Prepare yourself for an interesting and heinous contradiction.
As we all know by now, on Sunday, May 31, 2009, Dr George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas was murdered as he was engaging in church services in a Kansas church where he was a member. The alleged perpetrator of the murder is Scott Roeder, and his ex-wife, Lindsay Roeder, claims that he is “crazy”.
Is Scott Roeder “crazy”? If so, what caused it? If he did murder Dr Tiller, what caused him to do so? Was it merely a case of diminished mental capacity, or was it something more? Was the murder of Dr Tiller an act of terrorism?
I won’t bother trying to define terrorism as it seems too many people have different definitions of what comprises terrorism. Is a single heinous act terrorism? Perhaps. Are multiple acts toward the same target terrorism? Definitely. For many years, Dr Tiller was the target of multiple inflictions of personal injury and destruction of property. So were Towers 1 & 2 of the World Trade Center in New York City. Dr Tiller was not the first provider of abortion to be injured or murdered, and he probably won’t be the last. Neither was the World Trade Center. Abortion providers (physicians) have taken increasingly drastic steps to protect themselves, their employees, their clinics and their patients. The providers and their clinics have repeatedly been the subject of threats, bombings and shootings — all at the hands of perpetrators with a “pro-life agenda”. That irony is quite illogical but quite true. Even our government, by order of Attorney General Eric Holder, has dispatched US Marshalls to provide additional protections to abortion clinics throughout the United States. Why? Could it be that these abortion clinics are engaging in lawful activities? Yes, indeed they are. Could it be that the perpetrators of violence against abortion clinics are engaging in lawful activities? No, indeed they aren’t.
There are many cries that this act of murder is an act of terrorism. Just google it to read them. While I agree that the perpetrators of violence against abortion clinics are also engaging in terrorism, so are the pro-life supporters that encourage the perpetrators. The rhetoric the religious right uses to aid and abet these outcomes are acts of terrorism. They are no different than the IRA or the Taliban or Al-Qaeda gleefully taking responsibility for their latest acts of terrorism.
Here is the hypocritical contradiction of the United States . . .
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, a convert to Islam, is under arrest for allegedly murdering Pvt William Long and injuring Pvt Quinton Ezeagwula at a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. Is Mr Muhammad being charged with murder and attempted murder? Yes, of course, but guess what else? He is being charged with “15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act” as “investigators believe there were ‘political and religious motives‘ in the shooting”.
I don’t know if Mr Muhammad has engaged in multiple acts of violence toward the same or similar targets, but with at least this one episode of violence toward these two men, Mr Muhammad is labeled as a terrorist. Really? Is it because he is a “darkie”? Is it because he is Muslim? Is it because he objected to the actions of the US military? Is it because he used to be named Carlos Bledsoe and likely engaged, although unclear and unknown, in some form of Christianity before converting to Islam?
How is Abdulhakim Muhammad a terrorst but Scott Roeder isn’t? How is Osama bin Laden a terrorist but Randall Terry isn’t?
This is yet another example of the religious and ethnic double-standard America has allowed the religious right to perpetrate upon the world, and continues to allow people like Randall Terry and Bill O’Reilly (and many others) to repeatedly make remarks, with impugnity, that inflame the issue and encourage people to act out in criminally terroristic ways. They are all terrorists.
So, terrorism is for Muslims only? It makes me sick.
Addendum: Frank Shaeffer has provided a mea culpa, a public apology, for his actions that contributed to the spawn of hatred for and violence toward abortion providers. Although Mr Shaeffer does not condone the act of abortion, he appreciates that it is a legal right for a woman to choose an abortion and believes that it is immoral to attack women who seek such services. He describes how this was not his position 30 years ago when he assisted the Religious Right (aka the Moral Majority) in spawning hate for anyone associated with an abortion.
