No, Tim McVeigh was not a Christian:
The DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.
Tim McVeigh was a self-avowed agnostic. So by definition, he was not a Christian. OK City had nothing to do with Christianity.
And if you read this article about the Sikh temple shooter, you know what you find no mention of? Christianity. Which isn’t surprising, given that he has a picture of himself in front of a swastika, and Hitler himself wasn’t Christian. He was a white supremacist, and it really is a slander to Christians to attribute his actions to that religion.
It’s really amazing how these people try to pretend that Islamist terrorism, like Fort Hood or the Boston Marathon bombing, has nothing to do with Islam, while grabbing for straws and outright lying about non-Islamic terrorism and its non-relationship to Christianity, or religion in general, all in order to strip us of our First Amendment rights. They need to be called on it, each and every time.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I didn’t get all the way to the end, so in fairness, I need to call Judicial Watch on this nonsense:
The president has even ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to shift its mission from space exploration to Muslim diplomacy…
It’s amazing how many people actually believe this, based on nothing but an idiotic interview that Bolden gave to Al Jazeera. I suppose, though, because it seems pretty plausible that this administration would do something that stupid, even though it didn’t.
In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.
Our local islamaphobe bob-1 must be doing handstands. “information considered inflammatory against Muslims”. Well bob, care to enlighten us as to the definition of that? Would a picture of a boston bombing victim in a wheelchair showing their stumps apply? A video of a stoning?
…and Hitler himself wasn’t Christian. He was a white supremacist…
If “Christian” and “white supremacist” are mutually exclusive then there were very few Christians in America and Europe until about the mid-20th century.
I didn’t say they were mutually exclusive. Obviously many people who are white supremacists call themselves Christians. But there is zero evidence of which I’m aware that he attacked the temple or the Sikhs in the name of Christ.
I agree with your point completely Rand. What some like to point out is that Hitler was quite good at using religious mandate to sway the masses to his cause, just like many others have. That a majority of the masses of Germany were Christians is happenstance.
Which brings up a really good point about Christians. Jesus, who apparently had something to do with Christians (although they were not called that until after his death) said at Mt 7:24 “then will I profess to them, I never knew you.”
The point being, it doesn’t matter if a person thinks they are a Christian, they are only a Christian if the Christ says they are.
I didn’t say they were mutually exclusive.
It certainly sounded like it. It’s hard not to conclude that from “…and Hitler himself wasn’t Christian. He was a white supremacist…“. Hitler self-identified as a Catholic which, last I checked, makes him a Christian. Being a white supremacist (or indeed a genocidal maniac) doesn’t exclude one from being a Christian.
Obviously many people who are white supremacists call themselves Christians.
They don’t merely call themselves Christians; they are Christians. Being white supremacists in no way excludes them from being Christians. I think you are committing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Unlike, say, the Abolitionists, who were … oh, wait …
“Hitler self-identified as a Catholic…”
You either don’t know much about either Hitler or Catholics; or are willing to lie in public to advance your cause.
“Hitler self-identified as a Catholic…”
Say what?
Hitler identified as a Catholic? I’m sure that would be news to the 2500 priests in Dachau Concentration Camp, 40% of whom died there.
Hitler self-identified as a Catholic which, last I checked, makes him a Christian.
Perhaps early on, for political purposes. He was a pagan. He rounded up Catholics for the camps along with the Jews.
They don’t merely call themselves Christians; they are Christians.
Fine, they are Christians. The fact remains that, unlike Muslim terrorists, they don’t murder people in the name of their religion (at least not in the two cases the idiot cited, in one of which the terrorist proclaimed his lack of Christianity). They do it in the name of racial supremacy.
Hitler was basically an agnostic; he had the typically Socialist view of all organized religion and Christianity in specific (“opiate of the masses”, and all that). The Chicken Rancher (Himmler, that is) was the one who tried to include the quasi-Norse nonsense into the SS; and even at that most of the SS just went along for the same reason that most corporate employees pretend enthusiasm for whatever new management enthusiasm the boss has come up with this time. Once you got outside the SS you didn’t even get that much.
Hitler was born in Austria so he probably had Catholic influences during his childhood. But the Nazis liked to employ Germanic Norse mythology and even tried to reinvent Christmas as a non-Christian celebration. As Rand says the Nazi party doctrine was to push Germanic Norse paganism at the expense of Christian or other religions. As they started losing WWII they started to let people practice the Christian religion more openly to improve morale but it was never the official policy.
It’s really amazing how these people try to pretend that Islamist terrorism, like Fort Hood or the Boston Marathon bombing, has nothing to do with Islam, while grabbing for straws and outright lying about non-Islamic terrorism and its non-relationship to Christianity, or religion in general, all in order to strip us of our First Amendment rights.
Indeed, my problem when I first read of this at another blog.
Elements of our government want to create blasphemy laws and speech codes while telling critics to “shut-up because we will make factitious claims about you”.
It’s absurd. I can’t even find the principle in the matter. One can claim we need blasphemy laws to avoid hurting the religious freedom of others, but shouldn’t that apply to both Muslims and Christians? One can claim we shouldn’t paint all Muslims as dangerous, but then they go paint all Christians. The only principle seems to be the growth of statist power.
We need a ‘Muslims are hippies’ meme so we can punch them!
I’ve also heard that although the statist media tried to depict McVeigh as an anti-government militia member, he was actually kicked out of the one militia he joined for being too extremist.
Hey, “liberal” State-f***ers! Want to see “right-wing” militias dry up and go away? Try dialing back the statism! Just a suggestion.
Is this a bad time to say I wish there was more Americans with McVeigh’s passion and dedication? His methods were obviously ineffective, and therefore pointless, but were they wrong?
The building contained employees of the Social Security Administration, the Secret Service, the DEA and the ATF. None of these people were conscripted. They chose to work for the federal government, doing jobs which are all violations of the Constitution in some way or another, and involved taxing, spying on or outright attacking peaceful people. The courts of the land have sanctioned these jobs, but does that mean individuals must too?
The collateral damage was horrific and unjust, and for that alone I once again condemn his methods, but what exactly are individuals supposed to do when talking just isn’t working?
Trent,
Unless you post a comment here explaining that you didn’t mean what you just said, unless you have some sort of excuse like you were under the influence of a mind-altering post-surgical painkiller, well, then I just want to tell you that I think you’re a complete piece of crap, someone who isn’t fit to live in civilization. I’m tempted to say that you should just walk out into the ocean and drown yourself, because you’re a worthless piece of shit, but I’d like to believe that you could improve yourself.
On the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial site, there is a list of names. I’m going to choose one at random:
http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org/secondary.php?ordering=60&view=72§ion=1&catid=24
I’m not going to tarnish that woman’s full name with this webpage, but that link goes to a secretary named Linda who worked for the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department. She was 43 years old, she had a son, she wasn’t hurting anyone, and regardless of your overall opinion about the role of government in people’s lives or you particular opinons about how you feel about HUD, she didn’t deserve to be murdered. Shame on you. And shame on anyone here who won’t tell you you’re utterly and completely wrong.
On the memorial
There is another angle here: that attack was an attack on the United States of America, and George W. Bush did have one thing right: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. Being “with us” doesn’t mean you have to agree with every US policy, but it sure as hell means being against Linda getting murdered. You’ve made it clear: you’re an enemy of the United States of America. No, I don’t think you warrant a drone attack – I believe in free speech for everyone, even disgusting terrorist-sympathizers like you, but you do deserve to be ostracized.
I thought you were an ok person. You’re not. I’m so mad I could just spit.
Rand – can you remove his offensive language?
As for your random person, isn’t it people like her that caused the housing collapse that led to the financial crisis? How can you possibly say she was doing no harm? Are you secretly Jim?
Rand – can you remove his offensive language?
Ummmm…..
What?
I was under the impression that you didn’t tolerate swearing on your blog.. but hey, I don’t really mind.
I’m having a hard time figuring out how this differs from Trent:
I think you’re a complete piece of crap, someone who isn’t fit to live in civilization. I’m tempted to say that you should just walk out into the ocean and drown yourself, because you’re a worthless piece of shit
If I understand this correctly; bob disagrees with Trent, so bob tells Trent he should commit suicide, because telling someone to commit suicide is not as bad as someone discussing the merits of a mass murderers intent. This is the same bob that argues we shouldn’t paint jihad in such a negative way.
My problem with Trent isn’t that Trent disagrees with me. I disagree with all sorts of libertarians, while knowing full well that they are very nice people who I would enjoy counting as my friends.
My problem is that Trent thinks McVeigh wasn’t wrong to murder Linda and her colleagues.
My concern, upon sleeping on it, is that Trent will someday act on his beliefs and kill people, and we’ll look back at this blog page and say “look, there were warning signs even back then”, the way they do with Anders Breivik now.
As for “Jihad”, Muslims, Islam, etc, I think I’ve been very clear that I never, ever — ever — said anything in support of terrorism, murder, bombings, killings, or even fear-provoking activities. I’ve only spoken out in support of peaceful and non-violent Muslims (who I argue are the vast majority of Muslims), and even among them, I only have support for those who are NOT anti-American, anti-Western, anti-civilization (who, again, I argue are the vast majority, although definitions of “anti-American” are going to be contentious since many of you think that the President of the United States is anti-American). In short, I’ve never said anything remotely heinous regarding killers – I’ve only asked that people not be prejudiced toward peaceful people who deserve the absence of religious bigotry. The http://myjihad.org/ site is a perfect example — I challenge anyone to find just one objectionable thing on that site – if you can find something, I’ll acknowledge that I was wrong, and you’ll have my thanks.
So, Leland, on the one hand, we’ve got Trent, who is supporting murder, who is supporting terrorism, and who is supporting an attack on the United States. On the other hand, you’ve got me, a patriotic American who is against bigotry and who was outraged by Trent’s disgusting opinion.
And your response is to criticize me. Got it.
the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.
definitions of “anti-American” are going to be contentious since many of you think that the President of the United States is anti-American
Bob, you should periodically do a self-check to ensure your sense of self-awareness is still intact.
Bob-1, I have read worse from Democrats and not just people who post on an internet forum but top teir politicians and activists. I hope you call out your own with the same vigor.
I also hope you speak out against the persecution from the Obama administration directed at Americans. Using the IRS, EPA, DOJ, ATF, and the other alphabet soup agencies to target and attack political dissidents is not only criminal but morally wrong and destroys the ties that bind us together as fellow citizens.
I also hope you speak out against the rampant bigotry directed toward christians by Democrats which is far worse than anything muslims have experienced in our country. And also the racism directed toward white people. Remember that any time an attack is leveled at someone that includes “fat old angry white men,” it is an attack based in racism.
Wodun, Democrats only feign concern over malfeasance when they are not the one’s committing it.
Not to imply that the Right is immune to this phenomenon, but the Left’s control of government, academia and mass media allows them to keep their followers on a very short leash.
Bob, your outrage is boring and predictable. I’d much prefer reading a reasoned argument.
If Trent is so incredibly wrong, it should have been easy to write a concise logical argument explaining why. Any nose-rubbing in the pee you want to do to him afterward would then be fine.
But no, you just turned up the volume and went strait for arguments by intimidation and appeals to emotion. So boring, so common, so… fail, and it took so many words for you to do it. Ultimately, you added nothing of substance to the discussion, only attempts to shut it down and lots of strawmen to watch over the fallow field left behind. Pro-tip: outrage doesn’t get you any closer to the moral high-ground.
I do however take issue with something Trent said: “The collateral damage was horrific and unjust…”
I would like to remind Trent that collateral damage is the moral responsibility of whoever is the force initiator. McVeigh was wrong, but it wasn’t because there was a daycare in the building.
If it were otherwise, packing a loaded baby bjorn would be a moral invincibility shield. Although the juxtaposition of Adolf raging at the podium with a baby strapped to his chest, or better yet, Ahmadinnerjacket bloviating in front of the UN with a googly eyed infant hanging on him would be pretty hilarious. Hell, I already make baby faces at that guy – hmm, the same faces I made at Bob’s posts… Such an angry baby!
Ahmadinnerjacket
I’ve been using I’m-a-nut-job. That one is much better, thks.
well, then I just want to tell you that I think
LOL.
Trent, although I believe I understand your meaning, you are touching a nerve.
A very sensitive nerve. Right up there with Bill Maher saying the 9-11 attacker were courageous.
Well, It was effective — “Waco” was not repeated.
Right, wrong or indifferent, we’ll never know what alternate course of history was averted.
The wonderful thing about our system is that there are many ways to bring about change. When people get tired of talking, they should start organizing efforts on all branches of government, everything from lobbying and electing politicians to lawsuits that make the system fight itself.
The bar for acceptable use of violence is quiet high, unless you talk to OWS or other Democrat activist groups and who aspires to be like them?
It seems to be so high that it can never be reached. In modern America, everyone who “uses violence” against federal agents is condemned.
Meanwhile, badge-jockeys at all levels of government are free to shoot citizens pretty much at will. Also light their “compounds” on fire. And run over the burnt bodies with tanks.
Hey, Bob: every Nazi soldier we killed in World War II had a family, too.
Now why don’t you run along and report us all to the IRS or Homeland Security or whatever agency of your beloved federal regime is currently responsible for enforcing correct Revolutionary political hygiene.
We’re at war. Only one side is allowed to shoot.
Today.
Rand,
What do you think?
I think that there’s a lot that we still don’t know about Oklahoma City, thanks to corruption in Reno’s Justice Department and Bill Clinton’s White House.
I also think that if Leviathan isn’t reined in, there will ultimately be another American revolution, and that’s the true motivation behind ongoing attempts to make the Second Amendment a dead letter. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
Hey Bob, what do you think about this?
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/31/professor-what-america-really-needs-now-is-a-violent-civil-war-to-kill-off-the-nra/
Mr. Pucket, ordinarily, I’d enjoy talking with you about that link, as you were the one who gave me some insights into the gun control debate. But what strikes me the most about the link is that it is changing the topic from what Trent said about the Oklahoma City bombing. You were in the military and I presume from other comments you’ve made here that you love our country, and more that, I presume from those other comments that you’re not a murderer, and you’re otherwise not the sort of person who can’t responsibly own weapons. So, doesn’t what Trent said bother you?
In another thread, Trent asked a question, and Rickl answered him like he was a normal person. I really enjoy talking with people who disagree with me, but I couldn’t have a normal conversation with an Al Queda sympathizer, and likewise, I couldn’t have a normal conversation with someone who sympathizes with the Oklahoma City bombing. Could you?
Puckett, not Pucket. Apologies.
I’d enjoy talking with you about that link,… But … the link is that it is changing the topic from what Trent said about the Oklahoma City bombing.
So bob won’t answer because it supposedly changes topic, and then:
In another thread, Trent asked a question, and Rickl answered him like he was a normal person.
In short, bob wants to talk about Trent, and not about bob’s hypocrisy. I think Puckett’s question is dead on to the thread topic.
Hey Puckett, do you plan to carry on a conversation with someone that wants people to commit suicide by drowning? Could you do that? For bob?
I’d be willing to talk about both subjects. I just find what Trent said to be quite shocking. Leland, you keep mentioning the suicide suggestion, but that’s not quite what I said — I acknowledged that perhaps Trent can improve himself.
On the subject of the professor: if you read what he actually had to say, in his piece, and his comments following his piece, I think it is clear that the PJMedia headline was inflamatory. The prof wasn’t calling for a violent civil war, but rather, he was making a dumb argument with Mike Puckett and I talked about some time ago. The prof’s dumb argument is that handguns and rifles wouldn’t be useful in a second US civil war because the US military has more powerful weapons. I think that dumb argument can be dismissed — there are many reasons why it is a dumb argument – do we have to discuss why it further? If the Professor really was calling for a violent civil war, then, of course, I’d find that completely deplorable and disgusting. OK?
Sorry for all the editing errors – I hope what I said was clear enough.
Interesting enough, the Journalism Professor now claims to not have made an overt threat to anyone, while others point various errors in his “facts”. The similarities with other socialist is uncanny.
Bob, the Professor was calling on the US Government to bomb the NRA based on a false assumption he held that the NRA supported overthrowing our current government. He supported violence against millions of US Citizens and flat-out accused them of Treason based on a strawman argument with no basis in fact inasmutch as the NRA never called for any such act. It was clearly an attempt to use the power of the press to demonize those with whom he dissagrees.
His point was far more insiduious than simply arguing against the efficacy of small arms in a Civil War.
He was essentially calling for doing to the American People what Mcvey did to the Government.
I think the point is germane to this sub-thread.
“I think the point is germane to this sub-thread.”
What else is there to say here about the prof? I think you’re misreading him, but his piece was poorly written. He clarified what he meant in his post-article comments, but his comments are now buried under 1000 outraged reactions from readers. In any case, if I’m correct about what he meant, then I think he’s wrong. If you’re correct, then I think he’s horrible. You asked, I answered. What else is there to say?
But the prof is just some random guy we never heard of before now. Trent is someone readers here are familiar with, and I think Trent has earned some respect around here. But now he says something horrible. What do you think about what he said?
Bob’s world:
American Journalism Professor = just some random guy.
Commenter from Australia on a blog = The Pulse of American’s Radical Right.
No misreading, just quotes:
Bob: I think you’re misreading him
M: He supported violence against millions of US Citizens and flat-out accused them of Treason
Prof:The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad.
Trent: The collateral damage was horrific and unjust, and for that alone I once again condemn his methods, but what exactly are individuals supposed to do when talking just isn’t working?
Bob: I just want to tell you that I think you’re a complete piece of crap, someone who isn’t fit to live in civilization.
I wish there was more Americans with McVeigh’s passion and dedication? His methods were obviously ineffective, and therefore pointless, but were they wrong?
isn’t it people like her that caused the housing collapse that led to the financial crisis? >
Trent thinks that killing children in a daycare was horrific, but questions whether killing a secretary named Linda was wrong, because of the housing crisis. I don’t think he is fit for decent company. Leland, do you even question whether it was ok to kill Linda?
Trent questioned whether killing a secretary named Linda was wrong, because she worked at HUD. Leland, do you even question whether it was wrong to kill Linda?
PS: Rand, thank you for removing my sloppy italics-laden comment.
Whoops, there it is again. Rand, I thought you removed it, as it seemed to disappear. Nevermind.
I supported the death penalty for McVeigh. You?
Oh my, just realized I should differentiate myself from bob. I supported lethal injection for McVeigh’s multiple crimes of murder. Unlike bob, I don’t condone drowning people, particular those who simply exercised freedom of speech and incited no one.
I guess that makes me different from the Professor as well, who advocates firing squads or drone targetting (he clarified that position in comments) against people that speak things which the Journalism Professor disagrees.
On the other hand, I don’t condone bob characterizing Trent as advocating Linda’s death or anyone’s death, particularly since Trent never did such a thing. Indeed, I read Trent as clearly saying the death of people like Linda was “horrific and unjust, and for that alone I [,Trent] once again condemn [McVeigh’s] methods”.
“Condemn”… That in short is what I mean by supporting the death penalty for McVeigh.
Leland,
You’re having a reading comprehension problem. You think that Trent said the death of Linda was horrific and unjust and so forth, but that’s NOT what he said above. Scroll up and read all of Trent’s comments again. Pay attention to where he says “As for your random person, isn’t it people like her that caused the housing collapse that led to the financial crisis? How can you possibly say she was doing no harm? He is referring to Linda. I’d say that yes, he is advocating murdering people like Linda, but technically, if you want hide behind rhetorical devices, what he actually did was question whether Linda’s murder was wrong. But either way, Trent was NOT saying that Linda was collateral damage which was horrific and unjust — he reserved that horror for the kids in the daycare. Linda, in Trent’s view, was fair game.
You think that Trent said the death of Linda was horrific and unjust and so forth
I thought no such thing. I specifically accused you of making the claim, which you did again. I also specifically noted that Trent condemned McVeigh’s actions.
Linda, in Trent’s view, was fair game.
Bullshit. He never made the claim. I challenge anyone to find a quote from Trent that supports this claim.
Leland, as of this comment, Trent has commented six times on this thread. Four of the six are about why Trent thinks it was right to murder Linda. If you can’t understand that, I don’t know how I can help you.
I can’t figure out what else to say to Leland. If anyone else is reading this, and agrees with Leland or thinks I’m wrong about something, please let me know, as I would like to try to talk to you.
Four of the six are about why Trent thinks it was right to murder Linda.
Well then, a quote should be easy to find. Where’s the quote.
His methods were obviously ineffective, and therefore pointless, but were they wrong?
I’d say they were wrong. The hallmark of terrorism is indiscriminate killing for the sake of instilling a feeling of terror in the population.
If you have a problem with specific government policies, then it would be better to specifically target the officials who are responsible for said policies.
That’s all I will say about that.
Much more interesting, in my opinion, is the case of Anders Brevik in Norway.
He believed that the government was responsible for the massive immigration of Muslims in his country. The island where he carried out his killings was a resort for the dominant political party. The young people he killed were the sons and daughters of leading government officials, who were being groomed for future positions of power.
Brevik basically exterminated the next generation of political leaders in his country. I think a good case can be made for his actions at the strategic level.
He may have been crazy, but he sure as hell wasn’t stupid.
To put it another way:
Anders Brevik = John Brown?
So you’re saying that only officials are responsible for liberty violating policies. The people who actually enforce those policies have no moral responsibility? They’re “just following orders”, right?
So, Rickl is saying (or at least implying) that assassinating US government officials (and their children!) is ok, while Trent is saying that murdering secretaries at US government agencies is ok. Maybe you guys could battle it out at a libertarian ethics seminar.
Bob-1:
So, Rickl is saying (or at least implying) that assassinating US government officials (and their children!) is ok
No, I didn’t say (or imply) that. I said (or implied) that assassinating Norwegian government officials (and their children!) is OK.
Since I’m not a citizen of Norway, it’s OK for me to say (or imply) that.
I think.
Trent:
No comment. I should probably quit before I get myself in real trouble.
Give up. They’re never going to admit that the only militia McVeigh was in was the United States Army or that in his final interview before his execution he explicitly self-identified as atheist. Also, they’re not too keen on hearing that Eric Rudolph was a Nietzschean. Or that Scott Roeder had abandoned his family, went to a wildly heterodox “church,” and had no accomplices even though the Feds launched a nationwide wild-goose chase, er, investigation, to look for them. Or that Matthew Shepard was killed in a drug deal. Or, or, or …
But Nidal Hasan was just workplace violence and should be on paid administrative leave until they can figure out what set him off.
Mr. Killian should educate himself first, starting with Brandenburg v. Ohio and the standard of “Imminent Lawless Action” with respect to the First Amendment. Should the point continue to elude him, he might consult a dictionary on the meaning of, “imminent.”
My usual experience trying to argue with liberals about the Muslim propensity for terrorism is that they start whining about the Crusades and abortion clinic bombing.
The Crusades were 800 years ago and thousands of miles away. This has what to do with attacks in modern America, exactly?
Typical abortion clinic attacker is this guy: John Salvi
A complete whack job. btw I know somebody who went to (catholic) high school with him in Salem and he was always considered a loony.
hmmm… World Trade Center + Pentagon: 3000 dead, $billions in damage.
Abortion clinic shooting: 2 dead.
Yeah, exactly the same thing.
Wasn’t McVeigh’s partner trained in bomb making by an al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines?
And those same people who bring up the crusades fail to mention that they were in response to Muslims rampaging through lands inhabited by christians, nearly total genocide.
Wasn’t McVeigh’s partner trained in bomb making by an al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines?
Sshh. We’re not supposed to talk about that.
As for Hitler being a Christian, at least once he expressed a wish that the armies of Islam had reached Germany and converted the Germans.
As for Hitler being a Christian, at least once he expressed a wish that the armies of Islam had reached Germany and converted the Germans.
I don’t care whether McVeigh was a Christian or not, but I did stumble across the following while reading about the Oklahoma City bombing:
From: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.03/
Bureau of Prisons officials said McVeigh, a self-described agnostic, received the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick by an unidentified prison chaplain.
“McVeigh did see last rites which were provided by a BOP chaplain,” said Jeff Grondolsky, a spokesman with the Bureau of Prisons.
Part of the sacrament includes confession and an absolution of sins.
The article has additional quotes from a priest who worked with McVeigh regarding McVeigh’s religious views in prison.
…so what does his state of faith AFTER his conviction and knowing he was doomed to execution have to do with his avowed state of faith when he committed the crime?
Protip: not a sausage.
That’s a fine view. I mildly agree. I bet others don’t agree. Rather than say something about various sects of Christianity, I’ll make an analogy to Judaism. Some (not all) Jews will say that since I was born a Jew, I’m a Jew, even if I stomp my feet and insist loudly that I’m a Catholic or a worshipper of Odin or whatever. I’ve known enough different kinds of Christians (some who insist that the others aren’t Christian) that I figure McVeigh’s activity in prison will be theologically significant to someone.
I figure McVeigh’s activity in prison will be theologically significant to someone.
Only to lying demagogues who want to slander Christianity by invoking a declared agnostic.
Rand, what do you think about what Trent said?
What I think about what Trent said is that you are using an unrelated comment from another commenter to attempt to distract from the point of the post, which you find politically inconvenient.
Not at all. I think the officials involved made a huge mistake regarding the civil rights code and the first amendment. It is disappointing that Obama (or Holder) doesn’t say something about it, to clarify that we are all free, under the 1st Amendment, to make bigoted obnoxious comments. I’m unclear on the civil rights laws regarding intimidation, and I think that’s what this is all about, but since the 1st Amendment is so important, I’m sure that the message had to be much much more clear regarding free speech. I’m less paranoid about the Obama administration than most who read this blog, but I think they were wrong here, just by not emphasizing 1st amendment rights. I’m not sure what I can add to the general conversation about this egregious mistake.
The mistake was so egregious, I don’t see how I could distract from it. I haven’t tried to somehow suppress conversation about how the Obama administration was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Trent’s comment was completely unexpected. I was completely shocked. I felt compelled to comment. Trent might like to make counter-intuitive points, but he isn’t a troll, he is otherwise an interesting person, I enjoy reading what he has to say, and I assumed he had the standard moral center that I assume all people to have until they disappoint me.
By the way, was Trent trying to distract from the point of the post? I really doubt it. I suppose he just felt compelled to express his views, and his views were so surprising, I reacted. I’m surprised you didn’t react!
Is there any on-topic aspect to the discussion about Trent? Well, whether McVeigh was “a Christian” or not, he truly didn’t represent Christianity, and I think that’s the most important thing. That’s what makes Christianity quite immune to any slander, as you call it. Trent is a libertarian. Does his extreme view represent libertarians? Does it represent a faction of them?
Given the shocking nature of Trent’s comment, and given who Trent is, I’m surprised if you don’t want to voice an opinion.
It is disappointing that Obama (or Holder) doesn’t say something about it, to clarify that we are all free, under the 1st Amendment, to make bigoted obnoxious comments.
That would only be disappointing to someone who lives in a state of denial about the character of those two people.
I haven’t commented on Trent’s comment, or even bothered to attempt to parse them or think about them, because they weren’t particularly germane to the post, and I don’t have the time to engage with every comment at this web site, regardless of how outraged you choose to get about them.
Bob-1, I had nothing to say about your attempts to shut down conversation when it was directed at me, but I find it disgusting that you’ve managed to shut up rickl. Kindly go be “shocked” elsewhere.