About the fate of Tiller the Killer, I feel nothing...nothing.
Tiller is in hell.
And I’d rather go before St. Pete with his killers resume than Tillers.
bump
The writer hasn't offered any means to draw the distinction by which Hitler might be stopped. When the law can not resolve a conflict, when the law is itself the problem, you are in a state of war by definition.
About the fate of Tiller the Killer, I feel nothing...nothing.
The Romans 13 reference is a strong Scriptural basis for what we as Evangelical Christians understand.
It is wrong to break the laws of the land and commit murder even if we feel the murder to be somehow justified.
The ends do NOT justify the means. Utilitarian ethics do NOT apply when it comes to the laws of God.
I appreciate his attempt to steer pro-lifers away from violence, but given that he’s based his argument on Romans 13, I wonder how the author would defend the American Revolution. Maybe he wouldn’t, I suppose.
Having done a good deal of work on John Milton and the Puritan Revolution of 1640, I am familiar with that Pauline doctrine about obeying the Powers that Be, because they are of God.
Both Catholics and Protestants have generally agreed to this principle and based their laws on it.
But both Catholics and Protestants have argued that there are times when an exception can be made. Not if a ruler is somewhat bad. Not if you personally are being treated unjustly. But disobedience and revolt are permitted when a certain line is crossed, when a magistrate cease to be a ruler and becomes an unjust tyrant.
A familiar biblical instance, often cited in history, is King Saul’s replacement by King David. If God gives His support to a magistrate (the usual historical term for kings and other rulers in this context), then God can also withdraw His support. The question is, how do you know that?
It seems to me contradictory for Protestants to argue that this rule can have no exceptions, because how then can they justify Martin Luther’s revolt against the Powers that Were in his time?
Deciding whether matters have gone so far that revolt is justified is, of course, a very difficult and uncomfortable decision. As it happens, the matter has arisen recently in the case of Obama. Would revolt against his tyrannical proclivities be justified? Probably not, unless things go further than they have gone so far, or unless the violence begins from his side.
St. Thomas Aquinas argues, along with many others, that an unjust law need not be obeyed. That doesn’t usually arise in the case of abortion, since the law does not require anyone to have an abortion but rather permits it; but it could arise if, for instance, Obama required Catholic hospitals or doctors to perform abortions against their consciences. That would not require anyone should violate his conscience and kill babies just because Obama, Pelosi, and Reid demanded it. The law would be unjust.
Killing an abortionist is another matter. But I don’t really think that Paul’s doctrine applies in this case. Rather, what applies is the injunction against murder, balanced against the desire to defend innocent babies from future killings by a determined abortionist. America’s laws against murder are, generally, just, and should be obeyed. But Roe v. Wade was a violation of our basic constitutional protection of the right to life, as well as a violation of the Constitutional requirement that the federal government cannot vacate state laws on a whim.
So, what I would say is that the matter is much more complicated than this article suggests. It certainly is not desirable to go around shooting people without legal excuse. But nor is it desirable to stand there smiling and applauding while someone like Tiller does his murderous work.
Here’s the dillema and why I think the author can be wrong.
Abortion is murder of a human life.
Certain abortions are legal.
When the law legalizes immorality, what do you follow as a follower of Christ and a citizen of Heaven, at the same time being a citizen of a nation? Do you stop the murderer? How do you stop the murderer from government-sanctioned murder?
If you let them go on is the blood not on your hands as well?
Take the idea a different way: a man is about to kill a newborn baby, taken from its mom. If you could stop him but have to kill him to do so, would you? Now back to the scenario - you have a man about to kill a baby before its born, and the mom wants the man to kill the baby, and the government says it’s okay - so because of those two new factors it stops you from stopping the guy from killing the baby?
So...under this concept, because hiding Jews was illegal in Nazi Germany, then the Christian thing to do would be to turn in Anne Frank and other Jews who are being hidden?
I don’t buy it.
Also, in colonial America we were violating King George’s law by rebelling against him, so you’re saying that, too, was un-Christian?
Ed
The Scriptural principle is “do not return evil for evil, but good for evil.†You cannot make a logically consistent argument that because Tiller was killing human beings, therefore I have the right to kill Tiller. Two wrongs do not make a right. God has instituted the government and given it the power of the sword, not individuals. I have no sympathy for Tiller, and I can understand the desire to stop this monster, but killing Tiller is also murder.
What about working within the system to change it to represent moral values of the majority of people? The government as set up in this God blessed nation is supposed to represent the will of the people. The way courts have changed from honoring The Law into interpreting, changing and working off precedents instead of the merits of each individual case based on how God said to judge justly are why this moral dilemma exists in the first place.
Abortion is a violation of natural law. Once prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath, subsequently changed for the sake of political correctness.
Original
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
MODERN VERSION (No Abortion)
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
The irony is that Scott Roeder is in jail for one murder, while Tiller was able to commit legal murder of thousands of people for years and years and there was no stopping him, as the entire legal system was on his side.
Sorry but I don’t believe in God or his promises. Abortionists and abortion advocates will be destroyed on sight. Anyone stupid enough to discuss abortion in my presence will immediately have their eyes gouged out. They will suffer the same fate as all other murderers, rapists, an genocidal vermin.
As long as I am forced to live in this horrible disgusting world, I will bring my vengeance and wrath upon them all.
Tiller once said “Abortion is worth going to hell for”. I agree with him 100%.