Posted on 06/01/2009 6:00:53 AM PDT by tcg
Aren't we overdoing the moaning and wailing over this monster's murder? Sure it's a crime and I abhor all murder, especially children in the womb. And I would never condone any act of violence against abortion providers. But all and all they're monsters and good and decent people are murdered every day and I never read how we're all supposed to decry those foul deeds.
Tiller is not the problem here. Your way of thinking is *amazingly* short sighted and self defeating. Governments now have such unbelievable firepower relative to the citizenry that anyone who even shows the *potential* to mount any sort of armed insurrection are dealt with preemptively(e.g. Rubyridge, Waco). The government *loves* using violence because it's what they're best at.
Pardon soccermom - you seem to have misunderstood the questions.
When I asked what the dividing line here for extraordinary measures I meant in general - not in this specific case. You seem to be making an argument that there are extra-ordinary measures which can dismiss our responsibility to accept the rule of law and work within it. I’m just trying to find out what those boundaries are in general. For example: Does having to elect two new officials always count or does the power of the office have something to do with it? (e.g. It’s an extraordinary measure to have to remove a Governor but not a dogcatcher. That sort of thing.)
Also - I know I’m personally free to decide what I want. I’m curious as to whether you believe individuals, in general, should get to decide when extraordinary measures justify abandoning the rule of law or if there are specific and objective guidelines or boundaries we must follow. Do I just get to wake up one day and say “This is intolerable!” and start shooting? If not, why not?
To clarify the last question - Lets say that the Tiller killer had instead targeted the governor and the prosecutor for death. Would that have required more or less of an extraordinary measure to kill them instead? If not, why not? If so, why so?
I agree even though I have questions about the legitimacy of a church which would tolerate his membership. I've never been a member of a church which would not have excommunicated Tiller.
You can look up this “church”’s positions online,
it is clearly apostate and by no means should be considered a “House of God”.
“Aren’t we overdoing the moaning and wailing over this monster’s murder?”
I regard ANY destruction of human consciousness as a tragedy - but I take your point.
I’m simply not shocked that this happened though and I regard that as most distressing for the rule of law. Especially when I see people (elsewhere online and on earlier threads this weekend) suggesting that a sort of “the law be damned!” approach.
BTW - aren’t you reading people decry those foul deeds here and now?
I mourn for Tiller like I mourn for Jeffrey Dahmer. Both were serial killers, both were killed outside of the law. Frankly, I hope that abortionists will be terrorized into quitting their business. Let them be constantly looking over their shoulders, expecting to get their heads blown off. Let it never happen, but let them be paralyzed with fear every minutes that they are living their last second on the earth.
A brutal and vicious murderer has himself been brutally and viciously murdered.....I will leave the judgment to a higher court than we can muster on this earthly plane! I know at least a few babies will live that would not have.
“I’d leave the room.”
You’re either a coward, or worse.
Faced with a moral dilemma, you vote “present”.
Terrorism: the use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes to evade democratic process.
Sure is. So what!
I am guessing, but there is a good chance knarf is referring to more of an “Enemies Foreign & Domestic” situation.
Defense against a modern military is futile, destructive to the entire neighborhood, etc.
What biologists call “selective population reduction” is another thing.
Personally, I think America will manage this war between collectivists and American individualists in a not violent manner.
Never to be forgotten is Margaret Thatcher’s famous “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”.
All socialists eventually founder on that rock. Obama will be no different.
Also referred to as "the Bowman effect" in modern parlance.
The so-what stems from my belief that nothing destroys American security and liberty more than terrorism - domestic or foreign.
If we endorse this how do we distinguish ourselves from other terrorists, revolutionaries, barbarians, etc.? If we cut down the laws and engage in terrorism where does it stop? What society will we be left with? On what basis will we seek justice? On what basis will we enforce contracts? On what basis will we seek restitution? On what basis will we seek redress from our government?
A jury and democracy do not apply when judging the law, but a Republic. This is the great error and hypocrisy of democratic “justice”.
But if their were such “jury” on what murder is, the “jury” is still confused. Our lawyers fail time and again to protect clients and instead want to discuss the law to juries (a grander job which the Supremes in their corrupt activisms have distorted).
It’s not a matter of persuasion.
I find it strange to see those condemning the act of vigilantism going vigilante on Tiller’s murder suspect.
Suffice it to say, a real man would give his body to her for sake of the child’s life. Truth be told, it’s indeed a poor and suspect way of securing this goal by murdering an abortion doctor.
Lot’s incest with his daughters illustrates the point, as well as foreshadow Mary’s virgin birth (but it were not if it had been a female Jesus, although the chromosomal miracle imports). What if the man gives his life and a girl is born instead of a boy? Would the alternative of “letting” the child die instead be allowed? (So as to insure survival of the race, or would the flesh of animals be used instead as an alternative?)
The mysteries of keeping the flame going lays in our respect of those and making sure we not test it recklessly indeed. The real murder is the confusion making due to vanities.
More than the evil “doctors”, the open activists and vanities should be targeted. Many doctors are going to be forced to perform abortions. The ones with “clean hands” laughing it off or not risk more in their interest than the performers: the devil was the true molester of the tree in intent while Adam and Eve polluted the source in fact, making the true murderer now promoted to prosecutor with a “tree” as a victim he “protects” (notwithstanding the knowledge power he profits from).
What should one really fear? Fear should not be our lot, but absence there of, and only faith and fear of Him accomplishes that... lest we err like these animal people...
You’re either a coward, or worse.Believe what you want.Faced with a moral dilemma, you vote “present”.
Who's saying that?
It's obvious the guy is going to be subject to the laws of Kansas, if not some federal show trial as well.
I haven't read anyone here say he should be "absolved" according to those laws.
Ketsu has actually made a very firm moral stand here. It’s not your moral stand - it’s certainly not conventional in FReeper circles - but that doesn’t make it less of very considered moral stand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.