By his own words James Kirchick isn't really fond of the religious right. He's not necessarily the first person I'd think of as defending the religious right against the charge that they're collectively responsible for the Tiller murder, which makes his defense, and disagreement with those who see a "Christianist threat" around this murder, interesting reading:
But if the reactions to the death of Tiller mean anything, the "Christian Taliban," as conservative religious figures are often called, isn't living up to its namesake. If "Christianists" were anything like actual religious fascists they would applaud Tiller's murder as a "heroic martyrdom operation" and suborn further mayhem.
Radical Islamists revel in death. Just witness the videos that suicide bombers record before they carry out their murderous task or listen to the homicidal exhortations of extremist imams. Murder -- particularly of the unarmed and innocent -- is a righteous deed for these people. The manifestos of Islamic militant groups are replete with paeans to killing infidels. When a suicide bomb goes off in Israel, Palestinian terrorist factions compete to claim responsibility for the carnage.There is no appreciable number of people in this country, religious Christians or otherwise, who support the murder of abortion doctors. The same cannot be said of Muslims who support suicide bombings in the name of their religion.
Yet speak of the disproportionately violent strain in Islam to a "progressive" person and you'll be met with sneering recitations of millennia-old Christian crusades or Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As for conservative Christians' contemporary political endeavors, lobbying to ban the teaching of evolution in schools or forbidding same-sex marriage simply does not threaten society in quite the same way as the genital mutilation of young girls or the bombing of the London transit system. [...]
In the coming days, we will hear more about how mainstream conservative organizations and media personalities created an "environment" in which the murder of an abortion doctor became an inevitability. Just as talk radio was blamed for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an attempt will be made to extend the guilt for this crime from the individual who pulled the trigger to the conservative movement writ large. But the Christian right's responsible reaction to the death of George Tiller should put to rest the lie that Judeo-Christian extremists are anywhere near as numerous or dangerous as those of the Muslim variety.
In an earlier post this week I wrote about how it would be wrong to blame all Islam for the death of the soldier shot by a convert to Islam at the Army recruiting center on Monday; I stand by those words, because this clearly was an isolated act by a man who was acting on his own, just as Tiller's murder was an isolated act by a man acting on his own.
But Kirchick's point is a good one, too: we know that it's possible for Islamic terrorism to happen, for an attack to be more than an isolated action by a single person or small group--and we also know what it's like to be glued to the TV after such an attack and see people in Islamic nations openly celebrating in the streets because such a blow was dealt to the nation many of them view as an implacable enemy.
After the murder of George Tiller was made known, pro-life leader after pro-life leader took to the airwaves to denounce the murder and insist that this kind of violence is not our way, that pro-life Americans do not and will not condone such wicked and deadly murders. Compare that, as Kirchick does, to the usual reactions from large numbers of radical Muslim leaders after an act of Islamic terrorism, and the whole notion that this shadowy terror called "the Christianist threat" is a bigger danger to the American way of life than any sort of Islamic fundamentalism could ever be starts to break down.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Bottom line: this kind of rhetoric isn't good for ANYONE on either side. "
I agree completely. Now...what can we do about it? So far the pro-life side seems mainly set on pointing at the pro-choice side and saying "you are, too" when it comes to pushing heated rhetoric.
What can folks like you do to try to ramp down the rhetoric from the pro-life side so that folks like Roeder, if they are influenced by it, have less opportunity to hear it? What do you see folks like me being able to do to ramp down the rhetoric from our side so that our folks do not get inspired to do violence to pro-life advocates?
Her reference Natty was this: "...the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded criminal acts for decades." Operation Rescue has an unfortunate record of criminal prosecutions, both as an organization and among its leadership. The fact that Scott Roeder had a note with an OR name and number on it merits investigation, and if evidence of material support from OR is found, prosecution.
It's no different from the calls that went out after the 9/11 attacks that called for investigation of the criminal enterprises that organized and funded those terrorist attacks, or the terrorist attacks attributed (and claimed) by groups like Hamas.
Now...my question back to you. Do you favor restrictions on speech in these instances?
Natty,
Using the word pro-abortion instead of pro-choice is inflammatory because the words do not mean the same thing.
"Using the word pro-abortion instead of pro-choice is inflammatory because the words do not mean the same thing."
Why is it considered inflammatory if abortion is a perfectly acceptable option (or "choice")?
When you use the term "pro-choice" what does that mean exactly? What choice? What does "pro" mean? Simply that one is in favor of something. If you support the right to choose abortion, you are pro-abortion, whether you would ever actually have one yourself or not, or whether you think it would be better if there were fewer of them, or whatever other qualifiers you want to add. You support their availability for whoever wants one should they find themselves in that situation. You have to be pro-abortion in order to be pro-choice as I am assuming you mean it.
Otherwise, I agree and you're correct, they do not mean the same thing. If there is some other definition which you are applying to the term pro-choice that has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, then they do not mean the same thing. But I would be curious why you would want me to use it in this discussion then.
"I agree completely. Now...what can we do about it? So far the pro-life side seems mainly set on pointing at the pro-choice side and saying "you are, too" when it comes to pushing heated rhetoric."
Well, I guess we could point fingers back and forth all day long. (I couid say that even your statement here seems slanted toward the left.) But I know you agree with me that that won't do us any good.
"Now...my question back to you. Do you favor restrictions on speech in these instances?"
No. For one, I think that reaction is grossly disproportionate to the actual threat. And recall this quote:
Bonnie Erbe, the U.S. News and World Report columnist, said anyone who describes abortion as the killing of babies "ought to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, as well as for partaking in domestic terrorism."
This would include me. Actually, it would include anyone who is pro-life. I am a stay-at-home mother of four, married to a police officer who serves and protects our community every day. I am pro-life, and I do believe abortion is the killing of babies, otherwise I wouldn't be opposed to it. I say this to others sometimes. I pray for the end to abortion. Occasionally, I stand in protest outside of an abortion clinic and pray the rosary, perhaps while holding a candle. Would you see me as a threat? This woman would have me prosecuted as an accessory to murder and domestic terrorist because I say abortion kills a baby. Come on. It's not about prosecuting a real threat, it's about prosecuting the entire pro-life community into silence.
Do we want everything legislated to death so that people will behave themselves? Or do we need to look a little deeper within ourselves and try to figure out how we, as a society, got to a point where mere words drive people to do insane things, or that hateful language has to be used to make a point? Back in the day, bullies eventually got a good, old-fashioned butt whoopin', now they're being prosecuted in court. Do we bother to ask ourselves how these people became bullies in the first place?
I could read or listen to the comments presented here to be inflammatory and be no more motivated to go out and kill someone. The people that do these things as a result of listening to someone else's words is clearly an unstable person who, as long as the right person got hold of them, could be manipulated toward whatever type of violent action. Whose fault is that? Thankfully, these people are the small minority anyway, or there would have been many more killings by now.
The best I can think of right now is that we just have to do what we can as individuals to encourage others to use more productive and meaningful means to accomplish their goals and do so ourselves. We have to be bigger and louder than those tactics we oppose. And although others would have us believe otherwise, we still are.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.