The Norway Murders, Christianity, Darwin, and tolerance

If everything evil in the world is caused by Darwin, wouldn't that make Darwin the antichrist? And if Darwin was the antichrist, doesn't that make the end of the world about one hundred and fifty years too late?

For a shorter version of what I was trying to say, see:

In response to Norway attacks, right-wing bloggers suddenly demand nuance

Nick: An excellent analysis showing West's usual inability to understand what he reads - or he lies to make his false conclusions (something he often does).
vh

Nick, thanks for this.

Nick,

Again thanks for yet another perceptive post. Poor West needs to take a course in excellent quote mining or in better reading comprehension (or both).

Appreciatively yours,

John

Wow, excellent, thanks very much. The last few paragraphs and the emphasis on empathy and "we-vs.-they" are really important.

Another way to put it, Breivik's understanding of evolution appears to be as poor as West's, yet Breivik's meager exposure to evolutionary theory is supposed to be crucial to his ideology and terrorism.

Then again, when has anything ever been addressed with intellectual honesty by the DI's CSC?

Glen Davidson

Whatever you do, don’t miss the July 27, 2011 Daily Show with Jon Stewart as soon as it is available on line in the next couple of hours. It is most relevant to this thread.

Okay. Wow. New Comment system.

Hey- very nice article. Thank you very much.

It is so very disturbing to see Jesus' words twisted like this, taken completely out of context, to imply that he advocated violence, at the very moments when he was decrying it. I could go on in detail, but I don't think this is the place.

It strikes me that Hitler as well, while advocating eugenics, used Christian imagery. I know Hitler is the go-to guy that destroys arguments and discussions- but I think in this case the analogy is rather spot-on.

I would disagree with you that the traditional early Fundamentalists could be identified by their rejection of evolution. After all, some of the essays in The Fundamentals actually supported evolution.

Nick Matzke said: For a shorter version of what I was trying to say, see: In response to Norway attacks, right-wing bloggers suddenly demand nuance

bigdakine said: Nuance is something a lot of people can learn. Like when the media connected the imaginary dots between Palin and Loughner. When left wing bloggers learn nuance they may have firmer ground upon which to criticize.

Dave Luckett said:

bigdakine said: Nuance is something a lot of people can learn. Like when the media connected the imaginary dots between Palin and Loughner. When left wing bloggers learn nuance they may have firmer ground upon which to criticize.

Classic tu quoque, with a large helping of "the librul media's agin us", and an equal portion of denial. There are connections between Palin's material and Loughner's act, and that's a fact.

But Dave, if a man justifies killing a hundred innocent people with Christian dominionist ultra-right-wing arguments, and a different Christian ultra-right-wing dominionist commentator lies that the murderer justified his acts with modern evolutionary theory, then both the murders and the subsequent lies have nothing to do with ultra-right Christian dominionists. No, they are the fault of the liberal media! You should know that by now.

Thanks for this post, very enlightening.

The thing about this Brevik fellow is that he has many of the same ideas as all those Christian fundamentalists without actually requiring the God to anywhere near the same extent. I can imagine they don't like it, since it shows that it's all fundamentally political and conservative and not dependent on any particular religion at all.

I've seen all sorts of anti-Marxist/Communist/Islam/multiculturalism/all-the-rest (and all the way into Nazi Race War type) nutters boasting about their guns and blabbering about how they'll use them to take down the government when the time comes. This guy simply shut up and did it. And when you do it, you're a terrorist and you go to prison.

With something like this I suppose you can be against the action but support the reasons for it, which is a position a number of Muslims seem to be in. Here, they seem to be saying "we're the good guys, the Darwinists, etc. are the bad guys, so if a guy does a bad thing he must be more bad than you think."

Great article, except for one thing: Sam Harris is less unhinged than most people represent him as being. The Wikipedia article linked to is primarily about Harris's legitimate concerns about a culture that celebrates martyrdom; the article says nothing at all against middle-easterners as a race, and Harris has been emphatic that he has nothing against the people themselves. In fact he has expressed frustration at being repeatedly misrepresented: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-chris-hedges/ Given the calls for greater nuance here, it is a bit irritating to see Harris's own nuance ignored.

Reading through the comments at Uncommon Descent, you can see Elizabeth Liddle trying to bring some sense to their discussion. She is usually very even-tempered there in spite of provocation, but in that discussion she is sorely provoked and almost "loses it".

Aside from figuring out whatever Brevik's worldview is, it is important to understand what the blame-Darwin commenters at Uncommon Descent are up to. This seems to be part of a major new trend in antievolutionary arguments -- people like the Discovery Institute talking heads are spending more and more of their time misrepresenting history and associating Darwin and evolutionary biology with noxious causes. We can of course quote more sensible history back at them and point out that

* The rise of the Nazis had much to do with 1000 years of antisemitism plus the rise of militaristic nationalism in Europe throughout the 1800s and early 1900s.

* Yes, Darwin was "a racist" (nearly every major intellectual figure in the 1800s was, including Abraham Lincoln) but the relevant point is that he was less racist than almost all the others (about tied with Lincoln for that). So it's very hard to make him into the leader of the pack.

* Yes, Darwin toyed with supporting eugenics and Social Darwinism at times, But these ideas had appeal across the political spectrum at that time, and ultimately were supported mostly by those on the political right, whose views were abhorrent to Darwin and to many evolutionary biologists.

