• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Frank Schaeffer - I (and other "Pro-Life" leaders) Contributed to Tiller's Death

The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Extremely interesting article, and a very honest look at personal responsibility in the killing of Dr. Tiller:
Frank Schaeffer: How I (and Other "Pro-Life" Leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller's Murder

From the article:
Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America.

Very interesting read.
 
waacman

waacman

Restoration of everything
I agree with Frank up to a point. In a way, I believe that he is right saying that the afilliation that he belongs to has caused this by their carelessly thrown about language, and at the same time I can't understand why they should have to censor themselves for people who do take things literally. It's exactly like a speed limit. It might be perfectly safe for a Porshe 911 to go 65 around a curb, but it isn't safe for a large semi-truck on that same curve to go even 35 without tipping over. Granted, that the point here is safety, but should we really be that concerned over a few bombings, a few murders here and there to justify total annulment of our rights to free speech and for something we believe is wrong? (yes, I know, that sounds really harsh) How often do our emotions conflict with the reality, and why does one murder not constitute thousands? Perhaps it is tit for tat after all.
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
I don't disagree with the assertion that we shouldn't sacrifice our right to free speech.

On the other hand, where a causal relationship can be clearly established, there should be a price to pay for inflammatory speech. I can't think of it right now, but I believe that there is a legal term for this - and there may be precedents for it.

Perhaps one of our legal members can help us.
 
waacman

waacman

Restoration of everything
Do you think that a causal relationship can actually be established? I'd say that it would be far-fetched, considering that Frank Schaeffer said himself that he and the other religious right leaders didn't even think anybody would take their words literally and actually do some violent act. I honestly don't think they were trying to incite or dig out the "hardcore" follower that would do something like this on purpose. Though I could be wrong.

I do know that yelling "fire" in a public enclosed space is illegal. You mean something along that line?
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
waacman said:
Do you think that a causal relationship can actually be established? I'd say that it would be far-fetched, considering that Frank Schaeffer said himself that he and the other religious right leaders didn't even think anybody would take their words literally and actually do some violent act. I honestly don't think they were trying to incite or dig out the "hardcore" follower that would do something like this on purpose. Though I could be wrong.

I do know that yelling "fire" in a public enclosed space is illegal. You mean something along that line?
Click to expand...

Do I think establishing a "cause and effect" relationship would be easy? No, I don't. I'd say that it would be difficult (if not impossible) in the vast majority of cases. But where it could be established, let the chips fall where they may.

On your second point, the "FIRE" when in a crowded theater is an example, but I think there are stronger instances. As I said, I'm just drawing a blank right now. Then again, at my age, I draw blanks at least as often as a thought comes through and stays on the tracks.
 
Dunemeister

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Russian Orthodox Christianity has a robust theology of shared culpability. We are all complicit in the sins of others through a complex web of relationships, actions and inactions. So even though Schaeffer didn't pull the trigger that killed the doctor, he correctly realizes that the way he went about his business in the 80s helped create an atmosphere and a culture where a doctor-shooting pro-life monster could be nurtured. It's worth pointing out, though, that according to this theology, the pro-abortion side deserves credit for the doctor's death, too. And I'd say it's high time that they owned up to the cultural damage that they are doing with their own rhetoric.
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Dunemeister said:
It's worth pointing out, though, that according to this theology, the pro-abortion side deserves credit for the doctor's death, too. And I'd say it's high time that they owned up to the cultural damage that they are doing with their own rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I'll leave the rest of your post for others, but personally, I take great offense at your label of choice as being "pro-abortion". I fully and completely support a woman's right to choose, but I have never in my life encouraged a woman to pursue an abortion. I am, unabashadely NOT pro-abortion, and I resent being mislabeled as such.

In the same vein, I guess we could label the anti-abortionists as being "pro-slavery".
 
Mister Emu

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
On your second point, the "FIRE" when in a crowded theater is an example, but I think there are stronger instances.
Click to expand...
Indeed... it is illegal to instigate violence... if, for instance, a pro-life speaker at a rally exclaimed that all abortion doctors should be killed, and a member of the audience then goes out and kills a doctor who performs abortions, the speaker would be criminally liable, from what I understand...
 
Reverend Rick

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
While I shed no tears for Tiller the baby killer's untimely death, I cannot help but see the hypocrisy of his assailant's actions.
 
Dunemeister

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
The Voice of Reason said:
I'll leave the rest of your post for others, but personally, I take great offense at your label of choice as being "pro-abortion". I fully and completely support a woman's right to choose, but I have never in my life encouraged a woman to pursue an abortion. I am, unabashadely NOT pro-abortion, and I resent being mislabeled as such.

In the same vein, I guess we could label the anti-abortionists as being "pro-slavery".
Click to expand...

You're right, VOR. I seriously misspoke, and I apologize.
 
Reverend Rick

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
tumbleweed41 said:
Wow Rev, pretty harsh.
Click to expand...
I believe the second half of the sentence balances things.

You want harsh? I hope they both burn in hell. That's harsh, but the way I feel about it. Murder is wrong! God may forgive them, but I will not. I wish my heart was not as hard as it is.
 
Reverend Rick

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
linwood said:
Is this the kind of inflammatory rhetoric you guys are talking about TVOR?
Click to expand...


Talking about things that have passed is not what our good friend the scarecrow was referring to. The speech has to encourage someone to do something in the future. To incite a riot would be the perfect example of this.

Speaking of the dead like I did, (while in bad taste) does not encourage any future bad behavior in any way.

Now if you praised the actions of his killer, that would be different all together.
 
linwood

linwood

Well-Known Member
Reverend Rick said:
Speaking of the dead like I did, (while in bad taste) does not encourage any future bad behavior in any way.
Click to expand...

Indeed it does.

De-valuing a humans life (as you did with your comment) directly leads to ignorant or brainwashed people considering that devalued life as ...valueless.

This more often than you might think leads to incidents such as this good doctors death.

Religion is such a bane upon humanity.

:sad4:
 
Reverend Rick

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
linwood said:
Indeed it does.

De-valuing a humans life (as you did with your comment) directly leads to ignorant or brainwashed people considering that devalued life as ...valueless.

This more often than you might think leads to incidents such as this good doctors death.

Religion is such a bane upon humanity.

:sad4:
Click to expand...

The "good doctor" you refer to was a monster. I stand guilty of devaluing his life, just as he did devaluing viable babies lives.

If you want to debate abortion in the first trimester or to save a woman's life, you will not have much to debate with me. I believe a woman has a right to decide, I just don't believe she has 9 months to make up her mind. Tiller did abortions on demand even if the woman had labor pains in her 9th month.

If you want to defend doing a partial delivery in the 9th month and then scrambling the brains of a little baby, I believe you are the bane you speak of.
 
linwood

linwood

Well-Known Member
Reverend Rick said:
The "good doctor" you refer to was a monster. I stand guilty of devaluing his life, just as he did devaluing viable babies lives.
Click to expand...

Then you stand guilty of the charge I put forward.
You do incite with inflamatory rhetoric.

Tiller did abortions on demand even if the woman had labor pains in her 9th month.
Click to expand...
This is not how I understand Tillers work.
Tiller couldn`t do a late term abortion "on demand".
No one in this country can perform a late term abortion "on demand" as it is illegal.

The process requires a concurring opinion from at least one other doctor that the woman`s life or health is indeed in danger if she gives birth.

From what little I know of Tiller it could be phrased that he saved actual lives instead of preferring "viable" lives over the living.

If you want to defend doing a partial delivery in the 9th month and then scrambling the brains of a little baby, I believe you are the bane you speak of.
Click to expand...
That`s not my position but you`re batting a thousand with the inflammatory rhetoric thus far.
I don`t want to slow you down.

Please continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top