6/2/09

George Tiller, Abortionist Murders, and the Richard Dawkins Correlation

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

11 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 3, 2009 at 6:30 AM

    All christians are bad just look at the Salem Witch trials and Crusades surely acts like this must be based on the belief that everything was created and nothing else

    ReplyDelete
  2. TEDJune 3, 2009 at 8:03 AM

    Hey, even as an atheist which I am I have no sympathy for "doctor" Tiller. I find late term abortion repulsive. Society sometimes just cries foul and sometime you've got to listen to that call if you want to stay alive. He had plenty of warning, he knew what he was doing was despised by the majority of people and he chose to keep himself in danger by continuing his practice. Hey, us atheists have morals too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. TEDJune 3, 2009 at 8:10 AM

    Oh, on a different take, Tiller was a Christian right?

    ReplyDelete
  4. TEDJune 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM

    OK, here's the question:
    Was George Tiller a Christian?
    Is Scott Roeder a Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  5. RhologyJune 3, 2009 at 1:01 PM

    GT - Hell no.
    SR - Probably not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TEDJune 3, 2009 at 1:06 PM

    What makes you come to those conclusions Rho?

    ReplyDelete
  7. SparklyPuppetJune 3, 2009 at 3:32 PM

    Rhology, you could well be wrong about the doctor's Christian faith.

    The doctor was acting as an usher at "his Lutheran church in Wichita" when the shooting occurred, where "Dr Tiller and his family had worshipped for years".

    Take a look at the report on Roeder's arrest on the www.telegraph.co.uk website from where I took these quotes (I don't seem able to paste a link into the comments box).

    Regarding Roeder's faith, another report on the telegraph site provides the following quote: "a former member of a right wing Christian Militia group and had a history of mental illness"

    ReplyDelete
  8. RhologyJune 4, 2009 at 9:31 AM

    A church that allows a baby-murdered to be a member, let alone to serve as an usher, is no Christian church. I took me a gander at their website. Their 'statement of belief' is paltry, sub-biblical, and pitiful. One has to believe the biblical Gospel to be a Christian - Reformation Lutheran wouldn't seem to know the Gospel if it burst suddenly out of their thoracic cavity.
    Further, being a Christian means that the Spirit of God inhabits the heart of the believer and that he has repented of his sin and from then on hates his sin, and recognises that sin is defined by God, not by himself. There is no argument that Scr allows for baby-murder, at any age. "By their fruits shall ye know them," and all that.

    So I'm trying to be as consistent as possible.

    And same with Roeder (sp?). A very low probability that he knows Jesus. The Spirit doesn't lead one to murder.

    ReplyDelete
  9. kh123June 4, 2009 at 8:36 PM

    The thing you have to remember about abortion: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.


    Given that, I wonder if there's anything in the literature about German citizens living near Kontslagers, what they had to say about why they never got involved with what was going on next door.


    What was their reasoning? Was it adherence to civil authority? ("It's against the law to prohibit the operation of any state sanctioned action...") Was it simple ignorance? ("Oh, how were we to ever know what went on in there?..") Maybe fear of what would happen if they did get involved? (For after all, it would've been an act of partisan terrorism to in any way disrupt what was going on there.)


    ...Or maybe, they considered it a good thing that the ash continued pouring from those chimneys?...


    I know that "love thy neighbor" logically doesn't lead to "murder thy neighbor". But you have to wonder what one is supposed to do when faced with a situation like that - if you had an Amon Goeth (or Dr. Mengele) in your community.


    Moral dilemmas! Ah, the stuff of any good Hollywood movie. I think this is the reason why atheism/agnosticism is so appealing to so many Americans in the 40-something-and-under age range - it basically frees them up from having to really wrestle with conscience over quite a few socially stigmatized/ambiguous issues in life, and rather to enjoy a sort of autonomy in a modernized Wonderland, complete with big screen tv's and Playstations. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. Don't bother me and I won't bother you. See no evil, hear no evil... etc.


    Much like those Deutsch neighbors, interestingly enough. Minus the Playstation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. kh123June 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM

    And, honestly, I think Christians and Pro-Life advocates ought to give more thought to what exactly ought to be done if a larger population - as a result from having more births come to term (in other words, not killed) - were to be had. With more people, there's more strain on resources, both in the natural sense and an economic sense.

    It may sound far fetched, and I don't really think that population booms are as extreme as some humanists, ecologists, or economists make them out to be... but a Christian ought to really think about what they'd be willing to sacrifice for their neighbors if in fact more neighbors are to be had.

    In small industries or occupations especially, it's apparent that the more people are in a workforce pool, the more it drives wages down while making competition more fierce to secure a longterm job or career. Not to mention benefits from said-job, such as health care or retirement. (A whole other can of worms.)

    When philanthropy costs you something - esp. when it's potential work - will your charity still be intact?

    Given the above, would Christians be willing to adopt more socialist programs in order for the gov't to provide jobs, health care, housing, and retirement for everyone? (Which I think most of American Christianity would say no to, although there'd be more liberal enclaves in the church favoring socialism of any stripe.)

    Or, would it take more effort on everyone's part to willingly (not by taxation or gov't compulsion) provide for people? Would they truly be willing to "give to the poor" if in fact it was more protracted, giving to others in the sense of giving up on potential opportunities, resources, or wealth for the sake of others having them?


    And most importantly, is there a willingness to truly want to take in and raise those kids who are not wanted by their parents? (I think there's a definite yes to this question; plenty of parents out there who want kids but can't have them.)

    Following this, is there a desire to want to rehabilitate those who go astray and become criminals? It's easier to answer this in the abstract, rather than to truly say of the bastard kid who just broke into your car or home: "Awww, now there's a misunderstood kid that needs a father."


    Again, moral dilemmas. And again, the appeal of atheism/agnosticism for many post-baby boomer Americans: Is easier to be misanthropic and hate people in general rather than to be a Mother Teresa.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Papa GiorgioJune 9, 2009 at 5:37 PM

    .

    For an in-depth read on the philosophical founding of Planned Parenthood, see:

    http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/06/margaret-sanger-and-racist-history-of.html

    .

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)