rick's and mike's replies

[Michael McConnell]

I am disturbed by the emphasis on "quasi-insurrectionary violence" in
the recent discussion on this list. I consider violence (at least as
directed against human beings) inconsistent with the very pro-life
ethic that is at stake in these debates.  This does not depend on any
supposed distinction between the evils of slavery and abortion; I am
not an admirer of John Brown, any more than I am of Paul Hill.
(Harriet Tubman, though, is a different matter. Some law-breaking is
admirable. In this category I put the elderly bishop and the young
priest, quietly praying in the driveway of an abortion clinic, with
whom this discussion began.)

As to loyalty to regimes: our loyalty to regimes does not come from
their being just and righteous in all things. They are not. We are
born into a nation not of our own choosing, and long before we ever
could consent to its laws we have accepted its protection. We have
certain obligations to it. Those obligations are not infinite, but
they do require us to put up with a great deal before we are
justified in violent revolution. Our duty to God is to love him with
all our hearts, and our neighbors like ourselves. We are not going to
bring about the kingdom of God on earth through our own efforts. To
think we can is to commit a very grave mistake about the fallen
nature of this world and our place in it. To my friend MSP: it is no
small thing to be a witness to the truth. Don't spoil it by
advocating ungodly methods, like quasi-insurrectionary violence, even
in the service of justice.


-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)