A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Retroaction

Originally wrote this in light of the events of Colorado Springs, but then San Bernardino happened. However, given this wonderful article from New York Daily News on how one victim was just as hateful as his murderers, I think my piece needs to be brought out. Same principles apply, especially with regards to how people mourned the Colorado Springs cop. For on a regular day, he’d be considered just as hateful as his murderer. Aside from some alterations, this is what I wrote.

I said somewhere (possibly on a social media format that involves a limit of 140 characters), that with regards to the Planned Parenthood shootings in Colorado Springs, nothing of value was lost. Now granted there were three deaths, including that of a police officer who was also a Christian pastor and ardent pro-lifer, but they are not the ones of value. No, the ones of value are the Planned Parenthood staff and customers who escaped shaken but unscathed after this weekend’s attacks. Thus, an event that was expected to be a Bataclan turned out… not to be much of such at all.

Now such a statement is naturally derided, and it was done so with much vim and vigour, and that I was dehumanizing the victims. One asked me, would I honestly tell that to the policeman’s grieving family that his life was of no value? My answer to this should not be your cause for concern.

Your cause for concern is why exactly that person, or you for that matter if you’re not pro-life, care?

I ask this because in any other situation, had he not ever died, he’d be the kind of person Planned Parenthood supporters would deride with a joyful relish. They’d have accused him of following a delusion and would’ve indoctrinated his kids with poisonous anti-woman propaganda that would have to be fixed once they enter into public school or university. If anything, they should be THANKING the gunman that he extinguished his life because that allows them to fix any potential ‘errors of thought’ in those young, impressionable, minds. Hell, if he were to chime in that the gunman was not a representative of Christianity based on his life you he would’ve been laughed at and told a number of colourful things. The fact that he was a cop (AT A UNIVERSITY NO LESS) makes this even more delicious, for he was also a representative of a system steeped in systemic racism, employed by a location also steeped in systemic racism. Imagine all the fun he would’ve had once the contagion of Mizzou, Dartmouth, Yale, and so forth swept onto UCCS.

The only reason he is mourned by people like them is because he died protecting Planned Parenthood. He isn’t a martyr for the glory of God, but the glory of Margaret Sanger. He died protecting life that would eventually terminate other life, and nobody seems to have ever ruminated on the fact that he was a pro-life Christian. Pro-lifers are supposed to be incredibly anti-woman and hateful towards those who believe a woman has a right to choose. Then that schmuck comes barreling in with his Christian belief of the value of life and now he’s dead. Why would somebody who hates women so much and would’ve passed those hateful ideas to his children jump into that fray? Is he a hypocrite? Or is he actually following the tenets of his faith and loving those who disagree with him? Has any cognitive dissonance set in that allows such people to question what exactly does it mean to be pro-life? More importantly, would they lay down their life for those who disagree with them?

On that last question I doubt it. I don’t think they’ve ever publicly condemned Mireille Miller-Young for her assault on teenage girls, destruction of their pro-life sign, and calling them ‘terrorists’. Did they ever condemn how displays like these are vandalized, even ran over with a car? Hell, have they even thought that these kinds may eventually compel a person to snap and go off and kill somebody at Planned Parenthood? After all, Bernie said it best: bitter rhetoric can have unintentional consequences. So if the next shooter decides to cite events similar to those as sources for his or her call to murder, you’ve no reason to complain. Tit for tat, tit for tat, tit for tat, all the way down.

“BUT NOBODY DIED THERE. THAT’S NO REASON TO MURDER OTHERS!” I guess so, if you wish to appeal (NOW for some reason) on the basis of good faith regarding this heady topic.

But we don’t live in a society of good faith anymore… do we?