(Tim) Of course, it's hard for me to link to anything giving a soapbox to that half-Christian gone mad, Frankie Schaeffer. But if you can get past that part of it, here's a post from a former anti-abortionist providing a periscope into the minds of unbelievers as they watch and listen to Christians following the assassination of Dr. Tiller. A teaser:
Yet when (Paul) Hill repeated their own argument and their own rhetoric back to them, these groups all recoiled. They all claimed to share Hill's premise, but not to share his conclusion...
That won't work. Hill's violent conclusion arose logically from that shared premise. If he was a madman to be condemned -- as all those groups suddenly insisted he was -- it was because of the madness of that premise. So how was it possible they could repudiate him without also repudiating that rhetoric that compelled him to act?
What I realized then, in 1994, as I watched these groups line up to condemn violence against "mass-murderers" and to renounce armed opposition to "the Holocaust," was that these folks didn't really mean any of it. They were horrified by the spectacle of someone taking their own rhetoric and arguments seriously. "We don't really mean anything we say," these groups rushed to announce. "We don't really believe any of that."
And since they no longer bothered to claim they believed it, I stopped trying to believe it too.
By the way, far down in the comments is one linking to this blog saying we've "embraced the murderer." Wrong.
