Religious terrorism

[mfcorey1]

Hundreds of anti-choice activists are currently congregating in New Orleans to stage protests against abortion around the city, an event that’s expected to last all week long. So far, tensions have come to a head in an unexpected place: the sanctuary of a church, where abortion opponents interrupted a service to tell congregants that they don’t have a “true faith” because their denomination supports reproductive rights.

This week’s protests are being spearheaded by the national anti-abortion group Operation Save America, which used to go by the name Operation Rescue National. That far-right organization, frequently criticized for its “militant” tactics, is perhaps best known for being tied to Dr. George Tiller’s assassination. And on Sunday, as part of its week long protest in Louisiana, group members decided to take their message straight to the First Unitarian Universalist Church of New Orleans.

As the Uptown Messenger reports, anti-abortion activists interrupted worship at the church — specifically, disrupting a moment of silence for a church member who recently passed away — to declare that this particular church isn’t a “true faith” and tell the service attendees to “repent.” Operation Save America’s opinion about the First Unitarian Universalist Church is made clear on its website, which refers to the “church” and its “pastor” in scare quotes and calls it a “synagogue of Satan.”

Rev. Deanna Vandiver, a guest speaker at the service, invited the protesters to either join the service respectfully or hold their protest outside of the building. As the congregation sang, church leaders led the loudest anti-abortion activists out of the sanctuary.

Vandiver told the Uptown Messenger that she wasn’t entirely sure why the church was targeted — but it’s likely because of the Unitarian Universalist Association’s progressive stance on reproductive rights. Even before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion throughout the country, UU churches officially affirmed the right to choose. Since then, the religious body has passed several resolutions related to reproductive justice and continues to be very involved in efforts to support abortion rights. The Unitarian Universalist Association’s official policy states an explicit opposition to “any attempt to enact a position on private morality into public law.”

“Beloved, we have a lot of different opinions in this country about family planning. I believe, however, that there is a moral consensus about religious terrorism. NO ONE should invade the sanctuary of another’s faith to terrorize people as they worship,” Vandiver wrote on Facebook following the incident. “I call on everyone of every faith tradition and no faith tradition to stand with on the side of love and resist the evil of the week of hate being visited upon the city of New Orleans.”

Holding protests in church is certainly not unheard of, although it often walks a fine line. In 2012, members of the feminist punk collective Pussy Riot were infamously arrested after performing a “punk prayer” in Russia’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, criticizing corruption within the Orthodox Church and calling for Putin’s removal. And in the 1980s, thousands of LGBT activists protested at Catholic churches to call for more inclusive policies on abortion, homosexuality, and AIDS; although most of those protesters gathered outside of church buildings, several dozen were criticized for entering a sanctuary and disrupting Mass.

Local law enforcement is on alert as they anticipate more potentially disruptive protests from Operation Save America activists this week. Anti-abortion activists have already held an open-casket wake for a fetus in a public square. And outraged residents of one New Orleans neighborhood complained that their privacy was violated on Saturday when protesters picketed the private home of a doctor who lives there.

Nonetheless, over the weekend, the mayor of New Orleans issued an official proclamation of welcome to the protesters, signing a certificate thanking the anti-choice group for its “service” to the city. That prompted more than 500 New Orleans residents to sign a petition asking the mayor to reconsider. “Regardless of personal ideologies, most Americans agree that harassing women and threatening doctors is extreme behavior that should not be welcomed by the mayor’s office. The certificates signed by you gives them a legitimacy that they do not deserve,” the petition reads.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/23/3462842/abortion-opponents-new-orleans-church/?elq=~~eloqua..type--emailfield..syntax--recipientid~~&elqCampaignId=~~eloqua..type--campaign..campaignid--0..fieldname--id~~

[Maedhros]

1. While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment behind the article,

I object to the use of the word "terrorism" to describe the actions of Operation to Save America. "Harassment" and "trespassing" seem to cover it.

Let me reiterate that I find their actions disgusting. In this hyper-partisan, charged political climate I understand the motivation behind attaching the most powerful negative label we have - "terrorist" - to those political elements that represent the darkest and most misguided ideologies. However I believe that, given the terrible legal connotations, potential attendant denial of civil rights and possible indefinite detention without due process that is associated with being identified as a "terrorist," we need to be very careful and very specific as to what that word means. It can't just mean "people we find disgusting who commit crimes."

[Bluenorthwest]

2. You should write that up in a letter to Dr Tiller's family and those harmed in Atlanta and other

bombings by the Anti Choice movement, I'm sure they will agree with you that snipers and bombers should be spoken of kindly.

[Maedhros]

4. Bombing is terrorism.

Disrupting a religious service is not.

And I did not "speak of them kindly" - please do not put words in my mouth. If you wish, you could address the point of my post, which is that there are very specific and very serious consequences in our country for being charged with "terrorism" yet the actual definition of the term is vague. Thus, care should be taken not to politicize the term because there are real-world consequences.

[el_bryanto]

3. I can understand your objection, but feel that in this case the label is merited

Let's be blunt, the possibility that our Government is going to act towards these groups the way they have towards those we are fighting the war on Terror is remote, to say the least. Nobody in this group is going to Guantanemo, even when they are linked to people which commit murder (as Bluenorthwest noted above). So being concerned about these jerks losing their civil liberties . . . well you don't have much to be concerned about.

What is more concerning, in my opinion, is the fact that these groups are trying to create a climate in which woman are afraid to seek out an abortion. They are trying to make people afraid to speak up in favor of a woman's right to choose - why else would they target the UU church? They are trying to create a climate of fear that benefits their political position.

That does sound a bit like terrorism to me.

Bryant

[Maedhros]

5. Harassment, coercion, intimidation, trespassing, issuing threats.

Some or all of these things describe the actions of Operation to Save America. Calling them "terrorists" serves only to worsen the misapplication of the term.

Just as some would call OSA "terrorists", others call Operation Wall Street or PETA or ELF "terrorists" when the alleged crimes of these groups are trespassing, theft, sabotage or vandalism. Call the crime what it is, not what generates knee-jerk sympathy or outrage depending on the target audience.

[el_bryanto]

6. I'm calling it terrorism because it is terrorism

An attempt to terrorize people into supporting a political position.

Bryant

[Maedhros]

7. That justification could be applied to Code Pink, NARAL, PETA, ELF, OWS

or any activist group that engages in street demonstrations or targeted protests. For example, activists that camp out in front of Goldman Sachs and demonstrate could easily be considered to be "terrorizing" Goldman Sachs employees were we to use your definition.

That's a very slippery slope. We have existing charges for disruptive behavior that exceeds what is granted by the First Amendment.

[Throd]

8. It's only terrorism if I disagree with it.

Otherwise it is a protected 1st amendment exercise.

[Maedhros]

9. More reason to be very, very careful with the term "terrorism":

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

The document’s definition of “terrorist” activity includes actions that fall far short of bombing or hijacking. In addition to expected crimes, such as assassination or hostage-taking, the guidelines also define destruction of government property and damaging computers used by financial institutions as activities meriting placement on a list. They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation.

This combination—a broad definition of what constitutes terrorism and a low threshold for designating someone a terrorist—opens the way to ensnaring innocent people in secret government dragnets. It can also be counterproductive. When resources are devoted to tracking people who are not genuine risks to national security, the actual threats get fewer resources—and might go unnoticed.

“If reasonable suspicion is the only standard you need to label somebody, then it’s a slippery slope we’re sliding down here, because then you can label anybody anything,” says David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent with experience running high-profile terrorism investigations. “Because you appear on a telephone list of somebody doesn’t make you a terrorist. That’s the kind of information that gets put in there.”

"Intended to influence government policy through intimidation" can be used to describe pretty much any street demonstration, at least in the minds of the government.

[el_bryanto]

10. All terrorist acts are also crimes in their own right

If you blow up a clinic - you are guilty of blowing up a clinic. If you kill a doctor, you are guilty of murder. If you stand up in church and create a disruption, you may be guilty of trespassing.

Terrorism takes those acts and adds an extra element of repression.

Bryant

[Maedhros]

11. I disagree with using the term in that way.

But I'm with you as far as viewing far-right anti-abortion activists with utter contempt.