Rob Bell is extremely popular doesn’t mean what he is teaching is true. In fact, we should think critically even more as a person gains a huge following. He may have some good points, but be brave and point out where he contradicts the word of God instead of just trying to please men. We should please God.

Since when did Relevant turn so relativist/left wing? Try to read outside of Brian McLaren’s hip heresies and read something that might challenge you! McLaren has stated that the Bible is just a good story and not literally true, that he is a fan of the people behind the Jesus Seminar (the people who say that Jesus didn’t literally raise from the dead), and has refused to say that homosexuality is a sin. He puts Christianity on the same level as all religions, basically insinuating Jesus lied when he said he was the Way. He also believes in universalism, which is unbiblical and untrue.

This same issue features an article by Jim Wallis, a left-wing activist who advises pro-abortion politicians such as Howard Dean. He may not be as out there as some, but why only focus on “hip” left-wing speakers, many of who contradict the Bible?

The truth is not found inside misleading vernacular or celebrity-driven hysteria. Why not interview deeper thinkers or people who believe in the Word of God? Why focus on Moby, a pro-abortion relativist, and let him complain about the Church, as if he’s so much better? Yes, the church has problems, but do we need Moby to tell us? Why focus on Rob Bell, who only wants to please man and never offend anyone except Bible-believing Christians, when the gospel itself is offensive to many? “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2nd Timothy 4:3

Culture Jam for Life


Comments are closed.