Posted on 09/04/2003 12:33:34 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:16:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I have thought about it, and I'm stumped. Which is why I put the question to you. Kindly tell me why the great majority of American Christian clergy would justify violence in the self defense of the born, but condemn it when in defense of the unborn, even though they mostly loudly proclaim the full humanity of the unborn?
I see no rhyme or reason to it, but can only assume that you do as you apparently agree with them.
So I repeat, what is the answer to your question?
I really would like to understand your position, and so I respectfully request your indulgence and ask that you will answer the question once again, and directly.
I just wish that so many would similarly recognize them for what they are, and not excuse those whose putative views they agree with.
I expect this "martyr" nonsense from the Muslim Extremists; it is frightening coming from my own countrymen.
Even worse is the fact that the same sort of "leaders", Preachers (think "mullahs") exhort it in almost all cases. Can no one see the similarity anymore?
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . We Americans believe that our rights are FACTS OF NATURE and of Nature's God, and thus whether one accepts that fact or not in no way vitiates the existence of the right.
In short, it matters not a whit whether you or I or anybody else accept that the fetus is human that is endowed BY ITS CREATOR (note well, not be any government) with the unalienable Right to Life - that Right exists and is unalienable whether we accept it, like it, know it, want it.
Like the law of gravity, the Natural Moral Law stands outside and above us. All men, and indeed all human institutions, are subject to the Natural Law, just as all objects are subject to Newton's Law of Gravity.
I'm sorry, but I can't defend my citizenship OR patriotism more directly with you...I'm overseas right now defending YOURS.
Your statement was, however, arrogant, insulting, and offensive, not to mention destructive of any cedibility you may have possesed.
Oh, and by the way, when you quote the Declaration of Independance, you might try remembering that, whilst indeed one of our Founding Documents, it is the Constitution, and not it, which carries the force of law.
But alas, I have seen no compelling arguments to the contrary. Go back and look at this thread - not a single one of my arguments have been met, but only avoided.
Your argument that "it's against the law" assumes that the law always must be obeyed. But this directly contradicts the very foundations of our Republic.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government . . .
It is clear. Our Founders most emphatically did not facilely conflate the "moral" with the "legal" as you appear to do. These men declared war against an established and recognized government (and spilled buckets of blood in the process) when they were compelled in conscience to conclude that the regime of King George had strayed so far from the law of Nature and Nature's God that it had lost all legitimacy, and that duty called them to fight.
Now, I humbly submit that the grievances Washington and Jefferson had against King George pale in comparison to the "long train of abuses and usurpations" that our own regime inflicts on us. Even King George didn't protect the murderers of innocents.
Again, somebody please prove me wrong. Give me at least one good argument, because trust me I want to believe.
But alas, I see no way around it.
And while they may have had their genesis (call the pun police!) in religious law, the laws of the nation are maintained and employed by the consent of the governed. Thus, they all must be agreeable to a majority of the People to be enacted. That way, they cover EVERYONE, of all religions or none. We do not "eat, drink, or be merry" because we have ENFORCEABLE laws against such things.
Although Christianity was undeniably the dominant religion when America was founded, there are literally thousands of different religions here now. They all have rights, as well as those who choose to practice no religion at all.
No matter HOW some people try to make it so, Christianity was not made the state religion.
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.