Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism

[Pure]

life advocate magazine

(to which Roeder apparently subscribed at one time, and contributed to)

Life Advocate, back issues,

http://www*****advocate.org/

This article is of interest, in which the author argues for an end to Christian pacifism and for "deadly ways."


Janurary/Feburary, 1999 Volume XIII Number 4

The Pro-Life Movement is dead!
by Neal Horsley

Always feeble and delicate, as pacifists are apt to be, the Pro-Life Movement in the United States of America finally succumbed to the rigors of life in the modern age and was pronounced dead. D-E-A-D.
Why did such a noble sounding endeavor with such a noble sounding name-PRO-O-O-O-LIFE! - die?

Simple: the "pro-life" movement finally proved it was not pro-life at all. In the face of real danger created by the Federal Access To Clinic Entrances Act, the "pro-life" movement proved it had all along been the "cover-your-ass-while-you-salve-your-conscience" movement.
Look at the record. In 1973, the "pro-life" movement began what was claimed to be a good faith attempt to reveal the Will of God concerning the slaughter of His children. In the subsequent two and a half decades, the pro-life movement took a decent and orderly series of actions.

During that period, every ordinary method of redress of grievance was attempted: Presidents were elected, majorities in Congress were elected, lawsuits were filed, millions of letters were written, millions of prayers were said, thousands were arrested in non-violent civil disobedience. And, like clockwork, each move taken by the "pro-life" movement was countered by a Federal government controlled by people hell bent on slaughtering God's children in defiance of the "pro-life" movement.

Finally, when the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act made the next logical non-violent resistance procedure so costly as to be tantamount to life in prison, the "pro-life" movement shrank back in fear and loathing. And in so doing, the "pro-life" movement showed its true colors. Instead of being those who, like their namesakes in the letter to the Hebrews, do not shrink back in the face of death, the "pro-life" movement proved it had been what the world claimed all along-a self-serving, hypocritical manifestation of willful man's attempt to control other people, rather than an actual outworking of the actual Will of the actual Creator of the actual universe.

The line between obedience and cowardice

In a government like the one given to the people of the United States of America, there is always a thin line separating necessary obedience from the rankest cowardice. When a government derives its authority from the people, as this one does, the people of necessity must be willing to cooperate with majority decisions for the sake of lawful order. Up to a point. But when majority decisions become evil and utterly contrary to the instructions given by God in Holy Scripture, those who claim to live to worship and obey God are thrust into a fateful decision. If they delay withdrawing their cooperation from an evil government one second longer than that which is mandated by God Himself, such people enter into rebellion against God just as if they had never known Him.

The history of the "pro-life" movement clearly demonstrates that, up to a point, each stage of the resistance was an attempt to follow the decent and orderly duly authorized mechanisms of resistance to government turned tyrannical. But the day came when the results of all those twenty-five years of decent and orderly resistance were plain to see. Having done everything that decent and orderly protest required, the children of God were being slaughtered with as much impunity and with as much government protection as in the beginning of the protest movement.

At that point in time, the "pro-life" movement was forced to ask itself this question: could, in good faith and good conscience, these same procedures continue to be relied on to bring about change, even when those procedures had proven themselves to be incapable of protecting God's children? In other words, can we keep doing the same things over and over, yet expect different results?

Different results require different procedures.

To ignore this fundamental natural law is to demonstrate either extraordinary ignorance or an actual desire to avoid different results.
But wait! If the "pro-life" movement was actually concerned about God's children being slaughtered, what could make them decide to avoid different procedures? What could make them decide the "pro-life" movement was only authorized to keep doing over and over things that had proven themselves incapable of protecting the lives of God's children?

All the easy procedures had been tried, that's why. Twenty-five years of decent and orderly political protest had exhausted all the easy, non-violent mechanisms of redress of grievance. All that remained were the hard ways, the painful ways, the deadly ways.

