No. I didn't compare killing Tiller to the killing of Hitler, the writer did, and then said it was off limits.
I'm saying he either needs to draw the distinction he failed to draw, to show how it is possible to make war on Hitler given the argument he is making. I have not defended the killing of Tiller, I'm pressing to see if this writer actually believes you can't morally make war on Hitler.
I'm trying to see if he has inadvertently taken his argument too far, or if he meant to say that you can't morally make war on Hitler.
I'm not sure that in an article such as this, the author needs to draw any such distinction because the difference in the two situations is perhaps what he considered to be self-explanatory.
I agree with you. This is what is known in logic as false comparisons. The differences between killing Tiller and killing Hitler are far too great to make a logical comparison. You can take any argument to an absurdity. Would it have been wrong for an American sniper to have killed Hitler? There is a difference in killing someone in the name of Christ, and killing someone as a political act. If you think about it, you could make the argument that there should never have been an American Revolution since King George was instituted by God as the legal authority. My point is that you have clearly distinguished between the church and the state. How does anyone know for certain that God did not use Tiller’s murderer as a means to stop Tiller. If God can use Judas to betray Jesus, why not use a murderer to kill Tiller? I understand the author’s moral objectivism, for it is similar to Kant’s deontological moral philosopohy, and I certainly understand the dangers of moral relativism, but to not consider the consequences of one’s actions can lead to some unethical behavior.