Forum:Concerning the Death of Tiller

''The following is a transcript of what I have submitted to Wikinews on the death of the Abortionist  *cough*Butcher*cough* doctor George Tiller, who was assassinated at  10:00 AM on May 31st, 2009. This is copied here, in case someone intolerant of my convictions decides to delete my transcript on  Wikinews' collaborations page.''

There is nothing good about nor which can come from this story. An ELCA church goes apostate on God and allows a baby murderer to be an usher, violating  with giddy pride the command in the book of Titus for church leaders and  overseers (including ushers) to be above reproach. (Titus 1:7) And they do this in spite knowing fully that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20.) As if Reformation of Witchita giving all Lutherans a bad name  weren't bad enough, things get worse. Some nut vigilante takes the law into his own hands to deliver his own form of justice to the butcher;  and in a place where (perhaps-not-so)-innocents are endangered.

This all seems to happen conveniently around the same time that Janet  Napolitano and DHS consult with SPLC to accuse all who oppose abortion  of being "extremists," equating them with the Taliban (Which is absurd!)  I'm not ready to point a finger at just one individual or organization  yet, but it seems to me that somebody wants a second American civil war  to happen, and will do anything to start one. Without some sort of resolution to the contrary, it seems more and more likely that abortion  is the new slavery and the butcher-doc's killer is the new John Brown.

Edit: Actually, the verse that says one should be "above reproach" is in 1  Timothy 3. My apologies. The emphasis is on many of the same things mentioned in Titus, but 1 Timothy 3 goes further: "Deacons, likewise,  are to be men worthy of respect..." (, "... They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear  conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing  against them, let them serve as deacons." (9 &amp; 10, NIV)

It seems as if the ELCA church he served at did not test him on whether or  not he saw any worth in the teachings in Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed  you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." If his practice ignored that teaching, then how did he pass the test unless  the congregation didn't care (or made extra-biblical rationalizations)?

Moreover, if he was dealing under-the-table money with politicians, as he was  accused of frequently, then did he really have the right kind of  reputation to be an usher?

It may be unlawful for a vigilante to kill him, but it is also wrong of the state to violate due process (as  the Judicial Branch did in 1973 by legalizing abortion while  circumventing Congress) to sanction his unrightful killing as a way of  life. Clearly, there are no winners in this case. The state does have the right to not bear the sword in vain, and "turning the other cheek"  does not mean not defending one's self, friends, family, etc from  others' tort. It means not avenging every single insult or mishap. In self-defense and in punishing murderers lawfully through due process,  there are times and places where it is worthwhile to kill.

But what Tiller's assassin did is none of that. Remember the woman accused of adultery that was to be stoned? The crowd, by the Torah, had every right to say that if she was adulterous as accused, then it was wrong. The Bible COMMANDS such judgment, based on the Word and not on petty human rationale. (John 7:24) BUT...it was no longer the job of the Jews to execute her. The Romans were the authority, and only they back then could call for her to be executed for adultery BY DUE PROCESS. The Jewish leaders wanted to trick Jesus into saying that they could deal  with her through VIGILANTE murder. By being vigilante murderers, they would be doing something that Leviticus declared just as worthy of death  as adultery itself! That's why they were told: "May he without sin throw the first rock." They knew if they were breaking the law through their vigilantism, then they were in the wrong, no matter how much she  deserved to die (or didn't.)

Tiller's case is identical. The assassin threw the rock. He didn't care it was an act of vigilantism to make up for an impotent state that protects the blood of the guilty but  not the blood of the innocent. He didn't see things that way. He just saw a man that needed to take the fall, and fired his gun with little  extra thought. No due process. Therefore, due process will hopefully give the vigilante what he deserves.

In all honesty, Brian, why should we trust Obama over plain reason as to what defines  "murder"? If you read my above notes carefully, you'll note that I neither excuse the doctor nor his killer, and state my case as to why  both were in the wrong on every level. Also, who's gonna lump me in with "nuts"? Napolitano herself, who is one to talk?

I believe anything unnatural that kills a zygote after it is formed is murder,  even if it doesn't get implanted in the wall of the uterus. I do not feel that about those contraceptives which ensure that the zygote never  forms. Those, at the very worst, are just cowardice, but that depends on the circumstances of the sex partners. More women die in botched abortions than have EVER died during childbirth. And modern medicine has been able to save the lives of both ever since the 1960's. My grandma  was a nurse then, and has witnessed proof of this.

Even if the mother were endangered by complications, it is her duty like a pelican's  to be willing to rip her own chest apart and die to protect her  children. A woman unwilling to sacrifice herself for her infant children is a nature-derelict.

Abortion is never excused. Nor is vigilante murder of abortionists. Ever.