Home - List All Discussions

A Clarification on Defensive Action

by Bruce Evan Murch

by: RobertFerguson

I hope this helps you all understand what is being said about the just nature of defending the preborn child with force, even deadly force.
This is a word from a friend of mine, Bruce Murch, who I first met in 1991 while we (Operation Rescue) were rescuing preborn children by blockading abortionist George Tiller's butchertorium for about a month or so.
******************

After a lengthy phone conversation with my friend David Miller (LoveOneAnother) I felt that a clearer delineation of my position on this topic is warranted.
Before I do that, let me say that I do count David my friend, in spite of our profound disagreements on this and other topics. I grieve to see active preachers ripping each other to shreds and feeling quite justified in the doing of it. It is the devil's own work. This division amongst the brethren will have no good end.
But I digress.
I loved Paul Hill. I believe that what he did was justifiable by scripture and by civil law. I believe it was a righteous act.
Paul has written that to kill abortionists is "our Christian duty". His detractors, like David Miller, Ruben Chavez and others have made much of that. I disagree with Paul on that point. I disagreed with him when he was headed that direction in his philosophy back in '93. I disagree with it today. Many others that believe that he was justified in his killing, nonetheless disagree that every Christian is duty-bound to do likewise.
Some have taken his same course. They have proclaimed themselves "cowards" because they have not shot abortionists. They either think that they are hypocrites for agreeing with his actions while failing to act similarly, or they simply have not thoroughly considered all the possibilities surrounding a person who has acted thus.
To me there has been only one question since Paul defended 32 children in Pensacola in 1994: Was he justified?
In my opinion, killing abortionists is not expedient. In my opinion, killing abortionists is not mandatory. Those are not the questions. The question is whether or not Paul was justified. Based on the principle that I believe is Biblical, to wit: that whatever force is justified to use to defend a born person is justified to use to save an unborn person; Paul Hill was justified.
And quite possibly, Paul Hill was called. We see Phinehas, not one of the "judges of Israel" whom Moses gave authority to slay "all those who join themselves to Baal_peor", but rather a man who acted out of his own zeal for God and His law, kill the fornicating Israelite and his Midianite whore right in the camp. I suspect many of us would have thought Phinehas guilty of murder, but God vindicated him.
Perhaps God called Paul for such a time as this. I do not know, but would not dare to say that He did not, since it is entirely within the character of God to order it, and to reward it when it is done spontaneously. To declare with indignance that killing the wicked is "not God's way" is ignorant of God's character and His history, and is extremely presumptuous.
I am not a coward because I think Paul was justified, but have no drive, desire or mandate to kill abortionists myself. I am being obedient to what God has called me to do in the face of this evil, and have been doing it for the last 15 years. Courage is not the lack of fear, but the willingness to act in spite of it. So, I will continue to defend Paul Hill's righteous deed, and I will continue to act as God has called me to act.
Several of the very vocal participants in this doctrinal bloodbath do virtually nothing, either to oppose the wickedness of abortion, or to preach the gospel to the lost. Such ones should simply keep their opinions to themselves, until they have actually done something that qualifies them to have a considered opinion.
We can hash this out as long as you want. But to those who say, "you're a heretic because you believe Paul Hill is a murderer" and those who say, "you're a heretic because you DON'T believe Paul Hill is a murderer": You all border on a heresy that brings deep division to the Body of Christ. You all feel righteous and justified. "Anathemas" are flowing like water between men of courage and conviction.
Men and Brethren. These things ought not so to be.
_________________
Bruce Evan Murch

reply from: RobertFerguson

This was my reply to Brother Bruce and the street preacher's e-mail debate list.
I hope this helps in our discussion if force is justifiable in defense.
Watchman (Bruce Murch) wrote:
"To me there has been only one question since Paul defended 32 children in Pensacola in 1994: Was he justified?
In my opinion, killing abortionists is not expedient. In my opinion, killing abortionists is not mandatory. Those are not the questions. The question is whether or not Paul was justified. Based on the principle that I believe is Biblical, to wit: that whatever force is justified to use to defend a born person is justified to use to save an unborn person; Paul Hill was justified. "

