…and this is a 
The murder of George Tiller has brought some vile people creeping out from under the woodwork…especially the kinds of nasty minds that like to dress up in clerical collars. Looking for a good emetic? Look no further than this sermon by a Presbyterian minister for a great example of deploring a murder while praising the murderer's motives.
A notorious murderer met what is certain to become a notorious end. By the goodness of God the witness of the Church was not entirely silenced in Dr. Tiller's life. He had been excommunicated by his previous congregation, a church of the Missouri Synod Lutheran denomination. And so the judgment of God had been declared; not every watchman was silent, not every shepherd proved a hireling.
But the point was reached where a man despaired of change through government and took matters into his own hand. I do not view the actions of Dr. Tiller's killer as defensible, but not for many of the easy and often self-serving reasons advanced with alarm and indignation even by many Christians in recent days.
Violence is not always wrong. Killing is not always forbidden. Opposition to abortion does not obligate us to oppose all forms of killing. In saying this I make a biblically defensible statement. God has given the power of the sword to the state so that it may judge and execute judgment. This is true internationally and locally. Condemnation of the vile sin of abortion, the murder of an infant, an innocent, in its mother's womb is not the same as the death penalty, properly applied.
Nor do I believe that Dr. Tiller's killer necessarily acted inappropriately as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner. Like the couple who boldly went into the tent before the congregation at Peor and were immediately killed by Phinehas, Dr. Tiller's bold practice of the indefensible, his brazen boasting of his practice rendered judge and jury superfluous. He was self-accused and self-convicted.
But what Dr. Tiller's killer did which Phinehas did not do was to kill against the will of the nation's civil authority. It was an act of rebellion posing as an act of justice. The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders, and so attacked the branch. His was not an act of saving babies or of executing justice. Other men will continue Dr. Tiller's practice. A bucket of water taken from the sea will not create a hole in the ocean. Others will fill where Dr. Tiller left off. Abortion will proceed because, and this is vital to say, abortion is blessed by the law of the land. The logic of Dr. Tiller's killer is the logic of John Brown, of Absalom, of Ehud.
Get that? It's OK for anti-choicers to kill, and it is appropriate for them to execute abortion doctors, we just need to wait until the civil authorities declare it's time to line them up against the wall. And Tiller's murderer's mistake was being insufficiently brave enough to attack the nation's leaders.
I read the whole thing. Now I need to take a shower.
Comments
Posted by: Richard | June 17, 2009 3:41 PM
Killing is not always forbidden.
Exodus 20:13.
*sigh*
-Richard
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
June 17, 2009 3:46 PM
Right. Because abortions never occur when the practice is illegal. Putz!
Posted by: steve | June 17, 2009 3:47 PM
The Random Quote next to this posting was from Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian". Well, this post is one example of why I'm not a Christian or anything else for that matter. I use to think that, as a group, politicians and clergy are in a race to the bottom of the barrel. But lately I think clergy are pulling ahead.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
June 17, 2009 3:49 PM
Sorry, not going to read it. Just can't today. Need a psychological break from the . . . from the hate. That's the only word I can think of to describe this sort of thing.
I would've made a lousy Sith. No stomach for it, I guess.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 17, 2009 3:49 PM
At least he doesn't follow any subjective, wishy-washy morality like them liberals and atheists. No sir, only black-and-white objective morality for these folks, or so they keep telling us.
It's like that Senator, John Ensign, a devout member of the Promise Keepers: Extra-marital sex is not always wrong. A promise is not always worth keeping.
That's solid, foundational, bedrock morality, that is, the kind that keeps kids in line.
Posted by: harebell | June 17, 2009 3:50 PM
They will always be able to justify killing in the name of their lord, just as they can justify their greed, avarice and non-poverty by ignoring what their own messiah said repeatedly.
Their handbook is only meant to be read literally when it suits them, and even then when it doesn't they just write a new version that does.
How many versions of the true word of god now exist?
Sick, sad people indeed
Posted by: Heaventree
|
June 17, 2009 3:50 PM
So, let me get this straight: Roeder's real failing was not being a murderous, psychotic racist nativist right-wing fuckwad. It was lacking "the courage to attack...our national leaders."
This is truly batshit crazy.
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 3:51 PM
Completely and utterly vile. I can assure you, as a community volunteer who takes the welfare of all officials seriously, I would never allow anti-choice maniacs to murder a doctor. They are deluding themselves if they think that the laws of America would ever sanction blind vigilantism. I suppose that's how they envision their theocratic paradise, but these loons shall not prevail.
No Gods or Kings - only the strength and love of Men.
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | June 17, 2009 3:54 PM
What an ass..."biblically defensible"...the worst part is to think about the churchgoers sitting in the pews probably nodding along in agreement. Disgusting. Way to get my heart rate going again PZ! I was just calming down from the anti-vaxxers on Skepchick.
Posted by: eric | June 17, 2009 3:54 PM
"Violence is not always wrong. Killing is not always forbidden."
It is amazing how bloodthirsty these guys are. And to think that the comment they use to justify execution was simply the 1st century equivalent of saying 'quit whining and pay your taxes.'
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 17, 2009 3:55 PM
I think that even an heartfelt "FUCK YOU" is not enough in this case.
For these cretins it's OK to kill... But just when they're born. They don't care about the innocent babies that much. No, it's just a facade. They just care about controlling women's bodies and sexuality.
Slaves, that's what we are to them.
Posted by: Guy Gough | June 17, 2009 3:58 PM
here is some information about Phinehas; also
see Numbers:25.
He has been adopted as a symbolic godfather by a shady
organization of white Xtian terrorists.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2009 3:59 PM
Is this statement: "The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders," not a direct threat against the government? Should he not be in custody now?
I'm sure this asshole would never understand how his statements make him a terrorist... evil fuck.
Posted by: AdamK | June 17, 2009 3:59 PM
Good thing we have them christians around to tell us all about moral absolutes coming from god and all.
Like "thou shalt not kill."
"Christian morality." Oxymoron.
Posted by: David | June 17, 2009 4:02 PM
"God has given the power of the sword to the state so that it may judge and execute judgment. This is true internationally and locally."
as far as I know the only official document that explains how our government gets its power is the Declaration of Independence which says: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Posted by: foolfodder | June 17, 2009 4:03 PM
"God has given the power of the sword to the state so that it may judge and execute judgment. This is true internationally and locally."
So presumably God's pretty happy with how things are in North Korea.
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 4:03 PM
People, I urge you to report the statement of this man. In front of an audience, he clearly expressed his disappointment that the assassin did not turn to our national leaders with his rage. This is clearly a sanctioning of such actions from a figure who is perceived as righteous by an impressionable community. Lunatics, all of them.
Posted by: Agathodemon | June 17, 2009 4:05 PM
Is this guy really saying that Roeder assassinated the wrong person, and that it would have been proper to assassinate our governmental leaders?
Posted by: James Sweet | June 17, 2009 4:06 PM
Where, pray tell, is this "ocean" of doctors willing to risk their lives and their families lives, and endure never-ending abuse, in order to provide a gravely needed service for women facing one of the most painful moments of their lives?
If only this assfuck was actually right. The reality is that there aren't that many doctors willing to take Dr. Tiller's place (luckily, there was at least one, but who says that guy won't get brutally murdered too?). It's not inconceivable that the terrorists could win on this one. Then, instead of these women having to carry a baby, feeling it kick and hiccup for 7 or 8 months and then find out it isn't viable and they need to terminate it, instead they will have to deliver a horrible freak of nature that will experience a short and painful life, and maybe wind up barren as a result. Nice.
Posted by: Seldon | June 17, 2009 4:06 PM
Anyone else read this piece as implying a potential assassination attempt on our political leaders?
Posted by: David G. | June 17, 2009 4:08 PM
Ah, there's my jaw. I was worried I wouldn't be able to find it after it fell to the floor.
I gotta wonder, why do these people seem to think that the women who get late term abortions want to get them? Think about it, a woman who's been carrying a child of her own to term and right before the end changes her mind just for kicks?
Oh right, in the minds of these nutbags, women don't have thoughts. I guess that's why they never take account of how the women involved feel.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 17, 2009 4:08 PM
Yup. And teaching abstinence-only makes premarital sex go away, and publicly proclaiming family values magically ends adulter--did I mention Republican Senator John Ensign? No? I'm sure I did, but his hypocrisy is so gloriously typical of the Christian right wing that I've just got to share it again for everyone's edification.
OT: Here's him defending the sanctity of marriage in 2004 (from his site, which suggests the fucker has no goddamn shame):
Forget referring to the the Christian GOP, we'd be more accurate to refer to them as the Christian Gomorrah: there's not fifty righteous men among the whole lot.
Posted by: Lynx | June 17, 2009 4:10 PM
This guy needs to be investigated by the FBI or Secret Service or whomever looks into threats against the President. He's just advocated killing "our national leaders".
Amazing that the Right embraces Treason so often.
Posted by: ZeroMatter | June 17, 2009 4:12 PM
Disgusting.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | June 17, 2009 4:13 PM
I am sick of these mealy-mouthed hypocrites issuing qualified condemnations of Roeder: "He was wrong BUT Tiller had it coming (and besides, it's bad PR for us)". 25 or so years back there was a movement called "seamless garment", who presented themselves as "consistently pro-life": anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty AND anti-war, and generally into social justice causes. They at least deserve a little respect for that stance. But not the current bunch, to whom fetuses are sacred, but little else is.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
June 17, 2009 4:14 PM
Doing so would require caring about the women involved, caring about their health and thoughts and feelings and ideas and conflicts and confusion and inclinations and hopes and reasons and desires and all the other things that signal our humanity.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2009 4:16 PM
LinzeeBinzee #9
No need to think about it... you can see it in full color by reading the comments below his post... simply ghastly, and more than a little frightening.
Posted by: RM | June 17, 2009 4:18 PM
"Thou shalt not kill."
I'm trying to find the wiggle room in that one.
Posted by: TheBear | June 17, 2009 4:18 PM
I bless* my self for not being an american.
And your previous goverment was afraid of the arabs?
Holy Zarqon!
______________________________________________________________________
*"Bless" in a purely ateistic form of course
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 4:19 PM
No wonder why I have absolutely no patience for the Religious Right in this nation. This man is advocating the targeting of our governmental leaders, and he should therefore be investigated by the proper authorities. It is our duty as citizens to report such murderous words, whether they come from a church leader or any other man. I have already done so by flagging his comments.
They don't care about women. They don't care about the medical specifics. They want to establish a theocracy in order to taste the power that central churches once had over society. We've evolved too far for another tragedy like that, and we must stand in their way with words, not the violence that they so readily embrace.
Posted by: CiciSteamer | June 17, 2009 4:19 PM
What swine.
I couldn't finish reading it.
Posted by: lurker_above | June 17, 2009 4:19 PM
God has given the power of the sword to the state so that it may judge and execute judgment.
...except for that whole Roe v. Wade judgement. That doesn't count.
Posted by: Draken | June 17, 2009 4:20 PM
God has given the power of the sword to the state so that it may judge and execute judgment.
So he recognises the State's power is given them by God, but:
Abortion will proceed because, and this is vital to say, abortion is blessed by the law of the land.
...he somehow does not admit that therefore the abortion law is ordained by God. That does not compute.
Posted by: Demonhype | June 17, 2009 4:20 PM
Pro-life my pasty ass. What a piece of shit.
I love how many will distance themselves from the "not True Christians" of the Inquisition while simultaneously salivating at the idea of re-instituting it. This is precisely why you need to keep an eye on these people and what they do, especially politically.
My mom and dad have been arguing with me for days. Seems they were all sympathetic with Tiller until they heard he performed "late-term" abortions, which they have decided are the abortions of evil procrastinating sluts, and the claim that the majority of late-terms are health-related is a lie of the abortion-lovers. Actual reliable statistics be damned, they have been accosting me with stories from the anti-choicers that they heard as far back as the eighties. "They broke into an abortion clinic and you know what they found? A whole warehouse of barrels filled with dead babies, as far as the eye can see, except the babies were still moving. Now how do you explain that?" I don't have to explain it, because it's clearly bullshit.
It makes me wonder what happened to their BS meter, since they sound just like the dimwits in 2003 who would stare at me, serious and wide-eyed, and inform me that we had to take out Saddaam because "he kills thousands of his own people every single day, did you know that?" Of course, their concern was less about the people there and more about what such a maniac might do to us with those phantom WMDs. I knew he was no angel, but it was fairly obvious that that story was complete bunk.
Seriously, if you're going to lie shouldnt' you at least make it plausible, rather than coming up with the most extreme and impossible case of cartoon supervillainy you can invent?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 17, 2009 4:20 PM
That's exactly how I read it. I posted the following on Bayly's website:
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 4:24 PM
>Like "thou shalt not kill."
"Christian morality." Oxymoron.
Actually, its not to "murder"
Not saying this wasn't murder, just corrected a frequent error
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 4:24 PM
>Like "thou shalt not kill."
"Christian morality." Oxymoron.
Actually, its not to "murder"
Not saying this wasn't murder, just corrected a frequent error
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 4:24 PM
>Like "thou shalt not kill."
"Christian morality." Oxymoron.
