Obama Demonizes Pro-Lifers With Reckless Rhetoric

Monday, June 1, AD 2009

Obama Speak

The White House issued a statement that bordered on the polemic from President Obama that ratcheted up the rhetoric surrounding the tragic death of abortionist George Tiller [emphasis mine]:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion [notice how Obama ‘assumed’ that the issue was related to abortion without any of the facts present, implicitly connecting the suspect to the pro-life movement and instantaneously demonizing us], they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Such partisan rhetoric is unbecoming of the office of the President.  Especially when preliminary reports show that the suspect has no connections with any pro-life groups.  In fact, Scott Roeder, the alleged suspect, is connected to various anti-government groups.  This only shows President Obama’s speech at the University of Notre Dame of ‘not demonizing the opponent‘ as nothing more than empty rhetoric.

This type of rhetoric has only emboldened anti-life groups to capitalize on the tragic death of abortionist George Tiller.  The pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW) has already deemed it a “terrorist” act and wants stalinist tactics used on Pro-Life groups by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to:

Continue reading...

43 Responses to Obama Demonizes Pro-Lifers With Reckless Rhetoric

  • Commenting will temporarily close for the evening until we return in the morning so we can continue monitoring comments.

  • Pingback: President Obama Did Not Demonize The Pro-Life Movement. « Vox Nova
  • Comments are now reopened on this thread. Good post Tito. Here is more from the Attorney General:

    “Federal law enforcement is coordinating with local law enforcement officials in Kansas on the investigation of this crime, and I have directed the United States Marshals Service to offer protection to other appropriate people and facilities around the nation. The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice. As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.”

    That last sentence is intriguing. I wonder just what these “appropriate steps” will be.

  • No President Obama, whatever “moral” standing you have will quickly diminish if you go down this road of demonizing an entire sector of Americans by what in preliminary accounts looks like the lonely act of an anti-government anarchist.

    What about your demonization of “anarchists” in this sentence?

  • When there is violence, appropriate steps is to see what caused it, and what one can do to fix the problems which caused it. President Obama’s words were not against the pro-life movement, but against a group of people who claim to be pro-life, but show no understanding of the sacredness of life, that they are willing to do the unthinkable and take a life themselves. The two acts are linked. And one of the causes is the rhetoric within the pro-life movement which focuses only on abortion, and ignores the real pro-life stand which honors all life, even of those people we find to be monstrous. And nothing in this, nor what the Department of Justice said, indicates all pro-lifers will be profiled. But if you keep doing posts like this, you might just get what you want.

  • Thanks for the warning Karlson. If the Obama administration ever would be foolish enough to attempt to strong arm the pro-life movement, something I think is close to nil in probability, I have no doubt you would be using your best efforts to assist them.

  • This is Obama’s Oklahoma City bombing.

  • Steve

    Save it appears this has been a concern and worked out long before Obama was in office, as one can see with what he posted on the Operation Rescue website two years ago. In other words, it should be a wake up call for the pro-life movement, instead of being used as another reason to make Obama into the bogeyman.

  • Tiller’s murderer is pro-choice. That he is only a recent convert to the culture of death in no way invalidates the proper attribution of his worldview. Like any pro-abort, he made that “heart-wrenching” decision to reduce a human life to a problem to be solved by killing. He should face the full force of the criminal justice system.

    This incident is instructive, however, as the President’s speech at Notre Dame calling for the two sides not to “demonize” each other is quickly shown to be empty rhetoric, as he and all his supporters leap to the demonization of Christians and pro-lifers. Gone is the language of “human-caused tragedy”, gone the urgings not to “tar the whole group with the actions of one,” gone the calls to “understand the root causes of this crime”.

    For those who have so long hated the pro-life movement, the martyrdom of George Tiller is an occasion of great rejoicing.

  • To suggest that Obama’s response is not an attack on the pro-life movement is absurd. This is ONE murder of a particularly controversial individual who is clearly outside of the mainstream abortionist. There has been a grand total 4 abortionists murdered in the US. A federal response of any sort in this kind of isolated case is with no indications of an ongoing threat is unprecedented and only being done because it is an “opportunity” (remember Rules for Radicals and Rahm Emmanuel’s reference to using a crisis as an opportunity).

  • Mr. Karlson,

    How is this a wake-up call to the pro-life movement? I lead a small, humble local pro-life organization with nearly 1,000 members. If this is a wake-up call, what should my response be? To scour the internet looking for individuals with no affiliation with me or my group and ensure they aren’t planning any vigilante activities?

    Your response is akin to those who demanded ALL Muslims take responsibility for 9/11.

  • Just listened to NPR’s report (the left’s equivalent of Fox News.) No effort to investigate whether the shooter was tied to the pro-life movement or not. Lots of pro-abortion voices making Tiller out to be a martyr for compassion and women. Yes this will be used for more left-hate disguised as “protection” for the right to choose.

  • Your response is akin to those who demanded ALL Muslims take responsibility for 9/11.

    A perfect response to those who would use this incident as an occasion for bigotry.

  • Wrote my comment before farandaddy’s hate speech. Perhaps its that he can’t read the comments on other posts decrying the murder as contrary to the Faith.

  • Steve

    If nothing else, it should strive people to purify their language, to make sure they are not giving way to words which would encourage a violent response. The rhetoric over the last year has been the kind which does end up with “holy war” ideals. That’s the thing. It should wake us up, to remind us how we are to consider ALL life as sacred. ALL. When we find ways to get around that, we begin to move away from a pro-life stand.

  • farandaday,

    An opportunity to read as well as listen. Here from American Life League opposing the killing of Tiller:

    http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11966

    Also many other such statements from pro-life organizations. Perhaps if you wish not to be blind and read such statements. Perhaps. Perhaps…

  • I try to get along with everyone and none of us like to dictate to others. I am very pro-life and some people come up with the choice argument. And then, I’m pro-marriage between a man and a woman. These are my views but in the real world, it’s like our foes would accuse us of “ordering people around” which I don’t like to do.

    The struggle for the life rights of all has really come to the forefront and the “pro-life” issue takes precedent over anything with me.

  • The diarist wrote: notice how Obama ‘assumed’ that the issue was related to abortion without any of the facts present, implicitly connecting the suspect to the pro-life movement and instantaneously demonizing us.

    Hmmm. Roeder had been shot in both arms by an anti-abortion activist, his clinic had been bombed – repeatedy, he had received more death threats than he could count, his clinic had been blockaded by activists, vandals had cut wires to security cameras and made holes in his roof, and his home was constantly picketed. The “alleged” gunman was a well-known anti-abortion protestor and had posted on Operation Rescue’s “Tillman Watch” website.

    This is just stuff I gleaned from 10 minutes of newspaper reader. I imagine the President knows a little more.

    But, really, why would anyone just “assume” the killer was an anti-abortionist?!

  • I hope the guy isn’t a Catholic. Let’s hope no one that has not fallen away from the Holy Mother Church would do such. Of course, I would hope no one would do such in the first place. As said, though, this is against a tyrannical stance of the US government and one of the more radical abortion stances in the world.

  • I’m sorry, Tom, are you condoning this killer’s actions?

    “As said, though, this is against a tyrannical stance of the US government and one of the more radical abortion stances in the world.”

  • If nothing else, it should strive people to purify their language, to make sure they are not giving way to words which would encourage a violent response. The rhetoric over the last year has been the kind which does end up with “holy war” ideals.

    Describing something one believes to be evil is always going to involve a certain amount of strength of language.

    Peace advocates use _very_ strong language in denouncing the actions of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but seldom worry that they are encouraging violent militants to kill US soldiers.

    Anti-globalization efforts use strong language to denounce business and global poverty, yet seldom worry much about the violence that springs up at G8 meetings and other similar protest events, much less more widescale violence in developing countries.

    I certainly do not endorse bringing self-consciously violent rhetoric into a debate needlessly, but it would be absolutely wrong for pro-lifers not to state clearly that they believe abortion to be the murder of an innocent human being. To elide that would be to ignore the injustice going on.

    What would be next? Should lynchings be timidly denounced as “mildly impolite” lest someone be encouraged to kill white supremacists?

  • Viona,

    it’s apparent that you read comments on this blog with about as much skill as you read the newspapers… which is really none at all.

    The “alleged” gunman was a well-known anti-abortion protestor

    this not in fact true nor has it really been reported. He is a well known anti-government activist, no substantial involvement in the pro-life movement has been uncovered.

    and had posted on Operation Rescue’s “Tillman Watch” website.

    By your standards of evidence, you are a pro-life Catholic since you’re posting on this blog.

  • Viona Walsch: Of course not.

    Such things as the Mexico City policy which would fund abortions in foreign countries is of the utmost repugnant nature. That is carrying this evil into other countries, maybe paying for it with our tax dollars. That is evil. That is tyrannical.

    Abortions is big business at operations at $5000 dollar a pop and Tiller conducted over 4000 of these. Doesn’t exactly put him in the poor house.

  • Viona,

    To say that Roeder is reflective (or even part of) the pro-life movement is the same as saying this is reflective of the anti-war movement:

    http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0609/627959.html

  • Viona Walsch, are you saying we are not free to call unjust acts that??? Just as the killing of Tiller is unjust and may be the tyranny of one man’s mind as other assassinations have been, what about acts our government might do that we disagree with? I know plenty of anti-war people, even some elderly ladies that would go to our Adoration Chapel.

    But this is from the Jerusalem Post:

    “Obama’s position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    What kind of principle is this? What core value is Obama expressing? What extremist doctrine or interest is he defending? And how doctrinaire must one be to defend actual infanticide? This goes well beyond any reasonable advocacy of a woman’s “right to choose;” it attacks a living baby’s right to life. His position is not simply “pro-choice;” it is radically anti-life. It is, in fact, pro-death. Whatever one may make of the doctrines of his America-bashing, anti-Israel, Farrakhan-honoring pastor (or why a “uniter” would belong to his church for over 20 years), Obama professes to be a practicing Christian; so, what in the life-affirming Judeo-Christian value system could possibly give license to kill live babies? ”

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1207159750412&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    This is silly to say, just because one says someone’s stance is wrong, that they support the alternative. Are we suppose to agree with the government in such wrongs?? Clearly, even most abortion supporters see the line should be drawn at the birth of a child.

  • This is utter stupidity. There were 300,000 pro-life marchers in Washington DC this year. If this man was reflective of the pro-life movement there would be NO ABORTION DOCTORS OR CLINICS LEFT. Period.

    In reality, the pro-life movement is the most peaceful movement in HISTORY. Far more were killed by anti-slavery, and civil rights actions than the stunning total of 4 abortion doctors killed.

  • Viona,
    Your question to Tom immediately after a rather plain English post is really quite breathtaking. It is plain as day that Tom was saying that both the US legal treatment of abortion and the murder of Tiller are evil. Do you somehow see those two things as incompatable? Honestly, I am confused by your question. Am I wrong to take it as a serious one?

  • I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is perfectly okay to express your repugnance with abortion in all forms. That is your absolute constitutional right. I do find some of the ugly comments by people (a woman named Rhonda on this site said she was relieved when she heard Dr. Tillman was killed)sad and not becoming of our faith. However these comments are still legal.

    I didn’t say that Roeder’s actions were reflective of the anti-abortion movement. On the contrary. I think there is a radical fringe element who will blockade clinics, harass workers and their families. Obviously far fewer will take it to the ultimate extreme. But in any “movement” you will find all degrees of commitment and extremes.

    Denying that Roeder was part of the larger movement is disingenuous.

  • Just to slap all the cards on the table, you are much more a part of the “larger movement” which supports this practice, Ms. Walsch:

    As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E procedure requires the abortionist to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina. Id., at 61. Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body. Ibid. The traction between the uterus and vagina is essential to the procedure because attempting to abort a fetus without using that traction is described by Dr. Carhart as “pulling the cat’s tail” or “drag[ging] a string across the floor, you’ll just keep dragging it. It’s not until something grabs the other end that you are going to develop traction.” Id., at 62. The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. Id., at 63. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart agreed that “[w]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus, … the fetus [is] alive.” Id., at 62. Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with “extensive parts of the fetus removed,” id., at 64, and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” Id., at 63. At the conclusion of a D&E abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.” Id., at 125.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZD2.html

  • Viona,

    sad and not becoming of our faith. However these comments are still legal.

    advocating the legal murder of the unborn regardless of “disabilities” is even more unbecoming of our Faith. Though they are immoral, the comments are legal.

  • Mr. Karlson,

    I guess it depends. If you’re arguing that pro-lifer activists shouldn’t incite violence toward abortionists, then you’re constructing a straw man since no credible group (certainly not the movement as a whole as you alleged in your first post) has done so.

    If you’re saying that we need to apologize for our stance by not saying that abortion is murder, then you are suggesting we deny the truth for the sake of political expediency and getting along.

    Christ did no such thing. He used sharp words when nececessary, even if he did it lovingly. The pro-life movement does the same thing. If we aren’t willing to call abortion murder, we have no grounds for opposing it. Arguing that abortion hurts women, that it’s lucrative, that it’s exploitative are all good and important. But unless we condemn it as murder, we have no leg to stand on.

    Let’s be clear here about pro-life activism: Any tactic that is licit is valid. But there must also be no small amount of prayer and discernment, particularly with a spiritual director. There is a rightful place for soft language, hard language, graphic images, silent prayer, and the whole range of licit responses. I pray that we might be given the gift of discernment to know when each response is appropriate.

  • Viona,

    Let’s get one thing straight here. If blockading clinic entrances is an unjust, illicit act, then so were civil rights sit ins in the 1960s. Putting one’s body in between a murderer and his intended victim is an act of love and bravery.

    The rest of your allegations are purposely vague. Anytime the words intimidating, threatening, harrassing are used, I get suspicious. Our pro-life Rosaries have been called all of those things. If we really were intimidating, threatening, or harrassing people, they would come out and say what our crimes really were. or something to that effect. Instead, whenever they don’t like our presence, they attach a vague, unfalsifiable and dishonest adjective.

  • Violence may beget violence. Has anyone heard this story coming out of Arkansas.

    So this is early in the story, but do we assume this is an anti-war act and so all other anti-war protesters are of this terrorist extremist type?

    “Gunman Shoots 2 at Arkansas Military Recruitment Center
    Monday, June 01, 2009

    A gunman opened fire Monday at an army recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark., killing one army recruiter and seriously wounding another, FOX16.com reported.

    A man in a black SUV drove to the recruitment office and began shooting at around 10:19 a.m., a spokesman with the Little Rock police department told FOX News.

    The suspect, who immediately fled the scene, was later apprehended approximately four miles from the center with an assault rifle in his vehicle.”

  • Oh, again, I pray for the poor soul and their friends and family who have lost life in this needless act. May God have mercy on us all and forgive us our trespasses.

    I hope we aren’t getting into an eye for eye as might happen.

  • Gunman Shoots 2 at Arkansas Military Recruitment Center

    are all soldiers now going to get security provided by the US Marshal service??? Or just the recruiters?

  • Placing U.S. Marshals is an overreaction to say the least. President Obama, like Rahm Emmanuel says, will not miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis.

  • Matt,

    I just realized you wrote a similar thing.

    Catholic Anarchist,

    Since when do “anarchists” have a positive connotation?

  • Tito on the mark. This White House will take advantage of a crisis, such as it is. Been wondering for years if Powers That Be, now in charge at White House, will finally, once and for all, attempt to drive the pro-life movement off the map. In turn, a serious persecution of its most prominent bloc, our own One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Scratch many hardcore libs and you will find serious anti-Catholic bias. As for the Arkansas murder case, MSM may flip and go Eye For An Eye. Then twist its logic in returning to coverage of Tiller’s murder. (Not that I am the least bit concerned about respectability in their eyes. We tried as much since 2nd Vatican Council. No go.) Meanwhile, be prepared for rough times. Some may suffer for the sake of the Gospel. We may be at that point.

  • Gerard E.,

    I agree.

    We need to pray for Tiller and those that demonize us that they may see the light and understand the undue harm their stance does.

  • Pingback: Anthony
  • I find this article to be demonizing President Obama. He made remarks condeming a murder, and you have taken offense and twisted it to where your group becomes the victim? On some level, you are showing support for this murder by minimizing it and trying to seek political gain for your own cause. We as Christians will never be taken seriously until we respect all life, not just the ones we like or agree with!

  • Rubbish. It is rather Obama who has who has sought political advantage from acts of horrific violence perpretrated against children in the womb. Here is a fund raising letter sent out in which his wife trumpeted his opposition to partial birth abortion.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/Slide%201%20michelle%20obama%20pba%20letter.jpg

    Pro-lifers condemned the murder of Tiller. If only Obama would also condemn the slaying of the unborn, instead of upholding abortion as a right.

  • Pingback: Divider-in-Chief Obama Complains of “Tearing Each Other Down,” While Disparagingly Calling Opponents “Teabaggers,” Amid 2009 Obama Site Calling Opponents “Right Wing Domestic Terrorists…Suberting the American Democratic

Scott Roeder, No Connection With Pro-Life Groups

Monday, June 1, AD 2009

Scott Roeder anarchist arrested

Preliminary reports show no connection of Scott Roeder with any Pro-Life groups.

LifeNews.com editor Steven Ertelt has reported that Scott Roeder, who has been detained by police in relation to the shooting of the abortionist George Tiller, has affiliations with extremist anarchist political groups with an anti-government bent.

As has been the case with most previous incidents of abortion-related violence, Roeder appears to have an affiliation with extremist political groups but not with the mainstream pro-life movement.

Pro-life groups have quickly and genuinely condemned the Tiller shooting.

We here at the American Catholic have condemned this act of violence.

Early reports so far show Scott Roeder having connections with anti-government organizations such as Freemen as well as having a prior conviction of ‘Criminal use of firearms’ in 1996.

(Photo of video taken from Kansas City Fox 4)

(Biretta Tips: Tom Blumer, The ConservativeXpress, & Foxfier)

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Scott Roeder, No Connection With Pro-Life Groups

  • I’m glad to hear that you want no connection with a man who just shot someone in their church. I wish you would go a step further and declare the man’s action an act of terror.

  • rationalpsychic –
    without knowing his motives, that’d be almost as premature as…well, most main-stream declarations have been so far.

    It’s murder, for the Nth time– and we’re not going to let folks forget that.

    However.
    Seeing as there was no published pre-statement of intent to kill abortionists, nor a later statement of a “there’s more where that came from!” type, calling it an act of terror is… premature.

  • Pingback: Obama’s Reckless Rhetoric On Tiller’s Death « The American Catholic
  • Commenting will temporarily close for the evening until we return in the morning so we can continue monitoring comments.

  • Comments are now reopened on this thread.

  • http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/05/killers-own-words.html

    He most certainly had anti-abortion connections, though I would agree that doesn’t make him pro-life.

  • HK,

    What is worse is this comment by Roeder just two years ago on Operation Rescue’s website via the Google Cache in which he suggests going to Tiller’s Church

    So, anyone who posts a comment on a pro-life group’s board has “anti-abortion connections”?

    That’s an absurd leap.

  • Do you know what the word “connection” means, Matt? Did you read his words? It’s clearly he had anti-abortion connections (I didn’t say he was pro-life, since he is not; but many who are anti-abortion are not pro-life). Nonetheless his words show his concern with abortion and thanked the prayer work against Tiller (for Tiller’s abortion work). So yes, within Scott’s mind, abortion was an issue. Was it the only one? No. But it doesn’t have to be for it to be a piece of the puzzle.

  • The post pertained to organizing events at Tiller’s church (which were already going on, but Roeder suggested going inside). It plainly indicated that he participated in the rallies that were already ongoing.

  • Dan,

    oh, so showing up at a rally is a “anti-abortion connection”? So if I show up at an Obama rally that gives me “Obama connections”???

    riggght…

  • Matt,

    I always knew you were a secret Obama support.

  • That should be “supporter.” See how much you have upset me!

  • Phillip,

    I’m busted!

  • From the Kansas Fox network:

    “Court records and Internet postings show that a man named Scott Roeder has a criminal record and a background of anti-abortion postings on sympathetic Web sites.

    Witnesses at the Wichita church where Dr. Tiller was shot got a good look at the gunman and the car taking off moment later.

    Police stopped that car Sunday afternoon just outside the metro traveling north on I-35 near the Gardner exit. FOX 4 was there and got exclusive video of Roeder in the backseat of a patrol car. Later in the day, Roeder was taken by Wichita Police from the adult detention facility in Gardner.

    Wichita Police are also towing the blue Taurus back to Wichita.

    Neighbors said they’ve seen a similar car at the house in Merriam. They describe the ongoings at the house as strange. They said it’s a revolving door of men coming and staying there and describe what appear to be religious gatherings.

    There were a number of agents and officers at the home for several hours Sunday afternoon. The FBI say the investigation could go on for several days.”

  • Viona-
    there are two posts, from two years back, which are labeled “Scott Roeder.” No way to know if it’s the same guy, and two postings is hardly proof– shoot, we have trolls that say more outrageous things more often than that!

  • Foxfier: This from the Washington Post:

    “As news of Roeder’s arrest traveled, Kansas City activist Regina Dinwiddie remembered the day a dozen years ago when Roeder hugged her in glee after trying to frighten an abortion provider by staring him down inside a Planned Parenthood clinic.

    “He grabbed me and said, ‘I’ve read the Defensive Action Statement and I love what you’re doing,’ ” Dinwiddie said in a telephone interview. She was a signer of the 1990s statement, which declares that the use of force is justified.”

    You might want to disassociate yourself Roeder, and perhaps you can personally, but there is no question that he is part of the radical anti-abortion movement.

  • day a dozen years ago

    Are you kidding me? It would have to be the first part of 97, if the woman is remembering correctly, since the guy went to jail (for a year and a half) for that bomb in the second half of 97. You know, crazy separatists movement? Tax resistors? Down with The Man, man?

    Think that he was in the middle of a big “protest” of the gov’t might’ve had something to do with how much he adored the idea of killing unarmed folks in “defense”?

    This is right up there with folks trying to pin Eric Rudolph on the Army, or McVeigh and Nichols on Christians.

  • You know some rotten spy is probably reporting everything said here with glee too.

    Guess I’ll expect to find myself on the “no fly” list because I didn’t express immediate anguish yesterday.

    I hear Uruguay is nice this time of year….

  • Argentina for me Joe! Buenos Aires is always lovely!

  • “No connection with pro-life groups?” Are you KIDDING me?
    Have you heard of Operation Rescue? (By the way, their website is off-line — GUESS WHY!!!)
    Go ahead and espouse your beliefs all you want — but don’t tell lies. It just makes you look more pathetic than you already do.

  • Jafsie,

    “No connection with pro-life groups?” Are you KIDDING me?
    Have you heard of Operation Rescue? (By the way, their website is off-line — GUESS WHY!!!)
    Go ahead and espouse your beliefs all you want — but don’t tell lies. It just makes you look more pathetic than you already do.

    so, since you’re posting on a pro-life Catholic website, are you a pro-life Catholic? Stop the lies!

  • Costa Rica.

  • No doubt Roeder would define himself as conservative, not a radical. Recently conservative leaders have been making calls for violent action. Michelle Bachmann called for people to be “armed and dangerous” and called for revolution. She only toned down her rhetoric after being criticized. Also, there are a lot of preachers out their who define themselves as conservative and say God is going to judge us for allowing abortion. Put the rhetoric together and is it any wonder people like Roeder come to violent conclusions?

  • Problem with trying to drag “recent” things into it, Bart– this guy has been a violent nut for over fifteen years.

  • …if he’s animated about anything its that he is an anarchist who hates the government.

  • uh-oh. Now those of us who lean anti-government are going to take the hit!

    Oh wellz.

  • …extreme anti-government. As in the Montana Freemen Militia.

  • How about if we all address the fact that those of us who blog are guilty at some time or another of reducing those who disagree with us to objects or the enemy. I try not to do it but can think of times when I let my anger get the better of me. Then there’s the whole polarization of conservative and liberal in this country. Limbaugh says Sotomayor is a racist because she would dare to muse that her experiences as an outsider in American society give her a different perspective than white males. When reduce others to being less than human, we take a step towards sanctioning violence toward others. Whether it’s ourselves or the cause we sometimes see these as a good worth hurting or killing for.

  • Just about every issue-oriented movement uses heated rhetoric at times. It is hardly exclusive to the pro-life movement.

    Environmentalists paint apocalyptic pictures of the future (rising sea levels, mass starvation, widespread desertification, etc.) almost or just as frightening as anything in the Book of Revelation, and say this is what will happen if global warming, population growth, deforestation, etc. is not stopped.

    Gun rights groups AND gun control groups both paint pictures of the violent, lawless, Wild West-type societies that will result if their policies are not adopted, or that already exist because they have not been adopted. (I’m sure that somewhere on the blogs, Tiller’s murder has also turned into a debate about gun control.)

    So if some nut “comes to violent conclusions” because of THEIR rhetoric, are they to blame?

  • I also agree with rationalpsychic’s comments about blogs. People are always saying things on blogs they would never say in person, and reducing many issues to extremely simplistic talking points.

  • rationalpsychic,

    How about if we all address the fact that those of us who blog are guilty at some time or another of reducing those who disagree with us to objects or the enemy. I try not to do it but can think of times when I let my anger get the better of me. Then there’s the whole polarization of conservative and liberal in this country. Limbaugh says Sotomayor is a racist because she would dare to muse that her experiences as an outsider in American society give her a different perspective than white males. When reduce others to being less than human, we take a step towards sanctioning violence toward others. Whether it’s ourselves or the cause we sometimes see these as a good worth hurting or killing for.

    you might have a valid point if your statement here was true. Because what you’re saying is false, you are actually doing precisely what you accuse Limbaugh and others of doing. What Sotomayor ACTUALLY said was:

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

    Now, as a judge she is supposed to make decisions not based on her race or her experiences but based on the FACTS of the case and the LAW as written. Period.

  • “Limbaugh says Sotomayor is a racist because she would dare to muse that her experiences as an outsider in American society give her a different perspective than white males.”

    When did she say this? I know she said her experiences as a Latina woman should help her make better decisions than a White male.