Faith, Justifiable Homicide and Civil Disobedience

Salaam, Pamela --

I get that you're talking about the subjectivity of how we define "terrorists" and some of the issues involved. I assume this is an intellectual question and doesn't reflect your own position regarding Roeder. The trouble with this piece is that you appear to avoid taking a position and are allowing some moral room for justifying Roeder's murder of Doctor Tiller.

I hope you have some room here for clarifying your position and balancing the intellectual questions with a firm stand. Personally I find it clear that (1) Roeder's murder of Dr. Tiller was an act of terrorism intended to scare people from working for women; and (2) that whatever the issues are around pregnancy and even late term abortions a woman has to have autonomy over her own body and the freedom to make any choice. Of course prevention is vastly superior to "cure" here, but we cannot know the circumstances that push a woman to seek a late-term abortion. The only reasonable rule is to let her make her own choices.

That aside, you do raise important issues about how we categorize and deal with violent acts. I kind of hope you will have an opportunity to revisit those issues more clearly, but dread the circumstances that would bring the question back up.

i said,
"Pamela K. Taylor, claims newspapers are "reticent" to call him christian, but every article i've read mentioned it."
Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch

and Fate1 replied,

"There's also a claim he may be mentally disturbed."

i reply,
is there a difference...
(just kidding...sort of.)

I recently read an article that postulated something I have often thought about: People don't REALLY believe that a baby is being murdered, when an abortion takes place.
They may say so, but they don't believe it. If they did, then what kind of moral monster stands outside a building where they KNOW, that inside babies are being brutally murdered, and does nothing substantive to stop that crime?
I have NO agreement with those people who DO believe they have the right to kill abortion doctors. But I also can see that if you truly believe that a baby is being murdered, morally you have no real choice but to take real action.
If my neighbors KNEW someone was in my house and going to kill me, wouldn't their inaction be morally reprehensible?
Does saying "Well anything I do will just get me arrested and in trouble myself" actually cover your responsibility to an about-to-be-murdered baby?
What IS true, is that people don't like abortion. And from there we begin arguing and ratcheting up the rhetoric to the point where we make jumps across rhetorical valley's with little holding us up but our real emotions. This is what in part makes us human. But it is also dangerous.
Just like the word marriage has had a traditional meaning, and it now rankles many when non-traditional partners want to use that word to describe their unions, so does the word murder have a traditional meaning,normally reserved for people who are killed outside of their mother's womb. Interestingly, the very people who insist on using the word marriage in its traditional sense, find no need to give this same 'respect' to the word murder. Instead they use it in rhetorical flourishes against a legal medical procedure and claim to actually believe it. Yet when you ask where were they when these horrific murders were taking place they have no good answer but to say that they are pro-life. When you ask how they feel about the man who stopped those 'murders' by killing the doctor performing them, they distance themselves from him in any way they can, including repeating that they are pro-life.
I believe, that they really don't believe babies are being murdered. Most of the pro-lifers I have met are very nice people, good people. They would never stand by while a baby was really being murdered. I believe they know its not murder, but can not otherwise describe the horror of what they contemplate when imagining an abortion of a human life in the womb. So then rhetoric comes in strong, the word murder is used because to them it makes sense, a human life has been exterminated. But even so, they must not really see it as the same as killing a baby, or why would they just be standing there?

Or maybe these "mothers" simply did not want to deal with a Down Syndrome child??

"Pamela K. Taylor, claims newspapers are "reticent" to call him christian, but every article i've read mentioned it."
Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch

There's also a claim he may be mentally disturbed. You can be sure that will be examined in the coming months, certainly by his own lawyer but also by anti-abortionists who do not want to be associated with this murder.

no doubt, this was a christian-inspired murder. roeder would not have murdered were he not convinced, based on his religion, that his murder was justified. he thought he was doing a good thing. just like osama bin laden and muhammad atta.

Pamela K. Taylor, claims newspapers are "reticent" to call him christian, but every article i've read mentioned it.

