ABORTION-SLAY REV EXECUTED

New York Post ^ | 9/04/03 | GERSH KUNTZMAN

[kattracks]

September 4, 2003 -- As a violent thunderstorm flickered and dimmed the lights in Florida's execution chamber, a former minister was put to death last night for murdering an abortion doctor.

Paul Hill used his last breaths to call upon right-to-lifers to continue the fight - by any means necessary.

[wimpycat]

Whether you agree with him or not, it sure was nice to see someone with real convictions.

Well, shoot! If "real convictions" is all it takes to excite your admiration, then how about these fellas? They have some "real convictions", too. They've been pushed to the limit, too, by the genocide and daily humiliations of Arab and Muslim people perpetrated by the Zionist and the Crusader, and believe they have a mandate from God, and they have the courage of their convictions. They've decided to do the will of Allah and become judge, jury, executioner and martyr, for their holy and righteous cause:

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

He didn't murder a terrorist under the scenario you described, he murdered a man in cold blood.

Two, actually. And one wasn't an abortion doctor. I suppose that person's death is just a peripheral issue to Hill's fan club...and really, what's next? The doctor's wife and kids? Friends they have over for dinner? If they associated with the guy, killing them is okay too if they're in the way, right?

This place scares the hell out of me sometimes.

[Buckeye Bomber]

You know what, I was reminded of one of the tactics of the pro-life side (of which I am mostly a part) by this side-discussion. When I was in high school, my morality class was forced to watch a video of abortions and the resulting carnage. I didn't understand the benefit of this. I think I can see now why it's so popular: it gets people to think with their blood. They stop thinking and start feeling angrier and angrier, until they end up as Paul Hill. So if we want more Paul Hill's, by all means, show as many abortions as you want. Drive around in trucks with big pictures of the carnage, and set up giant exhibits on college campuses. Or you could work with words, and appeal to people's reasonable side. But then again, reasonable appeals don't raise money, do they?

[Gil4]

How many babies did Paul Hill save? NONE. In fact, the negative publicity the pro-life movement received because of him might have enabled more

There is no way to fight this battle with lethal force because the primary culprit is the mother, not the abortionist. We can argue about the level of responsibility of people at different levels (the doctor, the abortion lobby, the government, society as a whole), but the one actually making the decision to end the life of the baby is the mother, and you can't fight her with lethal force without killing the baby too.

That was the practical argument, and I know that there is a limit to practicality - it wasn't practical for Daniel to continue to pray and be thrown into the lions' den, but it was certainly right.

Should a Christian use force to take on evils in the culture? I don't see biblical justification for it - there are no calls for it in the New Testament, and if any culture warranted it, the Roman society of that day did. Physical warfare isn’t our battle - “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph 6:12)

[Buckeye Bomber]

Only real Christian conviction counts.

[E Rocc]

Re: Ray Moore et al- My favorite part of the whole event was showing the protestors. One of them was shouting, "Why do you hate God, you God-haters?" If someone wrote that in a movie, I'd say it was sloppy writing, but an actual human being came up with that. Classic.

My favorite part was the guy who screamed at the moving crew to "get your hands off our God!". Clearly he wasn't exactly familiar with the Commandment regarding "graven images", was he?

The scary part about the whole incident is the lack of understanding people had of the issue, and the poll that showed like 90% in favor of keeping the Commandments in the courthouse. I wonder how many more Paul Hills and Eric Rudolphs there are waiting in the wings.

Inevitably, one of those people would say that the Commandments aren't even religious...just good rules to live by. This proved their unfamiliarity with them, as several are quite explicitly religious. Indeed, the Constitution protects the right to violate at least three of them, and in reality more like four.

Another point you bring up intereste me as well: which version of Christianity is the United States going to follow if we adopt this as our state religion? Would it please the religious if we followed Roman Catholicism, since that is the largest denomination? Who has the right version? As a Catholic with some understanding of history, theocracies are one thing I think we all want to avoid.

The Framers were extremely concerned about the idea of adopting one version of Christianity: Catholics and Protestants had fought the vicious Thirty Years War a century and a half before. Madison even pointed out that a government with the power to Establish Christianity in general would have the power to Establish one sect of same.

Half my family is Catholic (a second cousin was a Cardinal)so I'm attuned to anti-Catholic bigotry. I've heard vociferous "Christians" claim that Roman Catholics aren't even Christians, so IMO the answer is obvious. Indeed, it's not the Catholics that are typically in the forefront of campaigns for religiously inspired laws (Sunday closing laws, prohibition, school prayer, etc) , but some of the more fundamentalist Protestant sects. Indeed, the plaintiffs in the court decision banning sanctioned student-led prayer at public school extracurricular activities weren't atheists as is commonly believed. They were Catholics and Mormons.

-Eric

[MEG33]

"This place scares the hell out me sometimes".It's been that kind of morning!

[strela]

This place scares the hell out of me sometimes.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

[Catspaw]

Two, actually. And one wasn't an abortion doctor. I suppose that person's death is just a peripheral issue to Hill's fan club...and really, what's next? The doctor's wife and kids? Friends they have over for dinner? If they associated with the guy, killing them is okay too if they're in the way, right?

Do you remember Clayton Waagner, another Army of God member? He's the guy who sent out hundreds of fake anthrax letters to abortion clinics after he escaped from jail. He said he'd kill anyone who worked for abortion clinics, including secretaries and janitors. The Army of God holds to your idea that if someone is associated with an abortion doc or abortion clinic, he or she is fair game for them.

[E Rocc]

Even the Declaration was written from a Deist viewpoint and certainly cannot be twisted to interpret the viewpoint that "God's Laws" must be enforced even upon nonbelievers.

Certainly not all religious laws should be forced upon non-believers. Sunday church attendance and dietary laws come to mind.

The idea behind our laws isn't that "not all" should be. It's that none should be..that all laws should have a secular purpose.

But that's not what we're talking about here. Our Republc was founded upon the notion that there exists a Natural Law that is discernible by observation and reason, and to which all are subject just as they are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. For the Founders, the right to life and freedom and the corollary rights of self defense and revolution are not mere "constructs" that can be repealed by general agreement. The Declaration embodies this notion of the Natural Moral Law, and I think it clear that the acceptance of the principles of the Declaration is the sine qua non of Americanism.

When Jefferson (who was a Deist, not a Christian) mentioned the Creator in the Declaration, he did so in a very deist sense, not in a Christian sense. Indeed, even though he personally did not subscribe to "clockmaker" Deism (where the Creator made man and his surroundings and let them run on their own), the Creator references in the Declaration are not inconsistent with this idea.

Thus, I stand by my statement that nobody could deny that man is "endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights," including most relevantly here the "right to life" and claim ownership of the American tradition.

There is however, a question of when "human life" begins. IIRC, according to Jewish beliefs it begins at birth.

I respectfully reiterate my request that somebody here offer a rational argument as to why Hill's actions are unjustifiable given the reality of the humanity of the fetus, the natural right to the use of violence in the defense of self and others, and the supremacy of the Natural Law over all man made laws, including the diktats of SCOTUS.

First of all, you are stipulating points under debate.

Second of all, the Constitution does not recognize this supremacy. Indeed, it implicitly rejects it by claiming to be the supreme law of the land.

Third of all, our nation is governed by explicit written laws. Our entire structure of government is based upon the idea that the law is written, that it is the same for everyone, and that it may only be changed by means established by the law itself. With the exception of the Civil War, that compact has kept this nation thriving and prosperous for over two centuries.

Hill took it upon himself to violate that compact. His crime was premeditated murder. His premeditation was based upon dangerous premises: that his religious beliefs were more important than our most basic law and that he was authorized to act upon same. In this way he was no different than a jihad-inspired Muslim terrorist, and he deserved the precise same fate.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Two, actually. And one wasn't an abortion doctor. I suppose that person's death is just a peripheral issue to Hill's fan club...and really, what's next? The doctor's wife and kids? Friends they have over for dinner? If they associated with the guy, killing them is okay too if they're in the way, right?

Do you remember Clayton Waagner, another Army of God member? He's the guy who sent out hundreds of fake anthrax letters to abortion clinics after he escaped from jail. He said he'd kill anyone who worked for abortion clinics, including secretaries and janitors. The Army of God holds to your idea that if someone is associated with an abortion doc or abortion clinic, he or she is fair game for them.

Then there's Eric Rudolph, who if indeed is guilty (as it most certainly appears) did a lot more than threaten...and apparently expanded the idea of "offensive to God" to public celebrations at the Olympics.

-Eric

[Centurion2000]

No, not outside the legal system. Vigilante "justice" is no justice.

You must not be a native born from Texas ...

[wgeorge2001]

"Irrelevant. Hill was a murderer and got the punishment he deserved."

Was Hill a murderer for killing a murderer? In this case I believe the answer is yes, though as a bible believing Christian I know that the doctor was guilty of murdering children also.
We Christians are called to be at peace with men and to preach the gospel at all costs, even our lives ( God will give us grace to overcome our fear of death in Christ Jesus); however, Lord Jesus also tells us by the apostle Paul in the book of Romans12:19,20,21,

"Dearly beloved, avenge not ourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengence is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

So we know as Christians that the Lord Jesus Christ will judge the manslayers (including the abortionist doctors and all those who support these murderers) in His Kingdom, (unless, of course, they repent of their murders and other sins and admit how that Jesus Christ(God in the flesh) died for these same sins and rose the third day for their justification; thereby allowing the Lord Jesus Christ to come into their lives and cleanse their sins, that God may convert them and heal them.
Or these abortionists and other manslayers can say "no" and not make peace with God the Father through the One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. All men must make that free choice on their own.
Hill did not choose to let Lord Jesus Christ choose His day of wrath for the abortionist doctor and killed the murderer and may have deprived the abortion doctor his remaining days to come to peace with God by Christ Jesus.
Not to mention the fact that Hill also murdered a security guard who probably never murdered a child his whole life; though some will point out that it is not good to work for or support murderers even if they have doctor as a precurser of thier name.
And what about the oath the doctors take concerning doing no harm to men, or do they consider young human beings something less than human, created by God in His own image.

[Catspaw]

Was Hill a murderer for killing a murderer?

Yes. Hill had a trial, was found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury. The people he shot were not granted that same trial. Hill decided he was judge, jury and executioner.

[wcbtinman]

"I donj't know how you can say the taking of any human life is murder."

After much research I have determined that the original Hebrew text of the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder", as opposed to "Thou shalt not kill"

The difference may seem semantical, but there is wrongfull murder, with intent and malice, murder in the commission of warfare, accidental murder, and the intentional, and justified murder to protect another life.

We can all agree that Hill murdered another human, the only question is whether or not that murder was justified. To answer this question truthfully, puts most all of us in an uncomfortable position because there really is no middle ground.

If you believe that life begins at conception and I don't see how anyone could objectively say otherwise, then Hill's actions, were morally justified. Notice I didn't say legally justified. The fact that the state sanctions the murder of innocents under the color of law has little to do with this. Only if you believe that the state is infallible, do you have a case to vilify and execute Hill for stopping the wholesale slaughter of innocent children.

Another poster has rightfully chastized the rest of us who believe that this is allowed to occur due to our inaction and he rightfully points out that we will be held accountable before God for it. To take such action, in the face of his own execution for it takes a kind of courage that most of us will never have. And more's the pity.

[wcbtinman]

"You don't understand that killing and murder are not the same."

You don't understand that they are. It's simply that some murder is justified.

[wcbtinman]

"Paul Hill deserved what he got. He's not God, he shouldnt assume that role."

Since Hill obviously knew that he would have to answer to God for his actions I don't think he was assuming God's place.

God instructs us that in earthly matters, we are our brothers keeper, and I think that Hill was assuming that role. Hill rightly thought that abortion was no less than unjustified murder, and since it is 'legal' he couldn't work within the system to stop it.

He did the only thing his beliefs left to him.

[wcbtinman]

"Do you feel that way about the 9/11 hijackers too?"

No. They murdered innocents under the color of an apostate "religion". They are no more justified that the abortion butchers.