I was well aware that for religious people their moral thinking is related to their religious thinking, yet moral opinions and purely religious ones are different things. I am glad that you also understand the difference.

Regarding religion, as someone who is interested in the comparative study of religion and mythology, and the philosophy of religion, your definition is most unsatisfactory; it doesn’t in any way describe what makes religion different from other human activities. Let me point out the example that dictionary.com gives for the very definition you chose to use: “to make a religion of fighting prejudice.” That in no way fits what we mean when we normally use the word “religion,” in either scholarly or everyday circumstances.

Certainly ground can be sanctified in a community’s consciousness by the way it is used, and I agree that such ground should normally be respected. I don’t make a habit of interrupting other people’s worship services, and I’m certainly not inclined to go about urinating on graves. However, this is a far sight from wishing “a special place in hell” on someone for killing in a church as opposed to killing somewhere else.

But enough of this. Let’s get down to brass tacks, as they say.

People of faith should always be willing to act on their moral beliefs, but at the same time we have to obey the law, or at the very least accept the consequences of the law.

I would say people should be willing to act on their moral sense whether they are religious or not (however they happen to define “being religious”).

As for your assertion that people must either obey the law or except the legal consequences of disobedience, I say that is false. Oh, it’s a good rule of thumb if the lawmaking authority is generally decent. But it’s hardly an inviolable moral principle.

Those who worked on the Underground Railroad in the 19th century were breaking the law, and I’m sure they had no intention of facing any legal consequences for doing so. I can also refer you, again, to my example to GPW in comment #22:

If we you and Bruce were in a country were killing gay Jews (and only gay Jews) were perfectly legal, and Bruce killed someone to defend you in defiance of said law, which is morally supreme: the law or Bruce’s conscience?

Forget even the use of lethal violence by Bruce in the example (that was particularly germaine to my dialogue with Dan). Just assume Bruce has seriously violated the law to defend a gay Jew who would have been killed, or otherwise grievously harmed, perfectly legally. Is Bruce morally required to submit to the law’s judgment? I think not.

My crusade against abortion … is limited to the time/money/[resources] I mentioned above. I’ve no desire to be a martyr, I’m not ready to leave this world in a blaze of glory…

Fine and dandy. You state the limits of your own moral courage, and we should all know our own limits. However, if you wish to raise your concerns about converting by example rather than by force to the level of general ethical or universal moral principle, then you have to accept certain limits regarding the moral issues in question. You must either:

A) Admit that abortion is never the destruction of an actual person

Or,

B) Admit that violence to defend innocent people is never morally justified.

My concern is that conservatives in general (an pro-lifers almost to a man) aren’t willing to do either. (I asked you about this and since you gave no answer I assume you have none. No matter, I have plenty of my own thoughts on this matter.)

this guy may have honestly believed he was doing the right thing when he pulled the trigger. … But when he violated the Doctor’s right to live (and his body with lead) he [forfeited] any mercy the state owed him.

You can say that Livewire, but to morally consistent, you must embrace one of the two choices above, A or B. To reject both means to admit that Dr. Tiller was stopped from committing more murders by the assassin, and hence the assassin only did what the state should have done but refused to do.

So which is it, Livewire, A or B?

I chose religious beliefs deliberately. Definition 6 of religion is “something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.” This fits, after all, aren’t athiests the most devout and evangilistic of all faiths?

For me, ground can be sanctified and as a matter of courtesy, I do believe in respecting holy ground. Don’t take a leak in a grave yard, or invoke the holy spirit over someone’s wiccan altar just to ‘mess it up’.

Assuming he wasn’t insane, Dr. Tiller’s assassin was acting on his moral beliefs. People of faith should always be willing to act on their moral beliefs, but at the same time we have to obey the law, or at the very least accept the consequences of the law. Which in this case this guy should receive a one way ticket to the next world, to see if he’s right.

My crusade against abortion, to use the topic at hand, is limited to the time/money/resoruces I mentioned above. I’ve no desire to be a martyr, I’m not ready to leave this world in a blaze of glory I’m also not willing to convert by force (the sword) preferring to live by example. That’s what I meant by evangalizing. it’s my duty as a Christian to show you the way, not to push you down the path.

Wow, that’s a lot of rambling. I guess what it comes down to is, this guy may have honestly believed he was doing the right thing when he pulled the trigger. Confronting him would have been fine, mounting a billboard with the a photo of the aftermath of Dr. Tiller’s ‘work’ on his car and parking outside the church would have been fine. But when he violated the Doctor’s right to live (and his body with lead) he forfitted any mercy the state owed him.

I asked several question in this thread. Given your response, I assume you are answering this one:

What moral justification does someone have for tolerating what he considers murder?

You did give an interesting answer. And I salute you for giving one.

I don’t see what Henotheism and evangelizing have to do with the matter; Tiller’s assassin surely wasn’t interested in either any theological concerns. Nor do I understand your claim that a church is holier ground than any other. (This is, in any event, wholly irrelevant.)

I should perhaps admit I think that American politics — and the abortion issue in particular — are far too entwined with American’s religious opinions. And here is were I think you miss the mark: Tiller’s assassin isn’t an example of someone who “acted out his religious beliefs.” He’s someone who acted out his moral beliefs. There is a big difference.

But to the hear of your reply:

it comes down to what are you willing to sacrifice?

I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head here, Livewire.

But your list of sacrifices — time and money — is what one would expect for opposing what one considers immoral. But is that all one should be willing to sacrifice for what one considers murder? (See my example in comment #22 above where the category of may-be-killed individual is gay Jew rather than unborn child.)

Pro-lifers and most conservatives will often consider early abortions to be murder. They certainly must consider the deliberate killing of 20-week old or older fetuses to be murder. Yet their actions don’t match their rhetoric, do they? Have any ideas as to why?

Interesting question. And I’d say the answer is, for me, that it comes down to what are you willing to sacrifice? I’ll sacrifice my time, what money I can, my e-mail and my phone time to lobby against things like the FOCA and fight for abortion to be limited to the ‘big three’.

I’d assume this guy felt differently, strong enough to kill, and suffer the consequences. Does this make him insane? No. Though I hope he has a special place in hell for commiting a murder on holy ground, he acted out his religious beliefs. He’s allowed to do so, clear up until he uses them to deprive others of their rights.

But then I’m a Henothesist, and believe my evangalizing ends with my words, not the point of my sword.

Well, Classical Liberal Dave, if Tiller’s murderer were mentally ill, then he should not be executed.

I favor the death penalty as a deterrent. He murdered with malice aforethought.

Well, now, Dan, this doesn’t answer my question, not in the slightest. Indeed, it is a poorer effort than gillie’s response.

I made it quite clear that I was being flippant in referring to the assassin as mentally ill: I was mocking the Left for their hatred of anything smacking of traditional religion and for their hypocritical attitudes on capital punishment versus abortion.

You are dodging the question: What moral justification does someone have for tolerating what he considers murder? Is it that human rights (and responsibilities) descend from positive law, or is it something else?

It is true that Tiller’s assassin killed with malice aforethought. So did Tiller. If said assassin acted to stop Tiller from taking more innocent lives, was he not more morally justified than he would have been in doing nothing? If not, then why? That is what I’m asking.

Think of the question this way:

If we you and Bruce were in a country were killing gay Jews (and only gay Jews) were perfectly legal, and Bruce killed someone to defend you in defiance of said law, which is morally supreme: the law or Bruce’s conscience?

I can understand why you don’t want to answer such a question. But I ask anyway. (I have said on this blog before I have a habit of asking questions people don’t want asked.)

I personally am anti-abortion. I hate it and want to do all I can to stop it. … But in the end after all the sloganing, its not my/your choice, its inside the woman, and thus her body and her choice.

You miss my point utterly. (Which isn’t surprising.)

My question wasn’t one about liking or hating willed abortion. Nor was I asking about the moral status of the human fetus. What I was wondering about is the rights of people who consider fully-formed (even though perhaps not ready to be born) human fetuses to be persons.

Abortion supporters claim the right to destroy fetuses based on their non-belief in their personhood. What of those who do believe in their personhood? Do they not have the right to act accordingly?

In short I ask: If pro-aborts can say ‘We don’t believe in the rights of unborn children and thus can slay them at will,’ can’t anti-aborts reply ‘We do believe in the rights of unborn children and will protect them at all cost’?

Since you hate abortion yet don’t believe in the rights of pre-born children (“its inside the woman, and thus her body and her choice”) perhaps that’s why you didn’t get the question.

Further, folks like Tiller say they are working to save the mother’s life. They say its the kid or the mom I don’t know the details so all we can do is trust that the doctor isn’t lying.

Oh my God. Are you really that naive? Just trust the abortionist?

Tiller was a specialist in 3rd trimester “abortions.” But abortion means loss of pregnancy before the baby can possibly survive outside the womb. That means the phrase ‘3rd trimester abortion’ has no real meaning. It’s just political sloganeering — and of the very worst sort. Babies have survived when delivered at 20-21 weeks. And the 3rd trimester doesn’t start to week 24! Wake up, please!

If such a late pregnancy was a mortal danger to the woman, why not just deliver the child? Just how does saving her life require snuffing the baby?

As one who is very much against abortion on demand, I do not in fact have any sympathy or empathy for the Tiller family. What struck me is the very hypocrisy of Tiller being in a Christian congregation when in fact he is flouting God’s law. Yes, I am a believer, so how I view this is tainted by what and how I believe. It is something that struck me as extremely odd that of all places that Tiller was to die a violent death, after he had perpetrated so many violent deaths was in the vestibule of a Christian Church. I have to ask myself what kind of Pastor and Congregation allows a baby killer to be a part of the congregation with them, without any form of condemnation for his activity?

That being said, I condemn the murder of Tiller, because nobody has the right to take the life of another person in that way. I will keep my other religious thoughts to myself because I am still coming to terms with the irony of that location.

Now in response to Gillie, I must admit that I have never seen such a load of mixed up waffle as what Gillie has produced. First, Gillie does not look inwards at the hate that spews from lefty libtard blogs, and then after say that she is anti-abortion advocates the use of an abortifacient in the form of a morning after pill. Are you also in favour of the death dealing RU486? Young women have died from taking RU486, a fact that is swept under the carpet by the usual suspect libtards. Then there is all the other ways of using tax dollars.

As a mother of 3 sons, I know what it is like to be pregnant and being nauseous through the whole 9 months of each pregnancy. I know the inconvenience yet I felt my babies in the womb. I knew that they were live beings and that their welfare was very important. One of my nieces was not so lucky with her first child – he was strangled by the umbilical cord because the doctor did not do an emergency operation that would have saved his life.

As for Tiller saving the lives of those women, well I say that is in the realms of BS. Those women would not have been facing any health risk, and that is why Tiller had someone in his pay to certify that they be allowed to have the abortion. I can think of very few situations where the mother’s life would be in danger, and if that is the case then those mothers would be taken to a hospital, not an abortion clinic.

Look at what is at stake here. The embryos are used by the embryonic stem cell researchers. They need those dead fetuses to carry out their wasteful research that wastes taxpayer dollars. That money is better spent when it funds the research into adult stem cells which has been successful and does not risk tumors. Those abortion mills have enriched the doctors that run them and the same doctors are generous donors to the Democrats.

You want to see the rate of abortions go down, gillie? Make it illegal to charge for it. Once leftist doctors like Tiller stopped making thousands of dollars for each abortion they did and the Obama Party stops receiving millions in campaign contributions, you and your fellow leftists might actually start working to stop it, instead of breaking the laws to make sure you collect the fees.

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

I tip my hat to you, NDT.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/06/private-william-longs-father-in-interview-with-little-rocks-katv.html

My latest post.

http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/05/life-liberty-pursuit-of-happiness.html

And yet, after twenty years of libbies ramming through tax increase after tax increase after tax increase, imposing sex-promoting school curriculums, and the like to do all of those things, the abortion rate is still pretty much right where it was.

Meanwhile, when abortion was illegal, the abortion rate was a tiny fraction of what it is now.

You want to see the rate of abortions go down, gillie? Make it illegal to charge for it. Once leftist doctors like Tiller stopped making thousands of dollars for each abortion they did and the Obama Party stops receiving millions in campaign contributions, you and your fellow leftists might actually start working to stop it, instead of breaking the laws to make sure you collect the fees.

sources please, gillie?

AE was kind enough to point to the sources of your fellow travelers advocating the murder of Americans. Perhaps you could point to where those on the right have advocated the murder of Tiller. And no, pointing out that he’s slaughtering children 2 inches from being born doesn’t count.

This, of course, ignores that the murderer of the recuriters was also the religion of peace ™

I personally am anti-abortion. I hate it and want to do all I can to stop it. – Like funding support groups, working on stopping unwanted pregnancy, making post-sex contraceptives available, funding adoption efforts and making it easier for single moms to raise kids by increasing welfare and making a nationalized healthcare system. That would do more to stop abortions than making it illegal. Further, folks like Tiller say they are working to save the mother’s life. They say its the kid or the mom I don’t know the details so all we can do is trust that the doctor isn’t lying. But in the end after all the sloganing, its not my/your choice, its inside the woman, and thus her body and her choice.

if Tiller’s murderer were mentally ill, then he should not be executed.

Fuck THAT!

How many more people do we have to excuse because they or their attorney claim that they’re crazy? John Hinckley Jr. should have swung a long time ago. Now we have candy asses making excuses for everyone so that they never have to be held accountable for their actions and they get to be coddled on the taxpayer’s dime for the rest of their lives.

I favor the death penalty as a deterrent. He murdered with malice aforethought.

I believe the guy who shot Tiller should be, once convicted, be hanged, that is, if that is the preferred method of execution in Kansas.

But wouldn’t executing someone who is a religious fanatic and therefore mentally ill (we can be sure that’s how the Left see’s him if they’re consistent) be inhumane?

Putting an end to my flippancy on so serious a matter, GPW, if you really think the fellow should be hanged I must ask why. Surely a great many babies will live to see the light of day because this Tiller now lies dead. Hanging a man seems a poor reward for saving their lives. (Regardless of how crazy the man’s political and religious opinions may be.)

So I must now ask you what I asked gillie:

Why shouldn’t those who consider late abortions to be murder act like it actually is? The Left thinks those who consider human fetuses to be no more than tumors are permitted to act on their opinions, after all.

I am not asking to be offensive; I am in earnest.

What moral justification does someone have for tolerating what he considers murder? Is it that human rights (and responsibilities) descend from positive law, or is it something else?

As per my nephew’s post, if O’Reilly’s rhetoric is responsible for Tiller’s death, then is not the Olbermann responsible for Long’s?

I’ve seen lots of condemnations, even a strongly worded one from the Governor of Alaska and on every conservative blog (that I’ve checked) which has posted on this.

I believe the guy who shot Tiller should be, once convicted, be hanged, that is, if that is the preferred method of execution in Kansas.

I’m pointing the finger at Olberfrau and ghillie’s ilk.