Murder in the Name of God
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- 
Well, it didn’t take long for the anti-abortion zealots to find justification in “the scriptures” for the murder of Doctor George Tiller, an abortion provider and one of the nation’s few doctors providing late-term abortions. Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist who runs “Prayer and Action News,” a newsletter that the suspect in the case (Scott Roeder, 51) once subscribed and contributed to, said of Dr. Tiller’s death, “To call this a crime is too simplistic.” He went on to say, “There is Christian scripture that would support this.” Really?
Well, actually, Mr. Leach, we can indeed call this a crime because that is exactly what it is. It’s called murder. In this country, it doesn’t matter if you commit murder in God’s name. This is a secular nation. No matter how badly religious zealots want to slip into an alternative universe, our forefathers didn’t intend for us to be a Judeo-Christian nation following Biblical law. People were not put here to roam the planet, sit in judgment of one another’s actions, and mete out their own brand of punishment. We have courts for that. I’m sure I’ll be called anti-God, but it’s not God I have a problem with.
It’s God’s self-proclaimed (and self-serving, I might add) warriors on earth that I have a problem with. It’s those who twist the scriptures to justify their own very un-Christian actions on earth…to take away a life in God’s name, or to start a war in God’s name, or to deny one group its basic civil rights in God’s name. They are indeed the issue. They want us to believe that these directives come to them from interpreting a document written over a period of 1,400 to 1,800 years by 40 different authors, and applying it to modern day life. Think about how absurd that is.
Here is what Doctor George Tiller is guilty of: Doing his job as a health care provider. In the United States, a woman is guaranteed access to abortion under the Constitution. (Remember that document?) He was simply doing his job much like you and I. He was also only one of three physicians in the United States who offered late-term abortions. Regardless of what the anti-abortion zealots claim, a late-term abortion isn’t the result of some teenager deciding not to have a child at the last minute. Dr. Tiller also did not perform late-term abortions simply because the mother was “depressed,” as Bill O’Reilly claims. A late-term abortion is considered when the mother’s life is in danger or the fetus is under stress. That’s a painfully difficult (and private) decision every family has the right to make without anti-abortion zealots getting in its face.
All of the pro-life spokespeople who spent Sunday and Monday putting their best foot forward for the media - denouncing Tiller’s murder and calling it a tragic event at the hands of an extremist - went home later and popped champagne corks in celebration of Tiller’s death. The reality is that this is exactly what they intended, faux apologies notwithstanding. Only Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, let his true feelings be known. He said “George Tiller was a mass murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.” Anti-abortionist zealots seek to influence the extremists that gravitate towards them, like the suspect in the Tiller case - Scott Roeder. They refer to abortion with inflammatory words such as “genocide” and “murder.” Some web sites put up photos of abortion providers with their names and addresses, license plate numbers, even their children’s names and the schools they attend. Some put up “wanted” posters as if these doctors are criminals - even offering rewards. And then the pro-lifers have their poster boys in Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and, primarily in this case, Bill O’Reilly.
O’Reilly has targeted Dr. Tiller for several years. Since 2005, Dr. Tiller has been demonized 28 times on O’Reilly’s show. He has referred to Dr. Tiller as “Tiller the baby killer.” He has accused Tiller of being a Nazi with “blood on his hands.” And just keep an eye on how O’Reilly stirs the pot as his rant to the intellectuals who watch his show progresses. O’Reilly’s commentaries always seem to start on a calm and intelligent plane, but they quickly degrade into outright anger. This is usually characterized by a red face, a loud voice as well as accusations and name-calling with no apparent basis in fact. It’s no wonder that the lunatic fringe acts on these rants, and that’s exactly what organizations like Operation Rescue are counting on. They get to keep their hands clean while others do their bidding. In spite of O’Reilly’s claim yesterday that, “We never incited anyone to do anything,” the exact opposite is true.
Even while denying complicity, O’Reilly managed to slip in some more inflammatory statements yesterday, like society should condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller even though Tiller has killed 60,000 fetuses. My mother would call this “talking out of both sides of his mouth.” When O’Reilly accuses, he makes it seem like he has access to Dr. Tiller’s files. He does not, he never has, nor should he under the rules of patient confidentiality (even though O’Reilly does not see it that way). In this case, he deals in dangerously inflammatory rhetoric fueled by a twisted ideology. His pronouncements of having proof of what he’s saying never seem to materialize. He doesn’t show his corroborating evidence because he usually doesn’t have any. The audience he appeals to are not “thinkers,” so they don’t require proof. They are sheep.