Actually, its not to "murder"
Not saying this wasn't murder, just corrected a frequent error
Posted by: littlejohn | June 17, 2009 4:24 PM
The minister in question should be arrested immediately. It is a felony to advocate the murder of the president of the United States. I think the term "national leaders" would necessarily include the president.
Moving from law to logic, others would be justified in murdering this minister, to prevent him from causing others to murder abortionists, at least following his own logic. Not that I would suggest someone should do so.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
June 17, 2009 4:24 PM
I read shit like that garbage the presbyter preachers spew, and i think, maybe, torching churches is not such a bad idea, after all...Who's got the marshmallows?
Posted by: David G. | June 17, 2009 4:25 PM
I honestly can't imagine what it is like to not realize that women are people with personalities and everything.Posted by: Alverant | June 17, 2009 4:25 PM
If this guy said it in a mosque, the MSM would have no problem calling it terrorism. But xity is a protected class apparently. They're allowed to encourage violence without the legal ramifications.
Posted by: --E | June 17, 2009 4:29 PM
In saying this I make a biblically defensible statement.
-->Alas, not a morally or non-hypocritally defensible one.
Schmuck.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2009 4:29 PM
*sigh*
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 4:29 PM
wow, sorry for all the repeat comments.
Posted by: Iris | June 17, 2009 4:29 PM
Safe, legal abortion is a blessing, to the women who need them and to the people who love those women.
Guess what is not biblically defensible?
Opposition to abortion.
The bible is silent on abortion, per se. But Exodus 21:22-25 is unequivocal that the life of a woman is worth far more than the life of a fetus. (And we all know how much women are valued in the bible, so that is really saying something...)
According to the Mosaic law, if a pregnant woman is harmed and she miscarries, the perpetrator is to be "punished as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay [a fine] as the judges determine." However, if she dies, the perpetrator gets the death penalty.
These death cult wackjobs cannot defend their opposition to abortion based on the bible. Their sick compulsion to control women's bodies, yeah. But not the bible.
Asshats, the lot of 'em.
Posted by: Aristide Valentin | June 17, 2009 4:29 PM
The reference to Phineas was bugging me...
From Wikipedia:
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | June 17, 2009 4:33 PM
@Celtic_Evolution #27
Fuck, those comments are awful
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 4:33 PM
So his god has given the power of the sword to the state so that it may judge and execute judgment? Insane bullshit as only religion can utter. They know they have no recourse in their imaginary god to handle human matters, so they couch retribution by a human as ordained by their god as all well and necessary. Ct, are you reading this and do you think your god deems it so? It's obvious that humans are more powerful than your god as humans are doing all the killing, but only alluding to an imaginary god's intent. Insanity, but never interpreted as such. Your religion's peaceful solution to what your god cannot achieve.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 4:34 PM
According to the Mosaic law, if a pregnant woman is harmed and she miscarries, the perpetrator is to be "punished as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay [a fine] as the judges determine." However, if she dies, the perpetrator gets the death penalty.
These death cult wackjobs cannot defend their opposition to abortion based on the bible. Their sick compulsion to control women's bodies, yeah. But not the bible.
Asshats, the lot of 'em.
Actually you are right. Judaism is not so black and white with abortion like Christianity. BUT, it doesn't allow for simply termination at will, let alone late-term. (only if the mother's life is at stake). The passage you bring up, I believe is important, because it goes to show that abortion is not in the same class literally as murder, but it also doesn't excuse it at the same time either
Posted by: Shane | June 17, 2009 4:35 PM
Killing is not always forbidden.
Exodus 20:13.
*sigh*
-Richard
The NIV translates it as "You shall not murder". Murder and killing (i.e. in defense) are different. Killing a child in cold blood is different than killing a murderer/rapist who is attacking that child.
Their position actually makes sense. This isn't really an argument about values, but an argument about facts. They believe that a fetus is equal to a child.
Just swap the fetus for a 4-year-old child. In that context, I believe that most people here would agree that if there were men hacking 4-year-old children to death, it would be justifiable to arrest or kill them to save the children. Consider a society where you couldn't arrest them since it was legal to kill these children (children under 5 aren't "people"). I understand how killing such men may be justified. There is no moral imperative to obey an immoral law (child murder = okay), but some may feel a moral obligation to rescue the children at whatever cost necessary.
The root problem is the concept of a "soul" which makes a cluster of cells a "person" somehow. From that basis their reasoning is valid (or at least not completely ludicrous). What is the appropriate response to a child abattoir?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2009 4:38 PM
LinzeeBinzee #48
I warned you...
However, you will notice about halfway through that they begin to sharply change... I'm guessing sometime right about when PZ posted this... heh. I doubt he's prepared for the tsunami he's about to be buried under. Wonder how long it will take him to turn off commenting. I put the over / under at about 10 more comments.
Posted by: Shaun | June 17, 2009 4:42 PM
1: as noted, the guy unambiguously advocates for the assassination of the President, a serious crime in your country.
2: The 5 behaviour commandments dont prohibit killing they prohibit murder (as defined by the religious group involved). They in fact require killing of people who break them or the other 5. To accept the modern interpretations is to let judaeo-christianity off the hook, it is NOT founded in niceness it is founded in blood.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 4:43 PM
In fairness the Church of England is not opposed in principle to abortion.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 4:45 PM
In fairness the Church of England is not opposed in principle to abortion.
I am assuming this only means when necessary right?
Posted by: Heaventree
|
June 17, 2009 4:49 PM
I have copied and will now paste in the 4:44 comment by "H.H." so that when Bayly flushes it all down the memory hole, it will be preserved. A thing of beauty:
I see your sword of god and raise you the bow and arrow of Athena and Thor's hammer.
See? Anyone can invoke mythical beings and their supposed powers. But like Yahweh, they are fictional beings with no power to do anything. This authority you presume to wield comes from nowhere. Yahweh is not manifest in this world. The hopes, feelings, and delusions of his followers are just that. They aren't reality. If Jesus returns as the vanquishing king of kings, then you may claim authority. But that will never happen, because your religion is as impotent as every other religion. Christianity is not special. It is not true. You have confused indoctrination with knowledge. If your god existed, he could deal with the evils of the world without your help. So stop the empty threats. They intimidate no one. The world will keep on existing without your god and one day your religion will fade and be forgotten with all the other ancient superstitions. The fact that people will murder for their delusions is sickening, and you are a pathetic man to have wasted your life on nonsense. The world will only be a peaceful place when mankind can set aside such childish delusions. Until then, you a boy wearing a paper hat pretending to be a king, when in truth you are just a fool.
Posted by: Iris | June 17, 2009 4:50 PM
Shane@51:
They believe that the potential life of a fetus is of more value than the actual life of a woman. The point of my post @46 is that the bible doesn't support this view.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 4:52 PM
As is usual with the C of E it is hard to work out exactly what they mean. It is also a pretty broad church, and there will be those within in it opposed to all abortion. Their position is far from ideal, but a huge improvement on that of the Catholics.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 17, 2009 4:54 PM
Al-Qaida Presbyterian style.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 17, 2009 4:58 PM
Okay, but it's going to take a helluva lot to get that 4-year-old back into the womb and attached to a placenta.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 4:58 PM
I'm not sure why these comments are so surprising or shocking. First, a lot of conservatives don't particularly care for the legal system in practice. In theory, sure, they like the basic concepts of our system, but in practice they don't really care that much for "innocent until proven guilty," appeals, the 5th amendment, 8th amendment, etc. A fair trial, as PZ mentions, is quite possible prior to an execution because they "know" the person in question is guilty. They also don't have much of a problem with changing laws and then prosecuting people for breaking those laws before they were law. Ex post facto laws aren't really an issue if they're "right."
These simple facts are why it is so laughable when the religious right claims that our country is founded on the Bible, etc.
The minister in question should be arrested immediately. It is a felony to advocate the murder of the president of the United States.
It's not quite that simple. Brandenburg v. Ohio found that there has to be a reasonable expectation of immediate violence for statements like the minister's not to be considered free speech. If he were saying this to an agitated mob on the steps of congress or right in front of the White House, sure, he would be directly inciting someone to act, but being hundreds or thousands of miles away from the prospective target of these statements leaves them classified as free speech, no matter how vile or hateful.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:00 PM
>They believe that the potential life of a fetus is of more value than the actual life of a woman.
I do not believe it is about "more value" but of perhaps, equal value. Simply, I know in Jewish law ( so I assume in Christian as well), one cannot save ones life by having to kill another life (because both are equal). Hence, I believe they take it that the baby inside IS a person and therefore cannot simply be terminated, not even to save the mother. This last part is where Judaism and Christianity differ, but I would bargen that many Christians (since this is a broad term) also believe as Judaism that only at the cost of a mothers life can one terminate a baby
Posted by: H.H. | June 17, 2009 5:02 PM
Heaventree @ #56, thanks for the compliment. I was surprised that the blog allowed open comments, but like you, I'm not confident that any of the critical posts will last very long.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 5:02 PM
The guy has the xian Lie, Hate, and Kill for jesus act down pretty well. But , he doesn't sound too bright.
Polls show the majority of the US population are sick and tired of the fundie Death Cultists. This was a while ago and before the current wave of terror. Ironically this includes mostly other xians.
I'm sure if some crazy fundie assassin takes out a few senators, Supreme court judges, or the President, that will do wonders for their already sinking reputation.
Between 1 and 2 million people leave xianity in the USA per year. Why bother belonging to a terrorist organization that stands for hate and lies when you can sleep in on Sunday?
Posted by: JRD | June 17, 2009 5:04 PM
Rarely have I seen confirmation bias collectively derail a group of purportedly rational individuals so quickly as in these comments. He is clearly *not* advocating for the murder of the president or any other government officer; any reasonable interpretation of the comments indicates that "attacking" the "root of abortion" means taking political action within the democratic system, not assassinating public figures. Get a grip, people. This guy is a nutjob but that's no excuse to go equally nutty in the other direction.
Posted by: holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:06 PM
First, a lot of conservatives don't particularly care for the legal system in practice. In theory, sure, they like the basic concepts of our system, but in practice they don't really care that much for "innocent until proven guilty," appeals, the 5th amendment, 8th amendment, etc.
Of course we don't. We simply enjoy randomly going out and hanging anyone we please that we feel is guilty. We also enjoy taking away ALL your rights away and stomping on them...unless they benefit us of course. bwwahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahah
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
June 17, 2009 5:07 PM
Abortion On Demand, Safe, Legal, Free, No Questions Asked!
If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
June 17, 2009 5:08 PM
Such hateful and disgusting filth from this cretin. I guess he can get away with this because it is only his type of supporters who will kill others and are the mentally deranged like this 'preacher'.
Posted by: Paliban Mom | June 17, 2009 5:09 PM
Interesting, and yet 23% of the 221 people taking my poll thought of Scott Roeder as a Christian Hero for standing up for what he believed -- that tearing living, viable babies, mature enough at 23 weeks or later to survive if delivered via C-section or induced labor, into pieces and vacuuming them up is murder -- regardless of what secular law stated.
@53, 1: as noted, the guy unambiguously advocates for the assassination of the President, a serious crime in your country.
"The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders, and so attacked the branch" can be, if you squint really hard and twist it into a pretzel shape, interpreted as meaning to assassinate Obama, but I doubt that's what this pastor was suggesting.
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 5:10 PM
What endlessly irks me about the pro-life nuts is their belief that making abortion illegal would somehow magically end the procedure. Societal prohibitions rarely work in this sense, because the providers only adapt and the then-patients only take matters into their own hands. We should focus on contraception availability and comprehensive sex-ed, not meaningless bans from politicians that are hardly knowledgeable about private affairs.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:11 PM
Free Abortions????
Might I asked as to how we got a point where you are somehow entitled to FREE abortions
Posted by: David Bayly | June 17, 2009 5:13 PM
Actually guys, I think the logic of Dr. Tiller's killer should have led him up the chain of command. It's a demonstration of the essential cowardice of his deed that he went for the branch rather than the root. But pointing out the false logic of his position in no way equals promoting such action--as anyone who spent even the slightest time reading the sermon would have seen.
As for the rest of your complaints, I'm sorry for the darkness you've embraced. Life is precious to God no matter how many braying voices are raised in mockery against Him.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2009 5:13 PM
Really, JRD? Clearly??
"The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders, and so attacked the branch."
Look, paint it any way you want, but if I'm in charge of the security of our national leaders, I'm taking a strong look at that statement and the person who made it, as frankly, it looks to me like a reasonable person could easily interpret that to mean that this guy doesn't have a problem with the act itself, just with the target.
So your concern is noted.
Posted by: gr8hands | June 17, 2009 5:13 PM
PZ Myers, please note that these nutjobs are from the Presbyterian Church of America == a fringe group that splintered off from the real Presbyterians years ago because they wanted to discriminate against Blacks, against women, etc. They were legally forbidden not to use the word "Presbyterian" in their name, but have illegally done so, for the purpose of confusing themselves with legitimate and progressive Presbys in the U.S.
Actual Presbyterians (not the nutjobs from PCA) do not believe or support anything remotely like this. They have strongly condemned the murder.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 5:13 PM
Of course we don't. We simply enjoy randomly going out and hanging anyone we please that we feel is guilty. We also enjoy taking away ALL your rights away and stomping on them...unless they benefit us of course. bwwahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahah
Impressive destruction of the strawman argument I didn't make. Now care to actually address the comment, or would you rather make idiotic statements and laugh manically?
