Religious right group exploits tragedy for political gain

On Sunday, in a gruesome tragedy, 24-year-old Matthew Murray killed two people at a Christian missionary center in Arvada, Colo., and then killed two others a Colorado Springs megachurch later that day. Murray apparently intended to kill others before a church security guard shot and killed him Sunday afternoon.

Tony Perkins, head of the far-right Family Research Council, decided yesterday to use the shootings to bash (and blame) the “secular media.” (thanks to reader D.N. for the tip)

Under a headline that read, “An Assault on Faith,” Perkins told supporters in a weekly email newsletter:

“It is hard not to draw a line between the hostility that is being fomented in our culture from some in the secular media toward Christians and evangelicals in particular and the acts of violence that took place in Colorado yesterday.”

I’m not sure what’s more twisted — Perkins seeking to exploit a tragedy to advance his religio-political agenda, or his bizarre belief that the “secular media” is responsible for fomenting hostility towards evangelicals.

In both instances, Perkins, a prominent religious right leader, has the story backwards. Murray, who was obviously suffering from severe mental illnesses, wasn’t immersed in the “secular media,” he was home-schooled in “a deeply religious Christian household.”

Also, it’s frustrating to see how predictable far-right activists have become. It seems whenever there’s a tragedy involving a young person with a gun, right-wing voices step up to blame the American culture.

For example, in 1999, as the nation was still coming to grips with the tragedy at Columbine High School, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) took to the floor to identify what he saw as the real culprit: science classes.

“Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup,” DeLay said. Young people learn modern biology, DeLay said, which in turn makes them feel insignificant, which in turn leads to violence.

Earlier this year, after the shootings at Virginia Tech, Ken Ham, a leading creationist activist, offered a similar tirade less than 24 hours after the slayings.

“We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals — and humans — arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking. In fact, the more a culture allows the killing of the unborn, the more we will see people treating life in general as ‘cheap.'”

And now, within 24 hours of the shootings in Colorado, there’s Tony Perkins blaming “the secular media” for the tragedy.

Can’t these clowns have the decency to wait more than a day before trying to exploit murders for political gain? Please?

A friend of mine asked last night what a church was doing with armed security guards. I think that’s a good question.

BTW – New Life Church, where this happened, is Ted Haggard’s church. Coincidence that it seems to attract psychopaths?

  • but, but tony perkins is a godly man, a christian man, a man of values.

    not to worry, tweety will have him back on hardball within weeks..

  • I read that the shooter had actually been enrolled in the seminary there and had been thrown out a couple of years ago. He was one of them.

    Perhaps the Mall shooter last week was influenced by the war against Christmas shopping.

    Tragedy and its leeches.

  • This reminds of Newt Gingrich’s attempts to pin the blame for the Susan Smith tragedy on Democrats. Susan Smith was a mentally disturbed South Carolina mother who intentionally drowned her two young children back in the late 1990s.

    It later came to light that Ms. Smith, while in her teens, had been sexually molested by her stepfather, a Republican activist and big Gingrich supporter. It seems reasonable to assume that her mental illness was either caused or significantly exacerabated by that sexual abuse.

    But Gingrich, despite these facts, and on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, offered the Smith tragedy as an example of the type of thing that happens in our country when Democrats are in charge.

    Here’s a link about the matter: http://www.alternet.org/story/8695/

  • Dale– an excellent point, and one I saw highlighted today… apparently he had been thrown out, and had started sending them hate mail.

    Therefore, the appropriate conclusion to draw here is that fundamentalism of all stripes leads to extremism. The extremist Christian elements are just as dangerous as the extremist Muslim elements…

  • Ooooooooooohhhhhh…I get it.

    You see, Murray lives amongst such a godless culture, filled with a media that evolutionizes to think we’re all just sexy sexy monkeys, his parent’s wouldn’t have seen fit to home-school him. If he hadn’t been home-schooled, he would’ve gotten a proper education, and he probably never would’ve tried to join his church’s seminary. If he never tried to join his church’s seminary, he never would’ve been kicked out, and if he had never been kicked out, he never would’ve gone on a shooting spree.

    So, it has nothing to do with the teachings of his church, or his upbringing, because all of that would’ve had FAR less of an impact if modern culture and media didn’t make us all so gosh darned horny. It IS the media’s fault!

    And Clinton’s…somehow…probably…

  • But it’s even more fun to watch the MOONBATS ridicule the guard who put the murderer out of action.