While Dick Cheney travels across the country warning us about al Qaeda, I’d worry a lot more about domestic terrorism over the next several years. Lacking any kind of real focus and leadership, the GOP is turning even further to the right - allowing the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly to set the tone and message - narrowing their base and attracting more and more of the lunatic fringe. It is at this point that the GOP moves out of the irrelevant column and into the dangerous column.
Comment by Richard on 2 June 2009:
Dr. Tiller was a vile, dispicable person for aborting viable babies let alone killing thousands of others.
That does not justify murder.
It is at least ironic that in California charges have been filed for murder of a baby when its four month pregnant mother was murdered.
There are many relgious and non-theocratic text that uphold violence in the face of violence.
Tiller’s murder gives nutcases a platform to rant about “abortion rights” and against religious precepts.
So be it.
His murder was abominable.
Comment by joker on 2 June 2009:
I agree with Richard and object to the whole Republican party being labeled as dangerous because of the act of one extremist.
Bill O’Reilly has just as much a right to be angry about abortion, which he believes is wrong, as Keith Olbermann does to rant about “torture,” which he believes is wrong.
Murder is not justifiable by “God” or the Bible, but since many people view abortion as murder, what’s so wrong with murdering a murderer? I don’t agree with that exactly, but I comprehend that that’s how they see it. I don’t know what copy you have of the Constitution, but can you show us where it says in there that a woman has a right to an abortion? Roe v. Wade was a SCOTUS decision, not a Constitutional Amendment.
Late term abortion is despicable, but I do agree with you that if the life of the mother is at stake then she has a right to save herself. That and r^pe/incest are the only two cases where it should be allowed, but that’s not what goes on in this country. Women use Roe v. Wade to have an easy way out of being sexually irresponsible. That’s not right, and it shouldn’t be a Christian thing, it should be a common sense thing.
Life begins at conception. That’s a proven fact. Ending that life on purpose, by any means, is the same thing as any other taking of life. It’s morally and ethically wrong, and that should be clear to anyone is possession of both a conscience and an education. I agree with you that God and the Bible should stay out of it.
Unfortunately, the only thing human beings understand is force. There are those out there who believe that the only way to fight something that is terribly wrong is to take the law into their own hands. It is a form of terrorism, and it is wrong. Yet, killing unborn children is also wrong. The solution to it, like anything, is to compromise.
We need better sex education for kids. That’s one liberal view point I actually do have. I think trying to tell kids to abstain is about as effective as the Volstead Act was against drinking. This is where the religious folks are wrong. Knowledge is power. Handing out condoms isn’t good enough. Kids and adults all need to realize the consequences of their actions when it comes to sexual relations. It’s not just about pregnancy, it’s about STDs too.
Roe v. Wade created a culture of women thinking it’s ok to lay on their backs anytime they’re in the mood with no fear of being responsible for the consequences. The phrase “I’ll just get an abortion” is a horrible thing in a civilized society. That’s like me saying, “Gee, the new guy next door is an a$$hole, but I’ll just shoot him in the head if he bothers us again.” The taking of human life should not a matter of convenience or a form of birth control, period.
What a whack job nation we live in. They put Kevorkian behind bars for helping terminally ill people who wanted to die with dignity rather than suffer. We have a group of people that support killing babies and at the same time oppose Captial Punishment for our most heinous criminals, which makes no sense whatsoever. We treat horses better than human beings. As adults, we have no greater responsibility than to look out for the little ones and keep them safe from harm. Every time an unnecessary abortion is done, we fail in that responsibility.
Roe v. Wade may be the law, but it’s wrong. It’s not the first time the SCOTUS was wrong (Dred Scott) and it won’t be the last. Until they throw that out and write a law that makes sense, I’m afraid the violence will continue. Whether it’s right or wrong depends on who wins in the end, as history is always written by the victors. I’ve always been in favor of protecting the innocent and executing the guilty.
Is there any innocence more pure than an unborn child?
Comment by Richard on 2 June 2009:
A judge I complained to about an issue reminded me there is often a gapping hoile between law and justice. This issue is such a case. Where is the justice for a baby pulled from its mother, having a hole punched into its head and its brain sucked out into a sink.
Notwithstanding Tiller’s immorality he operated inside the law if outside morality. Nevertheless that is no justification to murder him - maybe take him behind the barn and beat the hell out of him — but not murder.
It is always wrong to indict an entire class or category.
Comment by ihentschel on 2 June 2009:
In the aftermath of Dr. Tiller’s death, there are as many opinions being bantered about as there are people to have one. The only characteristic all they have in common is rigidity.
Throughout the whole of human existence, the only condition that we can identify as ‘absolute” is death itself: I will leave it to the religionists to prove otherwise.
Be that as it may be, if you can name an aspect of the human condition: taxes, justice, evil, empathy, honesty, intentions, greed, charity, abortion, mercy killing, infanticide, euthanasia, debt resolution…pick one of these or name one of a hundred others, that we face as homo sapiens every day, I will remind you that nothing about any of the decisions that must be made about them is absolute.
The single biggest stumbling block which prevents humans from acting humanely, the most intransigent set of mental ankle-shackles men and women wear, are the ones that allow them (or compel them) to believe in any absolute nature of right and wrong in human commerce. Life requires flexibility; rigid thinking precludes that. Other than death, everything in our daily existence is up for discussion, compromise, negotiation and/or adjudication.
There is no absolute right and wrong, no absolute black or white, when humans, their emotions, their hormones and all of the their associated variables are involved. Anyone who believes that Dr. Tiller was absolutely wrong is (mostly) absolutely wrong. Anyone who applauds his murder falls in the same category. None of us are that smart or intuitive. Whenever man attempts to play god, he runs the inherent risk of getting it wrong.
And arguments that revolve around the exact moment after conception about when life begins, are as specious as the silly arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They do not hold enough water to justify taking another life just because someone thinks they have an absolute answer. There is no such thing (that may or may not be an absolute statement). And as much as I hate to force myself to say this, anyone who lives under the false assumption that there is any absolute quality to right and wrong, is absolutely wrong-headed.
Comment by Melind on 3 June 2009:
“(R)eligionists” I have never seen thi word before. C an you explain a meaning or at least what you mean? It feels negative. Is it? Or am I mistaken?
Comment by FemmeFatale on 3 June 2009:
Why are all these people so stinkin’ mean Deb? Life begins at conception “is a proven fact” - what book is that out of? I used to culture living/beating muscle cells and then when done, I doused them with a good dose of disinfectant and let them go. Imagine all the little cells that should have lived! I regret every day of my life that I did not at least erect tombstones…
I have seen the anti-abortionist protests and find a zeal that is disturbing - imagine if all that crazy energy were put to good use - like ending hunger and suffering of children that have been brought into this world.
Perhaps we could give each one of them a set of 8 children (Octo-mom is great right - she saved all those embryo/babies) that have come from the womb of a drug-addicted mother with no prenatal care whatsoever. For all the self-rightousness there is there should be an equivalent amount of selflessness and giving. Where is all that in their quest to demonize woman that are considering terminating a pregnancy? “Excuse me Ma’am, if you will risk your life and go thru this pregnancy, I will care for your limbless, sightless, braindead child for as long as I shall live”. No, let’s not waste our time helping women - they are all just getting pregnant for fun anyhow - let’s just kill all the doctors who perform them!
Comment by pamelalyn on 3 June 2009:
For the record I am a Christian, pro-life and opposed to overturning Roe V. Wade, a position which I addressed in a blog post titled Christianity, Politics & Abortion
http://www.pamscoffeeconversation.com/2008/02/christianity-politics-abortion.html
As for the murder of Dr. Tiller, anyone who thinks that there is anything in the teachings of Jesus Christ that condones murder is seriously misguided and needs to re-read their bible. Obviously, they could not have read the New Testament for in the book of Matthew, Ch 22, v.35-40 it states:
“Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
I think that it’s pretty clear that murder is out.
And in regard to the mean-spirited, double-speak from all sides when it comes to the subject of abortion, What else is new?
pamelalyns last blog post..Ramblings from Rehab
Comment by joker on 4 June 2009:
Pamela: I followed your link and read your post. It was excellent. The only thing I don’t understand is the very contradiction you pointed out. What you said you’d do if you ruled the world and controlled people is exactly what I would do if I had that ability. How you can say that and still say you oppose overturning Roe v. Wade is what I still don’t quite understand.
What is wrong with overturning Roe and writing a law that makes sense and is fair to everyone?
I have said and I repeat: I am NOT oppposed to any woman terminating a pregnancy at any time during that pregnancy when it has been determined that her own life is at stake. I have also said that God and the “church” should stay out of this.
Like you, I do believe that upon conception, the embryo is a life. To me there is no difference between using surgical tools to kill that embryo than a woman giving birth in a public bathroom and throwing her newborn into the trash. In both circumstances a person who was alive is now dead. In both circumstances it is wrong and should not be allowed by any civilized, intelligent person, regardless of faith.
I have some friends who can’t have a child. They have been unable to adopt, even going so far as Russia and China in the attempt. When I think of how much they wish to be loving parents and all the women who discard that miracle like any other piece of trash every day makes me sick.
What is so wrong about making women who don’t want to be mothers, but are NOT in any danger of dying due to carrying their baby to term, do JUST THAT. They can give the babies up for adoption instead of killing them. The fact that anyone isn’t on this page really blows my mind, except as I’ve also said before, in cases of r^pe or incest. No woman should have something like that forced on her and have to go through the psychological trauma of it.
I’m talking about the women who open their legs and allow men to put their penises inside and copulate until ejaculation. That is no casual act. No woman does that without realizing she could get pregnant. If she does this and takes no precaution, why should she be allowed to basically commit murder to erase her moment of stupidity? If she does take precaution and it doesn’t work, again, you don’t have sex without knowing precautions don’t always work.
People know what they are doing. If they create a life in that act, they need to be responsible for it. Sucking it out through a tube and discarding it as trash is barbaric when done for no reason other than convenience. Sacrificing a fetus to save a mother’s life is another matter entirely.
The law should clearly separate the two, and I don’t think I’ll ever understand why it doesn’t, and why anyone would not want it to.
Comment by JT on 6 June 2009:
Pamelalyn: I am in total agreement with you all the way. God never goes against His own Word. Good scriptures you quoted to make your point.
Comment by FemmeFatal on 20 June 2009:
What’s wrong with “making women…” - I think it is just that: “making” someone do something. Doesn’t that fly in the face of some of these nutty beliefs that there shouldn’t be any government doing anything -oh, right, except maybe to force their agendas, such as the anti-abortion one.
Maybe there could be “camps” of women that are having babies for couples that can’t? There could be a special section for the drug-addicted mothers - those babies would be given away at a discount.
Comment by joker on 22 June 2009:
Femme you are about 99 cents short of a buck if you don’t grasp that we are a society of laws. If we all are not “made” to comply with what the MAJORITY of us believe is the proper way to conduct ourselves, then we may as well go back to stone knives and bear skins.
What is it about you that makes you think women should be exempt from being “made” to NOT commit murder? That’s what it is you know. M-U-R-D-E-R. The intentional termination of a human life by another person.
How would you like it if I cocked my .357, put the barrel against your temple, and told you to kiss your ass good-bye? Would you not then be glad that society “makes” me not do that, just because I’d find it convenient for me to rid the globe of people like you? I think you would.
If I am not allowed to kill others for convenience, than neither should anyone else. As far as camps of women having babies for couples that can’t, I do believe they call them surrogates, and I’m sure they’d just as soon stay living in their own homes if you don’t mind. Oh, and as far as the drug addicted mothers go, your statement comparing the babies to canned cling peaches on sale at a warehouse outlet is indicative of pure ignorance. We’re adults; we’ve already had our chances. Our greatest responsibility as normal, sane people (which you qualify as neither) is to nurture and protect innocent babies.
There would be a special section for the drug addicted mothers - making little rocks out of big ones in the hot sun all day for the first offense and then a trip to Old Sparky for the second. The babies would be given to caring, qualified, adoptive parents.
As far as I’m concerned, the only positive argument for abortion that you make is that unfortunately for us you didn’t end up being one of them.
jokers last blog post..nn404 Not FoundnnnNot FoundnThe requested document was not found on this server.nnnnWeb Server at comluv.comnnnnnn