75% of Mr.Tiller's abortions were 3rd trimester abortions, ergo
Most of Tiller's abortions were with pre-born infants of gestation of 26 weeks or more, with viability beginning at 20-24 weeks.
Or as many national news media reported on Sunday, Tiller's was 3rd trimester abortionist whose aborted babies with an average gestation of 26.5 weeks.
QED
Posted by: arosscpa
____________________

I've seen this 75% cited before. You all must be getting your talking points from the same place. The number is more like 52%, as taken from the Kansas State statistics. All the abortions he performed were late term, as the Kansas State statistics report, performed after the 22nd week. The reasons for the medically necessary procedures are not specific but are listed as due to serious and irrevesible harm to the woman.

Yes, the fetuses could have been viable but to carry full term would have meant organ damage or death for these women.

Not that it matters. But to inflate the numbers and ignore the facts implies desparation on the part of the anti-choicers.

Ms. Taylor, I draw the line at the point where Roeder decided the life of the unborn is more important than the life of the mother. Who gave him the authority to decide a woman's life is less important than the life of the unborn?

As a society we have not yet determined the unborn have the rights of the living. They cannot vote or own property. And do not forget that Dr. Tiller performed late term abortions for women whose lives were in danger or whose children were horrible deformed. Roeder, Randall Terry, Bill O'Reilly and the rest have determined they have the right to decide decide a fetus has more rights than a living, breathing woman...or a Dr.

Neither Roeder nor any of the behind the scenes manipulators know what the facts of Dr. Tillman's services were. None of them are qualified to determine if a woman needs an abortion and yet they continue to do just that. This decision can only be made between a woman and her doctor and that communication is protected by the Constitution which gives us security in our persons.

Through their terrorist action the radical anti-choice attempts to circumvent the will of the people. That is domestic terrorism and they should be prosecuted as such.

Murder is not civil disobedience and it is repulsive to consider that excuse for murder.

Ms Taylor,
First, I must say, your article would get a D- in any writing class. You are trying to do two things:

1) Claim Roeder may have done what he did to defend the killing of babies.
2) Claim that Roeder killed in an act of civil disobedience.

First the claim of defending the murder of babies. In America what Tiller was doing was legal and by AMA standards ethical. Women whose deformed babies would not make it to birth we part of his work. The rhetoric of some painted an inaccurate picture of Tiller and someone who it seems, based on what Roeder's family is saying, may be mentally disturbed, acted on it in a premeditated way. You cannot compare it to a man killing someone in self defense or killing to protect others from someone commiting a crime likely to result in loss of life.

The civil disobedience claim would make sense had Roeder stood outside abortion clinics and held signs. And your comparisons to Rosa Parks and helping slaves is laughable since neither of those involved killing people.

What Roeder did was pure and simple murder, helped by religious fervor and taken quite literally by a man who may be mentally disturbed. Not surprising to find many Islamic suicide bombers are also mentally disturbed, or very young and impressionable. But consider that while one or two people in this nation end up killing for crazy religious reasons, the Muslim world is full of these people, enough to make an army. So while I consider Roeder and Muslim extremists to be comparable, the scale of these acts is not.

By calling any case he chose "medically necessary" Dr. Tiller was one of 3 doctors in the US who provided third semester abortions on demand. Capiche?

POSTED BY: AROSSCPA | JUNE 2, 2009 4:44 PM

Dr. Tiller did not choose which patients qualified for a third trimester abortion.
Dr. Tiller accepted referrals from OB/GYNS who had determined the medical necessity for an abortion and sent their patients to Dr. Tiller.

You are confusing the issue- by suggesting that Dr Tiller's practice was like a walk-in clinic, that is not the case.

A comparable would be a general or family practice physician who then refers his patient to a cardiologist, internist, orthopedic.

Capiche?

arosscpa,

are you a pregnant lady? If your answer is no because A) you are male, then abortion is not an issue for you because you can never have one, B) because you are female but not pregnant, then abortion is not an issue for you either.
Should you be concerned about human lives, there are 28,000 children starving to death every day! Your energy and effort would be most welcome and needed for this cause!

Oh, and for those who keep saying he was one of only 3 doctors who would perform these procedures - can you blame the others? They probably don't want to get shot by fanatics.

That doesn't change the medical necessity for some late term abortions.

AROSSCPA: Okay, which part aren't you understanding? He performed 3rd trimester abortions on women LEGALLY, which means, under Kansas law that it had to be done for medically necessary reasons, and justified by two other, independent doctors.

He didn't get to make up his own definitions.

Feel free to provide some evidence that he did, preferably from some site more credible than some pro-life site.

Dr. Tiller, despite being investigated and even prosecuted was consistently found not to have violated the law, so if you have some credible evidence that he was performing these abortions on women other than those who medically required it, I'd like to read it.

Justtilthen: Had you read all my posts on this discussion you would know that I said "IF proven guilty , Scott Roeder committed 1st degree murder, and should be prosecuted to the fullest degree permitted once his capacity for responsibility has been legally determined." I, however am against the death penalty in all cases."

I hope this makes clear that I in no way believe S. Roader to be a hero. What happened last Sunday morning was a postmodern clash of two antiheroes.

Grashinak: From BBC News: Dr Tiller's clinic was one of three in the US that offered late-term abortions - those that are performed on foetuses that could survive outside the mother's womb.

From Dr Tiller's own web site: Wichita clinic specializing in second trimester elective and therapeutic abortions and third-trimester therapeutic abortions, including specialized care ...

From the New York Times: Some described Dr. Tiller as one of about only three doctors in the country who had, under certain circumstances, provided abortions to women in their third trimester of pregnancy, and said his death would mean that women, particularly in the central United States, would have few if any options in such cases. Dr. Tiller's death is the first such killing of an abortion provider in this country since 1998, when Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot by a sniper in his home in the Buffalo area. Dr. Tiller was the fourth doctor in the United States who performed abortions to be killed in such circumstances since 1993, statistics from abortion rights' groups show.

By calling any case he chose "medically necessary" Dr. Tiller was one of 3 doctors in the US who provided third semester abortions on demand. Capiche?

AROSSCPA:

First, I'm a guy.

Second, it is unclear to me what your point is. The law I quoted pertains to all abortions after 22 weeks. It doesn't matter how many weeks after 22, just that it be more than 22. Last time I checked, 27-40 weeks is more than 22 weeks.

Given your limited ability to comprehend this, I'm not sure you should be bashing anyone's math skills.

Arosscpa,

Trying to justify murdering Dr. Tiller because he was an abortionist is as contrary to Christian thinking as abortion may be. Perhaps more so. You want to make it okay because abortion is reprehensible to you? It is not okay, even if you hate abortion. Abortion is legal. Murder is not.

If the law was changed, and abortion was made illegal, what Mr. Roeder is accused of would still be premeditated murder, and still be illegal, and in some states would rate the death penalty.

A punishment supported by a disturbing number of "Christians" and pro lifers.

You make a hero out of the wrong kind of human, and it speaks volumes.

I agree with Nunivek that the term terrorist does not apply. This is just a murderer that was rage filled at his intended target. He may like the idea that his actions affected a broader group of abortion doctors, or the abortion debate in general, but his intention, if assumptions prove true, is the murder of a specific man.

You might almost call it assassination, no? There was no attempt to hide his identity, so he wanted to be know as the assassin. Perhaps he wanted gold stars along with his brownie points.

Society cannot countenance that level of "civil disobedience" to this degree. Civil disobedience may be property damage to stop environmental damage or non-permitted marches or rallies, for instance. Property damage. Not personal damage. It is not civil disobedience to berserk and beat up every Korean one sees. It is lawlessness and must be responded to.

History and common sense tell us the essential difference between pacific protest and resistance to shameful laws or government proceedings, and acts of violence, even in the smallest degrees. While being Christian impells me to do the first, it clearly makes me refrain from the latter.

There is something obviously wrong in comparing Rosa Parks righteous claim of human dignity to a clear hate crime, no matter whatever were its motives. And there surely isn't such a thing as a "justified homicide", at least not for a follower of Jesus.

Grashinak: I know that most females are math impaired, but I think you can grasp this.

Normal Human gestation = 36-40 weeks
1st Trimester = 12-14 weeks
2nd Trimester = 15-26 weeks
3rd Trimester = 27-40 weeks

75% of Mr.Tiller's abortions were 3rd trimester abortions, ergo

Most of Tiller's abortions were with pre-born infants of gestation of 26 weeks or more, with viability beginning at 20-24 weeks.

Or as many national news media reported on Sunday, Tiller's was 3rd trimester abortionist whose aborted babies with an average gestation of 26.5 weeks.

QED

"How 'civil disobedience' reared its head in your article is just beyond comprehension."

Actually, it isn't, but it does take awhile to decode. One just has to fit it into its proper discourse, to do Taylor's work for her since she lacks either the courage or the will. Unfortunately, she errs so much on the side of discretion, or coyness, as to be indecipherable, at first. Israel, Iraq, 9/11, Mumbai, etc. Civil disobedience.

Now, you might not think that shooting a little girl in the head at point-blank range is civil disobedience, ditto blowing up school buses, shopping centers, ditto 9/11, ditto Mumbai.

Or, then again, you might. Much depends on how you are positioned.

POSTED BY: FARNAZ1MANSOURI1 | JUNE 2, 2009 12:38 AM

**
Civil Disobedience-
refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20disobedience

Murder is not civil disobedience.

AROSSCPA - Clearly you're an idiot. Dr. Tiller was one was a very small number of doctors who performed these procedures, so yes, women with medical conditions that required it were forced (by people like you) to travel to obtain these procedures.

And oddly enough, even in Kansas the doctor doesn't get to invent his own definitions of legal terms. In fact, two doctors unaffiliated with an abortion provider, have to certify that the woman medically requires the abortion.

Stop believing everything you pro-life friends tell you. I actually believe that abortion is wrong unless medically necessary, but fanatics like you make rational debate difficult.

For your reference, the Kansas law on abortion specifies:

" If the physician who is to perform the abortion determines the gestational age of a fetus is 22 or more weeks, and determines that the fetus is viable, both physicians under subsection (a) determine in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman and the physician performs an abortion on the woman, the physician who performs the abortion shall report such determinations, the reasons for such determinations and the basis for the determination that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman in writing to the medical care facility in which the abortion is performed for inclusion in the report of the medical care facility to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto or if the abortion is not performed in a medical care facility, the physician who performs the abortion shall report such determinations, the reasons for such determinations and the basis for the determination that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman in writing to the secretary of health and environment as part of the written report made by the physician to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto."

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=27158

You are no worse than the people that celebrate suicide bombers. Whatever your views on abortion, Dr. Tiller did NOT coerce the women who sought him out. He did not seek to subvert the law, because the law was on his side. He wasn't a rich man. Most of the money from his abortion services went to paying for addtional security services to protect himself, his employees, and his patrons from crazy protesters. Don't try to blame Dr. Tiller for his own murder. That's the moral equivalent of cheering on suicide bombers.

Athena cites the definition of terrorism:
terrorism:
noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Seems pretty clear to me that fits what Tiller has been doing to viable pre-born human beings for the last 29 years. Thank goodness it's over.

Thanks, Athena!

What I think no one can dispute is that Mr. Tiller was tremendously insulated by state and national Democratic leadership, who prevented many investigations and prosecutions from going forward.

Are you suggesting that many women traveled from all over the country to Kansas City, and just happened to have an extreme medical crisis while in reasonable proximity to Tiller's clinic? Doesn't pass the smell test.

And can anyone even cite Tiller's definition of an "extreme medical condition?" My understanding was that Tiller's definition fit the income potential presenting itself at the moment.

From Dictionary.com:

terrorism:
noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Numbers of people involved don't matter. "Lone actors" can be terrorists too. Religion or lack of it doesn't matter. Pro-lifers are loath to admit it, but THIS ACT WAS TERRORISM.

AROSSCPA wrote: "I know that Tiller has said that for three decades. I also know that he has refused to substantiate that claim for an equivalent amount of time."

So your theory is that despite the fact that the procedure is only legal in cases of extreme medical conditions, as certified by two doctors, that Dr. Tiller was somehow providing thousands of late term abortions to women who somehow decide to go through this horrible procedure just for the hell of it.

And yet in three decades, no one was able to prove this and convict him of what would be a serious crime.

That doesn't sound a little perposterous to you?

Grashinak wrote "You do realize that the vast majority of these abortions were conducted for medically necessary reasons - either gross defects of the fetus or the risk to the health of the mother."

I know that Tiller has said that for three decades. I also know that he has refused to substantiate that claim for an equivalent amount of time.

The nice thing about this new week is that no one has to worry whether what Mr. Tiller says is true or not any more.

Posted by: arosscp
"Pre-born babies are considered viable at 22-25 weeks. Mr. Tillman specialized in abortion at 26.5 weeks and later, i.e., taking the lives of viable human persons. "

You do realize that the vast majority of these abortions were conducted for medically necessary reasons - either gross defects of the fetus or the risk to the health of the mother.

The two sides disagree on exactly how many abortions may or may not have been medically necessary, but no one who has actually looked at the evidence believs that none of them were necessary.

So by considering him to just be some sort of random mass murderer does a great disservice to the thousands of women whose live he saved.

1. IF proven guilty , Scott Roeder committed 1st degree murder, and should be prosecuted to the fullest degree permitted once his capacity for responsibility has been legally determined. I find it ironic and maddening, however, the Mr. Roaeder's extreme religious and political views are used to impute guilt to mainstream religious and political movements, while his history of mental illness and association with the armed militia movement are not being discussed. Murder and violence are far moe associated with the latter than the former.

2. While no one had the right to murder Mr. Tillman, let's be clear about who he was. Pre-born babies are considered viable at 22-25 weeks. Mr. Tillman specialized in abortion at 26.5 weeks and later, i.e., taking the lives of viable human persons. That makes him a mass serial killer, not a martyr nor a hero. The only two people that should be proud of Mr. Tillman should be Hitler and Stalin.

this is a terrorist action. a fatwa has been issued by people like Bill Oreilly and the Pro lifers.
they are American terrorists. anyone who doesn't believe is on their hit list.

why go to Iran and Afghanistan to look for terrorists we have them in America in the Pro-life movement. these terrorists terrorize those who disagree with them.

just reading how they terrorized the late "Baby killer" and his family is Terror plain and simple.

the Media won't call it terrorism though, the media is complicit with the Prolife Terrorists.
facts and dead people don't lie.

I think using the term "terrorist" in the case is a total misuse of the term. What Roeder did no matter his religious background was violent crime and murder, but that is all.
Terrorism is a word that should be used to describe different kind of actions and muddying this concept is not helpful for discourse. We talk about terrorism in reference to indiscriminate violence taken against the maximum number of civilians possible as a means of political or ideological warfare. The key here though is that the goal of the violence is to strike terror in the kin of the target and success is not measured ultimately in the deaths of the civilians but in causing fear in the people to the point that your cause wins as a result of attrition.

I think this case may vaguely broach on the notion of terrorism, but I think more likely this is an act of sheer maniacal violent crime where there was an intended victim and terror was not the goal so much as a crazed attempt at vigilante "justice".

Laws of a civil society must be followed, and enforced, until they change if they do. Seeking to force change by acts of 'civil disobedience' will require time to tell their effect. Until change is enacted, though, the laws of the land must me enforced.

Mr. Roeder should be tried for murder and if found guilty should be sentenced for murder, for it was murder that was done. Regardless of the outcome of the abortion debate, murder was done.

Up to this point in time abortion is considered, by law, to be legal. Murder is illegal. That is clear. Treat it as such.

Each of Ms. Taylors examples of applaudable actions or justifiable homicide are actions that are contradicting lawless actions. "Lawless" is defined as that which is against the law.

Civil disobedience is applaudable once society agrees, and changes the law. Until then it is against the will of the law.

Paganplace, Paganplace, Paganplace,

What war?

The wars described at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm ?????

Calling the killer a Christian Terrorist I feel hits the nail on the head. Not only is a father and husband dead but fear is spread to others in similar situations. But I believe control is at the heart of all this. Control over others actions.

When causes and effects are immediate then it is easy but when they are long-term and uncertain it's more difficult whether one or many of these children will become murders, wife-beater or rapist (statistics are higher for unwanted childern)

"How 'civil disobedience' reared its head in your article is just beyond comprehension."

