So I guess I owe the Muslims an apology. I thoguht it was a Muslim barbarian who sent the Anthrax letters, killing 5 people, and it turns out it was a Christian Barbarian all along. One with a god complex. Oh goody.
Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins, 62, of Frederick, died Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at Frederick Memorial Hospital. He was the husband of Diane Ivins, they were married for 33 years.Born April 22, 1946, in Lebanon, OH, he was the son of the late Thomas Randall and Mary Johnson Knight Ivins.Dr. Ivins was a scientist for 36 years, at USAMRIID at Fort Detrick.He was a member of the American Red Cross, Frederick County Chapter. He also was a parishioner at St. John’s the Evangelist Roman Catholic Church, in Frederick where he was as a musician for many years for church services.
FREDERICK, Md. – Bruce E. Ivins was a juggler, a gardener, a church musician, a Red Cross volunteer ? and a suspected multiple murderer, according to federal authorities.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_go_ot/anthrax_scientist_profile
Most heroin addicts drank milk as children
so was the btk killer and let us not forget those good muslims of 9/11.
i guess ‘thou shall not kill’ didn’t take.what is also bad is an innocent man dr.hatfield almost was a scapegoat for this.
It doesn’t matter, the media is reporting him as “a scientist” thus supporting the technophobic cultural meme of the the “evil scientist.”
Religious parents warn their children about those evil scientists, who will teach you about evolution, fill your head with lies, and send you packing straight to H-E-L-L. Those evil scientists – they’re all secretly atheists, you know.
OK kids, now everyone put your computers away, close your astronomy books, and line up to receive your vaccines.
Does anyone have a link to this news story?
Joe Zamecki
Austin
I think its a bit of a stretch to blame this on Christianity or religion in general, I think the guy was just a nut-case. I mean when your own therapist gets a restraining order against then you know you have issues.
On the other hand I do understand that if he were an atheist then the religious right would be having a field day making that fact known.
Oh well.
THAT’S my point
I would reserve judgment about Ivins. Wen Ho Lee, Steven Hatfill and Richard Jewell (an actual hero) are all recent examples of how politics and the career aspirations US investigators have led to the damage of lives and reputations. So far the government has not presented any evidence that would convince me of this man’s guilt.
What – By the way, Richard Jewel died in 2007.
From Wikipedia.org: Jewell suffered from diabetes, severe heart disease and kidney disease, which contributed to his death on August 29, 2007 from natural causes, aged 44.
I agree, he was a hero who got the shaft from Uncle Sam and the media. I like that he fought back though, while he was still alive.
Joe Zamecki
Austin
If this nutjob had been an atheist, and fundamentalists had tried to use that fact to prove something about atheists, they would have been doing something wrong. They would have been trying to prove the general from the specific. They would have been using flawed logic.
Shall we try to prove the general from the specific simply because people suffering from religious delusions do so?
Shall we use flawed logic to try to make our point simply because people suffering from religious delusions do so?
Shall we play tit for tat and an eye for an eye?
Speaking for myself, the appeal of the godless heathen atheist agenda is that it is completely and perfectly logical. It stays entirely within the bounds of what is and can be known through contact with reality.
I’m perfectly comfortable with using reductio ad absurdem to point out the glaring deficiencies in religious delusions, not much reduction is required.
But must we constantly nip at the heels of people suffering from religious delusions by making arguments as stupid as theirs?
Ah there’s the story link. Thanks!
Joe Zamecki
Austin
In cases like this, one fact shines through it all that’s damning to religion: Religion didn’t prevent this. For all their talk about how religion packs morality in with mythology, they both failed to stop a religious person from committing murder…again.
If someone wanted to point out an Atheist doing some horrible act, they could say Atheism didn’t prevent it, but then we Atheists don’t claim to have a higher morality, or that Atheism provides that somehow.
If anything, the only way we would have a higher morality is that religion simply provides immorality, and we avoid that. We’re still human though, full of mistakes. It’s just that religion provides a host of reasons to get violent, and if you totally avoid religion, you’re avoiding those reasons too. We’re not better so much as we’re just less bad. Which definitely looks better…but still.
Joe Zamecki
Austin
“we Atheists don’t claim to have a higher morality”
We have to live with our actions;7 Christians can just pray theirs away.
Or obtain “forgiveness” through penance if you’re Roman Catholic, which amounts to license.
Excuse the gratuitous “7″ — don’t know how that was inserted.
Since this blog often highlights the negative acts of the religious, it is important to put the distinctions offered in the comments into the post. I suspect Dave will be more rigourous in the future.
I am impressed with the responsible contributions presented in the comments so far.
UnGodly & DD Dropout,
I agree. It is illogical to claim that one nutjob indicts everyone who shares a particular characteristic with that person. If one is trying to persuade people, peppering the conversation with logical stretches won’t help one’s credibility. Logic is on our side. Demagoguery is on theirs. We will lose on their turf, so we should drag them into ours.
The thing is, I can imagine Dave or Frank having to go on some crappy cable ‘news’ show to defend us when, eventually, some atheist does something horrible. There will be a preacher saying that this is what happens when you take Gawd out of people’s lives and then there will be us. Should they make the case in 45 seconds of shouting that generalizations based on sample sizes of one are not reliable indicators of group traits or ideological validity – or should we just break out the most recent half-dozen examples to illustrate that point?
Not to be too blunt but isn’t this enough to investigate one or two of the most ultra-radical anti-abortion groups a terrorist organization? Seriously, they plant bombs, shoot medical staff, many times make threats of violence and harass (sometimes to extremes) minor opponents.
I wonder sometimes if this could be called the act of a “Christian terrorist”?
Thanks.