…and this is a 
Clemmons was the Jesus-loving lunatic who murdered four police officers in Tacoma, and was shot and killed by the police. He was also the recipient of a pardon from Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, egotistical god-walloping incompetent.
Now don't get me wrong: I'm all for mercy, I reject the abuse of our penal system as a vehicle for vengeance, and I oppose the death penalty without reservation. A governor's clemency can be a good thing, as when it should be used to correct miscarriages of justice (isn't it odd, though, how the most Christian of governors avoid using it for that purpose?). But there are also cases where justice and mercy are best served by incarceration or mental care, not by turning killers and dangerous psychos loose on the streets.
Clemmons was a monster. He murdered people and he raped children. He was insane. He believed he was Jesus Christ. Yet Mike Huckabee pardoned him. Why? Because Huckabee did not care about the evidence. What he thought was sufficient was a profession of piety and the testimonials of religious men. Clemmons played him.
No doubt word spread among the prison population that the affable governor was vulnerable to appeals from convicts who claimed to be born again. Clemmons too was among those who benefited from Huckabee's tendency to believe such pious testimonials. "I come from a very good Christian family and I was raised much better than my actions speak," he explained in his clemency application in 2000. "I'm still ashamed to this day for the shame my stupid involvement in these crimes brought upon my family's name ... I have never done anything good for God, but I've prayed for him to grant me in his compassion the grace to make a start. Now, I'm humbly appealing to you for a brand new start."
Mercy is not a wicked thing, and there are good people in prison who could turn their lives around if given an opportunity. There are also evil, damaged people in prison who would use freedom as an opportunity to do harm. What is necessary is the rational analysis of evidence to determine who deserves freedom in those cases, and Huckabee does not and cannot do that; his religiosity short-circuits his capacity for critical evaluation, and his ego makes the pardon a tool for feeding his own delusions of christ-hood. Tristero has an excellent summary.
First of all, it is Huckabee's delusion that he is Jesus Christ, not genuine compassion, that spins the Clemmons case as a miscarriage of justice against a hapless juvenile. It is clear from the record that Clemmons was then, and continued to be, an extremely troubled person with a propensity for extreme violence. Huckabee ignored this, focusing - Christ-like - on an opportunity to show mercy towards a young sinner who showed what Huckabee misapprehended as signs of redemption. The issue is Huckabee's lack of judgment.
If you argue that it is unfair to sentence a juvenile to life in prison for an armed robbery committed when he was 16, I won't disagree with you. But that is not the issue here. The issue is Huckabee's spectacularly bad judgment and his failure to take responsibilty for his behavior. The justice system, for all its incredible faults, has numerous mechanisms, including but not limited to commuting a sentence, for dealing with mitigating circumstances, like the age of an offender, signs of redemption, and an unfairly long sentence. Flawed they surely are, imperfect and inadequate no doubt, but they exist. Huckabee, imitating Christ, chose to deal with the Clemmons case in a very particular way, showing not mercy, but simply awful judgment that set into motion further tragedy.
The incredibly cruel, incredibly unjust way that juvenile offenders are treated in the United States has nothing to do with the fact that Huckabee behaved the way he did. It simply gave him an excuse to exercise his egomania, his delusions of grandeur, and his incompetence. As a result, innocent people died.
Huckabee wants to be our president. I wouldn't trust him to be my dishwasher.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: peptron | December 1, 2009 12:10 PM
We all know that religious people cannot do wrong.
*runs*
Posted by: Kemanorel | December 1, 2009 12:12 PM
Is it wrong to want to hire a panel of psychiatrists or something to screen out these crazy fucking people from positions of political power?
Posted by: HenryS
|
December 1, 2009 12:12 PM
And before Clemmons there was Wayne DuMond, who was also release and then raped and killed two more women. As with Clemmons, Huckabee never took/takes any responsibility for screwing up.
Posted by: Lola | December 1, 2009 12:13 PM
I gasped when I learned Huckabee was running for the presidency. He would never separate church and state; he's delusional. This story proves he is also incompetent to hold office. Get the god squad out of Washington before we all get killed.
Posted by: diablo | December 1, 2009 12:13 PM
Lord knows...if the dude was growing pot in his basement...he'd still be in jail....
Posted by: Steve_C | December 1, 2009 12:13 PM
Wow. This is way worse than what Dukakis got reamed for.
Kiss that next presidential run good bye. Possibly his Faux News show too.
Posted by: arrakis
|
December 1, 2009 12:14 PM
Right Wing Watch reported on this yesterday. Apparently, Huckabee is thinking about not running for president because he likes his job with Fox. However, if he ends up not running I think we all know why.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/end-huckabees-presidential-aspirations
Posted by: Colin Meier | December 1, 2009 12:15 PM
Huckabee grants clemency to Clemmons but refuses to consider (even post-execution) that he executed an (almost certainly) innocent man, in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham?
Wow.
Posted by: peptron | December 1, 2009 12:17 PM
*comes back*
Though now what I am afraid of is that it might set a precedent and criminals will try to play the "I have seen Jesus" card to get out of jail free.
The thing I wonder now is will they be fairplay and give the same value to the "I have seen Muhammad" card?
Posted by: chgo_liz | December 1, 2009 12:17 PM
Yesterday's NY Times: "We May Be Born With an Urge to Help"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html
Seemed appropriate.
Posted by: inkadu | December 1, 2009 12:17 PM
From a strictly religious perspective, why does Jesus care if you're in prison or not? Souls are souls wherever they are.
And if we ever get an atheist in prison, he (or she) would have standing to make a complaint of religious discrimination in parole hearings. Unfortunately, it seems we are too moral for that to happen.
Posted by: Joseph | December 1, 2009 12:20 PM
Not sure why anyone would take you serious when the second sentence of your blog is factually wrong. LOL!
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 1, 2009 12:21 PM
But muhammad is a false prophet, and stuff, right?
Posted by: alex.asolis.net
|
December 1, 2009 12:21 PM
From the Salon article:
The biggest failure of the justice system in this case was that it allowed for an incompetent, god-fearing, and delusional (but I repeat myself) individual like Huckabee to have the power to pardon criminals.Posted by: Endor | December 1, 2009 12:22 PM
What Jebus wanted most of all was for his followers to parade their piety like its Mardi Gras! Whohoo for conspicuous displays of religious devotion designed specifically for personal gain!
Consequences to other people be damned!
Posted by: SteveM | December 1, 2009 12:23 PM
I suspect just the opposite will happen. Even sincere expressions of remorse and contrition will be dismissed as hypocrisy.
Posted by: Steve | December 1, 2009 12:23 PM
Any comment on the criminal justice systems of Washington and Arkansas thet repeatedly left Clemmons at large despite committing multiple felonies subsequent to Huckabee's initial action?
Or is the goal here simply a political crucifixion of Huckabee?
Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 1, 2009 12:25 PM
Yup. This just goes to show why the true Christian thing to do is obviously to never elect Christians to positions of Government and Authority - there is an obvious conflict of interest between one's Christian duty (unerring grace and compassion) and one's civic duty (protect and serve, among other things).
Jesus was (uncharacteristically) clear, concise, and consistent on just this point (Render unto Caesar, Vengeance in Mine, etc.). Of course, he and his earliest supporters could afford to be somewhat sanguine, insofar as they had already been talked into giving up all of their earthly posessions to wander the desert and prepare for the imminent eschaton. Much like the Heaven's Gate crew, they had bigger fish to fry, I guess.
Nevertheless, I imagine that a true follower of Christ should be much more concerned with the state of the unfortunate Mr. Clemmons' soul when his body took on all that additional lead, and less about such banal matters as earthly justice for him and his victims.
Posted by: SteveM | December 1, 2009 12:27 PM
"crucifixion" implies unjust criticism. the criticism of Huckabee is thoroughly justified regardless of the justice systems of Washinton and Arkansas.
Posted by: Rob | December 1, 2009 12:29 PM
@ Colin #8:
Huckabee = Arkansas.
Cameron Todd Willingham = Texas (Rick Perry?)
Posted by: PlaydoPlato | December 1, 2009 12:29 PM
LEAVE HUCKLEBERRY ALONE!
Seriously, I've seen normally rational people fall under the spell of the affable Huckster, but don't be fooled. He's dangerous.
Hell, besides Sarah Q (Quitter) Palin, Hucklefuck's the next biggest threat in 2012. We need to keep up the work of critically reviewing this man's track record.
Posted by: Jordan | December 1, 2009 12:35 PM
He was our governor here in Arkansas for far too long. I think that the rest of the country should have to suffer through his idiocy as well. It's only fair.
Posted by: raven | December 1, 2009 12:35 PM
Well, that answers the old question.
"Who would jesus kill?"
He doesn't seem to like police officers.
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | December 1, 2009 12:37 PM
Huckabee is a sadistic monster. Not only will he turn murderers and rapists loose if they claim to have found Jeezus, but if you convert to the "wrong" religion, he executes you sooner!
http://www.mahablog.com/2009/11/30/as-governor-huckabee-found-some-prisoners-more-pardonable-than-others/
Posted by: Mandrake | December 1, 2009 12:39 PM
Nope. That would be seen as a membership card for the local Islamic terrorist group and would be redeemable for one waterboarding session.
Posted by: Shamar
|
December 1, 2009 12:40 PM
"Huckabee wants to be our president. I wouldn't trust him to be my dishwasher."
I couldn't agree more :-)
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | December 1, 2009 12:42 PM
Wow, that's insane and scary. How does Huckabee have the power to just pardon him???
There was a loosely related story here in Manitoba in today's paper...they're talking bringing a faith-based prison program to an MB Women's prison:
"The faith-based unit would be the first of its kind in Canada. Those advocating for the program said it could be a separate prison wing where inmates engage in round-the-clock programming based on Christian biblical values, such as humbling oneself, loving God, and respecting others, with the goal of changing prisoner behaviour."
http://www.canada.com/Plans+underway+first+faith+based+prison+Canada+says+Christian+group/2289242/story.html
Ridiculous.
(Hey PZ, I hear you may be speaking in Winnipeg in January...I hope this is true!)
Posted by: Tim Danaher | December 1, 2009 12:49 PM
"Mike Huckabee killed Maurice Clemmons"
Don't forget to add the names of Sgt. Mark Renninger and officers Ronald Owens, Tina Griswold and Greg Richards to that list.
Posted by: Zombie | December 1, 2009 12:53 PM
I live in the Seattle area, so naturally, this is all over the news here. And I certainly don't think much of Huckabee - he's a loathesome rat.
However, I have been reluctant to blame Huckabee for granting clemency here, because its a very complicated subject, and if we're going to blame politicians for every convict that reoffends it's going to eventually hit everybody except politicians who never offer clemency to anyone under any circumstances (except white nonviolent offenders, you know, like those that bilk charities and retirees out of billions). And that will effectively be the end of executive clemency.
If Huckabee is a sucker for pious-sounding con-men, however, that's another matter. It certainly reflects on his decision making process, and not in a good way.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 1:00 PM
He is... and that was the entire point of the post.
Posted by: Orakio | December 1, 2009 1:08 PM
Jordan #22,
It's not really fair to punish the rest of us for the poor choices of your neighbors.
There is, I suppose, the hope that this can spark a strong reformation of the methods through which a person can be evaluated for commuted sentences, but what steams me most about this is that it was essentially his 'third chance' out of jail. Chucklebee was certainly a critical enabler, but the system did break down all over the place. We need to place this turd's role front and center at the same time that we fix the system - Neither should be afforded the chance for more failures.
However, I am at a loss for a suggestion to repair the system. The clemency clauses are inserted into constitutions at the federal and state level in order that gross miscarriages of justice can be fixed, and you have to preserve that function, especially in the face of potential unpopularity and politically motivated prosecutions.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
December 1, 2009 1:11 PM
We on the atheist side often cite surveys showing that professed religion within the prison population is even more common than outside prison as evidence that religion makes one more likely to commit bad acts. I cringe when I see that because I don't think such surveys can be trusted to be accurate, given the propensity of those running the show to pretend that finding religion equals moral reform, as this Huckabee example demonstrates. There is a very strong incentive for a prisoner to put on an act, pretending to be religious to get favorable consideration from parole boards (and the occasional governor). As long as this unfair bias exists in those doing the judging of the prisoner's reform, we can't trust the results of self-reporting surveys where prisoners tell us what their religious views are.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2009 1:11 PM
<headdesk>
Why is this man governor? What kind of voting machines were used?
Posted by: gecko1 | December 1, 2009 1:12 PM
Born again until out again.
Posted by: Chris K | December 1, 2009 1:18 PM
I think that the article quoted and the commentators here are not recognizing that this was probably not a con on Clemmons part. What is there for evidence that he did not genuinely have what born again Christians call a conversion experience. He suffered from some mental derangement. There is no magic in a religious conversion that would keep him from doing what he did. The problem with Huckabee is he thinks that magic exists.
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
December 1, 2009 1:22 PM
Huckabee is partly to blame, but how about the idiots who gave him bail for child rape and whatever else it was he was facing??
Also, the criminal justice system is overflowing with dangerous criminals. Huckabee was just making room for people like Tommy Chong. We can't have irresponsible glass makers running amok in society.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 1:26 PM
Checks and balances... how about the ability of a state legislature to overturn a grant of clemency with a 2/3 vote?
It would still have the possibility of allowing for improper, politically motivated action, but it's certainly better than an arbitrary decision made without threat of consequence by a single person, which is critical in matters of public safety, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Naadeyah | December 1, 2009 1:26 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, Huckabee pardoned this man when he was a 17 year old non-violent offender facing a pretty long sentence for burglary? I'm no fan of the governor and certainly don't want him for president, but I don't think it's fair to cast blame on him in this case.
Posted by: Colin Meier | December 1, 2009 1:31 PM
Rob @8 : Thanks! I had the nagging suspicion after clicking submit that I may have gotten the states confused.
Posted by: Bobber
|
December 1, 2009 1:35 PM
When I first heard that Mike Huckabee pardoned Clemmons, I immediately thought that it was probably because Clemmons convinced Huckabee that he was "born again." Seems I was right.
It's tragic, but sometimes, it's just easy to figure out what makes people do stupid things. And why these people shouldn't be elected to positions of responsibility.
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 1:43 PM
I'm perplexed by one small aspect of your analysis, PZ. You call Clemmons "insane," yet you attribute to him the hatching of the rather ingenious plan of fooling the fool Huckabee into giving him a pardon.
So, I guess my question is, which is it? Is Clemmons insane or is he a murderer who gamed an idiotic governor? I'm not suggesting it takes much cleverness to outwit Huck, but it seems a stretch for someone you've called "insane."
And doesn't labeling Clemmons "insane" absolve him somewhat of his crimes? Why give him even this?
Posted by: charley | December 1, 2009 1:47 PM
Not according to this:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010385617_webmansought29.html
Posted by: knathon | December 1, 2009 1:48 PM
Tim,
You said what I was thinking. The real tragedy here is the four Lakewood cops that Clemmons killed.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 1:48 PM
You are mistaken... at least in your characterization... this was hardly a young guy who made a mistake and got an unnecessarily harsh sentence... please read here for the important context behind what happened to get him the sentence he got... when he was sentenced at 18, he was already serving 48 years for five other felony convictions, and was up for charges of bringing a handgun on school property.
Based on the recommendations of pretty much anyone involved with this guy, it was a really bad decision to grant him clemency.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 1:55 PM
Pete... cut it out.
Pretending to be religious to garner favor or save one's skin is hardly "ingenious"... and hardly requires one to be sane... it's one of the most common tactics used by criminals to get parole... claim to be "saved".
And, if he was insane, he should still be locked up in some sort of institution where he can get help and prevented from access to the general public, not set free...
Hence, the rest of your post is crap...
Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 1, 2009 1:58 PM
When as random a pair of religious leaders as Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama are both telling you to lay off, you should probably stop a mo' and think about what you're doing.
Posted by: eddie
|
December 1, 2009 2:00 PM
I'm not convinced. Sure huckabee is a stupid deluded fool. Sure clemmens is an evil child raper. Who should not have been baled. On the other hand, I don't see anything to convince that clemmens actually killed those cops, that's not on a par with what they said about rodney king or oj simpson.
Another case of round up the nearest suspects? And, given the behaviour of cops documented in Ed Brayton's blog, it's one violent gang against another.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 2:01 PM
Hmmm... my post at #45 was probably to harshly worded at Pete...
I stand by the response, but retract the unnecessary tone...
Posted by: eddie
|
December 1, 2009 2:03 PM
I'm not convinced. Sure huckabee is a stupid deluded fool. Sure clemmens is an evil child raper. Who should not have been baled. On the other hand, I don't see anything to convince that clemmens actually killed those cops, that's not on a par with what they said about rodney king or oj simpson.
Another case of round up the nearest suspects? And, given the behaviour of cops documented in Ed Brayton's blog, it's one violent gang against another.
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 2:04 PM
Peptron @ #9:
Too late. That is exactly what that guy did, following a well-trodden precedent.
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 2:12 PM
#11, #17:
There would have been no subsequent failures had Huckabee not released him in the first place.
Immediately prior to the incident, no, he should not have been allowed to post bail. The series of failures in between are rather sad as well.
Posted by: charley | December 1, 2009 2:16 PM
I agree with everything except the assertion that Huckabee actually thought he was Christ. I think it's more plausible that in his own mind he was imitating Christ. This is an evangelical meme; eg. "What would Jesus do" bracelets.
Posted by: momentofsciencetx | December 1, 2009 2:21 PM
I can't think of an issue that I have disagreed with P.Z. on except for the issue of the death penalty. I have no problem putting to death a degenerate who can rape and kill a child. I agree the death penalty is a form of vengance but for some of these sick bastards its one that I have no problem with.
Posted by: MC | December 1, 2009 2:22 PM
i cannot imagine any humanist who knows what prisons in the US and many other countries look like supporting anyone being kept locked in there.
Posted by: JTDC
|
December 1, 2009 2:22 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/huckabee_clemency_police/2009/11/30/292403.html?s=al
He did not pardon him. He commuted his sentence not to time served, but to 47 years, which made him eligible for parole. He did not grant him parole, he did not free him from any parole obligation, etc. He acted on the evidence before him at the time, and the letters of recommendation (and the utter lack of opposition) to him. He was not granted much clemency, just the opportunity (at the unanimous recommendation of the prison transfer board) to be paroled.
The media has majorly misreported this.
Now, I am by no means a conservative or the like, but all facts should be in evidence before a judgment is made. In this case, the populace has gone a little too nuts on Huckabee. This does counterbalance the lack thereof when he was campaigning for the nomination, but still.
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 2:24 PM
Pete:
"Insane" ≠ "Legally insane", i.e., not responsible for one's own actions due to an inability to discern right from wrong.
Posted by: OneHandClapping
|
December 1, 2009 2:24 PM
@eddie #49
You are a fucking idiot.
"Maurice Clemmons was carrying a handgun he took from one of the dead officers when a Seattle policeman recognized him near a stolen car in a working-class south Seattle neighborhood about 2:45 a.m., Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel said." - GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Maybe you should take, I don't know, a whopping 60 seconds and to a little reading to find out what happened before you go around talking about O.J. being framed and the Police being a "violent gang."
Posted by: anonny | December 1, 2009 2:24 PM
is it wrong to be pleased when cops get killed?
Posted by: aarrgghh | December 1, 2009 2:25 PM
and there goes yet another leading gop candidate for president.
for a party that's got nothing going for it but the south, the republicans are quickly running out of native sons for their ticket in 2012.
could campaign 2012 be the year without having to listen to southern white christian men? let's hope. this country definitely needs the break.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 1, 2009 2:26 PM
The Huckster is not a sucker for a slick con man, he is a slick con man.
He's just pretending to want to be president of a secular US while he really wants to institute a theocracy like the rest of the Religious Reich.
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 2:30 PM
#58, are you some type of fucktard?
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | December 1, 2009 2:31 PM
Huckabee did not let Clemmons out of jail. The clemency that was granted allowed Clemmons to seek parole earlier. Parole was eventually granted but not by the governor. I find it hard to fault Huckabee's actions here.
If the people are going to go ape shit whenever a paroled criminal commits a crime, then that just argues that parole should be eliminated. Heck, it is also an argument that every crime, no matter how small, deserves a life sentence or execution. That way no "known criminals" will ever commit another crime.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 2:31 PM
To be fair, PZ doesn't make this claim... that claim is quoted from the text of the article on Salon that PZ links to.
PZ makes the claim that Clemmons thought he was Christ.
Posted by: bobxxxx | December 1, 2009 2:31 PM
Mike Huckabee killed Maurice Clemmons
Typical everything-is-magic creationist.
And if this retarded piece of shit ever runs for any political office again, everyone will be reminded Huckabee can also take credit for the murder of four police officers.
Posted by: straightouttaconcord | December 1, 2009 2:34 PM
@OneHandClapping #57
there is plenty of reason to call the police a violent gang. there is this video:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=54162036
there are groups like copwatch who follow and observe the police, and anyone who has ever done copwatch can tell you that pretty much every single night they catch the police doing some messed up stuff.
it might be true that you have never had a bad experience with the police, but a lot of people have. and while you might claim that there are always going to be a few bad apples, as you can see in part of the video that i liked to above, cops almost always cover for one another. look at all the cops that harass people who want to make a complaint against an officer.
if that isnt acting like a gang, i dont know what is.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 2:39 PM
Seriously... this is nit-picking... what Huckabee did was effectively pardon him, by initiating an independent action afforded him by his position as governor that directly resulted in his release from prison... and did so because of his religious disposition.
Is the point of the post the accuracy of the terminology of the action, or the problem with the reasoning behind it?
Posted by: Orakio | December 1, 2009 2:41 PM
Celtic_Evolution @ #37:
In an ideal world, that would work.
I would be concerned about the effect of party politics, and the power of executive charisma to effect the system, though. Chucklebee could probably sell an eskimo a snow machine.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 2:46 PM
Reed Cartwright #62
See my #66... that Huckabee acted in a way that resulted in this man's release is, in and of itself, is not really the heart of the issue... it's the reasons he did so that are concerning... what the hell is wrong with you people? You wouldn't recognize the point if it slapped you upside the head, it seems.
Even PZ goes out of his way to say that the acts of pardon, clemency, or commutation (mercy, IOW) is important, and can and should be used to right injustices... but should never be used arbitrarily, totally independently, without threat of consequence, and with only religious disposition as a determining factor.
Posted by: Ben | December 1, 2009 2:48 PM
You guys are way off base! I mean, come ON.
There's no evidence at all that Huckabee would be a subpar dishwasher.
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 2:49 PM
Celtic, cut it out.
Mike Huckabee might be a clown and a bad governor and a deluded "believer," but tossing around the word "insane" for violent offenders is a way of absolving them (i.e. getting a psychiatrist to declare them incompetent and not responsible for their actions).
Language matters (and not your language from post #45, retraction noted). The man apparently killed and raped many people. The very title of PZ's post claims that Huckabee--not Clemmons--killed these people. Yes, this is eye-catching (and probably a bit tongue-in-cheek), but it also contains an implicit dismissal of Clemmons' responsibility. Sometimes a provocative title can dilute discourse, and given that I think of this blog and its comments as serious, I don't think the point should be lost that we are responsible for own actions (and the likely consequences of them). For the murders, Clemmons is responsible. Mike Huckabee is also responsible (likely consequences and all), but not as much as Clemmons.
If rational people are going to dismiss (rightly) Huckabee's belief in magic--something we do due to the lack of evidence for this magic--then why should we take at face value the claim that Clemmons was "insane"? And if, as you claim, the insane-person-faking-belief is an old and sometimes successful trick, then "insane" is a pretty elastic term. And I suppose that PZ's claim that he thought he was Jesus Christ might just as easily be another such strategy: claim you're Christ and you'll get life in an institution rather than the death penalty. Doesn't seem that insane to me. Sounds like a pretty rational strategy.
And just to be prickly...if Clemmons is insane for claiming to be Jesus Christ then Huckabee is equally insane for claiming to talk to Jesus Christ, no? People who "believe" in the invisible and make outlandish claims are not ill. They are often frauds and charlatans. Sometimes they are just stupid. Both men are responsible for their frauds, their actions, and their crimes.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 2:53 PM
Oh, absolutely... but as it stands now, he doesn't even have to expend the effort to bribe the legislature. Even if still prone to corruption, some type of check and balance must be favorable to a lone man's arbitrary whims...
The best example of this is all the presidential pardon's that get tossed about at the end of an exiting president's term (baby Bush pardoned 33 people after the elections, and commuted 5 more)... It's a disgraceful miscarriage of justice and needs to be completely done away with, in my opinion.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem | December 1, 2009 2:53 PM
>>>I can't think of an issue that I have disagreed with P.Z. on except for the issue of the death penalty. I have no problem putting to death a degenerate who can rape and kill a child. I agree the death penalty is a form of vengance but for some of these sick bastards its one that I have no problem with.
http://injusticebusters.com/2003/Coffin_Wilbert.htm
And that's just one man. Canada has had many, many wrongfully convicted, to our shame.
The problem with the death penalty: A corpse cannot grant you forgiveness. Better to throw them in jail, because if evidence exonerating them comes to light in a future time, it may still be possible to set them free.
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 2:57 PM
And I assumed we all meant "legally insane" which I think is a subjective thing determined by a psychiatrist who talks to a person long after a crime is committed. There are other reasons for why I disagree with this idea, but that's a whole other discussion.
But accepting the "legally insane" idea...why wasn't Clemmons in a mental institution? Why was he up for parole? Maybe this is part of Arkansas' legal system and he WAS indeed paroled after being declared insane, but I don't know that for a fact. Or are we all deciding that his actions were so evil that he MUST have been insane? For rational people, that would be a big, evidence-free leap.
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 3:01 PM
Regarding my comment #73...
The peculiar "part of Arkansas' legal system" that lets out the "insane" might just be Huckabee's idiocy.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 3:04 PM
Wow... I take back my apology for my tone... you are an asshat...
Not much on the reading comprehension skills, eh, Pete? Who does the title of this post say Huckabee killed??? Try reading it again... so the rest of that paragraph is crap.
So now you're the arbiter of the definition of "insane", in any vernacular? I think, based on the compilation of this man's actions, words, and deeds, using the term "insane" to describe him is hardly inaccurate, let alone irresponsible, as you claim.
Additionally, I'm still not sure why you seem to so fervently believe that insane people... in fact quite insane people, are quite capable of acting rationally... or are you going to trump that statement with your psychological credentials?
Ummm... yeah... and your point is?
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
December 1, 2009 3:05 PM
#69 FTW.
Now, I do think it's fair to say you wouldn't want him cutting your grass, however...
(/Lawncare often involves power tools with spinning blades, after all. Clearly, this would just be asking for trouble...)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 3:06 PM
dammit... this:
Should read:
Additionally, I'm still not sure why you seem to so fervently believe that insane people... in fact quite insane people, are not capable of acting rationally... or are you going to trump that statement with your psychological credentials?
Posted by: Blitzgal | December 1, 2009 3:06 PM
I was going through the headlines at Google news when I stumbled across a transcript of Huckabee on the O'Reilly Factor last night. Talk about some CYA scrambling. First O'Reilly gives Huckabee a total pass, THEN he goes on to fully blame the "judges in Washington" for Clemmons being on the streets. He finishes by saying "Governor, thanks very much for being a stand-up guy."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578427,00.html
Posted by: 3B
|
December 1, 2009 3:07 PM
Conservative xians like Huckabee are not to be trusted. His ideological soul brothers are trying to take the "politics" out of the upcoming Copenhagen debate while simultaneously injecting "politics" into the analytical divisions of the seventeen different federal spook organizations. What a country.
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 3:13 PM
yeah, good point on my misreading the title. "Asshat" accepted.
Does it really change my point? Isn't a lot of this argument about Mike Huckabee's responsibility for the death of these policemen? Isn't that implied subtext? That if not for this "born again" governor's actions, these people would still be alive?
Regarding this: "So now you're the arbiter of the definition of "insane", in any vernacular? I think, based on the compilation of this man's actions, words, and deeds, using the term "insane" to describe him is hardly inaccurate, let alone irresponsible, as you claim."
Sounds like your the arbiter. Excuse me.
Regarding this: "Additionally, I'm still not sure why you seem to so fervently believe that insane people... in fact quite insane people, are quite capable of acting rationally... or are you going to trump that statement with your psychological credentials?"
I have no psychological credentials. But as I understand it (and feel free to attack the hilarity that this "asshat" could understand anything), the definition of "insane" as it applies to people who commit crimes, is that they are, by definition, INcapable of "acting rationally."
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 3:23 PM
and...
First, let me point out that this whole argument is quite besides the point and makes me wonder your motivation for even making it... but at any rate...
No, no... I'm allowing for the broad use of the word "insane" as is accepted in most popular vernacular... you are ignoring that in favor of a narrow, specific definition created by... well... you.
And frankly I call shenanigans on that, because what you are clearly doing is trying to impose your understanding of the term "legally insane" on PZ's use of the more common term "insane", as a general descriptor. There's a difference, and I think you know it.
PZ was not speaking in a professional or legal manner in his use of "insane".
For example, I don't need to see the results of Ken Ham's IQ test to be able to look at his words and actions and call him an idiot, as used in the common vernacular. Is he legally "mentally deficient"? I don't know... does that make my use of the term "idiot" inaccurate or irresponsible? Of course not.
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 3:28 PM
Celtic, I see your correction.
What with all the snarkiness in your posts, I'm unsure how to read your last line ("Umm, yeah, and your point is?"). I'll assume that you basically agree that religious belief is a form of insanity (if this is wrong, ignore the following). I mean, I don't believe in any of it, but I'd hardly call people who do "insane." If we do say they're all insane, then what possible meaning does the word have? Billions of Muslims, Christians, etc, are insane?
I'd be happy to have the discussion about why I think what I think regarding "insanity," but I don't know that I'd want to have it with you. So, I'm signing off. Good chat.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 3:30 PM
Well, you can make that connection if you want... but I think PZ goes out of his way NOT to, if for no other reason than that Huckabee didn't pull the trigger that killed these 4 policemen... but he DID "pull the trigger" that released this animal into the wild, which ultimately resulted directly in his death. PZ is holding Huckabee responsible for his actions and the direct effect they had on Clemmons... he's not holding Huckabee responsible for Clemmons' actions.
Posted by: Orakio | December 1, 2009 3:35 PM
Celtic Evolution @71
Point, even if I didn't acknowledge it properly the first time around. I suppose if justice is to evolve eyes, she shall have to do so step by step, just like the rest of us poor creatures. I would prefer that the process of independent review of clemency should be automatic, in some fashion. At the very least, an 'independent' panel that reviews all clemency and reports to the appropriate committee in each legislature, to feed your system.
Actually, I should like positive confirmation of those to be released, but this is counter to the very purpose of allowing the governor the power in the first place, and thus must be rejected.
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 3:38 PM
Okay, since shenanigans have been called, I will respond once more.
Regarding my reason for making the argument: I wanted to comment on the aspect of the post that, well, I wanted to comment on. I could also wonder why you felt you had to engage the comment, but why bother? Here we are.
Regarding: "...what you are clearly doing is trying to impose your understanding of the term "legally insane" on PZ's use of the more common term "insane", as a general descriptor. There's a difference, and I think you know it."
Really? He was saying, in other words, "Clemmons is wacko, batshit"? Look at what he wrote:
"Clemmons was a monster. He murdered people and he raped children. He was insane. He believed he was Jesus Christ. Yet Mike Huckabee pardoned him"
I do "know" there is a difference in the legal sense and the vernacular sense of the word. But, to me, PZ appears to be setting this up legally. He states his opinion ("monster"), then he reports Clemmons' crimes, then he calls him "insane," and then he gives evidence for his "insanity." Then, with all that piled up, he asks why Huckabee pardoned him. It reads to me like he's just setting up the case for why he shouldn't be set free. (which of course, I agree with)
Posted by: chukmaty | December 1, 2009 3:42 PM
Your article is wrong right off the bat, Huckabee did not pardon Clemmons.
Also, he was not a rapist or a murderer at the time clemency was granted. The clemency was granted at a time when the only information available was the recommendation of the judge and the parole board against the disagreement of the prosecutor.
This nonsense about Huckabee granting pardons like candy to converts is unsubstantiated and supported only by the fact that he was known to grant clemency much more often than most other Governors. Even though in Arkansas, Governors tend to be much more involved in the penal process than in other states, he was more likely to grant clemency than Bill Clinton who served for a similar length of time.
Huckabee was known to be less ideological and more pragmatic in every area of his governorship, I do not know that we can say he as different in the area of criminal justice on the word of Arkansas tabloids and cable news networks that are hungry for a story.
Huckabee made more life or death decisions than many governors, whether it be upholding an execution or granting clemency to cancel out a perceived miscarriage of justice. Because of this, he is likely going to have more of these decisions blow up in his face, that is the nature of the beast.
This article does not go over the details of the situation or the time line which is so often ignored with stories spanning over a decade.
Posted by: windy | December 1, 2009 3:43 PM
Tristero is an asshole and more importantly he can't defend his assertion worth a damn. ("If you argue that it is unfair to sentence a juvenile to life in prison for an armed robbery committed when he was 16, I won't disagree with you. But that is not the issue here.")
Huckabee is a dangerous idiot and he may have granted this pardon for suspicious reasons. But if you think it was unfair to sentence someone to 108 YEARS IN PRISON for robberies and burglaries committed when he was 16, how was it "spectacularly bad judgment" to shorten his sentence? How is that not the issue?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 3:44 PM
I tried to head off the snarkiness early on, but your subsequent statement that "using the word "insane" for violent offenders is a way of absolving them" struck me as myopic, narrow-minded and unintelligent. Then you mis-represented what PZ said in the title of his post... so the snarkiness returned in full force.
In all truth, my last line concerning Huckabee being insane for being a believer is intentional tongue-in-cheek hyperbole. No... I don't believe that all religious people are "insane" by any use of the term. Although I know some here do think that, frankly.
I think if you're interested in a serious discussion on this topic, you'd have to at least try to understand my tone based on how you presented yourself...
If not, then I'm sorry... cheers.
Posted by: eddie
|
December 1, 2009 3:45 PM
OneHandClapping :57:
What straightouttaconcord @65 said. Also, read this; http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/02/more_asset_forfeiture_madness.php and this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
As for the insanity thing; It has been discussed around these parts. Xianity seems to be a particular form of mental illness that gets a free pass where others don't.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 3:47 PM
before I even take on this post... have you even read the comments, chuckmaty?
Posted by: eddie
|
December 1, 2009 3:51 PM
Also;
Was it wrapped in oj's glove?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 3:53 PM
Mmmm... I'm sorry, but I think that's a real stretch...
I think he's stating his case in terms of pure rationality, not legally.
In other words, this guy is batshit crazy, based on his actions, in any social sense of the word that most people would identify with... and letting him loose is irrational and frankly indefensible.
(I was going to make a joke about Michele Bachman also being insane, but it just seems too easy, and is really not on point).
Posted by: charley | December 1, 2009 3:53 PM
I'm counting this:
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 3:54 PM
Celtic, only because you've been a prick throughout the entirety of this discussion, I'm pointing out how disingenuous you are: "I tried to head off the snarkiness early on." Bullshit. You read what I wrote, disagreed, and both started and ended your initial response with "cut it out" (condescending) and "the rest of your post is crap" (um, snarky).
So, cheers!
Posted by: WLHutch | December 1, 2009 3:56 PM
C-E, I love your passionate posts! Still, a chill pill is nice now and then.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 3:56 PM
You stay classy, Pete...
Posted by: JustaTech | December 1, 2009 4:01 PM
@65, RE cops are a gang.
1) These cops were sitting in a coffee shop, not even on duty yet, so it's a bit much to claim that right that moment they had dome something to this guy.
2) He didn't shoot anyone but the cops, that's pretty targeted. He wasn't trying to rob the place, he just wanted to kill these four people.
3) Seattle cops haven't had a good month, on Halloween a cop was ambushed and killed, and before that four cop cars were torched. Since the first guy was hunting cops it would not be unreasonable for the police force to think that these four cops were being targeted.
4)There wasn't a lot of indication that this was a case of "round up the usual suspects" as Clemons was shot by one of the cops at the scene before the cop died. And while Clemens was shot and killed this morning by other cops (don't know the details yet) I also know that they really wanted to catch him. All Sunday night there were helicopters over my house while they surrounded a house they thought he was in.
In summation, while there are plenty of bad cops and cops that do bad things, I think that you are way off base about this specific case.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 4:01 PM
Again... for those who need a reminder... I did initially apologize for my, at that time, unnecessary tone.
Frankly, the subsequent responses made me feel the snark was appropriate, which I have since explained.
Honestly, other than the very initial post (where I really was needlessly snarky, and admittied as much), I really don't think I've been that over-board outside of #75...
Christ... I'm getting attacked for tone? Where the hell are Nerd and Truthspeaker when I need them?
Posted by: PJ | December 1, 2009 4:05 PM
I'll try, Celt. I love an argument with a guy who when confronted with his initial rudeness will claim he wasn't rude from the get-go. Then, when called on it, he just leaves one last snarky comment.
Posted by: OneHandClapping
|
December 1, 2009 4:10 PM
@ straightouttaconcord #65 and eddie #89
Anecdotal evidence FTL.
If you are referring to the police as a criminal gang, as in "a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends" and equating them to the Mara Salvatrucha, Latin Kings, Crips and Bloods, Vice Lords, etc. (i.e. criminal gangs) then you are disingenuous. There are members of various policing agencies that are involved in criminal enterprises, but if that makes them a "gang" then that word can easily be extended to include nearly ANY group.
However, you (eddie) specifically said "On the other hand, I don't see anything to convince that clemmens actually killed those cops." You clearly didn't look, likely because your bias against police officers let you automatically assume that they were wrong without doing any kind of research.
I would much rather Clemmons be sitting in cell rather than in a pine box. Dead men cannot be held accountable for their actions.
Posted by: eddie
|
December 1, 2009 4:13 PM
Maybe the owner of the coffee shop was feeling the pinch in the recession and got sick of the cops not having to pay for their doughnuts.
See. I can make shit up as much as anyone else. That's why I don't take what others say without the pinch of salt.
Posted by: wheelbrain
|
December 1, 2009 4:16 PM
If a state in the US ever elected a Muslim governor - far-fetched, I know, but bear with me - and that governor granted clemency to a prisoner because said prisoner had converted to Islam, and after being released the felon went on to shoot a bunch of cops... yeah, I'm sure the public reaction would be no different.
Posted by: Justin Chase | December 1, 2009 4:25 PM
WOW. What a prime example of why Christians can't reasonably claim moral superiority.
The more correct your beliefs are the more moral of choices you will be able to make. If you believe a lie to be true it will negatively affect your judgement. The belief in the existence of gods is one whopper of a falsehood.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
December 1, 2009 4:25 PM
Blitzgal#78 wrote:
I was blown away by this, too. Can you imagine if a Democratic governor had been the one responsible for this? O'Reilly would be screaming for the governor to be arrested and tried for the murder of the four police officers. His outrage would know no bounds, he would be ranting about this for weeks.
But when a Republican governor (and current Fux News propagandist) sets a cop killer loose, well, hey, it's not his fault! He's a "stand-up guy"! Don't you worry yourself at all, guv, you did nothing to apologize for!
It hardly needs repeating, but O'Reilly is a thoroughly contemptible douchebag, a complete waste of skin. As this tragic incident highlights, the man has no sense of right and wrong beyond what political party someone belongs to. He doesn't give two shits about the dead officers or their families, because if he did, he might then realize Huckabee does bear a heavy burden of responsibility for this heinous crime. Perhaps Huckabee himself knows this, although I doubt it because one thing religion is good for is providing an excuse from taking responsibility for one's actions.
Posted by: JTDC
|
December 1, 2009 4:54 PM
@ Celctic, RE #66:
A pardon absolves a person of all guilt of the crime, legally, and does not bind them to parole constraints. This clemency did bind him to parole constraints, and kept his status as a convicted felon. Further, at the time, there was no evidence of malfeasance other than aggravated robbery and his illegal carrying of a firearm. Huckabee did not act alone here, he did not act outside of his purview, he did not act inconsistent with the recommendations of an independent board, there were no objections at the time to his action. Further, there was another, separate, board involved prior to his release.
Under the circumstances, most reasonable people would have done the same thing. That's really the issue here. I think that this is being blown way out of proportion here, all things considered. He granted, on average, 80 requests for clemency a year by his count. That's a rather lot over the course of his tenure, and we have one outlier who went nutjob. That's a pretty good track record thus far. Hindsight is always 20/20, but you can only act on what you have in front of you. Murdering rapist was not in front of him. A man convicted while a teenager of crimes was sentenced for a very long time given the nature of the crimes that he had committed. He commuted the sentences to a term short enough that he would be eligible for parole, which has additional constraints on it after release.
All things considered, this is really a non-issue. It is a sad coincidence, but there was little at the time of Huckabee's decision to foresee such actions. I'm certainly no fan of Republicans, and Huckabee is slightly worse than the average, but I'm not going to prejudge his actions on because of that. PZ seems to have, and the media certainly fueled that. I have a strong dislike of the American media for its sensationalist bias, rather than fact bias. They are very economical with relevant details about a great many things, and I dislike them for that.
Posted by: Walton | December 1, 2009 5:20 PM
I'm studying criminology this term (in fact, I just handed in an essay on prison privatisation), and it is amazing, when you look at the statistics, how horrifically bad and counterproductive the present approach to criminal justice really is. In particular, imprisonment is vastly over-used in the United States; a large proportion of prisoners are there for minor and non-violent offences, including drug offences. There are a huge number of people in prison who should not be incarcerated at all, or who should be in rehab or a psychiatric hospital. Prisons don't really fulfil any useful function in most cases; they are incredibly expensive, and they tend to actually increase rates of reoffending. When an offender is released from prison, he or she is highly likely to be mentally traumatised, addicted to drugs, and entirely unable to rebuild his or her life; so it's not surprising that rates of recidivism are extremely high. Here in the UK, the situation is going the same way - we have the highest prison population in Western Europe - but it's still nowhere near as bad as the situation in the United States, which is getting ridiculous. The only people who benefit are those who profit financially from the prison industry.
Returning to the actual topic of the thread, as I realise this is a tangent: I don't really blame Huckabee for pardoning the man. It was an understandable error, and one I might well have made in his place. But the real problem here is a criminal justice system which consistently fails in almost every respect. People like Clemmons, who are suffering from serious and violent psychiatric illnesses, should not be "punished"; rather, they should be treated in secure psychiatric facilities that keep them away from the public.
We need to get rid of this moralising culture of "punishment" and "blame", and stop using judgmental moral buzzwords. Few, if any, human beings are "monsters". Those who commit horrific crimes without compunction do so, in general, because they suffer from some kind of mental pathology. Most child abusers were themselves abused as children, for instance. As a society, we need to stop giving in to the irrational and judgmental desire for public revenge, and instead try to give these people the treatment they need.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
December 1, 2009 5:31 PM
Since we're on the topic, I'll support the death penalty for O'Reilly*; therapy and/or life incarceration for the child molester, depending on circumstances.
#106: Okay, Body Snatchers, what have you done with the real Walton?
I'm curious, Ersatz Walton, what you think the solution to prisons is, besides therapeutic intervention for those that need it?
(And I'm not being sarcastic, aside from the 'ersatz' comment: I'd really like to know what sorts of ideas criminologists currently have for dealing with the problem of crime. Off the top of my head I'd suggest increasing education and reducing poverty in addition to mental health treatment for those that need it, but what do I know?)
Posted by: Biology Blogger | December 1, 2009 6:11 PM
This time we broadcast Willie Horton ads! (sorry if this was said before. Had not time to read all the comments)
Posted by: pdferguson
|
December 1, 2009 6:23 PM
JTDC wrote:
A non-issue? Sad coincidence? Try telling that to the families of the slain officers. The man would not have committed these murders if not for Huckabee's tragic decision. That's the bottom line.
Huckabee, as well as everyone else involved in putting this man back on the street, saw what they wanted to see. It was vanity that drove him, fueled by a misplaced faith that an inmate's proclamation of "finding God" is worth a damn.
Huckabee's religious faith directly contributed to the officer's deaths because he turned a blind eye to reality and chose a comfortable fantasy instead. The fantasy that religion can magically change a violent criminal's nature, that someone who claims to be born again can be trusted at their word. But the reality is that four people are dead, four families destroyed.
I hope Huckabee doesn't enjoy a good night's sleep for many years to come. The victims' families undoubtedly won't.
Posted by: Sili
|
December 1, 2009 6:25 PM
IOKIYAR
Posted by: Daniel Murphy | December 1, 2009 6:35 PM
@55 who wrote:
Actually, Huckabee now misstates the facts about what happened then. On Bill O'Reilly's 30 November show on Fox News, Huckabee said: "And in the case of this particular individual, he was sentenced to 108 years for two crimes when he was 16."
In fact, Clemmons was sentenced not for "two crimes" but in August 1989 for robbery, in September 1989 for burglary and theft, in November 1989 for robbery and theft, in January 1990 for firearm possession, and in February 1990 for burglary and theft. That's eight felonies.
See the parole and commutation documentation at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/11/30/2010388798.pdf
Apparently, the sentences in November 1989 and February 1990, totaling 95 years, were consecutive to the sentences totaling 13 years in August and September. Huckabee's commutation in 2000 of the sentences totalling 95 years meant that Clemmons was eligible for parole on the sentences totalling 13 years.
Posted by: Chris R | December 1, 2009 6:51 PM
I agree with just about everything in your article except that this is Huckabee's fault.
The person who is to blame in now dead.
Posted by: SlantedScience | December 1, 2009 7:01 PM
This isn't beating religion with their own stick, more giving it a light tickle with a borrowed twig.
So far as the public information is available, it seems that rather than being a "Jesus loving lunatic", he was probably just suffering extreme and untreated mental illness. That is not to say that he was a sweet little guy in his past, just that it seems an untenable stretch to suggest that he was motivated here by clearly understood religious beliefs.
And "monster"? Really? Are such tabloid descriptions really suitable on this site? Why not throw in a "fruitcake" or two. Perhaps the odd "crazymad freak of nature"?
And you a neurobiologist...tsk.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 1, 2009 7:17 PM
Huckabee let him out on the foolish notion that "loving jesus" was proof enough. It is his fault.
Posted by: mothra | December 1, 2009 7:18 PM
@ Celtic
You did an excellent job of rationally dealing with a lackwit. I am not sure that I would (have the patience or measured rationality) consider even early parts of the Pete exchange excessively snarkey.
Chris R. 112- read the title of the post and ask yourself who Maurice Clemmons is.
Posted by: Lancelot Link | December 1, 2009 8:00 PM
As the saying goes, "there are no atheists in prison cells".
Posted by: raven | December 1, 2009 8:10 PM
It can be hard to distinguish between fundie Death Cult xians and insane lunatic killers.
If one can't tell them apart, is there any difference?
People are leaving xianity by the millions. The ones who stay are uneducated, low IQ, mentally ill, and/or evil. The sludge of our society will be all that is left.
Jeffry Dahmer, Cho Seung, Rudolph, Clemmons and on and on. Whose next? Wouldn't surprise if me if it is the self described Slantedscience Monster.
Oh well, we are used to it. Like most on these threads, I long ago lost track of how many xians tossed a death threat my way. It seems to be as casual as saying "hello", "I'll pray for you", or "you pseudointellectual atheists are all going to hell".
Posted by: Rorschach | December 1, 2009 8:25 PM
Just 2 things :
By the time Huckabee opened up the possibility of parole for Clemmons, he hadnt raped or murdered anyone.
Then a judge granted the parole.Saw an interview with the guy on CNN yesterday.Assures there was no sign of mental illness at that time.Who would know.
I find the evidence that Huckabee effectively paroled him based on some sort of shared christian belief not totally convincing.Not impossible of course.
Posted by: straightouttaconcord | December 1, 2009 8:30 PM
re: OneHandClapping #100
I dont think that the latin kings, or crips or whoever are working "to unlawful or antisocial ends." i think their goals are to make money and gain power. if they could do this legally, i think they would.
that is why most gang members are lower class youth of inner cities. they dont really have any other options.
i suppose my definition of a gang would be an organized group which uses violence and the threat of violence to intimidate and attempt to control their surroundings.
Posted by: SlantedScience | December 1, 2009 8:46 PM
@raven: sorry that my simple meaning wasn't clear to you.
I wish to see the end to all religious and superstitious beliefs beyond those used to fascinate children (Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, et al).
What I found objectionable here was a scientist - a neurobiologist! - deploying a sixteenth century fear of mental illness to score atheistic points when none were valid.
Posted by: SlantedScience | December 1, 2009 8:49 PM
Oh, and the word is "Christianity", not "xtianity".
Using its real name won't make it come and get you in the middle of the night, you know.
"Candyman...Candyman...Can..."
Posted by: dan_k | December 1, 2009 9:56 PM
Rorschach - I agree with you. Although his Christianity Im sure didnt hurt his chances people who commit crimes when they are a minor and recieve harsh sentences are often granted clemency. PZ I know this is your style but can we save the inflammatory titles for when we know we're right?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 1, 2009 10:07 PM
I have an idea that we can start with. Make weed legal.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | December 2, 2009 12:26 AM
Even worse: While Huckster would free a guy (Wayne Dumond) who raped a relative of Bill Clinton on the pretense that the guy was framed, he actually SPED UP the execution of somebody who really had reformed in prison. But of course, since that guy had become a Buddhist, that meant he was evil in Huckster's mind, no doubt.
Posted by: Dana | December 2, 2009 12:35 AM
"The thing I wonder now is will they be fairplay and give the same value to the 'I have seen Muhammad' card?"
Only if they're idiots. Muslims do not believe Muhammad will return in the last days. No Muslim would claim to have seen him.
And whoever took the bait and said something about "Islamists" fails double. If you're going to parade yourselves about, believing yourselves superior to religious people, at least take the trouble to learn the basics of what they believe so you sound more intelligent in debate.
Anyway, it's Arkansas. They'd rather kill Muslims than pardon them.
Posted by: FlameDuck | December 2, 2009 4:25 AM
More importantly, Mike Huckabee killed 4 police officers by proxy.
He was a Democrat. The republicans hold democrats to a higher standard than other republicans. As should we all. Being a cop killer is bad for a democrat, but pretty much run of the mill for republicans.Posted by: Hans Haan | December 2, 2009 7:19 AM
As a Dutchman, I am puzzled by the fact that this part of the story is told by Belgian media, while the Dutch media seem to be completely ignoring this part. The murder itself was on the news, but even there no background was given except for ‘we don't know why it happened’.
Posted by: Gerald Petrie | December 2, 2009 7:27 AM
One good thing...Liberals will have to shut up about giving criminals a break and commuting excessive sentences.
Try and find a governor now to commute a sentence! LOL!
By the way, PZ, Huckabee did NOT "pardon" this guy, he commuted his sentence, which is NOT the same thing.
Posted by: Endor | December 2, 2009 9:40 AM
"Oh, and the word is "Christianity", not "xtianity".
Using its real name won't make it come and get you in the middle of the night, you know.
"Candyman...Candyman...Can..."
LOL. Is this the sort of school yard willfully ignorant posturing what comprises your superior argument skills. You know, the ones you MUST have in order to be justified in (badly) attempting to shame Prof Myers, etc.
How's that foot taste?
Posted by: firemancarl | December 2, 2009 10:13 AM
Tim @ #28. I could not agree more and was going to post the same thing.
PZ I agree with nearly everything your write/post. However, this is one where I don't, and I wish you had titled it Mike Huckabee kills four police officers. . Far more fitting and far more accurate.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 2, 2009 11:00 AM
One good thing...Liberals will have to shut up about giving criminals a break and commuting excessive sentences. - Gerald Petrie
The fact that this was a bad decision in this case does not mean it is a bad decision in every case. Sheesh, conservatives are so stupid. The trick is not to take "I've found Jesus!" as evidence of readiness for release.
Posted by: JTDC
|
December 2, 2009 12:22 PM
@pdferguson, #109:
Yes, tragic coincidence. Look at the evidence at hand, at the time of Huckabee's actions, and tell me with a straight face that you, looking at the identical situation, wouldn't strongly consider commutation of an incredibly lengthy sentence incurred by a teenager so he would be eligible for parole.
Was this a foreseeable consequence of his actions? No. He exhibited no signs of mental illness and he was considered low-risk for parole. Finding Jesus isn't the only factor involved here, it is a factor.
@ Daniel Murphy, 111:
Burn a house down with seven people in it. One criminal act, eight felony charges. Sentencing, I believe, is grouped by criminal act, so this would see 3 crimes, rather than two. But that's not necessarily a huge error.
Posted by: Mike Caton | December 2, 2009 12:54 PM
3 serious questions for creationists:
a) Evolutionary biologists don't claim to be "done" understanding the evolution of life on Earth, so there are many, many more discoveries to be made. If someone could go into Scripture to make testable predictions BEFORE the scientists get to the same evidence (as opposed to waiting until scientists figure out how the world works and then writing an op-ed after the fact saying you knew it all along) we would all be impressed. Why is no one doing this? Right now, it appears that it can only be explained if Christians don't really care about bringing people to Christ, or that it's all doubletalk B.S.
b) It seems we could use exactly the same approach with the creation stories of many other religions. For example, the system of yugas in Hindu cosmogony seems in many ways remarkably similar to modern cosmology. Is this not equally valid? Does this mean that Hinduism is also correct, in which case why are you a Christian and not a Hindu? Or, do you claim that Christianity is a better description (in which case, why not use the BEST description, given by science?)
c) Why do creationists care? How exactly does belief in evolution impact moral behavior?
Posted by: OneHandClapping
|
December 2, 2009 12:54 PM
@straightouttaconcord #119
I fail to see how you can compare the police to gangs that do things like
this.
I am confident in saying that there is no police department in the United States whose sole purpose is to import and distribute illicit drugs, intimidate, indiscriminately kill/maim civilians, execute rivals and "turn-coats", generally use terror to control populations, or any other gang related activity. Until you show this to be otherwise, you remain delusional.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
December 2, 2009 1:24 PM
JTDC wrote:
Without detailed knowledge of all that went into the process of commutation in this case, it's impossible to say what I (or anyone else) might do. From what I have read, there were a number of red flags that would at least leave open the idea of denying leniency.
I understand your point, of course it is not possible to perfectly predict someone's future behavior (although I might argue with your claim that he exhibited no signs of mental illness.)
But that isn't the issue here, it's the reliance on and use of religious testimony in the process. Huckabee, who wears his religion on his sleeve, was a natural target for being gamed by convicts. That this took place in the South also means that others involved in the process were similarly inclined to be swayed by proclamations of "finding Jesus". It is perhaps the oldest trick in the book to use religion as a way to get out of jail. There are indications that Huckabee's high number of pardons and commutations are a direct result of his religious beliefs, that he truly believes if someone claims to have been born again, it's actual evidence of something.
As you said, finding Jesus wasn't the only factor, but that it was a factor at all is a problem. Given what I know of Huckabee, I believe religion was a major factor in his decision, perhaps the single most important factor.
Let me turn your question around and ask, can you tell me with a straight face that if Clemmons had said he was a staunch atheist, if he said that religion was nothing but childish nonsense and not necessary to live a decent, moral life, wouldn't he still be sitting in an Arkansas prison? His parole request would most likely never have even reached Huckabee's desk.
But of course, he wouldn't say that even if he believed it because he was at least smart enough to realize how the game is played. Unfortunately in this situation, it wasn't a game. The result was yet another tragic example of how, to use Christopher Hitchens' words, religion poisons everything. Or in this case, religion murders police officers.
Posted by: JTDC
|
December 2, 2009 3:05 PM
The reason that religion is a factor in this is that it is conforming to a social norm--it is expected that one pay at least nominal respect to the general beliefs of their surrounding. Once you've demonstrated conforming to at least one major social norm, we perceive one as being more trustworthy. That's the reason atheists are not viewed as being trustworthy by many, even less so than Muslims at a time we're at war with Islamic fundamentalists--nonconformity to social norms.
When someone does start to conform, and we can expect further conforming to social norms. So I can understand why it is a factor--"Look at me, I'm following a number of very important social rules, let me demonstrate that I will follow the rest!"
Had he proclaimed atheism, he most certainly would not have been granted clemency, even by most marginally religious people--again, because of a deliberate and open choice to not conform to a social norm. This leads to doubt as to whether or not one will conform to other social norms, especially when they have demonstrated a past failure to conform to the more important ones. Why should we trust someone who is unwilling to conform to a minor social norm, even nominally? That is the psychology behind it, as far as my understanding goes. I'm not a psychologist by any stretch of the imagination, but that's the reasoning I see.
I do not agree with this (I am an atheist, but not exactly vocal about it--religion is a private matter, in my opinion, and my issues are with it becoming a non-private matter), but a lot of it has to do with how we, as a species, simply are. We do not like or trust those who are outsiders, those who differentiate themselves from social norms. As a species, we dislike immigrants not only because they compete with us for resources, but also because they do not share our social norms. Insular minorities have always been treated with greater suspicion for that reason--they are not us, and they show it. Major case in point: the Jews. Insular and outsiders. Lots of anti-Semitism directed at them, often with wild fabrications, because they are foreigners who live with us. The Roma too! Same thing. So while that is from an ethical and moral standpoint wrong, overcoming basic human nature is not easy to do. We have humans in government, so they are going to act like humans. So, yeah, there is a double standard, and yeah, it's really shitty. But a large part of it is part and parcel of being human, and overcoming that unconscious part of us that says "outsider" isn't easy to overcome completely.
Right now, it's finals time and I am a student, so I have not gone in-depth on this case. The little I read does not show serious issues, known at the time, that he would be a risk. So if there are, then I'm a little busy to be doing too much research or writing that takes me out of my normal activities, and I'm sorry for not being aware of them. I do my best to make decisions based off of evidence, and I can only go with what evidence is presented to me. So, if there was significant evidence at the time that he was unbalanced, then I will say that there was an avoidable error in the commutation. It seems, however, that even after his commutation and subsequent parole, that there were furthers errors and failures as well--as a parolee, how easy is it to go out of state? Get a gun? Aren't there follow-ups, and monitoring? Where the hell was all of that here? Why aren't they being addressed? Part of that, I think, is the focus on one, fairly small, part--if Huckabee had retired from politics and public life, this discussion wouldn't be happening. The other parts would be looked at, if at all.
Final note: yeah, religion does poison damn near everything, largely due to its place in our social hierarchy. I just think that in this case, we're placing more emphasis on that part than we are on the other parts, especially since those other parts apply to people who don't start loving themselves a heap-o-Jesus in prison.
Posted by: RL | December 2, 2009 3:55 PM
"Clemmons was a monster. He murdered people and he raped children. He was insane. He believed he was Jesus Christ. Yet Mike Huckabee pardoned him."
I'm not a fan of Huckabee. But the quoted sentence is extremely misleading.
Mike Huckabee commuted Clemmons' sentence, after he had served 11 years for crimes committed as a juvenile.
Clemmons was paroled, by Arkansas authorities. He returned to prison in Arkansas on a parol violation, in 2001, served 3 years, and was released (mistakenly, it appears).
Years later, Clemmons believed he was Jesus Christ, murdered people, and raped children.
Come on, PZ. Huckabee did not pardon a man who had raped and murdered. He pardoned a man who later raped and murdered. And was governor of a state whose prison system could have done a much, much better job. And exercised bad judgement on Clemmons', and other's pardons. I'm not a fan of Huckabee, and I'm also not a fan of unfair argument. Fix that paragraph, please.
Posted by: KillJoy | December 2, 2009 8:17 PM
Just a little note here. There was an article I read in the Seattle Time this morning that contained an interview with Clemmon's uncle. Apparently there had been some recent ranting about god and jesus coming from the man. Nothin' like little religious mania to send you into a killing frenzy I suppose.
Posted by: KillJoy | December 2, 2009 9:05 PM
I suppose i should actually read the entire post before actually commenting huh? That would be NEAT. I feel like a jackass. :P
Posted by: James | December 2, 2009 11:10 PM
It's very hypocritical of the author to first condemn Huckabee (he didn't kill anyone), but then say the death penalty is bad.
So the author would have liked us to pay for Maurice Clemmons to spend the rest of his life in prison? Give me a break, the author is actually insane. His cries for justice amounts to making himself look like a schizophrenic: fire Huckabee and let a cold-blooded killer like Maurice Clemmons live for the rest of his life at taxpayers' expense! Give us a break. You couldn't see justice even if you saw a cop shoot down a child-raping murderer.
Focus on the actual criminal, and the other murderers rotting in tortuous prisons like animals at our expense. These murderers need to be put down and removed from society just like Maurice Clemmons.
Posted by: James | December 2, 2009 11:14 PM
Dear PZ Myers,
You are an incredible hypocrite.
Who's worse, Mike Huckabee, who commuted the sentence of an armed robber? Or you, who would put a child-raping multiple murderer in prison for the rest of his life where he could kill even more people.
You are even worse than Huckabee since you are against killing men like this. Speak up for the justice of the death penalty for removal of scumbags like Clemmons which would make society truly safer and then maybe you might make sense.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 11:31 PM
James, it helps to know of what you are talking about before you shout out accusations. Clemmons had not committed murder when he was granted clemency.
Also, if he was still in prison, would he have had a chance to kill four police officers.
Logic. Make use of it.
Posted by: James | December 2, 2009 11:31 PM
"The issue is Huckabee's lack of judgment."
The issue is actually how people like yourself would let people like Maurice Clemmons continue to live in the first place.
You would allow entire prisons full of Marice Clemmons' live and continue to kill again.
You are no better than Huckabee, you are simply using an evil man to justify your hatred of a professed Christian and try to make him look bad to continue your anti-religious agenda against Christianity.
Because of people like yourself refusing the death penalty, murderers continue to kill without fear of reprisal. You are no better than Huckabee, you are a hypocrite.
Posted by: James | December 2, 2009 11:36 PM
Janine, your first two sentences addressed to me make no sense and have nothing to do with what I said. Please use some logic yourself.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 11:38 PM
James, think about what you are saying. Clemmons would not been able to murder those cops if he was still in prison. He was out, in part, because of what Huckabee did. He was not in prison for murder. He was not up for the death penalty.
Your are bending facts in order to cover up the act of a man who used his faith to commit a questionable act.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 2, 2009 11:38 PM
You're cool with cleansing blood with blood? Wow, sounds like a passage from the Koran.
Exactly how are they going to kill again if we incarcerated them, away from potential victims. (lousy slippery-slope argument)
Logic evades thee.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 11:42 PM
Sorry that I lack in raving loon logic. Nothing you have said fits in what is known about this case.
Posted by: James | December 2, 2009 11:42 PM
"Also, if he was still in prison, would he have had a chance to kill four police officers." -Janine
Duh, but the author of the above article doesn't even support the death penalty, so he would have allowed a monster like Clemmons to remain in prison after committing multiple murders with the opportunity to kill even more people. The author is just as ridiculous as what he is accusing Huckabee of, that is my point.
What's worse: commuting the sentence of an armed robber, or continuing to allow a child-raping multiple murderer to live and kill more people?
That's why this author is insane, he doesn't even support the death penalty, it doesn't matter what he thinks about scum like Maurice Clemmons or people like Mike Huckabee.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 11:47 PM
James, time line.
1) Child rape.
2) Prison.
3) Pardon.
4) Multiple murders.
Know of what you speak of before ranting.
Also, if Clemmons was still in prison, he would not been able to murder those cops.
Posted by: James | December 2, 2009 11:48 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 2, 2009 11:38 PM
Exactly how are they going to kill again if we incarcerated them, away from potential victims. (lousy slippery-slope argument)"
You are so naive. You don't think people get killed in prison? Ever heard of a shiv? Or a gang hit?
People get killed in prison all the time. People also get raped and brutalized, which would give Clemmons a chance to continue that behaviour as well.
The anti-death penalty crowd is so naive it is ridiculous. Please step out of your internet basement and take a look at the real world for a second. If you want people like Maurice Clemmons alive, you are a moron. That is why the author of this article is a moron. He whines about Huckabee and wants people like Clemmons to stay alive. Give me a break.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 2, 2009 11:49 PM
Nope, Janine is right; you are lacking logic. You are assuming A can lead to B. B can lead to C. C can lead to D. D is bad so therefore A is bad. That's a fallacy because there is no way to be sure that A will lead to D. Further more being in jail he would have been under strick watch and perhaps recieve therapy. There is little chance of him committing crime.
He was release because he professed to Christianity. The point is that Huckabee would release any insane criminaly if they suddenly found Jesus and that makes him evil. Whether PZ support Death is irrelavent to that statement.
Posted by: James | December 2, 2009 11:53 PM
Janine, you are being a moron.
The child rape occurred in Washington state, not Arkansas. Washington state let Clemmons go after the rape, not Huckabee, who is the governor of Arkansas.
Huckabee commuted an armed robbery sentence, not child rape. Your facts are wrong, please read something and stay away from the keyboard.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 2, 2009 11:54 PM
Unlike you I don't crave vengance. Fuck, I've been to Cambodia, and even people there don't think that the death penality on the Khmer Rouge changes anything. It doesn't make the streets any safer from insane criminal. Education has proven to do that way better.
I also love how you assume I'm a basement rat that lurks on-line, without first examining what you are doing.
Posted by: James | December 3, 2009 12:01 AM
Gyeong Hwa Pak ,It doesn't make the streets any safer from insane criminal."
You are insane.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 3, 2009 12:03 AM
Koran:
Essentially, it allows an vicious circle of vengence.Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 3, 2009 12:06 AM
I also love you your entire argument boils down just to that. lolPosted by: Rorschach | December 3, 2009 12:09 AM
raving loon @ 143,
You realise, your country currently does have the death penalty.
As to the timeline, the 11 years in prison from which he was pardoned were for various assaults, burglaries and weapons possession.The rape and murders came later.Same with the religious delusions, they seem to have been a recent thing, from listening to family and neighbours.
Posted by: James | December 3, 2009 12:09 AM
Gyeong Hwa Pak
So the cop should not have killed Maurice Clemmons in order to not perpeturate a "vicious cycle"?
You want to hang out with child-raping murderers? You want these people in your community?
Get real. These people have to be killed. Locking them up for the rest of their life is torture, at taxpayers' expense, and it allows for them to continue to commit crimes inside prison, which happens regardless of "stick watch and therapy". People like the author of this article have no clue what they are talking about, they just want to ream Christians.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 3, 2009 12:16 AM
The raving loon is going off about the need for the death penalty, yet Clemmons was in prison for murder. The raving loon is also going off about how the how prisoners can commit murder in prison, yet he wants those murderers executed.
Being called a "moron" by the likes of you is a compliment.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 3, 2009 12:21 AM
Oh sure when christians employ the death penalty, it's okay as it is for the good of society. But if a moslem did it. . .
In reality, crime rates in prison isn't as bad as the media makes it out to be. Furthermore, European countries have abolished the death penalty and crime rates are lower there. So your argument seems to be less of that "it's better for soceity" and more of "it cost less." Of course, if you were on the bad side of the needle, you'd might change your mine.
Posted by: James | December 3, 2009 12:22 AM
Janine- Clemmons was in prison for murder."
Clemmons was not in prison for murder. You are a total moron, or you are just acting like one to rile me up. I hope it's the latter because if you are that much of a moron that would be sad.
Posted by: James | December 3, 2009 12:37 AM
As my final word here, it is now being reported that Maurice Clemmons converted to Islam while in Arkansas. So the very first sentence of this ridiculous article is a falsehood. Clemmons was no Jesus-lover, that's for sure.
I would expect more than a garbage article like this from a scientist. I hope you leave your anti-religious convictions out when doing actual science, your research here is obviously faulty, biased and swayed by petty feelings of hate.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 3, 2009 2:06 AM
I would expect more than a garbage article like this from a scientist. I hope you leave your anti-religious convictions out when doing actual science, your research here is obviously faulty, biased and swayed by petty feelings of hate.
Yes, lovely how our "research is faulty." Regardless of what the criminal believed, he used Jesus as a face to save him and Hukabee felt that any one who saw Jesus can be saved. The whole point is it is wrong to make criminal court ruling based on the stupid idea that Jesus saves all. That's the bottom line and that's why it's evil. Stop relying on your "petty feelings" of peity.
Funny how you apologist love to tell us to keep religion out of science and fail to do the same.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 3, 2009 2:08 AM
Damn, epic blockquote fail.
Posted by: James | December 3, 2009 3:08 AM
Gyeong, I'm sorry if I was harsh with you, but this writer misrepresented the facts, and someone else pointed that out clearly earlier. What good is a scientist if he can't report the facts?
Janine and Gyeong, I'm sorry I called you guys morons, that was wrong of me. I live in Washington state and we are being overwhelmed with these cop-killings- five cops have been killed in the last month.
I was actually on the net researching the murderers' connections to radical black racist and Islamic groups and that search led me here of all places, where I saw this writer overly consumed with Huckabee and making it look like he set a murderer free. He did not. He set a thief free after he'd served 11 years in prison. Pierce County here in Washington actually set him free here on bail, after he'd been arrested for raping a 12 year old child!
PZ's article was so bad even Janine obviously thought Huckabee set a convicted murderer free. That is a serious misrepresentation of the facts and shoddy reporting at best. I would expect more from a scientist.
And PZ, sorry I was so harsh with you as well, but man, get your facts right, buddy.
Posted by: Arkin | December 3, 2009 3:17 AM
Actually mercy in the criminal justice system is a wicked thing - because when you choose to give someone who has abused society already a second chance, you are risking the lives of innocent citizens to give them the "second" chance - people who have not earned that risk.
The criminals have proven themselves to be dangerous - and they do not deserve a second chance.
If your going to be against the death penality, so be it, but don't risk the good of society for the benefit of the bad.
You could, for example, have "mercy" by making life in prison a viable alternative, by making it profitable - such as making the criminals WORK for a living to the profit of the system. If there is any money left from that profit then perhaps you could distribute them bibles to try to save what is left of their miserables souls, IN PRISON.
Posted by: Steve D | December 3, 2009 8:59 PM
I agree with absolutely everything you say about Huckabee's total lack of critical judgment. But the same comments apply with equal force to Michael Dukakis and his pardon of Willy Horton. So why was it racist to attack Dukakis for releasing a vicious black criminal, but not racist to attack Huckabee for releasing a vicious black criminal? Dukakis was liberal and Huckabee was conservative, mayhap?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 3, 2009 9:08 PM
No he didn't. Did Huckabee grant clemency to Clemmons because the latter had "come to Jesus"? Yes he did. Whether or not Clemmons had actually converted to Islam is meaningless. Considering how fast Huckabee worked to execute a Buddist, if he'd known Clemmons had become a Muslim then Clemmons would still be in an Arkansas prison.
Posted by: James | December 3, 2009 11:13 PM
Tis Himself,
Yes, he did misrepresent the facts:
"Clemmons was a monster. He murdered people and he raped children. He was insane. He believed he was Jesus Christ. Yet Mike Huckabee pardoned him. Why?" -PZ
Huckabee did not pardon anyone, he certainly didn't pardon a child raping murderer. He commuted the sentence of a robber who had already served 11 years since he was 16. People already pointed out his error in this blog and some people actually think Huckabee set a murderer free.
Huckabee commuted a robber's sentence NINE years ago. Pierce County here in Washington let Clemmons out JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, and that was AFTER he was arrested for child rape- they let him out on bail!
So really, the title should read "Pierce County Judge Kills Maurice Clemmons". Or more truthfully "Cop Kills Maurice Clemmons, and All Sane People are Glad About It". But that won't fit into PZ's anti-christ, anti-religious, anti-death penalty agenda.
In summation, you will ream a guy because he supposedly set a prisoner free after he "came to Jesus" but you don't care if a guy actually killed cops because he was a racist black muslim. Your double standard is ridiculous. I guess it just boils down to whatever religion annoys you the most, eh? I wish you guys would go live in Saudi Arabia for a year, you would be thanking God for Christians instead of whining about them.
Posted by: James | December 3, 2009 11:23 PM
Rorschach | December 3, 2009 12:09 AM
raving loon @ 143,
You realise, your country currently does have the death penalty."
This is a scientist's blog, right?
So why do you guys try to make people look like idiots and then you don't even admit your mistakes after making yourselves look bad?
In America there are over 15,000 murders a year, yet there are less than 200 executions a year, none in 17 states since 1976 even though thousands of murderers have been convicted in those states.
You do realize the death penalty doesn't get put into effect in this country then?
BTW, nice to be called a "loon" by someone named Rorschach. It's ironic that that fictional character killed murderers in prison and you've chosen his name as your handle, yet you're calling me a loon in part because I support the death penalty.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
December 4, 2009 12:19 PM
Jimmy whined:
Go fuck yourself, child. Your inane mischaracterization is ridiculous.
You're right, in a Muslim country they would have executed the teenaged thief, or at least chopped off his hand. And they would have done that in the name of their fucking religion.
I guess you'd like to see that here, is that it? You want a Christian version of Sharia law? Christian laws, and Christian punishments? Different rules for Christians and non-believers in the legal system?
Oh, wait... We already have that...
Posted by: James | December 4, 2009 10:33 PM
pdferguson: "Go fuck yourself, child."
LOL! Atheists are brilliant! And way nicer than those hypocrite Christians!
I guess my comparison of atheists to big-baby whiners got to you, eh?
Let me issue a different challenge: go live in atheist China for a year (since you love atheism and hate Christians). I guarantee you'll be thanking God for American Christians and the laws they made here, which atheist Humanism is tearing down.
Let's compare atheist countries to Christian countries: Soviet Russia and Communist China vs. once-Christian America.
Yeah, I think we know what kind of society atheism creates. Hey, if you go to China and like it, you can join the state police and beat and electrocute Christians. Maybe you'll actually like it there.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 4, 2009 10:49 PM
I think I'd rather live in godless Sweden.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 4, 2009 10:56 PM
You must be American, seeing that you are obviously not familiar with your own constitution.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 4, 2009 10:59 PM
FAIL. china and russia are/were totalitarian states first and foremost.but if we actually compare apples to apples, we get USA on the one hand (with the lowest rankings on social health indicators), and Scandinavia and Japan on the other, with the highest rankings on social health indicators.
and incidentally, I'd love to live in either place.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 11:07 PM
I see James doesn't understand that his deity exists only between his ears, and that he is a delusional fool until conclusive physical evidence for said deity is presented. So far, lots of presupposition, but real evidence, squat. Typical.
Posted by: James | December 4, 2009 11:24 PM
Jadehawk, OM
China is an atheist state where Christians are persecuted if they don't register with the state-sponsorsed New Age government "Christian" church, which is not Christian at all.
Totalitarianism is a political system (which they are also totalitarian), but the belief system of Communism is inherently enforced atheism, that is what their government schools teach, that is why Russia killed millions of Christians in the 20th century (more than all the Crusades and Inquisition combined).
Nice of you to try to detract from the fact that China is an atheist nation, though. I know that doesn't look good for you guys.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 11:27 PM
James, nice of you to avoid conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. All godbots seem to do that. They avoid the issue like the know they are delusional fools at heart.
Posted by: James | December 4, 2009 11:49 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
The proof you want is not some sort of physical evidence that God exists. God is Love. What you really want is for some Christians to show you the love they profess to have through Jesus Christ, which would reveal what God truly is. I'm sure it will happen to you someday, and that you will recognize how it has been shown to you in the past, even in a nation full of Christians who aren't exactly following their beliefs very carefully.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 5, 2009 12:01 AM
oh YAWN
God is love? Please. Have you actually read the bible?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 5, 2009 12:02 AM
god is a chemical reaction in your brain?oh, wait, we already knew that; except that you got the wrong chemical reaction; love is much nicer than god
going back to godliness vs godlessness and "showing love"... the USA also scores very low on social indicators for "neighborly love", whereas scandinavia and japan score very high.I prefer the godless love to the godly kind. it seems so much nicer and, you know, real.
Posted by: Caine
|
December 5, 2009 12:18 AM
James @ 179:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rather than listening to yet another godbot bot merrily along, I would like actual evidence for the so-called existence of your god. Going with the tired god is love shtick means nothing outside of your ability to work yourself into a specific emotional state you call god.
If you believe god is nothing more than love, well, then you don't believe in the bible or anything contained therein. If what you believe is down to just being loving and doing good by your fellow human beings, you can do that easily without sticking a god in the middle.
Oh please. Your (and your god's) sort of extremely conditional love isn't love at all. All that lovin', and if you use your brain and say "no, there's no evidence", that love comes down to an eternity of torture. Yep, love at its finest, that.
Posted by: windy | December 5, 2009 1:06 AM
Sorry, James is right on the timeline.
--
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Even if Huckabee freed people because gremlins told him to, do you think it would have been better to leave a juvenile delinquent in prison for 108 years, just in case?
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 2:51 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 5, 2009 12:01 AM
oh YAWN
God is love? Please. Have you actually read the bible?"
Not as much as I should:
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him."
-1 John 4:7-9 (NIV)
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 3:06 AM
Caine Author Profile Page | December 5, 2009 12:18 AM
Rather than listening to yet another godbot bot merrily along, I would like actual evidence for the so-called existence of your god."
Actually, faith in God has been around forever, but Darwinism has only been around for 150 years (in its current form, though it did exist as the religion of Gnostic apotheosis 1900 years ago).
So the burden of proof is on you guys to prove Darwinism. And monkey bones still only make it a theory, not a fact. So yes, you need to prove that we are "evolving" from monkeys into X-Men.
I've seen love as exhibited by fellow Christians. God may be an invisible fantasy to you, but surely you can acknowledge that love is real, and it is invisible and unquantifiable in any scientific manner, love can only be perceived when it is revealed in human beings showing love to each other.
So the burden of proof is on atheists and Darwinists. You prove to me that monkeys became men. After 150 years of archaeology, no bones, and a theory based on the Gnostic myth of apotheosis (that men can "evolve" into gods, or, superhumans, which is far more delusional than anything in the Bible), there is no debate.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 5, 2009 3:12 AM
Cleanup in aisle 17 please.Creationist lunacy spill.
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 3:18 AM
Rorschach,
I'm sorry, your descendants will evolve into Wolverine and Professor X. That fantasy sound better to you? ;-)
Posted by: Rorschach | December 5, 2009 3:23 AM
My son is seemingly evolving into a Basketball player, if that's what you meant !
Love
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 5, 2009 3:30 AM
'I've seen love as exhibited by fellow
ChristiansScientologists.GodXenu may be an invisible fantasy to you, but surely you can acknowledge that love is real, and it is invisible and unquantifiable in any scientific manner, love can only be perceived when it is revealed in human beings showing love to each other.'Fixed it for you.
Posted by: John Morales | December 5, 2009 3:31 AM
Um, James, you do know Marvel comics aren't supposed to be scientific texts, right? :)
PS: Evolution.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 5, 2009 3:35 AM
#185: another creationist who doesn't even know what evolution is. every single statement about evolution in that post is incorrect.
Posted by: Caine
|
December 5, 2009 3:37 AM
Creotard @ 185:
Faith in gods has been around. Your god is a latecomer in the god stakes.
The burden of proof is on you - the evidence for evolution is plain, clear and widely available. What might not be available to you is the brain power to comprehend the science, but that would be your particular problem. If you want people to accept your god as a fact, you need to provide evidence. You attempted to sidestep the need for evidence with your "god is love" crap. It didn't work, so now you've revealed yourself to be a same old same old creotard. What a
yawnrevelation.I've seen love exhibited by humans. Humans who don't need a sociopathic prick of a god to do so. Your so-called love is anything but. Yes, love is real, and we know what causes such feelings and how they arise. Study neuroscience, not god. You don't need god for love. Just people. Well, people without delusions of a psycho prick of a god. That's where you can find actual love, you know, the kind without nasty ass conditions.
As for the rest of your substandard godbotting, yawn. Shouldn't you be finding some terribly vulnerable people who will do anything for help, and convince yourself you're full of love for forcing your god on them?
You, godbot.
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 3:46 AM
Darwinism = apotheosis = science fiction
Darwinism = Erasmus Darwin's (Charles Darwin's grandfather) theories based on his Freemasonic beliefs in "The Becoming"- Gnostic apotheosis
Look into it!
It's called the "missing link" for a reason. It ain't ever gonna be found.
Your religion of Gnostic apotheosis is much more of a fantastic science fiction than the Bible ever could be, really. Do some reading.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 5, 2009 3:49 AM
Better get that one to a Hospital i reckon.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 5, 2009 3:51 AM
see? still 100% wrong
and oh the irony of an ignorant moron telling us to "do some reading".
Posted by: John Morales | December 5, 2009 3:52 AM
James, you are either mistaken or lying: Apotheosis.
Posted by: Caine
|
December 5, 2009 4:04 AM
James the godbot:
Blah blah faith blah blah Darwin! blah blah faith.
Wrong. So wrong. You said yourself you don't read the bible much - try reading it. Actually reading it. Your god was terrified of Adam and Eve discovering the tree of life and becoming gods - that's in your precious book of myths.
I'd recommend you trying to read some science, any science, but I fear it would get nowhere.
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 4:04 AM
Thanks for posting that, John.
Apotheosis is the occult belief that man can become a god, which Erasmus Darwin came to believe along with his occult Freemason cohorts. This belief was made "scientific" by him concocting theories of "evolution" which were later transmitted to Charles Darwin, his grandson. The British Royal Institute, made up entirely of Freemasons, then took evolution as their chief propaganda to promote apotheosis, which you can see being currently eaten with a spoon in our comic book fantasy culture.
So the whole idea of Darwinism, which your atheist Humanist textbooks won't tell you, is that man is turning from a monkey into a god.
Ever ask yourself, "if we evolved from monkeys, what are we evolving into"?
Ask Erasmus. He thought we could "evolve" into gods.
That's exactly the first lie Satan told Adam and Eve. So your Darwinism is nothing more than another religion, and it is actually based on the Satanic Gnosticism of Erasmus Darwin.
You won't find that in the educational system because it is filled with humanist, but it is the truth and you can find it if you actually read about your prophet Darwin and his elitist, racist mentally ill family.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 5, 2009 4:10 AM
Ahem.
Talk about mentally ill.
A warning, enough there to sign the papers already James...:-)
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 5, 2009 4:11 AM
This blog deserves a better class of trolls.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 5, 2009 4:22 AM
I've been gone for a day so I don't know where this argument has gone. However, from what I gather from Rorschachs’ last statement I take it that this has developed into that ridiculous notion that evolution fueled races. Whether Darwin was racist or not is inconsequential to the ideals of evolution by natural selection being true. Furthermore that concept was there long before Darwin or even the Yahweh. If this isn’t the argument, than feel free to use my statement at some point lol. Apparently I’m still buzzed.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 5, 2009 4:23 AM
let's tally this, shall we?
-- Theories don't become facts; theories explain facts. clearly, you don't know what theory means
-- Humans aren't evolving into X-Men, or gods, or anything else pre-determined; you made that up, because you don't know that evolution isn't directional
-- monkeys didn't become men; you're making this up because you don't understand primate evolution
-- evolution isn't a "humanist atheist" theory, it's secular and scientific; but of course you don't actually know what any of the terms mean.
-- Darwin isn't a prophet. science has no prophets
no go and take your own advice and go read something; preferrably something scientific, so you can begin to plug that gaping ignorance of yours.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 5, 2009 4:24 AM
Atrocious grammar from me. I’m still buzzed. Out.
Posted by: Caine
|
December 5, 2009 4:25 AM
James the creotard:
No, your god not only thought that, he feared it:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever* Genesis 3:22
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.** Genesis 11:6
* God expels Adam and Eve from the garden before they get a chance to eat from that other tree -- the tree of life. God knows that if they do that, they will live forever. (Genesis also makes clear that your god was one of many, and didn't want his little playthings to attain godhood.)
**God worries that the people will succeed in building a tower high enough to reach him (them?) in heaven, and that by so doing they will become omnipotent.
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 5:22 AM
Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 5, 2009 4:22 AM
Whether Darwin was racist or not is inconsequential..."
Actually, it is very consequential.
Hitler and atheist regimes used Darwin's "science" to justify eugenics and the elimination of entire races and classes of people based on their ancestry, religion, intelligence level or social status.
Darwin's racism is very consequential: it provided the ideological support for atheist totalitarian regimes who wanted to wipe out entire races. Racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger (creator of Planned Parenthood) used Darwin's "science" to justify propagandizing black people to abort all their babies, since according to Darwin's "science" black people were inferior and she wanted less of them around.
Also, survival of the fittest, or "natural selection", is also not even close to being scientifically true. Social Darwinism is only used to justify oppression of the weak, the poor, the handicapped and basically whoever is not in power.
Hitler had a science to justify killing the aged, mentally ill, handicapped, etc. Guess what that "science" was?
Darwinism is a religion, not science, make no mistake about it. It is an elitist's fantasy: "men can 'evolve' into gods, and those men that do can oppress everyone they deem inferior- 'scientifically'."
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 5, 2009 5:29 AM
oh look, more things James doesn't know anything about.
Hitler was a Christian, wrote about God and God's will a lot, believed that "kinds" didn't evolve into other "kinds", and put Origin of Species on the list of banned books.
You fail history.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 5, 2009 5:31 AM
and in any case, none of this is relevant to whether evolution is true. the theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive, and what you're doing is a logical fallacy called "appeal to consequences"
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 6:19 AM
Jadehawk, OM
Think about this: have you ever read Darwin's books? Why don't the Humanist schools you went to make you read Darwin? Because if you did, you would realize not only how insane he was and how lame his "science" was, but how insane the people are who made your school system and make you go to school for 12 years just so you can stand behind a cash register for the rest of your life (how's that for evolution! That's social control, the purpose of Darwinism). This is the complete title of his book:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"
You can see by its very title the man is a racist. Hitler also had a manifesto with the word "struggle" in it. Hitler was not a Christian, he was an occultist who subscribed to the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and hung with the Thule Society. Even though he was an occultist, he banned Freemasonry. Why? He didn't want any competition. As far as supposedly banning Darwin's books goes, that would be the same reason schools don't make you read Darwin (yet teach Darwinism, go figure). The educational system is run by an epistemological cartel. They don't want you to realize that the Plato they make you read is a homosexual pedophile, or that Darwin was a nut job.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 5, 2009 6:30 AM
PZ, when you read James' insane ramblings in the morning, dont plonk it, i plan to show it's posts to some friends and collegues as an example what religious brain rot can do....
We dont get that many like him over here, so keep his posts up please.
Posted by: amphiox | December 5, 2009 6:33 AM
James, have YOU read Darwin?
Because if you had, you wouldn't be sticking your foot in your mouth with stupid comments like #208.
Posted by: John Morales | December 5, 2009 6:37 AM
James:
And this is the etext of the book.
Have you read it?
Here's a little quote from it (my emphasis):
Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil—in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the DEFINITE action of the poor soil—that they would, to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 5, 2009 6:45 AM
James,
Origins does not touch on human evolution. It certainly does not mention races in the modern meaning of the word, and it is dishonest for you to pretend it does.
Do you have an explanation for your dishonesty ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 5, 2009 6:50 AM
Do you think James regards choosing a savoy cabbage over a red cabbage to be a form of racism ?
Posted by: 386sx | December 5, 2009 6:57 AM
The educational system is run by an epistemological cartel.
Ah yes, the ol' Illuminati conspiracy. And Darwinism has its foundations in Freemasonry, of course.
(Yep, just checked. James rants about Freemasonry too. I wonder what James thinks about shape-shifting lizard people...)
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
December 5, 2009 7:00 AM
Red cabbages don't really exist - they're just a product of the gay epistemological Freemason conspiracy to control you...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 5, 2009 7:07 AM
James, still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity, so the only conclusion is that you are a delusional fool with no understanding of how the world of evidence works. As was shown by your posts. Idjits like you don't change minds around here. That requires evidence from something other than inane citations of a mythical holy book. If you cite anything, the scientific literature is the best thing to cite.
He is just another babbling brainless Liar for Jebus™.Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 7:17 AM
Matt,
If we were told the complete title of Darwin's seminal work, even as 10 year old kids, we would automatically infer he was racist. His book The "Descent of Man" is filled with racism. His entire culture was anglo elitism, it would be strange if he weren't racist and didn't see himself and his race as superior to non-whites, or "savages" as he called them.
Nice way to try to make it look like I'm lying, by the way. I see the atheist ploy of always trying to catch Christians in immorality so they can snicker that we are no better than them (we aren't, by the way). Strange that atheists believe in something that no science has "physical proof" of: morality.
Ah, so the atheist is qualified to make value judgments and pleas for morality. What moral standards are you appealing to? What scientific "physical evidence" proves that lying is "wrong"? From the Darwinian standpoint, you are just an animal, you evolved from an animal, there is no wrong or right, you are simply instinct and aggression at a higher functioning level. And yet you resort to accusing me of breaking one of God's 10 commandments, how ironic.
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 7:26 AM
Nerd of Redhead: "Idjits like you don't change minds around here."
I realized that as soon as I started typing here. But I had fun anyway. Take care.
Let me know when your "evidence" for Darwinism pops up in an archaeological dig somewhere. ;-)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 5, 2009 7:29 AM
You are, starting with your imaginary deity.Of course, hominids have been doing that for millions of years, long before they invented your imaginary deity 2,500 years ago. Evolution works.Moral standard have been and will always be man-defined. Your deity doesn't exist. The writers of the babble decided what they put into the babble when they wrote the mythology.You don't get it, and are being deliberately obtuse. Right or wrong was always what made the tribe work with a minimum of friction. Don't kill or beat up your neighbor. Help the tribe out. Essentially applying the golden rule.Yep, you broke it big time, because you don't understand them yourself. Liars never do.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 5, 2009 7:36 AM
Ah the attempted clever remark, which only showed your ignorance. First of all Darwinism is not a term used by most scientists. We call it evolution. Darwin is a great scientist, but hardly a deity. The implication of the term Darwinism to make evolution sound like a religion. It isn't. Darwin made many mistakes, and 150 years of science has taken the outlines that Darwin proposed, modified it with radioactive dating, genes, genomes, DNA sequencing, basic biochemistry, and have solidified the theory with a million or so scientific papers. The theory is as solid as the theory of gravity.You don't find the evidence for evolution in an archeological dig. There you find evidence that the babble is book of myth.
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 9:27 AM
PZ Myers Author Profile Page | December 4, 2009 10:49 PM
I think I'd rather live in godless Sweden."
Sorry, bud. That's a majority Christian nation. You have to choose either godless China or a muslim country to make the challenge effective.
Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 9:31 AM
Nerd of Redhead, OM:
Yep, you broke [the commandment against lying] big time, because you don't understand them yourself. Liars never do."
You believe in the 10 commandments now! See, you're becoming a Christian! lol
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 5, 2009 9:52 AM
Only on paper. Most people ignore the church, and don't believe in your imaginary deity. Your facts are wrong.Only that they occur in a book of mythology (which I have read twice--that is why I became an atheist) and idjits like you think they are meaningful. Which they aren't.Posted by: James | December 5, 2009 2:58 PM
Nerd of Redhead: "Of course, hominids have been [making value judgments] for millions of years, long before they invented your imaginary deity 2,500 years ago. Evolution works."
Hominids- apes, chimpanzees, etc.- do not make value judgments. If a gorilla or chimp kills another they do not go to gorilla jail.
And where's your physical evidence for morality?
--"Right or wrong was always what made the tribe work with a minimum of friction. Don't kill or beat up your neighbor. Help the tribe out. Essentially applying the golden rule." --Nerd of Redhead
"Tribes" like the Mayans sacrificed up to 10,000 people a day to their snake god to improve crops, while just last century the Soviets sacrificed millions of Christians on the altar of atheistic Communism. Apparently those tribes missed out on your evolutionary "golden rule" gene.
The fact is morality is in the realm of ethics, not physical science. Ethics is in the realm of invisible beliefs that have no physical proof. When you hear about the atrocities of the Crusades something in you cries out "evil" yet there is no physical proof to substantiate your claim that it is evil (except the Bible).
The Mayans and Soviets didn't care about people being killed for no reason, so why should you care, and what makes you morally superior to them? The Soviets had all the science, progress and the seemingly same "evolution" that Americans have. What makes Soviet massacres "evil" and Americans "good"? Only your subjective view on morality, which is based on Western morality, which is taught to believe in a moral code, and that would be the Bible.
Why do you get to tell the Mayans they were wrong to sacrifice 10,000 people to a snake god? I'm assuming you believe that's wrong. Why do you get to tell the Soviets they were evil? Hopefully you get the picture. You want to claim moral superiority over the Christians, the Bible and God himself, but you don't get to. You're just a human being, you don't know everything, but you are also rebellious and filled with sinful urges. Therein lies your dilemma. You have the authority on morality all around you in the form of Bibles but you refuse to acknowledge it because you would rather dictate your own morality, which is foolish because you are not omnipotent, but in your pride and stubbornness you refuse to submit to omnipotence in order to gain true wisdom.
Your somewhat moral belief system is taught to you by Christianity. Unless you have some sort of "physical evidence" that the Mayans were scientifically and evolutionarily correct in sacrificing 10,000 people to a snake god. And you don't, all you have is a belief system you can't even properly define, which actually borrows from a belief system that you hate. Since you don't accept the Bible or believe in God, this is why you're torn in a schizophrenic world where a) Christians are not allowed to "impose" their morality on you, b) yet you somehow feel you can impose your morality on them (i.e. "don't lie, James!"). Since your morality is relative and wholly based on your own personal opinions, it is irrelevant and incorrect because it is purely subjective, unless submitted to a complete and correct morality system, that would be the Bible. (If you think you can define your own morality, yet the Soviets, Mayans and Nazis could not, you are just a hypocrite.)
Bottom line: you want to be the boss of morality, like the Christians claim. But you have no authority. The Bible is the authority. The whole point of elitists creating Darwinism was so they could have control and circumvent traditional Christian society's morality (by turning men into animals devoid of morality) and impose their own amorality on it. The result is the most brutal century ever, filled with three large extermination campaigns by atheist regimes and one fascist regime.
And yet what inside you can claim that is wrong? What makes you better than them? Aren't they just evolved humans, programmed with morality to survive and "not kill their neighbors"? Yet why are they killing each other? Does this mean you believe in sin? Uh oh.
You keep asking me for proof of God, where is your proof of sin? Where is your proof Mike Huckabee is "wrong"? Do you believe in sin? There is no physical science to prove that he is "wrong" about anything since there is no science to demonstrate "good" or "evil". Morality is an invisible, ethical, non-scientific phenomenon.
Yet you believe in it. How odd.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 5, 2009 3:09 PM
Boy are wrong. Your fallacious presupposition that your imaginary deity exists, and your need to justify your inane presupposition, goes against the facts of the matter. There is very much a quid-pro-quo that goes on. Another lie for the godbot.Morality is philosophical construct. Unlike your imaginary god, which is just delusional thinking. Another inane strawman by the delusional godbot.No, nothing Xian about it. And the babble is not a moral book. If you ever truly read it, you would understand that. You have a fallacious presupposition that the babble is a moral book. It contains acts of incest, genecide, child sacrifice, rape, and other immoral acts supposedly committed with the approval of Yahweh. Get real.Boy, another presupposition question. Which is fallacious. Your god doesn't exist. You have shown no evidence for that deity. Ergo, there cannot any sin against a deity that doesn't exist. What a fool.And here you go again. We don't need your god for morals or ethics. Quit your presupposition that we do. You may need a deity. Science and atheist don't.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 5, 2009 4:01 PM
and a global Illuminati conspiracy to boot, since they teach evolution all over the world, and creationism nowhere except in some podunk American backwaters where the teachers are so uneducated they don't know any better.Not to mention that it's rather pathetic for James to assume that people read only the books they've been assigned in school; I'll take this as another unintended projection of his own attitude, since we already have evidence how wilfully ignorant he is about everything he's talked about in this thread.
Including Sweden being majority Christian. Fucking laughable. Swedes are as Christian as I am (i.e. the church still counts them as a member, but they don't actually believe any christian mythology); some statistics put the numbers of atheist Swedes (as opposed to church-members vs. non-church-members) as high as 85%
Posted by: pdferguson
|
December 6, 2009 7:22 PM
Little Jimmy whined some more:
Oh, great! I feel honored that we have in our midst an expert on the "complete and correct morality system" of the Bible. Perhaps you can answer a few questions that have been lingering for a long time. They are contained in a letter that was first put to another eminent Sunday school scholar, Dr. Laura. I sincerely hope you can help clear these up. Here's the letter:
----
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Biblical laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not so pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Carole M. Cusack,
Lecturer, School of Studies in Religion
University of Sydney
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 6, 2009 7:42 PM
You can tell how moral Yahweh was when he killed all the inhabitants of the Earth except for one family. Ol' Yahweh was so pissed that even infants and the mentally incompetent were drowned. Morality in action.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 6, 2009 7:48 PM
Don't forget that he "harden the pharoh's heart" so that the pharoh wouldn't free Moses people. That way, he could justify killing all the first born of Egypt. Great moral guide!
Posted by: eddie
|
December 30, 2009 5:42 PM
OneHandClapping @134;
After your first comment alleging I didn't read the reports, it's tres ironic thaty you give us this comment that proves you didn't read my link to the case of De Menezes. Go read.
On the cops vs other gangs issue; It seems to me an important distinction to make that, whereas the crips, etc, use violence and terror as a means to make money (more precisely to increase or protect market share), the police use violence and terror as ends in themselves. Of course it's only a tiny minority of police who engage in money-motivated crimes. The majority are in it for power.
Posted by: eddie
|
December 30, 2009 8:01 PM
From RL @137:
Of course, the fact that Huckabee not pardoned but commuted the guy's sentence on religious grounds in no way fueled Clemmons's religious delusions that fed his insanity and led directly to his raping and murdering children. Oh. Sorry. Yes it did.
And I've still not seen convincing evidence that Clemmons was the button man in the police shooting, but gang on gang violence is never just about targeting specific individuals. Sorry to the commentors up around 130. I think PZ is right with his headline.
Posted by: eddie
|
December 30, 2009 8:13 PM
It was soon thereafter that james turned up. I'm not sure it's worth my time catching up anymore.