Sully is watching the Alabama governor's race and the amount of fundamentalist angst in that race is amazing. One candidate waffled on the entire literal truth of the Bible and was jumped by his opponents. Alabama has one of the most punitive and ridiculous tax systems in the country, but the big concern is someone who reads the bible literally and absolutely.
SOF and I talked about this over coffee this morning, as we have numerous times over the last decade. I have argued that the difference is between a more Catholic Seven Deadly Sins and the evangelical obsession with the Ten Commandments. The deadly sins are internal and part of everyone. The 10Cs, for many people, are those sins that other people do. After all, "I don't murder, steal, or lie (mostly). I attend church on Sundays (right before the football game) and never take the Lord's name in vain (unless that doesn't mean swear)." That, I think, explains the obsession with Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandment statue, and every other fundy effort to have those posted in public places. "We aren't worried about our morality. We are worried about yours."
Update: I forgot the central point of our conversation this morning. SOF made the very critical point that Jesus himself was a caution on that mentality, as witnessed by his discussion during the Sermon on the Mount:
"21'You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment."It seems that Jesus was pretty concerned with the sins that all men do, and less impressed with those pointing fingers at others.
The NAE says that "moral relativism" is one of the top three moral problems facing America, yet I have to believe that those answering the poll didn't think it was their own. Having heard about this most of my adult life, I know that moral relativism refers to liberals and their morality. It most certainly does not apply to those who cheered Bush's torture policy, without realizing they were arguing that torture was ok in this situation because of who we fight. Moral relativism. Bush's arrogance was fine because he was right, and he was listening to God. Obama's arrogance is wrong because he is a liberal.
Need more? How about the Scott Roeder trial. The man who walked into a church and gunned an abortion doctor down in fucking church has received permission from the judge to argue that he believed, however mistakenly, that killing Dr. Tiller was justified because it would save the pre-born. Thou shall not kill, but it is ok when you have a good reason.
The problem isn't our morality. It is all those unchurched and unsaved souls out there who are the problem.
Yeah.
3 comments:
Need more? How about the Scott Roeder trial. The man who walked into a church and gunned an abortion doctor down in fucking church has received permission from the judge to argue that he believed, however mistakenly, that killing Dr. Tiller was justified because it would save the pre-born. Thou shall not kill, but it is ok when you have a good reason.
I read the article and wanted to comment on some of the points raised. While I claim no specific knowledge of the rules of evidence in the jurisdiction where Roeder is being tried, they are generally the same across the country. That being said, I think this ruling was probably correct and any outrage is not warranted.
From the article:
All he needs is for one of those protestors or one of the sympathizers to squeak through voir dire and the prosecution is in trouble.
I seriously doubt the prosecution would let this happen. Voir dire in a murder trial, especially one this big, is a comprehensive process. It is likely that both sides will ask numerous questions in order to get rid of people with strong opinions on the topic of abortion.
Put most simply, advocates of defensive action believe that committing violence against clinics and doctors, including murder, is appropriate, even good, because it will save the so-called pre-born.
Advocates may believe this is justified, but I am almost positive that there is not a single state (even Texas) that recognizes this as a justification for lethal force. Jury instructions will contain the possible justifications for murder and this theory will not be included. In fact, I would be surprised if the judge didn't specifically point out that the jury can't use 'defensive action.'
In an odd twist in the courtroom last week, the judge okayed a defense by Roeder that would enable him to argue that he believed, however mistakenly, that killing Dr. Tiller was justified because it would save the pre-born.
I don't think it is all that odd. The article wasn't specific as to procedural posturing. I don't know if the defense brought it up and the prosecution objected or the prosecution filed a motion in limine because they thought it would be used. In a nutshell, any evidence that is relevant may be introduced unless it is prohibited by the rules of evidence, statute, or caselaw. Hearsay is an example, as is prior bad behavior (with a few exceptions). Relevance is anything that tends to prove or disprove an element of the trial.
Courts tend to give a fair amount of leeway when it comes to relevance. In this case, the defense knows he murdered Tiller, so the best they can hope for is a lesser charge. Therefore, any evidence that may show that Roeder acted out of some kind of "passion" is relevant if they are trying to say 2nd degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. I would have been really surpised if this was excluded.
Ultimately, like in any murder trial, it will be up to the jury to apply the law and determine the guilt or innocence, and what crime was committed. For the jury to reach a not guilty or voluntary manslaughter, they would have to go against what they law allows as a justification for a killing. Jries can make stupid decisions, but I would be surprised if this argument ended up in Roeder getting out of prison in a few years. I think the best Roeder could expect is 2nd degree murder.
Steve, you understand I am not arguing with you on the legal merits of the decision? I am talking only of the moral relativism of those on the right justifying an action that they believe to be a sin in other contexts, but justified in this situation because they believe they are right and the doctor is evil. That is my point here.
I agree. I think that Roeder committed premeditated murder and is without justification. My point was that allowing that testimony was the correct decision and not the result of judicial acivism, nor is it unusual, as the article suggests.
Post a Comment