President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 02, 2015 11:02 AM UTC

An unusual argument that inflammatory anti-choice rhetoric leads to violence

  • 34 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

Libertarian Elliot Fladen asked uncompromising anti-choicers yesterday, if you’re using holocaust-like inflammatory rhetoric to talk about Planned Parenthood and abortion, and you really think it’s mass murder, at what point do you have an obligation to break the law to stop it, using nonviolent or violent civil disobedience?

This turns out to be an unusual way of reinforcing the point progressives and Gov. Hickenlooper have made to tone down the rhetoric on this issue. The inflammatory anti-choice language, often inaccurate and undergirded by an alleged life-and-death holocaust-like moral imperative, can have an overwhelming power, Fladen argues, above pitched rhetoric on other topics, to push people to violence.

Fladen’s Facebook posts unleashed a long thread of responses, including a couple from state Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt, who was one of the legislators named by progressives yesterday for his “extreme” language. They pointed to Dr. Chaps, saying, for example, that Planned Parenthood is “filled with the demonic spirit of murder.” Rep. Mike Coffman’s statement that Planned Parenthood’s practices “fly in the face of human dignity” and Tim Neville’s statement that Planned Parenthood is “cutting to pieces and selling unborn baby parts” were other examples.

Fladen: …Given that this abortion=mass murder rhetoric is much more persuasive than the drivel coming out of NARAL, it is easily foreseeable that at least a few people will be persuaded by the rhetoric comparing abortionist to Nazis but unpersuaded by the proposed solution of non-violence as that may appear to be akin to a “Nuremberg Defense”. As such, violence against abortion providers is so predictable that a federal law had to be passed protecting them some years ago.

In these circumstances I will agree that there is a selective argument that political rhetoric leads to violence. But I hope you will agree that it is entirely appropriate to selectively focus on the peculiar nature of abortion related rhetoric used by the extreme pro-life movement. NOTE: I am NOT suggesting that this rhetoric be banned. Just that the people engaged in it own up to what they are doing.

Here are a few of Klingenschmitt’s thoughts on the topic, in response to Fladen’s, but you should check out the whole thread on Fladen’s Facebook page:

Klingenschmitt: The leftist rhetoric that blames pro-lifers (who pray for an end of the violence) for causing the violence is illogical. Here’s my statement today.

Fladen:  if you think abortion is not only wrong, not only mass murder, but also mass murder that is not going to be stopped legally for the foreseeable future, why wouldn’t you have an ethical obligation to use extra-legal force to stop it?

Klingenschmitt: Elliot Fladen, the government has an obligation to stop violence, and has authority to use force in defense of life. As private citizens we do not have such authority. Vigilantes are not heroes, they are murderers, because they are not ordained by God through legitimate government. Soldiers and policemen are not murderers when they use force, because they are ordained by God through the government.

Fladen: that sounds an awful lot like a Nuremberg Defense. If abortionists are Nazis backed up by the government in their murdering, wouldn’t your sitting on the sideline be just like those who sat on the sideline in Germany during the Holocaust and did nothing while Jews died?

Klingenschmitt: When the Nazis ceased to be a legitimate government, (right around 1938, I’m guessing), their soldiers no longer had authority to use force. So Christians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who tried to blow up Hitler in 1944) were not vigilantes, and neither were our founding fathers, rather they were agents of God trying to remove illegitimate tyrants.

Fladen: Is a country’s willingness to engage in mass murder of millions of its defenseless children a factor for determining whether the government is legitimate in your mind? If so, how big of a factor? Is it a dispositive factor?

Klingenschmitt: Clearly not yet, in my mind, since I’m still running for office and working to change the system from the inside. But here is my training for political activists working from the outside, and notice “violence” is not listed as a solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Y7HkxjPQc

This post initially misidentified Fladen as a moderate Republican.

Tweet
Share

Comments

34 thoughts on “An unusual argument that inflammatory anti-choice rhetoric leads to violence”

  1. For the radical, anti-abortion, religious jihadists, use of any form of contraception is also mass murder because use of same prevents the creation of human beings. 

    1. Pretty much all elected Republicans support those who want to allow companies to deny coverage for birth control, funding for birth control access and anything but abstinence only sex education. It's not just some religious jihadists. It's the GOP.

      The GOP as a whole supports making the most effective reliable means of birth control and the clinics that provide it to low income families less accessible. It's another of those 21st century Republican/conservative things you're in denial about as you cling to your contention that your brand of conservatism is still the operational one and the wackos are the exceptions.

      In fact, your views on these subjects are not reflected in the actions taken by a single solitary Republican/self described conservative majority legislative body. Not one. Not in any state. Not in DC. Not anywhere. Period.

  3. So Dr. Chaps believes "Soldiers and policemen are not murderers when they use force, because they are ordained by God through the government."

    So I suppose he thinks this is just wrong because God granted them a license to kill: 

    At least 14 cops have been charged in recent months with committing murder, homicide, or manslaughter while on duty.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-shocking-number-of-cops-recently-indicted-for-murder/401732/

    1. I think Gordon would argue that in that situation they are acting outside their God-granted right as they have exceeded their authority.

      sort of like a section 1983 lawsuit

      1. Not being an attorney, I don't get the section 1983 lawsuit reference.  However, I'm pretty certain that Dr. Chaps would look at the circumstances of the 14 indicted officers and offer up quibbling excuses for their behavior, and questioning why they were ever indicted in the first place.

          1. There's no telling what a total lunatic might think or say so…… maybe your fair amount confidence in your good buddy Gordon (seriously?) is misplaced.

              1. You may know him pretty well, but I challenge you to ask him, or for that matter any elected Republican their opinion about those 14 indicted officers, and see what quibbling excuse they give, and questioning the fact that the officers were indicted at all.

                And, yes, I realize I'm arguing with the master of quibbling excuses.

                    1. BC, we don't see eye to eye on ideology, on decorum, or on tactics.  That is hardly a new thing

                    2. God help me if I ever see eye to eye with someone who thinks a man who makes the statements your buddy Chaps makes is just "different” with a '"different" ideology. To the extent you share any of Chaps ideology ….wow. 

              2. "… illogical …"  If speech doesn't inflame and lead directly to actions, then why preach ??? …

                (… I mean, except for, obviously, the toil-free money.)

                🦄⚡️🦄🌩

                … Yeah, Elliot, if by "different," you mean  "the views of a base, lying, pandering, sniveling asshole," then, yeah — "different" it is.

    1. This sounds like a "prove you aren't a space lizard from the planet alpha centauri" type question.  

      What is comical here is that I although I was in disagreement with Chaps and am attempting to put his arguments (that I disagree with!) in the best possible light, you all rail on me for doing so. 

      It’s as if you just want to think your opponents are evil space lizards or something. 

      2. Why do you feel the need to put his horrible, appalling, revolting, disgusting arguments "in the best possible light" at all? Obviously there is no "good" light for such sentiments. He's obviously a despicable creature as evidenced by his own words. It's just you doing your inexplicable apologist thing. Which I judge to be lame without asking you to prove you're not some kind of space anything or even that you're not lame. I find the evidence of your lameness quite compelling. 

        1. Except Chaps isn't a despicable creature.  The dirty secret on both sides is that people actually like the guy – just not his views.  In fact, I like him too. I just REALLY disagree with him on a lot of things.

          BC, I think you have a massive problem. You associate ill motives to people who disagree with you when you find their views repugnant.  Newsflash: most people in this world hold at least one view you probably find repugnant.  If you walk around with the chip on your shoulder that you have you aren't going to find the good in almost anybody.  

          1. I don't know if he is mentally unstable and doesn't realize exactly what he says and does, or whether he's aware of it and simply "in it for the money."

            I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to poor mental hygiene…..but it's a close call.

          2. Sorry but his words speak for themselves. He  says absolutely hateful things. If what you constantly say is despicable, you are despicable for constantly saying such despicable things. It's pretty simple.

            And if you find that exceptable in a person, just a matter of "disagreement" (as in I don't really agree with Hitler's hate speech but other than that he's a great guy) then you are an enabler. And don't bother. This is an example that doesn't break the Hitler rule because I'm not comparing anything Chaps does to what Hitler did. I'm comparing the kinds of hateful inhumane things they both say.

            In your case, though, being an apologist for every hate spewing wacko on the right always comes first….even before enabling. It's about the allegedly God and religion based hate spewing, not policy disagreements. 

            1. Bullshit BC.  I am not apologising for Chaps' positions. I disagree extremely with them. . 

              My point is though that even people who believe things I find wrong have good in them.  Moreover, I find it wrong to associate views with such people that they clearly do not have just because it is convenient to believe the worst about them.

              You clearly disagree on both

              1. Chaps is a huckster. Hucksters are charming. Therefore, Chaps can be charming. He has some admirable qualities – he was an orphan who was adopted at a young age from foster care, and has overcome his humble beginnings, earning his doctorate.

                He is also a liar, and I never respect liars. He raised $800,000 last year from people who probably could have spent their money better. He pretended that he was supporting the building of an orphanage in Orissa, India, and yet, he never gave the orphanage any money.

                . He has a non-profit corporate "church" which is not supposed to advocate for any political candidate, yet many of his PJIN newscasts are interviews with candidates running for state and federal offices. Taxpayers are subsidizing his free infomercials for Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, and others.

                You're a libertarian, Elliot, so presumably you're a fiscal conservative – what do you think about Chaps political work and diatribes against gays and Muslims being underwritten by your tax dollars?

                He also routinely lies about the circumstances of his forced dismissal from the Navy; the truth is that he was insubordinate, refusing direct orders not to wear his uniform to a partisan political event in front of the White House. To this day, he portrays himself as some kind of relgious martyr who was denied his religious freedom to "pray in Jesus' name".

                And he continues to use his church AND his political position to spread hateful bigotry about gays, Muslims, and anyone else in his sights. I assume that those are some of your grounds for disagreement with Chaps.  I understand and agree with your willingness to keep dialogue open with people you disagree with (including me)…..but what about the lying, cheating, and fleecing the American taxpayer?

                 

                1. See also Haggard, Ted.  Another conservative man-of-the-cloth and some accomplishment, editor of his high-school yearbook, who had a "different" view, or two . . . 

                  . . . beloved by many, I'm sure.

                   

                2. Chaps is also a narrow-minded legalistic prig who wants everyone to believe he has some kind of divine justification and insight, beyond the reach and comprehension of us mere mortals, for what he likes and does and what he says . . . 

                   . . . he's not unlike many attorneys I know in that regard.

              2. Whatever Elliot. However you care to rationalize your fondness for the creep is your business. But you're quite wrong about my disagreeing with his "positions". First I'd have to consider his disgusting toxic soup of hucksterism, lies and hate speech to be something worthy of being considered a "position" to be agreed or disagreed with. I don't. To me it's just something I'd try very hard not to step in.

                But don't worry. I'm sure there are no hurt feeling. It's hardly as if your buddy Chaps could care any less about my opinion than I do about yours. I'm not one of the lucrative ignorant fools born every minute that he targets so why would he care?

                An I never asked you to apologize. Just noted that you’re an apologist for rightie wackos, something that’s been clear for years.

                  1. Nah, I am here and ready and willing to say that you talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time.  You can scold someone and post an apologia for them at the same moment, because,ya know, lawyer.

  5. So, let me see if I've got this straight, if a member of the god-ordained American military kills fellow human beings — that's just doing god's will and wishes …

    … but if that same servicemen wears THAT MILITARY'S uniform to a secular political rally, in violation of that god-ordained military's direct orders, and is disciplined as a result, that is "an abomination before the eyes of the lord, even unto the fourth and the fifth generation of those whom the lord loveth" …

    … did I get that right????

    1. That is not on topic of EF's performance art piece. That's all it could be- he doesn't agree with the guy, he can't ignore the guy, he likes the guy anyway, and he can't just sit and stare at him for 15 minutes. 

      But you have a point.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

138 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!