Wednesday, January 02, 2013

This Is Why Christians Want Guns

I'm sure you've heard that Americans need guns so they can overthrow the government whenever it infringes on their personal beliefs. Many Americans believe they have a "right" to commit treason whenever they feel like it and, furthermore, that "right" must be protected by allowing them to bear arms, including assault weapons.

Here's what could happen. This is an interview by Janet Parshall of Mathew Staver. Believe it or not, Mathew Staver is Dean of the School of Law at Liberty University. He is also the Chair and Founder of a right-wing extremest group called Liberty Counsel. Mat is worried that the Supreme Court of the United States—the ultimate source of what's legal and what's not—could actually allow same-sex couples to get married!!!!

The consequences would be devastating, according to the Dean of Law. He says,
This is the thing that revolutions literally are made of. This would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak and to Christians around the country, then anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing. This would be the thing that revolutions are made of. This could split the country right in two. This could cause another civil war. I’m not talking about just people protesting in the streets, this could be that level because what would ultimately happen is a direct collision would immediately happen with pastors, with churches, with Christians, with Christian ministries, with other businesses, it would be an avalanche that would go across the country.
I'm sure it's a great comfort to most Americans that these people have the weapons they need to start another civil war over legalizing gay marriage.




[Hat Tip: Hermant Mehta: Christian Right Leader: Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Result in Another Civil War.]

85 comments :

  1. Larry, it's time to balance things out by posting something creepy about Canada. I'm sure you can find something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Piling on" is a penalty offense in American football. Is it in Canadian football?

      Delete
    2. John Harshman asks,

      Larry, it's time to balance things out by posting something creepy about Canada. I'm sure you can find something.

      Point taken. I'll see if I can find something in Canada that's as silly as the debate over gun control, the opposition to gay marriage, the questioning of Obama's birth certificate, the attack on the rights of women, creationists, the Tea Party movement, or the way Congress tried to avoid the fiscal cliff.

      Gimme a day or two.

      Delete
    3. That's all I ask. Don't you have something rather like Republicans?

      Delete
    4. There's Gary Goodyear, conservative Minister of State for Science & Technology (2nd term, must be doing a good job), chiropractor, creationist and all round nut job, on who, if I remember correctly, Larry has previously commented.

      The Harper government attempted an end run around gay marriage via the justice department by arguing firstly that same-sex marriages performed in Canada aren’t “legally valid” unless also recognized by a couple’s home country or state. This fortunately seems to have turned around and bitten them on the backside.

      The Harper government pro-life motion to "study" when human life begins. This was a private member's bill, defeated 203 to 91 but 8 Harper cabinet ministers voted for it including Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, who also acts as minister for the status of women. But to give him his due, Gary Goodyear, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, voted against it, saying, “I’ve made it very clear that I’m a pro-lifer but I made a promise to my community not to raise the issue so I will not support the raising of the issue.”

      And then there's the Orwellian themed Harper government roll out of the Office of Religious Freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs, nominally to protect the religious freedoms of foreign minorities (as long as they are christian and not women or homosexuals) when one would think that the real need is for the protection of all human rights for all human beings.

      Delete
    5. john harshman Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:47:00 PM

      Larry, it's time to balance things out by posting something creepy about Canada. I'm sure you can find something.


      Ummm, surely I'm not the first person to think "Denyse O'Leary"?

      Delete
    6. Re Larry Moran

      Point taken. I'll see if I can find something in Canada that's as silly as the debate over gun control, the opposition to gay marriage, the questioning of Obama's birth certificate, the attack on the rights of women, creationists, the Tea Party movement, or the way Congress tried to avoid the fiscal cliff.

      Well, I don't know but Gary Goodyear as Minister of Science and Technology seems pretty creepy to me.

      Delete
    7. How about this creepy event, involving the US vice presedent during the winder olympics in Canada?

      Delete
  2. According to Ed Brayton, Staver along with Larry Klayman and Orly Taitz is one of the three dumbest lawyers in America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It squares well with being a dean at Burning Book University.

      Delete
  3. What is creepy is that there has been no news coverage on the Canadian civil war that has been taking place since same sex marriage was legalized in Canada on July 20, 2005. http://tinyurl.com/5ukdsj

    I'm being facetious of course; Canada is not engaged in a civil war.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you go to the dailypaul.com and read some of the posts and comments you'll read some scary shit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Guns don't kill people; right wing extremist christians kill people.

    It's telling that Staver uses the phrase "right in two".

    Like he's admitting that those who hold his insane views aren't even a majority.

    All the while ignoring the constitutional protections that are in place to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority which thankfully he does not have and which appears to be shrinking.

    ReplyDelete
  6. steve writes, 'Guns don't kill people; right wing extremist christians kill people.'

    You and this guy Larry is posting about were made for each other. Just two sides of one coin.

    Before the Columbine killers carried out their slaughter, they made a recording, containing the following:
    "Go Romans, Go Romans! Thank God they crucified that asshole!"
    "What Would Jesus Do? (he then points an imaginary gun at the camera and pretends to fire it)"
    There is also, of course, the alleged (and disputed) incident of asking two of the girls that were murdered if they believed in God, and then killing them after they answered in the affirmative. This would have been consistent with their extremist anti-Christian views.

    It's a new year, Steve. Are you sure you want to start it by making stupid, ignorant, crackpot statements like the one above?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do realize that this was an ironic take on the commonly used pro gun ownership sound bite ?

      I believe Larry has commented on your complete and utter lack of a sense of humour in the past and I see that you are in fine form for another dreary year of hypocritical, tedious and just plain nauseating pontificating.

      In the future perhaps I should use a special smilely character for the irony impaired and those used to exchanging ideas in 140 character payloads.

      Delete
    2. a 'complete and utter lack of a sense of humor'? Why, quite the contrary! I find you endlessly amusing. It's just that I don't find your jokes very funny.

      Delete
    3. Finally an honest self appraisal of your position.

      It's my tone that you don't like.

      This is some sort of post enlightenment puritanism designed to suck the life force out of anything it sets it beady, judgemental eyes on while at the same time avoiding adding any concrete ideas to the discussion.

      "Puritanism - The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."

      H. L. Mencken

      Delete
    4. It is not your 'tone', but your mindless, blind hatred, that I don't like.

      Delete
  7. You Take The High Road and Larry Takes The Low Road"
    The site that LM got this information from is The Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta's site. Hermant is a sober, intelligent and non-histrionic blogger. His headline was
    "Christian Right Leader: Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Result in Another Civil War" -well, the CRL's suggestion was actually that it 'could' result in a civil war, but why quibble? Especially when Larry's headline is:
    "This Is Why Christians Want Guns"
    Listen to the transcript. No mention of guns is ever, once, mentioned. Violence is never once encouraged. Larry is not interested in presenting the truth here. He would rather bring up guns, out of nowhere, at a time when Americans are still reeling from a horrific crime that involved them. He is suggesting that 'Christians', because of what one nut says, are stocking up in preparation for a civil war that will happen if SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage.
    LM is predictably, but in this particular case shamefully, propagandizing in the most demonizing way.

    Mehta, who understands the situation and presents it fairly - i.e.; he is writing about an outlying extremist nut, begins his post thusly:
    'What will happen if gay marriage becomes legal throughout America?
    Correct answer: More gay couples will get married… and that’s about it.'
    In other words, he knows the guy is basically unhinged, and millions of American Christians will not head to the streets, armed, to revolt against the government.

    Larry, on the other hand, writes
    'I'm sure it's a great comfort to most Americans that these people have the weapons they need to start another civil war over legalizing gay marriage.'
    Larry writes this without a trace of irony, in that those 'most Americans' he writes about identify themselves as Christians. In other words, to Larry, 'these people' are also parodoxically 'most Americans'. You figure it out.

    Larry, as he so often does, tries to have it both ways. He presents an outlying, extreme-viewed Christian reactionary, identifies him in his OWN HEADLINE as representative of all Christians, and then suggest that those same Christians should fear him because he is dangerous -despite the fact that he makes NO mention of guns and no direct mention of violence.

    This is low, even by Larry's standards. Way to start off the New Year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Mr. Boerger want's to defend a couple of fascist nutcases like Matt Stever and Janet Parchall, that speaks very poorly of him. Ed Brayton over at the Dispatches blog on Freethoughtblogs has numerous posts on both of these clowns showing their raging insanity. And Mr. Boerger's claim that they are only lunatic fringe commentators ignores the fact that the Teabaggers in the US represent a sizable number of folks so they are anything but a fringe. The fact that a lying piece of filth like Rmoney got 48% of the vote in the last election should be a wake up call.

      By the way, if Mr. Boerger doesn't like Prof. Moran, I suggest that he vote with his feet.

      Delete
    2. In other words, you would prefer an echo chamber, eh, SLC?

      And please point out how I am able to 'defend' Stever and call him a lunatic at the same time. This should be neat.

      Delete
    3. SLC, here is how I have defended Staver thus far:
      - because of what one nut says
      - he is writing about an outlying extremist nut
      - outlying, extreme-viewed Christian reactionary
      - The guy is a nut job

      And I have said nothing about Janet Parchell, who I assume is the interviewer. Shall I 'defend' her too?

      Delete
  8. andy, if staver is just "an outlying, extreme-viewed Christian reactionary", and is not representative of ordinary, regular, mainstream, 'non-extremist' christians, then why is it so difficult for homosexuals to get laws passed that allow them to marry each other? Why is there even a need for them to strive for those laws? Why were homosexuals excluded in the first place? Why haven't all state and federal laws that block homosexual marriage and other rights for homosexual couples been abolished? Why haven't large numbers of christians, and especially so-called 'christian leaders', spoken out in favor of homosexual marriage and pushed lawmakers to abolish any and all discriminatory laws? Why do so many christians and their 'leaders' spew fire and brimstone at homosexuals and why do they push so hard to keep homosexual marriage from becoming legal and acceptable? Do you really think that religion, and especially christianity in the USA since it's the most 'popular' religion here, isn't the main reason there's so much opposition to homosexual marriage? Do you really think that many christians wouldn't kill homosexuals if they could get away with it? Do you really think that most christians wouldn't like to ELIMINATE homosexuals?

    And do you really think that you aren't missing the main point, as usual? WHY do ANY "Christians" even want guns? WHY are so many "Christians" stocking up on guns and ammunition? Why are so many pushing so hard to prevent any gun control? Do you think that atheists are the ones buying all of the assault weapons? And do you think that republicans (who are definitely the most religious and "extremist") aren't the 'party' that is by far the most against homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and gun control?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. twt, your rant just proves that Larry's type of inflammatory rhetoric has repercussions. Because people like you hang onto it like mother's milk.

      Just to make it clear, I personally think that homosexual marriages should be made legal. But do you understand what the guy is saying? Probably not, so here goes:
      He is saying that he fears that if gay marriage becomes law by the supreme court, then pastors, ministers and priests may be forced, by legal obligation, to marry persons that, by their own religious beliefs, they are bound not to marry. THey will have to choose between going against their deeply held (right or wrong, in this case wrong) beliefs and being arrested. THAT is what he means when he talks about 'civil war'

      Hint: That won't happen. There are plenty of lay ministers and progressive Christian ministers who will be more than happy to perform the ceremonies.
      The guy is a nut job.
      The point YOU are missing, as usual, is the type of bullshit, poorly thought-out, inflammatory, propagandistic rhetoric that Larry uses profligately on this site, and that you and Steve lap up, because YOU are extremists.
      I would love to see some of the more rational atheists who frequent this site speak up about it, but they don't. So I do.
      Do I really think that many christians wouldn't kill homosexuals if they could get away with it?
      Define 'many'. My guess is that there would be some, but they would be on the order of two or three per hundred thousand, about the same as people who commit murder in America in aggregate.And what would YOU, twt, do to christians if you could get away with it? Because you write some scary stuff.

      Delete
    2. andy, you obviously missed this:

      "This is the thing that revolutions literally are made of. This would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak and to Christians around the country, then anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing. This would be the thing that revolutions are made of. This could split the country right in two. This could cause another civil war. I’m not talking about just people protesting in the streets, this could be that level because what would ultimately happen is a direct collision would immediately happen with pastors, with churches, with Christians, with Christian ministries, with other businesses, it would be an avalanche that would go across the country." (my bold)

      staver says that homosexual marriage is "more devastating" than "anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing". The American Revolution was "literally" a WAR, fought with GUNS and other weapons, and many people were KILLED. staver also says that homosexual marriage "could split the country right in two. This could cause another civil war." The civil war he's referring to was an actual WAR that was fought with GUNS and other weapons and an enormous amount of people were KILLED. He is also claiming that opposition to homosexual marriage won't amount to "just people protesting in the streets". He's clearly saying that it would amount to an all out, real WAR between religious people and anyone who condones or even tolerates homosexuality, and he obviously believes that anyone who is religious (more specifically christian) is on his 'side' and that he and his religious army will have no qualms about using weapons in defense of the "right" to be bigoted assholes to the point of waging WAR and KILLING those who are opposed to their bigoted assholiness.

      I'll address your other remarks later, if I get around to it.

      Delete
    3. twt writes,
      'He's clearly saying that it would amount to an all out, real WAR between religious people and anyone who condones or even tolerates homosexuality'

      He is 'clearly' stating nothing of the kind. This is what you, LM and steve see because you are incapable of seeing beyond your prism of hatred toward all and anything Christian.

      NO mention of guns. A lot of 'this could's, (in other words, not 'this will' or 'this should') including suggestions that it could lead to a civil war, and the mention that it could go beyond protesting in the streets. He is not condoning, endorsing, encouraging or even specifically referring to, armed insurrection.
      You are fantasizing. So is Larry.

      Delete
    4. twt, since you seem incapable of seeing any other possibility than violence being 'beyond protests in the streets', let us be charitable and consider what other possibilities he might have been referring to, recalling that, despite LM's allegations to the contrary, no mention of guns was made in the transcript.

      - Priests, ministers, etc. refusing to marry homosexual couples.
      - This could lead to some homosexual couples demanding that such priests perform their law-bound duties (which would be perfectly within their rights, but probably unnecessary since there would be scores of other ministers, and perhaps even some priests, who would be more than happy to perform the service)
      - arrests of dissenting priests, ministers, etc.
      - protests against these arrests, organized by right wing churches and church groups
      - secessionist movements from some states, municipalities, etc. and counter-lawsuits against the U.S. government.

      Violence in the streets? I suppose one could imagine it happening if one has already conditioned one's 'mind' to see only the worst in the people one is opposed to. It is a possible, but not inevitable, iteration of the above scenario.

      Regardless, Staver is not calling for it.

      Delete
    5. Re andyboerger

      He is saying that he fears that if gay marriage becomes law by the supreme court, then pastors, ministers and priests may be forced, by legal obligation, to marry persons that, by their own religious beliefs,

      If he thinks this, he is either a liar or seriously deluded. There is zero chance that any such decision would be adjudicated as it would violate the separation of church and state. The clergy in the US are under no obligation to marry anyone, unless they are military chaplains.

      By the way, both Stever and Parchall have stated elsewhere that the recent election results in Maryland, Maine, and Washington State are an abomination and they support a constitutional amendment which would restrict marriage to 1 man and 1 woman and would declare invalid any same sex marriages performed prior to passage of such amendment.

      Delete
    6. andyboerger says,

      He is 'clearly' stating nothing of the kind. This is what you, LM and steve see because you are incapable of seeing beyond your prism of hatred toward all and anything Christian.

      NO mention of guns.


      Interesting. According to you, he's talking about a civil war that doesn't involve guns. I suppose it's just an unfortunate coincidence that the Liberty Counsel card depicts a militiaman with a musket?

      I'm sure that means nothing, right?

      BTW, it's not true that I hate everything Christian. It's stupidity and irrationality that I hate. It's just unfortunate that those characteristics seem to be more common in right-wing fanatical Christians.

      Delete
    7. well, Larry, let's think critically about this.
      Here is the statement from the interviewer that brings out the 'civil war' comment:
      ' this means that every pastor (blah blah blah) is gonna have to decide whether or not he's gonna sidestep certain passages for fear of some sort of response from the government'

      Can we both agree that she is indicating that acts of civil disobedience will result, as these hypothetical pastors will have to choose between their church's teachings and the new law of the land? May I assume that, when she refers to 'every pastor' having to 'decide' , you realize that she is not talking about these hypothetical pastors deciding to pull out guns, but rather to disobey a law they disagree with? With me so far?

      To which, Staver responds, 'this is the thing that revolutions are made of'. He goes on to say that such a law would be 'devastating' to the 'rights of pastors'.
      This isn't a matter of agreeing with him or not. This is a matter of simply understanding what he is saying here. He is stating that he thinks this would be a violation of the rights of pastors that would justify a 'revolution' of some kind.
      Still no mention of violence. Remember that when the U.S. Congressional Congress issued their Declaration of Independence there was no call to war. There was, of course, acknowledgment by the authors that violence from England could be expected. They were prepared, but they were not authorizing attacks.
      So, up to this point, his talk of 'revolution' is not necessarily mentioning violence. Do you agree?

      He then goes on to talk about the law having the potential to 'split the country in two' and that it 'could (I need to keep stressing that word, it seems) cause civil war'.
      Okay? He is saying the LAW could cause civil war, which is why he is so opposed to it. He is not advocating civil war. He makes NO mention of people needing to stock up on weapons in anticipation of such a conflict.
      You, Larry, put those words in his mouth.
      And now, to bolster your histrionic insinuations to the contrary, you bring up the image on a card?
      You write, "I am sure that means nothing, right?'
      What do YOU think it means? Can you prove it?

      Delete
    8. LM writes, 'BTW, it's not true that I hate everything Christian.'

      Then you may wish to alter the title of this post. Perhaps 'some Christians' would be more accurate?

      Delete
    9. And while he's at it Larry could get andyboerger to write the entire post.

      There's a horrifying thought. An internet first, a blog with mandatory barf bags.

      And I'm sure Larry could use some help on the next edition of his biochemistry textbook, and renaissance man andyboerger is up to the task I'm sure.

      For someone who constantly demands "proof" of other's statements your intellectual standards seem to relax when it comes to your own.

      And given your remarkable editorial skills I just don't understand why you aren't devoting all your time, energy and talent to your own world famous web site.

      Delete
    10. steve, perhaps you would care to flesh out where my 'intellectual standards seem to relax' when it comes to my own statements?
      I'm - generously - assuming that you aren't merely pulling that comment out of your caboose.

      Delete
    11. Is "care to flesh out" a round about way of demanding proof ?

      Delete
    12. andyboerger said:

      "Then you may wish to alter the title of this post. Perhaps 'some Christians' would be more accurate?"

      andy, can you show where Larry said 'all' christians?

      Delete
    13. twt, he didn't say all Christians, he wrote "This Is Why Christians Want Guns". Unless one qualifies, blanket reference is assumed. Try it with other examples:
      Muslims fast during Ramadan
      Children love toys
      Dogs have an extremely powerful sense of smell.

      Get it?

      Delete
    14. Yeah, I 'get' the game that you're trying to play. You say that Larry should have said "some", which of course means that you are adding the word 'all' to what he said, even though he didn't say it.

      "Unless one qualifies, blanket reference is assumed."

      Then I'm sure that you'll make no complaints if I assume blanket reference whenever I read and respond to your words, and the words of war mongering, religious loons like staver. Oh wait, that's different, right?

      Delete
    15. twt, your comment makes no sense. It is not a 'game'; it is standard, as per the examples I gave. I didn't make this up.
      In all the examples I gave, one would of course assume that not all are necessarily being referred to, but the vast majority, well over ninety percent. Some dogs lose their sense of smell, for example. Some children, for various reasons, don't like toys.

      If one wishes to make a claim about a group that doesn't involve all, or nearly all of its members, then one needs to qualify the claim with words like 'some', 'a few', etc.
      Pretty much everyone who understands English understands that. Why don't you?

      Delete
    16. "It is not a 'game'; it is standard..."

      Ah, so it is standard among 'all' people who have ever existed, and it is standard throughout 'all' of the universe?

      Is it also standard in the spirit-god stuff you fantasize about?

      Delete
    17. no, it is standard usage of the English language, so has very little to do with all people who ever existed and throughout all the universe. It is standard among the billion or so people who use English, and has presumably been so for a couple centuries, if not more.

      You are making even less sense than is usual for you. I think you need to hug Fifi a little tighter.

      Delete
    18. Your so-called "standard" has very little to do with all people who ever existed and throughout all the universe, eh? Well then andy, your so-called "standard" isn't much of a "standard".

      "It is standard among the billion or so people who use English, and has presumably been so for a couple centuries, if not more."

      Really? So, in your opinion, it's an alleged standard only to an alleged billion or so only English using mostly Earth people (which is a pretty small percentage of even just all the Earth people, or otherwise, who have ever existed and used only English, or otherwise) who lived within the last couple of centuries. Of course you added "if not more" to your appeal to alleged popularity. Seems to me that your so-called "standard" is subjective and very debatable.

      Presumably. Yeah, that word applies to a lot of things you say.

      And you allegedly know what an alleged billion or so people, over a couple of centuries if not more, think or thought when reading a sentence. Hmm. Do you also know what all the other billions think/thought?


      Have you got any more topic diversion games up your sleeve? Your obsession with Larry's wording sure has taken precedence over the main point he's making. And how about my questions, including: Why does any christian want a gun?

      What would 'jesus' say? Would he condone guns? Maybe he should have been packing heat, with Roman-armor-piercing bullets. Maybe 'adam and eve' should have been packing too, with snake loads. And if 'david' had had a gun, 'goliath would have been a lot easier to kill. And don't get me started on 'abel', 'jonah', 'moses', or the 'Canaanites', etc. (LOL)

      Delete
  9. He makes NO mention of people needing to stock up on weapons in anticipation of such a conflict.

    Not in that interview, but Staver is the author of such witty sayings as "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition", and Liberty Counsel is well known for its enthusiastic attitude towards the gun culture. With all that in the background, his message may appear more sinister than warranted by its literal interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. I agree the identifying (all) Christians with the extreme end of the spectrum is unfair. Staver does that himself when he assumes the role of spokesman for "Christians" in general. No need to imitate his usage.

      Delete
    2. Piotr, I agree with both of your comments, and particularly appreciate the addendum.
      To what you wrote in your first comment, 'his message may appear more sinister than warranted by its literal interpretation', I agree, but the onus is on Larry to point this out rather than just go with his typical liberal application of a broad brush to overgeneralize, stigmatize and conflate.

      Delete
    3. Don't moderate xtians give Staver et al a veneer of respectability by the very fact that the term xtian is used to self describe the entire spectrum of xtianity ?

      Shouldn't moderate xtians loudly and publicly distance themselves from extremists like Staver ?

      And who is to say what the actual distribution of xtian sub types is ?

      Does Staver represent a sizeable demographic ?

      He certainly does not lack for funding and I suspect this isn't some lone nutcase living in his parent's basement with an internet connection, fax machine and a cache of automatic weapons.

      Delete
    4. Piotr Gasiorowski Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:28:00 AM

      [...]

      Not in that interview, but Staver is the author of such witty sayings as "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition",


      It would seem that Staver was not actually the author of that particular witty saying.

      Any more than he is representative of Christianity as a whole.

      Delete
    5. @Ian: Thanks for the info. The Pearl Harbor reference actually makes him sound even more of a nutcase. Laying aside the Bible and grabbing the gun.

      Delete
  10. Okay? He is saying the LAW could cause civil war, which is why he is so opposed to it.

    My, your charity runs deep. Do you really think that the threat of civil war is why he opposes the law?

    I'm reminded of many other like-minded individuals who predict all sorts of natural calamities to come as payback for immoral laws and actions in the country. Borrowing from your charitable interpretation, its not the actions or laws they hate, of course, its just the tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes these will spawn that are to be regretted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shawn, indeed. My error.
      Of course he is profoundly opposed to the law because he hates the idea of gay marriage.
      But in the transcript he is saying that the law could lead to civil war. My point is that Larry is presenting this story as if he is actually calling for civil war, and violence, in a manner that is simply not to be found in the statement itself.

      Delete
    2. In a similar manner, when Pat Robertson claims that acceptance of homosexuality could result in hurricanes and earthquakes he's not really calling on his invisible friend to murder homosexuals, is he ?

      Poor guy is just being taken out of context.

      And this of course could never be construed as a real, actual incitement to violence by real, actual people against real, actual people ?

      And not the give the xtians all the glory, when Rabbi Yehuda Levin blamed the east coast earthquake on gay marriage he really wasn't claiming that this was caused by his bearded sky daddy ?

      And one could never assume that he would be in favour of more immediate and temporal solutions, could we ?

      Isn't it at the very least condescending not to take these sorts of statements at face value ?

      There is some sort of bigotry of low expectations at work here, as if our religiously motivated friends are incapable of expressing their thoughts in a cogent manner and are in constant need of the interpretative services of a cadre of flappers who will interpose themselves between them and the rest of the world.

      Delete
  11. Andy, you're a very strict and literal reader of that interview, and yet not a very strict and literal reader of Larry's post. You say, among other things, "My point is that Larry is presenting this story as if he is actually calling for civil war, and violence, in a manner that is simply not to be found in the statement itself."

    Perhaps you could point out the part in Larry's post where he says this. The closest thing I can find is: "I'm sure it's a great comfort to most Americans that these people have the weapons they need to start another civil war over legalizing gay marriage." Does Larry say that Matt Staver is calling for a civil war and violence there? Or is someone possibly over-interpreting just like they accuse others of doing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, you raise an excellent point. It IS possible that I am over-interpreting.

      But if so, I would like to ask why the title of this post is
      'This Is Why Christians Want Guns'?
      As I point out, in the transcript, no mention of guns, or the need to stockpile them, are mentioned. So, at least in the case of the title, may we agree that Larry is over-interpreting, and quite blatantly?

      He then goes on to write
      'I'm sure you've heard that Americans need guns so they can overthrow the government whenever it infringes on their personal beliefs. Many Americans believe they have a "right" to commit treason whenever they feel like it and, furthermore, that "right" must be protected by allowing them to bear arms, including assault weapons.'

      He uses this initial paragraph to segue into his comments about Staver. At the very least, he is conflating two different things. He seems, to me, to be doing this in order to suggest that Staver wishes to encourage christians to be armed and loaded should SCOTUS rule in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

      Staver seems nutty enough to me that he actually MIGHT do exactly that. But insofar as he hasn't, it is wrong to insinuate that he more or less HAS by arranging and conflating separate issues, as I'm sure you agree.

      Delete
    2. The disconnect is between the headline and the content of the post. I agree that the headline is overly broad and should be changed. The post itself isn’t unreasonable, I don’t think. In my view, he is using Staver’s remarks to make a general point about right-wing antigovernment rhetoric and gun culture, which is a not inconsiderable subset of the American population, particularly in the South where I live. (Most of the people comprising this subculture are of course evangelical Christians.) He is not using this context to interpret Staver’s remarks – and he nowhere says that Staver is calling for the violent overthrow of our government. He is using Staver as context for his general point, and not his general point as context for Staver’s particular remarks.

      But let’s not ignore Staver’s remarks: ‘This could cause another civil war. I’m not talking about just people protesting in the streets…’ He himself is participating in this larger context of right-wing, overthrow-the-government rhetoric (dog whistling, as they say), so it is in fact pertinent for Larry to use the context that he does. And the idea that we need assault weapons etc. to protect ourselves from and/or overthrow if need be the government is just bog-standard NRA-type belief – dinner-table talk – so that also is, in my view, perfectly acceptable for Larry to bring up. Parsing Staver’s words as carefully and, in my view, over-charitably as you do is simply to act as if Staver’s comments exist in a vacuum and this subculture doesn’t exist.

      Delete
    3. Hi Anonymous.
      In broad terms, I agree with your assessment. The biggest problem that I have with the post is the title, and about that you and I agree. There is a disconnect, and I feel it is irresponsible, and a cheap shot to boot.

      Although LM doesn't directly accuse Staver of inciting a rebellion (I concede that point), by conflating two issues, by even bringing guns into the matter at all, without sufficient context. is where I think he overreaches, and here we disagree. But I think the disagreement is more one of degree.

      Compare Larry's post with the post on The Friendly Atheist's site. The writer of that post doesn't even mention guns, which is natural, since guns aren't mentioned in the transcript. The author, Mehta, quickly makes the point, in his opening paragraph, that Staver is being histrionic and unrealistic. Then, after presenting the transcript, he follows with,
      "Overreact much?"
      This is a responsible piece of writing. It alerts us to the extremist rhetoric of a nut, but it doesn't try to fill in as many blanks as a reader (such as two posters here) can conjure up, or go beyond the person in question to smear others with the same brush (as Larry does).
      What Larry is doing is associating different things together in such a way as to override critical consideration.
      It IS true that these associations - i.e. gun culture with evangelicals - may be such that they should be discussed together. You feel that way, and I understand your point. But, the onus would then be on the writer to point that out convincingly, with more than just sweeping rhetoric. This is where I feel this particular post fails badly.

      Delete
  12. Wow Larry and just when I thought you could not get any dumber you give us this jewel in objective journalism. You see Larry since a few whack jobs account for all christians as your article claims, it then stands to reason that Stalin, Pot and Mao stand for all atheists, right Larry?

    The title hypocrite fits you like a glove.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It should be common knowledge by now that "rational" agents like Larry Moran do not care about the truth! This article is as good as saying all white people are racist and all black people are criminals. You see people like Larry believe that they are the "rational" ones when in fact their actions, words and thoughts prove otherwise.

    He should be shameful of this dribble of an article, but then again you can't tell an irrational person that they are being irrational.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's quite revealing of your mindset that you accuse Larry of being irrational while ignoring (or even supporting?) the dangerous insanity of "Christians" like staver, parshall, and their ilk.

      For anyone who wants to see what staver, parshall, and other christian 'leaders' are pushing, take a good look at this site:

      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/


      And don't miss these:

      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/parshall-satan-great-deceiver-marriage-equality

      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/beisner-belief-climate-change-insult-god

      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/beware-green-dragon

      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-author-claims-environmentalism-will-destroy-america-introduce-fascist-tyrann


      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

      Delete
    2. The whole truth...... Now this will be hard for you but try at least to understand...... Larry's post says Christians (meaning all Christians) are right-wingers who are trigger happy..... This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I might as well then do the following in a heading of an article.... "This is why Atheists love genocide"... Does this heading represent you? Does it represent all atheists? Use your faculty and see why such a post is irrational.... A group of trigger happy right-wing Christians do not speak for all just as Stalin, Mao and Pot don't speak for you or do they?

      Delete
    3. Re anonymous

      Larry's post says Christians (meaning all Christians) are right-wingers who are trigger happy.

      Mr. anonymous is a liar. Prof. Moran said no such thing.

      Delete
    4. Not to worry anonymous, it's not like anyone is over generalizing by saying that all anonymous posters are spineless, gutless cowards who are incapable of engaging in a productive exchange of ideas.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous: This article is as good as saying all white people are racist and all black people are criminals.

      Yes, that was exactly Larry's point.

      Keep in mind that fundamentalists like Staver define "Christian" so that only gun-toting right wing nuts like themselves count as true "Christians."

      Realizing this, our anonymous friend will no doubt now go to Staver's blog and say that his fundamentalist definition of "Christian" is "as good as saying all white people are racist and all black people are criminals."

      Delete
    6. Anonymous, I understand your point but if I were to see an article titled "This is why Atheists love genocide" I don't think that I would automatically assume the word 'all' in that title. The wording of the article itself would likely indicate what the author actually means and if it didn't I'd ask.

      "A group of trigger happy right-wing Christians do not speak for all just as Stalin, Mao and Pot don't speak for you or do they?"

      To that I'd have to say that if a "group of trigger happy right-wing Christians" DON'T speak for all "Christians" (or at least all people who label themselves as "Christians") then the non-trigger-happy ones need to regularly speak up VERY loudly and VERY publicly against the trigger-happy ones, and especially when the trigger-happy ones are suggesting, condoning, or downright pushing violence against people just because those people are gay, or black, or female, or atheist, or any of the others things that religious loons have been picking a fight with for centuries.

      I think that you'd find that most or all atheists would quickly and strongly condemn the murderous actions of Stalin, Mao, and Pot, and if some don't it would not simply be because they're atheists. I don't believe that Stalin, Mao, and Pot committed their atrocious acts simply because they were atheists, IF they actually were atheists. Atheist means 'no god'. Atheism doesn't have a rule book (like religions do) that tells atheists how to behave and atheism, by itself, doesn't suggest, condone, or push murderous acts. The bible, koran, and likely some other religious rule books (I'm not familiar with them all) DO specifically suggest, condone, and PUSH violence of several types including murder and genocide. ANYONE who considers themselves a christian or muslim cannot legitimately say that they are innocent of those rules or the horrendous acts by people who live by those rules. If christians and muslims (and adherents of any other violence pushing religions) really want to show that they are against violence, genocide, and war, they should quickly get the hell away from those religions and advocate the abolition of those religions.

      Delete
    7. I've been thinking about what I said above and instead of "Atheist means 'no god'." I probably should have said 'Atheist (or atheism) means no belief in a god.'

      Delete
  14. From the desk of: Andy Boerger
    Dec. 5, 1941

    Dear President Roosevelt,

    I am writing to strongly protest the gross over-generalizations in your harsh and uncalled-for attacks upon Germans and National Socialists.

    Mr. Roosevelt, you have falsely asserted that "Germans" (meaning all Germans) have pursued a policy of aggression. But Albert Einstein is also German-- has he pursued a policy of aggression?

    Mr. Roosevelt, you have also asserted that National Socialists (meaning all National Socialists) are ignorant and violent. But Werner Von Braun is an expert at rocket science. Is he "ignorant" too, Mr. Roosevelt?

    You have asserted that the Chancellor of Germany believes in an "iron fist" policy and that he rules by the power of the "gun." However, in his best-seller "Mein Kampf", the Chancellor never actually says "fist" and never explicitly says "gun." You have twisted and distorted his meaning.

    You have falsely accused the Fuehrer of planning "extermination." However, he has actually used the German word ausrotten, which, in addition to extermination, can also mean "root out." Kind of like when a gardener pulls weeds out by the root, and places them gingerly and without violence, with great care, in someone else's garden. No violence in implied at all!

    Mr. Roosevelt, you have over-generalized and falsely asserted that the Fuehrer will pursue a policy of mass murder. However, in "Mein Kampf", Chancellor Hitler merely said that, if a few thousand Jews had been killed a decade previously, then Germany's defeat in WWI could have been averted. That's not "mass murder" at all! He never says "mass", and he never says "murder." Thus you, President Roosevelt, are guilty of a gross distortion.

    You, President Roosevelt, have scurrilously besmirched the reputation of all Germans and all National Socialists.

    I demand you give Herr Hitler an obsequious, grovelling apology and change the title of this blog post.

    In a time of national crisis, the correct response to violent insanity is pedantic hair-splitting, especially when it flatters my gigantic ego.

    Sincerely,

    Andy Boerger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just as a matter of setting the record straight, the Nazi regime in Germany did not consider Albert Einstein to be a German because he was Jewish.

      Delete
    2. Einstein renounced German citizenship in 1896.

      That's an even better reason for not being considered German.

      Delete
    3. Diogenes, you completely miss the point. Did you listen to the transcript?
      A. The guy is a nut job, as Hermant Mehta pointed out in his much more responsible piece.
      B. He mentions 'civil war' and 'revolution' in response to a question that prods him about ministers having their rights to practice religion taken away. i.e., he says that forcing ministers to go against their faith would be a violation of their rights SUCH THAT it in his words 'could' lead to civil war. He is not fomenting civil war.
      What caused the American Revolution? What caused the Civil War between the Northern States and the Southern States? Rightly (in the case of the former) or wrongly (in the case of the latter) people revolted because they believed their precious rights were being denied them. THAT is what he is referring to, Diogenes. He is not fomenting violence.
      Can you see that?
      You don't have to agree with him. I certainly don't. As we all agree, he is nuts. But can you at least SEE that that is what he is saying?

      Larry chose to go from there to involve guns, and indicate that Christians want to hold on to them in preparation of violence in the streets about gay marriage. Twt even goes on, in his feverish and unhinged way, to write " He's clearly saying that it would amount to an all out, real WAR between religious people and anyone who condones or even tolerates homosexuality, and he obviously believes that anyone who is religious (more specifically christian) is on his 'side' and that he and his religious army will have no qualms about using weapons in defense of the "right" to be bigoted assholes to the point of waging WAR and KILLING those who are opposed to their bigoted assholiness. "

      That is just filling in the blanks that Larry, by his irresponsible writing, has provided to haters and fanatics, of which twt is one.
      You, or someone, needs to provide an actual article or statement where Staver or someone associated with him actually DOES suggest stockpiling weapons in preparation for the legalization of gay marriage.
      Such a statement may well exist. These guys ARE that crazy. But it is irresponsible, and propagandistic, to run a post suggesting they are doing that without corroboration, and based on the flimsy, strung-together case that Larry has made.

      Delete
    4. Re Steve Oberski

      Einstein renounced German citizenship in 1896.

      True but he regained his German Citizenship in 1914 and retained it until 1933. He was a dual Swiss/German citizen during that period and later was a duel Swiss/US citizen from 1940 until his death in 1955.

      Delete
    5. By the way, Germany currently proudly claims Einstein as a German and there is a street in Berlin named after him (Albert Einsteinstrasse).

      Delete
    6. Whoa, andy, if you're going to be outing the "haters and fanatics" I demand to be included. I've worked hard to earn your opprobrium. Lash me with the limp noodle of your criticism.

      Lucky for you I had just finished my beverage of choice when I read your "flimsy, strung-together case" line so you don't owe me a new monitor this time.

      Delete
    7. you had me at 'odious cult' (in referring to Christianity)

      Delete
    8. steve, tell me how it's NOT a flimsy, strung together case.

      Add up - LM's headline, implying that Christians, in presumably large enough numbers not to warrant the use of a quantifier (there I am being nitpicky again), are stockpiling weapons in order to use them if gay marriage becomes legal;
      - with a transcript that makes no mention of guns from a certifiable whack job, and convince me how LM has made a case for the former

      If your case is good enough, I will concede.

      Delete
    9. For reference, Diogenes, steve, et al;

      If you google 'Christians, gay marriage, civil war', these are the sites you link to at the top.
      http://www.skepticmoney.com/gay-marriage-will-cause-a-civil-war/

      http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/02/christian-dean-says-gay-marriage-will-cause-civil-war-video/

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/02/christian-right-leader-legalizing-gay-marriage-will-result-in-another-civil-war/

      All of these agree that the guy is nuts. Not a single one of them tries to associate his statements with gun rights, stockpiling of weapons, etc.

      These are atheist sites, like Larry's, but they handle this matter without hyperbole and without conflating separate issues to blow things out of proportion and toss out red meat.
      In short, they are not propagandistic.



      Delete
    10. @SLC

      I think it's safe to say that both Einstein and Germany were conflicted about the citizenship issue.

      Delete
    11. andyboerger, I freely admit that I use the word 'odious' too often.

      Delete
    12. andyboerger said:

      "Diogenes, you completely miss the point."

      No, andy, you completely miss the point. You're as dense as a black hole.

      Delete
    13. Andy,

      you are really attempting to defend the Dean of a University Law School, who is in no sense marginalized. You can call him a "nut", but he is not marginalized, he has power, authority, resources, funds. As the Dean of a Law School, he is training many fundamentalist lawyers. What is he training them in?

      That the natural response to sex is violence. If people are gay, war is the natural response.

      Now your pedantic hair-splitting response is to say that the didn't say "gun." He said "war."

      Wow. That is so ridiculous, I have to build up the strength to respond.

      What do you think wars are fought with, Andy? Spitballs? They're fought with guns. He knows his audience is well-armed.

      Moreover, you say he is merely predicting civil war, not fomenting one. Wrong. He is training his students to believe that the natural response to sex is violence. He's normalizing violence, desensitizing people to violence.

      It's the same as their response to gays in the military. What did they say about that? Oh, if you put gays in the military, they'll be fragged by their fellow soldiers. If someone is gay, the natural response is to shoot them, even if you're in the military and supposed to have discipline, the urge to connect sex to violence is uncontrollable.

      Now the neo-Confederates are doing that where civil war is concerned: telling us violence is the normal, natural response.

      Delete
    14. Diogenes, to a certain degree I concede your points. When this guy talks about war, he certainly expects that such a war, should it occur, would include extreme violence.
      Still, I don't think it is evident that he is teaching that, as you say, 'the natural response to sex is violence'.
      You call it 'pedantic hair splitting' and perhaps it is. But the fact remains, in this transcript (and going only by it, since Larry produces nothing else) his point is that he considers the legalization of gay marriage, should it occur, to be an egregious violation of rights (for one reason, because as the interviewer indicates, he thinks it might lead to pastors being forced to disobey a national law in order to practice their faith) that would justify secession. In other words, to him, the law would be equivalent to the onerous taxes and levies as perceived by the American colonists, and the Emancipation Proclamation of the mid nineteenth century as perceived by the Southern oligarchs.
      Even if we are to imagine extreme violence erupting,going by the wording he is using it would more logically indicate violence against the government, the military - whatever police officers, etc would be responsible for enforcing the law. There is nothing to suggest the kind of mad, Rwanda-esque violence that twt imagines, people all of a sudden grabbing their guns, running outside and looking for homosexuals and their supporters to slaughter.

      That is why all the other bloggers and posts, such as Hermant Mehta's, treat this issue without the histrionics and sweeping generalizations that we find here.
      Assuredly, I believe that if gay marriage becomes law, there will be hate crimes. More so than Mehta, who writes 'gays will get married -and that's about it', I recognize the danger that nuts like Staver present. Not because they will lead millions into the streets, but because of the response from individual psychopaths. America already has such type of hate crimes - and one is one too many - and the law, should it pass, will provoke more. That is disgusting and frightening, but it is not the same as the 'civil war' that Staver and loonies like him fantasize about.

      But my issue has been, and continues to be, with the way Larry has presented this story, in contrast to the other posts I have mentioned. If I agree with you that we shouldn't split hairs and over-charitably consider the words of Staver, then it follows that neither should we with Larry, right?
      He wrote as his title 'This Is Why Christians Want Guns' and then goes on to indicate that the 'this' in question is so that they can be ready to erupt in violence if gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Do you agree with him about this?
      Change it into a question, and then imagine asking nearly anyone. 'Why do Christians want guns?'
      First of all, people would probably wonder why you used the word 'Christians', but then they might go on to reason that since the majority of Americans self -identify as Christians and tens of millions of Americans own guns, the question makes a certain kind of sense.
      They would answer
      - to hunt
      - to protect their homes
      - because they like to collect them
      - to use at shooting ranges
      - to kill homosexuals wantonly should gay marriage become law
      Now, obviously one of these things is not like the other. It would occur to almost no person to answer in this way. And yet THAT is the answer that Larry provides in the title of his post.
      Like I wrote earlier, it is propagandistic and an insult to the vast majority of Americans, christian or otherwise, who have no intention of slaughtering people based on a SCOTUS ruling.

      Delete
    15. To a certain extent this social experiment has already been performed.

      Look to any extant muslim theocracy or set your way back machine to pre enlightenment europe and consider the fate of homosexuals, let alone those that would dare to form a public relationship.

      Now in these cases the violence is/was state sanctioned due to the intrusion of religion into secular matters, but this is exactly the behaviour of US xtian theocrats should they obtain sufficient power.

      Now I happen to agree with andyboerger's point that "There may no longer be enough of them" and they are probably in a decline but the fact of the matter is that Romney's magic mormon underwear received 47.2% of the popular vote in the 2012 presidential election.

      Delete
  15. Werner von Braun was a war criminal. Why he is lionized is something I will never understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to mention Pius XII and Henry Kissinger.

      Delete
    2. The creationists love him because he was a creationist, and they need heroic "creation scientists of history."

      Delete
    3. Wernher von Braun was implicated implicated in the use of slave labour for the production of V2 missiles.

      Just like any other old testament patriarch*.

      I can see why he would be a creationist role model.

      * Surprisingly there are references to missiles in the OT, 2 Chronicles 26:15 And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal. And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvellously helped, till he was strong.

      Delete
  16. And here is another reasoned, measured response to this issue, from the Huffington Post. The writer, as a gay blogger/activist, would have more to fear than most if an actual civil war were looming. Fortunately, he doesn't fantasize about millions of American christians grabbing their guns and starting a bloodbath.
    Here are some of the reasons why not, from the article:

    "1. There may no longer be enough of them. ('them' refers to the religious right)
    In this section he closes with the reassurance that "polls show that even a majority of younger evangelicals themselves support marriage equality." Feel better now, twt?

    3.Catholics, who make up the largest religious group in the country, can no longer be relied upon in any big way."
    etc.

    After giving his five reasons why the religious right is becoming increasingly desperate and marginalized, he balances this with necessary caution, writing "When they start talking about "revolution" and "revolt," we all had better pay attention. The last thing we should be doing is sitting around thinking we've won."

    No argument there; crazies and extremists are ALWAYS a matter of concern. But unlike Larry's crude insinuation and twt's irrational fear, this writer doesn't seem to think that those crazies and extremists are tens of millions of Americans who call themselves Christian and own guns.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/five-reasons-why-the-chri_b_2117565.html

    ReplyDelete