Christians who believe they're fighting a holy war

[kach22i]

No not about Iraq, not even the Middle East.

The terrorists who aren't in the news
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppoz084922734oct08,0,27561.story
Anti-abortion fanatics spread fear by bombings, murders and assaults, but the media take little notice
BY JENNIFER L. POZNER
Jennifer L. Pozner is founder and executive director of Women In Media & News, a national media analysis, education and advocacy group.

October 8, 2006

On Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks that
devastated our nation, a man crashed his car into a building in
Davenport, Iowa, hoping to blow it up and kill himself in the fire.

No national newspaper, magazine or network newscast reported this
attempted suicide bombing, though an AP wire story was available.
Cable news (save for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann) was silent about this
latest act of terrorism in America.

Had the criminal, David McMenemy, been Arab or Muslim, this would
have been headline news for weeks. But since his target was the
Edgerton Women's Health Center, rather than, say, a bank or a police
station, media have not called this terrorism - even after three
decades of extreme violence by anti-abortion fanatics, mostly
fundamentalist Christians who believe they're fighting a holy war.

Since 1977, casualties from this war include seven murders, 17
attempted murders, three kidnappings, 152 assaults, 305 completed or
attempted bombings and arsons, 375 invasions, 482 stalking incidents,
380 death threats, 618 bomb threats, 100 acid attacks, and 1,254 acts
of vandalism, according to the National Abortion Federation.

Abortion providers and activists received 77 letters threatening
anthrax attacks before 9/11, yet the media never considered anthrax
threats as terrorism until after 9/11, when such letters were
delivered to journalists' offices and members of Congress.

After 9/11, Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups
received 554 envelopes containing white powder and messages like,
"You have been exposed to anthrax. ... We are going to kill all of
you." They were signed by the Army of God, a group that hosts
Scripture-filled Web pages for "Anti-Abortion Heroes of the Faith"
including minister Paul Hill, Michael Griffin and James Kopp, all
convicted of murdering abortion providers, and a convicted clinic
bomber, the Rev. Michael Bray. Another of their "martyrs," Clayton
Waagner, mailed anthrax letters while a fugitive on the FBI's 10 most
wanted list for anti-abortion related crimes.

"I am a terrorist," Waagner declared on the Army of God's Web site.
Boasting that God "freed me to make war on his enemy," he claimed he
knew where 42 Planned Parenthood workers lived. "It doesn't matter to
me if you're a nurse, receptionist, bookkeeper, or janitor, if you
work for the murderous abortionist I'm going to kill you."

That's textbook terrorism, defined by the USA Patriot Act as
dangerous criminal acts that "appear to be intended to intimidate or
coerce a civilian population" or "to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion."

Which brings us back to car bomber McMenemy. According to the Detroit
Free Press (the only newspaper in the Nexis news database that
reported his crime), he targeted the women's health center because he
thought it provided abortions. It doesn't. (Oops!) It provides mostly
low-income patients with pap smears, ob-gyn care, testing for
sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, and nutrition and
immunization programs for women and children.

The attack caused $170,000 in property damage and left poor families
without health care for a week. But long after Edgerton's water-
logged carpets are removed, scorched medical equipment replaced and
new doors reopened to the public, a culture of fear will linger among
doctors, nurses, advocates and patients across the country, who will
worry that they're next. Some frightened workers will quit their
jobs; some women will be too scared to get the health care they need.

Every fresh incident of anti-abortion terrorism is a reminder that
women's health supporters are not safe in a country where abortion is
legal but mobilized zealots believe Jesus has empowered them to kill
to prevent women from choosing it.

Is McMenemy a lone nutcase, or a member of that network of violent
extremists? We don't know, because journalists haven't investigated.

Nor have they reported that just last year, nearly one in five
abortion clinics experienced gunfire, arson, bombings, chemical
attacks, assaults, stalking, death threats and blockades, according
to the 2005 National Clinic Violence Survey. Additionally, 59 percent
suffered intimidation tactics such as photo/video surveillance.



Federal efforts to hunt down these terrorists improved with the
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1994 and the National
Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, established by
the Department of Justice in 1998. The feds have taken over
McMenemy's case, charging him with arson against a business affecting
interstate commerce. Yet as of Oct. 5, no news outlet on Nexis
reported this, despite a second AP story.

As we continue national debates on how to keep America safe from
terrorism, journalists do us - and especially women - no good
pretending that the threats come only from radical Muslims outside
our borders.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

[dhoward]

Send 'em to Gitmo I say...

[Jeff Higgins]

And in the same period of time, millions of unborn babies have been murdered. That's not reported as a "war" or "terrorism" either, yet it is one of the the single highest single-cause death tolls in the history of man, if not the highest. And totally preventable save for the laziness, ignorance, irresponsibility, and selfishness of the mothers involved.

[TheMentat]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
And in the same period of time, millions of unborn babies have been murdered. That's not reported as a "war" or "terrorism" either, yet it is one of the the single highest single-cause death tolls in the history of man, if not the highest. And totally preventable save for the laziness, ignorance, irresponsibility, and selfishness of the mothers involved.

Its not reported as "terrorism", or a "war" because it doesn't fit either definition

"murder" perhaps, but that depends on your viewpoint on abortion, and thus is debateable .

These attacks are clearly designed to intimidate or coerce the people that work in these clinics. That pretty much fits the definition of terrorism perfectly, no?

[scottmandue]

Yeah let's beat this dead horse some more... some people claim to be Christians and display distinctly anti-Christian behavior.

Doesn't the KKK claim to be a Christian organization?

So if I load a car with explosives and drive it into a building "in the name of kach" does that make you responsible?

[74-911]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
And in the same period of time, millions of unborn babies have been murdered. That's not reported as a "war" or "terrorism" either, yet it is one of the the single highest single-cause death tolls in the history of man, if not the highest. And totally preventable save for the laziness, ignorance, irresponsibility, and selfishness of the mothers involved.

Last time I checked there were also some "fathers" involved in the process. Perhaps the same adjectives could be applied to them also?

[island_dude]

So in effect, you are justifying these acts of violence with a statement about the murder of unborn babies? So far, there are laws governing abortion. They have been upheld several times by the supreme court. The violent acts cited here are not justified in any case since they are at best vigilante acts, and at worst bold acts of terrorism. We just had a debate about a 14 year old girls website "threat" to the president and I recall you were quite vocal about it being appropriate to investigate it etc. Yet you don't hold the same standard for those whose threats are much more tangible.

Last I checked, we have government that is creating and overseeing laws in this country. You don't get to creat your own regardless of the moral issues.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
And in the same period of time, millions of unborn babies have been murdered. That's not reported as a "war" or "terrorism" either, yet it is one of the the single highest single-cause death tolls in the history of man, if not the highest. And totally preventable save for the laziness, ignorance, irresponsibility, and selfishness of the mothers involved.

Never mind.

[Jeff Higgins]

Why would my statements about this been seen as condoning it in any way? What these attackers are doing is clearly terrorism by any definition. Anyone that calls themselves a "Christian" and does this I place squarely beside their Muslim counterparts invoking the name of "Allah" when they murder.

And yes, there are fathers involved. The ultimate decision to spread her legs, and then abort, lies with the woman, however. And please don't start with the "what about rape? what about incest? what about detectable birth affects? what if it's the mother's or the babie's life and you have to choose?" bull*****; we have been down that road before.

There may indeed be times it is unnavoidable and necessary. But this "right to choose" is simply a euphemism for "right to make the decision as to whether another human lives or not". The "or not"="murder". They are taking another's life, pure and simple.

I was simply pointing out the irony in this woman, one who supports "attacks" of a different but far more devastating kind, (against utterly defenseless victims) decrying these attacks on abortion. I'm not saying the attacks are right or justified in any way. The folks perpetrating them are the lowest form of coward, and hiding behind their "God" makes it ever the more disgracefull.

[dhoward]

Originally posted by kach22i
Never mind.

It was a valiant effort.

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by TheMentat
Its not reported as "terrorism", or a "war" because it doesn't fit either definition

"murder" perhaps, but that depends on your viewpoint on abortion, and thus is debateable .

These attacks are clearly designed to intimidate or coerce the people that work in these clinics. That pretty much fits the definition of terrorism perfectly, no?

murdering millions of unborn babies is not terror?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by island_dude
So in effect, you are justifying these acts of violence with a statement about the murder of unborn babies? So far, there are laws governing abortion. They have been upheld several times by the supreme court. The violent acts cited here are not justified in any case since they are at best vigilante acts, and at worst bold acts of terrorism. We just had a debate about a 14 year old girls website "threat" to the president and I recall you were quite vocal about it being appropriate to investigate it etc. Yet you don't hold the same standard for those whose threats are much more tangible.

Last I checked, we have government that is creating and overseeing laws in this country. You don't get to creat your own regardless of the moral issues.

\

laws governing abortion don't mean it makes it moral or just.

same with invading Iraq. Just because the monkey administration/congress passed a resolution doesn't mean it wasn't a criminal act.

[TheMentat]

Originally posted by on-ramp
murdering millions of unborn babies is not terror?

not even close to what I said...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by island_dude
So in effect, you are justifying these acts of violence with a statement about the murder of unborn babies? So far, there are laws governing abortion. They have been upheld several times by the supreme court. The violent acts cited here are not justified in any case since they are at best vigilante acts, and at worst bold acts of terrorism. We just had a debate about a 14 year old girls website "threat" to the president and I recall you were quite vocal about it being appropriate to investigate it etc. Yet you don't hold the same standard for those whose threats are much more tangible.

Last I checked, we have government that is creating and overseeing laws in this country. You don't get to creat your own regardless of the moral issues.

Your recollection of that thread, and probably your image of me, is all wrong. I had one contribution on that entire thread. About halfway down this page:

Girl's MySpace post alarms Secret Service

[Moneyguy1]

Your word "murder".

When does life actually begin, defined as a viable entity, able to survive on its own, cogniznet of the world around it? A "poll" wanted to ask about the 269th day of gestation and whether THAT would be OK for an abortion? Obviously a ploy to show how "terrible" that abortion is. Most, if not all, would agree that an infant at 269 days is, barring severe genetic defect, viable and to terminate it would be murder.

So, the argument comes down to the point at which the zygote is a person. It differs from religion to religion.

So, the conundrum: If it is "murder" to abort a fetus, then what is it to teminate a doctor or a pregnant woman deliberately? Under these circumstances, tthose advocating such acts are guilty of a number of "sins".

1. Assuming to read and understand the mind of the Creator
2. Forcing their beliefs on others and not permitting people to make their own decisions

Interesting that the "terrorists" we fight against act in the same manner.

[Jeff Higgins]

Bob, I'm afraid you have fallen victim to the abortionists' distractions. "When does life begin" is not the real question here at all. If no one interferes, it progresses. Taking no deliberate action, letting nature take its course, results in a human life. It is just that simple. To interfere is to end that life; we call deliberately ending another's life "murder". "Independant survivability" is not an issue either; it takes years for a human child to be able to do that. Just another distraction added to the abortionists' contrived house of cards. Now it appears as though one of those cards has been pulled out from the bottom. No matter I guess; they will build another on a new foundation.

Recent research suggests that the fertilized egg's DNA is different from the mother's immediately upon conception. Should be obvious; it fundementaly changes its DNA programming at conception from an egg that will die to an egg that will live. Modern science tells us that a unique DNA = a unique and individual being; a life unto itself. No one seems to dispute that.

Until we discuss conception; then it becomes a "zygot" (to drive further away from any potentially uncomfortable connection to humanity), a collection of cells glommed onto the mother's uterus. A part of her to do with as she pleases, like a zit or something. We must completely ignore our emerging understanding of DNA to make this leap; a science that, on the other hand, is being touted as getting to the core of the very origin of our species to begin with. So let's all latch onto it there, and ignore it when it points to the origin of a contemporary human in its mother's womb.

Funny how contrived the justifications become, how euphemistic the terms must become, to make folks buy into this whole thing. Then, to add a great deal of fuel to the fire, the abortionists would like you to believe that the only people that oppose them are some kind of fundementalist Christian whack-jobs. It's easier to pull people to your side if you can convince them the other side are nothing but fanatcal monsters, and a danger to everyone, not just on your particular front.

While they are certainly the ones resorting to violence, and therefore the most visible, they are far from the only opposition. A great many non-Christian, indeed completely non-religious people, oppose abortion. They know intuitively it is wrong; it is just such a simple question and so damn obvious. They see the smokescreen of "pro-choice", "zygot", and other popular abortion euphemisms. Not that they need it in the least, but now the science of DNA stands to eliminate the question as to when "it" becomes its own unique being.

[TheMentat]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
A great many non-Christian, indeed completely non-religious people, oppose abortion.

What percentage of anti-abortion folks do you really think are non-religious?

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Bob, I'm afraid you have fallen victim to the abortionists' distractions. "When does life begin" is not the real question here at all. If no one interferes, it progresses. Taking no deliberate action, letting nature take its course, results in a human life. It is just that simple. To interfere is to end that life; we call deliberately ending another's life "murder".

This is very interesting. It explains the nonsensical (to me) actions of the the pro-life camp very well.

I've always wondered why pro-lifers tended to be against adequate sex-ed (ie, not "abstainance only"), birth control, and masturbation. It just doesn't make sense to me -- studies have shown over and over that people who are educated about sex and have access to a means birth control are less likely to have an unintended pregnancy and also less likely to abort the baby. To me, it seems obvious: to reduce the number of abortions, educate people and provide BC.

But I was mistaken that the goal is a reduction in the number of abortions. The goal, according to Jeff, isn't to prevent abortions, it's to prevent "murder" as defined above. But that definition of murder is wildy at odds with how I would define it.

If murder is anything that interfere with something that would result in life, it explains everything. They aren't against abortions. They are against abortions as a subset of things which interfere. Those things include masturbation, birth control, homosexuality, pulling out, swallowing, pearl necklaces, etc.

If anything, this point of view is even more frightening than I previously thought. It's one thing to want to regulate abortion clinics. Another to want to regulate my bedroom.

[dhoward]

Wudavid, nicely put.

[HardDrive]