I’m going on record to say that I’m appalled by what Eric Rudolph did.
Rudolph planted bombs and killed people because, according to him, he hates abortion, homosexuals and the federal government. I don’t feel fondly toward these things, either, but Rudolph’s murderous actions are inexcusable.
As far as abortion is concerned, should our laws ever change and courts recognize abortion as murder, then child killers will be prosecuted within the bounds of the law. Until then, in the eyes of the law, they’re committing no crime. As much as I hate that, I don’t condone their murder. Rudolph wisely copped a plea because he deserves to be on death row.
While I may agree with certain parts of Rudolph’s statement, he is still without excuse. This post wasn’t written to prove anything to detractors. It’s directed toward believers. I hate that Rudolph is identified as a Christian. Whatever religion he practices, it’s not in accord with biblical teachings. We must denounce Rudolph’s actions and stand firmly against them.
May he come to know the God who saves instead of the false one he worships.
Update: Crooks and Liars: “This seems like the story cable news would be tripping all over each other to cover round the clock. It has everything any producer could want. A mad bomber right out of a Hollywood script that attacked the Olympics. He killed two people and injured 120….There should be hundreds of protestors camped outside the Atlanta courtroom lashing out at judges and prosecutors for not seeking the death penalty. James Dobson should be on FOX News declaring that “the whole legal system is out of control and are derailing our judicial system. We have the death penalty for a good reason.”
I agree with you 100% LaShawn, the righteous don’t committ acts of terrorism and intentionally destroy the lives of innocent children…
Is abortion wrong? 100%
Is homosexuality immoral? 100%
But does that then give the right to individuals who disagree with current law free reign to murder and cause mayhem? Not at all
I think more Christians, particularly on a national scale need to make clear there position on politics as it relates to the bible, and draw definitive lines in the public eye as to what true Christianity is…
I think it is ironic, that we have totally distorted Christianity when we apply it in modern American politics and reduced it to individual moral positions when in fact if you remember
Jesus said, “They will know you are my disciples by how much you LOVE one another”…
Comment by Dell Gines — 04.14.05 @ 11:19 am
Rudolph disgusts me. What also disgusts me is that liberals use him as their poster boy of what they think Christians are all like. He is a nutcase who went too far, much like the Unabomber was an environmental nutcase who went too far. People like this are rare.
Comment by RepJ — 04.14.05 @ 11:20 am
LaShawn
You are right on all counts murder is murder according to the law and you can be sure as REPJ said they will use Rudolf as the ‘Right-Wing-NUT’ poster child for anti-christian attacks.
For some reason it has been open-season on Christians again, for the past 20 or so years. When they lost the last election we were lumped together as the Religious Fanatics from the Red-States.
I believe it is the absolutes is what they fear, Christians see things in black and white they see things in shades of all colors, they are the tolerant ones, ad neuseum.
I read yesterday where these fanatics are trying to save some dolphins from STARVING to death because they care so much. …Hey wait a minute I thought starving people to death was humane and created a euporic state for the ‘Starvee’(Ooops the magic word is people, of the Christian persuasion) , they even went so far as to put feeding tubes in the dolphins so they wouldn’t die..
Yet when, some caring people tried to give water to Terri Schiavo they were arrested… Am I missing something here. ??
Comment by Mark — 04.14.05 @ 12:24 pm
For RepJ
Yes - people like Rudolph are rare.
Certainly where he belongs.
But why all the media attention? No brainer.
Because he is an “angry White man” - the type that fit into Hillary and Bill’s “right wing conspiracy” - the type that the vast resources of the Federal Government were diverted toward finding, while more serious terrorists had a free ride.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 04.14.05 @ 12:33 pm
RepJ, you’re right on about the way he will be used. People need to remember that there are devastating consequences for their actions.
Rudolph’s consequences are large, far-reaching, and will be shouldered by Christians everywhere as Satan (no doubt with glee) uses this incident to help color all Christians with the brushstrokes of his (Rudolph’s) actions.
Two wrongs never make a right.
