H/T Neil and Wintery Knight
From Life Site News.com
By Kathleen Gilbert and John Jalsevac
OWOSSO, Michigan, September 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An elderly pro-life activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School in Michigan while he was peacefully protesting abortion with a sign depicting a baby and the word "Life," according to local police cited in the Flint Journal newspaper.
Locals say that the victim, James Pouillon of Owosso, was well-known in the area for his pro-life activities. Columnist Doug Powers wrote on his blog that Pouillon, called “the abortion sign guy" by Owosso locals, was known for standing on street corners holding up signs with pictures of aborted children.
Pastor Matt Trehella of Missionaries to the Preborn said today that Pouillon had joined his organization for a few stops of a pro-life tour less than a month ago. "Jim was a selfless, soft-spoken, kind-hearted man. All who knew him, knew this," he said. "Please pray for Jim's family."
Trehella said that Pouillon was an elderly man who needed constant use of an oxygen machine.
Troy Newman, the President of Operation Rescue (OR), said that Pouillon was a friend of OR. "We are stunned by Jim's murder," he said. "We extend our condolences to the family and share in their grief over his loss. His life was characterized by his love and concern of the vulnerable, and he will be greatly missed.
"We denounce this senseless act of violence in the strongest terms, and pray that this murderer will be swiftly brought to justice."
Reports indicate that a second individual was shot and killed in a different area of the city earlier in the day, and the two shootings are believed to be related, according to Shiawassee County sheriff George Braidwood. According to M-live.com, the second victim has now been identified as Mike Fuoss, 61, the owner of a local gravel pit. Fuoss was found dead in his office.
Police have confirmed that a suspect - a 33-year-old Owosso man - was taken into custody at the suspect's home shortly after the 7:30 a.m. shooting. After being taken into custody he confessed to the second killing as well. Fuoss knew the suspected killer, according to police, and it is so far unknown if Pouillon did as well. The motive for either of the killings is not yet known.
However, Police Chief Michael Compeau said that Pouillon appeared to be a target. "I would speculate it was ... intended," Compeau said, according to the Associated Press. "He was out protesting right across the street from the high school ... and there (were) multiple people around there and that person was targeted."
A black car was parked near the scene of the shooting, where a portable oxygen tank lay in a front yard next to a large sign with the word "Life" and an image of a baby.
In the wake of the tragedy, Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life told LifeSiteNews.com that he hoped to see "a strong expression of indignation from the pro-abortion community, just like there was a strong expression of indignation from the pro-life community at the killing of Dr. Tiller."
Secondly, Fr. Pavone called for "a renewal of unity within the pro-life community, coming to one another's assistance supporting one another, and by no means allowing fear or intimidation to have any role in our lives, but rather to move forward in peaceful organized ways to stand against this evil of abortion."
Compare and contrast:
However, within minutes after news broke that Wichita’s late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot and killed on a Sunday morning while serving as an usher at his Lutheran church, dozens of nationwide pro-life leaders and organizations immediately poured out condemnations against the violence.
Operation Rescue, which had spearheaded peaceful protests of Tiller’s business for several years, was among the first to denounce the “vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning,” adding that they were offering prayers for Tiller’s family.
Interestingly a Google search turned up not one mention of this is any major news organization, not even Fox.
Hypocrisy, you decide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
97 comments:
The difference would be, it seems to me, that in the Tiller case, we knew immediately what the motive was. In this case, as you reported, it is not known what the motive is.
Regardless of what reason for these murders, clearly it is wrong. IF some nut case did this because they object to the pro-life camp's message, they were wrong in the strongest possible way. In our nation, we do not kill folk when we disagree with their political position.
I'd suggest you wait until a motive becomes clear and THEN see if there is some response from the pro-choice camp.
Unfortunately, in our nation, when people are killed for political reasons, almost across the board, it has been a someone claiming to conservatism to do the killing.
Dan,
Had you taken the time to look at the national news coverage during the immediate aftermath of Tillers shooting you would have know that although it was assumed what the motive was, it was not known.
I will not hold my breath on this one, but the pro choice folks could surprise me.
I am shocked by your assertion that "when people are killed for political reasons, almost across the board, it has been a someone claiming to conservatism to do the killing."
This kind of statement is unhelpful on so many levels.
First, you have provided zero evidence to back up your claim.
Second, It seems a stretch to call the Earth First folks conservatives.
Third, apparently it only counts if you actually kill someone if you're a liberal.
Forth, just because some claims to be a conservative, doesn't mean they are.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I will be shocked if this gets anywhere near the national media attention as Tiller.
You may be right that the Pro-Life folk stepped up immediately and made a pronouncement decrying the violence. Sorry I did not know that off the top of my head.
They pretty much had to make the assumption that it was a presumably "pro-lifer" who had done the killing because it was a reasonable presumption. As noted, too often lately in the news, when someone who is gay or pro-choice or outwardly liberal gets killed, it has been a so-called conservative who has done the killing.
Not so much for so-called liberals. It's just not typically part of how liberals handle things. I think it has to do with fundamental starting points in beliefs. Liberals reject the notion that deadly violence is any kind of solution, whereas conservatives tend to believe in the myth of redemptive violence.
Zero evidence?
When the "abortion doctor" or "Tiller the Killer" as he was branded by some on the right was killed, it was someone who claimed conservatism.
When that so-called Liberal church was the target of killings last year, the killer self-identified as a conservative.
Oklahoma bombing? So-called conservative.
There have been, I'd say, at least three or four other killers/shooters in the last few years who have self-identified as conservative. I could look up more, if you wish.
How many killers can you name who have done so for so-called liberal reasons?
And you will note that I have fairly consistently said "so-called" and "self-identify..." and "claiming to..." I fully recognize that just because someone is conservative does not mean that their actions fall within that camp. That will be true if this person in your story today happens to call himself a liberal.
It just would be the exception to the rule, that's all I'm saying.
Do you disagree? What "liberal" killers can you identify?
According to this source, there have been 12 killings in at least four different attacks associated with people who self-identify as "conservatives" in the last year or so.
1. James Von Brunn (Holocaust Museum)
2. Richard Poplawski (feared a "gun ban" by Obama)
3. Scott Roeder (killed "Tiller the Killer," as extremists liked to call the doctor who provided abortions)
4.Jim David Adkisson (killed "liberal church" attendees in TN while they were watching their children sing praises to God - Adkisson had many Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly packets of info in his house, including "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder," and had written a letter citing his "hatred of the liberal movement," and, "Liberals in general, as well as gays.")
That's just in the last few months. There's also McVeigh and that abortion bomber, Eric Rudolph, who was fighting the abortionists and the "gay agenda," if we go back further.
According to MSNBC, there have been "1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994" and they cite the BATF as saying they know of "167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years."
Also, they report, "In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics."
On the flip side of things, I can think of William Ayers who tried to destroy buildings back in the 1960s (but purposefully avoided killing anyone) and the anarchists in Seattle, I believe, a few years ago who broke windows and damaged vehicles and did that sort of thing.
I can't think of any self-defined "liberals" who have killed anyone because of their "conservative agenda," though.
So, while you and I both can agree and be thankful that these right-wing extremists don't represent normative thinking within the conservative movement, you will excuse us if we think we have a bit more justification based on past experience for making some cautious conclusions based on past experience and hard facts when it comes politically-motivated killings and attacks.
Consider it this way: A few years ago when members of an Amish group were attacked and killed by a fella who happened to have been home-schooled.
The Amish, of course, responded with forgiveness.
Now imagine though, what if some home-school group were attacked by an unknown assailant... Do you think it reasonable that the Amish ought to immediately respond with a condemnation of the attack?
Why would they? It is obvious that they would not endorse such an attack. Doing so is contrary to their values and there is no history of the Amish behaving in any such manner.
I think expecting liberal groups to automatically and immediately condemn this attack and comparing this situation to the automatic condemnation of Operation Rescue is comparing apples to oranges. Operation Rescue condemned the action for good reasons and God bless them for doing so, but that does not follow that pro-choice agencies ought to automatically condemn this attack.
Now, IF we find out that this killing WAS politically motivated by a pro-choice person or group, THEN it would make sense for pro-choice groups to speak out and clearly condemn the act.
Seems to me.
Interestingly, Obama immediately condemned the shootings and seems to associate it with abortion and politics.
According to that same site...
Prosecutors have said accused shooter Harlan Drake shot Pouillion multiple times because he did not like the graphic pictures the anti-choice advocate presented to children. Drake’s other alleged victim, Mike Fuoss, was a 61-year-old owner of several businesses in Owosso, including the gravel pit at which his body was found Friday morning. A third man, an Owosso realtor named James Howe, was allegedly to be Drake’s third victim, but police apprehended him at his apartment before he had an opportunity to find the realtor.
I wonder if the realtors have come out to condemn the shootings, too?
I'm tired and it's late so I'll just say this first just because some one claims to be conservative doesn't mean they are.
Second, liberals may as you say reject violence, they don't however reject bombs (Obama buddy, William Ayers and his weathermen buddies, unibomber) Molotov Cocktails (again Ayers buddies, the wonderful folks at the RNC)
Tree spikes and arson Various environmental extremist groups.
So I guess your point is that liberals like violence they either just suck at it or get caught.
I could go on but it's probably pointless
When you say "liberals like violence..." you DO realize that JUST AS I acknowledge that when someone claims conservatism does not mean they are living up to conservative ideals, so to, just because someone claims liberalism does not mean they are living up to its ideals?
Or, it might be better said, that there are those who DO claim to some liberal-ish beliefs (environmentalism, peacemaking, assisting the poor) who at the same time advocate ideals that liberalism does not embrace (breaking windows, spiking trees, shouting down disagreeing commentary).
Similarly, that there are those who DO claim to some conservative-ish beliefs (small gov't in some areas, laissez faire capitalistm, etc) who at the same time advocate ideals that conservatism does not embrace (killing people, abusing people, threatening people, shouting down disagreeing commentary).
I think it's wrong to say that these radicals are not conservative or liberal - they are. It's just that there worst practices are not necessarily part of their "side's" view.
Fair enough?
Fair enough, and had you not made the outlandish blanket statement that "almost across the board, it has been a someone claiming to conservatism to do the killing.". Had you clarified this in the beginning there would have been no disagreement.
I'm sorry I was not clear enough. When I said, "when people are killed for political reasons, almost across the board, it has been a someone claiming to conservatism to do the killing..." my comment "someone CLAIMING TO conservatism," was meant to indicate that they were not acting in conservative fashion when they engaged in their deadly violence.
My apologies for failing to be more clear.
[interestingly, my "Word Verfication" word is "Warr USA"]
An interesting claim.
"Unfortunately, in our nation, when people are killed for political reasons, almost across the board, it has been a someone claiming to conservatism to do the killing."
For one thing, I'm not quite sure it's true. Oswald killed Kennedy because of the President's opposition to Communist Cuba; and though he didn't cause as many casualties, the Unabomber did kill a few people in his opposition to industrialization, a cause that has more in common with the militant environmentalism of the Left than with any part of American conservatism.
But by limiting this claim to "in our nation," one can omit, for instance, the literal hundreds of millions who were killed in the name of Marxism or one of its variants or heresies -- such as Italian Fascism and German National Socialism.
By limiting this claim to actual murder, one can omit the non-murderous violence of WTO rioters and groups like the Earth Liberation Front -- and one can omit the failed murder plots by people like famed educator William Ayers.
