…and this is a 
Saint, monster...they're the same thing
Category: Evil
Posted on: June 18, 2007 10:37 AM, by PZ Myers
A name I'd like to see banished to oblivion is that of Paul Hill, the religious fanatic and murderer who gunned down Dr John Britton and James Barrett at an abortion clinic. I don't care whether you are pro-choice or anti-woman, only the most wretched, insane god-walloper can possibly approve of assassinating health-care providers to protect fetuses. And there can't be that many of them, can there? And they are going to face universal public censure, right? Cruelly, archy tells me otherwise.
Behold, Paul Hill Days.
A couple of deranged Christian organizations are planning to send their members to Milwaukee, Wisconsin at the end of July to thump about like a gang of gumbies, bellowing about what a good man Paul Hill was. God's man. A hero. A martyr.
And to crown this exercise in lunacy and poor taste, they're planning a reenactment of the murders.
I guess the Rev. Phelps and his merry band of haters aren't quite as uniquely bizarre as I'd thought.
Ick — now the Rev. Donald Spitz has sent McKay a letter, blaming him and people like us for AIDS, rape, murder and robbery, and all kinds of such nastiness, because we don't believe in Jeeezus. These people are crazy evil; I'm beginning to get a sinister vibe from just the title "Reverend" anymore.
Comments
I suppose it would be wrong to load up the organizer's e-mail inbox with (apparent)messages of solidarity from al Qaeda.
Posted by: clamboy | June 18, 2007 10:53 AM
If anything shows why atheists need to speak out and not be "nice," this is it. There is no "getting along" with these people in terms of polite phrases and "respect for their beliefs."
For the love of all things rational, atheists are speaking, not shooting, and writing books, not raising guns!
We are seeing nothing less than the rise of the Christian Taliban in America, but people would rather criticize atheists for being "strident." Is it because these people are secretly afraid that the nutters, like these, will react as the crowds protesting the "Mohammed cartoons" did?
It's time for the "get-along" crowd to tell the truth about their motivations for letting this nation fall into the hands of fanatics while hair-splitting about atheists.
Posted by: Kristine | June 18, 2007 10:53 AM
If we started a rumor on the internets that Paul Hill was gay, do you think we could get the rotting crypt keeper to show up and protest?
Posted by: Ian | June 18, 2007 11:05 AM
wow, that actually makes me feel kinda sick. Seriously. Im going to have to remember this the next time someone tries to tell me there are no xian terrorists.
Posted by: jba | June 18, 2007 11:16 AM
"Reenactment of 7-29-1994"
Sick.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 18, 2007 11:17 AM
I'm sending a copy of your post with a link to it, to list-servs and random preachers I have on my mail list. I will ask them to speak out against this macabre demonstration.
It'll be interesting to see whether any brickbats come our way from that, eh?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 18, 2007 11:19 AM
I very much like the term "pro-forced maternity", thought up by the author of No More Hornets.
Posted by: Pedro Timóteo | June 18, 2007 11:20 AM
Despite the condemnation of this behavior that may or may not come from more "mainstream" christian groups, I'm pretty sure these organizers can make a compelling case that what they're doing is "right," based on that (marvelously contradictory) old book of theirs. So, appeasers, as long as you actively or passively encourage the continuing validity of the dusty tome as a social or personal morality guide, this is your fault!
Ok, that last bit was more hyperbolic than I'm usually comfortable with, but doesn't it have some truth to it?
Posted by: Fox1 | June 18, 2007 11:22 AM
So...how many of the Republican candidates are showing up for this event? Sounds tailor-made for Mitt "Dos Guantanamos" Romney, or Rudy, or Brownback, or Huckabee, or...well, all of them.
Posted by: Cameron | June 18, 2007 11:30 AM
"Oh what a fiend we have in Jesus..."
Will they be singing 'Onward Christian Murderers' at the rally?
I can see the bumper stickers now..."I don't brake for abortion doctors", "Shoot an abortion doctor for Jesus", and "WWJK?"
What.a.bunch.of.nutters.
Posted by: Jay Hovah | June 18, 2007 11:44 AM
I find myself wondering, what is the line between celebrating and reenacting murders and actually carrying it out?
They talked about the abortion providers they can protest. Are not these organizers a threat to the safety of the people at these centers?
Posted by: Janine | June 18, 2007 11:50 AM
Sickening.
I've been offered a job in America. Not sure I want to move there. This kind of makes me even more sure I don't.
Posted by: Kat | June 18, 2007 12:08 PM
Should they be called Christian Fundamentalist Anti-Life Terrorists?
Christian Anti-Government Insurgents?
Anti-Choice Extremists?
Posted by: Steve_C | June 18, 2007 12:15 PM
I'm sure they all got in a room together to pray, so they could make sure this was the right thing to do.
I want nothing to do with the diety who answered that question in the affirmative.
Posted by: MikeM | June 18, 2007 12:16 PM
This sounds like incitement to murder-- something tells me that's illegal, not that the Bush DOJ is likely to take action against some of their core supporters...
Posted by: Bryson Brown | June 18, 2007 12:17 PM
Thanks PZ, articles like this do wonders for a person's diet - totally lost my appetite now.
And people wonder WHY there are anti-theists?
Pro-choice for decades and proud of it,
Good day......
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | June 18, 2007 12:20 PM
Gag me with a spoon.
Is it horribly arrogant of me to consider a large number of the population to be brain damaged in some way? Because I can't think of any other reason for this.
#12 Kat- I moved to the US- Arizona from Australia 5 months ago. I was a bit worried about it all, but so far I'm loving it. Haven't run into any loonies yet...not sure if I'm happy or not about that :). Depends where you go but give it a shot if you can.
Posted by: coz | June 18, 2007 12:20 PM
I call'em rapist's rights groups because some of them are apparently convinced a rapist's sperm is more important than his victim's life.
Posted by: justawriter | June 18, 2007 12:21 PM
Another example of the tolerance of religion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2105748,00.html
You've got to love this reasoning:
"Pakistan's minister for parliamentary affairs, Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, who proposed the resolution condemning the honour, branded Rushdie a "blasphemer". She told MPs: "The 'sir' title from Britain for blasphemer Salman Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims across the world. Every religion should be respected. I demand the British government immediately withdraw the title as it is creating religious hatred.""
So there you have it - rewarding free expression creates religious hatred (I would have said that religion creates religious hatred) and respecting religion means keeping your blaspheming yap shut.
Posted by: NC Paul | June 18, 2007 12:29 PM
This is the same religious tradition that canonized Cyril of Alexandria -- the guy who was probably a little more than partially responsible for the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria, and the general climate of persecution that forced pretty much everyone but the Christians out of the city.
Posted by: Dustin | June 18, 2007 12:29 PM
Brilliant. I'm going to start using it.
Posted by: Dustin | June 18, 2007 12:30 PM
If you think about it, the guys who support the murder of abortion providers are being consistent. These nutcases are the only ones who actually believe abortion is murder - since their actions mirror their words. All the anti-choice folks who spout "abortion is murder" rhetoric should be asked why they too are not devoting every last minute of their life to this. The answer is that they are just saying what their pastor or their book tells them to say and they aren't thinking.
Posted by: Pete | June 18, 2007 12:35 PM
There goes the damn neighborhood. Fortunately, since it is Milwaukee, I really don't see this thing getting off the ground, and I think poor George up there in the Conservative Fox Valley will be surprised. In fact, I think he's just spoiling for a fight.
Oh well... Perhaps I'll put myself down for "host housing" and set all the clocks back to the time of the Enlightenment.
Posted by: Dan | June 18, 2007 12:38 PM
And yet another incident that makes my home state look like backwards jackasses. I checked out their website--they note that there are only two active clinics in Milwaukee. That was very surprising to me, because Milwaukee is a fairly urban area as this state goes. Women in Wisconsin have two options...go to Milwaukee or go to Madison. There's a whole lotta state further north of those two cities where women have no options at all. Archy is right; what people like Paul Hill do is terrorism and they should be charged as such.
Posted by: Blitzgal | June 18, 2007 12:47 PM
Pardon my language, but did you check out the fucking link list at the bottom of the Paul Hill Memorial Tour page?!
- - -
Anti-Abortion Extremists:
Army of God | Prisoners of Christ | Eric Rudolph | Clayton Waagner
- - - -
Aren't there anti-hate laws, or incitement to violence, or something? Man, this is scary shit. Actually, don't these pass for terrorist organizations?
Posted by: mikmik | June 18, 2007 12:52 PM
For nomenclature, can we please go with the more neutral (and accurate):
Pro-abortion-rights
Anti-abortion-rights
And may Paul Hill Days languish with low attendance and zero press.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 18, 2007 1:08 PM
These kinds of people and sentiments are exactly what I fear. All extremist groups, philosophies, religions or political have there adherents to the notion that because we are correct anything we do in furtherance of our cause or belief is OK, murder, torture, gas chambers, Gulogs, extraordinary rendition, Inquisitions, Fataws, stoning, or re-educations camps and imprisonment it is our sacred duty for the Betterment of the world that we do these things.
Regardless of the current administrations stand on the issue of abortion I would be pretty sure the DPHS and the FBI will also be there with cameras and agents some in uniform and some not. The "police" are pretty universal in their desire to be the only ones with the guns!
Posted by: uncle frogy | June 18, 2007 1:11 PM
Not to take the wind out of your sails, PZ, but you aren't responsible for the increasing contempt in which organized religion is held by thinking people. Cr@p like this pushes it along far more effectively than you ever could.
Still, you know who they'll blame.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | June 18, 2007 1:14 PM
Pro-choice is more expansive than simply abortion, though - it's also pro-birth control, pro-sex education, and pro-make whatever choice you want, because it's your choice. That's what's lost by calling it pro-abortion rights; the other side uses that to claim that we want everyone to have sex and abortions. No, please be abstinent if you want. Please don't have an abortion if you don't want one. It's your choice.
Also, the anti groups are veering further and further into the "no sex ed" and "no birth control" policy points, which of course would actually raise the rate of women who might then feel the need abortion services.
Pro-reproductive rights and anti-reproductive rights would be more accurate.
Posted by: Carlie | June 18, 2007 1:18 PM
Ah, in fact Jeff Fecke has a post up at Shakesville about that very thing right now:
Being pro choice when you think the choice is wrong
Posted by: Carlie | June 18, 2007 1:20 PM
"If we started a rumor on the internets that Paul Hill was gay, do you think we could get the rotting crypt keeper to show up and protest?"
Wasn't the bible written in a similar fashion?
Posted by: Brownian | June 18, 2007 1:29 PM
kat: Take it from a USian: please, for your own sake, stay the hell out of this country. I don't know exactly what all is going on here right now, except that it's almost uniformly bad and looks like getting worse in the kind of way that leads a country to eat its own citizens. I worry about my friends who're non-citizen legal residents; I think you'd do well to stay clear.
notthedroids: For nomenclature, can we please go with the more neutral (and accurate)
No and no. No to the question of whether we can use it: can you give me one even slightly compelling reason why we should seek neutrality on the question of whether women deserve the same right of self-determination which men enjoy by default?
(Or, if you can't be bothered to care about women, try it this way around: can you give me one even slightly compelling reason why we should seek neutrality on the question of whether religious fanatics will be permitted to make policy decisions for the federal government?)
And, no, your terms are not more accurate, either; those whom you would grant the benefit of the utterly bloodless term 'anti-abortion-rights' are, in fact, crusaders against the rights of women. Consider, for a start, the inconsistency between their claimed belief and their actions: if they actually believed abortion was murder, they'd be looking to prosecute and murder women who have abortions, not just the doctors who perform them. Then, for a handy tabular breakdown of the major inconsistencies and their obvious implications, see Alas, a Blog.
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2007 1:35 PM
Rev. Donald Spitz, one of the sponsors of the "Paul Hill Days" stunt and the webmaster for the Army of God domestic terrorist group, just wrote me to say that people like us (you and me, not me and him) are the cause of kids getting AIDS and that we need to accept Jesus into our hearts (which, I guess, leads to an automatic pardon for killing all of those kids).
I don't have as much experience as you do at dealing with veiled threatening letters. What do you do with these things besides expose them to the light of day?
Posted by: John McKay | June 18, 2007 1:43 PM
Sunlight is a great disinfectant. Publish it far and wide, with Spitz's name prominently displayed.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 18, 2007 1:47 PM
No no no no no. That distinction is reserved for Planned Parenthood and the NEA. (With a shout-out and negaprops to Karen Hughes and Rod Paige!)
Posted by: Kseniya | June 18, 2007 1:55 PM
19
Another example of the tolerance of religion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2105748,00.html
You've got to love this reasoning:
"Pakistan's minister for parliamentary affairs, Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, who proposed the resolution condemning the honour, branded Rushdie a "blasphemer". She told MPs: "The 'sir' title from Britain for blasphemer Salman Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims across the world. Every religion should be respected. I demand the British government immediately withdraw the title as it is creating religious hatred.""
So there you have it - rewarding free expression creates religious hatred (I would have said that religion creates religious hatred) and respecting religion means keeping your blaspheming yap shut.
Posted by: NC Paul | June 18, 2007 12:29 PM
This is just lovely. Take this to the logical extreme, all of us are suppose to respect every religion. Except this just blows up all too easily. Just set 'one true religion' up against an other 'one true religion' and watch the sparks fly. They do not need we trouble making atheist for that.
Posted by: Janine | June 18, 2007 1:56 PM
Oh frack! that's where i live! NOOOO!!!!!
Whelp, time to mobalise some people i know... this is going to be VERY interesting.
Posted by: catofmanyfaces | June 18, 2007 2:01 PM
Will the Vatican be sending a representative?
Posted by: khan | June 18, 2007 2:03 PM
God aborts more living people.
It's okay if He does it.
Posted by: Kristine | June 18, 2007 2:04 PM
I have a good friend who had a friend (male) who for years was a sexual partner of Paul Hill. When Hill was arrested, he told my friend Hill would have a wonderful time in Jail with all those men. He also said Hill and his friend looked at child porn before they had sex. Hill admitted he had had sex with numerous little boys. He also said Hill cheated on his taxes and stole from the church. I have no personal knowledge of Hill, but my friend's friend, dying of AIDS, had no reason to lie to him. I'm sure it must be true.
(How was that?)
Posted by: Duff | June 18, 2007 2:08 PM
Not enough links, Duff. Google won't pay it much attention.
(Wait, you are lying, right? I mean, with all the Ted Haggard and Mark Foley and Ted Klaudt and this and that and the other, it wouldn't be at all a surprise to hear that Paul Hill looked at kiddie porn and had sex with little boys.)
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2007 2:12 PM
Speaking of raping children, it may interest you all to know that John Burt, a close friend of both Paul Hill and Michael Griffin, was accused in 2003 of molesting a number of children at the "troubled girls" shelter he and his wife ran; it appears (in Google results) he was convicted of at least one charge, but I can't find a cite for that.
Sure, you could argue that I'm engaging in arrant guilt by association, and that just because Paul Hill was long-time friends with a child molester -- a child molester who apparently helped inspire Hill to murder -- doesn't make him any more likely to be one than it would anyone else.
But it doesn't exactly shed a warm and forgiving light on the guy's memory, does it now?
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2007 2:35 PM
I very rarely get angry at things that I read via the internet. This has gotten me furious. I won't post anything else because it's just not a good idea for me right now.
Posted by: Rich | June 18, 2007 2:40 PM
Seeing how 2 of this wingnut's planned activities include:
"Activities at our two remaining killing centers"
and
"Reenactment of 7-29-1994"
I consider this an declaration of planned murders, so I forwarded the wingnut's website to the FBI, which will probably get me investigated for stirring up the sh*tpot that is our current "government." Oh, well,
Posted by: Reverend M | June 18, 2007 2:50 PM
Good for you for publishing the letter, John.
From the Publishers Weekly blurb on Amazon about The Dawkins Delusion?:
"The book works partly because they are so much more gracious to Dawkins than Dawkins is to believers"
After reading about Paul Hill Day, I have to say boo-fucking-hoo to all the religious people out there who feel 'persecuted' because Dawkins, Hitchins and Harris refuse to pay hypocritical lip service to their little fantasies.
Posted by: Brownian | June 18, 2007 2:58 PM
So... Why haven't they canonized John Salvi? Because he only managed to kill two receptionists instead of actual doctors or nurses?
Kat: The USA has it's problems, but there are worse placed to live. And within the USA, which is a pretty big country, there's a big difference between a place like Boston and a place like... errm... Bill Napoli's district?
Location, location, location.
Come to the USA, confident in the knowledge that you're making it a (slightly) better place. :-)
Posted by: Kseniya | June 18, 2007 2:58 PM
I'm just as appalled by this as anyone, but we still have to watch out for developing an "us-versus-them" mentality. This is exactly what drives the religious wackos -- continually fueling their own fires by going out and looking for extreme beliefs opposite to theirs, and then painting the whole opposition with that brush.
I sometimes have to take a break from this blog because I get so mad at religious people that I start contemplating unethical actions. But that's how we got to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
The thing to remember is that the mainstream American public (that I have interacted with) is relatively sane, if only a little lazy.
Posted by: George | June 18, 2007 3:16 PM
Kseniya: Sure, there are worse places to live. That I would rather live in the United States than in, say, Bangladesh, does not mean I would recommend that someone already living in another developed country move to the United States.
I suppose it's a comfort that the Paul Hill fanciers are quite possibly some of the stupidest people on God's green earth, in addition to taking festival honors in the hypocrisy category -- from the Army of God Manual: Our Most Dread Sovereign Lord God requires that whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
I mean, they don't really equivocate, do they? Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. By that standard, Paul Hill's execution ought to bother them not a whit.
And how can they fail to notice that this belief of theirs, which they use to excuse murdering abortion providers, also gives anybody on the planet just as much excuse to kill them?
So are they hypocrites, or are they just dismally stupid? (Or both?)
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2007 3:17 PM
(I'll add, for the benefit of whatever law enforcement might be eyeballing this conversation, that my previous comment should not in any way be taken as an endorsement of anyone killing anyone else, be it malevolent lunatics murdering doctors, or being murdered by other malevolent lunatics. I merely seek to point out the inherent contradiction in the beliefs they swear up and down to hold, and the hypocrisy which follows from attempting to actually live out such an incomprehensible morass of ideology.)
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2007 3:19 PM
"Pro-choice is more expansive than simply abortion, though - it's also pro-birth control, pro-sex education, and pro-make whatever choice you want, because it's your choice."
Actually, I've always taken the phrase "pro-choice" to be synonomous with pro-abortion-rights, irrespective of one's views on sex ed, so we disagree on its meaning. Better to use unambiguous language.
Aaron's hysterical response is boilerplate and utterly predictable.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 18, 2007 3:20 PM
>> I guess the Rev. Phelps and his merry band of haters aren't quite as uniquely bizarre as I'd thought.
I think that Rev. P and his gang don't believe a word of what they preach. I think they specifically choose to do things where people will violate their rights to protest, so that they can, in turn, sue whoever does this for lots of money. I really do thing he's goading people into trying to stop him so he can sue them. And he knows that religion is especially protected, so he uses that in his favor.
Not that I think this is the way any person should act. Just something to think about.
Posted by: Brendan S | June 18, 2007 3:39 PM
Oh, hush. I'm trying to lure her. ;-)
Seriously, though: Define "developed." Poland is developed is it not? As is Belarus? And Russia? And the People's Republic of China? Would you rather live in one of those countries than in the USA nowadays? Would you advise a resident of one of those countries to stay there rather than to emigrate to the USA?
There's more to the "developed" world than Norway and New Zealand, and we don't even know where Kat lives. So how can we offer informed advice as to the relative merits of the USA as opposed to her current country of residence?
Anyway, it's Kat's choice and decision (obviously) but I wanted to point out that the USA is a large and diverse nation, and that quite a bit more to it than the likes of The Army of God - which, though deeply disturbing in their own right, surely represent an extremely small minority of US citizens.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 18, 2007 3:44 PM
Hmmm... I've been successfully posting comments in other threads all day, but this one keeps spitting up my comments. This is a test to see if it's something about the content of what I'm trying to post, or if it's just me.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | June 18, 2007 3:48 PM
notthedroids: "Aaron's hysterical response is boilerplate and utterly predictable."
Thank you. Would you care to raise any actual arguments contrary to what I said, or simply to go on dismissing my arguments without bothering to engage? And what does my putative uterus have to do with anything?
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2007 3:53 PM
"I think that Rev. P and his gang don't believe a word of what they preach. I think they specifically choose to do things where people will violate their rights to protest, so that they can, in turn, sue whoever does this for lots of money."
I've seen/heard a number of these folks being interviewed and disagree.
I view the virulently anti-abortion crowd in the same light as the neo-Nazi/skinhead types; basically poor, poorly educated, disenfranchised people who mischannel their anger.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 18, 2007 3:53 PM
Fuck 'em. They're terrorists, and as Emperor George says: "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."
Posted by: Dan | June 18, 2007 3:54 PM
OK, since I'm obviously not banned from this thread, I'll try one more time...
Nope, didn't work. I can't think of anything in what I'm trying to post that should trip a filter, but I guess I'll just have to give up.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | June 18, 2007 3:55 PM
"And what does my putative uterus have to do with anything?"
Looks like someone was paying attention during Women's Studies 10!
Posted by: notthedroids | June 18, 2007 3:57 PM
There will be condemnations from the usual "mainline" christian leadership. Most of these condemnations will be particularly empty.
The mainline churches will condemn and condemn all the time. But the problem will be they won't be able to call these people unchristian. That would imply apostasy. Mainline churches can't accuse other of being apostates. That would be illiberal.
I think also they realize that any revealed belief system can't be accused of apostosy because it's revealed. This is how "liberal" chrisianity legitimizes the absolute nutballs. Any acceptance of revealed truth legitimizes all other revealed truths.
phat
Posted by: phat | June 18, 2007 3:57 PM
This is terrorism and the celebration of terrorism, pure and simple. These people should be treated the same way as al Qaeda sympathisers...not that I agree with holding anyone without trial, mind you.
I'm not certain that calling them "Christian terrorists" is the most effecting way to phrase it. Sure, there's satisfaction in doing so, but is it the most effective way to communicate? I would think that the most effective language would be language which separates them from as much of the mainstream of possible...the more you stress the "Christianity", the harder it is to isolate them from your average ant-abortion/anti-women religious nut. While the people who protest outside clinics are doing something despicable, most of them wouldn't support terrorism (or murder). There's a continuum here, and the further along you draw the line, the better. If we could get someone like Brownback to condemn these terrorists (fat chance, I realise) it wouldn't make him a good person, but it might open a few eyes that are currently caught up in hysteria.
It's nice to feel vindicated, but it's even better to feel effective, IMO.
Posted by: IanR | June 18, 2007 3:59 PM
Why the hell?!?! What the fuck did Milwaukee do to deserve hosting this bullshit? Pardon my language, I almost never resort to vulgarity, but this has me pissed off to no end. I lived in Milwaukee for 30 years, grew up there. With the exception of Madison it is the most liberal city in the state (Madison tends to make California look conservative). Milwaukee has voted consistently Democrat for decades, has had Democratic mayors for decades, and in the past elected socialist mayors and representatives. The city is not wing-nut friendly.
When I looked at the website for these freaks I figured it out. They sponsors aren't from Milwaukee, the phone is a 920 area code (50-60 miles from Milwakee at its closest), they're just punishing Milwaukee for being the international airport hub and having convention facilities.
On a more pleasant note:
Coz,
My wife and I moved to Arizona almost three years ago. Most of the people you run in to don't get in to the political/religious garbage much, unless there is a reason. But I have had parents of students come to open house looking forward to their kids learning in Government about how the Constitution is based on the bible and how this is a Christian country, etc. I just tell them it should be a challenging and interesting year, they should enjoy it, and leave it at that.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 18, 2007 4:00 PM
Kseniya:
Seriously, though: Define "developed." Poland is developed is it not? As is Belarus? And Russia? And the People's Republic of China? Would you rather live in one of those countries than in the USA nowadays? Would you advise a resident of one of those countries to stay there rather than to emigrate to the USA?
That's a fair point; had I given it more thought, I'd likely have chosen a word or phrase other than 'developed'.
(Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure, yet, what that word or phrase would be.)
...how can we offer informed advice as to the relative merits of the USA as opposed to her current country of residence?
Without knowing kat's country of current residence, I agree that we can't. That wasn't what I was originally trying to do, though.
And I don't disagree that there's a lot more to this country than the Army of God. They're actually not quite even what I was talking about when I said to stay away. I think we've got quite enough problems, without taking malevolent religious lunatics into account, to give pause to anyone considering entering the US and trying to make a life here.
I don't think that even now we've got to a point where things just can't be fixed, but we certainly have got to a point where, if you don't happen to be an American citizen and maybe even if you do, you can be swept up off the street and indefinitely disappeared, on the unexamined and, up til very recently, inarguable, whim of a mid-level government employee. Does that sound like the kind of nation into which you feel sanguine inviting someone?
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2007 4:01 PM
notthedroids: "Looks like someone was paying attention during Women's Studies 10!"
Oh, yeah, and here comes the bit about how I'm just a humorless and bitter radfem who loathes men whether they deserve it or not, am I right?
Seriously, though, are you going to actually try to argue that I'm wrong at some point, or just keep up with the clever commentary? I mean, I'm good either way, I'm just asking.
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2007 4:04 PM
So you have these nuts who celebrate terrorism by re-enacting an act of murder, and yet the US government considers Environmental activists to be the second most serious threat after Muslim Terrorists?
Who wants to be that there is another abortion killing before one of the animal nuts ever kills anyone? Any takers? And when it does happen again (and with days like this, I can't imagine it will be far off), how much do you want to bet that it will be largely ignored, and the religious reasons completely glossed over?
Posted by: Kevin | June 18, 2007 4:53 PM
Kat: I've been living and working in Arizona for the past few years and I'm about to move back to the UK. I've liked the people that I've met here (probably because the people are meet are either academics or ballroom dancers) but it's been a bad few years watching the politics here; also we have to pay a fortune for basic health coverage.
A little while ago I saw a letter in the local paper, explaining how the abolition of habeas corpus was perfectly OK because it didn't affect US nationals. US scientific academia would collapse in a second if it couldn't recruit from overseas- probably because the schools here are turning out students who think evolution is controversial. I certainly felt my motivation to stay here drop sharply when I realised that the government here can apparently have me disappeared if they want to.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 18, 2007 4:58 PM
The Arlington National Cemetary website (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jbarrett.htm) says:
Yes. Paul Hill is indeed a fine American "hero."
Posted by: Margaret | June 18, 2007 5:12 PM
To #24
Actually, I think women in Wisconsin's options are go to Milwaukee or go to Milwaukee.
I live in Madison and have an ultra conservative mother. I don't remember hearing about a clinic in Madison anymore.
Posted by: Stranger Jane | June 18, 2007 5:16 PM
Sure makes you wish that Paul Hill's mom would have had an abortion...
Posted by: Dahan | June 18, 2007 5:23 PM
I dreamed I saw Paul Hill last night,
Alive as you or me...
Posted by: Mooser | June 18, 2007 5:24 PM
I would say that claiming there will be a "reenactment" is grounds to be arrested on death threat charges. Does anyone know if it's an actual group, or just one guy with a website?
Actually, I've always taken the phrase "pro-choice" to be synonomous with pro-abortion-rights, irrespective of one's views on sex ed, so we disagree on its meaning. Better to use unambiguous language.
It's always been wrapped up in one package of deciding when to reproduce (check out all the services Planned Parenthood has to offer, for instance) but the emphasis has been different in different years depending on what was the most threatened at the time. Abortion rights have been the most under attack in the last several years, so got the most press (and was the easiest to caricature and attack from the other side - they want to kill babeez!) More recently the contraception side has begun to swing into the forefront again, what with pharmacists deciding to refuse to dispense it and states backing them up on that.
Posted by: Carlie | June 18, 2007 5:25 PM
"Seriously, though, are you going to actually try to argue that I'm wrong at some point, or just keep up with the clever commentary?"
There's not much to argue against, as it's just ideological spew: "those whom you would grant the benefit of the utterly bloodless term 'anti-abortion-rights' are, in fact, crusaders against the rights of women", "whether women deserve the same right of self-determination which men enjoy by default" (blissfully ignoring paternity law), etc etc.
I'm simply asking for less euphemism ("pro-choice", "pro-life", "anti-woman", "anti-family", etc) and more precision.
Whenever a large-scale poll on abortion is published, it becomes clear that there is far more variety in people's views on abortion than is granted by the ideologues on either side.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml
In light of that, more precision and less sloganeering is needed when discussing these matters.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 18, 2007 5:27 PM
Aaron: Points taken, I don't disagree. I think I know what you meant by "developed" - sorta like, "our peer nations" which are Western European, mostly.
Bill: Check your rejected post for questionable strings embedded in longer words. I was unable to post a link to a piece by Neil Degrasse Tyson because the string "ass" in "Degrasse" informed the filter that it might be a possible link to a porn site. (Sheesh.) Then there was the time, on another site, that I couldn't post "treatment plan" because of the "eatme" in "treatment" ... LOL.
So do a little decrypting of your own post. You'll find something humorously innocuous in there, I'll bet. :-)
Posted by: Kseniya | June 18, 2007 5:33 PM
I am assuming the "reenactment" is more akin to the reeactments put on by history buffs in place slik Gettysburg, Lexington and Concord. Surely that is more likely than the world-wide broadcasting of homicidal premeditation and intent.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 18, 2007 5:42 PM
I sometimes have to take a break from this blog because I get so mad at religious people that I start contemplating unethical actions. But that's how we got to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Exactly. But I don't go that far, George. I do imagine getting a hold of the medical records of these holier-than-thou nutjobs and exposing which anti-abortion activists have had abortions (and I'm not talking about the distance past, but during their activism).
In a conversation with a nurse who worked at a birth control clinic, she assured me that this happens a lot more than one would expect. Then they go back out and picket and protest some more, even at the same clinic! I still cannot believe it (but I believe her).
Posted by: Kristine | June 18, 2007 5:54 PM
Words of wisdom from the late Bill Hicks:
I, ah...this abortion issue in the States is dividing the country right in half. You know, and even amongst my friends - we're all highly intelligent - they're totally divided on the issue of abortion. Totally divided. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are just annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we gonna have a consensus? I'm torn. I try and take the broad view and think of them as evil, annoying fucks.
Posted by: cosimovecchio | June 18, 2007 6:30 PM
notthedroids, I suggest you go and actually read his link (reproduced here for your convenience). It should clear this whole thing up. And if not, well, I dunno.
Posted by: Stogoe | June 18, 2007 6:43 PM
Something tells me they are not going to sue you for copyright infringement or anything.
Though I think someone should file a suit for death threats and terrorism.
I've never thought of it, but that sounds very convincing. After all:
Make money.
Make more money.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 18, 2007 7:12 PM
Kat. Do yourself a favor and pick another country. There's nothing here for an intelligent, civilized, progressive person but despair and anxiety. Personally, I would do almost anything to be able to leave and finish out my days in a country that doesn't remind me so much of a blind, aging beauty queen with a bad case of leprosy and no one with the guts to tell her she's becoming a rotting corpse.
I would even be willing to emigrate to a "third world" country, even if it meant foregoing many of the creature comforts that supposedly make the U.S. a "developed" nation. But I have neither high demand skills or a big chunk of cash. I'm single though. If anyone knows a really desperate, ugly, toothless Canadian woman....... That, and a couple years of studying French, might help.
Meanwhile, I'm trapped.
Perhaps when things get bad enough, Venezuela or Nicaragua or someplace will grant political refugee status to Americans and I can ready my raft.
Posted by: Sailorman | June 18, 2007 7:50 PM
"notthedroids, I suggest you go and actually read his link (reproduced here for your convenience). It should clear this whole thing up. And if not, well, I dunno."
It's hardly relevant to Aaron's cookie-cutter rants. And wrt the link itself, there's no persuasive argument that even a majority of people who want to restrict abortion rights believe (or claim) that abortion is equivalent to murder. In other words, a convenient strawman argument.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 18, 2007 8:01 PM
Well, this is terrorism plain and simple. Don't hesitate to lump these guys in with the Taliban and Al Qaeda and any other religious nuts with a gun and an IED.
And really, most sensible people will be repulsed by cold blooded murderers, no matter what their reasons. It is good PR for the rest of us.
FWIW, there is a backlash in this country against fundie cultists. With one of them in the white house, things have been on a bit of a downslide. At least some of those associates of the 3500 soldiers killed, 40,000 maimed in Iraq are a little upset about losing their friends and kids. Plus all the other nonsense like the attempt to overthrow the US government and head on back to the dark ages. Exposed to the light of day, it isn't a popular agenda.
Posted by: raven | June 18, 2007 8:16 PM
I think that Rev. P and his gang don't believe a word of what they preach. I think they specifically choose to do things where people will violate their rights to protest, so that they can, in turn, sue whoever does this for lots of money. I really do thing he's goading people into trying to stop him so he can sue them. And he knows that religion is especially protected, so he uses that in his favor.
I think Fred's primary motive is simple sadism. You read enough of his background, and it's pretty clear he's a pretty monstrous sadist. He used to savagely beat his kids until they got too big to reliably whallop, then he started in on his anti-gay crusade. For him, it's all about spreading maximum pain.
The kids may believe it. I get the feeling those left in his congregation have been trained to believe anything he tells them.
As for Fred goading people to attack him, it doesn't seem like a smart strategy. The "fighting words" doctrine is pretty well established.
Posted by: Wally Whateley | June 18, 2007 8:18 PM
Hi there. I just stumbled upon this blog and thought I might be