Actually, it isn't, but it does take awhile to decode. One just has to fit it into its proper discourse, to do Taylor's work for her since she lacks either the courage or the will. Unfortunately, she errs so much on the side of discretion, or coyness, as to be indecipherable, at first. Israel, Iraq, 9/11, Mumbai, etc. Civil disobedience.

Now, you might not think that shooting a little girl in the head at point-blank range is civil disobedience, ditto blowing up school buses, shopping centers, ditto 9/11, ditto Mumbai.

Or, then again, you might. Much depends on how you are positioned.

"The subject of morality is not only subjective but also relativistic."

Or... not for people to claim moral absolutes from 'thou shalt not kill' as an excuse to walk into a church and kill people.

The subject of morality is not only subjective but also relativistic.

Modern day civil laws are not necessarily based on "morality of a particular kind."
No one has a right to take the law in his/her own hand.

If you don't like a particular law try to get it changed through democratic means. If that fails that means democracy is not on your side. Accept it. Don't break the law.

To kill an adult in the name of "saving" children is a megalomaniac mentality.

You see, Concerned Christian Now Liberated....

Can't help but notice that people like you, of whatever stripe can't even 'humble' yourselves to *pray* without making a Godsforsaken war out of it.

Pah.

You have no answers.

"Thou Shall Not Kill/Murder pertains to all!!!"

Then stop beating others with the plank in your eye, Christian.

That's a freebie.

This is not a 'war.'

This is America.

You in?

Athena, Athena, Athena,

Eric Rudolph was never a hero of mine or of any of the Respect for Life folks I know.

And you make a big leap there assuming folks in NC helped this scum bag. Do you have proof supporting your accusations?

Thou Shall Not Kill/Murder pertains to all!!!

Seriously. Christians. Muslims. Whoever. Who *gives* a crap who has a sword or a gun or a bomb. If you ned to fight someone, fight me, I'm scared of neither. Cowards.

As American policy goes, I think we can be a bit more organized and careful than that.

But if you're just looking to 'prove yourselves' ... stop hurting my fellow Americans, Christians, Muslims Jews, whatever. You talk bg about 'putting people to the sword' or the gun or whatever, like Justice has anything to do with your testosterone.

Fight *me.* Win, lose, or draw, it won't tell you a *thing* about life, except maybe how arbitrary your definitions are.

I'm just gonna quote a couple monotheists talking at each other and not pretend to have the *slightest* clue how either feels 'righteous' about anything:

Monotheist 1: "'Most of us would support a person who killed a man with a bomb strapped to his body, running toward a school bus full of children with the intent to blow it up; we would applaud the hero who shot a man wielding a semi-automatic rifle in a crowded classroom or McDonalds.'
**"

....Oooookay, but surely all this righteousness has a refutation...

(Monotheist 2) "Yes, we would support this action because this is killing it is not murder. Although the words 'kill' and 'murder' in modern usage are sometimes used interchangeably - the Judeo-Christian Biblical law and western common or English common law differentiate and our society's 'backbone' so to speak rests upon the difference and each word is accorded a distinct meaning under the law. "

How about.... The both of you work out your own thing before killing anyone else about it?

"While I cannot help but note the inequality of treatment that Christianity and Islam receive at the hands of the newspapers, where every criminal who happens to be Muslim in some shape or form is identified as such, and where the Christian faith of this man who is so clearly motivated by his Biblical interpretations is left out, the more important issue at hand is the intersection of faith, morality, violence, and civil disobedience."

Welcome to America, Ms Taylor. If a serious crime happens within half a block of someone who owned a copy of some fluff0bunny trade paperback on 'love spells' or 'candle magic,' all the local Pagans get to brace for 'repercussions.'

In this case, it's clear, even if you only read this board, that all the violent rhetoric of the 'pro-life crowd' has been willfully and deliberately *cultivated* as if, as they always say, its only an 'isolated incident' when someone acts on what the Christianists say.

I say, *not here.*

Whatever the same people say about Muslims. Who cares. They aren't talking reality to begin with.

'Most of us would support a person who killed a man with a bomb strapped to his body, running toward a school bus full of children with the intent to blow it up; we would applaud the hero who shot a man wielding a semi-automatic rifle in a crowded classroom or McDonalds.'
**

Yes, we would support this action because this is killing it is not murder. Although the words 'kill' and 'murder' in modern usage are sometimes used interchangeably - the Judeo-Christian Biblical law and western common or English common law differentiate and our society's 'backbone' so to speak rests upon the difference and each word is accorded a distinct meaning under the law.

Another common misunderstanding which relates to your examples (is) 'taking the Lord's name in vain.' In modern usage this appears to be ONLY some act of cursing, which is really nuts, because In a Biblical context, both Roeder the Christian (murderer) and your hypothetical suicide bomber who shouts Allahu Akbar! before blowing himself and others up (murderer) have taken it upon themselves to supercede Biblical law and seek 'vengeance' rather than 'justice'. If Christian then 'vengeance' is reserved for the Lord and in a secular society such as ours another one of the 'backbones' is that we give up an individual right of vengeance and agree to the commonality of rule of law. Justice.

I am particularly disgusted by your moral equivalence examples.
Rosa Parks and the Underground Railroad seem to be all out of any subjective context in your writing and just left me WTF?
It's morally bankrupt to compare your hodgepodge and pour them all in a neat little basket.

Your posit doesn't wash no matter how many times you type 'kill' or 'murder' thrown out as a toss-up
You are trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
How 'civil disobedience' reared its head in your article is just beyond comprehension.

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

You are obviously overjoyed at this. You seem happy because it wasn't a crazy Muslim this time, it was a crazy Christian, and happy that the killer killed for religious reasons. So he's not all bad. He's just doing what Jesus would do. Just like devout Muslims fly infidels into buildings for Allah.
Personally, the sooner religion goes the way of astrology and witchcraft, the happier I will be. Superstitions make folks do stupid things.

I think an important Christian perspective is necessary to be brought to this discussion if we are going to talk about morality. The Gospels and the teachings of Jesus can clearly support a lifestyle of complete nonviolence, thus murder would never be justified particularly in the case of property violation that seems to be a horrific standard at best.
What I felt was interesting about this particular story was that the Abortion doctor was the one attending the church. He was part of a community of believers apparently, and if you believe abortion is wrong as a Christian there is a biblical approach to correcting action, and it never leads to murder!
There needs to be much more dialogue within the Christian community about the role that violence plays within society and theology, hopefully we can prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening again.

Irregardless of whether or not you feel abortion is murder, by law in this country, it is not currently considered murder. By that fact alone, gunning down a doctor who provides abortions in cold blood is illegal and it is homicide.

This column comes dangerously close to condoning murder. Yes, our country has condoned protesting laws by breaking them, in the case of the Underground Railroad and the Tea Party. Neither of those acts involved walking up to someone in a church and gunning them down in front of the congregation. To compare Dr. Tiller's murder with the Underground Railroad is irresponsible and unnecessary. Not only was Dr. Tiller killed, but everyone in the room was placed in danger of being injured or killed by a stray bullet. What sort of 'civil disobedience' is that?

There is a huge difference between civil disobedience and murder. Let's get it straight, please.

Eric freakin' Rudolph was on the lam for YEARS, and treated like a hero because he bombed abortion clinics and gay bars. People in backwoods North Carolina sheltered Rudolph until we got a really bad winter and he was forced to come into town. I have no doubt that there are a lot of people, yourself included CCNL, that are calling Roeder a hero. Or at least thinking that he was justified. Don't deny it. Your anti-abortion rants are just as sick as the rest of them.

The brother of the killer reported to the newsmedia that his brother "Had suffred from mental illness throughout his life."
Let us not read into this despicable and heinous crime anymore than what is there.
Some are now using this incident to justify the terrorist acts taking place around the world. They are saying "Americans" are no better than the Jihadis because "On the rear of Roeder's car is a Christian fish symbol with the word "Jesus" inside. Who can ask for better proof to the above assertion?

The citizens/taxpayers of the USA do not tolerate murder and those who commit it.
For the record:

§ Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

§ Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

§
Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are in jail.