Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-27-2011, 06:29 PM   #1
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
"Bible states that anyone involved in abortion should be executed."

On May 31, 2009, anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller.

Ralph Lang, 63, of Marshfield, was charged in federal court today for "attempting to injure and intimidate in violation of the federal access statute." Lang was arrested by police on Wednesday after a .38-caliber hand gun in his possession discharged and fired a bullet through his door into the room across the hall. Lang reported the incident to the front desk and when police arrived to investigate he told them he was visiting Madison "to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies."

Lang has long been a crusader against abortion. According to the Marshfield News-Herald he's penned at least 21 editorials that have been published in the paper. The most recent was published on February 11, 2011 and references the Queen of the Holy Rosary Mediatrix of Peace Shrine in Necedah, Wis. where the Virgin Mary allegedly made regular appearances before Mary Ann Van Hoof for more than three decades.

Lang's other editorials are locked behind the paper's pay wall, but they carry headlines such as "Hurricane Katrina is another warning of devastation if America doesn't overturn abortion" and "Bible has answers on creation, contraception."

However, there is nothing more revealing of the mental state of Lang than an article published in the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire's alternative student paper, Flipside, in 2007. That article, re-published on a blog titled "Mind Your Own F*cking Business," discusses one writer's first meeting with the would-be abortion doctor assassin.

The article reads like a character in a Lovecraftian novel learning the secrets of Cthulhu and feeling himself joining his subject on the edge of the maw of madness. The author wrote after meeting Lang, "I’d want nothing better but to wipe him from my mind. He’s only been a horror to think about. He’s a black ghost on my thoughts."

The story that unfolds in the article is that of a man struggling with personal demons, but in this case, ironically, those demons happen to be a God who has wrapped Lang in a relentless mortal coil and is using him to transmit a message to the Earth, "A common theme runs through everything Ralph said. He wants everything back again how he remembered it. He wants everything normal again. He wants his life back. It seems nothing makes sense to him anymore, and his call for prayer is a vocalized cry for the world to stop moving so he can get back on again. He holds God as a general, with clear orders to follow. Ralph is in on the struggle. He’s begged for a reference point, and he has it."

For more than half a decade Lang has been very publicly showing signs of being troubled. When he was arrested in 2007 he reportedly told the officer that the "Bible states that anyone involved in abortion should be executed."

The maximum penalty Lang will face is one year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.

The troubled mind of a would-be abortion doctor assassin | Dane101

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/UPDATE_Man_Planned_to_Kill_Abortion_Doctors.html


05-28-2011, 12:28 AM   #2
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,317
His delusions aren't the least bit controversial or even entertaining.
A strange following he has subscribed to, fighting for such a twisted cause.
May he one day know what he's talking about and perhaps get over himself...
05-28-2011, 08:38 AM   #3
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,900
I've never quite understood why some people can't seem to separate their religious beliefs from an understanding of the legal rights of others. I don't particularly like abortion myself. I think as a birth control practice it's vastly overused these days, but whether or not another woman has the legal right to make the decision, to get one, properly and under a doctor's care that's something I don't even question.

Ideas of morality can vary according to culture, religion, and many other factors. But someone using the rules of their particular religion to decide legal matters for all? That's just not okay, IMHO. I don't subscribe to a particular religious belief system, but even if I did I'd have a hard time sitting there justifying applying the rules of my religion to everyone, even those who don't believe as I do.

The Bible having some verses against gays for instance might mean that a certain church wouldn't marry them, and they shouldn't have to, but legally as human beings gays still have a right to a civil marriage ceremony because that's a totally different thing from being married in a church. So why all the controversy?

The way I see it the major religions should just mind their own business and let people make up their own minds. But I guess they can't afford to do that. No, they have to be totally in control of everyone, whether they actually belong to said religion or not.

I look at most of the major religions on this planet and I just see cults. Some people in the cults they're sane and it mostly seems to benefit them for whatever reason, but then you have people like this wacko, and there's just no buying any of it...
05-28-2011, 05:05 PM   #4
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,064
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
I look at most of the major religions on this planet and I just see cults.
That's almost exactly what I see too...

