My blog has moved! Redirecting...

You should be automatically redirected. If not, visit and update your bookmarks.


Saturday, April 22, 2006

Tolerance and Choice? I think not.

In two incidents, college pro-life displays were vandalized this month. The first occurred at Northern Kentucky University, when “British literature professor Sally Jacobsen and several of her students destroyed a display of hundreds of crosses pro-life students have put up in the grass outside the student center to talk about the 47 million unborn babies who have been killed via abortion.... Jacobson has admitted encouraging students in her class to engage in the vandalism but would not comment to the media about whether she was involved. However, a reporter from the student newspaper caught the professor on camera ripping up a sign set up next to the crosses... ‘I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom of speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to,’ Jacobsen said last week after the incident.” (Photo: Dr. Sally Jacobson tears down main "Cemetery of Innocents" sign displayed by the campus pro-life group)

This is ridiculous. Destroying displays is most definitely not inviting freedom of expression. That is suppressing expression, by using criminal actions!

But this was not the sole incident. Another occurred when pro-life students at Princeton set up a “flag display in front of Frist Campus Center to remember the 347 students that the group estimates are not attending Princeton this year because of abortion... The pink and blue flags the group used to represent the men and women who are not a part of this year's freshman class were destroyed and abortion advocates replaced them with coat hangers, a pro-abortion symbol used to claim women will die form illegal abortions if it is prohibited. The sign in front of the display explaining its significance had been trampled and abortion advocates taped computer printouts over it with the message ‘support smaller class sizes: support abortion’ and ‘347 rusty coat hangers were saved from mangling and mutilation.’”

It should be obvious that destroying displays is not showing tolerance. It should also be obvious that when opposing views are suppressed, there is little choice in what views are heard or can be expressed. So why would groups that supposedly promote tolerance and choice deny both to anyone who disagrees?

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home