This has been my position all along. Tactically, such intervention IMHO, should be used only when all other intervention fails.
Others may disagree and think that defenders have a hand in distributing righteous judgment of God. I disagree some what. I see this justice as a biproduct of the act of defending. IMO-the intent should be defense of another for the heart to be judged honorable. (not all will agree [Phinehas seems to show a different intent] your mileage may vary- so to speak- I am not interested in making this leap and will focus on the issue of defense)
I have asked prolifers to allow God to use this opportunity of Hill's witness in death to change and to spur their heart on to the peaceful action that I invite them and others to join me in. Not everyone is called to be a Paul Hill type defender.
But if prolifers continue to refuse to defend children peacfully and prayerfully- it will just give more need for last min. defense of the children by shotgun.
Why not show these women that you support them and join with me in peaceful, prayerful intervention at death's door; as is my usual custom; to offer last min help to those scheduled to be killed that day?
Scripture shows us that it is within God's character to use men to kill in defense of another. Such drastic action might be used when all other prolife efforts have failed. Perhaps some would say ONLY when all other efforts have failed.
Certainly for those 32 that day- all the support offered by PL groups, show the truth tours, sidewalk counceling, education, voting, graphic signs, preaching, etc FAILED miserably those 32. If not for Hill's defensive action to stop the abortionist from killing these 32 would be killed that day.
Each moment of each life is precious. For anyone to claim that IF some of these children were later killed elsewhere by another bort that all of Hill's efforts were in vain is rediculous and a slap in the face of any mother whose cried for just a few more moments with a dying child.
The facts are that THOSE children THAT day were SAVED from THAT threat of death by THAT abortionist.
If some were killed later.... that just means that we failed twice.
If some died later, it does not mean that Hill did not save the child from abortion THAT day at THAT place at THAT time by THAT abortionist.
If a person is heroically saved from death on the battle field only to later be killed in the next battle or next round of gun fire was the heroics not real? Were they false? Were they in vane?
If a teen is pulled from a firery car crash to later be killed in yet another car crash is the person who pulled him from the fire not still a hero? Was not the teens life saved because he may later die?
Detractors of God's defensive spirit can like it or not- the facts remain- the babies schedualed to die at the hands of Barnett that day were saved by Paul Hill's heroic deed. Are they not worthy of protection in the same way as BORN children?
To those detractors of defensive action being a Godly action- what is the significant difference that makes you degrade the preborn from being EQUAL to the born child in this way?
Certainly, Hill saved THESE 32 children from THAT threat of death. If some were later killed because the mothers looked for a NEW abortuary or a NEW abortionist and they were killed then that is sad that there was not another Paul Hill for them.
My God is the God of second chances. It is highly likely that God would give this second chance for these mothers to repent of their rebellion and to choose life for their child. Just because some may not have been obedient to God's second chance does not mean that He did not offer this to them.
To say that these children were not saved is a slap in the face of every mother who had a child die early in life. Every mother who would have died themselves for just one more hour or one more day with their child just a little more time....
Through Rev Hill's defensive action, God gave these mothers a little more time. If they pissed it away that only speaks to their own hearts not to the actions of God or of Paul Hill who offered this second chance at life to these preborn children.
I have a friend who lost his wife to a decease. He wrote a song called "5 more minutes with you" Heart breaking! It would be a good song for these grieving mothers. This is not limited to those who were born alive to die shortly later, of course, many still births, miscariages, and other deaths.
To say that Hill did not save these 32 from death makes a mockery of Mom's against drunk drivers or any other group or person who saves a life to only have it taken away at a later date by a new threat to it's life.
Hill saved those 32. We don't know how many are still alive today but then we do not know how many are alive today from sidewalk ministries 11 years ago, or a rescue 11 years ago either. Should we condemn Rescue and SWC?
What a shame it would be for these mothers to reject a second chance given them by rescuers or Hill or sidewalk ministery teams.
If all life is precious and sacred then all the time they are given to stay alive is also sacred and precious. To say that Hill did not save these 32 is to slap GOD Almighty in the face- as He is the REASON that life is sacred and precious!
Every min of it!

reply from: JohnGlenn

It is great to see the wisdom of Rev Bruce Murch posted here! Bruce is a man of God who has the courage to stand when and where few have, and continues to stand under mounds of oppression at the hands of baby killing advocates as well as his brethren.
www.fullquivermission.com
His children are members of Faithful Soldier School of Evangelism www.FaithfulSoldier.com and are active on the streets in gospel witness many times using an antiabortion catalist to get conversations started.
Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
To me there has been only one question since Paul defended 32 children in Pensacola in 1994: Was he justified?
That is the crust of this, isn't it? Is it just to treat unborn the same as born?
Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
In my opinion, killing abortionists is not expedient. In my opinion, killing abortionists is not mandatory. Those are not the questions.
No, those are not the questions. But many wish they were
Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
The question is whether or not Paul was justified. Based on the principle that I believe is Biblical, to wit: that whatever force is justified to use to defend a born person is justified to use to save an unborn person; Paul Hill was justified.
That IS what the Bible teaches Brother Murch!
Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
And quite possibly, Paul Hill was called. We see Phinehas, not one of the "judges of Israel" whom Moses gave authority to slay "all those who join themselves to Baal_peor", but rather a man who acted out of his own zeal for God and His law, kill the fornicating Israelite and his Midianite whore right in the camp. I suspect many of us would have thought Phinehas guilty of murder, but God vindicated him.
What I find intereting is that there is not even a mention of Phinehas being "called" but the Bible rather says that God rewarded Phinehas for his ZEAL.
So, so far we have learned that the Bible teaches that Paul Hill was justified and that the Bible can reward those for their zeal.
Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
Perhaps God called Paul for such a time as this. I do not know, but would not dare to say that He did not, since it is entirely within the character of God to order it, and to reward it when it is done spontaneously. To declare with indignance that killing the wicked is "not God's way" is ignorant of God's character and His history, and is extremely presumptuous.
This is correct Brother Murch! There are a lot of presumptious prolifers, aren't there. I know there are here.
I am not a coward because I think Paul was justified, but have no drive, desire or mandate to kill abortionists myself. I am being obedient to what God has called me to do in the face of this evil, and have been doing it for the last 15 years. Courage is not the lack of fear, but the willingness to act in spite of it. So, I will continue to defend Paul Hill's righteous deed, and I will continue to act as God has called me to act.
You and your family do a great job too! Surely folks should not doubt your courage, since the forces of murder have been able to get multimillion dollar judgments against you for the obedience that God has called you to.
Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
Several of the very vocal participants in this doctrinal bloodbath do virtually nothing, either to oppose the wickedness of abortion, or to preach the gospel to the lost. Such ones should simply keep their opinions to themselves, until they have actually done something that qualifies them to have a considered opinion.
I agree. Probably for many they have never seen an abortuary except for passing by in a car- their main action in baby saving efforts is posting on the internet. (a good thing but hardly a sacrifice of courage) as a sidewalk ministry group must have.
Rev. Bruce Evan Murch writes:
We can hash this out as long as you want. But to those who say, "you're a heretic because you believe Paul Hill is a murderer" and those who say, "you're a heretic because you DON'T believe Paul Hill is a hero": You all border on a heresy that brings deep division to the Body of Christ. You all feel righteous and justified. "Anathemas" are flowing like water between men of courage and conviction.
Men and Brethren. These things ought not so to be.
Ok so let's stand together for the truth that God does not discriminate against the unborn. Can pacifists do that?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Watchman (Bruce Murch) wrote:
"To me there has been only one question since Paul defended 32 children in Pensacola in 1994: Was he justified?
In my opinion, killing abortionists is not expedient. In my opinion, killing abortionists is not mandatory. Those are not the questions. The question is whether or not Paul was justified. Based on the principle that I believe is Biblical, to wit: that whatever force is justified to use to defend a born person is justified to use to save an unborn person; Paul Hill was justified. "

