Redstate

was also a Christian when he leaned more towards the Neitchesque as well.

I think the MSM just likes the picture of a wild eyed nutso Christian out there bombing abortion clinics.

They'll do anything to make Christians look bad.

a blogger's opinion of a cnn article about an AP report; read his own opinion of the matter:

"I am not now nor have I ever been an Identity believing Christian. I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one. It is true that for one six month period in 1984 I did live near and attend a church that holds to the Identity doctrine. The purpose for my prolonged stay at this church was because I met a wonderful young lady whose father attended the church. We became engaged for that short time, but when the relationship ended, I left the church and I do not believe I have talked to an Identity believer since that period in the early 1980's."

misattributing the original article, you might note that the quote, "I prefer Nietzsche to the Bible," was taken directly from one of Rudolph's letters to his mother. What, precisely, to make of the letter vs. the statement, I don't know.

that the statement:  "I prefer Nietzsche to the Bible" indicates a preference in reading materials, and the statement:  "I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one." indicates a preference in religious belief.

He's a Catholic terrorist.  He should be denounced harshly by Catholics.  Just as those who commit terrorist acts in the name of Muslim causes (anti-American, anti-Israel, etc) should be denounced harshly by Muslims.

But putting that to the side, Catholicism is, contra Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Rudy Giuliani, et cetera, not something you can wrap around you at will. There are certain, oh, call them formalities to be obeyed, like attending Mass regularly, tithing when possible, adhering to Catholic doctrine like, for an easy example, not attempting to do good by doing evil.

Really, this is kind of silly. It's not like there's ambiguity in the doctrine or something. The fellow is on a quick little glide to the afterlife; the rules will be sorted out for him there.

Tell it to Northern Ireland.

I don't think you can disavow Rudolph by merely saying he didn't go to Mass during the five years he was hiding in the woods.  Adam is right, there are parallels in the relationship of this murderer to the Catholic Church and the relationships of the four murderers in London to the larger body of Islam.

Those parallels extend down to the videotaping of certain acts that most would find abominable:

"To demonstrate the extremely close ties between Eric and his family, Deborah brought up perhaps the most bizarre incident in this story: how Eric's brother Daniel amputated his hand and videotaped it in protest of the FBI and media attention on his brother."

Of course the Rudolphs and others like them are "misguided", to say the very least, but to deny the parallels between "Christian terrorists" and "Islamic terrorists" is either dishonest or "whistling past the graveyard".

The harsh rhetoric and hyperbole employed by both groups occassionally "inspire" these individuals to commit crimes that are not consistent with the formal teachings of their faiths.  Like Muslim suicide bombers Rudolph has constructed a rationale for his acts based on his religious beliefs:

Abortion is murder. And when the regime in Washington legalized, sanctioned and legitimized this practice, they forfeited their legitimacy and moral authority to govern. At various times in history men and women of good conscience have had to decide when the lawfully constituted authorities have overstepped their moral bounds and forfeited their right to rule. This took place in July of 1776 when our Forefathers decided that the British Crown had violated the essential rights of Englishmen, and therefore lost its authority to govern. And, in January of 1973 the government in Washington decided to descend into barbarism by sanctioning the ancient practice of infanticide, by that act consigned 50 million unborn children to their graves. There is no more legitimate reason to my knowledge, for renouncing allegiance to and if necessary using force to drag this monstrosity of a government down to the dust where it belongs.

You say that he has violated Catholic doctrine by committing murder in order to protect innocent lives.  I won't argue the catechism with you but I will say that nobody here seems very convinced that suicide bombers are not the real face of Islam because they are forbidden to kill innocents.  If this is truly the stance of Islam then Muslims should vocally condemn acts of murder.  If Catholics and others in the anti-abortion movement do not support Rudolph's actions they should vocally condemn them as well.  (My apologies if they already have, I searched google and saw nothing obvious.)

His glide to the afterlife is not quick enough for me, two life sentences, although I agree on the likely outcome of his final judgement.  But apparently he still thinks he will gain forgiveness.

If his actions are truly unacceptable to Catholics and the Catholic Church Adam is right and it should be easy for them to denounce his actions.

(Please understand I am not criticizing Catholics or Christians or saying that they support Rudolph and violence, just that I think looking at someone like him can provide insight into the relationship of Muslim terrorists to most of  Islam.  Insight many here could benefit from.)

They did not fight in the name of the Church. They were not funded by the Church, to the best of my knowledge.

Comparing the two statements, I think that he was not a Christian, but he might be one now that he realizes that his end is approaching.

However, I do believe that Christians should speak out & many have.

an indicator of worldview as a preference in reading materials.

this commentary is so bereft of logic as to be unanswerable.

Second, the IRA was a nationalist movement composed of people who were Catholic because virtually every person in Ireland is Catholic. It was not a religious movement or a Catholic movement.

political movement than religious.

I remember reading an article a while back-the indicated very few IRA members were committed Catholics.

So if you want to go down this road, then let's agree that Rudolph is a cultural catholic and not a religious one, given the fact that I don't think the Catholic Church has encouraged bombing of clinics, and is on record as condeming the murder of abortion providers and clinic bombings (shoot the Church is on record as being against the death penalty-hard to say they would advocate or condone members bombing clinics or shooting doctors).

I agree that Christians should disavow these actions-and they have.  

But I also don't know that it is fair to drop a nominal Catholic in name only into the lap of the church and act as if the Church encouraged or condoned what he did.

do lie in the theological conflicts of the Reformation. But those are only the roots. The modern day conflict is not theological at all: it is ethnic, the division between two tribes of Irishmen, the Gaelic (by ethnicity not language) Irish and the Scots-Irish. And most of the participants in this conflict are completely secular, with no more religious belief than a horse. This is also very true in the Balkan conflicts: the divide may once have had a religious basis, but in today's world it has long since condensed into an ethnic not a theological divide.

Are they Catholic?

Are they terrorists?

How is Catholic terrorist an oxymoron?

that the Church encouraged Rudolph.  Obviously they didn't.  

Which makes it very easy for Catholics to condemn him as Adam sugggested.

(And I would say that both Rudolph and OBL use terrorism to achieve political goals that they cannot acheive through other means.  Just like the IRA, Hamas, FARC, the Tamil Tigers,....)

I said some of the terrorists in Northern Ireland are Catholic.  Some are Protestant and some, as you suggest, are probably as religious as a horse.  

So I fail to see how "Catholic terrorist", "Christian terrorist", "Protestant terrorist", or "Atheist terrorist" is any more oxymoronic than "Muslim terrorist".

, but in the specific contexts, inaccurate. Al Qaida is committing terrorist acts for the specific purpose of furthering Islamic goals (at least tsuch goals as Al Qaida conceives of as Islamic--I am NOT claiming Al Qaida is any sort of mainstream Muslim group). By contrast the IRA is not seeking to further Roman Catholic goals, but rather is seeking a nationalist/secular goal: the reunion of Ulster with the Republic of Ireland.

the Church didn't encourage Rudolph then it makes no more sense for the Catholic Church to condemn his actions than it makes for Unitarians to condemn his actions.

Rudolph did nothing because of his affiliation with the Catholic Church. I have yet to hear of a single instance where a Catholic priest preached murder as a solution to abortion.

So, yes as a human I condemn Rudolph but as a Catholic I don't condemn Rudolph any more or less than I condemn any other murderer.

religious leader that he will be rewarded in Heaven with a slew of virgins, then there is a religious element involved here.

I am not aware of the Pope telling IRA bombers that their acts would give them a ticket straight to Heaven and the biggest crown ever.  As a matter of fact the Pope and the church has condemned such actions.

Understand the difference?

Now if at some point, the non murder supporting brand of Islam would get out there and vocally and voraciously condemn what is happening, the religious connection may head down hill some, but right now there isn't much of a case for it.

One problem with Islam is that there isn't a hierarchal body that can issue proclamations condemning acts.  It is sort of the equivalent of what you do get with the abortion clinic/doctor killers-except that overwelmingly Christians of all faiths condems such actions-you just dont have that yet with Islam (although it appears to be in its infancy).

Adam made above, "He's a Catholic terrorist. is it either:  oxymoronic? or inaccurate?

(And no, I am not saying Rudolph worked on behalf of, or with endorsement by the Catholic Church.)

Re Al Q.:  I would say that OBL and Al Q. are using terrorism to achieve political goals.  Yes the political state they seek will be a theocracy, but re-establishing the Caliphate is primarily a political and not a religious goal.

as asking a Muslim group to condemn the 9/11 murderers, or the London murderers, or....