Posted by: XD | June 17, 2009 5:16 PM
Isn't "thou shalt not murder" a bit of a "well, duh" commandment? Murder is defined as wrongful killing, after all.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:16 PM
That IS the address.
How else does one address a comment like that when you have already poisoned the well?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 17, 2009 5:16 PM
Yeah, c'mon! I mean, he said that the murder was indefensible, right there before he spent several paragraphs defending it. After explaining why sometimes making yourself judge, jury, and executioner is appropriate, how can you possibly interpret "the killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders" as being about anything but voting? What a stretch.
Posted by: Julian | June 17, 2009 5:19 PM
I think you're off on this, Dr. Myers. He seems to be saying that Dr. Tiller's killer was mistaken in killing Tiller, who was merely a "branch" of the problem, instead of applying his justifiable violence at "the root", which are our elected leaders. What exactly is the difference between advocating the killing of every popularly elected politicians who disagrees with you and advocating the violent overthrow of the United States?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2009 5:19 PM
Then 23% of the voters have supported terrorism. I do trust you have sent details of their IP addresses to the FBI.
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 5:19 PM
Mr. David Bayly,
I'm sorry that you must ignorantly attack atheists. I was unaware that we embraced this aforementioned "darkness", as, as an atheist, I've led an extremely successful life in middle America. You can no more prove the existence of your deity than Vishnu, Zeus, Allah, and the Greek pantheon could be proved by their respective followers, and yet you demand that your religious laws dictate the lives of each and every American.
We will not allow you and your ilk to establish a theocracy in this nation, which is what many of you clearly intend to do when the time is right. Try as you might, Mr. Bayly, but the ill logic of Christian extremists will be swiftly struck down if they persist with their murderous demonstrations. Your deity is a tyrant.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:19 PM
Free Abortions???
How did we come to a point where women are somehow entitled to free abortions?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2009 5:19 PM
Then, David Bayly, I highly recommend you qualify / clear up / retract your statement, as it is clearly open to interpretation, and I for one think this is quite intentional on your part. If it was so easily seen as a call to violence by so many here, is it not reasonable to assume it may be similarly interpreted by one of your followers? Or are you not particularly concerned with that responsibility?
Posted by: amphiox | June 17, 2009 5:23 PM
Interesting factoid regarding the biblical story of Phinehas and his execution of the Israelite-Midianite couple:
Mose's wife was a Midianite.
Posted by: ursulamajor | June 17, 2009 5:24 PM
No. Empathy.
Why bother when your only guidance is from a violent and misogynist book and an invisible maniac that tell you not to care about anyone who thinks, looks or acts different than you?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 17, 2009 5:25 PM
@Celtic_Evolution: C'mon, CE. You're supposed to read it for what it means, not what it says.
Posted by: PB | June 17, 2009 5:26 PM
This pastor desrves our repect you heathens,
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 5:27 PM
It's a shame that David Bayly claims that anyone who doesn't support his religious worldview has somehow embraced darkness, as if all non-religious humans live in constant misery and fear of his particular Sky Daddy. I thought America was better than that, but I'm afraid that such individuals do exist.
Issue a clarification regarding your statement, Mr. Bayly, for you have allowed others to interpret what clearly followers a harsh, emotional condemnation of Tiller. YOU will have genuine blood on your hands, but I suppose that, if something does happen, you will take the ignorant "I didn't know" approach.
Typical.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:28 PM
Scott Roeder as a Christian Hero for standing up for what he believed -- that tearing living, viable babies, mature enough at 23 weeks or later to survive if delivered via C-section or induced labor, into pieces and vacuuming them up is murder -- regardless of what secular law stated.
I would think that in between "Abortion" and "murder" there should be another term, that at least in my opinion, makes something like doing that as you describe to a viable fetus (since its past the 21 week stage and viable) as something a bit, I don't know, disconcerting and heart stopping.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 5:30 PM
That IS the address.
How else does one address a comment like that when you have already poisoned the well?
Gotcha, you don't have a response because it is an accurate statement so you'll BS your way around it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 5:32 PM
Cute - a fundie branding us wicked atheists as heathens.
Are we back in the Dark Ages?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2009 5:32 PM
As soon as I figure out what 'repect' is, I'll make a determination as to whether he deserves it.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:33 PM
>Mose's wife was a Midianite.
Thats like saying Abraham Lincoln ordering the killing of other Americans during the war, and his wife was also an American.
>Then 23% of the voters have supported terrorism. I do trust you have sent details of their IP addresses to the FBI.
So now a murder is the same as Terrorism? Was the the soldier that got killed two weeks ago also a victim of terrorism?
Posted by: SueinNM | June 17, 2009 5:37 PM
What's all this crap about "viable" fetuses? do these people really think these often fatally deformed fetuses are "viable?" Do they really believe that women just decide one day that they're tired of being pregnant, after they've carried the fetus so long? Are these nutjobs even aware that the vast majority of Dr. Tiller's patients WANTED the baby, and were forced to make a terrible decision?
No, becuase facts get in the way of their righteous hate-mongering.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:41 PM
>Gotcha, you don't have a response because it is an accurate statement so you'll BS your way around it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Look
If you from the get go state as fact that a lot of conservatives don't care for the system then whats the point of arguing? What does "a lot" mean? Is it worth arguing that "a lot" of liberals would prefer a socialist nation? Unless of course you mean the majority, in which case you would have to start backing yourself up.
If you simply meant that there ARE conservatives, then fine and I apologize. But you can find "a lot" of anything. So unless its a considerable amount of a group, its not even worth a discussion.
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 5:42 PM
Sue,
No, because self-righteous Christians view life through a funhouse mirror, in which these complex social issues are only black or white. They rarely, if ever, consider the specifics in the life of each woman. They rarely, if ever, consider the existing health conditions of each patient. They only see atheists = bad and Tiller = bad, because their holy texts command that they arrive at such conclusions.
I sincerely weep for some of these deluded Christians.
Posted by: Ryogam | June 17, 2009 5:42 PM
Which of Moses' wives? The one who saved Moses' life when she cut her son's foreskin and threw it at God's feet as He tried to kill Moses? The one whose father wanted to take off for his home even after he saw all the "miracles" god performed? Or the Black chick?
Posted by: E.V. | June 17, 2009 5:45 PM
Did you mean to be redundant?Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 5:45 PM
So now a murder is the same as Terrorism? Was the the soldier that got killed two weeks ago also a victim of terrorism?
Actually given the reasoning for this murder, it's intent, etc., it is the very definition of terror. And FYI, the guy who murdered the soldier a couple of weeks ago is being charged with both murder and multiple counts of "engaging in a terrorist act."
So, you're quite wrong, yet again.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 5:46 PM
Translated from fundiespeak:
"All you atheistic, pseuodintellectual baby killers are going to hell. Just as soon as we find another mentally ill kook, wind him up, and point him in your direction.
Fundiespeak to English translation. What is your address? We need to know where to point the crazy assassin.Sure David. Just leave your death threats and hate mail with a return address and phone number. We need to alert the local police and the FBI about any of your impending visits.
Posted by: holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:47 PM
What's all this crap about "viable" fetuses? do these people really think these often fatally deformed fetuses are "viable?" Do they really believe that women just decide one day that they're tired of being pregnant, after they've carried the fetus so long? Are these nutjobs even aware that the vast majority of Dr. Tiller's patients WANTED the baby, and were forced to make a terrible decision?
What are the statistics on these abortions? How many were due to the mothers medical health? How many due to health of child? How many due to a woman just wanting to terminate a baby?
Though only wikipedia, they do give Some stats. Its old, but not sure how much of this has changed.
BTW- What WOULD you say had in your opinion the majority of the women simply WANTED to terminate those fetuses?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 17, 2009 5:47 PM
@SueinNM: Haven't you heard? Almost all abortions are done purely for the woman's convenience and to preserve her sinful lifestyle.* They get them done in between the manicurist and the shoe store so they'll be fresh that evening when they go have sex with men who aren't their husband and get pregnant again. Oops! Pencil in another abortion.
* Except when the woman is active in the pro-life community. Their abortions are totally different, and are very serious, private matters.
Posted by: Ryogam | June 17, 2009 5:48 PM
So now a murder is the same as Terrorism? Was the the soldier that got killed two weeks ago also a victim of terrorism?
Yes, if the purpose of the murder to to effect a political outcome by striking fear in a population. Both Tiller's murder and the Recruiter murder were acts of terror.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 17, 2009 5:48 PM
Don't be silly. If we were in the Dark Ages, we'd be surrounded by illiterate, God-soaked overworked serfs unquestioningly doing the will of slightly less illiterate cleric--
Oh, fuck.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 5:49 PM
So now a murder is the same as Terrorism? Was the the soldier that got killed two weeks ago also a victim of terrorism? - Holy Hyrax
What sort of a moron are you? Of course this murder was terrorism: its aim was precisely to cause terror to abortion providers and those needing abortions. And yes, if you're talking about the case I think you are, the soldier was also a victim of terrorism.
Posted by: Wolfhound | June 17, 2009 5:51 PM
Holy Hyrax, for those not in the know, is a politically conservative Jew who likes to troll atheist boards https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33241741&postID=8720942666532375563 wherever he sees an abortion topic. You can guess which side of the fence he is on...
Posted by: holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 5:53 PM
What sort of a moron are you? Of course this murder was terrorism: its aim was precisely to cause terror to abortion providers and those needing abortions. And yes, if you're talking about the case I think you are, the soldier was also a victim of terrorism.
How about you not being a dick. If I am wrong then I am wrong. I perhaps have a much higher threshold of what terrorism is. I wouldn't consider the holocaust shooting, or tiller or the recruiter or even years ago in the El Al shooting as terror. With that in mind, I could count LA gang shootings as acts of terror or early mafia killings as terror.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 5:54 PM
BTW- What WOULD you say had in your opinion the majority of the women simply WANTED to terminate those fetuses? - HolyHyrax
That it's none of my damn business what a woman does with her body - nor yours. Now fuck off.
Posted by: SueinNM | June 17, 2009 5:54 PM
Hyrax,
I'd say it was the failure of education and the teaching of abstinence-only, the failure of society to explain to these women that abortion is not a form of birth control. I deplore abortion for this purpose (though I suspect it is a very low number compared to what anti-choicers would like to believe.) I would not make it illegal, but I certainly would do everything in my power to discourage it.
What I object to, however, is the dog-whistle term pro-forced-birthers use: "viable", even when it's demonstrably not true in many if not most cases of late-term abortion. Your dishonesty does not change anyone's mind.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 5:56 PM
Look
If you from the get go state as fact that a lot of conservatives don't care for the system then whats the point of arguing? What does "a lot" mean? Is it worth arguing that "a lot" of liberals would prefer a socialist nation? Unless of course you mean the majority, in which case you would have to start backing yourself up.
I didn't say a majority, given the fact that we're talking about people who increasingly feel they have the right to ignore the results of legitimate elections, ignore laws they don't agree with, and in this specific case, tacitly support the murder of people they don't agree with, then "a lot" is any number over zero.
If you simply meant that there ARE conservatives, then fine and I apologize. But you can find "a lot" of anything. So unless its a considerable amount of a group, its not even worth a discussion.
You still haven't provided a legitimate argument against my statement other a weak argument based on semantics. I didn't say a majority, now many is "a lot" is an utterly idiotic argument when any is disturbing. We have a Bush administration sponsored report from DHS that reports heightened activities and concerns regarding right-wing domestic terror groups. We have the incidents in Kansas and at the Holocaust museum, and you want to argue semantics?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 17, 2009 5:56 PM
No one's linked to "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose" yet?
Christianity: A Personal Relationship Between You and Jesus, Whose Sole Purpose Is Apparently To Inform You As To Whether Or Not Other People's Behaviour Is Moral. You Go Ahead And Do Whatever The Fuck You Want.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 5:56 PM
Hyrax the xian Liar for jesus:Though only wikipedia, they do give Some stats. Its old, but not sure how much of this has changed.
Hyrax is a Death Cult Xian. You can tell because it is lying.
The wikipedia stats are misleading and are there to mislead people. The fundies define Late Term Abortion as anything after ovulation. And then conflate statistics from all abortions to flat out lie.
The correct term for Tiller type abortions is Third Trimester. There are only around a 1000 done in the USA and they are heavily regulated and reviewed by law.
Take your stupid lies and go fuck yourself, asshole. And oh yeah, I'll pray for you so that you can leave your darkness of hate and lies. Like that will ever happen. LOL.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 17, 2009 5:58 PM
Frank Rich wrote an excellent column on the rise of hatred towards Obama and any position he takes. This sermon is more of the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=1
The pathetic thing is that this sermon is a call to action, but if another abortion provided is murdered, this coward would wash his hands of the deed even though he would be partially responsible.
Posted by: Ryogam | June 17, 2009 5:59 PM
Nonsense. Neither LA gangs or the Mafia are attempting to affect a political outcome. Shit, they don't even care about creating fear so much; it's business, not personal.
The El Al shooting in LA was also terror. As was the Holocaust museum shooter.