Comment by Jim Price — 04.14.05 @ 12:46 pm
Christian - a term/label now too loosely applied, first used by pagans in Antioch as a pejorative epithet (appearing only 3 times in the New Testament). Jesus Christ has obedient believers and followers (ie; disciples).
Comment by Dave in AZ — 04.14.05 @ 12:48 pm
RepJ/Mark, spot on.
And here we see why LaShawn facetiously struck out Christian in the earlier post about pie throwing because the MSM/DNC love to associate people like Rudolph as the epitome of White Male Christians. Nevermind that true believers of all hues reject the very thing that abortion-clinic bombers espouse.
Comment by Andy — 04.14.05 @ 1:02 pm
Eric Rudolph doesn’t appreciate that his actions have become the gift that keeps on giving for abortion supporters. When the first abortion doctor was shot, I decided it was time for me to join a responsible anti-abortion group, of which there are many.
I once was staying in a house of a recently deceased woman. Her son had the house up for sale. In my room on the dresser I had the front part of a “little feet” pin. This pin has feet the actual size of a child when the mother knows for sure that she is pregnant. Someone who came in the house to show it or view it took that pin into the living room and pushed the point into the finish of a beautiful end table and left it there. I mentioned this to a pro-abortion friend of mine and right away she started in about all the abortion doctors who have been killed. Apparently the acts of a few law-breaking murderers who kill doctors who perform abortions justify any act of vandalism a pro-abortion person might do.
Ironically, the wife of the son who was selling the house and therefore owned the end table, was very pro-abortion and, I think, belonged to a pro-abortion group.
Rudolph deserved the death penalty. He did the smart thing to cop a plea. During his time in prison may repent and ask God for forgiveness for what he did.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 04.14.05 @ 2:01 pm
I have heard that Eric Rudolph is affiliated with the Christian Identity movement, which is anything but ‘Christian’. If they are Christians, they are heretics, plain and simple. In this day and age, folks call themselves Christian without any serious adherence to the teaching of Jesus the Messiah or of the Holy Spirit inspired prophets whose writings comprise the Jewish scriptural canon. We have the Episcopals with their homosexual bishops. We have the Roman Catholic Church with its canon law and rampant idolatry. We have the LDS and its heresy. We have the Prostestant movement in general behaving like Roman Catholic, Jr.
Personally, I don’t identify myself as Christian when discussing my beliefs. Neither the Lord Jesus nor the early messianic believers established a new religion. I explain to people that I am a someone who believes that the Jesus the Messiah has already come, lived, died for the sin of mankind and has been resurrected. He is coming back for his ecclesia (called out, congregation–NOT church, a word that has pagan origins). In the meantime, I am trying to let His life overtake mine as I do what He commands me to do.
The gospel is pure and simple, much simpler than many of us have led to believe. When you compromise to attract more people or to consolidate your political power, you end up with a corrupt organism. Sadly, that is what much of the ‘church’ in this country is today. Access to God has been highjacked by ‘leaders’ who prey on the simple.
I guess that is why I don’t get defensive when folks like Eric Rudolph declare themselves to be Christian. I figure it gives me a chance to clear some things up with those that choose to broach the subject with me. I view it as more of a ministry opportunity than anything else.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 04.14.05 @ 2:15 pm
Eric Rudolph Is Not a Christian
…”Christian Identity,” in short, denies Christ and His mission… Eric Rudolph is not a Christian.
UPDATE: La Shawn says “I hate that Rudolph is identified as a Christian…
Trackback by DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS — 04.14.05 @ 2:23 pm
It is interesting how the media is so sure to inform all that Rudolph is a “Christian.” As the others have said, this is yet another intentional smear upon the followers of Jesus Christ, intended to make all of us look like intolerant, thoughtless, and backwards - or worse (as in the case of Rudolph). If the media knew anything about true Christianity, they, too, would realize this man has nothing to do with the faith.
