"Abortion Doctor" Murdered

[BPSCG]

Where exactly in that sermon does it say, don't kill the murderer?
PROLIFE: Sanctity of Life: Sermon

I'm gonna have to channel E.J. Armstrong here a little. "Thanks for proving my point."

It doesn't say anywhere in the sermon that you should kill abortionists. It also doesn't say to not kill them. In fact, it doesn't say anything about killing abortionists. But you've shown that it's possible to read anything you like into anything you want, to make it fit your predispositions. You believe that sermon says you should kill abortionists, when it in fact says nothing of the kind. The things it says you should do have nothing to do with killing abortionists. Fer chrissake, skeptigirl, read the action plan at the end of the sermon again. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi (assuming they were anti-abortion) would have found nothing objectionable in it.

Cripes, get a grip.

 

[sugarb]

Charge them with terrorism which sends the message these are not believers, these are misguided fanatics.

And I'll amen that

There is a problem with regards to extremist groups that use the guise of religion, and we see it with those who refuse medical care for their children as well. It's often used as a cover for abuse and blatantly illegal activity.

 

[BPSCG]

I think there is some merit in your position that this event has some elements of a terroristic act. (Note that the doc was shot in both arms in 1993 or so for the same justification by some whacko) That said, I think the FBI needs to be fairly focused on precisely who is to be fingered as an accessory.

Anyone who is against abortion isn't the answer.

My wife is against abortion. She goes to a rosary once a month, or so, with here sisters in faith, and they hold a silent vigil and pray and do rosaries in endless succession, hoping for the Blessed Virgin to change the hearts of those who perform abortions. Or Jesus to save those most in need of mercy from the fires of hell. Or something. Or all of that.

So far their prayers have not worked, but they keep on trying.

You want the FBI to charge my wife as an accessory?

I won't say I encourage it, I don't think it's a good use of her time, but I don't argue with her over it. Plus, it leaves me free to do as I please for a few hours on a weekend morning, so it's all good.

DR

Heh - I was about to write something similar about Mrs. BPSCG's mom, except that she's Southern Baptist, not Catholic. So no rosary beads.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I live in Kansas near a College run by the Sisters of Charity. After the Matthew Shepard incident one of the nuns stated at an assembly "We must learn to live together."

Fred Phelps protested both the Motherhouse of the Sisters of Charity and Saint Mary College for that quote. There was a huge counter protest, including catholic students and Sisters. Since the Motherhouse in Leavenworth, KS is kind of a 'nursing home' for aging Sisters of Charity, I saw little 90 year old nuns with counter protest signs.

The Sisters of Charity are very liberal for being Catholic (they favor priests getting married, female priests, etc). And while they think gays are 'misguided' they will stand up for their rights. It was awesome to talk to a little 90 year old nun protesting Fred Phelps in favor of gays having rights. She didn't think Matthew Shepard was going to burn in hell.

Fred Phelps protested at ALL funerals of people he thinks are gay, until Kansas passed a law forbidding him to do so, long before Bush did. We had to deal with it long before the Matthew Shepard case, or the Iraq War.

For anyone interested, the Laramie project looks like an example of at least some action by Christians that I have been asking for examples of.

'Laramie Project' protest peaceful - Dominican students, faculty stand up to honor victims of hatred.

Now if this could grow and include the less-obvious-than-Phelps fanatics such as the Evangelical Christians who are also hate promoters.

 

[paximperium]

Mr. Morton is a murderer.
He rapes twenty children each year.
Mr Morton is a murderer.
The government allows him to get away with it.
Mr Morton is a murderer.
Some of those Liberal elites protect his rights to rape children.
Mr Morton is a murderer.
God hates him and will torture him for eternity.
Mr Morton has gotten away with murder and rape again.
Someone tried to do something about it but failed. We don't condone such actions but it would have been better if he had died.
Mr Morton is murderer.
Mr Morton kills and rapes children.
Why won't someone do something about it?

 

[Brainster]

No doubt. But unless he is found to be legally insane, the fact that he had a few screws loose should not matter.

It might in terms of terrorism charges. The argument could become, did he intend to inflict terror on abortion providers, or was he just particularly upset at this one abortion provider? I could easily see a situation where the guy's just too simple to understand that his actions were not just about this one person, and therefore you can't prove intent, and yet that you could prove capital murder, because he did plainly intend to kill Tiller.

It's early days on this story. How about we talk about the hippie peacenik who killed a military recruiter in Arkansas today, and how the incident indicates that hippie peaceniks need to tone down their anti-military rants?

And yes, I am just kidding with that last paragraph, pointing out how easy it is to make caricatures of people you don't know the slightest bit about based on the first day's news reports.

 

[Beth]

I would like to see Christians first and foremost recognize the contribution the religion itself plays in the development of religious extremism.

Lots of things have inherent danger associated with them. Gun makers, for example, don't do enough to address the dangers of their products either. The gun manufacturer absolves themselves of guilt by blaming the user. Some people agree. Some of us feel the product maker is responsible for more than just saying they don't condone misuse of their product. A drug manufacturer, OTOH, is likely to be considered responsible to act to lessen the hazard their products pose along with the benefit.

Religion is another matter in that there are no clear cut 'manufacturers'.

Not only are there no clear cut 'manufacturers', there isn't even a clear cut product. Would you hold Karl Marx responsible for the atrocities of Stalin? I don't find such an example at all appropriate for that reason. Comparing them to political parties reigning in extremists would be analogous. Unfortunately, political leaders seem to be as bad or worse than religious leaders in that regard. However, I will say that Mr. Terry Randall's response to the tragedy was inexcusable and inflammatory. I hope than in twenty years, such rhetoric is as far from societal norms as Phelps's is now.

So I don't expect all Christians to act to lessen the inherent hazard their religion poses. But I expect at least some of them to recognize their religion poses a hazard to users prone to extremism.

Some do! Some write books about the dangers of extremism (would you like some titles?) and some ministers do preach against those who would warp their religion in such ways. They are a minority, but they do exist!

If you are involved in a religion such as the Christian and Muslim religions currently, and you are aware there are people who are damaged by those religious messages and beliefs (in this case the damage is to people who are prone to extremism related to those religions), then at least some of those believers should recognize and act to prevent the religious message from resulting in extremist interpretations.

I'm sorry, but I'm unclear about how you think an individual should act to prevent the religious message from resulting in extremist interpretations. What is it you want them to do that isn't happening now?

The believers value extremism. They may not value all forms of extremism. But they value the extremist who gives their life to God, yadda yadda. This creates an inherent risk that valued extremism will be negative. If you preach extremism (give your life to the Lord) as many Christians do, you should be taking some action to prevent bad extremism, not simply saying, "gee, not my fault that guy misused my religion."

I just don't buy this line of argument. First of all, to say that believers value extremism is a sweeping generalization and sweeping generalizations of that magnitude are rarely true. At any rate, I don't think that religious believers value extremism anymore than any other group of people. Do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?

Second of all, I don't think that it's reasonable to have the masses shoulder the burden of the actions of mentally ill individuals. It was reported earlier today that the individual who has been charged with this crime has suffered from mental illness in the past. While I'll grant that religious beliefs can contribute to the specifics of how a mentally ill individual expresses his/her violent proclivities, I don't think that their religion is blame for the aberrant behavior anymore. Haven't you argued in the past that religious beliefs cannot be credited when their followers act for the benefit of others in the name of their religious beliefs? If I'm mistaken, I apologize, but certainly there are some posting here who feel that way. Why blame religions for inspiring acts of violence in mentally ill followers and simultaneously refuse to give religion credit for the acts of charity and compassion done by sane followers?

 

[SezMe]

Anyone who is against abortion isn't the answer.

Of course not. Your bride is a good example.

But those who advocate, condon or encourage violence in the campaign against abortion is part of the answer.

 

[rwguinn]

Hi.

I am a Christian.

I condemn it.

There is no possible way killing this doctor is the answer to the disagreement on abortion.

Also, rg, I'll point out that in the first news report I read on this at MSNBC, the article quoted the objection of two different Christian groups, to include Operation Rescue, to this method of dealing with abortion doctors. Comment I recall was "We pray for a change of heart, not the death, for the doctor."

DR

And I hope you noted the "scare quotes".
The loudest mouths, most militant, and most publicized "Christians" are the ones claiming the closest ties to their savior and his dad, to the point of being privy to His reasons for hurricanes, deaths in the Mid East, and the reasons to boycott Coca-Cola.
It is high time the ministers and other Christians stand up and tell them "Shut UP, Egomaniac!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No doubt. But the fact that they are in the minority does not refute the chain of "reasoning" I laid out.

These guys are NOT a tiny minority. They constitute a large portion of that remaining right wing base that still supports the Republican Party.

 

[SezMe]

It might in terms of terrorism charges. The argument could become, did he intend to inflict terror on abortion providers, or was he just particularly upset at this one abortion provider? I could easily see a situation where the guy's just too simple to understand that his actions were not just about this one person, and therefore you can't prove intent, and yet that you could prove capital murder, because he did plainly intend to kill Tiller.

Good point but, as you imply, we've got to have a lot more info about the perp and his environment before we can know what the right charges are.

I suppose my frustration is that the insanity defense - in the societal sense, not the legal sense - is such an easy card to play. Of course the idiot is a mental case; look what he did!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Also, rg, I'll point out that in the first news report I read on this at MSNBC, the article quoted the objection of two different Christian groups, to include Operation Rescue, to this method of dealing with abortion doctors. Comment I recall was "We pray for a change of heart, not the death, for the doctor."

DR

Riiight. Operation Rescue didn't really mean for someone to kill the murderous vile baby killer whom the law refused to punish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've spent years reading it, and really don't need to anymore thanks, though. Seems to kind of cherry pick and remove context......

 

[BenBurch]

O'Reilly & Tiller

My question is when does it cross the line from O'Reilly's opinion that Tiller would be better off dead, and become a request to his followers to do it?

When does it become King Henry saying "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" which as you know resulted in the assassination of Thomas Becket?

And what would become of you or I, do you suppose, were we to say on national TV or in my case Radio that the air would smell a lot sweeter if Loofa Boy were pushing up Daisies?

Right.

We'd have the law on us like white on rice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the same reason that, even though you and I are both Americans, I am not responsible to Mexico if you go off to El Paso and start shooting Mexicans as they cross the border.

How hard is this to understand, SG? (And make sure to lead them by a click if they are moving left to right, or there is a high cross wind. )

DR

This analogy doesn't even make any sense.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I said in using the example of whether or not gun manufacturers were responsible to try to prevent misuse of their products, it's a values question, not one of evidence. With guns, people have political views that color their perception of responsibility for predictable misuse.

In my field the tendency is to view predictable misuse of a product as something one should consider mitigating. Disposable syringes are the source of hepatitis B infection in 3rd world countries because people are going to reuse the syringes. It's a predictable misuse. So syringe producers have been challenged to design syringes so that they cannot be reused. There's little objection to finding the producers responsible for the safer design because there is no emotional/political baggage for the issue. No one is worried their medical care costs are going to go up a tad to address this predictable misuse of syringes.


The promotion of 'abortion is murder' message is way more widespread than some people in this thread have suggested. But even going beyond that, those who promote giving your life to God and all the trappings that go with it need to recognize there are people who will predictably misuse that message. If you can predict misuse, you should be responsible to address it. Especially if you preach the 'God is love' version of Christianity. The first step is to recognize there is predictable misuse of Christian beliefs. Promoting Christian beliefs does carry responsibility for the result of that promotion. Saying one is not responsible because it was misuse of a promoted belief is a cop out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those verses may be in there, but again I speak from direct experience that the message I was taught, strongly, was about love and respect and helping others. Never violence. We never heard of any of those verses, or anything like that. Obviously. And as I said, I lost my faith, and so I think it's all silly anyhow.

But every sermon.. every sunday school session.. every lesson.. they were always about doing good. Helping others. Being there for family. Believing in God in your heart, and accepting Jesus as your savior. Love. Honor.

Nothing negative. Nothing remotely hateful. And I strongly suspect that is the case in most churches, if not the vast majority of churches. That bad stuff is in the bible, but it's not celebrated. And yes they are being great hypocrites by picking and choosing what to follow. But change takes time. Hopefully they get off the anti-homosexual bandwagon stuff soon.

I look forward to a world without religion as much as anyone. I just don't see it happening for a long, long time. I'm not saying that it's prefered to sit back and do nothing about it. But pick your battles and be patient and expect it to take generations (perhaps millenia) before we grow out of these needs. (not at you specifically SezMe, but at people who seem to get so incredibly worked up about it)

So with all that background, have you or your church brethren ever considered condemning the actions of Christians which promote abortion-is-murder sermons that are bound to incite acts of violence? I'm not talking about condemning the acts of violence. I'm talking about condemning the rhetoric which predictably sets these nutjobs off on their missions?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you tell me who actually did this? If you can show who did, get them charged as accessory before the fact.

DR

So if one cries, "The abortion doctor is a vile baby killer the law won't punish and we must take action to stop the doctor," you don't see that as the equivalent to a call to murder the doctor?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think there is some merit in your position that this event has some elements of a terroristic act. (Note that the doc was shot in both arms in 1993 or so for the same justification by some whacko) That said, I think the FBI needs to be fairly focused on precisely who is to be fingered as an accessory.

Anyone who is against abortion isn't the answer.

My wife is against abortion. She goes to a rosary once a month, or so, with here sisters in faith, and they hold a silent vigil and pray and do rosaries in endless succession, hoping for the Blessed Virgin to change the hearts of those who perform abortions. Or Jesus to save those most in need of mercy from the fires of hell. Or something. Or all of that.

So far their prayers have not worked, but they keep on trying.

You want the FBI to charge my wife as an accessory?

I won't say I encourage it, I don't think it's a good use of her time, but I don't argue with her over it. Plus, it leaves me free to do as I please for a few hours on a weekend morning, so it's all good.

DR

The charge of terrorism is because the intent of this murder is to also frighten other medical providers. It's pretty obvious that it is intended as an act of terrorism, not just a single murder.

For a hate crime, there can be elements of terrorism. Don't go to a gay bar, don't hold hands with a person of another race.... There is a mixture of hate and terrorism involved in hate crimes.

When the intent is to stop abortion procedures using threats of violence against the medical providers and the patients seeking abortions who have also been targeted, that is way over on the terrorism side of the continuum.



As for your wife, I have not said anywhere in this thread that every Christian or anti-abortion believer is guilty of a crime. If the murderer in this case was directly incited to kill by Operation Rescue, then the people involved in inciting the murderer are guilty of crimes. Just as the Aryan Nations leader was convicted of the skin head murder of a black man (in Portland?) many years ago, this case may be similar. We won't know until an investigation is undertaken.


Having some responsibility and committing a crime are not always defined the same.


I see it was a civil law suit that resulted from the Aryan Nation's role played in the skin head murder in Portland.
Mulugeta Seraw


That's it. Tiller's family should sue Operation Rescue. It had a major impact bankrupting the Aryan Nations group. It could work.

 

[Robster FCD]

Bill O'Reilly wanted to "get his hands on him" and then dismissed it as just a figure of speech.



If there are any lawyers around, how far can one go towards saying that you wish to be rid of this meddlesome priest before it becomes a call to violence. The KKK was partly broken up by prosecuting leaders for pointing out certain enemies and talking about how bad they were, and when a follower took action, the leaders claimed that they had only exercised their free speech rights. It didn't play out that way in court. I think the anti reproductive rights crowd got nailed on this a few times as well, and are now a bit more careful in their attacks.

I'd be thrilled if those who consider the uterus to be property of the state would rely on prayer alone to attempt to end access to reproductive health care. Nothing works like prayer. But too many resort to harassment, vandalism and terroristic threatening. Luckily, violence is rare.

 

[Robster FCD]

Heh, BenBurch beat me to it. Thats what I get for starting a post, wandering off and finishing it later!