The hard truth about God's plan for government

Those who signed the Declaration of Independence explained this phase of resistance to government tyranny in the following words: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Now that the easy things have all been done, and the present evil regime has made it clear it has no intention of allowing God's plan for government to be restored in this nation, the time for remembering the self-evident truth defined in the Declaration of Independence has arrived. But instead of stepping up and accepting responsibility for doing what comes next, the "pro-life" movement has shrunk back into a cloud of denial, pretending it is God's will for His people to tolerate the slaughter of the least of these, rather than harken to the words writ in blood by the forefathers of the United States of America. In so doing, the "pro-life" movement branded itself with an undeniable mark of cowardice.

Anybody who has paid attention for the last ten years could have seen it coming.

Never confessing collaboration with murder

The "pro-life" movement of the past twenty-five years embodied a fatal double-mindedness, an obvious hypocrisy. On the one hand it claimed to be about preserving life-it grumbled and moaned and even occasionally screamed that innocent human beings were being slaughtered by the millions-yet on the other hand it collaborated with the government that authorized such slaughter by paying the salaries of people who were slaughtering God's children. And it never confessed the sinfulness of such collaboration.

Picture the armed Federal Marshals escorting women into baby butcher businesses there to slaughter their children and you will see the people hired and paid for by the Pro-Life Movement. Picture it and you will see why the Pro-Life Movement died.

The Pro-Life Movement died because it became like the Vichy government in France during the Second World War: All the true soldiers turned against it and moved away from it. The specter of actually paying taxes to slaughter God's children settled the matter. All the Pro-Life Movement had left for support was sycophantic cowards like the cowardly residue of France who bowed to lick the boots-and other unmentionables-of Hitler's storm troopers as they occupied France.

Pacifism: The kiss of death

The pro-life movement had attracted pacifistic Christians from its inception. Finally and fatally, the movement became totally controlled by pacifists. The non-violent civil disobedience movement spawned by the pro-life movement, a potentially successful tactic if properly organized, was impotent to arrest the legalized slaughter of God's children because the pacifists refused to implement the strategy required to make a non-violent civil disobedience movement successfully force national change.

With pacifistic Christians in charge of the pro-life movement, what inevitably happens to movements led by such people happened to the pro-life movement: it was utterly defeated and finally totally destroyed by the ruthless and violent attacks of the enemy.

Now that the Pro-Life Movement is dead, does that mean God's children will continue to be slaughtered without anyone to protect them?

Hardly. The Pro-Life Movement is dead. But arising out of its dead and rotten body, a much more effective movement has begun, one that will finally put an end to legalized abortion in the United States of America.


The Pro-Life Movement is dead: Long live the Secession Movement

With the death of the Pro-Life Movement, a Secession Movement has begun.

The hard things are at hand. With those things, as always, God will supply the people called and equipped to do the necessary hard things.

The Creator's Rights Party is the vehicle used by that movement. The Creator's Rights Party has only one founding prinicple - to uphold and defend the Creator's rights. With God's providence and power, and through the agency of those who pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, the Creator's Rights Party will arrest the desecration of God's plan for government in the USA.

-----
Neal Horsley is the director of the Creator's Rights Party. More may be learned about the Party at www.christiangallery.com.

 

[Boxlicker101]

First, I want to point out that the suspect in the case is still a suspect, and has not been convicted yet. He may even be innocent of the murder; this remains to be seen.

Second, even making the assumption, for the sake of discussion, that he is guilty, we still know nothing about his religion. He is apparently something of an anarchist, but this has little to do with any particular faith. For all we know, unless somebody is privy to some specific information, he could be of any religion or even an Atheist. Amicus, to name one person, writes very strongly against abortion, and he is a professing Atheist.

