Posts Tagged “Christianity”

Faithful unto Death, by Herbert SchmalzThis is my second post today which relates to Thursday’s massacre in Roseburg, OR. It’s been widely reported, based on this CNN story, that the shooter had specifically targeted Christians (WebCite cached article):

Stacy Boylan, the father of Anastasia Boylan, who was wounded, said she told him the gunman singled out Christians.

She said the gunman entered her classroom firing, told the professor teaching the class, “I’ve been waiting to do this for years,” and shot him point blank, Stacy Boylan said.

While reloading his handgun, the man ordered the students to stand up and asked whether they were Christians, Boylan told her family.

“And they would stand up, and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,'” Stacy Boylan told CNN, relaying his daughter’s account. “And then he shot and killed them.”

From there, this martyrdom tale, spread by mindless mass media repetition, swept through the American Right like wildfire. In turn it triggered all sorts of things, such as a call to arms to defend Christendom, as I blogged earlier today.

But I had my suspicions about this. First of all, it’s just too fucking convenient, in light of Christianity’s delusional persecution complex. Christians are convinced there’s an effort underway to kill them all off and wipe Christianity off the face of the earth … and a lot of them actually think it could happen at any moment. For them, this tale is kind of a precursor to what they already think is just around the corner.

Second, it was reported not by an eyewitness to the massacre, but by someone who’d heard it second-hand. That, all by itself, ought to have raised reporters’ concerns and forced them to look for confirmation. But apparently this wasn’t done. At least, CNN hadn’t confirmed it … and other media outlets just ran with what they’d published.

It turns out I’d been right to question this martyrdom story. It might not be true after all. The Oregonian reports that another second-hand account says something a bit different (cached):

McGowan told family members that the gunman didn’t specifically target Christians but asked them about faith. The shooter, apparently planning to die during the massacre, told students: “I’ll see you soon” or “I’ll meet you soon.”

McGowan’s mother, Stephanie Salas, shared her son’s account Friday. The teenager, one of triplet boys, was shot in the right hand and released from Mercy Medical Center in Roseburg.…

“The shooter would call a person: ‘You, stand up,'” Salas said, recalling what her son told her. “And then he would ask them if they were a Christian, knew God, or had religion. And it wasn’t like it was stated on TV. It wasn’t about that he was just trying to pinpoint Christians, no.”

The shooter would tell them it wouldn’t hurt.

“And then he would shoot them,” she said.

McGowan told his mom he kept his head down among students crouched in the middle of the classroom, didn’t move and just tried to avoid looking at Harper-Mercer.

Now, let me be clear: I also am a bit suspicious about this second account, since as with the original version from CNN, it comes from a secondary source. So I can’t be much surer of it than the first account. But with that said, it’s a more nuanced version of a similar story, in that the killer asked his intended victims about their religion. It just doesn’t paint him to be as starkly anti-Christian.

What I can say about this is that a similar martyrdom tale had emerged from the Columbine massacre … but it turned out to be mythical, an altered version of what investigators determined had actually happened.

What really happened in that classroom at Umpqua Community College will take time to learn. Is it possible that the killer was, really, an anti-Christian crusader trying to slaughter each Christian in he came across? I suppose it might be. I certainly can’t rule it out, yet. Still, attacks of that sort, in the US, are unprecedented. At least, I’ve never heard of one. It’s just not something that happens. Given that Christians are known to have manufactured martyrdom stories in order to rationalize their paranoid delusions (cached), and there are conflicting accounts of what happened on Thursday, I’m going to need to be convinced.

I’ll close by saying that I get that the Roseburg community has been traumatized. The originator of the martyrdom story may not have intended to lie; perhaps he faithfully relayed what he’d been told, and that account had been given him by a shooting victim who was still in shock. It may well be that no one so far has intentionally lied about what happened. But with that said, as information is gathered, it’s important for everyone to focus on what’s discovered, and to winnow away anything that might not turn out to be true. Let’s not let a Columbine-style urban legend of martyrdom grow if the facts don’t actually support such a story. I’m sure it may pain Christians to have to admit another of their persecution stories isn’t true … assuming it comes to that … but too fucking bad. They should do so anyway. They’re not entitled to tell false stories just because those stories fit the delusional psychopathology of their religion.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

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

Comments No Comments »

jesus-with-rifle-thumbNote: My next blog post addresses a point in this one.

America’s Christians have had enough, it seems, of not being allowed to force their dour metaphysics on the entire country, and they’re tired of terrorists and criminals insolently daring to attack them (as though no one else ever gets attacked). So they’ve decided to arm themselves and take the fight to save their Jesus to the streets! I have two such stories for you:

First, a bunch of angry Neocrusaders plan to show up — some packing heat! — at mosques around the country (as Raw Story explains) to show those horrific Muslim types who’s really in charge (WebCite cached article):

Anti-Muslim conservative groups have planned at least 20 rallies this month at mosques and other sites across the Unites States in coming days.

Imagine 2050 reported [cached] this week that a Facebook group [cached] called Global Rally for Humanity had put out a call for anti-Muslim demonstrations in “every country at every Mosque.”…

According to Imagine 2050, at least 20 rallies had already been planned for Oct. 9 and Oct. 10. Some of the organizers have encouraged demonstrators to show up armed, while others urged participants not to bring weapons.

An event in Dearborn, Michigan was billed as an “OPEN CARRY anti-mosque pro-AMERICA rally on 10/10!!”

I’m not sure what the point of this is, other than simple, raw intimidation. Yeah, that’s sure to make those insolent folk want not to be Muslims any more and convert en masse to Christianity! I guess. I mean, what else is a show of force good for? Wouldn’t you want to convert immediately if you saw a bunch of armed Christian ex-military marching around your mosque? </sarcasm>

Next, according to The Tennesseean, Tenneessee’s lieutenant governor Ron Ramsey declared, in the wake of the Roseburg, OR massacre (cached), that it’s time for godly Christians to arm themselves or be slaughtered (cached):

Ramsey, R-Blountville, made those remarks in a Facebook post Friday, one day after a shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., left 10 people dead. The suspect, 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer, reportedly asked victims to name their religious affiliation during the massacre.

In his Facebook post, Ramsey links to a New York Post article with the headline “Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage.” Ramsey groups the Oregon shooting with other recent mass shootings in the nation. “Whether the perpetrators are motivated by aggressive secularism, jihadist extremism or racial supremacy, their targets remain the same: Christians and defenders of the West,” Ramsey said.

You can read Ramsey’s Facebook post for yourself (cached). Ramsey, you may recall, has previously declared that Muslims don’t have any religious freedom in the US … but Christians (conveniently for him!) do.

What all of these folk forget are three very important things: First, while Islamist terror groups like ISIS/ISIL/IS and al-Qaeda certainly have gone after Christians, they also target other Muslims who don’t belong to the same wing of the same sect of Islam as they do. In fact, by most counts, Islamofascists have killed far more Muslims than anyone else.

Second, these Neocrusaders’ focus solely on Islam as the supposed sole source of terrorism in the world purposely ignores all the Right-wing and even Christian terror that takes place, even within the US! Yes, folks, it’s true: There are Christian terrorists … and for all you know, they could be your neighbors! Where’s the outrage about that? Why haven’t atheists showed up, armed to the teeth, to protest at churches? (Answer: They haven’t, and as far as I know aren’t likely ever to.)

Third, while reports say the Roseburg killer specifically went after Christians, his motives actually are as clear as mud (cached). He’d sympathized with the Catholic/Irish-nationalist IRA, for example, and had described himself as spiritual but not religious, which of course means he was in fact religious, and not some antitheist crusader[*]. What’s known about him is really all over the map, right now. It’s possible his intentions may never be discerned. At the moment, the most one can say about him with any certainty is that he was a criminal, a murderous sociopath … and that’s it.

Yet, even if it could be proven that he was a anti-Christian militant out to slaughter every Christian on the planet, he’s still the only American who’s espoused such a philosophy. That’s right: The only one! For Ramsey to tell his fellow Christians to arm themselves because there’s now some horrid campaign underway to kill them all — based solely on this one event perpetrated by one guy — is fucking ridiculous.

Yes, folks, the paranoid sanctimonious rage runs deep with these people. Watch out! These are good Christians who’ve decided enough is enough with all the “turn the other cheek” bullshit that their deity and founder of their religion had taught them. They’re not taking crap from anyone any more! They’re in charge again, and don’t you fucking forget it!

[*] The picture of the Roseburg, OR shooter just got murkier. It turns out that he may not have specifically targeted Christians, after all! See my next blog post for more.

Photo credit: Jordon Cooper, via Flickr.

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

Comments No Comments »

Jesus Facepalm: He gave up too so please stop this foolishness (Demotivators; defunct)Honestly, although I’ve posted many stories along these lines, it brings me no joy to do so. It’s not as though I like heaping derision on people like the one I’m about to mention. But at the same time, the topic I’m addressing here isn’t something that can be ignored. You see, Christians love to say that morality comes only from belief in God, and more specifically, from their God. They say that the more people believe in their God, the better off everyone will be, because everyone will be morally upright. Religious Rightists in particular often demand that Americans turn to God (or return to God) in order to alleviate all of society’s ills.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it’s just not fucking true! Believers in deities, which includes Christians, are not — as it turns out — any more or less moral than any other segment of the population. Yet, they keep on bellyaching that more Americans need to be Christian, usually their own particular variety of Christian, as though this reality weren’t the case. And they use their assertion of moral superiority in order to rationalize imposing their religion on everyone.

Hence, when notable examples that run contrary to this trope come up, I must mention them. Because they’re object lessons in the reality of both religion and human nature that shouldn’t be ignored, merely because they’re inconvenient.

The latest politician-crusader for Jesus who turned out not to be very morally upright after all, as the Indianapolis Star reports, is Judson McMillin, floor leader of the Indiana House (WebCite cached article):

Rep. Jud McMillin, a rising star in the state’s Republican Party, abruptly resigned Tuesday.

The Indianapolis Star has learned that the surprise resignation came after a sexually explicit video was sent via text message from McMillin’s cellphone. It’s unclear who sent the text or how broadly it was distributed.

The Brookville Republican sent a separate text message apologizing to his contacts for “anything offensive” they may have received after he said he lost control of his cellphone.

McMillin claimed his cellphone had been stolen in Canada. But it remains unclear if it actually had been stolen, or who sent out the video in the first place.

The reason this is significant is that McMillin was a chief among the Indiana legislators who’d campaigned to legalize discrimination against gays and others, in the name of “religious liberty,” earlier this year. He did this because, apparently, the Christians of Indiana were being ruthlessly oppressed by gays. Or something.

As the Star mentions, though, this sexting scandal shouldn’t really have been a surprise:

In 2005, his career as an assistant county prosecutor in Ohio came to an end amid questions about his sexual conduct. He admitted to a relationship with the complainant in a domestic violence case he was prosecuting, but he insisted the relationship began after he stepped off the case, according to the Dayton Daily News. He resigned a week after he stopped working on the case.

As something of a counterpoint, the Star article closes by mentioning that another Indiana legislator, this one a Democrat, was also involved in a sexting scandal. Which brings me around to my original point: Christians, including outspoken crusading Christians, aren’t any more morally upright than any other kind of person. They have the same impulses as everyone else. And their religious beliefs simply aren’t sufficient to change them.

Which brings me to a corollary point to consider: If being a Christian isn’t enough to make one change one’s behavior, then really, what value can it have? How truly “divine” can it be, if it carries no power to change people for the better? If moral behavior is something people need to work on, regardless of whether or not they’re Christian, then does being Christian really matter, where morality is concerned? Where, exactly, is the connection between Christianity and morality, if Christians are not — as seems to be the case — any more moral than any other type of human being?

If Christians were honest with themselves and everyone else, they’d admit being troubled by this. They’d admit their beliefs don’t make them morally superior. And they’d stop telling everyone else that they’re immoral because they’re not Christians. Because all those things are lies — and they fucking well know it, even if they won’t admit it.

Photo credit: Demotivators (defunct).

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

Comments No Comments »

'Veracicat has checked your facts and is not impressed with your lies' / PsiCop graphic, based on Davis, the anti-gay-marriage county clerk from Kentucky, having contrived to martyr herself is still angling for a second career as a Christianist pundit/lecturer/author. Toward that end, as Raw Story explains, she had an interview on (where the fuck else?) Fox News, with Megyn Kelly (WebCite cached article):

“When the legal challenges ended up not going in your favor, many people have asked, why not just resign at that point?” Kelly asked.

“If I resign I lose my voice,” Davis replied.

Thus, we see why Ms Davis has remained both defiant and on the job: She doesn’t want to lose the spotlight. It’s the only way she can spread her gospel of anti-gay hatred.

While this is quite a revelation … and it demonstrates how truly selfish she’s being … that’s not the part of her interview I’m most concerned about. There’s another little snippet (emphasis mine):

“It has been about upholding the word of God and how God defined marriage from the very beginning of time,” [Davis] insisted.

Please take note of this. It’s a commonly-repeated Christianist canard that God has “always” defined marriage as only “one-man-&-one-woman.” They love to say it over and over and over again.

There’s just one tiny little problem with it: If you look at their own scripture, you easily see that it’s not fucking true!

You see, as I noted long ago, marriage in the Bible comes in more than one form. The following Biblical figures all had marriages decidedly not of the one-man-&-one-woman variety:

Abraham: Married Sarah (Gen 16:1), then took as additional wives Hagar (Gen 16:3) and later Keturah (Gen 25:1).

Jacob: Married Leah (Gen 29:23), then Rachel (Gen 29:28), then Bilhah (Gen 30:4), then Zilpah (Gen 30:9).

Moses: Married Zipporah (Ex 2:21), then an unnamed Ethiopian woman (Num 12:1).

David: His named wives were Michal (1 Sam 18:27), Abigail (1 Sam 25:39), Ahinoam (1 Sam 25:43), Eglah, Abital, Haggith, & Maacah (2 Sam 3:3-5); and Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24); there were an unknown number of other wives as well (2 Sam 5:13).

Solomon: Had 700 wives plus 300 concubines (1 Kg 11:3)

There are many more I could have listed, but didn’t. Yes, folks, Biblical marriage included polygamy and even concubinage! Granted, all of this is in the Old Testament, which some Christians will say doesn’t apply to them any more. (Except for the parts of it they say do still apply.) But really, whether it not it applies to them personally, cannot and will never make Ms Davis’s statement that “God defined marriage from the very beginning of time” as being only one-man-&-one-woman. It is, quite simply, flat-out untrue. A lie. A big fat fucking lie, in fact, since it’s so easy to verify as untrue! All one has to do is open up a fucking Bible and look at the words, fercryinoutloud.

However, as they like to say in infomercials, “But wait; there’s more!”

Looking at the New Testament, we see a pair of interesting admonitions. In 1 Tim 3:2 we see that overseers (aka bishops) must be men married to only one woman. Just ten verses later, in 1 Tim 3:12, we find that deacons also must be men married to one woman. The reason I call these instructions “interesting” is not just in what they say, but in what they don’t. That is, these requirements don’t apply to all Christians. They apply only to deacons and bishops. It’s quite possible, then, that some of the men in early Christian congregations — like many of the patriarchs and Hebrew monarchs before them — might have had multiple wives. The only problem for them was that they couldn’t be deacons or bishops. Otherwise they were Christians in good standing.

This, too, shows Ms Davis and her militant Christianist cohorts are lying when they said their deity had always declared marriage to be only of the one-man-&-one-woman sort. It’s just not true … not for the Biblical monarchs and patriarchs, and not even for the first few generations of Christians.

Now, that these presumably-devout Christians would lie for their Jesus is understandable, and par for the course. They lie for Jesus because they think they have to, because they should, and because they think they’ve got a special license to do so. They have no problem with it. But … I don’t understand why people in the media to whom they speak never summon the courage to challenge them on it. As I point out above, that’s remarkably easy to do. All that’s needed is a handy copy of the Bible to show them chapter-&-verse in which there were polygamous marriages, then ask them how they can say their God “always” defined marriage as one-man-&-one-woman. Megyn Kelly may work for the Religious Right’s house organ, but that isn’t really a justifiable excuse for her not to do her job. And it certainly can’t explain why journalists and interviewers from other outlets never issue the same challenge.

I’m happy to introduce Ms Davis to membership in my “lying liars for Jesus” club. She has lots of friends there already, so I know she’ll be happy. But she and her fellow Christofascists shouldn’t be granted carte blanche to lie as often as they want by the media. That’s got to fucking stop. Journalists need to grow up, and grow a pair, then do what they should. Period.

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

Comments No Comments »

Ben CarsonThe laughable religiosity on display in the 2016 GOP presidential primary continues apace. Retired surgeon Ben Carson, darling of the Religious Right since he used an invitation to the National Prayer Breakfast to go after President Obama in person, is one of the candidates trying desperately to get ahead of Donald “it’s my own hair” Trump in the polls. Toward that end, as Politico reports, during an appearance on Meet the Press, Bennie decided to make Islam, of all things, an issue in the election (WebCite cached article):

The president of the United States should not be a Muslim, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson declared during an interview airing Sunday morning. And Islam, a faith professed by some 3 million Americans, is not constitutional, the retired neurosurgeon said.

Carson has some very high-minded reasoning for this:

Asked whether his faith or the faith of a president should matter, Carson said, “It depends on what that faith is.”

“If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem,” he explained, according to a transcript.

Todd then asked Carson, whose rise in the polls has been powered in large part by Christian conservatives, if he believed that “Islam is consistent with the Constitution.”

“No, I don’t, I do not,” he responded, adding, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Bennie went on to say — quite strangely, given the broad and dire philosophy he’d just stated about Muslims and the Constitution — that it’s acceptable for Muslims to be in Congress. Whew! For a moment there, I’d wondered if Carson would demand that André Carson (cached) and Keith Ellison (cached), resign from the House because they’re Muslims who can’t or won’t follow the Constitution.

Let’s get a few things cleared up right away: First, no Muslim is going to be elected President of the United States any time in the foreseeable future. So this is not something any American of any religion (or of none) needs to be concerned with. Period.

Next, this was clearly Bennie’s appeal to the Great Neocrusade being waged by the Religious Right. As I’ve blogged for a few years now, this is an effort to eradicate Islam from the United States, and is the result of the Christian Right’s fear and hatred of Muslims, because worldwide, their faith is the chief rival of Christianity. Of course, there’s the terrorism factor, too, which Neocrusaders use to good effect — and not without reason. But what they forget is that there’s also such a thing as Christian terrorism, some of which emerged from the ranks of their own political faction, so they’re hypocritical when they condemn Islam as a terrorism-generating religion while conveniently forgetting that their own is sometimes guilty of that, also. (That their own Jesus explicitly and unambiguously forbid them ever to be hypocritical is also something they conveniently forget.)

Oh, and as for Islam supposedly not being “consistent with the Constitution,” let’s not forget that the Religious Right is prone to treating the Constitution as fungible when it’s convenient for them to do so. Because they dislike gay marriage and say it’s against their religion, for instance, they want it outlawed for all Americans, of any religion or of none. They don’t seem to care there are religions — including some Christian churches — which accept gay marriage (cached); they simply can’t tolerate that it exists anywhere.

An illustrative parallel for the Religious Right’s approach to gay marriage would be to compare them to Orthodox Jews who want the sale and consumption of pork and shellfish outlawed for everyone, because it’s against their religion and they object to the idea that anyone might be having pork or shellfish. If Orthodox Jews were to advocate such a thing — which they haven’t, and I doubt they ever will — no one would take that effort seriously. Which is why no thinking American ought to take the R.R. seriously on this issue, either.

What’s more, a significant portion of the Religious Right — including Bennie’s rival candidate Ted Cruz, and erstwhile candidates Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann — are dominionists (cached) or Christian Reconstructionists (cached). These folk want the federal government more or less disbanded, and each of the states converted into an Old Testament-style Christian theocracy. Maybe it’s just me — cynical, godless agnostic heathen that I am — but I don’t see this sort of thinking as being even remotely “consistent with the Constitution,” either. Guess I just don’t have all the lofty spiritual insights that would allow an insolent creature like myself to comprehend all these important, sacred considerations.

I wonder if Bennie will summon the courage to call out any of his dominionist friends over their philosophy, too? Why do I not think he will?

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr.

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

Comments No Comments »

US Courthouse at CovingtonI was sure Kim Davis, the anti-gay clerk of Rowan county, KY who was briefly jailed for defying a federal judge’s order to issue marriage licenses, wasn’t done trying to derail the process. And it turns out, I was right: She isn’t done! As the Associated Press reports, she may have disobeyed the judge’s orders once again (WebCite cached article):

A Kentucky county clerk may have again defied a federal judge’s order regarding gay-marriage licenses by altering license forms to remove her name, an attorney who represents one of the clerk’s employees told the judge Friday in a court filing.

In a separate filing Friday, attorneys for the gay couples who sued Davis appear to agree.…

[A]ttorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union said in a court filing that the changes on the form require [deputy clerk Brian] Mason to issue the licenses “in his capacity as a ‘notary public’ rather than a deputy clerk of the Rowan County Clerk’s Office,” changes that “do not comply” with the court’s order to not interfere with her employees who issue the licenses.

“These alterations call into question the validity of the marriage licenses issued,” the attorneys wrote in a footnote to a motion asking the judge to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit. “Plaintiffs are exploring legal options to address these material alterations.”

State law requires marriage licenses to be issued under the authority of the county clerk. Someone else, a minister or other officiant, then performs the ceremony and signs the license. The clerk then files the license with county records.

I can’t help but view Ms Davis’s behavior as that of a toddler who, when given an instruction by an adult, creatively searches for ways to manipulate or circumvent the instruction, repeatedly pushing the boundaries of what she’s allowed to do. It really is very childish.

I note, too, that the judge in this case — despite his willingness to jail Ms Davis for a few days — hasn’t been very helpful regarding the licenses themselves:

[David] Bunning, the federal judge, has said he does not know if the licenses are valid and it was up to the gay couples to take that chance.

This waffling aligns with the fact that he caved in to Religious Right pressure and released her. How nice.

This is all very typical of how the Religious Right operates. Even when they know they no longer have any legal leg to stand on, they consistently and repeatedly refuse to bend to reality. They cannot and will never cave in … not willingly, anyway. No matter what happens, they resist … and they resist some more … and they resist even more after that … and they just keep on resisting, resisting, and resisting, forever more. They’ll never stop, until they either get their way, or die off. This is one of the reasons for their success … they wear down their opponents, who eventually get tired and surrender to their demands. So one can hardly fault them for using a successful tactic. Still, that they’d continue waging fights like this one, even after they’d lost the war, shows how irrational and childish they are.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Hat tip: Talking Points Memo.

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

Comments No Comments »

Gustave dore crusades richard and saladin at the battle of arsufA high school kid — who happens to be an aspiring engineer — crafted his own digital clock, and brought it to school to show off his accomplishment. You’d think that would be a good thing. But if you thought that, you’re obviously not in the Neocrusading town of Irving, TX. There, only certain students (read: devout Christian students who happen to be white) could do such a thing without causing trouble.

You see, if you’re a Muslim student who does that … well, obviously your digital clock must be a bomb! As the Dallas Morning News reports, a Muslim student in that Neocrusading town was arrested for having done precisely that (WebCite cached article):

Irving’s police chief announced Wednesday that charges won’t be filed against Ahmed Mohamed, the MacArthur High School freshman arrested Monday after he brought what school officials and police described as a “hoax bomb” on campus.

At a joint press conference with Irving ISD, Chief Larry Boyd said the device — confiscated by an English teacher despite the teen’s insistence that it was a clock — was “certainly suspicious in nature.”

School officers questioned Ahmed about the device and why Ahmed had brought it to school. Boyd said Ahmed was then handcuffed “for his safety and for the safety of the officers” and taken to a juvenile detention center. He was later released to his parents, Boyd said.

The whole thing about leaping to conclusions and taking draconian actions in the name of “security” is, as I’ve blogged before, fucking ridiculous. Officials need to keep their heads on their shoulders and not leap to asinine conclusions without good reason.

Here’s a thought, people: A kid who actually crafted a bomb isn’t going to waltz into school with said bomb, then proudly show it off to people! Fuck no! He’s going to hide it somewhere and hope it goes unnoticed until it explodes and hurts as many people as possible. Just the fact that he showed it to people is — all by itself! — evidence that it’s probably harmless, no matter how malicious the thing it might otherwise appear to be. Granted, the cops let this kid go … after an unstated amount of time. But there was no need for this shit in the first place. None.

Note that, while Mohamed won’t be prosecuted for his “bomb,” the school has suspended him. And the clock police confiscated hasn’t been returned to him. So officials have actively punished him for something he never even did!

Even though Irving police demonstrated themselves to be idiotic Neocrusaders, the town’s mayor Beth Van Duyne (for reasons I’ll get to in a moment) continues to insist they did nothing wrong (cached). Yes, in spite of the fact that they were, very clearly, wrong in their assumptions.

Now … there’s a reason I called Irving, TX a Neocrusading town. Earlier this year, its mayor and a bunch of its people went fucking berserk because they thought “shari’a law” was being imposed on them (cached). (That, you see, explains Van Duyne’s unwillingness to admit her police department could have been wrong to arrest Mohamed over a clock they had no valid reason to suspect was a bomb.) In truth, there had been no effort to impose shari’a law in Irving … but that didn’t do much to prevent the freak-out. No place in the United States has been made subject to Islamic law. Nor is any such thing being contemplated anywhere in the country. But that hasn’t stopped sanctimoniously-enraged Christianists from believing it’s happened and enacting measures to prevent it (even though they’re completely unnecessary).

The problem is that Christians in the US view Islam as their chief rival religion, and they’re incensed that there Muslims actually exist. It infuriates them to have to see Muslims or any evidence of Islam’s existence within the borders of their precious “Christian nation.” They can’t understand why Muslims don’t simply abandon their religion immediately and convert en masse to Christianity. They view Muslims’ refusal to do so as a direct attack upon their persons — and they fly into a towering rage over Muslims’ insolence. It’s childish, of course, but you can’t tell them that. They think they have a special religious license to remain infantile.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

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

Comments No Comments »