Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Some fundie nutball in Michigan tried to set his teacher on fire for being a witch:
An adult education student has been charged with threatening to burn his English teacher a day after asking her if she was a witch.Darin Najor's class at Taft Education Center in Ferndale, Mich., had been studying Arthur Miller's 1953 play "The Crucible," the Detroit Free Press and The Daily Tribune of Royal Oak reported Wednesday.
The play is based on the 1692 Salem witch trials that saw about 20 people hanged.
Apparently, this genius didn't like the choice of books:
Najor, 20, had asked the teacher on Sept. 10 if she believed in witchcraft. She told him she didn't, and said Miller's play really was about unjust persecution, Ferndale police told The Daily Tribune.Najor then tossed his homework on the classroom floor "and declared it was all blasphemy," detective Ken Denmark told The Daily Tribune.
"The next day he came up behind her chanting what sounded like religious verses while she was working at her desk," Denmark said.
Some type of liquid was poured on her head. He also had a cigarette lighter and wanted to, in his words, "burn the witch," Denmark added.
Najor also said he was trying to purify her with holy water, Denmark said.
I don't think he'll be getting his GED.
Comments
Are you sure it wasn't Thomas Muthee? Crazy ass xtians!!!
Posted by: Azazel | October 12, 2008 9:41 AM
Well, I don't see anywhere in that article where they answered the whether or not she is a witch. All you have to do is place them on a big scale next to a duck. I saw that in a documentary somewhere.
Posted by: Skip Evans | October 12, 2008 9:56 AM
It's obvious she wasn't a witch. If she had been, she would have turned him into a newt. Unless, of course, she did, and later on he got better?
Posted by: MH | October 12, 2008 10:03 AM
I can see already that this is going to be a painful comment thread.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 12, 2008 10:10 AM
He definitely sounds like a nutjob, but I'm not sure he's a KKKristian nutjob. Just sayin'.
A $250 bond for what sounds like assault is a bit on the low side of the scale, imo. I hope he got booted and that there's a restraining order in effect.
Skip:
A duck? Really? Is it, like, Peking? or pressed, or what?
Gretchen:
I think you're probably right. We will know for sure when mroberts shows up to defend Najor's actions.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2008 10:20 AM
Oh, please.
This guy obviously has emotional problems. He could have been some guy offing himself because he thought the U.F.O.'s were coming, but he happened to be fundamentalist Christian. Cheap shot. Very cheap shot.
Posted by: Orac | October 12, 2008 10:20 AM
93 days???? The charges should have penalties closer to 93 years.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 12, 2008 10:22 AM
democommie,
I'm not aware of mroberts having any particular interest in defending people who try to set witches on fire. I was actually referring to the proliferation of Monty Python references.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 12, 2008 10:34 AM
Orac: Mr. Brayton's post is not a cheap shot at all. Mr. Najor probably does have emotional and/or mental problems (I can't diagnose what these might be); maybe those are precisely the folks who are most likely to be unleashed upon the sane world with a special kind of crazy that only monotheism can provide someone like Mr. Najor.
Posted by: jws | October 12, 2008 10:35 AM
Cheap shot? Maybe. I guess psychosis doesn't really choose which irrational idea to seize upon. The issue of course isn't his religion, but his mental condition.
However, feeding irrational ideas to people doesn't help matters. Reconciling the contradictions in the BS is a source of stress to some people, and could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Just sayin' :)
Posted by: Xoebe | October 12, 2008 10:36 AM
Orac, in which case, no one would be telling us not to blame the UFO nutters for promoting their whack-job views to impressionable, vulnerable minds.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | October 12, 2008 10:40 AM
Gretchen:
I wouldn't be so sure of that if the witch burning wannabe whackjob guy's a christian.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2008 10:49 AM
The first thing I thought when I read this was that if there is one, there must be more.
Like roaches.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | October 12, 2008 10:55 AM
What would Sarah Palin's witch-hunting friend from Africa do?
Posted by: a lurker | October 12, 2008 11:03 AM
I would just like to say that the teacher was not wearing a turban and this was not a prank.
But what exactly was the battery charge based on here? Pouring a nonflammable liquid on her head, or "going after her with the cigarette"?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 12, 2008 11:20 AM
JD Salinger isn't responsible for what Mark David Chapman did to Lennon, and Scorsese isn't responsible for what John Hinkley, Jr. did to Reagan for luv of Jodie Foster, and the bible isn't responsible for what this obviously disturbed individual tried to do to his teacher. Mental illness magnifies whatever speaks to that person already: why is it necessarily the actual essence of whatever it is that inspires and fuels the madness?
So, my question is that is there a way in which what this "fundie nutball's" pathology is somehow worse than others' because it's religiously-based? I don't see how, is all. Maybe I'm missing the point - is it because religious stories are non-rational? Or that there's a certain amount of intolerance for other views as part of the whole structure of the ideas? But, so when sane people do good things in the name of a religion, is that discountable?
Posted by: marnk | October 12, 2008 11:42 AM
Well marnk, there is the fact that JD Salinger and Martin Scorsese are storytellers, whereas the Bible is presumably a moral guidebook. And the Bible does say straight out that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." I wouldn't blame Christianity as a whole for the behavior of this nutter-- fortunately, most Christians and Jews today have the sense to not actually live by the rules given in their holy books-- but your analogy is a pretty bad one.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 12, 2008 11:53 AM
Well, he was saying witchcraft was "blasphemy", which is generally a monotheistic idea, especially as associated with the Salem trials. Add in "holy water" and it lends the impression of Christianity first, possibly Islam (or Judaism) after that (given the demographics of religion in America). Naturally, the author of the piece may have been using their own words for something (holy water instead of mystical water of Oompa-Loompa).
For those saying this is cheap - is this any different than Palin's witch-hunting preacher whose blessing caused her to win the election? Is this any different than the hundreds or thousands of women who are killed for being "witches" every year (mainly in Asia or Africa, but they happen the world over), or the ones killed throughout history, mainly because some fruitcake wrote an anti-woman tract that ended up being called "holy" and regarded as TRUTH! If he is crazy (and I think he is), can we say the same of everyone else who holds such ideas? Or do we limit it to those who actually act on it?
Posted by: Badger3k | October 12, 2008 11:59 AM
Marnk:
The issue here is whether Christianity provided the "moral" framework he needed to do what he did. I don't think there's any question that we're talking about a severely unbalanced person here; the problem is that certain belief systems are more enabling to such potentially (?) violent actions as this one, and the first and foremost of them is fundamentalist religion. (Religion-like systems such as Stalinism and Randian Objectivism have bred such people as well, though I don't think any Randroids have actually killed anyone in the name of Objectivism.)
I used to work in a major bookstore, and one of our regular customers was an obviously developmentally disabled woman who was also a fundamentalist Christian. She seemed very nice overall, but she was fairly talkative and her Christianity occasionally manifested itself in some profoundly disturbing and inhuman ways. I'm pretty sure if she was violently psychotic rather than peacefully slow, she'd have been a danger to herself and others, precisely because Christianity would have given her something to justify it.
Posted by: BrianX | October 12, 2008 12:03 PM
ok, well Gretchen my analogy may be weak but didn't you see my main point besides that? Why blame Christianity at all? I was trying to say mentally ill people will use whatever feeds their delusions. To say somehow this person's religion - rather than his mental illness (do I keep needing to stress mental illnesshere?) - was responsible for his behavior is just not true.
Now Badger has a good point about Muthee et al and in no way am I able or willing to defend that crap. But in this particular case, with a lone emotionally disturbed person's actions, I do see it as a cheap shot to blame religion. Maybe I'm just not getting it...
Posted by: marnk | October 12, 2008 12:13 PM
Azazel, please don't lump Christians together with this deeply disturbed man. Your comment makes as much sense as saying Palin equals Alaskans; in doing so you demonstrate the same closed-mindedness as those you accuse.
Posted by: Dave | October 12, 2008 12:23 PM
Posted my last entry before I saw your response, Brian. Thanks for seeking to help explain it for me.
I work at a college and there is a small family of Mennonites who are politically active there - they're part of a campus religious group. Most of them are really nice, but the one boy scares me because he never looks anyone in the eye and he literally skulks around and he looks like he's fighting some pretty scary internal demons - tho of course it's just my assumption. I sometimes wonder if he'd be the type to get violent against non-religious folks based on his fundamental beliefs (his sisters wear long dresses and head-scarfs and they all supported an anti-evolution event here at the college, which I opposed). I suppose that's what y'all are trying to say, right? Some of the message of religion lends itself to extreme ideas? But I think I'm saying that if he was into something else - like Harris & Klebold perhaps expressed their alienation through being interested in "dark" music/games - he'd still be disturbed.
Posted by: marnk | October 12, 2008 12:26 PM
It's always amazing that people like this still exist, and it scares me more than a little. These are people who would stone me for what I believe, and for some of the things I do. Frankly, these people are unstable and, clearly, they are a danger to society.
Posted by: JStein | October 12, 2008 1:04 PM
But it's probably not what's got the boy on the edge, and the same general idea probably applies (I say, in the absence of any more facts about the case than presented here) to this would-be witch burner. Some people are just wired wrong and there's precious little we can do to save them. Demon-possessed is not too inapt a description, even for those of us who don't believe in demons.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 12, 2008 1:27 PM
Surprised all the fundies aren't headed to wherever that shark just gave birth 'immaculately'. Sounds like a new messiah for them.
Cheers
Posted by: Mike | October 12, 2008 1:36 PM
I usually agree with Orac, but if I may engage in a little hyperbole... If Mr. Najor were part of a sizable organized group (10 million people, say) that all believed in the same things (such as the power of witchcraft) and the majority of that group encouraged his actions, would he still be considered mentally ill or unstable? Would Ed's post still be a cheap shot? In fact, portraying Mr. Najor as mentally unstable makes the case that all religious extremists are mentally ill and unstable. Is it just that his actions were outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior in our society that makes them those of a mentally unstable person? If so, then this nation, and indeed our world are greatly at risk as demonstrated by the presidency of GWB and the nomination of Gov. Palin, both of whom have insane worldviews and the firm belief that they have the right to impose their worldviews on others by any means necessary. That they acquired such power indicates that a large proportion of our population tolerates such views and their forced imposition. Subjecting such behavior to ridicule is one of our first lines of defense. Hell, given enough money, Mr. Najor might run a successful campaign for mayor of some little burg despite his insane behavior. It might even be an asset to his campaign - courage of his convictions and all that crap.
Posted by: c-serpent | October 12, 2008 1:45 PM
Assault with no other aggravating circumstances is a low-level misdemeanor most everything. Here in NC, you don't get to felony charges until "Assault Inflicting Serious Injuries." But as many have pointed out, this guy may well meet the M'Naughton test of not knowing that he was doing anything wrong. Ironically, he would probably be under confinement longer in an assylum than in jail.
Clearly he was mistaken, because you only burn or hang witches after they have been convicted. As the teacher was only accused, she should have been pressed to force a plea.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 12, 2008 2:18 PM
"She's a witch! She's a witch!"
"I am not a witch."
"Burn her anyway!"
(I always thought that sketch looked to the past, not the future)
Posted by: dave | October 12, 2008 2:24 PM
Ed finishes this post by wryly observing, "I don't think he'll be getting his GED."
I'd like to think that with the public exposure of his defenseless actions that maybe now, if he's paying attention, Mr. Najor's education is just beginning. Here's to hoping that he'll catch on.
E Pluribus Unum
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 12, 2008 2:54 PM
This man's actions only appear insane to us now because we're experiencing religion after several hundred years of civilizing secular influence. In the 1600s, this was common place and largely accepted as normal practice.
Posted by: I am so wise | October 12, 2008 4:23 PM
I am so wise wrote,"This man's actions only appear insane to us now because we're experiencing religion after several hundred years of civilizing secular influence. In the 1600s, this was common place and largely accepted as normal practice."
So are you saying that insanity is only a social construct?
Posted by: Bill in NC | October 12, 2008 5:21 PM
"Only" a social construct? Sure it is, just like the economy, and the family, and the English language. There's almost certainly an underlying biology, but how that is perceived, expressed, and responded to is the social bit. Saint, prophet, heretic, witch, mystic, artist or loony-bin candidate: that depends on the society.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 12, 2008 5:46 PM
A new angle just occurred to me on this, which was that moderate religion actually provides some sort of cover for people with insane beliefs. When you're surrounded by people who believe people do bad things because of a talking snake, it's probably a lot easier to appear relatively sane. This guy would never have been assessed for his mental health if he hadn't gone all the way and threatened to kill someone.
Posted by: jamie | October 12, 2008 5:47 PM
Here's some video of Palin's witchdoctor friend and Bill Maher's commentary on the whole thing: http://brainrageblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/something-someone-else-said_05.html
Posted by: James Webb | October 12, 2008 6:11 PM
I think what's so bothersome to me about it is that I am having a hard time distinguishing his actions from the actions of a a group of religious fanatics engaging in a more run of the mill campaign of harassment and intimidation. (Like, say, the ones outside abortion clinics and the idiots who congratulate the people who've harassed and even murdered doctors.)
Witch hunts do happen. You don't usually see old-fashioned burnings, but we have a witch hunter blessing the person running for the second most powerful position in the most powerful nation on the planet. Widespread attempts to ban entertainment media like the Harry Potter series and D&D games (because they supposedly "promote" witchcraft) attest the public acceptance of the terrible witch threat. Large numbers of otherwise sane people think witchcraft exists, and they think it's evil.
(It's not directly related, but this would have to be the worst modern case of witch hunting that I've heard of: the so-called "Nigerian child witches". Note: harassment and intimidation is far more common than murder. Nevertheless, I imagine if this guy were in one of the more loony churches around, rather than in a GED class full of disinterested and probably frightened strangers, he might have even had help.)
Posted by: Leni | October 12, 2008 7:03 PM
If this guy has emotional problems(and I'm not going to try to diagnose them either), I can see why he apparently sconfused his instructor, upon the perusal of The Crucible, might have confused said instrurctor with a "witch". Threatening violence toward her, though, is another story. He needs help. She needs some sort of protection against such threats.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | October 12, 2008 8:02 PM
I am a close personal friend of the teacher who was attacked. She has taught for a fairly long time, and never has she had such a brush with insanity. She has filed a PPO against this wack job and I personally feel that a mere 93 day misdemeanor is a joke. The teacher fears for her safety, but since he has "mental issues," I'm afraid that perhaps no real punishment will occur. However, I'm sure that the mental place that Mr. Najor is in is not a happy one, and perhaps THAT is his punishment. Karma, I'm certain will take care of this individual in the end. For the record, my friend doesn't weigh the same as a duck, so THEREFORE she is not a witch! :-)
Posted by: Friend of the "witch" | October 12, 2008 9:03 PM
Don't pour water on them before trying to burn them! Honestly, some people...
Posted by: tincture | October 12, 2008 9:38 PM
It doesn't say in the article anywhere, but are they at least going to get a psychiatrist to examine/talk to him? This kid may not need *punishment*, he may need *medication.* Schizophrenic behavior is not usually stopped by a fine or jail time.
Posted by: mandrake | October 12, 2008 10:21 PM
So the kid was a nut. May have been drugging.
The Virginia Tech and Finland shooters were atheists.
So whats your excuse for them?
Posted by: The Steinmaster | October 12, 2008 11:27 PM
The Steinmaster -
Proof plz, fundie needledick
Posted by: Katharine | October 12, 2008 11:56 PM
Look at the bright side: the teacher didn't assign "The Scarlet Letter."
Posted by: Reverend H.L. Spork | October 13, 2008 1:52 AM
Where did you get the idea that Seung-Hui Cho, the Virgina Tech shooter, was an atheist?
"On April 18, 2007, NBC News received a package from Cho time-stamped between the first and second shooting episodes. It contained an 1,800-word manifesto, photos, and 27 digitally recorded videos, in which Cho likened himself to Jesus Christ"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
Posted by: Taz | October 13, 2008 8:31 AM
Orac, 'oh please' indeed. Which of the four lines (if you include the post title) that Ed wrote was a 'very cheap shot'? Did he say something untrue, no. His fundamentalist beliefs certainly had something to do with the way he acted; the truth is a cheap shot? The fact that it's unusual, and it's in Michigan, is reason enough to post about it. You're just coming across as untypically haughty. Very haughty.
Posted by: Spartan | October 13, 2008 8:36 AM
The Steinmaster wrote:
Cho, the VT shooter was not an athiest. He was a fundie whose parents were taking him to a fundie church to 'help' him with his mental illness that, among other things, caused him to equate his own imagined persecution with that of Jesus. Fat lot of good their god did him.
Posted by: c-serpent | October 13, 2008 9:08 AM
Once again,
Christianity is Insanity
Posted by: JimSpencer | October 13, 2008 9:21 AM
The fellow is obviously a nut.
But all he did was pour some "nonflammable liquid" (water?) on the teacher, and approach her with a (lit? unlit?) cigarette lighter.
93 days in jail for splashing someone with water and making creepy comments seems rather harsh to me. Does it not seem harsh to you?
Now, IF the sentence was merely an accommodation so the guy can get psychiatric evaluation that is another kettle of fish.
But I do not otherwise understand the case against this guy - he is charged with "battery" not assault. What is the battery (water splashing?), and why not an assault charge for scaring the poor teacher?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 13, 2008 10:52 AM
Gingerbaker said:
To me, it would depend upon the specific creepy comments and the nature of the liquid. If it were non-flammable sewer water or water contaminated with some infectious pathogen, then I would say 93 days doesn't cut it. It seems unlikely, however, that Najor used such a liquid. On the other hand, if his words implied that the liquid was flammable and it was only later revealed to be merely water, then he essentially terrorized her and caused her very real psychological harm. Had it been a big guy that he did this to, he likely would've had his lights punched out and justifiably so. Is getting the crap beat out of him worse than 93 days? Also, there is the very real concern of escalation unless the guy gets slapped down really hard. IMO, he needs psychological help but punishment may be a necessary first step.
Posted by: c-serpent | October 13, 2008 2:24 PM
gingerbaker,
IIRC, assault usually has a connotation of apprehension of future harm while battery is physical contact or harm. The teacher apparently didn't realize he was attacking, hence no assault.
Posted by: gort | October 14, 2008 4:45 PM
gort:
I think that you're incorrect. The teacher did realize that she was being attacked, although she didn't know the nature of the attack.
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2008 9:39 PM
Definitely won't be getting his GED. If he'd actually read the book, he'd know that witches are hanged not burned.
It's heretics who are burned. Duh.
Posted by: Corkscrew | October 15, 2008 4:55 PM