Archive for the “Metaphysics” Category

Aimless metaphysics of all sorts

'If you KNOW about it, but will not CORRECT it, then you CONDONE it!' / PsiCop original graphicThis morning on his satellite-radio show, Michael Smerconish brought up the case of Wendy Bell, a local television anchor in Pittsburgh who’d been fired because she put something racially insensitive on Facebook (WebCite cached article). He mentioned it because she’d just initiated a lawsuit against the station over her firing (cached).

I bring this up not in order to discuss Ms Bell’s case specifically — it’s part of a larger story that began in early March with the massacre of a family in a Pittsburgh suburb (cached) — nor do I have any way to know how her lawsuit will turn out. What I can say, is that, without regard to whether or not the TV station that employed her should have done so, they’d fired her over what she’d put on Facebook. And they did it for the simple reason that it made them look bad.

This contrasts mightily from what happens when other kinds of folks, particularly preachers and pundits, say things that are often far worse than what Ms Bell said. All too often, they suffer no consequences — at all. On the contrary, extremists and lunatics are allowed to rant and rave any way they want, without being punished and without having to endure any negative repercussions.

We had a few examples of this recently in the wake of the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando FL. Multiple religionists said some horrible things, including expressing the hope that some of those wounded would soon die of their injuries. The only consequence any of those folks have suffered is that the church run by one of them has been told its lease will run out early next year (cached). Otherwise, none of them has been punished. (And I’m not sure how much of a hardship losing a lease will turn out to be. So that’s not much of a consequence.)

Still, it’s not just these creatures I’m talking about. Christianists have a very long history of saying horrific things but never being punished for them. For example, Jerry Fallwell — with Marion “Pat” Robertson’s assent — said that the September 11, 2001 attacks were caused by “pagans,” “abortionists,” “feminists,” “the ACLU,” “People for the American Way,” and so on (cached). Yet, Falwell was never reprimanded, disciplined, or punished at all. He kept his ministry and his university. Robertson still has his television network, and still appears on his own show.

If you need another example, here’s one: Virginia legislator Robert G. Marshall announced, 6 years ago, that children are born with handicaps due to abortions. As horrible as that claim was, he remains in his office in the Richmond capitol. So his constituents clearly didn’t disapprove of his hateful spew.

Another example: A North Carolina pastor, during a sermon four years ago, called for all gays to be rounded up, then penned up somewhere and allowed to die off. He still has his position; in fact, his own congregants have defended him.

Oh, and another example: An African-American pastor in Texas claimed that African-Americans had been better off as slaves than if they’d been free. Yes, he said it … and he still has his job, too.

It shouldn’t be necessary at this point, but here’s yet another example: Ray Comfort, a well-known Christian evangelist once made fun of Hindus who’d been killed or injured when a statue of their god Ganesh fell. He was actually happy about it and considered it a justified example of “God’s wrathful judgment.” In spite of his giddiness over someone’s death, Comfort too still has his job and his ministry. Like the others I’ve mentioned, he’s paid no price for his words or actions. None.

I could go on, but won’t. There have been all sorts of nasty, offensive words that have tumbled off the lips of religious leaders throughout the US … but they’re left alone. The cold fact is that lots of sanctimonious Christianists say and do a lot of outrageous things, that — if they’d been said or done outside of a religious context — simply would never be permitted. They’re the sort of thing that tend not only to get people fired — as happened with Ms Bell — but can even end people’s careers entirely.

Granted, a lot of other Christians protest that cretins like Falwell and Robertson don’t speak for them … but those are only words, and they mean nothing. Not. A. Single. God. Damned. Fucking. Thing.

The stark reality here is that, what you refuse to correct, you condone. If you let monsters like Falwell blame 9/11 on the ACLU, then you’re telling others who think like him that they’re free to say the same thing, or something related, if not even worse. Remember that extremists are speaking in the name of your religion, and in the name of its founder, Jesus Christ. If you refuse to prevent them from doing so, then you’ve chosen to allow them to make your religion look bad to the rest of us who aren’t part of it and only know its meaning from the words and actions of those who claim to belong to it.

