Sunday, November 03, 2013

"Contraception" is Murder, September 3, 11/13, 2013


formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp

(stop killing young  people)


September 3, 2013,  Vol. 11   No. 13

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone, 484-706-4375


Circulation, 233

Editor, John Dunkle


  “Contraception” is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month.  If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you yet for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website.  Emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, two grand for others.


  I think we can all agree there is nothing peaceful, nonviolent, or prolife about letting innocent children be killed. So I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from being tortured to death. I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful and from those who defend them. I’d also like to hear from those who oppose the prolife use of force and call it violence.


Prisoners  For  Christ: 


1.         Curell, Benjamin D., (out on bail)

2.         Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180,  FCI, PO Box 1500, El Reno, OK 73036

3.         Griffin, Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000

4.         Grady, Francis 11656-089, USP Terre Haute, PO Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808

5.         Holt, Gregory 129616   Varner Supermax, PO Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600    

6.         Kopp, James 11761-055,  USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472 

7.         Roeder, Scott 65192  PO Box 2, Lansing, Kansas 66043

8.         Rogers, Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP Beaumont,  PO Box 26050, Beaumont, TX 77720

9.         Rudolph, Eric 18282-058  US Pen. Max,  Box 8500, Florence  CO 81226-8500

10.       Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,  P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093   

11.       Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg  PA 17837



  Well, finally!  Thanks to Cathy Ramey I’ve found an articulate and extensive attack on the pro-life use of force.  Gary North wrote this fifteen years ago but it’s still the best anti-force article I’ve read.

  My response follows, in italics.


           Epitaph for Paul Hill

  Yesterday's execution of Paul J. Hill provides me with another opportunity to comment on the legacy of an utterly self-deceived man.

  I published my initial comments on Hill in a small book, "Lone Gunners for Jesus: Letters to Paul J. Hill," in November, 1994. My initial letter to him was dated September 29, 1994. My second letter was dated October 17, which was my response to a letter I received from Hill, which was dated October 10. You can receive an instant-reply copy of my two letters to Hill by sending an email to:

  Why did I write to Hill? Because he had first written to me, but prior to his murder of a physician and his bodyguard, and injuring the physician's wife. (Shotguns are sometimes indiscriminate regarding innocent bystanders.)   In my September 29 letter to Hill, who was then in jail awaiting trial for murder, I began with a reference to his earlier letter to me:


      Sometime in the months following the  

    murder of the abortionist in Florida, Dr.

    Gunn, you sent me two position papers.

    One was called, “Was the killing of Dr.

    Gunn Just?” You added this

    parenthesis: “Rough draft, numerous

    revisions still being made.” Obviously,

    you have other things on your mind

    these days besides continuing the

    revisions of your rough draft. I am

    responding to this paper belatedly


  because you seem to have taken your

  own suggestions seriously enough to

  shoot an abortionist, kill his escort, and

  wound the escort's wife. That, at least, is

  what you are accused of.

      The subtitle on your paper is called, “A

  Call to Defensive Action.”

      You also sent another paper titled,

  “Defensive Action: Is a Pro Life

  Organization Proclaiming the Justice of

  Using All Action Necessary to Protect

  Innocent Life?”

       I did not respond to your letter or to

  your papers. I cannot find your letter in

  my files, but I did save your two papers.

       I should have responded. Perhaps I

  might have persuaded you that you were

  headed in a terrible direction. In all

  likelihood, though, you would not have

  taken me seriously. I say this because

  you were excommunicated by your

  church, and you did not take that


      Your church asked only that you

  cease speaking in public – such as on

  the "Donahue" show -- in defense of the

  right of anti-abortionists to kill

  abortionists.  So, there is no good

  reason for me to believe that you would

  have taken anything seriously that I

  might have written. I do not expect you

  to take this letter seriously. On the

  assumption, however,  that men can

  repent before they are cast into hell,

  which is where you are clearly headed, I

  am responding here.