And, most importantly, even if Darwin had been a leading spokesman for racism, a leading light in the rise of Naziism, and a raving Social Darwinist and eugenicist, none of that would invalidate the scientific points he was making. Isaac Newton was nobody's idea of a nice guy, but that has not detracted from the towering status of his his work in physics and mathematics.

The real problem in all of this is how to gain any traction in countering the new pseudohistorical argument, or attempts to associate Darwinian views with this week's mass murderer. Quote reams of historians? Somehow that seems unlikely to succeed against noxious sound-bites. William Dembski has a whole chapter in The Design Inference on the Genetic Fallacy, making the point that you can't condemn an intellectual argument based on obnoxious political, social, or religious views of its proponents. Maybe quote that back at the Uncommon Descent types? Somehow there has to be a more effective approach.

Jedidiah said: Okay. Wow. New Comment system. Hey- very nice article. Thank you very much. It is so very disturbing to see Jesus' words twisted like this, taken completely out of context, to imply that he advocated violence, at the very moments when he was decrying it. I could go on in detail, but I don't think this is the place. It strikes me that Hitler as well, while advocating eugenics, used Christian imagery. I know Hitler is the go-to guy that destroys arguments and discussions- but I think in this case the analogy is rather spot-on. I would disagree with you that the traditional early Fundamentalists could be identified by their rejection of evolution. After all, some of the essays in The Fundamentals actually supported evolution.

Joe Felsenstein said: Reading through the comments at Uncommon Descent, you can see Elizabeth Liddle trying to bring some sense to their discussion. She is usually very even-tempered there in spite of provocation, but in that discussion she is sorely provoked and almost "loses it". Aside from figuring out whatever Brevik's worldview is, it is important to understand what the blame-Darwin commenters at Uncommon Descent are up to. This seems to be part of a major new trend in antievolutionary arguments -- people like the Discovery Institute talking heads are spending more and more of their time misrepresenting history and associating Darwin and evolutionary biology with noxious causes. We can of course quote more sensible history back at them and point out that * The rise of the Nazis had much to do with 1000 years of antisemitism plus the rise of militaristic nationalism in Europe throughout the 1800s and early 1900s. * Yes, Darwin was "a racist" (nearly every major intellectual figure in the 1800s was, including Abraham Lincoln) but the relevant point is that he was less racist than almost all the others (about tied with Lincoln for that). So it's very hard to make him into the leader of the pack. * Yes, Darwin toyed with supporting eugenics and Social Darwinism at times, But these ideas had appeal across the political spectrum at that time, and ultimately were supported mostly by those on the political right, whose views were abhorrent to Darwin and to many evolutionary biologists. And, most importantly, even if Darwin had been a leading spokesman for racism, a leading light in the rise of Naziism, and a raving Social Darwinist and eugenicist, none of that would invalidate the scientific points he was making. Isaac Newton was nobody's idea of a nice guy, but that has not detracted from the towering status of his his work in physics and mathematics. The real problem in all of this is how to gain any traction in countering the new pseudohistorical argument, or attempts to associate Darwinian views with this week's mass murderer. Quote reams of historians? Somehow that seems unlikely to succeed against noxious sound-bites. William Dembski has a whole chapter in The Design Inference on the Genetic Fallacy, making the point that you can't condemn an intellectual argument based on obnoxious political, social, or religious views of its proponents. Maybe quote that back at the Uncommon Descent types? Somehow there has to be a more effective approach.

bigdakine said:

Dave Luckett said:

bigdakine said: Nuance is something a lot of people can learn. Like when the media connected the imaginary dots between Palin and Loughner. When left wing bloggers learn nuance they may have firmer ground upon which to criticize.

Classic tu quoque, with a large helping of "the librul media's agin us", and an equal portion of denial. There are connections between Palin's material and Loughner's act, and that's a fact.

First, my point is that the criticism goes both ways. I make no attempt to justify right wing bloggers ill conceived and hasty hasty claims that the Norway bombing was jihad. Second there is no more connection between Loughner and Palin then there is between Al Gore and the Unabomber. Third if you think you are divining something about my politics, you'll only wind up embarrassing yourself. I make no apology.

John said: ... as you may know, certain Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers, most notably Richard Weikart and David Klinghoffer, have been trying to make the most of the "Darwin equals Hitler" theme for years.

John said:I must concur that you are right in noting that there is no legitimate connection from Palin to Loughner.

Joe Felsenstein said:

John said: ... as you may know, certain Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers, most notably Richard Weikart and David Klinghoffer, have been trying to make the most of the "Darwin equals Hitler" theme for years.

The point is that this has now become a major strategy for them and other opponents of evolutionary biology. And let's not forget a major charge that I failed to note: that Darwin also tortured puppies.

Joe Felsenstein said: The real problem in all of this is how to gain any traction in countering the new pseudohistorical argument, or attempts to associate Darwinian views with this week's mass murderer.

Bobsie said:

John said:I must concur that you are right in noting that there is no legitimate connection from Palin to Loughner.

I agree there is no legitimate connect but you have to admit, they travel the same side of the road, just different vehicles.

Joe Felsenstein said:

John said: ... as you may know, certain Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers, most notably Richard Weikart and David Klinghoffer, have been trying to make the most of the "Darwin equals Hitler" theme for years.

The point is that this has now become a major strategy for them and other opponents of evolutionary biology. And let's not forget a major charge that I failed to note: that Darwin also tortured puppies.

Irony alert: Fundamentalist Christians usually ARE Social Darwinists!

Joe Felsenstein said: The real problem in all of this is how to gain any traction in countering the new pseudohistorical argument...

eric said: I am not sure we need to. This seems to me more geared towards reminding the faithful to stay faithful, rather than towards proselytization.

Nick,

Thanks for doing this. I need to read Breivik's manifesto and haven't been able to muster the calm to do it. Thank you for taking the time and providing a thoughtful analysis.

My two cents:

While McVeigh didn't seem as fond of playing dress-up as Breivik, I see similarities. I am as unsure of McVeigh's ideology as I am of Breivik's. I think they both liked murdering people. I think the racist/culture warrior bit is self defense. Breivik had to know how Norway would react to this. Not only did he not advance his culture warrior agenda, he set it back. While he's a more than a few sandwiches short of picnic, Breivik is sane enough and smart enough to have pulled this off. I think he's also smart enough to know that all he achieved was murder and property damage.

Thanks again for your analysis.

Second there is no more connection between Loughner and Palin then there is between Al Gore and the Unabomber.

Somebody with a long URL as a username said: You might as well bang your head against a brick wall. Material like this and other right-wing propaganda, such as the christian pseudohistory of David Barton, is for the consumption of an audience which isn’t going to believe anything you say, but will believe anything posted at Uncommon Descent, no matter how outrageous it is.

apokryltaros said:The Discovery Institute also tutted that, even worse, Darwin was flatulent, could not stand eating his vegetables at dinner time, and worst of all, didn’t like math

crosspost from Pharyngula:

The christofascist right wing is desperately lying to make Breivik out to be anything but them, a right wing, xian, Islamophobe in favor of female slavery and forced child bearing*.

It isn't going to work.

That they are so desperate and their lies so obvious shows this.

History will remember Breivik as a xianist Tea Party wannabe. That is the way it is and the way it will go.

Sure West and the DI can lie. That is what they are paid to do. Lying and having people believe your lies are two different things.

*Breivik was upset that the Moslems are supposedly outbreeding the xians. Which isn't really even true. The Moslems are a whole 3% of Norway, their birth rate is higher than the Norwegian population as a whole but is falling. As they acculturate, it is likely to end up about the same, like the Catholics did in the USA.

His solution was...forced child bearing. Outlaw birth control and abortion, and discourage higher education for women. Those blond haired, blue eyed women are going to reproduce or else, dammit!!! We've seen that before, it is a fundie xian position. The women as baby factories model is popular among a lot of people, mostly not female.

Luke 19:27 Jesus Christ said to His disciples: "But those, mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

By pointing out that Darwin didn’t like math, they imply that evolutionary biologists as a whole are innumerate.

raven said:

By pointing out that Darwin didn’t like math, they imply that evolutionary biologists as a whole are innumerate.

There is a whole now ancient branch of the TOE that is nothing but math. Population genetics which integrated Mendel's work into the theory, Wright, Fisher, Haldane, Hardy, Weinberg, etc..

Breivik said "If there is a God...."

The silliness of the other charges aside, I think that the comment about not liking math was aimed at modern evolutionary biologists. Some of the engineering types at Uncommon Descent like to pretend that they understand the mathematics of evolution, while modern evolutionary biologists don’t. By pointing out that Darwin didn’t like math, they imply that evolutionary biologists as a whole are innumerate. As someone who has taken as his role here trying to provide quick, pithy answers to mathematical arguments against evolutionary biology, I can testify that the situation is exactly the reverse

Ray Martinez said:

Breivik said "If there is a God...."

How could Nick Matzke overlook the plain admission seen above? Regardless, even if Breivik said "I am a Christian" or "I believe in God" when he was committing mass murder he was not following God or Christ; rather, he was practicing Atheism (acting as if no God exists).

Ray Martinez said:

Breivik said "If there is a God...."

How could Nick Matzke overlook the plain admission seen above? Regardless, even if Breivik said "I am a Christian" or "I believe in God" when he was committing mass murder he was not following God or Christ; rather, he was practicing Atheism (acting as if no God exists).

There ya'll go again, talkin' about this fantasy "Ray" person!

There's gotta be something wrong you folks, not only making up an imaginary person, but in making up such a perverse one. Deep-seated masochism at work, I should think.

To rephrase Voltaire, or at least a comment often attributed to him:

"If Ray actually existed, we would have to refuse to believe in Him."

harold said: "Disobeying God's commands" is not the same as "acting as if no God exists"...If your logic worked, then you'd be an "Atheist" by your own standards.

Ray, have you ever heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy? You just executed a perfect one.

eric said:

harold said: "Disobeying God's commands" is not the same as "acting as if no God exists"...If your logic worked, then you'd be an "Atheist" by your own standards.

If his logic worked, wouldn't everyone be an atheist? After all, one of the cornerstones of the Christian religion is the belief that we are all sinners - nobody perfectly follows God's commands. So if following God's commands is necessary to being Christian, no one is Christian. Except Ray, of course, who I guess is without sin.

harold said: As I've noted before, Ray's stated belief is that he himself if perfect due to predestination, everyone who disagrees with his rather eccentric views (i.e. the other 6 or 7 billion humans on earth, and possibly a few language using parrots and gorillas) is unconvinceable and doomed to Hell due to predestination - and yet he inexplicably wastes his time trying to convince people.

I confess.

I made Ray, Henry, and Byers up to make Christians look foolish.

I've talked to Henry -- and it wasn't a pleasure. But I still haven't got a clue on "Ray" and "Byers". In fact, from what people say about them I can hardly make heads or tails of them.

mrg said: In fact, from what people say about them I can hardly make heads or tails of them.

