"George Tiller was a mass-murderer. I am concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions."Randall Terry, found of Operation Rescue, on the murder of abortionist George Tiller.
George Tiller was an abortionist from Kansas - a controversial figure who ran just one of three clinics in America which performed 'late-term abortions.' This Sunday, while serving as an usher at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, he was gunned down by by anti-Abortionist activist Scott Philip Roeder.Tiller died instantly; Roeder had shot him in the head (knowing that Tiller wore a bullet-proof vest.) He was arrested three hours later in Kansas City.
This shooting is just the latest chapter in a decade long campaign of violence targeting American abortionists. So far, at least nine people have been murdered and almost two hundred others have been assaulted, attacked or been the victims of attempted murder - like RN Emily Lyons, who was blinded and crippled by a nail bomb in 1998.
I totally 'get' that people are against abortion. Even I think late-term abortion is incredibly questionable. Many fetuses are viable after 21 weeks, so the terminations doctors like George Tiller perform are killing babies, without ambiguity.
But how anybody can think that murder and terrorism are acceptable techniques to oppose abortion astonishes me. What makes it even more astonishing is when the people committing these crimes are so-called Christians.
At theological college, I learnt that Jesus' most important commandments were to love God with all your heart and "...love your neighbor as yourself." Mark 12:28-31.
Even your enemies should be 'loved as yourself' (Luke 10:25-37.) As far as I've always been taught, that's the most fundamental principle of Christianity - that all human life is sacred.
Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind. Genesis 9:6
Of course, you can't hold Christianity (entirely) responsible for Scott Roeder's actions - reports are now emerging that he'd battled with mental illness for much of his life, which explains his skewed view of morality and how he justified doing what he did.
What I do find deeply disturbing is the sharp spotlight this horrible crime casts on the anti-abortion campaign. Abortion as a political and religious issue has always troubled me. I simply can't understand why conservative Christians tell us that abortion is a sin because 'all life is sacred' and then are vehemently, aggressively vocal in their support of capital punishment, gun ownership and America's military adventures abroad.
I'm not going to defend abortion - I'm certainly not going to defend 'late-term' abortions as performed by George Tiller. What I am going to argue is that Christian's support of capital punishment, for example, totally undermines their campaign against abortion.
(Similar accusations can be made against liberals, who argue that capital punishment is wrong, because 'all life is sacred' - yet support abortion!)
As far as I'm concerned, the only coherent argument is this; all life is sacred. Therefore, logically, both abortion and capital punishment are wrong.
If you support abortion, or you support capital punishment, you're basically saying that man has dominion over other people's lives (and deaths.) As long as one form of murder is acceptable, you can't cohesively argue against the other. It's all or nothing!
This is why I simply can't take any Christian claim that 'capital punishment is acceptable' seriously. It's not - if you claim to believe a word Jesus says.
Coffee Bean, who is brilliant in her appraisal of these things, discusses the issue on her website in this post. She quotes what Paul wrote in Romans 13:1-5 as possible justification for Capital Punishment:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.In this piece of scripture, Paul argues that you should follow the laws, rules and guidelines of your governing authorities because (and Coffee Bean says it better than I could) "God establishes government for His purpose and that citizens are clearly commanded to be in subjection to governing authorities."
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
Therefore, if the government has a system for performing Capital Punishment, it is God's will that the death sentence be carried out.
I have two problems with this piece of scripture:
Firstly, Paul is a douche-bag (Galatians 1:13.) Unlike the other Apostles, Paul had never even met Jesus. I dismiss him as a religious zealot merely cashing in on Christ's name to spread a very dodgy interpretation of Jesus' message (it's not surprising that most of the anti-gay scripture in the Bible also comes from Paul's suspicious contributions.)
Paul's message in Romans is cynical scripture inspired to get lowly Christians to obey their patriarchal masters (the underpinnings of established religion for twenty decades.) It's utterly worthless.
Secondly, even if it wasn't bunk scripture, what kind of message does it give? That governing authority is always right? Does that mean that Hitler's Nazi Regime was practicing 'God's will' when they set out to exterminate the Jews? Or that Soviet Russia (which deemed religion the 'opiate of the masses') was doing God's work when Stalin sent millions to die in the Gulags?
Of course not - Coffee Bean herself points out that Jesus was a bit of a rebel, defying authority on every occasion. It was only after he'd died (and douche-bags like Paul started spreading his 'message') that the Catholic Church started advocating blind subservience to authority as part of the 'duty' of every good Christian.
As far as I'm concerned, Jesus had a simple message. Man doesn't have the right to judge whether another man is worthy to live or die. That's God's job, not ours.
James 4:12; "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Here, Jesus tells it like it is. Only God can 'save and destroy' a life. And who the hell are you to go around judging anybody, anyway?
Scott Roeder himself argued that killing abortion doctors was 'justifiable homicide' because the old Testament said 'an eye for an eye.' But Jesus was the first person to denounce that.
Matthew 5:38-39; "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
In fact, Jesus explicitly points out how wrong it is for mere humans to believe that have the authority or the right to take away another human's life, even if convicted of a crime:
John 7:7; "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
In that section of the Bible, Jesus makes an angry crowd examine their own consciences, saying that only somebody who's never done anything wrong themselves is worthy of judging whether another person's sins are bad enough to merit paying the ultimate price.
It's all there in the Bible, in black and white. Jesus taught everybody that all life was sacred.
Bearing that in mind, I can fully understand why Christians object to abortion so much. However, until they reject the death penalty as well, I'll always consider their argument against abortion scripturally unsound and morally hypocritical.
It's that contradiction - which allows ambiguity between life, death, morality and murder - which sparked Scott Roeder's delusional justification for gunning down George Tiller in cold blood.
The Christian church taught him that murder was acceptable, which is why he ultimately resorted to it.
19 comments:
(Similar accusations can be made against liberals, who argue that capital punishment is wrong, because 'all life is sacred' - yet support abortion!)Ouch.
I support abortion for a simple reason - if the mom doesn't want a baby, it probably would be better off dead. If you've seen how some girls are treated in India, you'd immediately wonder if life was a blessing for them at all.
When it comes to the death penalty, I apply the same logic of "better dead than alive and in captivity".
hi Suki! Great to hear from you!
What you wrote makes perfect sense, Suki - it's pragmatic and realistic. You don't support it with contradictory logic like Christians do. That's why I get frustrated.
I try really hard to be pragmatic, but I think I oversimplified things in that last comment.
I wholeheartedly support CHOICE, not abortion. What I often feel is that people confuse "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion". I don't like abortion. I would hate to have one myself. But I'd rather have an abortion than handle an unwanted pregnancy. For me, the worst offence the Church commits is the prohibition of birth control. I'm sure an overpopulated planet with people sucking up all the resources would be excellent for human beings! Since we can already prevent/delay death, it stands to reason that we must prevent/delay birth in order to retain some balance.
As for the death penalty, it's a terribly momentous step because there is no looking back. The key priority here is restraining the criminal and making sure he/she can do no more harm. I suppose the logical thing to do would be to allow the possibility of a death penalty - perhaps by asking the criminal for a choice between lifelong imprisonment and instant death.
Hey Roland,
Excellent post! I want to make a few corrections though.
I did not say anything in my post about capital punishment and my quoting of Romans 13:1-7 was to point out that Christians are called to submit to the authority of whatever government is over them. There is a line though... you obey God first. If the government tells you that you have to burn your bibles and convert to tree worship... uh, no.
Let me put it this way... it makes me angry that our tax dollars are being used to fund abortions, not only in this country, but now around the world. Does that mean that we are going to break the law by not paying our taxes? No. It means that we are going to do what we can through our votes, through supporting organizations that are fighting to change things legally, by supporting organizations that offer real alternatives to abortion and support for parents that goes well beyond the birth, and by supporting organizations that handle adoptions. And also by having dialogue with those of differing opinions that is respectful of them and their views.
As for capital punishment... I posted my personal political policy back on Oct.2,2008 in which I stated that I am not for the death penalty. It sparked off quite a debate in the comment section. I considered everything said and I still am not for the death penalty.
http://uneducatedhousewife.blogspot.com/2008/10/my-personal-political-policy-statement.html
I can see where you would question me in regard to war. Using WWII and the Nazis as an example... they needed to be stopped and only force could accomplish that. There are times when police officers must use deadly force. If an armed burglar came into your home and was threatening to kill your wife, you would use deadly force if you could.
Jesus and the apostles defied the laws of their day but never violently (well, except in the Garden of Gethsemane when Peter cut off the ear of the soldier... which Jesus rebuked him for and healed).
There are differences.
Unlike some people... I'll say the unpopular.
I have very little sympathy for this guy. Period. He killed near full term babies. Gruesome under any standard.
You see Roland, it isn't that all life is sacred (which at one level it is at its core, but you can negate that)... but innocence is sacred. Babies are innocent.
Murderers and the like are not innocent.
I'd obviously never kill a guy like this, or advocate that somebody does... but I can't say I feel bad for the guy. Karma baby... karma.
Hi Coffee Bean!
It was my bad writing, not your post, which made my interpretation of your thinking confusing. I totally got what you were saying and it was clear from your post. I just mangled it in my response!
And CK - I get what you're saying about innocent lives and criminal lives, but that's still not satisfactory to my interpretation. For a start, I think it's VERY clear that Jesus believed nobody on Earth had the right to make the call about whether or not somebody should live or die.
Secondly, even if he didn't, who DOES have that authority? Do you blindly trust the government? Or can people like Scott Roeder, who were convinced (as you are) that Tiller was evil, have the power to 'administer justice' themselves?
I don't get how an authority killing somebody is any better than a vigilante killing somebody.
You yourself say you wouldn't kill Tiller, and don't advocate anybody doing anything similar, so clearly you have a feeling that it's wrong. But where does that line lie and who grants the authority to take life away from another human being?
Suki's input is fascinating, too. If you remove so-called 'religious morality' from the issue and look at it sensibly, it's possible to justify both. When our pets are suffering, or a dog is vicious, we take them to the vet to be 'put down' to stop their pain and protect other people.
In a rational society, with choice and consent as an important part of that equation, could the same logic and pragmatism be applied to humanity?
If you remove Jesus from the equation you can justify anything.
So I won't even go there.
Suki's thoughts go down a very scary path. You know mom, you are kind of a burden... sorry about your luck.
It may not be enough for you (innocent life vs. guilty life), but that is the key difference.
Actions have consequences. You play with fire, you get burned.
Hey CK, I totally get what you're saying. Remove Jesus from the equation and anything goes.
My point is the perceived hypocrisy of those who DO judge life and death supposedly on Jesus' terms. For them to support the death penalty is frankly hypocritical. Even if it's not - even if some people deserve to die for their crimes - Jesus was pretty clear on the fact that we're not qualified to render than judgment.
As for 'Mom.' I have to admit, there would be certain circumstances, like if I was brain-damaged or severely paralysed after an accident - in which I would prefer to die than live. What do you feel about the question of assisted suicide?
Actually, it's pretty clear what you feel about the issue. But if somebody is capable of making that decision, to end their OWN lives, is that not their right?
If God does exist, surely that's something they'll have to answer for on the other side. If they're willing to face that, why stop them?
About the "Mom" thing, CK, I'll actually take it literally. No offence meant, but I hope you understand that an American Christian and an Indian atheist are unlikely to have similar views :-).
Mom killed herself over 11 years ago. I condone it fully, and by now I know I'm better off without her than I would have been under the influence of a depressed mother for whom I was the only lifeline. Call it my way of coming to terms with the loss, or call it a deathwish against her. If she had advanced Alzheimers and bedsores at the same time, I would ask for euthanasia.
If I was Christian or remotely religious, I would be a sinner by all counts. I condone suicide, I would forgive a murderer(one like Tess of the d'Urbervilles), I do not believe it is my beholden duty to take care of my biological parents when they grow old.
One thing I honestly don't get is - why must religion be such a strong influence in the policies of a secular nation? I just looked up the Internet, and USA is a secular state. I do understand that the religious preferences of the people IN the state will count, but the Church and State need to be separated.
I know it's scary not to have a God ruling over me and setting down clear-cut rules, but I'm willing to take the risk and face the fear. For me, life will end with this life, BUT I need to keep a clear conscience - if my beliefs condemn me to a Satan I don't believe in, so be it.
And CK, my main argument against "pro-life", on principle, is this - do people have the right to dictate what others do if the offending action does not pose direct danger to them? Can you control everything?
While promoting life, can you ensure medical recovery for the woman whose pregnancy will endanger her life, or peace for the teenager who will be ostracized from her society? If you can do that, go pro-life by all means.
IMO, the situation is truly a scary one where people will believe exactly what they have been conditioned to believe and very few can break out of it. Vigilante justice is wrong yes because usually there is no fair trial but then capital punishment is wrong as well because there is always the possibility of error.
Ultimately we all have to face the fact that human beings aren't perfect and it is impossible to ensure that everything is in order. Some face that fact and make peace with life. Others who cannot, seem to embrace illusions believing that somehow it will all be better once you die/once your pray.
I'd rather have the control in my own hands than leave it up to another person or entity. I am a man, but if my sister/wife or female friend is risking life threatening conditions/social stigma and/or mental depression to brink of insanity or suicide, I would rather have them abort a fetus.
Those who are 'pro-life' so called, need to face it first hand. I want to see them go through with the pregnancy or let their close ones go through with it. Let them go through the stigma, the pain, the health complications.
When someone as influential as the pope tells Africans not to use condoms, despite the fact that AIDS is an epidemic there, isn't that setting them towards a path of slow destruction? How does any religion justify that? How do you justify forcing people to bear children who cannot be taken care of by their parents? Do you plan to adopt those children? Do you intend to give them normal lives, free of depression and social stigma?
Hi Lost Poet! Thanks for stopping by - and your input.
I'm increasingly opposed to abortion, but I totally agree with this statement: "I am a man, but if my sister/wife or female friend is risking life threatening conditions/social stigma and/or mental depression to brink of insanity or suicide, I would rather have them abort a fetus."
Hi Roland, sorry I forgot to include an introduction. Got here via Suki. She links me to you sometimes, you are always a good read.
I am glad that you understand and support my point. I am against all modern medical interventions till they are absolutely necessary, but it is all very relative so it is hard to put it down to something concrete.
---
Carry on the writing, we are all reading (and lurking) ;-)
I noticed that (1) you called the Apostle Paul a "douche-bag", and (2) you mentioned that he and the Catholic Church call(ed) on people to obey the government. One thing you failed to mention was the fact that the Roman Emperor Constantine co-opted Christianity, by replacing the former "state religion" of Emperor worship with it. I suspect that, under his "sponsorship", the meaning of many Bible passages were altered to embrace the theme of "the government is ordained by God, obey the government".
I also btw noted you brought up the whole issue of the Nazi, Soviet, etc. regimes, and whether or not Christians were required by scripture to be supportive of them. A very good point, and one I would have raised myself.
All in all, a very thoughtful post.
~EdT.
I am against assisted suicide at all levels.
As for the stigmatism and people having to be faced with the choice...
My son was born in my senior year of highschool. That was 12 years ago. I made a choice to have sex and that produced a baby. I had no choice but to raise that baby.
If my [insert family member here] had to face a tough situation, no matter how tough, I'd want them to go to term with the child. Rape, life or death situation, etc... it doesn't matter.
But here is the point, of all the abortions in this world fell under that umbrella.. there would be no prolife movement. A thousand deaths a year due to this would not generate the passion that a million (plus) per year does. Abortion has become a form of birth control, and that is murder.
thanks for reading my blog. this is a great piece you wrote.
In your blog you have a very cohesive argument which I totally agree with. However you are arguing against a man 'battling mental illness' who thinks it is justifiable to murder people. It appears you have a limited view of 'Christians' and group us all together with wierdos and extremists. He is blatantly not a Christian if he behaves like that and nor are all those people who think what he did is justifiable. The vast majority of people who follow Christianity love their neighbour and do not try to be non judgemental of others. We just don't make the papers.
oops Try to be non judgemental I mean!
Hey Roland,
I've been meaning to come back and address something you said earlier,
"Suki's input is fascinating, too. If you remove so-called 'religious morality' from the issue and look at it sensibly, it's possible to justify both. When our pets are suffering, or a dog is vicious, we take them to the vet to be 'put down' to stop their pain and protect other people.
In a rational society, with choice and consent as an important part of that equation, could the same logic and pragmatism be applied to humanity?"
We had to put one of our dogs down last week. A dog that existed because we didn't understand how the whole "in heat" thing worked and let our very young dog, whom we had planned to get fixed, out into our yard because we thought it was over... and a male dog got to her. Our vet said that we could get her fixed right away, thereby fixing the problem. I really struggled with it and felt that by doing so it would have been like a doggie abortion. Our pastor at the time thought I was being absolutely ridiculous... as did everyone else.
Anyway, that was over ten years ago and we kept this one puppy because she had a herniated belly button and we didn't think anyone would take a mutt that needed surgery. Two years ago we learned that she had kidney disease. Initially, we had her on medication and very expensive dog food. The medication made her sick and the dog food was outrageously priced. We then decided we would just let nature take its course. However, the end stages of kidney failure are extremely painful and we made the decision to put her down there at the end.
She was the fourth dog we've had put down. Another one was sick and dying and the other two had been eating our neighbor's cats and the last two they killed were in broad daylight with neighbors yelling at them. We couldn't risk that happening again and someone getting injured while trying to stop them.
My husband's aunt had diabetes and went blind. At the end she was on dialysis when she decided to refuse any more medical treatment. My mother-in-law was beside herself because she felt that her sister was committing suicide and was shocked when we didn't agree. She was letting nature take its course.
I don't think I would have been thinking about this so much this week except for the fact that we had our dog put down. I think there is a separation between human life and other life... I mean, we eat animals.
You can get into the whole vegetarian thing and how they feel about all life. There is a certain kind of vegetarian that only eat certain parts of plants because if you pull it up by the root you are killing it. I wonder if those same type of vegetarian take antibiotics when they are sick or kill mildew or mold in their bathrooms...???
Gee, and here I am avoiding cleaning bathrooms. LOL!
Oh and also, in answer to EdT, that scripture quoted was written around the time of Nero, long before Constantine. The apostles, as well as Jesus himself, did not follow all the laws but they broke them non-violently. Well... Peter did cut off the ear of a soldier at the arrest of Jesus... but Jesus rebuked him and healed the man's ear. I think that it means that you will suffer the consequences of the governmental laws under which you live. Jesus certainly did.
Alrighty then, this is a lengthy comment on an old post. I better get to those toilets! Groan.
Post a Comment