  Before his execution this week, he told the media that he believed his execution will make him a martyr. I sincerely doubt that he will be regarded by most anti-abortion Christians, just as I have also sincerely doubted his entire self-justification for his dual murder. Hill never did possess the ability to interpret his actions in terms of what the Bible and Christianity teach about murder, or the public's understanding of his actions. As I wrote to him a decade ago:


      The public may otherwise see you, not

    as a martyr, but as the creator of a

    martyr. I prefer to see your victim

    positioned as a hired assassin, which

    every abortionist is, biblically speaking.

      This positioning will not be what the

    media will try to establish at your trial,

    but I hope that you will not be

    positioned as a hired assassin, with the

    church in the broadest sense as the

    one who hired you.

      You were an assassin acting on your

    own, under the authority of the dark

    one with whom Adam covenanted, and

    with whom you covenanted by failing to

    submit to the discipline of your church.


  Paul Hill was to the anti-abortion movement what the murderous renegade bands of self-appointed vigilantes were to southwest Missouri during the Civil War. He, like they, operated outside the law. He, like they, justified his murderous actions by appealing to The Cause.  

  Whether William Quantrell in 1865 thought he would be remembered as a martyr, I do not know. If he did, he was incorrect. Paul Hill should be remembered as a small-time Quantrell, not as a spiritual heir of Justin Martyr.

  Hill's vigilante action inflicted an enormous wound in the side of the anti-abortion movement. Little remains in public view of the anti-abortion movement in the United States. There are very few picketers today in front of abortion clinics. It is as if the anti-abortion movement's troops looked at what Hill did and concluded, "If this is where this movement is heading, count me out."


  Two men virtually eliminated anti-abortion activism in the United States after 1994: Paul Hill and Randall Terry. They became the visible symbols of anti-abortion activism, both for the pro-abortionists and for anti-abortionists. The two of them cut the heart out of the activists.

  Four years after Hill's crime, in 1998, Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, abandoned his wife of 19 years, along with their four children (three were adopted), so that the National Organization of Women would get off his back. This declaration deprived his wife of their home. He then married his assistant, 16 years his junior, age 22. Without informing his followers of what he had done to his wife and children, he sent out a fund-raising letter to his supporters, who responded faithfully, whereupon he bought a $432,000 home -- not in New York state, where he could see his children regularly, but in Florida, where the state's bankruptcy laws don't permit creditors to get your home. His church in New York had brought him under discipline before the marriage, but he paid no attention.

  Think of the three adopted children. They were Afro-Americans. Their mother had been a drug addict. The Terrys adopted them, giving them a stable home. Then Terry's roving eye caught sight of a younger woman. "Hello, baby! Goodbye, kids!"

  As for his new wife, all I can say is this: to trade Jesus for Randall Terry is a poor trade.

  Naturally, his shenanigans are a cause for gloating within the pro-abortion crowd. Here is one more example of commitment by a Christian leader to the same ethics of situational convenience that the abortionists proclaim, one more case of Christian leadership run amok, leaving God-fearing followers, as always, out in the cold, wondering what had happened. Here is one more example of selective moral outrage, selective ethics, and what R. J. Rushdoony called smorgasbord religion.

  Terry actually told the press that the Bible doesn't oppose divorce, but it does oppose homosexuality. This, despite the clear teaching of Jesus that anyone who divorces his or her spouse without judicial cause thereby commits adultery -- a capital crime under the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10) -- by remarrying.

  And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

  At least his church brought him under discipline even before he remarried. It is a characteristic feature of our era that most churches hesitate to bring public discipline, while other churches, always short of funds, welcome disciplined Christians with open arms. "We're under grace, not law!"

  He plans to start another satellite radio talk show. If he gets it, and if it prospers, it will be one more piece of evidence that middle-aged fundamentalist women, who are the financial backbone of the electronic ministries, have no sense of justice. What they would not want a man to do to their own daughters they will fund in the name of Jesus. "We're under grace, not law!" No; we are under humanist lawyers and courts, who know that if Christians refuse to bring justice through their churches, and then uphold other churches' judicial pronouncements when excommunicated members apply for membership, then humanists have nothing to fear from Christians, which is surely the case today.

