Church Arson

[Tenth Speed Writer]

It seems another church in Alabama has almost become victim to arson. I wish I had the news article with me, but it was breaking news on the television a few minutes ago. Whoever was responsible set fire to the front row of seats and took the antique bible from the preacher's podium and lit it on fire in front of the church before running away.

http://www.ncfbc.org/cbcs.pdf
As you can see, this isn't the first time this has happened.





It's sad, really. There are some who are doing it out of insanity, like any arson. Then, there are others who think that their own image of Christianity as "the bad guy" entitles them to destroy something as important to someone as a church (or anything, for that matter).  

[Levis Pennae]

It is sad that people have to destroy a religious icon just because they have trouble excepting other's beliefs (or he/she could just be insane). I can imagine that this will feed many a flame on atheism.  

[sora987]

Levis Pennae

It is sad that people have to destroy a religious icon just because they have trouble excepting other's beliefs (or he/she could just be insane). I can imagine that this will feed many a flame on atheism.

It will? I think it already has. It's just not out in the media. No doubt people are already blaming us for it, or some other religious group that probably had nothing to do with it. I hate when this stuff happens simply because an entire group will get blamed for what one person decided to do. These kind of acts have to stop. They definitely don't solve anything. I know they won't though, as there will always be people who act on hate without thought of the consequences.  

[AnonymouZ]

That is so true. Hate is the hell of an "emotion."

When i was 12 or 13 i had set my mind in destroying each and every church that was on my sight. Arson would've been my choice too. HOWEVER. I lived in Mexico, where there's a church in every corner, and i was a pissed off satanist at the time.

So, with that in mind. I say: GO ARSON!

Seriously, if atheists are gonna get blamed for it no matter what, then what's the point of reproaching that kind of action? At least someone would've APPEARED to take action against religion. Unlike a whole lot of us, who just like to talk and idealize plans for humanity without a religion.  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

You need to grow up, Anon. You clearly embrace Atheism as an act of rebellion more than anything. Stop using the title as an excuse to make yourself feel superior and grow some empathy for your fellow human beings.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

AnonymouZ

So, with that in mind. I say: GO ARSON!

I don't give a damn how much someone disagrees with religion, harming innocent people or unwarranted destruction of property is never justified, under any circumstance.  

[Lethkhar]

AnonymouZ

That is so true. Hate is the hell of an "emotion."

When i was 12 or 13 i had set my mind in destroying each and every church that was on my sight. Arson would've been my choice too. HOWEVER. I lived in Mexico, where there's a church in every corner, and i was a pissed off satanist at the time.

So, with that in mind. I say: GO ARSON!

Seriously, if atheists are gonna get blamed for it no matter what, then what's the point of reproaching that kind of action? At least someone would've APPEARED to take action against religion. Unlike a whole lot of us, who just like to talk and idealize plans for humanity without a religion.

But doesn't that just prove to them that religion is necessary for morality?

No, violence is never the proper route. We have to show compassion for people, or we're no better than them.  

[Napoleon_Danneskjold]

There are reasons one might burn a church justifiably I suppose, but not in Alabama.

It would have to be somewhere that the church was a part of government and an instrument of oppression.  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

Napoleon_Danneskjold

There are reasons one might burn a church justifiably I suppose, but not in Alabama.

It would have to be somewhere that the church was a part of government and an instrument of oppression.

And as far as I can see, we're a bit beyond the overlording rule of archaic Roman Catholicism.

Even then, it wouldn't have been the best path. Martin Luther made the right choice in his peaceful protest. He could just as easily destroyed the church where he posted his 95 thesis, but he chose instead to state calmly and stoically what he saw wrong. Both could have shocked the public just as badly. The difference is that the latter inspired thought and took the moral high ground fairly. The second would have destroyed a priceless structure, possibly taken lives, and started a witch-hunt for protestants even more gruesome than anything that really did happen.  

[Napoleon_Danneskjold]

True, but say someone who was not Martin Luther (i.e. not a priest) took issue with the church? Nailing something to a wall then would accomplish zero, whereas an anonymous church burning might have accomplished something (depending of course on many many factors).

It is absurd, by the way, to call such a thing "immoral." Self defense is not immoral, even if violent. The means may or may not be sufficient to the ends sought, but they would not be immoral.  

[AnonymouZ]

Tenth Speed Writer

You need to grow up, Anon. You clearly embrace Atheism as an act of rebellion more than anything. Stop using the title as an excuse to make yourself feel superior and grow some empathy for your fellow human beings.

Well, seeing that you are NOT even an atheist... i can clearly take your opinion and put it on my "i don't give a ******** what gutless agnostics want ME to do" However. If you can't see atheism as a form of rebellion MORE than anything... well, it's so ******** obvious to ME that that was the reason why you gave up on it in the first place. Current WORLD views hold true the thought that there ARE invisible beings that like to ******** and heal the world at will. Going against something that rules the lives of half the world IS a ******** rebellious act. "What about those that are NOT violent" you say? Well, it's still a ******** rebellion of the mind.

re·bel·lion [ri-bel-yuhn]
–noun
1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.
2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
3. the act of rebelling.

I go mostly for the second meaning... but what the hell do "I" know.

ProjectOmicron88

I don't give a damn how much someone disagrees with religion, harming innocent people or unwarranted destruction of property is never justified, under any circumstance.

Ah yes. I thought it was tenth who was going to come up with the harming people argument. To that i should clarify that i go for arson, not harming people. Not yet, anyway. However, i think you're stretching a lil' too much the phrase "under any circumstance." If i had been raped by a priest of a certain church, had tried suing the ******** and he gets away with a slap on his wrist and another location where he can abuse his position again i would've done something to that extent. If i was the parent of a kid like that, i'd do the same. If the church leader kept attacking my way of life and kept stirring people up against me, and i was also in dire need of lithium, i'd burn the damn thing. Why the ******** not? It's only a church, and no one got injured... did they?

Lethkhar

But doesn't that just prove to them that religion is necessary for morality?

No, violence is never the proper route. We have to show compassion for people, or we're no better than them.

It would prove there's still crazy people out there. But... who are we kidding here? Are you telling me that christians don't do arson?

Violence is not the answer? I bet many of you were all excited when "V" finally blew up the parliament. Violence, in the right setting and context can bring awesome amounts of change in a determined location. And if used or enhanced properly, it can change a whole lot of people beyond this determined location. Look at ANY countries fight for independence. Look at their revolutions. Civil wars and FIGHTS (literal ones too) for rights and recognition all finally started to pick up or gather more strength when violence was used.

"What about Gandhi" you say. "He gained a whole lot of people's independence with a PEACEFUL movement!" And to that i say. Was it sustainable? Is something like that truly achievable, AGAIN?

With media that gets more ratings by telling lies, or distorting the reports; with a government bolder than before that COULD just take you out of the picture by putting you in a prison who knows where, or might as well kill you; with all this in mind, WHO THE ******** IS WILLING TO BE A MARTYR? For ANY cause now? Those that are doing it right now, would we EVER find out about their actions? With censored news, and a government that is already against this... i think not.

Violence gets attention. The age of idealistic, peaceful movements came and went. Either that, or current leaders have NO balls, since they already know how that ends up. ALWAYS.

John F. Kennedy - Assassinated (murdered, depending your point of view)

Martin Luther King - Assasinated

Gandhi - Shot (murdered)

Vernon Jordan - shot and critically wounded (civil rights leader)

Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, James Miller. - Run over by army bulldozer, shot while taking a kid away from gunfire, and murdered(?) (respectively)

Zilla Huma Usman - murdered (for not wearing a veil)

*edit* damn you danneskjold... now it seems like i copied your ideas! Still... mine seem to be a bit more "radical" so i'm just gonna leave mine as is too... domokun  

[ProjectOmicron88]

AnonymouZ

Ah yes. I thought it was tenth who was going to come up with the harming people argument. To that i should clarify that i go for arson, not harming people. Not yet, anyway. However, i think you're stretching a lil' too much the phrase "under any circumstance." If i had been raped by a priest of a certain church, had tried suing the ******** and he gets away with a slap on his wrist and another location where he can abuse his position again i would've done something to that extent. If i was the parent of a kid like that, i'd do the same. If the church leader kept attacking my way of life and kept stirring people up against me, and i was also in dire need of lithium, i'd burn the damn thing. Why the ******** not? It's only a church, and no one got injured... did they?

A couple things. First of all, arson is destruction of property, which I included. Second, I said "innocent people", not "people who are physically attacking you", so self-defense is indeed justified. The problem is that someone having a negative opinion of you is not grounds for self-defense, since you are not in any danger. Therefore, action is still unjustified. Third, you are further not justified to burn a church, or any building, regardless of their opinion of you, unless you have permission to do so.  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

"Just a church"?

You need to open your mind just a bit, I think. There's nothing I could relate it to for you, apparently. Imagine a place you treasured as much as your own home being burned by a Christian trying to "purge the world of a worthless cancer."



You think yourself better than them, Anon, but you're just the flip side of the coin to those you hate. You close your mind to why they do what they do, how they live and what they believe, and rely on your own assumptions and generalizations, barely any of them actually learned first hand. You refuse to believe there are wise people, good hearted people, anyone with a working mind among them. You refuse to accept that sense and faith in a higher power are not mutually exclusive. Instead, you childishly turn against anyone who professes anything close to belief in a higher power, calling them weak, calling them foolish.



And, just to let it be known, it was an attempt at personal change that eventually failed. My reasons for doing so are my own. Call me gutless if you will, though, but let me remind you, that it takes far more strength to put aside pride and arrogance than it has ever taken to hate someone blindly.  

[Lethkhar]

AnonymouZ

Lethkhar

But doesn't that just prove to them that religion is necessary for morality?

No, violence is never the proper route. We have to show compassion for people, or we're no better than them.

It would prove there's still crazy people out there. But... who are we kidding here? Are you telling me that christians don't do arson?

The majority of Christians don't do arson. Why should the majority of atheists do arson?

Quote:

Violence is not the answer? I bet many of you were all excited when "V" finally blew up the parliament.

Actually, I was really dissapointed by that movie...I could have been so much better...

Quote:

Violence, in the right setting and context can bring awesome amounts of change in a determined location. And if used or enhanced properly, it can change a whole lot of people beyond this determined location. Look at ANY countries fight for independence. Look at their revolutions. Civil wars and FIGHTS (literal ones too) for rights and recognition all finally started to pick up or gather more strength when violence was used.

You know, you're right. I mean, just look at Rwanda, Burundi, Guatemala, Colombia, and Nicaragua! See how stable and prosperous their countries are? And all because of a little violence. rolleyes

Quote:

"What about Gandhi" you say. "He gained a whole lot of people's independence with a PEACEFUL movement!" And to that i say. Was it sustainable? Is something like that truly achievable, AGAIN?

Why ever not?

Quote:

With media that gets more ratings by telling lies, or distorting the reports; with a government bolder than before that COULD just take you out of the picture by putting you in a prison who knows where, or might as well kill you; with all this in mind, WHO THE ******** IS WILLING TO BE A MARTYR? For ANY cause now? Those that are doing it right now, would we EVER find out about their actions? With censored news, and a government that is already against this... i think not.

I think you should read 1984. There's an interesting theory concerning martyrs in a censored press.

Quote:

Violence gets attention. The age of idealistic, peaceful movements came and went. Either that, or current leaders have NO balls, since they already know how that ends up. ALWAYS.

John F. Kennedy - Assassinated (murdered, depending your point of view)

Martin Luther King - Assasinated

Gandhi - Shot (murdered)

Vernon Jordan - shot and critically wounded (civil rights leader)

Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, James Miller. - Run over by army bulldozer, shot while taking a kid away from gunfire, and murdered(?) (respectively)

Zilla Huma Usman - murdered (for not wearing a veil)

*edit* damn you danneskjold... now it seems like i copied your ideas! Still... mine seem to be a bit more "radical" so i'm just gonna leave mine as is too... domokun

Yet I'm sure most of those people, looking back at it, would be ok with that. I'd be willing to be a peaceful martyr for the right cause.

If you don't think a peaceful movement would catch people's attention, what makes you think a violent one will? And better yet, even if it gets attention, what makes you think everyone else will support a violent movement?  

[Napoleon_Danneskjold]

AnonymouZ

*edit* damn you danneskjold... now it seems like i copied your ideas! Still... mine seem to be a bit more "radical" so i'm just gonna leave mine as is too... domokun

What makes you think wholesale slaughter of everyone who disagrees with you is radical? I'd call that conservative, considering it's the norm through most of history.

Properly aimed force, in the name not of making primitive noises and expressing how much you dislike the other person, but of actually pursuing one's own interests, well, that's radical, i.e. hasn't happened much before biggrin