Mike Elzinga said: There is a reason for that; their heads and tails are totally fused together.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: There is a reason for that; their heads and tails are totally fused together.

Boy, now they're sounding even more bizarre -- like something out of Boris Artzybasheff: http://www.enter.net/~torve/art/artzy/artzy.html

Mike Elzinga said: Man, I had forgotten all about Boris Artzybasheff. I used to get a big kick out of his bizarre art.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Man, I had forgotten all about Boris Artzybasheff. I used to get a big kick out of his bizarre art.

Yeah, I figured you were old enough to remember. What's startling about BA is that, as grotesque as his animated machines were, they were commonly used for popular ads and magazine illustrations -- SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN used to have Artzybasheff covers on occasion.

That brings back almost certainly Artzybasheff's most famous item: his
portrait of Bucky Fuller:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/artimageslibrary/5564875960/

Ah, Bucky Fuller, another forgotten figure: Genius? Crank? Visionary? Conman? "YES." And colorful in his own way ... what a tragedy it would have been for him not to have lived long enough to see the Psychedelic Sixties.

harold said:

Second there is no more connection between Loughner and Palin then there is between Al Gore and the Unabomber.

This is a half truth. However, the following is highly predictable - 1) Exaggerated, over-the-top, hysterical demonizing, political speech that uses "symbolic" or "humorous" violent imagery will lead to violence. (I am a "first amendment absolutist" and am not advocating that such speech be censored; I am noting something about it.) 2) The person who commits the violence will usually be disturbed, marginal, and male - like Loughner or Breivik. However, it is disingenuous to use the marginal, disturbed nature of the actor to deny the influence.

Ray Martinez the delusional Xian fool whined:

Breivik said "If there is a God...."

How could Nick Matzke overlook the plain admission seen above? Regardless, even if Breivik said "I am a Christian" or "I believe in God" when he was committing mass murder he was not following God or Christ; rather, he was practicing Atheism (acting as if no God exists).

I note for years in numerous examples how the left wing always draws a connection between some murder and opinions expressed by the murderer or indeed invoked as a reason for the murder.
What all people of integrity and intelligence and sincere interest in society should demand is total segregation of the evil motives and decisions of murderers and claimed reasons, real or not, for the murdering.
I haven't followed closely but I understand the press started to say this was murder done for Christian reasons.
then it was found evolutionist reasons were involved.
Everyone must not tie any of the common beliefs and opinions of man as a origin for the few and obscure evil deeds done.
This killings was entirely from the evil and demented heart/mind of a person.
nothing too do with any of his ideas on the world.
Innocent ideas that never invoke or suggest or desire evil deeds should not be said to be the origin for such deeds.
its false, stupid, and has and will bite everyone.

I have seen bad people take advantage of these events just to advance some cause.
Draw and hold a great line about motivations upon actions.

Robert Byers the delusional Canadian Xian creobot barked: I note for years in numerous examples how the left wing always draws a connection between some murder and opinions expressed by the murderer or indeed invoked as a reason for the murder. What all people of integrity and intelligence and sincere interest in society should demand is total segregation of the evil motives and decisions of murderers and claimed reasons, real or not, for the murdering. I haven't followed closely but I understand the press started to say this was murder done for Christian reasons. then it was found evolutionist reasons were involved. Everyone must not tie any of the common beliefs and opinions of man as a origin for the few and obscure evil deeds done. This killings was entirely from the evil and demented heart/mind of a person. nothing too do with any of his ideas on the world. Innocent ideas that never invoke or suggest or desire evil deeds should not be said to be the origin for such deeds. its false, stupid, and has and will bite everyone. I have seen bad people take advantage of these events just to advance some cause. Draw and hold a great line about motivations upon actions.

Robert Byers the idiot said: I haven’t followed closely

harold said:

Second there is no more connection between Loughner and Palin then there is between Al Gore and the Unabomber.

This is a half truth. Of course I very strongly agree that the utterly irrelevant Palin had never met Loughner and certainly never directly encouraged him. However, the following is highly predictable - 1) Exaggerated, over-the-top, hysterical demonizing, political speech that uses "symbolic" or "humorous" violent imagery will lead to violence. (I am a "first amendment absolutist" and am not advocating that such speech be censored; I am noting something about it.) 2) The person who commits the violence will usually be disturbed, marginal, and male - like Loughner or Breivik. However, it is disingenuous to use the marginal, disturbed nature of the actor to deny the influence. I don't know whether Palin's speeches and comments had a direct impact on Loughner or not, but she heavily larded her public communications with hunting and military terms. "'Lock and load' and 'take aim' at those America-destroying liberals whose districts I've marked with rifle sight images on this map". Since I believe in free speech, I believe that the remedy to this sort of thing is more free speech. This type of irresponsible dehumanizing, violence-implying hysteria, which is the default of the current US right wing, should be condemned. It does have an impact. Loughner's mentally ill mind was impacted by a culture of violent political rhetoric. He may or may not have even been aware of Palin, but she was a heavy contributor to that culture. Al Gore, on the other hand, has never used language like "Those liberal airline executives and computer scientists will impose Sharia unless we 'lock and load', 'take aim', and 'target' them before it's too late".

Where does it say, "Put a dirty industrialist in your sights"?

And no, it isn't fighting words. "Crazed tree-hugger", now that's fighting words.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

Breivik said "If there is a God...."

