George Offerman
There continues to be demonstrated confusion among many in the pro life movement about means of conduct in general, and the Roeder situation in particular. It seems more and more, there is rigidity in thought and behavior, and what one should do, be and think if pro life according to their definition. The problem is, this formula is not working, and the seeds of defeat are already sown into this.
One has to look no further than 37 years nearly 52 million dead, increases in every type of debauchery, violence and substance abuse, coupled with the deafening silence of the churches, and the very well known strategy of incrementalism espoused by the mainstream pro life movement. Why many continue to argue we are winning, and the goal of the pro life movement is to change hearts and to educate goes to show how out to lunch the mainstream pro lifers really are.
It is very disturbing to see people of high reputation in this movement, such as Gregg Cunningham, continue to go after those who think differently than him, and it is safe to say that Gregg Cunningham would be a mainstream pro lifer. What is disturbing about Mr. Cunningham in his attacks on Randall Terry, then Jill Stanek, is the intolerance for any thoughts other than his. Neither of these people “condoned” Roeder’s killing of Tiller, yet the rigidity is there. No tolerance for any questions or thoughts outside of Mr. Cunningham’s and this goes to show how highly Mr. Cunningham thinks of his own thoughts.
I came across an article written 3 years ago by Neal Horsley, then a candidate for governor for the state of Georgia. In this article, Mr. Horsley goes into great detail concerning the problems of the pro life movement, and how leaders such as Mr. Cunningham actually do harm by confusion they sow into the debate. Mr. Horsley takes it a step further, and uses the term treason, to describe what Mr. Cunningham and others are doing, and in essence locking in legalized child killing as the law of the land, versus really changing it. I will place a few paragraphs from this article below, and the rest of the article can be found using the link after the quotes.
THE FUNDAMENTAL CONFUSION OF GREGG CUNNINGHAM, ET AL
CBR makes it their business to send a stream of trucks--trucks costing millions of dollars--across the nation and the world. On the side of those trucks in pictures ten feet tall we see the dead, eviscerated bodies of little people, people who were killed in the USA with the full protection of LAW, the full protection of the federal government of the USA. But at the same time CBR does that, CBR issues messages to the Christians and others in this nation that unequivocally tell everyone that they must support the government that creates the conditions leading to the pictures on the side on their trucks. CBR issues definitions of "violence" that make it clear people are not even allowed TO THINK ("justifiable homicide is not cognizable," CBR tells us) about treating the babies who are pictured on their trucks the way we would expect every other person in this nation to be treated if they were in imminent danger of being torn limb from limb like those babies.
With this fundamental contradiction in view, is there anybody alive who fails to see the confusion CBR creates?
While it is true that God sometimes brought confusion into the camp of those who opposed Him. It has never been the case, nor will it ever be the case, that God brings confusion among those who live their lives in His service. The presence of confusion within the Body of Christ is ALWAYS a sign that the Body has been invaded by a virus, an alien trespassing agent, an invader that must in time be cut off from the Body unless the whole Body be destroyed.
http://www.christiangallery.com/prolifetreason.html
The sad part about much of Mr. Cunningham’s writings is the fact he uses the term anti abortion in many instances versus pro life, but seems to use this term as a pejorative to those he does not agree with. In his own definition of violence, Mr. Cunningham states it is “Physical assaults against the person or property of people who perform elective pregnancy terminations”. In looking at this terminology, Mr. Cunningham does not even acknowledge human life and the murderous implications it holds. This language, especially “elective pregnancy terminations’ is more Orwellian and soft petals the whole aspect of child killing. I guess as long as one doesn’t acknowledge that a human being is being brutally murdered, we can agree on this ghastly definition.
By sugarcoating child killing with neutral wording, Mr. Cunningham is actually promoting and propagating legalized child killing. It would seem that Mr. Horsley is correct in stating that Mr. Cunningham does not see an end to the “legalized’ piece of the child killing, for if it were so, the child killer could not have a set office, with set times to do set procedures (murders) and be handsomely paid, for immoral and illegal acts. Like crack houses or moon shiners, force would be used to stop the activities, and the perpetrators would be in jail immediately.