    If god steadied her hand why didn’t she shoot to disarm?
    Didn’t she break a commandment about killing?
    How could God let her kill a sick person?

    Your fellow MOONBATS have to really twist this one.

  • The gunman apparently posted an anti-xtian diatribe on the web.

    Colo. Gunman May Have Warned of Attacks

    Notably:

    “You Christians brought this on yourselves,” Murray wrote, according to the station, which did not identify the site. “All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.”

    The damage inflicted by fundamentalists of any religion can sometimes provoke extreme reactions in those who manage to find their way out.

  • In both instances, Perkins, a prominent religious right leader, has the story backwards.

    Hey, I don’t see “Thou shalt not lie through your capped and whitened-for-TV teeth if it helps promote your political agenda” anywhere in the 10 Commandments. Must be ok for good Christians to do. (Yeah, there is the “false witness” bit, but that is only against your neighbor. Tony doesn’t live next to anyone in the secular media.)

    Because we all know that the common denominator in gun crimes can’t be the guns.

  • I’m not surprised Perky’s trying to shove this off on the evil liberuls. It all fits with the pattern of being unwilling and unable to look at one’s own failings and has become the equivalent of “The devil made me do it!” Responsibility? Vas ist das?

    To be fair, he isn’t the only one to jump on Murphy’s statement that he hated Christians and assume it was the nasty secularists. Maybe he’ll issue a correction?

    Bwahahaha!

  • Tony’s getting lazy. He failed to mention liberals, Democrats, Hollywood, and (thanks slappy) most of all the Clintons for their culpability in this tragedy. Besides, turning the other cheek, forgiving those who trespass against you and loving your neighbor as yourself are soooooo 33AD. To speak of what it is Tony Perkins and others are doing over the bodies of the dead and wounded requires a new term: demogoding.

  • Tom Cleaver: “Coincidence that it seems to attract psychopaths?”

    Are you saying that Ted Haggard is a psychopath for being a closeted homosexual?

  • “Are you saying that Ted Haggard is a psychopath for being a closeted homosexual?”

    Are you saying he’s not?

  • Yeah, cause I mean, the only other common denominator in gun crimes is the people wielding the gun, and people cannot in any shape form or fashion be held accountable for their actions. This is a terrible occurrence, compounded by the shooting earlier in the week, but this and the other tragedies are not the springboards for gun control. If terrorists succeed again in a major attack against the US mainland, should we start discussing giving up our civil liberties in order to be protected? I have been frequenting this site for a while now and I know the answer to that already. So if you would answer “no” to that, bite your tongue at the thought of complete gun control.

    I’m sorry if I am coming off rude, I really do not mean to impart any hostility towards you. I have read a lot of your posts and you are pretty insightful at times, but alas this is one of those issues where we seem to disagree. My continued antipathy towards gun control stems from, most lately, my fear of the government and more specifically of the bush administration. While it seems counterintuitive to distrust republicans on the issue of gun control/ownership, I do because the republicans are really most concerned about pure powder and control and they will not truly achieve this while the populace has the means to defend themselves and the Constitution. 220 years ago our founding fathers predicted this increasing power grab by the executive branch and enumerated in the bill of rights our power to defend against this.

  • DB:

    The rule of law and a truly free press protect against dictators far better than guns. It’s a battle of brains, not brawn. When criminals like Bush and Cheney take power, they depend on a spineless opposition to keep it. When they break the law repeatedly, enrich themselves and their friends at your expense and minutely regulate every aspect of your life (but not theirs) they count on an ill-informed and disinterested population letting them get away with it. They’ll let you keep your guns because you’ll never get to use them. Your liberty will be gone without you ever firing a shot.

  • “Can’t these clowns have the decency to wait more than a day before trying to exploit murders for political gain? Please?”

    Evil clowns have no decency, and these clowns are truely evil.

    And Jeff Fariasshole – how about a link, you wingnut jerk?

  • I have been frequenting this site for a while now and I know the answer to that already. So if you would answer “no” to that, bite your tongue at the thought of complete gun control.

    An interesting and valid way of putting it, but I don’t see anyone arguing for complete gun control here.

  • Shorter DB: We should all own guns, because widespread gun ownership tends to prevent power-mad Republicans like Bush and Cheney from turning our so-called democracy into a totalitarian regime.

    I find this idea interesting, although I’m not sure it makes sense.

    If the power-mad Republicans are in fact laying the groundwork for a conversion to a totalitarian regime, wouldn’t they now be advocating gun control so as to make that conversion easier for themselves?

    If the power-mad Republicans do make overt moves to achieve a totalitarian regime, will our nation’s gun owners – most of whom are, I would think, Republicans – pull out their guns and take on their party leaders? (I’ve been reading a lot lately about the imminent breakup of the Republican coalition, but it’s never occurred to me until now that they might actually start killing each other.)

  • In a world where our political leaders sanction torture and cluster bombs and bunker busters and then tell us how holy they are, is it any wonder that the disaffected or insane youth find no problem with wanton murder?

    Moral leadership is to be found in deeds of love and caring, not words.

    Not to mention that army weapons and even regular guns are just too readily available to the insane and disaffected. Something needs to be done ….soon.

  • Apparently, some kid with a thought-disorder and access to guns noticed that when a fundie religion points at something and says, “Hate-It-Hate-It-Hate-It!” the kid realized that, although there was one finger pointing at the object of the fundie religion’s hate, there were three fingers pointing back at the fundie religion. Maybe they can give Haggard’s old hangout a more fitting name now:

    Broken Life Church.

    Has anyone explored the possibility that this kid might have experienced a traumatizing experience at the hands of ol’ “Hands-On Haggard” himself? After all, the time-line matches up pretty well—and it would make more sense than the “secular media” being the instigating culprit. Now if it were an extremely non-secular media, then we might be knee-deep in freshly-smitten Philistines by now—including, I’m sure, a great many of these so-called Xians….

  • DB @ 15

    I understand the impulse – keep a gun to protect against the jackbooted thugs (Blackwater, anyone?) trying to take over the country.

    But I think there are several flaws to your reasoning, and I say this as a gun owner.

    1) We do not at present have strict gun control, and there are literally millions of privately held guns, which under your theory are to prevent our liberties from being stolen by a tyrannical government. Yet Bush/Cheney et al are doing just fine. All of our guns haven’t helped us one bit.

    2) When the Constitution was written, 100 motivated citizens with guns and a knowledge of their town likely could have kept an army regiment at bay. Now, however, you have to take gun ownership to extremes for the underlying theory to be relevant. When the government can roll up in tanks, should private citizens get to own RPGs? When the government can drop a smart bomb on a building, should we privately own anti-aircraft missiles?

    3) One cannot escape the objective fact that the US has an insane number of gun crimes (and accidental/suicidal gun deaths) per capita compared to similarly advanced countries. So if unregulated guns aren’t the problem, are our citizens just inherently worse than, say, Canadians, Swedes, Aussies, and Japanese? And if they are, should they be armed in the first place? The much more likely answer is that the difference is the raw numbers of loosely regulated guns. It just isn’t working, and particularly when the upside is so limited (see # 2 above)

    Nonetheless, no one credible is seeking “complete” gun control. But limits on the number of guns purchased, regulation on the sellers (i.e. no traveling shows), clip size, child-safe trigger locks, tort liability for careless owners, sellers and manufacturers, significant training and handling requirements for ownership license, much more serious background checks, waiting periods (waivable, perhaps, if there is a specific threat), etc. are all reasonable yet allow private ownership of guns to continue.

  • Well, this is a very interesting and delicate situation.

    Dalloway makes the very correct point that this is a battle of brains and not brawn. The only reason bushcheney have the power that they do is they stepped out, siezed it, and basically nobody stopped them. Then goes on to say that they let us keep our guns because we will never use them, which segues a little bit into what geometric logic is talking about, wouldn’t it be easier for republicans to have their total power if we were disarmed? I’ll get back to brains over brawn in a minute.

    Well, everyone here knows of the now pretty much defunct effort to create a permanent republican majority. To keep their constituencies happy, the repubs advocate gun rights because that turns into votes that keep them in power. This is one of their means to an end. It could easily happen that if the repubs were to become a permanent majority, to further secure that position, the next steps would be disarmament so the population couldn’t mount any kind of physical resistance when the country further transforms into a police state.

    Which leads me back to what Dalloway was saying, that our liberties will be gone without a shot being fired. This should not be read as a cynical response to my post, it should be taken as a warning by all. We should not fall into the mental trap the government has set for us. This trap is the “brains over brawn” mentality. If you truly believe in brains over brawn, look at anything the US government does (diplomacy, enacting laws and regulations, etc) and tell me that what they do with their “brains” is not 100% backed-up by the mighty “brawn” of the government. Even the everyday laws you have to follow like not speeding and running stop signs, though in place for safety and common sense reasons, are wholly enforced by the threat of Law Enforcement action and fines and even imprisonment.

    Does this make it ok? No. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but this seems to be the way the world works, US no exception. Does this mean that we should take to the streets, have an armed resistance for every demand that is made? No, petitions and voting work just fine, when you have the force of the population behind it. Not in violence but in spirit. On that note though, anyone who says that violence or resistance is off the table is no better than Nancy Pelosi saying impeachment is off the table. Armed revolution is not what I’m advocating, but I am saying that we should never discount armed revolution as a possibility. Without the threat of impeachment, why does bush have any reason to comply with congress? Without the option of revolution or resistance, why does the government need to listen to the will or needs of the people. Our government, just as it effects its will and authority through the use or threat of force, so do we surrender ourselves to be governed fairly by the authority of the US Govt, under the threat that we may choose to not be governed by them. How do we reinforce this threat? 2nd amendment baby. Both sides have an understanding with each other, and to change that balance of power, just like that between the branches of the govt, will result in a collapse of the system. The govt doesn’t want that, we don’t want that, but if its a choice between that temporary anarchy and a tyrannical regime, I don’t think I want the latter.

    Its a delicate, complicated situation at best. But for those of you who actually read through this post and weren’t turned off by the rambling in the last paragraph, pause for a moment and reflect on just how abstract government and the power it holds is. They have power because americans have ceded the govt their powers. For all the military strength of the US, do you think that if everyone, and I mean everyone stood up and said no more and said they were willing to do something about it, even dying; do you think the government could win? They are not that powerful, their power is abstract and therefore they rule through the use of brains, not brawn because this has served to be a more useful and effecient means to their end: the preservation of their power.

  • DB, points out why just insisting the right to own a gun under the 2d Am is at best lazy and at worst misses the whole point. Let’s say everyone on my block owns guns and one day we need to repel someone, the cops, a SWAT team, really mean Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    The fact that we all have guns isn’t going to do us much good because we’ll all be fighting individually. We really need a plan and that means practicing and that’s where the oft ignored “Well regulated Militia” part comes in.

    If I were going to get a little tin-foil-hattish I’d wonder if that’s one reason why the ReThugs hammer on “OMG, 2nd Amendment! They’re going to take your guns!” I wonder how they’d feel about neighbourhood militias? 😉

  • Zeitgeist

    This is why I said I respect your posts and analyses.

    As for point one, this is one of those areas that the whole gun ownership argument gets muddled down in. If, as you say I say, guns are for protection of are civil liberties then they haven’t been doing the job. If I have said that, I really didn’t mean to conflate just our civil liberties with that of our essential freedom. This shouldn’t really be a gun control argument at all because any responsible person knows you don’t whip out a gun to resolve any kind of (non life threatening) situation. When I speak of guns in the sense of protecting our freedoms, I speak in the sense of it being a last resort. Just like Concealed Carry Permit holders know that the law tells them to resolve their situations non-violently if at all possible, your weapon being your last resort. It certainly is not the time to be taking to the streets while it is still possible to effect changes in government through voting and petition. In fact, if we were to do so, it would undermine the credibility of the democracy and our constitution. It is only when the constitution has been so destroyed that any amount of working the ballots won’t save it that we should start opening up the gun safes.

    Point 2, That may have been so 200 years ago, but I think it is still true today. How many insurgents really held the Marines at bay in Fallujah? I don’t think that the Marines were outnumbered by any means. I can’t speak much for the Iraqis, but I don’t Americans would put up with that kind of crap, even from other Americans. Our country was founded on resistance and it runs through all our blood. Even the non natives, if they embrace America’s history and founding father’s teachings, will have some spirit of resistance running throught their veins.

    Point 3, I agree. We also have a large number of automobiles and without doing some quick research, I would have to guess we have an insane amount of vehicular accidents and death, comparatively to other nations. In the interest of brevity and having this posted quickly, I’ll let others prove me wrong (shouldn’t be impossible to do at all, if life has taught me anything)

    And on your last point, you are technically correct in that no one “credible” is looking for complete gun control, but there are a whole lot of people who do. We need to have some kind of regulation, and we do, in fact a whole hell of a lot of it. The problem is, the laws that we have are not being enforced. Just like immigration, we have laws on the books, just nobody is enforcing them. Legislators stand up and say we need more immigration laws, only to not enforce those they pass. Now immigration is a different argument and problem, but passing more laws that nobody cares to fully enforce only leads to more laws being passed to address the problem. This is what is referred to as the slippery slope. Most people are not aware that England, until about WWII had a very similar right to bear arms. For many years restrictions were added on until it became prohibitively difficult to own a firearm (must be part of a club, weapons stored at police station, purchase is dependent on LEO approval). If you look into the history of this, there are multiple parallels between what happened to them and what is happening to us. Believe me, I’m not pacing my front yard in camoflauge and an assault rifle in hand. But a good number of people see this slippery slope as well and that is why most are against increasing gun regulation.

  • Ok, I do want to add a quick little post here.

    Now that we’ve been debating gun control and policy for a while now, I feel I owe an apology to the victims of last weeks tragedies for spinning this discussion away from that topic. I’m sorry and I do not mean to capitalize on this debate from y’alls unfortunate circumstances. I also realize that you are not reading this, but somehow that doesn’t seem to matter.

    I also offer my apologies for berating one reader for using this as a springboard to make a gun control statement when I have done the same thing, only in multiple long posts. Sorry.

    Is a person a hypocrite if they acknowledge their inconsistencies? Probably, maybe just less so.

  • “Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup,” DeLay said.

    I think I’m pretty amazing for something that evolved out of the primordial soup, but I look at it as elevating and glorifying the process of evolution, not arguing against the truth of evloution or in favor of 7-day Creationism.

    Why not call Genesis and untrue story and call evolution a miracle of God, since we have proof evolution takes place and took place? If I have to pick out which one is fake, I pick the fantastic story which we know nothing about except for that is was originated by someone at least a few thousand years ago.

  • >A friend of mine asked last night what a church was doing with armed security guards. I think that’s a good question.

    All churches in the area had been warned about the shooting in Arvada 12 hours earlier.

  • So let me get this straight: A homeschooled fundie kid washes out of a young people’s missionary program, gets all disgruntled and goes back for some payback. And that’s the fault of non-religious folks? WTF?!?

    I wonder if he boned up on his shooting skills playing that Left Behind shooter game.

    When I first saw this report, right after it happened, and saw this guy’s back story, I figured by today the fundies would be all over it blaming the godless. Sure enough. These people are predictable as clockwork.

  • Perkins is a former Green Beret so he probably knows something about killing. Was it the secular media that ordered him to kill people while a Beret? Did he feel justified by God to do what is required of a Beret because we are a ‘Christian Nation’? I’m a peaceful and peace loving man but scum like him bring feelings up that are usually reserved for emergency situations. I just have to keep reminding myself that God will give Perkins his just reward when He decides it’s his time. The first thing Perkins will probably do is find Hitler and thank him for his attempt to exterminate gay men and enslaving lesbian’s into a life of bearing children. You know, family values.

  • Isn’t this the ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ crowd? So I guess it’s now the ‘guns don’t kill people, the secular media kills people’ crowd.

  • One more thing:

    I understand why they have armed guards. People in the evangelical church will treat you like SHIT if you don’t walk in lock step with them. I know this from experience. I left the church because I was tired of being treated with contempt because I was a free thinker. Well, as free a thinker as any brainwashed fundie churchgoer can be. I spent ten years in the evangelical movement and since leaving have yet to be treated as badly as I was while in that movement. When I say it was bad, I mean really bad. The college minister has such distaste for me because I challenged his, what I thought, extremist and radical ideas (which are actually now the mainstream with the likes of Dobson and Perkins) that he tried to build a case against me for child abuse. And I didn’t even have kids. Of course it didn’t go anywhere because it was bullshit. When that didn’t work he proceeded to smear me throughout the affiliated churches, the Christian College I was attending and tried to get me excommunicated from the church and kicked out school. I fought him and prevailed and then left the church for good. Best decision I ever made.

  • It’s amazing how it’s always the secularists, or the atheists, or the evolution being taught in school that’s to blame when some young person blows a fuse and does this sort of thing. It’s especially amazing considering how the shooter was raised in a “very, very devout Christian home” and was “home-schooled”. Apparently he was pissed off that he’d been kicked out of the youth program. Where do the evil atheist secular media folks come in? It couldn’t possibly be that this was a young man with serious problems that were ignored, suppressed, or just simply unnoticed by his so-compassionate and caring Christian brethren, could it? No, of course not. Better blame the media, and those secularists – quick, before someone notices all the nasty stuff in the church closet and starts dragging it out.

  • Comments are closed.