If you’re a Christian who disagrees with any of the militant Christianist creatures who’ve said horrific things in the name of your religion, then don’t just say you disagree and leave it at that. Get off your ass and do something about it. Correct them, discipline them, punish them. Measures can range from getting them removed from their offices or pulpits, to having their clerical credentials (if they have them) revoked, to … well, pretty much anything, as long as it’s legal and it affects them in a meaningful way. You can do it … but only if you want to.

Of course, you could just throw up your hands, and continue to let the extremists keep saying and doing vile things in the name of your religion, its founder and your deity. Leave your religion up to the hatemongers! Let the extremists control it. Yeah, that’s always an option. How important is the integrity of your religion? Do you think well enough of it to police it? It’s really up to you to decide.

Hat tip: Michael Smerconish, via Twitter.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Albert Chevallier Tayler - The Christmas Tree 1911The annual “war on Christmas” is an agnostic blogger’s dream. Few things seem to bring out the juvenile insanity within America’s “Christian nation” like Christmas. (Which — contrary to what some of them have said — is most certainly not their religion’s most sacred holiday. That, I have to point out, is actually Easter.) They need to be surrounded, from Thanksgiving through New Year’s each year, by an endless chorus of “Merry Christmasses.” Everyone they come into contact with must say that to them, without regard to whether those they meet celebrate Christmas themselves or wish to have to say “Merry Christmas” continuously for 5 weeks or so every year. If that doesn’t happen, they think Christmas has been outlawed and they’re being denied their “religious freedom.”

Or something like that. I guess.

I honestly have yet to understand it, but then, I’m just a cold-hearted, cynical, godless agnostic heathen, so what the fuck do I know about it?

It’s only June, and early in the year for me to address the annual fraud which is “the war on Christmas,” but I find I must bring it up. You see, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump convened a meeting with a cadre of militant Christianists. (You knew nothing good would come from that!) As Raw Story explains, based on Right Wing Watch video, Trumpie promised he’d force people to say “Merry Christmas”: (WebCite cached article):

Donald Trump greeted religious right leaders [cached] by asking not what Christianity could do for them but boasting about what evangelical voters had done for him.…

Trump launched a broadside in the so-called “war on Christmas” Tuesday afternoon at the event organized by the anti-LGBT groups Family Research Council, Vision America and AFA Action.

“I’m a tremendous believer, and we’re going to straighten it out,” Trump said. “You know, oftentimes at some of my rallies I’ll have 25,000 (or) 35,000 people more, and I say in a joking fashion — but boy, do I mean it, we’re going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”

Yeah, Trumpie. You tell ’em! You’re going to make those insolent Jesus-haters out there all say “Merry Christmas” until their faces break. Right? Fuck yeah!

Here’s an open invitation, Mr Trump: You track me down and make me say “Merry Christmas” to whoever you want me to say it to. Go ahead. You just do that. OK? If you haven’t got the courage to force me to say “Merry Christmas,” then you’re nothing but an infantile chicken-hawk who talks big but who refuses to get off his ass and actually do anything.

If you won’t do that to someone who’s invited you to give it your best shot, then what makes anyone — including the militant Christofascists you’re pandering to — think you’ll do it to store clerks around the country? Sorry to say, it’s not going to happen.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Rainbow FlagThis is the eighth in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

Christianists Keep Showing Their True Hateful Colors

I’m not at all surprised I have to revisit one of the topics I already covered, regarding the Pulse nightclub massacre. Sadly, Christianists are all too predictable. It’s not enough that a few sanctimoniously-enraged homophobic hatemongering preachers actually praised the killing of dozens of gays and the wounding of dozens more. No, I knew more would support them. KDFW-TV in Dallas, TX reports on one more pious Christian doing so (locally-cached article):

Leaders of several U.S. churches are praising the actions of a terrorist who killed 49 people at a gay night club in Orlando.

Millions have expressed their shock and sadness since the June 12th attack, but some pastors say they wish the loss of life had been greater.…

While some are speaking out against, what they call, hate speech, Fort Worth Pastor Donnie Romero says he stands with [Pastor Roger] Jimenez [of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento CA], posting a video of his own on Thursday.

