Religion & Law

It comes as no surprise, of course, that some are seizing on the murder of Dr. Tiller as an occasion to either blame those who insist on reminding the world that our legal regime does not treat unborn children justly for their reckless and enabling speech or to play, yet again, the "you guys don't really believe what you say, because if you did, you'd be killing abortion providers, too" card.  Again, no surprise.

It seems to me (judging from my in-box) that every pro-life organization in the country is issuing press releases denouncing categorically (as they should) the murder.  (Click here for some links.)  Here, for example, is Robert George's statement (here):  

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing.  The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands.  No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him.  We are a nation of laws.  Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence.  Rightly or wrongly, George Tiller was acquitted by a jury of his peers.  "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished.  By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion.  Every human life is precious.  George Tiller's life was precious.  We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life.  Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit. 

To which Damon Linker responds:

If abortion truly is what the pro-life movement says it is -- if it is the infliction of deadly violence against an innocent and defenseless human being -- then doesn't morality demand that pro-lifers act in any way they can to stop this violence? I mean, if I believed that a guy working in an office down the street was murdering innocent and defenseless human beings every day, and the governing authorities repeatedly refused to intervene on behalf of the victims, I might feel compelled to do something about it, perhaps even something unreasonable and irresponsible. Wouldn't you?

This is the radicalizing logic of pro-life rhetoric. Which brings me to my question for pro-lifers: Who is the better, truer member of your movement? The man who murdered serial "baby killer" George Tiller? Or Robert George and other (comparative) moderates, who reject the use of violence to save the innocent?

I suspect, given Linker's past writings and interventions, that this question is rhetorical.  Certainly, it has been answered many times.  To be clear:  there *are* reasonable and important questions to be raised about the kind of language used in identifying, condemning, and fighting against injustice -- and not, remember, just the injustice of abortion.   

A recent response, specifically to Linker, is provided here by Rod Dreher.  See also, here, Michael Sean Winters's comments.