I have much to say about this, considering this happened in the town I grew up in, and the church that Tiller went to and was shot at is about 1/4 mile from my parents house. Not only that, I knew a couple of people (friends of the family) that were in the church. Unfortunately time isn't permitting me to say much today, but I'll talk about this at a later time.
One of the pertinent things I will touch on, however, is I do not believe this should reflect on true Christians, but I do think a bit of reflection of hate radio and commentary is in order:
quote:
But there's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on "The Factor" on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as "Tiller the Baby Killer."
Tiller, O'Reilly likes to say, "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.
..... This is where it gets most troubling. O'Reilly's language describing Tiller, and accusing the state and its elites of complicity in his actions, could become extremely vivid. On June 12, 2007, he said, "Yes, I think we all know what this is. And if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius."
Three days later, he added, "No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller's business of destruction. I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just -- you know ... Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?"
Do I think O'Reilly was directly responsible for this man's actions? No, but this type of bull commentary to his sheep does not help in any way.
And yes, this man was a terrorist, period. And his house appeared to be a terrorist cell, period:
quote:
The man being questioned in connection with the investigation is Scott Roader, 51, of Merriam, Kan. [...]
Neighbors said they've seen a similar car at the house in Merriam. They describe the ongoings at the house as strange. They said it's a revolving door of men coming and staying there and describe what appear to be religious gatherings.
I think this DHS report needs to also be remembered:
quote:
(U) Revisiting the 1990s
(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
...Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration
I'll talk more about this later. Oh yeah, one last disclaimer, I do not agree with Tiller's practice of 3rd term abortions. In fact, for some of you who don't already know, I tend to be a fence-sitter regarding the abortion issue. So my feelings on this issue are not built upon being a big pro-choicer or anything regarding that specifically.
Renegade
Good to hear from you on this, Opus. I'm sorry to hear that you have so personal a link to this tragedy and I hope that the people you knew in the church are all okay. Look forward to your thoughts on what's just happened.
We're obviously on completely the same page on this issue, but just a couple of minor things that I couldn't let pass by:
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I do not believe this should reflect on true Christians
I don't think it's wise to create a distinction between "true" and false Christians: by any definition of the word, both the gunman and victim were "true" Christians, at least in the sense that they each regularly attended church and believed (if somewhat selectively) in moral and metaphysical precepts that are exclusively Christian. It's not a big deal, but it's something that I've been accutely conscious of since reading the blog of an Evangelical (the Slacktivist) who stresses just how casual many Evangelicals are in creating a false distinction between "real" Christians (i.e. right-wing Evangelicals) and "false" Christians (i.e. everyone else). I know this wasn't what you meant to do, but there is a danger in presuming that a "true" expression of a faith and a "false" expression of a faith can ever be comfortably distinguished, or that Rodeder's expression of faith was somehow less "authentic" than Tiller's - or any other Christian's - expression of faith.
If religious belief is capable of advising behaviour in any meaningful way, then it has to count the failures along with the successes and admit that it has no objective criteria by which to classify an action as being inspired by a religious commitment that is "true" or a religious commitment that is "false". A good man is a good man and a bastard is a bastard, as I see it: religious affiliation is merely incidental.
quote:
Do I think O'Reilly was directly responsible for this man's actions? No, but this type of bull commentary to his sheep does not help in any way.
Couldn't agree more, but I've never really seen O'Reilly as one who sets the political agenda so much as one who follows it. This may be a consequence of my living half the way around the world, but I'd imagine that the people capable of agreeing with O'Reilly's mindless invective were damaged long before he ever got to them. The mindset which typifies the fringe anti-abortion groups is cultivated in homes and churches from an early age, O'Reilly (and the rest of that cabal) are merely the cheerleaders. Blaming O'Reilly for violence against abortion providers is a bit like blaming Jane Fonda for the fall of Saigon.
quote:
Oh yeah, one last disclaimer, I do not agree with Tiller's practice of 3rd term abortions. In fact, for some of you who don't already know, I tend to be a fence-sitter regarding the abortion issue. So my feelings on this issue are not built upon being a big pro-choicer or anything regarding that specifically.
Yeah, I think this deserves to be discussed actually. Abortion is not a good thing under any circumstances, and in an ideal world there would be no need for it. From my own perspective, my support for abortion is based on the principle of biological dependence (so long as the fetus is merely a biological extention of the mother, it can claim no inherent rights) which becomes somewhat murky at around the third trimester. As a consequence, I'm quite morally ambivalent when in comes to late term abortions.
However, the procedure needs to be put into perspective. It is excedingly rare and only performed under the most trying of circumstances (it's not as though a prospective mother goes through six months of labour and then decides, "you know what? I'm just going to abort this thing"). Late term abortions are reserved for fetuses with severe abnormalities (some of which cannot be detected until late-pregnancy) or to protect the wellbeing of the mother. There are strict procedures for late-term abortions, and although I can't vouch for the veracity of this account (or others that have been circulating), it appears as though Dr. Tiller was committed to following them:
quote:
For the sake of my family's and especially my son's privacy, I've not often told the story in full detail....and won't now.....
Let's just say that my son is adopted, and that his bio mom had traveled a long way from out of state to visit Tiller's office for an abortion. I don't know all the details of Tiller's protocols, but she didn't meet them, and Tiller refused to abort her. She was showing signs of premature labor, and that was PART of the protocol against abortion. There were other factors. Thereafter, she attempted to abort herself thereby successfully inducing her own premature labor. Tiller AGAIN refused to abort her, but sent her to a hospital, where my son was born by an emergency c-section.
Like many other physicians and attorneys, Tiller maintained a waiting list of couples waiting to adopt "unaborted" babies. My wife and I paid a substantial (by OUR standards) amount of $ to be on his "referral list), hoping that it would encourage him to SAVE a kid.
The notion that Tiller sat around with a club waiting to smack babies born alive is ludicrous.
There is a broad misperception (propogated by the usual interest groups) that third-trimester abortions are periodically undertaken with a degree of caprice, or with a lack of sensitivity surrounding the potential viability of the fetus. There should be - and are - strict restrictions under which late-term abortions should be performed, but I cannot think of a circumstance under which a heavily pregnant woman and a doctor would mutually agree to an abortion for which there were no pressing need (the rarity of the procedure would tend to bear me out on that). So while it may be easy to muse upon the ethical ambiguity of late-term abortions in the abstract (again, from the sounds of it I roundly agree with you on this issue), it's quite another to suggest that such procedures should be made illegal, or - worse - that those who perform such procedures are in any way morally degenerate. (I know that you were not in any way suggesting that, but I still think that the point needs to be made.)
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
I don't think it's wise to create a distinction between "true" and false Christians: by any definition of the word, both the gunman and victim were "true" Christians, at least in the sense that they each regularly attended church and believed (if somewhat selectively) in moral and metaphysical precepts that are exclusively Christian. It's not a big deal, but it's something that I've been accutely conscious of since reading the blog of an Evangelical (the Slacktivist) who stresses just how casual many Evangelicals are in creating a false distinction between "real" Christians (i.e. right-wing Evangelicals) and "false" Christians (i.e. everyone else). I know this wasn't what you meant to do, but there is a danger in presuming that a "true" expression of a faith and a "false" expression of a faith can ever be comfortably distinguished, or that Rodeder's expression of faith was somehow less "authentic" than Tiller's - or any other Christian's - expression of faith.
Not only is it "unwise", but its also practically impossible to make such distinctions. As far as I am concerned, a religion is nothing but the actions and beliefs of its followers, good bad & indifferent.
DoucheBagMalloy
quote:
mate, whenever you read/watch international news, do you just appreciate how ing lucky we are to live in Oz?
Ahh yes the great Oz...where in the last month innocent Indian students have been beaten by a bunch of cowards :rolleyes:
I dont even know why they are studying in OZ considering just how freaking horrible the universities are. The medical schools are a freaking joke...laughed at my US med students LOL!
pkcRAISTLIN
nice try, alt.
The17sss
O'Reilly is losing it. I'm sick of that fool.
DoucheBagMalloy
quote:
nice try, alt.
Yeah Yeah hehe.
And your medical schools are HORRIBLE. Perhaps the worst basic science preparation in the developed world. First two years of sciences are half of what they are in the US, Ireland, Britain, etc. The USMLE pass rates are abysmal...a joke...a disgrace for any English speaking country.
I say this b/c many of these Indians go abroad to study medicine. So why even go to such a xenophobic place as Australia and risk get beat down by the ancestors of convicts? We already know how they treated the Aborigines!
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by DoucheBagMalloy
Yeah Yeah hehe.
And your medical schools are HORRIBLE. Perhaps the worst basic science preparation in the developed world. First two years of sciences are half of what they are in the US, Ireland, Britain, etc. The USMLE pass rates are abysmal...a joke...a disgrace for any English speaking country.
I say this b/c many of these Indians go abroad to study medicine. So why even go to such a xenophobic place as Australia and risk get beat down by the ancestors of convicts? We already know how they treated the Aborigines!
Can we please stay a little more on the topic of this thread?
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by DoucheBagMalloy
Yeah Yeah hehe.
And your medical schools are HORRIBLE. Perhaps the worst basic science preparation in the developed world. First two years of sciences are half of what they are in the US, Ireland, Britain, etc. The USMLE pass rates are abysmal...a joke...a disgrace for any English speaking country.
I say this b/c many of these Indians go abroad to study medicine. So why even go to such a xenophobic place as Australia and risk get beat down by the ancestors of convicts? We already know how they treated the Aborigines!
This is both unproductive and irrelevant.
Before pointing out the deficiencies of australia, you should probably touch up your grammar skills. I know this is an internet forum and flawless grammer is not necessary; however, when you call out the educational system of an entire country you better be on point.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by DoucheBagMalloy
Yeah Yeah hehe.
And your medical schools are HORRIBLE. Perhaps the worst basic science preparation in the developed world. First two years of sciences are half of what they are in the US, Ireland, Britain, etc. The USMLE pass rates are abysmal...a joke...a disgrace for any English speaking country.
I say this b/c many of these Indians go abroad to study medicine. So why even go to such a xenophobic place as Australia and risk get beat down by the ancestors of convicts? We already know how they treated the Aborigines!
dude, you're wasting your time. i am not the least bit nationalistic, i recognise australia's failings as earnestly as the next guy. i simply dont care for your baiting at all, because, well, i simply dont care.
also, there's no point having the uber best medical schools in the universe if nobody can afford healthcare.
ManiX
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
also, there's no point having the uber best medical schools in the universe if nobody can afford healthcare.
