Opinion

Respect for Life month clarifications

Comments (4)
  1. D says:

    I find it funny that your third point is that there is no religious or political affiliation. If it has no affiliation, then what is its purpose? To purely educate people on the numbers of abortions? I highly doubt that was the only motive.

    Personally, I found this display to be completely unnecessary. Especially, for a campus that is so careful about having ZERO religious affiliation.

  2. Joe Rensam says:

    I don’t know who took your display, but why were your members wiping-off counter arguments on the sidewalks?

  3. Alex says:

    D, religion and abortion are separate issues. Obviously, a lot of religion gets brought into the discussion, and many of our members are Christian, but RFL itself has no religious affiliation (as in, we are not associated with one denomination more than another).

    Joe, no one wiped off counter arguments. Honestly, the thought was entertained because our signs had been ripped down all week, but we didn’t want to fight fire with fire. Instead, we chalked our own responses to those counter arguments. As we were chalking, a student walked past and dumped his drink on top of our chalk–perhaps this is the wiping out you were talking about. However, sprinklers also came on that night that washed away both sides’ chalking; that is why little was left Friday morning.

  4. D says:

    Alex-I wasn’t trying to use religious affiliation in terms of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Maybe correlation would have been a better word to use since I meant that there were probably religious motives tied to Respect for Life (nationwide and on campus).

    You still didn’t answer what the purpose of the display was if there was no religious or political significance.