‘Pro-Life’ Murderer Demands His First Amendment Right To Kill Again

[cbayer]

http://wonkette.com/563854/pro-life-murderer-demands-his-first-amendment-right-to-kill-againWho would Jesus kill?

‘Pro-Life’ Murderer Demands His First Amendment Right To Kill Again

by Kaili Joy Gray
Oct 20 2:05 pm 2014



When a convicted “pro-life” terrorist who shot an abortion doctor to death, in his own church — for the unborned babies, and for Jesus! — threatens to do it again, you should probably take him seriously. Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller in 2009, has been rotting behind bars where he belongs ever since he was convicted of murder. Roeder has no remorse for his crime; in fact, he’s been fantasizing about his next victim: Julie Burkhart, the executive director of the clinic that replaced Dr. Tiller’s after Roeder murdered him.

Burkhart has been the “pro-life” terrorists’ number one target since they accomplished their mission of putting Dr. Tiller out of business by any means necessary. She’s been harassed with charming signs like “Where is your Church?” because ha ha hardy har har, they will gun her down in her church too. For life!

And the Army of God, a “pro-life” terrorist organization that quite overtly says it is good and right and definitely what Jesus would do to murder abortion providers, has not only put her at the top of its wanted list, but its leader, David Leach, went to have a little chat with Roeder, the “pro-life” hero, in prison, in which they nudge nudged and wink winked about how it sure would be a sarcastic-voice “shame” if someone were to murder Burkhart, but it would be her own fault, you see, because that’s what someone who provides a legal medical service deserves, as Roeder the Doctor Killer explained:

It is a little bit death-defying for someone to walk back in there. For Julie “Darkheart” to walk back in there and reopen a murder mill where a man was stopped. It’s almost like putting a target on your back, saying, “Well, let’s see if you can shoot ME! I have to go back to what Pastor Mike Bray said: If 100 abortionists were shot, they [surviving abortionists] would probably go out of business. I think eight have been shot, so we’ve got 92 to go. Maybe she’ll be number nine. I don’t know, but she’s kind of painting a target on her.

The Kansas Department of Corrections disciplined him — apparently, they have some kind of weird hang-up about convicted killers who threaten to kill again — but Roeder is doing what any reasonable patriotic American would do. He’s suing the department for violating his First Amendment rights.

Roeder is represented by Topeka attorney Billy Rork, who said he thinks the department violated Roeder’s right to freedom of speech.

Rork said Friday he is working free of charge to represent Roeder, an acquaintance since they were teenagers, who wrote him a letter asking for his help. Rork said he took the case mainly because “I’m a big First Amendment guy.”

Read more at http://wonkette.com/563854/pro-life-murderer-demands-his-first-amendment-right-to-kill-again#uC8VFq7YulkpA0V3.99

[elehhhhna]

1. death threats are not covered by 1A

[cbayer]

2. Yeah, that's what I thought.

[hollysmom]

3. I am sick and tired of people getting away with calling themselves pro-life when

they are really pro-death. Pro-death of anyone who works in a clinic that might perform abortions, Pro-death to the life of any woman who may have a dangerous pregnancy. Pro suffering deaths to children who probably should not be born ( I know 2 of them - one born with only a brain stem and one born without skin. both live months due to medical practices, but one was in constant pain until death and the other just wasn't really there). pro hate and misery - and finally not Christ like at all. These are the same people against the social safety net who don't care if children are denied medical care or starve or get abused.
They should be called what they are - pro-pain and starvation ad hate. As far as I am concerned, they are not pro-life at all.

[trotsky]

4. What they are, is serious about their religious beliefs.

They sincerely believe that a human life begins at conception. To them, every abortion is an act of murder. Yes, some decide to play the role of judge/jury/executioner, but it only illustrates the problem with elevating religious beliefs to the level of actual knowledge or secular law.

[hollysmom]

6. no, I don't believe that,

if they were really pro-life, they would care about the life of the mother. and the really crazies don't care, they think if the mother dies it is god's will. But when push comes to shove and it is their family, the rules go out the door. I have "pro-life" friends, but they are not so into that movement that they would let the mother die, but if you look at all these male legislatures they don't care. The rules allow no exception, Let hte victim of rape suffer for 9 more months and maybe hate the child. The religion says nothing about abortion, they make up the rules, but they are not in the bible, they are in their made up world

[trotsky]

7. I think we dismiss them at our own peril.

To assume that you can read their minds, that you know better than they do what they believe, that's dangerous. And foolish.

"In the womb I knew you." - These people truly believe that a fertilized egg is a human being. They would say the same thing (you're in your "made up world&quot about you.

[hollysmom]

9. no, I am not reading minds, I know people like this, that is why I say it.

they don't murder people, but they think if god wants it, the mother should die even if it takes the fetus with it. I am so tempted to break their legs to see if they will let it heal this way with out a doctor because god wants it. I have argued with then that cancer is a living growing thing as well, we should not cut it out or kill it with radiation, but they won't buy that one.

[trotsky]

10. Then it looks like we actually agree.

That crazy f'ed up stuff is what they truly believe. And since we are supposed to respect and not criticize religious beliefs, it puts us in a real bind.

[hollysmom]

13. I don't believe it is a religious beliefe because there is no source for that.

if they believe in the bible it is not in there. Historically it is not a religious belief, I say this as being raised a Catholic. It is like celibate priests just came along with one Pope's desires. It had never been part of the religion before. to the best of my knowledge the anti abortion thing is new to the 1900's. I do know that before safe abortion infanticide thrived. i know that JOB was told to kill his son in the bible and that is an post being born and living many years abortion.
So I don't think it is attacking the religion so much as erroneous beliefs.
It is like how people are now claiming certain birth controls are abortion when we know very well they are not. that is an erroneous belief not an erroneous religious belief - someone decided to say so and then others picked it up, but no matter how you cut it, it is still a lie.

One thing I said is you can't say you are pro life if you want the mother to die - is she not a life? I don't believe that the whole abortion thing has anything to do with religion, it is persona an crosses the lines of many religions, where people practicing that religion may or may not believe it.

[trotsky]

15. Well, you do realize they say the same thing about your beliefs, right?

They can point to the "in the womb I knew you" verse, of course. That's pretty good support for their beliefs. Interpretation and understanding of the bible is always changing, too. People today claim to find support for marriage equality whereas that was never part of Christian history either.

The whole thing with allowing the mother to die, as I see it, is that they think we shouldn't intervene. It's all their god's plan. We can't intervene to abort a fetus, we can't intervene to save the mother. Leave it all in god's hands - a very common Christian sentiment from what I've seen. Perhaps your experience is different.

No one can ever prove someone else's religious beliefs are wrong. Or right, for that matter.

[hollysmom]

16. but I never claim my beliefs are religious.

And I still say I would be tempted to break a few legs and see if people don't go to doctors if they don't want to interfere with God's wishes. I just find it hypocritical, and Here I am speaking of those I know. Like my sister in law. WHo used birth control all her life and after her children were born, but now that she is past menopause, she is into limiting other's access to birth control because it is abortion! Mind you, she had 2 pregnancies with RH factor problems and spent months in the hospital to have her second child, they were very wanted children, but if she did not take this birth control after she had them, she would have possibly died if she got pregnant, now she is condemning someone else to that by backing the denying of birth control. She is a Catholic who got divorced and remarried, but went for an annulment later when she got pregnant, not exactly in the right order. Can't fight too hard with these people as I have to live with relatives.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. I don't see what this has to do with religion.

Roeder is obviously not religiously motivated and is just acting this way for reasons of sex and aggression. I learned that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218157874

[bvf]

19. Sure, but that doesn't m---SQUIRREL!! n/t

[okasha]

8. That is one of the worst pieces of "art" I've ever seen.

[cbayer]

11. And this is only a piece of it.

It is called "One Nation Under God".

Here is a link to the artist's site and the full image:

http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/OneNationUnderGod.html

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Ghastly and un-American.

[cbayer]

14. Agree. As a piece of comedy, I might find some value in it,

but this guy is totally serious.

[okasha]

17. Just on technique, it's terrible.

The light source is all over the map, the subject of principal interest is bang in the middle of the compostion, well-lit empty space of no interest whatsoever, etc.

On another level entirely: Jesus in gold lame--really? Has Abe Lincoln just finished a tap dance? Is the population of the US 90% male? Why is Frederick Douglass standing behind Fess Parker?

Oh, dear, I can't bear to go on.

[cbayer]

18. I know so little about the technical aspects of art that I can't even comment

on your comments, lol.

If you want some laughs, go to the link and look at his explanation of the various aspects of this piece.

Enjoy!