Try to think of it this way: do the murderers have a POLITICAL goal? Do the murders advance that political goal by causing people to fear going against that political goal? Then, it's terrorism.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 6:01 PM
well, in the case of Dr. Tiller's patients, ALL OF THEM were for medical reasons, or else he'd be in jail, not dead. Kentucky allows late term abortions ONLY in cases where the pregnant woman is likely to die or suffer permanent damage; and the pro-lifers have vigilantly sent Tiller to court because they claimed he was performing non-necessary abortions. they lost. EVERY SINGLE TIME. In a conservative state like Kentucky, if there had been a case of a single late-term abortion not overwhelmingly justified by grave danger to the woman, he'd have been found guilty in no time.
Posted by: Iris | June 17, 2009 6:02 PM
DB@72:
Life is not precious to the god of the bible. He is a bloodsoaked, genocidal, misogynist, racist, narcissistic, murdering sociopath. Haven't you read the book?
Furthermore, my life is certainly not precious to you, your delusional friends, or your imaginary friends, either. If I get pregnant, without major medical intervention I could die, and the chance of my having a healthy baby is nearly nil. But I guess it just doesn't occur to you that I am somebody's "baby" too. I should just keep my legs closed, right?
@HH -YES, abortion should absolutely be FREE (i.e. covered by public health insurance). As should all healthcare, reproductive and otherwise.
Posted by: DG | June 17, 2009 6:02 PM
Apparently, they Bayly site just closed comments on this thread -- the head nitwit left a message that I added below. apparently, they have no stomach for a fight against an enemy that fires back:
From the website:
Men, you have your own sites where you may write what you will, benefiting from our shared First Amendment rights. But this site is under the authority of God's Word and your posting your shame here is not necessary to the exercise of those rights. There are few enough forums for followers of Jesus Christ as it is without allowing those who hate Him and His Father to make this a wretched place, also.
I've removed most of your sacrilege and blasphemy, above.
Tim Bayly
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 17, 2009 6:03 PM
Shorter, and to the point.
Posted by: kamaka | June 17, 2009 6:04 PM
@ David Bayly
Life is precious to God no matter how many braying voices are raised in mockery against Him.
Two things to say about this: We do not mock god, there is no god, we mock lie-peddlers like you.
And braying voices? Project much?
Posted by: DG | June 17, 2009 6:04 PM
Apparently, they Bayly site just closed comments on this thread -- the head nitwit left a message that I added below. apparently, they have no stomach for a fight against an enemy that fires back:
From the website:
Men, you have your own sites where you may write what you will, benefiting from our shared First Amendment rights. But this site is under the authority of God's Word and your posting your shame here is not necessary to the exercise of those rights. There are few enough forums for followers of Jesus Christ as it is without allowing those who hate Him and His Father to make this a wretched place, also.
I've removed most of your sacrilege and blasphemy, above.
Tim Bayly
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 6:05 PM
Ryogam
I guess I would ask, was that the POINT of the killing? Meaning, when he went to kill Tiller, was he doing it for some political end OR, simply because he felt Tiller was a murderer.
>Shit, they don't even care about creating fear so much; it's business, not personal.
You're wrong about that. They purposely instill fear in their neighborhoods business where they go in and demand payment for "protection" lest they be killed.
Posted by: H.H. | June 17, 2009 6:05 PM
Yep, comments are now closed. Notice how he assumes all of the critical posters are male:
His website is under the authority of god. If it wasn't, by what authority could he declare that statements challenging that authority are blasphemy? Take that, fact-hating atheists! QEDPosted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 6:05 PM
The correct term for Tiller type abortions is Third Trimester. There are only around a 1000 done in the USA and they are heavily regulated and reviewed by law.
In fact, to further Raven's point, Tiller had just successfully defended a second politically motivated series of charges that he had been performing illegal procedures just a couple of weeks before he was murdered.
The anti-choice folks like to pretend that these are callous women and evil doctors murdering perfectly healthy babies for a buck and convenience. This procedure couldn't be further from that well entrenched lie. It is a heavily regulated and very limited procedure most often dealing with cases where the fetus is already dead and toxic, where the fetus is horribly deformed and is unlikely to survive, cases where the mother's life is in grave danger, etc.
This isn't a Tuesday afternoon jaunt between a Starbucks coffee and a pedicure.
Posted by: DG | June 17, 2009 6:07 PM
Apparently, they Bayly site just closed comments on this thread -- the head nitwit left a message that I added below. apparently, they have no stomach for a fight against an enemy that fires back:
From the website:
Men, you have your own sites where you may write what you will, benefiting from our shared First Amendment rights. But this site is under the authority of God's Word and your posting your shame here is not necessary to the exercise of those rights. There are few enough forums for followers of Jesus Christ as it is without allowing those who hate Him and His Father to make this a wretched place, also.
I've removed most of your sacrilege and blasphemy, above.
Tim Bayly
Posted by: H.H. | June 17, 2009 6:09 PM
Iris wrote:
It should be noted that Iris was responding here to Holy Hyrax, lest any other HHs find themselves momentarily confused.Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 17, 2009 6:10 PM
...wrote the illiterate piece of filth who exhorted us to "burn in hell".
Posted by: TheVirginian | June 17, 2009 6:10 PM
The biblical story of Phinehas has inspired the "Phineas (sic) Priesthood" belief among right-wing militia groups. It claims that people (usually meaning Christians) have a right and duty to take action (killing, mainly) if crime (usually meaning "against god") is being committed. Several killers who acted from racist, antisemitic or anti-abortion beliefs are either known to believed in or are suspected of believing in the Phineas Priesthood concept. It's a murderous idea on the right that previously had claimed several lives. This preacher is either a militia supporter or he's an idiot who does not realize he's playing with fire.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 6:11 PM
The anti-choice folks like to pretend that these are callous women and evil doctors murdering perfectly healthy babies for a buck and convenience. This procedure couldn't be further from that well entrenched lie. It is a heavily regulated and very limited procedure most often dealing with cases where the fetus is already dead and toxic, where the fetus is horribly deformed and is unlikely to survive, cases where the mother's life is in grave danger, etc.
Fair enough, but it would be helpful for actual statistics on why exactly are the reason women go in their for those types of abortions and for the conditions of these babies.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 6:11 PM
Well, when the evil fundies aren't lying or killing, guess what?
When they need an abortion, they go get one. Calling the religion Xianity was a mistake. It should be Hypocrianity
Posted by: Larry | June 17, 2009 6:11 PM
I've never understood these fetus fanatics who insist that their god will smite those whom they disagree with and, when their god's time table for the smiting doesn't conform to theirs, take matters into their own bloody hands.
Basically they are fucking cowards and the most vile creatures one can possibly imagine. And any so-called christian who, in any way, shape, or form, excuses, tolerates, remains silent about, or refuses to deny this idiots legitimacy shares that same status. As far as I am concerned, all christians are part and parcel in this shameful event.
Posted by: Heaventree
|
June 17, 2009 6:12 PM
Just as I predicted @ # 56, supra. I'll reiterate: well-played, H.H. Jesus Christ, can you even imagine going through life as ignorant and fearful as Bayly? What reason does he have for continuing to live?
Posted by: DG | June 17, 2009 6:15 PM
Apparently, they Bayly site just closed comments on this thread -- the head nitwit left a message that I added below. apparently, they have no stomach for a fight against an enemy that fires back:
From the website:
Men, you have your own sites where you may write what you will, benefiting from our shared First Amendment rights. But this site is under the authority of God's Word and your posting your shame here is not necessary to the exercise of those rights. There are few enough forums for followers of Jesus Christ as it is without allowing those who hate Him and His Father to make this a wretched place, also.
I've removed most of your sacrilege and blasphemy, above.
Tim Bayly
Posted by: DG | June 17, 2009 6:17 PM
BTW, sorry about the multiple posts.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 17, 2009 6:17 PM
Oops, I falsely attributed a comment by David Bayly to some braying follower of his in #126. It was a follower of his that exhorted us all to burn in hell, presumably because the fucker doesn't seem to understand Life is Precious to God™.
Sounds like you're a shitty pastor, David: your followers aren't getting your message. Maybe you should turn in your collar and get a real job, where the consequences of your incompetence and stupidity are real, parasite.
Posted by: Heaventree
|
June 17, 2009 6:19 PM
One more: I enjoyed the closing comments (left in place, for obvious reasons, by Bayly) by "David Grey," who claims to have "had a professional obligation involving the protection of the President".
Suuuuuuuuuuuure, I believe that. All he had to add was "That's the ticket" or to refer to his wife, Morgan Fairchild.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 6:21 PM
>When they need an abortion, they go get one. Calling the religion Xianity was a mistake. It should be Hypocrianity
Well, to be fair, this does not speak of Christiniaty, but that those girls just don't care for that part of the theology. Even the article in question makes reference that these girls are not living up to those specific values.
The article also mentions the sample included teens, which is not surpising since teens are more likelier to be scared and not absorb those "christian values" yet. But as they get into their 20's it decreses.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 6:22 PM
Christ you are one stupid malformed bunny. Those statistics are no longer available or probably even being collected. The docs and their patients fear for their lives for good reasons. They have a habit of getting murdered.
Third Trimesters are going underground to escape the terrorists. That means that some woman who need them aren't going to get them.
Here is one indication for Third Trimesters. 25% of PAH patients who get pregnant will die. They usually end up in the ICU and some of them do die.
Posted by: Doug Goodin | June 17, 2009 6:22 PM
I am proud to report that my comment was one of those removed from the Bayly site for being "sacrilege and blasphemy." However, I can't help wondering which of the two it was?
Posted by: holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 6:25 PM
Christ you are one stupid malformed bunny
for asking for actual facts to back up your claims of what women come in and fetuses they abort? OK, then.
Those statistics are no longer available or probably even being collected.
How convenient for you.
Posted by: jasper
|
June 17, 2009 6:26 PM
Well, Its 6:25 and the comments on the holy site are closed and al opposing comments removed. They have accused us of hating god.
Isn't that a bit like accusing one of hating Santa Claus or the tooth fairy?
Posted by: Watchman | June 17, 2009 6:27 PM
We have a long, LONG way to go as a species.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 6:33 PM
It's too bad that Bayly ran away. A question keeps coming up.
How many people are the Xian Terrorists going to kill before people start firing back?
Is it 10, 100, 1000 or more?
It is not a myth that normal people are far less violent than fundie xian Death Cultists It is a myth that they are going to get murdered forever without defending themselves.
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 17, 2009 6:35 PM
At least this minister has read and understood the Bible, which is more than I can say for most liberal Christians.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 17, 2009 6:37 PM
Yeah, it's their way of whitewashing away cognitive dissonance, so they don't have to acknowledge that their One True Super Awesome Important And Obvious To Everybody God doesn't seem to be so obvious to everybody.
Believe it or not, what offends me most about these people is how fucking lousy they are at their faith. I mean, back when I was a Christian, I simply didn't turn a blind eye to some unpleasantness of theology simply because it made me uncomfortable, I embraced that shit, wrestled with it, asked my teachers and priests about it, and prayed about it.
Then again, that process led me straight to apostasy (over a decade or so), so maybe the lobotomised sheep thing is the way to go after all.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 6:39 PM
raven: Those statistics are no longer available or probably even being collected.How convenient for you.
Sorry. If you want to kill a doc, you will have to do some digging. Life is going to get tougher for you terrorists. The American people have never been too fond of fundies or terrorism. Way it goes.
Posted by: kamaka | June 17, 2009 6:41 PM
One True Super Awesome Important And Obvious To Everybody God™
Fixed
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 6:43 PM
>Sorry. If you want to kill a doc, you will have to do some digging. Life is going to get tougher for you terrorists. The American people have never been too fond of fundies or terrorism. Way it goes.
Not sure I know where you get this from. If you don't have facts to back up your own claims, then fine. But don't accuse me of nonsense so you can feel all self righteous about yourself. I in no way condone the murder of Tillman.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 6:44 PM
Fair enough, but it would be helpful for actual statistics on why exactly are the reason women go in their for those types of abortions and for the conditions of these babies.
Only four states allow these procedures, so by definition they are very rare. Kansas law requires that two independent doctors agree that the procedures is necessary to save a woman's life or prevent "substantial and irreversible harm to a major bodily function." Kansas is, despite the rigidity of this requirement, one of the more "liberal" states when it comes to this procedure, one other has similar guidelines, the other two allow the procedure only if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Again, these are rare procedures performed due to serious medical complications.
Posted by: frog | June 17, 2009 6:45 PM
It was an act of rebellion posing as an act of justice.
And that says it all about traditional Christian morality.
It's just a thin veneer over Roman absolutism.
Posted by: Martin | June 17, 2009 6:47 PM
#106
who, judging from his assertions, doesn't even know Jewish law - as least as far as it applies to abortion - very well. Not that this surprises me, of course.Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 6:48 PM
I don't believe you. Fundies always, always lie.
Posted by: holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 6:52 PM
Maybe we should get into specifics.
Dogmeat, when you say THESE PROCEDURES, what exactly are you talking about? Because you mention 4 states only where as on wikipedia it mentions that 14 states allow for some kind of late term abortion. Unless its outdated.
