« Words to remember by | HomePage | Can intelligence be taught? »

Tuesday, December 11, 20071197392400

Martyrdom in Colorado

"Speaking of hate crimes"...

The man who shot up a training center for missionaries and a church in suburban Denver, killing four people and wounding a number of others, has been identified:

A law enforcement official says the deadly rampages at a megachurch and a missionary training school were believed to have been carried out by the same person—Matthew Murray, a 24-year-old suburban Denver man who "hated Christians."


It is perhaps worth noting that the toll in Sunday's shootings exceeded the combined total in all "hate crimes" against Muslims in the six years since September 11.


The heroine who stopped the anti-Christian was from Sioux Falls.

Comments

Eh, my (undated) source lists 3 - 8 murders resulting from post-9/11 anti-Muslim hate crimes [1] and I found 3 more that the source doesn't mention. [2]

But the sort of tragedy that can result from hate and bigotry is heart-wrenching, no matter who the victims are.

1. http://www.hanania.com/hatevictims.html
2. http://www.alternet.org/story/17058/

Posted by: Adam | Tuesday, December 11, 2007

It's an interesting question whether Sikh victims are martyrs for Islam, or their faith, etc... still, the broader point, and one that is a good one, is that "hate crimes" are in the fashion-conscious eyes of the beholder.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Then again, some consider racial profiling itself as a hate crime. I'm sure that it is harder to live as an Arab, not necessarily a Muslim, than it is to live as a Christian in America.
I'm assuming no one will dispute that more Arabs and Muslims in America experience some forms discrimination or harm on levels that Christians in America don't come near to.

Posted by: J. Kauffman | Tuesday, December 11, 2007

"Then again, some consider racial profiling itself as a hate crime. "

Which would be a strange consideration.

Racial profiling, as the term is often used is a policing technique that tends to be effective but raises social policies concerns.

As I wrote earlier, the "best argument in favor of hate crimes legislations is that hate crimes laws are actually anti-terrorist laws." [1]

"I'm sure that it is harder to live as an Arab, not necessarily a Muslim, than it is to live as a Christian in America."

Well, perhaps.

On one side, "Arab Americans better educated than most in U.S.," [2] have higher incomes, etc.

Then again, there are draw-backs, as well. Millions of Christians who are black, but no Muslims who are Arabs, benefit from racial affirmative action laws.

"I'm assuming no one will dispute that more Arabs and Muslims in America experience some forms discrimination or harm on levels that Christians in America don't come near to."

On the face of it, obviously not. There's something like 50-70x more Christians than Arabs-Muslims, so harm would have to be vanishingly rare for more Arabs and Muslims in to be harmed in absolute numbers.


[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/05/05/hate-crimes.html
[2] http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2005/03/09/News/Arab-Americans.Better.Educated.Than.Most.In.U.s-1429247.shtml

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, December 11, 2007

"the toll in Sunday's shootings exceeded the combined total in all "hate crimes" against Muslims in the six years since September 11."

Can you source that or are you just repeating a lie?

Posted by: J Smith | Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Hmm, reminds me of the recent Sarah Silverman episode where she engages in a debate over whether Jews or Blacks have it worse.

As far as what Sikh victims should be classified as, its worth pointing out that I don't know if they've confirmed the four victims were Christians. Many non-Christians, such as myself, attend church, especially during the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas. If a visiting atheist or closet doubter was among the victims, would they be a martyr?

Posted by: Adam | Tuesday, December 11, 2007

I took over from Phocion. I'm using his email address because that's how the blogger account is set up. Why's that so hard?

Posted by: J Smith | Wednesday, December 12, 2007

J Smith,

Congrats on taking over Amendment IX [1]!

Not sure why you call the claim a lie.

It is discussed in some detail over at the Powerline forum [2]. Considering the low level of hate-crime martyrdoms (see the 2006 data [3], for instance) plus those targeting Muslims have often hit Sikhs, the assertion is reasonable.

If you claim it is a "lie," then first demonstrate the data is wrong, and secondly demonstrate intent to deceive.

(Of course, if you claim the data is merely wrong, you only need to demonstrate that.)

Adam,

"Hmm, reminds me of the recent Sarah Silverman episode where she engages in a debate over whether Jews or Blacks have it worse."

In terms of life at age 18, blacks, clearly. A 1.5 standard deviation gap in general intelligence is a severe hardship, and nothing Jews currently put up with compares to it in terms of life limitations and troubles.

"Many non-Christians, such as myself, attend church, especially during the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas. If a visiting atheist or closet doubter was among the victims, would they be a martyr?"

At least from a policy perspective, it's probably good to recognize that martyrdom derives from witnessing. It's a good analogy. If an accuser accuses someone else, and "closets" the dependent's innocence, the accuser is still witnessing. Witnessing something they don't believe, perhaps -- but that is there choice by using deception.

So I would count such a "closeted" atheist as a martyr for Christianity, for the purpose of policy, but not an atheist who merely happened to be killed at the same time.

(I've deleted lol's comment, as it does not fall into the category of helpful dialog.)

[1] http://amendmentnine.blogspot.com/
[2] http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/26618/
[3] http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table4.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, December 12, 2007

It is a lie. You know it now. You have already one report which shows it is a lie. And you continue to spread it. You are choosing to spread it now. That is dishonorable.

Posted by: J Smith | Saturday, December 15, 2007

You know, J, you COULD just present your own evidence. Imitating the very behavior you're criticising someone else for, in the same conversation as the behavior you're criticising, doesn't really accomplish much.

Ultimately, does it matter which group has been targeted by hate crimes in the US more? Dead is dead. All hate crimes are worthy of prosecution, regardless of the victims.

Posted by: Michael | Saturday, December 15, 2007

J,

I was confused by your comment here, but I see you gave some clarification of your views over at Amendment Nine:

"There is nothing in the quote that limits it to murders. Even if it did, it would still be untrue. But your quote says all "hate crimes" against Muslims which is patently ridiculous. You can't argue that your quote has any truth, so it is a lie. ANd you continue to spread it. Why? You should be ashamed. If you are truly a Christian, you should be ashamed."

A sentence-by-sentence rejoinder

1. As I mentioned previously, an apples-to-oranges comparison (murders to vandalism, say) is absurd. Certainly it didn't occur to me or Powerline during our initial posts. When others have pointed out that the other interpretation is possible, we both clarified our positions.
2. How is the non-absurd interpretation untrue? Only if you lump Sikhs into the same group as Muslims, or some other way?
3. Agreed that a pedantic interpretation of the claim is ridiculous.
4. But I am arguing it is true... so it is not a lie?
5. By "continue to spread"... do you mean engage in conversation on this blog? Something else?
6. Would you rather I ignore comments?
7. Why?
8. But I should not be ashamed if I were not a Christian?

Michael,

Agreed all around.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, December 15, 2007

Post a comment