  The anti-abortion movement has been battered from within, as well as battered from outside. Battering from the outside took a heavy toll on fundamentalists, who have been taught all their lives that (1) Jesus is coming back soon, so attempts to reform society are a waste of time and money that could be spent on evangelism or, better yet, members-only gymnasiums ("family life centers"), and (2) political reform is not only hopeless, it's a liberal plot.

  But it was the undermining from within that disheartened the troops. If you're going to be publicly betrayed and humiliated by your spokesman, why bother to risk everything you own?

  By God's grace, Hill's local church had brought him under formal discipline before he murdered anyone. I was told a decade ago by his pastor, Rev. Mickey Schneider, that when some representatives of the media called him, they would lose interest in pursuing their investigation of his connection with Hill as soon as he told them of Hill's formal suspension prior to the murders. He thought at the time that some of them were looking for a way to tar and feather Christianity by using Hill as poster child for Christianity's threat to social order.

  In his October 10 letter to me, Hill denied that he had ever been brought under church discipline. He lived in a fantasy world. He was psychologically desperate to defend the lawfulness of his actions in the sight of God. That he had been told to cease and desist by his church, and later had been brought under formal discipline when he refused, undermined his self-proclamation of his office as a lawful agent of God, an executioner sanctioned by biblical law. His prior excommunication made him appear to be a rebellious man operating outside of the church's sanctuary, which is exactly what he was. So, he said this had never taken place.

  But saying this did not make it so. There is a scene in "The Apostle" where the murderous Pentecostal minister, Sonny, baptizes himself an apostle. This is essentially what Paul Hill did. In defiance of his local church and in defiance of biblical law, he appointed himself an executioner. He chose violence as his means of public protest. Then, having gunned down his victims, he walked away from the scene of the crime. He made no public defense of his actions to the police, standing steadfast, shotgun on the ground beside him, at the location of his deadly deed. He just wandered away.


  He had a decade to repent. He refused. He stood before the cameras this week displaying the familiar grin that had been published in newspapers and magazines across the nation a decade ago.  We have recently seen this same grin on the face of Amorzi bin Nurhasyim, the "smiling bomber" who helped kill 202 people in the bombing of a hotel in Bali, Indonesia. Praising Allah throughout his trial and at his conviction, he brought disrepute on Islam. His grin never changed. Neither did Hill's.

  On seeing Amorzi bin Nurhasyim's grin and his thumbs-up sign after the court declared his death sentence, viewers correctly concluded: "Fanatical nut-case zealot." This is exactly the response a decade ago when they saw the same response by Hill. It was the correct response. So were the official declarations: "Guilty as charged."

  Christian fundamentalists look at Amorzi bin Nurhasyim and conclude, "Islamic zealot. Good riddance." Then they look at Paul Hill and conclude, "Poor misguided man. May God be merciful to him." I call this approach selective judgment. It is at the heart of antinomianism: mercy without repentance.

  This week, Hill told the press that he would soon be rewarded in heaven by Jesus for what he did. It is time for Christian leaders to identify him as the ethical twin of Amorzi bin Nurhasyim, but they won't. They have remained discreetly silent. They still see him as "dead in Christ," i.e., redeemed by the blood of the lamb. That is because they do not believe the clear words of the Apostle Paul regarding God's Bible-revealed law:


      Knowing this, that the law is not made

   for a righteous man, but for the lawless

   and disobedient, for the ungodly and for

   sinners, for unholy and profane, for

   murderers of fathers and murderers of

   mothers, for manslayers, for

   whoremongers, for them that defile

   themselves with mankind, for

   menstealers, for liars, for perjured

   persons, and if there be any other thing

   that is contrary to sound doctrine;

     According to the glorious gospel of the

   blessed God, which was committed to

   my trust (1 Tim: 9-11).


