Abortion Doctor's killer convicted again

[disneydude]

Reading this article made me think. There is a definite paralell between the way these guys think and terrorist suicide bombers.
They both think that they are justified in what they do and that they are doing so for the greater good.
Both groups believe that God has a special place for them because of their actions.

Both groups are terrorists and crazy.

Abortion doctor's killer convicted again - Yahoo! News

 

[1069]

Reading this article made me think. There is a definite paralell between the way these guys think and terrorist suicide bombers.
They both think that they are justified in what they do and that they are doing so for the greater good.
Both groups believe that God has a special place for them because of their actions.

Both groups are terrorists and crazy.

Abortion doctor's killer convicted again - Yahoo! News

Well, the moron tried to defend himself.
Who was the last person to try that in a high-profile political felony case? Wasn't it Charles Manson?
Nobody has ever won an acquittal in a felony case without legal representation.
He wanted to lose. He ensured that he'd lose.
Can you say "Martyr Complex"? :roll:

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Both groups believe that God has a special place for them because of their actions.

Both groups are terrorists and crazy.

This is why Sam Harris believes that it is this notion that religious faith is to be protected from criticism by religious moderates that makes the world safe for religious extremism.

Such violence and hatred are rational within the context of religious fundamentalism. If the contagion of a heretic can damn your soul to eternal suffering, it then becomes more rational to discriminate or even hate them more than those who cause what would be trivial suffering in comparison (earthly suffering.)

His video truly is thought provoking, and mildly offensive. I recommend everyone to take a look:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Reading this article made me think. There is a definite paralell between the way these guys think and terrorist suicide bombers.
They both think that they are justified in what they do and that they are doing so for the greater good.
Both groups believe that God has a special place for them because of their actions.

Both groups are terrorists and crazy.

Abortion doctor's killer convicted again - Yahoo! News

If you get a chance you should see the movie Soldiers In The Army Of God. It's a truly frightening look at the anti-abortion extremists in this country who have no qualms with verbally and sometimes physically attacking abortionists and even women who go to these clinics. Throughout the movie these people constantly praise Michael Griffin who shot and killed abortionist Dr. David Gunn. Movies like this and Jesus Camp show the true dangers of any religion that subscribes to a "my way or the highway" ideology.

 

[Dezaad]

This is why Sam Harris believes that it is this notion that religious faith is to be protected from criticism by religious moderates that makes the world safe for religious extremism.

Such violence and hatred are rational within the context of religious fundamentalism. If the contagion of a heretic can damn your soul to eternal suffering, it then becomes more rational to discriminate or even hate them more than those who cause what would be trivial suffering in comparison (earthly suffering.)

His video truly is thought provoking, and mildly offensive. I recommend everyone to take a look:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM[/YOUTUBE]

I have also read Sam Harris. Your comment got me thinking.

It is perfectly rational for this guy to kill abortion doctors. That is... if one accepts his premise that abortion is murder in the eyes of God. I don't understand why more Christians don't applaud his behavior. He is attempting to protect the lives of people from a murderer.

The only defense I can see for those Christians who do not support him is that he is breaking the law. This is a very convenient defense. The law should not be respected in this case, from the Christian standpoint. To Christians, the laws should be seen as a twisted, perverse system that protects murderers.

 

[Wyrmdog]

The only defense I can see for those Christians who do not support him is that he is breaking the law. This is a very convenient defense. The law should not be respected in this case, from the Christian standpoint. To Christians, the laws should be seen as a twisted, perverse system that protects murderers.

To an extent, yes, but it's also important to recognize that much of Christianity has a long-standing tradition of supporting civil government. It is partially this aspect that allowed it to flourish under the Romans. Mormons, for example, have a specific decree that says they are to support their civil governments and work for change within whatever system is extant where they live.

Additionally, most Christians likely believe that these people who do legal yet morally bankrupt things - in their eyes - will be punished by God and it is the responsibility of the Christian to forgive them. God does the judging.

Due to these factors, I can't see Christian tolerance of these activities as inherently hypocritical or to use your terminology, convenient.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in there. Carry on.

 

[Dezaad]

To an extent, yes, but it's also important to recognize that much of Christianity has a long-standing tradition of supporting civil government. It is partially this aspect that allowed it to flourish under the Romans. Mormons, for example, have a specific decree that says they are to support their civil governments and work for change within whatever system is extant where they live.

Additionally, most Christians likely believe that these people who do legal yet morally bankrupt things - in their eyes - will be punished by God and it is the responsibility of the Christian to forgive them. God does the judging.

Due to these factors, I can't see Christian tolerance of these activities as inherently hypocritical or to use your terminology, convenient.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in there. Carry on.

So, suppose it was legal to kill a baby until it was a month old. Should the Christian support the guy who killed the parent who was strangling the baby, or should the Christian bow to the law?

 

[Wyrmdog]

So, suppose it was legal to kill a baby until it was a month old. Should the Christian support the guy who killed the parent who was strangling the baby, or should the Christian bow to the law?

Cute. What I mentioned was a general tendency, not an absolute. But in the strictest interpretation, yes, the Christian would be expected to obey the law (though they are always free to think as they wish) and understand that God would make appropriate judgments later. It is not for men and women to pass judgment, that purview is God's alone.

 

[Wyrmdog]

Oh, but to post something more on topic: I agree with you DD, there seems to be a direct parallel there - disturbingly direct.

 

[nes]

Christianity supports pacifism. Jesus let people execute him without doing any harm back. This Abortion Doctor's killer broke a commandment "thou shalt not kill" and there was even an event in the bible when jesus didn't allow anyone to punish someone for sinning since they can't judge others. Even if it is 1942 and Hitler was right in front of you (with you pointing a gun at him), killing him would break the commandment since you can't judge others. Killing someone in self defense is also a sin also, etc...

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

To an extent, yes, but it's also important to recognize that much of Christianity has a long-standing tradition of supporting civil government. It is partially this aspect that allowed it to flourish under the Romans. Mormons, for example, have a specific decree that says they are to support their civil governments and work for change within whatever system is extant where they live.

Additionally, most Christians likely believe that these people who do legal yet morally bankrupt things - in their eyes - will be punished by God and it is the responsibility of the Christian to forgive them. God does the judging.

Due to these factors, I can't see Christian tolerance of these activities as inherently hypocritical or to use your terminology, convenient.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in there. Carry on.

You are correct! Well done! :clap:

 

[Dezaad]

Cute. What I mentioned was a general tendency, not an absolute. But in the strictest interpretation, yes, the Christian would be expected to obey the law (though they are always free to think as they wish) and understand that God would make appropriate judgments later. It is not for men and women to pass judgment, that purview is God's alone.

This isn't about whether the Christian is judging the parent who is strangling their child/ doctor who is about to perform an abortion. The issue is whether the Christian is justified in intervening to prevent an egregious breaking of God's laws, when the civil law does nothing to do so.

Oh, but to post something more on topic: I agree with you DD, there seems to be a direct parallel there - disturbingly direct.

My posts are perfectly on topic. There is a parallel, but it is a result of belief in their respective religions. Religion results in people who so thoroughly believe in their religion such that they feel compelled to engage in demonstrably irrational acts. Their acts are perfectly rational within the context of their religions, but are heinous in the context of enlightened thinking.

Religious thinking is the root of the evil of terrorism.

 

[Dezaad]

Christianity supports pacifism.

... snip ....

Even if it is 1942 and Hitler was right in front of you (with you pointing a gun at him), killing him would break the commandment since you can't judge others. Killing someone in self defense is also a sin also, etc...

Another perfect example of believing something religious so thoroughly such that, while perfectly rational within its religious context, it causes one to act completely contrary to the good of mankind.