He who is without sin... Or something

Yesterday on Memeorandum, I saw this link to a Media Matters piece.

They link Erick Erickson, claiming he is trying top propose a link between atheism and Jared Loughner's actions. Or something. Now, I'm not a big fan of MMFA, but I read the post and followed the link back to Erick Erickson at Red State, thinking that (considering the source) it couldn't be as bad as it seemed.

Well, I've now read the Erickson piece half a dozen times between last night and today, and I gotta ask...

How is this not insulting?

Erickson writes:

Political rhetoric did not make Jared Loughner do what he did. His embrace of evil led him down a road down which we should be in constant prayer no others dare travel.

It's apparently part of a larger point he's trying to make. I guess his point is:

In all the discussions we’re having, let’s not forget that bad things have happened throughout history, but we are seeing more and more a pattern of violence from those who reject Christ and we are seeing the most extreme rhetoric from those who reject the only real truth while embracing every other historic fad and nonsense as variations of truth.

How is this helpful to the discussion? How on earth does a belief or disbelief in Jesus have anything whatsoever to do with the Giffords shooting?

I'm not a believer. Call me agnostic. Call me an atheist. Actually, if you want to be accurate, call me an apatheist. (Yes, I'm aware I just made that word up. If Sarah Palin can do it, so can I.) But apatheist would be closest to the truth. I don't know if there's a God, and - while I tend toward disbelief - I'm not much interested in debating the issue. I'm not looking for proof one way or the other. I'll find out one of these days, same as the rest of you.

But I have a great respect for the faith of others. I am tolerant and respectful. The times I've been told someone is praying for me, my response is "Thank you." I'm also the first to point out the ugliness that atheists can get up to when it comes to their intolerance of believers.

And I can't help but feel like I'm somehow being lumped in with a psychotic loner asshole murderer.

A lack of faith didn't cause Loughner to do what he did. He's insane. And for Erickson to decry the 'handwringing over the “tone” in the country and the “extremist rhetoric”' while happily setting up his own strawman strikes me as rank hypocrisy.

He went further, on Twitter:

Atheists are upset with me. But God is upset with them.

And how the hell do you know that, Erick? Got the direct line, do ya? Has God let you know whether he's pissed at me for my half-assed religious state of "meh"? Lemme know.

He tweeted again:

@fmaidment No clue. And yes, I did just compare Media Matters to the Westboro Baptist Church.

That's almost funny... Why? Because the first thing I thought of when I read Erick's piece is Fred Phelps and his band of hateful loonies. I can picture EE with a little sign that says "God Hates Atheists!"

I posted yesterday that clamping down on our freedom of speech isn't the answer. It wouldn't have prevented this shooting (which was motivated by teh crazy, not ideology), and it won't prevent the next.

Neither will proselytizing, or condemning someone who doesn't share your belief system.

So, Erick... while I respect your faith -- indeed, would defend it on your behalf -- please stuff your judgemental horseshit where the sun don't shine. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, it will do nothing to stop the next (probably) schizophrenic whackjob, and it divides us in a way that's completely unnecessary. You are, in my own opinion, no better than the fools who would point their finger at Sarah Palin.

Blame Game

I was in the car for just 10 minutes, and Hannity was on.

(Now, I'm not a fan of Hannity... but I didn't change it because - as everywhere - the discussion was about Jared Loughner.)

I was not in the car long enough to catch his guests' names, other than Peter and Bob. And I don't really care who Peter and Bob are, to be honest. It's cold out there. Regardless.

They were looking for a place to put the blame for Loughner's actions. Unlike many, they were not talking about political speech, but about the all too clear fact that someone dropped the ball where this kid was concerned.

One of them wants to place blame on the sheriff, for not having a deputy on scene. Both seem to believe the college is at fault, since there was a clear record of outbursts by a deranged individual and the college did nothing to have him committed.

Do we need to play the blame game here? Do we need to pin someone (or something, in the case of the school) with responsibility for protecting the public from a very sick young man? Do we?

Then here's my question:

What about his freakin' parents?!

And don't give me any crap about it not being their responsibility. He lived with them. If anyone was aware of Loughner's issues, it was the people who raised him and who should have been paying attention.

I have kids. A bunch of them. And I know them. Therefore, I would be the very first to know if one of them jumped the rails. I would consider it my duty to get them whatever help was available.

And if they couldn't be helped, it would be my duty to have them put somewhere they could not hurt themselves or others.

Barring that, I would see it as my responsibility -- if I brought a monster into this world -- to remove that monster of my making.

So while everyone is looking around for someone to blame, let's not forget the prime suspects.

Their pain be damned. I could care less. They didn't do their job.

Fightin' Words

Wow. I just watched former Senator Gary Hart make one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard.

Yes, even more stupid than "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." heh.

Hart blogged at HuffPo about violent rhetoric. In an interview about the piece, he says "There is no use whatsoever for these military and violence related metaphors to be used in political discourse." (He's hardly the only one beating this drum. The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others has made this the internet topic right now.) On the blog, he wrote:

Candidates are "targeted". An opponent is "in the crosshairs". Liberals have to be "eliminated". Opponents are "enemies".

Here's the thing, Senator Follow Me... That's just how we talk.

Think about it. We use military and violence related metaphors for everything:

Killer headache. Backstabber. Shoot yourself in the foot. Thow 'em to the wolves (or under the bus). Having a blast. Blonde bombshell. Double-edged sword. In the trenches. On the front lines. Battle of the bulge. I got bombed/blasted. Under the gun. Bring out the big guns. ad infinitum.

I'm not even gonna get into sports. I don't have all week.

Even the government does it: War on Drugs. War on Terror. War on Hunger. Surely they don't mean they'll go randomly shooting or bombing to solve hunger. (Although if the tactics used in the War on Drugs are any indication...)

Regardless.

I (along with a majority of Americans polled) don't buy for a minute that Jared Loughner was incited by -- gasp -- VIOLENT VITRIOL!!!1!1!

Why? Because every aspect of our dialogue is filled with violent and war-related metaphors. If the only place such a thing occurred were politcal speech, there might be an argument for scaling back. Maybe.

PA's own Rep. Robert Brady (D-rama Queen) thinks it may be appropriate to make it a federal crime to "use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence" toward Congress or federal officials.

Could be perceived by whom? Hooboy. Waaaay too subjective, that.

No, our culture is steeped in violent language. And that's okay. Really, it is.

Despite the current hysteria and fingerpointing, and despite our violent language, the mentally ill are not just snapping willy-nilly and shooting people. Now, I'm not trying to downplay what happened to the victims in Arizona. But the reality is that last year only 15,241 people were murdered in America. (Yes, I realize that "only" and "murdered" don't go well together in a sentence. Bear with me, I have a point.)

The US Census population clock shows 311,874,613 of us, as of this writing. Last year, a little over fifteen thousand people were murdered. That includes those who were killed by family members or someone else they knew. When you discount for domestic violence, shooting during the commission of another crime, etc, there are actually very few "random" murders committed each year. Like a few thousand out of over 300 million people.

Meaning the odds are actually much against your (or my... OR a federal official) being murdered period, let alone being murdered over mere words.

So, yes... the Arizona shootings are a tragic crime. And, yes.. the mentally ill live among us. But the odds of an unhinged loner killing someone are actually incredibly low. Any given person stands a better chance of falling to their death than being murdered. You stand a greater chance of being attacked by your neighbor's dog.

Instead of panicking or regulating speech or legislating to the looniest common denomiator, let's all just take one step back - and one deep breath - and relax.

Because I, for one, am not going to start watching my every word. Nor should you.

And the odds are, no one will kill us for it.