In the interest of openness and transparency, let me state emphatically that I know not a darn thing about Dr. Femi Babalola. I have not even read his article to which Mr. Paul T. Adujie wrote a response. But it is to that response that I now retort.
We are all familiar with the truism that two individuals can come to two different conclusions based on their examinations of the same evidence. Some people examine the universe as it is and come to the conclusion that it is a product of cosmological calamity that supposedly took place before there was even a cosmos. Some other people examine the same universe and come to a different conclusion. They conclude that everything just seems too perfect to have been a product of a gigantic accident; and therefore there must have been someone or something or some force intelligent enough to arrange our universe in such an orderly version.
In examining the same evidence (universe), both parties brought with them their individual biases. So, it is no longer a case of one party being biased while the other is not. It is simply a case of both parties being biased. But since we all know that it is logically impossible for both parties to be right given their diametrically opposing conclusions after examining the same evidence, commonsense begs the question: Whose bias is right?
Based on Mr. Adujie’s harsh treatment of Dr. Babalola’s position on this past American Presidential election, I believe it is reasonable for me to assume that both of them are adherents to opposite political ideologies. Limiting myself to only political ideologies for now, why is it that some people are political Liberals and others are political Conservatives? Are there things or people in our young individual lives that may have played a subconscious role in molding and massaging our ideologies into what they are in adulthood? Or are we just victims of the environments in which we all now live as adults? Or have we just made ourselves victims of populism? In other words, have we been socially indoctrinated into becoming conformists even when our social condition really calls for non-conformity?
While I do not so much care about which political ideology a person holds (even though I ‘d prefer everyone hold mine), I do recoil at the notion that has been fashionable in America for a very long time. A notion that one must adhere to one particular political ideology and identify with one particular political party in order to remain a bonafide “black” in America. As preposterous as it may sound, this fashionable trend demands that all black people reach the same conclusion regardless of what the evidence suggests!
It is because of that fashionable trend that a noble and brilliant man like Clarence Thomas (a Conservative Republican who just happens to be “black”) was subjected to the worst form of ridicule during the confirmation hearings of his nomination to the highest Court of the land. He was ridiculed and verbally abused (the record speaks for itself) by the American liberal Democrats; “whites” and “blacks”; including but not limited to members of ACLU and Black Congressional Caucus not to mention Ted Kennedy! And during this last Presidential campaign, this erudite legal luminary of American Constitution was the first one identified as unqualified for his office by none other than President-Elect Barack Obama! The President-Elect’s disapproval of Justice Thomas’ job is not based on the substance of his duty. It is simply based on the differences in their political ideologies.
And as members of the Republican Party, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell have witnessed more than their own shares of ridicule and caricature by many black liberals even though neither one of ’em is truly Conservative. But to those who criticize them, their political party affiliation alone is too much of a sell-out for them to swallow!
If the self-appointed leaders of black Americans are honestly and sincerely interested in the success of black people as they claim, why do they go out of their way to tear down successful black people for not adhering to a particular political party or ideology?
While the President-Elect, a self-described black man, was busy shredding to bits the professional expertise of a black man who sits on the highest court of the land, the self-installed Kings of black Americans had no comments. Had it been a Conservative (black or white) that insulted the Justice in the manner the President-Elect did, the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have demanded that pound of flesh; blood free! But because they are in agreement with the President-Elect’s ideology and in disagreement with the Justice’s, even though they both have black blood in them (one more than the other), not a peep of defense of the Justice’s credibility and honor was forthcoming from the self-described defenders of black causes!
Just in case you haven’t yet figured it out, I am “black” and politically conservative and I offer no apology to no one for my position. In fact, what I offer to those who are politically liberal; especially “black” people in America and even especially so for “black” emigrants like myself, is my sympathy! And that is why I decided to be a surrogate responder for Dr. Babalola.
In his response to Dr. Babalola’s article, Mr. Adujie just about blamed him for everything in the world including the whale that was stolen from the Bight of Benin.
How dare he criticize the immoral social positions of the “shon of the shoil” Barack Obama on abortion, infanticide, homosexuality, etc., Mr. Adujie queried. Didn’t Dr. Babalola know that the world is on fire and we must first douse that fire before (if ever) complaining about the immoral social positions of “one of our own” who was just elected to the highest office in America? Wasn’t Dr. Babalola aware of the plight of one Uzoma Okereke who was so brutalized; “the brutality…gave us and Nigerian image a new damage and black eye“?
How could Dr. Babalola have missed the malapropism within our Nigerian government while instead focusing his attention on the immoral positions of the President-Elect of America? And what about those “plethora reports regarding children in Akwa Ibom and Cross Rivers States“? Didn’t Dr. Babalola view the video, as Mr. Adujie did, of how they “were summarily and randomly branded witches and wizards” and after which “horrendous brutalities [were] meted out to” them even though they were “born in Nigeria“?
But after the smoke has cleared, it is clear that Mr. Adujie’s catalogue of immorality and injustices, as he has laid it at the footstep of Dr. Babalola, is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to accomplish just one dubious goal: to make Dr. Babalola’s criticism of the President-Elect seem irrelevant and ill-timed. But is it irrelevant and ill-timed? Of course not!
To begin with, there is not a single one of all the complaints of Mr. Adujie that is new to our society of Nigeria; unfortunately.
Many in our society have been abusing and killing children long before there was such a man known as Barack. Looters have been running our national affairs long before such a man was elected into the office by American people. And given Mr. Adujie’s outrage toward such ancient moral atrocities in our own country, I am compelled to ask; until now, Mr. Adujie, what have you PERSONALLY done toward the goal of ending those outrageous manifestations of immorality in our own country?
Whether you want to believe it or not Mr. Adujie, your support (tacit as it may be) for abortion, homosexuality, infanticide (issues that your man is for), puts you in the same category with the abusers of children and the abusers of power that you complained about in your piece! You see Mr. Adujie, there is no difference between one act of immorality and another. And if you support and defend one, then you are automatically a supporter and defender of the other!
Abortion is either moral or immoral. Infanticide is either moral or immoral. Death penalty is either moral or immoral. Embryonic stem cell research is either moral or immoral. Homosexuality is either moral or immoral. Abuse of power, from which act such as malapropism derives, is either moral or immoral. Abuse of children is either moral or immoral. There is no middle ground in ANY of them! And since you are opposed to the immoral act of abuse of children by those who are supposed to love and protect them, then, for you to be consistent, you must also be against the immoral act of abuse of children during conception at the hands of those that are also supposed to love and protect them. But unfortunately you are not!
Mr. Adujie, you stated in your piece that “no child asks to be born“. I couldn’t agree with you more. But before they are born, they MUST first be conceived. Therefore, allow me to modify your accurate comment into: No child asked to be conceived! But once conceived, a decent society must protect children from those who wish them death before they are even born, just as it must protect those that are already born. A child, during conception, is entitled to the most basic right that the mother is entitled to: right to life. A civilized society would not legislate that right away in the name of somebody else’s right.
In many modern societies (as opposed to “civilized” since America and that European Conglomerate known as a Union are NOT civilized societies), just about everyone frowns at the idea of a pregnant woman having the legal right to smoke cigaretes even if she insists on such a right. And why do we frown at such an idea? Because for some strange reasons we all somehow believe that such an act is injurious to the health of her unborn. We even frown at the right of a pregnant woman to drink alcohol. But because of some sort of break in our rails of thought, we derail our own train of morality by granting the same woman the legal right to carry out the worst possible injury on the same unborn: abortion!
Why do we do it? Well, some people like Mr. Adujie are of the opinion that the babies inside their mothers aren’t “physically” present with us and therefore aren’t entitled (or shouldn’t be entitled) to the same protection the ones that are “physically” present with us are entitled. What a hogwash of an argument!
In this society of America, pregnant women are often referred to as EXPECTANT MOTHERS. While expecting, many of her female friends often get together for a tupperware party. When they get together, what do we think they are hoping for and EXPECTING? The birth of a bowl of jello? Or do we think they get together to hope for a head of lettuce coming out of the woman’s birth canal? Who do we think we are fooling with the silly argument that the babies aren’t physically here with us?
Just because we can’t see them with our naked eyes doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Or does it? Did Mr. Adujie see those abused and murdered Nigerian children he lamented about in his piece with his own naked eyes? I will bet that he didn’t. He probably only saw pictures from a far far land he doesn’t even live in. But the pictures were enough to convince him of the brutality of the abuse.
If a picture is what will convince Mr. Adujie that those in the wombs are human beings like the rest of us, here is one picture for him! Are you convinced that what’s inside that woman is a human being? Your man, Barack Obama, is definitely not convinced. He is for the right of that woman in that picture to murder that baby inside of her if she so wishes! That’s not a right my friend. No one has the right to end the life of another!
The position of Conservatives on this matter of abortion is not meant to impugn the morality of any woman who may have had an abortion or two. But it is meant to, hopefully, deter one or two women from having one. Even within the rank and file of many women who are opposed to abortion on demand, there are some who have had abortion at one time or the other. But because they are so convinced of its negative impact on their lives, they hope to spare other women of sleepless nights of guilt knowing that they were responsible for the destruction of life! Today, 35 years later and millions of murdered children after, Ms. Roe of Roe v Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that gave one person the legal right to kill another with impunity, is no longer a supporter of abortion!
Whether you are for abortion on demand or not, I am sure we all wish for a society without murder. But in spite of that wish, murder continues to happen around the world. What must we do now? Must we now sanction murder and legitimize it in a legal ruling because we seem helpless in stopping it? The answer is of course No. For the same reason, those who see abortion as nothing more than another barbaric expression of human depravity, (no less so than the kind of depravity Mr. Adujie complained about), will continue to express their opinions against it, even in the face of being branded a 17th century zealot by the likes of Mr. Adujie!