George Offerman
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9
Mr. Gregg Cunningham of the Center of Bioethical Reform (CBR) has written two blistering commentaries about Randall Terry and his “support and promotion of violence towards abortionists”. In these pieces, Mr. Cunningham takes the liberty of distorting what was actually said and then takes it upon himself to insert terminology that does not exist. To make my point, I will do an exercise at the end of this piece and use the exact liberties and language changes on Mr. Cunningham’s piece as he did with Randall Terry’s statements.
First of all, Mr. Cunningham accuses Mr. Terry of ‘condoning and supporting” Roeders killing of Tiller. Mr. Terry certainly does not. I have read every word of Mr. Terry’s press releases, and the gist of the press releases seemed to revolve around two principles: 1) motive for the killing, and 2) the principle of blood guilt.
The first principle is motive, and it is so tied into American jurisprudence that it is presumes motives are major considerations, as is evidenced by hate laws that now impose stiffer penalties if one can determine motives are raced based, etc. As I have posted on my site, there are many, including scholars, who have defended Roeder’s right to present his defense and motives and have them considered, as is the legal standard of this country. Mr. Terry was one of them, but is the only one that Mr. Cunningham has decided to attack. Mr. Cunningham, by your standards, are all of us who demanded a fair trial for Roeder, guilty of “supporting and condoning murder” of abortionists?
The principle of blood guilt is an edict from God, and not a point of negotiation with mankind. Mr. Terry posed this as a question to be contemplated and his writings posed some ethical and Biblical questions that have value in debating. The questions Mr. Terry was posing would have been commonly posed and contemplated about a century ago, before the modern Christian became “sophisticated” and too smart for God (see quote above from Isaiah). The problem is, as Mr. Cunningham is reflecting, too many moderate and well meaning Christians have little to no tolerance for perspectives outside of their comfort zones, and instead would rather water down the Christian message than contemplate judgment or the scorn of their peers. (Wait until God’s judgment appears)
Mr. Cunningham then goes on to erroneously compare the alleged “support and condoning of murdering abortionists” to animal rights and tree huggers committing violence and potentially killing those who don’t support their views. Well, Mr. Cunningham, they already do violence, and it was going on way before Roeder did what he did. Also, Mr. Cunningham, did it ever dawn on you that the CAUSE OF ALL VIOLENCE is the taking of the most innocent of lives? And Mr. Cunningham, what is your personal liability in all of this, since you see yourself as one of the mainstream pro lifers, who has and is going along with the ‘company’ line, and we still have this curse upon us. What have you and the mainstream pro life movement done to end this? Help elect Scott Brown?
You truly give Mr. Terry almost deity status by laying the blame of the potential for increases in violence on him, while simultaneously stating he is marginalized, isolated and a fool. You can’t have it both ways.
It also seems, Mr. Cunningham, that you are painfully unaware that over the past 37 years, homicide, violence against women in every way, child abuse, sexual crimes, the pandemic of substance abuse, the homosexual agenda and advances have all taken root since Roe v. Wade, now do you think there are any spiritual connections to these? Did Randall Terry cause all of this?
It never ceases to amaze me how people like Mr. Cunningham ca represent himself as a Christian, and quote scripture on his behalf to make whatever bizarre point he is trying to make, while bludgeoning another with extremely harsh rhetoric, that he is not willing to use on the enemy. Mr. Cunningham then hides behind the Christian moniker and justifies his poor behavior by then stating how he will ‘pray’ for Mr. Terry and his conversion. Actually, Mr. Cunningham, I will pray for YOUR CONVERSION as you need to demonstrate the behavior you are expecting (demanding) others to follow.
Now, we will look at some of Mr. Cunningham’s ‘double speak” Below is a partial copy of Mr. Cunningham’s post dated February 2, 2010. Link to full post:
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/353912936.html
“You have every right to bring discredit upon yourself and the organization you represent. But when your self-promotional excesses discredit the entire pro-life movement with reckless theatrics, it would be irresponsible for the rest of us to signal indifference, or worse, agreement, by our collective silence.
