Daily Archives: May 25, 2022

The show opens with Scott Thompson sporting long, white, bejeweled hair, selling a copy of Brain Candy at a garage sale. Upon completion of the transaction for one earth dollar, Thompson holds the coin up, beams, and proclaims the curse is broken. The Kids in the Hall can return.

With that quasi-trip through the fourth wall, Kids in the Hall did return, this time on Amazon Prime, as though not a day has passed since the show ended in 1995. Although the kids Thompson, Dave Foley, Mark McKinney, Bruce McCulloch, and Kevin McDonald are older and grayer, the ethos from the original show remains. The irreverence, the overall weirdness, the willingness to offend, and the full-frontal nudity that those of us who watched the first run remember have picked up right where it all left off.

Well, maybe not the full-frontal nudity, which is a new development and was more than a little unexpected, but its still Kids in the Hall, which in 2022 is revolutionary.

What makes it so isnt the return to the style of sketch comedy theyve been doing since the 1980s, but what theyre not doing: focusing on scoring any ideological points. Theyre simply trying to make people laugh. And while the show was always politically incorrect, the continuation 17 years later and it is a continuation, not a reboot is a reminder that being politically incorrect isnt always about politics, but instead about not worrying about who might get offended.

Of course, today that looks a little different than when the Kids made their HBO debut in 1989. When the show first aired, it was more shocking and more of a political statement to have an openly gay man not just admitting his sexuality but owning it and making fun of it. These days, thats almost quaint.

This means the troupe had to set their sights on different targets for the new season. From jokes about everything being racist to how clapping is a form of aggression to mocking the importance of diversity and gender equity to the silliness of complaints about cultural appropriation, theyre not pulling punches, even if theyre considerably milder than other comics, such as Dave Chappelle, who revel in making fun of everyone. (They are Canadian, after all.)

In an interview with Rolling Stone, the quintet explained their thinking on the state of comedy today, as well as their approach to it and the new season of Kids in the Hall:

David Fear: Maybe its a course correction from years of comedy that punched down, and

Scott Thompson: Oh, please!

Dave Foley: Thats based on a misguided notion, I think, that comedy punches anywhere. Comedy doesnt punch.

Thompson: Or maybe it punches in every direction? But come on. Who decides whether its up or down?

Foley: Theres always an element of condescension in deciding whos down

Thompson: Exactly. Like youre the expert?

Mark McKinney: I like Daves quote Im going to paraphrase a bit here Just because youre down doesnt mean youre not an idiot. And therefore, completely worthy of satire.

Foley: I think theres a generation that stupidly believes they should never be yelled at by their boss.

Thompson: Or have disagreements at all.

Foley: I sincerely believe everyone should be forced to work for a boss that is mean. Because you grow a lot. You learn how to handle adversity. You learn how to function in the real world.

At this juncture, its worth pointing out that when Thompsons famed gay character Buddy Cole appears in Episode 2 of the new show, one of his first acts, almost imperceptible, is to take a sexual identity flag from a planter as he walks past it and nonchalantly throws it over his shoulder onto the ground. This occurs after he walks past an old-school gay pride flag, one that he leaves untouched. There is no commentary added to the act, no glaringly obvious political statement, but its not a cautious touch, particularly in 2022.

This is why the new season of Kids in the Hall is so good, and so important. Its not the specific sacred cows they go after, its that there are no sacred cows, which is how comedy is supposed to function.

It isnt about confirming ones priors and making people tepidly chuckle by affirming their beliefs, whether from the left or the right, but about catching people off guard and making them genuinely laugh. Its about actually succeeding rather than just performing. Or being performative.

As Thompson said, its about throwing punches in every direction, which is something we should all get a little more comfortable doing. But also, its a sad state of affairs that it took the bravery of five old white Canadian men to remind us of that.

Link:
'The Kids In The Hall' Returns With Politically Incorrect Comedy - The Federalist

@MarkKnudson41

Theres a lot of baseball left to be played, obviously. Were one-fourth of the way through the 2022 season. The Colorado Rockies sit in last place in the National League West, trailing the lowly Arizona Diamondbacks and three of the best teams in baseball in the standings.

The only shock thus far is that the crappy D-Backs are hovering around .500. Dont expect that to last. They could easily lose 100 games.