Words mean things. When someone of the stature of Mr. Cunningham uses his legalese to sugarcoat the activities of a heinous enterprise, he is only propagating this system, and may want to use whatever defense he may, but my request to Mr. Cunningham is at least don’t claim to do it in the name of the Living God, when minimizing the destruction of his most precious creation.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
MOMENTS TO PONDER
George Offerman
Sometimes there are events in life that require some pondering and make one wonder if what is going on has ‘coincidental’ ties. I have lived in this are nearly 27 years now, and have not seen winter weather like this and to have hit an amount of snow not seen in a century, with possibly 20 more inches later today and tomorrow, has me thinking “What is going on here”. I will give full credit to my wife, Kathy, who first made this connection with the meetings that were supposed to take place on Feb 7-10
We are in the midst of unprecedented weather phenomena here in the Nation’s capital having back to back nor’easters, and according to the meteorologists is a phenomena not seen before in this area. Simultaneously, there is (was) a very controversial and scandalous four day event sponsored by the USCCB in which there were several groups to speak and present on topics ranging from abortion rights, pro child killing politicians receiving communion, same sex marriage, women’s ordination and other ‘progressive’ issues. This story has been well covered and followed by American Life League (ALL), and they have sourced pew sitter. Link below
http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_28931.php
One would have to wonder if God finally took some matters into his own hands. Looking at the lineup of this event, one could not help but come to the conclusion that this whole fiasco is nothing but stench in the nostrils of God, and of the highest evil magnitude for his church. It seems the Bishops continue to show they are indifferent to the teachings of the Church, and pay little to no attention to the Vatican and what they should be safeguarding. The Bishops seem too preoccupied with their own reputations and seeking approval of those who could care less about the Churches teachings and beliefs. They cannot claim ignorance to this, and are ultimately responsible and accountable for the speakers and content presented.
I don’t remember seeing a time in which the Federal Government closed for two days, the airports closed much of the time, public transportation virtually shut down, and for those trying to drive into the city, no way to get into the side streets, very little parking and absolutely no street parking. And on top of that, more to come, just in time to disrupt the final day or two of this disastrous event. This area is truly paralyzed, and I am very confident that if this event has gone on, it is having the attendance it deserves.
There are many who may disagree with these sentiments, and wonder if God would paralyze a whole region to stop such a scandal from occurring. I, for one, believe He would, and Scripture has many accounts in which God has intervened in the affairs of men to make his point. The question that really should be pondered is: Are we listening?
Most will write this off as a coincidence and see this snow as a nuisance, versus a warning to be heeded. There can sure be a lot worse that could happen other than 3-4 feet of snow to contend with, and it may be a signal of things to come if we continue promoting scandal as if it were legitimate teachings and true ways of our faith. When will the Bishops ‘get it’ and begin to reign in the scandal they are promoting and work on teaching the Faith as it is?
It also makes one wonder how long suffering our God is, and when he may finally run out of patience. As aggravated as many are getting by the weather, how would we deal with an event of the magnitude of Haiti? We can barely handle the snow here, and runs on food and other items, gas and power outages have shown how vulnerable we really are. Would we even recognize these events as redemptive or punitive? Or would we continue on with the status quo, or even blame God for not watching over us?
Any way one wants to look at this, the weather events of the past weekend, coupled with what is coming in the next few hours is unprecedented. The effects of this event will at least disappear with warm weather and we all may have ‘fond’ memories once the hot and humid weather returns. But it would be good for us to ponder how ‘coincidental’ these storms are, given what was taking place in the nation’s Capital, and how scandalous it truly is.
