Monday, June 8, 2009

it takes a village to raise a killer

A somewhat-insightful but inconsistently-applied piece-- on individuals and community, applied to the shooting of George Tiller-- by syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman in the C-J...

It is believed that the shooter acted alone. Surely, that's true. No one else was standing beside suspect Scott Roeder when he allegedly murdered Dr. George Tiller in the sanctuary of his church. But...

The pro-life community reacted with shock. No doubt. But where was the shock at the fringe groups they forgot to disavow?...

Pro-life leaders denounced the murder. So they did. But how inconvenient that some of their own "stars" seemed less than mournful....

Yes and no.

First, one could complain about her choice of "stars" within the pro-life movement. I don't see the Left pinning eco-terrorist groups on environmentalists, ACT UP or NAMBLA on homosexual groups, and so on. It is not exactly the height of tolerance to claim that the fringe is the norm-- or that the norm is responsible for the fringe.

Second, a larger critique would be that the Left does the same sort of analysis and blame-shifting on other policies. To take the same example, pro-choicers try to dismiss connections of abortion to eugenics, racism, euthanasia, etc.

Third, more broadly, the Left is rarely aware of the secondary consequences of the policies it advocates in the economic realm. (They're better on social and military policy.) They act as if welfare policy is unrelated to creating more dependency. Is the individual responsible or is the community responsible for passing such laws. Well, both. Often, the Left excuses both instead.

But Goodman's point is still valid. As a teacher and a parent, it is haunting to know that I am, in part, responsible for what is done with my teaching. It is important that people realize their culpability as both leaders and followers.

4 Comments:

At June 8, 2009 at 10:28 PM , Blogger Janet P said...

Great comments on this article;
however, I don't see how it should be "haunting" for pro-lifers who merely exposed Tiller's practices for what they were - in-utero killings of human beings.

If, based on revealed knowledge of Tiller's practices, an individual makes the choice to take the law into their own hands and "kill the killer", is that the fault of the person who is trying to simply make known what is happening? I don't think so.

I do not see how this should be "haunting" for pro-lifers unless they "called for" or in some other way encouraged use of force/violence against abortion providers.

 
At June 8, 2009 at 10:44 PM , Blogger Janet P said...

Here's a personal testimony:

"I left my baby in a toilet at George Tiller's"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMC_70oYV8U

 
At June 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

Janet, I think I should have phrased that more carefully. Instead, how about: "it is haunting to know that I can be, in part, responsible for what is done with my teaching"?

That said, it seems likely that we are held to the higher standard I laid out originally. Whatever we say-- unless it is delivered perfectly (in style, substance, motive and strength)-- can perpetuate sin. It might be the best we can do, but if it still falls short of perfection, it still falls short. In any case, thanks be to God for His grace and mercy for all of our sins of omission and commission, as manifested through the atoning death of Jesus Christ!

The bottom line is that we must address sin, but should strive to do so in the least sinful manner. Homosexual conduct is a sin; saying "God hates fags" is sin. Abortion is a sin; using needlessly inflammatory language about abortion is sin.

Finally, we must work to deal with all of our own sins, many of those in the Church, and the most egregious ("justice") sins in the World. Often, we're not good at keeping it in those categories.

 
At June 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM , Blogger Janet P said...

Eric, I agree with all that.

The difficulty in addressing this seems to be two-fold.

#1 "Semantics"
When speaking of it do you say "Abortion", "killing of fetal humans", "woman's right to choose", "murder of innocent" babies"? Which most accurately portrays the truth? Talking about it an accurate, totally descriptive manner seems to imply naturally "inflammatory" language due to the nature of the procedure.
Do you notice how the media refers to pro-life people as "anti-abortion"? There's a reason for that.

I consider inflammatory language to be encouraging/directing violence against abortion providers, not detailing violence done to those whose lives are being destroyed. Would you not agree?

#2 God is most concerned about people's souls and the eternal life and forgivenes they may find in Christ and so that shoudl be our #1 concern.

He also would be want His people to stand up for the rights of others, in love and truth, especially when they are being unjustly killed.

People inherently know this - just look at how everyone blames the Church for not doing more to stand up against Hitler and his murder of so many Jewish people.

No one thinks they should have said - "oh, let's be careful about how we talk about this so we don't get anyone too upset".
It's life/death here also, and that's what makes it intrinsically inflammatory.

Next time, I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt (and save my "sweetness" for the Courier Journal).

I really do think your blog is fantastic.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home