I agree that hate speech should be disowned by everybody, but there is a difference between hate speech and a strongly-worded expression of opinion. Sometimes the difference is a very fine line. Over the last eight years, I have read some diatribes against W, religious fundamentalists and others. I have even written some. I don't consider any of those to be hate speech, or writing, just strongly worded opinions.
__________________

*sigh* His ex-wife, with whom he had a child, is pretty confident that he's religious, in an Old Testament sort of way. Also mentally ill and strongly anti-government, although I don't see anyone asking either of those groups to take responsibility for his actions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060201500.html

Okay, so you apparently have more recent info than I had. even so, they have been divorced a long time, and "Old Testament" is pre-Christian era.

 

[DeeZire]

This is bullshit. The mainstream churches disown this stuff of the time. You are making this up.

Am I making up the fact that I don't see "no hate speech" buttons or bumperstickers representing the Christian majority? Am I making up the fact that the Christian majority is making no discernable effort to address hate speech? It is one thing to speak about it in sermons. It is another thing to actually take a proactive approach with boycotts and PSAs on TV. This is what I don't see happening.

Hate speech is the elephant in the room. If you can't accept that, you really need to take a step back and be objective about the situation, rather than attacking those who draw attention to the elephant in the room.

ETA: SR, my good friend, this is you, quoted in another thread when someone accused you of being a lier.

I love giving a straightforward answer and being accused of lying. It tells me quite a bit about the tiny life of the one accusing me.

Are you aware of the hypocrisy evident in your quote? You are accusing yourself of having a tiny life. I hope you take a moment to reflect on this before embarrassing yourself further. (I don't believe you have a tiny life, but I do see a case for small-mindedness.)

 

[Verdad]

No, as a mainstream Christian, I do NOT own the actions of anyone else doing something and claiming they are doing it for God. That is an utterly ridiculous statement. Do you have responsibility for a serial killer's actions just because you are both humans, the same gender, or live in the same city/state--even if he says he did it to cleanse humanity, his gender, or his city/state? If you (and DeeZire and others) have not heard the mainstream Christian churchs disown this, you just have not been listening--or most likely because you only want to hear what fits you dogma.

I guess I could also say you take ownership for Amicus posts here because you defended him against my use of his name to image something rotten. So, congratulations, babe, he's yours and you are responsibile for everything he posts here because you are now lumped with him.

God, but you love your ad hominems. Yet your analogy sucks. People are not responsible for anyone they say hi to on the net, or for that matter, on the street. They're also not responsible for members of some arbitrary group they didn't choose to belong to (e.g. age, race, gender, etc.) There is, however, a degree of responsibility that comes with membership in an organization.

And yes, before you say "not all Christians form a single organization", I'm well aware of that. Dogmatic, I am not. But people like Roeder do come from an organized religion milieu, and when they happen, everyone washes their hands.

 

[sr71plt]

God, but you love your ad hominems. Yet your analogy sucks. People are not responsible for anyone they say hi to on the net, or for that matter, on the street. They're also not responsible for members of some arbitrary group they didn't choose to belong to (e.g. age, race, gender, etc.) There is, however, a degree of responsibility that comes with membership in an organization.

And yes, before you say "not all Christians form a single organization", I'm well aware of that. Dogmatic, I am not. But people like Roeder do come from an organized religion milieu, and when they happen, everyone washes their hands.

Your (and Stella's) assertion that all Christians have any responsibility/ownership whatsover for anyone else calling themselves that is absolutely ridiculous. It's one of those "have you stopped beating your wife recently?" issues.

Your whole argument rests on a non sequitur. I have no more responsibility for what Roeder decided to call himself or do than you or Stella do. And I do and have decried it just as much as either one of you did--because of what he did; not because of what he chose to call himself when he did it.

Your assertion is also intellectually dishonest--it's one of those "backing into it" assertions. First decide what you want to be smug about then decide you who want to blame for it and then start constructing an argument. Very Amicus-like. How arrogant.

 

[sr71plt]

Am I making up the fact that I don't see "no hate speech" buttons or bumperstickers representing the Christian majority?

There is no Christian majority. Just a lot of Christian minorities.