Sometimes there are events in life that require some pondering and make one wonder if what is going on has ‘coincidental’ ties. I have lived in this are nearly 27 years now, and have not seen winter weather like this and to have hit an amount of snow not seen in a century, with possibly 20 more inches later today and tomorrow, has me thinking “What is going on here”. I will give full credit to my wife, Kathy, who first made this connection with the meetings that were supposed to take place on Feb 7-10
We are in the midst of unprecedented weather phenomena here in the Nation’s capital having back to back nor’easters, and according to the meteorologists is a phenomena not seen before in this area. Simultaneously, there is (was) a very controversial and scandalous four day event sponsored by the USCCB in which there were several groups to speak and present on topics ranging from abortion rights, pro child killing politicians receiving communion, same sex marriage, women’s ordination and other ‘progressive’ issues. This story has been well covered and followed by American Life League (ALL), and they have sourced pew sitter. Link below
http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_28931.php
One would have to wonder if God finally took some matters into his own hands. Looking at the lineup of this event, one could not help but come to the conclusion that this whole fiasco is nothing but stench in the nostrils of God, and of the highest evil magnitude for his church. It seems the Bishops continue to show they are indifferent to the teachings of the Church, and pay little to no attention to the Vatican and what they should be safeguarding. The Bishops seem too preoccupied with their own reputations and seeking approval of those who could care less about the Churches teachings and beliefs. They cannot claim ignorance to this, and are ultimately responsible and accountable for the speakers and content presented.
I don’t remember seeing a time in which the Federal Government closed for two days, the airports closed much of the time, public transportation virtually shut down, and for those trying to drive into the city, no way to get into the side streets, very little parking and absolutely no street parking. And on top of that, more to come, just in time to disrupt the final day or two of this disastrous event. This area is truly paralyzed, and I am very confident that if this event has gone on, it is having the attendance it deserves.
There are many who may disagree with these sentiments, and wonder if God would paralyze a whole region to stop such a scandal from occurring. I, for one, believe He would, and Scripture has many accounts in which God has intervened in the affairs of men to make his point. The question that really should be pondered is: Are we listening?
Most will write this off as a coincidence and see this snow as a nuisance, versus a warning to be heeded. There can sure be a lot worse that could happen other than 3-4 feet of snow to contend with, and it may be a signal of things to come if we continue promoting scandal as if it were legitimate teachings and true ways of our faith. When will the Bishops ‘get it’ and begin to reign in the scandal they are promoting and work on teaching the Faith as it is?
It also makes one wonder how long suffering our God is, and when he may finally run out of patience. As aggravated as many are getting by the weather, how would we deal with an event of the magnitude of Haiti? We can barely handle the snow here, and runs on food and other items, gas and power outages have shown how vulnerable we really are. Would we even recognize these events as redemptive or punitive? Or would we continue on with the status quo, or even blame God for not watching over us?
Any way one wants to look at this, the weather events of the past weekend, coupled with what is coming in the next few hours is unprecedented. The effects of this event will at least disappear with warm weather and we all may have ‘fond’ memories once the hot and humid weather returns. But it would be good for us to ponder how ‘coincidental’ these storms are, given what was taking place in the nation’s Capital, and how scandalous it truly is.
Monday, February 8, 2010
PRO LIFE'S DEADLY SIN: INCREMENTALISM
George Offerman
Incrementalism is not a bad word when properly used and when discussing things of a static nature, such as construction and phasing in new projects in which there needs to be a learning curve by those adjusting to the new ways and methods of change. We even note incremental changes in some processes in the mental health field, but I really want to emphasize the word ‘some’. For instance, if I am dealing with a marriage where adultery took place, I do not hear the offended party ever say, “Well, honey, if you can keep the affairs to twice a year or less, I can live with that”.
There are certain areas in life, which are represented by the dynamic nature, such as matters of faith and morals, in which there are absolute mandates that must be obeyed, or severe consequences will follow. It is in this light that we as Christians must make decisions that will guide our actions that are Biblically based, and not watered down or compromised. Incrementalism in Christianity is implementing God’s laws and mandates in ‘phases’ like some construction project, but in effect, making decisions for God based upon our own feelings, or sense of how reality works.
Too many Christians have a horizontal view of reality, in which all emphasis is put into what man can do, and what can be seen versus a vertical view of reality, in which God dictates the terms of life, and we faithfully implement them. There is way more fear of man’s rejection by Christians than of God’s rejection. So, the mainstream Christian is too busy looking at the problem from his own wisdom, and rejecting the clear mandates of the Living God. For many in the pro life movement, going for total victory is overwhelming, and seemingly impossible.
