RSS

Atheists Exploit Maria Kislo for Their Anti-Religious Crusade

With unbridled and overwhelming lasciviousness that quickly exploded into an atheist necro-orgy, Godless militants rejoiced in the tragic October 25, 2013 news of the suicide of Maria Kislo, a 12 year old  Christian girl from Poland not solely because it means the world is left with one less theist, which is enough to make many of these zealots climax, but also her suicide was allegedly prompted by her longing for reunion, in Heaven, with her father, who passed away in 2009. Do not be fooled by their crocodilian tears, these atheists care not about Maria’s death but only in exploiting it to satisfy their anti-religious yearnings, fetishes and jihad.

These atheists self righteously rant ad nauseum that only what is scientifically supported is to be trusted, believed and accepted as true. Accordingly, there is no scientifically valid reason for atheists to oppose, prevent or mourn suicide. If we are to believe what the atheists tell us is scientifically true, after all, there is only the amoral natural world ruled by a blindly indifferent survival of the fittest. If this is scientifically true, we should welcome and celebrate suicide as a means to rid the world of the weak and riff raff, thereby strengthening the human species. As Godless militant James Randi says, those who self-murder are obviously not fit enough to survive, so they deserve death, they would simply “mature into grown-up idiots, and Darwin would be appalled that his lessons were ignored;” their continued existence dilutes the gene pool, but their death contributes to its purification and thus to the strengthening of the human species. Because such crudeness emanates from the atheist camp with virtually no rebuke from atheists, thus suggesting it is normal and acceptable, it is reasonable, and probably correct, to believe this is how they truly feel about Maria’s death.

Militant atheists, however, regularly betray the scientific standard they proselytize and by which they claim to abide, especially in gratifying their atheistic sense of superiority and anti-religious lusts and zealotry; in these cases, evidence and facts do not matter, anything and anyone can be exploited and the end justifies the means. To this end, to these Godless, sadistic sociopaths, Maria’s death is nothing more than a manipulatable and exploitable opportunity. These fiends, then, bolstered by reports of her alleged faith-inspired suicide, gang rape this child, her suffering, death and soul, howling with orgasmic delight, as they splatter blood-soaked hogwash unequivocally affirming religion not only caused Maria’s death but that it worsens depression, grief and generally “poisons everything.” Every one of their assertions, however, are proven false scientifically and theologically. There is no basis upon which to suggest or conclude Maria’s suicide would have been averted had she not been religious or not believed in Heaven. To believe otherwise is gross ignorance, to claim otherwise is mere propaganda.

Scientifically, a proportional relationship between religiosity and mental health has been proven; as religiosity increases so does mental health, and as the former decreases so does the latter, and this is true worldwide, not only in the US. (see my other posts here, here, and here). Unsurprisingly, then, depression and suicide rates are significantly higher among the irreligious than the religious.  This evidence highlights atheism’s dangers, raising uneasy questions about its potential mental health hazards and the emotional/psychological status of atheists for it proves atheism, not religion, is deleterious to mental health. Despite it being a great tragedy, any direct or indirect link that may exist between Maria’s suicide and her faith, indeed the failure of the latter to prevent the former, is an exception to the rule.

Theologically, most religions, especially the Abrahamic traditions, either prohibit suicide or portray it negatively. Christianity, for example, is a life-affirming faith with outright condemnation of self murder. As St. Augustine states, “God’s command ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ is to be taken as forbidding self-destruction, especially as it does not add ‘thy neighbor’, as it does when it forbids false witness…” (Augustine, book I, chapter 20). Simply put, suicide is a sin. Normally, a sinner who, in life, assuredly repents for his sins and accepts Christ may be forgiven by God and enter Heaven (1 John 1:7). This repentance is obviously impossible for those who self-murder. Accordingly, their ascension into Heaven, over which God has final judgement, is not guaranteed. All I will say here on the matter is that it comes down to what is truly in your heart; if you really repent and accept Christ, you may enter Heaven, but if you are merely paying lip service, then you will certainly be excluded. Ultimately, this will be God’s judgement, and He knows what is truly in your heart (Luke 16:15). However, suicide, in and of itself, will not exclude a true believer from Heaven. Nonetheless, suicide is not what God wants for it cuts short the good works He wants us to fulfill (Ephesians 2:10), and indeed He gives us hope and reason to struggle through our darkest times, from which we will emerge stronger and be able to help others in a similar position (Romans 5:2-5). This was not understood by Maria, if she truly, directly or indirectly, based her decision on her religion.