Since I have no ownership over what the Christian Fundamentalists do, I have no more responsibility to wear bumper stickers denying them than the local bridge club members do.

It all boils down to your false assignment of relationship.

You can take your assignments of who I am and represent andwhat I have to do about people who are disgusting and don't represent my values in any way and stick them where the sun don't shine.

God, what a bunch of witch hunters. Related to McCarthy much?

P.S. I saw hate speech on this thread--by Stella--and I did speak up. All depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

 

[Verdad]

Your (and Stella's) assertion that all Christians have any responsibility/ownership whatsover for anyone else calling themselves that is absolutely ridiculous. It's one of those "have you stopped beating your wife recently?" issues.

Your whole argument rests on a non sequitur. I have no more responsibility for what Roeder decided to call himself or do than you or Stella do. And I do and have decried it just as much as either one of you did--because of what he did; not because of what he chose to call himself when he did it.

Your assertion is also intellectually dishonest--it's one of those "backing into it" assertions. First decide what you want to be smug about then decide you who want to blame for it and then start constructing an argument. Very Amicus-like. How arrogant.

Look, I know when you target someone, you don't stop for sixty pages. I don't play that game. I said what I said, anyone who cares can read me, and if they want to take your blatant misrepresentation of my words instead, they can do that too.

 

[sr71plt]

Look, I know when you target someone, you don't stop for sixty pages. I don't play that game.

You're playing it now, babe. We'll see who will be the first one to stop just saying the same thing, won't we?

 

[Stella_Omega]

srpt, quote the hate speech, please. Direct quote. It's very possible that I said something hateful, and I'd like to know what you think it is.

 

[sr71plt]

You guys can't tell me to shut up and to keep arguing at the same time, Stella.

It became your witch hunting thread. Wallow in it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You guys can't tell me to shut up and to keep arguing at the same time, Stella.

It became your witch hunting thread. Wallow in it.

Have I told you to shut up?

No, I am honestly curious as to my hate speech, since I try to avoid such under normal circumstances. But speech can be very subtle, and maybe my wording is flying under my own radar-- extremely possible. If I said something nasty while angry, I'd like to know it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Am I making up the fact that I don't see "no hate speech" buttons or bumperstickers representing the Christian majority? Am I making up the fact that the Christian majority is making no discernable effort to address hate speech? It is one thing to speak about it in sermons. It is another thing to actually take a proactive approach with boycotts and PSAs on TV. This is what I don't see happening.

Hate speech is the elephant in the room. If you can't accept that, you really need to take a step back and be objective about the situation, rather than attacking those who draw attention to the elephant in the room.

ETA: SR, my good friend, this is you, quoted in another thread when someone accused you of being a lier.



Are you aware of the hypocrisy evident in your quote? You are accusing yourself of having a tiny life. I hope you take a moment to reflect on this before embarrassing yourself further. (I don't believe you have a tiny life, but I do see a case for small-mindedness.)

The main stream churches did come out very strongly against hate speech, but it was in ther Sixties and Seventies, and it was racisl hate speech. Considering that most mainstream churches believe homosexual acts are sins and abominations, they won't say much about them that is not derogatory. At the same time, they will probably have a stated policy of "hate the sin, love the sinner, which would make their diatribes against "sodomy" etc., rather than against those who practice sodomy.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You can say this is an isolated incident, the work of a lone crazy person. But to deny that it's the predictable result of a quasi-theocratic terror campaign is a bit ridiculous. Yet, when the Dept. of Homeland Security released its prescient report on Right Wing Extremism in April, Conservatives and so-called "pro-lifers" howled that they were being unfairly lumped with fringe people. Just as some good Christian people on this thread are saying.

I understand that there is no central authority of Xtianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or whatever-the-fuck, and that many churches organize to do good things. I get that. I'm happy for you.