And then we get to the detail of "when people are killed for political reasons."
Eight people were killed at Freddie's Fashion Mart in Harlem in 1995, following Al Sharpton's tirades against the "white interloper" who owned the shop. I wonder, if they weren't killed for political reasons, why were they killed?
Mumia Abu Jamal probably didn't kill a cop for political reasons, but surely politics is part of the reason that he has been so frequently supported and even lionized by the left.
And although few individual abortions are probably even partially motivated by politics, the issue itself is probably one of the most politically freighted.
But this much is true: when you ignore the mass graves that were dug across the globe for the sake of the Glorious Revolution, the failed bombings of Marxist terrorists like Weather Undergound, the probable incitement to murder by race hustlers like Al Sharpton, the defense of cop killers like Mumia, and the support of practices as barbaric as partial-birth abortion, conservatives DO come across as exceptionally violent.
For that, we really should applaud Dan for not insinuating the worst sort of slander on the thinnest amount of evidence.
? I am unsure of your point, Bubba. No one I know of is advocating Fascism, so Progressives and Conservatives alike stand opposed to the sort of behavior exhibited by Stalin or the sorts of behavior exhibit by the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua (well, SOME conservatives supported that, but hopefully it was a small number).
Regardless, your attempt to associate liberals with fascism is dead from the starting gate. How about this? I won't claim that conservatives supported all the deaths associated with nazism and you won't try to claim that liberals support all the deaths associated with Stalinism adn other fascists? Because both are sheer idiocy.
So, yes, in our nation - where we live and in which context we're speaking - when someone is killed for political reasons in the last 40 years, there have been more killings associated with those claiming to be conservatives than those claiming to be liberals.
Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
And, finally, I don't believe the unabomber would rightly be called a liberal. He was an anti technology paranoid schizophrenic -
wikipedia, mostly from his manifesto... he argued that his actions were a necessary (although extreme) ruse by which to attract attention to what he believed were the dangers of modern technology. Kaczynski did this in the hope that it would inspire others to fight against what he considered subjugation facilitated by technological progress.
In his opening and closing chapters, Kaczynski condemns "leftism" and "leftists" as "anti-individualistic" and "pro-collectivist", "because, deep inside, [the leftist] feels like a loser."
Strange that a "liberal" would condemn "leftists..."
In truth, he was mentally disturbed and not associated with either liberals or conservatives, as far as I can tell. Perhaps associated with the Amish, if you wanted to look at it that way...
"Stalinism and other fascists," Dan? That's an interesting association -- one with which I would strongly agree, but not one that I hear most progressives concede. Most argue, strangely, that the fascists of Italy and Germany were the polar opposites of Russia's Communists.
Anyway, you're absolutely right, and I owe you an apology: there's no connection whatsoever between fascism and Progressivism -- either in the history of Progressivism or its modern incarnation.
As I think more about it, I've come to realize that that sort of connection should be claimed only in the most obvious of circumstances, such as when a politician runs on the basis of a cult of personality, to expand the size and scope of government at an unprecedented pace upon entering office.
Only when that politician's campaign presents him as "the one" who can fix our broken souls, should we mention that he even vaguely echoes fascism.
Only when that politician and his staff admit to be opportunists who don't wish to let a crisis go to waste, should that dreaded f-word come up in serious conversation.
And the specter of fascism should be raised only when that politician engages in unprecedented economic policies that abandon the American mainstream to follow quite clearly the pattern set in Fascist Italy -- the truly unthinkable, such as nationalizing banks and automobile manufacturers.
But because I can't think of any American politician who fits this description, much less a major politician you gleefully supported, Dan, all comparisons to fascism are quite overboard.
Because you have always had the most level-headed and civil words when it comes to politics, I should make every effort to follow in your footsteps.
(After all, you have never referred to a "criminal inauguration" in 2005, to declare, "Let the Revolution begin." You never referred to any convention of a major political party as a thoroughly dishonest "hate-fest." And even now, your Christian civility prevents you from really juvenile comments, where you compare the politician you like to Einstein and the politician you don't like to "Chuckles the clown.")
And, most importantly, because you have never bought into any cult of personality around any political figure, you are eminently qualified to determine when true fascism is a legitimate threat and to teach others when it's inappropriate to invoke that particular political philosophy. I mean, you've never approvingly quoted some quite obviously fascistic paean to a politician, something that declared that the chosen leader was elected "So that all our children could fly." Clearly, if anyone would be immune to the charms of fascism, it would Dan Trabue.
So, for all these reasons, I apologize most sincerely, with all the sincerity you surely muster when you tell us just how much you love the Bible and revere its teachings.
Hey man, make yourself out to be an ignorant buffoon all you wish.
And forgive me my outburst of truth-telling.
I have no idea what that was about, Dan: I apologized for suggesting that Progressivism has any philosophical common ground with fascism.
That sort of claim certainly isn't as moderate and well argued as your obvious point that political murderers tend to self-identify as conservative "almost across the board."
I've retracted my comment so we can focus on issues that are more relevant and less demagogic.
As to the original point of this post...
For now, Shiawassee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry says only that Drake's murderous plans "stemmed from individual grievances Drake had with the victims." He adds that Drake "had a grudge, if you will, against these three individuals," and that in the case of the anti-abortion activist, "the defendant was offended by the manner of Mr. Pouillon's message."
The picture that's emerging, then, is of a man with personal vendettas — against two men with whom his family may have done business, and a third man whose "manner" rubbed him the wrong way. Drake wasn't an abortion-rights crusader — he was an angry man who, according to Colbry, "thought the protester's display of graphic abortion photos outside the school was inappropriate."
Disclosure:
That report is from what appears to be a pro-choice person, but the quotes appear to be valid. I have tried to find a better source in print for the quotes but have not.
The point is, this does not appear to be especially a politically-based killing. Just some jerk with a gun and inappropriate anger.
Will there be some consistency and integrity in this post to clear up that this was not a pro-choice killing, if that is what it turns out to be?
Dan, according to the news report you quote, unlinked, the killer "was an angry man who, according to [Prosecutor] Colbry, 'thought the protester's display of graphic abortion photos outside the school was inappropriate.'"
You write:
"The point is, this does not appear to be especially a politically-based killing. Just some jerk with a gun and inappropriate anger."
Yeah, but it appears his anger was about "the protester's display of graphic abortion photos outside the school."
That anger's not "politically based"?
What in the world is it, then? Is it aesthetically based?
You suspect "this was not a pro-choice killing." Are you suggesting that the murderer is opposed to abortion but that that he thought the protester's images were so inappropriate that he deserved to die? Or are you suggesting that the murderer is undecided about the issue but still killed over those images?
Good grief, Dan.
Jealousy over the man's wife would be proof that the murder wasn't political. An unsettled gambling debt or some personal snub would be proof that the murder wasn't political.
You point to the theory that the "jerk" believed that "the protester's display of graphic abortion photos outside the school was inappropriate."
And this is proof that the murder wasn't political?
Are you out of your freaking mind?
On the subject of consistency and integrity, suppose the situation were flipped, and some protester supported a leftist cause with arguably inappropriate displays near a school -- some cause like "gay marriage", with displays that echo the sort of transgressive debauchery that is often documented to be found at gay pride parades.
Suppose someone thought the displays were inappropriate, and in his anger he shot and murdered the leftist.
Are we really supposed to believe that you would think the act wasn't a murder for political reasons? That you wouldn't take the opportunity to lament the violent streak of social traditionalism, and you wouldn't portray the victim as a political martyr?
I don't think so.
You're touting a story that suggests the murderer killed a pro-life protester over the content of his protest -- specifically, the images of abortion that he displayed.
And this is supposed to be proof that the murder wasn't politically motivated?
That's absurd, and the story points to the precisely opposite conclusion.
And of course we can't ignore the non violent beating by the non liberal union thugs (sorry members) of the service employees union, of the radical terrorist who had the indecency to speak out against the P-BO health care non plan.
It's ok as long as they didn't kill the guy right?
I don't believe I said that Craig. I merely stated the fact (as far as I can see) that the only, or at least mostly, political-motivated killings and attacks in the US have been from those claiming to be conservatives. It was not a someone claiming liberal views who attacked the Holocaust museum and killed, it was not someone espousing liberal views who did the bombing in Oklahoma, nor these other examples that I have offered.
These were all people saying they were conservatives. People espousing liberal views have not gone around making deadly attacks on people for political purposes, not any time in recent history that I know of.
The closest that I can think of is the Unabomber, but by his own testimony, he was no liberal - he hated them. He was an anarchist and crazy.
Of course, it is not okay to attack someone just because they disagree with you politically. That is just something you are saying (it would appear) to divert attention from the sad reality that conservative-espousers HAVE committed deadly attacks.
Dan,
Your selective reading is showing. You made the unsupportable comment that "so called conservatives" kill more for political reasons than liberals.
This fails on so many levels. First and most obvious, the fact that someone is called a conservative doesn't mean they are one. So the fact that you or others want to call McVeigh a conservative means nothing, as well as demonstration that you may not have a grasp on what conservative means.
Second, both Bubba and I have provided instances where non conservatives have killed or attempted to kill or used violence against their opponents. The fact that we have provided examples would be sufficient for most people to realize that they had overreached, but not here. Whether they were liberals is immaterial, they were not conservatives which is enough to make the point. Having said that, a couple of additional examples you can try to rationalize.
Harvey Milk was killed by a democrat (political ally of Dianne Fienstein).
If you were to look at the history of the Klan (especially in the south), you would find that it was an organization of democrats. You might remember that Senator Robert Byrd (d) was a member of that peace loving and non violent organization.
The fact of the matter is, non conservatives are also likely to use violence against those with whom they disagree. They just aren't very good at it, and they get better PR.
If you were to look at the history of the Klan (especially in the south), you would find that it was an organization of democrats.
Now you're just being silly. Are you trying to make the case that the Klan folk are liberal?? Don't be ridiculous.
As I have stated repeatedly, Craig, just because there have been many politically-motivated killings by folk who espouse conservatism does not mean that they were acting in a conservative manner when they killed. Just that they were, in fact, starting from a conservative position.
You can't read about McVeigh's beliefs without concluding that he was, in fact, a conservative acting out in a misguided fashion to further conservative ends. No, mass killing is NOT conservative and I did not say it was, just that McVeigh WAS a conservative. As were all the other people I mentioned.
It appears your ideology is blinding you to facts. Rather than trying to argue that, yes, liberals kill, too, you'd have more credibility if you acknowledged the fact that, in our lifetime, when a politically-motivated murder happens it has tended to be (nearly always) someone who is starting from a conservative position.
Second, both Bubba and I have provided instances where non conservatives have killed or attempted to kill or used violence against their opponents.
Have I SAID that non-conservatives don't kill? Read more carefully. My still undisputed point is: In our lifetime in this country, when politically-motivated killings happen, it has been mostly (90%? +?) done by folk who espouse conservatism.
Bubba's examples disprove your point: The Weathermen were specifically NOT trying to kill people. The tree-spikers send warnings NOT to cut trees because they have been spiked, trying to prevent anyone from being killed. The violent protesters in Seattle were doing violence specifically against property, not people.
Can you name even ONE instance of a politically-motivated murder where a liberal was the killer?
If not, that might ought to be a clue for you.
Dan, I see you haven't explained how the recent shooter's "inappropriate anger" at the abortion protester's graphic sign is proof that his actions weren't politically motivated.
Anyway, you write:
"Now you're just being silly. Are you trying to make the case that the Klan folk are liberal?? Don't be ridiculous."
I suspect that you don't know the history of political Progressivism quite as well as you should, because the political philosophy had deep ties to eugenics and even racial essentialism.
On the subject of James von Brunn, it appears that one of his targets may have been the Weekly Standard, which is odd for a self-described conservative.
And frankly, the driving force behind Brunn's shooting at the Holocaust Museum -- anti-Semitism -- is not wholly out of place on the Left, as evidenced by some of the more intemperate signs one could find at antiwar rallies.
Heck, I know one major leftist politician whose controversial pastor and mentor very recently blamed "them Jews" for his limited access to the man in office.
Dan, as an aside, I do have one, last, brief question for you at our long discussion. I would like to give you the opportunity to address an issue raised by the contents of Psalm 106 before we finally draw things to a close.
On other notes, you ask, "Can you name even ONE instance of a politically-motivated murder where a liberal was the killer?"
I can. John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
You write:
"Bubba's examples disprove your point: The Weathermen were specifically NOT trying to kill people."
This is not true, and it's hard to chalk this inaccuracy to mere ignorance when I know for a fact that we've discussed this issue, not once, but twice.
Once again, Dan, the bomb that was planned to be used at an officers' dance, targeting both soldiers AND THEIR LOVED ONES, was a NAIL BOMB, which Ayers himself admitted was going to tear through "windows and walls and, yes, people too."
The plot fortunately failed, but it's completely inaccurate to claim that Weather Underground "were specifically NOT trying to kill people."
Since you have already been corrected twice, the claim strikes me as more than a mere mistake. I suspect it's a deliberate lie.
And since you consistently try to excuse Ayers while condemning Reagan officials who you say have their own ties to terrorism, it's a hypocritical lie.
The hypocrisy is as bad as, say, pointing to the shooting of the holocaust museum as the work of a conservative while defending the comments of an increasingly obvious anti-Semite as Jimmy Carter.
Or, say, suggesting that Carter's contention that Obama's critics are racist is "not entirely without merit" when it's clear that the same thing can be said about his supporters -- including a few who think, solely on the basis of his skin color, that Obama was elected "so that all our children could fly."
Since you have already been corrected twice, the claim strikes me as more than a mere mistake. I suspect it's a deliberate lie.
1. Unfortunately, I honestly have a bad memory and we have been through so many discussions, I don't recall every point you have made.
2. IF these reports are true and valid (and I'd need more information to support this), then you have successfully pointed to one group from 40 years ago that espoused a liberal position that wanted to kill people for political reasons (noting that their reasons were the same as those who supported the Viet Nam War - that sometimes killing people is necessary to stop a greater evil).
3. So, IF this report is valid, you have located one group that wished to do this and it is just barely in our lifetimes (or at least mine, since I was only five at the time). Congratulations (if it's true).
4. That does not change the fact that most politically-motivated killings in our lifetimes have been by someone espousing conservatism, which was my original point (recalling that I said... "in our nation, when people are killed for political reasons, almost across the board, it has been a someone claiming to conservatism to do the killing.").
5. Can you name any others?
Dan, I do not bear the burden of disproving your contentious and (if false) slanderous charge.
YOU BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROVING IT.
Someone once told me, very recently, when someone makes a charge, it is incumbent upon THEM to prove the charge.
"Otherwise, it is just an unsupported allegation and polite and reasonable people do well to presume unsupported allegations to be false, nothing more than rumor-mongering."
In its most outrageous formulation, your claim is this:
"My still undisputed point is: In our lifetime in this country, when politically-motivated killings happen, it has been mostly (90%? +?) done by folk who espouse conservatism."
This point isn't undisputed, but it's not our duty to dispute it.
By your own standards, you have the duty to prove it.
So prove it.
For that matter, Dan, you still haven't either retracted or adequately substantiated your charge that conservative writers frequently lie. The only evidence you ever produced was from the explicitly partisan Media Matters, which betrays your claim "red flags fly" when you encounter articles that overly partisan.
It's amazing how frequently you break your own rules about standards for decent and charitable behavior.
That must be your "bad memory" at work.
If your mental faculties aren't that poor, then your behavior calls into question your integrity.
Here, you're making such a vicious claim with (so far) so little substantiating evidence -- all so soon after making hay about the burden of proof when it comes to others -- that you really must be a despicable, hypocritical liar if you're not mentally retarded.
I know you'll object to that conclusion as uncharitable, but -- then again -- you don't have any qualms about so easily accusing your political enemies of dishonesty, violence, and racism.
I say again, as an aside, I'm asking you one last question over in the thread recording our lengthy dialogue. It's a very simple question, but, then again, I have asked several very simple questions for which you refuse to provide a clear answer.
I think the subject of Psalm 106 has some bearing on your integrity, so I am giving you a chance to defend yourself.
By your own standards, you have the duty to prove it.
So prove it.
Ummm, I've done that. I've pointed to the 4-ish politically-motivated killings that have been in the news these last couple of years and they have all been committed by conservatives. Prior to the last few years, all the cases in my lifetime that I can think of (with the possible exception of the Ayers group) have been conservative.
Once again, looking at the evidence (the evidence being of the politically-motivated killings of the last few years) it all (or at least mostly) falls on the side of conservatives killing.
THAT is the evidence. If you wish to prove me wrong, you'd have to provide counter evidence. My case has been made.
Dan:
"I've pointed to the 4-ish politically-motivated killings that have been in the news these last couple of years and they have all been committed by conservatives."
(Whatever happened to being clear that these killers supposedly only CLAIMED to be conservatives?)
One problem with pointing to this as your proof is that -- even granting, for the sake of argument, that these people self-identify as conservative -- you haven't proven that these four events represent a clear majority of politically-motivated killings in some vague timeframe of "recent history" that would exclude the most violent events of radicals like Weather Underground and the Black Panthers.
Have you shown that there have been seven or fewer such events? You have not, so four is no magic number which proves a majority of events.
Whatever happened to being clear that these killers supposedly only CLAIMED to be conservatives?
As I later clarified, it would be fairest to say that these people ARE conservatives, just as Ayers IS a liberal. It would be wrong to say that they're NOT what they appear to be. It's just that when they attack others, they are not living up to their conservative/liberal ideals.
I said:
Or, it might be better said, that there are those who DO claim to some liberal-ish beliefs (environmentalism, peacemaking, assisting the poor) who at the same time advocate ideals that liberalism does not embrace (breaking windows, spiking trees, shouting down disagreeing commentary).
Similarly, that there are those who DO claim to some conservative-ish beliefs (small gov't in some areas, laissez faire capitalistm, etc) who at the same time advocate ideals that conservatism does not embrace (killing people, abusing people, threatening people, shouting down disagreeing commentary)."
Right?
Or are you saying that Ayers is not a liberal?
For what it's worth, I can think of at least five instances, Dan, where your summary of what the Bible teaches contradicts the passage's IMMEDIATE context.
1) Your invoking "overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21) to oppose war when Paul IMMEDIATELY follows up with the claim that the government is an agent of God's wrath that "does not bear the sword in vain."
2) You invoked I Peter 2:21 as evidence that the Bible doesn't always teach that Christ died for our sins, when the Apostle teaches that very thing in 2:24.
3) You invoke Christ's encounter with the rich young ruler to suggest that Christ taught salvation by works, when all three gospels note that Christ taught that God alone is good, that the twelve concluded that no one could be saved, and that Christ's response is that all things are possible WITH GOD.
4) You also invoke Philippians 2:12 to argue the same point, but the VERY NEXT VERSE (part of the same sentence) belies any conclusions that the passage teaches salvation by works, as it teaches that "it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
5) And, about the passage I'm now focusing on elsewhere, you invoke Psalm 106 and its condemnation of shedding innocent blood as part of your argument that God would not command wars of annihilation, when 106:34 completely undermines that conclusion.
(This is to say nothing of those times where you've quoted other works that actually proved the OPPOSITE of what you're trying to prove, regarding Jefferson's view of the scope of federal power and the Right's view of progressive revelation. In that same discussion on the Constitution, you quoted Benjamin Franklin about "general welfare," in a quote that I demonstrated had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the use of that phrase in the Constitution.)
Could I conclude that you frequently rip passages out of their context to make points against the text's clear meaning?
I think I could, and that is the conclusion that I do draw.
Does this prove that you do it most of the time, speculating that you do this 90 percent of the time OR MORE? No, because I haven't shown that you've only quoted the Bible, say, eight times over X number of years and been wrong five times.
The sort of conclusions you draw about conservatives in the general case, you would not accept against yourself. The sort of evidence you put forth, you almost certainly would reject as insufficient if it were aimed at your own head.
Dan, I didn't grasp your earlier point that you WERE calling these killers conservatives despite actions that contradict its principles.
But you do seem willing to entertain the notion that conservatism is inherently more violent.
"I think it has to do with fundamental starting points in beliefs. Liberals reject the notion that deadly violence is any kind of solution, whereas conservatives tend to believe in the myth of redemptive violence."
Yes, this would explain the ostracism of unrepentant domestic terrorists like Ayers, and the complete lack of a personality cult over charismatic murderers like Che Gueverra.
You write, "that there are those who DO claim to some liberal-ish beliefs (environmentalism, peacemaking, assisting the poor) who at the same time advocate ideals that liberalism does not embrace (breaking windows, spiking trees, shouting down disagreeing commentary)."
I'm not sure that violence and the suppression of dissent actually is in contradiction with the principles of the radical collectivism that has hijacked the term "liberal" and self-applies the question-begging moniker of "progressive."
It seems to me that Alinsky's acolytes have become more institutionalized for purely utilitarian reasons: they've concluded that it's more effective to subvert existing institutions, with no real rejection of their earlier violence on any moral grounds. And the lack of real intellectual freedom on college campuses -- at least for traditional and libertarian views -- has been well documented.
"Liberal principles entail pacifism and tolerance" is great marketing.
But it's far from the truth.
You're welcome to the opinion, no matter how ill-informed it may be.
The odd thing about "liberalism" is that it is largely undefined. It has some generalities attached to it (beliefs in peacemaking, in tending to the needs of the poor, in environmentalism and justice, but then, conservatism could claim all those, too, in theory). Whereas conservatism has Kirk's Ten Principles that help define what conservatism is, Liberalism has no corresponding tenets.
So, if you WISH to define liberalism as including fascism, you can. 99.99% of US liberals would reject such a tenet, but you can make the suggestion. Just as some might make that suggestion about conservatism.
That's a problem with these labels. I prefer that someone not tell me "I'm a liberal," or "I'm a conservative." Rather, tell me what you actually believe. Those labels are pretty slippery.
Nonetheless, in the US, liberalism HAS become firmly attached to free speech, to tolerance, to peacemaking, justice and tending this Creation/living sustainably. To suggest otherwise is to be talking about something other than what most US liberals ascribe to.
I didn't grasp your earlier point that you WERE calling these killers conservatives despite actions that contradict its principles.
I didn't grasp your earlier point that you WERE calling these killers conservatives despite actions that contradict its principles.
If someone believes in conservative values - small gov't, laissez faire capitalism, personal responsibility, opposed to welfare, family values, etc, then they believe in conservative values. If that same person ALSO believes in white supremacy or in killing abortion doctors, then that person is a conservative who espouses violence and racism.
That's just the case.
Are you saying that if someone believes in protecting the environment, in public schools, in aid to the poor, AND YET also leans toward anarchy and riots at WTO meetings, are you saying that THAT person is NOT a liberal?
You can't have it both ways. That is, you can't say the killing conservative is not really a conservative but the rioting liberal IS a liberal. I guess you could try to have it both ways but it would tend to make you look hypocritical.
You said...
But you do seem willing to entertain the notion that conservatism is inherently more violent.
I don't know that I believe that. However, within the realm of US liberalism, there is the fairly widespread belief that violence is a failure of diplomacy and a failure of intelligence, etc. In short, violence is wrong for most liberals. Some (many?) liberals would believe that violence may be the lesser of two evils at times, but it always remains an evil.
That is, of course, a generalization, but I suspect that it holds true.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in redemptive violence. The Noble War. That sometimes, deadly violence is a necessary and even GOOD thing. If one can stop a killer by killing him, it is a good thing.
Additionally, liberals embrace pacifism. They don't all follow that path, but we do honor it, typically. Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, these are our heroes and largely because they were pacifists.
That does not ring true for conservatives who, at best, may SORT of respect some pacifists, but who tend to reject pacifism as a failed approach.
So, no, I am not saying that conservatives are more violent than liberals. I'm saying that historically in the last 30 years, at least, the bulk of politically-motivated killings have been committed by conservatives. I'm GUESSING that perhaps it's related to our respective starting points no employing deadly violence.
Dan, unless you have a thorough and trustworthy list of all the incidents of politically motivated murder in this country over the last thirty years, you still have not proven your contentious claim about the "bulk" of these killings by citing only four such incidents.
About "our respective starting points [on] employing deadly violence," you seem to be ignoring the use of precisely that -- deadly violence -- in the course of more than 40 million abortions since Roe.
But even ignoring that one issue, it's simply not the case the left is uniformly or even primarily pacifistic.
"Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, these are our heroes and largely because they were pacifists."
(Jesus wasn't a pacifist. If you want to stand by that idiotic contention, I'd be happy to argue this point.)
You say that liberals lionize pacifists, and yet, even recently the Left has had no trouble creating a cult of personality around Marxist murderers like Che and Castro; whitewashing the murderous intent of unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers; calling for the release of cop-killers like Mumia; sometimes even glorifying Palestinian terrorism; and displaying what can often be called a literally murderous rage against people like President Bush. Quite a few of the same radical leftists who, for instance, opposed the use of military force in Iraq also urged support for the terrorists ("insurgents") who used deadly force against our troops -- hypocrisy if they were truly pacifistic, but entirely consistent with a fundamental hatred, not for the use of force per se, but for the American use of force.
You seem to want to claim MLK and forget Malcolm X.
Again, all that's good spin, but it's also historical bullshit.
Finally, I ask you for the last time to respond to my last question regarding Psalm 106.
Bubba said...
The sort of conclusions you draw about conservatives in the general case, you would not accept against yourself. The sort of evidence you put forth, you almost certainly would reject as insufficient if it were aimed at your own head.
Perhaps you are correct here. I probably would not accept someone saying "The FACT is..." about something that has not been borne out as fact. I probably should not use "fact" here, since I can't prove this beyond all doubt, and so, for that, I apologize.
I would say, however, that this is no mere hunch on my part. I've been researching for about a week now on "politically-motivated killings" and have found no real stories about any deadly attacks by liberals any time in the last 30 years.
I can't say that it's a certain "fact" that all or even most of the politically-motivated killings in the last 30 years (or in my lifetime, if you prefer) have been committed by conservatives, but I have found no evidence to the contrary thus far.
Tell me, can YOU think of ANY liberal killers in the last 30 years in politically-motivated attacks? In the last 50 years?
I would suspect there were some back in the Viet Nam era, but I'm beginning to doubt if there were any since the 1980s. It's not like no one would have reported it if it had happened. Limbaugh would have been all over it, if nothing else, and he's been around since the 80s.
I ask you for the last time to respond to my last question regarding Psalm 106.
If and when I get the time to do so, I'll do so on the other post where it's closer to on topic. I'll tell you the that for the first and last time.
Jesus wasn't a pacifist. If you want to stand by that idiotic contention, I'd be happy to argue this point.
I stand by it, but I don't care to debate it here where it's off topic. You'll come across as ridiculous and there's no sense in embarrassing yourself.
I'll just say that Jesus, who taught us to be peacemakers, who eschewed violence himself, who taught us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, who taught us to overcome evil with good, who taught us to follow in his peaceable steps, is recognized the world over and throughout history as a pacifist - with the exception of certain Right-ish segments of his church.
Go figure.
Pacifism: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds.
Dan,
Yes, I am claiming that the klan in the south was in fact almost exclusively democrat.
You don't seem to understand the concept of proof. You made an unsupported outlandish statement, and when asked to back up your claim you have pointed out 4ish instances you claim prove your point. You continue to insist that the criteria you use is the "claimed" conservatism of the "90 plus %" yet you provide no proof of your claim.
I have provided several instances that you have chosen to ignore. Your insistence that the Weather folks didn't mean to kill anyone when they firebombed an occupied house seems strange.
Is your point really that it's ok to blow stuff up as long as you don't mean to kill someone.
Had you quit at "I think it's wrong to say that these radicals are not conservative or liberal - they are. It's just that there worst practices are not necessarily part of their "side's" view." this might have ended well.
Sorry.
" Or at least in my circle of polite company. The way I was raised (and the way the US justice system works, by the way), is that if someone produces a charge, it is incumbent upon them to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, folk are innocent until proven guilty.
Once again, producing charges without support is, I think a perfect way to describe gossip. And we know what the Bible says about that.
Dan, those are your words. Put up or shut up. You made the original charge, the burden of proof is on you.
Do you seriously think that these Savage/Limbaugh-listening killers of late are NOT conservative, in general?
What are you asking me to prove? And what will you accept as proof?
I am claiming that the klan in the south was in fact almost exclusively democrat.
Yes, they were. CONSERVATIVE Democrats. As perhaps you know, things were different 100+ years ago.
Once again, a straight question: Are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that the Klan is made up of liberals??
You'd be laughed off the blogosphere for making that kinda suggestion and, if you were to make it at a Klan rally, you'd probably be strung up...
Dan,
As to what I would accept as proof here goes.
Documentation of your statement "in our nation, when people are killed for political reasons, almost across the board, it has been a someone claiming to conservatism to do the killing." Which you later clarified to 90 plus %.
I would like actual data, it's simple. You have made a claim, you should back it up.
Had your original post qualified this as your opinion this could have been avoided, you however, chose to state it as fact.
So, your proof please. You have four cases that you claim were motivated by conservative principles by my math even if it's 4 out of 5 you're not at 90%
BTW, I never said the klan was necessarily liberal, I said democrat, please respond to what I actually said. I can only assume that you now believe Robert Byrd was a conservative.
To repeat, so you're ok with politically motivated violence as long as no one gets killed.
I'll be back to provide the results of my research and then I'll take my leave. You all make no sense and seem to have no integrity or ability to communicate reasonably.
Dan
Your powers astound me. The fact that you can make such a sweeping pronouncement with an apparently straight face is beyond my ability to understand. I find it hard to see how you can find it insensible that we think you should support your outrageous claim. I am trying very hard to hold you to the same standard of proof to which you appear to hold others. Sorry if that offends you.
Too bad you couldn't quit when you were reasonable.
On the Liberal side of things:
1. 1960s Weatherunderground attacked buildings and, according to some, planned on killing people - actual deaths involved were three of their own in an accident;
2. From the fall of 1967 through the end of 1970, nine police officers were killed and 56 were wounded in confrontations with the Panthers. The confrontations were believed to have resulted in ten Panther deaths and an unknown number of injuries. Both sides often claimed the other side started the attacks (ie, the Panthers claimed the police attacked them and they acted in self-defense, the police claim the opposite).
3. 1976 Sara Jane Moore tried to kill Gerald Ford
4. 1990s FBI counterterrorism agents have conducted at least 190 investigations into property crimes claimed by the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). None of the crimes injured or killed people, at least that I could find.
5. 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle involve rioting and destruction of property by protesters. No deaths.
Am I missing any?
=======
On the Conservative side of things;
1. 1979 Greensboro massacre attack by Klan
2. 1980 Three klansmen killed four black women
3. 1981 Klan lynches, kills black man
4. 1993 Michael Griffin killed Dr. David Gunn, abortion doctor
1992 Shelly Shannon set fires at abortion clinics and she shot Dr. Tiller (same guy, he survived this attack)
5. 1994 Paul Hill killed Dr. George Britton
6. 1995 Timothy McVeigh blows up Federal building in Oklahoma
7. 1995 John Salvi killed receptionists at abortion clinic
8. 1998 Eric Rudolph began his bombings, killing at least two people
9. 1998 James Kopp killed Dr. Barnett Slepian (part of group called "Lambs of Christ")
10. 2009 James Von Brunn attacked at the Holocaust museum
11. 2009 Scott Roeder killed Dr. George Tiller
You will note that I have not included more of the Klan killings, mainly because the majority of them were before my birth.
Nor have I mentioned the dozens of murders of gay people by people who objected to their homosexuality, even though one might reasonably GUESS (to be clear) that there would be a high correlation between gay killers and conservatism.
In other words, I have left out many killings because there was no direct link between the killers and conservatism or liberalism.
What I was left with were these acts of violence (few actual killings, though) found in the Left that were mostly from the 1960s and 70s and these actual killings by so-called conservatives in the 1980s through today.
Looking at these reports, while not conclusive, DOES suggest a troubling trend that I believe logical people can look at and be concerned about the state of disagreement by some on the far right.
If you have any evidence to present of liberals killing those who disagree with them politically in the last 30 years, by all means present it.
In the meantime, I would think that liberals and conservatives could unite against those who would kill for political reasons and I would hope that the Right would have some concern about this trend.
Huh.
"Do you seriously think that these Savage/Limbaugh-listening killers of late are NOT conservative, in general?"
Notice here that Dan has gone from the claim that some of the beliefs of these political killers are conservative, to the claim that they listen to Rush Limbaugh -- with (at the very least) the hint of an implication of some sort of connection between the two.
It's the same sort of slanderous remark that Bill Clinton made after the Oklahoma City bombing, trying to pin the violence on talk radio and Limbaugh specifically.
But remember: according to Dan "liberalism HAS become firmly attached to free speech, to tolerance." The suppression of free speech -- the "shouting down disagreeing commentary" -- is contrary to the philosophy's core principles.
Dan:
Those Democrats who were members of the Klan and opposed integration were NOT "conservative Democrats." They largely supported the New Deal and, later, the Great Society -- programs that were formulated by a Progressive elite who were also race essentialists who supported eugenics.
You seem to have this notion that "liberal" is simply interchangeable with the adjective "good," and you provide excellent evidence that Jonah Goldberg is right.
The most honorable thing a person can do is to study the facts first: to draw conclusions only AFTER such research and then announce those conclusions after one is sure that those conclusions are supported by the substance.
At the very least, if someone is going to insist that his political opponents thoroughly prove every contentious claim they make -- or else their claims are to be dismissed as rumor-mongering by "polite and reasonable people" -- he should do his own research before making his own half-assed assertions, even if that's research to see if the facts even remotely support his pre-existing claim.
It's been more than week since you first made the contentious claim that "almost across the board, it has been a someone claiming to conservatism to do the killing."
Only now are you going away to do the research to support this claim?
And you have the gall to accuse us of lacking integrity?
That would be astounding if I didn't already conclude that you are simply not an honorable man when it comes to discussing politics or religion.
Dan, on the intersection of those two topics, politics and religion, you write briefly:
"I'll just say that Jesus, who taught us to be peacemakers, who eschewed violence himself, who taught us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, who taught us to overcome evil with good, who taught us to follow in his peaceable steps, is recognized the world over and throughout history as a pacifist - with the exception of certain Right-ish segments of his church."
When you appeal to popular opinion on matters that can be decided by consulting an authoritative text -- such as the Bible or the Constitution -- I increasingly suspect that you do so knowing that the text doesn't support your position.
Anyway, Christ didn't teach "overcome evil with good," Paul did, IMMEDIATELY before teaching that the state is an agent of God's wrath, which does not bear the sword in vain. Even apart from those inconvenient facts, an appeal to this teaching would be the sheerest question begging; with those facts it's ripping the teaching out of its IMMEDIATE context.
And Christ didn't teach non-violent resistance, the sort of thing we saw from Gandhi and King. He taught NON-RESISTANCE. Turning the other cheek was only AN EXAMPLE of the broader command not to resist an evildoer.
If you really think these teachings apply to the state and not just the individual, you must logically support a sort of anarchism where the state not only refuses to wage war, it refuses to enforce its laws by arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning criminals.
I've made this point before, and you have never adequately responded to it.
I wonder if you're really more interested in invoking a vague (and inaccurate) sense of Jesus as a peaceful hippie to advance your politics, then you are to follow His actual teachings to serve as His disciple.
After all, you don't seem to approach Scripture with anything resembling the respect He accorded it; you don't take seriously His teaching about why we were created male and female; and you don't accept His teaching that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.
Heck, Christ commended simple clarity in our speech -- let your yes be yes -- and you're one of the most deceptive and mendacious individuals I have ever had the bad fortune of encountering at length.
Finally, about Psalm 106, you write:
"If and when I get the time to do so, I'll do so on the other post where it's closer to on topic. I'll tell you the that for the first and last time."
All I asked there, was the simple yes-or-no question, have you actually studied Psalm 106?
I think the way you (mis)use that psalm is a good indication that you haven't, and I'm giving you the opportunity, either to come clean and admit that your use of the passage didn't come from careful study of the psalm, or to dig yourself into an even deeper hole.
Given how much you've written here, time is clearly not an issue.
I urge you to stop making excuses and answer my very simple question, sooner rather than later.
That's a helluva list, Dan. Every instance you list as conservative, you do so without a single proviso: for the liberals, well, the Black Panthers claimed the cops started all the trouble, and Weather Underground planned to murder people only "according to some."
(That "some," for the record, includes Bill Ayers himself, who himself attested that the nail bomb would have been "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.")
You didn't bother even listing those events which have already been mentioned here, such as the eight fatalities at Freddie's Fashion Mart in Harlem in 1995, following Sharpton-led protesters against the store's "white interloper" of an owner. If you're going to include violent but not murderous riots in Seattle, you should include this event as well.
You apparently did no research into violence against those who oppose abortion, and you don't even include the murder of James Pouillion, which is the story that prompted this whole discussion.
Clearly, you're only interested in research that justifies your claim that the bulk of political killing is done by conservatives. You produce a handful of counter-examples to show some level of being even-handed, but that counter list is clearly not the result of any thorough research, and you take great pains to excuse and downplay the sometimes murderous violence on the left.
"In the meantime, I would think that liberals and conservatives could unite against those who would kill for political reasons and I would hope that the Right would have some concern about this trend."
You're clearly not interested in "uniting" against politically motivated violence whereever it's to be found, Dan.
As you do with so many causes you champion -- such as accuracy in writing, and opposition to slander -- you clearly want to use this as a cudgel against the right.
I would certainly be open to any good-faith invitation to oppose such violence, but you DO NOT argue in good faith, and I don't think anyone here should pretend that you do.
Bubba asked about Psalm 106 earlier and I said I'd respond on the place it originally appeared, but I'll do it here to spare anyone having to wade through the other one and since it appears Craig's not worried about sticking to the topic.
To answer your short question, yes, I HAVE read Psalm 106. I have read the entire Bible through more than a few times. I've studied specifically Psalm 106 and I am aware that there are parts of the chapter that suggest God commands killing people:
"They did not destroy the peoples as the LORD had commanded them..."
As well as verses that suggest that God condemns shedding innocent people:
"Shedding innocent blood, the blood of their own sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed."
In that particular case, it was for the pagan nations' practice of sacrificing their own children.
But this is not the only case of the Bible condemning the shedding of innocent blood. You can see a fairly comprehensive list here.
I have never said that there are no passages that seem to suggest that killing innocent people can be a good thing. That is what some of our disputes have been about.
What I have said is that we have two options. Sometimes God commands the shedding of innocent blood and sometimes God condemns the shedding of innocent blood. You can find cases of both in the Bible.
For my part, I look at the two seemingly opposite cases and I am saying (have been saying for years on end now) that I think the most biblical, logical and moral way to resolve these is to side on the side of, God does NOT command us to shed innocent blood, that such a notion is wrong. So, I explain away the places where it seems that God does just that and hold fast to the passages where it's clear that we ought not kill innocent people.
You, on the other hand, have opted to try to explain away the notion that killing innocent people is always wrong and sided with the notion that sometimes God DOES command people to kill innocents.
We BOTH are clinging to biblical teachings, it's just that you side with an understanding of the Biblical teachings that has God sometimes commanding the slaughter of innocents. I side with the understanding that God would not do that.
If you're comfortable with your position, I'm sorry for you. I am quite comfortable with my biblical, logical and moral position. And I hold this position, as I have consistently noted, BECAUSE I love the Bible and take it seriously in my efforts to follow in Jesus' steps.
That's just the way it is. Because you can't understand how my position is respectful of the Bible does not say my position is not respectful. It's just to say that you can't understand it.
I think most people can. I believe it's what God would expect us to believe and how God would expect us to live. I shall cling to the ways that I think are Godly, even if it confounds Bubba, Craig and others. I'm not in this to please them. I would hope that they would at least respect that notion.
Dan,
You assume that the perpetrators of the acts you list were conservatives. Quite frankly you assume they were political at all. There is no reason to think the klan killings were political as opposed to racial or something else.
The fact that you excuse the weather underground when among other acts they firebombed an occupied house (which a reasonable person could conclude would be likely to kill the occupants), is amusing.
You also continue to ignore the non conservatives who try to kill folks but aren't very good. The Molotov cocktailers of the RNC spring to mind.
Finally, no reasonable person is defending those you call conservatives. If you recall, the original point of this post was that the pro choice/liberal community would not condemn the killer in this case as quickly as the vast majority of the pro life community did with the Tiller killing. Your digression does nothing to dispute that point.
You say that all liberals don't like/engage in violence, that is not true. You say that the vast majority of conservatives do somehow have a default position that violence is the answer, also not true.
If we are to accept your citations that we are forced to conclude that your 90plus percent figure was not accurate. We can also conclude, that there could be some bias in your selection. However I really do appreciate the effort.
Dan,
You are also apparently ignoring the riots in LA (not to mention NOLA) after the Rodney King beating. Given the fact that the preponderance of liberals in the inner cities of large US cities. It is safe to assume that the majority rioting, looting, beating, etc. were in fact committed by peace loving liberals.
BTW, are you continuing to say Robert Byrd wasn't liberal, and are you further arguing that the black panthers weren't?
Dan,
And you continue to insist that those who sacrificed their children were innocent.
And you continue to insist that those who sacrificed their children were innocent.
I do? Funny. I never said that once nor do I believe it, so I wonder how it is that I continue to insist it without even believing it or saying it?
Weird.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe Craig's point is that you believe that people like the Amalekites were innocent.
You sure as hell give that impression when you write stuff like this:
"What I have said is that we have two options. Sometimes God commands the shedding of innocent blood and sometimes God condemns the shedding of innocent blood. You can find cases of both in the Bible."
Other than (perhaps) Abraham's sacrfice of Isaac -- which God ultimately belayed, and which (the Bible is clear; Heb 11:19) Abraham thought was temporary -- there is no instance where one can even clearly infer that "God commands the shedding of innocent blood."
It's not certainly not explicitly taught anywhere in the Bible. You've never pointed to a passage that explicitly teaches that God commanded the shedding of innocent blood, BECAUSE NO SUCH PASSAGE EXISTS.
But you reach that conclusion nevertheless.
--
As an aside, you make claims about the Bible that you cannot support, and you make claims about my position that simply are not true.
You write, "I have never said that there are no passages that seem to suggest that killing innocent people can be a good thing." But the Bible doesn't use that key adjective that you REPEATEDLY use: "innocent" is your word, not the Bible's.
About my position, you write that I "have opted to try to explain away the notion that killing innocent people is always wrong and sided with the notion that sometimes God DOES command people to kill innocents."
And again: "We BOTH are clinging to biblical teachings, it's just that you side with an understanding of the Biblical teachings that has God sometimes commanding the slaughter of innocents."
I have NEVER held that position: I dispute your claim that the people were innocent.
You assume PRECISELY what is being disputed, the issue of whether the target of God's wrath included innocent lives. The Bible certainly doesn't teach that, but you act as if it does. And I have never argued that, but you act as if I do.
--
Now, you take the passages where, for instance, God commands ancient Israel to wipe out one of her enemies, and you argue that the command is wholly contradictory to the prohibition of shedding innocent blood.
The implication is clearly that you believe the target of God's wrath either is or (at least) includes innocent people -- and generally you mention children when asked for specifics.
When you use extra-biblical assumptions to force passages to contradict each other, so that you can champion one and discard the other, you shouldn't insist that you love the entire Bible and revere all its teachings.
And you really shouldn't wonder when we draw PRECISELY the conclusion that your argument's been implying: when you argue that, when the Bible records divine commands to ancient Israel to wipe out her enemies, it teaches that "God commands the shedding of innocent blood," the clear implication is that you believe Israel enemies are innocent or include an innocent subset of people.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe Craig's point is that you believe that people like the Amalekites were innocent.
When the people are led to believe that God wants them to go and wipe out a whole nation - men, women and children - EVEN IF we're talking about an "evil nation" like the Amalekites, we are STILL talking about innocent deaths. If nothing else, the children were innocent of any of the sins of their parents, as the Bible teaches us.
That is what I have pretty specifically said all along. I'm glad to be able to clear that up so now you can know exactly what I'm talking about.
I have NEVER held that position: I dispute your claim that the people were innocent.
I know you do. But the children were innocent regardless of what you may think. To suggest otherwise is to do harm to the english language and morality.
That is your way of explaining it away. If you say the children of the Amalekites (for instance) were NOT innocent and God was just in condemning their deaths, then you have explained away the need to stand against shedding innocent blood.
So, you are correct when you note that I write that you "have opted to try to explain away the notion that killing innocent people is always wrong and sided with the notion that sometimes God DOES command people to kill innocents." It is my position that you are explaining away the notion that killing innocent people is always wrong by suggesting amazingly that babies are not innocent and God would command people to kill them en masse.
I fully understand that it is your position that these babies were not innocent, but I reject that as illogical and immoral reasoning. Therefore, you explain that side of the equation away. Hence, my statement.
And I still hold my position PRECISELY because I love and respect the Bible and desire to do God's will and naught else.
Once again, that you don't understand this does not make it true.
"does not make it NOT true..."
of course.
Dan,
The Bible is quite clear that God really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
The Bible is quite clear that God really did wipe out the first born of Egypt during the Passover.
And the Bible is quite clear that God really did command ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation against some of her enemies, in very specific circumstances.
About the latter, perhaps the children who were killed were guilty before God in the sense that we are all born in sin and in Adam -- that, therefore, those who die in infancy are in Heaven because of God's mercy rather than His justice. Or, perhaps they were innocent in an absolute sense, but ending a life marred by a culture as depraved as that of the Amalekites was an act of mercy. Or it may simply be that God has the right to end all human life on His timetable, and to exercise that right with whatever means He chooses, including human agency.
I have no problem discussing the various ways these admittedly difficult passages are reconciled to the rest of Scripture.
But you're clearly not interested in the act of reconciling, even when -- as with THE PASSOVER -- the difficult passage is theologically crucial both to Judaism, and to our own faith.
Rather than attempt to reconcile all that the Bible teaches, you edit, dismissing those passages that you don't like.
Here, you conclude that these passages contain divine commands to commit literal atrocities, and you dismiss them as "less than perfect" revelations. The Bible gives every indication that the passages are historical -- and the New Testament even appeals to the details of OT history, including chronology -- but you dismiss the passages as figurative, without any good biblical reason for doing so, and without the slightest hint of a plausible figurative interpretation.
These aren't the only passages that you denigrate in this matter.
Christ Himself taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, but you dismiss the Atonement as mere imagery. You argue that it's only one of several images of how we are saved, but you have to rip passages out of their IMMEDIATE context to produce other such images. And you say that the Atonement is somehow still valid, but you never explain how.
(Funny: you don't understand how Christ's death literally paid for our sins, but you keep mentioning the Bible's prohibition of "shedding innocent blood," when blood -- blood cells and plasma -- is literally incapable of moral choices between what is right and what is sinful, and between what is legal and what is criminal.)
If your approach to the Bible is the result of an abiding love for the book and deep respect for its teachings, I'd hate to see what you would consider to be contempt for the Bible.
And if anyone "loves" another human being the way you claim to love the Bible, the court should probably issue a restraining order against the lover for the health and welfare of his beloved.
Rather than attempt to reconcile all that the Bible teaches, you edit, dismissing those passages that you don't like.
I think we all do this. I think you dismiss the passages that say "don't shed innocent blood," by your explaining away of why those slaughtered weren't innocent.
You disagree.
Go in peace with your understanding the best you can and I shall do likewise.
Dan, that's not an instance of dismissing a passage: I am simply not convinced that the prohibition against shedding innocent blood applies to when God commanded ancient Israel to wage holy war.
It appears that I'm on common ground with the author of Psalm 106, who had no problem grouping -- and even implying a causal connection -- Israel's refusal to wipe out her enemies and her subsequent shedding of innocent blood.
"They did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, but they mingled with the nations and learned to do as they did.
"They served their idols, which became a snare to them.
"They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
"Thus they became unclean by their acts, and prostituted themselves in their doings.
"Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage; he gave them into the hand of the nations, so that those who hated them ruled over them." - Ps 106:34-41
The psalmist doesn't apparently think that embracing the truth of one implies a denial or dismissal of the other, and I'm happy to stand with him.
(I wonder if you think that, if one accepts as historical Christ's command to the twelve to commandeer a colt -- see Mt 21, Mk 11, and Lk 19 -- he also dismisses the commandment against theft. Such a conclusion requires the same bad assumptions and faulty logic.)
But if you really think that everyone dismisses parts of the Bible...
"'Rather than attempt to reconcile all that the Bible teaches, you edit, dismissing those passages that you don't like.'
"I think we all do this. I think you dismiss the passages that say 'don't shed innocent blood,' by your explaining away of why those slaughtered weren't innocent." [emphasis mine]
...then you should be more honest about your approach to the Bible.
Don't tell us that you love the Bible and "deeply respect" its teachings.
Tell us the truth: tell us you love PARTS OF the Bible and deeply respect SOME OF its teachings, and you do so because you believe the Bible is a mess that cannot wholly be reconciled.
A person who says that we all do -- and indeed MUST -- select and edit the Bible, to dismiss some passages in favor of others, CANNOT credibly claim to love and revere the entire book.
The truth is I love the whole Bible, find it fascinating and learn of God in it, but like you, I don't take every part to be a literal representation of God's Will.
Like you.
Dan,
First, I apologize for not noticing your subtle shift in reasoning where you appear to have determined that sacrificing your children to a false god does meet your standard for a capitol offense. I read and responded in haste and I apologize.
However, as Bubba deduced, your contention that all who were killed at God's direction is still an unsupported contention. Sorry, but Dan's version of Logic and Morality is not support for your contention.
It does, however, appear that you would be ok with God ordering Israel to kill those who meet your definition of guilty. Without rehashing our earlier Original Sin discussion, I am unclear what you mean by "innocent". Do you mean it in a legal sense or are you saying that the Amalekite children were without sin? Or is this an instance where your subjective, finite, human, Reason and Logic cannot grasp the possibility that God may see things differently than Dan?
BTW, unless I've missed it you are still dodging the Passover issue.
It does, however, appear that you would be ok with God ordering Israel to kill those who meet your definition of guilty. Without rehashing our earlier Original Sin discussion, I am unclear what you mean by "innocent".
1. God is God, and beyond my understanding. I don't know for sure what all God would do beyond knowing that God does not do what is not in God's nature. (That is, God won't commit evil, because it is not in God's nature to do so; God won't lie, because it's not in God's nature.)
2. I don't believe it is in God's nature to command people to kill one another - but especially and specifically, I would object to the suggestion that God sometimes commands people to kill innocent human beings, particularly children.
3. You disagree. You think God might do so because, in your estimation and by your definition, children aren't innocent - not even babies. Is that correct?
4. I disagree.
5. I define "innocent," as the dictionary does and as most English-speaking do:
a. free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil;
and:
b. free from legal guilt or fault;
By these definitions, babies are innocent. They are free from guilt or sin, one can't sin without the ability to choose wrong. "Especially through lack of knowledge of evil..."
6. How do YOU define innocent?
7. What do you suppose babies are guilty of?
I'm not sure what I'm dodging about the "passover issue." You take it as a literal story, I don't know if it's literal or not. It's certainly quite symbolic of how God delivers God's oppressed people. It's certainly quite symbolic of how sin has consequences.
Is it to be taken literally? I don't know.
What am I dodging?
I thought I've been quite clear that I'm speaking specifically of what God would and would not command people to do. I don't think that the portrayal of God through the whole Bible would support the notion that God would go around killing children for the sins of the parents.
The bible specifically tells us:
1. (Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
Given passages like this (as well as our own God-given reasoning) we would find it hard to reconcile a God that ignores God's own rules. But then, as I have noted, God is God and beyond my understanding, so I'm hesitant to say "God WON'T do..." about anything, beyond that which is not in God's nature.
So, I am confident in saying that God won't ask US to do what God has forbidden. I don't think God would do God's Self what God has said is wrong. So my hunch is that these are not literal stories, but parables, metaphors. I don't know for certain (none of us do), I was not there and God has not specifically told me that this is a passage that needs to be taken literally.
Has God told you that?
This might be a good time to look at how we each look at Bible interpretation.
I just cited passages wherein we learn that children ought not pay for the sins of the parent, as in Deut 24...
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
We know, of course, that an opposite sentiment is sometimes expressed in the Bible, as in Exodus 20...
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me..."
Does this seeming contradiction disturb me? No, not at all. After all, nowhere have any of us been told to take each line literally.
If we have an apparent contradiction,
1. I recognize that not each line in the Bible is to be taken literally,
2. I look for the Universal Truths being expressed,
3. I see if there is some way to literally reconcile them,
4. If not, I see which of the Truths is most consistent with the Bible as well as our own God-given reasoning.
In the Exodus passage, the Truth being expressed is that Sin has consequences and that God punishes children for their parent's sin, even for generations.
In the Deuteronomy passage, the Truth being expressed is that we are not to punish someone for the sins of someone else.
Well, if that's the case, how can God punish children generations down the line for the sins of Grandpa?
And so, I take the Exodus passage to mean the general Truth that sin has consequences - far-reaching consequences, effecting even the innocent - but not that it LITERALLY means that God punishes the innocent for the sins of their parent. Because, as we see elsewhere in the Bible and, indeed, as our own God-given reasoning tells us, that would be wrong.
Dan, when you denigrate certain passages by speculating that they contain "less than perfect" revelation, and when you dismiss them by pointing to a figurative interpretation that you don't actually produce -- much less a plausible figurative interpretation that's actually suggested by the text -- you don't seem to demonstrate a love for the entire Bible.
Anyway, you say that, because of our God-given reasoning, "we would find it hard to reconcile a God that ignores God's own rules."
We would?
Well, it depends on what you mean by that.
I think we would all agree that God is permitted to declare Himself to be God and to require our worship.
If God forbids man from declaring himself to be a deity and forbids man from demanding worship from others -- and He surely does -- is it true that God "ignores God's own rules"?
Or can we not see that there is a sheer difference between God -- the uncreated Creator, Sovereign over all -- and created, limited man?
Doesn't our God-given reason tell us that, indeed, there are certain activities that are right for God but forbidden by man?
That God is right to declare Himself to be God, and that God is right to demand worship, but that mere men are strictly forbidden from both activities? And that there is NO contradiction that results?
If you acknowledge that, then that leaves open the possibility that God might forbid humans from punishing children for their parents' crime while retaining the just and moral right to do precisely that Himself. And it leaves open the possibility that God might forbid humans from shedding innocent blood while retaining the just and moral right to end the life THAT HE HIMSELF CREATED.
And if you cannot acknowledge that God is permitted to do some things that He forbids us to do, then I don't think anyone should follow your obviously flawed logic.
If you acknowledge that, then that leaves open the possibility that God might forbid humans from punishing children for their parents' crime while retaining the just and moral right to do precisely that Himself.
I DO acknowledge that there are some things that God might forbid humanity from that would not necessarily apply to God. The examples you gave, for instance, of not presuming to be a god, would apply to humanity but not God.
I don't see that the command to not kill innocents or to punish only the guilty for their sins, not the children of the guilty to be one such instance, though.
You are free to disagree. I think you are seriously wrong.
Now, go in peace and may we all learn God's will as best we can.
Dan, I'm not sure your "go in peace" bit is quite the most cordial way to convey that you'd like to drop a subject or end a conversation, particularly at someone else's blog: to me at least, it comes off as not entirely sincere.
Anyway, you agree that some of God's rules for man don't apply to God Himself, but you write:
"I don't see that the command to not kill innocents or to punish only the guilty for their sins, not the children of the guilty to be one such instance [of a command that doesn't also apply to God], though.
"You are free to disagree. I think you are seriously wrong."
The question isn't what I think or what you think: the question is, what does the Bible teach?
I believe that the entire text is FAR more easily reconciled with the view that God is just in taking human life in any circumstance, than with the view that He isn't. The logical pretzels you create to support your position is good evidence that your view and the Bible's clear teachings make a very poor fit.
The apologetics site Stand To Reason has two somewhat extemporaneous arguments that relate to this issue, answering the questions, Does God have to obey the Ten Commandments, and Can God kill the innocent.
I recommend you glance through both just to see that thorough arguments can be made that, as Gregory Koukl puts it, "God is the author of life, therefore He has the prerogative to take life whenever He wants."
In that first essay, Koukl points to the Bible's first universal prohibition of taking human life -- a declaration made with Noah after the Deluge, preceding Moses and Sinai by centuries.
"Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind." - Gen 9:6, emphasis mine
That last clause is the rationale for the prohibition: murder is forbidden because God made man in His own image.
That doesn't imply self-ownership: "Don't take that man's life, because he belongs to himself," which COULD restrain even God.
Instead, it implies divine ownership: "Don't take that man's life, because he belongs to God."
That rationale gives us no guarantee that God will not HIMSELF bring to an end the life that He created and possesses.
As with many other issues -- including the authority of Scripture, the causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation, and the reason that God made us male and female -- what you believe deviates significantly from what the Bible teaches.
I think love for the Bible ought to entail an increasing conformity to its clear teachings, so your professed love and respect for the Bible strikes me as little more than empty words.
I believe that the entire text is FAR more easily reconciled with the view that God is just in taking human life in any circumstance, than with the view that He isn't. The logical pretzels you create to support your position is good evidence that your view and the Bible's clear teachings make a very poor fit.
You are, as always, free to think this. I think your position has much more serious logical and moral problems than my position. Therefore, since I love the Bible and seek to do God's will, I shall hold to what I believe is the most biblical, logical and moral position I can find. I encourage you to do the same.
You say:
I think love for the Bible ought to entail an increasing conformity to its clear teachings
And I AGREE. I just don't think your take on scripture is the one that is in conformity with its teachings or with God's will. I think MY take on it is closest to being within God's will.
If I didn't, I would not hold these positions. Rather, I hold them (and have changed from other positions to my current positions) in an effort to follow God's Will.
And so, we still disagree. After all these years, I don't know what more to say but, Go, in peace. May God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven and in our lives as it is in heaven.
What is it you'd like me to say? "Well, MY best understanding of what God wishes and what the Bible says is what I have stated, BUT since Bubba thinks otherwise, I will now adapt my beliefs to be in alignment with Bubba's..."? Is THAT really what you want me to say?
Sorry, I can't.
I must obey God - or my best understanding of God - rather than Bubba.
Dan
As to you not addressing the Passover question I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
It seems fairly clear that Jesus celebrated passover. It also seems fairly clear that he choose to make the passover the fulcrum of his earthly ministry. If in fact Jesus (who, it could be argued was in a position to know) treated the Passover as something to be celebrated, could it not be argued that Jesus was actually celebrating the killing of "innocent" children?
So your "I don't know" response seems a little strange. Your "It's certainly quite symbolic of how God delivers God's oppressed people. It's certainly quite symbolic of how sin has consequences." seems to ring hollow given the amount of importance Jesus placed on this particular celebration.
Finally, I'm not going to re hash the original sin discussion. I am going to say that your definition of innocence presumes that you and God define it the same way.
So your "I don't know" response seems a little strange. Your "It's certainly quite symbolic of how God delivers God's oppressed people. It's certainly quite symbolic of how sin has consequences." seems to ring hollow given the amount of importance Jesus placed on this particular celebration.
Craig, you are more than welcome to have that opinion. I hold the opinion (not saying I know definitely one way or the other - none of us do - just my opinion) that believing God sometimes wipes out a whole city of children rings hollow with what the Bible teaches us about God.
If it's okay with you, I'll hold my opinion and you can hold yours and we can ask God about it when we all get to heaven.
I am going to say that your definition of innocence presumes that you and God define it the same way.
It's the English definition of the word and what most people mean when they say "innocent." It's how language works, we have agreed upon meanings of words.
Do you suspect some other idea beyond what we normally mean by "innocent" in the English speaking world is being referenced in the Bible when it comes out opposed to killing innocents? If so, what idea do you think it is referring to/what word would better be used in its place?
What I'd like to see, Dan, is a truly substantive argument from Scripture that -- for instance -- God really didn't historically command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
I suspect that you know as well as I do that no such arguments exist.
Hence, your frequent return to melodrama about how you should follow God instead of me.
Of course, you should follow God and forsake all others, and no one's disputing that, but that trivially true sentiment has never and will never take the place of a good argument in defense of your beliefs regarding God's will.
And, certainly, you're entitled to your opinion about God's will, but that hardly convinces anyone that your opinion's worth anything.
What I'd like to see, Dan, is a truly substantive argument from Scripture that -- for instance -- God really didn't historically command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
I suspect that you know as well as I do that no such arguments exist.
You are absolutely right. No such argument exists.
Nor does any direct argument exist that says the right way to interpret that scripture is literally.
We both are relying upon indirect arguments for our conclusions. Your indirect argument is that it is spoken of as a real historical event in the Bible and you see no reason not to treat it that way.
My indirect argument is that taking it literally is to suggest that sometimes God might kill a city full of babies and we have no evidence in the real world that this is the case. We have these few stories in the Bible that talk about it, but the Bible tells many stories (such as the creation) that sound more mythic or parabolic than historical. This is one of those stories.
WHY would God slaughter the children of a city where the leader is oppressing the Israeli people? Your answer is God can do it because God is God. My response is that does not sound like the God of the Bible who commands us not to take innocent lives.
You like your argument better I like mine.
What of it? I remain wholly unconvinced that your argument best demonstrates God's Will. You are unconvinced of mine. What are we to do? Keep going back and forth about how your argument sucks, no yours sucks, no, yours...?
Dan,
Thanks for the snippy response about innocence. I am aware of the English definition. However, I'm not sure that God is quite willing to submit Himself to our definition, no matter how many people agree on it.
You appear to disagree.
Thanks for the snippy response about innocence. I am aware of the English definition. However, I'm not sure that God is quite willing to submit Himself to our definition, no matter how many people agree on it.
Nothing snippy intended in my comment at all. I'm trying to establish the meaning of the word. Do YOU, Craig (and I'm speaking to you right now, not God) do YOU have a different meaning for the word "innocent" than how it is commonly used?
We have to understand one another a little bit before we can understand one another's position about God. If we're both talking about God but you're using "innocent" to mean "guilty," then we're going to have a hard time coming to an understanding about what the other thinks about God.
Dan.
The Bible clearly, consistently, and emphatically treats the Passover as a historical event: it is central to both the theology and the ritual of Judaism, and it is an event through which Christianity understands that central historical event, the Crucifixion of Christ.
I merely affirm that the Bible teaches what it teaches, but you say that my position depends on "indirect" arguments.
That's asinine, and if you're so eager to abuse the word "indirect" to suggest (implausibly) that our arguments are on equal footing, you probably shouldn't pose as such a stickler for the strict definition of words.
You write, "we have no evidence in the real world" that God would kill all the firstborn of a nation.
Even supposing that's true, the fact remains that the Bible is quite clear that God did just that. If you want to reject that teaching or force it into a figurative re-interpretation that the text nowhere supports -- and one that you have NEVER provided in detail, much less plausible detail -- go right ahead.
Just don't pretend that your worldview's biblical. Don't pretend that you love the entire Bible and respect all its teachings.
Words mean things, Dan, and you get picky about the meaning of words ONLY -- ONLY -- when doing so suits your arguments.
And as an aside, but a very important aside, your statement about how "we have no evidence in the real world" that God would do something could arguably apply just as easily to the resurrection of the dead as it does to the death of the firstborn.
(Perhaps more so: every community is touched by the tragedy of infant mortality, but I don't know many that celebrate the resurrection of one of their own.)
You very frequently attack biblical claims you don't like with a very dangerous weapon: the weapon of the skeptic and the atheist, a weapon that could easily be turned against the central and essential doctrines of Christianity.
Don't get me wrong: I believe those weapons are flawed and are repelled (sometimes easily) by the best weapons of Christian apologetics. But they are dangerous in the sense that they tend to be used only by those who hold Christianity in contempt.
It seems to me that your failings -- either your shortsightedness, your inconsistency, your hypocrisy, or some combination -- are the only thing keeping you from attacking the central tenets of the faith. I don't think you could defend the Resurrection from the same tactics you use to denigrate the Passover, and you seem to miss the fact that you don't test both by the same standards.
That's an extraordinarily dangerous position, because if you ever tried to be a consistent thinker, I believe you would be forced to either accept the Passover as historical or reject the Resurrection as an event that likewise sounds "more mythic or parabolic than historical." I'm frankly not sure what outcome would be more likely.
If you ever really worked to be a better man, you would run the risk of ceasing to be a Christian.
I merely affirm that the Bible teaches what it teaches, but you say that my position depends on "indirect" arguments.
That's asinine, and if you're so eager to abuse the word "indirect" to suggest (implausibly) that our arguments are on equal footing...
I was saying that the Teaching that we must need take stories like the Passover literally is not in the Bible. It's not, simply not there directly. The STORY is there, just as the story of Creation is. But nowhere in the Bible does it tell us that we need to take that literally.
THAT is an indirect conclusion that you have drawn. "Indirect," meaning the teaching (We must take this story literally) is not directly there, rather, you have concluded that the story's presence implies the need to take it literally.
Words DO mean things and we ought to stick by their meanings in order to better understand one another. On that point, we agree.
What does innocent mean to you, Bubba?
Oh, and by the way, no matter how asinine you think my beliefs are, they are my beliefs I have obtained by diligently seeking God's will and out of love and deep respect for the Bible's teachings. I won't change what I believe to be God's will to comply with your thinking.
The story of the Passover is not only presented as historical in terms of its genre, Dan, the Bible repeatedly points to the events of the Passover as proof of God's faithfulness, and the Bible records God's command to the Jews to commemorate the Passover annually.
Those facts point conclusively to the idea that the Bible treats the Passover as a literal event in history, recorded accurately in Scripture -- even though Scripture doesn't point explicitly to that idea in the ridiculously specific terms that you require.
You do this a lot: you make a big deal about the fact that the Bible doesn't explicitly affirm the opposition's doctrine in some specific terms, but you ignore the fact that ALL the scriptural evidence points decisively in that direction, and you ignore the fact that you have no scriptural evidence -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, not a shred -- to support your contrary position.
The Bible clearly, consistently, and emphatically treats the Passover as a historical event.
Your position that the event can be treated figuratively is completely at odds with the Bible.
Our two positions are hardly on the same footing.
Your discussion about the word "innocent" is with Craig, not me. I don't have a problem with the idea that God can and does take innocent life BECAUSE THAT LIFE THAT HE CREATED HAS ALWAYS BELONGED TO HIM.
To answer your question, the word means different things in different contexts.
In a human courtroom, "innocent" may simply mean acquitted or even "not convicted." It may refer to people who are guilty of a crime, even when everyone knows this with a high degree of certainty, but a conviction cannot be reached because of some procedural technicality.
(I personally think that use is imprecise. The man is guilty but acquitted, just some men are innocent and wrongly convicted.)
Here, the word "crime" refers to breaches of merely human laws. The divine law prohibits covetousness and lust, but a just human law would never try to criminalize thoughts.
In the setting of the divine courtroom, I believe "innocent" means that a person has never knowingly and willfully violated any aspect of this higher, more demanding divine law -- or that the person has been imputed the righteousness of the one Person who was truly innocent, and who died for our sins.
Here's the question: if a person is "innocent" in this second, theological sense, does God have a moral obligation not to end that person's life, or to sustain that person's life eternally or until the person does choose deliberately to sin?
I don't think so: that life ultimately belongs to God, to sustain or end at His discretion.
Your very visceral reaction to my position depends, I think, on a pretty crude anthropomorphism.
It's also at odds with the bulk of Christian theology.
And -- most importantly for someone who claims to love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings -- it's contrary to the plain meaning of Scripture.
The fact that you have to do such violence to the text, suggesting (for instance) that passages are figurative when all the textual evidence points the other way, is a very good indication that your position on what God can and cannot do is frankly anti-biblical.
Briefly, Dan, you write, "I won't change what I believe to be God's will to comply with your thinking."
You've made this point before, repeatedly. Whatever accolades you think this stirring platitude deserves, you're probably not going to get them from me.
One should stand by his own convictions, certainly, but defending those convictions as your own is a piss-poor substitute for defending them on the merits.
Your position that the event can be treated figuratively is completely at odds with the Bible.
Last time and I think we'll have rounded this circle enough times:
If you think that, go for it. I believe your position of taking these types of stories (moreso the "I command you to kill them all, even the babies." stories than the Passover story) literally is much more at odds with the Bible than my belief. You think the opposite.
I think we all get it.
We disagree on this point. You have to pursue God's will the best you know how and so do I. May God's will be done.
We disagree, sure, but our arguments aren't equally strong.
It's not even close.
You've invoked Psalm 106, for instance, to reiterate how God condemns the shedding of innocent blood, but that psalm makes clear that the Bible's writers never saw a contradiction between that condemnation and the divine command to wage wars of annihilation.
"[Our ancestors] did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, but they mingled with the nations and learned to do as they did. They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they became unclean by their acts, and prostituted themselves in their doings. Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage; he gave them into the hand of the nations, so that those who hated them ruled over them." - Ps 106:34-41
The passage not only groups the two acts as if they weren't contradictory, it also implies a causal relationship: the Israelites shed innocent blood by sacrificing their children, because they mingled with pagans and worshiped pagan idols, which resulted from their not destroying those pagan nations "as the Lord commanded them."
My position is clearly stronger in terms of scriptural support, and I believe it's increasingly clear that it reflects a better understanding of what Scripture actually teaches: you frequently rip passages out of even their immediate context to try to prove your point.
So, yeah, we disagree.
But that doesn't and shouldn't obscure the obvious weakness in the arguments you've produced to support your position.
Dan,
If you are referring to innocent in a legal sense then I have no problem with your definition. I do however think it is logical and reasonable to think that God has a different standard in determining innocence and guilt. I am not willing, as you seem to be, to try to limit God's prerogative to judge. That is what I am trying get you to clarify. The Bible teaches that according to God's standard (perfection) that none of us are innocent. You have stated before that you believe that there is a period in human life where we are sinless. I have asked you for scriptural support for this position and have gotten bopkess.
Why do you want to rehash this. If you've got nothing beyond Dan's Reason and Logic to support your position.
BTW Nice dodge to keep from dealing with the fact that you have now indicated that there are those who deserve capitol punishment.
We disagree, sure, but our arguments aren't equally strong.
It's not even close.
Yes, yes, we all get it. You think my argument is incredibly weak.
I, in turn, think your argument is incredibly weak. If I thought it were strong, I'd agree with you. I don't.
We each think the others' arguments on these few topics are incredibly awfully pathetically weak.
We get it. (Or at least I get that. I'm not at all sure that you get that I consider your arguments weak, too.)
Craig said...
That is what I am trying get you to clarify. The Bible teaches that according to God's standard (perfection) that none of us are innocent.
Perhaps you had better clarify. WHERE does the Bible teach that none of us is innocent?
The bible teaches (and our own reason validates) that no one is perfect. That no one is righteous. That we all have a bent towards sin. I don't believe that the Bible teaches that no one is innocent.
In fact, the Bible tells us (as we all know by now) that it is wrong to kill the innocent. Clearly, SOME must be innocent if it is wrong to kill the innocent.
So, it seems important to clarify what we mean by innocent and what you mean by suggesting that the Bible teaches that no one is innocent.
As to your comment about "nice dodge," I don't know what you mean.
Dan, I'm skeptical that you really believe my arguments are weak, and I'm quite sure you don't have any good reasons for holding that belief -- in part because you've never provided a convincing rebuttal.
I do know that my arguments are inconvenient to your position.
And I know that, in order to continue to act as if we're on equal ground, you'll probably continue to parrot every complaint I have about you.
I believe your positions are obviously contrary to the clear teachings of the Bible, and so you say the same about mine.
I believe your arguments are obviously weak, so you say the same about mine.
But the truth is what it is, and in this case, I think the truth is obvious.
I have asked you for scriptural support for this position and have gotten bopkess.
Where does the Bible tell us that babies are NOT innocent? I don't believe the Bible tells us that babies are innocent or are NOT innocent, but by our own human reason, it is abundantly clear that newborns have done NOTHING, so they must be innocent, free of guilt. What would they be guilty of?
I've asked that question before and gotten bopkess.
When the Bible is silent on an question or issue, sometimes we have to use our own reasoning. The Bible does not tell us that babies are innocent or guilty, but common sense tells us that, by definition, babies are innocent.
The Bible also never tells us that sticking nuclear bombs up your pastor's bottom is or isn't a sin. Since the Bible is silent on the topic, do you assume that it must be okay to do so, or do you use your reason to note, "No, it's NOT okay to do that?"
In both cases (sticking bombs up your pastor's bottom and the question of the innocence of babies), I'd hope you could use your own reasoning and a dictionary to come to a conclusion, even though the Bible is silent.
Bubba said...
I'm skeptical that you really believe my arguments are weak, and I'm quite sure you don't have any good reasons for holding that belief
Think about what you're saying. Are you REALLY suggesting that I think your arguments are strong and yet I hold on to a weaker argument? WHY would anyone do that?
I, like you, want to know Truth and live in paths of righteousness. If someone made a strong argument and I agreed it was a strong argument, WHY would I hold to a weaker argument?
You're starting off with an odd premise, there.
Dan:
"Think about what you're saying. Are you REALLY suggesting that I think your arguments are strong and yet I hold on to a weaker argument? WHY would anyone do that?"
A lack of principles.
Surely you do not think it unprecedented in all of human history that an unprincipled man would ignore the good arguments that are staring him in his face, in order to protect a belief system he happens to like.
Your words are very poor evidence of a genuine good-faith pursuit of the truth and a willingness to accept what you find, whatever it happens to be.
Even the idiotic suggestion that no one would ever have a motive for denying the validity of strong but inconvenient arguments -- "WHY would anyone do that?" -- strikes me as evidence of an absence of good faith.
I don't think you're stupid enough to ask that question honestly.
If it's not principles that you lack, it might be the mental faculties to discern valid arguments from fallacious ones, or even the psychological faculties to avoid deep-seated delusion.
But I give the soundness of your mind the benefit of the doubt: I do so, in part, because your writing suggests unscrupulous intelligence far more than it indicates earnest idiocy.
As a result, I question your character and worry for your spiritual condition -- your maturity if not your salvation.
Well, as it happens, I am a principled man. I hold tightly to values such as justice, fidelity, truth, love and honor. I help the poor where I can, I work for causes of justice and charity, I strive to be a good citizen, father, husband, neighbor.
In short, I wish to follow God in my life.
You can ask anyone who knows me and I suspect they'd tell you the same thing.
That is not a tooting of my own horn, surely I am a flawed human being - my kids and wife will tell you that quickly. But they will also tell you I am a man of principles.
Not unlike most Christians I know - certainly the ones within my church and community. Not unlike many folk who aren't Christians, as well.
Why did I change my position on gay marriage? In order to marry a guy? So I could justify sleeping around or to destroy marriage? No, I did so only because I was seeking God's will in my life. Why would I take time to teach Sunday School to kids at my church or to chaperone students at my kids' school on a trip?
You are mistaking disagreeing with you on some bible passages and on how to read the Bible with a lack of principles. If mere disagreement is all it takes to demonstrate a lack of principles, then you and Craig and, well, everyone, must have a lack of principles, because we all disagree with someone sometimes.
No, this comes back to disagreeing and your not finding my arguments believable and so you appear to feel a need to make up some reason ("it must be a lack of principles - he's probably not who he says he is, he's probably a stooge for Obama being paid to disrupt conservative bloggers. Or maybe, he's a minion of satan sent to sow discord...") to explain why we disagree.
Sadly, in this fallen world, disagreement is a reality. You have nothing to suggest that I'm unprincipled other than our disagreements and, well, that's mere disagreement, not a lack of principles.
You disagree with the whole of anabaptism, it would seem, if you disagree with me on war-making and a good many on how we interpret atonement. Do you suspect that all the Amish and Mennonites out there are unprincipled and shifty?
Don't be silly.
"You are mistaking disagreeing with you on some bible passages and on how to read the Bible with a lack of principles. If mere disagreement is all it takes to demonstrate a lack of principles, then you and Craig and, well, everyone, must have a lack of principles, because we all disagree with someone sometimes."
This would be a strawman argument, Dan, and the sort of thing I would hardly expect from a man who is truly principled in his arguments. The conclusions I have with you, I do not reach with everyone who disagrees with me: it's not the mere fact of disagreement that's determinative, but the unconvincing (and often hypocritical) tactics you employ to defend your position and even the less-than-forthright manner in which you describe your position.
Just because you are principled in some things doesn't make you principled in all things: some who would never cheat on their wives fudge the facts on their tax returns.
And your claim about why you changed your mind, e.g., on "gay marriage" begs the question which remains central to our disagreement, and which remains unanswered.
Which specific passage of Scripture convinced you that God blesses "gay marriage"?
You have never answered this question with a specific passage, because no such passage exists.
You insist that Bible study is what changed your mind, but you cannot tell us what specific passage proved crucial.
The quality of the arguments you muster to defend your positions is proof either of your poor character or your muddled thinking. I simply suspect your character more than I do your intelligence.
Dan,
If as you state, we are all not perfect, not righteous, and sinful. Further if the lack of perfection, righteousness, and the presence of sin are what separate us from God, then by what measure are we not guilty of sin or rebellion or whatever you choose to call it.
You still, when asked for scriptural support for your position that some people are sinless, offer Dan's reason. I'll be plain, that is not an argument, it is not anything but a construct of your own mind. The fact that all you have is a feeble attempt to parse the "difference" between lack of perfection and innocent.
I have given you ample instances of both scripture and numerous theologians who disagree with your position that there are those of us who are sinless. Your response "my Reason tells me otherwise", once again not good enough.
You can use silence to support any position, and you do.
So, please, muster some scriptural support for your position or stop trying to cover this same territory.
You've made a significant change in your position regarding capitol punishment, yet when called on it you change the subject. Ergo, nice dodge.
fellas, God bless you. Good luck in your efforts to understand God and God's will.
This is getting us nowhere.
Peace.
Yes Dan, if your going to dodge stuff, this will ultimately be unproductive.
Post a Comment