How could Nick Matzke overlook the plain admission seen above? Regardless, even if Breivik said "I am a Christian" or "I believe in God" when he was committing mass murder he was not following God or Christ; rather, he was practicing Atheism (acting as if no God exists).

Unless he believed that God approved of such actions (see 'Crusades', 'Torquemada', 'Gott mit uns', etc.). Ray, could you name someone well-known who is a true Christian, with the right beliefs about creation, in your view (besides yourself)? Is there any Christian denomination that has a formal or official statement of belief on creation that is entirely correct, in your view? In other words, which is the true Christian Church?

OK, now I'm really confused -- people are talking about this "Byers" and this "Ray" at the same time. I was thinking they might be two different terms for the same imaginary creature but it seems people are so perverse they have to make up two of these things. Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, maybe, but not these guys.

Dave Luckett said: Where does it say, "Put a dirty industrialist in your sights"? And no, it isn't fighting words. "Crazed tree-hugger", now that's fighting words.

Dave Luckett said: Where does it say, "Put a dirty industrialist in your sights"?

Joe Felsenstein said:

raven said:

By pointing out that Darwin didn’t like math, they imply that evolutionary biologists as a whole are innumerate.

There is a whole now ancient branch of the TOE that is nothing but math. Population genetics which integrated Mendel's work into the theory, Wright, Fisher, Haldane, Hardy, Weinberg, etc..

Yeah, I know.

bigdakine said: Not to beat a dead horse ...

Who do you think the “resistance fighters” are fighting?

Robert Byers said: I note for years in numerous examples how the left wing always draws a connection between some murder and opinions expressed by the murderer or indeed invoked as a reason for the murder. What all people of integrity and intelligence and sincere interest in society should demand is total segregation of the evil motives and decisions of murderers and claimed reasons, real or not, for the murdering. I haven't followed closely but I understand the press started to say this was murder done for Christian reasons. then it was found evolutionist reasons were involved. Everyone must not tie any of the common beliefs and opinions of man as a origin for the few and obscure evil deeds done. This killings was entirely from the evil and demented heart/mind of a person. nothing too do with any of his ideas on the world. Innocent ideas that never invoke or suggest or desire evil deeds should not be said to be the origin for such deeds. its false, stupid, and has and will bite everyone. I have seen bad people take advantage of these events just to advance some cause. Draw and hold a great line about motivations upon actions.

bigdakine said:

Dave Luckett said: Where does it say, "Put a dirty industrialist in your sights"?

http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2010/03/sarah_palin_steps_up_the_rheto.html Not to beat a dead horse.. but Palin never said "Put a dirty democrat in your sights" She made a map with gun sight symbols. Puh-leeze. Is it inapproriate? yes. But to hear the hysterical left tell it, you'd think she had pictures of democrats taken through a lense with cross-hairs.

Just back from vacation, for a starter:

At document.no we find a lot of comments by Anders Behring Brevik. Just a small sample from 2009-12-09, (My translation from Norwegian.)
Here is a fine oveview – 10 reasons why the modern church will die:
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-modernist-christianity-will-die.html
(I am myself a protestant (Lutheran) and was baptized/confirmed of my own free will at 15.
But today’s Lutheran church is a joke. Priests in jeans marching for Palestine and churches looking like minimalistic shopping malls. I advocate an indirect, collective conversion from the Lutheran church back to the catholic. In the meantime I vote mostly for the conservative candidates at church elections.
Going back to basics is the only thing that can save the Lutheran church.
A lot more at http://www.document.no
And http://tinyurl.com/4yuykrz

To learn what Anders Behring Breivik is about, his own document might be useful:

http://www.slideshare.net/darkandgreen/2083-a-european-declaration-of-independence-by-andrew-berwick

harold said:

bigdakine said:

Dave Luckett said: Where does it say, "Put a dirty industrialist in your sights"?

http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2010/03/sarah_palin_steps_up_the_rheto.html Not to beat a dead horse.. but Palin never said "Put a dirty democrat in your sights" She made a map with gun sight symbols. Puh-leeze. Is it inapproriate? yes. But to hear the hysterical left tell it, you'd think she had pictures of democrats taken through a lense with cross-hairs.

I've written you off as an extremely brainwashed and dense member of the "idiot right". http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2010/03/sarah_palin_steps_up_the_rheto.html

harold said:

bigdakine said:

Dave Luckett said: Where does it say, "Put a dirty industrialist in your sights"?

http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2010/03/sarah_palin_steps_up_the_rheto.html Not to beat a dead horse.. but Palin never said "Put a dirty democrat in your sights" She made a map with gun sight symbols. Puh-leeze. Is it inapproriate? yes. But to hear the hysterical left tell it, you'd think she had pictures of democrats taken through a lense with cross-hairs.

I've written you off as an extremely brainwashed and dense member of the "idiot right". http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2010/03/sarah_palin_steps_up_the_rheto.html

bigdakine said: Get a grip. I'd rather not have to write you off as a member of the idiot left.

bigdakine said:

harold said:

Second there is no more connection between Loughner and Palin then there is between Al Gore and the Unabomber.

