Last night, I posted a diary called "Whoever Killed George Tiller Was Not A Christian" which apparently cheesed off more than a few people.
The problem is largely one of my own creation. I should have titled my diary "Whoever Killed George Tiller Was A Bad Christian." That was more my point, as I will explain. My only excuse is that I was writing very quickly at the end of a long day in rage and sorrow at what had been done - again - in the name of my religion.
I had thought that this part was clear enough:
Now, I know that some of you will claim that I am making a "no true Scotsman" argument. I am not. It's true that terrorist violence does not fit with my understanding of Christian behavior. It seems to me to be aberrational, indeed a perversion of the Christianity that I know to be "true."
But my point is not to mount a defense of Christianity or Christians.
Perhaps it wasn't, or perhaps people reacted to the title without reading the rest of the post carefully enough.
So let me spell it out again. The point was not to absolve myself or Christianity for responsibility for Scott Roeder's actions (assuming for the sake of argument that he is the guilty party). Christianity is so decentralized, and so diverse in its beliefs, that there is honestly little any other Christian could do to stop Roeder or someone like him. And as I pointed out in the original post, they hate people like me no less than they hate secularists or abortion providers of whatever religion. We're all The Other to people like Roeder. So there's only so much responsibility I'm willing to accept for Roeder's actions.
Guilt is another matter. The fact is that Roeder more than likely called himself a "Christian" and more than likely held many of the same beliefs that I do. So I and my Church get to wear the shame of affiliation with him, however tangential. That's what it means to be a part of the body of Christ, and if I downplayed that, I am sorry.
My point was not to read Tiller's murderer out of Christianity, but to make clear that violence against abortion providers is completely and utterly at odds with Christian belief and practice, at least as I understand them.
If you don't believe that, if you believe that Christianity is in itself a violent and murderous religion, fine, fuck you. Stop reading this post and go do something useful with your day.
For the rest of you, please allow me to explain why I would make that point by resorting to an admittedly absurd analogy.
Several people in the comments on the original post complained that I was engaging in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. high5 put it this way:
isn't this shades of calling e.g. Bush not a real Republican, you know once someone becomes an embarrassment everyone tries to put him/her at a certain distance?
Well, no. The proper analogy, it seems to me, is not Bush not being a real Republican, but Bush calling himself a Democrat. After all, Republicans and Democrats share certain assumptions or beliefs, but they're hardly interchangeable. Bush doesn't fit my understanding of what a Democrat is and does.
Now, you may properly object that in the analogy I've used above, there's a switch in labels. Changing the category from "Republican" to "Democrat" is not the same as living under the single category "Christian." Fair enough. I'd respond that the spectrum of belief under the single category "Christian" is far broader than under the two categories "Republican" and "Democrat," but okay. Furthermore, because anyone can call themselves a "Christian," it's hard to police the identity. It's not like there's a central bureaucracy monitoring such things.
So here's where the crazy analogy comes in. Suppose for a moment that the corpse of Strom Thurmond was reanimated in its grave and came back on a mission to eat as many brains as it possibly could.
Suppose further that it carried out its anthropophagic crusade in the name of peace, justice - and the Democratic party to which it pledged its undying (or undead) loyalty.
And suppose, last, that that fealty to the Democratic party earned it just enough deference and respect that it could continue its mission at the fringes of society, while good upstanding citizens had their backs turned, or until they were forced to face its depredations. (Given the craven state of some Democrats and the screams of some right-wing media personalities, this last bit requires much less suspension of disbelief than one might wish.)
Don't you think that a true Democrat might get up and say something like "brain-eating zombism is not consistent with Democratic values as I understand them"?
Don't you think the point would be to stop the fucking zombie, not to whitewash the Democratic party record?
I really couldn't give a rat's ass if you don't like my religion. It pisses me off when it's treated unfairly, but it's not going to prevent me from sleeping tonight or continuing to pastor my congregation.
And, as regrettable as it might be, there's not much I can do about Strom Thurmond having been at one point a Democrat in good standing. Actually, there's not much I can do about his being a Christian in good standing his entire life. All I or anyone can do is accept the history, and try to learn from the failures of the past.
We can also try to prevent new harm from being done. If the traditional deference accorded to Christian belief and practice in this nation is what provides the cover for people like Scott Roeder to carry out acts of violence, then damn skippy I'm going to make it clear when that deference is not earned. Roeder and the extremist bastards like him don't speak for me, and they don't deserve the presumption of goodwill that allows them to operate. Given that Christians still make up 75% of the nation, I think it's crucial for me people like me to say that, to push the extremists back under the rocks where they belong.
You can hate Christianity if you like. You can say that none of the deference it's given is earned. That's your right. All I'll say is that you've got your role to play and I've got mine. I don't mind you playing yours, but I will ask that you not try to fuck mine up, not while I'm doing what I need to do to stop the violence.
I am sorry that I gave the impression that I wanted to avoid responsibility for extremist fucks. I don't. But I cannot, and will not, say that they live up to the ideals of the religion they claim to share with me, nor will I allow them to speak for me or my religion.