Comment by Miss O'Hara — 04.14.05 @ 2:24 pm
I disagree with your conclusion on what we should do with this. “We must denounce Rudolph’s actions and stand firmly against them.”
Christians get sidetracked with their witch hunts and their self-appreciatory “I’m so glad I’m not like that”. It isn’t so much that we have to denounce as to to promote what is good, to declare why Rudolph is in error, fine. To bring fuel for the stake? What good is that?
I think Christians have to get used to the fact that their history includes some shameful things, things long removed from the truth of the Gospel.
We are going to have to hang our head in humility and say yes, there are those who call themselves Christians who do such things, we are prone to self-deception, but then give out the truth of the Word with no apology. That is the only reliably honest way to deal with such things, I think.
Comment by ilona — 04.14.05 @ 2:49 pm
Alice Hawthorne and Rudolph’s other victims were innocent as well. They did not deserve to have their lives aborted by nail-laden pipe bombs. He deserves death. However, his lifetime incarceration will have to serve as a reminder to other abortion activists that violence to affect social change is untenable.
There is another way to have the laws changed regarding abortion on demand. Once a man championed non-violent social change to PERSUADE the people of conscience in some country to right misguided laws that were out of step with the God of their hearts.
Comment by Jim Hicks — 04.14.05 @ 3:23 pm
Dave in AZ,
Re: the name “Christian”…accurate on who first came up with the name and accurate on how it is misused and misunderstood. But Christians wore the name with pride. Peter even said that if we suffer as a Christian, we should glory in that name. Rafael is exactly right in this mess with Rudolph in that it gives us a chance to clarify the meaning of that glorious name. And it should give us pause before we throw the name “liberal” around generally and with invective. I wonder how many conservative “Christians” talk this plainly to their “liberal” friends, family and neighbors. Really easy to throw some of this trash around on this and other blogs but is it what we would say if we were face-to-face? We’re called on to give reason for the hope that lies within us, not take our cans of kerosene out and go on the attack against our political “enemies” and be so rabbit-eared when they challenge our supposedly superior moral and political views. (The last few sentences are not directed to you or anyone in particular.)
Comment by stan — 04.14.05 @ 3:52 pm
Miss O’hara, good point and the MSM/DNC is ever so quick to inform us that Islamofacists are not mainstream Muslims. If anyone tries to make that link, they are condemned as Islamophobes.
Comment by Andy — 04.14.05 @ 3:57 pm
Okay, we all agree that Rudolph is a nut job and not representative of the Republican Party, social conservatives, Christians, or really anybody else reputable. Why does LaShawn consider a handful of moronic college kids throwing pies to be representative of all of liberalism? Don’t ya’ll recognize that there are kooks all over the place?
No, I didn’t know that, “ptm.” I thought these kids actually represented ALL liberals. I’m embarrassed to admit it. - Admin
Comment by ptm — 04.14.05 @ 4:24 pm
LB…
LOLOLOLOL
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 04.14.05 @ 5:30 pm
So,
Is Eric Rudolph a terrorist? I wonder what you all think.
As for Rudolph’s statement, how chilling, La Shawn. Thanks for the link. I didn’t know this existed.
Comment by Mike M. — 04.14.05 @ 7:05 pm
Rudolph will be the crutch of the moment that seculars need to marginilize those of faith. They will do it at every opportunity. We must all remember that the best antidote against this is our own walk, as that is the best witness of Christianity.
It is part of the plan to make us more “European,” which all the media and liberal elites think is “so cool.”
We MUST put our armor on daily.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 04.14.05 @ 7:10 pm
Over the past three decades, Margaret Sanger’s Sisterhood used the judical system to demand the right to legally murder so far over 40 million lives will never see the inside of a prison cell. How can I respect a law which was not established by the majority of the people but by a few judges, a law which ultimately protects a criminal act?
A law which, by the way, denies equal rights to the male and his sperm. As of 1973, males receive no equal protection under the law.
So, when it comes to the right to abort a child in the womb there is no such thing as justice.
Abortion was the main reason why Susan B. Anthony fought for women’s rights, so that women would have the right to obtain our own financial security in order to avoid being forced to abort our children. The Sanger Sisterhood undermines everything Susan B Anthony fought for.
Comment by susan — 04.14.05 @ 7:21 pm
Susan,
When a male is able to fully carry a fetus to birth, then you can speak of those laughable equal rights.
I’m sorry, but that is about the silliest anti-abortion argument I’ve ever read.
I am a liberal who is technically against abortion. But, I’m also a liberal who is uninterested in telling a woman what to do with her own body.
Comment by Mike M. — 04.14.05 @ 7:32 pm
So Eric Rudolph’s lame excuse for his terrorist acts is opposition to abortion and homosexuality… as you’ve very eloquently said, lots of us aren’t fond of those institutions, and utterly reject Rudolph’s actions.
But what is his excuse for setting the bomb at the Olympics? What social evil does he claim to have been striking out against there? No, he’s just a mad bomber terrorist nutburger, blowing things up just for the satanic joy of causing pain and misery, and nothing else.
Comment by Mike Van Pelt — 04.14.05 @ 7:34 pm
Mike
Sorry to tell you but you are a male who does not receive equal rights under the law.
A female cannot fully carry a baby to term without your sperm. Simple biology. The female egg needs the male sperm in order to become pregnant.
Today, the female is dictating to you what happens to your sperm which comes from your body. Sperm which carries your DNA, your bloodline, your history yet the law has determined you and your sperm to be irrelevent. Which also means that under the law your opinion regarding abortion is irrelevent. In other words, the way the abortion law is designed you have absolutely no say in the matter at all.
Yes, we females carry to term the baby but it is your male sperm which brings us to that state. Apparently females are no more interested in your sperm than you are their bodies, yet they have all the power to choose while you have none.
Comment by susan — 04.14.05 @ 7:51 pm
Mike
When a women is pregnant, it is no longer simply her body which must be taken into consideration but an added life must also be considered. Are you at all interested in the life of the child in the womb?
Instead of advocating the right to abort, a legitimate choice with regard to reproductive rights would be for the female to choose whether or not she opts for sterilization of her eggs rather than choosing to abort her offspring.
In other words, if a female does not wish to have her body carry to term a baby she might consider choosing to have herself sterilized instead of killing another human being for her own sake.
Comment by susan — 04.14.05 @ 8:06 pm
Susan,
A man may have offered up the sperm to produce said baby, but as far as I can tell, any effort for that man to take control of that child would entail his taking control of the woman’s body.
So, in theory you’re quite correct. However, in practice your idea is seriously flawed.
Ever read The Handmaid’s Tale. Though it’s fiction, it’s quite chilling.
Comment by Mike M. — 04.14.05 @ 8:10 pm
Mike,
The reasons Rudolph gave were obviously excuses. I suspect the guy just enjoyed being violent.
Evon
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 04.14.05 @ 8:52 pm
Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord..
as opposed to “vengeance is Mr. Rudolph’s..”
Rudolph appropriated the role of judge and jury and executioner, which God in His wisdom gives to society as a whole but NOT to one individual.. because one individual is entirely too likely to be corrupted by the power of life and death over others.. if God does “vengeance”, it’s justice.. but if man does it, his own sinfulness poisons the purity of the justice and makes it only ugliness and murderousness…
It’s Islamic Fundamentalist Disease, the notion that anyone who is visibly displeasing God should be killed, and that such a killing would make God pleased with the killer..
But God doesn’t subcontract holy vengeance.. that’s why careful thought and consensus are so critical to a justice system.. and a consensus of one isn’t a consensus at all.
Jesus will tell Mr. Rudolph “I never knew you”.
Comment by Dave — 04.14.05 @ 9:41 pm
Good take on Rudolph the terrorist, La Shawn.
Why was he offered a plea bargain to save his own damned life, the sick coward.
Comment by Jim R — 04.14.05 @ 11:04 pm
La Shawn on Eric Rudolph
La Shawn Barber’s Corner » The Crimes of Eric Rudolph - La Shawn Barber echos my feelings about Eric Rudolph. He’s not behaving as a Christian and deserves the death penalty for his crimes. The pro-life community cannot tolerate this…
Trackback by Broken Masterpieces — 04.15.05 @ 12:31 am
RepJ: “What also disgusts me is that liberals use him as their poster boy of what they think Christians are all like.”
Aw, c’mon… you might find one or two commentators out there who say that, but the great majority of liberals, like the great majority of non-liberals, think Eric Rudolph is a a nutty, deranged, sick criminal and evil monster, and emphatically not a poster boy for any religion.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 04.15.05 @ 12:57 am
“Until then, in the eyes of the law, they’re committing no crime”
In the eyes of what law? Man’s law? A governemnt that makes such laws is not fit to stand long
Comment by El Cid — 04.15.05 @ 11:54 am
Eric Rudolph: Pro Choice
(Well, can anyone really call him pro life?) I can’t. So maybe it’s time to redefine (or refine) some definitions: Pro Choice: The belief that someone should be allowed to murder someone else, if they choose. Pro Life: The belief…
Trackback by OrthodoxBlog — 04.15.05 @ 1:15 pm
I enjoy your commentary.
Eric Rudolph is a terrorist. He uses terror against innocent people who are not involved.
I had some moral questions about the guy (I forget his name) who shot the doctor who performed thousands of abortions. That is a different question. He accepted the death penalty as part of his civil disobedience. That is kind of deep when you think of it.
I did a lot of reading about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Christian who was involved in a plot to kill Hitler. He accepted hanging as part of his civil disobedience.
Eric Rudolph is not to be considered in the same catagory, especially if he is “christian identity.” They are not to be respected.
Thanks again, LaShawn
Comment by JoeS — 04.15.05 @ 2:01 pm
Well, I’m a liberal, progressive feminist who is pro-choice. I’m probably what you all are referring to you when you talk about people using Eric Rudolph as a poster child. I am also a reproductive rights activist and Jewish.
Eric Rudolph in NO WAY represents Christians, religious people, Republicans or the right-wing. I know Emily Lyons and her husband Jeff Lyons. Emily was the nurse at the abortion clinic who was brutally mutilated by Eric’s bombing. SHe is blind, she has shards of glass embedded in her body forever, she is chronically ill and has had hundreds or surgeries. She is a mother and a grandmother. She is a loving, intelligent woman.
Emily did not deserve this. No one deserves this. And it is clear that real Christians do not believe that enacting violence is the way to advocate for their belief systems. I would NEVER say privately, publicly or in my activist work that Eric Rudolph is some kind of martyr for Christians. However, he IS a martyr for a small contingency of pro-life folks. He had quite a bit of help from pro-life organizations and individuals in his 5 years on the run.
I know you all believe that abortion is murder. I’m assuming you all believe then that fertility clinics commit murder - there are far more embryos that do not get to grow into people at fertility clinics each year - thousands and thousands. I’ve never understood why the pro-life movement does not protest at fertility clinics? I guess that’s a debate for another time.
I just want you all to know that in no way would I or any reproductive rights, progressive activist support the pro-choice movement using Eric Rudolph as anything but a sick, deranged coward - an example of what NO ONE wants to be.
Comment by Anya Gold — 04.15.05 @ 3:14 pm
This is what I mean…
Pingback by SmartChristian Blog — 04.15.05 @ 9:08 pm
More importantly, why don’t such denunciations of terror come from muslims w.r.t. muslim suicide bombers?
Comment by 3rd order — 04.15.05 @ 11:08 pm
“There should be hundreds of protestors camped outside the Atlanta courtroom lashing out at judges and prosecutors for not seeking the death penalty.”
I struggle with this. I have supported the Death Penalty almost all of my life; as I grow older, however, it seems somewhat hypocrytical.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on justifying this kind of sanctioned murder, Ms. Barber. If I was forced to make a decision right now, I would throw the switch; but I can’t help feeling greasy about it. Hypocritcal. I feel a moral tide pulling at my feet on this one, and wonder what my opinion will be ten years hence.
Comment by Michael E. Cummins — 04.16.05 @ 3:15 am
Anya
Thanks for your comments. I am very pro-life but I wouldn’t drop a gum wrapper on an abortion clinic lawn. I probably would go somewhere else and pray for them.
Eric Rudolph almost certainly did have help during his years on the run. Perhaps not from a lot of people but from a trusted few. I find it interesting that it was a rookie cop who apprehended him. Could some other cops have been looking the other way?
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 04.16.05 @ 7:39 am
Like Michael E. Cummins above, I have been pro-death penalty most of my life, however, I too have re-examining that.
Having said that, Eric Rudolph is one of those cases where the death penalty needs to be vigorously persued. Furthermore, there are a lot of people in western North Carolina who need to go to prison for a long time for helping Rudolph elude capture.
Comment by J Rob — 04.16.05 @ 7:50 am
The Eric Rudolph Connundrum
To commit murder in order to bring about a “culture of life” is nothing more or less than trying to achieve one end by using a mutually exclusive means. An absurdist parody.
Trackback by J Rob's House of Opinions — 04.16.05 @ 8:28 am
Mike. the dictionary definition of murder is:
“The unlawful killing of one human by another. To kill (another human) unlawfully.”
Don’t get confused by using the wrong word for penalties/punishment by a society(the state)against a murderer in its midst.
Comment by Jim R — 04.16.05 @ 8:48 am
The death penalty is not hypocritical, IMO. I know that many liberals try to point out abortion and death penalty as being the same, but they are not, and here is why.
Abortion = killing the most innocent
Death Penalty = killing the most guilty
Comment by RepJ — 04.16.05 @ 11:02 am
“Abortion = killing the most innocent; Death Penalty = killing the most guilty”
Still, your argument is based on the discretionary judgment of man. I don’t want to get into a judgment debate; that’s a morass of emotional swill with no clear victor save LaShawn, and that’s only because this is her Blog.
Emotionally, I’m with you.
I’m just saying, the older I get, the more I begin to question the decisions that I know are built from a purely emotional or purely rational foundation. There is a spiritual component that needs to be involved, and I think that this is the part of me that feels greasy afterwards; this is the part of me that knows that it is not my place to make that decision.
I’m not saying I have the answer either, and I’m no Quaker or Conscientious Objector. The man’s freedom is a threat to society; it brought evil into this world and set it loose. There need to be clear and profound consequences.
I’m just saying that it feels greasy to condone his murder – righteous, justified, state sanctioned, lawful, popular or not.
Comment by Michael E. Cummins — 04.16.05 @ 11:43 am
Amen to your comments about Eric Rudolph. Extremism gone wrong in any direction is dangerous and terribly misguided.
Thanks for your blog. I enjoy reading it. Always helpful to get another viewpoint.
Comment by Deborah White — 04.16.05 @ 12:57 pm
Has anyone noticed that movies and TV shows that implicitly oppose the death penalty, appear to implicitly condone “passion” murders? The movie “A Time for Killing” and that Sunday evening law firm show whose name I forget are but a few examples.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 04.16.05 @ 1:44 pm
Evon, interesting isn’t it? Yep, it’s an upside down world when we try to navigate without God’s Word.
Comment by Andy — 04.16.05 @ 2:03 pm
Another post rhetorically asked, “why all the media attention?” about this Rudolph guy.
There WASN’T much attention about this guy in the media. To say this guy is simply an “angry White man” is an understatement and implies something I doubt you care to imply - ie., lumping the many southern white men who vote Republican into the same extreme camp as Rudolph. If it is in fact true that the “vast resources of the Federal Government” were diverted toward finding this guy, why has it taken 9 years to find and prosecute him? But digressing from these points, thank you for identifying Rudolph as a “serious terrorist”, a title which I feel is fitting and one that I have not yet heard used in the so-called “liberal” media. Terrorists are terrorists whether they be extremist Christian fundamentalists, extreme Zionists, or the terrorists that carry out acts in the name of Islam.
