<

p>Given the government’s recent (and successful) attempts to strip procedural protections for those accused of “terrorism,” I’d think that an expanded definition of all organized crime to include “terrorism” would be a step many here would not want to take. That’s the problem with heated language like Dr. Hern’s.

<

p>

“[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.”

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

<

p>The violent wing of the anti-abortion movement is, by definition, a terrorist organization.

<

p>Organized gangs, on the other hand, don’t meet this definition because they meet only part (A) of the Government’s definition (to be “Terrorists,” they must fit parts (A) and (B)).

<

p>Definition here.

<

p>Hmmm.  It would follow that ‘state sponsored terrorism’ is a contradiction and can’t exist.  Also, it’d follow that terrorism centered around a government policy can’t be the result of an actual disagreement but rather a ‘breakdown in communication’.  As I see it, if the Government declared that abortion would be legal through the first 24 hours after birth for all cases and the murder of abortion doctor’s went up, I’d concluded that the anti-abortion terrorists understood the ‘communication’ just fine.

<

p>That said, all this talk about regulating speech, investigating right wing extremists, and BrookLineToms extremist comments calling for the investigation and persecution of all pro-life Catholics, this is the kind of McCarthyesque erosion of civil liberties that always does, but should never occur after actions like this. We can be made safer without reducing our civil liberties. Thank god there were guards at the Holocaust Museum to subdue this fanatic, and perhaps abortion providers should beef up their security, but it is completely unwarranted to target an isolate an entire group of people, restrict or regulate speech, or at all limit our freedoms in response to these attacks. I have Muslim friends whose mosques have been wiretapped and who know members of their religious communities are paid informants for the FBI, that kind of breach of religious freedom should never be tolerated. Similarly, I do not think the government should have broad powers to label its opponents ‘right wing extremists’ or ‘terrorists’ and attempt to silence them. Like Voltaire once said, I despise what you say but I would defend to the death your right to say it-preserving our American freedoms to me is more important than trusting the government with more arbitrary power to label anyone it please ‘terrorist’ and then remove their civil rights.

<

p>Instead a better reaction to the Tiller tragedy would be to immediately pass the Pregnant Women Support Act and have the President sign it. This bill will likely do more to reduce the number of abortions in this country than any pro-life march, any attempts to overturn existing abortion laws, and certainly be more effective than the barbarism in Wichita so many weeks ago. Its a bill those on both sides of the debate can get behind that provides much needed economic assistance to women in crisis pregnancies, needed now more than ever because of the recession. Anyone who cares about social justice regardless of their position on abortion should endorse and fight for this legislation. It is something Francis Schaffley and the Tiller family could get behind.

<

p>What?

<

p>The really important communication is from the people to the leader. And although liberals hate it, it’s important for the president to show that he is considering the opinion of  people who think abortion is wrong and try to take them into account.  

<

p>is a flat-out lie.

<

p>Honestly, I don’t know why you have haven’t been booted from this site long ago.  Your rhetoric is trollish and you rarely engage in good faith.    

<

p>

“I see this as individuals who have it in their mind that their life is worth sacrificing for what they believe in…”

<

p>These folks aren’t sacrificing “their life,” they’re sacrificing other people’s lives. And they’re doing it to force changes to our society and our government outside the legal structure. I will say it again: the violent wing of the anti-abortion movement are, by definition, terrorists.

<

p>I find the entire premise of the comment worthless. In deference to Farnkoff’s objection downthread, I’ll agree that he didn’t violate the comment guidelines.

Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.

<

p>If this post doesn’t contain blanket unsupported statements, rudeness, and insults, what does?

<

p>The ad was very much in the MCRD mold:

<

p>

In the ad, a black woman says, “Dr. King was a real man,” and a second one responds, “You know he was a Republican.”

<

p>It takes a special kind of person to look at an abortion clinic and be wholly concerned by what happens outside it and not what happens inside.

<

p>Not suggesting that any kind of violence is justified.  Just asking whether people who are so gung-ho to round up pro-lifers are as critical of the abortion-on-demand crowd.  Myself, I’m in the middle.

<

p>True, they didn’t intend to die, but even idiots die for a purpose.

<

p>I have no doubt that we’ll be presented with other opportunities to choose between “0″ and “3″ for such comments. I try very hard to ignore all of them. I generally view a “0″ as meaning “Pure troll”. Farnkoff’s comment made me realize that it can be interpreted to mean “violates the ROTR”. I think his comment is clearly trollish. I’m not sure that it violates the ROTR.

<

p>Whether “3″ or “0″, I certainly found the comment offensive.

<

p>Those of us outside the Catholic tradition find attempts to impose beliefs grounded in Catholic theology on others (or to persuade the non-believers of the error of their ways) offensive in the same way that aggressive evangelical Christians are often perceived as offensive when they attempt to convert non-believers.

<

p>I’m guessing that if a group of evangelical Protestants were to surround St. Mary’s Church some Sunday morning after Mass and force worshipers to run a gauntlet of loud demonstrators carrying signs like “Meet the Real Jesus” and “The Pope is not your Savior”, you would find that offensive. Not illegal, still well within First Amendment boundaries, but offensive nevertheless.

<

p>MCRD was stating that liberals are cowards, incapable of self-sacrifice.  It’s a blanket insult. It’s also part of a pattern of such behavior.  Without the history, I might have given a 3.  With the history….

<

p>So I really don’t know what you mean by this….

<

p>

Those of us outside the Catholic tradition find attempts to impose beliefs grounded in Catholic theology on others (or to persuade the non-believers of the error of their ways) offensive in the same way that aggressive evangelical Christians are often perceived as offensive when they attempt to convert non-believers.

I think you might be thinking of some other religion.  What you are describing is not the reality of what being a member of the Catholic church is.

<

p>When Catholic demonstrators force women who want to purchase contraceptives to walk past signs that say “The Pill Kills”, they are perceived by outsiders as attempting to impose (through intimidating contraceptive suppliers) their beliefs on others (link). That’s what I meant, nothing more, nothing less.

<

p>From the last link:

That’s the message women and men around the country will proclaim when they gather June 6 outside of hospitals, pharmacies, health-care and Planned Parenthood facilities for the largest protest ever against the birth control pill and other hormonal contraceptives.

<

p>I fully appreciate that most Catholics don’t do or support such tactics, and in fact many find them embarrassing. Similarly, most Protestants don’t practice similarly coercive tactics on the part of a handful of evangelicals.

<

p>I am nevertheless concerned that “crazy talk”, like “The Pill Kills”, will be seized upon by crazy men and women to justify violent acts against contraceptive suppliers.

<

p>Whatever Bill Ayers was decades ago, it was not a liberal. Not everyone on the left is a liberal.

<

p>You are perpetuating yet another rightwing myth.