“These 50 Sodomites were all perverts and pedophiles and they are the scum of the earth and the earth is a little bit better place now, and I’ll even take it a little further I heard on the news today that there are still several dozen of these q****s in ICU and I will pray that God will finish the job that that man started,” he said in the video.

Romero did not back down from his comments when Fox 4 asked him if he really believed the world is better off without those people.

“Absolutely I do,” said Romero “The Bible teaches they are predators, and I believe that every Sodomite is a pedophile and is a predator.”

Yes, folks, this creature wants the 53 wounded during the massacre to finish dying for him and for his Jesus. KDFW includes the requisite condemnations of Romero’s vile spew, but unsurprisingly, nothing has been done to Romero about his comments. He hasn’t been confronted, disciplined, punished or corrected by any of his fellow Christians. At least, I haven’t found any news stories saying it’s happened.

Really, that’s the problem here. Lots of Christians are quick to condemn words like these, but they’re not quick to directly confront or punish those who say them. All of these guys still have their pulpits and have been left untouched.

Christians never really do much of anything to other Christians, even when they’ve crossed the line of propriety. They either can’t or won’t summon the courage to deal with extremists in their midst.

At some point, any Christians who claim to object to such language — spewed in the name of their religion by credentialed clergy — are going to have to get off their asses and actually do something about them. Until I see them having done so, call me unconvinced they truly object to any of this.

Photo credit: Richard Datchler, via Flickr.

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Raw Story & many others.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

'Wishing a Blessed Ramadan to our Muslim neighbors' sign / via Spring Grove Area (PA) school board member Matthew Jansen, via TwitterAmerica’s Christianists are having a bad time of it recently. They no longer can handle the existence of those insolent Muslim types in the midst of their precious Christian nation. The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando FL just over a week ago was the last straw, it appears, and they’re not taking any more shit from any more Muslims. Oh, and they’re not going to stand for any good Christians wishing them well, either. As the York (PA) Dispatch explains, at least one vocal Christianist — and public official — in Pennsylvania is upset over a “blessed Ramadan” sign put up by a church there (WebCite cached article):

[The Rev. Christopher] Rodkey, pastor of St. Paul’s United Church of Christ in Dallastown, earlier this month changed the sign in front of the 205 W. Main St. house of worship, as he does regularly.

This particular time, however, he changed it to read, “Wishing a blessed Ramadan to our Muslim neighbors,” a nod to the monthlong Islamic holiday that began June 6.

On Saturday, June 11, a message was left on his cellphone by a man saying he was “shocked” by the “despicable,” “unbelievable” sign and that Islam is a “godless,” “pagan” religion.

“Are you sick? Is there something wrong with you?” the man asked after promising to share a photo of the sign on Facebook and Twitter “so everybody can see this, what you’ve done.”

Although he didn’t leave his name with the message, that man was Matthew Jansen, a Spring Grove school board member and an elected delegate to next month’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where he intends to vote for Donald Trump.

The Dispatch spoke with Jansen and obligingly regurgitated this Christofascist’s Neocrusade talking-points:

[Jansen] acknowledged he was irate when he called the cellphone, and the reason he left the message was the “greater issue of Islam.”

“The very next day after I left this message, 49 Americans were murdered by somebody who claims to be an Islamist,” he said, referencing the Orlando nightclub shootings committed by an American Muslim.

“It’s not a religion. It’s not a cult. It’s a system” designed to promote “global Sharia,” he said of the faith.

“Sharia law is inconsistent with the values and philosophies of western cultures,” Jansen said, adding he saw the sign in front of St. Paul’s as a blessing to a “pagan” religion.

“I think (St. Paul’s and Rodkey) deserve some pushback,” he said.

Jansen, who said he’s Protestant, said he doesn’t have a problem with any other religions. “This wasn’t any kind of a discriminatory thing,” he said.

Note the putative arguments here, which — as I’ve noted here on this blog — the Religious Right has been reeling off for years:

  1. “Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a political ideology”: This, of course, is absurd on its face. Some Muslims are politically-oriented, it’s true … but then, so too are a lot of Christians! So pardon me for wondering what the hell the difference is between them? I don’t see one.
  2. Islam equals ‘Shari’a Law'”: Most of the Neocrusaders who fall for this whine don’t even know what shari’a law is. They don’t know that it’s not the same thing as the religion of Islam; that not all Muslims want it; that even those who do, don’t agree on what it is; and they insist it’s about to be imposed on the US, even though the First Amendment explicitly forbids religious law. In short, they’re fucking ignorant and have no clue what they’re talking about. They just use “shari’a” as a snarl word to rationalize raging and fuming about Islam.
  3. “Islam is a pagan religion”: A lot of them base this on some notion that the deity of Islam, known as al-Lah (often spelled “Allah”), is an ancient moon god. The trouble is, aside from the fact that the crescent moon is sometimes used as a symbol in Islam, there’s really no association to speak of between them. It’s true that Islam, as founded by Mohammad, was influenced by the Arabic pagan traditions of his time … but it was also influenced by Judaism and Christianity, and is wholly monotheistic. In fact, it’s even more monotheistic than Christianity, whose central deity is a weird, logic-defying three-in-one and one-in-three figure.

Once again, we see a sanctimoniously furious Christofascist who’s trying to start up a pissing contest over whose religion can be more intolerant than someone else’s. It’s at times like this that I’m proud to be a cynical, skeptical, cold-hearted, godless agnostic heathen who rejected religion (and all other forms of metaphysics) long ago and wants no part of any such conflict.

Oh, and for anyone who might say the aforementioned Orlando massacre somehow justifies Jansen’s putrid rant … please note that he left his message on Rodkey’s phone on June 11, a full day before that horrid event. So don’t go there — just don’t. Oh, and please note: Christians, too, are guilty of terrorism, themselves. Their body count might not be as high, but radical Christianists are every bit as violent and religiofascist as any radical Islamist might be.

Photo credit: Matthew Jansen, via Twitter.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

rainbow flag #usa #carlifornia #sanfrancisco #gaycommunity #rainbow #flag #sfThis is the seventh in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

Making a Game of the Language of Terror

The FBI just released redacted transcripts of the 911 calls the Orlando shooter made during his massacre (WebCite cached article). The redactions have outraged most folks on the Right, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, as reported by the Daily Beast, among a multitude of other media outlets (cached):

House Speaker Paul Ryan criticized the decision to redact parts of the transcript, likening it to censorship and echoing Donald Trump and other Republicans’ complaint that President Obama would not use the term “radical Islamic terrorism” to describe the attack.

“Selectively editing this transcript is preposterous,” Ryan said. “We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS. We also know he intentionally targeted the LGBT community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why.”

It is believed that Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS in the call, but the specific group was removed from the transcript of his original 911 call.

The Right’s sanctimonious fury hinges mainly on the accusation that the Obama administration is being “politically correct,” avoiding providing any connection between the shooter and his religion, Islam. There’s just one tiny little problem with that: The FBI’s transcript itself directly contradicts that contention! Here’s an excerpt from the FBI (emphasis mine):

In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was “out here right now.”

Did you catch that? I hope so. The FBI itself — and in its own words — explicitly reported the shooter had said he was “an Islamic soldier.” That’s right, folks. The FBI — supposedly hamstrung by its putative effort never to mention Islam in connection with the Pulse nightclub shooting — actually did so; they did it clearly and unambiguously. There’s no doubt about it … it’s there, in their own words.

Looking over what they released, I’d say the FBI redacted mentions specifically of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-that-barbaric-brood and its leader, as well as the content of hostage negotiations. It’s pretty easy to see why they’d not want to release the latter; it’d provide people insights into how hostage negotiators work, which they’d obviously prefer weren’t common knowledge. It’s harder to understand the omission of the name of ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. They seem to want to deprive that primitive horde of recruiting material, however, that ship has already sailed — it’s been widely reported already, based on information the FBI and others have already provided, that the Orlando shooter had professed allegiance to them. ISIS can use any or all of those reports in its recruiting propaganda. The FBI redacting it from the transcript deprives them of nothing.

This move is also consistent with the Obama administration’s unwillingness, overall, to lend too much credence to the Islamist terrorists’ claims that they’re fighting for Islam. They’re trying to avoid tarring and feathering the whole religion. In this case, as I noted, they didn’t entirely remove all of that from the transcript. What’s more, it’s kind of foolish to avoid associating these savages with the religion they follow. To say the butchers are “radical Islamists” is most certainly not the same as saying that all Muslims are murderous radicals. It means only that some of them are. To note that some Muslims are radical isn’t even unique to their religion; pretty much all religions have radical extremist elements. Yes, even the “religion of love,” Christianity!

While this policy is misguided and naïve (as I’ve said often), it’s hardly scandalous. It’s a diplomatic approach, and as such, is a matter of judgement … and that’s a subjective thing. So reasonable minds can and will disagree on such matters. Diplomacy isn’t the same thing as “political correctness,” which is what most of the Right thinks is behind this effort.

In the end, what America’s Religious Right is really after, is ammunition they can use against their religion’s chief rival in the world. Unlike the Obama administration, they truly do wish to tar and feather the entire religion of Islam. They use events like the Orlando massacre to imply — or sometimes state outright — that Islam is an inherently barbaric and violent religion, one that requires all of its adherents to slaughter innocents any time they choose. What they ignore is that their own religion, Christianity, also happens to harbor extremists of its own. When this is pointed out to them, they tend to get their panties in bunches and spew laughable protests like, “But those guys aren’t ‘Real’ Christians,” as though there is such a thing as a “‘Real’ Christian.” (To be clear, there isn’t! To think so is to fall for the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.) In other words … if someone does to their religion what they feel compelled to do to Islam, they refuse to stand for it. That they’d use tactics against others that they don’t want used on them, directly contradicts the teachings of the founder of their own religion, who expounded “the Golden Rule”, and unambiguously forbid them ever to be hypocritical.

Photo credit: Hai Yang, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Gospel of Jesus' WifeI blogged about the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” back when it hit the news four years ago. Since then, tests on the fragment showed it could have come from an actual classical manuscript. As I said both times, whether or not the fragment is “real” doesn’t really present any substantial challenge to anyone’s Christianity. The most it would have told us is that one group of Christians, in 4th century Egypt, thought Jesus had married. That’s all. Nothing more. Even so, traditionalist Christians raged and fumed about it, as though someone had tried to kill them or something. (That would be your Christian martyr complex at work.)

Well, Ariel Sabar of The Atlantic has done some investigating — not on the fragment itself, but into its provenance — and offers compelling evidence it was a hoax (WebCite cached article):

[Harvard professor Karen L.] King has steadfastly honored the current owner’s request for anonymity. But in 2012, she sent me the text of e-mails she’d exchanged with him, after removing his name and identifying details. His account of how he’d come to possess the fragment, I noticed, contained a series of small inconsistencies. At the time, I wasn’t sure what to make of them. But years later, they still gnawed at me.

The American Association of Museums’ Guide to Provenance Research warns that an investigation of an object’s origins “is not unlike detective work”: “One may spend hours, days, or weeks following a trail that leads nowhere.” When I started to dig, however, I uncovered more than I’d ever expected—a warren of secrets and lies that spanned from the industrial districts of Berlin to the swingers scene of southwest Florida, and from the halls of Harvard and the Vatican to the headquarters of the East German Stasi.

Sabar’s revelations are engaging, and I urge you to take the time to read it all. I’ll leave the story as is. The bottom line is that the likely forger was an East German, now living in Florida, who’d studied Egyptian antiquities for a time, and thus was in a position to pull of a hoax of this kind.

Professor King herself, in the wake of this, acknowledges the likelihood she’d been hoaxed (cached):

A Harvard professor who rocked the musty world devoted to studying early Christianity when she presented a tiny swatch of papyrus that referred to Jesus as married now concedes the fragment is probably a fake.

From the very start, she had hedged her bets and suggested it might have been a hoax, but given what she did — i.e. to broadcast it to the world in as public a way as a historian of religion could — belies that. What’s more, her total disinterest in the fragment’s provenance — which normally is of great importance to scholars when reviewing any artifact — suggests she feared it might be a hoax; purposely minimizing her knowledge of it helped her alleviate that fear. In other words, it’s a classic case of Sgt Schultz thinking.

I’m sure conservative Christians who’d been incensed with King’s publication of “the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” back in 2012 are now crowing with glee. Bit I bet they weren’t as happy that the so-called “James ossuary” a number of years ago turned out not to be the “proof” of Jesus’ historicity they’d presumed it was (cached) … so I guess turnabout is fair play, no?

The bottom line is that this was a case of people investing more sentiment into something than it deserved. And I say that not because it ended up being a hoax. I say that because, from the very beginning, and without regard to its genuineness or phoniness, too many people made more of GJW than it deserved. Prof King took it too seriously as “proof” of the existence of some feminist Christian sect, and her critics took it too seriously as well, with their sanctimonious outrage that someone might provide potential evidence that early Christianity wasn’t as uniform — and consistent with the Biblical canon — as they’d like it to have been. People really need to fucking grow the hell up already.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Rainbow flag on white background - harvey milk plaza, san francisco (2012) (8148105584)This is the sixth in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

Terrorism Isn’t Just an “Islam” Problem

A lot of Americans — especially on the Right — tend to view terrorism, especially when it occurs within the US, as solely the product of Islam. The only terrorists we’ve dealt with, they’d tell you, are Muslims. Thus, as they see it, terrorism an an Islam problem.

This has led to all sorts of idiotic tripe; for instance, Breitbart announced that fierce Religious Rightist Newt Gingrich called for a Congressional inquiry into “Islamic supremacism” (WebCite cached article):

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Tuesday for the creation of a congressional commission to examine the radical Islamic terrorist threat.

Gingrich said Tuesday in a Facebook video chat:

We can no more afford to have fanatic terrorists at home just because they’re American citizens, be allowed to run around, get organized and kill people, than we can afford to bring in thousands of unvetted and unverified Syrian refugees. So I believe the president is profoundly, fundamentally wrong. I believe the Congress should create a commission on Islamic supremacism and terrorism in the United States. I think we should start looking at serious new laws.…

Gingrich noted that he welcomes the “modern Muslim” who accepts the authority of “secular law” and the reality of “diversity,” but that adherents of Sharia law should be inadmissible to the United States.

Gingrich’s commission would surely resemble the anti-Muslim show-trials Rep. Peter King hosted a few some 5 years ago. Those never went anywhere, since they were never intended to do anything other than allow King and other Neocrusaders to grandstand. Also note the requisite bellyaching about the bogeyman of “shari’a law” in the Newtster’s Neocrusading comments. Perhaps he imagines this investigation somehow will prove his contention, a few years ago, that “radical Islamists” are “secular atheists” and vice versa. (In case you didn’t realize it, that would be a staggering contradiction: “Secular atheists” are non-religious, while “radical Islamists” are exceedingly religious. It’s literally not possible to be both at the same time.)

I’ve said it before and will say it again: Terrorism — both worldwide and in the US — is most assuredly not just an “Islam” problem. It’s a “religious extremist” problem! And extremism can be found within any religion.

The reality of terrorism in the US is that there have been Christian terror attacks in addition to Islamist attacks — not to mention ordinary, mundane, sociopathic attacks.

Many people refuse to believe there is such a thing as Christian terror, but there is! Among the most recent examples of it is the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, just last November (cached). There was also a guy who shot up Austin TX almost a year and a half ago (cached). There’s also a guy who was indicted for conspiring to kill Muslims in upstate New York (cached). Another guy conspired to kill Muslims and the president using some kind of radiation weapon (cached). And another creep tried to bomb the Kansas clinic that Dr George Tiller had worked at (cached).

Ultimately, any given American is much more likely to be attacked by a criminal with no religious motivation at all, or a Rightist with a potentially Christian motivation, than fall prey to a raging Islamist barbarian.

For Christianists like Newtie, or any other Neocrusaders, to scream and holler about how horrible and violence-prone Islam is, without acknowledging the violent militancy of some of their own co-religionists, is hypocritical. And hypocrisy is something that their own Jesus clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously forbid them ever to engage in. They should clean up their own religion before running around trumpeting about the faults of others. But of course, they will never do so.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »