RSS Feed MenuFrom Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
In October of 1859, John Brown led a violent attack upon the United States Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. A radical abolitionist, Brown had already proved himself capable of violence for his cause. In 1856 he had led a gang that brutally killed several pro-slavery figures in Kansas. The raid on Harpers Ferry led to more deaths before Brown and his surviving rebels were arrested, charged with treason, and executed.
When John Brown was arrested, Henry David Thoreau defended the man and his violence, asking: “Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? Or declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not good?”
Those are the very questions some are tempted to ask now, but these weighty questions cannot justify violence in the name of an honorable cause. Thoreau was right about the fact that the laws allowing slavery in the United States were immoral and unjustifiable. John Brown was right when he claimed that slavery was a blight upon the nation’s conscience — a wrong that had to be ended. Brown’s logic led him to treason, and he was found guilty in a court of law and punished. Thoreau would refer to Brown as an “angel of light,” but Thoreau never had to live with the consequences of his own attempt to justify murder, nor did he ever acknowledge the true character of the man.
The pro-life movement in America must not wage war against abortion by following the example of John Brown. Nor can we allow ourselves the luxury of the logic of defending the indefensible along the lines of Thoreau. We must confront this great evil of abortion from a higher plane, and know that the battle is ultimately in God’s hands.
Murder is murder. The law rightly affirms that the killing of Dr. George Tiller is murder. In this we must agree. We cannot rest until the law also recognizes the killing of the unborn as murder. The killing of Dr. George Tiller makes that challenge all the more difficult.
Now if only we could find some imams to be equally unequivocal about the Little Rock army recruitment shooting …
Cforchange // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:08 am
Fiscally I’m very conservative and I believe that all this chat on this site reveals on a daily basis that this issue is where we can all agree. Polling of all the newly minted Indies also show that this is the crown jewel issue. The GOP has not demonstrated government management expertise and I firmly believe that candidate selection has been compromised by the social con litmus test. I bet this opinion is one of majority, not the twisting of the platform to appeal to an issue that is religion based. Blat on murder, murder, murder did not appeal for Schaivo nor will it with the fetus. Same issue for beginning and end of life especially for the CONSERVATIVE who wants the government to stay out of their lives period.The GOP would be wise to focus on fiscal competancy and conclude all the rest is personal religious business.
balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:55 am
Personally, I believe that Government can regulate pregnancy at the point Government is ready to take responsibility for the pregnancy.To wit – prior to viability, if a woman declares she wishes to terminate a pregnancy, and we believe it the best interests of the state to prevent her, we should be obligated at that stage to pay a fairly hefty sum of money for the use of her body to accomplish a task that benefits the state, but not her. Plus pick up the tab for any medical coverage. After delivery, the baby would belong to the state to allocate as it would.That’s what you’re declaring – a woman is basically an incubator for the life inside her, with her own preferences totally trumped by the need to protect the life.Now, once the fetus is viable, the state has no real compelling interest to pay her to continue carrying it. At that point pregnancy can be induced and the state can pay for the care of the baby until someone wants to adopt it.
Dave the Marine // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Don’t you think that we need to decide (legislatively) when life begins, the problem with the court deciding this should be obvios. Maybe we should take a more Constituional approach and let each state decide for themselves, just like we did with the death penalty. Some states would allow and some would not, and you could move as you see fit, to the one that best represents your belief. CforChange you can’t compare something Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist, to the second ammendment, one is from the US Constituion the other is something from a private letter of a president, one is law the other is opinion.