Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou're confused. Your argument that the Holocaust wasn't mass murder because the Nazis said it was legal came as cold comfort to Kaltenbrunner, Sauckel and others who wound up dangling from the end of a rope at Nuremberg.
Yes, it does. They were killed, but if it was legal, it wasn't murder. Of course there is a popular definition of murder (broadly speaking, just killing) and a legal definition, but usually it's clear which one you mean. Or perhaps you also think that soldiers who kill another soldier are all murderers?
But it's a good thing you don't care about sema ...[text shortened]... e can establish that calling abortion "murder" is not an argument for or against anything.
Just because some laws give a definition of a word, doesn't mean that that definition is the only one that can be used. New York law defines giving drugs to someone without getting a payment as a "sale" but that hardly accords with common usage.
What I mean by "murder" is what most people mean by murder i.e. an unjustifiable killing with malice aforethought. The law reflects that definition; it didn't create it. If someone is trying to murder you, you have the authority to prevent them from doing so, using lethal force if necessary. This, of course, ties back with the central premise of this thread.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhy?
So you wouls say that John Brown was morally justified for murdering slave owners? I would not. In addition, I would also say the same for Scott Roeder.
EDIT: I would not say John Brown "murdered" slave owners if he killed them as murder is an unjustifiable killing with malice aforethought and killing someone to free human beings from slavery is not unjustified.
Originally posted by no1marauder'But who makes the laws? What you are saying, in a way, is whoever makes the laws makes the definition so if the law does not reflect yoiur definition you have no room to argue the matter.
What I mean by "murder" is what most people mean by murder i.e. an unjustifiable killing with malice aforethought. The law reflects that definition; it didn't create it. If someone is trying to murder you, you have the authority to prevent them from doing so, using lethal force if necessary. This, of course, ties back with the central premise of this thread.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course, we both have the opinion that at times killing people is "justifiable" or even necessary, however, the only disagreement is when. In addition, I think we would both agree that unjustifiable killing should be coined "murder". Am I correct thus far?
Why?
EDIT: I would not say John Brown "murdered" slave owners if he killed them as murder is an unjustifiable killing with malice aforethought and killing someone to free human beings from slavery is not unjustified.
As for when and where this should occur, I would simply say that vigilantism is problematic in that the moral justification for killing someone rests with only one individual. It often is independent of both God and country or any other checks and balances. Now does this mean that ALL vigilantism is unjustifiable? Not necessarily, however, I am not the judge, jury, and executioner nor am I an apologist for them. The righteousness of their actions must rest with the state and/or their Maker.
Originally posted by no1marauderJohn Brown's killings may or may not have been justified, but they were clearly against the law at the time. Other than self-defense (or defense of another), the law does not recognize justification as a defense against a charge of homicide.
Why?
EDIT: I would not say John Brown "murdered" slave owners if he killed them as murder is an unjustifiable killing with malice aforethought and killing someone to free human beings from slavery is not unjustified.
Originally posted by sh76I know the law in the US. I said on page 1:
John Brown's killings may or may not have been justified, but they were clearly against the law at the time. Other than self-defense (or defense of another), the law does not recognize justification as a defense against a charge of homicide.
Let's not get bogged down into legality; I'm talking to people who believe that abortion is MURDER by God's law, not merely "wrong".
You should also know by now that I think man made laws which violate people's natural rights are invalid and need not be obeyed. Thus, to me, John Brown's action were justifiable even if they were against man made laws at the time.
I assume those who say "abortion is MURDER" (and we both know many say it) are also saying that there is a higher law than man's law. Therefore, the question to them is why the killing of Dr. Tiller is not justified by said higher law.
(I realize you have said that you don't believe abortion is murder, so the point is really not directed at you). Out of curiosity though, do you think John Brown or say Nat Turner were morally justified to resist slavery by force?
Originally posted by no1marauderAssuming we know which killings are murder in the eyes of God, do we then have a right to gun down such people in the streets? Do you think there a Bibiical call to do so?
I know the law in the US. I said on page 1:
Let's not get bogged down into legality; I'm talking to people who believe that abortion is MURDER by God's law, not merely "wrong".
You should also know by now that I think man made laws which violate people's natural rights are invalid and need not be obeyed. Thus, to me, John B ...[text shortened]... think John Brown or say Nat Turner were morally justified to resist slavery by force?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhether John Brown was justified is a very tough question. I know you don't like it when I hedge my bet and use "weasel words," but what can I tell you? These are tough issues. The same with abortion and gay marriage. I have mixed feelings. To borrow an idea from FMF (who would have thought it, eh? 🙂 ), I can't crystallize my opinion in a soundbite on these issues. Frankly, I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions for the country and I respect the difficulty of the job of those who do.
I know the law in the US. I said on page 1:
Let's not get bogged down into legality; I'm talking to people who believe that abortion is MURDER by God's law, not merely "wrong".
You should also know by now that I think man made laws which violate people's natural rights are invalid and need not be obeyed. Thus, to me, John B ...[text shortened]... think John Brown or say Nat Turner were morally justified to resist slavery by force?
The best answer I can give to the question is: While slavery is obviously a travesty which needed to be fought, John Brown went overboard. He committed murders he did not need to commit to free slaves. Furthermore, the raid on Harper's Ferry was too tangentially related to freeing slaves to be justified. The people killed during the raid were not necessarily slave owners (in fact, one was a freed former slave) and their deaths were not justified, in my opinion, by the greater goal of freeing slaves.
I will, however, concede that reasonable people can differ on this issue.
Originally posted by whodeyThis isn't Spirituality, but I'm sure I could find Bible verses justifying protecting the innocent from murder by killing the would be killers. Surely, such a killing wouldn't be "murder" under the Ten Commandments.
Assuming we know which killings are murder in the eyes of God, do we then have a right to gun down such people in the streets? Do you think there a Bibiical call to do so?
Originally posted by sh76Maybe I'll start a "John Brown" thread; the reasonable people differing on an issue sounds promising. I'm off to play some chess elsewhere now though.
Whether John Brown was justified is a very tough question. I know you don't like it when I hedge my bet and use "weasel words," but what can I tell you? These are tough issues. The same with abortion and gay marriage. I have mixed feelings. To borrow an idea from FMF (who would have thought it, eh? 🙂 ), I can't crystallize my opinion in a soundbite on these is ...[text shortened]... eing slaves.
I will, however, concede that reasonable people can differ on this issue.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Pre-Emptive Abolition Of Slavery" from a few months back: it would be wrong to say that it was not inconsiderably unrelated to the "John Brown" question: Thread 108375
Maybe I'll start a "John Brown" thread; the reasonable people differing on an issue sounds promising. I'm off to play some chess elsewhere now though.
Originally posted by no1marauderRandall Terry's take:
I know the law in the US. I said on page 1:
Let's not get bogged down into legality; I'm talking to people who believe that abortion is MURDER by God's law, not merely "wrong".
You should also know by now that I think man made laws which violate people's natural rights are invalid and need not be obeyed. Thus, to me, John B ...[text shortened]... think John Brown or say Nat Turner were morally justified to resist slavery by force?
Following is the statement of Randall Terry, Founder, Operation Rescue.
"Dr. Tiller was a mass murderer.
"I grieve for him that he did not have an opportunity to properly prepare his soul to face his Maker. Unless some miracle happened, he left this life with his hands drenched with the innocent blood of tens of thousands of babies that he murdered. Surely there will be a dreadful accounting for what he has done.
"I believe George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the 'legal' murder of the Jews that fell into their hands. But even Mr. Tiller - like other murderers - deserved a trial of his peers, and a legal execution, not vigilantly justice.[me: Why Randall?]
"His killing presents us a severe challenge.
"The arch proponents of child killing such as Planned Parenthood, the National Organization of Women, NARAL, and a host of other enemies of children are already blaming the pro-life movement for Dr. Tiller's death.
"The child killers, and their allies in the Obama administration and on Capitol Hill, will attempt to browbeat the pro-life movement into surrendering our most effective weapons in this battle: our rhetoric, our actions, and our images.
"Pro-lifers must not flinch, waver, or in any way alter our course in our epic struggle to make child killing illegal again.
"Our rhetoric must bear witness to the truth: abortion is murder.
"Our actions must be equal to this crime: we must continue with vigorous (yet peaceful) actions such as have been used by every social revolution since America's birth. The easiest picture to have is that of the civil rights activists of the 1960s. They held 'illegal' marches, freedom rides, and 'sit-ins' at lunch counters; they were met with water canons, dogs, police brutality, arrests, and jail. If we are going to end child killing, we must unflinchingly adopt the strategies of heroes past.
"Our images must reflect the truth. We must continue to show the victims' bodies that we have pulled out of dumpsters; we must not retreat a single inch from showing the decapitated heads of little boys and girls, the arms and legs that were suctioned or carved out of their mothers wombs; we must paint the picture of sewers and landfills being used as unholy graves for these holy victims.
"Of course we are peaceful; that is why this horrific shooting in a church has immediately garnered national attention. It is precisely because we are peaceful that Dr. Tiller's killing sticks out like a huge wart on an otherwise flawless complexion. If abortionists were gunned down every week, it would gather no more attention than crack dealers who are gunned down every week."
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7392310537.html
Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed, This bit of vigilantism could be rationalized using scripture, however, it could also be condenmed using it as well. My only point here is to bring up the fact that the issue at hand is not really about religion at all, rather, it is about whether killing the unborn is murder or not. With or without religion no doubt there would still be John Browns out there.
This isn't Spirituality, but I'm sure I could find Bible verses justifying protecting the innocent from murder by killing the would be killers. Surely, such a killing wouldn't be "murder" under the Ten Commandments.
Having said that, you might say we all are governed by our own internal "gospels" regarding the matter. What makes something "right" and what makes something "wrong"? Even though this may not be the Spirituality forum, there is not escaping the spritual aspect of our belief system regarding controversial issues such as this.
Originally posted by whodeyreligious belief systems do not a compelling state interest make.
Agreed, This bit of vigilantism could be rationalized using scripture, however, it could also be condenmed using it as well. My only point here is to bring up the fact that the issue at hand is not really about religion at all, rather, it is about whether killing the unborn is murder or not. With or without religion no doubt there would still be John Brown ...[text shortened]... ping the spritual aspect of our belief system regarding controversial issues such as this.
we do not make constitutionally valid laws based on religious belief systems.
it isn't about murder -- for that is a matter of common law, not religion.
how many times has a murderer been charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman?
is it the rule, or the exception?