File Name: 3152.txt Ä Area: A_THEIST: A_T ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Msg#: 74 Date: 05-23-95 21:02 From: Randy Edwards Read: Yes Replied: No To: All Mark: Subj: Re: [1 of 7] Know Thy Ene ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Original Message Posted via ANEWS * Date: 22 May 95 17:17:48 * From: Randy Edwards @ 1:325/805 * To: All * Forwarded by: Christopher Baker @ 1:374/14 * Message text was not edited! @MSGID: 1:325/805 019b6ba2 @SPLIT: 22 May 95 17:17:48 @325/805 29760 01/07 +++++++++++ Reply-To: Arm The Spirit Introduction To Paul Hill's Text By Tom Burghardt Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights The following file, "Should We Defend Born and Unborn Children With Force?" provides the necessary theological "justifications" by the Defensive Action network for the assassination of abortion providers by direct action anti-abortion movement. We are well-aware of the political implications of Paul Hill, Michael Griffin and John Salvi's murderous acts of terror - the destruction of women's access to reproductive health care. It is also imperative that clinic defense and other activist's tracking or directly combatting the far-right have a working knowledge of the ideology guiding the formation of armed fascist movement throughout North America. It is my hope that this text of Rev. Hill's is studied and circulated as widely as possible. It provides valuable insight into the inner workings of the anti-abortion movement in general, and direct action proponents of rightist terror as practiced today, in particular. The sources of far-right paramilitary violence are: 1. the little-known theology of Christian Reconstructionism or "dominion theology"; 2. the racist, anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement; 3. the nativist conspiracism of the Christian Patriots and their allies within the Militia Movement; 4. the welter of Klan, neo-Nazi and bonehead groups and their elaborate conspiracy theories; Of some interest is the apparent ideological linkage between Paul Hill's text to a little-known far-right extremist, Richard Kelly Hoskins, author of "Vigilantes of Christendom". Similar to Hill's advocacy of armed paramilitary violence, Hoskins' racist, anti-Semitic diatribe heavily draws from the Phineas story in the Book of Numbers. "For Hoskins, the 'Phineas Priest' - the embodiment of Christian Identity belief and obedience and to God - is not one who prepares for impending race war, but one who commits racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic murder to stave off God's ongoing judgement of white people for failing to uphold the 'Law.' For Hoskins this includes such 'crimes' as interracial marriage and allowing homosexuals to live." ("The Northwest Imperative: Documenting a Decade of Hate" Coalition for Human Dignity, Portland, Oregon). ***************************************************************** BACORR: DEFENDING CLINICS, EXPOSING TERRORISM -- BECAUSE NO ONE'S GONNA DO IT FOR US! ***************************************************************** Copyright Paul Hill 1994 all rights reserved Should We Defend Born And Unborn Children With Force? Paul J. Hill July, 1993 On March 10th, 1993, Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed as he was about to enter an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Five days after Dr. Gunn's death, Mr. Paul Hill appeared on the Phil Donahue show to defend the use of force to protect innocent life. This paper explains and develops this position. Two Essential Distinctions Two distinctions must be made in order to rightly understand the issues surrounding the death of Dr. Gunn. 1) Distinguish between the wisdom of using force to defend the unborn and the justice of so defending the unborn. The wisdom of using force to defend the unborn has been debated by many. Some say it harms the pro-life cause. It is best to suspend judgment on any given forceful act to defend life until all the facts are in. The wisdom of using force to protect life would depend on many variable factors. Certainly not any or every violent act intended to protect life would be wise. It must not be forgotten that we not only have a responsibility to protect the unborn, but we also must protect ourselves and provide for those dependent upon us. Our current government threatens you with imprisonment or death if you protect your unborn family members or your unborn neighbors with force. Individual discretion is, therefore, required to determine when any given defensive act would be wise. The justice of using force to defend the unborn is apparent if we don't forget that the object is to defend unborn babies from violent death. The justice of using force to protect unborn children from deadly force would be easy for you to affirm if your life had been spared by the use of defensive force. 2) The second distinction to be made is between what is just and what is legal. It is self-evident that a government may declare an act legal that is actually unjust according to God's law. A slave owner prior to the Civil War may have abused his slave in a way that was legal, but ultimately unjust. The present abortion laws legalize the killing of unborn children, but they are unjust in God's eyes. Yet this legalized killing was just about to be carried out when David Gunn's life was taken. Don't Forget The Babies Your conclusions on this matter will be largely determined by where your true sympathies lie, with the doctor or with the preborn children. If next to Dr. Gunn's dead body were to be spread the gruesome remains of the thousands he killed, the mere space needed would be staggering. Most equations that condemn using force to defend our children do not duly consider the children in question. Many distort the true situation by focusing on the force used to stop a "legal act." In reality, it is just to protect the innocent from a bloody death at the hands of a paid killer. Anyone who denies that the preborn are human beings would have no basis upon which to defend them with force. If the preborn are in fact human we owe them the same protection we would render any other defenseless human. If we believe the preborn are living human beings, how can we justify defending them with force only after they are born? The Biblical Basis For Defensive Action In order to determine if we may use force to protect the unborn we must ask and resolve two questions. The first question is, "What responsibility does the individual have toward his neighbor if his neighbor's life is about to be taken by force?" The answer to the question is, "You must take all action necessary to protect innocent life." The Bible clearly teaches that we may protect our own lives from unjust harm with deadly force if necessary, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account", Exodus 22:2. The Scriptures also clearly teach that as we should defend our own lives with force, we should also do so for our neighbor. The second great commandment is to love "your neighbor as yourself", Luke 10:27. -- MPost/2 v1.1 @ Origin: Spartacus Lives! * Home of ANEWS * Venceremos! * (1:325/805) *PATH: 325/805 3615/50 374/1 98 14 -!- GenMsg [0002] (cbak.rights@opus.global.org) ! Origin: Rights On!-A_THEIST Echo Mod/Host-Titusville_FL_USA (1:374/14)