A Remorseless Rudolph Gets Life Sentence for Bombing at Clinic

[zimv20]

link (http://nytimes.com/2005/07/18/national/18cnd-bomber.html?hp&ex=1121745600&en=38bd5702b35d1041&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


Eric Rudolph, who has confessed to the Atlanta Olympics bombing and three other explosions that killed two and injured 150, received two life sentences today for a fatal abortion clinic blast after angrily denouncing abortion and telling the federal court that "deadly force is needed to stop it."

Mr. Rudolph, a 38-year-old former Army explosives expert, pleaded guilty in April to setting off a bomb that injured a nurse, Emily Lyons, and killed a police officer, Robert Sanderson, outside the Woman All Women abortion clinic in Birmingham, Ala., in 1998.

He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without parole today in a federal courtroom in Birmingham.

Judge C. Lynwood Smith of Federal District Court in Birmingham said Mr. Rudolph postured himself "as a superior human being" and compared him to the Nazis, who "sought to eradicate a segment of the population." He ordered him to pay $1,276,000 in damages to his victims.

Mr. Rudolph, who has not expressed any remorse, insisted in court that he would be "vindicated."

"What they did was participate in the murder and dismemberment of upward of 50 children a week," Mr. Rudolph said. "I will be vindicated - my actions in Birmingham that overcast day in January 1998 will be vindicated. As I go to a prison cell for a lifetime I know that I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course. I have kept the faith."

Under a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid the death penalty for the four bombings, Mr. Rudolph also confessed in April to the bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics that killed one woman and injured 111 people, and the bombing of a gay and lesbian nightclub and an abortion clinic in Atlanta in 1997.

He is scheduled to receive two life sentences without parole in August for the Atlanta blasts.

(more)

let us note that, at least in this article, the words "terror" and "terrorist" were not used. 'cuz he was "fighting the good fight," i guess.

[mactastic]

Ah yes. Good ol' Christian terrorism.

[zimv20]

most sites are carrying the AP story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-071805rudolph_wr,0,3184063.story?coll=la-home-headlines), which doesn't use "terror" or "terrorist," but i'm mildly surprised to see it in the CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/18/rudolph.sentencing/index.html):

"No matter how he tries to justify his actions and glorify himself, he is a terrorist. He is a murderer," Felicia Sanderson, the officer's widow, told reporters outside the courtroom in Birmingham.
i'll note that it's from a victim's quote, and not from that of an official or the reporter's word.

[miloblithe]

At least there's one reference.

I wonder how most people who define terrorist or terrorism if you asked them.

[MacDawg]

Ah yes. Good ol' Christian terrorism.

I know I'm going to regret venturing in here again...

...but as a Christian, I, and most I know, would disavow Rudolph and his methods. I may have strong beliefs, but I don't advocate such barbarism.

There are extremists in every group that give the majority a bad name.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[mactastic]

I know I'm going to regret venturing in here again...

...but as a Christian, I, and most I know, would disavow Rudolph and his methods. I may have strong beliefs, but I don't advocate such barbarism.

There are extremists in every group that give the majority a bad name.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

No, really? I wonder if all Muslims agree with bin Laden...

I mean, they could have strong beliefs different from ours and still not want to kill us.

I wonder if Rudolph hates us for our freedoms too.

Maybe radical Christianity's just an evil ideology...

[miloblithe]

I know I'm going to regret venturing in here again...

...but as a Christian, I, and most I know, would disavow Rudolph and his methods. I may have strong beliefs, but I don't advocate such barbarism.

There are extremists in every group that give the majority a bad name.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Exactly right. The problem is that no one really gets to define what it means to be a Chirstian or what it means to be a Muslim. Not even the Pope gets to define what it means to be a Catholic (at least for plenty of Catholics that I've met).

Still, the issue is that Americans (and the media) seem unwilling to recognize that terrorism is a tactic, not an -ism in the general sense of the word. A war on terrorism makes as much sense as a war on general warfare, or a war on hit-and-run.

[mactastic]

Or a war on drugs.

[zimv20]

...but as a Christian, I, and most I know, would disavow Rudolph and his methods. I may have strong beliefs, but I don't advocate such barbarism.

would you call rudolph a terrorist?

[MacDawg]

No, really? I wonder if all Muslims agree with bin Laden...

I mean, they could have strong beliefs different from ours and still not want to kill us.

I would agree to that

I wonder if Rudolph hates us for our freedoms too.

Maybe radical Christianity's just an evil ideology...

Any ideology taken to extreme can be "evil" depending on the standards of good and evil. I see little in Rudolph that can be traced to even a casual understanding of the Bible.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[MacDawg]

would you call rudolph a terrorist?

Absolutely

For that matter I would call McVeigh and his buddy, what's his name, terrorists as well

I agree that terrorism is a method, and is not limited to any one ideology

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[zimv20]

For that matter I would call McVeigh and his buddy, what's his name, terrorists as well

me too.

shoddy terrorists, imo, 'cuz to me the whole point is to effect political and/or governmental policy change, and w/o pushing one's agenda, blowing stuff up is nothing more than fulfilling a pedestrian, adolescent fantasy.

"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!"

[mactastic]

Any ideology taken to extreme can be "evil" depending on the standards of good and evil. I see little in Rudolph that can be traced to even a casual understanding of the Bible.
I hear ya... But people can pull quotes out of the Bible to justify the twisted, racist version of Christianity Rudolph adheres to, just as Pat Robertson and others can point to violent passages in the Koran.

People here understand enough about the Bible to know Rudolph's off the deep end. But when Robertson tells us Islam is evil, we don't tell him to stuff a sock in it like you would if I tried to tell you that Christianity is evil.

[zimv20]

we don't tell him to stuff a sock in it like you would if I tried to tell you that Christianity is evil.
isn't it?

[mactastic]

isn't it?
I'll keep a sock in it on that subject...
;)

[MacDawg]

People here understand enough about the Bible to know Rudolph's off the deep end. But when Robertson tells us Islam is evil, we don't tell him to stuff a sock in it like you would if I tried to tell you that Christianity is evil.

You are assuming that you know how I would respond... careful, that has the seeds of extremism... projecting your preconceptions on others and not allowing them to express it themselves. You could be wrong. ;)

I could tell you that Christianity is not evil, but the perversion of it most definitely can be. But I would be open to the argument that everyone has their own version of Christianity, so who is right.

And certainly to some, perhaps the homosexual or the abortionist, my version of Christianity might appear to be threatening, and perceived to be "evil" in their world view. So in that regard, "good" and "evil" become relative terms based on world view.

I, myself have read the Koran, and I have studied some of Islam and its ways. In fact, at one point in time I had designs on working in the Islamic world. Islam and Christianity both have bloodthirsty pasts. Both can be equally treacherous and heinous.

I happen to believe that both extremes are wrong. I also believe that Islam is fundamentally wrong in its beliefs and philosophy/world view, but not necessarily evil incarnate. But by the same token I would disagree fundamentally with Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, et. al. But I would not throw a blanket over all of their followers and call them evil, or even bad people. Most are good people, and some, maybe many, are better citizens, husbands, wives and parents than Christians. That is to Christianity's shame.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[mactastic]

I had no preconceptions of how you would answer, save that I know you would not call Christianity evil. Am I wrong?

Now, if only all Christians were as tolerant as you. But we've seen many even in this forum that are not, not to mention those running around in the political sphere, who spread something other than the tolerance you preach...

[Desertrat]

I've boomed around a lot of the world. Lived in or travelled extensively in some 20 countries. Asia as well as Europe. I've wandered through some 40 of the US states.

I still take it for granted that 90% of all people are okay. I think that's a fair generalization, regardless of race or religion.

There's always gonna be some number of radicals and nutzoids. Rudolph falls right into this category. One thing I absolutely despise is the type who does his damage by way of the "to whom it may concern" bomb. I can at least understand somebody who goes after a specific target, but to blow up just anybody who happens to be around is absolutely evil.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

The thing about Rudolph, and the one that generally escapes discussion, is that he remained uncaught for years because many in the area where he hid out sympathized with his cause, cold-blooded murderer though he may be. Now, does that sound familiar, or what? And is that not the single most chilling aspect of the entire Eric Rudolph story?

[~loserman~]

The thing about Rudolph, and the one that generally escapes discussion, is that he remained uncaught for years because many in the area where he hid out sympathized with his cause, cold-blooded murderer though he may be. Now, does that sound familiar, or what? And is that not the single most chilling aspect of the entire Eric Rudolph story?

I hear you, but it might be for other reasons too.
Our society has nut job supporters all around. Remember a few years back when people lined up on the Interstate to hold up "Go OJ" signs?

[Xtremehkr]

Not to mention the fact that OJ was found to be innocent. As was MJ and Robert Blake. CA will always be one of the places I hold dear, but I will be the first to admit that celebrities are somewhat above the law.

[zimv20]

As was MJ
careful -- in chicago, MJ always refers to Michael Jordan. i was scratching my head for a few seconds wondering of what he was found innocent.

[Xtremehkr]

careful -- in chicago, MJ always refers to Michael Jordan. i was scratching my head for a few seconds wondering of what he was found innocent.

I think of Jordan as the good MJ.

[~loserman~]

Not to mention the fact that OJ was found to be innocent. As was MJ and Robert Blake. CA will always be one of the places I hold dear, but I will be the first to admit that celebrities are somewhat above the law.


My two cents on those mentioned above

OJ... guilty

MJ.... two weird to know for sure

Blake....guilty

[Xtremehkr]

My two cents on those mentioned above

OJ... guilty

MJ.... two weird to know for sure

Blake....guilty

Meh, I think all three were guilty as charged.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't get the first thing about this OJ analogy.

Get real. People protected Rudolph because they thought he'd murdered people in a worthy cause. That's a hell of a lot scarier than some people believing that the OJ didn't kill what's-her-name -- since that's what the jury decided in the end anyway.

[mactastic]

You could probably charge those people with aiding and abetting terrorism under the Patriot Act... Doubt it will happen though.

[skunk]

I also believe that Islam is fundamentally wrong in its beliefs and philosophy/world view, but not necessarily evil incarnate. But by the same token I would disagree fundamentally with Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, et. al. But I would not throw a blanket over all of their followers and call them evil, or even bad people. Most are good people, and some, maybe many, are better citizens, husbands, wives and parents than Christians. That is to Christianity's shame.I wish you'd stop throwing the word "fundamental" around - you're making me nervous. Anyway, why is it to Christianity's shame? Why would you expect any different? We're all just people, and our choice of gobbledegook usually comes from our parents. There's no "better" and no "worse".

[MacDawg]

I wish you'd stop throwing the word "fundamental" around - you're making me nervous.

Funny :p
Not using it in the sense of "fundamentalist"

Anyway, why is it to Christianity's shame?

I believe the word is hypocrisy

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[skunk]

I believe the word is hypocrisyOnly if for some strange reason you believe that people who profess to be Christians should be "fundamentally" better people. I recommend the poem Abou Ben Adhem, by the American poet Leigh Hunt.

[MacDawg]

Only if for some strange reason you believe that people who profess to be Christians should be "fundamentally" better people. I recommend the poem Abou Ben Adhem, by the American poet Leigh Hunt.

Why would that be strange?

Not "better" as in "I'm better than you", but "better" as in their lives should more closely mirror the moral/social/spiritual principles they consciously profess to hold, than someone who makes no pretense to follow their beliefs.

Christianity is more than a philosophy or dogma, it claims to be life changing.


Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[skunk]

Why would that be strange?

Not "better" as in "I'm better than you", but "better" as in their lives should more closely mirror the moral/social/spiritual principles they consciously profess to hold, than someone who makes no pretense to follow their beliefs.You are contradicting yourself: you seem to be saying that a "good" Christian "is" or "should be" "better" than a "good" Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh or Taoist, on the grounds that the moral/social/spiritual principles of Christianity are "better". Have I misunderstood? In which case, you are saying "better" as in "I'm better than you"...

Christianity is more than a philosophy or dogma, it claims to be life changing. So does every religion. Where's the difference?

[MacDawg]

You are contradicting yourself: you seem to be saying that a "good" Christian "is" or "should be" "better" than a "good" Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh or Taoist, on the grounds that the moral/social/spiritual principles of Christianity are "better". Have I misunderstood? In which case, you are saying "better" as in "I'm better than you"...

So does every religion. Where's the difference?


The standard of measure for the Christian is never another person, or rather should never be another person, or religion. The Christian's standard is the Bible and Christ. So "better than" isn't measured in those terms. But to someone looking on, there should be a distinct difference in the life of a believer. When comparing between religions, "better than" becomes relative because the standards are different, that is, what Hindus believe v. what Christians would believe is different, so their lives would differ accordingly. Perhaps the hang up is in the use of "better than" and should be understood in terms of "difference". The Christian's life should be distinct as a believer.

Perhaps every religion does claim to be life changing. My point was that it was to the Christian's shame that their lives haven't been changed, not that other religions don't make the same claim.

If you can be a Christian and it not make a difference in your life, then there is no value to Christianity. Conservative Christianity has a different world view (creation v. evolution), a different destiny (afterlife v. nothing) and a different meaning/purpose (glorify God v. no meaning) from much of the world. It also offers a message of hope in the midst of despair, forgiveness in the midst of guilt and faith in the midst of adversity. (I am deliberately avoiding a discussion of the substitutionary death of Christ). If that doesn't produce an outward difference in your life, then shame on the Christian.

I realize that the fact that many name the name of Christ and don't evidence a changed life. Hence many do point to that as a reason that Christianity is baloney. That is to the shame of Christian's everywhere.

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[skunk]

But to someone looking on, there should be a distinct difference in the life of a believer.It certainly sounds as if to you "believer"="Christian". Why?
Perhaps the hang up is in the use of "better than" and should be understood in terms of "difference". The Christian's life should be distinct as a believer.Distinct from what? Atheism? Humanism? Judaism? Mohammedanism? Why?
Conservative Christianity has a different world view (creation v. evolution), a different destiny (afterlife v. nothing) and a different meaning/purpose (glorify God v. no meaning) from much of the world. It also offers a message of hope in the midst of despair, forgiveness in the midst of guilt and faith in the midst of adversity. If that doesn't produce an outward difference in your life, then shame on the Christian.It's getting worse, not better: now you are narrowing it down to Conservative Christianity. Do you seriously claim that other religions - even other flavours of the same religion - do not claim to offer the same? How does a belief in creationism rather than evolution evidence itself outwardly in your life? And is the only alternative to "glorifying (a presumably Conservative Christian) God" that life has "no meaning"?

I realize that the fact that many name the name of Christ and don't evidence a changed life. Hence many do point to that as a reason that Christianity is baloney. That is to the shame of Christian's everywhere.How about all those who "name the name of Christ" while dropping bombs on the "infidel"? Where do we stand on that one?

[mactastic]

How about all those who "name the name of Christ" while dropping bombs on the "infidel"? Where do we stand on that one?
Far away. ;)

Sorry, too much coffee today.

[MacDawg]

It certainly sounds as if to you "believer"="Christian". Why?

That was my frame of reference in the context. "Believer" is meaningless without context, and my context was Christianity.

Distinct from what? Atheism? Humanism? Judaism? Mohammedanism? Why?

All of the above.
Because of the differences in world view, presuppositions, doctrine, etc.

It's getting worse, not better: now you are narrowing it down to Conservative Christianity. Do you seriously claim that other religions - even other flavours of the same religion - do not claim to offer the same?

There are obvious similarities, but there are also important distinctions. I mention conservative Christianity because the less conservative, the less the distinction.

How does a belief in creationism rather than evolution evidence itself outwardly in your life? And is the only alternative to "glorifying (a presumably Conservative Christian) God" that life has "no meaning"?

What meaning is there to life if we are the product of a random primordial soup?

How about all those who "name the name of Christ" while dropping bombs on the "infidel"? Where do we stand on that one?

Many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, Allah, et. al. I have conceded that above. I do not pretend that the US is a Christian nation at all.

Guess we have gotten pretty far off the track of this thread...

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[yg17]

At least there's one reference.

I wonder how most people who define terrorist or terrorism if you asked them.


Sadly, nowadays, most people would say someone with brown skin who hails from the middle east.

McVeigh and Nichols: Never labled as terrorists
DC Snipers: Never labled as terrorists
BTK killer: Never labled as a terrorist
Charles Manson: Never labled as a terrorist
Some civilian in Iraq who wants the US troops out but would never hurt a fly: Terrorist
Some civilian in Afghanistan who's friend's third cousin's wife's mother's second cousin once removed's friend's nephew's brother's uncle is Bin Laden: Terrorist


The quote about Rudolph is probably the first time in history a white American was labled a terrorist. But that was from a victim's family member who would of course think that. To the media and government, he's just a criminal.


And of course, this quote by Rudolph:
What they did was participate in the murder and dismemberment of upward of 50 children a week
Does that prick not even think for a second that if what these doctors are doing is murder, that he's no better? Anyone who has that mentality probably needs to be locked up in the psych ward for the rest of their life.

[zimv20]

McVeigh and Nichols: Never labled as terrorists
DC Snipers: Never labled as terrorists
BTK killer: Never labled as a terrorist
Charles Manson: Never labled as a terrorist
"never" is pretty strong. i do believe i recall the DC snipers being called terrorists by the media.

[skunk]

What meaning is there to life if we are the product of a random primordial soup?We are but croûtons on the surface of the cosmic mulligatawny. Life is what you make it.

[MacDawg]

We are but croûtons on the surface of the cosmic mulligatawny. Life is what you make it.

My point exactly :rolleyes:

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[zimv20]

Life is what you make it.
which is why i wonder about people who spend all of this life planning for the next.

[blackfox]

which is why i wonder about people who spend all of this life planning for the next.
Indeed. Good stuff. Not to mention trying to foister their plans for other people's lives for their (possible) next. As a favor, you see...

[dejo]

McVeigh and Nichols: Never labled as terrorists

Ever heard of the book "American Terrorist" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060394072/qid=1121914564/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3409847-4580866?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)?

[yg17]

Ever heard of the book "American Terrorist" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060394072/qid=1121914564/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3409847-4580866?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)?

OK, one book.


If Bin Laden or any of his cronies are caught and tried in the US justice system, they'd be labled as terrorists and tried on terrorism charges. If a middle-easterner masterminded a blast similar to OKC or Atlanta, I'd bet they'd face terrorism charges. However, I believe McVeigh and Nichols were just charged with 100-whatever counts of murder? Yes, in the end they all get the same punishment and will rot in hell, but the government seems reluctant to label anyone who is white as a terrorist even if they are one.