Aardvark
Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Got it:
March 13, 2006
[followup] No religious motive for Satanist arson suspects
Christinaity Today: ‘No Religious Motive’ for ‘Satanist’ Arson Suspects
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/110/51.0.html
Birmingham News:
Friends said [suspects Russell DeBusk] and Ben Moseley were Satanists,
This is a followup on DaveScot’s provocative question PandasThumb Denizens?
In my own view, in answer to Dave’s question, I would think the probability is very remote that they were PandasThumb Denizens. PT’s not quite that deep in the swamp compared to say (….site names withheld…)
But It would be worthwhile indeed to inquire what website these guys visit. In fact it was some internet posts they made which uncovered some incriminating evidence which is in the article linked above from Christianity Today.
This is a curious instance of how the press will rush to paint criminals as not religiously motivated when Christian churches are being desacrated. The jury may still be out on them, but the point is the media is not being very swift in reporting certain things…
How does this relate to ID? In contrast, look how quick religious motivations are put to the front in the media, when the truth is, these are legitimate scientific questions which Darwin himself was willing to entertain….
The media is unwilling to insulate the question of ID from religious motivations, but quite willing to avoid mention of the religous views of these suspected criminals. I had to dig quite a bit to find the above information.
Salvador
Filed under: Intelligent Design — scordova @ 10:38 am
2 Comments »
1.
Hateful speech leads to hateful actions. Panda’s Thumb encourages hateful speech towards the prototypical “fundie” - evangelical southern Baptists. You know that. I can only then conclude you don’t believe that hateful speech leads to hateful actions.
I found a link worth looking at in yours describing the so-called “Culture Wars” in more brutally honest terms “The War On Christians”. This is exactly what is going on. It’s politically incorrect in the United States to pick on minorities of any kind but Christians are a majority so they’ve become fair game. The “Angry White Male” that 10 years ago was credited with Gingrich’s “Contract With America” that began the conservative Republican ascendence to political dominance now has lots of company in the liberal Democrat doghouse - strongly religious Christians of any color.
I just can’t wait to see the results play out from this further bit of idiocy from the loony left that hijacked the Democratic party as they’re now working hard to alienate two of their largest and most loyal remaining political bases - Catholic Hispanic Americans and Baptist African Americans. It’s almost getting alarming as their destruction of the Democratic party moves us further towards what for all intents and purposes is a single party system.
Comment by DaveScot — March 13, 2006 @ 11:26 am
2.
“Hateful speech leads to hateful actions. Panda’s Thumb encourages hateful speech towards the prototypical “fundie” - evangelical southern Baptists. You know that. I can only then conclude you don’t believe that hateful speech leads to hateful actions.”
I don’t think this follows. For one, the phrase ‘hateful speech leads to hateful actions’ would need to be amended to read ‘hateful speech necessarily leads to hateful actions’, a claim that I think is not true. Another problem is the notion of ‘hateful’. Perhaps I find it hateful when I’m told that I will go to #### because I don’t accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Should I worry about the speaker (or one of his followers) taking action to speed me on my way? (I don’t worry, by the way.) And perhaps I find referring to people as ‘loony’ as hateful. Does that mean that I can expect DaveScot to soon commit a hateful action? Probably not.
The point is that calling speech ‘hateful’ is not as clear-cut as one might like it to be. It is also not as productive as one might like it to be.
With respect to the original post, I won’t try to defend the media but would point out that we have been (overly) sensitized to religiously motivated violence and ‘hate crimes’ in this country. So when something happens to a church, one of the first questions that the media asks is “was this motivated by hatred for religion?” When the answer turns out to be ‘no’, that’s what they report. And that’s what people are asking as well, so it is probably appropriate that they do.
And they are doing the same thing in your second example: looking for religious motivations. If the media were less focused on religion as a motivation for actions we might see more facts and discussion of issues and less digression into off-topic areas.
Comment by Kipli — March 13, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
|
