The abortion doc wasn't the only target
The fact that abortionist George Tiller was murdered while at church
was almost certainly not incidental. The suspect in the slaying is
Scott Roeder, a right-wing zealot who
has served time for possessing bomb components and recently went on
pro-life message boards speaking in religious terms about the need to
stop Tiller. In fact, he specifically suggested protesting Tiller's
church and "asking questions" of the congregation's officials. By
carrying out the assassination at church, Roeder was making a point.
Indeed,
it's not too much of a stretch to say that Roeder's target wasn't just
Tiller; it was also liberal religion in general. He clearly thought
there was something wrong with a church that would have an abortion
provider as a member. And he wanted to make that point vividly.
Roeder's not the only one, either. Remember the right-winger last year who opened fire
in a Unitarian Universalist church, killing two people? He said later
that he was glad he did what he did, and encouraged others to do
likewise in order to protect the country from the scourge of "the
liberal movement."
There is a strain of
lunacy within the right wing that really is willing to resort to murder
and fear to intimidate political opponents. As far as I know, there's
nothing quite comparable on the other side. So for all the whining
we've heard from fundies who insist there's a "religion penalty"
in America and that evangelicals (usually referred to simply as
"Christians") are somehow victims of discrimination (first few Google
hits here, here, and here),
liberal religion is what's under attack. And that's literal:
conservative Christians are killing liberal ones in the name of
religion.
For now, it's a fairly limited phenomenon. But it's real. We need to stand up for liberal religion.
This post first appeared at jesselava.com.
This post first appeared at jesselava.com.
Advertisement
Praising Jesus loudly has always been much easier than quietly emulating him.
June 1, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, though I'd hate for people like Roeder to provide the image of someone who praises Jesus loudly; there are plenty of non-murdering Christian exhibitionists out there, even if they can be a bit grating at times.
June 1, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What frame do we need to develop to separate the Fundamentalists from the rest of Christianity? Where do we draw a line to avoid the rest of Christianity being stained with the acts of people like Roeder?
Even as I write this, however, I recognize that Christianity is appropriately stained with this for failing to object with enough vigor to the demand that we all accept Roader is a Christian and therefore he is like all other Christians and all other Christians are like him. Give credit to the MSM for leading this effort to broadbrush every Christian as in agreement. But recognize how little courage the rest of Christianity has da in refuting the proposition ... although you are the exception to this Jesse. You have shown that courage here.
June 1, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Pastor Dan at Street Prophets, for instance, had a post last night specifically saying that Roeder is NOT a Christian. But I actually wouldn't go that far; I just think Roeder's a repulsive, murderous Christian. E.g., bin Laden is still a Muslim, even if he represents a fanatical wing of the faith. Same with Roeder. But this is a semantic issue, not a substantive one. On the substance, we're in agreement: Roeder does not represent any strain of Christianity that I would associate myself with.
But there are LOTS of Christians speaking out against this right now. It's not just me. Even pro-lifers are condemning this, for the most part. Google around; I think you're assuming that Christians aren't speaking up, but they are.
June 1, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm sure people are speaking up against the murder, but are they denouncing the tactics of the movement and are they demanding that their views be separated from those of that extremism? That is what I would like to see, people declaring, I don't recognize that behavior as encouraged by the God in whom I believe.
June 1, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bloggers like Pastor Dan and Andrew Sullivan, for instance -- both of whom are religious, though the former holding an official title -- have been saying that. And according to the listserves I'm on, other groups are preparing signatories for statements to that effect. So rest assured; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
June 1, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm eagerly anticipating this discussion. I have never understood what God these Fundamentalists were referencing, but have my own conceptions of what it should be. I'm looking forward to finding those with perceptions moe similar to mine.
June 1, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out statements today from the UCC (Obama's liberal demonination) and a centrist coalition (here: http://faithinpubliclife.org/content/press/2009/06/religious_leaders_seeking_comm.html) and any number of other places. There's definitely a sense that people don't want Roeder defining their faith.
June 1, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We need to stand up for liberal religion"
- Someone just did. A member of "left-wing extremism" and an anti-war zealot just shot a military recruiter.
Those on both sides of political spectrum who love assigning "zealot" labels will have a field day.
June 1, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. That is such a good point it took my breath away. Thank you.
June 1, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The FBI has yet to determine a motive in the shooting. We shall see if it has the unfortunate partisan symmetry that you speculate.
June 1, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The political posturing has already begun.
Roeder will be labeled a "right-wing extremist" hack no matter what happens, Andrew Sullivan (and Josh Maureen Marshall) is already pointing his accusing finger at Christians.
June 1, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Andrew Sullivan IS a Christian. He talks about it all the time.
June 1, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what Sullivan actually wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/was-malkin-being-sarcastic.html
The difference between this and jihad, of course, is that there is plenty of evidence of cheer in the Arab world when the towers were taken down. I haven't seen any cheer from any Christian I know.
But maybe Andrew has, because he thinks this is "Christian terrorism".
Andrew Sullivan is a hack.
June 1, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't call it Christian terrorism; he called it Christianist terrorism. Followers of Andrew know that that's his term for those who want to have politically-enforced Christian dominion in this country. The way he uses it, it's not equivalent to "Christian."
June 1, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So a "christianist" has a problem with the church?? Hmmm, how deep
That makes as much sense as Sullivan being a concerned obstetrician concerning Palin's pregancy and paternity rumours.
I'm sorry this has gone off the topic a bit, but the last thing I just cannot accept any "liberalist" thinking from Sullivan.
June 1, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he seems to use the term "Christianist" for anyone who doesn't approve of his sexual behavior.
I don't know exactly how Christian Andrew Sullivan is; he is nominally a Catholic, but I have no idea how strongly he believes in the incarnation or the Atoning death of Jesus; his actual beliefs about Who God is have alwyas been rather vague.
June 1, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about you just take him at his word?
June 2, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well now, there's some revisionist history, unless you choose which people in the Middle Eat represent the "Arab?" world and which do not. I say this because I seem to recall that the immediate response to the attack of 9/11 was unanimously aghast at the atrocity, even though they still resent the US taking sides with Israel. It was only when we made iraq our whipping boy to relieve our anger from taking that thrashing from Al-quaeda that the Islamic countries turned against the US.
PS: I don't think the "Arab" world is as big as you suggest.
June 2, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sullivan is a hack? This coming from the one who just explained that the way to judge terrorism is by counting the number of people rooting for it. Or full of cheer over it. Or something.
Gregor politely called it revisionist history.
I say it's neither revisionist or history. It's a brand new, desperate attempt to avoid calling a duck a duck.
We don't usually agree on stuff, LaLo, but I have given you credit in the past for having a working brain. One of us needs to rethink.
June 2, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I hadn't heard of that. I assume that wasn't done in the name of religion (liberalism is not equivalent to liberal religion) but that's surely abysmal news.
June 1, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. According to Malkin, it was a "Muslim domestic terrorist" in this shooting.
[...]So if we borrow Malkin's profiling techniques, Roeder would be a Christian domestic terrorist. But I can see how all Christians might not want to be tarred with such a broad brush. Maybe Muslims might feel the same way.
What do you think, Lalo?
June 2, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jumping the gun with your assessment of this murder, aren't you, Lalo? Left-wing extremist is hardly a proper description of a Islamic zealot, now is it? If having to map Islamic zealotry onto the distorted model of a linear polity, it properly belongs on the right-side. It is also apparent that the murderer was not motivated out of anti-war fervency, but instead from anger over "the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan".
June 2, 2009 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's "liberal" religion?
June 1, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.liberationtheology.org/
June 1, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
See also the Center for Progressive Christianity, the Shalom Center or Tikkun, the Christian Century and Sojourners magazines, Emergent Village (or anything by Brian McLaren), theologians such as Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, modern popularists such as Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong...or, as suggested by Zipperupus's reference to liberation theology, anything by Martin Luther King Jr. (or other liberationists such as James Cone, Gustavo Gutierrez, etc.).
June 1, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then I disagree with your premise that "liberal religion" was a "target." In fact, you don't present much of an argument to support your premise. You immediately veer off onto a tangent that has nothing to do with abortion.
You neglect to mention George Tiller was a target for YEARS by people other than Roeder. He'd been shot once before, in 1993, and he's the 10th person to die. This is not about "liberal religion," however you or Roeder choose to define it. Sorry. Was Tiller's church liberal or liberationist? You never say.
I find it bizarre, ironic, and incredibly irritating to be told to "stand up for" religion in this case.
June 1, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tiller happens to belong to a liberal denomination (it's a mainline Lutheran denomination, ELCA), but the point is that the killer wanted to target Tiller AT CHURCH. Not just anywhere, but at church. And he'd also previously suggested protesting that church and having words with the church leadership. That suggests he had a problem with the church itself -- since it was one that facilitated Tiller's presence -- and not simply with Tiller.
You're right, though, that I should have mentioned Tiller's denomination.
June 1, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have known your question was loaded. So much for answering in good faith.
June 2, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roeder is a terrorist. Any organization or person not in support of his religious position is the target. Liberal religious denominations and believers are but one of many.
June 1, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES, YES, YES, oleeb. Let's call him what he is: an anti-choice terrorist. I know these are all just labels, but people who are pro-choice need to take control of the language. These people are not pro-life (you can no longer claim that title when people on your side commit murder in the name of your cause) they are anti-choice. People who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion (as the other side likes to label). It's not as though we are out there trying to convince people to have abortions; we are saying that the choice belongs to the woman and that choice can be to continue or terminate a pregnancy and we will stand by her either way. I think we need to continue to use the label "anti-choice terrorist" when describing Roeder because it puts his act in the right context; this wasn't a murder -- it was a political assassination. And it ties the act to the group that allowed it to happen. The anti-choice side may have representatives who denounce this act, but by their tactics they allowed it to happen, dare I say, even encouraged it, to instill terror in people who believe in a woman's right of choice.
June 2, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, I agree that the terrorist label fits. Of course, it's more complicated than that and that is why I think it's so critically important that pressure be brought to bear on the religious leaders who have brought this all on as they have. It is their incendiary, extremist rhetoric that motivates a sick man like Roeder. I've read now that he is mentally ill and I've no problem believing that, however, it then becomes all the more important for the Protestant funamentalist leaders and the Roman Catholic hierarchy to not only cease and desist with the encouragement of extremist rhetoric and beliefs on abortion, but also to openly condemn the activities of all those who exhort people like Roeder to ever more heinous acts. They must call for an end to the harrassment demonstrations at clinics and medical offices. They must denounce the Operation Rescue's and other extremely hateful and crazed antiabortion fanatics who are toasting the assassination of Dr. Tiller. If these religious leaders believe anything at all regarding morality and ethical behavior or following the commands of Jesus they must do these things and work just as hard to bring the murdering and terrorizing to an end as they have worked to encourage it and fan the flames of violent fanatisism.
June 2, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been attempting to do a post on my brand of Christianity for weeks, if not months. I want it to be heartfelt and relevant, and I want to present it in a way that will allow non-believers to get a glimpse of what it is we Christians see when we worship our Lord, so that they will be less skeptical. Then an idiot like this pops up and does something so heinous that I wonder why ANYONE would listen w/ an open mind to ANYTHING a Christian says...I'm appalled, embarrassed, horrified...almost speechless.
June 2, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, in the distant past, knowledge of whether a person was a Christian or not would have had zero effect on my judgment of that person. By the time we were deep into the "culture wars" my first thought upon meeting a religious Christian was to RUN the other way. And I did.
Here at TPM I have been exposed to a different kind of Christian, starting with Trish, you and now Jesse, along with others that have gently given me reasons to believe that there really are some 'good', non-grating Christians.
I don't believe anyone here would equate Stilli with Roeder, and I know I certainly don't. So at least here at TPM, there's no need to feel the appalling and embarrassed thing. :-)
June 2, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Shell...'preciate that.
June 2, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, Stil don't know if you ever read this. I tried the topic. Would appreciate your thoughts.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/gregorzap/2009/05/taunting-christians.php
June 2, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did read it and thought I had commented, but I guess not. I just reread it and nope, no comments from me.
I'm really too frustrated right now to form a coherent comment. I'm frustrated by fellow Christians who make me ashamed of my religion (not my LORD, just the institution that claims to love Him) and I'm frustrated by those people who would never dream of making fun of a cripple or a gay person or a person of color, but let political correctness go out the window when it comes to Christians...we (and fat people) are the last groups that can be bashed and stereotyped at will w/ no regard to the hurts inflicted.
June 3, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Warms my heart!
June 3, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am saddened as well. In the dawn of Christianity, fellow travelers had to greet one another by drawing a fish into the sand: the first would draw a semicircle arc, and the second would complete it. For many, the roots of gospel have have been lost as the churches have become political and social authorities from cradle to grave. The root is that early Christians were persecuted and murdered for their beliefs and deeds. It is a shame how over the many centuries, the tables have turned and the good news has become terrible for so many.
If the churches crumble, it is only because the foundation is rotten. The believers will go back to drawing in the sand.
June 2, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink