…and this is a 
Conservative confederate killer
Category: Evil
Posted on: July 28, 2008 11:13 AM, by PZ Myers
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.
Politics
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.
Posted by: Jim RL | July 28, 2008 11:18 AM
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.
Posted by: leki | July 28, 2008 11:25 AM
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.
Posted by: Brian K. | July 28, 2008 11:26 AM
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.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 28, 2008 11:31 AM
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.
Posted by: Dahan | July 28, 2008 11:32 AM
Woohoo!
Anti-liberal and anti-gay terrorism!
Fun times ahead!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 28, 2008 11:34 AM
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
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 28, 2008 11:35 AM
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...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 28, 2008 11:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Josh | July 28, 2008 11:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 28, 2008 11:37 AM
The image on the shirt he was wearing during the shooting is the Tennessee state flag.
Posted by: Colugo | July 28, 2008 11:39 AM
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.
Posted by: raven | July 28, 2008 11:40 AM
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/
Dude hates liberals, hates gays, and identifies as a Confederate. Case closed, another right-wing lunatic.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | July 28, 2008 11:42 AM
"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.
Posted by: craig | July 28, 2008 11:43 AM
Perfect. The Pharyngulites turn another shooting tragedy into an opportunity to play the victim card on themselves.
Absolutely fucking pathetic.
Posted by: Nobody | July 28, 2008 11:44 AM
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.
Posted by: Eshto | July 28, 2008 11:45 AM
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.
Posted by: craig | July 28, 2008 11:48 AM
@ 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.
Posted by: leki | July 28, 2008 11:48 AM
Atheism - "It's not just for liberal haters anymore!"
...
..
.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 28, 2008 11:49 AM
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.
Posted by: raven | July 28, 2008 11:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Jim RL | July 28, 2008 11:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Michelle | July 28, 2008 11:52 AM
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.
Posted by: AJ MIlne | July 28, 2008 11:54 AM
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.
Posted by: raven | July 28, 2008 11:56 AM
AJ, here: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/suspect-was-very-nice-guy/
Posted by: Spinoza | July 28, 2008 11:56 AM
Jim RL,
Nobody doesn't care what we're actually talking about here. He just needs some attention, poor little guy.
Posted by: Dahan | July 28, 2008 11:56 AM
AJ Milne @ #23:
I believe that was in an MSNBC article.
I just read that on their site.
Posted by: Brian K. | July 28, 2008 11:57 AM
@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.
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | July 28, 2008 11:58 AM
#15 Nobody sad: "Perfect. The Pharyngulites turn another shooting tragedy into an opportunity to play the victim card on themselves."
nope.
Posted by: Andrew W | July 28, 2008 11:59 AM
@15:
Right. Move along. Nothing to see here. No victims. Only a couple of dead people. Don't concern yourself, twit.
Posted by: Hal in Howell MI (not far from Hell, MI) | July 28, 2008 12:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Skippy | July 28, 2008 12:03 PM
@ 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.
Posted by: Ranson | July 28, 2008 12:03 PM
Right. They aren't victims, just dead and wounded liberals.
Posted by: raven | July 28, 2008 12:05 PM
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.
Posted by: EWJames | July 28, 2008 12:05 PM
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.
Posted by: JoeBlu | July 28, 2008 12:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Jim RL | July 28, 2008 12:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Holbach | July 28, 2008 12:07 PM
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.
Posted by: Holbach | July 28, 2008 12:09 PM
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.
Posted by: EntoAggie | July 28, 2008 12:11 PM
"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.
Posted by: craig | July 28, 2008 12:13 PM
@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.
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | July 28, 2008 12:14 PM
Michelle, these weren't Catholics. They were Unitarian Universalists. Some in the congregation may identify as Christians, some don't.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | July 28, 2008 12:14 PM
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
Posted by: teh07h3r0n3 | July 28, 2008 12:15 PM
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.
Posted by: Noadi | July 28, 2008 12:17 PM
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.
Posted by: BMcP | July 28, 2008 12:17 PM
#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.
Posted by: scooter | July 28, 2008 12:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | July 28, 2008 12:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Jim RL | July 28, 2008 12:26 PM
#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.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 28, 2008 12:26 PM
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.
Posted by: black wolf | July 28, 2008 12:30 PM
#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.
Posted by: Ian | July 28, 2008 12:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | July 28, 2008 12:33 PM
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.
Posted by: pmon | July 28, 2008 12:34 PM
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.
Posted by: wombat | July 28, 2008 12:35 PM
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)
Posted by: Jon | July 28, 2008 12:36 PM
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.
Posted by: mcmillan | July 28, 2008 12:36 PM
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.
Posted by: Holbach | July 28, 2008 12:37 PM
@56
mcmillan, I think the word you're looking for is vandal, not terrorist.
Posted by: Bubba | July 28, 2008 12:39 PM
Because, unlike him, those who subdued him chose not to inflict needless pain?
Posted by: MartinM | July 28, 2008 12:41 PM
I completely agree with you, Holbach. I wouldn't hold back on someone who just injured my friends and put children in danger.
Posted by: Noadi | July 28, 2008 12:42 PM
#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.
Posted by: Matt | July 28, 2008 12:42 PM
@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.
Posted by: EntoAggie | July 28, 2008 12:43 PM
Holbach:
Somehow, I can't imagine you ever being in that church.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 28, 2008 12:45 PM
Took me quite a while to realize he wasn't a parody, to be honest.
Posted by: MartinM | July 28, 2008 12:50 PM
# 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.
Posted by: scooter | July 28, 2008 12:52 PM
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.
Posted by: Jim RL | July 28, 2008 12:54 PM
"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.
Posted by: craig | July 28, 2008 1:00 PM
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?
Posted by: Janine ID | July 28, 2008 1:03 PM
"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.
Posted by: craig | July 28, 2008 1:03 PM
Not to mention the War on Brown People Who Spilled Our Pint.
Posted by: MartinM | July 28, 2008 1:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Dahan | July 28, 2008 1:04 PM
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.
Posted by: scooter | July 28, 2008 1:04 PM
@ 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.
Posted by: Ranson | July 28, 2008 1:04 PM
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.?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 28, 2008 1:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 28, 2008 1:08 PM
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?
Posted by: Greg | July 28, 2008 1:09 PM
"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.
Posted by: craig | July 28, 2008 1:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Andrew | July 28, 2008 1:15 PM
#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'.
Posted by: leki | July 28, 2008 1:17 PM
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.
Posted by: Ranson | July 28, 2008 1:20 PM
#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.
Posted by: scooter | July 28, 2008 1:21 PM