But, at some level, I don't care. I don't want to have to keep track of your beliefs. I don't want to remember that this group hates gay marriage but supports soup kitchens, or that group didn't allow black people to become leaders until late in the last century, or this group aided slaves, or what. It's all of a piece to me - people who think they've got a god on their side.

Today's assassination of Dr. George Tiller comes 5 months into the term of our second pro-choice president. For anyone who would like to believe that this is a statistical anomaly, a coincidence that doesn't portend anything, again, you are wrong.

During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were 6 abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers. There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

One can only conclude that like terrorist sleeper cells, these extremists have now been set in motion. Indeed the evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.

In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-murder-of-dr-tiller-a_b_209562.html

 

[xssve]

This is bullshit. The mainstream churches disown this stuff of the time. You are making this up.

what is the "mainstream church"? I've never heard of it.

 

[xssve]

Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality

Religion, as an institution, is not represented by the "mainstream", it's represented by the zealots - who own television networks and radio stations, with predictable results:

The survey underscores how the debate over societal acceptance of homosexuality has shifted since the mid-1980s. The public has moved decisively in the direction of tolerance on many questions; in particular, discrimination against homosexuals is now widely opposed. This is seen in long-term trends in surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center and by the Gallup Organization. And the current survey shows that a majority of Americans (54%) feel that gay and lesbian couples can be as good parents as heterosexual couples.

Yet as public attention has turned to questions of gay marriage * and as homosexuals have become far more visible in society and the entertainment media * there have been some signs of a backlash. Roughly three-in-ten Americans (31%) say greater acceptance of gays would be a bad thing for the country, up from 23% in a 2000 survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. And nearly half the public (48%) thinks the entertainment media present too many gay themes and characters, compared with 37% in the same 2000 survey.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You can say this is an isolated incident, the work of a lone crazy person. But to deny that it's the predictable result of a quasi-theocratic terror campaign is a bit ridiculous. Yet, when the Dept. of Homeland Security released its prescient report on Right Wing Extremism in April, Conservatives and so-called "pro-lifers" howled that they were being unfairly lumped with fringe people. Just as some good Christian people on this thread are saying.

I understand that there is no central authority of Xtianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or whatever-the-fuck, and that many churches organize to do good things. I get that. I'm happy for you.

But, at some level, I don't care. I don't want to have to keep track of your beliefs. I don't want to remember that this group hates gay marriage but supports soup kitchens, or that group didn't allow black people to become leaders until late in the last century, or this group aided slaves, or what. It's all of a piece to me - people who think they've got a god on their side.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-murder-of-dr-tiller-a_b_209562.html

You are citing the Huffington Post, but there has been other violence against Planned Parenthood and Women's Heaslth establishments. Here is a more comprehensive link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

 

[Verdad]

You guys can't tell me to shut up and to keep arguing at the same time, Stella.

It became your witch hunting thread. Wallow in it.

So you don't say I shut you up, I'll ask a few questions, which you can answer if you so choose. If you can remember I opposed uncritical bashing of Christianity and if you can state your opinion without attacking me, I'm more than fine with that.

So the questions: Do you reject entirely the idea of group responsibility? If yes, can you add a few words of explanation? If no, in which cases do you think it applies and in which not?

I'm not uninterested in opinions. Just in trading insults.

 

[DeeZire]

For me, it all comes down to blind allegiance. Years ago, Christianity was all about owning slaves. Today, it's all about vilifying queers and banning abortion. One hundred years from now, people will be asking "why did the Christian majority allow hate speech and anti-abortion terrorism to run rampant back in 2009?" That's what we're asking today, but, obviously, some people would rather sweep it under the rug and say "it's not my problem."

This situation begs the question: What, exactly, does Christianity stand for, if personal responsibility is not part of the Christian ideal? Aren't Christians supposed to be their brother's keepers? Or are they only their brother's keepers when their brothers are well-behaved?

For me, this is just one more example of the utter lack of integrity inherent in Christianity, since it appears to be a hollow faith with no principals that apply to real life.