05-28-2011, 05:56 PM   #5
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,317
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
I've never quite understood why some people can't seem to separate their religious beliefs from an understanding of the legal rights of others.
It's simple.
For the purpose of serving a higher being or doctrine - a cause greater than oneself - any teaching derived from the doctrine overrides any man-made legal (or otherwise) institution, since it will always be considered as a lesser ordinance. Such is the unshakeable value a devoted follower can have, as misguided as it may be.

QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
So why all the controversy?
There indeed isn't any. The freedom to do as one pleases within the bounds of the law is of far greater value than the compulsion to follow any one religious doctrine. Free will also permits us to decide and have the conviction in matters beyond the bounds of the law about what is right and wrong.

QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
The way I see it the major religions should just mind their own business and let people make up their own minds. But I guess they can't afford to do that. No, they have to be totally in control of everyone, whether they actually belong to said religion or not.
The first part is fine. Your deduction thereafter is misappropriated in general. Most people I know of faith in something do not want to try and convert everyone to their form of religion. Even in Christianity where some followers take the Great Commission as their mandate to spread the gospel 'at all costs' there are several commandments in the very same scriptures that advise wisdom and understanding when sharing the message. The apparent contradictions are difficult for some to reconcile. And thus we have the 'all-or-nothing' approach of some hard-lined right-winged Christians who know no better, as inexcusable as it is.

QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
Some people in the cults they're sane and it mostly seems to benefit them for whatever reason
Call it what you will; the benefit of eternal life comes at the price of earthly sacrifice, and the giving of oneself for that purpose so that others may hear about it and believe also. The means, however, never justifies the end - as in this example...

Last edited by Ash; 06-01-2011 at 01:52 AM.
05-30-2011, 04:06 PM   #6
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,900
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Most people of faith in something other than atheism do not want to try and convert everyone to their form of religion.
Really? No offense, but I have never met a monotheist yet that didn't blink and at least make a cursory attempt at arguing the point with me once they realized I'm not into conventional religion. I'm always surprised to meet someone in a monotheistic religion that doesn't go there actually however subtly. On the other hand I've never had an atheist preach at me or offer to pray for my soul, which is something I have always found vaguely annoying.
05-31-2011, 03:47 AM   #7
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
Really? No offense, but I have never met a monotheist yet that didn't blink and at least make a cursory attempt at arguing the point with me once they realized I'm not into conventional religion. I'm always surprised to meet someone in a monotheistic religion that doesn't go there actually however subtly. On the other hand I've never had an atheist preach at me or offer to pray for my soul, which is something I have always found vaguely annoying.
Have to agree here... as a lapsed monotheist (turned agnostic), I've met very few who do not try to, even if it is subtly, to convince unbelievers of the error of their ways and to join their belief system in order to "get right with god." In some ways they have an almost pathological psychological need to save people. And people who don't believe they need to be saved (from whatever) just make them try harder.

Admittedly, most of them realize that they are no longer allowed to actually burn "heretics" or pagans at the stake, they often attempt to bring societal pressures on the target. In a large city or other high population area this is fairly ineffective... but in a small town or community it can be debilitating and destroy the non-believer's livelihood.

Please understand. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone believing in god or whatever deity or deities they chose to. I don't even have a problem with them trying to explain their beliefs to me or others. Simple courtesy though demands that when I ask them to stop or to leave me alone that they do so.

As an illustration, about 2 months ago, a trio from a local evangelical church knocked on my door (ignoring the "no solicitors" sign) and began their pitch when I opened the door. When I told them I was not interested, that I did not subscribe to their beliefs and that "no solicitors" included them, they looked disappointed but they did walk away... about 30 feet... to the end of my driveway... where they proceeded to have a prayer session. Well, they were off of my property so there was little I could do and it wouldn't have bothered me if they hadn't been praying at the top of their lungs for the "poor misguided sinner and slave to satan" and accusing me of keeping my family in bondage to my ignorance. They were still there a half hour later and I finally called the Sheriff, and a deputy showed up about 15 minutes later to shoo them away.

Mike
05-31-2011, 03:52 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
wizofoz's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Outer east.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,668
let me see if I have this right....

Human life is sacred, according to the anti abortion nutters, so they go about trying to take human life to prove their point?

What am I missing here?

05-31-2011, 04:35 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,103
I used to think every woman should be able to deceide for herself. But only recently I was forced to rethink my opinions. And now, I don't know what to think. Not out of a religious point of view, but because of a recent murder-case, here in Holland.

The police had discovered, in the attic of a 28 year old woman, three baby corpses. They were all suffocated right after birth. The woman, telling exactly how she had done it, and how long it took for her babies to finally stop twitching, showed no sign of remorse or guilt whatsoever. She had killed the children, because it wasn't wishfull in her current situation, to have children. The babies were born on seperate dates. From the first to the last 5 years went by.

All of my country was shocked of course. Such a thing had never happened here before. And everybody cried out to give her the absolute maximum penalty possible.

Now here's the strange thing: If she had killed those babies a few months sooner for exactly the same reason, with the same arrogance, then it would have been her right to do so. She would even have been assisted by professional doctors. Holland is very liberal when it comes to abortion. Here it's almost a form of anticonception a-posteriori.

So, leaving religion 100% out of it, I still think it's not very ethical to kill an unborn child.
05-31-2011, 05:04 AM   #10
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,064
If the woman had had access to an early abortion, would it not have been better though? Even if not as ideal as using contraception? Sounds like a case where mental health issues must have played a part if you ask me, therefore it doesn't really answer any wider questions.
05-31-2011, 05:21 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,103
QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
If the woman had had access to an early abortion, would it not have been better though? Even if not as ideal as using contraception? Sounds like a case where mental health issues must have played a part if you ask me, therefore it doesn't really answer any wider questions.

Mental health issues always play a part in murder. That is no excuse.

Only a few months make the difference between a completely legal action and murder. I merely wanted to point out that that fact is VERY strange, in my honest opinion.
05-31-2011, 07:55 AM   #12
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Mental health issues always play a part in murder. That is no excuse.
In this kind of case, it most certainly probably does: you can't argue against a woman's right to choose what goes on in her own body based on what she did to children outside that body when very likely being mentally-incompetent to be making *any* decisions: if she was even really the one making them.

And for that matter, infanticide in fact is a bigger problem when abortion is *not* available: it's also very unlikely that she was subjected to --and able to carry to full term three whole pregnancies and births-- without *someone* knowing what was going on. If she just didn't want to be pregnant, then why *didn't* she get abortions, ...who was stopping her? Then helping her cover it all up?

This may be being used to go after reproductive rights, but when we see this sort of thing, there's usually an element of captivity involved: pimps or incestuous fathers or abusive husbands, with the means and desire to keep knocking someone up and then hide the pregnancies from the world.



We don't know the whole story here, so you're not actually discussing anything that you can call a rational ethical argument: this is just religious people making the *connection* between any abortion at all and infanticide, and trying to play to *sentiment.*

But clearly, banning abortion would not have stopped this outrage of infanticide. If anything, it's a demonstration of how lack of choice and access to contraception and abortion would *make such things more common,* as they once were in the US.

Those babies didn't have to be brought into the world only to be strangled, allegedly by their own mother.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-31-2011 at 08:25 AM.
06-01-2011, 01:41 AM   #13
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,317
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
Really? No offense, but I have never met a monotheist yet that didn't blink and at least make a cursory attempt at arguing the point with me once they realized I'm not into conventional religion.
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Have to agree here
Sorry you guys have to put up with that kind of stuff in your societies. Everywhere I have been to (except some countries in Africa) and interacted with locals beyond the pleasantries, including my home country, it is rare for me to have someone try and impose their form of religion onto me. Once in a while a JW might try their luck knocking at our front door, but it hasn't come to the point of being annoying. In the African countries I have stayed and lived in, evangelism is a popular pasttime...

In any case, back to abortion. As chronology determines when it is murder, and when it is just abortion (legal, not ethical, distinctions), it is a difficult position to equate the two acts given the social ramifications.

Clavius, you make a good point; in reality the unethical nature of abortion might preferentially be overlooked for the legalisation of a medical procedure. That is, make it available, accessible and affordable, with stringent checks and balances, done only by professionals, rather than outlaw it completely (though I don't see this happening) and create a black market for unsafe and/or covert abortions that is likely to increase the mortality risk for the procedure.

Last edited by Ash; 06-01-2011 at 01:54 AM.
06-01-2011, 05:01 AM   #14
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,824
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Only a few months make the difference between a completely legal action and murder. I merely wanted to point out that that fact is VERY strange, in my honest opinion.
Laws often have to draw lines that border on arbitrary. We have seen in discussions here that different religious or ethical thinking finds it wrong to prevent pregnancies as well as preventing births. Our law prevents most late term abortions (when birth is an option), and that does not seem like an unreasonable place to draw the line.
06-01-2011, 08:13 AM   #15
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Sorry you guys have to put up with that kind of stuff in your societies. Everywhere I have been to (except some countries in Africa) and interacted with locals beyond the pleasantries, including my home country, it is rare for me to have someone try and impose their form of religion onto me. Once in a while a JW might try their luck knocking at our front door, but it hasn't come to the point of being annoying. In the African countries I have stayed and lived in, evangelism is a popular pasttime...
Well, Ash, that'd probably cause you're one of the 'imposers,' so to speak. It's really only two major religions and their offshoots that are obsessed with proselytizing.

QuoteQuote:
In any case, back to abortion. As chronology determines when it is murder, and when it is just abortion (legal, not ethical, distinctions), it is a difficult position to equate the two acts given the social ramifications.

That's like saying the only difference is 'chronology' if you bury someone nine months *before* they die.

The fact is you *can't* just say 'Abortion is this one thing, regardless whether it's the day before full-term or whether it's emergency contraception where there might be a fertilized ovum involved,' and since very late-term abortions resemble infanticide it's all 'murder,' regardless of the state of an embryo or situation...

Things may *take* time, but that doesn't mean that's the only difference.

Obscuring those differences and inflaming the situation by calling women 'murderers' if they don't obey your religion regardless of the situation, ...is what leads to a lot of very bad situations, not to mention abortion-clinic-shooters-and-bombers... Terrorists, they'd be called, if they were anyone else...

...And it's not going to solve any social problems about it. Obscuring the real differences in the process all along and calling 'all of it 'murder' while disempowering women and trying to enforce shame and ignorance and fear and hardship upon them doesn't result in better or more aware or feeling decisions: it simply *delays* decisions. When faced with irreducible things like 'I can't raise a child, and I can't terminate the pregnancy,' people tend to default to doing *nothing,* ...and that simply doesn't reduce suffering or improve the situation for anyone involved.

Talking about it as if it were all so simple as 'murder' regardless of if we're talking about condoms or late-term elective abortions I don't think *anyone* actually approves of is really just another case of some people pushing all the hardship and, really, oppression and consequence, off on others so that some can have the dubious comfort of a 'simple definition.'





QuoteQuote:
Clavius, you make a good point; in reality the unethical nature of abortion might preferentially be overlooked for the legalisation of a medical procedure. That is, make it available, accessible and affordable, with stringent checks and balances, done only by professionals, rather than outlaw it completely (though I don't see this happening) and create a black market for unsafe and/or covert abortions that is likely to increase the mortality risk for the procedure.
Abortion isn't 'by nature unethical,' ...if it were, there wouldn't be ethical *decisions* for some to try and take control of. Even if you did consider a blastula a human being, the same as anyone you meet on the street, it wouldn't remove the need for a decision according to one's own ethics, conscience, and situation. Obviously, I believe the woman whose body and life are at stake gets the first and the final say on the matter, cause she's best suited to *make* that call.

The real solution is empowering women, not just in the event of untenable pregnancies, but with access to good health care, real education, to have access to contraception, and to say *no* to 'procreative' sex in the *first* place.

If you want there to be more people in the world than there already are, how about we get along better with the ones who are already *here,* ...maybe indeed there wouldn't be such *need* for abortions if there was less-blinding shame and stigma about sex, which tends to result in irresponsible or oppressive behavior, ...and most of all, maybe if life weren't made so difficult by those who want to enforce pregnancies and then say 'You're on your own,' while making life harder for single mothers and easier for careless biological fathers....

Further, if you're worried about 'the unborn,' look long and hard at the pollutants and endocrine disruptors the conservatives resist all regulation of, which not only create a lot of health issues and even failed pregnancies, (Which are particularly heartbreaking for people who *want* to breed) but aren't leaving such a nice world for those who *are* born to live in.

It makes *no* sense to be talking about some overriding 'rights of the unborn' with respect to *mothers* while *poisoning us all.* Thanks to what most likely gave my sister and I such health problems, (in the name of avoiding the shame of miscarriage, and of course, Big Pharma profits, ) ...and which effects are carried on for at least one generation, well, I'd think twice about reproducing, myself, if that equipment worked. I mean, I think it's a really interesting set of genes, but I don't know if I'd wish em on anyone. (Who knows, maybe someone's chilling in the Land waiting for just such a challenge, but that's kind of academic at this point.)

Fact is, though: that stuff meant I wouldn't have lived two weeks without medical intervention, and pregnancy almost cost my sister and probably who's now my nephew her *life* without 'heroic' medical intervention. Not cause of some 'lack of morals,' but cause some corporation was 'defending their right' to sell EDC's ...some of the stuff in all these bisphenols in many of these plastics and *food containers, even till recently, *baby bottles* does the same kind of stuff less-dramatically. But we don't hear a peep about such things from those who want to call women 'murderers who must have their rights taken away, they can't make decisions, so this will make them good mothers ...for us to poison and then tell them 'You're on your own, or dependent on whatever man claims you based on a bit of spoo.' Just doesn't *connect* with actual motherhood or babies, or *fatherhood,* for that matter.

That's just not good enough, and I find it implausible that this 'pro-life' thing is really about Life or babies, never mind honoring motherhood. It's about *control.*


If it were about 'good for babies,' why do the same people try to force people who *aren't* straight to pretend to be breeding types, *anyway,* (While simultaneously claim something innate to LGBT people makes us unfit parents, ....have a sham of a straight marriage and breed, and this makes one *good* parents, though, whereas honest and loving and stable LGBT couples who can make a good and stable home are somehow horrible, even if that's not the reality of it, just further religious insistence.)

...I mean, seriously. There's some possibility that as a natural response, humans produce more LGBT people *when* they have more children, which could be a slight balancing factor: if so, why work against that balance from both sides, violating people's rights and dignities in the process, while doing mothers and 'babies' no service at all?

I know you believe, Ash, that people are innately horrible and 'sinful' and 'evil' and need to 'obey or be controlled,' but despite having seen a lot of the worst in people, I just don't hold to that view. People respect what they *love,* not what they fear and are ashamed of. Yeah, I don't see the end of criminals or maniacs any time soon, but we won't see any fewer of them if we try to wrap our worlds around the idea that *is* 'human nature.' I think 'human nature' is much like other primates' nature: It comes out very differently depending on whether and how that nature is caged or treated.

To extend the metaphor, some religious views would treat *us* ...or our 'human nature,' at least, worse than we'd consider acceptable to treat chimpanzees. If you try to restrictively-cage and micromanage and control and use a stick and withholding food to try and *control* their behavior, well, they *don't* function well. Might even start ripping arms off. But we can build our *own* 'cages.' We like to call them *homes.* And the difference between a cage and a home is which side/s the door can be opened from.

(That's something you can learn from rats, by the way: they're really very like us: smart, sociable, sensitive, and adaptable. When they live with us, (ie, are in 'domesticated' situations: they're *wild animals* if they aren't in the human world from the start...) they aren't *less* 'vicious' if caged away and controlled, that's the only time they *are* vicious. If they don't imprint on people at the right time, (I got a lot of rescue-cases from well-meaning people who didn't know this) they may even *like* you but still snap if you put your hand in their 'nest,' even if they're total darlings both through the bars and once outside them. )

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 06-01-2011 at 08:48 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
article, assassin, demons, doctor, god, lang, mary, mind, ralph
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images tessfully Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 1681 13 Hours Ago 05:48 PM
Do custom "artistic" or even "funny" lens caps evenexist? lovemehate Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 33 02-10-2016 09:10 AM
Which Zoom Lens? "Tamron AF 18-250mm", "Pentax-DA 18-250mm" or "Sigma 18-250mm" hoomanshb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-30-2010 09:50 AM
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge MRRiley Post Your Photos! 27 02-21-2010 08:26 PM
K1000 body "ding" - defect, accident, or "feature"? dannywho Pentax Film SLR Discussion 6 10-08-2009 06:11 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top