Better insight

Life is so much the defining issue of our times that your newspaper provides a better insight into national and world events than any other news medium. TV and the national press, even if they were to become honest, would still be unable to distinguish between important events and trivia, because they lack focus. The Interim, on the other hand, by focusing on the central moral issue of our times, manages to unveil the motivations and significance of seemingly unrelated or unimportant events, providing thereby a concise, cutting, and useful insight into what is really going on in the world, and why.

The contrast, for example, between the true Barnett Slepian story and the news media's version, tells us more about the media itself than do volumes of critical analysis on the corruption, conspiracy, and hidden agenda of that anti-Christian power elite you call "the mediarchy."

If some of your subscribers find themselves short of time to read The Interim, it may be because they are still watching the TV news. Throw out the TV! Cancel the national daily! Focus on the truth! Then one will be able to see what's really going on: the giant moral battle on the global stage between life and death. The smoke, the lies, and the confusion come from death, whose loyal servant the mediarchy has become.

The Interim may not be the biggest circulation newspaper in Canada, but it could be the only one that is read in Heaven!

Paul Dickson
Rexton, N.B.

Klusendorf

I was quite perturbed by the seeming rejection by Scott Klusendorf of the pro-life strategy of The Caring Foundation ads (The Interim, February 1999). Surely there is more than one way to defend the preborn baby. Does it not stand to reason that different arguments and approaches are needed to deal with different situations?

It may be possible, in the broad scheme of things, to influence and save lives by well-developed and enunciated philosophical, theological, biological arguments. Speakers in the schools, or in a debate forum with the media, can do this. Again, in the general sense, it may be possible to educate the public at large by well-staged marches, silent vigils, picketing, and Life Chains, especially if good spokespersons explain the activity and the media covers that event in an unbiased manner. My experience is that today's society is more open to arguments based on human rights and ecological wholeness than arguments based solely on the baby's basic humanity.

In the particular sense, however, if we are going to save a particular individual baby, it is illogical to think that we can do this without appealing to the basic needs and interests of the child's mother.

First of all we have to know which baby needs saving. With these ads, she identifies herself and her baby. Most of these callers to the Helpline are without hope. They find themselves trapped, embarrassed, abandoned, often in real fear of the future. Very often, if she can be given an alternative - that is, given hope - the mother will opt against abortion.

Pro-life people do respect motherhood, which means child and mother. You can only save the child through his or her mother, as someone more clever than I has said.

If we need proof of that we need only look at the Annunciation. Even God did not act to give life to His Son without first appealing to Mary. Can we do any less?

Anna Desilets
Acting General Manager
Alliance for Life
Winnipeg

Swope

Re: "Klusendorf disputes new woman-centred pro-life strategy" (January 1999). Judging by Scott Klusendorf's criticism of the "Paul Swope strategy," he is under the impression that Mr. Swope intends his strategy to replace all others.

I believe that that misunderstanding has been cleared up, and that Mr. Swope is on record saying he thinks it should be part of the mix, not a replacement for other approaches to abortion. That being said, I think someone would be hard-pressed to justify rejecting the Swope strategy out of hand. Mr. Klusendorf says that we should be focusing on developing the intellectual calibre of our arguments instead of developing emotion-based strategies, while admitting that majority opinion will always be "pro-choice." In other words, he seems to suggest, we need to convince political leaders so that they will enforce pro-life laws regardless of public opinion.

Of course, it is right to have pro-life laws regardless of public opinion; nevertheless, trying to implement such a strategy is indicative of a top-down, bureaucratic approach to the issue rather than a grassroots attempt to change people's hearts so that the general public can be brought along with our leaders. To do this, we have to reach people's hearts as well as their mind, because most people are not academics, nor are they intellectually oriented. As a result, Paul Swope's strategy is an essential component of a complete pro-life agenda.

(I believe the "grassroots" approach would be far more enduring than the "top-down" approach. It is also a corrective against the social liberal ideology that sees everything ultimately as a political issue instead of a heart issue that finds its best resolution when people are reconciled with God and His truth.)

Tim Bloedow
Ottawa

Repackaged truth

Re: "Klusendorf disputes new woman-centred pro-life strategy" (February 1999). Mr. Klusendorf is reported as saying, "What we don't need are efforts to repackage our truths for the mainstream culture." What does he think the Gospel parables are, if not "repackaged truths"? What is good art, literature, drama, if they are not "repackaged truths"?

In an attempt to support this blunder, Mr. Klusendorf goes on to compound it, by saying that "the mainstream culture is simply not pro-life, and they don't agree with us." This is a new observation? Is this a reason not to try to reach the "mainstream culture"? The only conclusion you can come to is he thinks it's more important to sing to the choir.

Mr. Klusendorf also suggests the pro-life cause is "not seen as an intellectual movement, and that we (pro-lifers) are losing in the world of ideas." Go figure.

Carl Scharfe Toronto

Jesus has a plan

Thank you for including a representative sampling of responses for positions regarding the Christian Heritage/Family Coalition political parties.

Often we are lulled into a position which makes earthly sense. Consider the thousands of martyrs who refused to be swayed from absolute allegiance to Jesus Christ. For many of these, simply recanting their position of following Jesus would have saved their lives. They did not move.

Jesus asked his disciples to leave their livelihood and follow him. I can't see him asking the twelve one morning for their thoughts on that day's activities and then juggling the half dozen or so different responses. Jesus always had a plan. He still does.

I have spent all of my life in the church and read the entire Bible through seven times, but I wasn't following Jesus. I was doing what I thought was best.

The rich young man of Mt 19:16 and following was asked by Jesus for complete obedience. Jesus asked for total commitment. We may think that we understand the political scene better than others. Ultimately, what Jesus thinks is the only thing that counts. We must follow Him, whatever the cost.

If we don't vote for a pro-life Christian in a Christian party, we cannot claim to be following Jesus. Regardless of what we think, the thoughts of Jesus are wiser.

Gord Truscott
Guelph, Ont.

FCP and CHP

Paul J. Morgan's plea for the Family Coalition Party (February 1999) rings a bell for me loud and clear. I am getting very tired of spoiling my ballot in protest these last few years, and I feel it is much more constructive to take out a membership in the FCP, even supposing a "splinter party" will never have a chance against the established, secular parties.

Now it occurs to me that if Christian organizations like the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Women's League could stand behind the FCP (and the CHP), we might see a great increase in strength. At 83, I am too old to run, but the Knights and CWL could at least lead a serious prayer campaign.

Blanche Mary Lepinskie
Combermere, Ont.

Senator Ghitter

Charles Moore's report in the February 1999 Interim on the address given by Senator Ron Ghitter at St. Thomas University leaves no uncertainty about the urgency for Christians to choose sides in the cultural war that is upon us. Religious conservatives, and especially Christians, are being attacked with impunity by public officials and the media alike.

The CTV panel member interviewing Preston Manning during the United Alternative Forum on Feb. 21 said Mr. Manning lacks appeal because he "wears glasses, has a high-pitched voice, and goes to church." He is therefore "not part of mainstream society." This inanity should be taken seriously, because it is typical of public opinion today.

St. Thomas University's interest in Senator Ghitter raises questions: Why was he invited to speak at a religiously oriented university, and what was the response from this institution to his attack on religion? Mr. Moore's report allows us no room for complacency in the struggle to maintain our Christian heritage.

Allan MacLellan
Toronto

Holocaust

When asked for his reaction to what he had seen while visiting Auschwitz in January, Prime Minister Chrétien was quoted as saying, "There's nothing you can say .... You can only say you remember, and it cannot happen again. And we have all a collective responsibility to make sure (it does not) happen again."

May I point out that things equally lethal are happening right on our doorstep at this moment? The lives of countless, innocent human beings are aborted daily, a practice condoned and funded by Mr. Chrétien's government.

For over 30 years, pro-life groups have accepted the responsibility of upholding the dignity of all human life and have taken up the torch. But still their words fall on deaf ears.

We can only hope and pray that our government will see the error of its ways and assume its responsibility.