One of the most controversial individuals in American history was John Brown. John Brown was a militant abolitionist against one of the greatest evils sanctioned and protected by law in the 19th century. Slavery. What is legal isn't always right. Slavery was legal and sanctioned. Abortion is legal. In tort law, it is legal for someone to sit there and not do anything and watch a child in a life situation (Drowning in pool, in burning building, attacked) die. There is no duty to act. All three are or were legal. All three are wrong.
In 1854, the road to Hell was paved with good intentions. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was an attempt to have things both ways. It was passed and chose popular soverignty as the method of settling the question of slavery in those two then territories. It led to "Bleeding Kansas." The Jayhawks and free soilers verses the border ruffians. Missouri was a slave state and sent pro-slave forces there to make Kansas a slave area. The free soilers had another idea, and things clashed with violence. This was Bleeding Kansas, the war before the Civil War.
The slave forces, led by a sheriff, attacked Lawrence Kansas, which was the headquarters for the anti-slavery forces. There was only one fatality, but the town was then nearly destroyed (and later rebuilt - as it is today the home of University of Kansas). This was in 1856.
John Brown was angered by this, and took the law into his own hands in the same year. In what is known as the Pottawatomie Massacre, he and his group killed five pro-slavery settlers. Many of the pro-slavery forces there were violent, as shown by the sacking of Lawrence. Brown continued to fight in Kansas, and several of the pro-slave paramilitaries were after him. Brown went back east and later lead a group to Harper's Ferry which is in (now West) Virginia. Brown seized weapons from an arsenal and proceeded there to use the weapons to arm slaves in rebellion against their owners. Brown was captured and hung for Treason against the state of Virginia. This was in 1859. Some considered him a martyr. Others a terrorist. I wouldn't call him a terrorist. I had no problems with him arming slaves and thought that was heroic. I'd have no problems with the slaves shooting their masters if needed to escape imminent great bodily harm. That's defense. Murder is drawing the line.
Soon after Bleeding Kansas was the Civil War. Browns actions divided the country and was one factor leading to it. It took over a hundred years for some places to recover from the Civil War. Jim Crow laws after reconstruction was nearly as bad as slaverly for black Americans.
Currently, we may have our very own John Brown in Scott Roeder. Roeder is accused of murdering baby-killer George Tiller, one of the few late term abortion providers in the country. He is innocent till proven gulty of murder, so that is why I said "may." Irony is that this also happened in Kansas.
Abortion is one of the great evils of our time as was slavery in the 19th Century. It is also protected by law thanks to seven white men in black robes. Late term abortion is the worst of all of them, but was this the best way of ending abortion? While a doctor is missing, the last I heard, the clinic will be open again real soon. Are any children saved by this? Will more children die indirectly due to the bad light this will shed on pro-lifers? Roeder took the low road here, as did Brown back in the 1850's.
Was John Brown's methods the best way to end slavery? Bleeding Kansas was the precursor of the US Civil War, which killed more Americans than any other war in history. 620,000+. It ended slavery, although reconstruction was incomplete and Jim Crow lasted another 100 years.
Was John Brown's actions right? Was there a better way? What will the ramifications be from Scott Roeder's actions, if he is guilty? Will it severely damage the pro-life movement for a period? Right now, the left on Kos wants to basically all but criminalize it through RICO and the so called Patriot Act (which I ALWAYS opposed). Guilt by association. They are blaming Bill O'Reilly for this which is laughable. This is typical of the left. Destroy free speech that disagrees, lump them together, and call them racists, terrorists, etc. This needs to be fought. Don't apologize for our views. We are right.
However, damage was done by Roeder (if guilty) who took the low road. Can you be pro-life by offing a killer.
If you are a proponent of utiltarian philosophy (which I am not), you could make the argument that this, and John Brown's actions, were both right, for the same reason as if you had a chance to back in time and kill off Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Oliver Cromwell, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, and the like, it should be done. That is the ultilitarian argument at its extreme, and the mindset used for Brown and Roeder. It is one I can understand and it is a very logical argument that can be made. Take out this person for the greater good. It is also a very dangerous game, as one utilitarian on the other side is Peter Singer, who supports post birth abortion (infantcide) and involuntary euthanasia. That's not the road I want to go down. Eugenics. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenics leader. I don't even need to invoke Godwin's law to take it to the full extreme. All of this was to off "undesirable" people for the greater good. Most of us all agree, or should agree that the pro-slave settlers in Missouri, George Tiller, Cromwell, and the like were bad people, but let's remember we are dealing with power here. This is social politics. Because of our views, some people don't like us very much either, thinks we are bad people, and may not shed many tears if we are offed if we are too outspoken or "dangerous." Some of those people may even have the law or government behind them. It's a nasty double-edged sword, and one I don't want to be a part of.
Lastly, is murder wrong? Is abortion murder? (Morally, if not 'legally'?) Is shooting and killing someone who is not an IMMINENT (immediate) threat murder? Yes, Yes, and Yes. A large number of pro-life advocates are Christian, and we all know the 10 Commandments. "Thou shall not murder." If you are Christian as I am (Yes, Catholics are Christian), that's quite clear.
Brown and Roeder's methods were not the right methods. The right method is to get control of the medical licensing, judicial and legislative processes and drive the abortion industry out of business by any LEGAL means necessary. I've always been a stickler for process. Do things the right way. Go after the medical license of the rest of the George Tillers. Get the right judges elected. Get the right Senators and presidents elected, and finish the job on the State level if Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood v Casey, and the worst of all Doe v Bolton are finally overturned. That is the right way to do this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Your support for this cold blooded murder is chilling.
This tragedy will not stop legal late term abortion any more than John Brown stopped slavery.
We are a country of laws.
Stay in the real, you are worrying me.
Where did I say that I support this? I don't. I'm not a utilitarian.
As I said in this writing - "Do things the right way."
Murderer Scott Roeder is hardly a "fringe" member of the anti-abortion movement. ORW, in my estimation, is a criminal conspiratorial enterprise.
When Roeder was apprehended while fleeing his crime, he had ORW's Cheryl Sullinger's phone number next to him on the passenger seat on a Post-It note. She is famous, of course, as the convicted mastermind of a California clinic bombing.
While ORW and other movement leaders are trying to distance themselves from Tiller's murder and other violence, it is clear that fomenting violence is a way of life for them. Whether it's physical and verbal attacks on women patients and their often elderly escorts at clinics, or other assaults.
They deliberately provoke violence in confrontations with police, then sue the campus or municipal jurisdictions which arrest them and settle for large, tax-exempt nuisance settlements.
I believe ORW lost its tax exempt status for their engaging in political campaigns, failing to pay employee taxes, buying "ministry" properties for their workers to live in for free, etc. They physically attack those whom they choose to target and then claim that they themselves were the victims.
I first met Troy Newman when he was using his "Truth Truck" as a mobile blockade to stop a pre-Iraq invasion peace march from a religious college from reaching the next town, and playing a trumpet in their faces so that their hymns could not be heard.
"By their friends, ye shall know them." On Sunday evening, when a vigil of hundreds of people assembled to mourn Tiller, Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps and his clan, famous GI funeral protesters, and defrocked pastor Mark Holick were there to celebrate.
Please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by claiming that those who have decried the assassination are actually joyfully dancing with glee, while carefully crafting quotes to make themselves seem somewhat "responsible."
I see where I didn't read your post closely enough, I am sorry.
You are correct you did not say you supported the murder.
We agree we need to work within the law for the changes we want to see in our country.
I think of this murder as a political assassination. I hope it is investigated as such.
To a degree, it was. I'm not even sure that Roeder would disagree if he's the one who did it. (innocent till proven guilty). I am quite interested in what defense he uses or tries to use.
John Brown was a hero to many (including Paul Hill), and lives in infamy to others. I think he may want to go out the same way Brown did. Execution. That's just speculation there.
So, bluzie, you think it is okay to jump the gun and randomly claim someone supports cold-blooded murder? And then, oops, you say you must not have read it closely enough.
You...and your evil twin, guru...are so eager to find a way to demonize those you disagree with that you can't even take a moment for common decency.
You called this guy a supporter of cold-blooded murder when his detailed post clearly said just the opposite. And you want us to believe it was just a mistake?
Is this the level of accuracy and fairness you claim on all your opinions? It's disgraceful. What about his post even remotely suggested he supported murder? Absolutely nothing.
I contend that you and guru are actually happy with Tiller's murder because it gives you a way to spread your propaganda. Truly evil.
And to think you had the gall to ask others to tone it down on other threads.
You said he condoned murder. And you were 100 percent wrong. Repeat that slowly a few times to see how disgusting it is.
Hey, I happen to personally like Dan and I can respect and like people who have a different perspective from myself.
His fondness for John Brown confused me.
He does write long blogs and I skimmed over it and some of his opinions, mostly with John Brown, had me come up with the wrong conclusion. I apologised and I think that was fair.
While I don't agree with John Brown, I can certainly see where he is coming from and can appreciate his point of view. Listening to those who think just like you is not educating oneself to others point of view. I think the future of our country and the world depends on finding common ground and moving forward.
You did apologize, which is more than your cohort guru ever does.
But I'm still confused how you could read his post...skimming or otherwise...and come to the conclusion of his "support for this cold blooded murder." What line, paragraph, word in his post supported that?
My contention remains: You so much want to make hay out of Dr. Tiller's murder that you were more than willing to jump to an incorrect conclusion.
Was it not you who criticized unfair personal attacks on another blog? Is it only unfair if it comes from a Republican?
I do not want to make political hay as you call it out of a murder. I am outraged by his murder and those who think the brand of hate speech is helpful to any situation. I personally was sickened by the code pink group screaming at Donald Rumsfield a few weeks back. I don't think that sort of tactics is helpful. I don't agree with how Rumsfield sold the war, but he deserves to go to a dinner without being screamed at by those who oppose him.
Too put it clearly I do not approve of gotcha politics or hate speech by anyone. So your beliefs about me are untrue, I certainly am not trying to stir up trouble with Dan!
I believe in free speech, but groups who work to incite hate worry me. I happen to believe Bill O'Reilly does have blood on his hands and I know I will find a lot of disagreement on this site. But I don't have to call people names, I just simply state my opinions.
The exchange of opinions and ideas without attacking is a good thing in my opinion.
I cannot control your opinion of me, you are free to think what you wish.
A rousing defense, bluzie, and it sounds good. I almost started playing the National Anthem in the background.
Except...you failed to answer the basic question. What possible word, sentence, phrase in Dan's post led you to the conclusion that he was condoning a cold-blooded murder?
Without that answer, your stirring defense is just so many words. You were trying to make hay.
When someone misreads something, it really tells more about where they are coming from and how that person interprets what they read than the exact words they are reading.
I have just finished reading Doris Kearns Godwin's book "Team of Rivals". If you are not familiar with the book it is the story of Lincoln, his rise in politics, his bringing in his team of rivals who he ran against for President in the primary for his presidential nomination. It covers his campaigns, his presidency and his assassination.
I read Dan's blog and he writes his blog to his audience which are mostly the anti-abortion rights people. He compared slavery to abortion, I read where he put them on equal footing as being wrong.
I read where he agreed with arming the slaves in the John Brown rebellion. I don't agree, I do not compare the horrors of slavery as the same as women who find themselves carrying a hopelessly deformed child and making her go full term. These are many of the women who have late term abortions. They want a baby, they were happy to be expecting. But later they found their baby would have no brain, or that it would never survive. These are the cases where the life of the mother is considered and abortions are allowed after 28 weeks. These are the cases where it seems right to me and in accordance with our laws that women is able to terminate a pregnancy.
So there you have it. Dan was writng from a different point of view and his sympathy for those who wish to outlaw these women's rights, made me assume he supported the killing as he supported the arming of those in John Brown's rebellion.
I can't explain it any better. When I read a right wing blog, it is from a different perspective. I read them not to make snarky and insulting comments but to better understand. I really thought it out of line for Dan to support this murder, which he in fact did not. I read many blogs and I rarely comment as these are the bloggers point of view and in this case isn't written For Democrats as myself.
I see in the case of Lincoln
where hate speech that was constant and unrelenting I believe were the cause of his death. Words matter and we need to be mindful of their consequences.
It's a fair and reasoned response. I appreciate your effort.
I am familiar with the Lincoln book...also with a book that describes the way Lincoln went after northern newspapers that opposed the Civil War and were anti-abolitionist (or even pro-slavery). His administration was likely behind vigilante action that destroyed some papers. He most certainly was behind the jailing -- without charges -- of some elected Maryland legislators on the fear they would vote for secession.
I mention this because -- even though I consider Lincoln to be a great man -- there is little black and white out there, no matter how much we wish to paint issues that way. Lincoln's defenders say his unconstitutional actions were necessary to save the Union. FDR stole American property and put Americans in relocation camps for fear of the Japanese. Bush approved torture for fear of terrorism.
I won't speak for you, but there are many people out there who will take separate sides on those issues based solely on their political affiliation (defend FDR, for instance, but bash Bush...or vice versa). But I think there is a similar thread in all of all of these examples: At what point, I wonder, is it okay to trash the very virtues you are trying to protect? And who gets to make that decision?
Thanks again for your thoughtful response.
At what point, I wonder, is it okay to trash the very virtues you are trying to protect? And who gets to make that decision?
I have to ask what virtues are being trashed?
Certainly torture isn't a virtue, it was a ill thought reaction in my opinion.
Japaneese internment camps were a national disgrace.
Any jailing people without charging them with a crime is against everything our country stands for!
I believe the civil discussion and the condemnation of these acts are valid.
Usually people are judged by their body of work, and their relationships formed throughout their lives.
FDR brought us through the Great Depression, Bush was greatly admired for his actions following 911, and Lincoln is our greatest president bringing us through the worst time in our history.
We need to examine the mistakes so we don't repeat them. Torture is wrong; however, Bush will not be judged just on torture. Cheney may since he has chosen to support and defend it on every news channel.
The systematic reducing our leaders to riduclous chariactures(Republican or Democrat) is wrong in my opinion. It is a distraction from the real issues at hand. We need to find common ground, we need to push through and find solutions to the problems of today.
Nicely said.
Post a Comment