As for the Rockies, dont expect their current swoon to last, either. This is a roster that should be able to challenge that .500 mark, which will still leave them sitting fourth in the games best division.

But thats all conjecture for the end of the season. But what about the halfway point? The All-Star break. Where will the Rockies be then? And who might be wearing the purple pinstripes in the All-Star game in Los Angeles?

Last season, when Coors Field was awarded the game as a replacement for politically incorrect Atlanta, pitcher German Marquez was the lone Rockie on the NL squad. He didnt disappoint the hometown crowd, tossing a perfect 1-2-3 inning and recording a strikeout, even though the American League won 5-2.

Marquez wont be returning to the NL squad this season. But which Rockies player (theyre likely to get just one rep again) will be California dreaming?

Early voting would favor first baseman C.J. Cron, whose currently in the top three in the National League in home runs, batting average, RBI and some advanced analytics categories, too. Hes been the Rockies best power hitter with newbie Kris Bryant struggling to stay on the field with a lingering back injury.

Otherwise, its been a littlesparse as far as the position players go. Yes, Yonathan Daza is hitting a robust .350 at the quarter pole. Thats an unexpected bonus. Its highly unlikely that his numbers will remain in that rarified air. And lets be honest: Daza isnt going to be on anyone ASG ballot come July. Former All-Star Charlie Blackmon is scuffling along under .220. The guy everyone had pegged for a breakout season (it could still happen) Brendan Rodgers, hasnt broken out yet. Ryan McMahon is struggling at the plate and in the field. Conner Joe and newbie Randall Grichuk are doing okay, but not All-Star okay.

If its not Cron, its not going to be a position player.

Last season, Marquez became just the eighth Rockies pitcher to make the NL squad. The previous seven also did not allow a run, but still, its considered something of a fluke for a pitcher who spends his season at Cape Coors to do well enough to earn an All-Star bid in the first place. Going into this season, the Rockies talented (but thin) starting rotation was being touted as a strength of the team. So far, theyve failed to live up to that as a group, with only newcomer Chad Kuhl having more wins than losses on the young season.

Safe to say that no Rockies starting pitcher will be getting the extra trip to LA, either.

That leaves the beleaguered bullpen which almost everyone labeled as the teams biggest weakness entering the season. So far, thats not been the case. While a number of relievers have struggled, the key guys that Bud Black depends on to close out wins have by in large done the job. Robert Stephenson has been solid. Closer Daniel Bard as well. Young Justin Lawrence has been good, and newbie Alex Colome has been reasonable. Native son Ty Blach has gotten a lot of key outs, too.

But the guy in the bullpen who has stood out so much so that he would be the Rockies All-Star rep if the selections took place tomorrow is Tyler Kinley. His numbers so far are eye popping.

Kinleys ERA? A minuscule 1.15 after eight appearances. His ERA+ is a sterling 420 for the analytics crowd. His WHIP, a nifty 1.10. Hes struck out 18 and walked five thus far.

Those are All-Star caliber numbers after 40 games, and if he duplicates them over the next 40, he should be a slam dunk to be on the All-Star team.

That would be mighty ironic of course, given the hand wringing over the Colorado bullpen leading up to the season.

Be sure to catch Mark Knudson and Manny Randhawa on the Park Adjusted Rockies Podcast each week, available on all major Podcast platforms.

See the rest here:
41's Inside Pitch: Who'd be the Rockies All-Star rep at the quarter pole? How about Tyler Kinley? - 1310kfka.com

If, after viewing the first episode of the second season of PAUSE with Sam Jay, you find yourself thinking, That show was really gay, the series has done its job.

The show, co-created by comedian and Saturday Night Live writer Sam Jay is unabashedly queer.

It is queer in its subject matter. For example, Sam interviews people from the LGBTQ+ community from the white, Subaru Gay Communications Director of the National LGBTQ Task Force Cathy Renna and the Black Studs 4 Studs from Atlanta who prefer to watch straight porn. If the previous sentence contains phrases you didnt previously know existed, congratulations: the show is doing its subtle work of educating audiences about the multitudinous nature of queer identity.

PAUSE works because its formatting is also a bit queered up. This is most certainly a deliberate choice. The series website calls PAUSE a new take on the late-night talk show format, but that feels like an elevator pitch version of whats really happening here. To say its a new take on the format might imply some simple tweaks here and there.

Rather than opening with a monologue, say, the host might start with a sketch. Or, instead of having a single guest on at a time, the show might have multiple and do a roundtable discussion akin to Bill Mahers old show Politically Incorrect. What PAUSE does, however, is actually more interesting.

The show opens with a candid discussion between Sam and her friends. The friend group is largely made up of Black women and AFAB (Assigned Female At Birth) persons of various orientations, and one straight Black dude who I feel comfortable assuming his gender/orientation because he makes points similar to every barbequing uncle Ive ever had.

They discuss Blackness, queerness, straightness, and how these identity kits intersect and/or interact. Sam asks one friend how she gets her straight friends to hang around her gay friends. I dont, she says, Straight people dont really like gay spaces.

From here, the conversation shot with a camcorder filter that feels a bit too precious, like its underlining the realness and directness of these talks is interwoven with other interviews, making the section end up lasting the length of the episode.

This formatting is perhaps one of the reasons PAUSE is so interesting.

Of course, its frank discussions of identity, intersectionality, Blackness, and queerness sometimes feel in opposition to one another are the reasons to watch. But the structuring plays a hand in making it compelling. Just when a conversation is beginning to get in-depth and very personal, we move to a new interview or, near the end, a sketch. This is not to say the editing is bad. Its, in fact, quite the opposite.

We never feel that a section, except, maybe, the final sketch, is dragging. What were given instead is the perfect application of the editing adage start too late and end too early. I desperately want to hear more when a group of largely queer Black women discuss their first experiences at (predominately white) gay clubs. Did they, like half of the group, think Theyre wild? Or, like the other half, Theyre free?

When the afformentioned uncle surrogate begins talking about, Its not homophobic because Im not scared of anything, I want to be in the room and watch him hold this goofy belief in the face of overwhelming opposition to his points. And, of course, PAUSE never positions us to hate this man.

Some of us, sure, might. But others of us, who do have otherwise loving family members with pernicious beliefs about gayness, queer identity, and the gay agenda, might have sympathy for him. Others may even have empathy, because we or others close to us have had to unlearn those prejudices. In that way, PAUSE is just as much, if not more so, about Black love as it is queer love.

We watch Sam in various settings wrestle with the idea of being Black first and queer second and what its like having to choose that ranking system.

In her interview with Renna, Sam asks if there is a sense of predominating whiteness when people talk about gay culture. Renna concedes that this may be the case, and she agrees with Sam that there should be room for Subaru Gays and Houston-Strip-Club-Attending Studs at Pride.

Sam wonders if it is possible for national queer groups like Rennas to reach Black people that arent just the churchy choir-group kind. The ones more like the n***** that fight in the clubs in Atlanta (Sams words, not mine) kind. In the end, the episode ends up being about what Sam calls N****sectionality, or, a multifaceted connection between gay n***** of all regions, counties, and zip codes working to uplift real n***** in queer spaces. You know, a space for gay choir n***** and gay Atlanta n***** together.

This first episode of PAUSE with Sam Jays season two has me excited. Though I found the sketch about a naked basketball game mildly amusing and then overly long, I respected that its basis was a conversation about a purported game of nude basketball Jamie Foxx hosted at his mansion and how straight men do gay things all the time.

Structurally, the format keeps PAUSE interesting, even engrossing. We always want to know more, and if the show were simply Sam talking with her friends, that might also be fine for me. Sam Jay is funny, brash, and talks about her contradictory feelings in an arresting way. We want to know more about how she feels, how her Black femme friends feel, and even how Barbeque Uncle yo feels. Its an empathetic, funny show asking tough questions. Basically, its Dave Chappelle without the misogynoir and transphobia.

PAUSE with Sam Jay aired Friday, May 20, 2022. You can catch it during 11-11:30 pm ET/PT on HBO and is available to stream on HBO Max.

The rest is here:
All-the-Sectionality on 'PAUSE with Sam Jay' - Black Girl Nerds

80s LIVE

When: 4 p.m.Sunday, May 29

Where: Hard Rock Casino Hotel

What to expect: The 80s Live show is hailed as a highly entertaining, nostalgic, feel-good production that ignites images and recollections of a decade when the music, lyrics and driving beats electrified a generation. The show will feature the hits of Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson, Prince, Aerosmith, Wham, INXS, Duran Duran, Paula Abdul and others. The 80s Live show promises to transport those who witnessed it back to the moment when they first heard these songs pumping through their boomboxes, according to event producer Allen Valentine. The revved-up, high-energy concert will get audience members to step out of your DeLorean time machine and back into a fun, nostalgic romp through the greatest hits of the 1980s. The show takes place Sunday at Hard Rocks Sound Waves theater, and at 4 p.m. every Sunday through June 12.

How much: Tickets, priced at $24 and $29, are available at Ticketmaster.com

More info:

HardRockHotelAtlanticCity.com

REVEREND HORTON HEAT WITH THE KOFFIN KATS

When: 8 p.m. Monday, May 30

Where: Anchor Rock Club in Atlantic City

What to expect: The Reverend Horton Heat is the stage name of singer-songwriter and guitarist James Heath, who is known for his riotous sense of humor and rowdy stage performances. The name is also a reference to his Dallas, Texas-based trio that formed in 1985 and plays a style of music called psychobilly. Psychobilly has been described as a fusion of rockabilly and punk rock and a loud frantic music that takes the traditional countrified rock style known as rockabilly and ramps up its speed into a gritty, sweaty, honky-tonk, punk-rock pace. Heat has been called the Godfather of Modern Rockabilly and Psychobilly. His trio also includes upright bass player Jimbo Wallace and drummer Jonathan Jeter. Popular songs by the group include Rock the Joint, It's Martini Time, Let Me Teach You How to Eat, I Can't Surf, Psychobilly Freakout, Wiggle Stick, Nurture my Pig! and The Big Red Rocket of Love. Also performing is another psychobilly trio called the Koffin Kats, which was founded in 2003 in Detroit by guitarist/vocalist Tommy Koffin and lead singer and upright bassist Vic Victor. The Anchor Rock Club is located at 247 S. New York Ave., Atlantic City.

Excerpt from:
Headliner Spotlight | Arts and Entertainment News | atlanticcityweekly.com - Atlantic City Weekly

In our age of rage, humor was one of the earliest victims. It is not that humor is not allowed, it is merely selectively tolerated. Thus,Twitter suspended the satirical site, Babylon Bee,with the support of many who claim to support free speech. In Canada, acomedian was actually prosecuted for trash talking in a comedy club. Even non-comedians can find themselves on the wrong side of a punch line. Recently, Ben Domenech ofThe Federalist found himself pursued over a single tweet teasing the employees at his publication. After referencing the struggle of Vox Media with a union, Domenech joked in a tweet that the salt mines await any employees who spoke of unionizing. No one was calling for a union atThe Federalist and it was received by the staff as an obvious joke. However, a liberal lawyer from Massachusetts, Joel Fleming, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. In a highly controversial opinion,NLRB administrative law judge, Kenneth Chu, ruled againstThe Federalist. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit just overturned Chu and stated the obvious: it was a joke.

This litigation began in early June 2019 whenVox Medias writers staged a walkout to call for a collective bargaining contract. Conservatives found the protest irresistible given Voxs liberal, pro-union philosophy. One of those pouncing on the irony was Domenech, the publisher of The Federalist,who sent out atongue-in-cheek tweetthat joked FYI@fdrlstfirst one of you tries to unionize I swear Ill send you back to the salt mine.

The employees had reportedly not called for any union organizing atThe Federalistand took the tweet as intended, evenreturning the joke by bringing in salt shakers and other items.

Even for the humor-impaired, the tweet was obviously meant in jest and did not refer to any actual union organizing at the office. However, Fleming, who has been criticized asa far left internet troll, filed a formal complaint. He wasidentified by Reutersas a securities litigator andpartner with Block & Leviton in Boston.

Ironically, Fleming just succeeded in creating significant new precedent in favor of employers against future such lawsuits.

There is a rising concern over activists using the courts to harass or to hinder those with opposing views. In this case, Fleming was accused of using the NLRB to hammer an influential conservative over a 19-word tweet. Many noted that it was bizarre for a Block & Leviton partner in Boston to file a grievance over a joke directed at employees of a publication with which he has no connection. Indeed, on his Twitter site, Fleming seems to relish the disconnect by describing himselfas A Bernie-supporting class action lawyer in Massachusetts with no ties to The Federalist or anyone who works there.

That 19-word tweet has now resulted in protracted and costly litigation before both the NLRB and the federal courts.

Nevertheless, Judge Chu found a violation of labor laws. Chu,concludedthat this was a violation ofSection 8(a)(1) of the Wagner Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1):

It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer tointerfere with, restrain, or coerceemployeesin the exerciseof the rights [to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection]. (Emphasis added)

Judge Chu,dismissedthe fact that this was a joke:

Obviously, the FDRLST employees are not literally being sent back to the salt mines. Idioms have, however, hidden meaningsWork in a salt mine is physically challenging and monotonous, and any job that feels that tedious can be called a salt mine The expression that he will send the FDRLST employees back to the salt mine for attempting to unionize is an obvious threat. In viewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the tweet, this tweet had no other purpose except to threaten the FDRLST employees with unspecified reprisal, as the underlying meaning of salt mine so signifies I agree with the counsel for the General Counsel that a reasonable interpretation of the expression meant that working conditions would worsen or employee benefits would be jeopardized if employees attempted to unionize.

The Federalist refused an offer to settle the matter by deleting the joke and making some apologetic statement on the right to unionize. It proceeded to appeal Judge Chus ruling and just secured a sweeping victory.

Appellate Judges Thomas Hardiman, Paul Matey, and Senior Circuit Judge Anthony Scirica were unanimous in rejecting the claim. It noted that it was bound by prior case law to read the jurisdiction of the NLRB broadly: Unfortunate as it may be, the Act as written and interpreted empowers a politically-motivated busybody as much as a concerned employee or civic-minded whistleblower. However, it then trashed Judge Chus decision on the merits.

Forgive the long quote from Judge Hardimans decision but it is worth reading:

But what constitutes a prohibited threat? To qualify as such, an employers statement must warn of adverse consequences in a way that would tend to coerce a reasonable employee not to exercise her labor rights. Garry Mfg. Co., 630 F.2d at 938. The test for coercion is objective: the employers intent is irrelevant and the proper inquiry is the impression of a reasonable employee. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. NLRB, 301 F.3d 167, 176 (3d Cir. 2002).

The employers alleged threat is not viewed in a vacuum, however.When considering an alleged unfair labor practice, an employers conduct must be examined in light ofallthe existing circumstances. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 1009, 1020 (3d Cir. 1980) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also NLRB v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 479 (1941) (The Boards finding of an unfair labor practice must be based upon the whole course of conduct revealed by [the] record.).Context is an important part of language, and thats especially true where, as in this case, pure speech is at issue.

The ALJ found that Domenechs tweet was an obvious threat that had no other purpose except to threaten the FDRLST [Media] employees with unspecified reprisals. FDRLST Media, 370 N.L.R.B. at 5. The Board agreed. In adopting the ALJs finding, the Board disclaimed any reliance on the tweets timing or The Federalists editorial content, leaving only the words of the tweet, devoid of any context, as support. But the Board erred when it disregarded relevant contextual evidence. ImageFIRST, 910 F.3d at 736 (citation omitted). Even more problematic than the timing and editorial content the Board ignored are the circumstances surrounding the tweet that the Board and the ALJ never considered.Had the Board considered the tweets full context, it could not have concluded that a reasonable FDRLST Media employee would view the tweet as a threat of reprisal.

For starters, FDRLST Media is a tiny media company. Its six employees (not including Domenech) are writers and editors. The tweets suggestion that these employees might be sent back to work in a salt mine is farcical.The image evokedthat of writers tapping away on laptops in dimly-lit mineshafts alongside salt deposits and workers swinging pickaxesis as bizarre as it is comical.So from the words of the tweet alone, we cannot conclude that a reasonable FDRLST Media employee would view Domenechs tweet as a plausible threat of reprisal.

Humor is subjective. What is funny to a fisherman may be lost on a farmer. A quip about New England winters is unlikely to get a laugh in Alaska. The propensity for jokes to fall flat for want of context or audience understanding has given rise to idioms like I guess you had to be there and too soon?

Excluding context and viewing a statement in isolation, as the Board did here, could cause one to conclude that break a leg is always a threat

Here, the Board spent its resources investigating an online media company with seven employees because of a facetious and sarcastic tweet by the companys executive officer. Because the Board lost the forest for the trees by failing to consider the tweet in context, it misconstrued a facetious remark as a true threat. We will accordingly grant FDRLST Medias petition, set aside the Boards order, and deny the Boards petition for enforcement.

In other words, it was a joke.

The effort of many on the left has been pounce on any tweet or joke or comment to seek to cancel or sanction those on the right. That has been particularly the pattern at universities. There is seldom any effort to fire professors for stating outrageous things about conservatives or Republicans. However, conservative or dissenting faculty can expect little support from their deans or university presidents in any controversy.

In past postings, I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments about detonating white people,denouncing police,calling for Republicans to suffer,strangling police officers,celebrating the death of conservatives,calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting themurder of conservative protestersand other outrageous statements. I also supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professorErik Loomis,who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he sawnothing wrong with such acts of violence.

They really did not need such defense since few faculty or students denounced them, let alone sought their removal. Indeed, at the University of California campus,professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.

There is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. Anyone who raises such objections is immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination.

One such campaign led to a truly tragic outcome with criminology professor Mike Adams at the University of North Carolina (Wilmington). Adams was a conservative faculty member with controversial writings who had to go to court to stop prior efforts to remove him. He then tweeted a condemnation of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for his pandemic rules,tweetingthat he had dined with six men at a six-seat table and felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina before adding: Massa Cooper, let my people go. It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left including calls togasorkillortortureconservatives be tolerated or even celebrated at universities.

Celebrities, faculty and students demanded that Adams be fired. After weeks of public pummeling, Adams relented and took a settlement to resign. He thenkilled himselfa few days before his final day as a professor.

The litigation over this joke is worrisome. It was not just the effort of a Boston lawyer to use the NLRB against someone with opposing political views. It was the fact that he was successful in getting the NLRB to find a violation. Many such targeted individuals or groups do not have the resources ofThe Federalistto litigate such a claim, particularly given the deference afforded to administrative rulings.

So for now, Joel Fleming, Judge Chu, and the NLRB have been frustrated in their effort to protect the world from a joke that could crush unions in its mirthful path. The dangers should not be ignored. As Judge Chu warned jokes can have hidden meanings and cause untold harm as established earlier by English scientists:

The rest is here:
No Laughing Matter: The Third Circuit Reverses NLRB Sanction Over Joke - Jonathan Turley

By Samuel Sey, Op-ed contributor | Tuesday, May 24, 2022An image of an unborn child. | Reuters

This might surprise many of you, but I am not an abolitionist on abortion.

Though many people in my evangelical tribe have become abolitionists, I havent joined them.

I am pro-life. I am anti-abortion, but I am not an abolitionist.

Well, sort of.

According to the dictionary definition of the word, I am an abolitionist. Like every genuine pro-life person, I am an abolitionist on abortion. I want the abortion industry to end. I want abortion to become illegal, with zero exceptions.

However, for some anti-abortion advocates within the Church an abolitionist isnt merely a person who wants abortion to become completely illegal. For these brothers and sisters, an abolitionist is a Christian who wants to end abortion through in their own words a specifically Gospel-centered and immediatist manner.

Therefore, though my pro-life advocacy is Gospel-centered, because of my support for step-by-step, gradual, or incremental pro-life bills, some Christians wouldnt describe me as an abolitionist.

In fact, because of my incrementalist approach to making abortion illegal, anti-abortion abolitionists say pro-life Christians like me do not want to abolish abortion, we simply want to regulate it.

In other words, according to them, we do not want to ban abortion, we only want to reduce it.

Abolitionists make that accusation against pro-life organizations like the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, Gregg Cunninghams Center For Bio-Ethical Reform, Mark Harringtons Created Equal, Scott Klusendorfs Life Training Institute and secular pro-life groups like Lila Roses Live Action.

Nevertheless, not all pro-life advocates are the same. Just as I am distinct from the so-called holistically pro-life groups like the Southern Baptist Conventions ERLC, some abolitionists are presumably distinct from perhaps even more divisive versions of abolitionists.

So with that in mind, abolitionist groups include Abolish Human Abortion, Free the States, Rescue Those, and great ministries like Apologia and more recently, my dear friends at Founders Ministries.

Though abolitionists tend to be Reformed and theonomists, they are primarily identified by their commitment to GATES, an acronym for the five tenets that describe their ideology. The five tenets are:

Gospel-centered, Aligned providentially, Through the church, Engaged biblically, Sought immediately without exception or compromise.

Essentially, abolitionists believe there is only one righteous and only one effective way to do anti-abortion advocacy. They believe anti-abortion advocacy should always be Gospel-centered, biblical, solely reliant on the providence of God, led by the Church, and especially immediatist in policy.

Abolitionists are mostly infamous for their immediatist approach to anti-abortion policy. They believe anti-abortion laws that do not immediately ban all abortions are evil, unjust, and unfaithful to God.

Abolitionists summarize their immediatist approach in what they call the five components of abolition bills:

1. Outlaw abortion from conception; 2. Include no exceptions for abortion; 3, Criminalize abortion itself, and establish equal justice for the preborn; 4. Do not submit to the unconstitutional ruling in Roe; and 5. Repeal or supersede all statutes which allow for abortion.

Therefore any pro-life bill that doesnt contain each of the five elements wouldnt be supported by abolitionists. For instance, on Thursday Oklahoma passed the strongest pro-life bill in America since Roe v. Wade. The bill bans almost all abortions from conception, and it allows civilians to sue anyone who performs or facilitates an abortion.

However, the bill allows for exceptions if the abortion is supposedly necessary to save the mothers life (though abortion is never medically necessary to save a mothers life) or if the pregnancy is a result of a sexual assault or incest. The bill also doesnt allow for abortionists and abortive women to be charged and prosecuted for performing abortions.

Since the bill doesnt meet abolitionist standards, they do not support the bill. In fact, abolitionists would presumably vote against it.

I am probably going to offend many abolitionists assuming theyre not offended already. However, I admire abolitionists more than they admire pro-life Christians like me.

Though many abolitionists will not say the same about me I believe abolitionists are my allies. Like immediate anti-slavery abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison and his more pragmatic former protg Frederick Douglass abolitionists and pro-life Christians have strong, internal disagreements. However, we are not enemies. We are allies with different convictions fighting the same battle.

After all, I actually agree with some of the critiques abolitionists have against the pro-life movement. Just as Im sure this article will be offensive to some abolitionists, Im also sure some of my words will offend my pro-life colleagues too.

I agree with abolitionists that many pro-life advocates are afraid to call abortion what it is: Murder. I also agree the pro-life movement needs to stop repeating the ridiculous claim that abortive women are victims.

Women who are threatened, forced, and pressured to have abortions are victims. However, that doesnt describe the majority of women who choose to murder their babies for convenience.

God doesnt call women who offer their children as a sacrifice to Molech as victims, we shouldnt either.

And related to that, unlike the overwhelming majority of pro-life people, I do not believe only abortionists should be charged for murdering babies. When abortion becomes illegal I believe anyone, including abortive women, who facilitate or perform an abortion should be charged and prosecuted for murder (Leviticus 20:1-5).

If abortion is murder, why shouldnt abortive women receive the same penalty all murderers receive? If a pre-born babys life is just as valuable as any persons life, then why shouldnt they receive justice for their murder?

Clearly, I believe pro-life Christians should consider much of what abolitionists have to say on abortion even though abolitionists refuse to consider much of what pro-life Christians have to say.

Im sure abolitionists disagree with much of what Ive said so far. Still, Im confident they would agree Ive represented their arguments fairly. However, I cant say the same about most abolitionists.

Abolitionists consistently misrepresent and slander pro-life people. Abolitionists make false accusations about our real motives and real agenda concerning abortion. As I mentioned earlier, they say we do not want to end abortion, we simply want to regulate it. But worse, abolitionists also claim the reason why the pro-life movement wants to supposedly regulate abortion is because we profit off of abortion.

Those accusations are so asinine they are not worth refuting. However, Ill address the basis for most of the false accusations the pro-life movement receives from abolitionists: the argument over incrementalism and immediatism.

Abolitionists claim pro-life people are complicit in abortion and guilty of compromise and injustice because of our incrementalist approach to fighting abortion. However, they are profoundly incorrect theologically and politically.

If incrementalism is sinful, every abolitionist who votes for the Republicans is a hypocrite. If incrementalism is sinful, every abolitionist who voted for Donald Trump is guilty of unrepentant sin. Candidly, abolitionists are the anti-abortion version of Never-Trumpers.

Though a majority of them voted for Trump, like Never-Trumpers, they refuse to acknowledge the righteous basis others have for thinking differently than they do. They refuse to acknowledge they are inconsistent incrementalists.

The Republicans are not immediatists, yet abolitionists vote for them anyway, presumably because they rightly believe the alternative (Democrats) are significantly worse. Since the Republicans have adopted a pro-gay marriage stance does that make abolitionists who vote for them complicit in homosexuality?

Of course not. However, from my conversations with some abolitionists many of them havent considered this inconsistency and hypocrisy. The truth is, we are all incrementalists. Some of us just refuse to admit it.

Every genuine pro-life person would like to immediately and completely ban all abortions. Pro-life Christians like me are not pragmatists by preference, we are pragmatists by necessity. Indeed, we want to abolish abortion. However, we are unashamedly committed to saving as many babies as possible until we have the power to save all babies.

Unlike abolitionists, we do not believe it is right to allow all babies to get murdered if we are unable to save all of them. Especially since that kind of thinking is one of the reasons why Canada is one of only two nations in the world (with North Korea) without law or restriction on abortion.

This is because some influential members of Canadas anti-abortion advocacy in the late 1980s effectively campaigned against an incrementalist pro-life bill by Prime-Minister Brian Mulroney. Since then, unlike our American counterparts the pro-life movement in Canada has struggled to gain significant momentum and progress.

If Mulroneys imperfect bill had passed, Canada wouldnt murder as many children as it does today.

Incrementalist pro-life bills are not ideal. However, they are effective and unfortunately necessary. Like every genuine pro-life person, Im happy to save as many babies as possible through incrementalism until were finally able to ban abortion, with zero exceptions.

Though abolitionists attempt to claim otherwise, William Wilberforce was an incrementalist against slavery. Indeed, he once said:immediate abolition [is] preferable to gradual.But that sentiment matches the views of pro-life Christians like me, not anti-abortion abolitionists.

Notice that unlike anti-abortion abolitionists, he said immediate abolition [is] preferable to gradual. He didnt say immediate abolition is the only option. The pro-life movement agrees with Wilberforce. We prefer an immediate end to abortion, but well accept a gradual or incrementalist end to abortion when thats the only option.

After all, Wilberforces incrementalist approach is what eventually led to the end of slavery in Britain. Wilberforces mission as a politician was to ban slavery in the British Empire. However, he sponsored a motion in the British House of Commons in 1792 to gradually abolish the slave trade. That motion eventually produced the Slave Trade Act of 1807, an Act that banned the slave trade in Britain. Almost 30 years later, Wilberforces incrementalist campaigns culminated into the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, an Act that finally banned slavery in the British Empire.

I know many of us have become disillusioned with mainstream evangelicals. If youre familiar with my blog, you know I am disillusioned with mainstream evangelicals, too. As Ive suggested, there are legitimate criticisms against the mainstream evangelical pro-life movement especially groups like the ERLC.

However, our disillusionment shouldnt cloud our judgment. As disappointed as I am with mainstream evangelicals and some pro-life people, I am not willing to allow bitterness to cloud my discernment.

Im concerned thats why many Christians are developing animosity towards the pro-life movement. Im concerned thats why some of my friends have become abolitionists.

From my experience, many people will promptly accuse me of compromise, unfaithfulness, complicity in abortion, and cowardice. But I suppose they would also have to make the same accusations about William Wilberforce.

Originally published at Slow to Write.

Samuel Sey is a Ghanaian-Canadian who lives in Brampton, a city just outside of Toronto. He is committed to addressing racial, cultural, and political issues with biblical theology, and always attempts to be quick to listen and slow to speak.

See the original post here:
Why I am not an abolitionist on abortion - The Christian Post