Posted by: holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 6:56 PM
>who, judging from his assertions, doesn't even know Jewish law - as least as far as it applies to abortion - very well. Not that this surprises me, of course.
Nu, and go on!
What was I wrong on, or left out?
>I don't believe you. Fundies always, always lie.
That's fine. I'm not hear to convince you of anything you haven't already convinced yourself of.
Posted by: articulett | June 17, 2009 6:57 PM
Thou shall not kill-- except when your invisible friend tells you too.
How would the right to lifers feel if their logic was applied to those who make guns accessible to these self appointed vigilantes? Couldn't the same argument be used to encourage assignation of gun nuts? Wasn't similar logic used by the hijackers on 9-11?
I do wish the minions would leave the Almighty to fight his own battles--I can't imagine why he'd need mortals for the job.
Posted by: abb3w | June 17, 2009 7:03 PM
Nor do I believe that Dr. Tiller's killer necessarily acted inappropriately as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner. [...] The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders, and so attacked the branch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that this David Bayly whacko has effectively just called from the pulpit for the assassination of American government officials? And, given the rest of the sermon, of President Obama and perhaps members of the Supreme Court? While I am not a lawyer, I don't think 18 USC 2385 leaves that legal.
Would someone please alert the United States Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service?
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 7:08 PM
>Would someone please alert the United States Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service?
You don't really think this person is a threat , or implied a threat do you?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 7:08 PM
If you from the get go state as fact that a lot of conservatives don't care for the system then whats the point of arguing?
Actually I will return to this one. Yes, you could argue that a majority of conservatives don't care for how the system works. I'll point to a few examples, try to argue against them if you can:
1st Amendment: Well established that conservatives don't care for this one. They would love to shut up people they don't agree with, the cry of "they took God out of our schools" is a regular of right-wing mainstream (not just wing-nuts), and conservatives have tried a number of times to ban flag burning.
2nd Amendment: Often appears to be the only amendment that conservatives have any use for. Sad thing is, they seem to have only read half of it.
Skipping the 3rd amendment, not really an issue...
4th Amendment: Major conservative issue here, conservatives have been arguing against the modern interpretation of this since Mapp. Conservatives decry cases where evidence is thrown out because of police violations of the 4th amendment regularly. They've argued against 4th amendment rights for computer records, phone conversations, etc.
5th Amendment: Again conservatives have been arguing against this one since Miranda and before. Conservatives seem to long for the old days of 40s cops "roughing up" a suspect "just a little" to get a confession.
6th Amendment: Conservative arguments led to the monstrosity of the Betts ruling. Conservatives today argue against expert witnesses for the defense (when the state has to pay for it) and push for massive cuts in public defense offices even when they're already woefully underfunded.
Not that much of an issue with the 7th amendment...
8th Amendment: Conservatives seem to absolutely hate this one. They argued in favor of the death penalty even when it was proven to be administered in a racist and unfair manner (Furman). You joked about conservatives going out and killing people, that might have been a poor choice. History shows that the states and municipalities that had the highest number of lynchings, literally when people dragged the accused out of the jail refusing to allow a fair trial and murdering them, occurred by a huge margin in conservative communities. Today conservative states execute more of their inmates, do it more quickly, allow fewer appeals, embrace more questionable procedures, and, in the case of Texas, have what amounts to an "express lane."
Conservatives argue against appeals, against appellate decisions, and in favor of executions.
9th Amendment: Even without Roe conservatives hate this amendment and its legal consequences. Conservative justices regularly decry this amendment, attempt to interpret it in as limited a manner as possible while at the same time claiming to be "originalist" and ironically ignoring the statements of the founding fathers promoting a broad interpretation of the amendment.
Not as much of an issue with the 10th amendment, this one is more of a "we love states rights as long as the states are doing what we want them to do" situation.
Now I only addressed the Bill of Rights, and did so in direct response to your "majority" argument. The above are all examples of where a majority of conservatives don't care for how the system works. In numerous (not so extreme) cases they have resorted to violence to oppose these laws and legal precedents they disagree with. They have, in a sense, quite literally run amok in the streets as you scoffed in your attack of the straw-man version of my argument.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 7:14 PM
Dogmeat, when you say THESE PROCEDURES, what exactly are you talking about? Because you mention 4 states only where as on wikipedia it mentions that 14 states allow for some kind of late term abortion. Unless its outdated.
The 3rd trimester abortions performed by Dr. Tiller. There are only four states which allow these procedures, all of which require a medical reason for the procedure.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 7:16 PM
dogmeat
Thats quite a long list (and comment) and way beyond the scope of this thread (let alone my expertise in all of it).
How about a guest post dealing with this topic
You in?
Posted by: Heaventree
|
June 17, 2009 7:19 PM
Tim Bayly: you fucking coward.
Posted by: Felix | June 17, 2009 7:23 PM
Inciting hatred, tribalism, mob mentality and divisiveness is part and parcel of their livelihood, so of course they will preach what others are expected to practice.
And why exactly is it just freedom of speech accusing specific persons, living or dead, of being criminals even murderers, and not culpable libel?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 7:24 PM
How about a guest post dealing with this topic
Parameters?
Posted by: holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 7:27 PM
dogmeat
what's your email
Posted by: kamaka | June 17, 2009 7:27 PM
Hyrax troll,
Anencephaly is a good example of a birth defect that might call for a third trimester abortion. Chances of the fetus surviving are nil and the pregnancies are often prolonged, 10 months or more.
A friend of mine had a baby (after a 10 month pregnancy) with this condition, it lived three hours. If she had chosen a third trimester abortion, this would be wrong in what way?
This is the kind of thing Dr. Tiller was dealing with.
Posted by: Shadow
|
June 17, 2009 7:29 PM
Why?
Posted by: Felix | June 17, 2009 7:31 PM
Ask one of these people this question:
Is Osama a terrorist, and has he killed anyone by his own hand (that we know of)? And is it warranted to apprehend or kill Osama on sight?
I'm sure they'd answer yes to the first and either start stuttering or making shit up on the second, going killyes on three. But the point is, if Osama is a terrorist for inciting murder without actually committing any himself - what can they say against someone who would decide to start shooting hate preachers like the above minister or certain figures on television?
Teh slippery slope - ur on it.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 17, 2009 7:35 PM
"Abortion will proceed because, and this is vital to say, abortion is blessed by the law of the land."
It's like he thinks society wants to produce fetuses inside the bodies of women just to remove them.
Society is evil, and must be brought back to enforce the will of god.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 7:36 PM
dogmeatIB@mailinator.com
Posted by: JRD | June 17, 2009 7:36 PM
@Celtic_Evolution et al.,
It's pretty easy to make words sound sinister by selectively highlighting a single sentence. The fact is that his whole point is that exacting personal vengeance in violation of the law is not biblically justified-- as the two sentences immediately prior to the one you quote obviously demonstrate. There is *more* than enough in this wingnut's actual sentiments to laugh at without demolishing your own credibility reading in things that aren't there.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 17, 2009 7:39 PM
JRD @ 169
Your concern is, once again, noted.
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 17, 2009 7:41 PM
To be fair, President Obama and most of the Democrats in Congress aren't big fans of the 4th Amendment either.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 17, 2009 7:42 PM
Neither do I. But do you condone the murder of Dr. Tiller?
Posted by: holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 7:43 PM
>Neither do I. But do you condone the murder of Dr. Tiller?
ooops. I meant Tiller. Sorry
Posted by: Felix | June 17, 2009 7:45 PM
Since they think like children, it isn't surprising that they act like children too. They constantly test out how much they can get away with, versus the law, versus the IRS, and even versus their own congregations and families. They are true sociopaths, unconscientious children in the bodies of adults. Children with assault weapons, explosives, internet access and media networks.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 17, 2009 7:51 PM
To be fair, President Obama and most of the Democrats in Congress aren't big fans of the 4th Amendment either.
It is rather unfortunate that the Obama administration has opted to continue some of the more odious policies of the Bush administration. Rather shatters the claims that he is a raging liberal soft on terror, etc., but why bother with reality when catch-phrases and buzz-lines work so much better, eh?
Posted by: Felix | June 17, 2009 7:53 PM
Bayly chimes in:
"Men, you have your own sites where you may write what you will, benefiting from our shared First Amendment rights. But this site is under the authority of God's Word and your posting your shame here is not necessary to the exercise of those rights. There are few enough forums for followers of Jesus Christ as it is without allowing those who hate Him and His Father to make this a wretched place, also.
I've removed most of your sacrilege and blasphemy, above.
Tim Bayly
PS: I am Jody's pastor, and contrary to what you wrote above, I did not write, preach, or post this sermon. But then, accuracy is rarely a concern of those who hate God."
waaaaaaahhh, mommy they saw me! halp! big skydaddy wiw pwotect widdle timmy wight mommy? he will mommy? mommy? waaaaaaa...
I recall writing a post about how they are children in adult bodies a few minutes ago. qed.
Posted by: Felix | June 17, 2009 7:56 PM
Bayly chimes in:
I've removed most of your sacrilege and blasphemy, above.
Tim Bayly
PS: I am Jody's pastor, and contrary to what you wrote above, I did not write, preach, or post this sermon. But then, accuracy is rarely a concern of those who hate God."
waaaaaaahhh, mommy they saw me! halp! big skydaddy wiw pwotect widdle timmy wight mommy? he will mommy? mommy? waaaaaaa...
I recall writing a post about how they are children in adult bodies a few minutes ago. qed.
Posted by: Iris | June 17, 2009 7:57 PM
H.H.- apologies, I meant Holey Hymen. Who ignored my point.
-Iris
Posted by: Yoritomo | June 17, 2009 7:58 PM
From the preacher himself:
Good one. I almost laughed. When braying voices are raised in mockery against Him, life very quickly ceases to be precious to him - instead he'll go into jealousy mode and start the smiting.
Posted by: Felix | June 17, 2009 8:00 PM
sorry for mistagging the blockquote in my above post, and for not getting comic sans to display properly.
Aren't we nice, feeding their persecution complex when they need it most.
Posted by: crowepps | June 17, 2009 8:01 PM
HIPPA and medical ethics restrict the ability of anyone to gather accurate statistics however the statistics regarding the incidence of various birth defects and pregnancy complications are widely available.
Anancephaly occurs in 1 out of 150,000 pregnancies - with 6 million pregnancies confirmed each year that would be 40 cases approximately.
Down Syndrome occurs in 1 in 1000 pregnancies - the incidence would be approximately 6,000 cases annually.
Preeclamsia affects 6% of pregnancies - 360,000 cases, of which 36,000 will be
'severe'.
Stillbirths (fetal death in utero or during birth) also are about 26,000 cases. (Removing a dead fetus is an 'induced abortion' and is included in the statistics for abortion.)
There are many more complications of pregnancy/fetal development and the incidence rates are available. In addition, there are approximately 64,000 women whose ectopic pregnancies must be terminated in the early weeks, 6,000 women with molar pregnancies, and 600,000 spontaneous abortions (miscarriages).
Posted by: kamaka | June 17, 2009 8:03 PM
We already have all the shame here we need.
Posted by: gr8hands | June 17, 2009 8:35 PM
Hosea chapter 9 clearly shows god to be an abortionist, causing "a miscarrying womb and dry breasts."
So much for the xtians . . .
Posted by: khan | June 17, 2009 8:50 PM
I just want the misogynists to remember that this is my fucking body we are talking about.
Ignorant fucking cretinous yahoos.
Posted by: akshelby | June 17, 2009 8:55 PM
From the skeptics annotated bible:
God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.
The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
Posted by: John Done | June 17, 2009 8:58 PM
Dammit! Now I won't be able to respond! I really wanted to post this, too. Ah well, he's what I punched up.
"I am not impressed with the justifications given for what was said in this sermon. Suppose you informed a minority group in Nazi Germany of the Holocaust and they wholeheartedly believed that it was horrifyingly amoral and must be stopped. Then suppose you told them that they should use the Word of God and due process of the law to fight the Holocaust rather than form a sort of resistance against the German Army and join up with the Allies, as reason would dictate. They would either be disgusted with your ignorance and irrationality concerning the situation, or somehow be extremely gullible and get themselves killed in due process of the law.
Now imagine what you claim to be true right now. Supposedly 50 million or so human beings have been massacred in due process of the law, and all available evidence suggests that the influence of God's Word in America seems to be decreasing. What in your God's name makes you think the best way to fight an unborn Holocaust is to try in vain to change the minds of lawmakers? And why are you taking your time in doing so? Why aren't you making this your number one priority, and if you are, we are less than amazed by your fervor. Everything in this country should grind to a halt when you demand this, you shouldn't be going about your day as usual if there's a Holocaust in your backyard.
And then this sermon comes along and somehow the pastor feels the need to say that killing is not always forbidden. I don't care if the sermon says to use due process of the law, because that, as mentioned, is a horrendously stupid idea if you truly believe a Holocaust to be occurring. There is no reason to point that out in a condemnation of a murderer. Someone who hears this kind of stuff all the time throughout their lives is bound to reach the conclusion that they should take matters into their own hands and try to save many lives by taking one, and would also be dismayed to find that you don't take abortion seriously enough to rise up as one and demand that it stops at any cost. And who are you to say that it's not God's will that he should do this? Maybe he was right and your concept of God is a terribly misrepresented idea of your own personal beliefs. Or maybe everybody's concept of God is like that.
I'm not justifying Tiller's murder, as you can no doubt tell from my use of language; I'm pointing out the terrible inconsistency and inanity of your beliefs concerning this matter. And I'm disgusted by all of this gibberish that's supposed to be a critique of a murderer but ends up supporting the very reason why he took Tiller's life. And I'm further disgusted by the fact that there is nothing in your moral dialogue that includes secular reasoning. Is your only reason for hating the idea of rebellion because God told you to respect authority? Do you seriously believe that the only reason Tiller's murder is wrong is because his killer did it against God's wishes? It disturbs me that your moral conscience could turn on a dime if the right people told you that God thought differently than you previously believed. Or that if God himself told you something of that nature, that it wouldn't even occur to you to get your head examined.
Really, I don't understand why you can't take a reasonable approach to any of this. I don't understand why you don't try to take the other side's point of view and understand why "God-haters" are so distraught by your words and actions. (The term "God-hater" is fairly indicative of your ignorance of atheists and atheism in general.) I don't hate anything or anyone; I'm just terribly concerned by this pseudo-criticism of a murderer. I’m a former believer who at one time fully believed everything the thoughtful Christian readers here have written, and came to realize how bizarrely counterproductive it all was to my moral development. I truly believe that this is making Americans suffer unnecessarily for the sake of a belief in the consciousness of the unborn that simply doesn't exist.
I know this won't change anything, but it had to be said."
Posted by: John Done | June 17, 2009 9:02 PM
Dammit! Now I won't be able to respond! I really wanted to post this, too. Ah well, he's what I punched up.
"I am not impressed with the justifications given for what was said in this sermon. Suppose you informed a minority group in Nazi Germany of the Holocaust and they wholeheartedly believed that it was horrifyingly amoral and must be stopped. Then suppose you told them that they should use the Word of God and due process of the law to fight the Holocaust rather than form a sort of resistance against the German Army and join up with the Allies, as reason would dictate. They would either be disgusted with your ignorance and irrationality concerning the situation, or somehow be extremely gullible and get themselves killed in due process of the law.
Now imagine what you claim to be true right now. Supposedly 50 million or so human beings have been massacred in due process of the law, and all available evidence suggests that the influence of God's Word in America seems to be decreasing. What in your God's name makes you think the best way to fight an unborn Holocaust is to try in vain to change the minds of lawmakers? And why are you taking your time in doing so? Why aren't you making this your number one priority, and if you are, we are less than amazed by your fervor. Everything in this country should grind to a halt when you demand this, you shouldn't be going about your day as usual if there's a Holocaust in your backyard.
And then this sermon comes along and somehow the pastor feels the need to say that killing is not always forbidden. I don't care if the sermon says to use due process of the law, because that, as mentioned, is a horrendously stupid idea if you truly believe a Holocaust to be occurring. There is no reason to point that out in a condemnation of a murderer. Someone who hears this kind of stuff all the time throughout their lives is bound to reach the conclusion that they should take matters into their own hands and try to save many lives by taking one, and would also be dismayed to find that you don't take abortion seriously enough to rise up as one and demand that it stops at any cost. And who are you to say that it's not God's will that he should do this? Maybe he was right and your concept of God is a terribly misrepresented idea of your own personal beliefs. Or maybe everybody's concept of God is like that.
I'm not justifying Tiller's murder, as you can no doubt tell from my use of language; I'm pointing out the terrible inconsistency and inanity of your beliefs concerning this matter. And I'm disgusted by all of this gibberish that's supposed to be a critique of a murderer but ends up supporting the very reason why he took Tiller's life. And I'm further disgusted by the fact that there is nothing in your moral dialogue that includes secular reasoning. Is your only reason for hating the idea of rebellion because God told you to respect authority? Do you seriously believe that the only reason Tiller's murder is wrong is because his killer did it against God's wishes? It disturbs me that your moral conscience could turn on a dime if the right people told you that God thought differently than you previously believed. Or that if God himself told you something of that nature, that it wouldn't even occur to you to get your head examined.
Really, I don't understand why you can't take a reasonable approach to any of this. I don't understand why you don't try to take the other side's point of view and understand why "God-haters" are so distraught by your words and actions. (The term "God-hater" is fairly indicative of your ignorance of atheists and atheism in general.) I don't hate anything or anyone; I'm just terribly concerned by this pseudo-criticism of a murderer. I’m a former believer who at one time fully believed everything the thoughtful Christian readers here have written, and came to realize how bizarrely counterproductive it all was to my moral development. I truly believe that this is making Americans suffer unnecessarily for the sake of a belief in the consciousness of the unborn that simply doesn't exist.
I know this won't change anything, but it had to be said."
Posted by: John Done | June 17, 2009 9:08 PM
Dammit! Now I won't be able to respond! I really wanted to post this, too. Ah well, he's what I punched up.
"I am not impressed with the justifications given for what was said in this sermon. Suppose you informed a minority group in Nazi Germany of the Holocaust and they wholeheartedly believed that it was horrifyingly amoral and must be stopped. Then suppose you told them that they should use the Word of God and due process of the law to fight the Holocaust rather than form a sort of resistance against the German Army and join up with the Allies, as reason would dictate. They would either be disgusted with your ignorance and irrationality concerning the situation, or somehow be extremely gullible and get themselves killed in due process of the law.
Now imagine what you claim to be true right now. Supposedly 50 million or so human beings have been massacred in due process of the law, and all available evidence suggests that the influence of God's Word in America seems to be decreasing. What in your God's name makes you think the best way to fight an unborn Holocaust is to try in vain to change the minds of lawmakers? And why are you taking your time in doing so? Why aren't you making this your number one priority, and if you are, we are less than amazed by your fervor. Everything in this country should grind to a halt when you demand this, you shouldn't be going about your day as usual if there's a Holocaust in your backyard.
And then this sermon comes along and somehow the pastor feels the need to say that killing is not always forbidden. I don't care if the sermon says to use due process of the law, because that, as mentioned, is a horrendously stupid idea if you truly believe a Holocaust to be occurring. There is no reason to point that out in a condemnation of a murderer. Someone who hears this kind of stuff all the time throughout their lives is bound to reach the conclusion that they should take matters into their own hands and try to save many lives by taking one, and would also be dismayed to find that you don't take abortion seriously enough to rise up as one and demand that it stops at any cost. And who are you to say that it's not God's will that he should do this? Maybe he was right and your concept of God is a terribly misrepresented idea of your own personal beliefs. Or maybe everybody's concept of God is like that.
I'm not justifying Tiller's murder, as you can no doubt tell from my use of language; I'm pointing out the terrible inconsistency and inanity of your beliefs concerning this matter. And I'm disgusted by all of this gibberish that's supposed to be a critique of a murderer but ends up supporting the very reason why he took Tiller's life. And I'm further disgusted by the fact that there is nothing in your moral dialogue that includes secular reasoning. Is your only reason for hating the idea of rebellion because God told you to respect authority? Do you seriously believe that the only reason Tiller's murder is wrong is because his killer did it against God's wishes? It disturbs me that your moral conscience could turn on a dime if the right people told you that God thought differently than you previously believed. Or that if God himself told you something of that nature, that it wouldn't even occur to you to get your head examined.
Really, I don't understand why you can't take a reasonable approach to any of this. I don't understand why you don't try to take the other side's point of view and understand why "God-haters" are so distraught by your words and actions. (The term "God-hater" is fairly indicative of your ignorance of atheists and atheism in general.) I don't hate anything or anyone; I'm just terribly concerned by this pseudo-criticism of a murderer. I’m a former believer who at one time fully believed everything the thoughtful Christian readers here have written, and came to realize how bizarrely counterproductive it all was to my moral development. I truly believe that this is making Americans suffer unnecessarily for the sake of a belief in the consciousness of the unborn that simply doesn't exist.
I know this won't change anything, but it had to be said."
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 17, 2009 9:09 PM
Too bad repeating something ad nauseam doesn't make it so.
Posted by: John Done | June 17, 2009 9:13 PM
-_- ... Sorry for repeating that comment by mistake, the laptop was really slow and I thought it wasn't sending.
Posted by: Mena | June 17, 2009 9:13 PM
Did anyone look at the previous article, "Gratitude for the faithful men who are fighting against the egalitarian feminist attack upon God's Fatherhood..."?
I have no idea what point they were trying to make and apparently they changed it due to something going on in the comments. BTW, why are people even bothering to post there? Not that I don't find the comments you guys are making to be hilarious and/or relevant, but that's like trying to teach a cat to count to 2. It sounds easy but it's not going to happen.
Posted by: jose | June 17, 2009 9:15 PM
Fanatic religious leaders supporting terrorism. Sounds like Bin Laden or something. But of course we all know that all terrorists live in distant lands and wear turbans, don't we?
Posted by: CW | June 17, 2009 9:25 PM
Exodus only forbids killing if you're reading a sloppy translation. Properly translated (from the "original" retzach) it would say "shall not murder". This very distinction is, in fact, another way of saying that "Killing is not always forbidden".The bible: it says whatever you need it to say to justify whatever you want to justify.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 9:44 PM
"Killing is not always forbidden".
But who would disagree with this?
A women defending herself is morally correct from a rapist can kill
A soldier kills.
In some instances, you will agree, killing is NOT always forbidden. Tiller was murdered, not killed.
Posted by: hje | June 17, 2009 9:48 PM
Yet another cleric, working as an enabler of American-born and bred terrorists. The chickens will come home to roost for this minister and his ilk (e.g. Wiley Drake, who prays for Obama to die), when they finally motivate another McVeigh to murder innocents on a large scale.
What I especially despise is how the wingnut right, religious or not, is trying to immunize themselves by declaring that Obama, Democrats, or liberals are "fascists." I heard some crazy screed on Money Talks this week talking about the "Green Gestapo," in reference to promoting the use of renewable energy resources.
Posted by: John Done | June 17, 2009 9:55 PM
lol, "murdered, not killed".
The idiocy of that statement aside, I never argued that killing was never morally justifiable, just that it was irrelevant in a statement distancing mainstream Christians from a murderer. Why bring up that killing is never forbidden unless you're advocating a killing? Judging from that kind of language, it seems the sermon was implying that the best way to deal with abortionists is to outlaw abortion, then line them all up and kill them.
Is that what you'd suggest? If not, then there's no way of defending the use of the claim that killing is not always forbidden in the context of this sermon.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 10:14 PM
>The idiocy of that statement aside.
Idiocy? Give me a break. The reason I SAY he was murdered because it was morally wrong for him to kill him. And not that it should be confused by my OTHER examples of it being somehow justified. You gotta read in context.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 17, 2009 10:16 PM
Jadehawk @ # 115 - Tiller would have died in a prison cell (not necessarily by judicial order) if he had operated his clinic in Kentucky. He was subject to ceaseless harassment as it was, in comparatively intellectual and civilized Kansas.
Incidentally, the sample sermon cited by our host is merely a minor icicle dripping from the tip of the iceberg of terrorist-supporting "pro-lifers".
Here's a tiny sample:
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, Human Life International: "George Tiller, the mass murderer of Wichita, Kansas is dead. "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword," said the Lord."
Mark Crutcher, Life Dynamics: "With the killing of America's most notorious abortionist, George Tiller, you can be assured that the abortion lobby and their media flunkeys are, once again, hyperventilating over the opportunity that has fallen into their laps. ... they now get to project this image of poor hapless abortion clinic workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire every morning just to get from their car to the death camp door."
Dr. Patrick Johnston, via Covenant News: "The Child-Killers Are Still Way Ahead, 50 Million To 4"
Rev. Michael Bray, ditto: "When God sends a reaper to cut down what men have sown in wickedness, whom will men blame? ... Others would blame the one who personally wielded the divine sword. And they will seek to silence all who hail him as a good and trustworthy citizen."
Rev. Rusty Thomas, Elijah Ministries: "Strangely missing from their statements are any concern for "justice and mercy" for the victims of George Tiller's murderous rampage."
Lots, lots more available with a very brief search.
Posted by: John Done | June 17, 2009 10:35 PM
Context? I just told you that it's irrelevant in the context of saying anything along the lines of "Tiller's murder is bad" unless one would want to endorse killing as a means of ridding the world of abortionists without looking like it. As the title of this thread states, it's pretty obvious from the sermon that the pastor wants abortion to be a capital offense. Otherwise, why would the pastor bother to bring it up?
Posted by: abb3w | June 17, 2009 10:39 PM
Holy Hyrax: You don't really think this person is a threat , or implied a threat do you?
Do I believe he himself will act? No, he seems more like a "chickenhawk".
Do I believe that he is using thinly veiled language to call for assassination of pro-choice public officials?
Mmmm... that does seem to be the case, yes.Do I believe this has a significant chance of provoking actual attack? No... but I know from experience I'm disastrously bad at judging people's motives and predicting their future actions.
Do I believe this has an unacceptable chance of provoking attack? Yes; while I consider his apparent premise (person from instant of conception) incorrect, his position (RvW triggers holocaust obliging violent resistance) seems a valid inference within the bogus context. Of course, many (probably even the majority) who accept that premise would reject the other major requisite premise of violence occasionally being justifiable. However, it is far from unheard of for one person to hold both such beliefs, and beliefs are often clustered in a community.
So, I called the Secret Service, whose agents are much better at this sort of assessment, to deal with it further if needed.
It may be that this would end up nothing anyway. It may be that Bayly's parish includes the next potential Roeder or Kaczynski, who has not yet been pushed over the edge. Having been alerted, the Secret Service will decide if this is worth allocating resources to; the most likely further action (besides the bureaucratically mandated "make a note in a file") will be to send a polite pair of agents over to interview the man and verify he's harmless. This might induce him to consider whether he ought moderate his language... in which case, the next potential Kaczynski may be pushed over a little more slowly.
I can live with my conscience perhaps having on it the wasting of a little bit of time for the Secret Service and this pastor.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 10:47 PM
abb3w
Thank you for clarifying. Could it be that some of you are reading a bit into that piece then he intended to? He condemns the attacker as judge jury and executioner. Those are his exact words. How would these words change if he attacked a public official? He would still be judge jury and executioner (which again, he initally condemned). Could it be that when he is saying "attacking the root of the problem" he is simply meaning taking some sort of social (obviously anti violent) action? Sort of like saying "attacking the root of the problem of poverty, drugs, rape, etc etc etc.
Posted by: John Done | June 17, 2009 11:14 PM
Hyrax, if you read the sermon, you'd know he was saying the killer was not judge, jury, and executioner, since he says Tiller sentenced himself by being an abortionist. Seriously. You didn't notice? That's one of the only reasons he brought up the whole "killing is not always forbidden" thing.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 11:15 PM
Absent from the Demonic lies about Tiller being a mass murderer is a simple fact.
His patients were there voluntarily and paid him for his services. If Tiller was a killer, so is and was every woman who gets an abortion.
He didn't force anyone to do anything.
The majority of these woman are Xians and many of those are fundies..
I suppose if the anti-choice/anti-human terrorists want to launch an extermination campaign, to be consistent they are going to have to murder a few million American woman. I'm sure that will go over well with the general population.
Posted by: raven | June 17, 2009 11:24 PM
The majority of women who have abortions are xians. Religious school graduates have abortions at a higher rate than public school graduates. The population is 76% Xian anyway.
If abortion is murder and the Pol Pot Taliban wannabes start killing anyone who has an abortion, the majority of dead women are going to be....other Xians.
I guess every cloud has its silver lining. No big deal. Xian are very good at killing each other, nothing new about that.
Posted by: kamaka | June 17, 2009 11:25 PM
@ Hyrax the Troll,
Anencephaly?
No comment?
Of course not. You think other people's reproductive choices are available for judging by you and your god.
Your so-called god is a fairy tale, so butt out. Your opinion is less than worthless. It causes harm to others.
Posted by: Monado | June 17, 2009 11:29 PM
Someone called the frivolous late-term abortion a "straw fetus."
Here's something from a 1999 study:
* 37% of third-trimester abortions were because an earlier screening gave a false negative.
* 40%, a problem was found in the second trimester but severity could not be established til later.
* 18%, the defect can not be diagnosed until the third trimester.
* 5%, parents or doctors postponed the decision to abort
And we are talking fatal or very life-limiting defects. In the last few weeks, I've discovered birth defects I'd never imagined. No kidneys. No mouth nor nose. Missing part of the heart. Missing the brain and sometimes the head. Missing the head AND the brain. Trisomy 13, trisomy 18, or complete triploidy. Lethal dwarfism. Bones so delicate they break in the womb. Calcification of the brain. Need I go on?
Posted by: Monado | June 17, 2009 11:31 PM
Sorry, I meant "Missing the heart AND the brain."
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 11:37 PM
Anencephaly?
No comment?
Of course not. You think other people's reproductive choices are available for judging by you and your god.
Your so-called god is a fairy tale, so butt out. Your opinion is less than worthless. It causes harm to others.
What the hell is your problem? Are you so full of hate that you make up opinions of me and anyone else that believes in God just so it doesn't shake your stupid immature pre conceived ideals as to what we actually believe in? Have I even ONCE stated my opinions on what your reproductive rights are? If I did, kindly copy and paste what they are. The only reason I started commenting here was just to correct some inaccuracies of what I saw of the MANY broad-brush statements that have been made about "fundies."
You hate all the "atheists=immoral evil people" comments? Well, guess what? Not all religious people that read the bible are fundies waiting to take your rights away or terrorists. Start getting out more and meet other believers, instead of ONLY looking for the bad that you so desperately YEARN to find, just so, once again, it validates your hate.
Posted by: kamaka | June 17, 2009 11:43 PM
Hyrax,
C'mon you worthless piece of shit, answer to the hard reality of women having abortions under these harsh conditions. That's what Dr. Tiller was doing, dealing with these grave, near impossible situations. This was somehow evil on his part? I call him one of the most compassionate medical providers ever.
This fuckwad preacherman is the voice of all that is evil, and you're his pal. Go back to the evil that spawned you.
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 17, 2009 11:53 PM
Then a) stop talking a fundamentalist who wants to take away all of the rights of everyone who disagrees with him and b) why should we be so nice if we are constantly bombarded by psychopathic godbotherers, as well as their spiteful, mealymouthed apologists who constantly scream "ATHEISTS = SPAWN OF EVIL"?Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 17, 2009 11:56 PM
C'mon you worthless piece of shit, answer to the hard reality of women having abortions under these harsh conditions. That's what Dr. Tiller was doing, dealing with these grave, near impossible situations. This was somehow evil on his part? I call him one of the most compassionate medical providers ever.
This fuckwad preacherman is the voice of all that is evil, and you're his pal. Go back to the evil that spawned you.
Ya. Thats all you have. Just vitriol. Nothing more than a child that can't contain emotional outbursts rather than having ANY discussion. None of my comments have even BEEN on the preacher (except the last one just for clarification). And I am still waiting for you to copy and paste any comment I have made against your right to an abortion.
Posted by: Fiisi | June 17, 2009 11:58 PM
"Anancephaly occurs in 1 out of 150,000 pregnancies - with 6 million pregnancies confirmed each year that would be 40 cases approximately."
The CDC puts it at 1 in 4000 births.(1) You will note the citation in Wikipedia is from an article published from the UK in 1970 and if anyone can explain where this "1 out of 150,000 pregnancies" figure comes from out of the text and stats given in that paper, I'd be interested to see the math.
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/Anencephaly.htm
Posted by: abb3w | June 18, 2009 12:00 AM
Holy Hyrax: Could it be that some of you are reading a bit into that piece then he intended to?
Very possibly. Contrariwise, it may be that it may only be that it is exactly such message that is intended, but he might not have intended this audience to be doing the reading.
Holy Hyrax: He condemns the attacker as judge jury and executioner. Those are his exact words.
No, his EXACT words (adding emphasis to the part you appear to have missed) were Nor do I believe that Dr. Tiller's killer necessarily acted inappropriately as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner.
Holy Hyrax: Could it be that when he is saying "attacking the root of the problem" he is simply meaning taking some sort of social (obviously anti violent) action?
It could be that my most recently ex-girlfriend is about to knock naked on all fours on the door, whilst led on a leash by her new dominatrix who wants the two of them to give me a belated happy birthday present. And, given that this preacher's exact words also included Violence is not always wrong, I think the relative likelihood would best favor my getting up now to check the door over giving your suggestion further serious thought.
Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 12:00 AM
Umm, I'm actually quite aware of what you "believe in". And what you "believe in" leads people to murder, of which the Dr. Tiller murder is an example of. I don't hate your "beliefs", I hate the results of your "beliefs".
Your god-belief has millenia of murder and war that you just might want to explain away so as not to have your stupid pre-conceived notions shaken.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 12:00 AM
Then a) stop talking a fundamentalist who wants to take away all of the rights of everyone who disagrees with him and b) why should we be so nice if we are constantly bombarded by psychopathic godbotherers, as well as their spiteful, mealymouthed apologists who constantly scream "ATHEISTS = SPAWN OF EVIL"?
Not all "godbothers thing atheists=spawn of evil. That was my point.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 12:10 AM
>Umm, I'm actually quite aware of what you "believe in". And what you "believe in" leads people to murder, of which the Dr. Tiller murder is an example of. I don't hate your "beliefs", I hate the results of your "beliefs".
And what is it that I believe?
BTW, I don't Peter Singer's viewpoints have any of their origins from a belief in God.
>Your god-belief has millenia of murder and war that you just might want to explain away so as not to have your stupid pre-conceived notions shaken.
Right, because most of mans wars have been about religion. Of course.
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 18, 2009 12:11 AM
Yet, you miss two points of mine, in that a) the only godbotherers who come here are those who scream "ATHEISTS = SPAWN OF EVIL" and b) why should we listen to your demand that we be nicer, or even civil to this group of psychotic pious because there are some godbotherers who do not think that atheists are evil? Please explain why we should be civil to people who use their piety to be insane and hostile because there are other people who are pious, yet civil?Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 12:15 AM
And I am still waiting for you to copy and paste any comment I have made against your right to an abortion.
They aren't statistics, they are women dealing with awful situations. With this comment, you reveal yourself.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 12:16 AM
>Please explain why we should be civil to people who use their piety to be insane and hostile because there are other people who are pious, yet civil?
Be civil to those that are civil to you.
Be uncivil to those that would be uncivil to you.
Simple enough.
I think I have been particular civil before being called every name in the book. Maybe I should give you some benefit of the doubt in that you don't particularly meet nice religious people?
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 12:23 AM
>They aren't statistics, they are women dealing with awful situations. With this comment, you reveal yourself.
a) Total crap because you have to read that within the context of what the commenter stated that women don't simply go in their simply to decide to have a later term abortion. I do have a problem with late term abortion if its simply to abort for the hell of it, hence ME ASKING THE QUESTION. And I am sorry to tell you this, but there are statistics for rape as well, and those are AWFUL SiTUATIONS too. So don't spit that venom at me as if I don't realize we are dealing with women here.
b) That still is irrelevant to me saying anything about your LEGAL RIGHT to have one.
Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 12:24 AM
Right, because most of mans wars have been about religion
Well, yah, where have you been?
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 12:27 AM
>Well, yah, where have you been?
Let me have your address so I can mail you a history book. ASAP!
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 12:30 AM
OK, enough.
Lets get off personal attacks. We can discuss the issues, and skip the nastiness.
Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 12:33 AM
I do have a problem with late term abortion if its simply to abort for the hell of it, hence ME ASKING THE QUESTION
Oh, yes, I'm sure you're the victim here, you were only inquiring about late term abortion, and only asking about the "statistics".
I am so sorry for questioning your motives.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 12:37 AM
Oh, yes, I'm sure you're the victim here, you were only inquiring about late term abortion, and only asking about the "statistics".
I am so sorry for questioning your motives.
You know what, I will take that as a sincere apology given that you a probably used to people coming here with devious motifs. I have none. I told you what I believe and that is all there is. Considering I supplied a wikipedia link that showed an old statistic, I think I was quite with in reason to ask about latest statistics to see if that particular commenter was wrong or right in his comment to me.
Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 12:47 AM
Let me have your address so I can mail you a history book
Somalia, Yugoslavia, Palestine, India/Pakistan, Indonesia, 9/11, Ireland, the "Jewish Problem", Iraq, Iran, but besides those and others, you're right, there is no incitement to war by religion.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 12:56 AM
a) Most of what you listed has to do with political and geographical power, and nothing to do with a 'said religion.' Kosovo did not just happen out of a vacuum cause of religion but boiling over from years of tension in that region. Religion certainly can fuel the problems. Problem is, I can admit to religion having indeed causing suffering. Your problem is you really think that is THE problem of man.
b) WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, 100 year war, Balkan wars, 100 year wars, and probably most European wars had nothing to do with religion
Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 1:05 AM
You know what, I will take that as a sincere apology
Well, don't. That was sarcasm. Your supposedly innocent request for statistics was in the tradition of abuse against women. The lovely beasts have no need for your second guessing about their reproductive choices. It is their personal decision. That is all. Make the adjustment, patriarch.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 1:10 AM
See, there you go again. Talking crap with nothign to back it up. You don't want my explanation (or actually, simply wish to ignore it) then fine. But I garner that if people make claims in life (regarding anything) it is only fair they back it up. That is all I asked for, and I never made a single comment that a woman should not have a right to it.
>Make the adjustment, patriarch.
ooooh, you are so cool and progressive with that comment.
Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 1:16 AM
My problem?
It is the biggest problem of human society. Maybe not so much, until India or Pakistan lobs a nuke. Then it will be a problem.
Let me make it clear: If you "believe" irrational nonsense, you will end up thinking irrationally.
Posted by: Holy Hyrax | June 18, 2009 1:20 AM
Ok
So lets just end it with that. Good night.
Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 1:29 AM
ooooh, you are so cool and progressive with that comment.
No, actually, I was speaking directly to what you represent.
The patriarchs have great investment in controlling reproduction. The slaves and soldiers they want come from women's bodies, of course they want control. The catholic church personifies this attitude, but is hardly the only example. You "wanting statistics" is the same shit.
Posted by: Monado | June 18, 2009 1:39 AM
Hyrax, I gave you some statistics.
Posted by: Jim theotherF | June 18, 2009 1:44 AM
Is it just me or do the two guys at the top of Bayly's blog totally look like they just got gay married?
Also, I'll note that Bayly now condescendingly claims that we're stupid for not knowing that "Jody" wrote this thing, but the sermon was published completely without attribution. Could it be that Jody is ... afraid of being held to account?
Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 2:05 AM
Also, I'll note that Bayly now condescendingly claims that we're stupid for not knowing that "Jody" wrote this thing
They would never blame a woman...
Posted by: Jim theotherF | June 18, 2009 2:59 AM
Oh, and the recording of the sermon is here. Note that the text on the blog site is not a fair transcript and the language as it was delivered is if anything even more disturbing. Also, Bayly takes credit for it here, no "I didn't say that" waffling.
Posted by: Arch Les Windar | June 18, 2009 3:00 AM
"The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders, and so attacked the branch."
This reads to me as open incitement of a direct threat of assassination against the members of US Government. They'll be taking out the Darwinists next...
Posted by: Arch Les Windar | June 18, 2009 3:03 AM
"The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders, and so attacked the branch."
This reads to me as open incitement of a direct threat of assassination against the members of US Government.
Posted by: alreadydead | June 18, 2009 5:01 AM
Go, team humyns, go!
Posted by: greg | June 18, 2009 5:55 AM
Praised by faint damnation
Posted by: Ray Mills | June 18, 2009 6:05 AM
Let him rot in prison, deny the anti choice nutters a martyr for their cause
Posted by: hen3ry | June 18, 2009 8:10 AM
@Holy Hyrax 227
Most of the European wars are not about religion? So the whole Catholics vs. Protestants thing was not important? The Spanish Armarda, who intended to put a catholic on the throne of England? Hell, even the English Civil War was fought over "the divine right of kings" to do whatever they liked. Hell, the 100 years war was founded on the Norman Conquest of England, which was a fucking crusade. Frankly, you can suck it.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
June 18, 2009 11:22 AM
It seems to me that there's another layer to the issue about religion and war.
There are clearly cases of wars that can be laid at the feet of religion. There are also clearly cases of wars fought over geo-political and economic gain.
The problem with the religion component is not just that at times religion is the source of conflict. It's that even when there's another reason for the war (territory, economics), religion is so easily invoked as a cover for the other reasons.
Religion all too easily becomes the ultimate justification. Sure, Nation A may just want to grab Nation B's land, but there may not be enough popular support to do so without backlash. But if Nation A's populace can just be made to understand that god's got Nation A's back, then it becomes so much easier to sell, especially if Nation B can be painted as the ultimate adversary, not just to Nation A's interest, but to Nation A's god.
Religion, by its nature, requires credulity, and therefore religion becomes the ultimate justification because it doesn't require evidence that god says a particular war is necessary, it just requires belief, and belief is already built into the system. Religion is always in the back pocket in case there's some question about the war (viability, justification, persistence, cost, war crimes, whatever). Religion is a great source of control, and the degree of control that can be brought to bear to enforce people's belief in something for which there is no evidence can easily be brought to bear to support a war, even when the evidence for the war does not stand up to particularly extensive scrutiny.
I'm not a pacifist; I think there are definitely times in life (the life of an individual, the lives of nations) when fighting has to happen. It's unfortunate, but there it is. That said, I'd much rather buy into a legitimate reason for a conflict based on evidence, rather than have some blanket hand-wave that gives any bellicosity a pass.
It would be interesting to learn what effect it would have on war (I don't think war will ever be eliminated, given how we are as humans) if the real reasons were more openly acknowledged: "We're going after Nation B because we'd like to get our hands on their mineral and agricultural wealth, as well as use their territory as a buffer against Nation C. God's got fuck-all to do with it, even though they think god's chosen them as the true people when we know god's chosen us as the true people. Forget the god thing, it's about the cash." Obviously that's an oversimplification, but I think the idea underlying the problem that religion brings to the table of conflict is significant and worth examining.
Religion may not be the cause of every war, but religion sure makes it easy to justify war in the absence of other convincing evidence.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Historybuff | June 18, 2009 11:24 AM
@kamaka -
As a person who has lived for a decade in India,a minor correction - lumping India/Pakistan together as a potential nuke dropper is fallacious. India has not shown any aggression and her developing nuclear weapons is NOT an indication of use. While India has had the nuke technology for couple of decades, there are no signs that they have dispersed it to rogue nations like China has (and is currently doing). So please stop lumping India as a potential threat.
Posted by: MrJonno
|
June 18, 2009 11:26 AM
Would a Muslim preacher have got away with telling his followers to kill the national leadership in the US?
In fact as a Brit how comes you have so few religious crimes committed by Muslims in the US ,it always amazes me that if every Muslim in the Western world want the destruction of liberal democracy (plenty of nuts in the US and the UK think this) that the US which has plenty of other gun crime doesnt have mad mullahs going around with AK47 shooting up churches/science musuems daily.
I'm not having a go at the US or Muslims its just something I'm genuinely curious about
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 18, 2009 11:30 AM
...it always amazes me that if every Muslim in the Western world want the destruction of liberal democracy...
Well, there we go; therein lies the answer.
Posted by: cicely
|
June 18, 2009 11:34 AM
The way I read this sermon, the pastor is distressed that Tiller's murderer virtually wasted his "justifiable violence" by poor choice of target; he should have targeted "the root of abortion, our national leaders", instead. With one side of his mouth, he is endorsing further acts of "justifiable violence" (only next time, aim better, folks! Get it right!), while with the other, he is establishing Plausible Deniability, in case one of the congregants does take action, and people start, I don't know, accusing him of inciting assassinations or something. If it goes wrong, why, his intentions behind the sermon were tragically misunderstood. He only ever meant that people should take political action, all peaceably and legal-like.
"I do not view the actions of Dr. Tiller's killer as defensible", but, at the same time, "nor do I believe that Dr. Tiller's killer necessarily acted inappropriately as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner." Nope, no dissonance there.
Posted by: cicely
|
June 18, 2009 11:44 AM
As for the effects of religion on war, Deus lo volt! We're still dealing with the ripples from that one, nine hundred (and change) years later.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 18, 2009 11:48 AM
@ hen3ry # 242
Ooo! Historical trivia, can I play too?
Let's also not forget the 30 years war (wasn't that a barrel of laughs, such good times) Catholics v. Protestants in Germany and the Low Countries.
I like how Cromwell sent Protestants to settle in Northern Ireland as a Protestant enclave. Gee, no religious violence there.
Also the Teutonic Knights invasion of Eastern Europe (Western v. Eastern Christianity).
And the Ottoman invasion of Europe (during the "age of reason").
Then there's the conquest and re-conquest of Spain, finishing up in 1492, just in time to export this violence across the Atlantic.
All this punctuated by various acts of mass murder (i.e.: the massacre of French Hugonauts in 1550).
One of my favorite lines from a Blackadder episode came from one of the Elizabethan ones in which QE I puts him in charge of executions. At one point he introduces himself as "The Minister in charge of religious genocide." That about says it all.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 18, 2009 11:56 AM
Most of the European wars are not about religion?
No, no they were not. As much of a douche as HH is, you might not want to give him too much of an excuse to side-track on the one thing he's right about. Stopped clock, and all that.
So the whole Catholics vs. Protestants thing was not important?
Not really, it was a convenient excuse for a war of independence, really.
The Spanish Armarda, who intended to put a catholic on the throne of England?
Control.
Hell, even the English Civil War was fought over "the divine right of kings" to do whatever they liked.
And that sounds religious to you?
Posted by: Stu
|
June 18, 2009 12:01 PM
Just to clarify: of course religion was used as a justification in just about every single damned European war for thousands of years... all's'I'm sayin' is that it almost never WAS the actual reason for the war.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 18, 2009 12:15 PM
@Stu #250
You have hit upon a very important point here: control. It's important to sort out the differences between faith and religion at this point. An atheist comedian once said that conflating faith and religion was like a pet store that gives away a free rattlesnake with every bunny-rabbit. Religion is about control and reading the loon's sermon you can see how he arrogates to himself "God's will" and the reference to "Watchmen" should not be missed either. Attempts to use religion as a cudgel to smack people over the head should not exonerate religion from causing violence and suffering. To act as a cudgel to smack people is religion used as directed by the manufacturer.
If you separate religion from the warm fuzzies that faith can give to the individual who obtains some personal growth/benefit/perspective from their own beliefs then what you have left over are the threats and the groupthink. Acting as a self-appointed gate-keeper to heaven and hell is an awful power to wield over the gullible and fearful. Questioning whether European wars were about religion from perspective of the cynical bastards who started the war does not let religion off the hook. Wars happen for lots of reasons, varying by what strata of society you occupy and which side you're on.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 18, 2009 12:38 PM
Acting as a self-appointed gate-keeper to heaven and hell is an awful power to wield over the gullible and fearful.
Very true. It's also a great money-maker... because as we all know, Jesus is broke, and needs your help!
Posted by: Jack | June 18, 2009 6:32 PM
Patriarch or patriarchy are just code words people use to try and bash men. It is ignorant, foolish and stupid. A complete disaster in the making.
There is no simple or easy way to quantify the good/evil that takes place because of religion. I don't believe that morality is contingent upon being a believer in any faith.
But I don't see atheism as being that much better either. All too easy to throw stones.
Posted by: Jack | June 18, 2009 6:34 PM
Patriarch or patriarchy are just code words people use to try and bash men. It is ignorant, foolish and stupid. A complete disaster in the making.
There is no simple or easy way to quantify the good/evil that takes place because of religion. I don't believe that morality is contingent upon being a believer in any faith.
But I don't see atheism as being that much better either. All too easy to throw stones.
Posted by: online pet shop | July 8, 2009 12:46 PM
My pets are my children
As pet lovers, I’ve been through my trials and tribulations trying to locate the best online pet resource and, believe me, it’s not been an easy task! After several years of trying site after site now i find that one special place which offered just the
right balance of information, resources, products, and, plain old ‘fun’, I finally decided that we I just
have to create it myselves.
Where quality is king but price reigns supreme
Posted by: Owl700 | August 4, 2009 11:17 PM
It is time to stop the xian misogyny against women.
From C B C Canada;
“ Jan. 28, 1988: The Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada's abortion law as unconstitutional. The law is found to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it infringes upon a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of person." Chief Justice Brian Dickson writes: "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person." Canada becomes one of a small number of countries without a law restricting abortion. Abortion is now treated like any other medical procedure and is governed by provincial and medical regulations.”
This was coupled with schools giving real information about sex. Not that it is naughty, or dirty but that it is a natural, wonderful part of life. They know that storks don’t bring babies, you can get pregnant the first time, the pill prevents pregnancy, and condoms can save your life.
And about abortion statistics? Try http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060315/dq060315c-eng.htm, and many other government stats.
Teen pregnancy, down. Abortions at all ages and stages, down. Late term abortions are all most nonexistent. Yet Canadian provinces trust women to make the best choices for their circumstances at any stage of the pregnancy.
There are eight beautiful, independent young women in my immediate family. By empowering them with knowledge, they have been given more options in life. They now chose when and with whom they have sex with, when they have children, and know to protect themselves.
It is time to empower your young people. Release them from the shackles the xians have held for two thousand years. Even Dr. Ruth canceled her Canadian shows ‘cause the kids already knew.
(Sorry for the rant, but this crap has gone on too long)
A Grandma
Posted by: Tim Bayly | August 31, 2009 5:43 PM
Really, it's simple: babies inside and outside the womb bear the Image of God and those who slaughter them are predators on the weak and should die for their crime.
But we've evolved beyond such simple truths, and now it's open season on these little ones. Any sick bully that comes along and has the money to pay the murderers can slaughter these wee ones as long as his or her victim isn't able to cry "Help!"
And having murdered, the perp can depend upon corrupt judges and legislators and doctors and others with blood on their hands to come to his or her defense.
Such wickedness, and it dares to crawl out of its hole and make itself known?
We live in a day when shame is gone and guilt unheard of. But one day soon, God's Own Son will return and judge each of us according to our works, good or evil.
Flee to the Cross and the blood of God's Son, you who have blood on your hands. Otherwise, you will be consumed by God's wrath.
As Scripture says, "It is appointed unto man once to die, and after that the judgment."
In gentleness and mercy,
Posted by: John Morales | August 31, 2009 6:09 PM
Tim @258:
Tim, you think threats (imaginary as they may be) are consistent with gentleness and mercy?
That's just being a standover merchant; bullying behaviour is anything but gentle, and inescapable wrath is anything but mercy.
Think about it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 31, 2009 6:15 PM
They can't, god doesn't exist. That makes the rest of your idiocy just plain delusional thinking. But, that is a constant problem with you godbots. The delusion of believing in imaginary deities gets in the way of being rational.Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 31, 2009 6:23 PM
I take it that Tim Bayly is a strict pacifist, protests against capital punishment, and wants all abortionists to die horrible, painful deaths.
As long as they're in the womb, Timmy wants them to live. As soon as they're born, Timmy couldn't care less (unless they're members of his cult, in which case they should start tithing immediately).
Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2009 7:06 PM
Blood on my hands? What the fuck. I wasn't a Jew or Roman in fictional Jerusalem 2000 years ago. Creep.