Why Do Atheist Leftists Kill People In Death Camps By The Millions?
By Mitch Berg
I’ve spent a bit of time in the past few weeks catching up on reading my leftyblogs.
And owwwie – my trip through the fever swamp has left me covered with bug bites and woodticks. There are some nutbars out there – and I’m not talking the fringey soloblogs, even; the Minnesota Monitor seems to have made a concerted effort to transform from an incompetent news organization to a laughable “Gawker”-style rantblog; while even Nick Coleman in his “prime” didn’t provide this much material, it eventually feels like playing football against six-year-olds; it’s easy to run up a score, but too easy to be really satisfying.
So it’s usually fun to read Charlie Quimby over at “Across the Great Divide”; he’s a lefty but he’s not dumb.
And so I flipped over there, and saw the latest headline: “Why Do Religious Conservatives Kill Their Kids?”
Ow. Talk about whiplash.
Here’s a topic for study by some enterprising PhD student: Do more religious conservatives than liberals murder their children?
That’s have to be one mighty enterprising PhD student. While a parent’s religion might certainly be an element into an investigation into a murder, I don’t recall that a parent’s voting record has, for anyone this side of Kathleen Soliah.
Seriously; have you ever seen a story that kicked off:
A Framingham mother of three, active in her Massachusetts Democratic Party caucus, strangled her toddler yesterday.
Mary Noel Bilkosky-Mullins-Stoppard, 42, of Framingham, was booked on charges of murder yesterday.
Neighbors describe her as “a committed liberal.” “While most of us believe in a woman’s right to choose – I mean, duh – Mary Noel was very committed to the cause – almost like a fundamentalist”, said Bilkosky-Mullins-Stoppard’s neighbor, Ian Micah Schlumberg-Rossellini, interviewed at the local organic food market for this story.
You’ve never seen it, have you?
And you never will!
Hold that thought. We’ll come back to it.
(You can spare me the comments about abortion.
Well, actually, that enforces a certain myopia on the debate, doesn’t it? If one wants to discuss attitudes toward crime, life and death, and murder based on politics, why leave out the biggest single issue signalling group attitudes toward the value of life; that among most fundie Christians, a life has to do something very wrong to deserve being erased, while among the left, it’s (very generally) the opposite.
But OK. I’ll try to stay on Charlie’s topic here.
In Wisconsin this week, the home schooled daughter of a fundamentalist family died because her diabetes was left untreated. The mother says they are not crazy, religious people who belong to any organized faith. She just writes for an end-of-days ministry website on the side and actively proselytizes other women. Her sister-in-law, who called the sheriff, seemed to think there was a problem.
Whoah, Charlie! The whiplash is killing me!
OK. You found a piece that hit a bunch of the hot buttons that lefties find weird; fundamental Christianity, home schooling, healing by faith. Let’s limit our focus, shall we – Homeschooling is rarely lethal (indeed, it works better than school education in nearly every possible instance), and faith-healing is a very fraught issue to which I’m rather close, via this couple, both of whom were professors of mine in college. It’s a different, and much more complex, issue than Charlie’s focus.
Quimby started talking about Andrea Yates, who actively murdered her children – hardly the same thing.
In Iowa, an embezzling banker bludgeoned his wife and four kids to death before killing himself. In communications left behind, he indicated he believed his family was in heaven.
I’m not sure what Charlie’s trying to get at, here. Was he insane for clubbing his family to death? Or for claiming they’re in heaven? Or is the latter just snarky “evidence” of insanity, in case the whole “bludgeoning” thing didn’t convince you? Indeed, does belief in heaven make you either fundamentalist or insane?
Well, send a truck for me, Charlie. I believe they’re in heaven, too. Most of the people in this country’d probably agree.
Indeed, if you went out on the street and picked 100 people at random, almost anywhere in this country (shaddap about Berkeley), 90 of them would likely be one variety of Christian or another, and would hope at the very least there’s a heaven for the innocent victims of the insane. And while “fundamentalist” is a continuum rather than an association with standards and membership cards, probably around nine people of that sample would call themselves some kind of fundamentalist.
But Charlie’s digression has caused me to digress as well. It’s no excuse, but…
And, not to leave anyone out, a Muslim cab driver in Canada strangled his 16-year-old daughter because she refused to submit to his control and demands she wear traditional Muslim garb.
I’ve looked for a study that examines the role of political and religious beliefs of parents who murder their children. Haven’t found one. But golly, the circumstantial evidence doesn’t look good, does it? And it stands to reason, when you decide to kill your kids with a baseball bat, the idea you’re sending them to heaven might lets you swing just a little more freely.
Anyone offended yet?
No, just confused. Since most people of mainstream faith hold the concurrent belief that the same act that’d send your kids to heaven wil send you to a place under complete DFL control hell, Charlie’s implied conclusion (“fundamentalism helps predispose people to murderous lunacy” might not be word-perfect, but it’s close enough, given Charlie’s post’s title) makes less sense than saying, perhaps, that concluding “someone whose personality is defective enough to kill their children is newsworthy; if that same person is a fundamentalist, it’s newsworthy and indulges the urge to bash fundamentalists and/or people of faith in general”.
Oh, not to worry; Charlie is only yanking our chains. Right?
Psychiatric researchers may not see much merit in testing my only half-serious hypothesis. The research already indicates that filicide is a multidimensional crime, and like most human behavior, is not likely to reduce down to red state/blue state simplification.
But it’s hard to shake that whenever I see news of a suicide bomber or a murderous parent, God shows up pretty frequently in the story. John Kerry bumper stickers, not so much.
Well, most of the Islamofascist suicide bombers were hoping Kerry would win.
Hey, if Charlie gets to half-seriously yank chains, why not I?
But OK. Since Charlie can “half-seriously” connect correlation and causation based on an infinitesimally-tiny sampling of crimes, linked with either mental illness (the Yates and Iowa murders) or a sect of Islam that actively promotes murder, or a combination of the two (the cabbie and his daughter), why not join into the fun.
What’s the murder capitol of Minnesota? North Minneapolis and the Phillips Neighborhood on the south side.
Who did they vote for in ’04?
Well, I saw a lot more “Kerry” stickers over there.
Or to paraphrase Charlie, it’s hard to shake that whenever I see news of a neighorhood ruined by drug trafficking, where honest citizens are afraid to go out at night, Democrat bumper stickers show up pretty regularly; “WWJD” and NRA stickers and Milton Friedman T-shirts and, well, visible manifestations of religious faith, not so much.
Another question; is fundamentalism equally likely to cause society to devalue the life of the fundamentalist?
Onward…
March 31st, 2008 at 7:28 am
And so I flipped over there, and saw the latest headline: “Why Do Religious Conservatives Kill Their Kids?”
Does he just ignore the whole abortion issue? Something like 40 million dead children since Roe.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:12 am
I agree with the Master. Ignoring abortion is the key to the whole claim, and it’s a claim based on perverse logic indeed.
There can be no murder if the victim commits suicide quickly enough.
The divorce rate drops dramatically, if people shack up instead of getting married.
And liberals murder fewer of their toddlers because they have fewer toddlers to murder, having murdered them before they were born.
Read this guy’s four-part conversation with Joel Rosenberg about the Stand Your Ground bill and you’ll find similar analytical deficiencies.
.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:19 am
Cut Quimby some slack. He sounds like he’s just a Typical White Person.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:27 am
Mitch- Hate to disagree with you here, fellow traveler on the right,but: “Homeschooling is rarely lethal ” is not a correct or truthful statement. The concept itself and it’s success kills the idea of The Frankfort School and Dewey philosophy of government, aka Big Education. And what the children learn (the truth, not ideology) kills the philosophy of the left.
No wonder the left attacks with such vehemence homeschooling and attempts to kill it via regulation and bureaucracy.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:45 am
My own follow up to that post is up.
http://tinyurl.com/2xn3r8
Like it or not, most conversation between human beings involves raising and then getting beyond “analytical deficiencies” on both sides. Joel and I are continuing our conversation. And Mitch and I almost had one here.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Again… not surprised by Quimby.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Well, Charlie, I’m always up for a conversation…
March 31st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Actually, Quimby… if Mitch’s post isn’t discussing the topic, then what exactly were you looking for?
March 31st, 2008 at 10:49 am
Actually, Quimby… if Mitch’s post isn’t discussing the topic, then what exactly were you looking for?
I mean, other than traffic?
March 31st, 2008 at 10:53 am
(D’oh! So much for trying to correct the post.)
March 31st, 2008 at 11:45 am
When liberal visions work, it’s because they have kept one foot solidly in our deep territorial impulses with the other foot free to push the margin, to expand the definition of those who belong in “our” territory.
That is some funny stuff, Charlie. In this person’s view when “liberal visions work” it’s because they have one foot solidly planted on ideology and the other foot firmly on the throat of the public.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:55 am
I think you can cut Charlie some slack, as he spends the great majority of his time thinking of new and exotic ways to tax us more. It’s a nice break. I’d just smile, nod, and move along.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Didn’t he also vaguely claim at one time that he wasn’t a Left-Leaner… and also that labels are of no use and get in the way?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I’m with you and Charlie on this one, even though you both seem to disagree with each other. (Walt Whitman, eat your heart out; I contain a few multitudes, m’self.)
I think that the issues that both of you have raised (in, granted, deliberately inflammatory ways) are legitimate ones for discussion.
That said, I think that mass murder by atheistic governments is such a prominent recent phenomenon largely because of both technology and the relative newness of atheistic governments.
Religious governments/institutions have often seemed to have no moral problem with that — consider both sides in the Crusades (and how, even if one accepts the notion that the Christian part of it was largely a response to Muslim expansionism — as I do, because it was — the Crusaders never seemed to have any qualms about murdering some Jews as a warmup), or the murders around the partition of India, etc.
(I’m not excluding my own people, either; we killed the last of the Amalekites millennia ago, but we’re still supposed to be on the lookout…)
March 31st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I for one will continue to be vigilant concerning the Amalekites
March 31st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Your mother contains multitudes, joelr.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Hey, AC, if what you want to do is make fun of a rich, mean old woman with plenty of time on her hands, do it under your real name, and get yourself a good lawyer, while I get myself some popcorn.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
You know how some folks’ names are based in trades? Cooper, Smith, Potter.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Badda,
Mitch’s post did discuss the topic and that’s cool. I said we almost had a conversation, and I expect one day we’ll get to it. A conversation is where people have a direct back & forth, try to understand each other, and don’t just try to score points on each other. (Hey, I’m guilty, too.) As you may recall, it was something I proposed to you after we had a misunderstanding, but you declined, and you’ve been on my case in the comment threads ever since.
I AM a left-leaner, but labels do get in the way. Just as I think labeling Tracy as a racist or Mitch as a [fill in the blank] or Joel R as a gun nut get in the way.
As for the traffic, not my concern, since I don’t run ads, have self-esteem issues or see a lot of value in attracting one-shot readers who are pissed at me before they even get there…
Foot,
I’m not in favor of new and exotic ways to tax you or anyone else. I prefer raising the income tax on the highest earners so their effective state and local tax rate is in iine with what most of Mitch’s readers already pay.
Kermit,
You neglected to quote the second half of that statement, which says:”When liberal visions fail, it is often because they fail to achieve just this kind of balance between our conservative impulses and our liberal needs.”
Mitch,
You said were you were open before, but then never responded to my invitation to talk about the gun bills. Maybe we can start with something easier, like guitars or bike commuting.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:52 am
Whjat’s to fgure out? To the left, anything that works (that they did not invent) such as home schooling is evil. Anything that is even slightly right-wing, is evil. Propaganda is just another tool to make the public believe what they want you to believe. It’s yet another case of left wing double standards and biases. nothing more. (“Nothing to see here folks, move along!” – I love saying that on my job.)
I suspect that the left will not be happy until they are in complete control and ALL of your hard-earned money goes to the government – so they can doll out what they think you need and should have. Oh yes, and “religion” (and other superstioious beliefs) must be suplanted wioth the more realistic belief that the planet is alive and we are mere parasites that need to be kept in line.
Given time, their incramentalism will evenetually win, like a stream cutting a mountain in half. I just hope I don’t live long enough to see AC’s “utopia.”
Lefties ought to grow up and smell reality. Not everyone buys all that propoganda out there, but it’s good to see someone like you fight it Mitch.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:55 am
Okay so I was being cynical. I hope the left never wins, but that would require the public get smarter over all. I haven’t see much of that lately, that’s all. This is an haven for right-thinking right-wing people. (With a few comical spoilers) Thanks for being here Mitch. I won’t give up hope for mankind and that the right will eventually save us all.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:06 am
Maybe it’s time to say: “Goodbye Charlie!”
Guy sounds more confused than I am, and I’m a blond!
April 1st, 2008 at 6:56 am
Charlie,
Ah, OK. Either I misinterpreted your email, or missed the invitation. I plead “situationally scatterbrained”.
Gun laws are not too complicated for me, although Joel’s paid more dues on the issue than I, and probably serves the issue better.
I don’t know that there’s much disagreement about biking – although if anyone knows a good carry rig for bikers, I’m all ears.
There will be more.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:59 am
Foot,
I’m not in favor of new and exotic ways to tax you or anyone else. I prefer raising the income tax on the highest earners so their effective state and local tax rate is in iine with what most of Mitch’s readers already pay.
Or reducing the income tax rates of what most of Mitch’s readers pay to be in line with the “effective” rate of the highest earners.
Either would be accceptable, correct?
No. Don’t answer that.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Quimby:
“A conversation is where people have a direct back & forth, try to understand each other, and don’t just try to score points on each other.”
I suspect you’re defining conversation for some reason, however, whatever that reason is, it is unclear.
“As you may recall, it was something I proposed to you after we had a misunderstanding, but you declined, and you’ve been on my case in the comment threads ever since.”
As you might recall, I suggested you come out to Keiran’s (or where ever the bloggers were meeting up) for a nice drink, trivia, and discussion… which you declined.
I also wouldn’t say I’ve been “on your case” ever since. I simply disagree with you on a number of subjects, and object to your apparent Snark For Me, But Not For Thee. I’d quote “Stripes” to you, but fear you might take it too personally.