Is protesting against abortion a hate crime? (Erin)

Protesting in itself is not a hate crime. But some of these anti-choice fanatics have not only turned it into a hate-crime, they have become terrorist organizations.

I think its crazy our government has labeled Environmental and Animal Rights Groups as the Number One Domestic Terrorist Groups, while giving these violent anti-abortion groups who murder people a free ride! They are no better than the Taliban - particularly terrorist groups like the Army of God.

Larry

I believe a great deal of suspicion is directed at Operation Rescue in that regard. Their denunciations of murders and bombings ring false and sound hollow.

No, protests under conditions stated by local, state and federal laws are not illegal. Stalking? Vandalizing property? Assault? Death threats? People coming onto private property (like private residences)?

This keeps happening again and again.

I think the protester side may get a hint when a doctor or nurse shoots one of them because they thought they were in peril.

Larry, right now Operation Rescue is being investigated. We don't know yet the status of that, or what the end result will be. We do know that they employed a convicted bomber, and that this convicted bomber had contact with Roeder on several occasions by phone.

Now, had Roeder been a Muslim, and Operation Rescue been CAIR, would you be as circumspect in your language with them as you seem to be with OR?

Terrorist attacks should be investigated fully. If the only connection that exists between Roeder and OR is the few phone calls during the trial, then there is nothing to worry about. But certainly, at least at first glance, it looks somewhat suspicious.

I don't care for fanatics and most of the pro-life protesters outside the abortion clinics qualify and their rhetoric probably does incite the unstable to murder. They don't help their cause in the slightest since the average, reasonable person does not want to be associated with such people. I consider myself pro-life, but I also believe abortion should be restricted but available under certain circumstances. Some of the cases Tiller took would qualify as necessary. His murder is as great a sin or greater than late term abortion. I'm sorry his family has been intimidated. That's not the way the goal of limiting abortion should be accomplished.

I think there is a reasonable explanation as to why those who have no problem describing violence by Muslims as terrorism are having problems using that word here. Since well before 9/11 we have seen many violent acts committed by terrorists who claim to be acting in accordance with their Muslim beliefs. Even though the number of Muslims that have engaged in or have supported such violence is small, it is easy to allow those instances to define the Muslim religion for us, in spite of the many, many Muslim clerics and scholars who adamantly deny that their faith condones such actions.

However, when a person such as Roeder commits such an act and then claims that his Christian faith led him to do so, we find it much easier to segregate him from those others who claim Christ. Why? Because we as Americans are much more familiar with the Christian faith than we are with the Muslim faith. When a Christian leader comes on TV or is quoted in the paper as saying that Roeder's actions in no way reflect the teachings of Christianity, we accept this because we are familiar with Christianity.

However, because the Muslim faith is so unfamiliar to us we lack the same ability to accept the statements of hundreds of Muslim leaders that condemn terrorism. Instead it is easy for us, in our anger, to generalize that the reactions of relatively few people dancing in the street at the news of the deaths of 9/11 represent the whole of the Muslim faith. Our lack of familiarity with the Quran leads us to accept out-of-context quotations as being representative of the whole. We reject a similar piecemeal approach to the Bible (those passages that encourage the death of witches, for example), yet see no problem in adopting it for the Quran.

Thus, when faced with a person who looks like us, says that he holds the same religion as us, has a name like us, and even supports some of the same political views as us, we find ourselves better situated to make the distinction between what a "real" Christian would do vs. what Roeder did. However, when the person committing the crime does not share our religion, our race, or our language, it is easier to cast him and those who resemble him as "the other".

I contend, and I believe even the past traffic on this very blog supports my contention, that if Roeder were Muslim, and he had CAIR's phone number on his dashboard the morning he committed his murder, we would be seeing a very different reaction from the public in general, the commenters here, and yes, even Erin and Rod.

The protests are hate crimes when the anti-abortion crowd uses language that describes abortion providers using dangerous, inciting language. I have heard many a dubious homily at Catholic masses that encourage terrorism. Several times, I have heard homilies linking abortion providers to the verse, "live by the sword, die by the sword". I attended a Latin Mass last year where the priest flat out said that those who kill abortion doctors did the right thing, using the principle of double effect as a justification.

