A Very Short Post
This is short enough to be a comment, but I think it's important enough to get its own post:
You're not allowed to call yourself "pro-life" after you kill a man.
Nor are you allowed to claim Jesus Christ is on your side after you kill a man in his church.
Also, you cannot be both a patriot and a terrorist. That's just not the way we do things in this country.
That is all. Thank you.
Source:
http://www.kansas.com/946/story/834448.html
1
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Very Short Post.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14026
Amen.
Having both patriotic and terrorist/violent tendencies is, imho, part of America's historical and current operations.
I feel like you're right, a tinge of defensiveness/aggression seems to accompany a strong sense of nationalism (and therefore the desire strictly-enforced boundaries), but if the argument is that patriotism/nationalism correlates with with heinous murders , I'll probably have to disagree with you (citing no statistics). Mania is mania, no matter how it shows itself. So don't read too much into this guy's politics... he was a maniac.
I'm talking politically. The war on Afghanistan, the unwarranted invasion of Iraq, the torture of prisoners, blah blah blah. You can support patriotism and violence/terrorism at the same time. God knows that combination is pretty rampant in the US military.
I've got to once again object, as I feel you're dangerously close to attempting to draw a parallel between conservatively-minded armed services members and this murderer. I don't feel like there's much point in trying to make political sense out of this clearly senseless act. His politics didn't make him kill people, his maniacal mind did. There are plenty of god-fearing, flag-waving, non-murderers out there.
You said:
"you cannot be both a patriot and a terrorist."
I respond:
On the contrary, I do believe a person can be both patriotic and a terrorist. The KKK, for example, have had patriotic overtones, and god knows they're domestic terrorists. Please note that I am not arguing that patriots = terrorists or that patriots are more likely to be terrorists. I am merely saying that "patriot" and "terrorist" are not mutually exclusive categories. An individual can be both, depending on their understanding of their own patriotism and terrorism.
You said:
"That's just not the way we do things in this country."
I believe, actually, that espousing this combination of "patriot + terrorist" is actually a significant component of America. Perhaps I'd revise your statement as "That's just not the way we should do things in this country."
To be clear, I am not drawing a parallel between the shooter and your average soldier or patriotic person. I am, however, drawing a parallel between the shooter and patriotic people who torture, patriotic people who lynch, patriotic governments who ruthlessly bomb and invade countries pre-emptively, patriotic leaders who decimate, pillage, and plunder Aboriginal communities, etc.
Without looking at current politics, there is a long history of terrorism in the United States. Two examples, on opposite sides, are slave rebellions and lynchings. I would assume that abolitionists and lynch mobs both consider themselves patriots.
-- You're not allowed to call yourself "pro-life" after you kill a man... etc.
Why call them pro-life at all? They're anti-abortion, anti-choice and anti-woman. Calling them "pro-life" is a courtesy pro-choice people can ill afford.
"Why call them pro-life at all? They're anti-abortion, anti-choice and anti-woman. Calling them "pro-life" is a courtesy pro-choice people can ill afford."
Totally agree. I'm male, in my 50s, and an active pro-feminist. I live in Australia, where the issue of abortion rights is settled - abortion is available on request, and if a doctor refuses to perform one on conscience, the law says he must refer the woman to a doctor who will.
When I heard about the good doctor's murder, I felt like I must be from another planet - Dr. Tiller *saved* lives - he saved mothers from deep depression and suicide, he prevented babies being born with terrible deformities and genetic abnormalities that would lead them to live a short and pain-filled life, and so on - and for that he was murdered by someone who calls himself pro-life.
White is black and black is white.
My suggestion at the time was, let's not call them pro-life, let's call them murdering fascists. OK, not a good move in reality, so, yes, I will call them anti-choice, but I will still think of them as accomplices to a fascist murderer.
Best wishes to you all at this terrible time. If anyone knows if there is a vigil in Melbourne, I'd like to know about it.
David.
Here's the deal as I see it:
So many anti-choicers are such truly kind, sweet and gentle people that it can seem mean-spirited to argue against the "pro-life" label. But that doesn't stop even the sweetest of them from thinking of abortion -- or even taking a morning-after pill in a lot of cases -- as baby-killing. So allowing them their "pro-life" label without challenge, just for the sake of civility in a conflict of ideas, merely reinforces their frame and encourages the violent ones. Therefore, IMO, we must always say "anti-choice" at the very least, and "terrorist" where appropriate. Never "pro-life."
What gets me is the number of "pro-life" folks who want to criminalize abortion except in cases of incest or rape. Aren't those fetuses' lives every bit as sacred as the lives of the fetuses they're fighting to preserve? As well, the numbers of "pro-life" people who are also pro-death sentence is appallingly hypocritical, imo.
Not to mention, they're not "pro-life" if they're anti-abortion even in cases where the mother's life is at risk, i.e. the case of the 9-year-old Brazilian girl who'd been raped by her stepfather and for whom a full-term pregnancy might very well have been a death sentence.
Yes, the church's action in the case of the 9-year-old is what really got me about the bishops' "prayerfully commend[ing] Dr. George Tiller to the mercy of God." I can't speak for Dr. Tiller, but when my own time comes they can keep their bloody commendings off my soul, thank you very much.
I totally get your point, but calling a homicidal maniac out for being morally misguided seems redundant. Wouldn't it be better if the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, and This Guys of the world were just ignored rather than treated with any kind of seriousness that they clearly don't deserve?
I have found out some stuff about this man from my local news (I'm in Kansas City btw). He was arrested back in 1997 for having explosives. He was planning to bomb an abortion clinic. His wife divorced him after that. She and their son haven't had contact with him because they could see he was on a slippery slope.
I see a danger here - that of focusing on the man, not the movement, and explaining his actions as those of someone who is mentally ill.
The reality is that, to act responsibly, I must assume that there are people in my audience at the extremes of behavior, so I must use care in what I say, lest I incite someone to action by my words.
The doctor's murderer was incited to it by the anti-choicers - simply by the fact that in that movement he found a group who might not "walk the walk" but they "talked the talk" - merely condemning murder isn't good enough - they must accept that all this comes from their attitude that they can *force* their views as to how other people should act, on them.
Yes, they have a right to attempt to persuade others to their view, but to endorse the concept that they can force others to obey, is to endorse the use of force.
So, in my opinion, the anti-choice individuals are morally accomplices to murder - they created the environment in which they could happen.
David
Yes. You are correct, and on all counts.
To everyone else: yes, there are broader and deeper and more complex sociological issues to be considered here. But don't forget that a murder is still a murder.
I couldn't agree more. The irony of taking a life for the sake of the 'pro-life' movement seems completely backwards. Yet, it happens all the time.
Really? All the time! The last incident in the US was in 1998. I would hardly call the death of abortion doctors something that happens "all the time".
Now abortion doctors receiving death threats is something that happens quite frequently.
Also, how can we rationally blame an entire movement for the actions of one person. There are fringe elements on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides. To say that one person holds the viewpoints of an entire movement is completely illogical.
The point being is there is a middle ground. I have a few pro-life members in my family and I could never see them advocating for violence against another. They just think a fetus is a life that should be protected and they want the current laws to change. How they think is completely rational in a democracy.
While some may not agree with the pro-lifers, they are completely within their rights to fight for social change, just as pro-choicers do.
I'm always struck by the fact that most people who are pro-abortion are also anti death penalty.
(And vice-versa.)
no one is pro-abortion. many people are pro-choice.
Is that only a question of semantics?
If I say that I want to allow people to plant trees, aren't I pro-greenery? If I don't want trees planted, aren't I anti-greenery?