A few words about intellectual 
and political freedom from
the host of this website...

From time to time, I receive comments about the link on the previous page to a review of John Irving's film, "The Cider House Rules."   About 3/4 of the respondents thank me for pointing them to a lucid and revealing exposition of the film's subject matter, abortion, which is not so subtly veiled beneath the fall foliage of a New England apple farm.    A correspondent named Jason had this to write:

"After following your link on the movie "Cider House Rules" I am glad I didn't ever watch it. No where in any of the movie trailers I saw on T.V. did it give any indication of the filth in the film! I wonder how many people would have not seen the movie had they known the content..."

Abortion is such a volatile topic that I would expect some of our guests to object, but I am continually surprised by the incivility and the cowardice of those who do.   Nearly all of those who lament my inclusion of this link, do so anonymously, by signing the guest book without a return email.    Even more startling, most of them seem to believe that the public, especially children, need to be shielded from the opinions of pro-life authors.    Listen to what "Tally de Barres" writes from behind the protection of anonymity:

I wonder at your choice of linking visitors, most of whom are children to organizations with seperatist (sic) philosophies. 

The correspondent is here referring to the fact that the author of the review writes for the New American, a publication associated with the John Birch Society.    How could I possibly expose children to such horrors?     Why would I expose anyone to a reviewer who accurately discussed the subject matter of the film in question?     Why should anyone be told that the "hero" of the film refers to abortion as "the Lord's work?"

Thinking is difficult work.   Facts can be annoying.   Whatever else you may think about abortion, only the most heartless of souls would call the act of snuffing out a life, "the Lord's work."     Whatever you may believe about God, allow me to appeal to your respect for the truth.   Can even the most ardent pro-abortion activist possibly describe the crushing of an infant's skull as "the Lord's work?"     Can even the most ardent "safe but rare" adherent call abortion a happy choice, a compassionate choice, the work of God?

Please.  

I am proudly pro-life, and I have six children, and God's undeniable blessing, for it.    For those of you who believe that children  are to be managed, "planned," and prevented, I beg you to think again.   Pause for a moment, and consider the laughter of a child.   Try to remember the last time you heard it.    Think of that, and then think of John Irving's preposterous claim that snuffing out that laughter is the "Lord's work."

And for those of you who dismiss an opinion merely because of an association, let me put it plainly.   You are no better than the Nazis and the Stalinists you would claim to be fighting.     Am I required to believe everything written in a magazine, or propounded by an organization, merely because I concur with the opinions expressed in one article?    Of course not.     Making that claims excuses you from having to think about the issue itself.

Our republic depends on rational discourse.    The fact that some of these objections are expressed by people who claim to be "teachers" is troubling in the extreme.   It has been my experience that most teachers--public, private, home-schooled, or parochial--are honest and level-headed seekers of the truth.    A few, however, want only approved opinions discussed and their own conclusions confirmed without question.    

That's not what we're about, nor will it ever be...

                       ---James Riley