Humanism, atheism and other freedoms

In May 2009, Scott Roeder shot dead Dr George Tiller in the vestibule of a church. It was a deliberate killing. But according to some people, including Roeder’s defence attorney, it wasn’t murder. Why? Because Roeder considered Tiller’s death a ‘necessity’.

The killing took place in Kansas. Dr Tiller died because he had performed (perfectly legal) abortions. And Roeder’s religious convictions led him to believe he had the right – even a duty – to end the doctor’s life.

As I write, the judge has yet to rule on whether Roeder will be convicted of murder or the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. The latter is normally reserved for cases where the killer believes his or her actions to be necessary – the so-called ‘necessity defence’.

I have to admit that I was under the impression that ‘thou shalt not kill’ was a non-negotiable proposition. Apparently not.

You see, the thing is that the definition of ‘necessary’ here is Roeder’s own. This is not a definition most of society would share. It is the twisted logic of an extremist and should find no support in law.

By the same logic, the 9/11 terrorists were not murderers (even though every sane and reasonable person would conclude that they were). There is no doubt that they considered their actions ‘necessary’. They too were driven and endorsed by faith. So necessary were these attacks, in fact, that the terrorists were willing to give their lives – a price Roeder wasn’t willing to pay. In fact, he’s not even willing to pay the price of a murder conviction. So one can’t say he has the courage of his convictions: there was no courage involved in his actions, when he pulled the trigger or since.

Psychopaths have often claimed that their actions were ‘necessary’ – to rid the world of trash, say, or because the voices in their heads demanded that they kill. And what is god except a voice in the head?

The fact that certain religious people and organisations believe that the necessity defence can apply here simply highlights the profound hypocrisy and moral corruption at the heart of extreme faiths. It also underlines that they believe their warped and archaic beliefs – held only by a tiny minority of Christians, let alone the population in general – take precedence over the laws of the land and the consensual moral standpoints they enshrine.

Religious extremists in the US are praying for a voluntary manslaughter conviction. It would endorse their radical viewpoints and set them apart from the population at large. It would be another example of the privileging of religion. It would say that being driven to kill by faith is different to being driven to kill by a warped psychopathology, even though, in fact, there is no demonstrable difference.

This being Kansas, one’s hopes aren’t high. It’s a state heavily infested with creationists. We can only hope that Judge Wilbert, who is trying this case, returns a decision that identifies Roeder as what he is – a common murderer.