Sunday, May 31, 2009


One that didn't condemn the murder

"I subscribe to over 100 blogs. Well over a dozen have commented on this. I’ve yet to see one that didn’t condemn the murder." -- Neil

Read your own damned blog, you puffed-up fake.

God. Damn.


Make that two.

EL's God Damned take on it:
I really can't believe these unholy, demonic sons-of-bitches masquerading as representatives of Christ on earth! God Damned FAKES!
EL and many others have crossed a line.

"May God have mercy on his soul... but he got what he deserved. As will we all in due course.
The irony is that Dr. George Tiller was murdered at his church. Imagine that! A man who so callously murdered viable children in the womb is himself murdered in the womb of earthly faith."

The line crossed is that of the domestic terrorist. Back in the 1960's they would be termed "fellow travelers". Yes they are supporting terrorism as surely as Tim McVeigh did. That's why they jumped on this is it not, to help spread fear and get people to behave they way they think they should though fear.
Neil tossed a shrivled old bone toward condemnation when he said "Of course we shouldn't kill abortionists"...but it is pale indeed compared to the smug, celebratory gloating of the rest of the post.
Not to introduce reason into this or anything, but any condemnations by serious pro-life folks are tactical, to avoid losing support. If one believes that abortion, particularly late term abortion, is exactly (not by analogy) murder of the innocent, then preventing late term abortions by killing a willing provider is justified and may even be a moral obligation. The question of the significance of the act being against the law of the state is a separate moral question and takes us down the path of exhuming John Brown. Democratic versus nondemocratic law is a subset of the question of legitimacy. Violent versus nonviolent resistance is an uninteresting theological question.

As far as terrorism, I'm a purist - if the intent is mainly to evoke "terror" as a way of dissuading from action, recruiting, or prompting an overreaction by a state or opposition group, that's terror. if the end is the end, whether revenge or actually destroying something or killing someone for the direct effect, then it's not terror. I don't know enough about the motives of the OKC bombers, but think it's possible it wasn't terrorism in this sense. The Tiller murder probably falls into both categories.

More analysis. Less breast-beating.
Why would anyone be the least bit surprised from any of those folks?
There is a seeming disconnect between the actual murder and all the inflammatory rhetoric that led to it. For years, there was the incessant demonizing of the man, a mob mentality that finally led a member of the mob to consider him less than human and therefore eligible for killing under God's law. (This is the "he got what he deserved" argument.) This pattern has been repeated over and over throughout history. Ultimately, there is a lack of self-examination by the "religious" people who subscribe to this way of thinking. They can't see the consequences of their own theology. So folks like Neil and EL can briefly "condemn" the killing out of one side of their mouth while continuing the kind of hate-filled language that contributed to it in the first place. EL in particular has demonized this man over and over in the name of God. His lack of humility, the judgmentalism, the callousness, is disturbing -- but, agreed -- it is not surprising. These are the consequences of failing to see the image of God in all the people God created. They're right about a judgment day coming.
I really wish I hadn't followed that link. Hypocrites and haters and about as pro-life as rabid dogs.

It's domestic terrorism pure and simple, not to mention extremely misogynistic. All those fetus-worshippers just see women as walking incubators rather than as actual human beings with a free will of their own.
Hers' the problem with any Christian, speaking as a Christian, saying anything like "he got what he deserved," or the loss of his life is "worth it" or somehow justified because he won't be performing any more abortions.

Those are very logical, very rational things to say, and, as such, they are far removed from the message of Jesus, the teacher they profess to follow.

God's way, Jesus reportedly said, would have him taking a chance that 99 of his sheep would go astray in order to save the one that wandered off. That's not rational, and it's not "good business."

God's way, Jesus reportedly said, would have a man who showed up for work at dawn, and another at noon, and another at 3, and another just before quitting time, all get paid the same wage. That's not rational, and it's not "good business."

My point being: any human application of morality or attempts to mete out "justice" or see it it in the act of this man's murder are just that: human. not holy.

And here's the other thing about judging: What Jesus reportedly said is not an admonition not to judge "left ye be judged" -- it's a warning that if you judge, you WILL be judged by the standards you by which you judge others. Whatever you bind here, will be bound for all time; whatever you loose here will be loosed for all time.
Well, then, forget the analysis! More righteous posturing! It feels as good as certain yoga forms, as long as you're practiced and warmed up!

It's good to remember the left can come up with such drag-Coulterish constructions as All those fetus-worshippers just see women as walking incubators rather than as actual human beings with a free will of their own. Should keep the the debate nice and toasty, if not particularly illuminating.

Screw the extremes, except for this one: Love your enemies.

I suck at it sometimes. But them's the marching orders. And at the very least, that means not murdering them.

That ain't righteous posturing.
Why do we need to analyze it? It's a pretty straightforward issue.

Anybody who thinks the murder of Dr. Tiller was justified for some reason is an antisocial nutcase who needs to be removed from society. No analysis required. It's not an issue of political conviction, it's an issue of these people are fucking nuts!
BTW, it's also not a Christian versus Everyone Else issue. It's pretty clear that Christianity is hardly the root of the problem. God never said "life begins at conception." Hell, the bible doesn't even really say that, pro-lifers just quote mine the hell out of the bible to make it seem like it does.

It's extremists with political agendas hiding behind religion so as to hide from criticism of their wacky beliefs.
Why am I not even surprised that someone thinks it is just "posturing" to condemn the total apathy with which the AmerikkkanDescent crowd regards human life?

"Fakers", ER, would suggest that they're attempting to at least portray themselves as something they aren't. I don't think that's true at all. I think they're pretty honest with how they portray themselves. More's the pity. They're obviously nothing more than a fetus-worshipping cult who also happen to be into human sacrifice.
TStockman, what, exactly is "debatable" about this event? I think I'm lost on that little point.

Neil is exempt from the injunction not to judge, because he has infallible access to the logic of God, and therefore can judge without fear of having said judgments fall on him.

That Dr. Tiller was murdered while serving as an usher in church is completely lost on these people. Not just Tiller, but that entire faith community, was the target of this event. I'm with Nan - terrorism, pure and simple.
Well, they are attempting to portray themselves as followers of the One who said love your enemies and don't murder them. What a joke. They're honest about who they are; and they're honestly, brazenly using the name of the Prince of Peace for something other than the advancement of the kingdom. They're using it, and him, for their own gain. Posing. Faking. They could not give a shit less about people, living or "preborn." They're liars. Fetushists. Fakes.
"Well, they are attempting to portray themselves as followers of the One who said love your enemies and don't murder them"

A matter of opinion, I guess, but I've never seen them try to portray themselves as anything but a bunch of stupid narcissistic bigoted tools. And they are certainly that.

They're for the death penalty, they're for war under any circumstances, they're for torture. Seems to me that they're entirely consistent on this matter.
Geoffrey -

Fair question amid a lot of brainless harrumphing that sort of proved my original point. Here's the crux of the matter: within the context of a value system that considers abortion very specifically state-sanctioned murder, the logical inconsistency is not that EL et al. fail to condemn the murder of an active murderer, but rather than they either lack the will to have done it themselves - or have constructed some elaborately self-interested ethical epicycle why they didn't have to do so at the cost of actually introducing some practical consequences into their blog-writing lives. Might have been funny to twit them on this. And that the largely pro-choice commenters on this blog like Ineely feel differently on the issue is just about tautalogical, and their wailing and gnashing of teeth is a substanceless shibboleth.
So, you are, what, exactly - damning both sides for neither one having the guts to follow thru on their rhetoric? Most of us don't.

Or am I still missing something. I am pro-choice, I do not consider abortion murder, and I am horrified not only that the person who committed this act of violence claims the same Name as I as his savior, but that the murdered man was killed in church, a point that has already been attacked by both right-wing bloggers and hate radio. It isn't breast-beating to get a little upset over this wanton act of terrorism; on the contrary - we need to fight back with the only weapons that count right now - our words - and insist we will not be intimidated by those who would kill in the name of life, and hate in the name of the God of Love.
The President of the United States calls for reason and moderation. A jury of Dr. Tiller's peers takes 45 minutes to acquit him of 19 charges in court recently. Then a "pro-life" advocate murders him in church on Sunday.

I love the concept of a "pro-life murder". Doesn't that sound great?
Do we have the right to be judge jury and executioner because we believe that everybody else are wrong? Did I say Tim McVeigh yet? Yes I did.
What if next time someone just parks a yellow truck full of shit next to a clinic and blows it up. Is that a pro-life activity? Why not just 'Ryder Truck' the Lutheran Church during services, I mean aren't they validating and enabling a baby killer?

It may seem strange to readers here that I am not pro-choice. I am not pro-life either. I am just to the 'left' of the middle of the argument. Just like John Spruce anyone in the middle of the road will get run over in this argument.
By the way Salon and others have pointed out the Bill O'Reily has had 28 segments on Dr. Tiller since 2005 calling him each time "Tiller the Killer".

"Tiller, O’Reilly likes to say, “destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000.” He’s guilty of “Nazi stuff,” said O’Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. “This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union,” said O’Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006."

"O’Reilly has also frequently linked Tiller to his longtime obsession, child molestation and rape. Because a young teenager who received an abortion from Tiller could, by definition, have been a victim of statutory rape, O’Reilly frequently suggested that the clinic was covering up for child rapists (rather than teenage boyfriends) by refusing to release records on the abortions performed."


Freedom of speech or incitement to murder?

I smell a lawsuit.
No, I am not condemning the folks on the pro-choice end of things for not living up to their rhetoric. I'm just pointing out it IS rhetoric. Oh goodness, back to high school philosophy class. Consider the simple syllogism:

It is right to kill murderers if necessary to prevent them from murdering again.

Abortionists commit murder.

It is right to kill abortionists if necessary to prevent them from aborting again.

Now, yeah, all these commenters don't accept the minor premise. That's fine - plenty o'arguments why they don't. I could probably list almost all of them off the top of my head - it's not like the abortion debate has been quiet or even all that complicated. However, the reasons don't exactly have a priori status with people who advance reasons why they believe that abortion (or some subset) is murder. And only a few Jainists-of-the-heart would dispute some version of the major premise.

As far as the OKC bombing is concerned - exactly. McVeigh's rhetoric by implication against the famous photograph of the dead child cradled by a fireman was "collateral damage," implicitly denying that an individual had any less right than the State to take lethal action against targets they considered legitimate with "collateral" destruction to the innocent. Now, I tend strongly to accept his denial of the Leviathan, although it pushes me more to deny the State the legitimacy of such action rather than extending the legitimacy to McVeigh and similar. But I think his morality was more thoughtful than the conventional outrage in the comments above Anything that looks "straightforward" just argues like a latter day Hazel Motes that people with a strobg community ethos don't need philosophy.
You gotta go over to 4simpsons real quick and scan down the front page looking for Neil's "multiverse" post. This is amazing!

Neil actually thinks that the multi-verse theory was proposed to counter Intelligent Design Theory.

Um. The Multiverse Theory pre-dates the Intelligent Design political movement. By a lot.

The Multiverse theory is described by mathmatics. The Intelligent Design political movment cannot be described according to any coherant organizational model.

But theoretical physisists are just scrambling to scratch up something to answer Intelligent Design with.

Uh huh. Whatever helps you sleep at night, Neil baby.
I'd also like to point out that the only way that the idea of multiple universes, or any of the versions of the theory could be a response to Intelligent Design is if scientists developed it after 1992, when Intelligent Design was created, and then went back in time to embed a series of evolving mathmatical models describing the idea of parallel and multiple universes...all the way back to when the term was first coined in the late 1800's...
...but then, that would only be remotly possible if it were actually possible that one of the theories was true. Since sucessful time-travel would necessarily create an alternate universe...
Looks like Neil just grabbed the multiverse thing off the shelf without lookin' at it very closely. Not unlike the way he "arms" himself with Scripture. Well, and history, economics, politics and about everything else.
Perhaps Neil is inadvertently conceding that ID and creationism are one and the same, rather than trying to argue the distinction as so many ID advocates are forced to do these days.

In any case, the idea that the multiverse theory was created to counter ID is ludicrous.

On topic- the barely-concealed gloating of fundamentalists that I've read over the past few days is reprehensible, doubly so since they claim to be adherents of the Prince of Peace. There's worse stuff out there than Neil and EL's contributions to the cesspool of feigned sorrow.
There is a connection between the strong anthropic principle and revived interest some time ago in multiple universe theories. There are also links between some forms of SAP and intelligent design. Maybe he's just missing some connective tissue.
Well I guess all that conservative rage about the recent DHS report on domestic terrorism was just a cover.

Seems the report was right.

As for the multiverse discussion, I just love when someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old decides to critique theoretical physics.
He just did one where he accused me of mis-stating people's views and arguments...and then proceded to completely mis-state my views and agruments. :-) Forget theoretical physics. He can't remember what happened in conversations he was in. :-)
It's like a trainwreck. You don't want to watch, but you can't look away.
Mm-mm. In his why-they-were-banned post, or ehatever, he conflates two conversations, one with me and one with GKS.

I do want popcorn a huge overpriced Coke and some Milk Duds a lot when I'm over there.
Just read the Multiverse posts and the comments. It's quite funny, in a isn't-it-depressing sort of way.
TS the problem with the pro-life syllogism is of course that it is simple. It presupposes (in real life) that a dichotomy exist, that there is a right and a wrong being dealt with. It also simplifies murder down to "killing".

I would contend that abortion, especial late term abortion, is a conflict of contending evils. Carry the child to term and risk your own life as the mother, versus,terminate the viable child.
Terminate the child you wanted or let a non-viable human be born and burden your family (see microcephalic). Every story is a different horror for the mother and family involved. At this point in a pregnancy "elective abortions" are very rare and OReilly's characterizing the 60,000 babies killed by Tiller as murder last night is simply a lie.

As for the Neals they are plainly a product of White Male Supremacy and even on that curve of behavior fall along the lower standard deviation.

The abortion argument at some very near future date will most likely become moot. As medical technology advances fetuses that are non viable or objectionable (created by rape or incest) will be "withdrawn" from the mother and kept in stasis for future adoption and/or corrective genetic procedures. These cases will be rare however because pregnancy control and selection systems will eliminate unwanted formation of a zygote or of the wrong kind. There will be little if any unwanted or incorrect "conception" to argue about in the societies with the luxury of such arguments.

Oh yes, and the lower SD of the White Male Supremacist will be classified as a neurosis treatable under the National Health Care Act.
Sheesh, you made me do it, Teresa, I clicked over there. Now I need Lysol. Or a shot of gin. Maybe both.

ROFL. He's still obsessing over a post I wrote years ago about camping. LOL. He seems to have committed the camping post to memory ... or should I say ... onanistic fantasy.

I'm not sure why he's *STILL* obsessing over me, I was banned and haven't had any blog conversations with him in years, yet he keeps at it. Well, I can certainly guess as to the nature of his obsession, and I suppose I should be flattered, but I'm a married man, after all.

He clearly has no idea how stereotypical he's become ... ranting about homosexuals one minute, trolling their blogs for steamy man-on-man action the next.

Alas, if only my blog were as steamy as he purports, I'd at least get more visitors. But I guess when a closet case like that is desperate enough for the merest glimpse of an erotic fantasy/fetish he can't contain, he can find it anywhere.

Oh well, if reading my blog keeps him from trolling the rest stops, I guess I've served some function, of a sort.
BTW, I find it amusing that he goes on for about 20 minutes complaining that he doesn't have time for these terrible horrible people who torture him (by that I mean, people he's banned about 5 years ago). And this is what, the 20th post of his on exactly the same subject? Clearly he's not obsessed at all.

We oughta get Doc down to Texas and help the poor guy out.
Oh, holy sheeit, Dr. ER is dig this!

"Oh yes, and the lower SD of the White Male Supremacist will be classified as a neurosis treatable under the National Health Care Act."

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?