The Murder of George Tiller
01 June 2009 | By LowellB in Law, Lowell, Politics, TN Blog
Yesterday’s murder of George Tiller (photo at left) a Kansas physician who notoriously provided late-term abortions, has justly provoked a torrent of outrage and denunciation. Hugh Hewitt said it well, and concisely:
“[E]ach time [an anti-abortion extremist commits such a murder] the pro-life movement grieves for the victim and the family of the victim, and for the cause of the unborn which is deeply damaged by violence of any sort, but especially of the worst sort. Christians especially must forcefully condemn that which Christ would certainly denounce.”
We live in a nation of laws. Period. If we do not respect the law in our efforts to bring change, we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction. In that regard, I’ve always loved this clip from A Man for All Seasons. It’s worth the three minutes needed to watch it: Click continue reading for viewing.
Posted in Law, Lowell, Politics, TN Blog | 3 Comments » | 
| 
02 June 2009 | Bikerdad Said:
You’re wrong. Not necessarily about Tiller’s killing. About this:
We live in a nation of laws. Period. If we do not respect the law in our efforts to bring change, we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction.
It was our “disrespect” for “the law” that brought this country into being, violently. The fellas who signed the Declaration of Independence were committing high treason, not bowing to “the rule of law”. A slavish devotion to “the rule of law” is a tyrant’s dream.
02 June 2009 | LowellB Said:
Bikerdad, the Founders fought and died for the rule of law. So has every soldier, sailor or airman who has fought for the USA since that time.
04 June 2009 | Bikerdad Said:
Sorry Lowell, but you’re still wrong. The Founders did not fight for the rule of law, they fought for liberty, as did I. My guess is that we would agree that the rule of law is very important in order to maintain liberty, but it is subordinate to liberty.
http://www.answers.com/topic/rule-of-law
Furthermore, where exactly do you (and others) come up with the notion that killing Tiller is a transgression of “the rule of law”?
Did some government agents act in some arbitrary fashion against Tiller? No, if anything, Tiller has been able to continue his murderous activity precisely because of a failure of “the rule of law” and triumph of “the rule of man”. Assuming, as seems probable, that Scott Whatshisname isn’t simply a random crackpot, but actually and deliberatley targeted Tiller because of Tiller’s abortion activities, it would be reasonable to conclude that Scott “W” is a vigilante.
What’s the provenance of that word, “vigilante”? Look it up, and you’ll see that historically, vigilantism came into being precisely because of a failure of “the rule of law.” That abuses have been committed under the rubric of vigilantism is certainly true, just as abuses have been committed under the “rule of law.” The upshot is, vigilantism itself is morally neutral, unless, of course, one finds the notion of people acting as independent moral agents (i.e., individuals who have liberty) offensive. I don’t.
Before continuing, I encourage you to consider the arguments made in our Declaration of Independence, and simply substitute “Judges” for “King George”. Clearly, the folks who founded this country felt that there was a point where “unlawful action” was justified. Whether or not Scott “W”’s actions fall into that category is another matter, but unless one accepts that an individual’s actions CAN fall into that category, one can never be more than a subject, rather than a citizen.
Grace and peace,
BD