We have a President who supported, as a State Senator, the most extreme legislation towards the taking of human life when a child is born alive through an abortion procedure. Should that same child have been born naturally, as a premature infant, medical science would be saving his/her life. But as the product of a botched abortion, medical science would be taking that child's life from them.

We have a President who wishes to remove "conscience clauses" for medical providers. This would make it mandatory for doctors and nurses to provide abortion services regardless of their religious or moral beliefs about life, conception, and when life begins.

I agree, that the murder of Dr George Tiller was a heinous act. All murders are heinous acts. No ifs, ands, or buts. No qualifiers. All people should feel safe in their homes, their places of work, their places of worship. All people should also feel safe within their belief-systems. I should be allowed to live congruent with my pro-life beliefs and not be accused of murdering Dr George Tiller.

Folks in California should be able to vote as they wish without judicial manoueverings to remove their voice...or Google Map use to pinpoint there whereabouts as a type of stalking.

Unless, of course, one person represents the whole. Do we now believe this? Does President Obama's beliefs speak for all Americans? Do mine? Does my voice represent you?

Does the murderer of George Tiller speak for me? Do all the individuals here speak for each other?

Does one bad apple spoil the whole bunch...Girl?

quote: Michael~You are responsible for the people in your midsts. As a prior commenter said, if Roeder had been Muslim and had a CAIR phone number in his car, people like Rod and Erin would have been apoplectic. Instead, they are just bored by the news the terrorist had ties and direct contract with a significant player in the pro-life movement.

If this is true, then why wasn't President Obama's "relationship" with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn ever considered important?

Are we consistent or are we not... Is there guilt by however broad (or narrow) association, or not?

Just sayin'.

Does one bad apple spoil the whole bunch...Girl?

Almost every act of domestic, home-grown terrorism in the last 30 years in the U.S. has involved someone with a link to the pro-life movement and other far right extremists. Oklahoma City, the Olympic bombings, clinic bombings, executions of abortion providers, the Anthrax threats, attacks on abortion providers, bomb threats on clinics. We aren't just talking about "one bad apple."

LeRoy Carhart must be pulling our legs. No one in their right mind could actually believe that absurdity.

why wasn't President Obama's "relationship" with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn ever considered important?

It was considered important by some people, just not the voters.

But back to 2009, where domestic terrorists have ties to far-right groups and the pro-life movement. What is the pro-life movement doing about it? What are politicians and pundits aligned with the pro-life movement doing to rid themselves of the elements that encourage domestic terrorism?

"...why wasn't President Obama's "relationship" with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn ever considered important?"

Perhaps for the same reason that conservatives do not consider it important that Operation Rescue had a convicted domestic terrorist in its employ (Cheryl Sullenger), and that Scott Roeder had contact with her in the weeks leading up to his attack on Dr. Tiller.

RJohnson and Michael:

Are all groups of a similar political ilk, well, similar? Or are they merely co-belligerant?

For example: China and Russia are in agreement over needing more oil to drive their manufacturing base. Are they friends with each other, or are they co-belligerants with an intersecting need and working together to meet that need?

And when you consider that 63% of all Americans polled think abortion is wrong (according to the latest Pew Research poll), it may be coincidental that those people who are on the side of anti-abortion (as opposed to being truly pro-life) are also anti-government. They, more often than not, decry the government's heavy-handedness in what should be state's issues. Or individual choices.

I agree...stalking is a crime. I was stalked. It's horrific. For me, the threat that someone may be googling my address is enough for me to break out in a cold sweat. Intimidation and emotional abuse, fear-mongering and harrassment are all wrong. But it's on BOTH sides of this issue. When I worked as a post-abortion counselor, I received my share of death threats as well...and letters with white powder in them...and bomb threats. These things just don't make the news when it's a pro-life clinic.

Randall Terry and Operation Rescue use, in my opinion, illegal tactics. (I once left the only church of my denomination in a 50 mile radius because of their support of OR.) But, as I found out, once you have thrown something in the garbage, it is not illegal for someone to go through it and take what they find. What I find even more horrific, is the publication of those pictures. When my Husband died, he donated his body to medical research. Would it be wrong to plaster photos of his body, after the research on billboards, as adverts? Yes! Why? Because it is disrespectful of him...who he was...and hurtful to us and everyone who knew him

Why is it not equally disrespectful of these children to do the same to them? If OR believes they are people, then why disrespect them in this way???

But I digress...

I do not know what the larger pro-life movement is doing, as I *do not speak for anyone but myself*. I consider myself pro-life...not anti-abortion...in that I support policies that support life across the spectrum: pre-birth, elder-care, education, healthcare, end-of-life issues, homelessness, poverty issues, just war, and so on.

"...the pro-life movement and other far right extremists..."

Where did this idiotic line come from? I'm seeing it all over the place. Even heard it on NPR the other day.

@RJohnson:

I don't think YOU ever called these protests terrorism or hate crimes, although maybe I misread. But sorry if my posts read that way.

To answer you question in another post: The representatives of both sides in these debates should be encouraged to break bread together. To try to have human interactions. Even something really silly. Perhaps "Kulturkampf minigolf"? There are gay people and prochoice people in my life that I care about very much, but with whom I disagree on these sorts of issues. But I can't ever dehumanize the opposing viewpoints in my mind, because I picture them coming from the mouths of dear friends. The more deep friendships across these divides, the more humane--and thus truly human--our civic discourse can become. Love conquers all.

Where did this idiotic line come from? I'm seeing it all over the place. Even heard it on NPR the other day.

Almost all of the homegrown, domestic terrorists in the last 30 years have had ties to the pro-life movement. They've also have ties to far-right extremist groups -- Christian Identity groups, the Army of God (which supports killings at abortion clinics), white Identity groups.

Michael - You asked "Is the pro-life movement a cover for domestic terrorists?" and answered "Absolutely". What do you mean by "cover"?

Erin,
I went to the link to the story. The article does indeed say that the Dr. supports hate crimes for all abortion protests. But, then it quotes him and that's not at all what he says. What he says is that things that are already crimes should be considered hate crimes. That's something I'm torn on. I oppose hate crimes legislation, but if we are going to have them, they should apply here. Anyway, I just want to caution you from accepting the Washington Times version at face value. If he really said all protests should be considered hate crimes, then he should be condemned. But I kind of doubt they would quote everything but that if the Dr. had really said all protest should be a hate crime.

Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, Michael F. Griffin, John Salvi, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, Shelly Shannon, Clayton Lee Waagner. All of these people had ties to the pro-life movement and many had ties to Christian Identity and white Supremacist groups.

How do you legislate it? What if the protester is at the end of the block? What if the office is next to someone's home? What if it's a home office?

I am against the legislation.

@Michael

That's a list. That does not support an "almost all" claim. I also majorly *struggle* with lumping Christians and White Supremacists into the same bin to make an anti-abortionist point.

It's not a matter of hate crimes. It's pure and simple terrorism. Holding a vigil or other public protest against abortion generally is protected by the First Amendment. MOST of the direct action groups which target clinics cross the line because their goal, and the effects of their actions is to intimidate. Targeting peoples homes and disseminating their personal information is an open encouragement for murder, and all of those supporting these organizations should be liable for enormous prison sentences and civil damages. These people are not one hair different from Islamic terrorists, either in mindset or the fruit their movement bears.

Michael wrote:

Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, Michael F. Griffin, John Salvi, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, Shelly Shannon, Clayton Lee Waagner. All of these people had ties to the pro-life movement and many had ties to Christian Identity and white Supremacist groups.

I think it's worth looking at where these people came from. I don't know about many of the people on your list, but McVeigh had little to do with the pro-life movement IIRC and Roeder seems to have started out in militia groups and backed into the pro-life movement, which may help to explain why violence came so easily to him.

I do object to the identification of the SSM movement, even its most radical fringes, with the radical fringes of the pro-life movement. Back when Rod first started complaining about eightmaps.com, I challenged him to document even one incident of intimidation, stalking or violence that came about as a result of that site.

While there were a handful of property crimes in the immediate aftermath of religious conservatives stripping us of the ability to marry in California (all of them unrelated to eightmaps.com), none of them even even approached the vitriol that RJohnson documented or that Laura Johnson attested to.

To put SSM activists in the same category as fringe radical pro- and anti-abortion activists reeks of hysteria.

There's a reason why we trace the start of Western Civilization to pagan gentiles who lived long, long before the birth of Christ. Yet John Gray and many, many others either ignore or do not understand the that which they champion. Judeo-Christian tradition is primarily a religious graft upon the scientific and philosophical foundation built over many centuries by the pagan Ancient Greek city-states and the Roman Republic.

Christianity did not give us the ethics of medicine (Hippocratic Oath), participatory democracy, classical architecture, civil engineering, et, al. Single-handedly, Aristotle has had as much a role in the shaping of Christian theology as St. Thomas Aquinas. And need I mention the Eastern Orthodox Church is particularly in debt to Aristotlean thought? While a strong case can be made that the Age of Enlightenment was carried forth by generations raised as - or at least amongst - Christian society, they themselves were most often Diests;

Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in the United Kingdom, France, United States and Ireland, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either a triune God, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one god.

It can rightly be said that if Christianity is responsible for the Age of Enlightenment and modern Science, Christianity has also been it's biggest obstacle and fiercest opponent as evidenced by Young Earth Creationists.

Sorry about the 2:56 post on western civilization. Doesn't belong in this thread and it's not what I wanted to post.

quote: RJohnson ~ "So...how do we turn this back? How do we lessen the propensity for violence on both sides of the issue that we all seem to feel to one degree or another?

What is the answer?"

Education. And restraint from painting each group with a caricature brush.

Love Conquers All. But this is meaningless in the face of two things: 1) the lack of understanding what this love is and b) knowing where this love comes from. Unless and until we can educate from this foundational principle, we will have the sort of violent rhetoric (and accompanying acts) we have today.

The other side of this, is the replacing of One Ideal with a Different Ideal. It's like changing the rules of the game in mid-game. Once upon a time...and they lived happily ever after...with Mommy and Daddy in a House with a White Picket Fence was once everyone's Dream. But that Ideal, that Dream, is being forcibly changed by those who have a different Ideal, a different Dream and their desire is to justify that Ideal by whatever means are at their disposal. For those who cling to the Ideal as being the foundation of a healthy society, amongst other reasons, there will inevitably be a clash with those who desire to change the Dream with their own...and see no reason not to.

Even if it leaves 43 million dead babies.

Even if it means leaving the millenia-old idea of marriage between Man and Woman in shreds.

Yes, yes, I know. Abortion is also ancient as is polygamy and polyandry and homosexuality and everything else. But, then, why persists the Fairy Tale, the Dream, the Ideal: Husband, Wife, Kids, Picket Fence??? if everything else is also Right and Good?

The anger and frustration is against competing Dreams, competing Ideals. They are personal and they identify us. And they are life and death to those who believe in such.

There is the root of the problem.

If love would be brought to bear, it must be unconditional selfless love and the Teacher of that love has been banned from common American discourse. How can one learn of it? Only in quiet places is He spoken of and taught. Only one-on-one. That is where the real battle is fought...for the hearts and minds of men and women.

In flaming rhetoric you will not see this love...on either side.

How sad.

When an atheist demands...and a Muslim demands...and an abortionist demands...and a Christian demands...how to allow for competing, self-cancelling, counter-productive demands???

You can't. You just can't. And when compromise is untenable?

:sigh:

There is no answer. I have no answer.

And restraint from painting each group with a caricature brush.

One assumes that the remainder of your post was a cautionary example of how not to act.

Laura: "But, then, why persists the Fairy Tale, the Dream, the Ideal: Husband, Wife, Kids, Picket Fence??? if everything else is also Right and Good?"

For the same reason my parents looked back so fondly on the time of their youth, and my grandparents looked back with similar fondness on their youth. It is the nature of humans to look back in time and forget the bad, the hard, and the painful moments.

We are doing exactly what our parents did, and what their parents did before them. We are idealizing the past as we face an uncertain future. We forget that the past had its own troubles as well, some that would compare to the problems we face today.

And yes...the correct term and spelling for the practice of one man sharing several wives is polygyny.

"Is protesting against abortion a hate crime?"

No. Learn what words mean.

"Hate crime" is not a separate category of crime, it is an an aggravating factor in an already-defined crime. Here is a summary from David Neiwert. He's guy you need to read if you're going to be talking about this stuff. The chances are that if you don't read Neiwert you do not know what you're talking about.

Protest is NOT a hate crime. No-one is trying to define protest as a hate crime. No-one in the US is seriously trying to pass "hate speech" laws, in the sense of trying to define *currently legal* speech as "hate speech".

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a speech crime. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded church or synagogue may well be a hate speech crime. But the point is that in the US it has to be a crime first, before it can be a hate crime.

The reason you're getting the impression that leftists are calling abortion protests "hate crimes" and "terrorism" is because abortion protesters frequently don't just protest. Some protesters -- though by no means all -- also stalk, harrass, assault, and threaten women and clinic workers. Harrassment, etc., are *already* crimes. When the goal of the harrassment, etc., is to "send a message" not just to the immediate victim but to the group or community of which she is a part, *that is a hate crime*.

"I do remember the air raid drills in school, btw."

I grew up about 30 miles from the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, which was actively producing nuclear weapons in the 60s and 70s. We were told that we would be safe if we went to the hallway, crouched near the wall, and held a book over our head.

In reality we were simply teeing ourselves up fried by the fireball and smacked downrange by the shockwave. Little ashen soccer balls, we would have been.

To all:

:)

I've lived in several different countries. I've done the ethnocentric courses. And I am not so naive. I am well aware of what (some) priests, and youth ministers, and teachers, and funny uncles were/are still doing. I am aware of what it meant to go visit Aunt Olive for the summer in the 1950's. I was one of those children; I was adopted through Catholic Charities.

But my Parents, and my GrandParents, and all the Parents and GrandParents of my friends stayed married to each other. I don't remember any of my friends or my Parent's friends enduring abuse or unfaithfulness or divorce. Perhaps I lived in Camelot...perhaps I am the exception that proves some sort of rule. Whatever. But I went to mixed catholic schools...and mixed universities. And still, I dream my dream. Guess I am a bit of a fool.

About the rhetoric: a fact is a fact. I state it. Make of it what you will. Not my problem if you do not like the fact. But I must say: some of you seem to have a rather loose definition of "flaming rhetoric" if what I wrote fits that definition...

If what I state is ethnocentric, I guess most folk want to be American ethnocentric. Perhaps that's why you find McDonald's within walking distance of the Forbidden City in Beijing. I am simply re-stating what has been related to me, by Tibetans, Thai, Ukrainians, single Moms (and Dads), Chinese, British, and others: a committed spouse, their own home, and children. However that looks in their culture, much less our culture, is what they want.

And of course you'all disagree! That's why we are here...to discuss, disagree, vent, make our thoughts and opinions known. Or, perhaps, we're just bored. In any case, it's been enlightening. Thank you, all.

Now...back to my little hole-in-the-ground where life is beautiful and all live in peace. ;)

I agree with your posts, Doctor Science. I want to see people like Rod and Erin offer unequivocal condemnation of anti-abortion terrorism. Rod and Erin have every right to be prolife, and to advocate for their views publicly.

But, when they use language that suggests that they see the victims of this violence, such as Tiller, as less than human, or as "evil abortionists" they are, in my opinion, justfifying the terrorist acts against Tiller and others while formally condemning those acts. I don't think this justification is a form of intellectual dishonesty, either. I think it is a genuine blind spot on the part of Rod and Erin.

Alicia, I think both Rod and Erin have offered a condemnation of the murder of Dr. Tiller coupled with a condemnation of his own actions as an abortionist. My guess is that is the best we will receive, and to pursue the matter further is simply beating a dead horse.

ALL murders are driven by hate. Not just some.

i hate abortions,it makes me wanna puke just thinkin about the idea of murdering a baby... wtf.........