If this was the case, it is, at most, a warning against misunderstanding, misinterpreting and misapplying religion, and not an argument against religion, itself. It is evidence that we need more, but properly appreciated, religion, not less or none, especially since science shows a positive relationship between mental health and religiosity. All that may be most certainly concluded, then, is although the religious are not immune to it, self-murder is generally mitigated against by religion and cannot be justified on religious grounds, particularly as it concerns Christianity.

We cannot definitively say, however, that if Maria based her decision on her understanding of Christianity then she would not have committed suicide had she properly understood and applied her faith; neither can it be said the suffering and longing she endured, as revealed in her suicide note, was made worse by her faith. While militant atheists, for obvious ideological reasons, focus on the “Heaven” aspect of Maria’s suicide note as proof that her religion made things worse and caused her suicide, they ignore or lessen her desire for reunion with her father, who passed away about 4 years earlier. Had her religious beliefs inspired Maria’s suicide, she probably would have done it earlier to be with her father sooner. Actually, if we go by the scientific evidence, it is plausible to believe religion’s absence probably would have made her pain worse and self-murder sooner; perhaps she struggled between the hopeful, life-affirming, anti-suicide message of her faith and her increasingly devastating pain and suffering, and this is what kept her going until the latter became too much and she committed suicide.

Regardless, that her suicide took place so long after his passing suggests Maria was emotionally and/or mentally damaged not by religion but by her loss, which she was unable to accept, with which she was unable to cope, which caused her to suffer extreme, perpetual, evermore depressing bereavement and grief and which finally prompted her suicide. According to her family, Maria displayed no signs of such internal turmoil; such signs are indeed not always evident, especially if you do not know for which to look and/or if they remain hidden within the individual. There is no indication her family would not have sought the proper medical help for her had they known anything was wrong. Perhaps had she properly understood and lived her religion and/or obtained the appropriate medical treatment, especially one that incorporated her faith, Maria would not have self-murdered. Under these same conditions but minus the religious dynamic, had Maria been atheist or agnostic, there is no plausible reason to suggest or believe that the outcome would not have been the same. Her religious beliefs were incidental to her pain, suffering and suicide, and contrary claims are just empty, agenda-oriented assertions made by callous, opportunistic militant atheists.

While I am no medical professional, it is likely this child suffered prolonged grief disorder (PGD), an extreme, often debilitating, form of grief, which, if left untreated, can have any number of dire consequences, including suicide. In the US, PGD annually affects over a million people, or about 15% of those suffering bereavement. With the currently available evidence, though, all that can be adequately surmised is that extreme, depressing bereavement and grief, possibly PGD, induced by her father’s death, caused Maria’s suicide. If any positivity is to be gleaned from this tragedy, it must begin with more awareness being raised about this kind of tribulation, especially when it is suffered by those most vulnerable.

If atheists really care about Maria’s fate, they would, at the very least, involve themselves in raising this awareness, leaving their anti religious zealotry aside; ideally, they would accept the science proving not only the benefits of religion on mental health but also of treatment programs that  incorporate one’s faith. Instead, these militants are only interested in her tragedy in order to manipulate and exploit it for anti religious purposes. If suicide was really an issue for which these atheists cared, they would not limit their concern to supposedly religion-inspired self-murder; they would be burdened by suicide generally, and especially by its prevalence among those who share their own beliefs. However, when it cannot serve their agenda, these zealots meet news of suicide with an indifferent sigh, silence, a heartless “meh” or a Darwin award, as they would have done with Maria’s death had it not been ideologically viable. Indeed, without the religious reference, her death likely would not have made the news, especially outside Poland. It is the rarity and the controversy that can be spun from this tragedy which makes it international news.

You atheist monsters, cannibals, necro-rapists, blood lust fiends only care to exploit Maria’s suffering and death to further your irrational, dishonest, pseudo intellectual, non scientific campaign against religion and anyone else not holding to your anti religious prejudice and zealotry. The only thing proven by your faux outrage and crocodilian tears is that you are callous, heartless, lying, manipulative and hypocritical opportunists pleasuring your lecherous, fanatical anti-religious crusade.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Atheism and Worldwide Suicide

The suicide rate is a key indicator of not only a people’s health, but of their standards of morality and compassion, and how they value life. Research conducted in the US finds that depression and suicide (both attempted and completed), are significantly higher among the religiously unaffiliated than betwixt those with religious affiliation (see my previous posts here and here). However, are such findings consistent internationally? Yes. Sociologist Phil Zuckerman confirms the inverse relationship between religion and suicide repeats internationally, where suicide declines with greater religiosity. Concentrating on male suicide rates, Zuckerman finds that 9 of the top 10 countries with the highest suicide rate are highly irreligious, Sri Lanka being the exception.

It is now indesputable that religion is the basis of a happy, strong, rational, mentally well adjusted inidvidual. A 2006 Sao Paulo University meta-review of 850 studies on religion and mental health, for example, concluded “that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse.”

In fact religion’s positive contribution to mental health is so powerful it extends beyond the religious. In a study of 90,000 individuals over 26 countries in Europe in 2009,Professors Andrew E. Clark and  and Orsolya Lelkes found that “religious behaviour” is not only positively correlated with “life satisfaction” among religiously affiliated individuals by whom it is practiced but also often of the irreligious people around them. In other words, there is a “spinoff” effect whereby the positive mental health outcomes spawned by the religious practices of religiously-affiliated individuals frequently extends to non-religious individuals. This, however, is only true in regions of high religiosity. In regions of high irreligiosity or atheism, the opposite tends to occur, with the psychological misery of the non-religious often infecting the religious.

This is no surprise because not only does religion form the basis of an individual’s mental health but it also provides the individual with the ability to help those around him through valuing their lives and reinforcing their inherent worth through comfort and compassion.  As it states in 2 Corinthians 1:3-7 God is “the Father of compassion and…of all comfort.” We who accept God are comforted by Him “in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves received from God.”

This is not to state that atheism causes suicide and other mental health problems as there is insufficient evidence at this point to make such a definitive conclusion.  Atheism, however, provides life with no meaning, morality or value; it does not give life any sanctity, purpose, significance or inherent worth; it offers no rationale why life should be lived or propagated, and no reason to oppose suicide; it is, in its most extreme forms, nihilistic and, to quote Bertrand Russell, “the firm foundation of unyielding dispair.”

Life’s inherent and objective meaning, morality, purpose, value, substance and worth have been and shall remain gifts given to us by God, communicated to us through religion. To reject religion is to reject God and vice versa, and to do so means you are left to your own devices, and to ultimate failure. As it loses its religion, a nation becomes deprived of any objective moral and intellectual foundation for opposing not only suicide but any method of taking life, including murder;  indeed it loses any objective reason for opposing anything once thought of as morally reprehensible, as it descends into unending despair and “blind indifference.”

Suicide, here, becomes just another routine, ho-hum aspect of daily life; more than this, it becomes an essential part of the “survival of the fittest,” and thus something that must be allowed to play itself out, unhindered by unnatural barriers or irrational human emotions, because, as militant atheist James Randi proclaims, suicide is simply a way to weed out the weak, strengthen the human gene pool and “clear the air.” Perhaps, then, suicide should even be facilitated and celebrated, and indeed, in the most suicide-friendly countries, which are also the most atheist or irreligious, it does often morph into the cultural/social and often state approved panacea for any and every personal, mental and physical illness, irregularity, issue or problem afflicting an individual, including newborns. This includes anorexia, bulimia, blindness, depression, disability, economic distress, muffed operations, like gender reassignment surgery, and simply being elderly. This liberal approach is often called “dying with dignity,” “end of life care,” “euthanasia,” “right to die” or some other humane-sounding euphemism; in reality, it is probably just survival of the fittest being facilitated at the expense of human compassion, medical care and valuing life.

For example, in Holland, a nation so Godless that even 1 in 6 pastors is atheist, a country so liberal and irreligious that atheists often hold it up as a prime example of the wonders their rejection of religion can bring, since it legalized euthanasia in 2002,  “medical care for the terminally-ill” has declined,”  as one of the architects of  this legalization, Dr. Els Borst, admits. Dr. Anne-Marie The has further found “palliative care…so inadequate in Holland that patients ‘often ask for euthanasia out of fear’ of dying in agony because care and pain relief is so poor.” Even more, “there have been thousands of cases of involuntary euthanasia and dozens of killings of disabled newborns.” Holland now has a movement promoting assisted suicide for those over 70, including for no other reason than they are “tired” or their lives have supposedly been “completed” and serve no further purpose. In Japan, as The New Yorker’s Larissa MacFarquhar writes, “suicide can absolve guilt and cancel debt, can restore honor and prove loyalty…Suicide can be a gesture of moral integrity and freedom, or an act of beauty.”

While I do not say atheism causes suicide and other mental health problems, it does help create a culture of death that cheapens, wastes, destroys and discards life; one in which suicide becomes culturally, financially, medically, naturally, politically and socially justified and preferred over compassion, effective cures, palliative care and any other means that resolves, betters or manages that which encourages or results in suicide. The opposite is true with religion, especially high religiosity.

 

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Atheism, Depression and Suicide

It is often claimed by militant atheists that religion is detrimental to the health of individuals, especially their mental well-being. These atheists are stupid, ignorant and/or dishonest. Truly, dishonesty is rife within the atheist community, particularly its militant factions, where it permeates even its highest intellectual order, which includes Godless superstars like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, PZ Myers, and so forth, who purposely neglect proof debunking their hypotheses and even manipulate evidence to advance their anti-religious position, agenda and prejudice; their books, papers and so-called documentaries make this abundantly clear.

As I pointed in an earlier post, scientific inquiry has now proven a positive relationship between religion and mental health. While study upon study proves irreligious individuals, like atheists, are more likely to suffer depression and self destructive behavior, including suicide, the opposite has been found true of those with religious affiliation. In fact, the more religious one is the better mental health is usually exhibited. Religion has been proven particularly effective against depression and suicide.

Perhaps the most notable clinical study to date directly investigating suicide among religiously-affiliated and irreligious individuals was published in 2004 by the American Journal of Psychiatry. The Study focused on the suicide rate of religiously-affiliated and irreligious depressed in-patients and found, compared to the former, the latter have “significantly more lifetime suicide attempts…more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder” and perceive “fewer reasons for living” and “fewer moral objections to suicide.” Religion, the study finds, provides a protective, mitigating factor against suicide, particularly because it encourages lower levels of aggression and “greater moral objections to suicide.”

The study concludes by suggesting further examination of how religious affiliation mitigates against “aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.” This is a rather striking conclusion as here is this prominent secular, scientific publication, the world’s most read and cited psychiatric journal, of a profession which is highly atheist, suggesting that religion not simply conventional treatment/medication may serve as at least part of a strategy for coping with mental issues which may otherwise lead to suicidal behavior.

A 2002 study by Sterling C. Hilton in the American Journal of Epidemiology may help answer these latter inquiries. In that study, Hilton focused on young male suicide in Utah, which, at that time, had the ninth highest self-murder rate in the United States. Utah has traditionally had the highest per capita concentration of Mormons in the US, thus many, particularly atheists, surmised a causal link between not only Mormonism, but also religion in general, and suicide. For this reason, Utah is even today sometimes used as evidence for the causal link between religion, depression and suicide. Those who do this, however, do so dishonestly, and simply to propagate their crusade against religion, for not only has there never been evidence in its favor, but it has effectively been debunked by Hilton’s research. The opposite, in fact, has been proven as suicide rates are lower among active participants of the Mormon faith than heir irreligious counterparts.

Hilton found a combination of religiosity, including belief “in a higher being, an afterlife…the sanctity of life” and that “life, in and of itself, is precious,” alongside a comprehensive social support system provided by the Church, were among the main factors leading to lower suicide rates. Hilton agrees that while this study focused on Utah Mormons, affiliation and participation with any religion has proven to yield similar results. Indeed studies continuously find religious involvement and/or affiliation predicts better mental health and stability. For example, a review of the research in this area by Duke Psychiatrist Harold Koenig in 2012, and an earlier one by Koenig, Almedia and Neto in 2006, which concluded “higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being…and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse.” Gallup as well found in 2012 that in the US, the “Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths.”

Thus, while Atheist extremists want to destroy religion claiming it does only harm and evil, the objective, scientific evidence proves the contrary; indeed religion saves lives by helping people live better, longer and stronger. It seems the medical establishment is slowly becoming aware of the importance of religion in healthcare for examinations of the potential clinical use of religion as part of mental health therapy are currently being undertaken. For example, by Koenig, Marylin Batez and John Toews.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Religion is NOT Mental Illness: The Positive Effects of Religion on Mental Health

(Sources used are listed at the bottom of the article; not all may be available online)

Militant atheists, like anti-theists, “new” atheists and state atheists assert that religion is, causes or worsens mental illness, and only by releasing oneself from its “shackles” can the potential for a rational, happy, emotionally and mentally healthy individual begin to be realized. Despite their popularity and resonance among the militant aspects of the irreligious community,  these claims are not only unfounded but continuously proven false by scientific inquiry, which finds the more religious one is the better mental health is exhibited. Religious involvement and/or affiliation is not only associated with but also predicts better mental health and stability, including lower rates of anxiety, delinquency, depression, substance abuse, suicide and suicide attempts, higher levels of rationality, satisfaction with life, self actualization, self esteem, well-being and more effective coping with pain (both physical and emotional), stress and suffering.

These findings, unlike contrary affirmations put forth by militants, which are based on nothing more than unquestioned, idle, prejudiced, pseudo scientific research and theories, fallacious reasoning, bigotry and/or prior ideological commitment, are based on the objective application of the modern scientific method by independent, world renowned experts on mental health who hold no standing bias for or against religion but rather are only interested in following the evidence where it leads. These include professionals from the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association,  Association of American Medical Colleges, Center for Psychology of Religion, Duke University Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health, Mayo Clinic, Religious Research Association and Southern Medical Association. This research is readily available in books, peer review journals and often online and thus there is no legitimate excuse for continuing to believe and propagate antithetical assertions.

Research as to why precisely this is the case and what this means for the future clinical diagnosing and treatment of mental illnesses has only recently been undertaken with any diligence and thus answers are scarce. However, psychologist Stephen Joseph, whose own research supports the positive relationship between religion and mental health, argues that it is in part due to religion providing a purpose and meaning in life which is not offered by other belief systems or lifestyles, like atheism and materialism. What we currently know is that a worldview, philosophy, way of life centered around religion is capable of performing an unmatched, powerful and transforming role in one’s life by providing one’s life with eternal and immutable purpose, meaning and virtue, a system of rewards and punishments and a hope and vision for ever better things, embodied and experienced through both acceptance of an eternal, loving God-head and affiliation, association and participation with fellow believers. Religion provides people with unrivaled empowerment and togetherness, with God and the community of fellow believers, allowing them to cope, withstand and overcome negative experiences, like pain and suffering, which may otherwise lead to mental health degradation.

Therefore, rather than being, causing or worsening mental illness, religion is  the foundation of good mental health. William James once rebutted an atheist’s remark that one’s religion is the result of a sick mind by stating that perhaps one’s atheism is the result of a sick liver. The point of course is that instead of accusing religious people of being mentally ill, atheists should evalute themselves for it is perhaps they who are suffering from such illness, delusion, madness, and, in fact, recent research has shown atheism to be linked with mental illness, specifically autism and asperger’s syndrome. This may explain the extreme, irrational, unreasonable, and often violent, hostility towards religion and religious believers exhibited by many atheists, including their most well-known, outspoken leaders, like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, PZ Myers, etc. Regardless, equating religious belief with mental illness is simply a baseless, fallacious and desperate attempt to demean and demonize that and those with which these militant atheists do not agree and vehemently detest. What is proven by these militants’ continued acceptance and championing of this debunked premise, despite not only the lack of sound, supporting, scientific proof, but in the presence of contrary scientific evidence, is their dishonesty and hypocrisy because these same individuals simultaneously lecture, ad nauseum, that we should not only believe what is “scientifically” supported and verified, and shape our lives accordingly, but berate and mock those who deviate from this norm.

Sources:

Boundless. Social Correlates of Religion: There are correlations between the degree of religious belief in society and social factors like mortality rates, wealth and happiness.

Daily Mail. Is atheism linked to autism? Controversial study points to  relationship between the two. 20 September 2011.

Dervic, Kanita, et al. “Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt,” The American Journal of Psychiatry, VOL. 161, No. 12.

French, Sarah and Joseph, Stephen. “Religiosity and its association with happiness, purpose in life, and self-actualisation,” Mental Health, Religion & Culture, Vol 2(2), Nov 1999, 117-120. doi: 10.1080/13674679908406340.

Gallups. “In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths.” February 16, 2012.

Hackney, C. H. and Sanders, G. S.  “Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta–Analysis of Recent Studies.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42: 43–55. doi: 10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160. 12 FEB 2003.

King, M. et al. “Religion, spirituality and mental health: results from a national study of English households.” British Journal of Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;202(1):68-73. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112003. Epub 2012 Nov 22

Koenig, Harold G. “Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications”  Psychiatry. Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 278730, 33 pages.

Koenig, Harold G., Michael E. McCullough & David B. Larson. Handbook of Religion and Health.  Oxford Univ. Press, 2012.

Moreira-Almeida A., et al. “Religiousness and mental health: a review.” Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria. 2006 Sep;28(3):242-50. Epub 2006 Aug 15.

Shastri, Keyur Vasantlal “Religious Involvement, Spirituality and Medicine : Subject Review and Implications for Clinical Practice”

Smith, Timothy B., et al. “Religiousness and depression: Evidence for a main effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events.” Psychological Bulletin, Vol 129(4), Jul 2003, 614-636.

University of Warwick. “Psychology Researcher Says Spiritual Meaning Of Christmas Brings More Happiness Than Materialism,” Science Blog. 8 December 2003.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
4 Comments

Posted by on November 8, 2013 in Mental Health/Illness

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Political Exploitation of the Arizona Shooting Tragedy by liberals and Other Leftists

Holier than thou Leftists, and I include liberals and Democrats in this general category, assure themselves and anyone that will listen that only they are blessed with a social conscious and care about the well being of “the people” while the other side (conservatives, Republicans, or, more generally, the Right), only care about “its” politically and economically elite base. Do not be fooled! For most, though certainly not all, Leftists, the goal is political ascension and its accompanying benefits (wealth and power), and anything they do and say is just a means to this end. This includes making their fellow man into nothing more than their personal stepping stone. Any sympathy and empathy most Leftists may claim to have for their fellow man is false, and any tears they may shed for him being those of crocodiles. This is a certainty crystallized in cataclysmic times, which the most astute on the Left are ever ready to exploit for their own agenda.

In fact, it seems many of these individuals have a sadistic, ruthless, anthropophagus hunger for catastrophes that present them a smorgasbord of human victims to satisfy their Machiavellian political hunger. One example is Democratic strategist Mark Penn who told Chris Matthews in November 2010 that President Obama needs an Oklahoma City bombing-style event to allow him to reconnect with voters and fight Republican political resurgence. Like cannibals steeping in and gorging on the blood and flesh of their prey, many Leftists dine upon the casualties of calamity to nourish their lust for political prominence. Hence, the apparently automatic reaction to Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona by many Leftists who, like Penn, see in tragedy the perfect platform from which to provoke opposition against their hated Right-wing, especially conservative, foes, paving the way for electoral victory. In a desperate attempt to rid themselves of the bitterness of their intellectual and political poverty and failure and feed their void for political relevance and power, these Leftists thus immediately began feasting on the barely fallen victims of Loughner’s fury, exploiting and politicizing their deaths by pinning the blame for it on the Right.

More specifically, Leftists have blamed the latter’s rhetoric and imagery, particularly that of prominent conservative talk show hosts, the Tea Party and specific conservatives, like Sarah Palin, defining it as divisive, hateful, extremist and inciting, and thus leading to real, violence against Leftists, especially Democrats, and therefore those who produce it are responsible for any violence against those whom it is directed. This is not only desperate palaver from perfunctory people but also question begging. On one hand, the benchmark by which this communication is defined as such is not set by any objective, universally realized consensus but rather by the Leftists making these allegations, subject to their political motivations, and therefore is not something on which we can base objective truth. These Leftists then, with few exceptions, only hold accountable and chastise their ideological and political opponents for employing this speech and imagery while their use by fellow Leftist comrades receives no such reprimand and may even be at least tacitly or silently endorsed by them. If these Leftists truly care to end such tragedies then they would universally and unequivocally rebuke the use of rhetoric and imagery they believe encourages and/or leads to them; that they do not do this proves their response to such events is a matter of political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the victims and their families and friends and desire to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. On the other hand, and most importantly, not one violent act has ever been successfully attributed, directly or indirectly, to the language or imagery used by anyone on the Right. This link, rather, is simply the fallacious and unproven allegation of those on the Left who then try passing it off as an objective, empirical truth to further their political agenda.

This agenda is rather straight forwards. These Leftists cannot progress their old, tired, failed and rejected political vision through intelligent, intellectual and rational means and thus desperately engage in cold, callous, calculating, cannibalistic, manipulative exploitation of tragedy, including the use of lies, fear mongering, blood libeling, well poisoning and character assassination, to foment and further irrational opposition against those holding contesting beliefs and ideologies. An opposition that, if we follow liberal logic, will only manufacture the same type of violent activity they claim to abhor, condemn and want to end. There are reports now that death threats against Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Perhaps we should blame liberals for their demonization, lies and quote mining of Palin, particularly after the Tucson shooting.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

Craig Scarberry, 29, of Indiana maintains he lost joint custody of his 3 children because of his agnosticism. As evidence, he cites statements alluding to his irreligious views written by presiding Judge George Pancol which state Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training as the mother…the father was agnostic…when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” Following Scarberry, liberals, atheists and agnostics have quote mined Pancol’s comments, spinning them for their political and what can be seen as nothing short of a fear mongering agenda, insisting not only this man lost custody due to his agnosticism but that this represents religion encroaching upon the fundamental rights and freedoms as established by the First Amendment. These people have used Pancol’s words, in a sense, as a call to arms for all irreligious to unite to fight this supposed encroachment before we become a full-blown theocracy. This is perfectly exemplified by the reaction of the The Young Turks.

Pancol’s statements, however, merely relay the fact of how the couple’s relationship operated cohesively when both shared the same religious perspective. Scarberry claims he and his lawyer have gone through the decision, concluding it was based on religious considerations. Of course his irreligious brethren agree. No where in Pancol’s comments does it state, or even imply, religious considerations are a part of the court’s ruling, and Pancol maintains his decision is based on the children’s best interests. Unless irrefutable contrary evidence surfaces, it is irrational and illogical to assume otherwise.

What those who are assume otherwise, and the irresponsible media which is refusing to clarify the matter, are ignoring is the evidence presented in court pointing to the more probable reason his joint custody has been revoked. As reported by the Herald Bulletin, this evidence, which was used by Judge Pancol in his decision, shows Scarberry to have anger management issues, used “profanity in front of the children” and harassed his ex wife with excessive amounts of text messages. Further, in April, 2010, his ex wife had gotten a restraining order against Scarberry for trying to beset and frighten her at her workplace “with abusive language and profanity” and random and unexpected stops by her home “at different hours of the day and night.” Scarberry claims that evidence has been presented in court which purport to refute these latter allegations; as far as I know, as of now, no evidence of such refutation is available to the public and thus I do not know if his claims are true.

Theoretically, though, even if religious considerations had played a part in this decision, it must be determined whether or not they were the sole or dominant criteria on which the decision is based. So long as they do not dominate the decision making process, religious considerations are allowed in custody cases where contesting parties have competing religious interests, and are a normal part of such cases. If Scarberry had been denied custody due to his agnosticism, the judge would have certainly further denied him the right to teach or expose his children to other religious or irreligious perspectives, as happened in MacLagan v. Klein in North Carolina in 1996. In that case, the father, Klein, a Jew, was awarded full religious authority over the couple’s daughter. The court reasoned that since the child had been raised Jewish from the time she was born, it would cause her harm if she was to be introduced into another religion, that being her mother’s Methodism. Scarberry, though, has no such limitations and is free to teach and expose his children to other religions or philosophies, like agnosticism.

Thus, there is more to the court’s decision than these atheists, agnostics, liberals and the media are admitting, considering, investigating or of which they are even aware; it seems these people are motivated by demagoguery and/or paranoid delusions of encroaching theocracy and thus are solely able to focus on the judge’s comments about Scarberry’s irreligious views, spinning them to fit these motivations by ignoring or rewriting the reality and wider context behind the court’s decision. They are further side stepping the reality of custody battles in America where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, it is normal for religious considerations to be a part of a court’s decision.

 
6 Comments

Posted by on December 7, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,