 

[THROBBS]

For me, it all comes down to blind allegiance. Years ago, Christianity was all about owning slaves. Today, it's all about vilifying queers and banning abortion. One hundred years from now, people will be asking "why did the Christian majority allow hate speech and anti-abortion terrorism to run rampant back in 2009?" That's what we're asking today, but, obviously, some people would rather sweep it under the rug and say "it's not my problem."

This situation begs the question: What, exactly, does Christianity stand for, if personal responsibility is not part of the Christian ideal? Aren't Christians supposed to be their brother's keepers? Or are they only their brother's keepers when their brothers are well-behaved?

For me, this is just one more example of the utter lack of integrity inherent in Christianity, since it appears to be a hollow faith with no principals that apply to real life.

Sadly, that is the issue that I see here. "Christianity" has, deservedly, gotten a bad rep. because of what "Christians" have done in the name of "Christianity".
I apologize for what I see as multiple gross misrepresentations.

I am not a literalist. I am a Christian. I am a fuck up. I have responsibility and TRY to take it. I also have principles and they apply to real life. I cannot take responsibility for everyone who claims to believe what I believe, because I have no idea what they really believe.< I am inclined to think that what you, DeeZire have witnesses is a distortion of biblical (literal or otherwise) teachings.
I am really sorry for that. Even in my own immediate family I see it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

For me, it all comes down to blind allegiance. Years ago, Christianity was all about owning slaves. Today, it's all about vilifying queers and banning abortion. One hundred years from now, people will be asking "why did the Christian majority allow hate speech and anti-abortion terrorism to run rampant back in 2009?" That's what we're asking today, but, obviously, some people would rather sweep it under the rug and say "it's not my problem."

This situation begs the question: What, exactly, does Christianity stand for, if personal responsibility is not part of the Christian ideal? Aren't Christians supposed to be their brother's keepers? Or are they only their brother's keepers when their brothers are well-behaved?

For me, this is just one more example of the utter lack of integrity inherent in Christianity, since it appears to be a hollow faith with no principals that apply to real life.

Without defending anybody, Christianity was never "all about owning slaves." Some professing Christians did own slaves, which was a common practice for most of history, including during the time of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is not now all about bashing anybody, although I must admit banning abortion on demand is high on the agenda of many Christian churches, but to say anti-abortion terrorism is running rampant is extreme hyperbole. It does exist, but is hardly "running rampant." There are some links on this thread to lists of incidents, and they average about one per year.

Personally, I am pro-choice. I believe that sometimes it happens that a girl or woman is faced with the need to make one of several choices, none of them good, and sometimes the least bad is to get an abortion.

 

[john-the-author]

But, at some level, I don't care. I don't want to have to keep track of your beliefs. I don't want to remember that this group hates gay marriage but supports soup kitchens, or that group didn't allow black people to become leaders until late in the last century, or this group aided slaves, or what. It's all of a piece to me - people who think they've got a god on their side.

I think that's a lot of it, Huckleman. Knowing that the truly observant may be called on to kill me when they find out I'm a witch--it's a pretty clear injunction, at least in the King James version--does not make me happy with Christians in general. Most of them are pretty run-of-the-mill, it's very true, and lo! I'm still alive, to be sure. But I also have met some really whackjob Christians and at least one person who I'm pretty sure was a serial killer (based on some odd circumstantial evidence that accumulated over the years) who I would be hesitant to be completely open with. It'd kind of "Why wave the red flag in front of the bull if you think he may not be completely tied up?"

Yes, people who've got God on their side are not to be completely trusted. You never know when you yourself may fall short of their definition of "purity."

 

[Pure]

those to be wary of

look, there are those who'll kill you for their beliefs, and those who likely won't. they would do these killings in the absence of any legally recognized threat to the believer's life or to that of other legally recognized persons. of course the actual killing may be delegated, or simply promoted, and afterwards, praised.

it's certainly reasonable, as some posters have said, to look at Christians of various groups, sects, denominations, etc on this issue. there are lots of differences, of course, but for each, the 'reasons to [justifiably] kill' may be looked at.

the Southern Baptist Church list is longer than the Catholic list; for instance the former calls for death for lots of crimes, and the official RC church has called for only the rarest use of the death penalty. historically, of course, various churches' lists have been rather extensive; that of the Church in Massachusetts Colony called for death for the breaking of any of the 10C, including blasphemy, and that was reflected in the criminal laws.

There is of course a pacifist or 'no kill' stream in Christianity, as in the Amish, mennonites, and quakers.

Whatever one says about "Christianity" and killing, other religions have 'kill lists’, Orthodox Islam decrees death for converts to Christianity or other religions.' Further, and most important in the present context are secular groups from French Revolutionaries, to Nazis, to Stalinists, to Pol Pot's communist followers, have freely decided which persons, even in the absence of overt acts, should die. of course these persons, for vague reasons, are labelled as deadly threats.

Roeder, the apparent murderer of Tiller belonged to a prolife and chuch affiliated group. He declared himself 'sovereign', that is, immune from the laws of Kansas.

The far right ideologues, some of them quite secular, like amicus, routinely incite violence against those on their 'kill lists.' the rationale, of course, would be the alleged 'holocaust,' [Clinton and Obama being compared to Nazis], which would justify illegal acts against those disapproved of.

Bill Oreilly, of catholic background, asserted Tiller's "nazi" acts and similarly aimed to encourage the killing of those on his 'list.'

What Oreilly, representing religious right and amicus, representing the secular far right have in common is this: The issue of 'taking a life' becomes simply a question of effectiveness, instrumentality; they take a life, as necessary, to get an end.

The pacifist streams in Christianity and Gandhi's Hinduism (and in other religions) affirm a inherent value of life, and generally refuse to authorize its taking in instrumental terms, as a means to some end, no matter how noble.

IMO, a Christian should look at the 'kill list' of his or her church (or commonly held by its members, if not stated officially) and make efforts [convince others] to shorten the list of purported justifications. alternatively, one could buy a 'Kill for Christ' t-shirt. the secular rationalizers of killing, such as amicus, could examine their lists as well, "does Reason really demand that all these be killed?" and ask "why don't my fellow devotees of Reason agree with me?"

 

[amicus]

Pure:

"...What Oreilly, representing religious right and amicus, representing the secular far right have in common is this: The issue of 'taking a life' becomes simply a question of effectiveness, instrumentality; they take a life, as necessary, to get an end..."

~~~

That amounts to fallacious slander, in both cases concerning a media personality and yours truly.

It is a matter of law that the 'death penalty' for Capital Crimes, is a legal reality as is the taking of human life during a declared war or conflict. Neither O'Reilly nor myself have ever advocated vigilante actions taken by any party for any reason.

I formally request that you remove your accusation from public view, and an apology would be in order and civil. I will hold off informing the other injured party by email until I hear from you.

Amicus

 

[cloudy]

Pure:

~~~

That amounts to fallacious slander, in both cases concerning a media personality and yours truly.

It is a matter of law that the 'death penalty' for Capital Crimes, is a legal reality as is the taking of human life during a declared war or conflict. Neither O'Reilly nor myself have ever advocated vigilante actions taken by any party for any reason.

I formally request that you remove your accusation from public view, and an apology would be in order and civil. I will hold off informing the other injured party by email until I hear from you.

Amicus

This is such fucking bullshit, and you know it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and you have never hesitated, not even a fraction of a second, in saying that people "need killing," or calling others "retarded," and I could go on and on with the insults you've spewed for the last five years.

If you can't handle the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. Otherwise, put your big girl panties on and deal.

 

[Safe_Bet]

OMFG, Ami! You of ALL people to accuse somebody of fallacious slander...

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!