"So, yes as a human I condemn Rudolph but as a Catholic I don't condemn Rudolph any more or less than I condemn any other murderer.

That's good enough for me.  Condemnation is condemnation.  Is it good enough for Muslims if they just condemn Muslim terrorists as individuals and not en masse as a faith?  

For some here I don't think it would be.  In fact, some here have endorsed things bordering on communal punishment for Muslims.

the CAtholic church has taken a clear stance on murder, and the killing of the innocent and not so innocent (think capital punishment here).

Islamic leaders haven't seemed to have taken such a clear stance.  There is way too much ambiguity in the teachings that it is hard to filter out any kind of official church position on suicide bombings of innocent civilians.

I see that as a vast differnce.

is as much a religious office as a political one. It is, in a very rough analogy, the equiavlent of the papacy for Sunni Muslims. (Shi'a Muslims, I think but could be wrong, do not think there can be a legitimate Caliph until after the Last Judgment or whatever the equivalent End Times event is in Islam)

I think you're just jealous of flyerhawk's reputation for obtuseness and are relentlessly carving out your own niche on this issue.

But if Rudolph does not accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, then he will suffer horribly in Hell.  

In Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV), Jesus Christ clearly told audience that there will be plenty of "Christians" claiming to do God's work who end up in Hell precisely because they failed to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.

That is why he can't be labeled as a born-again Christian, because he's not born-again in spiritual sense.  To be a Christian means to follow the example of Jesus Christ, it's obvious to born-again Christians, Rudolph isn't following this example.

Let me say this on record as a born-again Christian, I abhor abortion, I believe it is murder.  But equally I also believe it is wrong to murder abortion doctors and women desiring to abort their babies, because Life itself is precious in God's eyes.  They will have to answer before God in why they choose abortion, let Lord have His vengeance on them, it doesn't belong to us.

No, that doesn't mean I'm a pacifist who hates corporal punishment and death penalty, refusing to support any kind of war.  It simply means as a born-again Christian, I am annoyed by the fact that the media and rest of world are spreading their own brand of secular Gospel, twisting what the Bible teaches on many subjects.

What I'd like is a strong rebuke from born-again Christians like Paul who rebuked a sorcerer, "And said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10, KJV)

There is no way an atheist would make the following statement, as Rudolph did at his trial:

"We are our brother's keeper. God is not fooled. Posterity will certainly judge differently. Even if it should take 10 years, 50 years or 500 years before this black night of barbarism is finally swept into the dustbin of history, I will be vindicated. My actions in Birmingham that overcast day in January of 1998 will be vindicated."

if Eric Rudolph is not an atheist, as I do not think he is, then he is a theist, which encompasses deism.

Sort of makes the issue of his Christianity or role as a Christian terrorist moot.

This is the weakest argument I've ever seen out of you.

I won't address the Northern Ireland thing because so many others have. Suffice it to say that you're reaching, unless the several Protestant churches have some long-overdue repudiations in order. Which they don't.

In order for the parallel to be at all meaningful, there must first and foremost be a Catholic teaching that is binding on the consciences of the faithful that it is licit to deliberately kill those not directly involved in mass murder as a way of ending that mass murder. It has been nearly a decade since I read the whole Catechism cover to cover and slightly less long since I read the whole Code of Canon Law, but if memory serves, there is no such statement. If you know of such a statement, please direct me to it.

I don't think you can disavow Rudolph by merely saying he didn't go to Mass during the five years he was hiding in the woods.  Adam is right, there are parallels in the relationship of this murderer to the Catholic Church and the relationships of the four murderers in London to the larger body of Islam.

What part of Catholic doctrine teaches that it is licit to kill noncombatants who do not murder innocents to prevent or seek vengeance for the deaths of innocents? We can play that game with Islam, but you're gonna have to really stretch to get that with the Catholic Church.

Those parallels extend down to the videotaping of certain acts that most would find abominable[.]

Are you now asserting that the Catholic Church condones violent self-mutilation?

Of course the Rudolphs and others like them are "misguided", to say the very least, but to deny the parallels between "Christian terrorists" and "Islamic terrorists" is either dishonest or "whistling past the graveyard".

No, it's reasoning in parallel. I'm still waiting on that citation.

You say that he has violated Catholic doctrine by committing murder in order to protect innocent lives.  I won't argue the catechism with you but I will say that nobody here seems very convinced that suicide bombers are not the real face of Islam because they are forbidden to kill innocents.

I do say the first; I don't say the second because the second clause is not precisely true.

If this is truly the stance of Islam then Muslims should vocally condemn acts of murder.  If Catholics and others in the anti-abortion movement do not support Rudolph's actions they should vocally condemn them as well.  (My apologies if they already have, I searched google and saw nothing obvious.)

As you're not down and dirty in the pro-life movement, let me share this with you: Every time some cretin pops a baby-killing abortionist, the rest of us have to go on a long tear of denunciations, because the folks who take your position on this are quick to smear us as religious nutjobs who want to rape and murder our way across America; because this sort of thing is, ahem, counterproductive; because it is not in fact an act of Catholic teaching, but rather is explicitly contrary to it; and because otherwise we're going to hear You didn't denounce him fast enough! for the next ten years while ultrasounds show kids smiling in utero and we're trying to make a freaking point.

In other words: I assure you, the denunciations were done.

His glide to the afterlife is not quick enough for me, two life sentences, although I agree on the likely outcome of his final judgement.  But apparently he still thinks he will gain forgiveness.

He may. He may not. It is an elementary teaching of Catholic Christianity that faith in Christ and sincere penitence combine for a path of salvation. This is ultimately between him and God. I doubt he'll get into the light, but he has time yet.

If his actions are truly unacceptable to Catholics and the Catholic Church Adam is right and it should be easy for them to denounce his actions.

Adam has an axe to grind here, and is not reasoning well by analogy. Neither are you.

(Please understand I am not criticizing Catholics or Christians or saying that they support Rudolph and violence, just that I think looking at someone like him can provide insight into the relationship of Muslim terrorists to most of Islam.  Insight many here could benefit from.) (Link omitted.)

Take it up with Paul. He's not Catholic. He is sharp enough, however, to see the logical flaws in your argument.

is a believer in a god, whatever he belives that god to be. That is his downfall, as it is for all those who believe in their imaginary rulers who live in the sky. Whichever of the thousands upon thousands of man-invented gods is what is really "moot".

Let's not insult religious believers, ok? Thanks. That's your warning. Have a nice day.

You must have missed a bunch of them!

Anyway, I think you and the others are misreading me in several places.  It's probably my fault for being unclear.

Most importantly, I was not trying to compare Islam and the Catholic Church I was comparing the few Muslims who resort to violence and bombings to the even fewer Catholics/Christians, like Rudolph, who resort to violence to achieve an end.  I don't think either is a good representative of either faith.  They hold a distorted view of their own faith that is fed by harsh rhetoric like "mass murder", "baby killers", etc.  

To use a metaphor, that will probably just make things worse, as an outsider looking in I see Christianity and Islam as bridges that have been built to try to help people get from one side of a vast chasm to the other.  The other sides are slightly different but it's the same chasm.  Both bridges have guard rails, The Bible and The Koran, to help keep people on the bridge so they don't fall off into the chasm.  Although both bridges are quite strong and I think they can both get you to the other side, the guard rails have some low points where people have been known to fall over the side.  Unfortunately, some people have chosen to stand at those low points and encourage people to jump off the bridge;  people like Fred Phelps, whoever runs that web site glorifying Rudolph that I linked to above, OBL, and Omar abdul Rahman.  They convince people that they can get to the other side by climbing over the guard rail at the low points, some people have other problems and are persuaded to climb over the rail and fall into the chasm.  Now these low points and the falling off are not the fault of the religions or the books they are the fault of the individuals with the problems and the people telling them to climb over the rails.  The people climbing over the rails (they're the same on both bridge) are all misguided, wrong and headed for a fall.

Most of your objections stem from the impression that I am comparing the Catholic Church or it's teachings to Islam or it's teachings.  I'm not I'm comparing the unfortunates who have climbed over the rails.  

For example:

"Those parallels extend down to the videotaping of certain acts that most would find abominable"

Are you now asserting that the Catholic Church condones violent self-mutilation?

Of course not!  I was comparing Rudolph's brother to people like KSM and al Zarquawi (sp?).  I don't think the Koran condones cutting off reporter's or contractor's heads with a dull knife and distributing the videotape on the internet.  The comparison is that these people:  the brothers Rudolph, KSM, OBL, Zarquawi, the guys in London,... are freakin' nut-jobs!  They all (ab)use religions to justify their actions, but in reality the're just crazy! (In truth, the hand meets Sawzall story isn't really germane to my point I just wanted to share what a nut-job Rudolph's brother was so I worked it in.)

I don't think the Catechism says or justifies anything Rudolph did but he apparently finds a way to justify his actions by saying he is defending innocent lives.  To me this is the same as a Muslim who can find justification for flying a plane into a tower or strapping a bomb to his body and blowing up a bunch of people on a bus or train.  Both are wrong about what their religions actually say and justify, and the people who know that they're wrong should say so.

In other words: I assure you, the denunciations were done.

I'm sorry.  I didn't follow the news very closely five years ago and I didn't see anything about it when I searched google.  I called on a Muslim organization, who may or may not have had any contact with the chemist involved with the London bombings, to condemn the London bombers last week so at least I am an equal opportunity offender.

All this being said, I don't think the explosions occurring in London today are the work of the IRA.  I recognize that if Rudolph represents a speck in the eye of the pro-life-Christian-Catholic groups there is truly a beam in the eye of the Muslim community.

In addition to thinking that the rhetoric of jihadi and pro-life groups encourages bridge jumpers, I'm also not sure how effective it is.

You use the harsh rhetoric a lot, "baby-killing abortionist".  I know you bleieve it and I can respect that belief.  But I think your use of it decreases the effectiveness of your message.  

For example, you have compared scientists who would use discarded embryos to search for cures for diseases to Josef Mengele.  When you do this you:

1.  Trivialize {Mengele. http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/Mengele/Research.htm]
   
2.  Make a childish attempt to persuade that belittles the seriousness of your own convictions.
   
3.  Commit possible libel.
   
4.  Turn off substantial groups of people who otherwise might consider your point of view.  I have heard (although it may be apocryphal) that attempts to persuade smokers to quit smoking that include:  taking them to see people dying of cancer and emphyzema, showing them healthy pink lungs from non-smokers and tar-filled black lungs from smokers, and other scare tactics are effective for a portion of smokers but for the majority it turns them off makes them stop listening to the quit smoking message all together.  I think the pro-life movement does the same thing when they display posters of aborted fetuses and use terminology like mass murder and comparisons to the Holocaust.  I am certain that these tactics in relation to stem cell research are counter-productive to your position.

Just some unasked for advice.  

Now that I have done two things I usually try to avoid:  1. discuss religion, 2. discuss abortion.  I will meet with my board of directors and consider whether my posting priveleges here should be revoked.

Regards.

all respectable mainline and not so mainline denominations have condemned the actions of abortion clinic bombings.

A huge part of being pro life for the majority of Christian pro lifers is the fact that all life is sacred and we do not have the right to remove it-even the life of those we deem wrong (Doc's who perform abortions), and even those Christians who are pro capital punishment, they believe that they do not personally have the right to remove the life of a murderer, but that the government through its God given authority and its proccess of laws has that right.

If you can find a respected mainline Christian denomination that advocates the murder of abortion doctors or the bombing of abortion clinics I would be quite shocked.

The abortion clinic bombers and doctor killers are marginalized by the majority of those who are Christian (and most would say the actions of these people is decidedly unChristian).

At this moment in time there just isn't a viable movement among Muslims that condemn the actions, that marginalize the murderers, and makes it clear that these actions are contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Until you see this type of movement where pretty much every mosque on every street corner condmens the actions of terrorists (even the Palestinian ones) then the terrorists are going to be carrying the banner of Islam and be its representatives whether others want them to or no.  The moderat Islamic voice that condmens these actions has got to turn into the face of Islam, if they want the banner taken away from the terrorists.

I think there is an undercurrent of movement in this direction, but at the moment it just isn't anywhere close to that.

Pardon the structure here, but I'm exhausted and don't have the energy to keep glancing up and re-reading to address the argument.

Most importantly, I was not trying to compare Islam and the Catholic Church I was comparing the few Muslims who resort to violence and bombings to the even fewer Catholics/Christians, like Rudolph, who resort to violence to achieve an end.  I don't think either is a good representative of either faith.  They hold a distorted view of their own faith that is fed by harsh rhetoric like "mass murder", "baby killers", etc.

Well, that may have been your intent, but it surely didn't come across that way. Indeed, logically, there is no reason for Catholics to apologize for or denounce nutjobs like Rudolph unless there is something intrinsic to the Faith that would give rise to loons like him. That was the thrust of your comment, non?

To use a metaphor, that will probably just make things worse, as an outsider looking in I see Christianity and Islam as bridges that have been built to try to help people get from one side of a vast chasm to the other.  The other sides are slightly different but it's the same chasm.  Both bridges have guard rails, The Bible and The Koran, to help keep people on the bridge so they don't fall off into the chasm.  Although both bridges are quite strong and I think they can both get you to the other side, the guard rails have some low points where people have been known to fall over the side.  Unfortunately, some people have chosen to stand at those low points and encourage people to jump off the bridge;  people like Fred Phelps, whoever runs that web site glorifying Rudolph that I linked to above, OBL, and Omar abdul Rahman.  They convince people that they can get to the other side by climbing over the guard rail at the low points, some people have other problems and are persuaded to climb over the rail and fall into the chasm.  Now these low points and the falling off are not the fault of the religions or the books they are the fault of the individuals with the problems and the people telling them to climb over the rails.  The people climbing over the rails (they're the same on both bridge) are all misguided, wrong and headed for a fall.

I don't even know where to start with this. Your heart's in the right place, but this metaphor is at once too broad and just deadly wrong in some of its underlying premises. I'll just leave it aside.

Most of your objections stem from the impression that I am comparing the Catholic Church or it's teachings to Islam or it's teachings.

No, most of my objections stem from the fact that you implied that there is something in the Catholic Faith that gives rise to this sort of silliness. There isn't; indeed, there are stern admonitions to the contrary, and, no matter what the John Kerrys and Andrew Sullivans of the world think, admonitions of that sort are not discretionary.

I don't think the Catechism says or justifies anything Rudolph did but he apparently finds a way to justify his actions by saying he is defending innocent lives.  To me this is the same as a Muslim who can find justification for flying a plane into a tower or strapping a bomb to his body and blowing up a bunch of people on a bus or train.  Both are wrong about what their religions actually say and justify, and the people who know that they're wrong should say so.

I am not an expert or believer in Islam. With that as a caveat, and with the enormous caveat that I'm rather fond of all three monotheisms, I gotta tell you that you have some first principles wrong here.

I add that the people who know it's wrong sometimes spend their time doing little but say it's wrong. Doesn't deter the ricecakes. And don't worry, if we're not quick enough, [expletive deleted] Planned Parenthood is there to yell at us for not yelling fast enough.

Look, here's the foundational problem with your argument: You're trying to defend, at base, the proposition that pro-lifers or Catholics or whoever need to apologize for Rudolph. However, logically, there is no reason to do so unless something intrinsic to the Faith would give rise to this. It doesn't. That's why your, and Adam's, points are flawed. Islam gives sanction -- or more accurately, widely-held-by-tens-of-millions-takes-on-Islam give sanction -- to a lot of behavior that isn't all that cute, you know? And, I add, as you say, if we're dealing with dust motes and beams, might there be a reason for the size disparity?

The analogy (not the bridge one, the big one) sucks. You can do better than this.

But.

1. I do not trivialize Mengele, unless noting that things we once rightly abhorred have become common practice is "trivializing." I can see an argument for how that might be literally so, but that's not what you mean.
   
2. When I invoke Mengele, I am not doing so to gently persuade. And this is the fundamental problem when dealing with this stuff: I have yet to see the scientific proof that a human embryo is a non-person. I've seen plenty of science, and was at one time good enough at it to replicate it on paper, to show that one is human. The person thing basically boils down to philsophical preference: Either all humans are people, or not. If not, there are ugly consequences out there. Your end of things asserts the "not" position. Fine. That's why you think I'm trivializing or being childish. My side takes the other position. That's why we're horror-struck that we're basically slicing and dicing or burning or whatever millions of people. That's why a Mengele analogy immediately leaps to mind. Or a slavery analogy. It's the only way we can communicate to you the horror we experience at this.
   
3. You know I respect you, but you don't understand what libel is.
   
4. This is entirely possible. But we've spent thirty years trying to explain this carefully and calmly, and there are forty million dead now. We've tried being polite about stem cells, and I'm certain we're going to lose that because the baby boomers and the "Greatest Generation" will have their newest and best ways to put off death for a few... more... months. If they had no trouble killing kids in the womb to improve their standard of living, they'll have no problem killing them in petri dishes to stay alive. So, as appeals to reason have been depressingly ineffective, we're stuck with only a small number of routes left.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, your posting privileges around here are fine.

I hadn't seen that statement.  "Atheism" was my guess above, but I'll have to change my mind now.

In response to the blather above, let me point out that there are a large number of people who are baptised and raised Catholic and come to identify strongly with Catholicism -- even to the point at which they hope to return to this original Church after many years away.  That does not make them practicing Catholics, nor does it mean that they believe what the Church teaches.

Being baptised Catholic does, however, make them Catholic.

When labelling someone a "Muslim terrorist" or a "Catholic terrorist", one usually means that they undertook their terrorist acts due to the ideology ascribed to them.  While Osama et al. commit terrorist acts explicitly in the name of Islam, Rudolph does not attribute his actions to Catholicism.  He is properly described as either an anti-abortion terrorist or an anti-homosexual terrorist.

I never, ever said apologize.  I said condemn and Adam said denounce.  

2.  "It's the only way we can communicate to you the horror we experience at this."

That's what I was trying to say with 4.  I don't think pro-life groups are communicating with the other side.  Yes you are telling me how you feel about it, but I don't get it.  We're not communicating about this issue when we use language such as this.  I imagine you and most other pro-life groups do not get how NARAL etc. feel when they say it is a right for a woman to control reproduction in her own body.  It's like the diary where the guy discussed regional differences in perceptions about gay marriage.  Nick Danger's response to Amos is illustrative of my point.

3.  My wife tells me the same thing.  (I know you're right, but at least I didn't say it was slander :-))

Can someone delete this?

And if possible change my link above to:  Amos

And if so you can delete this whole post.

but I can't edit the post.

with NARAL and listen to NARAL, but NARAL has no obligation to listen to pro life groups.

Now if you mean both groups are busy talking past each other, I might agree, but I find NARAL entirely to pro abortion and not nearly enough anti abortion for my tastes.  NARAL opposes any and all restrictions on abortions-something the majority of people do not agree with.

And I still don't see why we get singled out.

As I said, I clled on a muslim community to denounce the London bombers last week.

(I didn't really call or e-mail them or anything, but if they or their representatives were here I would.  I still think they and basically all American and most other Muslims should denounce those attacks and attackers.)

What I mean is, what logical basis do you have to require the Catholic Church or pro-life groups to denounce someone for acting contrary to their explicit statements?

I mean that both groups are busily talking past each other, just like different sides in the gay marriage debate are.

when they do something wrong.

You have control over them, and are responsible for their behavior. If you're seriously advancing the notion that the Catholic Church has any sort of control over its nominal adherents, I suggest you spend some time reading any line of questioning by Teddy Kennedy, Dick Durbin, or Pat Leahy to a judge nominated to the Federal bench with regard to abortion. God, how I wish the relationship was more like parent-child there.

C'mon, man. You're better than this. I've seen you do better than this. Your analogies are strained to the breaking point.

response would be outrage.

Just look at the response, when the Bishop/Cardinal in the midwest (sorry I can't remember exactly what, you may know or remember) said that he would deny communion to politicians who were Catholic and pro choice or voted pro choice.

The liberals raised all kinds of bluff over that one, so in effect I don't think the libs would take the church trying to excersize parental like authority over its adherents.

David Hains, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, responded to Rudolph's claims to Catholicism. "The Catholic Church does not condone violence of any kind, and is probably a world leader when it comes to denouncing violence, especially the kind that Eric Rudolph has perpetrated," he said. "At the same time, I think John Paul II said it best when he said that we must respect the dignity of every person at every moment and in every condition of a person's life. And so we should be praying for Eric Rudolph, and we should be praying for the victims of his awful, awful crimes."

http://www.worldnewspaperpublishing.com/news/FullStory.asp?loc=TCW&id=1
355

I wasn't looking for anything more than that.  I don't think that's unreasonable.

The idea that the Church is obligated to denounce its once-adherents, let alone its adherents, when they do some naughty thing (or more accurately, denounce the act while not denouncing the sinner) is ridiculous. We'd have to stand outside abortion clinics with parish rolls and have a running public service announcement for the "patients."

I'm satisfied.

I should have gone to The All-knowing Google to begin with, of course.

What I said: "What it makes him is a believer in a god, whatever he believes that god to be. That is his downfall, as it is for all those who believe in their imaginary rulers who live in the sky. Whichever of the thousands upon thousands of man-invented gods is what is really "moot".

 What you said: "Let's not insult religious believers, ok? Thanks. That's your warning. Have a nice day."  

Here are your "rules":

No profanity.

No personal attacks.

No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.

No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.

Which rule was violated?

As Rep. Blackburn would say, "I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks."

I had this debate with Radical Russ here

that I know of. By murder I mean the intentional targeting of innocents for any purpose.

Individual professing Christians sin every day. But the church calls it sin.

Would that Islam universally condemn its penitent's murders.

A large percentage, if not a majority, of Muslims and Muslim clerics either endorse terrorism, or apologize for it with a wink and nudge.  A clear majority of Muslims condone the stated goals of terrorists, e.g. the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of the US from the Middle East.  Finally, Muslim traditions and texts endorse violence against infidels.  Call me when more than a quarter of US Christians are willing to go on record endorsing Eric Rudolph, the way a quarter of British Muslims endorsed the London suicide bombers in a newspaper poll (the real percentage was probably much higher).  Until then, well, your comparisons are just nonsense.

In fact, some here have endorsed things bordering on communal punishment for Muslims.

Favoring a cessation of Muslim immigration to the West is not communal punishment of Muslims.  

Seems to me that people that blow up abortion clinics richly deserve the term "anti-abortion extremist".  Also seems to me that that term in and of itself implies nothing about Rudolph's religious beliefs.

For laughs, more or less, I just googled recent news reports about Rudolph.  Most were about the cost of his defense and whether his truck should be blown up or not.  None had more than a passing reference to Rudolph's putative religious beliefs.

As far as I can tell, the only "religious" association anyone has made between Rudolph and any organization at all is his slim association with the Christian Identity movement, which (one hopes) noone confuses with an actual Christian denomination.

I don't see the paintbrush.

Thanks for pointing all of this out.

I have to confess that I have not been following this story closely and I was not aware that Rudolph had been falsely described as an Evangelical Christian or any other thing.

I am certain, however, that he is portrayed in the media as a right-wing extremist.  Is this or is this not the case that he was so?

Seems like he was a simply a crank and a murderer.

Also, interesting about the Catholicism stuff.  I am a Catholic and I do not see anything about his actions that would be supported by mainstream Catholicism, which is, in this day, a pretty gentle religion by modern American standards.

As an interesting side note:

What is with the mass conversion of Conservative dignitaries to Catholicism over the last few years?  Jeb Bush, Robert Novak ...  Is Catholicism the new Episcopalianism?

while I'm a Southern Baptist, I found your last sentence to be a brilliant insight to explain a trend I have also seen and thought about.

The churches that are growing in the US and around the world are conservative churches that  stand for moral absolutes in contrast to the so-called "mainstream" churches that demand no more of a person than the Kiwanis club.

And the Episcopal Church is the grossest example with its installation of a man as BISHOP no less that abandoned his wife and children to live in an openly gay relationship.

And while many individual american catholics do not agree with the Pope(s) on many social issues, the Church stands for what the Popes and Scripture says which is what i think is attracting these converts.

Most southern baptists, while disagreeing with certain aspects of catholic theology, and despite some long ago animosity towards them before our time, do accept catholics as christian certainly, but also see the catholic church as the greatest symbol of tradional values that this nation and europe and all men desperately need.

Plus, Novak's testimony is that of a truly converted man in a very spiritual sense.

god bless

the Catholic church to take a position on this one. They belive that all you have to do is confess and repent to be saved. And they want to save as many people as possible. So if this guy turns out to be catholic they probly either don't want him to think that they have abandoned him. (In a spiritual sence, I am not in any way suggesting that they condone what he did) Or they do not take him as a serious catholic. It takes more to be a part of a religion than people thinking that you are part of that religion, or you merely saying that you are a part of that religion. You kinda have to practice that religion.