MandM header image 2

Hear Matt Speak at Stayin’ Alive Pro Life Training Day

March 11th, 2013 by Madeleine

The Autumn 2013 Stayin’ Alive Pro-Life Training Day will be held in Christchurch this Saturday 16 March 2013. Matt will be speaking twice.

Stayin' Alive Autumn 2013

8:15am Rego’s and tea & coffee (YouTube videos in main hall)
9:00am Introduction, housekeeping, and ice breaker (people bingo)
09:30am session: ‘Relativism, Utilitarianism and Abortion’ – Dr Matthew Flannagan
10:30am Morning tea break
10:50am session: ‘Abortion Apologetics’ – Brendan Malone
11:50pm Break
12:00pm session: ‘The media and the culture of life’ – Bob McCoskrie
12:45pm Lunch Break
13:30pm WORKSHOPS:

  1. ‘Modern medicine and abortion’ – Dr C. Hallagan
  2. ‘The truth about post-abortion trauma’ – Carolina Gnad
  3. ‘Practical media skills’ – Bob McCoskrie

14:30pm Break
14:45pm WORKSHOPS:

  1. ‘What women in crisis-pregnancy need from us’ – Sandra Martin
  2. ‘Using the Internet to build a culture of life’ – Jason McTague
  3. ‘Skills every pro-life apologist needs’ – Dr Matthew Flannagan

15:45pm Afternoon tea break
16:15pm session ‘Be the voice your culture needs you to be!’ – Brendan Malone
17:00pm Small group discussion
17:15pm Final wrap up
17:45pm BBQ Dinner
19:00pm Finish and clean up

When and where:
Saturday 16 March, 2013 at:

Burwood Christian Centre
54 Bassett Street

Registration starts at 8:45am on Saturday 16 March, and the event runs all day finishing with a BBQ dinner at approximately 5:45pm.

The registration fee is $20 per person (includes lunch and dinner plus morning and afternoon tea).

More information including how to register is available on the Stayin’ Alive website.

Tags:   · · · · 43 Comments

Leave a Comment

43 responses so far ↓

  • Sounds like a terrorist training camp… and coupled with the fact that the blogger going has a photo of himself with a gun on the top of every page… very worrying…

  • What is it with those guns?

  • I’m not having a laugh – but do you think the authorities need to be told about this… anti-abortionism + guns… it seriously scares me.

  • Ken, as has been explained before its actually a joke

    Christian, not sure what “scares you” or why you mention “terrorism” the only justification for either reactions I can see is the fact you have a sterotype about all people with a particular religious/moral perspective being terrorists. But that kind of fear is self imposed.

  • You choose to have a picture of yourself with a gun. And you are giving a talk entitled: “Skills every pro-life apologist needs”… I would have thought it was pretty obvious why this combination sets off alarm bells. Can you honestly not see this?

    I would not have formed any stereotype if you did not… um… choose to have a picture of yourself with a gun!

    It is not really a joke for the doctors who have been shot by anti-abortionists.

  • (where you chose to get the image of yourself with a gun is not really relevant… the end result is this:

    Blogger who is giving a talk about the skills needed to be an anti-abortion activist has picture of himself with a gun on promotional material…. do you not THINK at all about the image you are portraying of yourself?

  • I am not portraying any image, the pictures are clearly based the “Mr and Mrs Smith” movie. If someone concludes that I am a terrorist simply from this fact and that I oppose abortion then I suspect the conclusion is due to them reading a whole lot of prejudice into the situation not on any reasonable inference from whats on here.

  • Also the “skills needed” to be an “anti abortion ” as you put it was, as anyone who has looked carefully at the program, actually a talk on critical thinking and the skills involved in analysising moral arguments.

    I am sure that’s “terrorism” to some people because for a joke I have a picture of myself copying Brad Pitt. But that suggests only that the skills in question are widely lacking in culture.

  • Its not about facts… its about perception… if you lack the skills to see how it looks (which you seem to?) then you should trust people who don’t lack those skills….

  • Well I actually dont think it looks that way, and most people I know who read MandM dont think it looks that way. The only people who do tend to be people who already have certain stero types in there minds. My guess is that for most of these people would probably draw that conclusion or look for reasons to without the Mr and Mrs Smith piss take.

    I am not responsible for the prejudice of other people, and I dont try and live my life cow towing to secular prejudice I am afraid.

  • Matt. your Mate Glenn a the blog Say Hello to my Little Friend used to have a pistol prominently displayed – and got some flack for it.

    I notice he seems to have grown up and removed the pistol in his blog.

    It really does give the wrong message.

  • The only message it gives is that we are Brangelina of blogging who shoot down arguments hyuk hyuk.
    Mr and Mrs Smith
    Anyone taking anything more than that from it should seek professional help.

  • Ken, then I guess you should grow up as well.

  • Ken, I still have the smoking gun in the header of the new version my blog. The only “flak” I got about the old version were from people who seemed incapable of understanding metaphor, even when it was explained to them. In fact, the main person who commented about it was you.

    Maybe I’ll make it bigger now, since you didn’t notice it. Thanks for the heads up.

  • Make it bigger for all I care, Glenn. It’s the sort of reaction I could expect.

    I withdraw my speculation that you may have matured.

  • Really Matt, these comments form you detractors are really quite silly, or else, indicative of attempts to discredit your image. I mean really, we have to be quite selective in what we’re allowing to create the impression we’re trying to create, and I think it is extremely tenuous at best. I’m not saying that they can’t make such a connection, but it would require cherry picking a precious few points of data, and ignoring unreasonable amounts of other tidbits of social and historical information. It would be like me suggesting that Christian is paranoid and that Frodo and Ken have superiority complexes from the tone I’m “perceiving” in their writing. Clearly, this would be unfound and uncharitable of me.

    I do hope the event went well. I’d say the lineup of sessions and workshops all look like they would have been good to attend.

  • Hey Matt and Madeleine,

    Like others here, the gun in your picture doesn’t really bother me and if I’m to be honest I know what affect you’re trying to go for. But I figure there’s no better use of my time than to make an issue out of it, because the truth is I’m a bit threatened by your theological and political position and your ability to defend it in ways that make my arguments look silly. And even though it’s painstakingly obvious that I’m clutching at straws to maintain that there is some noteworthy issue with your picture, I’ll keep responding because my pride is at stake, and that’s more important than focussing my efforts on issues that matter.

  • Good luck being taken seriously then. But as you say it is up to you.

  • Where you got the image from is (once again) irrelevant. And saying “it is a joke” does not change the reality either. You claim to be a representative of Christ, and the public image you choose to use to represent yourself is of a man with a gun in his hand… you are bringing the Church into disrepute in doing so.

    You say you do not want to give in to secular prejudice??? But part of your role is to represent Christ and what he represents to the world.

    What does an image of a man with a gun tell us about how you see Christ, and how you want to present Christ to the secular world in which you do your ministry?

  • What does an image of a man with a gun tell us about how you see Christ, and how you want to present Christ to the secular world in which you do your ministry?

    Christian is correct. The only sensible conclusion we can come to about picture is that Matt thinks Jesus is an assassin, and that all he wants to do is assassinate people, particularly pro-choicers. Any other more common sense interpretation is being too charitable.

  • Oh Hugh.. you could address the real issue. Silly strawman attacks are not impressive or clever.

  • Oh Hugh.. you could address the real issue. Silly strawman attacks are not impressive or clever.

    You began by saying there’s a problem with how the anti-abortionism coupled with an image of Matt with a gun reminds you of terrorism, and then you changed to saying there’s a problem with how followers of Christ will perceive an image of Matt with a gun. Those are two separate issues – both of which are silly, but I digress – which is the “real issue” you want me to address?

  • “Anyone taking anything more than that from it should seek professional help.”

    You think that people who interpret things differently from yourself need “professional help”. Really? What sort of help do you think they require?

  • Now Matt. Clearly you are aware that there are certain stereotypes out there in the world. You are also aware that these stereotypes could be encouraged or supported by the way you choose to present yourself… so you are not ignorant of this perception problem,

    So the question is” given you are aware of this issue… why do you persist in taking an action which encourages this sort of perception?

  • The original banner idea was the TV series the Avengers:

    The Avengers

    But I really didn’t want to don a cat-suit….

  • Madeleine we couldn’t use that one, it suggests we are “avengers” and probably means we hunt down abortionists and kill them.

  • They had guns too:

    The Avengers

    The Avengers

    The Avengers

    But really for me it was those catsuits:

    The Avengers

    The Avengers

    The Avengers

    The Avengers

  • Hows the hunt for acidic jobs….I wonder if they ever look at tha blog… think…. Think….ah! the penny just dropped!

  • Academic…. Not acidic…

  • Frodo, I am not sure what basis you have for that alleged link. Simply citing two factors and claiming “I wonder if they ever look at tha blog… think…. Think….ah! the penny just dropped” doesnt exactly esthablish any relationship between them.

    For the record though, in fact a good number of offers of academic publication as well as invitations to address academic conferences came from people reading this blog. So again not sure what your own about. Try evidence instead of assertion an innuendo.

  • Yes. Obviously it is a metaphor. But still interesting that a metaphor of violence is chosen by there “Christians” out of all the possibilities which exist.

  • Atho, keep bending over backwards to try and find any evidence no matter how remote to reinforce a stero type.

    I am sure the Salvation Army are a spinster terrorist organisation as was the person who wrote onward Christian soldiers. No doubt the Canterbury Crusaders rugby team are secretly violent as well.

    Why the desire to smear people, if you disagree with the, why not offer an argument?

  • Its not a smear. Its an observation.

    1. Flannigan agrees with the views if a group in the USA which has and does use violence and murder to obtain its goals.
    2. Flannigan visits the USA to meet evangelical groups.
    3. Flannigan presents images of himself in public weilding a hand gun.

    I will not jump to conclusions. Those facts can just sit side by side.

  • Note: I am not saying you actually are a terrorist. Just that you are stupid if you can’t see why you look like one. It would be like a Muslim teacher online who supported some extreme views having a picture of himself with a gun… Of course the muslim would be under police and secret service scrutiny if they were stupid enough to use such an.image. I wonder whether you are?

  • “Flannigan agrees with the views if a group in the USA which has and does use violence and murder to obtain its goals.”

    Name the group thanks frodo.

  • Thanks for that Kevin, i think it answers Frodo’s “its not a smear” comment quite nicely.

    As to his other example, note he draws a parallel between myself and an Islamic “extremist” who then put a picture of himself on line with guns. That of course makes a similar assumption, that I am some kind of terrorist supporter.

    When you change the example to something more analogous the inference fails: lets say a moderate Muslim who has never supported or condoned violence putting a joke picture online of himself dressed as james bond with a gun.

    I think people who assumed on the basis of this he was supporting terrorism would be pretty clearly demonstrating there own prejudices.

  • Thanks Karl, I meant “their own prejudices.”

  • I know you did 🙂

  • Yep Matt…. Its all “prejudice” and so can be hand waved away… Good try.

    Do you support the use of violence against doctors who practice abortions? yes or no.

    None of your usual avoidance strategy.

  • Frodo,


    Also not sure why you think I am engaing in avoidance tactics given this is not the first time I have said this, try for example 2003

    In fact violence against abortion doctors was condemned by pretty much all pro life groups in the US.

    Note also I argued it was prejudice, you have not responded to that argument, instead you have asserted I use avoidance tactics.

    Suppose a person claimed that someone was an al quedia terrorist because they (a) were Muslim and (b) had a joke photo of themselves posing as james bond ( and hence holding pistol) . Would that inference be reasonable or would it be based on a predjucided stero type that all muslims are terrorist.

    Your also welcome to answer Kevins question, if you cant then perhaps you should retract your denial that you are not engaging in smears.

    You raised the analogy, your not now trying to use avoidance tactics to escape it are you?