I have heard many well intentioned Christians, including clergy, state that overturning Roe and Doe is not going to happen in one fell swoop, and as such, the real strategy must focus on small victories as a viable alternative. Somehow, I have difficulty believing the Living God is watching this, and giving his stamp of approval. After all, real babies continue to be slaughtered in the most despicable fashion, and is it really God’s view that this is acceptable? Does God create, only to have us destroy? If this is the case, then what number of dead babies is acceptable? Is this really any different than throwing virgins into a volcano to appease the gods? It seems that it is our 21st century version of human sacrifice to appease the gods of tolerance, political correctness, comfort and convenience.
Incrementalism, when applied to legalized child killing, is an abomination to God. There is absolutely no foundation anywhere in the Bible that would mandate such a position, and it comes straight from the gates of hell. This philosophy from the pro life side is an apologetics for wimpism and cowardice. Legalized child killing will never end as long as the pro life side embraces exceptions, and is constantly apologizing for Biblically sound beliefs that go against the modern day social norms, and ‘anything goes’ mentality of most people living in the modern world.
It comes down to the question of what one really believes. Scripture is clear on this matter, and the following verse covers it well. Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name case out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”. Again, if we believe that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God, and God is abundantly clear that the shedding of ALL innocent blood cries from the ground, and must be accounted for, then it is imperative the pro life movement embrace to word of God and go forth by Faith.
We do not have the right to bargain away life, and cut deals with the devil for our own convenience and comfort. If this belief and behavior continues by our side, we will then reap the seeds and crop we have cultivated, and our convenience and comfort will be long gone, and we are likely to see suffering on a scale unimaginable. The law of sowing and reaping is alive and well, and we are subject to it whether we believe it or not, know it or not, like it or not. The laws of God are not subject to negotiation or debate, and we very well may have this lesson revisit us in the near future.
Incrementalism is not a bad word when properly used and when discussing things of a static nature, such as construction and phasing in new projects in which there needs to be a learning curve by those adjusting to the new ways and methods of change. We even note incremental changes in some processes in the mental health field, but I really want to emphasize the word ‘some’. For instance, if I am dealing with a marriage where adultery took place, I do not hear the offended party ever say, “Well, honey, if you can keep the affairs to twice a year or less, I can live with that”.
There are certain areas in life, which are represented by the dynamic nature, such as matters of faith and morals, in which there are absolute mandates that must be obeyed, or severe consequences will follow. It is in this light that we as Christians must make decisions that will guide our actions that are Biblically based, and not watered down or compromised. Incrementalism in Christianity is implementing God’s laws and mandates in ‘phases’ like some construction project, but in effect, making decisions for God based upon our own feelings, or sense of how reality works.
Too many Christians have a horizontal view of reality, in which all emphasis is put into what man can do, and what can be seen versus a vertical view of reality, in which God dictates the terms of life, and we faithfully implement them. There is way more fear of man’s rejection by Christians than of God’s rejection. So, the mainstream Christian is too busy looking at the problem from his own wisdom, and rejecting the clear mandates of the Living God. For many in the pro life movement, going for total victory is overwhelming, and seemingly impossible.
I have heard many well intentioned Christians, including clergy, state that overturning Roe and Doe is not going to happen in one fell swoop, and as such, the real strategy must focus on small victories as a viable alternative. Somehow, I have difficulty believing the Living God is watching this, and giving his stamp of approval. After all, real babies continue to be slaughtered in the most despicable fashion, and is it really God’s view that this is acceptable? Does God create, only to have us destroy? If this is the case, then what number of dead babies is acceptable? Is this really any different than throwing virgins into a volcano to appease the gods? It seems that it is our 21st century version of human sacrifice to appease the gods of tolerance, political correctness, comfort and convenience.
Incrementalism, when applied to legalized child killing, is an abomination to God. There is absolutely no foundation anywhere in the Bible that would mandate such a position, and it comes straight from the gates of hell. This philosophy from the pro life side is an apologetics for wimpism and cowardice. Legalized child killing will never end as long as the pro life side embraces exceptions, and is constantly apologizing for Biblically sound beliefs that go against the modern day social norms, and ‘anything goes’ mentality of most people living in the modern world.
It comes down to the question of what one really believes. Scripture is clear on this matter, and the following verse covers it well. Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name case out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”. Again, if we believe that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God, and God is abundantly clear that the shedding of ALL innocent blood cries from the ground, and must be accounted for, then it is imperative the pro life movement embrace to word of God and go forth by Faith.
We do not have the right to bargain away life, and cut deals with the devil for our own convenience and comfort. If this belief and behavior continues by our side, we will then reap the seeds and crop we have cultivated, and our convenience and comfort will be long gone, and we are likely to see suffering on a scale unimaginable. The law of sowing and reaping is alive and well, and we are subject to it whether we believe it or not, know it or not, like it or not. The laws of God are not subject to negotiation or debate, and we very well may have this lesson revisit us in the near future.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
IT'S PREDICTABLE
George Offerman
I am going to make some predictions. I am going to be writing a new series about an organization, and I, along with Randall Terry, will experience an ever increasing amount of slander, lies, innuendos and possibly direct assault from those that are responsible for much of the poor behavior exhibited up to this point. Issues that should have been resolved in the quiet and privately, have been carried into the open, and it seems only fair that if allegations are made, they should be backed up with facts, and should be done publicly given the allegations had been made public first. It is heartbreaking to have to deal with such matters, when the fight should be with the enemy.
It is a very sad commentary, indeed, when bad behavior dominates the conversation over the issues, and it is actually disheartening when it is coming from Christians who should know better. I’m referring to the past week, in which there have been serious allegations made about Randall Terry and statements he did not make, but many have put words in his mouth. Likewise, there have been very clear statements made by Randall Terry that are totally ignored. Talk about a great ‘switch and bait’ scheme.
I have also come under personal attack by a few ‘disgruntled’ Christians, but I have had many come out of the ‘woodwork’ to support me, and to also give testimony against those spearheading the false innuendos, and threats made by them. It truly is a sad commentary in which these supposed Christians in good standing can make threats to harm one’s reputation, amongst other things, and really believe they are doing God’s will. I, even for a second, do not believe they are doing the will of the Lord, but then again, I cannot personally relate to how someone can deliberately trash, lie and threaten another human being, and then try to justify this behavior in the name of the Lord.
I will pose this to the reader: Is it gossip to discuss issues, such as the Roeder trial, in which one may have a point of view that is different than what another thinks? Is it gossip to point out unchristian behavior, when this behavior is targeted at someone in the public arena? Is it gossip to address issues, when one makes false accusations against another? Are we really supposed to stay quiet, and if so, who is the arbiter of that decision and on what grounds? There have been some out there who do attack, then cry foul when simply called out on their bad behavior. We are mandated to try to settle matters in a Christian format, which includes going to those in private, but when those same people decide to attack in a public venue, the Christian has a right to defend their reputation. In fact in the Catholic tradition, it is immoral to NOT defend yourself, when one deliberately attempts to ruin another’s reputation.
Many have attempted to resolve the issues I will be writing about in the next several weeks in a private and Biblical fashion, and have received nothing back but ridicule, insults, lies and threats. They have been given ample opportunity to resolve these issues in a non threatening way, and I and many others would have been extremely happy to have done so if it was possible. My belief is that these people have no interest in resolving these issues, and seem to be going out of the way to make this as destructive as possible. I also don’t care to be threatened and have others make threats towards those they want to destroy. I also cannot stand bullies, and frankly these individuals are acting as if they live on a playground behind a school, and call the shots by using tactics that put a smile on the devil’s face.
It is a sad commentary that those making the greatest noise about others are guilty of nearly the same thing they themselves are accusing us of. In the end, it will be they themselves that will be found wanting, as a lie can never be the truth. It will be them that will be isolated, insignificant, irrelevant and inconsequential, as they attempt to make themselves look good by ruining others. Wolves in sheep clothing need to be outed, and if it turns out that any of them are maligned, I can vouch that I’m willing to admit to making a mistake, and will do what I can to resolve the situation. However, based on past experiences and behaviors, these individuals do not have the intention to be willing to admit to their errors, and will only intensify their behaviors as they are called out.
So it is in this light that I will make some predications. As I progress with the writings I plan on doing, the attacks on both Randall Terry and I will increase exponentially. I will write about facts, and they will get personal, and come from every angle imaginable. They will write slanderous things about character, and even go to the level of attacking the family. They will throw out information that will be outright lies; they may even go to the extreme of manufacturing stories, images, and even making up fake profiles on sites such as face book, to spin their web of deceit.
But in the end, it is all smoke and mirrors, and they will be exposed for the frauds and pretenders that they are. It will be abundantly clear to the readers that the main purpose for the seek and destroy methodology used by these individuals is motivated by pride and jealousy. They are not producing the results they are claiming, and must use any means possible to bring down those that are getting the job done. What a shame, and all in the name of our blessed Lord.
I am going to make some predictions. I am going to be writing a new series about an organization, and I, along with Randall Terry, will experience an ever increasing amount of slander, lies, innuendos and possibly direct assault from those that are responsible for much of the poor behavior exhibited up to this point. Issues that should have been resolved in the quiet and privately, have been carried into the open, and it seems only fair that if allegations are made, they should be backed up with facts, and should be done publicly given the allegations had been made public first. It is heartbreaking to have to deal with such matters, when the fight should be with the enemy.
It is a very sad commentary, indeed, when bad behavior dominates the conversation over the issues, and it is actually disheartening when it is coming from Christians who should know better. I’m referring to the past week, in which there have been serious allegations made about Randall Terry and statements he did not make, but many have put words in his mouth. Likewise, there have been very clear statements made by Randall Terry that are totally ignored. Talk about a great ‘switch and bait’ scheme.
I have also come under personal attack by a few ‘disgruntled’ Christians, but I have had many come out of the ‘woodwork’ to support me, and to also give testimony against those spearheading the false innuendos, and threats made by them. It truly is a sad commentary in which these supposed Christians in good standing can make threats to harm one’s reputation, amongst other things, and really believe they are doing God’s will. I, even for a second, do not believe they are doing the will of the Lord, but then again, I cannot personally relate to how someone can deliberately trash, lie and threaten another human being, and then try to justify this behavior in the name of the Lord.
I will pose this to the reader: Is it gossip to discuss issues, such as the Roeder trial, in which one may have a point of view that is different than what another thinks? Is it gossip to point out unchristian behavior, when this behavior is targeted at someone in the public arena? Is it gossip to address issues, when one makes false accusations against another? Are we really supposed to stay quiet, and if so, who is the arbiter of that decision and on what grounds? There have been some out there who do attack, then cry foul when simply called out on their bad behavior. We are mandated to try to settle matters in a Christian format, which includes going to those in private, but when those same people decide to attack in a public venue, the Christian has a right to defend their reputation. In fact in the Catholic tradition, it is immoral to NOT defend yourself, when one deliberately attempts to ruin another’s reputation.
Many have attempted to resolve the issues I will be writing about in the next several weeks in a private and Biblical fashion, and have received nothing back but ridicule, insults, lies and threats. They have been given ample opportunity to resolve these issues in a non threatening way, and I and many others would have been extremely happy to have done so if it was possible. My belief is that these people have no interest in resolving these issues, and seem to be going out of the way to make this as destructive as possible. I also don’t care to be threatened and have others make threats towards those they want to destroy. I also cannot stand bullies, and frankly these individuals are acting as if they live on a playground behind a school, and call the shots by using tactics that put a smile on the devil’s face.
It is a sad commentary that those making the greatest noise about others are guilty of nearly the same thing they themselves are accusing us of. In the end, it will be they themselves that will be found wanting, as a lie can never be the truth. It will be them that will be isolated, insignificant, irrelevant and inconsequential, as they attempt to make themselves look good by ruining others. Wolves in sheep clothing need to be outed, and if it turns out that any of them are maligned, I can vouch that I’m willing to admit to making a mistake, and will do what I can to resolve the situation. However, based on past experiences and behaviors, these individuals do not have the intention to be willing to admit to their errors, and will only intensify their behaviors as they are called out.
So it is in this light that I will make some predications. As I progress with the writings I plan on doing, the attacks on both Randall Terry and I will increase exponentially. I will write about facts, and they will get personal, and come from every angle imaginable. They will write slanderous things about character, and even go to the level of attacking the family. They will throw out information that will be outright lies; they may even go to the extreme of manufacturing stories, images, and even making up fake profiles on sites such as face book, to spin their web of deceit.
But in the end, it is all smoke and mirrors, and they will be exposed for the frauds and pretenders that they are. It will be abundantly clear to the readers that the main purpose for the seek and destroy methodology used by these individuals is motivated by pride and jealousy. They are not producing the results they are claiming, and must use any means possible to bring down those that are getting the job done. What a shame, and all in the name of our blessed Lord.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
GREGG CUNNINGHAM'S CONFUSION
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
HARSHNESS OF THE TRUTH
George Offerman
It seems for many, the truth is an elusive and mainly relative thing, that one can make up as he goes along, and apply it without mercy to those he may have a problem with, but will exonerate himself from the same standard he himself uses on the individual or groups targeted. This is especially saddening when so called Christians engage in such behaviors and in essence, give poor witness to those who may be questioning their lives and actually contemplating a change in their belief systems.
Below, is an article I came across that covers much of the dynamics and problems of those trying to bring about truth and have honest dialogues. How many contemporary Christians and church leaders are guilty of ‘stoning’ the contemporary prophets, and why is it that so many other Christians stay silent as this goes on?
Why We Stone Prophets
Posted By Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D. On January 30, 2010 @ 12:01 am In Touched By Grace | No Comments
“In polite conversation, never bring up politics or religion.” That’s the advice I was given as a child. And it’s good advice, too, if your aim is to be well-liked. Politics and religion are risky because they involve deeply held convictions, and if you happen to tread on the convictions of others, you get the same reaction that a dentist gets when his probe hits a nerve.
But politeness at any cost is not God’s style. The reason for this is that God is love, and love is more concerned about the welfare of others than with one’s own image. So if someone is on a seemingly pleasant canoe ride down a lazy river, love cares enough to warn the passengers that Niagara Falls is up ahead. “But everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.” Opinions don’t change the fact that going over the falls in a canoe will kill you.
Religious and moral choices are like this. They set one on a course that leads either to a safe harbor or over the falls. Sex outside of marriage, intoxication with drugs and alcohol, honoring Jesus but rejecting the authority of His Church, all these choices have very unpleasant, even deadly, consequences.
So God sends prophets (the Greek word means “spokesmen“) whose role includes warning people that they are headed over the falls. You’d think people would be grateful for the heads up. But often people respond to bad news by killing the messenger.
Why is this? Because the idea that we are basically “good people” whom God ought to appreciate, and that our beliefs and lifestyle are at least as good as all others-these are comforting illusions. When a prophet calls all this into question, we find it threatening and very uncomfortable. If the prophet is right, we have to change, and change always means pain, and we don’t like pain.
Jeremiah and Jesus both are dealing with people who think that they are “good people.” After all, they are God’s chosen people. They offer sacrifices. God is on their side. So they respond to Jeremiah’s warnings by eliminating the source of pain. They throw him into a muddy cistern and he narrowly escapes with his life. In Luke 4, Jesus the inhabitants of Nazareth want to throw Jesus over the hill. He eludes them this time, but ultimately gives his life for those who cry out “Crucify him!”
So if this is how people are going to respond, why bother? Why stick your neck out? Because people have a right to the truth, whether they heed the truth or not. The prophet’s responsibility is to speak God’s word as clearly and convincingly as possible. What people do with that word is not under his control. Mother Teresa was fond of saying that God does not require us to have success; he requires us to be faithful.
At first glance, Jeremiah did not have much “success.” His listeners totally ignored him, the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, and Israel was taken into exile. On Good Friday, it did not look like Jesus had been successful either. But 300 years later the Romans who crucified him were worshiping him, and the lives that had been forever changed were too numerous to count.
We who have been confirmed have been given a share in Christ’s prophetic anointing. If our goal is to be everybody’s buddy, we are going to have a hard time being faithful. The word that God commands us to share is sometimes comforting, sometimes disturbing. We must get over our fear of offending people and love them enough to tell them the truth. Of course, there is always the question of the right place and time. But if no place is the right place and the right time never comes, we can be sure that we are allowing fear of other’s opinion to get in the way of love. Love is not about being sentimental or popular. The love of God, spoken about in 1 Corinthians 13, is tough love.
Article printed from Catholic Exchange: http://catholicexchange.com
URL to article: http://catholicexchange.com/2010/01/30/126626/
It seems for many, the truth is an elusive and mainly relative thing, that one can make up as he goes along, and apply it without mercy to those he may have a problem with, but will exonerate himself from the same standard he himself uses on the individual or groups targeted. This is especially saddening when so called Christians engage in such behaviors and in essence, give poor witness to those who may be questioning their lives and actually contemplating a change in their belief systems.
Below, is an article I came across that covers much of the dynamics and problems of those trying to bring about truth and have honest dialogues. How many contemporary Christians and church leaders are guilty of ‘stoning’ the contemporary prophets, and why is it that so many other Christians stay silent as this goes on?
Why We Stone Prophets
Posted By Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D. On January 30, 2010 @ 12:01 am In Touched By Grace | No Comments
“In polite conversation, never bring up politics or religion.” That’s the advice I was given as a child. And it’s good advice, too, if your aim is to be well-liked. Politics and religion are risky because they involve deeply held convictions, and if you happen to tread on the convictions of others, you get the same reaction that a dentist gets when his probe hits a nerve.
But politeness at any cost is not God’s style. The reason for this is that God is love, and love is more concerned about the welfare of others than with one’s own image. So if someone is on a seemingly pleasant canoe ride down a lazy river, love cares enough to warn the passengers that Niagara Falls is up ahead. “But everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.” Opinions don’t change the fact that going over the falls in a canoe will kill you.
Religious and moral choices are like this. They set one on a course that leads either to a safe harbor or over the falls. Sex outside of marriage, intoxication with drugs and alcohol, honoring Jesus but rejecting the authority of His Church, all these choices have very unpleasant, even deadly, consequences.
So God sends prophets (the Greek word means “spokesmen“) whose role includes warning people that they are headed over the falls. You’d think people would be grateful for the heads up. But often people respond to bad news by killing the messenger.
Why is this? Because the idea that we are basically “good people” whom God ought to appreciate, and that our beliefs and lifestyle are at least as good as all others-these are comforting illusions. When a prophet calls all this into question, we find it threatening and very uncomfortable. If the prophet is right, we have to change, and change always means pain, and we don’t like pain.
Jeremiah and Jesus both are dealing with people who think that they are “good people.” After all, they are God’s chosen people. They offer sacrifices. God is on their side. So they respond to Jeremiah’s warnings by eliminating the source of pain. They throw him into a muddy cistern and he narrowly escapes with his life. In Luke 4, Jesus the inhabitants of Nazareth want to throw Jesus over the hill. He eludes them this time, but ultimately gives his life for those who cry out “Crucify him!”
So if this is how people are going to respond, why bother? Why stick your neck out? Because people have a right to the truth, whether they heed the truth or not. The prophet’s responsibility is to speak God’s word as clearly and convincingly as possible. What people do with that word is not under his control. Mother Teresa was fond of saying that God does not require us to have success; he requires us to be faithful.
At first glance, Jeremiah did not have much “success.” His listeners totally ignored him, the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, and Israel was taken into exile. On Good Friday, it did not look like Jesus had been successful either. But 300 years later the Romans who crucified him were worshiping him, and the lives that had been forever changed were too numerous to count.
We who have been confirmed have been given a share in Christ’s prophetic anointing. If our goal is to be everybody’s buddy, we are going to have a hard time being faithful. The word that God commands us to share is sometimes comforting, sometimes disturbing. We must get over our fear of offending people and love them enough to tell them the truth. Of course, there is always the question of the right place and time. But if no place is the right place and the right time never comes, we can be sure that we are allowing fear of other’s opinion to get in the way of love. Love is not about being sentimental or popular. The love of God, spoken about in 1 Corinthians 13, is tough love.
Article printed from Catholic Exchange: http://catholicexchange.com
URL to article: http://catholicexchange.com/2010/01/30/126626/
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)