This is a half truth. Of course I very strongly agree that the utterly irrelevant Palin had never met Loughner and certainly never directly encouraged him. However, the following is highly predictable - 1) Exaggerated, over-the-top, hysterical demonizing, political speech that uses "symbolic" or "humorous" violent imagery will lead to violence. (I am a "first amendment absolutist" and am not advocating that such speech be censored; I am noting something about it.) 2) The person who commits the violence will usually be disturbed, marginal, and male - like Loughner or Breivik. However, it is disingenuous to use the marginal, disturbed nature of the actor to deny the influence. I don't know whether Palin's speeches and comments had a direct impact on Loughner or not, but she heavily larded her public communications with hunting and military terms. "'Lock and load' and 'take aim' at those America-destroying liberals whose districts I've marked with rifle sight images on this map". Since I believe in free speech, I believe that the remedy to this sort of thing is more free speech. This type of irresponsible dehumanizing, violence-implying hysteria, which is the default of the current US right wing, should be condemned. It does have an impact. Loughner's mentally ill mind was impacted by a culture of violent political rhetoric. He may or may not have even been aware of Palin, but she was a heavy contributor to that culture. Al Gore, on the other hand, has never used language like "Those liberal airline executives and computer scientists will impose Sharia unless we 'lock and load', 'take aim', and 'target' them before it's too late".

Really? "Modern industrial civilization, as presently organized, is colliding violently with our planet's ecological system. The ferocity of its assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global implications, and organize an appropriate and timely response. Isolated pockets of resistance fighters who have experienced this juggernaut at first hand have begun to fight back in inspiring but, in the final analysis, woefully inadequate ways." - Al Gore As much fighting words to a crazed tree hugger as "lock and load" is to a right wing nut I would say/ Care to guess again?

Dave Luckett said:

Who do you think the “resistance fighters” are fighting?

Nobody. That's the point. The green "resistance fighters" aren't actually fighting anyone. Nobody is getting shot or blown up by greens. The worst case in recent memory was James Jay Lee. He was armed, and he had a bomb, of sorts - but the only person killed was him. Ted Kaczynski, the unabomber, was simply crazy. He didn't like some technology, especially computers, but he was neither green nor left. The worst other cases amount to some fairly inflammatory rhetoric and posing. But no guns, no bombs. Not from greenies, and not even from the far left, who are not the same, not since Bader-Meinhof, the Red Brigades and the Weathermen - forty years ago. The far right, on the other hand, is fighting now. With guns and bombs. Holing up in the woods, caressing their weapons, carrying out "readiness training", joining "militias" and urging each other on. And they do go on, to blowing up buildings and shooting people by the score. Breivik. McVeigh. Roeder. Adkisson. Von Brunn. Many others. There is no equivalence. Anybody who can't tell the difference between this and the worst act of violence that a greeny leftist has done in the last generation or more, isn't living in the real world.

ETA a green group! They're Basque nationalists. They blow people up, sure, for nationalist aims. They're about as left, or green, as Yasser Arafat.

The last FALN attack that killed anyone was in 1977. They were nationalists for Puerto Rico. Marxists, too, at least nominally, but mostly nationalists. Their politics were hard to place on a left-right axis, but green they weren't.

Nov. 17 was, true, a Marxist, probably an anarchist group. The last attack they made that killed anyone was in 1992, a single inadvertent murder. Yes, all right. That's an example of hard left violence within a generation of now. It isn't an example of a green group killing anyone, inspired by Al Gore. The hard left would reject Al Gore's politics with contempt. Gore is no Marxist, not even a genuine socialist. He's at worst a greenie social democrat.

The subject is not who has more nuts. The subject is who is blowing people up and shooting them now, the mildly left Greens represented by Al Gore or the far right represented by Palin and the Tea Party. The answer is unequivocal. Gore's expression was poorly chosen, and I do not approve it, but putting gunsights on people is a far more dangerous one, given the current situation. Gore is at worst trying to start a campfire (and not succeeding). Palin is throwing oil on a burning house. Your house. My house.

Breivik is not just a nut. He has a specifically far right political agenda. He wants a white-supremacist, racially qualified ultranational State. He wants to destroy women's rights to control their own fertility. He wants everyone in uniforms and marching. He's a Nazi, sixty-five years on.

You don't like rap. Right on, brother. I hate it, too, and that's no lie. The question is, do we have reason to regulate it? The answer, to my mind, is no. We have reason to call some of it "hate speech" and expose it.

For that is all that is advocated here. We both want to prevent actual physical violence, we both want to encourage political expression short of violence. Even extreme politics is entitled to be expressed, if expression stops short of violence or coercion. But IF the expression goes further to become violence or coercion, then those who have encouraged that expression with specifically violent imagery are not entitled to shrug off all blame.

If a green group, or a leftist group, or even a single nutcase, were to point to Al Gore's words as licence to bomb or shoot people, I'd be clamoring for him to get up in public in front of a camera, apologise unequivocably for his unwisely chosen words, specifically withdraw any implication that any form of violent action is acceptable, and state plainly and clearly that he condemns in absolute terms any such thing. Palin has not done that. She has not come close to doing that. She has shrugged off blame, she has used the insane expression "blood libel" to describe her responsibility for her "map", she has not apologised, she has not withdrawn. Any equivalence between Gore and Palin is false.

And that is the point.

Dave Luckett said: ETA a green group! They're Basque nationalists. They blow people up, sure, for nationalist aims.

I’m sorry, but my comparison stands.

bigdakine being stupid and dishonest: As much fighting words to a crazed tree hugger as “lock and load” is to a right wing nut I would say/

In actuality, Ray worships his own ego as the one true god. He sees himself not as a follower but the leader, a leader of a cult of one, for no mere human can ever come close to his egotism.

bigdakine said: Get a grip. I’d rather not have to write you off as a member of the idiot left.

raven said:

bigdakine being stupid and dishonest: As much fighting words to a crazed tree hugger as “lock and load” is to a right wing nut I would say/

Fallacy of the false equivalence. How many people have the crazed tree huggers killed or even injured over the last decade in the USA? It's about zero. ZERO. NONE.

bigdakine said:

raven said:

bigdakine being stupid and dishonest: As much fighting words to a crazed tree hugger as “lock and load” is to a right wing nut I would say/

Fallacy of the false equivalence. How many people have the crazed tree huggers killed or even injured over the last decade in the USA? It's about zero. ZERO. NONE.

And when has :Loughner referenced anything Palin said or did? Anybody committing an act of violence giving tribute to Palin? Amazing how you folks keep dancing around that fact.

Of course I very strongly agree that the utterly irrelevant Palin had never met Loughner and certainly never directly encouraged him. However, the following is highly predictable - 1) Exaggerated, over-the-top, hysterical demonizing, political speech that uses “symbolic” or “humorous” violent imagery will lead to violence. (I am a “first amendment absolutist” and am not advocating that such speech be censored; I am noting something about it.) 2) The person who commits the violence will usually be disturbed, marginal, and male - like Loughner or Breivik. However, it is disingenuous to use the marginal, disturbed nature of the actor to deny the influence. I don’t know whether Palin’s speeches and comments had a direct impact on Loughner or not, but she heavily larded her public communications with hunting and military terms. “‘Lock and load’ and ‘take aim’ at those America-destroying liberals whose districts I’ve marked with rifle sight images on this map”. Since I believe in free speech, I believe that the remedy to this sort of thing is more free speech. This type of irresponsible dehumanizing, violence-implying hysteria, which is the default of the current US right wing, should be condemned. It does have an impact. Loughner’s mentally ill mind was impacted by a culture of violent political rhetoric. He may or may not have even been aware of Palin, but she was a heavy contributor to that culture. Al Gore, on the other hand, has never used language like “Those liberal airline executives and computer scientists will impose Sharia unless we ‘lock and load’, ‘take aim’, and ‘target’ them before it’s too late”

bigdakine -

By the way, the way I see it, there are two possibilities -

1) You're so brainwashed you actually think Al Gore uses rhetoric that is as violent as hard core right wing rhetoric, or...

2) You know the right wing rhetoric is violent, you know it sets off guys like the Norway terrorist, the Giffords massacre terrorist, and the Knoxville Unitarian Church terrorist - and you think that's pretty funny. But you know that the drill is to dissemble and deny, so that's what you do.

raven said:

In actuality, Ray worships his own ego as the one true god. He sees himself not as a follower but the leader, a leader of a cult of one, for no mere human can ever come close to his egotism.

Ray's religion is Solipsism. He believes he is the only person in the universe, which he created himself.

bigdakine said: Get a grip. I’d rather not have to write you off as a member of the idiot left.

Bigdakine has posted enough lies and fallacies to out himself as a routine, boring, idiot TROLL. At least Ray has the advantage of being amusingly bizarre.

harold said: bigdakine - By the way, the way I see it, there are two possibilities - 1) You're so brainwashed you actually think Al Gore uses rhetoric that is as violent as hard core right wing rhetoric, or... 2) You know the right wing rhetoric is violent, you know it sets off guys like the Norway terrorist, the Giffords massacre terrorist, and the Knoxville Unitarian Church terrorist - and you think that's pretty funny. But you know that the drill is to dissemble and deny, so that's what you do.

bigdakine said: Finishing the thought.. In the former the excuse was, well, there was all of this violent campaign rhetoric, and you can't blames us for making the connection. For some reason, despite all of the jihad attacks and Al Quaeda threats against Norway for its participation in Afghanistan, didn't get one bit of slack.

harold said: Can we send the brain-damaged Palin-bot troll to the BW yet? Just be fair and say that all future Palin comments go to the BW.

bigdakine -

Again, I don't know if you're deluded, cynical to a degree that makes Renaissance popes look idealistic, or both. I strongly suspect amoral cynicism.

Again - frequent violent rhetoric from extreme right politicians and on extreme right wing sites - and I've seen plenty far worse than Palin's comments - is associated with acting out by disturbed individual who are influenced by it.

You seem to believe that this is "okay" because Al Gore made some much milder war metaphors, which were not associated with any violence.

I would at least respect a man who said "the violent rhetoric is right and those pansy liberals had it coming" for honesty.

I would at least respect a man who said "I support Sarah Palin and agree with far right web sites but I have to admit that there does seem to be a tendency for nutjobs to take our 'humorous' violent rhetoric too seriously" for some perception of reality.

You appear to be amoral as well as delusional. Who fucking cares what Al Gore does anyway? By your "logic", if Al Gore goes on a rampage tomorrow, that makes it okay for a conservative to go on a rampage. However, yes, Al Gore's rhetoric to date is fine and Sarah Palin's crosses the line. Politicians of all parties make overblown references to WWII or other "epic national struggles" all the time. Where the line actually is, is a subjective call, but I think direct reference to targeting individuals with firearms is an intuitive thing to put beyond the line.

Honestly, here's what I think. I still think that you secretly approve of and want the violence.

Why else would you keep apologizing for the violent rhetoric?

After all, no-one here has suggested censoring it. All we're saying is that it has certain obvious predictable impact.

harold said: bigdakine - Again, I don't know if you're deluded, cynical to a degree that makes Renaissance popes look idealistic, or both. I strongly suspect amoral cynicism. Again - frequent violent rhetoric from extreme right politicians and on extreme right wing sites - and I've seen plenty far worse than Palin's comments - is associated with acting out by disturbed individual who are influenced by it. You seem to believe that this is "okay" because Al Gore made some much milder war metaphors, which were not associated with any violence.

"My point is, is that..."

Why have people started saying and writing things like that recently? "My point is that..." does the job, saves 4 characters, and, you know, actually makes grammatical sense, unlike the former.

Maybe it's evolution--no, DEvolution of language.

Wait... it's that Second Law! Everything IS falling apart! The creationists are right, and here's the proof.

This and sagging pants.

Just Bob said: This and sagging pants.

Here’s why I think Nick Matzke’s post was exceptional: he made a claim – refuting the notion that Breivik’s motivation was Darwinian – he backed it up with an abundance of evidence, and he summarized it brilliantly.

That last bit in the conclusion is especially striking, and is something of that should serve as an example to all of us (as people and as commenters); not only does he advocate for resolution of differences, with less heat and more light, he manages to defend his position while avoiding the common pitfalls of simple my-group vs. your-group defense/attack rhetoric. The focus of the article is the facts that are in evidence, yet the ending includes an element of full-disclosure introspection about those who agree with his general position. Overall – and much to his credit – after soundly refuting what certainly appear to be unfounded claims, his tone manages to remain calm and in keeping with his contention that our responses to demagoguery and/or violence (and our analysis of it) needs to be calmly analytical, honestly appropriate, but also humane – lest we fuel the very fires we seek to extinguish.

I think this is a useful analysis on how the Left has treated this tragic incident by a deranged young man:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020924/Anders-Behring-Breivik-Liberals-hell-bent-bullying-silence.html

Here's an intriguing bit of commentary noting that Breivik may have been influenced more by his drug use than his affinity toward any right-wing propaganda:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2020583/Anders-Behring-Breivik-One-mass-killer-drug-addled-mind.html

NanoBadger said: Here’s why I think Nick Matzke’s post was exceptional: he made a claim – refuting the notion that Breivik’s motivation was Darwinian – he backed it up with an abundance of evidence, and he summarized it brilliantly. That last bit in the conclusion is especially striking, and is something of that should serve as an example to all of us (as people and as commenters); not only does he advocate for resolution of differences, with less heat and more light, he manages to defend his position while avoiding the common pitfalls of simple my-group vs. your-group defense/attack rhetoric. The focus of the article is the facts that are in evidence, yet the ending includes an element of full-disclosure introspection about those who agree with his general position. Overall – and much to his credit – after soundly refuting what certainly appear to be unfounded claims, his tone manages to remain calm and in keeping with his contention that our responses to demagoguery and/or violence (and our analysis of it) needs to be calmly analytical, honestly appropriate, but also humane – lest we fuel the very fires we seek to extinguish.

My point is, is that use of language should be challenged as well not that it makes inappropriate imagery from the right more palatable, much less justifiable

I think this is a useful analysis on how the Left has treated this tragic incident by a deranged young man: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art[…]silence.html

Anders Behring Breivik Shows That Ideas Really Do Have Consequences from Intelligent Design The Future by Discovery Institute As the world reacts to the depravity of Anders Breivik's cold-blooded killings, the mainstream media is quick to label the heinous crimes as an act of fundamentalist Christian terrorism. Is this really the complete story of Breivik's underlying motivations? In his manifesto, Breivik explicitly identifies himself as a Christian, but at the same time makes it clear that he views the label as a pragmatic political tool, not a religious statement. In this episode of ID the Future, John West gives a thorough account of the scientific fundamentalism and Social Darwinist ideals that ultimately inspired the murderous rampage of Anders Breivik. Popout Original audio source (2011-08-01T16_39_20-07_00.mp3)

Anders Behring Breivik Shows That Ideas Really Do Have Consequences Click here to listen. As the world reacts to the depravity of Anders Breivik's cold-blooded killings, the mainstream media is quick to label the heinous crimes as an act of fundamentalist Christian terrorism. Is this really the complete story of Breivik's underlying motivations? In his manifesto, Breivik explicitly identifies himself as a Christian, but at the same time makes it clear that he views the label as a pragmatic political tool, not a religious statement. In this episode of ID the Future, John West gives a thorough account of the scientific fundamentalism and Social Darwinist ideals that inspired much of Anders Breivik's worldview.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/framing-breivik/2011/08/02/gIQAjJhZpI_blog.html

harold said: And yes, of course drugs and mental illness (and the interaction between drugs and mental illness) are major contributors. I noted at the beginning of all this that inappropriate, excessively violent rhetoric is most likely to cause the marginal to act out.

Dang, that Johnny guy gets defensive about any generalization (however valid) about conservatives.

Just Bob said: Dang, that Johnny guy gets defensive about any generalization (however valid) about conservatives.

DS said: If everything evil in the world is caused by Darwin, wouldn't that make Darwin the antichrist? And if Darwin was the antichrist, doesn't that make the end of the world about one hundred and fifty years too late?

This androgynous Norwegian (redundancy) believed in evolution just like everbody else in Satan's bumhole. Like the funny guy in the white hat from Rome, he dresses the wolf of Darwin in the clothing of the Lamb of God. Since Muslims are the only real men left in Euroland, he fears they will put an end to perpetual symposium (in the original meaning of that word) that his country has become.

bigdakine said: In the mind of normal person, neither Gore's rhetoric or Palin's would motivate anyone to violence.