Like in the case of Paul Hill and the 32.
Prolifers who reject an equal defense [let's call them discriminators] need to turn to vengeance, punishment and retribution in order to make their argument. If they stick with defense their view is found putrid rather quickly
Good idea! Did any of the discriminators ever join you in peaceful action? We have seen Faithman try to do this same thing, by asking discriminators to jon him in using the peaceful I AM A PERSON postcards. I don't recall [he or the can correct id this is wrong] a single discriminator taking FM up on his offer.
That IS the ONLY reason Hill had to defend with force. If these 32 had been saved by peaceful means- Hill could have continued where he had been for several years, in peaceful sidewalk intervention.
Maybe because it is easier to bitch about Paul Hill?
Yes, we agree that scripture teaches this character trait of God's; Rev Murch mentioned it also!
That's why there are so many different arms, so many different assignments in the army of God. It may takes several to save these babies.
I agree. 32 were saved that day!
I like your term detractor better than discriminator.

reply from: faithman

check out the site in signature

reply from: faithman

what signature? ;-)
Below the dotted line

reply from: JohnGlenn

I guess there is no debate when it comes to the "clarification on defensive action"?
It's good to see that we must all agree that the unborn are entitled to the same defense available to the born.

reply from: fetalisa

Some Arabs who flew planes into buildings felt religious justification for their act as well. We call them either insane, terrorists, or both.
So did those who perpetrated the Inquisition. Their opinions that what they did was right, didn't make them right either.
What do you expect? He was the worse kind of whack job - a religious whackjob.
Nice! Terrorist wannabes.
Leviticus 25:44-46 states we should take slaves from surrounding nations, make slaves of children, own our slaves for life, and will them to our descendants upon our deaths. If you base your life on such immoral nonsense, I suppose that is your choice.
So your imaginary God ordains your killings, just like the Muslims. This is not only total insanity, but no different than the Crusades or Inquisition.
In America we do not kill those with whom we disagree politically. If we do, we go to jail where we belong, as happened in the case of Paul Hill, regardless of the insane rantings and foolish commandments of your immoral and corrupt God.
Sure you are. Only a coward claims a murder is justified by the whims of his bloodthirsty God. The fact you don't follow in Paul Hill's footsteps only proves you either aren't as stupid as Hill was, or like your freedom too much.
You should damn well know what wickedness is since you advocate killing those with whom you disagree politically.
What are you going to preach to them? That it's ok to listen to the voices in their heads, supposedly from your evil God, which tell them to kill?
This from one who supports what Hill did but doesn't have the balls to do it himself.

reply from: JohnGlenn

How dishonest to imply that Brother Bruce Murches words are those of Robert Ferguson.
That you have to resort to falsehoods and attacks on God are the best someone of such low morals has available to them.

reply from: xLoki

Oh yes. I can't think of anything more Christian than killing those you disagree with. Lovely.

reply from: JohnGlenn

It's sad that all you have is dishonesty and attacks on the posters rather than substantial debate about the worth of the unborn child to recieve the same defense justifiable to the born child.

reply from: yoda

Isn't it interesting that those who make such attacks are as foreign to Christianity as a Martian would be here on earth?

reply from: AshMarie88

CHRISTIANS don't kill people.

reply from: xLoki

CHRISTIANS don't kill people.
Sarcasm, dear.

reply from: fetalisa

All of these terrorists, whether it be a Hill or a Rudolph, were affected by the prolife rhetoric. No wonder they busied themselves bombing clinics, killing abortionists & maiming clinic workers. The prolifers have been screaming abortion is murder for years. There's no reason to be surprised prolifers like Hill or Rudolph finally stepped up to the plate to put a dent in such 'murders.'
Welcome to the fruits of your rhetoric. These incidences, as bad as they may be, show the public at large exactly what the prolife movement is about, even to the point of showing the end game and end results of the rhetoric.

reply from: yoda

They were more affected by your bloodthirsty actions than anything else. You kill babies by the millions and then expect no one to react violently? Oh wait, I know..... you want us all to be cold and unemotional about the subject of baby killing........ like you.

reply from: xLoki

I agree with you on this one. They're just a bunch of nutcases. I think most pro-lifers would agree that bombing clinics and terrorism against pro-choicers is not justified.

reply from: xLoki

And then you have people who think like this...

reply from: yoda

So true.......... there are people who think like me.......... who think that you baby killers and all your supporters are the scum of the earth, to put it mildly....

reply from: RobertFerguson

Yep. Baby killers are the most dispicable people there are- running a very close second in my opinion, are those within the church who discriminate against advocating for equality for the defense of preborn children- the later claims to embrace the preborn but betray them with their kisses.

reply from: faithman

....and a little less mild.... scum bag maggot punk mouthed pond slime. Evil hearted monsters. Rabid dogs in need of putting down.

reply from: RobertFerguson

"[A] tiger in India...starts attacking and killing and eating human beings, you have to go and take it out...Well, what you have in the case of an abortionist is somebody who is in the midst of a very complex medical field, and they've just gotten a taste of human blood, that's all..."-Joseph Foreman, American Coalition of Life Activists, Operation Rescue, in a WVCY radio broadcast, January 27, 1993.

reply from: RobertFerguson

....and a little less mild.... scum bag maggot punk mouthed pond slime. Evil hearted monsters. Rabid dogs in need of putting down.
More less mild..
"Abortionists should be put to death. They are murderers."
-Jeffrey Baker, 10th Amendment Militia, addressing the Wisconsin Convention of the US Taxpayers Party, May 27-29, 1994.
"We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this country."
-Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation, National Empowerment Television, in John S. Soloma's book, Ominous Politics: The New Conservative Labyrith, Hill and Wang, 1984.p.49.
"Any action that is necessary to defend innocent unborn life is justified...[violence against law enforcement officers guarding clinics is justified] because they are guilty of making sure children are murdered."
-Donna Bray, Defenders of the Defenders of Life, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, January 1, 1995.
"It would be a good thing for an abortionist to repent. But in as much as he is unrepentant and continuing in his deeds, it is a good thing that one be terminated."
-Reverend Michael Bray, Pastor, Reformation Lutheran Church, Project Rescue Maryland.
In response to the two murders at clinics in Brookline, Massachusettes (12/30/94):
"This is going to be, hopefully, the beginning of the war, and we'll win because we're right and we'll once again have godly laws in our land. Everybody that's ever had an abortion or had helped someone get an abortion should be dead, if they haven't repented...[referring to Shannon Lowney, murdered receptionist] There was blood on her hands...John Salvi deserves a medal. He's a hero."
-Andrew Cabot, Missionaries to the Preborn, Massachusettes Citizens for Life, in the New Hampshire Sunday News, January 1, 1995.

reply from: RobertFerguson

More from antiabortion leadership
"...we will see the beginning of massive killing of abortionists and their staffs. In time the killing, in protection of the innocent, will begin to spill over into the killing of the police and military who attempt to protect them...members of Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortion/choice organizations will be sought and terminated as vermin are terminated."
-Father David Trosch, Director, Life Enterprises Unlimited,
Letter to Members of Congress, dated July 16, 1994.
"What should we do? We should do what thousands of people across this nation are doing. We should be forming militias...There are plans of resistance being made...Churches can form militia days and teach their men how to fight...This Christmas, I want you to do the most loving thing...buy each of your children an SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition..."
-Reverend Matthew Trewhella, Director, Missionaries to the
Preborn, addressing the Wisconsin Convention of the US Taxpayers Party, May 27-29, 1994.

More great quotes:
"Our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 11:29 )
"Blessed be the Lord, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle" (Psalms 144:1)
"He trains my hands for battle, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze" (Psalms 18:34).
"The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is His name" (Exodus 15:3)

reply from: RobertFerguson

More evidence of how antiGod CP advocates that the Bible is "EVIL".

reply from: JohnGlenn

What's really interesting is your attempts to sideline any substantial debate about the worth of the unborn child to recieve the same defense justifiable to the born child.

reply from: ETCguy

It is best to get a feel for the way Bruce Murch operates and his erroneous belief system.
http://www.brucemurch.com

Take it from someone who has known him since 1976.

reply from: yoda

Can you not deal with words in the post without linking us to an antagonistic website to impeach the character of the author? Can't you just respond to what is said here, without making this a campaign against the character of someone who apparently isn't even posting here?
Maybe this is not what you're used to on other forums, but try it anyway........ okay?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Ken Parks is a former associate of Bruce and wife from years and years ago, whom Bruce is familiar all to well with. Ken Parks and this website have been exhaustively discussed on Bruce's discussion board. Ken Parks, by all reasonable accounts, is a back-biting, bitter, back slidden Christian of significant trouble.
Bruce Murch is well respected by the prolife community. He helped lead the Summer of Mercy rescues in 1991 in Wichita, Johnny Hunter is an old acquaintance of Bruce Murch from rescue days. Bruce has also worked closely with Flip Benham's Operation Save America, Repent America, Denny Green's Life abnd Liberty Materity home and outreaches as well as Missionaries to the Preborn.
Bruce Evan Murch has been a minister of the Gospel since 1981, the year he and Beverly were married. They have seven boys and two girls, aged 8 to 23. They met attending Bible College together at Elim Bible Institute in Lima, NY.
The Murch Family is committed to several areas of ministry:
To boldly proclaim the Gospel in the Marketplace, to show the people their sins and preach the necessity of people to REPENT of their sin, and believe in the redemptive work of Christ's death burial and resurrection. This is done in the streets and on college campuses across America.
To battle the abomination of abortion, the legalized slaughter of children made in the image and likeness of God. We do this with public displays of graphic signs, which show the brutal truth of what abortion is. We also hand out literature and do street preaching. We take these signs on the road periodically and do anti-abortion tours in various parts of the country.
To bringing God's will concerning His plan for families to Christians who have taken the world's view of Birth Control and insist on preventing the Blessings and Rewards that God would otherwise give them.
Bruce and Beverly were group home parents for troubled youth in Ontario, Canada in 1981-1982. Bruce has served as associate pastor for two churches from 1986 to 1989.
He founded Project Rescue in Springfield, Massachusetts (a group that blocked the entrances of abortion clinics in an attempt to stop abortions). This became full-time work.
During the years of 1989-1995, Bruce was arrested approximately 50 times, spending an accumulated year and a half in jail. After the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law was passed, Operation Rescue was virtually legislated out of existence. Instead of facing charges on trespassing and minor infractions, they were faced with federal felonies for doing what any other social protest group in America could do with nothing but a slap on the wrist.
During this time, Bruce also established the Pro-Life Press, a commercial printing company that serviced Christian and pro-life ministries and individuals with low-cost printing. This also allowed him to publish a monthly 12-16-page newsletter called "Salt & Light".
The Murches returned to full time ministry with the Un-Masking Planned Parenthood tour in Pennsylvania in June 2000. We do a Public Witness local at local events opposing sodomy and baby-killing, in addition to traveling over 30,000 miles a year to witness, preach, hand out tens of thousands of pieces of literature and expose wickedness at special events, college campuses and in city-to-city tours. We raise all of their own support.
Since then, we have also taken a stand for righteousness at the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, where the federal government seized a 50-year-old Baptist church on an unconstitutional tax charge; stood with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in Alabama to try to prevent the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Rotunda; and the effort to save the life of Terri Schiavo in Florida.
Bruce's children are members of the Faithful Soldier School of Evangelism http://www.faithfulsoldier.com/ Ministries and most active in the prolife arena. Rev Murche's website can be viewed at: http://www.fullquivermission.com/
Now, about Ken Parks the owner of the website defaming Rev Murch:
A web site exists at http://www.ministrywarning.com about Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries.
People can read through it and make their own decision about Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries.
http://www.ministrywarning.com/
In November of 1992, Ken Parks pulled a gun on his ex-wife during a child visitation exchange that took place in Parks' driveway when he lived in Florida. One of Parks' children was standing next to his mother when Parks pointed the gun at his ex-wife. http://www.ministrywarning.com/GunIncident.htm
As of early 2006, Parks has been living at Carriage Park Lane in Duluth, Georgia. After an off-again-on-again relationship, he is now married and apparently living in the house of his current wife and her teenage child. Parks' current wife formerly broke off their first engagement in the spring of 2005, shortly before their first scheduled wedding. Parks' wife, an elementary school teacher, most likely knows nothing or very little about Parks' criminal records for violence against women and the fugitive status arrest warrant issued against him, and she is probably unaware of his fraudulent ETC Ministries, and the defamatory, libelous and harassing content of his multiple web sites and chat room postings. It also seems apparent that Parks' current wife is the primary wage earner in the marriage since Parks has a long-term record of unemployment and under-employment.
Parks has no seminary or Bible school training. Parks' ETC Ministries gives no indication that it has any board of directors nor any form of financial or administrative oversight, nor any staff members. As of this writing, Parks' ETC Ministries has not been registered with either the IRS or with the state of Georgia. The Atlanta IRS office and the Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs in Georgia have on record the documents provided to them against Parks and his ETC Ministries.
Parks has advertised his ETC Ministries on chat forums, claiming to "provide for the needy." Further links in this web site point out that Parks seems to claim that he's "feeding the poor, giving money to those in need, visiting those in prison, or providing comfort to the elderly." Another link further on in this web site demonstrates Parks' refusal to answer questions posed to him in a chat forum about how he acquires money for his ETC Ministries. Parks has been unemployed since the fall of 2004, with the exception of a short temporary job in the spring of 2005.
Since 2001, and up to early 2007, nearly 20 of Parks' web sites have been removed by family members' complaints to domestic and foreign web host companies because of Parks' extremely malicious, libelous and defamatory attacks, including against his own daughter, former friends, former employers, former co-workers, churches and church leaders, judges and the police. Some of Parks' web sites had as part of their URLs kentoday and kenfactor.
Warning to the public about Katrina aid scams and how to look for reputable charities. We know of a person, Ken Parks of Duluth, GA, who is running a fraudulent ministry & charity called ETC Ministries.
He openly boasts of NOT registering with the IRS, and makes all kinds of false claims while encouraging people to give him money. Parks has a long history of spotty employment, being fired from jobs, and his family members have been contacted by creditors looking for him for past due bills. The website http://www.ministrywarning.com contains police, court and other documentation against Parks, such as his conviction record for battery and trespassing, his current fugitive-status (non-extraditable) arrest warrant for harassment, and the harassing pro se lawsuits he's lost.
Journalist Michael Barrick, who has written articles for Ministry Watch, has written a public warning article about him which is included on the ministrywarning website. Parks' ETC Ministry free-hosted website is etcministry.altervista.com. We've sent abuse emails to Altervista's owner, Gianluca Danesin, about Parks' libelous and fraudulent website, but Danesin refuses to abide by Italian Data Protection Law and by his own company's professed Terms of Service against illegal websites.
The more people who sound the warning about Ken Parks and his fraudulent ETC Ministries, the better. Thanks.

reply from: yoda

Wow, is this the same cp who cannot distinguish between a babykiller and a prolifer? Yes, he attacks them all with equal gusto.

reply from: yoda

You would actually stand by and allow tigers to eat innocent people, just to obey the "law"?
So you would also turn in a Jew trying to hide from the Nazis....... how disgusting.

reply from: yoda

Anytime I ask people to try to debate the issues rather than trash the debaters, I can always count on cp to trash me.....

reply from: faithman

And take the side of the pro aborts in doing it. He cares not for the womb child at all, but fancy himself to be a super intelect, and is willing to throw the preborn under the bus if they get in the way of his image of himself. Kinda like a proabort. Can't have the little beggers getting in the way of our lives now can we. After all it is legal to kill them, so who cares?

reply from: yoda

It does have a familiar ring to it.........

reply from: yoda

Yes, it does..... first you attack, and then you ridicule the reaction. Very familiar.

reply from: yoda

Of course you have!
You have repeated over and over that we MUST OBEY THE LAW...... and if the law says tigers cannot be prevented from eating people, and that we must turn Jews in to the Nazis of the world..... then according to you WE MUST DO THAT.
I saw an interesting program about "slave-catchers" prior to the civil war.... the law of the land was on their side, and it required any citizen to report the location of a runaway slave...... so surely you can tell us that you would have obeyed that law, can't you?

reply from: JohnGlenn

http://www.brucemurch.com/cursed.html
Lot's of God haters call Bruce Murch cursed. Let's look instead at what the Bible has to say about Bruce Murch and His family of nine children.
Psalm 127 says that children "are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward".
This is not a burden or a hindrance, but a blessing and a reward. I daresay if God promised to give most Christians 9 houses or nine million dollars, they would view it as a reward.
http://www.fullquivermission.com

reply from: JohnGlenn

If the law in India allowed tigers to kill and eat people, how would that effect the "decision" to take action to prevent it?
The law does allow for such in the Sudan where tehy have placed many eatingtigers on a "protected list" of animals.
But to answer the question; legally, it creates the legal inability to stop the tiger- much like with the baby killer in the US.
An imoral law would have no effect however on the morality to stop the tiger from killing.
It would only limit the means in which one may stop the tiger away from a governement meant to protect the lives of those within it's jurisdiction.
When the law is used to defend the tiger or baby killer instead of the person which
is killed it is preverted, of no value, and is all together erronious.

reply from: JohnGlenn

What's really interesting is your attempts to sideline any substantial debate about the worth of the unborn child to recieve the same defense justifiable to the born child.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Anytime I ask people to try to debate the issues rather than trash the debaters, I can always count on cp to trash me.....
I too notice that these "dehumanizers" and "devaluers" of unborn children use any and all personal attacks in their attempts to sideline any substantial debate about the worth of the unborn child to recieve the same defense justifiable to the born child.
Even attacks on people they do not even know- nor are even posters in this debate or forum.
Can anyone say "desperate"?

reply from: yoda

Okay fine, pot...... the kettle will refrain from trashing you and you will do the same for me........ deal?

reply from: yoda

Gee, cp, take the hint and say something to fool someone into thinking that you are against abortion...... even a little........

reply from: yoda

I'm hearing echoes of Sigma in those posts.......

reply from: yoda

But only if it's legal and you don't place yourself in any inconvenient situation by protecting them, right? No risk, no exposure, right?

reply from: yoda

When the vast majority of your posts are nasty little personal shots, or evasive non-answers and dodges, I begin to question your reason for being here.
Surprise me and say something against abortion once in a while.

reply from: yoda

That's what I'm asking you...... is your personal safety and well being the basis of your objection?
Yes, I am willing to break the law if my conscience leads me to it. Yes, I believe that morally we must break those laws that prevent us from following the dictates of our own consciences. That is the duty of each person in his/her own heart and mind, IMO, and that is how this country came into being, btw.

reply from: yoda

Yes, my conscience would allow me to do that if I made that decision. Up to this point, I have not decided that using physical force to restrain abortion doctors is the most effective way that I can oppose abortion in our society. That, plus the fact that I am not yet willing to surrender my freedom for the sake of using physical force. In that respect, I am probably no "braver" than you. But I do not attack those whose conscience leads them down that path, unlike you. So are you trying to convince me that I should change my mind and emulate Paul Hill?

reply from: JohnGlenn

You do not live in the United States of America?
The United States of America defends the baby killers instead of the person being killed. They use the Police to protect baby killing, they use Federal Marshalls to defend abortionionists, they use courts, the FBI, the BATF and every federal, state and local government of the US protects baby killers rather than those being killed.
When will you be leaving?
Or are you like Alex Baldwin, just an ass?

reply from: faithman

You do not live in the United States of America?
The United States of America defends the baby killers instead of the person being killed. They use the Police to protect baby killing, they use Federal Marshalls to defend abortionionists, they use courts, the FBI, the BATF and every federal, state and local government of the US protects baby killers rather than those being killed.
When will you be leaving?
Or are you like Alex Baldwin, just an ass?
Oh? I wasn't aware that Sudan, or wherever it was that Tigers are protcted was in the U.S. Anyway, by your own admission, the fact that tigers are protected and can not be killed does not prevent the authorities from protecting people as well. I haven't bothered to researchg the topic, but I would assume people are protected as well. This would seem to imply that, while the authorities may not be empowered to hunt down and kill a maneater as a preventive measure against future attacks, the law would not necessarily prevent a person under attack from defending their life.
As for law enforcement in America, they are, of course, sworn to uphold the law, not decide what the law will be. That is their job. In protecting "babykillers," law enforcement upholds the law. Just as we have no right to choose which laws we will or will not obey, they have no right to choose which laws they will or will not uphold. In defending abortionists and their "accomplices" from vigilante action, law enforcement is, in fact, defending innocent civilians against violent and unlawful attacks. It seems hypocritical for you to self righteously proclaim the right of yourself and others to commit murder and other acts of violence to prevent law abiding citizens from committing acts you believe should be crimes, but are actually not, while condemning law enforcement agencies for defending those you and your ilk would commit illegal violent acts against, as is their sworn duty, whether they personally agree with the laws or not. You even contend that you would be justified in killing representatives of those agencies for protecting law abiding citizens, do you not? You contend that Hill was justified in committing murder, not only against the abortionist, but against his driver/escort, and even his wife (although she fortunately survived the attack), do you not? And any person who might have attempted to interfere could also have been killed justifiably in your view as well, correct? Even police officers? How about children? Technically, if Britton had a 3 year old daughter who placed herself in the line of fire to attempt to protect her daddy from Hill's attack, it would seem that killing her would have been justifiable according to my understanding of your position. So would it?
What about the mothers who are actually the only persons who may legally condemn their unborn children? Is use of force justifiable against them in your view? She has nothing to fear from threats and violence against the doctor, so what would prevent her from simply going to another doctor or choosing an alternate method? I mean, one woman actually shot herself in the stomach to kill her unborn child, right? Is it unreasonable to assume a portion of miscarriages were actually self inflicted? Have you ever considered the fact that, if you believe you are justified in committing crimes to prevent abortions, it would seem that it would be infinitely more effective to focus your efforts on the only person who actually has the legal authority to insist her unborn child be killed? Do your philosophies on defense of the unborn not apply to the mothers?
I am certainly not suggesting that this would be any more justifiable than kidnapping abortion providers (I, of course, neither condone nor encourage either.), but simply wish to help you see and apply reason to your position. Why kill when your desired end can be accomplished by less drastic means? Even in cases where defense is legally justifiable, that defense can not be disproportionate to the level of defense required to successfully defend. If the perpetrator can be restrained without harming himher, it is not morally or legally acceptable to utilize lethal force.
Do you deny that, if one were determined to forcefully defend the unborn, it would be far more effective to direct that force against the person who holds the legal authority to have the child killed? You could not prevent an abortionist from performing abortions by depriving him/her of his/her tools. The abortionist could simply acquire more tools. The abortionist is actually merely the instrument the mother chooses to use to acheive her goal. If you deprive her of this "instrument," is it not logical to presume she might simply utilize another instrument? Can we not logically conclude that killing abortionists, or even discouraging them from performing abortions by harrassment and/or terrorism is an illogical response, and would not seem to be an effective solution? Surely you understand that law enforcement is only going to step up their efforts to uphold the law in response to terrorist activity? Do you not understand that, even if you have no intention of acting on the philosophies you espouse on this forum and by other means of publicly making your position known, but are simply attempting to sufficiently frighten abortionists that they will be more hesitant to be involved, this is itself "terrorism," which is a serious crime itself. I understand that you and your allies are careful of how you word your posts so as to avoid the possibility of prosecution, but the fact that, technically, you might not be actually guilty of a crime that could be successfully prosecuted does not change your obvious intentions, which seem to be to terrorize those involved in or supporting the abortion industry and/or support and encourage others to do so.
As for leaving the country, don't hold your breath. I think that, despite it's flaws, our nation is the greatest country on earth. I will continue to utilize the lawful means at my disposal to change the things I see as flaws in our laws and government, including current abortion laws. I see the root of this problem as basically economic, and while continuing to support legislation that I believe will reduce the number of abortions, I will also continue to encourage relief of economic concerns that force many impoverished women to consider such drastic and morally unacceptable "solutions" to pregnancy.
Of course, I understand that some people support abortion for very selfish reasons, even though many of them would never even consider aborting their own children. Some apparently feel that it is better to give women the option to abort than to have our tax revenue go to support them. This is a complex issue, and there are many variables effecting abortion legality, and many views as well. I do not believe abortion will ever be completely eradicated, but I do believe that if people of good conscience continue to chip away at the causes, we can greatly eliminate both the perceived "need" fof abortions, and the desire of most women who might choose to do so.
I do not believe that terrorism and/or vigilantism are effective or acceptable means of preventing abortions, and I believe publicly espousing philosophies supporting these illegal, and in my opinion "immoral" means has the potential to do much harm to our cause.
The "cause " is a 34 year sham that has done very little to actually stop the killing. How can you hurt a cause that has put so many rounds in it's toes, there is no foot left to shoot?

reply from: yoda

Trying to find some nits to pick at?
My conscience tells me to use whatever is the most effective means of reducing abortions in this country, Mr. "I attack everyone who disagrees with me".
Now you're proclaiming the "conscience" of abortionists? Well, if you think that babykillers do have consciences, you have a whole different view of them than I do.

reply from: faithman

Trying to find some nits to pick at?
My conscience tells me to do whatever is the most effective means of reducing abortions in this country, Mr. "I attack everyone who disagrees with me".
AAH give marmoset mouth a brake. His tamarin tongue can only speak what his capuchin cranium can hold. Besides monkeys spend most of their days picking nits. Wouldn't want the primate popantate to go hungry would ya?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I think they call that "grooming", FMan........

reply from: faithman

I guess dirty monkey would be a tad slanderous then, eh?

reply from: JohnGlenn

I was not aware that you could not understabnd the words BABY KILLER shown clearly in the above statement that you responded to. I wil highlight them for you.

reply from: JohnGlenn

That's not what you said.
You said: Originally posted by: concerned (Alex Baldwin) parent
"Well, since I would not live under such a law, I suppose I must choose not to move to that area to live."
You DO live under the laws that protect and defend these baby killers or you have moved from the United States where this is done? Which is it, Alex?

reply from: yoda

Here's a quarter. Go call someone who gives a damn whom you "respect".

reply from: JohnGlenn

When the law is used to defend the tiger or baby killer instead of the person which is killed it is preverted, of no value, and is all together erronious.
You could not put up with a government that protects tigers that kill people, but you can a government that protects the baby killer. We all see you for who you are.

reply from: RobertFerguson

When the law is used to defend the tiger or baby killer instead of the person which is killed it is preverted, of no value, and is all together erronious.
Apparently CP thinks like a proabort who does not think the preborn baby are "people"

reply from: JohnGlenn

Apparently CP thinks like a proabort who does not think the preborn baby are "people"
Clear cut case of discrimination against the unborn person

reply from: yoda

Apparently CP thinks like a proabort who does not think the preborn baby are "people"
Clear cut case of discrimination against the unborn person
Actually, I think he's discriminating against the tigers, by saying he'd move if tigers killed people, but obviously he won't move just because abortionists kill many, many more people.
I think that tigers everywhere should be insulted by his attitude.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Babies and prolifers as well.
In another thread when asked: "When is a child worthy of protection?"
concernedparent replied; just like a proabort with these words: "From conception, in my view."

reply from: RobertFerguson

The point was that proaborts usually lie about how the treat the preborn, just like you did.

reply from: yoda

Oh, that must have been before he realized it was against the law, don't you think?

reply from: faithman

Oh, that must have been before he realized it was against the law, don't you think?
I think that Robert may have implied that the womb child should have been protected from being conceived.

reply from: RobertFerguson

The truth found in defending the most vulnerable of all, the preborn children equally to that of any other human is as simply and honest as God's Word can get- yet many detractors of the worthiness of the preborn child ghet all upset when some posters just state the facts and leave the morailty of equallity to stand on it's own.
We can let the detractors make their claims that it is imoral to defend the preborn equally and we should discriminate because it's the law.
Charles Spurgeon put it: "The truth is like a lion. Whoever heard of defending a lion? Just turn it loose and it will defend itself."

reply from: faithman

I have also heard it said that God's law can not be broken, you merely break your self on it.

reply from: RobertFerguson

That would be the laws of this land that you live under
You know... the laws that defend and protect baby killers while you claimed you could not live with a government that protects and defends blood thirsty tigers that kill people, but apparently you CAN live with a government that protects and defends the baby killer.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Me too. You do it often too, everytime you lie which is most every post

reply from: RobertFerguson

Are you really that stupid to not see that our government defends and protects baby killing?

reply from: RobertFerguson

It seems that CP is (not) that stupid. He just plays the proabort part and switches to morals when it's the law that protects and defends the baby killers that we are talking about.
He wants to play as though there must be a specific law to govern the morality/immorality of defending preborn equally, while all the time he knew that in His words: "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated."
It's the law of man that stops the behavior of an equal defense of the preborn to that of the born. It had nothing to do with morality. Morals can not be legislated.
Apparently CP can live with a government that protects and defends the baby killer inspite of his claim otherwise.


2014 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics