People keep writing to me about this wretched scumbag who shot up a Unitarian church in Tennessee, killing two people there to watch a children's play. I don't know what happened, but despite it happening in a church, I don't get the impression that it's a consequence of a conflict between Christians and an atheist. It was a Unitarian church, full of secular humanists and deists and non-specific theists, not exactly a prime target for a psychotic atheist. More likely issues are that the place had a sign out front saying "Gays welcome", that he was a Confederate South sympathizer, that he was insane, and that he "was motivated by frustration over being unable to obtain a job and hatred for the liberal movement." At least, that's the word that has leaked out of a long note he left behind.
So until we know more specifics, it sounds to me like this is the work of a far right-wing nut who targeted a particular church not because it was religious, but because this is the kind of church where you'll find the highest concentration of bleeding heart liberals. We'll have to wait until more details are made available, though, to know for sure.
New reports: "He disliked blacks, gays, anyone who was a different color or just different from him", and his ex-wife was a member of the church he targeted. There's a whole bunch of crazy motives behind these actions, I suspect.
- Log in to post comments
Quite frankly, this is the end result of over a decade of violent rhetoric from ultra-conservatives. The Rush's and Coulter's have been pushing the liberal = traitor and the gays = end to civiliation lines so long that this was bound to happen. They built up a ready scapegoat, and now that the economy and republican electoral prospects are down the crazies come out in full violent force.
This recent shooting, if it is due to a hatred for bleeding-heart-liberal-gay-loving-job-stealing-traitors, is yet another example of what happens when people don't take responsibility for their own sad life and blame everyone else because they are too concerned with their own supposed victimization to actually improve their own existence for themselves.
The next time my anyone in my family screams at me for being a liberal and an Atheist and for that all liberals are angry, screaming maniacs who cannot debate with anyone, I will hold up this picture in their face.
Maybe a nince 8x10 glossy for all the use I'll get out of it.
Recentish update: Chief of police of the local department says the guy blamed 'the liberal movement' for economic woes. It's sorta terse/bulletish, doesn't go on a lot about why they figure that, though they do have him in custody, and say they found a letter in his car. Coverage from the local station here.
From MSNBC:
"The man accused of shooting dead two people and wounding seven others at a church apparently selected the congregation because of its liberal social stance, the city's police chief said Monday."
he had a "stated hatred of the liberal movement."
I'm not surprised.
Woohoo!
Anti-liberal and anti-gay terrorism!
Fun times ahead!
And evolutionists, which we all know by now is merely a codeword for "atheist".
At least I don't see why we should hold the IDiots to their rhetoric at a time like this one.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
It's not that it was a church he attacked, it was that the church either wasn't the 'right kind' of church, or it wasn't 'churchy' enough for his taste.
Imagine the gall of a CHURCH that dares to work to remove the discrimination against blacks, and gays, and has the temerity to work to promote women's rights? You'd tink the see all people as equal or some such nonsense...
It seems he was scared of losing, or had lost, his food stamp allotments, and blamed liberals, Red State fashion, for his problems. This is the first I've heard of someone blaming atheism --scary that people can distort it that way.
How many stories of hate crimes involve liberals as the shooters? Can't say that I can think of any that are. They all seem to be crazies from the right.
The image on the shirt he was wearing during the shooting is the Tennessee state flag.
Oh, it was one of "theirs".
Doesn't matter. We will be hearing about the atheist who shot up the Unitarian church in Tennessee killing 2 people and wounding 5 for decades. Just like Matthew Murray suddenly became an atheist posthumously.
"They" live in a thought free, reality free bubble where facts simply can't exist.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-ma…
Dude hates liberals, hates gays, and identifies as a Confederate. Case closed, another right-wing lunatic.
"It seems he was scared of losing, or had lost, his food stamp allotments, and blamed liberals, Red State fashion, for his problems. "
Those damned liberals, always trying to end social programs.
Perfect. The Pharyngulites turn another shooting tragedy into an opportunity to play the victim card on themselves.
Absolutely fucking pathetic.
All the news stories I heard suggest the church had become a target of his right wing hostility because it has a history of standing up against racism and homophobia.
I haven't heard anyone say the shooter was an atheist but then again I don't watch Fox.
Perfect. The Pharyngulites turn another shooting tragedy into an opportunity to play the victim card on themselves.
Absolutely fucking pathetic.
Yes. Perhaps we should wait for something more serious before feeling aggrieved. Like maybe someone putting oyster crackers in the wrong flavor of soup, or saying bad things to a Pop-Tart.
@ 15
The only one playing the victim in this instance is the man who walked into the church and shot at the congregation because he blamed liberals for his incapacity to take responsibility for his own pathetic existence.
Atheism - "It's not just for liberal haters anymore!"
...
..
.
Guy's not very bright. The people in charge of wrecking the USA and its economy for the last 7 1/2 years was Bushco and the Theopublican party. Hardly liberals unless you think Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are liberals.
He has sort of a point. The enonomy is sick. I know one couple who had to sell their house due to the subprime meltdown and another woman who was laid off in the housing industry. She has a chronic condition and needs $6,000 worth of drugs a year to stay alive. And doesn't have it or medical insurance any more.
Nobody (#15), I don't see anyone here playing the victim card. We're playing the "violent rightwing rhetoric leads to violent rightwing actions" card. It's an angle the traditional media is liable to miss. Right wingers love equating liberals with terrorists, but it's rarely reported that the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US has been caused by violent right wing lunatics.
As an atheist I feel these are catholics I could get along with. I like the laid-back type, they're typically friendly... and they strike me as laid-back ones.
If the guy was atheist it doesn't matter, he was batshit insane. Believe in whatever you want, the minute you're insane or fanatic and start killing it all goes out the window.
I haven't heard anyone say the shooter was an atheist but then again I don't watch Fox.
The word 'atheist' hasn't turned up specifically, but there are reports citing a local news outfit (the Knoxville News Sentinel), reporting they interviewed a neighbour two doors down, one Karen Massey, who reported a conversation a year or two ago in which he got angry when she told him her daughter had graduated from a bible college, said the bible was self-contradictory, so on. I haven't found the original story yet, though.
but it's rarely reported that the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US has been caused by violent right wing Xian Fundie lunatics.
Fixed it for you.
AJ, here: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/suspect-was-very-nice-guy/
Jim RL,
Nobody doesn't care what we're actually talking about here. He just needs some attention, poor little guy.
AJ Milne @ #23:
I believe that was in an MSNBC article.
I just read that on their site.
@nobody: No. We just have people trying to pin it on him being an atheist (which hasn't been reasonably established), and we're trying to point out that even if he was an atheist, he's a nutter anyways.
#15 Nobody sad: "Perfect. The Pharyngulites turn another shooting tragedy into an opportunity to play the victim card on themselves."
nope.
@15:
Right. Move along. Nothing to see here. No victims. Only a couple of dead people. Don't concern yourself, twit.
Man, I figured this guy would be a right-winger as soon as I heard it was a Unitarian Church. It will be interesting to see what angles the various news networks use on this story. My prediction is that Fox News will do their damndest to paint this as a purely anti-religion attack, as will Glenn Beck. As for the other networks/news shows, I think it could go either way.
@ craig #14
My wife works in a food supplement program. Most often, a failure to get benefits is blamed on the system favoring (blacks, Mexicans, whites), as opposed to whatever group you are part of. This is heard in almost all cases, even when denial is for a clear cause, such as felony drug convictions or quitting jobs. Of course, it is the libruls that set up the programs that are to blame for (losing, failing to qualify for, reducing) your benefits, not you.
Right. They aren't victims, just dead and wounded liberals.
Look in the South it's easier to blame an outsider "athiest" for something like this rather than a good ol'boy who drives a rusty pickup truck with a Confederate flag in the back window and whose great grandpappy fought with "Ol' Mass Robert."
As to Nobody (post15), we are not playing victims here, merely showing the link between Dittohead wingnuts and the consequences of their actions.
I'm sure this won't be called a terrorist attack by any mainstream outlet, though. We all know that terrorists are only people who use bombs, have brown skin, and are Muslim. This guy is a textbook terrorist - killing people because they hold a set of beliefs he disagrees with, as a way of making a statement about them.
raven, the two overlap quite a bit, but I think ultra rightwing is more accurate. The KKK's reign of terror was certianly both. Abortion related terrorism is also clearly both. Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic I believe, but he was an ultra-libertarian anti-government right-winger. Ted Kaczynski was an anarchist who railed against leftists and scientists, but did not have a religious motive.
Nobody @ 15 Your right name literally and figureatively.
This dangerous dolt may have been anti-liberal and anti-gay, but he was all pro-god, who no doubt he felt he was motivated by to commit murder. You are still nobody and nothing as is your imaginary god.
Nobody @ 15 Your right name literally and figureatively.
This dangerous dolt may have been anti-liberal and anti-gay, but he was all pro-god, who no doubt he felt he was motivated by to commit murder. You are still nobody and nothing as is your imaginary god.
This one definitely strikes close to home for me, as I am an (atheist!) member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Savannah, and this church is in our district. We've sent representatives out to them to provide any services they might need in the aftermath. Two of our members used to be members at that church and probably knew at least one of those killed, and our minister interned there many years ago.
I could definitely see the church being targeted by those wanting to blame liberals, as it is very open about being progressive and open-minded. The UU church here has been extremely important in my being able to find a community in the area, make friends, and find an outlet for community service, all without the diety-worship that every other church around here seems to think is a prerequisite for those very things.
This sounds horrific, and scary. My thoughts are with the victims of this tragedy.
"This is heard in almost all cases, even when denial is for a clear cause, such as felony drug convictions "
Going further off topic, but it strikes me as kind of horrible that this is grounds for exclusion from these programs, since having a chemical dependency problem can be very much tied in with why a person needs help in the first place. And also because people with mental illnesses can fall prey to such compulsions... people despondent, people in pain.
Seems like denying people help because they've proven that they need it. Disallowing treatment for illness because the patient shows symptoms.
Not too surprising though, same crap happens with veterans losing their PTSD benefits because of drugs - as if drug use wasn't a huge problem for and symptom of PTSD in the first place.
Vindictive "holier-than-thou" judgmental bullshit, just more blaming victims and seeing illness as a moral failing.
Sorry for the rant, that shit just pisses me off to no end.
@15Perfect. The Pharyngulites turn another shooting tragedy into an opportunity to play the victim card on themselves.
Right, because right-wingers, religious wingnuts, and other crazies have never played the victim card on themselves. They've never attempted justify idiotic, racist, bigoted, just plain demeaning, or even violent rhetoric by playing the victim card on themselves. Accusing them of doing that would be like, oh, I don't know, accusing them of projecting their own racist, bigoted, idiotic, violent tendencies onto anyone who dares disagree with them.
Michelle, these weren't Catholics. They were Unitarian Universalists. Some in the congregation may identify as Christians, some don't.
RE: Comment # 23
Karen Massey, who lived two houses from Adkisson's home, told the Knoxville News Sentinel of a lengthy conversation she had with Adkisson a couple years ago after she told him her daughter had just graduated from Johnson Bible College. She said she ended up having to explain to him that she was a Christian.
"He almost turned angry," she told the newspaper. "He seemed to get angry at that. He said that everything in the Bible contradicts itself if you read it."
Massey said Adkisson talked frequently about his parents, who "made him go to church all his life. ... He acted like he was forced to do that."
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-27-tennessee-shooting_N.htm
I don't want to give this wingnut anymore attention than he's already getting. Instead I'd like to say I applaud the members of the church who risked their immediate safety to pin him to the ground. It could have been worse if they hadn't acted, especially since there were children there.
So until we know more specifics, it sounds to me like this is the work of a far right-wing nut who targeted a particular church not because it was religious, but because this is the kind of church where you'll find the highest concentration of bleeding heart liberals.
Until we know more and have real evidence, we know nothing except hearsay, and hearsay is rarely ever truthful and it certainly isn't evidence of anything.
Besides, even if he is a conservative, that doesn't mean conservatives in general likely to go around murdering people they dislike anymore then if some random nutjob who went off his rocker and shot up some place, and just happened also to be an atheist, would mean that atheists are more likely to do such things.
Most likely, as with many of this shootings, he was a psychologically disturbed man with a history of troubles and his mental instability and personal "demons", more then any political or social motivation, is what real drove him.
Don't fall for uneducated guesses and rumors.
#1 JimRL
I agree with you. And I'm certain this isn't the first time. The Fisher King comes to mind.
There's a difference in character from what you hear on independent, Community Radio, or the more conservative NPR left leaning outlets.
The more fringe AM radio kooks regularly call for murder invasion, murdering US citizens, locking people up (of a particular race), and deporting people. Some of these creeps LITERALLY call for murdering people who don't agree with them. "They need to be killed, Round them up and shoot all of them!!!"
It's completely out of control.
If I were to do that (not that I would):
a. I would be violating FCC, CPB, and likely IRS prohibitions on using the airwaves for "an immediate call to action", and likely tag on 'partisanship in electoral politics', and the broadcast license could be pulled.
Commercial Radio is not scrutinized nor regulated as closely as the Public Band, and these maniacs hide behind freedom of speech to advocate felonies.
b. Pacifica Radio would cancel me so fucking fast I might not finish the program. We're not run by advertising nor ratings, we're run by elected boards and community oversight. That's how we get away with being so contrary to gov't and mainstream Bullshit, there are no sponsors to threaten. On the other hand, total asshats and maniacs are not tolerated.
We have our share of Conservatives and Theists, but they are not inciting hatred, intolerance and violence.
BCmP, you dumb fuck, we do have real evidence.
He wrote a four-page manifesto and left it in his car for the police to find.
BMcP, the hearsay came from the police department reporting on what they found in a letter the man wrote. Should be not believe it until they publish the actual letter with a certificate of authenticity?
Also, no one is calling all conservatives terrorists. That's ludicrous. I just want to make the connection between violent rightwing rhetoric and violent rightwing actions. When public figures constantly call a segment of society traitors and terrorist sympathizers, and call for the assasination of liberal politicians there is certainly a connection.
#25: Yep. That's gotta be the original.
I'm mildly curious now to see how this spins out in the media/popular imagination. Looks like, generally, the chief of police's statement is getting more coverage in the mainstream currently. Neighbour's statement is getting some play, too, and showing up on conservative blogs, here and there.
And re #12. Sadly, probably. Regrettably, for some folk, that's all they want to see, and all they ever will. Someone says the guy said something critical of literal interpretation of the bible, once, a while ago. Later, he shot up a church. Ergo: atheists are shooting Christians. Never mind that this is an absurd interpretation which doesn't even follow, and, in fact, all you can really say is a raving right wing nutter shot up a progressive liberal organization, not even an explicitly Christian church (since the UU don't by any means require you call yourself Christian to be a member--see that very church's own declaration of what they believe, along with the atheist member in this very thread). But this is as life is. Some will always just believe what they want to. They'll probably be relatively few, for this story, at least, as it's not really such great grist for that mill. But then, y'know, I always was given to outbursts of unreasonable optimism.
Anyway. All that aside, all condolences to those for whom this has a genuine and personal impact.
I'm glad they got him alive. Most attackers are killed in such cases, or kill themselves. No, I don't mean that people should risk their lives to save a killer's life, that would be insane. This gives us the opportunity to learn about his mindset, his motivations. If he is an atheist, so be it. He's definitely not a rational person. Nobody in his right mind would claim that atheism makes people better, or protect from insanity. About religion, people do make such claims - and still, religious people go insane too, kill their children for demonic possession or allow someone to starve to death instead of getting him to psychiatry. Or die from kidney failure.
In a Unitarian Church I understand, it is likely that at least a few of the people present were atheists themselves, protecting others from the attacker, helping to bring him down. This is not about 'teh Evil', it's about human aggression, a broken mind, instinct, altruism and compassion.
One thing is certain - somebody didn't step down from the heavens, blind the killer, or protect anybody from the bullets.
#39:
My heart goes out to you and your congregation. My parents were Unitarians (I've gone Godless) and a more open and nonjudgemental group I have not met - just the type that scares people who feel the need to pack heat to compensate for their own inadequacies.
While we're cataloging domestic terrorism perpetrated by Christianists, don't forget Eric Rudolph who bombed the 1996 Summer Olympics, abortion clinics and gay bars. One of his bombings used two bombs, the second timed well after the first so as to target EMS personnel responding to the injuries caused by the first.
I happened to be watching CNN as this story unfolded, and before the shooter's motives were revealed at the police press briefing, when the spokesman first discussed the shooter's 4-page letter. CNN's anchors had repeated rumors that maybe the guy hated churches and religion (read: atheist). Well, now we find out that the guy was a confused wingnut who was pissed-off, felt hopeless, and blamed the right-wing's catch-all target: liberals. So he bought a shotgun at a pawn shop and blasted up a kid's theater play at a lefty church. Nice going, douche bag.
If it were believers he were targeting, he picked the wrong church. Members of Unitarian congregations are more likely to identify themselves as atheists than they are to identify themselves as Christians. A majority actually define themselves as humanists. It sounds like his beef was more political than theological in nature. My sympathies and thoughts go out to the victims. It sounds like there were many heroes in that church yesterday morning.
Head on over to Conservapedia for a cute "interpretation" of this news story (top item on the News part of the main page, I believe)
I actually saw somewhere that counting number of incidents it's the eco-terrorists that are the most active. The rightwing terrorists tended to be more organized and do something big enough to get a lot of attention, while the environmental terrorists tended to be things like a few activists meet at a party and get pissed off then go trash logging equipment.
Back on topic, I first saw this reported with the quote talking about him pointing out the contradictions in the bible. It seemed odd at the time that a psycho atheist would go after a UU church. With the new info it looks like it's an example that a crazy right-winger can be an atheist too.
Noadi @ 44 If I had been in that church when that moron came in shooting and was one of the people that held him down, I can assure you that not only would I hold him down, but I would be beating the freaking crap out of him, and when the police came, that slime would need the ambulance more than his victims. If you are going to subdue a criminal who just severely injured several people, why not return the deed twicefold and beat the fucker to a pulp, and not let him get off scott free with no injuries. Bullshit! Beat the fucker bloody! This would still be less severe than the death of those innocent people who will never recover. He may recover, but it will be a long and painful recovery if I had the opportunity. My hatred of criminals is more than my hatred of religion, as the former is more apt to affect my well-being than the latter.
@56
mcmillan, I think the word you're looking for is vandal, not terrorist.
Because, unlike him, those who subdued him chose not to inflict needless pain?
I completely agree with you, Holbach. I wouldn't hold back on someone who just injured my friends and put children in danger.
#50:
I don't know many Unitarians who would expect divine intervention (actually, I know several and can't name a single one who would believe such a thing). Unitarianism isn't your typical brand of church. As noted earlier, it is typically deists, agnostics, and atheists. They philosophize from several religious/non-religious texts, and , typically, do not attempt to convert their children at an early age to their way of thinking. Impressive group of people.
So, blinding assailants or a god protecting people from bullets isn't the Unitarian thing. Not sure why you would link such thoughts to Unitarians.
- Matt K.
@57
I've thought this this for a while now, but never said it. But with the things on my mind today, I feel I might as well get it out there:
Holbach, you scare me. Passionate as you are, I would not want you as a friend or an ally. You need to get a grip.
Thank you.
Holbach:
Somehow, I can't imagine you ever being in that church.
Took me quite a while to realize he wasn't a parody, to be honest.
# 56 McMillan
Both the US and the UN define terrorism as targeting civilians to promote a state of fear. (paraphrased). You can't commit an act of terrorism on a piece of property.
The word terrorism is probably the most misused term in the language right now.
For instance, a roadside device that kills soldiers is not terrorism. The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon was not terrorism. The destruction of the Twin Towers was DEFINITELY terrorism.
People seem to confuse Guerrilla warfare and tactics with Terrorism. They are not the same.
mcmillan, I think the feds also quit counting abortion related violence (arson, bomb threats, death threats, murders, etc.) as terrorism, so that would skew the numbers quite a bit.
"I've thought this this for a while now, but never said it. But with the things on my mind today, I feel I might as well get it out there:
Holbach, you scare me. Passionate as you are, I would not want you as a friend or an ally. You need to get a grip.
Thank you.
Exactly. False bravado bullshit to impress people, but just the chest beating of an insecure person. Not much different than those pathetic nebbishy conservative commentators that blame the victims in school shootings for not being the Rambos that they, the draft-dodging weenies that the conservative commentators are, would be.
Nothing is admirable about going off in a violent rage. When faced with a shotgun, there's nothing shameful about grabbing your kids and ducking out of the way rather than charging the lunatic... and if the heroic people who DO stop the guy then just disarm him and hold him for the police, they are showing themselves to be sane, brave, caring people and NOT brutes out-bruting another brute.
Civilized people manage crime and danger and insane dangerous people and try to minimize hurt. They do NOT have revenge fantasies and they do not hurt people who have been rendered harmless, regardless of what that person has done.
The rage/revenge attitude is what takes us down the road to capital punishment and state-sponsored torture.
Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend regularly fishes out choice Freeper quotes from The Free Republic.
I just love the idea that gun carrying church goers would have been able to shoot down Jim D. Adkisson before he could have fired. I would like someone to explain to me how that would happen? Everyone eyes everyone else, watching for hostile actions?
"You can't commit an act of terrorism on a piece of property."
While I mostly agree with you and think the eco-terrorism label is bullshit, I think an act against property COULD be terrorism if it's clearly intended to make people scared and think that they are going to be targeted and killed next, etc.
Like, KKK members bombing a church that happens to be empty could be seen as terrorism.
Not to mention the War on Brown People Who Spilled Our Pint.
Holbach, in case you missed it, you just got pwned by PZ at 63. You have some serious issues you need to deal with.
As a general comment, I got married by a Unitarian minister. I'm not sure he even really believed in a god. He's a wonderful man who cares more about helping out the poor and the disadvantaged than just about anyone I've ever met. Twelve years later my wife and I still get anniversary cards from him. If all churches were like his, I'd have a different view of religion.
ummmm
how about not becoming that which you despise. Sure the Nazis were assholes, but the bombing of Dresden was a terrible act.
However, if you've ever been in a situation of elevated violence, once the adrenaline kicks in, all bets are off.
Even a devout UU pacifist might behave as Hollbach suggests, and not even remember it.
Evolution would not favor mercy in response to predatory attacks. However, there are recent developments that do.
@ craig
As a note, around here, felony drug crimes tend to be distribution and manufacturing rather than possession/use. Both of those are well within somneone's ability to control, addict or no. That's not to say other jurisdictions don't look at it differently. Anyway, the people like my wife don't make the laws on who can get benefits -- but they do catch the hell from when they are applied. The though of some psycho taking it out on her or her co-workers is a sobering thought.
Holbach and Noadi, you're a pair of fools. First, you would (rightly) put yourselves in line for serious criminal charges. Second, you will at best delay police interrogation, and at worst kill the guy. The police will want to know as quickly as possible about his motives and previous actions. How do you know he's acted alone, that he hasn't planted a bomb somewhere, etc.?
Playing the victim card MY ASS! Greg McKendry was no victim, he was a hero who, and I am not a Bible-quoter, lived up to John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends". My heart goes out to his family, Linda Kraeger's family, and the wounded congregants.
This tragic episode, on some level, represents a triumph for liberalism and the good people who espouse it. A hateful right-winger (classic homophobe, racist, and beneficiary of a social program he must have resented, and never would have supported politically) burst into a liberal institution with violent intent, and was subdued, unharmed, by unarmed civilians acting in concert. He will now be tried by a jury of his peers, and hopefully imprisoned for the rest of his bitter life.
I sincerely hope that right-wingers take stock, and drop the violent, incendiary rhetoric. Just last week, Michael Savage was spewing vitriol against innocent autistic children, in a misquided attempt to make some political point. Other right-wing pundits poison the cognitive well by calling liberals traitors, fascists, terrorist-abetters. This aftermath should force rank-and-file conservatives to do a lot of self-assessment (theists would call it "soul-searching".
I just don't think it will happen.
Ironically, the CNN article intimates that one reason for his rampage was that the government notified him of the decrease or possible cessation of his food stamps. I say "ironic" because welfare is considered a liberal program (not that I need to spell that out for this audience). Hypocritical much?
"As a note, around here, felony drug crimes tend to be distribution and manufacturing rather than possession/use. Both of those are well within somneone's ability to control, addict or no. That's not to say other jurisdictions don't look at it differently. Anyway, the people like my wife don't make the laws on who can get benefits -- but they do catch the hell from when they are applied. The though of some psycho taking it out on her or her co-workers is a sobering thought."
yeah, I wasn't thinking you wife would have any choice, not complaining AT you, just pissed at the pols who create such stupid laws.
As far as felony drug charges being dealers, I don't think that's necessarily typical. Not only do people get charged with dealing when they are just possessing, possession can be a felony charge.
My brother-in-law is a combat vet with PTSD. When he was having his hardest time, he was using drugs. Got pulled over and had in his possession a small amount of cocaine.
Years later, diagnosed, on disability, over a decade sober and with a wife and 4 kids, the VA caught up with things and disqualified his VA disability benefits. He lost his PTSD disability because he displayed symptoms of PTSD.
"Luckily" he got a lawyer to be able to show that the felony was legally excused (not sure of the technical term)
So the VA reinstated his disability - but demanded he pay back those benefits he had gotten during the time it was in question.
Crazy bullshit.
I'm a Unitarian. And an atheist.
Unitarians are non-creedal.
Philosophical materialists and/or former theists often become Unitarians because Unitarians tend to value consideration of the very important non-material aspects of human existence: (e.g., meaning of our lives, nature of compassion and one's Self...etc.). That these are created by our brains and have no supernatural aspects does not diminish their importance, but these things are often difficult to explore without the aid of the analogies and allegories that religious/ mythic traditions offer.
Hence, the Unitarian "Church".
In my fellowship, the words "church" and "worship" are rarely heard except sweetened with a healthy spoonful of irony...
We would be natural targets for psychos like the one under discussion.
#72
"how about not becoming that which you despise. Sure the Nazis were assholes, but the bombing of Dresden was a terrible act."
While I agree with your sentiment (not becoming that which you despise) your analogy is off for a couple of reasons. First, the bombing of Dresden occurred during a world war, and although it is easy to judge the evil in bombing a non-military target from a perspective 60 years later, it's not particularly wise to start spouting revisionist history. Acts of war need to be considered only within the context of war so as not to be misrepresented as analogies for every day occurences.
Secondly, Dresden wasn't retaliation for nazism but was rather a part of the overall strategic bombing campaign, which was shared by both sides. Both sides believed that targeting civilians would destroy morale and therefore deeply injure the enemy's war efforts. Although Dresden can be considered retaliation for Coventry, it can also be considered a part of the overall bombing strategy and not just 'pay-back'.
Craig,
I understand what you're saying. PTSD is a hellish thing. My dad still wakes up with combat nightmares nearly 40 years later, but you couldn't get him to admit there's an issue. You just do the best you can.
#68
Yup, and the guy with the twelve ga. protecting a church from outside???
if you gunned down everyone who walked into a UU church carrying a guitar case, there would be a hideous mountain of gore in the parking lot.
Thanks for the Freeper update.
They are always enlightening.
Thanks Scooter in #65 for clarifying to others the difference between guerilla warfare and tactics. Lebanon bombing was not terrorism, and it worked too. We got out of there fast (reagan was such a tough guy) and secretly buddied up to Iran to help make things easier on western hostages. I'm not going to say this was wrong, but it certainly was a mismatch with the public face of the Reagan admin. Some do say that caving in Lebanon led a general perception of American weakness and dishonesty in the Middle East.
The attack on he USS Cole was not terrorism. The attack on the Pentagon probably was. I don't think that the main point of the Pentagon attack was to reduce operational effectiveness of the US military. It was more to generate fear in the general public.
Are you a member of a Pacifica Board? I just donated my semi-dead car to KPFT. Great station.
Craig
It is this kind of thinking that first started me questioning religion in general and Christianity in particular. How can you really believe in a god that would do that? If your actions can't get you into heaven, then your actions can't get you thrown into hell, as long as you "know Jesus" you go to Heaven. Makes me sick.
Yup, and the guy with the twelve ga. protecting a church from outside???
So, shooting starts in church, guy runs into church with shotgun, cops come... what does he expect next?
Plus, if the congregation knows he "won't go to because I disagree with their theology", how comfortable would they be with him sitting in their parking lot with a shooting iron?
PZ @ 63 The only reason I would be in that church is because passing by, I would quickly react to the gunshots and take it from there. My actions when I got inside and quickly gauged the situation would be no different. And Martin M @ 64. Your comment scares me as I feel you would not come to my aid after reading your pathetic comment. Who am I attacking, the innocent people or that freaking criminal bent on murder? Are you so blind and unthinking to even posit such a remark?
Scooter @ 72 You are just rehashing old opinions in a new setting, and doing so just as rashly and hysterically.
Nick Gotts @ 74 I don't recall killing the criminal, just injuring him so that the police can question him in his hospital bed. Yes, you can concoct all manner of scenarios as you have alluded to so far, but the point and end result will be his civic punishment at the hands of decent citizens, no matter how that sounds to you and in what ever way you care to interpret it.
Yes, but there are plenty of martial arts clubs and self-defense courses which can help you modify your default behaviours so that you're much less likely to react aggressively or violently against your better judgment, even in highly-stressful situations.
No, but intra-species violence probably played as large a role in human evolution as predation, which would favour the development of a variety of responses to violence, including mercy.
I actually saw somewhere that counting number of incidents it's the eco-terrorists that are the most active.
OK, sidestepping the vandalism-or-terrorism question, Christianists have killed more people than any other group, excluding the 9/11 incidents (bringing this up because although this happened in the US, it's arguable whether it was domestic or international terrorism).
BTW, thanks, Janine for passing on the Freep commentary.
Who made that claim, Ann Coulter? I would be skeptical without some documentation.
The Xian terrorists are undoubtedly way ahead on body counts. They kill or try to. Also big on arson.
The eco-terrorists tend to target property and are generally careful not to injure people. Burning down forest service buildings and cars and so on. Still a dumb move and highly unlikely to advance their cause IMO. They are also all but gone. The feds caught most of them and they are being tried and convicted. And most of the surviving groups have given up vandalism as ineffective and counterproductive.
A rather grim thread:-( I can't help but think that a clear cut atheist outrage is simply a matter of time.
If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?
When my own deep seated anger at having been duped out of part of my life for decades bubbles unexpectedly to the surface, I balance it off against the wealth of experiences and wonderful people I met as a christian missionary. I consider how fortunate I have been in the christians I knew, particularly in the latter years as I became increasingly "liberal".
Not everyone is going to be that lucky. What if you don't have that? What if you realise it's all bullshit, not at 35, but at 55, or 60? What if you have no career or savings or life, because Jesus was supposed to provide, and worst of all you are in that situation in the most socially darwinian society on the planet?
I swear to random chance, I break out in a cold sweat when I think of what could have been. A little more enthusiastic, a little less questioning, married an American missionary instead of Swedish one ... sheesh.
There is a chilling downside to snapping people out of the delusion, at least some people. Not that I'm suggesting we should shutup, far from it. Maybe there is a need for some kind of recovery program for ex-theists, staffed by experienced atheists? I know it sounds insane, and kind of cult like, but some people are going to need to be let down easy, and they are going to need help. The kind of ideas bandied about on this site, every day, generate heart stopping terror and disorientation in the through-going faithhead. Experience talking.
Sigh ... what to do?
I was on the first elected local station board after the last coup, but due to my somewhat Hollbach-like personality, decided not to run again for the good of all parties.
My wife is on the Nat'l Board of Directors. Which is interesting in the Chinese Proverb use of the term.
I'm on the air Thursday nights after Glen and Stacy, and try to stay somewhat clear of the Byzantine political spectacle.
there are many good people on those Boards, far better equipped to handle things than your truly.
I don't recall killing the criminal, just injuring him so that the police can question him in his hospital bed. - Holbach
You can precisely calibrate how badly you hurt someone you're "beating to a pulp", can you? I'm impressed.
Craig,
I understand what you're saying. PTSD is a hellish thing. My dad still wakes up with combat nightmares nearly 40 years later, but you couldn't get him to admit there's an issue. You just do the best you can.
I'm also touchy about the subject because I'm also on disability with PTSD (not combat related) among other things, and could easily have been arrested on drug charges at various points.
Just great. So you're saying that the key to this padlock that keeps me chained to this tree is in an evidence locker in some police station somewhere?
I always liked the pithy statement, I forget who made it:
Holbach, get your ass to either anger management class or a dojo... STAT!
As a U.U. atheist, I have to agree with you: it seems like the problem had more to do with the political ideology of a church than the theology. Although, I could see an atheist shooting up those "Neville-Chamberlain atheist traitors" if they were, you know, COMPLETELY INSANE! Still, I think the likelihood its a political calling.
However, some of the above comments are simply ignorant: "we playing the victim?" Really? P.Z. is just pointing out the unlikely answer is theology here.
Furthermore, some of the theistic "they didn't know Christ" condemnations are interesting in an "let's show our ignorance", because you don't know ANYTHING about a person's theology from the fact that attend a U.U. church other than they believe in some form of inclusion. There are many Christians in the U.U. as whole as their are Buddhists, Pagans, Humanists, Deists, and all sorts of more arcane theologies.
#86
Oh, come ONNNNN Hollbach. Your reaction to gunshots is to run TOWARD them?
I'd stay out of big cities if I were you, or you will surely end up receiving a posthumous Darwin Award.
You think you have problems? What about the people 150 feet up in a redwood and the guy with the ropes is in the county jail?
Noadi @ 60 Don't be intimidated and cowed by the remarks of the few who feel that violence against violence is just unwarranted in any situation as this will only lead to more violence. The gunman perpetrated violence; to hold him down without retributable violence to me is a disservice to his victims. The violence ended when he was arrested and the score was even, in so much that his violence was greater on his victims as ours to him. I have never completely fathomed the blatant liberal attitude of many people, particularly when it comes to crime. A criminal act of this kind is the most heinous against a person, and yet when you would respond in like kind to the criminal you are branded as dangerous and in need of psychiatric help. This just staggers credulity to my way of thinking and makes me wonder if involving oneself in the prevention and apprehension of criminals carries with it the stigma of being dangerous and maladjusted. However, I will not alter my opinion and action when it comes to criminality and it's suppresssion, and in no way do I feel that my actions are wrong or deviated. This is and will remain my stance, and if you value my stance on religion as I know many of you do, then evaluate the situation and my motives and don't be so damn quick to judge rashly and emotionally. Noadi, don't alter your viewpoint or actions.
I would like someone to explain to me how that would happen? Everyone eyes everyone else, watching for hostile actions?
Just saying: this image lead me to think of a probably mostly pretty unfair sketch comedy bit based set in a southern Baptist service somewhere, in which everyone is incredibly heavily armed... But y'know, I guess it's probably pretty inappropriate at this particular moment, at least.
"A criminal act of this kind is the most heinous against a person, and yet when you would respond in like kind to the criminal you are branded as dangerous and in need of psychiatric help."
Justice is NOT a synonym for revenge.
Longtime Lurker @ 96 I think you have lurked too long at this site without contributing much in the way of long time quality. Time to move on.
His rhetoric is identical to that of the Liberal Bashing Industry. Without a doubt we can lay this at the feet of the Right Wing Media.
I'd like to think that i'd have to courage to put myself in front of his gun. Or to tackle him. But i'm afraid the reality would probably involve me running around, crying, screaming and crapping myself.
As incredible as it may seem to you, yes, this is correct. But it is incomplete. If you did respond in this way, you would also be a criminal.
I've never understood trying to find motivations in the actions of a mad man. Mental illness is the problem not any professed motive.
craig @ #102 Don't confuse self defense with revenge. Trying to stop a violent man before he injures more people is a commendable action, even if it means violence is required. Many of us are just uncomfortable with doing it ourselves and call the police to get our violence by proxy. It doesn't make it revenge though.
"craig @ #102 Don't confuse self defense with revenge. Trying to stop a violent man before he injures more people is a commendable action, even if it means violence is required. Many of us are just uncomfortable with doing it ourselves and call the police to get our violence by proxy. It doesn't make it revenge though."
Who confusing self defense with revenge?
I don't think anyone is disputing the appropriateness of using violence, including deadly force, to stop someone from murdering people.
Holbach was NOT talking about what he would do to stop the assailant, he was talking about what he would do AFTER the assailant had been disarmed and subdued.
#68, thanks for the quotes. Pam Spaulding is truly a disgusting person making a mockery of such a tragedy. What's more disgusting is that this monster probably won't be charged with terrorism even though the charge that fits him the best. I guess with W stacking the federal courts, terrorists are only liberals and Muslims now.
Remember, most terrorists are religious conservatives.
My apologies then, I must have missed that in my skimming. Actions like that would be barbaric and no better than the shooters own.
Don't be intimidated and cowed by the remarks of the few who feel that violence against violence is just unwarranted in any situation as this will only lead to more violence. The gunman perpetrated violence; to hold him down without retributable violence to me is a disservice to his victims. The violence ended when he was arrested and the score was even
None of us is suggesting that violent activity is unwarranted in any situation. What is unwarranted is gratuitously savaging a subdued aggressor, and claiming that it is to honor the fallen is deranged. Also, even suggesting that there is "a score" is lunacy.
Craig @ 102 Let's not argue about semantics here. To mete out justice to a criminal is an act of revenge. To avenge the act of a criminal by putting him in prison is justice. To beat the crap out of a criminal after a criminal act is both justice and revenge. Play with that for a while.
How about the idea that understanding helps lead to prevention? To snowclone craig, mental illness is NOT a synonym for chaotic, unpredictable behaviour.
#68, thanks for the quotes. Pam Spaulding is truly a disgusting person making a mockery of such a tragedy.
Um, those quotes weren't Pam's. She collected them from the Free Republic site--the quotes are from Freepers.
He was angry because he was getting his food stamps reduced? And, he blamed liberals for his problems: without liberals there would be no food stamps.
However, it is obvious that any attempt to apply reason to this tragic situation is a futile one indeed, because of the irrationality of the individual in question.
Alverant, please go back and look at what I posted. Pam Spauding did not say any of those quotes. On her blog, she regularly digs out some of the most disgusting quotes by Freepers. Also, hit the link I made and look at the image she uses to represent those who say these things.
Wow, you don't know too much about our lovely criminal justice system. It's safe to speculate that our shooter is
horrified by people of color and homosexual acts.
Now consider where he is going.
Remember there is no Hell, only the one's we create here, and if you award the fuckwad with victimhood, or you cripple him, he may avoid the true Hell that he's gonna get.
Believe me, it's worse than what you've heard and there's no way the Aryan prison gangs are going to protect anyone who shot up a Church, no matter how red his neck.
An individual can not mete out the level of violence and oppression that is regularly handed out by the State.
Taking care of business on the sly is one thing, but acting out in public could give an advantage to an offender.
You should move to Houston where you can shoot people in the back running away from you, and get off on a self defense plea.
Let your Mojo run wild.
Unitarians are people who believe that across the entire world there is, at most, one god.
Not exactly. Having formerly been a member of two different UU congregations, I can report that there are active pagan interest groups within many congregations. Also active atheist and agnostic groups within UU.
Cosi fan tutti!
#61 Matt,
I didn't mean that. What I meant is the arrogant attitude of people who just assume they're sitting on the moral high horse because Jesus is on their side, ignoring the fact that nothing comes of it. Remember the other church shooting, where a disgruntled 'outcast' killed several people and was gunned down? All over the place, people declared that God had directed the bullets in that difficult shot, as if pretending the killer hadn't hit anyone before. Likewise people claiming that they had angelic or divine protection when a bullet missed them, ignoring the people that were hit. It's just a narcisstic extension of the moronic 'God made the universe for me' attitude.
Cosi fan tutti!
I meant "something for everyone." Sorry.
"Craig @ 102 Let's not argue about semantics here. To mete out justice to a criminal is an act of revenge. To avenge the act of a criminal by putting him in prison is justice. To beat the crap out of a criminal after a criminal act is both justice and revenge. Play with that for a while."
Beating up a criminal who has been disarmed and subdued is revenge. It's perhaps somewhat understandable in the sense of a person being upset and full of adrenaline. It's also a crime.
It is NOT justice. That's why it's a crime. That's why the JUSTICE system sees it as a crime.
We have a justice system to judge a person, and mete out punishment if warranted. THAT is justice.
The fact that you disagree is not a difference of opinion. It's a matter of you being wrong. it's a matter of you not understanding the criminal justice system and the reason for it.
It's precisely the kind of faulty reasoning that you;re displaying that leads to this kind of event. The man involved here saw himself as having been offended against, the "liberals" did him wrong, and he "paid them back." He meted out his own personal "justice."
You are displaying a lack of understanding the basis of the criminal justice system, a lack of understanding of ethics, a lack of maturity and a lack of civilized behavior.
Your kind of thinking is actually the reason we have a criminal justice system - to try to protect civilized society from those unable to behave in a civilized manner.
The reason people label it as mental illness is because it IS. Don't be too concerned though, given recent standards that means you're eligible to be US president.
The bombing of Dresden was recognised as decidedly dodgy and being questioned at a very senior level before it happened. Once it had happened (14/14 February 1945) it was immediately a controversy - challenged in the House of Commons on 6 March and in the press.
It did a great job of - now, shall we say demoralising or shall we say terrorising? - the civilian population, already on their knees, but any after-the-event military justification is weakened by the facts, in particular the fact that the firestorm took out a much higher proportion of the residential than it did of the industrial and logistical assets. It completely failed to take out the Friedrichstadt marsalling yards, the reason for the operation.
And before someone accused me of anti-Americanism - it was a joint operation and signed off by Churchill. I was alive at the time, if not in a position to do much about it, and it is part of my history with which I have to live.
# 109
Pam Spaulding is mining quotes from the Nefarious Free Republic Website
The quotes were preceded by this statement from Pam
You just took a shot at the Messenger
Your kind of thinking is actually the reason we have a criminal justice system - to try to protect civilized society from those unable to behave in a civilized manner.
Partially. The criminal justice system also protects the accused from mob violence and vigilantism.
"Partially. The criminal justice system also protects the accused from mob violence and vigilantism."
Yes, and your point is even more important in the context of the discussion. Thanks.
#112: The conclusion I arrive at is that you have issues leading to violent fantasies, and a very primitive idea of justice. You stand out in this thread as having something wrong with you, and really should get some help.
As a UU, it thrills me to see so many liberal and intelligent people talking about my religion. Too bad it had to happen for such a god awful reason. One of my girlfriends goes to that church. It's just too much to take.
One of the features of most civilized societies is the willingness of the populace to surrender the tools of justice to their government. Vigilante justice is illegal, and is wrong. The score will be equalized when he is convicted and has completed his sentence. Your license to self-defense is not a license for revenge--vengeance is left to the state, and for damn good reason.
scooter @ 98 I grew up in Manhattan and the other four boroughs of New York City for most of my life and have heard many a gun shot during that time, particularly in Brooklyn. When you have heard the shot then it most certainly had missed you. It was not so much being inured to these situations as one of accomodating danger in the city and a hardened attitude toward criminals and especially to reality. I don't recall being cowed or intimidated by those shots, but wondering if it was an innocent victim or the deserved death of a criminal. My sympathy toward the former and hatred toward the latter was molded in those years and has still directed my opinions and the need to act. My survival has only enhanced my determination and regard for Darwinian respect, and would not be so if I grew up and acted as a hick. Your opinions of me and my methods have no consequence other than what they convey on this site and which are mere prattle.
The AP wire version of the story is out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting
Holbach @57:
beating the freaking crap out of him...beat the fucker to a pulp...Beat the fucker bloody!...a long and painful recovery....
Holbach @86:
...end result will be his civic punishment at the hands of decent citizens
I do not think this means what you think it means.
Holbach...he's not the hero we need. He's the hero we deserve.
Craig
Hey, me too. Welcome to the dysfunction club! Flashbacks suck. Are you dissociative?
The oozing right-wing insanity is amazing. For those who are surprised that a white guy would shoot up liberals to exact vengeance over denied food-stamps, here's a little primer on the underlying insanity that is pseudo-libertarianism and other right-wing crackpottery:
Poverty = being black. Aka, the man felt that he had been reduced to being a "n*".
Liberals = Jews (UU can act as a proxy). The economic conspiracy by the "Jews" is to reduce whites to being black. Read your Protocols to see how this connects.
Gays = Females. This piece of trash was afraid he had been reduced to a female, as well as a minority.
See -- a handy decoder ring to the psychosis that infects our country. It will only get worst as the semi-conscious themes get played out large during the current election.
Note how often rightwing nutters are not successful entrepeneurs: it is not about how they want to live their lives, it is about the fear of what they actually are.
#129 Hollbach
My opinions of your methods are as follows:
"Wow, you certainly typed the crap out of poor old Adkisson, I hope from the bottom of my liberal bleeding heart that he will be okay. You really punctuationed the shit out him"
I tremble before your mighty laptop.
# 134
Tennessee Prison System? He'll likely be fulfilling that prophecy soon, if the asshole doesn't manage to hang himself when he sobers up.
ABC is now reporting that the killer brought 76 shells with him:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5463260&page=1
76 shotgun shells in a hall filled with young kids and their families...
If what some reports are saying is true, the usher who died deliberately stood in front of the gunman and took the first blast. I don't know if Greg McKendry was religious or not, but his choice or reflex was courageous, human and ultimately sane. He and those who brought the gunman down saved many. Brian W. #105 said it for me (and, I suspect, most of us). I don't know if I would have had the courage to do what these people did either. But *they* know now. That the killer appears to have left in fairly good shape(from the pictures) after being brought down by John Bohstedt shows that the people there at the scene had more restraint than some of the posters here.
I am not condemning those posters, however, since I am not entirely certain that I could be that careful with anyone who had pointed a gun near my family and fired. Do they really have anger issues or are they being more honest with themselves about what could happen in the heat of something like this? I'm not in favour of deliberately injuring someone once they are down, I am just not sure if it is all that easy to *stop* once they are down, even if you know you have kids watching you. These people managed to stop after they brought him down, which says a lot about them. Cool heads in a crisis, these people. If more churches and church members (and people in general!) were like this, Pharangula would have less crackerheaded insanity to discuss and we might get more squid pics.
I never thought I would be asking where to donate to a church again but - does anyone local know if there is a fund being set up for the families of those who injured or killed? Did Greg McKendry have a family to support? Did Linda Kraeger? (Those names are worth mentioning. The killer's name is not.)
@136
He'll likely be fulfilling that prophecy soon
I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but I just wanted to state my (perhaps naive) hope that this thread will stay away from the rape jokes. Because they inevitably follow pretty much any story about a male accused of a violent crime and going to prison.
So can I please use this opportunity to raise my wittle voice up and say, "Please, rape is never funny or something to be taken lightly. Never. No, not even when it happens to men. Not even when it happens to criminals. Rape. Is. Not. Funny."
Ahem. ::steps down from soapbox::
AJ -- there's more than one atheist UU here. I'm one myself.
-- Pheathers
I was just being honest, if I'm attacked I fight back and get angry. Have any of you ever been physically attacked? I have, and I fought back so I know what my emotional response to the situation is. It may not be rational but in the heat of the moment things rarely are. There's a difference between reacting to an attack and beating the crap out of the person who started the attack and carrying out a planned attack. Some choose fight, some choose flight, I've been in a situation where fight was my response but I wouldn't judge someone who's instinct was to run.
@ maureen #122
I wasn't questioning the ethics of Dresden, I was pointing out that its use as an analogy in this thread was inappropriate. There is no question that civilian bombing was considered dodgy by many levels within the British government during the Second World War (and American, for that matter), but it was still used by both sides in an attempt to subdue enemy populations, and its use was considered to be sound military practice. Bombing campaigns were drawn up on both sides, and regardless of actual outcome, the strategy was believed to be an effective means to win the war. Although the ethics were questioned, the theory was put into practice nonetheless by both Allied and Axis powers.
Like I said, it's difficult to draw comparisions between acts of war or acts committed during a war and events/activities on an everyday level. There are too many disparate factors between the circumstances surrounding a world war and that of possible revenge against a crazed right-wing nutjob who went on a shooting spree in a UU Church to use Dresden as an analogy.
JCE #137:
Do they really have anger issues or are they being more honest with themselves about what could happen in the heat of something like this?
It's a delicate subject. Would I condemn a man who, having subdued a manman who just pointed a loaded gun at his family, was overcome by rage and started to beat the guy up? Possibly no. Certainly decent people, when faced with overwhelming cicumstances, can perform acts (both good and evil) they never thought themselves capable of. However, I would hope that the people around him would be able to restrain him and keep his rage from going unchecked. And although I may not condemn him for his actions, I would still hold him accountable for them.
The difference between this situation and what Holbach suggests, however, is that in Holbach's proposed scenario, not only is it good and right that the man beat the madman, but also that the crowd allow it, perhaps even take pleasure in it, resulting in a violent and distubing act of vigilante, lynch mob-style "justice." The fact that he is premeditating this brutal revenge fantasy just makes it more disturbing.
In other words, Holbach does not strike me as an otherwise decent person driven to the brink of what he can bear. He strikes me as a scary, disturbed person with severe anger management issues.
I base this not just on his attitude in this post, but on many comments he's made throughout the months. Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't been called out up until now. (Perhaps he has been and I just didn't see. In that case, my faith in humanity can be restored? Maybe?). ;)
Which is why I've switched to olive oil and sesame for frying, resulting in a kitchen full of zany hilarity.
Seriously though, I fully agree with you EntoAggie.
A few interesting things in here. As others have already pointed out, it's pretty strange that a guy would blame his lack of social support on "liberals", but then clearly there was a lack of rational though in that head on several counts.
More interesting to me is that a gang of supposedly craven and unarmed liberals faced down a shooting massacre and disarmed the guy with their bare hands. How many times do you hear about that? Usually I hear that if the victims had just been armed everything would have been fine. I suspect that it's just when the victims decide not to be victims that things are ... well not fine, obviously. Better though?
scooter @ 135 Stick to debating and bashing the religionist cretins; you're scarcely better at that than involving yourself with a subject beyond your scope and ken and which requies too much emotional maturity to equate reason with reality.
While I generally agree with EntoAggie's point, George Carlin, Porky Pig, and Elmer Fudd may disagree.
(As a side note, that's the third Carlin reference I've made on Scienceblogs today. I must need to go home and dig out a CD or something...)
I agree with you, leki.
It seems to me that when there's violence in the situation - world war to vigilante action and everything in between there are always three reasons going about
- the thing that motivates you/me to do it
- the case put together to get authorisation or to justify as it is happening
- the story you'll need after the event and in the light of the actual result
which does make Dresden an analogy, if not a perfect one, in this case.
EntoAggie
It doesn't matter what you 'think' you might do. As I mentioned earlier, in an atmosphere of chaotic extreme violence, once the adrenaline kicks in, you could do anything.
We've been debating whether the guy "SHOULD" have been beaten after being restrained.
The fact is that he wasn't.
But he certainly could have been, once you unleash violent Chaos, anything can happen.
I just posted above about a woman in the same situation. She lost her job in the housing industry like 1/2 million others when it imploded. She needs $6,000/year of drugs to stay alive. And is running out of money and couldn't get health insurance to cover anything. They won't insure sick people for preexisting conditions.
Her doctor is treating her for free but can't pick up the drugs. And she is a native WASP.
There has never been much of social safety net in the USA and it has been fraying badly for years.
Our health care system is sputtering out and no one knows how to fix it.
Noadi: Some choose fight, some choose flight
Unless you've had special training, no one chooses fight or flight. It just happens, and it happens differently on ensuing occasions. In the heat of battle, there isn't enough time to think --- one simply reacts. According to the stats I heard a long time ago on war, about 50% of people in a battle, either run away, or if they can't, they defecate on themselves; so all war plans are made with this percentage in mind.
In pre-modern times, the entire "winning" or "losing" of a battle was predicated on when one of the armies would panic -- when the percentage of soldiers who suddenly took flight hit the critical threshold where everyone would take off running. That's why flags and music were so important -- to keep that number down with a feeling of victory.
BMurray:
The scary part is that it's not so strange once you figure out their alternate reality. It just seems strange to most here because they haven't gotten deeply enough into that world where you aren't a "federal citizen", where you have to agree to "statutes" for them to apply to you, where taxes are "voluntary" in the sense that you don't have to pay if you don't want to.
Think of a world where the Confederates were heroes, where Jews and Masons are plotting world conquest --- the fascist world that still lives on in many minds. I've unfortunately run into this world --- it's quite frightening, the underlying psychological motivations behind the right, whether Catholic, Protestant or loco-libertarian.
scooter #149
It doesn't matter what you 'think' you might do. As I mentioned earlier, in an atmosphere of chaotic extreme violence, once the adrenaline kicks in, you could do anything.
I wish I could respond more clearly to this, but I can't for the life of me figure out what you're replying to. Did I say something which implied that I didn't agree with this statement?
I don't think the food stamps had much to do with it.
In my area there are lots of no questions asked food banks and soup kitchens. You won't starve no matter what.
We have to play the game, "was it one of theirs or one of ours" because the wingnuts started it. But really, at the end of the day he was just a crazy guy who finally went over the edge, pushed by some adverse life events. The AP had a writeup, apparently he has a history of making death threats in other situations.
Why I thought PZ was unwise to provoke the lunatic fringe with his crackergate. Never know when the next one will slide off.
Choose maybe wasn't the best choice of words, maybe I should have said some react with fight, some react with flight. My point still stands though, unless you've been in a situation where you've being physically attacked you can't know how you will react, if I'm ever in the situation again maybe my reaction would be different but I can only go from past experience.
a subject beyond your scope and ken and which requies too much emotional maturity to equate reason with reality.
I suppose it may just be beyond my scope and ken, but ummm....what does this statement even mean???
Where in the world are some of you getting the idea that this guy was any kind of atheist whatsoever? Because he shot up a church? Reading about him, he was clearly a right-wing Christian fanatic.
I'm an atheist and I attend services at the UU church. Many of our members self-identify as non-theists or secular humanists. The UU church is not about worshiping any sort of Judeo-Christian god. Its about recognizing the worth and dignity of EVERY human being, and helping them choose their own spiritual path (or lack thereof if that's their choice).
It has nothing to do with not thinking that sometimes violence is necessary. It has to do with the rule of law and not acting like barbarians.
Some athiest families in Knoxville join Unitarian congregations to help their children cope with growing up in the bible belt. Tennessee Valley Unitarian is one of the bright lights in a deeply religious and often intolerant community.
...let's review the definition of "terrorism," shall we?
Dr. Myers,
Since you have all those e-mails to slog through, I thought I would include some grading help.
From: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/26/21501/0676
The Wingnut Index
5 points
Each use of "Democrat Party."
Each use of "liberal elite."
Each declaration that kos readers should "leave America."
10 points
Each use of the phrase "hate site."
Each mention of Nazis, Commies, Reds, brownshirts or stormtroopers.
Each blind repetition of phrases provided by your close pal Bill, Rush, or Sean.
For contending that liberals are aiding terrorists.
Each time the writer insists that the recipient is "going to burn in hell."
Each physical threat to the recipient.
15 points
Including "San Francisco" in letters that have nothing to do with San Francisco.
Discussion of water / food additives and their feminizing effect on the men of America.
Insisting that liberals "want America to lose."
Each alternate theory for the death of Vincent Foster.
Each alternate theory for the death of Ron Brown.
Each alternate theory posed to replace evolution.
Each explanation for why global warming is a hoax.
20 points
Each use of "DemocRAT Party."
Each time the writer wishes the recipient would burn in hell.
Asserting the recipient belongs in Gitmo.
Each physical threat to the recipient's family & pets.
Each use of the term "Darwinism."
Each use of the term "algore."
25 points
Wishing on the recipient death, cancer, a stray bullet, or a visit from Bill O'Reilly.
Each use of "clearly" or "obviously" appended to any of the above. (i.e. "Since you liberals clearly want America to be defeated by the terrorists, obviously you belong in Gitmo" makes for a 70 point sentence.)
30 points
Each loving description of the torture the author would love to inflict.
Letters written IN ALL CAPS.
50 point
Each serious, affirmative use of the term PUMA.
Sending a letter complaining about how kos is censoring you because you can't post thirty seconds after registering.
Sending a letter complaining about how kos is censoring you, when you've been booted by the community for 101 crappy comments.
Sending a letter complaining about how kos is censoring you, when you haven't bothered to register at the site.
100 points
Each use of the word "Bush" in association with "unrecognized genius."
Special awards are given for creative use of grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. (i.e. "u LIBURrrLLS, R D SuXeS!?!" hits none of the categories above, and yet, still has the toasty zing of nuttery.)
Several commenters here have pointed out that there are lots of atheists within UUism. (I used to be one, too--I'm still an atheist, though I'm not comfortable calling myself a UU anymore.)
At the risk of tripping "Nobody's" Victim-O-Meter, I think we should note that there's a very real possibility that some of the people injured in the shooting were UU atheists, too. It's all but certain that there were several nonbelievers in the room (as well as several liberal Christians, Neo-Pagans, etc.) at the moment Adkisson walked in.
How tragic.
Refresh my memory...are you the person who used to use absolutely every comment thread here as an excuse to rant about how horribly violent and uncivilized "the male" is?
Where in the world are some of you getting the idea that this guy was any kind of atheist whatsoever? Because he shot up a church? Reading about him, he was clearly a right-wing Christian fanatic.
I don't think anyone present is really taking that idea at all seriously. A few of us here did suss out the thought a bit that certain folk will spin that narrative out of it regardless--an atheist shooter in a Christian church--more or less independently of the evidence, if not actually in direct contradiction to it. (And, actually, a few folk in fora I've skimmed were drawing such inferences earlier in the day... but I didn't even reference 'em here or anywhere else, as I'm not sure how significant or surprising any of that is... And I'm not sure either if they'll still be at it much longer, what with the news coming out since.)
But where are you getting he was a Christian fanatic? Right-wing, I absolutely get, but honestly, I simply haven't seen the Christian part of it anywhere. And I'm not being facetious about that question at all; it's a serious inquiry; story's new; I could have missed it.
Holbach -- you read The Watchmen too many times and are having Rorshach fantasies, it sounds like.
I honestly don't know what I'd do if faced with this sort of situation. I'd like to think I'd respond with the minimum force that I thought would guarantee stopping the gunman from doing further harm. I knwo once he was immobilized, no further violence would be justified and honestly, if he were injured, would look after his wounds (after tending to those he'd hurt of course).
Why? Because as horrific as Adkisson's actions were, he's still a fellow human being. I figure he's mentally broken, and he's done things as a result that are terrible beyond words, but he still warrants a baseline of respect and a chance to live in spite of the things he's done. Of course, since he's proven he can't be trusted not to harm others, he needs to be segregated from society at large and, since the magnitude of his deeds mean giving him the opportunity to interact with others unguarded carries an unacceptably high risk, that segregation should continue for the rest of his life.
There is no justice -- it's as bogus a concept as transubstantiation or the idea of a non-boring cricket match. There's no way to balance the loss of the two people he has killed -- the best we can do is add another body to the heap. How sensible is that? Rather than attempt "justice", better to just be pragmatic and worry about doing what we need to do to keep society functioning at a reasonable level while doing the least damage we can.
Someone doesn't play well with others? Put them on "time out" for a while. (How long depends on the risk they pose to others.)
I admire the restraint of those who subdued Adkisson. They showed themselves to be utterly civilized and living the ideals they profess.
-- Pheathers
Ummm, the only ones claiming he was an atheist are a few resident right wing Xian fanatic trolls. He could have been a S. Baptist minister and they would still say it.
All the normal people are horrified.
Yes in both my work life and personal. As a bouncer (back in the day..) I was attacked constantly. Once the person was subdued and the cops were called i did not continue to beat on them unnecessarily and unlawfully.
I've been in a few fights as i was a frequent bar patron at mostly dark smoke and drug filled places. Usually bar fights stop before they get to serious but I was jumped at a bar another time where it did not. I dispatched the drunk ass person, and then had the bar call the cops. Once he was subdued again I knew better than to continually beat on him. Not only is it unlawful to do so it is completely unnecessary to continue to take out some animalistic revenge need on some who at that point is under your control. Had that changed, then more force may have be necessary and warranted.
In this case in the church the man was subdued and disarmed (I assume).
Knowing how you react does not excuse how you react. Yes you may react emotionally but you are still responsible for your actions. Fighting back and continuing to beat on someone after you've subdued them are two separate issues.
Having recently been a victim of a gun crime - a takeover holdup by 3 armed men of a restaurant where my wife and I and our two children were having dinner, everyone stayed calm, and they got every dollar , every purse, every wallet in the place and were in and gone in about 3 minutes...
Let me say a hearty thanks to whatever deity any of us do or don't believe in that Holbach was nowhere in the vicinity.
A UU friend just emailed me a notice that our local UU church is having a special program this week to express solidarity with the Knoxville UU's.
Those of you living in places with UU congregations may also have similar services in your communities.
This is not an attempt to proselytize, or to start a debate about how atheists should feel about UU's. If you want to participate, do so. If you don't, don't.
New reports: "He disliked blacks, gays, anyone who was a different color or just different from him", and his ex-wife was a member of the church he targeted. There's a whole bunch of crazy motives behind these actions, I suspect.
The plot thickens. His ex wife had a restraining order out on him and was in fear of her life.
Fucking nutcase loser.
Ohhhhh, yeah. After 8 years of Republican rule, it's the liberals and gays who have screwed things up.
raven: #154
I don't think the food stamps had much to do with it.
In my area there are lots of no questions asked food banks and soup kitchens. You won't starve no matter what.
I think you're wrong. You're assuming that the primary effect of losing food stamps was economic.
It was not. It was shoving into his face the very fact he had to ask for them. It was making him face the fact that he wasn't some lone hero capable of living off the land like some mythological god of the frontier.
He had to face reality -- he was dependent on his community, just as much as ---fill in your most hated minority---. He was weak, and he was going to show those people who made him weak that he was oh so strong.
Food stamps had everything to do with it. Hunger had nothing to do with it.
The point is that he's not a lone nut case, as much as everyone wishes to believe it. He was part of a phalanx of nut cases we've been breeding for generations.
If anyone looks over eastern Sacramento and sees a mushroom cloud rising into the air - that was my irony meter exploding.
A good friend of mine was there. She's not a church-goer, not religious at all, but her best friend's daughter was taking part in the play and asked her to come. Despite beign about 10 feet from the shooter my friend wasn't hurt, thank goodness (other than being thoroughly rattled), but her friend's father will lose vision in his right eye and an acquaintance of hers is seriously wounded. Others loss much worse, of course.
She didn't hear the shooter speak at all, but everything was "terror and chaos" and a lot of blood. And it could have been much worse.
What a broken person this Adkisson guy is. Still waiting for the day when those hate-filled elements of society that feed his sort of behavior find themselves extinct.
-TTm
This shooting definitely disturbed me and I couldn't quite figure out why.
Now I remember. When I was a kid, the Unitarians helped me out a few times when I really, really needed it. Good people.
Pam Spaulding, I deeply apologize for saying you were a disgusting person. I was in extreme error you said those things. I only skimmed over the post and I missed the part that said you were posting other people's quotes. I have been corrected on that issue and now see you did all of us a public service by informing us about what is still out there.
To those I have also offended in this respect, I apologize. There's no excuse for me to have skimmed the quotes the way I have and will do better in the future.
"Disturbed persons with guns" can be very, very difficult to hold down. Heck, disturbed persons without guns are hard to hold. As someone whose husband, brother and son were once attacked by a seriously disturbed person sans gun, I'll tell you what the Baltimore County DA told me when we went to press charges...
He asked me after speaking with witnesses and accessing priors, "Why didn't you just kill him?"
I told him that where I came from, you didn't just kill people unless you had to. So I thought bashing him with the slalom waterski and kicking his ribs in was enough. Sez he to me...
"This is Baltimore, baby. You do what you have to do, it's up to me whether there's anything to be done with it."
I don't carry a gun (off my property). But I'm not going to pull any punches if punches are ever again necessary. In this situation it's likely no one would have known to stop this guy until he'd gotten off the first couple of rounds, the usher (who DID know he was trouble) took one of 'em. The congregants then subdued him quite effectively. I don't know what more anyone could have done.
He was apparently a tried-and-true hater. Religion was just another of his targets. Hate is the disease. Violence isn't the cure.
Tragedy as noted... on a lighter note.
I move we start referring to 'Unitarian Churches' as "Unitarian Community Centers".
Perhaps that isn't the best... "Unitarian Fellowship" would work well too. Any other ideas?
I don't mean this as an insult to Unitarians, though fundies would read it that way... The delicious irony (which any good Unitarian should be able to appreciate) is that it is actually a compliment.
Thanks, TravC, for injecting a ray of light into an otherwise dismal thread.
There are UU congregations which are formally known as UU Fellowships; these congregations are too small or poor to afford to hire a minister. UU churches have ministers.
Fun trivia: Harvard [cue reverential sounds from academics] was founded by UU's, and is still (among other things) a UU seminary.
Some athiest families in Knoxville join Unitarian congregations to help their children cope with growing up in the bible belt. - Wendy, Knoxville
I wonder how widespread that is? So far as I can judge, Unitarians are much more numerous in the US than in Britain, and I wonder how far that's because not belonging to any religious organisation is very common here, but really marks you out in the US - in other words, how many US Unitarians would remain if the stigma of atheism disappeared?
Re: There's no way to balance the loss of the two people he has killed -- the best we can do is add another body to the heap. How sensible is that? Rather than attempt "justice", better to just be pragmatic and worry about doing what we need to do to keep society functioning at a reasonable level while doing the least damage we can....
... and...
I admire the restraint of those who subdued Adkisson. They showed themselves to be utterly civilized and living the ideals they profess.
I heartily agree with both.
I'm a bit sympathetic to anyone who gets angry about this. I'm not going to go on about it, except to say: it's natural to get angry, and being angry can drive you to do things worth doing, actually...
But the first impulse it drives you to is almost never one you seriously want to follow through on. And it so easily makes things vastly worse, if you let it.
The people who held that guy down got it right so many ways, it's beyond impressive.
travc #178:
I move we start referring to 'Unitarian Churches' as "Unitarian Community Centers".
Interestingly enough, that very subject came up in our recent All-Committee Night (I am on the membership committee at UU Savannah). "Church" just isn't a very good descriptor for what UU is, and really is just a relic from when UU was much more of a Christian-centered tradition. We honestly couldn't come up with a better name, though. Right now we tend to call it the UU "Congregation" of Savannah, but really that still seems pretty church-y to me.
travc #178:
I move we start referring to 'Unitarian Churches' as "Unitarian Community Centers".
Interestingly enough, that very subject came up in our recent All-Committee Night (I am on the membership committee at UU Savannah). "Church" just isn't a very good descriptor for what UU is, and really is just a relic from when UU was much more of a Christian-centered tradition. We honestly couldn't come up with a better name, though. Right now we tend to call it the UU "Congregation" of Savannah, but really that still seems pretty church-y to me.
FBI. They track all that. And the claim is correct. Eco-terrorism leads in non-violent property-crimes which also gives it the lead in total crimes.
For crimes against people, that'd be the right-wing militia and some Xian fundamentalist organizations.
It's not the responding to the situation, it's the method in which you choose to respond. Crazy is as crazy does. And if your behavior is the same, or close...
Seriously, it's pretty straightforward. Doesn't require any sort of deep thought and only a modicum of self-awareness.
"Hey, me too. Welcome to the dysfunction club! Flashbacks suck. Are you dissociative?"
Lets just say it can take me weeks to get my laundry done. :( And I haven't slept normally in many years.
And I can't have a normal love life because I still go up into the ceiling even though I don't want to.
No friends at all.
I'm basically completely fucked up and have resigned myself to having my life consist of living in squalor but maybe having a kitty to pet and the occasional pleasant bike ride, emails from my nieces, etc.
how many US Unitarians would remain if the stigma of atheism disappeared?
It's not only the stigma of atheism that might lead an atheist or agnostic to belong to a UU congregation. For better or worse, religious affiliation is a way to belong to a community. Most areas don't have very many organized atheist/freethinkers/humanist organizations, so the UUs are often the only game in town.
#184
It is interesting to me that having the lead in "non-violent property-crimes" leads to a group being labelled as "terrorist." Kinda like being outspoken about one's atheism leads to one being labelled as "militant." Funny how that works, isn't it?
AJ Milne
I forget which one, but one of the news reports talked about a neighbor lady who had talked to the shooter about the Bible, and said he told her there were contradictions in it. She also said he almost seemed to get angry, like he was starting to get angry, or something like that.
Sounds like the guy's not a biblical literalist, and thought the fundie neighbor lady was a bit stupid. That could mean that he's antireligious, or it could mean that he's a Christian like the majority of Christians, and finds fundies quoting the Bible at him exasperating. I'd suspect the latter, but really don't know.
From that news account, it seemed to me that the neighbor lady was straining to find anti-Christian anger in the situation. (He "almost" seemed to get angry... WTF?) I immediately thought of fundies who think that anybody who's anti-fundamentalist is anti-Christian (even if they're an avowed Christian), and Christians of all kinds who interpret any disagreement with their theological beliefs as "angry." (So I'd discount the neighbor lady 90 percent or so.)
#171 - "Ohhhhh, yeah. After 8 years of Republican rule, it's the liberals and gays who have screwed things up."
But of course! I mean, there's only been 8 years for the Holy George to fix things, so obviously lots are still broken. What we (well, you, since I had the sense to leave) need is another thousand years of the glorious reich. That'll fix'er.
CJO@187,
True, but that motivation would operate in Britain as well. I guess it may be that church membership fulfils more social functions in the US than here (where people gather more around hobby-type interests), however, so people feel something lacking without it even if they don't feel stigmatised.
Here's the report with the fundie neighbor lady:
http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/25972159.html
She also says he was angry at his parents for making him go to church. I'd still discount her 90 percent.
You are, and remain a fool. I am glad, and yet saddened, that you have once again proven it for all to see.
Justice is about protecting society from those who won't respect its members. You do not serve justice with hate, anger or revenge.
Rather, you mete justice with sorrow and sadness that someone is so morally defective that we must put them from us to protect those that are innocent from his/her predations. To cage him, or her, like they are an incontinent dog who can no longer be given free reign of the house.
We do not, nor ever should, mete justice in any other way. For to do so is to be no better than those whom we remove from our society.
Hey, I'm UU. I'm in Nashville, TN. About two-hours down the road. Still in a bit of shock about the whole thing.
Nick,
I guess it may be that church membership fulfils more social functions in the US than here (where people gather more around hobby-type interests), however, so people feel something lacking without it even if they don't feel stigmatised.
I'd guess what's lacking for many (and here I'm thinking more along the lines of religious affiliation vs. hobbies) is a family friendly organization that doesn't focus on a single activity, but is more of a general-purpose community. People whose kids your kids can grow up with (outside of school), like-minded companionship for those who don't really have a hobby that they make the focus of their life.
It's on my mind, because my wife and I (both atheists) have started to realize that we don't have a community like that to belong to. Our son is six now and most of our friends are childless, so, more and more, we find that traditional (evening-time) adult interaction in groups either goes on without us, gets hosted by us, or we spend a fortune in babysitting.
My wife was talking to my mom about this felt lack of a community to belong to, and she (my mom, not especially religious herself) suggested joining a church. And then let it drop that similar motivations were the reason she started taking me and my siblings to church in the first place. It's not something I'm going to do, mind you, but I can understand why many would. (FWIW, there's a local Humanist group and we're thinking about checking them out.)
SSRI's. Three years on them worked wonders for me. Supplemented by Xanax for panic attacks, it's addictive though. I might taken half-dozen a year during that period when I have to go into certain super-stressor, flash-back situations.
I repeat. Review the definition of terrorism...
#189: We had seen that report--see earlier in the thread. It's presumably saying the increwdibly obvious, but they'd hardly lead to the conclusion on their own the guy was a 'right-wing Christian fanatic', which was the point of that question (to CoffeeJedi, who seemed to feel it was pretty obvious somehow--see #157). I was asking, naturally enough, if maybe s/he'd seen something else entirely, and something we hadn't seen yet...
(And for what it's worth, so far as I can see, that's not out there right now. I did look around a bit, last little while. There's the police chief's briefing; looks like the most recent word from anyone on this that really knows anything.)
To #180:
My husband and I joined a UU church precisely so that our daughter could have a community of other freethinking kids and families with which to identify. My husband and I are staunch atheists; she's probably still on the fence somewhat. Ultimately, it's up to her -- which is what Unitarian Universalism is really all about.
The religious education classes are really just a comparative religion class writ small for young questers. We figure that knowing what's in a lot of other religions will serve her well when she goes out into the real world and encounters people of differing faiths. It's really inoculation against fundamentalism, when you get right down to it.
This thing has haunted us all. Our church (actually, it's called a "society" in our case) does a children's play a couple times a year, and the place is always packed. I can't imagine how harrowing it must have been. Oddly, our society also has a rather high proportion of high-ranking martial arts students, including my daughter and me. I don't know that even we, with our training, could have done any better than those folks in Knoxville did, and I heartily commend them. I'm pretty sure that even with several years of training under my belt(s), I would have been hiding under a pew.
Laura
AJ,
Yes, I was agreeing with you that it's far from obvious that this guy's a Christian fanatic. (Sorry I missed the earlier ref. in this thread.)
Regarding violence on a man who's already pinned:
Well, I wouldn't know that he might not have another weapon on him. I can't guarantee that I can keep him pinned.
Ergo, for the safety of all concerned, I have to at least disable both his arms and/ or knock him unconscious. Sadly, the fastest and most efficient way would leave him with teeth all over the floor and a pair of elbows that bend in ways human arms aren't supposed to go.
What's to be done? Really? I don't carry handcuffs, and I'm not trained to restrain someone, only to knock him unconscious and break his joints.
How would _you_ ensure that the man is completely unable to harm anyone in the time it takes for the cops to show up?
So yes, I would indeed choose to do damage to someone I'd already brought down, just to ensure safety.
Why should I _not_ take satisfaction in a job well-done, in such a case?
"SSRI's. Three years on them worked wonders for me. Supplemented by Xanax for panic attacks, it's addictive though. I might taken half-dozen a year during that period when I have to go into certain super-stressor, flash-back situations."
Um, SSRIs arent so good for me. Make me crazy. Last time I was on meds a few years ago I found myself protesting at a Dick Cheney appearance and having secret service guys poking sniper rifles in my chest as I was shoving protest posters through the windows of their black SUVs and smiling and laughing at the situation, making them roll up the windows so I wouldn't get them on video, etc. Because of me they decided to close off the sidewalk for a block.
Psych meds seem to make me a little reckless, in other words. I got into a lot of odd situations in the couple of years they had me on them. Also seem to make me crave drugs and alcohol. Maybe the deadening effects or something. Anyway, not good. No psych meds for me.
Another senseless tragedy. The only thing to add to the stereotype would be a jug of moonshine in his rusty pick-up truck.
I sometimes wonder if the overly religious nature of the US and the resulting cultural frowning on suicide is part of the problem. I am just too tired of reading of some guy who killed his estranged/ex wife and kids, and then killed himself. Somehow, we need to change the order of the killing, if a killing must happen, so he kills himself first. Ideally, though, we can get to the point where the need to kill something is greatly reduced.
I may be exposing myself as a bleeding heart liberal, but as I read the news story, all I see is a person who himself was wounded, who then lashed out (in a way that I condemn, not condone, just to make it clear).
Look at the life story of the shooter as made out in the two articles: adopted, forced to attend a church he didn't want to go to, unable to keep a job, serial marriages, a history of alcohol abuse linked with violent threats, as well as anecdotal evidence of a manic-depressive cycle. This was a person who needed serious psychiatric help, and not one of his family, his friend, or his four ex-wives saw fit to intervene and help him.
I mean, he put a gun to his (last) ex-wife's head and threatened to pull the trigger. Eight years ago. And while it was grounds for divorce, it wasn't apparently any reason for anyone to intervene and get him the help he needed. Instead, I reckon his family and friends prayed for him instead. Now they share some of the responsibility.
Craig at #186 - "I'm basically completely fucked up"
Craig, it can get better. I have pretty much got my disassociative issues under control and have stopped freaking out my therapist.(smile) My wife's death helped to deal with PTSD a little better, a question of focus, I guess, not a therapy I find worth the price.
If you, or anyone, wants to talk, I am at keltixx(at)yahoo(dot)com.
For my two cents' worth, I think the part about the ex-wife being part of the congregation will turn out to be the primary motive/factor in the shooting.
Raven: New reports: "He disliked blacks, gays, anyone who was a different color or just different from him", and his ex-wife was a member of the church he targeted. There's a whole bunch of crazy motives behind these actions, I suspect.
His ex-wife was a UU? I wonder whether she fell away from him when she joined the UU. I can see him know, polishing a gun and muttering about "those liberal feminazis who turned my wife into a lesbian". All we need now is that his wife is living with a Mexican man!
An extremely common nuttiness. Would be boring if it wasn't so damn evil.
#206 Carlie
- It would be interesting to know whether the ex spouse joined before or after the divorce?
I had one of my spouses run off to India to play religion with the Sikhs, but I didn't take a shotgun to the nearest Ashram. She was one of those Catholic Girls. Goodness, how I LOVE those Catholic Girls!! I did get the divorce though. All my exes live in Texas...that is why I hang my hat everywhere else. I know how to marry them, not keep them.
Note to all future lunatics:
If you've got your wife at gunpoint, and you're saying you're going to kill her then kill yourself, well... It's not really sending much of a message. I suggest that before you kill her, put the gun to your own head, pull the trigger, and show that woman (and your other victims) that you really mean business.
Well, it might happen something like this.
This is just disgusting. And frigging scary.
travc wrote:
Funny that you mention that -- on Unitarian Universalist email discussion lists and UU blogs, folks have discussed the issue of using the word "church" to describe them.
Yes, it's true that Unitarian Universalism has historical roots in the Protestant Christian tradition (the liberal wing of New England Congregationalism and the "No Hell" Baptists who didn't believe in eternal damnation).
However, some UU congregations have decided that the word "church" is too exclusive and off-putting due to its Christian history -- they've used alternatives names like "society," "congregation," or "fellowship" instead of "church" to reflect their post-Christian role in society.
Hearing about the Tennessee UU shootings was hard on me since I'm a UU here in SE VA. Yes, we are "full of secular humanists and deists and non-specific theists" with the latter two being my basic orientation, with much humanistic philosophy (like, we can use insight to find right and wrong and don't need to get a revelation from on high.) So that's the conservative wing of the paradigmatic liberal church. It isn't that different from what most of you think, once you can get over the fright reflex about any sort of First Cause. Yes I'm an argumentative scrapper and have needlessly pissed people off such as here (but, because they weren't showing the sort of deference we think conventional religious folk deserve, until they show they don't deserve it.) But I still haven't always been a proper rep. of my "religion" and should do better. (BTW, lots of Mensans in the UU including me, just to bring up that jaundiced fascination again.)
Moses, I'm curious if you think the attacker was especially disturbed in a way that diminishes "responsibility", or do deterministic ideas give you that impression about wrong doing in general?
Steve Caldwel: My congregation is called a "Fellowship" because of organizational differences distinct from "Churches" in the denomination. This has to do with being less formal than a Church which always has a full-time Minister. However it is true that coincidentally, many UUs all around think "Church" sounds too ... Churchy.
#179: The idea that Harvard was founded bu UUs is just inane. Harvard was founded c. 1630 to train orthodox Puritan ministers. The first Unitarian congregation is considered to be that of James Freeman at King's Chapel, Boston, about 1785. The merger of Unitarians with Universalists happened within my middle-aged lifetime.
News article suggests this was--as is so often the case--a consequence of untreated mental illness. Everybody seemed to know that this guy had problems, but somehow these people never get the help they desperately need. Ultimately I don't think it's not about race, religion, or sexual orientation--it's about the need to recognize and get treatment for troubled individuals who need help--which is a difficult thing to force on someone in a free society.
The investigation is shedding more light on the shooter's motives:
Source
While I'm not ready to go into "video games/Satanic rock music/whatever turned [whoever] into a killer" mode, one really has to wonder about the effect of years of well-paid hatefreaks providing a ready-made hate object/target for whoever might just be ready to snap.
I think it's worth citing the testimony of SS General Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, given at the IMT at Nuremberg in 1946:
Just change the names of the targeted groups and you've got a decent description of the kind of eliminationist crap these bloviators have been indulging in for the last seven years and more.
Holbach (@ 173) said:
I have to stop reading the thread at this point; my irony meter just had a catastrophic meltdown.
One wonders what those three good ol' boys will have to say about this.
hje: News article suggests this was--as is so often the case--a consequence of untreated mental illness. Everybody seemed to know that this guy had problems, but somehow these people never get the help they desperately need. Ultimately I don't think it's not about race, religion, or sexual orientation--it's about the need to recognize and get treatment for troubled individuals who need help--which is a difficult thing to force on someone in a free society.
There's no reason that "untreated mental illness" has to go down this particular route. A significant portion of the human race has always had "untreated mental illness": just see the old tradition of the village idiot.
People don't want to look at themselves and see how we've (as a society) created these folks. Just notice how gun mass killings have been increasing decade over decade, and now it's leapt over the Atlantic to Europe.
Individual treatment is just the beginning. The problem is social, and as long as we keep pretending that it's one sole nut, it's going to keep increasing. As long as eliminationist ideologies are socially acceptable, as long as we accept that people express themselves in these languages of murder, it's going to keep on going.
Didn't we just see that madness with the cracker incident? Many of those folks had mental illnesses. The danger didn't like in their illness --- it lay in the unwillingness of church authorities to lay down the law on those who fanned the flames, those who implied that it was reasonable to attack PZ, no holds barred.
Most mentally ill people are perfectly safe. It's only when mentally healthy bastards start putting ideas in their heads that we're in danger.
#150, Raven:
Yeah. Last year I had the interesting experience of having to order the ventilator pulled from my youngest sister because our family hadn't been able to raise half a million dollars overnight to get her back on the transplant list before the sepsis got overwhelming.
Somehow I have managed to avoid murdering anybody over that because, well, where the hell would I start?
As for the UU congregation's response and all the Monday-morning quarterbacking going on: Can it. The tactic--"swarming"--is well known among nonviolent folks. The more bodies you can get on top of the attacker, the more possible it is to control him without injury to anyone. You want him in jail, not a hospital; I, for one, wouldn't want any of my former colleagues to have to be his nurse.
Hey, we're a pair of atheists who were married by a UU minister. And a good time was had by all.
Considering that this guy may well have heard voices in his head - which, in a rational society, he may have chosen to seek help for. Unfortunately, the society he's in is full of people suggesting that not only is hearing voices not indicative of something being wrong, but it's God, and he should do what the voices tell him.
Citizen Z, the idea was that gun toting church goers would have prevented murders. The story you linked to had one murder victim. Unless your point is that even gun toting citizens will not prevent murders. In which, I agree with you.
Does anyone else find the idea of a church full of people stroking guns and nervously eyeing each other off just a bit disturbing?
I had enough reason not to go near one (a church) before; this certainly isn't encouraging me to change my mind.
I to am a UU. We are a Fellowship because a founding member was a Jewish woman who said that the churches in Germany supported the deportation and deaths of many family and friends and she could never belong to a church so we are a Fellowship still 50 years later. We are shell shocked here as one thing happening in our town is an ongoing petition drive by some local churches to remove protections for GBLTs, many of whom are members and friends. I was very angry when I read that this deed was done in front of the children, some of who ended up with their parent's blood spattered on their clothing. Then I went to a memorial service tonight and my anger subsided as our ministers lit 3 candles for all three victims including the killer. He was a vet, 82nd Airborne. I work with Vietnam vets who still struggle everyday with their war experiences and now with a new generation from Iraq. Many people stood and spoke reaching out to each other and the community where we stand on edge, easy to fall here but it feels like the right place to be for a UU.
I screwed up and missed the part where you said "before he could have fired". But missing the fact that the linked incident didn't prevent murders in there entirety would be too big a mistake for me to make. In other words, yes, we're on the same page.
From what I've seen on the story, the man was trying for suicide by cop. Hurt some people, cops show up, cops blow you away. You get some measure of revenge on the people you hate, and the authorities take your life for you. I rather doubt he really intended to kill any one, given the weapon he used for the assault. Yes, a shotgun can be deadly, at close range and with a tight choke. But, at what range did he start shooting, and how tight was the choke on his piece?
Also note that he threatened children. We are not rational when it comes to threats against our children, and will do things we otherwise wouldn't. I suspect the deceased died because they acted to protect the children, and acted more aggressively than Adkisson thought they would. It's hard to shoot to miss when your victim plants himself in front of your gun.
You get right down to it, two members of the congregation died doing what they thought was the right thing. Even more importantly, they didn't have the time they needed to figure out what was going on. More often than you think you don't have the luxury of adequate time and adequate information.
Two died, seven more were wounded, and expect more wounded to show up as people discover the buckshot in their bodies they don't yet know about.
Oh, and while you're going on about the wrongness of Mr. Adkisson's deeds, spare a moment or two for those members of the congregation, living and dead, who took action to stop his rampage. Outrage is visceral fun and all, but it has nothing on the calming effects of gratitude.
For those who are interested, there is an excellent blog post on the UU church and this situation at:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/07/of-madmen-and-martyrs.html
Dave Neiwert's blog, Orcinus, is an excellent resource for articles on the militant far right - and for information on Orcas as well, for those of you who enjoy the natural sciences.
Humans are just like any other animal, and that's a good thing Animals for the most part apply violence to their own kind rarely and only to the point that their immediate interests are met or give up when their interests cannot be met. This is our nature, just like with any other animal. To go beyond this to a full beatdown or murder requires conditioning, premeditation, or the rare person that is just abnormally violent. The UUs acted bravely, but the fact they did not continue to do harm to the culprit shows they are a community that has not been conditioned to do do violence. They did what they needed to do and then stopped. Good for them!
Where does Hollbach live? I live in Houston's near NW, those numbered streets up and out from the Heights just beyond the Loop. Huge contrasts between rich and poor there, and yes, a fairly high crime rate. I used to live in 3rd Ward before they gentrified me out. I have never heard the kind of gunfire Mr Hollbach talks about. Less than once a year, not counting New Years Eve. Yes, gun crime is relatively common in the US, but you're still not going to come across it that often. I think someone is exagerating and probably never lived in the city in his life. My work sometimes carries me to outer suburbia and I sometimes meet people who think you will die if you cross 43rd street. Their kids have never been to the zoo, never been to the Museum of Natural Science, never, seen the Menil Collection, nor even been to an Astros game.
Scooter: I'll listen to your show. I'm a big fan of "The Other Side" and have missed Glen's rants, though Stacey and that other guy have been doing OK.
Alan Kellogg @226. WTF? Your post is incoherent. A 12 gauge semiautomatic shotgun isn't lethal without the correct choke? People finding buckshot in their bodies later? And Holbach. Seriously dude, get some help. We will all feel better.
@229:
A shotgun, at long range, is a particularly unwieldy weapon. Short-range, it has some amazing stopping potential, however. The range that he fired from is the key thing to ask about here, if we're debating intent to kill, and thats only if he was consciously aware of how much damage it would do at what range.
I haven't read through all of this, so forgive me if this is a repeat but here is what the spin doctors at World Nut Daily have done with this story.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70794
The headline reads: "Shooting suspect 'turned angry' at Bible"
and the very last sentence is
"The Associated Press reported Adkisson, who Police Chief Sterling Owen said had "stated hatred of the liberal movement," was tackled and held by church participants."
Really unbelievable. I would give more weight to a signed letter written by the shooter himself and left in the car during the shooting, then someone's recall of a several years old conversation where the shooter is recalled thusly. "He almost turned angry,"
And they called "cracker gate" a hate crime. I wonder if Donouhe has anything to say about this REAL hate crime. After all, he has stated that his anti-defamation league "protects" other religions too. (yea right)
Mr Kellog at #225
I'm sorry but you are seriously incorrect about the lethality of a shotgun. The shotgun, with a 14" barrel, no choke, is a preferred weapon for military urban warfare and lethal force by law enforcement.
With buckshot loads, they are far more effective than pathetic little 9mm full-auto pop pistols like Macs and uzis. Two pulls on the trigger delivers more lead than a full clip of 9's.
This guy had a 12ga semi auto in a church, close range. He put five people in serious condition, and killed two before reloading, and you are suggesting that he didn't intend to kill anybody?
Let me guess, your knowledge of shotguns comes from bird hunting experience.
I'm sorry, but all this talk about drunk losers with a history of beating women needing psychiatric help is a bit too liberal for me.
Some people are just assholes. The guy should have done time for holding a gun to his wife's head.
The criminal justice system is a horrible place to sober up, but it DOES get your attention, and make you think twice about being a complete fuck-up.
The fact that his only crime, prior to his outburst, was domestic violence, speaks loudly on the value of women in this society, while the jails are stuffed with potheads and junkies.
Imagine if he had held a gun to a first class citizen, like the husband next door, or a store owner, or a cop or a judge.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/07/the-unitarian-church-killi…
Has PZ seen this link from beliefnet yet where he is mentioned???
In the 30's the JEWS were the cause of all problems.
Now RELIGION is "root of all evil".
Gulags, anyone?
Bertram Cabot,
The "sublte" difference between Dawkins and Stalin might not appear to you : it is the difference between someone who simply expresses his opinions and tries to convince people with the only power that he has, the quality of his arguments, the evidence that he uses, and lets people decide for themselves with peaceful means, and on the other someone who emprisonned millions in forced labour camps who opposed any of his policies.
It's scary that people like you can't tell the difference and seem to rewrite history so far away from reality.
You really do live in fantasyland.
Bertram Cabot, Jr. #234 - Wow incredibly clever and original. I am glad I lived to see such insight. Of course, it is the originality that takes my breath away. Could I get you to autograph your thoughts for me?
(Waving) hey everyone, we have an original thinker here!!!! This Cabot guy is both clever and has made a truly unique contribution to discourse. Wow, never saw atheist compared to evil people before, perhaps I have wasted my life and need to convert. Does the lobotomy hurt, Bertie?
JeffreyD
moreover his comment wasn't even his own, he just copied and pasted a comment from the link @233 (see comment by Emmanuel Goldstein...).
It would probably have been too difficult for him to come with something of his own.
In the 30's the JEWS were the cause of all problems.
Now RELIGION is "root of all evil".
Gulags, anyone?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. | July 29, 2008 5:56 AM
Perspective. Try it.
The Godbot trolls really seem to work like that, they have these 10 or 20 prefabricated comments that circulate the web and thet just copy and paste, change a bit a few words here and there to make them look a bit more "personal", and there we go...
negentropyeater, be charitable to the fools.
I mean, we like to bash trolls, they probably figure they're kinda doing the same. Since they're basically unarmed for a battle of wits, what do you expect?
Go on, try to argue they can figure that the above actually makes no sense, since they come here ;)
Animals for the most part apply violence to their own kind rarely and only to the point that their immediate interests are met or give up when their interests cannot be met. This is our nature, just like with any other animal. - Bacopa@228.
Bacopa I agree with your overall sentiments, But I think you're just wrong here. Social insects kill same-species intruders to their nest, male lions routinely kill all the cubs when they take over a pride, chimpanzees have been observed to conduct something close to gang warfare, homicide of one kind or another has occurred in practically all societies for which we have data. Of course there are also many instances of the kind of restraint you take to be universal, but the generalisation (which I suspect traces back to Konrad Lorenz) is unjustified.
Hi legion! *wave
You pathetic excuse for a parent's basement dwelling half-wit.
They are one in the same. We call it Legion. Or the Kansas Troll.
Or dumbass.
Morning Rev - I think "dumbass" might be too kind, but you are a nicer person than I have ever been. (smile)
As others have already pointed out, it's pretty strange that a guy would blame his lack of social support on "liberals", but then clearly there was a lack of rational though in that head on several counts.
There's a lot of cluelessness in this thread, and here's one example. Reading comment threads on this story at various news outlets, over and over I read comments that Adkisson's behavior was "not unexpected" because of how "liberals have destroyed our country". There is indeed a lack of rational thought, but it's not just in Adkisson's head, it's in the heads of a large fraction of the populace.
Also, some people seem to think that Adkisson was a fundie, but he said that he had been "forced" to go to church, and that the bible contradicts itself about everything.
One thing is certain - somebody didn't step down from the heavens, blind the killer, or protect anybody from the bullets.
Actually, someone did protect people from the bullets. According to one church member, Greg McKendry "stood in front of the gunman and took the blast to protect the rest of us". According to another member, "He did obviously stand up and put himself in between the shooter and the congregation."
If it weren't so tragic, it would be funny that, despite his hatred for "liberal" causes, one of the things he was mad about was that his food stamps had run out. Wasn't Timothy McVeigh mad about something similar?
Craig
Wow, craig, I'm sorry you're so isolated. I rarely go up to the ceiling myself anymore, but do sometimes walk beside myself. And have multiple personalities. Have been in therapy for forever, it seems. My marriage recently broke up cos my husband couldn't deal with my illness any longer. If you'd like a friend who understands what you're going through, I'll post my email for you here. Let me know. I know that even keeping up an email correspondence can be very cumbersome for us, but if you need me, I'm here.
I see some others have responded to craig.
Moses, SSRIs can help. I've been on them and MAOIs. In 14 yrs, I've tried so many combinations of drug therapy along with talk therapy and group therapy and ECT, hospitalization and one other which I can't remember the name of, which I thought was absolutely stupid, but may have actually helped.
JeffreyD, I'm so sorry about the death of your wife. I've dealt with the death of both of my parents through this journey, but not my spouse. For me, it was a trigger, and made me hyper-vigilant to my disease. But you're right in telling craig that it can get better. I remember clearly the days when I thought it never would.
My email, for anyone who needs it; kagee630 (at)hotmail (dot)com
Also, you might wanna check on who came up with the title...
it wasn't Dawkins. And it was "Root of All Evil?"
The question mark is important.
Most mentally ill people are perfectly safe.
True, most don't harm others, mostly they harm themselves (suicide).
Our medical system is geared toward treating all kinds of maladies--from heart disease to impotence--yet mental illness is still often treated as something of a different nature--as if it doesn't also have a material basis.
As long as eliminationist ideologies are socially acceptable, as long as we accept that people express themselves in these languages of murder, it's going to keep on going.
You can't chalk this all up to societal pressures--as much as I dislike Hannity. Limbaugh, Beck etc. and the garbage they espouse--you can't blame them for the sort of personal tragedies that occur all too often, such as when some person goes on a rampage and kills their family or acquaintances.
As long as people believe that their bodies are in fact controlled by immaterial selves (known as 'souls'), it is very difficult for them to accept a physical cause for any behavior relegated to the 'mind'.
This is an inescapable result of the delusion known as 'dualism', and its fellow traveler, 'free will'.
"hatred of the liberal movement," "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
I hate what they are doing to our country, our children, our schools, our media, our laws and our churches!
I wish they would all disappear; I am not crazy enough to shoot them. Maybe they will shoot themselves better sooner than later.
Sorry josephine, we liberals are anti-gun as well, so no self-shootings for us!
Maybe you could try wishing us into the cornfield instead.
Now there is that Christian love.
You can't chalk this all up to societal pressures--as much as I dislike Hannity. Limbaugh, Beck etc. and the garbage they espouse--you can't blame them for the sort of personal tragedies that occur all too often, such as when some person goes on a rampage and kills their family or acquaintances.
False dichotomy. Just because we can't chalk it all up to societal pressures doesn't mean that those thugs bear no blame.
I hate what they are doing to our country, our children, our schools, our media, our laws and our churches!
I hadn't realized that corporations and the right wing were "liberal".
Maybe you could try wishing us into the cornfield instead.
Yay Jerome Bixby and Bill Mumy.