  Paul J. Hill was not a righteous man, according to the definition provided by Paul. He was a murderer who disgraced the name of Christ. The media still referred to him this week as a minister, even though he had resigned the ministry before he committed the murders. The humanists got their digs in. They never miss an opportunity to tar and feather the church. The silence of Christian leaders regarding Hill's prior excommunication makes the deception seem true. He was no minister. He was a man declared excommunicate for rebellion before he picked up his shotgun. According to the Apostle John, he was supposed to be treated by Christians as follows:


      Whosoever transgresseth, and

    abideth not in the doctrine of Christ,

    hath not God. He that abideth in the

    doctrine of Christ, he hath both the

    Father and the Son. If there come any

    unto you, and bring not this doctrine,

    receive him not into your house, neither

    bid him God speed: For he that biddeth

    him God speed is partaker of his evil

    deeds (II John :9-11).


  To defend Christ's good name, Christian leaders should tell their followers and the press that Paul Hill stood condemned by Christ by way of his excommunication prior to the murders. They don't do this because they don't regard excommunication as anything that important in the grand scheme of things. They do not see the church as speaking authoritatively in God's name regarding the eternal consequences of men's actions in history. But Jesus did:

      Moreover if thy brother shall trespass

    against thee, go and tell  him his fault

    between thee and him alone: if he shall

    hear thee,  thou hast gained thy

    brother.  But if he will not hear thee,

    then take with thee one or two more,

    that in the mouth of two or three  

    witnesses  every word may be

    established. And if he shall neglect to

    hear them, tell it unto the church: but if

    he neglect to hear the church, let him

    be unto thee as an heathen man and a

    publican. Verily I say unto you,

    Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall

    be bound in heaven: and whatsoever

    ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed

    in heaven   (Matt. 18:15-18).


  John Calvin's comments on this passage are forthright and should be acknowledged by God-fearing men:


      In the other clause, Christ's meaning

    is not at all ambiguous; for, since

    obstinate men and haughty men are

    strongly inclined to despise the decision

    of the Church on this pretense, that

    they refuse to be subject to men – as

    wicked profligates often make  bold

    appeals to the heavenly tribunal –

    Christ, in order to subdue this obstinacy

    by terror, threatens that the

    condemnation, which is now despised

    by them, will be ratified in heaven. He

    encourages his followers, at the same

    time, to maintain proper severity, and

    not just yield to the wicked obstinacy

    of those who reject or shake off

    discipline. ("Commentary on a

    Harmony of the Evangelists," Vol. 2, p.



  Paul Hill was a man who would not listen to counsel or obey his church. He steadily increased his rebellion against lawful authority until he became a violent man in deed as well as word. He lived out his personal confession of faith. He did so at the expense of his church, his family, his citizenship, and his life, both temporal and eternal. He was, in the words of Cornelius Van Til, epistemologically self-conscious. He was, in my words, ethically self-conscious. Not many people are this self-conscious, for good or evil. Hill was.

  Hill had been a conservative Presbyterian minister and Calvinist. But he was comforted in his last hours by a Pentecostal minister. Hill knew better than to expect comforting words from a Calvinist. He was not interested in hearing another condemnation. He had already had plenty of those. His former pastor is a theonomist.


  Hill in the week of his execution thought of himself as a martyr. In his view, he had been a lawful executioner, while the jury that convicted him had been the murderer of a righteous man in his righteous cause. The Christian community in general and his former congregation in particular did not agree with his assessment in 1994, and they still do not.

  Anti-abortion activists of 1994 subsequently made a self-conscious attempt to distance themselves from him. That distance grew so great and so fast that anti-abortion activism disappeared from public view. It is confined mainly to lawyers' briefs today.

  In the nine years that separated his conviction from his execution, he was forgotten by the general public and abandoned by people in the anti-abortion movement, who in turn abandoned activism. His celebrity status disappeared, as celebrity status generally does when the celebrity is no longer in front of the cameras. But then, for two days, he became a celebrity again.

  He had become a symbol. For the abortionists, he was a symbol of Christianity's life-and-death struggle against death. The Bible says, "All those who hate me love death" (Prov. 8:36). The abortionists love death. They do not choose to repent. Instead, they want to inflict their love of death on judicially innocent human beings. They have been highly successful in their judicial efforts. They, too, are ethically self-conscious. They cannot not tolerate compromise. So, they resent Christians who are equally committed to the rival position: defending life.

  There is no way to reconcile these two views. Nowhere is the myth of neutrality clearer than in the killing of unborn children. There is no neutrality between a dead baby and a live baby.

  What outraged the pro-abortionists was that Hill had adopted their strategy of executing the judicially unconvicted. He had put an abortionist in his sites, just as they put millions of unborn American children in theirs. For them, this was turf-invasion. They do not tolerate turf invasion.

  For anti-abortionists, Hill also became a symbol. He was a symbol of a man so committed to life that he was willing to commit murder. He was not a father defending his unborn child. He was not a magistrate defending someone else's unborn child. He was a self-appointed, one-man vigilante who gunned down a physician and his bodyguard.

  Christians asked, as I asked in my letter, "Who is next?" Would Hill have gunned down a policeman who was guarding the abortionist? Of course. What about the Supreme Court justices who vote for abortion? Why not? What about gunning down a pregnant woman who is about to swallow an abortifacient? Why not? What about gunning down clerks at Wal-Mart's pharmacy, who might sell such a product? Paul Hill made it clear: no one who was in any way connected in his mind with abortion would be safe if he was still at large. The jury understood this and convicted him. He is no longer at large.

  Hill will not be a martyr for the anti-abortionist community, although he may become one for a handful of would-be Quantrells. On the contrary, the activist anti-abortionist community has become a near-martyr to Hill. He just about killed it (and whatever was left of it, Terry then spit on). Men and women drew back from even non-violent public protests in their full-scale retreat from the threat of being tarred and feathered by Hill's brush, which the pro-abortion forces wielded so well.


  After Hill's conviction, I continued to picket the local abortion clinic in Tyler, Texas. Every week, I took a public stand, as I had for five years. Not long after Hill's conviction, the local abortionist died of a heart attack on the ski slopes of Colorado. His son decided that they clinic would stop performing abortions. His father had been an outcast in the local medical community. Abortionists generally are. They make a lot of money, but they remain pariahs in a profession that is (or at least used to be) founded on a vow to do no harm. We should remind abortionists of this as often as possible. We should also remind their wives, whose sense of being at the bottom of the social circle does not appeal to them.

  And then there are all those trial lawyers who are ready to sue for post-abortion injuries -- many, many kinds of injuries -- inflicted on former patients. There are rising liability insurance premiums to cover the legal costs of defending injury-inflicting abortionists in court. This evil can be fought God's way, within the framework of biblical law and even humanist law.

  Paul J. Hill knew this, but he ignored it. The law was not good enough for him. He believed he had a better way.

  I do not use the term "fool" lightly. Christians are commanded not to use the term lightly (Matt. 5:22). But in Paul Hill's case, the term fits.  To those who view him as a martyr, I recommend immediate repentance. Mere prudence is insufficient.


  Prudence may not be enough to protect these people from self-destruction. Prudence is not characteristic of the fanatic. Paul Hill was a fanatic. He was a fanatic who adopted violence as his mode of expression -- bloody violence and a grin.

So, here is my epitaph for Paul Hill:

                                 Paul Hill/He is no longer grinning


I respond:


  Gary North attacks the prolife use of force here by concentrating on Randall Terry, who used it mildly, and Paul Hill, who used it intensely.


  Let’s look first at his attack on Randy.  Gary says nothing about Randy’s thing which was blocking the doors to killing mills.  He ignores that and attacks Randy because of his divorce. The divorce bothered me, too, but it didn’t stop me from supporting him, because Randy was a Protestant.  Protestants accept divorce.  Gary condemns it here, but he’s Protestant too, and I don’t think he’s justified in condemning someone of his own faith who did something that faith allowed him to do.

  I sure do wish Gary had talked instead about door blocking.


  So let’s turn to Paul. Paul’s shooting the serial killer and his helpers is what has Gary really upset. Gary can’t get past the legal issue.  He implies that the laws which permit former doctors to torture young people to death must never be broken, nor should the laws be broken that protect the places where the holocaust is occurring.


  Gary’s account of what happened between Paul and himself beforehand is sketchy. It seems that Paul initiated contact and my guess is that he’d read this in Wikipedia:


     North favors capital punishment for a

   range of offenders; these include

   women who lie about their virginity,

   blasphemers, nonbelievers, children

   who curse their parents, male

   homosexuals, and other people who

   commit acts deemed capital offenses in

   the Old Testament.   North favors

   capital punishment for women who have



  Paul must have figured that anyone who favors executing a woman who pays to have one person killed would certainly favor it as well for a man who is in the process of making millions by killing tens of thousands. Little did he realize how powerful the concept of law, even diabolical law, is, for some.

  At any rate Paul initiated contact and for a while Gary talked with him. Then he stopped because he found out Paul’s church had expelled him. I detect a tone of guilt here; who knows what would have happened if he also had not shut Paul out. Guilt turns into anger, as is often the case, and Gary condemns Paul after the fact.

  Gary’s tone is harsh: you are “an utterly self-deceived man,”  you will be “cast into hell where you are clearly headed,”  you are “under the authority of the dark one,” and so on.

  He compares him to William Quantrell, the Confederate sympathizer who attacked the Union any way he could.  But Paul was more like John Brown, the Union sympathizer who attacked the Confederacy any way he could.

  Both the Civil War and the Abortion War involve great evils, slavery in the former and murder in the latter.  John Brown opposed slavery and Paul Hill opposed murder, and they did not let diabolical laws stand in their way, as the overwhelming majority of the rest of us prolifers do.

  It’s hard to understand why an expert on the word of God like Gary thinks the majority in a society permeated by evil -- either by accepting that evil as good or by opposing it mildly -- are right, and the few who attack the evil forcefully are wrong!  Does he forget the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?


  “Epitaph for Paul Hill” includes other weaknesses: 1) Gary calls a serial killer a physician.  That’s pro-death talk!; 2) he implies that Terry and Hill, not the millions of us weakling prolifers, are responsible for the vast and continuing failure to protect the innocent; 3) he seems to think that the prolife movement was at one time a powerful force for good, until Hill and Terry came along. Truth is it was weak from the gitgo and has remained that way; 4) he is mistaken when he says the feds lost interest in Reverend Mickey when they found out Hill was no longer a member of his church and therefore they could not tar and feather it .  No!  They lost interest when they realized they could not get money from it (and here we might be getting close to a truth); 5) Gary’s lamenting that Paul had not sought comforting words from Calvin makes me wonder if he’s ever read Calvin.  Comforting words?; 6) but he is absolutely right when he says that the killers and their helpers were and are outraged because they see what Paul did as “turf invasion” – “we are killers, not you.”  He is absolutely wrong, though, to join with them then in condemning Paul for invading that turf.   (This reminds me of what happened when I started telling women entering death mills that they were risking breast cancer.  This happened well before everybody learned about the connection.  The deathscorts were outraged.  You lie, they cried. Lying is what we do, not you!); 7) Gary is also wrong to think that one may defend his own child forcefully, but not another’s; 8) he is wrong to suggest that high costs will eventually end legal baby killing.  For one thing insurance premiums are lower for baby killers than for medical doctors; 8) and finally he is wrong to think that the same pro-life practices that kept baby-killing legal twenty years before Terry and Hill arrived on the scene will kill it twenty years, or even a thousand years, after they have left.


  But Gary does get one thing right and for that I am grateful:


     The son of a deceased baby-killer

   closed his father’s mill because

   his  . . . father had been an outcast in

   the local medical community. 

   Abortionists generally are. They

   make a lot of money, but they remain

   pariahs in a profession that is (or at

   least used to be) founded on a vow to

   do no harm. We should remind

   abortionists of this as often as possible.

   We should also remind their wives,

   whose sense of being at the bottom of

   the social circle does not appeal to





 For back issues of this newsletter go to



To send money to the federal Prisoners, those with eight digits after their names, make out a postal money order to the Prisoner’s name and number. Then send it to Federal Bureau of Prisons,  PO Box 474701,  Des Moines, IA 50947-0001.


  Ask the non-feds how they may receive money – check, money order, etc. It varies by state.



  Receipt of this excellent missive notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future, simply advise me.  




No comments: