Posted on 05/31/2009 12:15:41 PM PDT by Crazieman
No article link, just headline
Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
For our God [is] a consuming fire. - Hebrews 12:9
When they pledged "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" they were dead serious. All was forfeit for the greater cause.
So?
He wanted to be, or thought he was, some sort of hero or messiah.
Kinda of typical in an extremist.
He certainly did not seek the counsel of pro-life leaders, even local pro-life leaders who have condemned his action.
Why would he?
If he believed that Tiller was killing innocent babies and the local pro-life groups had been fighting for years to stop him, but had failed, why would he seek their counsel?
I have sympathy for him but in my view, he damaged the pro-life cause more than he (may have) helped by moving ahead without the sanction of his own cause’s leaders, and (righly or wrongly) bringing a blithe, easy accusation from naysayers of hypocrisy to the entire movement.
I've thought about this as well. I don't see how. In the short term we have another day in Kansas where late term abortions are not being performed. In the long term when the left says pro-lifers are so bad because of this act the answer is simple.
Why did you create him?
The left loves to talk root causes. It was their authoritarian oligarchs in the judiciary that stopped a legitimate process to recognize all views.
That's why you don't see a large number of people jumping on the band wagon.
I think you've lost your way if you think there is anything moral in killing babies. It may have been legal, but that does not make it moral. Part of the reason this issue (abortion) won't go away is in most circumstances it is not moral.
“One senses he was acting out of conscience, imagining that he alone would pay the inevitable price...
This strikes me as being something very like what the Framers had in mind when they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to the cause of Liberty. Only Roeder evidently has staked his ground on Life.”
++++++++++++++++
Roeder acted basically alone, or perhaps with the support of a small handful. The Patriots of 1775 acted with a huge swath of support within the populace. The comparison breaks down, which is why I consider what Roeder did vigilantism, although perhaps admirable from a very limited, isolated point of view - meaning he paid an ultimate price to defend babies - but in the process damaging the entire movement strategically, and indeed morally. We need to win this battle by standing on the truth. When we get to the point where we need to pick up arms and risk fortunes like our forebears - we’re going to know it.
Do you think we’re at a point where we need to do that Betty? Are we at a point where we need to pick up arms against a despotic government?
“Ultimately when the government fails in its duty to enforce the law or to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity, then the people have a right and a duty to “Take the law into their own hands”.
*******************
We can talk philosophically/Biblically about this (Acts 5:29 - “Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must obey God rather than men!’”....Gamaliel added later in that account: “Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” Acts 5:38b, 39)
- but have we arrived at such a place? I'll ask you the question I just asked Betty Boop - have we come to a place where we need to take up arms against a tyrannical government?
To some degree, I'm trying to understand the level of support we have for violence, in the cause of defending innocent lives, and what our current understanding and parameters are.
At this point - I support what the Patriots did in 1775 (which involved killing representatives of the British crown (the British army)) - while I don't support Roeder’s act, because no one can clearly explain to me how this helps reduce the mass of abortions, nor helps the pro-life movement generally, and it doesn't have the appropriate pro-life leadership and general support; as such it fails to pass the test of a legitimate act of moral protest that I, or most people in the pro-life movement, nor most Americans can support - despite your interesting notion that most Americans may agree that ‘killing babies is wrong.’
If those advocating violence against abortionists (please, I'm not being specific to people on the board unless it somehow applies to you), or against tyrannical government in general (?), can present their case and persuade a significant portion of Americans to rise up - then we'd have some kind of parallel with the 1775 Patriots. Until then we have an isolated act of violence, which I and most pro-lifers do not support as being helpful.
Bruce: “that and ceding the moral high ground of pro-life to the pro-death/pro-abort crowd.”
wmfights: “I think you’ve lost your way if you think there is anything moral in killing babies. It may have been legal, but that does not make it moral. Part of the reason this issue (abortion) won’t go away is in most circumstances it is not moral.”
Bruce: Excellent points. I should be clearer with my above statement: “that and ceding ‘any part of’ the moral high ground ‘away’”.
FWIW I have NEVER advocated violence against abortion providers. NEVER. But I have on numerous occasions stated without hesitation my firm belief that Abortion is Murder and that people like Tiller are the worst sort of criminals. So when I express the thought that Abortion is Murder, I have to accept the consequences of my words and I would be the ultimate hypocrite if after calling Abortion murder, I turned around and soundly condemned someone who took those words to heart and sacrificed his own liberty to put an end to a holocaust.
FWIW, I have tried many times and I have never been able to come up with a Biblical justification for the American Revolution. Our founding fathers were biblically under the admonition of Paul to obey those who were in authority over them because the powers that were, were ordained of God. But then every single nation was founded by people who had rebelled or gone to war against other nations to secure their own power.
That being said, I do believe with all my heart that the American Revolution was fully ordained by God and that it was God's assertive will that the United States of America would be founded by the Godly men who acted on slim, if any, biblical grounds to rebel against a tyrannical government and to form a new union which, would ultimately promise to "Secure the blessings of liberty.... to our posterity."
Unfortunately that promise has been broken. Because that promise was broken, do we, as a people now have the right and duty to do all in our power to restore those promises? From a biblical viewpoint, I'd be inclined to say no and to accept the lot that God has dealt us. From a philosophical viewpoint, I would not be willing to lie down while the blessings of Liberty are willy nilly stripped from our posterity.
It is a difficult question.
But when it comes down to brass tacks, the only thing that can be said is:
There have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09.
Who do we have to thank for that? If we thank God, then we would have to thank Roeder. Think about that one for a minute.
For me, all I can say is "Thank God there have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09."
You may draw any other inference from that statement that you want.
I have been going over this a lot the past week, and I think I MIGHT have come up with a justification.
The colonial militias were legally within their rights to muster and store arms and ammunition. However, on April 19, 1775 the British came to seize the supplies of the Massachusetts Militia, this resulted in the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
What is important here is that, to this day, NOBODY can say for certain whether the British or Americans fired the first shot at the Battle of Lexington, therefore the Founding Fathers COULD justify the Revolution as defensive rather than rebellious and they were thus absolved of their obedience to George III. With this justification and the ongoing war against Americans, the Declaration of Independence was warranted.
That being said, I do believe with all my heart that the American Revolution was fully ordained by God and that it was God's assertive will that the United States of America would be founded by the Godly men who acted on slim, if any, biblical grounds to rebel against a tyrannical government and to form a new union which, would ultimately promise to "Secure the blessings of liberty.... to our posterity."
Unfortunately that promise has been broken. Because that promise was broken, do we, as a people now have the right and duty to do all in our power to restore those promises? From a biblical viewpoint, I'd be inclined to say no and to accept the lot that God has dealt us. From a philosophical viewpoint, I would not be willing to lie down while the blessings of Liberty are willy nilly stripped from our posterity.
Here is what I can come up with. With Roe v. Wade the government PERMITS abortion, but it does not MANDATE abortion and I think this is important. I believe there is a difference between a government allowing something to happen and actually doing it.
Here is a portion of the Declaration of Independence that I think is critical to this subject:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The real question must be is the Government actually destructive or is it simply negligent in preventing the destruction? Because I THINK there is probably a crucial difference.
I think it is also important to realize that the United States DID NOT fight the Civil War to end slavery. The United States went to war because the southern states seceded and then started an armed rebellion by firing on Union troops. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed slaves in those states in rebellion, slavery was abolished by a Constitutional amendment, NOT the Civil War.
That is a philosophical justification. I do not believe it is a Biblical justification. Nevertheless I do believe the American Revolution was ordained by God.
The proof is in the pudding.
There have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09.
Is there a Biblical justification when the government wages war against the citizens? I think that is what the Founding Fathers meant by “destructive of these ends.”
You tell me. What scriptures can you give to justify it?
I think that is what the Founding Fathers meant by “destructive of these ends.”
That is a philosophical and moral justification. But what is the Biblical justification?
Imperial Rome had declared war against the Christian Church, but there was no Christian rebellion. Not to say that there should not have been one, but there wasn't.
You tell me. What scriptures can you give to justify it?
Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both wrote extensively on "just war" and gave scriptural justifications. However, I have not studied any of this is quite some time, so I don't recall the exact reasons.
One thing that I do remember is that only legitimate governments can wage war, the Continental Congresses were made of up delegates sent by duly elected colonial legislatures, so they probably met this criteria.
I will certainly study this further, because I think it is certainly pertinent to the world we live in.
One thought I did have (and PLEASE know that I DO NOT want to get into a Catholic v. Protestant debate and will not participate in one) is that the European rulers of 500 years ago had sworn allegiance to the pope and all of the people were subjects of these rulers. So, were the Reformers justified in the Reformation? Because this is the first successful Christian rebellion against government and I think we can find a lot here that will apply to the current circumstances.
Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.
The government (rightful?) doesn’t bear the sword for nothing.
The most perfect biblical example of the true order being reestablished and a usurpation overthrown is that of Athaliah and Jehoash. It was very bloody.
So, you believe that there was Biblical justification for the American Revolution?
Absolutely.
Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
Then what more, from a Biblical perspective can be done to end abortion?
Well, from a biblical military perspective one must first determine who are the enemy forces and who are the friendly forces.
Like the war on terror, it helps to know who the enemy is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.