Digger's Doings

False Witness Analysis Part One

     I've been re-reading the latest RT diatribe False Witness and making notes again. I don't know that this is such a good idea seeing as I have to be at work in less than twelve hours. Therefore, I'm going to break things up by analyzing the piece in sections.

     Today's blog entry will focus on the first four pages and will include questions for both men. If either of them are readers of this blog, I hope they will respond.

     On page three, Terry explains that one of his purposes for writing is to "clear the air an rebbuild relationships within the pro-life movement". On the surface, this seems an admirable goal. Relationships, however, by their very nature, are best restored by one-on-one communication with the individual parties involved. The Scripture invitation is to "come, let us reason together". This first refers to the relationship between God and man but can be extended to apply to human relationships as well.

     Further down the page, Terry explains that he is also writing this for his four sons. It bothers me intensely that, when Terry talks about his offspring, he only says four children. He has eight; although four are adults now. Maybe the olther four would like their own questions about their father's integrity cleared up as well.

     Towards the end of the page, Terry explains that his "attackers" appear credible because, among other reasons, "some of them were professionally close to me for a short season". Why was this season so short? When it comes to repairing relationships, maybe he should start with these people with whom he once had at least a working relationship.

     On page four, Terry tells of "under a dozen man and women of any significance (emphasis mine)" who have supported Newman. If you read through the whole Terry-festo, you will begin to notice that Terry ranks people as being significant or among his "peers" or  not significant and not his peer. So much for the notion that humanity, by its sheer existence, has value (a key to understanding why we oppose abortion). In Terry's world, we are not equal in God's eyes. As Orwell noted in Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others. It is a school of thought that underlies the pro-abortion movement. If some people are "more equal than others", what is to stop us from disregarding the "others" to the point of disposal?

     One of the complaints I have often heard from other rescuers is that, when Terry's version of OR held events, he and his leadership core would often bail out of jail or avoid arrest altogether leaving the less significant of us to stay behind. One of the organizations I rescued with had an informal motto of "no one gets left behind" We recognized the power of large numbers to keep the authorities from singling out certain people for more serious charges or abuse.

     Another common complaint is that Terry's OR rarely took abuse claims by pro-lifers against police and/or prison guards seriously. They did not fight on behalf of rescuers in West Hartford, Connecticut, Los Angeles, California or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where the abuse claims were probably as well-documented as any. In New York and New Jersey, rescuers won several suits against abusive police and prison guards in spite of a lack of support from national leadership.

     By portraying himself and those in his inner circle as being somehow superior to the average rescuer, Terry alienates the very readers he is trying to win over - those of us who can remember OR's "glory days" and, thanks to his tone, are now remembering the not-so-glorious ones.

     This brings me to the next point in the Terry-festo (I'll admit, it's kind of fun to use that term); the point Terry wants to drive home most of all - Newman is stealing MY name and heritage! First of all, Terry's heritage is not necessarily one a person would want to steal. Who in their right mind would want a heritage that includes compromise with the opposition, a messy divorce and estrangement from one's own children? Secondly, is Newman acting in such a way as to destroy the better parts of the OR heritage? Even Terry acknowledges the effectiveness of Newman's work in Wichita as do certain members of the secular media and, certainly, the opposition. I would contend that, whatever Newman's personal faults, the actions of OR under his leadership have stayed true to the original vison of OR established by its leadership core back in the late 1980s.

     I do not see similar fruits in Terry's more recent works. I don't know the last time Terry was actually at an abortion mill even to pray much less speak out  where the murders are taking place. There are any number of Catholic who go out to abortion mills regularly to pray the Rosary and I'm sure any of them would welcome a fellow Catholic who wished to join them in prayer.

     In the same sentence in which Terry admonishes Newman's supporters to consider what they would do were they in Terry's shoes. He claims that Newman has lied about him repeatedly. Newman's e.mail to which Terry is responding repeats a lot of the charges that have been leveled against Terry by people long before Newman brings them up. Newman may be repeating other people's lies, but is he the person who originated them? 

     This doesn't absolve Newman from responsibility. If he knows that the statements that have been made against Terry were false and repeated them anyway, he bears guilt for repeating them. If, at the time he wrote his e.mail, he believed that what he was saying about Terry was true, did Newman lie with intent? People who knew Terry well made these claims against him - his former pastor in regards to the dissolution of the marriage, his ex-wife in regards to Terry's financial integrity, his older children in regards to Terry's strained relationships with them - the list goes on.

     If Newman believed what were nothing but lies about Terry, he got those "lies" from people in unique positions to know the truth about certain matters.

     With the exception of some of his children, these people have been somewhat restrained in thier public statements. I'm sure any number of media outlets would pay Cindy Dean quitte well to "spill the beans" on what went wrong in the Terry marriage yet, to this day, she has not spoken publicly about it. Pastor Dan Little's letter was written pretty much in response to repeated questioning from many about Terry's situation as it involved his church. He has not made any more widely publcized statements about  Terry since the letter's release almost a decade ago.