Saturday, May 18, 2002

Kathy Shaidle at has issues with the pro-life movement:

The trouble with the pro-life movement is image. As long as "pro-life" equals "attention-KMart-shoppers", "salad" made of green jello and marshmallows, SUVs, sensible shoes and 10 dollar hair-cuts as long as it is something only icky old men and post-menopausal ladies care about (tell THAT one to Dr. Freud) it will remain the political equivalent of lawn bowling.

In an age of short attention spans and an "image is everything" culture, I suppose she has a point. But is marketing savvy compatible with the truth? Look what the need to "be more relevant" has done to the liturgy in most American parishes (I've certainly seen my fair share of clown Masses). Indeed, many Christians -- particularly on the non-denominational-evangelical-megachurch-Protestant side -- seem to only go to church because they know they'll be entertained by lots of happy singing and a jumbotron. Style over substance.

Although I think the pro-life movement would greatly benefit by utilizing different, and more attractive, spokesmen, I'm not so sure it is altogether necessary to tone down the current means of delivering the message that abortion results in the killing of innocent life (e.g., showing pictures of aborted babies). After all, sticking your dog's face in its own waste is usually the best way to make it stop taking a dump on your carpet.

No comments: