Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Slain officer in Colorado Springs was a pro-life pastor

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Amid media speculation about the possible motivation of the Colorado Springs shooter who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic last Friday, one thing seems to have been overlooked: the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, was actually a pro-life pastor (h/t Terry Mattingly).

Time magazine reports that the officer was “heavily involved in his church, a non-denominational evangelical place of worship called Hope Chapel where he was a co-pastor.” Hope Chapel’s doctrinal statements can be viewed online here. The Chapel’s statement on marriage is doctrinally conservative, firmly opposed to gay marriage, and its affirmation that “children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord” is staunchly pro-life (emphases mine – VJT):

It is the belief of Hope Chapel that God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

We believe marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in a covenant commitment for a lifetime. Marriage is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church. Marriage also provides the man and the woman the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race. 1

We believe the husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image.2 The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.3 Being made in the image of God, as is her husband, and thus being equal to him, she has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband, and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.4

We believe children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.5 Parents are to demonstrate to their children God’s pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values, and to lead them to make choices based on biblical truth, through loving discipline and the consistent example of their own lifestyle.6 Children are to honor and obey their parents.7

We express our enthusiastic support for those public policies and programs which aim to strengthen the marriage commitment and to reverse the trend of the disintegration of the nuclear family.

As Christian ministers, we are bound to uphold the integrity of Scripture. We will only perform weddings for believing couples.8 We do not view marriage as a civil union, but as a covenant between a man and a woman, and almighty God.9 Therefore, we reserve the right to refuse to marry any who, according to the Bible, are ineligible. This includes those who are unrepentant with regard to pre-marital sex, those who are co-habiting together,10 and anyone who has not made a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Gen 2:24; Eph 5:32; Gen 1:22; 8:17; 35:11; Prov 5:18; Mal 2:15
2 Gal 3:28, 1Pet 3:7; Gen 1:26-27
3 Eph 5:22-25; 1Cor 11:3
4 Gen 2:18; Eph 6:4; Prov 31:10-31
5 Psa 127:3; Psa 139:13-16
6 1Cor 11:1; 1Pet 2:21; Prov 13:24;
7 Exo 20:12; Eph 6:1; Col 3:20
8 2Cor 6:14
9 Jer 31:31-32; Mal 2:14
10 2Cor 12:21; Eph 5:3

In plain English: The Rev. Garrett Swasey believed that abortion is homicide.

Hope Chapel’s doctrinal statement also forcefully declares: “The Scriptures are fully and verbally inspired by God as the prophets were moved by His Spirit.” No room for ambiguity there.

In his report on the Colorado Springs shooting, Terry Mattingly includes a telling quote from the late Cardinal John O’Connor of New York City :

“If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me,” said the late Cardinal John O’Connor, preaching to his New York City flock in 1994. “It’s madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It’s madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing.”

Mattingly adds that the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, “made this statement to the gunman as he tried to protect people whose lives were at risk: ‘Shoot me.'” A recording of Rev. Swasey’s final sermon can be heard here.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones magazine, in an indignant article titled, “The New, Ugly Surge in Violence and Threats Against Abortion Providers,” suggests that the shootings at Colorado Springs may be connected with “an exponential increase in threats and violence against abortion providers since the release of a series of viral—and widely debunked—videos.” However, the cases of violence which the article cites go back almost 20 years, to the 1990s. (There have been cases of vandalism since then, but property offenses fall into a different moral category from crimes against persons.)

I might add that the Planned Parenthood videos, far from having been debunked, are in fact truthful and accurate (see here, here, here and here). Planned Parenthood has broken the law on at least four counts: illegal profiting from the sale of fetal tissue; performing illegal partial-birth abortions; illegally manipulating abortion procedures; and illegally performing abortions with the knowledge that the fetal body parts will be “donated” to research. As if that were not bad enough, these 39 Yelp reviews of the “services” provided by Planned Parenthood make horrific reading. As one reviewer put it: “If You Can Possibly Avoid Coming Here, Do It.” Reviewers describe Planned Parenthood clinics as “filthy,” “dirty” and manned by staff who displayed “complete indifference and a lack of compassion” and who were “not qualified for a consultation.” Summing it up, one reviewer wrote: “Worst service ever.”

Whatever the reasons may be for the appalling “services” provided by Planned Parenthood, money isn’t one of them: the organization boasted assets of more than $800 million in 2005-2006. Citing a 2007 report in the Weekly Standard, Slate Senior Editor Rachael Larimore writes that Planned Parenthood “gets at least a third of its clinic income — and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included — from its abortion procedures.” The oft-repeated the claim that abortions make up only 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides is therefore a shoddy statistic: Larimore describes it as “the most meaningless abortion statistic ever.” (Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson writes that 12 per cent would be a more accurate figure.) In addition, Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding – a figure which belies its frequent assertions that American taxpayers’ dollars do not to pay for abortions.

Ironically, Planned Parenthood, which performs just under one-third of all abortions in the United States, was founded by a women’s rights activist named Margaret Sanger, who opposed abortion and viewed it as an evil practice. In 1932, Sanger wrote: “Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”

Meanwhile, the media reports that the shooting suspect allegedly made a comment to police about “no more baby parts.” However, it turns out that the suspect, who appears to have been an independent art dealer with a degree in public administration, had no political affiliations: he was registered as an unaffiliated voter in Colorado (where he owns a trailer on a piece of land in a town located 100 kilometers west of Colorado Springs), and people who knew him say that religion or abortion never came up in conversation. The man also had no on-line presence that anyone has yet found. Fr. Bill Carmody, a Catholic priest who has celebrated Mass regularly for 20 years in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs where the shootings took place says that the suspect was not part of his group, adding:“I don’t know him from Adam. I don’t recognize him at all.” Readers can learn more about the suspect’s history here.

Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Dr. Ben Carson have forcefully condemned Friday’s shootings in Colorado Springs, which former Arkansas Governor Huckabee described as “domestic terrorism.”

In the wake of the shootings, President Obama has called for tighter gun control laws. Given the shooting suspect’s history of alleged domestic violence and his previous arrest records (including two counts of cruelty to animals), I have to say that I agree with the President.

What do readers think?

Comments
Lar Tanner, I have a simple question. Suppose that in 25 years' time, the government passed a bill allowing parents to kill their newborn babies during the first week or month after birth, if they decided that they didn't want them after all. Would you stop calling that homicide just because it was legal? I don't think you would. Abortion, like the slave trade of old, is a monstrous injustice. It needs to be denounced from the housetops. I might add that the pro-life movement has shown itself to be highly disciplined in its conduct. Finally, abortion may be a legal medical procedure, but as I argued above, Planned Parenthood is in clear breach of the law, on four counts.vjtorley
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Bob O'H, Thank you for your comment. I agree that governments need to do a lot more for people with mental health problems. That means: a lot more funding for medical services designed to cater to the needs of mentally ill people. However, as long as they are allowed to live and wander around unmedicated, unsupervised and unmonitored, I don't think their situation is likely to improve. The biggest problem is to make sure that people with mental health problems are getting regular treatment. That means they will have to either be supervised or tracked via electronic monitoring, on a continual basis. To some people, that might sound like 1984, but I would argue that governments have the right to monitor mentally ill people who, through no fault of their own, pose a danger to themselves and/or others, and to make sure that they take medication which reduces that danger, whether they want to or not. Paternalism isn't always a bad thing.vjtorley
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
This case is deeply saddening, for the loss of all the lives and not only that of the officer. Whatever his personal beliefs, Officer Swasey's job was to protect and serve the public. After all, one signs up to be a police officer, or a soldier, or a Planned Parenthood employee knowing full well the heightened potential for encountering lethal violence. Had this officer chosen out of ideology not to put himself in front of the shooter -- well, that would have been frightening in and of itself. In any case, Officer Swasey discharged his duty admirably and honorably, and so it is unsurprising that he is reported to have been a wonderful husband, father, and human being. If there's any good that can come out of this senseless event, I hope that people realize it's time to stop equating legal abortions with homicide, murder, or similarly damning terms. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. The legality can be challenged and protested, and the definition of abortion contested, but court is the responsible forum for dealing with the matter. Incendiary rhetoric against abortion and Planned Parenthood is uncalled for and irresponsible. The rhetoric likely contributes to some people's twisted decisions to attack facilities that are legally allowed to provide services to people who voluntarily seek to learn about and use such services. Words matter and ideas have consequences.LarTanner
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Yes. About 5.3 million U.S. adults have severe bipolar disorder (2.2% of the population), and of these, 40% are untreated. About 2.6 million U.S. adults have schizophrenia (1.1% of the population), and of these, 51% are untreated.
Irrespective of gun control, aren't these frightening statistics? Wouldn't it be better to look to improve mental health care? People with mental illness are more likely to slip through the health care safety net, which means they are more likely to be a danger to both themselves and others.Bob O'H
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Hi Virgil Cain and kairosfocus, You are both quite right to point out that the number of gun deaths in the United States is orders of magnitude lower than the number of abortions. That's a valid moral point. However, the sad truth is that gun deaths are disruptive of social harmony (without which there cannot be any society at all) in a very unique way. Even a single high-profile shooting can make millions of people feel unsafe. The number of firearm-related homicides in the U.S. each year is about 10,000 (compared with over 1 million abortions), but let's face it: if the number of firearm-related homicides suddenly doubled to 20,000 per year, people would panic. Abortion is a great evil, but it doesn't cause that kind of social panic. On the topic of homicides, about 50% are caused by people aged 15 to 24. I'd say that's a good argument for limiting access to firearms to people aged 25 and over.vjtorley
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
vjtorley,
Finally, regarding the “gun culture” in the United States, I can’t claim to fully understand it, but I do know that it will probably take centuries to change it, if that ever happens.
As someone who is immersed in gun culture, I think your statement is very accurate.daveS
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Hi markf, Thank you for your post. You raise several interesting points:
US federal and many state laws already place several constraints on the mentally ill owning guns. It doesn’t seem to work. Anyone got any ideas on how to make it effective?
Yes. About 5.3 million U.S. adults have severe bipolar disorder (2.2% of the population), and of these, 40% are untreated. About 2.6 million U.S. adults have schizophrenia (1.1% of the population), and of these, 51% are untreated. How about mandatory testing for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, for anyone wishing to obtain a gun license, as well as mandatory testing for family members living with them, in order to determine whether a person who is awarded a gun license should also be legally required to keep his/her gun locked up at all times? (I realize that in the event of a burglary, this requirement would reduce the gun owner's ability to respond quickly and defend him/herself, but the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands if it is not locked away is far higher. The number of deaths resulting from gun owners not being able to unlock their guns in time to stop a burglar is likely to be far lower than the number of deaths caused by mentally unstable people or children accidentally getting hold of a gun and misusing it.) Also, how about very stiff jail sentences for people who are certified as mentally competent and who are licensed to own a gun, but who, as a result of negligence, fail to keep their guns out of the hands of mentally ill (or very young) family members living with them?
Even it could be made effective, there are about 10 million people who are seriously mentally ill in the US of which at most a few hundred will be homicidal at some stage... Why should 10 million people be deprived of their constitutional right to own a gun because a tiny majority [I presume you mean minority, markf] are homicidal?
Even if the percentage of mentally unstable people who are homicidal is very low, it's still far higher than the percentage of mentally stable people who are homicidal. In other words, mentally unstable people are a very high risk group. On top of that, a mentally unstable person is unlikely to possess the discretion required to know when to fire a gun and when not to, in a real crisis - i.e. what kind of behavior counts as life-endangering. Consequently, on both utilitarian and legal grounds, allowing mentally unstable people to own guns is a very bad idea.
The vast majority of homicides are done by people with no history of mental illness.
Actually, about 10% of homicides committed each year in the U.S. are committed by adults with severe mental illness, despite the fact that they make up only 3.3% of the population. 10% is quite a significant proportion. Any measure that would reduce the homicide by 10% is well worth undertaking. Finally, regarding the "gun culture" in the United States, I can't claim to fully understand it, but I do know that it will probably take centuries to change it, if that ever happens.vjtorley
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
VJT, I fear we are moving to a deeply unsettled and chaotically violent time globally. As Paris is witness to. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
VC, Here at UD, recent evidence has shocked me out of not taking up abortion as a top level moral issue as too controversial and polarised. It seems that the number I saw years back that pointed to many hundreds of millions of global victims over the past generation is backed by PP's Guttmacher Institute, that IIRC points to some 50 mn abortions per year. The US number is about 1 mn. Firearms deaths in the US numbers point to homicide 10k+, suicide 20k+, accident LT 1k c 2013. Those are two orders of magnitude down. Number of drownings (accidental) seems about 4k, auto deaths is 30k+. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
I have studiously avoided UD for the last few months and been glad of doing so
And we have been very glad that you have done so. Death by abortion outnumbers death by guns over 10 to 1. I will start caring about gun deaths when they start approaching the abortion death numbers.Virgil Cain
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
I have studiously avoided UD for the last few months and been glad of doing so - but I have been doing some research into gun control recently and really want to get out this point whereever I can. "I think it would be possible to frame a law that would enumerate some fairly clear-cut criteria (based on an individual’s history of aggressive behavior, or run-ins with the law, or diagnosed mental illness) for determining who is mentally stable enough to own a gun and who isn’t." I am afraid it is not practical. * US federal and many state laws already place several constraints on the mentally ill owning guns. It doesn't seem to work. Anyone got any ideas on how to make it effective? * Even it could be made effective, there are about 10 million people who are seriously mentally ill in the US of which at most a few hundred will be homicidal at some stage. Although it is possible to rate some as higher risk than others it is a sliding scale and most uncertain. In practice if you want to stop the mentally ill using the guns for violence then you would have to stop all 10 million getting access. Why should 10 million people be deprived of their constitutional right to own a gun because a tiny majority are homicidal? * The vast majority of homicides are done by people with no history of mental illness. If the US people really want to lower the gun homicide (and suicide) rate then they need to do something about gun culture and not be misled by the mental health canard. This might involve some kind of restriction on gun ownership but there is no justification for limiting that restriction to those that are mentally ill.markf
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Awstar, You make an excellent point when you ask why the officer didn't use his gun. Perhaps he had no time to draw. I'm not sure. Does anyone else know? William J Murray, I think you make a valid point when you argue: "I would wait a while before passing judgement on what the guy [i.e. the suspect - VJT] said, if anything." The true picture of what happened still eludes us. Actually, the "no more baby parts" comment strikes me as decidedly fishy: it's just too pat. Something does not smell right.vjtorley
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
Robert Byers writes:
Abortion is the killing of a human being with a eternal destiny. Yet its not homicide if the abortionist and the mother DO NOT believe they are killing a human being. Motive is everything in killing people.
Just to be clear: I deliberately used the word "homicide" to characterize abortion, rather than murder. An online legal dictionary defines homicide as follows:
The killing of one human being by another human being. Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts.
Murder, on the other hand, was defined in common law as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought," where malice aforethought referred to "a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment." Note the word "intent." A woman who has an abortion but who does not believe that the fetus is a human person is not guilty of murder, as she has no intention to kill anyone. However, her action still destroys a human being, so it can fairly be characterized as homicide. The Colorado Springs police officer who was slain was a pastor at a church which taught that "children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord." There's absolutely no doubt that he would have considered abortion to be a form of homicide, and that he would have regarded such an action as wrong (at least, in the vast majority of cases). That makes him pro-life, in my book.vjtorley
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Hi everyone, A number of people have made comments on the issue of gun ownership, as I expected. It's a complex issue. My main concern is that unstable people, such as the Colorado Springs shooter, should not be allowed to buy a gun, period. Of course, I can understand people's concern about some bureaucrat or government agency deciding who's stable and who's not, but I think it would be possible to frame a law that would enumerate some fairly clear-cut criteria (based on an individual's history of aggressive behavior, or run-ins with the law, or diagnosed mental illness) for determining who is mentally stable enough to own a gun and who isn't. There would be an element of arbitrariness in determining how much of a "history" would disqualify a person from owing a gun, but that's true for all laws, I would say. Anyway, my main point is that nuts should not be allowed to own guns. I'd also be inclined to say that people under 25 shouldn't be allowed to, either. Some young people are mature enough to own a gun, but other young people still lack the maturity required to keep their violent impulses in check. As far as ordinary people are concerned, I think that in countries where the crime rate is high (e.g. in many Latin American countries) or where there is a real danger of the government becoming tyrannical and assuming despotic powers (e.g. in countries with highly centralized governments), citizens should be allowed to own guns, as a way of protecting themselves against those who would take their liberty and/or their property away from them. Personally, I think that the government of the United States has shown an alarming tendency in the last two decades to arrogate special powers unto itself and to abrogate individual rights. (That applies to both political parties: think of domestic spying, for instance.) Also, in some areas of the U.S., people don't feel safe walking the streets at night. Consequently, I think that if I were an American, I might want to own a gun. On the other hand, in countries (such as Japan, where I now live) where the crime rate is low, where people can walk the streets freely at night and where the government has not displayed any tendency to arrogate special powers unto itself, there is no real need for people to own guns, and you could probably make a good case (on sociological and utilitarian grounds) that making guns legally available would increase the number of deaths nationwide, as well as the number of crimes, and that banning guns would be rational. So I would say that the answer to the question of whether guns should be legal or not depends on the country where you live.vjtorley
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
EDTA @5
God Himself harms His creatures in order to stamp out evil
Could the above quoted text relate to Job 1:19? Hint: Job 1:21 We don't know how to create life from scratch. No one knows. In the mid of the second decade of the 21st century, science has some clues, but very far from knowing it well. Only the Maker of Life can dispose of it at His will. He doesn't need our validation or opinion. Thank Him for His love and mercy. Thank Him for His amazing grace. His perfect justice will be fulfilled at His time, in His terms. Praise Him only.Dionisio
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
I guess VJT, being like myself not in the USA, means the kind of gun control that works pretty well in most other parts of the world. You really can't comprehend just how strange the position of many American Christians on the ownership of lethal weapons sounds to us overseas. As Oliver Cromwell said to Charles 1, "Consider it possible you may be wrong."Jon Garvey
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Also, BTW, I would wait a while before passing judgement on what the guy said, if anything. The mainstream media is in the business of inventing lies at the beginning of such events so that the meme carries through even after it is thoroughly debunked.William J Murray
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Let's assume he owned his weapon legally. Do you want to extend gun control to exclude anyone arrested a couple of times, or anyone whose ex-spouse called the police to report domestic abuse? Note the wording on those claims ... was he ever convicted of anything? Perhaps you don't like the idea of people owning what has been termed "assault" weapons. Why? Do you think any amount of gun control is going to stop crazies from getting their hands on a gun (legally or otherwise) and going out and killing people? What further gun control would you advise, VJT?William J Murray
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Mattingly adds that the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, “made this statement to the gunman as he tried to protect people whose lives were at risk: ‘Shoot me.'” A recording of Rev. Swasey’s final sermon can be heard here.
Didn't the officer who was slain have a gun?awstar
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
I lived in Colorado Springs at one time. It's a beautiful family oriented city with several military installations, including the Air Force Academy. I still have family and friends there. This city is practically the evangelical Christian capitol of America. The Navigators, Focus on the Family and several other parachurch organizations have their headquarters there, and the number of churches per capita far exceeds the national average. It would be more surprising to find someone who isn't a Christian than who is, living there. So the left media would have us believe that this Planned Parenthood clinic was in serious peril since it opened, given the number of people surrounding it who are diametrically opposed to abortion. Yet the purpetrator was.........from out of town and not particularly religious, while the protector of potential victims was....surprise, THE DANGER!CannuckianYankee
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT
You cannot prevent killing by killing.
This is a rather simple-minded statement. After all, whether one killing prevents multiple later killings by someone else depends on who you are considering killing. Some well-placed killings inside Nazi Germany might have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands. And nobody (today) (except for Neo-Nazis) would be complaining about those assassinations--had they occurred. Now I'm not defending what happened, as I hadn't even heard this bit of news. But I have been studying ideas about evil lately, from multiple perspectives. Biblically, the word used most frequently for evil (ra', or rah) is used for the acts of wicked people, but also where God takes responsibility for harming/eliminating some of His own creatures who are themselves evil. I just don't buy the simple-minded moral equivalency which says that all killing is wrong or that well-placed evil can't stop even greater evil from happening. Even God Himself harms His creatures in order to stamp out evil (Noah's flood, e.g.). The very existence of evil seems to throw so many things out of whack, that no simple statements about evil seem to hold universally.EDTA
November 29, 2015
November
11
Nov
29
29
2015
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
Abortion is the killing of a human being with a eternal destiny. Yet its not homicide if the abortionist and the mother DO NOT believe they are killing a human being. Motive is everything in killing people. I am a strong pro lifer but insist this murder/homicide accusation must not be made. most pro lifers don't. this murderer should be executed for murdering three people. The abortion contention is not a moral one but only a intellectual one as far as man is concerned. I do think Satan is behind abortion but thats another matter.. Pro lifers and pro choicers are equally moral, in such matters, and act consistently from the presumption of whether think a fetus is a kid or not yet a kid while in the mother/not yet mother. if i didn't think it was a kid i would be pro choice. Pro lifers must persuade enough pro choicer s that the fetus is a kid and pro lifers do this education indeed. Pro choicer s must persuade pro lifers its not a kid to stop the aggressive resistance to abortion. they don't do this. They lose credibility because they can't prove the fetus is a kid and don't want to talk about. Thats why pro life probably will prevail one day. We are intellectually right and strive to persuade the other side. pro choicer s just dig in their heels. Including the illegal use of the courts .Robert Byers
November 29, 2015
November
11
Nov
29
29
2015
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
More perspective: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/two-observations-on-the-planned-parenthood-murders.phpkairosfocus
November 29, 2015
November
11
Nov
29
29
2015
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
The left's first solution to domestic terrorism is of course to restrict guns, a mantra I'm tired of listening to. If the shooter is mentally ill or a felon then it was illegal for him to purchase a firearm. I'm tired of the left's calls to restrict my freedoms because of the acts of a few. They do not believe in true freedom so I would expect nothing less than them to try and remove one. I'll say this only because it's necessary. If they want to restrict the sale of firearms to the people then change the Constitution, do not violate it. There has been enough violations of the constitution already like Roe vs Wade and parts of the Patriot Act and don't even get me started on SSM! I also saw an article that talked about how the gunman wasn't killed because he is white. He is a murderer, nothing less and he wasn't killed because he surrendered not because he was white. The leftist media incitement of racial divisiveness borders on the criminal use of free speech considering how divided they and this administration have made this country. It was getting better and then the Great Divider became President with most of the American news media working as his PR firm. The media will report this incident far more than the Islamist who killed the military personnel in a recruitment center. In the process they will compare conservative Christians as no more than American versions of ISIS.They have already attacked the Republican candidates who didn't come out and immediately condemn the shooting never letting them hear what really happened and then decide to make a statement. That's more than this President can claim with his kneejerk reactions. Now I guess my tax dollars will be spent to protect these houses of infanticide. A good man was murdered along with others and the Media will make a circus out of it instead of rendering the proper honor owed to a fallen member of the police and two others, who if what I hear is correct didn't even work there.jimmontg
November 29, 2015
November
11
Nov
29
29
2015
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
VJT, useful information. Otherwise hard to find in one place. It is clear that we know very little of this man so far, but it is plain that he did grievous wrong, indeed murder. Exposure of one evil, abortion and abuse of human remains obtained through such is not a justification for murder or arson. Nor would it justify continued cultivation of a climate of extreme polarisation against Christians in particular, something with serious consequences at the hands of other mad men as Umpqua clearly shows . . . but was largely met with studious silence. Nor would it be fair to say that leadership of the pro life cause over the years has generally been irresponsible in this regard. And, as your own article shows, there has been no significant attempt to cover up the wrong, though there are signs of wariness at best about anything the major media say on a topic such as this, itself a warning sign -- and not without cause. As for gun control debates, I would suggest that much of our liberty across the world (including in jurisdictions with much tighter restrictions) has been secured over the past century by the US and its approach to rights in its constitution, including self defence and defence of the local community. Was it Adm Yamamoto who counselled Japan against any invasion of the US as there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass? Nor should we overlook the significance of the US Navy's surface fleet in securing freedom of the seas and of trade for the whole world, as successor to the Royal Navy which carried that burden for over a century since the Napoleonic wars and arguably long before that. I suggest, more to the point, that on the face of it this man likely broke several laws even before his attack, and the enforcement of reasonable law is more likely to have a good effect than what appears to be an agenda that could easily end in convincing millions that the state has embarked on tyranny. Or, even just cynical polarisation by points scoring rhetoric. A couple of weeks back, too, even a few armed citizens with the equivalent of concealed carry permits could likely have made a difference in Paris. So, reasonable restrictions yes, but the reasonableness of far too much of the political class, the opinion shapers and the public at large is increasingly an open question -- at best. Under these circumstances, I have a very pessimistic view of our civilisation's prospects. KFkairosfocus
November 29, 2015
November
11
Nov
29
29
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply