![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Another word on religion
Jan. 12th, 2011 03:49 pmThere are those among my friends who have been known to remark that I am soft on Christian extremism, because I tend only to focus on faulty logic and emotion-driven arguments in the writings of secularists, atheists and others whom I would expect to avoid such things.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me set the record straight here by referring you to a Mr Erick Erickson. (Warning: this goes to the actual post, not the extensively-commented excerpts to which others have linked.)
This man is (or, since I don't believe in bad people, is choosing to behave like) an utter sack of vileness. A saving faith in Jesus Christ may be a very fine thing, but I do not and will never believe he could see such a thing on a clear day with a very good pair of binoculars and HUBBLE at his disposal.
I don't know if we do know that Loughner was "of the left" (though getting that in before his pious declaration that it doesn't matter was a particularly nasty little stroke)--the last I heard he was neither particularly. But Erickson is right to say that it doesn't matter. Loughner's actions are his own, whether prompted by insanity or ideology, and Sarah Palin and the rest are not directly responsible for them.
It also doesn't matter that Loughner was critical of religion, and described himself as an atheist, any more than it matters that Timothy McVeigh, whom Erickson cites in his article, described himself as an agnostic and said "Science is my religion." Erickson would have you believe that it does--that all the violence and hatred in the world proceeds from the rejection of what he sees as Christianity, which appears to be some sort of Manichaean dualism in which God and Satan are equally matched and we alone can tip the balance.
It doesn't even matter that both Loughner and McVeigh were vociferously opposed to big government, that McVeigh was far right-wing in his politics and a member of the NRA, that Loughner believed the far right-wing conspiracy theories of David Wynn Miller that government was using mind control to brainwash people by controlling grammar. Many sane and decent people are right-wing, even far right-wing, and even Mr Miller seems harmless if somewhat bewildered.
None of those things matter.
What matters about both killers is simple. They wanted to kill.
And to use that to posture, hypocritically and arrogantly, about how if everyone adopted Mr Erickson's faith all this nastiness could be avoided...is beneath contempt. And I do not express contempt lightly, as you all know.
It is true, whatever Mr Erickson says, that the extreme rhetoric employed by Palin and others is entirely unacceptable, whether it contributed to Loughner's mindset or not. It is true that it needs to be stopped, once and for all. And if, as a consequence of this horrific incident, steps are taken to condemn it and to remind its proponents that they still live in a civilised country where inciting your supporters to think in terms of shooting your opponents is by way of being somewhat of a no-no, then I won't be crying too hard about it. You might even hear a sotto voce cheer.
But I'd be just as happy to see the last of this kind of thing. It tarnishes Christianity in the eyes of the world, it demeans the American right, and it makes me quite ill. This is worse than faulty logic. This is not on a level with letting your anger at organised religion run away with you. This is just evil.
And while I believe it may well be that God is a fact, it is not a fact about which Mr Erickson knows or understands anything.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me set the record straight here by referring you to a Mr Erick Erickson. (Warning: this goes to the actual post, not the extensively-commented excerpts to which others have linked.)
This man is (or, since I don't believe in bad people, is choosing to behave like) an utter sack of vileness. A saving faith in Jesus Christ may be a very fine thing, but I do not and will never believe he could see such a thing on a clear day with a very good pair of binoculars and HUBBLE at his disposal.
I don't know if we do know that Loughner was "of the left" (though getting that in before his pious declaration that it doesn't matter was a particularly nasty little stroke)--the last I heard he was neither particularly. But Erickson is right to say that it doesn't matter. Loughner's actions are his own, whether prompted by insanity or ideology, and Sarah Palin and the rest are not directly responsible for them.
It also doesn't matter that Loughner was critical of religion, and described himself as an atheist, any more than it matters that Timothy McVeigh, whom Erickson cites in his article, described himself as an agnostic and said "Science is my religion." Erickson would have you believe that it does--that all the violence and hatred in the world proceeds from the rejection of what he sees as Christianity, which appears to be some sort of Manichaean dualism in which God and Satan are equally matched and we alone can tip the balance.
It doesn't even matter that both Loughner and McVeigh were vociferously opposed to big government, that McVeigh was far right-wing in his politics and a member of the NRA, that Loughner believed the far right-wing conspiracy theories of David Wynn Miller that government was using mind control to brainwash people by controlling grammar. Many sane and decent people are right-wing, even far right-wing, and even Mr Miller seems harmless if somewhat bewildered.
None of those things matter.
What matters about both killers is simple. They wanted to kill.
And to use that to posture, hypocritically and arrogantly, about how if everyone adopted Mr Erickson's faith all this nastiness could be avoided...is beneath contempt. And I do not express contempt lightly, as you all know.
It is true, whatever Mr Erickson says, that the extreme rhetoric employed by Palin and others is entirely unacceptable, whether it contributed to Loughner's mindset or not. It is true that it needs to be stopped, once and for all. And if, as a consequence of this horrific incident, steps are taken to condemn it and to remind its proponents that they still live in a civilised country where inciting your supporters to think in terms of shooting your opponents is by way of being somewhat of a no-no, then I won't be crying too hard about it. You might even hear a sotto voce cheer.
But I'd be just as happy to see the last of this kind of thing. It tarnishes Christianity in the eyes of the world, it demeans the American right, and it makes me quite ill. This is worse than faulty logic. This is not on a level with letting your anger at organised religion run away with you. This is just evil.
And while I believe it may well be that God is a fact, it is not a fact about which Mr Erickson knows or understands anything.