There is much more I could say but to the extent that one believer can properly exempt another from the prohibition against lawsuits found in 1 Corinthians 6:1- 8, I do so with this rebuttal. Sue me.
I am more than willing to submit for judicial review my conclusions concerning your outrageous remarks. But in the mean time, be assured that many people are praying that you will abandon the erratic, destructive extremes toward which you seem increasingly inclined.
You greatly underestimate the injury caused by ill- considered remarks which encourage further violence on both sides of this volatile issue. You say "the sky is not falling" but it fell indeed on CBR volunteer James Pullion when he was murdered by an abortion rights extremist whose defenders will attempt to make his trial about the public display of abortion photos in the same manner you tried to make Scott Roeder's trial about abortion. It is clear that you don't begin to understand the forces you are unleashing here. “
Gregg Cunningham
The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform
www.abortionNO.org cbr@cbrinfo.org949-206- 0600
Mr. Cunningham has taken the liberty (and falsely so) of Mr. Terry’s statements about not condoning or condemning Roeder’s actions as “condoning”. No, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Terry was clearly making the point that Roeder should get a fair trial and have the ability to openly discuss his motive, and have a jury of peers determine the outcome which is normative in American jurisprudence. It is unfortunate that you ignored this and twisted it around or in your own words: You are either being intentionally deceptive or wildly negligent.
Concerning the point of the child killers position of using the graphic signs as a reason for killing (murdering) Mr. Pouillon, the pro life side is already doing this, in droves. In fact, I have seen multiple pro life sites and organizations making statements that Mr. pouillon is the first ‘martyr’ in the cause, thus making a direct link of his death to his activities of showing graphic signs. So of course the other side is going to use this in their defense, but there are potentially two critical differences: 1) Pouillon never murdered anyone, and 2) the biased society and media may very well allow or demand this defense to stand, unlike Roeder. And you know what, Mr. Cunningham; jurisprudence mandates that this individual receive his day in court, no matter how repulsive it may be.
Mr. Cunningham then goes on to make statements pertaining to the need to speak up when the reputation and credibility of the pro life movement is at stake. Mr. Cunningham seems to have no problem making his case that Mr. Terry is unhealthy, reckless, self promoting and excessive, but Mr. Cunningham is totally blinded to his own biases. What do I mean? Well if we follow Mr. Cunningham’s logic to its conclusion, we could say that he, along with the mainstream pro life movement is actually pro abortion, due to the fact that they openly supported Scott Brown, lead by Right to Life of Massachusetts, and all the other proponents of the ‘Great Scott” movement when they knew that Mr. Brown is a proponent of Roe V.Wade. By not ‘Condemning” Mr. Scott’s position, they have “condoned” it, and according to Mr. Cunningham’s logic, now support this position.
Mr. Cunningham has also been clear on the need to speak up if the ‘entire pro life movement is discredited’, and did so with Randall Terry. However, it is noted that Mr. Cunningham has stayed silent on the Brown position and victory, and would have to conclude by his silence on this matter, that Mr. Cunningham does not see this as a discredit to the whole pro life movement and thus signals his tacit approval of this election and position by Scott Brown.
Congratulations! Mr. Cunningham and the mainstream pro life organizations: you are all now pro death and pro abortion!
This idea of incrementalism is a doctrine straight from the pits of hell, but is embraced by the mainstream pro life movement. Where in scripture does God mandate or even allude to incremental obedience to his laws? Who or what gives the right to any human being to determine what policies to follow, when the price of following them is sacrificing babies? The election of Scott Brown is incrementalism, and it is a concession of babies’ lives for the idea that we cannot win. If you believe in what the Bible says, we know we have truth on our side, and it is not to be toyed with, and needs to be set forth by our side, and not hidden from, like it is some dreaded disease.
Again, God’s thoughts are not ours, and it is man’s wisdom that states “we must go gradually” and not rock the boat. This doctrine from hell will bear its fruits, and only then, will we see that it is people like Mr. Cunningham and many in the mainstream pro life movement that have actually marginalized and misaligned others by their faulty logic and double speak. I would rather follow the ‘misguided and extreme” antics of Randall Terry than the pompous, disingenuous and prideful stance taken by Mr. Cunningham and much of the mainstream pro life movement who embrace contradictory and unbiblical positions, on my worst day. We all will be in front of God’s judgment seat some day, and it is his distain I fear, not those who cannot even see the war we are in and then condemns anyone who does not agree with their narrow views.
Showing posts with label Scott Roeder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Roeder. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
ROEDER'S TRIAL: THINGS TO COME FOR US?
George Offerman
As I mentioned in an earlier post, no matter which way one holds Roeder and what he did, the fact that his defense was not allowed for whatever reason, does not bode well for those who fall outside the purview of political correctness, and may soon be used against us. I am attaching a very well written piece by Dr. Monica Miller, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at Madonna University in Livonia, Michigan.
Dr. Miller, one of the ND 88, writes one of the best pieces on the need to have a fair trial and the need to consider motive, despite the fact it is extremely unpopular and very few on the pro life side want to contemplate. It is a must read, and I am posting the forward to the piece, that addresses the Roeder trial, and encouraging everyone to go to the link posted below to see Dr. Miller’s paper in progress concerning the moral use of force and her conclusions.
From Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D. Director of CPLS
see www.prolifesociety.com
for Roeder conviction another way to access this paper.
In light of the January 29, 2010 Scott Roeder conviction, this working paper (Scroll down) on the ethics of using force in defense of the unborn, is offered for your consideration. My conclusion is that lethal force cannot be justified-- though it is not intrinsically immoral. The point of this paper is to examine this issue with a critical mind.
Here are some thoughts re the Roeder case:
1) According to principles articulated in my paper-- Roeder's killing of abortionist George Tiller, was an illicit use of force--even though his motive was licit.
2) Roeder is not morally guilty of murder. Murder is the morally unjustified taking of innocent human life. Roeder is not guilty of that. He is guilty of an unjustified use of force against an unjust aggressor and so the judge, in the Roeder's case, should have permitted the jury to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter and he did not.
3) The Roeder trial was not a fair trial as long as the victims of abortion were dismissed as non-persons and Tiller's killing of the innocent was never a consideration. And unfortunately since, legally-speaking, no injury is cause to the unborn in abortion--Roeder's defense was, from the start, restricted, unfair and unbalanced.
Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D.
Link to Working Paper on the Ethics of Force in Defense of Unborn Human Life
http://www.prolifesociety.com/pages/ArticlesAndPublications/EthicsOnUseOfForce.pdf
As one can see, Dr. Miller attempts to work through some difficult moral, ethical and Theological issues pertaining to force, and how our faith should guide our actions. The forward also points out how the denial of due process by the courts is also not moral, and may be used sometime in the future to deal with any other issue that the developing god/state will determine appropriate for their desired ends.
Again, the denial of due process is not a good outcome in this case despite the fact Roeder Killed Tiller. In essence, he was tried and convicted before this even took place and it is an ugly, but not unpredictable event that will definitely have bad outcomes for believers in the near future. Look out.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, no matter which way one holds Roeder and what he did, the fact that his defense was not allowed for whatever reason, does not bode well for those who fall outside the purview of political correctness, and may soon be used against us. I am attaching a very well written piece by Dr. Monica Miller, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at Madonna University in Livonia, Michigan.
Dr. Miller, one of the ND 88, writes one of the best pieces on the need to have a fair trial and the need to consider motive, despite the fact it is extremely unpopular and very few on the pro life side want to contemplate. It is a must read, and I am posting the forward to the piece, that addresses the Roeder trial, and encouraging everyone to go to the link posted below to see Dr. Miller’s paper in progress concerning the moral use of force and her conclusions.
From Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D. Director of CPLS
see www.prolifesociety.com
for Roeder conviction another way to access this paper.
In light of the January 29, 2010 Scott Roeder conviction, this working paper (Scroll down) on the ethics of using force in defense of the unborn, is offered for your consideration. My conclusion is that lethal force cannot be justified-- though it is not intrinsically immoral. The point of this paper is to examine this issue with a critical mind.
Here are some thoughts re the Roeder case:
1) According to principles articulated in my paper-- Roeder's killing of abortionist George Tiller, was an illicit use of force--even though his motive was licit.
2) Roeder is not morally guilty of murder. Murder is the morally unjustified taking of innocent human life. Roeder is not guilty of that. He is guilty of an unjustified use of force against an unjust aggressor and so the judge, in the Roeder's case, should have permitted the jury to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter and he did not.
3) The Roeder trial was not a fair trial as long as the victims of abortion were dismissed as non-persons and Tiller's killing of the innocent was never a consideration. And unfortunately since, legally-speaking, no injury is cause to the unborn in abortion--Roeder's defense was, from the start, restricted, unfair and unbalanced.
Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D.
Link to Working Paper on the Ethics of Force in Defense of Unborn Human Life
http://www.prolifesociety.com/pages/ArticlesAndPublications/EthicsOnUseOfForce.pdf
As one can see, Dr. Miller attempts to work through some difficult moral, ethical and Theological issues pertaining to force, and how our faith should guide our actions. The forward also points out how the denial of due process by the courts is also not moral, and may be used sometime in the future to deal with any other issue that the developing god/state will determine appropriate for their desired ends.
Again, the denial of due process is not a good outcome in this case despite the fact Roeder Killed Tiller. In essence, he was tried and convicted before this even took place and it is an ugly, but not unpredictable event that will definitely have bad outcomes for believers in the near future. Look out.
Friday, January 29, 2010
OPERATION RESCUE'S UNCHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR
George Offerman
The Scott Roeder trial has created a firestorm in which the majority of the pro life groups are falling all over themselves to ‘distance’ themselves from what Roeder did. The unintended consequences of this action, however, have the negative impact of throwing out the fact that what Tiller did was the whole reason Roeder did what he did. In this, the pro life groups are going along with the prosecution in that child killing is off the table as an issue of debate. Obviously, as Christians, we may disagree on this point, but our debates and comments should remain within a respectable brotherhood and be done in Charity and dignity.
However, the advisory board of Operation Rescue, evidently led by the Rev. Patrick Mahoney takes this to an extreme, in which they (the board, or whoever actually writes this press release) unloaded a personal attack on Randall Terry. This memo is thick with intentionally emotional and attacking language, and a search of their archives shows they never even came close to showing Tiller the disrespect they are heaping on Randall Terry. This is a personal vendetta, and there is nothing conciliatory in their language, that would convince even the greatest skeptic that this is not an intentional hatchet job. Here is the press release in its entirety:
WICHITA, Kan., Jan. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, Randall Terry, who is regrettably traveling to the Roeder trial in Wichita, stated in a news release, "We are not coming to condone or condemn Scott Roeder's actions," and dared to compare Roeder to the Civil War figure John Brown.
The Advisory Board of Operation Rescue issues the following statement on Randall Terry's refusal to condemn violence.
"The Board of Operation Rescue wants to make it clear that Randall Terry has no affiliation or involvement with Operation Rescue. That has been the case for over 17 years.
"Sadly, Randall Terry has chosen to abandon the Christ-centered principles contained in the historic Operation Rescue Pledge of Non-violence. By refusing to condemn the actions of Scott Roeder, Mr. Terry has completely abandoned the core principles of Operation Rescue.
"Mr. Terry's relentless thirst for media attention has led him down a road of extremism, fringe actions, and bizarre media stunts which have isolated him from the pro-life community and the timeless principles of an organization he helped establish.
"Our prayer is that Randall will return to a place of humility and sanity and once again embrace the cross of Christ and stop choosing to be involved in cheap and pathetic public relation stunts that harm the pro-life message."
Read Operation Rescue's Pledge of Non-violence
Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, 540-583-4741, Member of Operation Rescue's Advisory Board and Director, Christian Defense Coalition
SOURCE Operation Rescue
As one can see, this memo focuses more on the ‘lack of character’ of Mr. Terry, than it does the merits of Mr. Terry’s arguments, or purpose of being there. The interesting thing is that those who are responsible for this press release are supposed Christians in good standing. Yet they are engaging in personal attacks, and then attempting to hide behind the Christianity moniker. To those, or to who penned this memo: You are the arbiter of justice and humility and you have the authority to determine who is repentant and who is a lost sinner? Where did you get this authority? Arrogance.
It is Operation Rescue that is looking unchristian and petty, by writing and publicly releasing this trash into the debate. Disagreeing with Mr. Terry’s tactics is one thing, the personal attacks, especially in the name of Christianity, is so unbecoming of the true Cross of Christ and Christian Charity that it reeks of hypocrisy and hate. And these people believe they are at the forefront of ending legalized child killing? They believe they are the model of solid Christian behaviors?
Again, read the memo, and take in how much is focused on the trial, and how much is focused on the comments made about Randall Terry and his ‘character’.
I have been accused of many things since writing about some of the issues I have with Operation Rescue, but I have kept it on the factual course, by pointing out problems with their press releases, and asking questions that are pertinent for a donor to an organization. I, in return, have received insulting and condescending e-mails, and had strong hate mail sent my way, that I have not printed or published or even discussed other than the initial correspondences with Troy Newman (and even some of that was edited). I have not returned in kind what I have received from Operation Rescue, or its backers, and have attempted to get answers from an organization that is beginning to appear more suspect the more I attempt to get answers to very basic questions. These are not qualities of a well run Christian organization, and they sure are not qualified to discuss the character of others, when they themselves have questionable tactics, release trash that mimics a press release as seen above, and responds only with mocking and condescending tones when asked straight forward questions.
The irony of this is, that Operation Rescue and many who support them see what I have written as an ‘attack’, yet they spin their personal vendettas as ‘facts’ and do it, supposedly in the ‘humility of Christ”. Only in the land of make believe and double speak does this have any merit. It is incredible that not only do they do to others what they themselves do but claim they don’t, but then they make claims that others, who point out their unchristian behaviors, are being evil, and unchristian, and thus end up becoming their whipping posts. I, for one, have about had it with this behavior, and also have about had it with those who back this bad behavior. We have this epidemic of child killing going on, and there are those, such as the advisory board of Operation Rescue, too busy wanting to trash those who are doing something about it.
So, the e-mail, phone calls or whatever else comes my way concerning this posting, I will publish and discuss them in their entirety in this forum. I am going to call those people out by name, and demand they address the issues that are relevant and to the point, and refrain from personal attacks and name calling. I will focus on their hypocritical and sinful behavior, and call it what it is.
My message is simple and clear: back those up willing to do something about ending legalized child killing, and leave the personal vendettas at home. If the organizations want to act in an unchristian manner, then I will gladly point it out in a public forum.
******
One last comment pertaining to a statement made by ‘the advisory board’ and that is the claim of ‘returning to a place of humility and SANITY’. I don’t know who made this statement, but I want to know who has the clinical experience and can legally make a psychiatric diagnosis on someone. I am licensed in my state where I practice clinical social work, and have the authority to diagnose mental disorders. Whoever is making a claim of Mr. Terry’s ‘insanity’ better be licensed and better be prepared to back this claim legally. I take great exception to this statement, and it better be recanted by the board, and an apology forthcoming very soon.
The Scott Roeder trial has created a firestorm in which the majority of the pro life groups are falling all over themselves to ‘distance’ themselves from what Roeder did. The unintended consequences of this action, however, have the negative impact of throwing out the fact that what Tiller did was the whole reason Roeder did what he did. In this, the pro life groups are going along with the prosecution in that child killing is off the table as an issue of debate. Obviously, as Christians, we may disagree on this point, but our debates and comments should remain within a respectable brotherhood and be done in Charity and dignity.
However, the advisory board of Operation Rescue, evidently led by the Rev. Patrick Mahoney takes this to an extreme, in which they (the board, or whoever actually writes this press release) unloaded a personal attack on Randall Terry. This memo is thick with intentionally emotional and attacking language, and a search of their archives shows they never even came close to showing Tiller the disrespect they are heaping on Randall Terry. This is a personal vendetta, and there is nothing conciliatory in their language, that would convince even the greatest skeptic that this is not an intentional hatchet job. Here is the press release in its entirety:
WICHITA, Kan., Jan. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, Randall Terry, who is regrettably traveling to the Roeder trial in Wichita, stated in a news release, "We are not coming to condone or condemn Scott Roeder's actions," and dared to compare Roeder to the Civil War figure John Brown.
The Advisory Board of Operation Rescue issues the following statement on Randall Terry's refusal to condemn violence.
"The Board of Operation Rescue wants to make it clear that Randall Terry has no affiliation or involvement with Operation Rescue. That has been the case for over 17 years.
"Sadly, Randall Terry has chosen to abandon the Christ-centered principles contained in the historic Operation Rescue Pledge of Non-violence. By refusing to condemn the actions of Scott Roeder, Mr. Terry has completely abandoned the core principles of Operation Rescue.
"Mr. Terry's relentless thirst for media attention has led him down a road of extremism, fringe actions, and bizarre media stunts which have isolated him from the pro-life community and the timeless principles of an organization he helped establish.
"Our prayer is that Randall will return to a place of humility and sanity and once again embrace the cross of Christ and stop choosing to be involved in cheap and pathetic public relation stunts that harm the pro-life message."
Read Operation Rescue's Pledge of Non-violence
Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, 540-583-4741, Member of Operation Rescue's Advisory Board and Director, Christian Defense Coalition
SOURCE Operation Rescue
As one can see, this memo focuses more on the ‘lack of character’ of Mr. Terry, than it does the merits of Mr. Terry’s arguments, or purpose of being there. The interesting thing is that those who are responsible for this press release are supposed Christians in good standing. Yet they are engaging in personal attacks, and then attempting to hide behind the Christianity moniker. To those, or to who penned this memo: You are the arbiter of justice and humility and you have the authority to determine who is repentant and who is a lost sinner? Where did you get this authority? Arrogance.
It is Operation Rescue that is looking unchristian and petty, by writing and publicly releasing this trash into the debate. Disagreeing with Mr. Terry’s tactics is one thing, the personal attacks, especially in the name of Christianity, is so unbecoming of the true Cross of Christ and Christian Charity that it reeks of hypocrisy and hate. And these people believe they are at the forefront of ending legalized child killing? They believe they are the model of solid Christian behaviors?
Again, read the memo, and take in how much is focused on the trial, and how much is focused on the comments made about Randall Terry and his ‘character’.
I have been accused of many things since writing about some of the issues I have with Operation Rescue, but I have kept it on the factual course, by pointing out problems with their press releases, and asking questions that are pertinent for a donor to an organization. I, in return, have received insulting and condescending e-mails, and had strong hate mail sent my way, that I have not printed or published or even discussed other than the initial correspondences with Troy Newman (and even some of that was edited). I have not returned in kind what I have received from Operation Rescue, or its backers, and have attempted to get answers from an organization that is beginning to appear more suspect the more I attempt to get answers to very basic questions. These are not qualities of a well run Christian organization, and they sure are not qualified to discuss the character of others, when they themselves have questionable tactics, release trash that mimics a press release as seen above, and responds only with mocking and condescending tones when asked straight forward questions.
The irony of this is, that Operation Rescue and many who support them see what I have written as an ‘attack’, yet they spin their personal vendettas as ‘facts’ and do it, supposedly in the ‘humility of Christ”. Only in the land of make believe and double speak does this have any merit. It is incredible that not only do they do to others what they themselves do but claim they don’t, but then they make claims that others, who point out their unchristian behaviors, are being evil, and unchristian, and thus end up becoming their whipping posts. I, for one, have about had it with this behavior, and also have about had it with those who back this bad behavior. We have this epidemic of child killing going on, and there are those, such as the advisory board of Operation Rescue, too busy wanting to trash those who are doing something about it.
So, the e-mail, phone calls or whatever else comes my way concerning this posting, I will publish and discuss them in their entirety in this forum. I am going to call those people out by name, and demand they address the issues that are relevant and to the point, and refrain from personal attacks and name calling. I will focus on their hypocritical and sinful behavior, and call it what it is.
My message is simple and clear: back those up willing to do something about ending legalized child killing, and leave the personal vendettas at home. If the organizations want to act in an unchristian manner, then I will gladly point it out in a public forum.
******
One last comment pertaining to a statement made by ‘the advisory board’ and that is the claim of ‘returning to a place of humility and SANITY’. I don’t know who made this statement, but I want to know who has the clinical experience and can legally make a psychiatric diagnosis on someone. I am licensed in my state where I practice clinical social work, and have the authority to diagnose mental disorders. Whoever is making a claim of Mr. Terry’s ‘insanity’ better be licensed and better be prepared to back this claim legally. I take great exception to this statement, and it better be recanted by the board, and an apology forthcoming very soon.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
SCOTT ROEDER TRIAL
George Offerman
This trial, starting in Wichita, Kansas this week has the potential of defining the pro life battle for at least the next decade, if not more. The reason for this is the fact that the prosecutor is attempting to have Mr. Roeder’s ‘motive’ thrown out as testimony for his actions. Now, without trying to sound like I am condoning Mr. Roeder’s actions, it is also clear that our justice system always takes motives into account when determining crime and sentencing (Just look at the hate crimes legislation for that).
These are the questions posed to potential jurors by the prosecutor:
- What is your religious affiliation/denomination, if any?
- Do you attend a place of worship, i.e., Church, Temple, etc.? If yes, state where and how often?
- If applicable, do you participate in other activities in your place of worship? If yes, please state the type of activities and how frequently:
- If married or living with a mate, please describe their religious preference:
- If applicable, does your place of worship and/or particular denomination take an official stand on the practice of abortion?
- How would you rate the importance of your religious beliefs in your day to day life? Utmost important, Very important, Somewhat important, Not important at all
- Do you have any principles based on religious or ethical teaching or dogma that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror? If yes, please explain.
If one takes the time to read these questions, it appears obvious that the prosecutor wants to ‘stack’ the jury with atheists or non practicing Christians as a way of securing a murder one conviction, and to leave the question of abortion off the table. Regardless of what one thinks about Roeder’s actions, his primary motivation was to stop Tiller from murdering more babies and Mr. Roeder believed he had a right to do this.
Mr. Roeder also deserves a fair trial by his peers, and this cannot occur if the primary motive for committing the crime is not on the table for discussion or scrutiny. This also has the potential of twisting the protection of law for others who engage in activities that may become unpopular in the future.
Now, I want to be clear on what I just stated so that no one distorts or reads into the above statement. I am not comparing what Roeder did to activities such as Notre Dame, but if the government, or the judicial system can get away with labeling crimes and activities in such a way that motives can be banned as evidence, it will not be long before any activity deemed ‘uncivil’ or confrontational will have no defense. Roeder committed murder, and this is indisputable. He deserves punishment, and will have to deal with whatever his peers decide. However, Roeder should have his day and say in court, and his motives are very relevant, and need to be heard. As pro lifers, as well as Americans, we must insist on that occurring, because our country is built on these principles, and there should be no individual or groups that are made the exceptions to lawful jurisprudence.
As repulsive as many may see this, once there is justification to take one’s rights away, it can be justified in other situations. For instance, is it such a leap of thought to label Roeder an extremist or terrorist, and disallow his defense, then jump to other behaviors, such as what the ND 88 did and deny them their rights? Obviously, what Roeder did versus the ND 88 are apples and oranges, but given the fact that the ND 88 were surrounded by Obama supporters, who were unmolested by the police shows prejudicial actions, and in that end is not dissimilar to Roeder being denied his defense.
The problem is, that it is the liberal faction in this society, accompanied by the mainstream press that is publicly trying Roeder (by disallowing and criticizing his defense) before the trial has even begun. This is a dangerous situation, and the application from a case in which someone acted violently and unilaterally and without widespread support, most likely will be applied to non violent, peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience, and the outcome very well may be long term jail, or other harsh measures that will be right around the corner.
This trial is very important, and it is not the time for the pro life side to be silent about it. We need to make our voices heard, and make sure that Roeder gets his day in court, no matter how repulsive one may believe this to be. One day soon, it may be the mainstream Christian facing a judge and Jury, and the Christian may be informed that the Bible, belief system or church cannot be used as a defense for whatever the charge against the individual by the developing god/state will be.
This trial, starting in Wichita, Kansas this week has the potential of defining the pro life battle for at least the next decade, if not more. The reason for this is the fact that the prosecutor is attempting to have Mr. Roeder’s ‘motive’ thrown out as testimony for his actions. Now, without trying to sound like I am condoning Mr. Roeder’s actions, it is also clear that our justice system always takes motives into account when determining crime and sentencing (Just look at the hate crimes legislation for that).
These are the questions posed to potential jurors by the prosecutor:
- What is your religious affiliation/denomination, if any?
- Do you attend a place of worship, i.e., Church, Temple, etc.? If yes, state where and how often?
- If applicable, do you participate in other activities in your place of worship? If yes, please state the type of activities and how frequently:
- If married or living with a mate, please describe their religious preference:
- If applicable, does your place of worship and/or particular denomination take an official stand on the practice of abortion?
- How would you rate the importance of your religious beliefs in your day to day life? Utmost important, Very important, Somewhat important, Not important at all
- Do you have any principles based on religious or ethical teaching or dogma that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror? If yes, please explain.
If one takes the time to read these questions, it appears obvious that the prosecutor wants to ‘stack’ the jury with atheists or non practicing Christians as a way of securing a murder one conviction, and to leave the question of abortion off the table. Regardless of what one thinks about Roeder’s actions, his primary motivation was to stop Tiller from murdering more babies and Mr. Roeder believed he had a right to do this.
Mr. Roeder also deserves a fair trial by his peers, and this cannot occur if the primary motive for committing the crime is not on the table for discussion or scrutiny. This also has the potential of twisting the protection of law for others who engage in activities that may become unpopular in the future.
Now, I want to be clear on what I just stated so that no one distorts or reads into the above statement. I am not comparing what Roeder did to activities such as Notre Dame, but if the government, or the judicial system can get away with labeling crimes and activities in such a way that motives can be banned as evidence, it will not be long before any activity deemed ‘uncivil’ or confrontational will have no defense. Roeder committed murder, and this is indisputable. He deserves punishment, and will have to deal with whatever his peers decide. However, Roeder should have his day and say in court, and his motives are very relevant, and need to be heard. As pro lifers, as well as Americans, we must insist on that occurring, because our country is built on these principles, and there should be no individual or groups that are made the exceptions to lawful jurisprudence.
As repulsive as many may see this, once there is justification to take one’s rights away, it can be justified in other situations. For instance, is it such a leap of thought to label Roeder an extremist or terrorist, and disallow his defense, then jump to other behaviors, such as what the ND 88 did and deny them their rights? Obviously, what Roeder did versus the ND 88 are apples and oranges, but given the fact that the ND 88 were surrounded by Obama supporters, who were unmolested by the police shows prejudicial actions, and in that end is not dissimilar to Roeder being denied his defense.
The problem is, that it is the liberal faction in this society, accompanied by the mainstream press that is publicly trying Roeder (by disallowing and criticizing his defense) before the trial has even begun. This is a dangerous situation, and the application from a case in which someone acted violently and unilaterally and without widespread support, most likely will be applied to non violent, peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience, and the outcome very well may be long term jail, or other harsh measures that will be right around the corner.
This trial is very important, and it is not the time for the pro life side to be silent about it. We need to make our voices heard, and make sure that Roeder gets his day in court, no matter how repulsive one may believe this to be. One day soon, it may be the mainstream Christian facing a judge and Jury, and the Christian may be informed that the Bible, belief system or church cannot be used as a defense for whatever the charge against the individual by the developing god/state will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)