as we approach the week-mark of the charleston shootings, several discussions have been waged, many of them on the inevitable topics usually raised at times like this. the ready availability of guns and mental health care (or the lack of) always seem to go hand-in-hand. racism, which some try to keep reminding us does not exist anymore, should head the list since by the 'alleged' shooters own words at the time of the shooting and in the text of his since-recovered 'manifesto' it does seem to be his primary motivation; friends (well, most of them, except for the one....much like clive bundy's 'one black friend'...who claims to have never seen any indication of racism on roof's part) seem to back up this singular motivation.
however, there have been others speaking out trying, in their own special ways, to indicate the 'real reason' behind this grotesque act. they range from the statement by conservative-tea party favorite and delusionally-hopeful republican standard-bearer, rick perry, where he calls it 'an accident' caused by drugs* (shot 9 people while reloading multiple times an accident?) to those who are wont in these situations to step forward to declare this a 'false flag' or 'straw man' scenario, all about a governmental plot to swoop in and take away all legally-owned firearms as a lead-up to some nefarious take-over by (insert your own boogey-man here). one fox brainiac, a martha maccallum, even suggested our country's atmosphere of diversity might be a contributing factor. yes. we're too diverse with all these ethic cultures crammed together being forced to live side-by-side and expected to tolerate one another. why, just the thought of such a thing is liable to give a really decent human being. let alone a totally normal patriotic american, the heebie-jeebies. who wouldn't feel inclined to massacre a bunch of people at prayer?
however, it may have been lindsay graham who opened the biggest rabbit hole when he suggested on 'the view' the morning after the shootings occurred that it simply may have been the actions of someone simply looking for christians to kill. who the first was to raise the specter of the assault on religious liberty can be open to debate, but whoever started it was certainly only the first of many willing to jump on board that train carrying people so self-involved they feel they must co-opt the tragedies of others to be all about them. and, is anyone surprised that many of those voices came from the direction of fox news? contributor e.w. jackson (the same one who called the gay rights movement 'a cancer' and referred to obama as 'radical anti-american' and 'anti-christian') claimed it was an example of the rising 'tide of hostilities against christians in this country', with agreements expressed by the couch of fox bobbleheads, including liz hasselbeck who introduced jackson by calling the shooting 'an attack on faith'. during the subsequent discussion, they had to make a brief detour to the topic which traditionally begins 'if someone had been armed...', conveniently intersecting 'the war on christianity' road with 'the right to bear arms' avenue. and despite reminding viewers that not all the facts were in and nobody should be jumping to any conclusions, the discussion continued to leap-frog because, after all, it did happen in a church. not to be outdone, while on a talk show hosted by joe piscopo (i won't even comment on that one), another devout conservative, rick santorum, had to weigh in by claiming this obvious hate crime was an example of a larger agenda 'to take down christianity in america'.**
in a small way it's a surprise that the stalwarts who are usually so ready to call almost anything, from the fight for gay rights to the severe weather patterns and earthquakes an assault on religious liberty are conspicuously absent. sarah palin, the igloo empress, has yet to even issue a message of condolence. rather lax for someone who claims to be such a good christian. and pat robertson? maybe he's trying to figure out exactly how to spin this into a fund-raising drive without appearing too callous....well, not any more callous than he usually is when he advises a caller to send him money rather than pay for medical care. i mean, really? why pay for medical care when prayer is free?
leaving all the snark aside for a moment, things like this are hard to comprehend and it's hard to think that anyone could come up for a reason for their actions that anyone could hear and say 'okay. i understand. i'll buy that'. there is no understanding on something like this. and when i hear those family members telling him they forgive him, i ask myself what would i do? honestly? forgiveness, at least when it comes to something for which i can never grasp how i might feel in their place, would be nowhere on my list of things to do today. forgiveness would be not my responsibility. forgiveness would not be my job. i'd leave that to whatever god you think you'll meet in the here-after....if you believe in one. personally, the worst hell i can ever imagine would probably be too good for you.
i can only hope that the victims find comfort in their faith.
*it should be noted that he has tried to back-track on this one by claiming (or having his staff claim) he meant to say 'incident'. of course, it took him a day or so to realize his slip of the tongue. anyone want to give him the benefit of the doubt?
**it should be noted that even mike huckabee seemed to confine his statements to the fact that the outcome would have been different 'if only....', parroting those along the lines of other nra apostles.
#charlestonshootings #waronchristianity
No comments:
Post a Comment