Thank you for allowing me, a liberal Christian, to post on your site, La Shawn. God bless.
Comment by Miguelito — 04.16.05 @ 6:50 pm
I finally remembered, the name of that Sunday evening show is “The Practice.”
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 04.16.05 @ 7:07 pm
Mike, You’re still misusing the term murder.
I am beginning to doubt you are a fence sitter on capital punishment. Those who have made up their minds and are in the ‘recruiting’ mode purposely misuse this word to confuse…uh, I mean convince, others.
Comment by Jim R — 04.16.05 @ 9:28 pm
OVERNIGHT COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.16.05 @ 10:10 pm
Jim R, ditto!
Comment by Andy — 04.16.05 @ 10:27 pm
La Shawn, I agree with your post on every count.
Mike M, Rudolph is a terrorist - there is no other way to describe him. Here’s one definition from Wiki: use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological goal. If he was Palestinian, Iraqi, or a Basque separatist, what would he be called? A Terrorist.
Comment by ReSoT4eM — 04.16.05 @ 11:40 pm
Given my druthers, everyone convicted of murder in the first degree would be executed within 2 years of conviction or let free.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 04.17.05 @ 10:03 am
Jim R, I used the term purposefully to illustrate the problems I have with the idea. I have no hidden agenda and I am listening, not trying to persuade. Visit my blog to get a feel for me if you doubt my character.
So you know, I am a veteran of the first Gulf war, US Navy. I served in Bosnia/Herzegovina, Mogadishu, Somalia. My father is a Vietnam Veteran and a retired police officer. I spent my youth listening to his spare police radio during the 1980 riots, when a police officer was hurt they would rattle off the badge number roll call. The whole family listened at times just to see if Dad was going to come home, or if we were going to the hospital. Dad used to wear T-Shirts that said “How do you like your justice, regular or extra crispy” as a caption to a picture of “old sparky”.
True of all wine, I taste of my grapes.
I only admitted that I was going through a period of doubt and self examination. I asked other people here in this venue (Ms Barber and I don’t always see eye to eye but I have a great amount of respect for her and the environment she has fostered here) what their feelings were on the matter.
So no. No hidden agendas. I asked a question, and I am listening.
Your argument, though cogent, did not address the seeds of my doubts. My doubts are not based in whether or not murder is murder because it is condoned by the laws of man, or even because I think that the world is a better place without such scum.
No, my doubts are based in whether or not killing the man is aligned with God’s will. I am no spiritual scholar, I honestly don’t know, hence the questions.
…after all, I support our actions in the Middle East and believe that the world is going to be a safer place when it is all said and done. There was an awful lot of “murder†going on there, committed by both sides. If I was firmly on the other side of the fence, as you suspected, I would have a *big* problem with that. I don’t. I think that the price we are paying for the birth of freedom is well worth it.
From a spiritual perspective, is this hypocritical of me?
Anyway. The reason I asked *this* particular venue was because I was more interested in the spiritual perspective, not my own or the government’s.
What do the faithful here think of the issue?
Thanks for the give and take.
Comment by Michael E. Cummins — 04.17.05 @ 11:34 am
Evon, I was visualizing “Bobby” & “Eugene”, from The Practice, when I told Actus (comment #71) in La Shawn’s latest post on hate crime that “…if I’m ever in your jury pool, just go ahead and strike me out. Even tho I would do my utmost to be impartial, I just don’t want to have to endure months, at reduced pay, listening to you spin justice on her head.”
Comment by Andy — 04.17.05 @ 2:56 pm
And TED KACZYNSKI(the UNIBOMBER)commited his crimes in the name of the enviroment and was a big time eco-freak who lived in a cabin without electricity or running water and rode a bicycle and made most of the stuff for his bombs by hand he also read AL GORES eco-babble book EARTH IN THE BALANCE
Comment by firebird — 04.24.05 @ 8:46 pm