Don’t know what to say to this, except that there is going to be one hell of a media storm.

“Between the saddle and the ground is the mercy of God”, as a saying in my country has it.

Not good. This is going to make him into a “martyr” for the pro-abortion advocates.

May God have mercy on his soul.

and on the one who shot him.

What a bag of mixed emotions this story produces for me. My first reaction was joy at the fact that hundreds of innocent babies will not suffer a gruesome death at the hands of this monster. But, in our society, and also according to God’s Commandments, murder is not justice and it would be the height of hyprocrisy for me to condemn the murder of the unborn and applaud murder in other circumstances. That said, I agree that a media storm will probably erupt and no matter who or what the killer turns out to be, the pro-life movement will suffer villification and assaults will occur on Second Amendment rights. Don’t forget one of the Obama administration’s slogans “Never waste a good crisis.” And, avoiding any further hypocrisy, I will not ask God to have mercy on the soul of this fiend – my prayer will be that God levy His justice in full upon this killer of innocents.

Bloody Kansas all over again

Firstly, I personally feel this creep deserved to be gunned down without remorce or mercy.

Secondly, I think such a thing should never happen in a church, and not by anyone who thinks he is doing God’s work. God will take care of his own justice.

Thirdly, this guy served as an usher in a church? What kind of church has a monster like this ushering people in?

Don, I know exactly how you feel, because I can’t pray for him (yet).

But there is no chance of escaping the justice of God, which we will all have to face ourselves in the end. And I’m not going to tell you how to feel, or what to do.

But if ever a soul was in desperate, dire need of prayer and forgiveness, isn’t it this man’s? There will be justice, but if there can be any tiny shred of mercy, let us pray for it. I can’t do it myself yet, but may the Holy Souls in Purgatory intercede for all us sinners, and may the Holy Innocents intercede for him!

Whatever credence can be placed in the story that did the rounds a while back about Stojan Adasevic, the Serbian who had a 26-year career as an abortion doctor, the account of the nightmares he recounts having back in the 1980s that led to his change of heart are striking:

“In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn’t recognize the name”

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him.”

Would not that be a terrible judgement for the man? Faced with all the children he has aborted over his career, running away in terror from him, having to account for why he murdered them? To justify it?

May God, who sees into the hearts of us all, and who taught us to pray “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”, give the grace of repentance to all those in need of it!

The reasons why I can’t join you, Don and Christopher were bluntly articulated by Mr. Edwards well over 200 years ago, selections from which follow:

It implies, that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next; and when he does fall, he falls at once without warning: Which is also expressed in Psalm 73:18,19. “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction: How are they brought into desolation as in a moment!”

God has laid himself under no obligation, by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment. God certainly has made no promises either of eternal life, or of any deliverance or preservation from eternal death, but what are contained in the covenant of grace, the promises that are given in Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. But surely they have no interest in the promises of the covenant of grace who are not the children of the covenant, who do not believe in any of the promises, and have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant.

All that applies as much to you and I as it does to George Tiller. Even considering all his crimes against humanity, I am still extremely reluctant to decide who is or is not currently in hell. Be careful how you respond to incidents like this.

May the Lord have mercy even upon this man and also upon his assasin.

During the 40 Days for Life prayer campaign, when *abortion-promoter* Obama named *abortionist* Tiller’s friend *abortion-supporter* Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of *health* and *human* services (what an anachronism), I prayed for him and for the other two. I hoped they would repent and recant their evildoings.

I hope this was a personal attack on Tiller (a jealous husband, even a mafia hit) and not something that is about his *baby killing*

It should not be attributed to the many thousands of good, kind, gentle, peaceful people with tender consciences pray for life every day, or those who work and pray every day in crisis pregnancy centers and and those who stand in moral opposition to the evil of abortion as the taking of innocent human life for the price of pleasure and convenience.

As Mother Theresa said, ‘Abortion means someone must die so my that will can be done.’

Mr. Johnson: I am making no assumption as to whether or not this abortionist is or isn’t in Hell. My point was that I pray that God, being a God of both mercy AND justice, would, in this instance, levy his justice upon the soul of this person. Obviously, God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, as Scripture says. My other prayer would be that the fullness of God’s mercy be directed to the souls of the innocents murdered by Dr. Tiller. However, once again, my prayers or requests are secondary to that which God chooses to do, my job application for the post of “Alternate Ruler of the Universe” having not yet been approved – haven’t even been called for an interview! As God said to Job from the whirlwind, “My ways are not your ways.”

Chris, I never said that Tiller is in hell or deserves to go there more than I. I was simply talking about what he deserves in terms of human justice. God commands us to punish the wicked and drive them from our society if we are to make our society anything like an image of his true justice. Ours will always be an imperfect model,but I see no licence in Scripture to use that imperfection as justification for scrapping the attempt or for equating all evils as equal. Gossip may send you to hell as quickly as murder (quicker, maybe, for it may be easier to fool yourself into thinking you are not sinning) but God did not prescribe death for the gossip while he did for the murderer.

Tiller was, even by our own legal system, a cold blooded murderer. The fact that in our corrupt politics the defense of abortion trumps the proper execution of our laws, so that he got away with his crimes, does not make him guiltless. He deserved to die, and die he has. He has reaped what he sowed. What God does with him now is God’s affair.

An imperfect justice has occured. It is impertfect because the proper instruments of that justice did not do it. This both compounds the corruption of justice while attempting to right it. He got what he deserved but our society did not. So, while the lives of some future babies may have been spared, and, at the very least, the deaths of some past murdered babies have been avenged, our culture has not benefitted because justice has now come at the hands of lawlessness, because the law itself has become lawless and toothless.

I can’t pray for him yet, either. Maybe some day …

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m of two minds about this story. There’s what I’d like to say about it and what I know I have to say. That admitted, we, as Christians, are most emphatically not called to administer justice, God’s or anyone else’s, whenever the mood strikes us. That is not our responsibility.

Does that mean that some who really should be put to death right now if God were on the ball might die peacefully in their beds decades from now? Yes. Does that mean that some who deserve God’s justice right now might outlive us by decades and retire comfortably? Probably. But anyone who deserves the justice of God will eventually get it. And they will get it only when our Lord decrees that they should get it. Not when we do.

Our Lady of Akita, pray for us.

This is wrong because it is murder – whether or not the victim was, in the estimation of some (myself included) a murderer himself. It is not legal or logical to say to oneself “the wrong that I do mitigates a worse wrong, so my deed is acceptable” and then take a life.

Christ told us not to judge others, and He meant it. We are allowed to pass secular (legal) judgments, but they must be done properly – in a court of law, not at the hands of a vigilante. All else is up to God – and His judgment wlii be made in the life to come, not here on Earth. That fact should not dismay us – it is still justice, and NOT delayed; for it is what happens to our eternal souls that matters most – not the events that befall us on earth.

And to have done this in a house of God (and once again, let’s not pass judgment on the relative merits or shortcomings of the particular church)- it is, in my estimation, an insult to God, and an affront to Christianity itself, since there will likely be a backlash against the Church.

Our prayers should be with all involved – there is a need to comfort the mourning, and also to lead the sinful to repentance.

Whoever the killer was, whatever his motives, he had no right to take the life of this man.

Some news for Pentecost Sunday. Come, Holy Spirit!

Actually, Bill (not IB) I think we HAVE TO pass judgments on and discern the merits of various churches and religious groups these days. Just because they’ve put up a sign and built a ‘church’, doesn’t mean they’re legit.

That admitted, we, as Christians, are most emphatically not called to administer justice, God’s or anyone else’s, whenever the mood strikes us.

Chris, I am a little unclear exactly what you are intending to say here. Are you saying that we who are Christians are not called to administer justice, or rather that we are called to refrain from administering Justice? If so, I must disagree, for some of us may serve the State in the administration of its Justice, oneGod has ordained to exist.

Or are you saying that we are not called to this administration of justice as Christian, meaning that it is not a Christian vocation and should not be done in the name of Christ. If so, i fully concur.

If you are simply saying that Christians have no right to administer Justice on their own authority absent commands from the State to do it on behalf of society, I also fully agree. The killing of this killer was a sin, as it was a lawless act. But it arouses less indignation in me than does a healthy driver parking in a handicapped spot.

When a murderer is murdered I neither mourn for the murdered nor rage at the murderer. I weep for society.

What I meant to say that if this guy took it upon himself to administer justice to Tiller, he was wrong to have done so. Because it was not justice that he administered; it was nothing other than cold-blooded murder.

As someone who is Pro-Life, I find it necessary to be consistent. The murder of this man is no more justifiable, in an ordered society (granted, that is an assumption), than the murders which he himself carried out. On this, the Roman Catholic Church and I are in agreement. No to abortion. No to capital punishment. And certainly no to vigilante justice.

Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. David’s Anglican Church (soon to be ACNA!)
Durant, Iowa

Whitestone,

I concur with your sentiment as regards making decisions on what churches are/are not observing the faithful Gospel of Christ for purposes of membership/attendance/support. In the context of this incident, I believe it is inappropriate to make any mention or issue of the beliefs of the church involved. It doesn’t matter, IMHO – murder is murder, be it in St. Peter’s in Rome, or in, as Flip Wilson would have put it, “The Church of What’s Happenin’ Now”.

This was a terrible crime. And the damage it will do to the pro life cause is immeasurable.

The bottom line is that we don’t know this wicked man’s response to the brightness of God which he certainly saw. He may well have repented and moved into what we used to call “the nearer presence of God”. We can never presume.

I have done wickedness in my life and wonder what if I had never had the chance to repent because someone’s idea of justice was to keep me from ever knowing God’s mercy?

I will pray for his family and that truly in his moment of death he repented his sins.

Many folks think of Dedrick Bonhoeffer as a martyr. He was hanged after being arrested for conspiracy to murder Adolph Hitler. I disagree that he was a martyr and by being killed by Hitler, he was saved from a man of the cloth becoming a murderer. He said he was ready to take off his clerical collar but his act would have stained clergy whether he was wearing a collar or not. Thou Shall not Murder. I would agree with Don Janousek who said in part, “murder is not justice and it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to condemn the murder of the unborn and applaud murder in other circumstances.”

A terrible evil act. And it will do great damage to the Pro-Life cause. Feminists will use this to further marginalize and belittle their opponents. See this: http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/news_results.asp?Body=Tiller&Submit2=Go

I hate what Tiller did. He murdered babies for a living. But all murder is wrong, even murder of a murderer.

I think Bonhoeffer was a different situation because it was part of a just war. Hitler started a war, and it was his enemies’ duty to fight him, even kill him. Had Bonhoeffer been a British agent it would have been more obvious that it was legitimate, but as it was Bonhoeffer was doing something allowable within the context of declared war.

What Tiller’s death means is that the pro-death lobby has a martyr. We will be painted as violent extremists, terrorists in fact. This will make the pro-life cause harder.

I also hope it makes us more prayerful. We can always hope for God’s grace that He will transform the hearts of abortionists. And we need to pray for ourselves, that we always act as Jesus would have us act.

We have to defeat evil with love, compassion, truth and mercy.

Well, I don’t know Chris, it was certainly sinful in that it violated Romans 13. It was illegal. I don’t know that I would say it was unjust.

muerknz,
“and it was his enemies’ duty to fight him, even kill him” Bohnhoeffer was not a soldier. We are called to love our enemies not kill them.If he had managed to help kill Hitler he would not have been considered a hero, he would have been held out as a zealot by those who persecute Christians. It would have been counter productive.

Killing Hitler counter productive? Even if killing him curtailed the holocaust
or lessened the number of victims? B.S.

Robb,
Now apply the same reasoning to the current situation.

It makes sense to take someone out if it means defending lives…in this case, the unborn. Sort of like dropping the bomb on Hiroshima helped to end Japan’s involvement in WW2…like killing Hitler so that an end is brought to his murderous ways.

I just don’t think that killing Tiller will result in fewer deaths of babies…the mom’s will go elsewhere to kill their babies.

As a sick and twisted clown, I find this story most intriguing for a number of reasons. For example, everyone is assuming, I certainly did at first, that this murder was somehow associated with the victim’s abortion practice. But, who knows? If he was a creep in that way, he was probably a creep in other ways. So, maybe there was another motive for his murder? But, setting my clown fright wig and tiara aside, and reflecting as a Christian man, I am even more intrigued by Mr. Johnson’s reference to Jonathan Edwards, certainly the seminal Christian thinker in American history. It doesn’t get better than JE. Nice call CJ. As a clown, I couldn’t pick a better phrase than “their foot shall slide in due time” to capture the most vivid image in the clown repertoire–that of a dude slipping on a banana peel, and in this context perhaps falling straight to hell. But, even the fate of people who snuff fetuses, the weakest and most vulnerable creatures imaginable, is reserved to God.

Hitler was the leader of a nation at war. Tiller was a private citizen whose life was protected by law. Very different situation. Hitler was leading armies at war and was open to enemy attack. Tiller was not.

I’m not sad that Tiller’s work is over. I am shocked that anyone would be murdered in a church, in front of the whole congregation and his family. Murdering Tiller was an unjust act, and as pro-life people we should deplore the act of murder, even of someone who did such terrible things.

I’m ever hopeful that the killer didn’t murder Tiller because of his horrible work, but really, what are the odds?

I suspect that even of Tiller was killed for another reason, the pro-life message will still get the blame somehow.

What kind of church has a monster like this ushering people in?

From its website, Reformation Lutheran is ELCA.

In other words, it’s “TEC” pronounced with a German accent.

God have mercy.

I’m a liberal; I’m pro-abortion (within reason – actually I’m pro-choice but I don’t believe any of you will see any difference); I’m pro-gay; I’m anti-death penalty; pro-gun control and all of those things. In other words: I’m bound for hell, no question about it.

I must say the comments here are rather more refreshing than the sanctimony over at Standfirm! I’m not a pacifist; I believe there are some times when Christians must fight. World war II was one of them.

So: my point is: I know many of you American Christians believe in gun ownership, precisely as a bulwark, as a final defence against government tyranny. You also believe that abortion is murder, and the millions of abortions in the US the “American holocaust”. Let me be clear: i hope that if in NZ, the government was systematically murdering a portion of its population: Maori, polynesians, the mentally ill, the physically disabled, unionists, Jews – or whoever – that I would at least engage in determined political protest, civil disobedience, to protest that mass murder. Perhaps I would even take up arms.

So my honest question is: given you believe in gun ownership – not for fun or for sport but to oppose evil within and done by the government – and that you believe that abortion is literally a “holocaust” supported by the government – then it would seem that Scott Roeder’s actions are not to be condemned. Rather they are morally imperative.

While I’m grateful that Dr. Tiller will kill no more unborn children, I would rather that such an outcome resulted from either a) Dr. Tiller’s repentance, or b) lawful government action which stopped him from continuing his practice.

I also want to thank Chris Johnson for his wise words regarding speculation over Dr. Tiller’s eternal fate.

James,

Please, read the comments here again. No matter how awful Dr. Tiller’s actions may be, as Christians it is our duty to leave moral judgment up to God. We may have a pretty good idea what God might have in store for Dr. Tiller, based on ideas revealed by God in the Old and New Testaments. But – it’s not our call. Period. And the doctor was not breaking secular laws, so he was not susceptible to any kind of action by the government, or by those claiming to act in its place. A posse that lynches a man without giving him a fair trial is committing murder…….

Just because some of us believe the government is wrong in the matter of abortion does not give us license to take matters into our own hands – guns or not. That way lies anarchy, chaos, and a society which is far worse than one which merely sanctions abortion – it would be a world in which people with any strongly-held belief could kill anyone else simply because they feel morally obligated to do so. There are many ways to try and change government policies which involve no violence, and they are the ones that everyone who I know would be engaging in. One of the best can be found in a wonderful short story “And Then There Were None”, by Eric Frank Russell. “F-IW” Find it, and read it. [Freedom - I Won't"]

And – who ever said that there is a widespread belief in gun ownership for the purpose of “a final defence against government tyranny?” I own guns for sport and self-defence, and the notion of buying a firearm solely for the purpose of defying the government is one that I’ve never heard anyone discuss at the firing range. Many of us would put up a struggle to prevent the government from taking away our Constitutional rights – but that struggle would be via public information, lobbying, and votes.

Your closing question is riddled with “straw man” logic:

“given you believe in gun ownership – not for fun or for sport but to oppose evil within and done by the government” – what leads you to say this? Please provide some support for this allegation.

“it would seem that Scott Roeder’s actions are not to be condemned. Rather they are morally imperative.” This statement is directly contradictory to Christian teachings; why would you think we’d consider it to be “morally imperative”? Isn’t it necessary to be morally consistent – to either obey all of the precepts of our faith (and “Thou Shalt Do No Murder” is one of the “biggies”) or to admit that picking and choosing the rules to obey nullifies any claim to morality?

I deplore murder; anyone’s murder, even George Tiller’s.

Diane, even though I hate murder, according to news reports, there is only one doctor left, in Colorado, who is willing to perform the atrocities on late-term babies which Tiller did. Finding doctors to destroy babies is becoming harder and harder, and not because they’re all afraid they’ll be shot, but because the public is becoming more and more aware that abortion kills living babies, and fewer doctors are willing to stain their souls to do it.

Fuinseoig: “Some news for Pentecost Sunday. Come, Holy Spirit!”

Amen!

I condemn murder wherever it occurs and I also believe it is proscribed by the fifth commandment..

However things are not always simply black and white. There are moral distinctions to be made between different kinds of killing: what we understand to be murder (e.g. the killing of an innocent individual or killing to prevent of the commission of an evil when there are other ways of preventing such evil) and the taking of a life in say self defence, the defence of the life of other person(s), or for that matter the defence of a society at large. Killing in the course of a “just war” for example may cover all three. In other words, the taking of a life in a just cause, including the prevention of the commission of an extreme and manifest evil, when no other avenue of prevention (including legal avenues because the law of the land upholds the legality of the commission of the extreme evil: e.g. genocide laws as in the Holocaust) is not necessarily proscribed by the fifth commandment. If, for example, a specific SS officer proclaims to all at large the he has personally killed Jews simply because they were Jews and further proclaims that his current purpose in life, by choice, is to continue killing Jews because they were Jews, do his hearers have any moral obligation to stop him despite the fact that what he is doing is legal in the eye of the Law. (Always remember that the Law is NOT the same as Justice). If all other possible avenues have been tried, including shooting him in both arms in the hope of rendering him incapable of further committing the extreme evil, but he continues to do so, would it be morally wrong to kill him as a last resort? Or should one just shrug one’s shoulder and say that what he is doing is a manifest evil but it is legal in the eyes of the State, it has the support of a majority of the population, that what he is doing does not effect one directly and besides there is the injunction of the fifth commandment. What happens to that wise old adage honed by the experience of millennia of civilisation and may I emphasise Christian civilisation, that “for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.

In this context it is interesting to note that pro Abortion ethicists, Professor Peter Singer for example, now accept that in the face of science it cannot be denied that the process of abortion involves the killing of a human being, however in their view this killing is not murder. It is morally justified because that being is NOT innocent since it is unwanted and therefore it is “invading the mother’s body and a parasite on that body ” with the added potential of significantly altering the chosen or projected lifestyle of the mother against her will for life.

It is therefore a fascinating study in moral dissonance and decadence, especially in the USA, that those who justify and carry out, by self admission, the killing of unborn and helpless human beings are lauded as heroes and have the approbation and sanction of the law of the land but anyone who after the failure of other extreme but non lethal methods to prevent this manifest evil are condemned as evil, outlaws, unchristian and defiant of the prohibitions of the fifth commandment.

I wish to emphasise that I am NOT suggesting or justifying an open season on the killing of abortion providers. I do however wish to emphasise that moral judgements in dealing with and preventing manifest evil are not always black and white.

I am very offended by such posts as “Many folks think of Dedrick Bonhoeffer as a martyr. He was hanged after being arrested for conspiracy to murder Adolph Hitler. I disagree that he was a martyr and by being killed by Hitler, he was saved from a man of the cloth becoming a murderer”. A hero of humanity, as were the others who plotted against Hitler have been reduced to the ranks of murderers or potential murderers. How far have our western moral values decayed. How far down along the path of the “Fall of Western Civilisation” have we reached

Take heart, LaVallette, the same illogical screwed up minds that condemn Boenhoeffer and war in general, seem to embrace abortion, islamic suicide bombers, evil regimes, murderous dictators like the Iranian president and see these killings as justified. (Think TEC, RW, Tony Blair)

Their minds are clouded, confused and darkened by committing AND approving sin and by rejecting and supressing God’s Truth. (Romans 1:18-32; Proverbs 4:19)

Usually, the rejection of God’s Truth begins with in earliest childhood (sins committed against the child, trauma, loss, abandonment, fatherlessness, deceptions build in the mind of a child and lead to sinful choices, addictions, obsessions (strongholds) in the child) that the enemy uses to distort the image and truth of God, to prevent the healing and deliverance from sin, to keep the child in his evil destructive power.

Tiller’s provision of abortions was obviously evil. His murder was also obviously evil. Where this society is losing even more of its humanity is in the evils that are easier for people to rationalize, such as “emergency contraception” – where the humanity of the victim isn’t as obvious or in the killing of people in order to harvest genetic material for Mengele research.

I think James is a troll. he comes in here with a self satisfied smirk, compliments the place and then proceeds to insult with his “gun” spiel.

He writes: “So my honest question is: given you believe in gun ownership – not for fun or for sport but to oppose evil within and done by the government – and that you believe that abortion is literally a “holocaust” supported by the government – then it would seem that Scott Roeder’s actions are not to be condemned. Rather they are morally imperative.”

First, it’s not “an honest question”, its a leading question. Second, who said everyone here believes in gun ownership, and third, how does he know it’s not “for fun or for sport”? If I were to have a gun, it would certainly be for sport. I am not averse to hunting, but my guess is our “liberal” friend James probably is.

And then he wants to snare someone into saying the unthinkable, so he can run off the Kos or Huffington with the quote. A##hole. Don’t feed him.

Saudi Arabia just beheaded and crucified a child molester who killed a kid, and the kid’s father when he came looking for him. Did he deserve to die like that? Probably, but it’s still barbaric, and that was done by the legal authorities there. How much more barbaric when someone in a so called civilized country takes the law into their own hands.

There isn’t any justification for what happened to Tiller.

As far as James goes, I fail to see the connection between a Constitutional guarantee of a right to bear arms and the murder of a doctor who was performing an act that is also constitutionally guaranteed. However much I may feel that Roe v Wade was mistaken, and I do, it is still the law of the land. Likewise with Heller vs the District of Columbia.

As for the main point, I think the posters above, especially our proprietor here have stated the moral issues fairly and honestly. That abortions are an atrocity does not justify murdering someone who performs them.

All the violence will accomplish is to harden the hearts of those who are involved with abortions and make them less likely to repent.

Our purpose here is not to bring sinners to judgment, but to repentance. If there is anyone reading this who does not fear God’s Justice, then you need to re-examine your own deeds and thoughts. Cutting off a sinner from the opportunity of seeking God’s Mercy can never be a just action.

/rant

As far as James, I agree with janjan he is a probably a troll, Anyone who suddely shows up saying “I’m going to hell. No doubt about it” as if people here had commented in such a a way and says “you people” believe in gun ownership (who’s the “you”?) is trolling to bait people.

James – I am answering this without reading through the other comments, so forgive if I repeat.

The reason Americans reserve the “right to bear arms” is only partly a hedge against governmental tyranny. Statistics show that where crimes against persons decreases where a concealed carry law is in effect. That’s because the bad guys who don’t follow the law to start with have enough sense to know they might be attacking a person who can defend himself/herself.

The reason you are hearing condemnation of this heinous act is that it’s not related to the right to bear arms. It was a vigilante act, outside the norms of justice. America is conceived as a nation of laws, however much we fail to live up to that. This act was lawless and, therefore, a threat to the whole community.

FWIW, your comment didn’t sound trollish to me at all.

In addition to offering prayers of supplication for the soul of both George Tiller and his murderer, I think the pro-life Christian response also includes fasting and prayer in reparation for the sin of this murder and the sin of abortion.

We need to pray for God’s mercy for Dr. Tiller and his family, as well as the person who murdered Dr. Tiller.

I am quite content to let God take care of deciding the eternal destiny of Dr. Tiller and his murderer.

The sad thing about this is that anti-abortion activists will be painted as vigilante killers so as to bully legislators into making some bad laws retricting the rights of those who oppose abortion. There was a bit of fear-mongering in the article that Chris linked.

This kind of independent action does great harm to the cause of pro life activism.

I am sure the “authorities” are not going to waste too much time investigating the motive of the shooter. If he were a jealous husband or someone who had been wronged by the doctor that would be some good news. But I suspect, like most of us here, that this guy was a lone-gun vigilante.

Peace!

Sorry, James. Instead of pretending to be honest in your trolling, please consider it next time in at least a half-honest fashion.

Although I believe in the Second Amendment, I don’t own a gun and haven’t ever wanted one. Not even when the guy next door turned his mother’s home into a honest-to-goodness crackhouse and found out I was working with the police to get him put away and the crackhouse shut down. I did buy a slingshot (and steel shot), but never used it — not even for target practice.

I don’t own a gun, even though a supervisor a few levels up watched me digging a highly toxic waste dump without telling me there was anything dangerous about the area; mainly because I don’t want anyone thinking that I could be capable of a fatal kind of vengeance should I be stricken with a debilitating condition someday.

Please note that I don’t own a gun because I don’t want one, not because I think there would be something wrong with owning one.

As to the media coverage, I remember a few years ago when someone was shot at an abortion site in Boston. The media trumpeted against pro-lifers, but, internet to the rescue, it turned out the guy was shooting randomly, at pro-life protesters as well as abortion providers. He just missed the pro-lifers. Also, it turned out he wasn’t associated with the pro-life movement, but was simply nuts.

Janjan, I cannot concur with your example from Saudi Arabia. How can beheading be construed as barbaric? Our culture has done that for centuries up until the mid 17th century, and it was generally seen as more humane and honorable than hanging with a rope. if one accepts capital punishment in principle, which Scripture clearly allows, then it seems wrong to make squeemishness a moral principle. Beheading, if done properly, is more humane than the electric chair, the gas chamber and many other forms of execution. The Guillotine only aquired a bad image because of its political use, not because it was barbaric. Making execution look less frightening is actually a sophisticated way to make it more monstrous. It should look ugly, and the people should be made to look at it and know that such ugliness had to be done because of the evil done that called for it.

I would say that, if “barbarism” is defined by the absense of civilization, we are close to barbarism in this country because of our refusal to properly punish wickedness.

Actually, I think I remember a liberal “james” commenter from a few years back. He does raise a good point (which may or may not be a form of trolling), which is about when to use our right to bear arms. I agree completely that over 40 million Americans have been murdered by abortion doctors under the legal icense of the law. As he points out, we would not tolerate the state-sanctioned killing of 1.5 million of our countrymen every year. The question is what is the appropriate response:

1. The Christian response is prayer. We are not called to violence to to be as sheep led to the slaughter. It’s not passive but pacific resistance.

2. The political response depends on why a person opposes abortion. If you believe that all human life should be protected, then “killing people to show that killing people is wrong” is an incoherent response. OTOH, if a hypothetical future government decided to kill 1 in 5 Americans to make a point, I’ll probably meet my end with a gun in each hand. But that’s not a Christian response.

One could also argue some finer points about the legitimacy of a government, how best to effect legal changes, and whether changing the legal regime or mainstream opinion matter more. The important point is that Christians are called to refrain from violence.

And because it does need to be said, I completely oppose murdering abortion providers, for whatever reason.

James, You ask this question of gun toting, misogynist, homophobes, intent on imposing a Patriarchal Fundementalist Theocracy on the entire nation by whatever means necessary? Wow you like to live dangerously.

Matthew said…

“[I] fail to see the connection between a Constitutional guarantee of a right to bear arms and the murder of a doctor who was performing an act that is also constitutionally guaranteed.”

I am a strict Constitutionalist. You will have to show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees a person the right to an abortion.

“I may feel that Roe v Wade was mistaken, and I do, it is still the law of the land.”

I probably don’t need to remind you that every action taken by Hitler against the Jews, gypsies, mentally ill and others was perfectly legal under German law.

Satan is clearly rejoicing in the many facets of this.

James, I’m not a gun-owning American – don’t like guns, and on top of that am anti-capital punishment – but I’ll take a chance at what you asked:

(1) “In other words: I’m bound for hell, no question about it.”

There is always a question about it. We are constrained to believe in the existence of Hell; we are not constrained to believe anyone is there. We certainly are not permitted to say, as certain knowledge, X is in Hell no matter who X may be or what X has done.

(2) “… it would seem that Scott Roeder’s actions are not to be condemned. Rather they are morally imperative.”

No more than it is “morally imperative” to shoot a man because he is a rapist/murderer/arsonist/drug dealer. Certainly not for a private citizen, acting neither as a police officer in the course of his duty, nor as a soldier during wartime, to do such a thing. Ten times not in these circumstances, when the man was acting as an usher in a church and not in his clinic. And before you ask – no! not even if he was in his clinic.

God have mercy on him. Monster indeed.

From its website, Reformation Lutheran is ELCA.

In other words, it’s “TEC” pronounced with a German accent.

Wrong.

It’s TEC with a Scandinavian accent. The Germans are in the Missouri Synod, AFAIK not making excuses for abortion.

Mr. Hathaway, was it alright to behead him, crucify him and display the body? (which is what they did).

I’m really glad that scenario doesn’t jibe with our jurisprudence. I am also pleased that we don’t sanction public executions, which were like a form of entertainment historically. And what is more, we don’t throw offenders to the lions, or have gladitorial fights to the death, AFAIK.

One creep offs another one. Two problems solved at the same time. Both of them were self righteous demented moral freaks. Seems like a reasonable solution to the problems they each caused. I think the Doc no doubt won the murder contest hands down. He is odds on a worse speciment than his killer. Still, a bad idea.

the pilgrim, agreed.

As for right to abortion being constitutionally protected, it is because the Supreme Court said so. That’s the way government works in the US of A.

By mentioning the Nazi’s you have invoked Godwin’s law.

However, I’m not defending them either.

we are not constrained to believe anyone is there. We certainly are not permitted to say, as certain knowledge, X is in Hell no matter who X may be or what X has done.

Well, except if that “who” is Satan. So at least one person is there.

Not to wholeheartedly condemn this murder would not only play into the hands of those who believe in abortions (not only those who really think it’s about “choice” but also those who believe in using it for eugenic and other evil purposes) but also in itself is anti-life!!

Murder is murder, and two wrongs most definitely NEVER make a right! Definitely this was an absolutely EVIL act!!!

The paranoid thought that comes to my mind is: could some left-wing cabal who had something personal against Dr. Tiller have organized this atrocity so as to be able then to scapegoat the pro-life movement as part of a demonization process leading eventually to full-fledged persecution of Christianity?

[Such apparently-mad events triggered both Hitler's destruction of civil rights for Nazi Germany (burning of the Reichstag) as well as Stáljin's purges (murder of the popular Communist regional leader Kírov) leading to many of his other purpored "enemies" being done away with (e.g., Bukhárin, Tukhachjóvskiy, Jágoda {later on Jezhóv}).]

Fuinseoig: “We certainly are not permitted to say, as certain knowledge, X is in Hell no matter who X may be or what X has done.”

This doctrine is better than extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

(Revised and improved)

Fuinseoig says with certainty: “We certainly are not permitted to say, as certain knowledge, X is in Hell no matter who X may be or what X has done.”

This doctrine is better than extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Dear Fuinseoig, thank you so very much for relating the story of the Serb doctor and ex-abortionist Stojan Adašević (pronounced “Stóyan Adáshevich”), upon whom Our Lord Took pity and sent His disciple St. Thomas Aquinas to shock, shame and lead him into becoming a Christian pro-life figure and a leader of the Serb pro-life movement.

In the former Yugoslavia (as in all communist countries), abortions were legal up to 12 weeks at all times (and probably they were done even later); and in all those atheist societies life was pretty cheap! People were taught it was merely the “excision of foreign tissue that hadn’t yet developed into an independent entity of life.” Thus, for Dr. Adašević to be shaken up after 26 years of such a career surely was a monumental event in the man’s life.

When he realised that he indeed was committing murder, especially when he actually saw a foetus bleeding in the midst of one of his procedures (he then was trying a different technique in an attempt to allay his conscience – it became the event that ended his abortion career, simultaneously with St. Thomas Aquinas’ nocturnal visits to him), he had to endure an extended period of severe persecution. He was subjected to grave political pressure and harassment in the form of jibing, pay-cuts, near-firing and relegation of status. When he was near the giving-up point, the saint then told him “You are my good friend. Keep it up.” He also then, hitherto a typical atheist since boyhood, rejoined the Serbian Orthodox Church he had known as a child and had his faith reinstated and deepened.

Thus, we can only thank God that He Changed this doctor’s heart as He Did with Saul of Tarsus (who became St. Paul).

Janjan, if they crucified him after they beheaded him then we are really only talking about dramatic acts done to a corpse. I am not so sure that I would throw aspersions of barbarity for this fact alone or for the public act of execution, something we did up until the turn of the last century, not while we so-called civilized nations permit the dismembering in secret of innocent babies. Better a public execution of a child killer than a secret and “sanitized” murder of a child in the womb.

There are many things for which to criticize the Saudis as bloodthirty barbarians, but this wasn’t one of them.

By mentioning the Nazi’s you have invoked Godwin’s law.

Actually, Matthew, I think you mean that pilgrim triggered, or rather demonstrated, Godwin’s law. It isn’t a law that can really be invoked, but if it were it would be you that invoked it.

But, like the term “fascist”, it is often more used than understood.

Oh, and that’s only the way it works in our government because the Supreme Court says that is how it works, which is a rather circular argument. That power isn’t in the Constitution itself. I would personally like to see Marbury V Maddison declared null and void by Congress or the President. They won’t, because the power grab made by the Marshall Court then fits in perfectly with the power grabs they are making now.

I’m not a troll: well not posting under something like my real name anyway.

I didn’t mean to imply all Americans were gun owners; anti abortion – my question was directed to those that were. And for what it’s worth, it is a serious question:

if you consider abortion murder, state sponsored murder, literally genocide: when does a Christian have a moral obligation to engage in peaceful civil disobedience, or ultimately armed struggle, to stop that evil. This is (admittedly) directed especially towards US gun owners, because well you have the means, and I’ve certainly read arguments that one of the purpose of gun ownership is defence against the government.

I will also argue (as an Anglican) that – in my memory at least – apartheid was considered a moral evil serious enough to warrant both civil disobedience and armed struggle by Anglican bishops.

And I’m sorry to involve the Godwin analogy again – whoever first called abortion a holocaust did that – but if the doctor was kill Jews against their will, would armed struggle be appropriate? or at least civil disobedience. And in such a circumstance, wouldn’t saying: “And the damage it will do to the pro-jew cause is immeasurable.” – frankly be immoral?

james, if it reaches the point in the USA where people are truly convinced that the government is completely out of control and armed resistance and overthrow are necessary, then those guns might be used against government forces. We’re not there, and hope we never will be. We do have a history of revolution, of course, but it was a different era.

Until (and I hope it’s never) we reach that point, we have to uphold the rule of law. In a nation so vast and composed, now, of so many different ethnic, religious, and racial groups, the rule of law is what holds us together. I may disagree with the law, and in the case of abortion, I most definitely do, but that does not give me a warrant to go enforcing what I think “justice” is. Justice in an organized and lawful society means the imposition of the legal penalty after a trial and conviction according to the law. You’re asking if, to right one wrong (abortion), I should take my gun out and commit another wrong, one which, if enough people take this option, will blow our whole society into smithereens. We shouldn’t go there, and this shooter was wrong to do so.

This is directed especially towards US gun owners, because you have the means

Well, that then becomes a prudential matter, for we are talking about ends and means and how they relate. The ends should justify the means, but it is not just the desired end but the effective end that we must consider: what will be the practical consequence of using certain means to acheive a desired end? will it be effective and will it produce more evil than it eliminates.

Frankly, I believe it is morally justified to forcibly stop abortionists even if it means killing them. But have I really prevented the killing of a baby by stopping one hired assassin? As long as the mother still wants to kill it and society allows for the murder the baby will still be in danger. What will I have solved by those means? I must consider whether I have stopped the practice of abortion by this act or whether I have contributed to its continuance by hardening the hearts of those who do not see it as murder the way that I do. And if by my attempt to stop one injustice I contribute to greater chaos and lawlessness such that more evil results have I not made a bad situation worse?

The proper end is stopping this holocaust. This involves winning the hearts and minds of the nation, which is hard to do through weapons of violence.

Besides, practically speaking, a gun alone is not really much more effective than a knife or bare fists when we are talking about overthrowing a well armed government. The possession of guns as a defense against oppression is not the same thing at all as having them as an offensive means. To resist and overthrow a government would require massive armaments and considerable organization.

Great response Katherine, and James, I apologize for calling you a troll. I thought from the tone of your first post that you were playing us. Thank you for clearing that up.

And Christopher Hathaway? You’re scarin’ me. Cut it out!

The state of our nation’s soul should scare you, Janjan.

Thanks for answering Chris & Janjan. Yes, James is serious (or at least not a troll). A serious liberal if you will

(although, let’s say I’d call myself an “open liberal” – I’m with Rowan

I am honestly interested in these question – both as regards gun ownership / use
(NZ has a high rate of ownership, but absolutely no “rights” tradition of gun ownership, nor a tradition of keeping them to use against the state).
In NZ gun ownership (like driving a car) is a privilege and given to people
who will not abuse that privilege.

I’m also interested in ‘Christian’ (aka evangelical / conservative) rhetoric about these questions. I – at least – find Christopher’s position consistent: it
is basically the same as my position (and Tutu, and Rowan Williams’) position
on apartheid. If one thinks abortion is that serious then this seems to me to be the logical Christian position – arguments about maintaining civil order, obedience to law (which is clearly unchristian), or the US constitution sounds to me like US exceptionalism.

Not so much here, but e.g. on StandFirm we hear arguments about how Christians will be persecuted for – e.g. – not wanting to employ gay people in clerical jobs (or even as cleaners, or as teachers in state-funded church schools) – people who are willing not to explicitly challenge the ethos of the organizations where they work. (yes the lifestyle may be an implicit challenge). I – again honestly – don’t understand why people are so concerned about this, but seem much less concerned about being involved in a polity that they consider “sponsors genocide”. I really don’t get it.

James, I have to take exception to your statement that here in the US we have a “tradition of keeping guns for use against the State”. Most Americans would say they keep a gun for self defence against crime (like intruders) or for sport, either marksmanship or hunting. It’s not like every third person is a member of a “militia”. Sheesh!

I am married to a Brit and my sister lives in London (as I used to) and I know the tone of the news coverage of the US is usually mocking, jealous, or overly emphasizing either our weight, our gun ownership, our death penalty in some states of our generally outspoken faith in God.

Perhaps NZ has the same sort of coverage. I really don’t understand, are you saying that “if you think abortion is THAT serious” (and I assume you don’t think it’s much more serious than wart removal) we should, by virtue of our beliefs, be prepared to commit murder? In what twisted world?

James:

The following article addreses the issue of armed rebellion in the context of preventing abortion pretty well.

http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/rice.htm

James, when you are talking about a position of authority in a religious institution, being openly and unrepentently gay is an explicit challenge to the teaching of the church. Even in positions of lesser weight still hamper the moral witness of the church. Forcing a religious institution to hire people engaged in immoral activity is in fact denying religious institutions the right to express it faith.

When it comes to abortion, if you talk about Christian hospitals or doctorsbeing forced to perform abortions you will get the same protests. There is no inconsistency there.

James, when you are talking about a position of authority in a religious institution…

But I’m not – and I don’t think anyone is. There was court case in the UK, were a diocese was required to employ a youth worker who self-identified as gay. He also claimed to be celibate, and explicitly said he accepted that he needed to remain so in the position. School teachers personal lives may be more problematic (again we’re not talking about explicit statements here) = in the UK. most church school teachers are state funded. I hope we’re not talking about cleaners and janitors..

The following article addreses the issue of armed rebellion in the context of preventing abortion pretty well.

Right. And I guess the question is whether the conditions for a justified rebellion (to use those terms) have been met. It is not obvious to me that they have not been met.

James, “youth worker”??? Does it occur to you that some people might think children should be shielded from those who might be sexually attracted to them? Furthermore, if a church wants to teach its youth then a “youth worker” is definitelly a position of authority.

Does it occur to you that some people might think children should be shielded from those who might be sexually attracted to them?

Sure. But most pedophiles aren’t actually gay.

Furthermore, if a church wants to teach its youth then a “youth worker” is definitelly a position of authority.

Require ordination or some equivalent and then it is clear that the position will be exempt from anti-discrimination legislation.

My point is: I really, really don’t understand how this can be one tenth or one hundredth as important as a “holocaust”. I don’t understand how anti-discrimination legislation can lead to Christianity becoming illegal, or even be worth splitting even ECUSA over (much less the CoE or the worldwide communion) — when it seems abortion is not.

Well James, I became a Catholic so as not to be inconsistent.

You have hit on the major difference between the U.S. and people in the British orbit, when you say “require ordination or some equivalent……exempt from anti-discrimination legislation.”

British people are dieing to be regulated, censored, and told what to do by their government. That’s why we call it a nanny state.

We, on the other hand , would like to think reasonable people can be trusted to do the reasonable thing without having to be told by Big Brother.

As far as the ECUSA is concerned, it’s not worth splitting, it’s worth abandoning.

Janjan: “As far as the ECUSA is concerned, it’s not worth splitting, it’s worth abandoning.”

Yep. That’s what I’ve been saying. And for those who are not abandoning it, then they are enabling its continued heresy and apostasy.

But most pedophiles aren’t actually gay.

Well, if you check the stats you will find that a larger percentage of Gays are pedophiles or more likely pederasts than the straight population.

Require ordination or some equivalent and then it is clear that the position will be exempt from anti-discrimination legislation.

How about not forcing people to put their children in the care of possible perverts unless they follow YOUR rules?