I was just wondering if those who idolize Roeder would go so far as to put money on his books or write him letters. He was just convicted, so I'd assume he's still in county, in any case, finding out what unit he's sent to and his number isn't difficult. Neither is finding out what items may be sent directly, or indirectly (e.g., magazine subscriptions, Amazon books, etc...).

I don't idolize Roeder, despite the change of heart I expressed here, but there are some who do and I wonder if they would put their money where their mouth is. The fact is, a prisoner with money on his books (to purchase commissary), books and magazines to read, and letters of support makes prison bearable.

-------------------------
facebook.com/lindamcdonaldtx

Does it really matter?

Roeder has done the damage. And those who praise him buying his books aren't going to help anyone.

Tiller is dead.

The unborn are dying by the thousands every day.

What good will a book written by a violently mentally unwell man do?

-------------------------
God is Love.

The question then becomes in all of life's circumstance, "what is the loving thing to do?"

I apologize for using some American slang Shenanigans, "books" means his personal "bank" account. When one adds money to a prisoners "books", then he can purchase items (e.g., junk food, shampoo, writing materials, stamps (which tend to be used as currency themselves)...)

-------------------------
facebook.com/lindamcdonaldtx

What an incredibly strange idiom.

Oh well, if people want to help Roeder buy what he needs, if he needs something they won't buy him, I don't see why it'd be any kind of problem. I mean, if the guy has no family to speak of, then it is our Christian duty to care for prisoners, regardless of the monstrousness of their crimes.

-------------------------
God is Love.

The question then becomes in all of life's circumstance, "what is the loving thing to do?"

Number one, Tiller was the monster, not Scott. Number 2, I have sent several letters already, and posted his address on this forum. Number 3, as soon as I get his address for where they send him, I will post it. Number 4, I am getting really sick and tired of the papist talking trash about Roeder, when their "church" has plenty blood on their own hands. Like killing a boy for naming his dog after a pope. You simply have no moral high ground to stand on. If it were born children being killed, not a single person would object to the use of force to stop it. Maybe yall want to kiss the ring of a pointy hat youth nazy, but this country was started to escape being killed simply for what they believed by your "church". You stupid mixed up passifist agree with planned parenthood that the womb child is a second class being who deserves no consideration at all. You simply can not have it both ways. At least try to be consistant. Lets see all of you count beads in front of the local court house in opposition to any law that allows the use of force to stop evil aggression against the innocent. If "all killing is wrong", then when are you going to condemn all military forces, all police departments, and all citizen's right to defend themselves. It is your constant double speak that has done the most to keep abortion legal.

-------------------------
http://i81.photobucket.com/alb...avater/IamaPerson2.jpg

Talk about "doublespeak."

You say it's a good thing to kill abortion doctors.

Then you say, "Hey Scott, go kill one for us."

Then you hold up a post card and protest peacefully and send a letter to the poor fool.

What a buch of crap.

Even you Faithman should be able to understand why killing people is wrong. Private citizens do not have the right to be the judge, jury and executioner.
It is morally wrong, but legal to perform and obtain abortions. It is both morally and legally wrong to kill another person who is passing out church bulletins on Sunday. This should be obvious even to someone who is being delibertely obtuse, hoping that the thought of unhinged prolifers wanting to kill will deter the Dr. from performing abortions. You can't scare them into quiting!
Scott committed a sin and a crime when he stalked and killed Dr. Tiller because he didn't agree with Dr. Tillers legal although sinful actions. Urge him to repent so God can forgive him if you care about him at all, and quit trying to encourage others to murder and repent for spreading evil...that hate you fan makes people bitter and filled with hate, not filled with the fruit of the spirit of God.... it is wrong of you to back it.

If you said, I understand his anger and frustration and I can see how he could feel that the only way to stop abortion was to stop the provider, but he is wrong in how he percieves that, all of us would understand. But you refuse to admit that murdering someone is wrong, so you have become the very thing you hate...prochoice, a death supporter, a supporter of murder. Open your eyes and think rationally about it and let this desire for revenge go. God is the avenger, not us! We are called to LOVE our enemies.

-------------------------
Carolemarie,
God is Great all the time!

I think he at least knows that it's better for Scott to rot in jail and for him to be able to go home and watch tv.

You guys are cooking faithman's feet pretty good and regular but I'm wondering who you personally despise more, Roeder or Tiller?

Or are they equal on your list of horrible people? Are Roeder and Tiller equal killers and sinners? I expect this question to be dodged.

Also, I wonder, did God whisper into Roeder's ear? Does he whisper into your's? He does mine from time to time.

-------------------------
We say grace and we say Ma'am and
if you aint into that we don't give a Damn.
-Hank Williams Jr. (Country Boy Can Survive) -circa 1981

Faithman not only promotes and defends murder, but is abusive to fellow prolifers and should be "cooked" until he learns some manners.

Are Roeder and Tiller "equal" sinners? That's an interesting question, and one that cannot be answered by one who cannot see someone's heart. To share some Catholic thinking about that, for example, a "mortal sin," which would put someone in danger of damnation, depends not only upon the act, but upon the intent and state of mind of the person committing the act. Two women could each have an abortion, for example, and for one it could be a mortal sin, because she knew what she was doing and did it anyway, and for the other it might not be, because her circumstances, such as extreme poverty or a threat of violence from a boyfriend or husband, caused emotional distress sufficient to impede rational thinking. Or it could also have been she was ignorant about fetal development or that a child was involved. At any rate for her it might not have been a mortal sin.

If comparing Roeder and Tiller from this perspective, it could be that Tiller, having been the son of a an abortionist, could have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking he performed a legitimate service, and that could diminish his culpability. Or he could have known full well what he was doing, and had an evil intent.

I can't answer your question, not because I wish to dodge it, but because I can't see into either's heart. That Tiller was involved in many more injustices than Roeder does not necessarily make him the greater sinner.

Edited: 02/08/2010 at 01:58 AM by B0zo

Bozo was correct in applying a Catholic mindset to the concept of mortal sin.

For a sin to be mortal, threatening damnation upon the soul, a sin has to have three things, serious matter, full consent and complete knowledge.

The serious or "grave" matter refers to breaking one of the 10 commandments.

Full consent means that the individual choose the actions without any duress or defect of mind.

And complete knowledge is knowledge that the action is sinful.

Tiller went to "church", he would have heard the 10 commandments, he would have heard that part in the bible about "knitted me in my mother's womb", as a doctor he knew he was killing.

He gave full consent and had full knowledge.

Therefore, Tiller was committing a mortal sin. Whether he acknowledged it as a "mortal sin" as it is referred to in the eyes of the Catholic church is where things get tickish. We cannot know if Tiller truly believed what he was doing was "sinful" given he did it, went to church and even at times said he was "doing God's work". I am of the mind that Tiller had his own mental defects and that his church and his pastor failed to pull him back into track.

Roeder, well, he too would have known that killing is wrong, he killed Tiller because he beleived Tiller was killing and killing was wrong. He had full knowlege and gave consent - however, Roeder has a history of mental illness, so no one but God can truly say whether Roeder was in the action of mortal sin.

From my view I believe Tiller and Roeder are the same. They are both killers. They both had some form of mental illness or defect. However, I think Tiller was "worse" as he killed more, killed innocent children, but I am more sympathetic to him as it must be one heck of a mental or emotional defect for one to kill viable children. However, viewing Tiller as scum does not justify his killing.

I find it interesting, however, from Protestant views, I have a lot of Protestant friends and they tell me that there is no "mortal or venial" sin just sin. That all sin is equal in teh eyes of the Lord, I find that to be unfair and rather sick. As my protestant friends say that killing a person is the same is stealing a pen from teh bank. Both will earn an eternity in Hell.

Tiller killed tens of thousands, Roeder killed one. In the eyes of my protestant friends, they are the same, and their crimes are of equal abhorrence.



Given Roeder's mental illness I'd wager that whatever Roeder hears that he thinks is from God, is probably not.



You bet. And you know what He says to me, and backs up with scripture referance and other spiritual discernment from my spiritual directors and other spiritual friends?

"Don't kill. I gave my life so you may live. I came to save sinners. I came to retrieve my lost sheep".

-------------------------
God is Love.

The question then becomes in all of life's circumstance, "what is the loving thing to do?"

I don't hate Roder or Tiller. I hope that isn't the impression that I am leaving. I feel sorry for both of them. Bad theology leads to bad decisions, just as an incorrect worldview leads to bad decisions. We are not suppose to hate other people, that is a sin. The bible says that hate leads to murder, as we can see from Roder's case. So fanning the idea that killing abortion providers is a good thing can push the unstable to do the unthinkable. Roder was unstable, was around evil rhetoric and acted on it. Those who push that evil POV are culpable as well in God's eyes....but not legally. We need to stand up and combate those kinds of attitudes that lead to the emotional response that we get to take the law into our own hands and end another persons life! Rhetoric like that is evil...

Who is worse? That is a question for God, not us to decide.

I am a protestant and all sin requires the same response from God, death. "the soul that sins must die" that is why we all need a Savior because we all sin.
Some sins cause more pain and hurt to others than other sins, but all sin is equally hideous to God. We are the ones who decide that some sins are worse than others. The bible is pretty clear that break one commandment you break them all and that the wages of sin is death.
That should keep us all a bit humbled, that the standard is not being better than your neighbor, but being as good as God. We all fall short of that and our own righteousness is nothing but dirty rags compared to Gods.

-------------------------
Carolemarie,
God is Great all the time!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you take the medication, the voices will stop.

No, but I often hear the voice of Xenu and the whispers of the lonely thetans abandoned by the Galactic Confederacy after the great R6 implant some 75 million years ago.

-------------------------
God is Love.

The question then becomes in all of life's circumstance, "what is the loving thing to do?"

Of course you are right in this regard.

My question was what you/we/us think of the comparative rottenness of these two individuals. Let's not forget that Tiller made a very handsome living from killing babies while Roeder didn't make a dime from killing Tiller.

In fact, I'm guessing that Roeder felt he was volunteering his time to provide a public service. And when I say "his time", I mean all the rest of his time.

Roeder had no profit motive. The significance of this seems to have been completely overlooked in these discussions, unless I missed it. This is what I hear in my ear.

-------------------------
We say grace and we say Ma'am and
if you aint into that we don't give a Damn.
-Hank Williams Jr. (Country Boy Can Survive) -circa 1981

Is there a medication that I could take that would make your voice stop?

Like perhaps some sort of Mad Cow vaccine? Bovinacillin? Tamicow? Hoof-in-mouth serum?

-------------------------
We say grace and we say Ma'am and
if you aint into that we don't give a Damn.
-Hank Williams Jr. (Country Boy Can Survive) -circa 1981

Some individuals who commit crimes have no profit motive. Sometimes they just want a person dead for no fiscal or any other sort of gain.

Roeder had a mental illness, so his motives for killing Tiller, whatever they were, would have been based on a defect of cognition.

-------------------------
God is Love.

The question then becomes in all of life's circumstance, "what is the loving thing to do?"

Edited: 02/08/2010 at 10:36 PM by Shenanigans

It seems odd to compare them in this way. To me, it's not about who's motives may have been agreeable to us (I understand Tiller sincerely believed he was serving the public good) or what was gained by either party. I never looked at it in that way, comparing the two men, as if the more noble might have more right to kill or something.

In my view, what Tiller did was wrong. Society apparently doesn't agree. Many see it as he did, that abortion is necessary, and that by performing abortions, he helped women in need. It was also legal.

So, was Tiller an evil monster? Not necessarily. In my view, what he did was wrong, but I do not believe it was done for the sake of killing. I believe his intentions were to help women. That doesn't make it right, but the fact that he killed human beings, in itself, doesn't mean he was a bad man, only that he did things we see as bad. I don't think he would have done it if he didn't sincerely believe it was the right thing to do.

Regardless of whether Roeder was a "better man" or "better Christian," and regardless of his intentions, I view his choice as wrong too. I do not doubt his sincerity any more than I do Tiller's, but they both did wrong in my view. I can't say that either were "bad men," only that they did things I consider morally unacceptable.

Had Tiller been poised to strike a fatal blow with his knife, rather than standing in Church, I think Roeder's defense might carry more weight. Had the danger truly been "imminent," and I was convinced that only lethal force would suffice to end that imminent danger, the ethical question would be more complicated for me, but I'm still not sure I could condone the killing of Tiller even then. After all, abortion is legal whether it should be or not, and I find it difficult to stand solidly behind vigilantism and anarchy for any reason.

The implications go far beyond any single incident or cause. Under a system of anarchistic vigilantism, who would really be safe? This may be an issue that dwarfs even the millions dead from abortion. Anarchy would put even born children and adults in danger. Such a precedent being accepted might lead to more death and destruction than it was intended to prevent.

In other words, while we could certainly end abortion by nuking the planet, it would make no sense, would it? It wouldn't "save the babies," it would doom them all (and all other life as well). Likewise, resorting to vigilante actions could do more harm than good. I understand that, as long as the vigilantes have your interests at heart and you agree with what they intend to accomplish, it's "all good," but we must understand that if people become convinced that they can simply ignore the law to ensure that they have things their way, we won't have any control over who else might get in on the act.

If your idea of "justice" would have been to drop all charges against Roeder, ignoring the law, what might be next? I suppose we could use similar terrorist acts to force the porn industry to shut down. Once people get the idea that they might get away with ignoring the law as long as enough people agree with their motives, there's no telling what might be next. It is a slippery slope, condoning anarchy. The law is not perfect, but it is necessary, and it doesn't work unless we all play by the rules and face the consequences when we do not. It must apply to all, and if a law is unjust, we have an obligation to change it. We never have a right to ignore it. There are exceptions to every rule, and exceptions to the law must be written into the law, so that the exceptions are themselves "the law."

No, it doesn't matter to me how either Tiller or Roeder fares in this comparison. Both men were guilty of wrongdoing in my view. Both unnecessarily took human life. I don't think it should matter who was or was not paid (and you don't know if someone is/was financially supporting Roeder during his "activism") or what the intentions of either might have been. Both unnecessarily took human life. (You will not convince me that it was "necessary" to kill Tiller in order to stop him.)

You sure spend a lot of time trolling for someone who deems such behavior to be "childish" and all that. Didn't you post a thread where you complained about childish posters trolling and such? Did it occur to you that you engage in the very same type of behavior you vocally condemned? Maybe you think it's justifiable when you do it, eh? Not the same thing because you're one of the "good guys?"

Explain this so that even one such as I might understand it. It's not that I really care that much, I'm just curious as to how you see it.