Ads




Elizabeth Scalia

view all featured authors »

Weakness is Sown; Strength Rises Up

The drama of Egypt's revolution and the ongoing story of that nation's transition to—it is hoped—a fair and democratic society, has rightly sucked out the oxygen that might have sustained a few other stories worthy of note. One such story broke last Tuesday in Indonesia, where an estimated 1500 Muslims—angered by a "too lenient" court sentencing of a Christian convicted of proselytizing and blasphemy—descended upon a nearby Christian orphanage, a heath center, and three churches.

They began with a Catholic church and beat the parish priest, as he tried to protect the Tabernacle and the Eucharist from the mob. They then burned down a Pentecostal church and destroyed a Catholic orphanage and a Catholic health center. The mob threw rocks at the police and set a police car on fire.

Stories like this—where we find Muslims reacting to Christian evangelism with fire and rage— always remind me of the Office of the Dead, which includes the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, where we read, “What is sown in the earth is subject to decay, what rises is incorruptible. What is sown is ignoble, what rises is glorious. Weakness is sown, strength rises up” (1 Corinthians 15:42b-43).

Paul is discussing the resurrection on the last day, but that passage always resonates with me because it hints at a truth that can be applied to so much that occurs in our lives, or in the news: when weakness is sown, strength rises up against it.

On some level, what is weak knows that it is weak; it understands that foundationally, it cannot support the weight of its own ideas, much less endure an opposing wind. And because weakness knows this, it goes out of its way to deflect the opposition by sowing confusion, chaos, guilt, fear. These are the by-products of weakness and its attendant insecurity. 

When feminists must torture a liturgy to expunge all male pronouns from ancient prayers in order to protect their “strong” sensibilities from being struck too harshly with equally strong male references, they are exhibiting insecurity, and so they sow the weakness of enforced conformity through “patriarchal” guilt. When they declare that a woman cannot be “real” unless she embraces a pro-abortion position, or they bring lawsuits against others for merely daring to consider that the different chemistry within the sexes might foment genuinely different interests, they are exhibiting their insecurity and sowing weakness through social intimidation and fear.

In the end, their over-reaction to dissenting views reveals that the foundations upon which they have built their philosophies are too weak to bear a shifting wind, or a thought out-of-line. What rises up in response to guilt, to fear and intimidation is the strength of genuine resolve—the sort of resolve that initiated and drove the feminist movement itself, until it became entrenched, and then too-comfortable, and then over-reaching.

The exact same case can be made about most movements. Labor unions were formed to protect the working class from being exploited by greedy captains of industry; their strength lay in the justice of their cause. Once entrenched, the unions also became too comfortable, too over-reaching; now they sow economic weaknesses throughout the manufacturing and service industries, and government entities that can no longer afford the pensions and fringe benefits, which have themselves come to be seen no longer as “benefits” but as “rights.”

They exhibit weakness when they must bus paid workers to political campaigns in order to create a buzz. And the political campaigns that bus them in are themselves so insecure that they must fall back on naked political theater in order to win the news cycle of the day.

Pondering the inevitable evolution of a movement from rising-up strength to eventual and debilitating overreach and a weakness from which it shall not rise up again should caution grassroots organizations and professional politicians.

If and when the “Tea Party” begins to throw away members who do not absolutely conform to their ideals, or who politely disagree on a few issues, they should stop and consider that they are approaching that tipping-point of overreach, where insecurity begins to break through, and weakness is sown. Seeing this weakness, another movement with very different beliefs and goals will inevitably rise up against it.

When an entrenched politician becomes too brittle to bear criticism, or to graciously handle hearing the word “no,” either from the people or his advisors, and tries to control the world through intimidation and power, that politician is also about to tip into the weakness against which something stronger—another politician or a sudden movement of the people—will rise. Goodbye, Mrs. Pelosi. Goodbye, President Mubarak.

Churches and religions do not escape this. When a church, a faith, or a belief-system cannot tolerate respectful outreach and evangelism by other faiths—if it, for example, cannot allow other faiths to reside nearby—it exhibits an insecurity that is a sign of weakness and can only sow weakness. And in response to it, something strong will eventually rise.

Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.

Bookmark and Share

Comments:

2.15.2011 | 9:11am
The Moz says:
So well put. So simple so true. Everyone knows it but nobody dares say it. This is especially true of Islam. Now if only the main stream media could look itself in the mirror.
2.15.2011 | 10:59am
Lewis says:
Republicans in South Dakota have passed out of committee a bill that would expand the definition of justifiable homicide to include the killing of someone who intends to kill an unborn child.

Is this a sign of weakness or strength?

I guess Scott Roeder should have moved there where he could be considered a hero.
2.15.2011 | 11:03am
ErikZ says:
Dear Christians,

Please don't come to the Tea Party meetings and announce your intent to bring God back into the government. That's not what we're about.
2.15.2011 | 11:04am
Harry says:
If Islam were what it claims to be, the true religion of God, it would have no need to fear any challenge. The truth is that Islam fails on many levels as a religion. One, Islam does not produce good people. Two, Islam does not bring one closer to God. The Allah of Islam is aloof and cruel, and definitely is not the God of Judaism nor Christianity. Three, the Koran does not inspire, it is not inspired, rather it delivers a suffocating political system. Why anyone would want to be Islamic is beyond my comprehension. I would bet that many of the women enslaved by Islam would prefer to be free of it.
2.15.2011 | 11:32am
mariner says:
ErikZ,

Please don't come to Tea Party gatherings and announce your intention to keep God out of American life. That's not what we are about.
2.15.2011 | 11:47am
Artaban says:
@Lewis: "Republicans in South Dakota have passed out of committee a bill that would expand the definition of justifiable homicide to include the killing of someone who intends to kill an unborn child. Is this a sign of weakness or strength?"

If someone points a gun at my pregnant wife's belly, I'm going to do everything in my power to kill that person, irregardless of South Dakota's law. And I don't think any jury on earth will convict me of murder for doing so.

I rather think it is a sign of delusion among the pro-abortion crowd that the unborn are protected in the wombs of women who want them, but not in those who don't. South Dakota's law, while seemingly radical, merely strips abortion of its thin veneer of respectability.
2.15.2011 | 11:53am
Lewis says:
So you think Roeder committed justifiable homicide?

BTW, "irregardless" ain't a word.
2.15.2011 | 11:55am
M. Simon says:
I'm an anti-prohibitionist. I see such weakness in the prohibitionists arguments all the time.

It goes: "Some one will get hurt."

My rejoinder: "They are already getting hurt. It is easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer."

That last point is never addressed. How could it be? It would admit that there are better alternatives. Better just to avoid that question all together.

Or my point: "Marijuana is a safer alternative to alcohol and in pre-prohibition times was prescribed for that very purpose." More silence.
2.15.2011 | 12:01pm
Jenny says:
Is the conservatives' intolerance of liberals, included?
2.15.2011 | 12:04pm
M. Simon says:
Please don't come to Tea Party gatherings and announce your intention to keep God out of American life. That's not what we are about.

Please don't tell me you are going to force God into my life. I will work against you.

If your God is not strong enough to reach me and change my life, no amount of government guns is going to change that.

It is almost as if you lacked faith.

Keep your God in the closet. And I will do the same with mine. Because my God requires no government backing. I believe that is proof enough that mine is stronger. My God works in mysterious ways. Yours works through government force. I'm not exactly sure of this (not being a Christian) but I believe Jesus was against government force to make people moral.
2.15.2011 | 12:23pm
craig says:
I have a hard time with the idea that fear is the motivating factor in the Moslem persecution of Christians; it more likely has an inverse correlation to fear, seeing as how it increases as the percentage of Moslems among the population increases. I am also leery because this argument echoes the usual leftist invective against Catholic faith and morals: you only oppose [homosexual acts, women's ordination, new age pantheism, historical-critical revisionism] because you're afraid of [being homo yourself, women being empowered, an inclusive idea of God, confronting a comfortable myth]. I'm afraid you're trying to find order where there is none.

In the end, the Christians of North Africa, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Syria, and the Holy Land -- many of them the same places evangelized by St. Paul himself and home to great saints -- were all either wiped out or reduced to oppressed minority status. Their conquerors mostly died comfortably in their beds. Human justice is a mirage. Hope is a Christian virtue, of course, but it has to be eschatological; there's no reason to ever expect to see rewards in one's lifetime. Maybe that's gloomy, but that's the view from where I sit right now.
2.15.2011 | 12:30pm
Artaban says:
"So you think Roeder committed justifiable homicide?"

Not at all. I think it's pretty clear Roeder is a nutjob who has/had no authentic regard for human life. If the best abortionists can do is trot forward one case like this (from 2009?) to try and slander millions of pro-life people, it shows the desperation of such efforts.

That you infer Roeder would be widely regarded by Republicans as a "hero" is ludicrous, slanderous, and sad.

"BTW, "irregardless" ain't a word."

Debatable, as dictionary.com has an entry for it, and acknowledges use in the media since the 1870s.
2.15.2011 | 12:31pm
Dennis says:
@Lewis

Roeder did not commit justifiable homicide because there was not an immediate threat to the unborn (the shooting happened in a church). As for the proposed law, I assume it is more specific than the summary you gave, so that even if an abortionist was killed as he was performing an abortion, it would not be considered justifiable homicide.

BTW, 'ain't' is described as being non-standard English.


@M Simon

It is easier for kids to not drink than get an illegal drug, and not doing marijuana is safer than doing marijuana. The fact that people cannot control their desires and cravings is a sign of their own weakness, and allowing things they should not have because of immaturity, etc only reinforces their weakness. Yes, they may already be getting hurt, but that is because of the choices they are making.
2.15.2011 | 12:42pm
Dennis says:
@M Simon

You are making unfounded accusations. We are not trying to force God into people's lives, but we are fighting for the right to express our faith and beliefs. God does not need government backing, but we are not doing our duty if we simply allow the government to keep up from speaking about Him and spreading the Gospel as He asks us to. You are not a Christian, though, so I do not expect you to understand all of what that exactly entails.

Also, if your god is one that wants to be kept in the closet, he sure seems much more scared (probably out of his and your weakness) than mine.
2.15.2011 | 12:45pm
Linked you up: http://www.goldfishandclowns.com/2011/02/15/on-overreaching-from-an-delusion-of-strength/
2.15.2011 | 12:47pm
Don Roberto says:
As the great JPII said, "truth cannot contradict Truth." That's the beauty of Catholic teaching: Reason and faith bolster each other. (One of my favorite examples is that of St. Augustine arriving at a notion akin to the "big bang" in the 5th century.) Slowly but surely, with the spread of information and education, irrational teachings, e.g., to the effect that "a man's testimony is worth that of two women" or that a man may "have his way" with his unwilling wife (the examples are myriad), will struggle to find adherents, despite the ruthless methods used by leaders with selfish motives (conscious and unconscious) for propagating them.
2.15.2011 | 12:47pm
craig says:
The Tea Party will succeed to the extent that it devolves power to the states and localities, where different regions may act according to their own voters' conscience, well-formed or badly-formed as they may be. (Repeal the 17th Amendment!)

Both the social conservatives and the anti-social conservatives are less concerned about other people's beliefs than about being forced to bow to other people's beliefs. Keeping the Federal government out of our knickers ought to be enough of a common goal.

M. Simon, there is a place for respectful disagreement regarding religion in public life; EricZ and Mariner are squarely within it but you are not. Your post is of the "shut up, he explained" variety. It is a sinister social doctrine indeed that says one should check one's conscience at the door before entering the voting booth. No-one, except in leftist paranoid fantasy (theocracy, like fascism, is always allegedly descending from the right but always manages to arrive from the left), seeks to use government guns to make you show obeisance to God. But the idea that secularly-derived policies are "objective" while religiously-derived beliefs are "subjective" is just a restatement of the old communist axiom "what's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable".
2.15.2011 | 12:58pm
DensityDuck says:
Dennis: "The fact that people cannot control their desires and cravings is a sign of their own weakness, and allowing things they should not have because of immaturity, etc only reinforces their weakness."

...so, what, your point is that the government should use the force of law and threat of imprisonment or death to prevent people from doing immoral things?

Things like professing a belief in God, maybe, or thinking that parents can best educate their own children, or the notion that responsible citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms. Crazy, immoral, socially-irresponsible stuff like that.
2.15.2011 | 1:08pm
Lewis says:
"As for the proposed law, I assume it is more specific than the summary you gave, so that even if an abortionist was killed as he was performing an abortion, it would not be considered justifiable homicide."

House Bill 1171: 22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

"the shooting happened in a church"

So Roeder just picked the wrong place to kill Tiller.

"If the best abortionists can do is trot forward one case like this (from 2009?)"

Eight doctors have been killed by folks like Roeder, add some woundings, fires, etc.

"dictionary.com has an entry for it"

That don't mean nothing. Still ain't a word.
2.15.2011 | 1:37pm
Dennis says:
DensityDuck: Is that not exactly what the government does when they throw people in jail for rape, murder, etc? It is, using your words, using 'the force of law and threat of imprisonment or death to prevent people from doing immoral things.' Should there not be a law against murder, rape, etc? Also, you are making wrongful assumptions if you think that I believe bearing arms, professing belief in God, etc are immoral. Please do not put words into my mouth.

Lewis: The bill says 'to apprehend a design to commit a felony.' Since an abortionist is not committing a felony at a clinic (or in Tiller's case, the church), the bill would not apply. Hence, Roeder did not commit justifiable homicide in view of that law.

Also, what is the purpose of your response, 'So Roeder just picked the wrong place to kill Tiller'? Your phrasing it as a statement instead of a question seems to try to paint my comment as saying that if the killing happened at a clinic, it would be ok. Like DensityDuck, you are putting words into my mouth.

BTW, since you say 'That don't mean nothing,' you think it means something, right?

Dennis
2.15.2011 | 1:42pm
Elizabeth, you really bewilder me. The point of this article is something that I am in general agreement with but the illustrations you use to make it are largely hooey.

First, there is no real basis for comparing ANY of the examples which follow to destruction of Christian shrines by a Muslim mob. None whatever. No example which follows displays the violence of unrestrained law breaking, felonious assault, and destruction of property as you have described in Indonesia, and it is unworthy of you to imply it.

It really gripes my cookies that so many of us either do not understand or will not acknowledge both how free we are and how safe we are in the USA--particularly how free and safe we are to speak and worship. For the most part, all any of us has to fear is a lone gunman who doesn't like us, the work we do, or the politics and religion we espouse, and kills us because of it. And this is the case whether we are an abortion doctor, an elected representative, or a federal judge. Every other example you give is one of peaceful and law-abiding activity.

And that is a "right", no matter how much we may dislike the extremism or the tactics.

"Once entrenched, the unions also became too comfortable, too over-reaching; now they sow economic weaknesses throughout the manufacturing and service industries, and government entities that can no longer afford the pensions and fringe benefits, which have themselves come to be seen no longer as “benefits” but as “rights.”"

First, organized labor has almost completely evaporated like the snow in spring. In 1945 1 in 3 workers were unionized. Today it is barely 1 in 12. Even the hard core of the Tea Party is at least twice as many people as that, maybe more. Organized labor as a political force is dead. This is a battle that Conservatives won. Won completely. Yet they still raise the specter of zombies and vampires from it.

Second, I wonder what you think a union was for in the first place. They came into being only to force management to provide such things as a living wage, decent pensions, health benefits and so on. That is how they "protect the working class from being exploited by greedy captains of industry". They were not in any way like the American Legion or the Order of DeMolay.

And lest you think that the days of exploitation are over, 20 years ago average CEO compensation [salary, benefits, and stock] was $2 million. Today it is over $12 million. I defy you to show me any unionized worker whose salary and benefits over that same 20 year period increased by 6x. Now, of course, Conservatives argue that the CEO's compensation is a "right" no matter how high it rises, and the people doing the actual work have no such "right". In other words, Conservatives argue for the return of "exploited labor by greedy captains of industry". They have largely achieved it.

As far as "feminists" go, they have every right to express such opinions, just as you have every right to tell them that they are wrong. And as far as "social intimidation" goes anybody who is intimidated by it intimidates far easier than I do, and far easier that nearly all of the generation of both our parents. I would suggest to them counseling to improve their self-esteem.

Further, in the last election, nobody voted either for or against Nancy Pelosi. There was nowhere that she was on the ballot, and, at least in my district [which changed hands into a Republican seat], Pelosi has no presence in the campaign whatever. I doubt very seriously that she even had any significant name recognition in my district. I strongly suspect this was so everywhere outside the "chattering classes" and political blogging.

Nancy Pelosi lost the Speakership because her party lost the majority. Not the other way around. And she retained her Minority Leadership because her party has confidence in how she leads, despite the fact that they lost the election. The members of the opposite party would have no confidence in her leadership even if an endorsement of it came from the Pearly Gates above.

And, again, anybody intimidated by Nancy Pelosi intimidates awful easy. We Democrats are the party of people like Dennis Kusinich and Howard Dean and we really don't intimidate that easy, even by a real master of intimidation like the last vice-President. You have a funny picture of Pelosi with a huge gavel back on your blog. If she threatened to bean them with it, that might intimidate someone in the House, on either side of the majority, but that that would be it.

But, as I said, I heartily agree that demands for ideological purity are a sign of weakness. But they are so only because they make it impossible to persuade anyone but your fellow ideologues, and you just don't win elections that way in this country.
2.15.2011 | 2:35pm
Sean says:
"Keep your God in the closet. And I will do the same with mine."

That's stupid. Just because you like keeping your religion strictly personal doesn't mean other people should have to.

Feel free to keep your god in his closet, he sounds happy there and doesn't come off as a god with the social skills to survive outside it. While you're doing that, we'll keep up with our christian god who's comfortable at home and out in public.
2.15.2011 | 2:49pm
Michael says:
That was wonderful, Joseph. Thanks.
2.15.2011 | 3:40pm
I suppose I should address the "justifiable homicide" proposal, too. Whatever its legal details, the concept of it justifying the murder of an abortion doctor simply solicits the formation of lynch mobs and the return of cross burnings on the lawns of people you don't like. I am old enough [barely] to remember when America still had real lynch mobs and lots of cross burnings. I suspect most of the other commentors here are not quite that old and cannot really picture what an America that had them was like.

What was it like? Well, it was rather like a mob of Indonesian Muslims beating up a priest and destroying churches and orphanages. Except, of course, that the members of the Ku Klux Klan and most of the lynch mobs professed to being "Christians" and not Muslims. Mostly everybody professed to being Christian back then and it was only certain people's churches [or synagogues] that would get vandalized or bombed. And if we had had mosques in America back then, they probably would have been bombed, too.

People who did these things seldom went to jail for doing them. Really.

Take it from me, even if you are against abortion, you don't want that America back.
2.15.2011 | 4:26pm
Ron says:
Another take on Joseph Marshall's comment. Maybe Muslims don't physically attack Christians (or anyone else) because they think (or fear secretly or fearfully) that Islam, or Allah is weak. Maybe they do so because in their hearts they believe that Islam is strong and true, but that it is not being followed faithfully by those who hold political power and that such lack of faithfulness is in some ways at the root of their own lack of any sense of personal effectiveness. Which is to suggest that Ms. Scalia conflates political outcomes with the rhythms of divine judgment. So too with her comments on the decline of the labor movement, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Mubarak (talk about conflation). They played their cards badly and they are paying for their mistakes. Fear, delusion, arrogance, insensitivity, maladroitness and, tragically, moral error belong to Caesar. Let him have them.
2.15.2011 | 4:36pm
Then there's this: "In the Vehari district of Pakistan’s Punjab province, a 14-year-old girl was killed on Wednesday night allegedly by family members for refusing to marry a man they had chosen for her, according to a Pakistani daily."

Why drag in the "Tea Party?" Perhaps the Tea Party makes you insecure about something in your life?

You understand, I hope, that the Tea Party is not a party like those of the Republicans and the Democrats?
2.15.2011 | 4:45pm
Greta says:
The state of Pennsylvannia has arrested the doctor and some of his staff on the charge of murder. His crime is killing babies who survived his abortion attempt and lived by slicing their neck. He is charged with a handful, but there seems to be proof that he has done this act as many as a hundred times while making a salary in the millions. If the state were to find him guilty, and sentence him to die (not sure if they have death penalty) would this be different in end result from what Roeder was convicted of doing other than the obvious that it was not a vigilante act? So is Roeder who killed a doctor who was doing much the same as this Philly doctor?

If I take a gun and shoot someone who is in the act of killing someone else, am I wrong. If someone in Tucson had a gun and shot the terrorist who shot the representative and a number of others before he could continue with his spree, would he have been guilty of what Roeder did since he acted to save lives? He did not call the police and wait for justice. Of course Roeder could not call the police because it is easy to see that this Philly doctor went on for years without anyone even batting an eye. So did the doctor that was shot by Roeder. At what point does a citizen who stops killing become a horrible person versus a hero? It was once the law of the land in Germany to allow the death camps and we look upon those who resisted up to and including giving their own lives to stop it by killing Hitler as hero's.

I often think we need to think through laws that become legal at some point in time as happened in Germany and with Roe. It was against the law to do an abortion and they were looked on as scum. Suddenly, a court by a slim margin finds something not even written into our laws called privacy and then takes a leap to make it legal. Will one day someone ask us how we allowed over 50 million babies to be murdered? Some above do not want God into our government or laws. If you seperate all morality from laws, what is left? Is it not interesting that the attack on God being in our lives, schools, and government at the hands of atheist started in the late 50-60's and by 1973 we found a way to kill babies legally and since that time have legally killed 53 million of them? to those who think we do not need God in a country founded as one nation under God from whom we were given all our rights, I think that they are the onces who need to go back into the closet and allow religion to again play a role in our daily lives. The founders wanted to keep the government seperated from telling us we all needed to join the Church of America. The same courts that gave us abortion also found a way to rule that what they really meant was that our government was supposed to be aethist of America.
2.16.2011 | 5:03am
Dennis says:
@Joseph

Your comment about lynch mobs brings up an interesting point I did not see addressed in the comments (I apologize if it has been). Regarding 'justifiable homicide', it seems an assumption is that if a pro-life person or group comes across an abortionist practicing his 'trade', they will simply choose to kill the abortionist because it is 'justifiable'. But if someone were robbing my house, my preferred method of dealing with it would be to subdue the burglar and call the cops. I would kill the burglar ONLY if there were no other options and my family was in immediate danger. The same would apply to the pro-life advocates coming across the abortionist. I am not saying it is inconceivable that lynch mobs could form (there are a lot of disturbed people out there on both sides of the argument), but I also think it would be unfair to assume (if that is your assumption) that joining a lynch mob would be the automatic choice of someone who is pro-life.

Dennis
2.16.2011 | 7:29am
Artaban says:
Lewis, do you ever tire of being wrong? Your comment "'the shooting happened in a church' So Roeder just picked the wrong place to kill Tiller..." amply displays you have no qualms about putting (false) words in other people's mouths. Roeder was wrong to do what he did. Period. That clear enough for you?

As to your other point that "Eight doctors have been killed by folks like Roeder, add some woundings, fires, etc. " perhaps you ought to put things in perspective. If there are millions of pro-life people, and your source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Murders ) says there have been 8 doctors murdered from 1993 to 2009, does that not show the movement is incredibly pro-life?

Heck, drug side-effects kill vastly more in one year, as do many other controversial things (cars, alcohol, etc.). You're going to blame millions for 8 murders over a 17 year period?! Maybe Roeder's not the only one who has taken leave of reason...
2.16.2011 | 9:20am
"it seems an assumption is that if a pro-life person or group comes across an abortionist practicing his 'trade', they will simply choose to kill the abortionist because it is 'justifiable'."

Well, Dennis, I don't want to offend anybody, but it is a fact that the political violence over the issue has largely been one-way since Roe v. Wade. The members of any clinic or any Planned Parenthood in this country are always in some greater degree of danger than the rest of us of being stalked and then shot, or of having their offices bombed. How much danger varies in any given case, but no community is immune to it happening.

I'm open to correction, but it doesn't seem to me that being a member of the right-to-life movement is nearly so dangerous. Has anybody been publishing the addresses of local right-to-life offices or the locations and pictures of the people involved and the homes they reside in on the Internet? I believe people have been doing so in the case of doctors and clinic members.

It strikes me that this sort of thing is an open invitation to stalking and murder at worst and menacing threats, frivolous harassment, and invasion of privacy at best. The notion that the law might be changed to make such murder into justifiable homicide makes the invitation a lot more attractive. The reason that lynch mobs and cross burnings persisted for so long is that local juries simply would not convict the perpetrators under any circumstances. They were finally stopped by the Federal Government bringing Federal charges against the mobs and the Klan members.

I can assure you that Americans were not a worse people then than they are now and the potential for mob violence or conspiracy to commit such "justifiable homicides" is just as great now as it was them. All we have to do is resume giving out Get Out of Jail Free cards for it like we did back then.

It is also noteworthy, I think, that when the Health Care Bill was passed many of the Representatives who voted for it, and Nancy Pelosi particularly, endured quite a number of death threats because of it. If the current Speaker of the House or members of its majority party have had to endure this because they have moved to repeal the bill, I've not heard of it. Has anyone else here?

I am perfectly agreeable to calling people who make death threats and act on them "overwrought nut cases" who are the exception and not the rule among the right-to-life movement or the anti-Health Care bill movement.

But I do find it odd that so many overwrought nut cases seem to have the same general political views.
2.16.2011 | 12:42pm
Dennis says:
Joseph:

There have been many cases of death threats against pro-life people (for example, Jill Stanek and Fr. Frank Pavone). There was also an instance where a man brandished a gun in front of women praying in front of a clinic, threatening to kill them if they tried to talk to his girlfriend (he was later arrested), as well as similar incidents. In addition, Rep. Eric Cantor’s Richmond campaign office was shot and Rep. Jean Schmidt received a harassing phone call wishing her dead after voting against the health care bill. So while we are in agreement about 'overwrought nut cases' on both sides, I disagree with your statement that they seem to have the same general political views.

I also agree with you that Americans were not a worse people in the past, and that a mob mentality can be fallen into, so there is a danger (as I said before), but that does not mean it would be the case as you present it. Since this is just a hypothetical situation (the bill has not passed yet), I would like to mention that if abortion is made illegal, it is as likely that pro-abortion advocates would form lynch mobs. It could be argued that they are even more likely for these acts because they already have a mindset where they feel someone's personhood can be based on arbitrary criteria (being outside the womb). This mindset is already apparent in abortionists who have allowed a live birth to happen, only to snip the spinal cord or break the neck. So you may feel that this bill would make it more likely for a pro-life mob to happen, but I believe a pro-abortion mindset would also make a pro-abortion mob to occur.

Also, I would like to thank you for the tone and calm manner of your arguments. I much rather prefer such a conversation than one that is filled with insults (though I have been guilty of this as well). Sadly, though, I am not going to have internet for several days, so I will probably not comment anymore on this thread. Please take care and God bless!
2.23.2011 | 7:48am
J D says:
Thank you, Elizabeth, for another thoughtful commentary. Similarly, having no answer for the overwhelming evidence validating Jesus' ministry and the convicting truth of His oral testimony, was it not a considerable and profound 'weakness' on the part of the Scribes and Pharisees that produced their own violent reaction?
Elizabeth: I always appreciate your insights, your common-sense thinking, your application of truth to real life, and (last, but not least) your commitment to a biblical perspective. Over the years, I've shared several of your pieces in the adult education (Sunday school) class I help lead at our church - a Baptist church, BTW.
Incidentally, on two occasions during the past few years my wife and I have visited friends and churches in Northern Nigeria (all of which is under Sharia) and have witnessed the 'weakness' of Islam as it seeks to control - by means of discrimination, harassment, and outright violence - that very small contingent of Christians living quietly under its domain.
(As one of our dear friends, a longtime evangelist and himself a convert from Islam, once said: "Islam is [merely] a copycat religion" - which I took as an obvious reference to the visible form and practice of Islam, borrowing extensively from Judaism and Christianity, what with their emphasis on public prayer and fasting, head covering for women, a pilgrimage, the use of prayer mats and prayer beads, etc., etc.)
2.24.2011 | 3:58pm
DensityDuck says:
Dennis: "Also, you are making wrongful assumptions if you think that I believe bearing arms, professing belief in God, etc are immoral."

*you* don't believe these things are immoral. Many other people *do*.
3.28.2011 | 1:17am
Nesseth Cell says:
Roeder did not commit justifiable homicide because there was not an immediate threat to the unborn (the shooting happened in a church). As for the proposed law, I assume it is more specific than the summary you gave, so that even if an abortionist was killed as he was performing an abortion, it would not be considered justifiable homicide. I am perfectly agreeable to calling people who make death threats and act on them "overwrought nut cases" who are the exception and not the rule among the right-to-life movement or the anti-Health Care bill movement.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact