Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Never again

As you know a neo-Nazi killed three innocent people at a Jewish Community Center and a Jewish retirement community in Kansas a couple of days ago. The two people killed at the JCC were a grandfather and his 14 year old grandson.

This homicidal monster had a lifelong history of KKK-Nazi-White Supremacist agitation, and he had spent several years in prison for plotting to kill the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

What a horror. Please pray for these innocents and their families, and for the safety of Jews and their friends everywhere (the grandfather and grandson weren't Jewish-- the boy was an accomplished vocalist, and they were at the JCC to audition for a show).

It's sobering to realize that in one country in the mid-20th century people just like this bastard who murdered these people weren't fringe lunatics-- they actually ran the country and committed the most horrendous crimes against humanity.

Violent anti-Semitism is a powerful force in the world today-- it is at the core of the Mideast conflict, and flares up in all sorts of places. It is most certainly on the rise in Europe.

Anti-Semitism is alive, thriving, and deadly, incredibly, more than 60 years after we promised "never again".

I blogged a few days ago about how I believe that blacklists can be good things. This murderous bastard had quite a bit of media exposure-- he had been interviewed on television and radio shows. It's not clear that a blacklist against this guy's anti-Semitic tripe would have made any difference here, but we as a society need to make it clear that if you spew anti-Semitic swill ("the Jews control..."), you are radioactive and you have no place in our midst.

27 comments:

  1. there's a good possibility that the left might actually blame the guy who did it this time, rather than the gun.

    naidoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, the gun won't get off that easily. It's still Wayne LaPierre's fault.

      Ben

      Delete
    2. Without even knowing anything more about the scum that what is said in the OP, I'd bet that he's a leftist. No, the "liberals" and other leftists aren't about the let the gun off the hook!

      Delete
  2. Maybe Obama can hire this guy to write his memoirs. Or have a campaign fundraiser at his house or something.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmmm, some Christian anti-Semite wants to kill Jews but 'accidentally' kills 3 Christians instead. What was Jesus thinking when He allowed this to happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/14/frazier-glenn-cross-racist-religion/?hpt=hp_t2

      He was actually a practicing Odinist.

      Curio

      Delete
    2. A True Odinist would never commit such horrible crimes.

      Delete
    3. Hah, that's good. The ol' "no true Odinist" fallacy. Though wikipedia tells me that Odin is "a principal member of the Æsir (the major group of the Norse pantheon) and is associated with war, battle, victory and death".

      Curio

      Delete
  4. Citizen Boggs, Committee of General SecurityApril 15, 2014 at 7:36 AM

    Frazier Glenn Cross: I'd love to see North America's 100 million Aryan Christians convert to the religion invented by their own race and practiced for a thousand generations before the Jews thought up Christianity.
    --- CNN

    Cross was just another garden-variety Judeo-Christian hater, inspired by Euro-style national socialism. We have a few Christian haters like that around here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Egnor, you are a case study in hypocrisy. It’s anti-Semitic swill when someone says “the Jews control…”, yet you don’t hesitate to paint the groups you don’t like with a similar broad brush when assigning responsibility for the anti-Christian conspiracies that exist primarily in your imagination. Gays don’t want equal rights, they want to destroy Christianity, Atheists don’t want to stop the public schools from forcing their kids to participate in Christian rituals, they want to destroy Christianity, etc. The only difference between you and the anti-Semites you loath are the targets of your ire.

    I agree with you that anti-Semitism is a serious and ongoing problem, but like the alleged overuse of “racist” by lefties, “anti-Semite” has become a term used by the supporters of Israel to shut down any criticism of the Jewish state. Considering your obvious double standard when it comes to bigotry, I suspect that you’ve simply been swept along by the crazy Cristian obsession with preserving Israel for Jesus’s return and the coming Armageddon.


    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 15, 2014 at 10:28 AM

      Popeye: " I suspect that you’ve simply been swept along by the crazy Cristian obsession with preserving Israel for Jesus’s return and the coming Armageddon."

      I suspect you've been swept up by the Progessive hate for Christians and you're obsessed with establishing an atheist totalitarian state.

      Delete
    2. some typical leftist: "... I suspect that you’ve simply been swept along by the crazy Cristian [sic] obsession with preserving Israel ..."

      I wonder whether this fool has all-but admitted that he is against preserving Israel, that he considers the desire to preserve Israel to be a crazy obsession? Of course he is: he's a leftist, and Israel is both democratic and not nearly as socialistic as it was 50 years ago ... and full of Jews.

      Delete
    3. It sure is easier to quote out of context and argue against a straw man isn’t it lion?

      -KW

      Delete
  6. Egnor, I agree with most of your sentiment, up until here: "...but we as a society need to make it clear that if you spew anti-Semitic swill ("the Jews control..."), you are radioactive and you have no place in our midst."

    This sort of thinking allows for Jews (or by extension any other people) to be held above scrutiny on the grounds that observation of their activities automatically constitutes racism, even in instances where an observation may hold merit. Should the Russians be exempt from scrutiny on the grounds that tens of millions of them were killed off (i.e. victimhood), or likewise the Chinese? Observations on racial, ethical or ideological grounds do not constitute racism in and of itself; it is only in the application of fostering hatred (e.g. "these people are a plague and should be ousted") where the latter comes into fruition. As Christians, we are called to be witnesses to the truth and part of that responsibility is not to allow ourselves to be ignorant of reality.

    Murder should be considered immoral no matter the motivations of the perpetrator. I do not agree with tacked-on "hate crime" charges under any circumstances. Such thinking opens the doors to unequal justice on the basis of "thought crime." The actual crime remains the same and therefore the punishment should fit the crime, not the motivation behind it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and no. Mostly no.

      You're much less likely to be the target of racially charged violence if you're of the WASP stock. This killer's motivations were anti-semitic, it's only fitting to draw attention to this rather than discuss the crime as generic murder in the abstract.

      Whether you like it or not, motivation is part of the legal consideration in most cases. That's why people with mental illnesses can be deemed not competent to stand trial. It's why manslaughter is a different charge from murder or attempted murder.

      "Hate crime" is legitimate.

      Curio

      Delete
    2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 15, 2014 at 11:34 AM

      Actually, Curio, it's not motivation, it's intent (e.g., malice aforethought) and competence (e.g., diminished capacity). Motive can - to some degree - guide an investigation and/or support other evidence, but in practice (as opposed to on TV or in crime books) it's rarely a deciding factor.

      Michael is right - establishing a "hate" category of crimes is establishing a "thought" category of crimes.

      Delete
    3. Curio, I disagree. Acts of murder, theft, rape, et al. all constitute crimes in and of themselves; one does not become greater (or lesser) on the basis of the perceived prejudices of the perpetrator. Justice is supposed to be impartial and measure out due punishment according to the severity of the crime, not on the basis of the criminal's mindset (which can be made to be aggrandized to any degree). Hatred isn't a crime punishable in a court of law. Any attempt to quantify a person's thoughts/feelings and translate that into more severe consequence sets precedence to go about punishing individuals for whatever the law decides is a form of hatred -- a "thought crime" -- on the basis that hatred is the root cause for the criminal acts. Thus, the "justice" system would itself become corrupt, a prejudiced institution of its own accord, selectively persecuting groups or individuals.

      Read here:
      http://catholicexchange.com/christians-persecuted-through-a-tyranny-of-nice

      If someone steals your car, it should be irrelevant in the court of law whatever the thief's motivations were, whether it be an act out of personal hatred or because he wanted the car for himself. The only thing that should matter is proving beyond a reasonable doubt who committed the crime itself.

      Delete
    4. Boggs, you are correct that was my error. Though synonyms in colloquial usage, motive and intent seem to have different meanings in legal-speak.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_%28law%29

      Still stand by what I wrote. Interior dispositions affect the outcome of many criminal cases. You cited a Catholic website, so you are likely aware that in Catholic moral theology there are three parts to a moral act:
      1. the object
      2. the intent
      3. the circumstance

      You seem to be advocating for an inordinate focus on the object at the expense of intent and circumstance. This killer was motivated by racial hatred, which makes his already evil crime more heinous.

      Curio

      Delete
    5. *The second part of that comment was to Michael

      C

      Delete
    6. “Acts of murder, theft, rape, et al. all constitute crimes in and of themselves; one does not become greater (or lesser) on the basis of the perceived prejudices of the perpetrator.”

      Not true. The murder of a Jew for being Jewish terrorizes the entire Jewish community in a way that the murder of that same Jew for reasons of personal hatred does not. Hate crimes are perpetrated not only against the immediate victim of a crime, but also against the larger group.

      -KW

      Delete
    7. Curio, we do not apply Catholic moral theology to criminal law. I used the link to highlight examples of innocent people being punished for the thought crime of opposing homosexuality.

      KW, no matter the focus of a person or group's prejudice, the courts shouldn't attempt to render greater punishment on account of the motive. Your method sets a dangerous precedence by which it becomes possible to punish socially, economically or judicially for thought crime, 'guilt-by-association' and Lord knows what else. Even in instances where people commit a crime to terrorize a specific group of people, only the crime itself should be punishable by law. Anything more is to institutionalize judicial prejudice.

      Let us say that two people are murdered in two different places and for two seperate reasons. Would it be fair and just for the courts to punish the perpetrator of the former with one punishment and the latter more severely based on the court perceiving hatred? How do you quantify hatred and how would the courts have any way of knowing whether or not the first victim's perpetrator's motives had more or less hatred? It's simply not possible, and besides, increasing the punishment in either case wouldn't make the victims any less dead.

      Delete
    8. Yea but in the best cases, criminal law should build on and reflect the Natural Law.

      the courts shouldn't attempt to render greater punishment on account of the motive

      If you hold this opinion you have to do away with any distinction between manslaughter, premeditated murder, murder committed under the influence of drugs/alcohol.

      I understand the slippery slope, really, but motive is an integral part of criminal law.

      How do you quantify hatred and how would the courts have any way of knowing whether or not the first victim's perpetrator's motives had more or less hatred?

      Not everything that can be known can be quantified. We can reasonably deduce that this man, based on his past affiliations with white supremacy groups and his espousal of anti-semitism committed a more hateful crime than, say, a drunk driver crashing into a Synagogue after imbibing a bottle of liquor.

      Curio

      Delete
    9. As far as premeditated murder vs one committed in the heat of passion or an accidental death, etc., yeah, I agree with you. But tread lightly around the notion that the courts should attempt to measure a person's hatred and then apply increased punishment on that premise. As I said, to do so is to set a precedence for thought crime punishment in other ways in the future.

      Delete
  7. Something akin Micheal’s though police fears is already happening with terrorism rather than hate crimes. There has been more than one case where the government spent huge sums of money to get would-be terrorists to commit prosecutable acts. Guys that hung out on jihadist websites, sympathetic to terrorists, who may have never gone beyond being terrorist wannabes, suddenly finding the path all laid out for them.

    I certainly would be outrageous if the government identified a racist or an anti-Semite, then actively worked to facilitate them committing a hate crime only to thwart it before it was carried out. I've never heard of anything like that happening when it comes to hate crimes, and I find it hard to imagine it would. If you're worried about thought police your worries seem to be misplaced.

    The biggest legitimate fear of hate crimes seems to be that they will be misapplied. The controversy over the Matthew Shepard case illustrates this. Hate crime laws do two things. The first and arguably the most important thing they do is allow for more investigative and prosecutorial resources. I can't imagine anyone would think that's a bad thing unless you're sympathetic to the criminal. The second thing is they allow for harsher criminal sentencing for those who commit hate crimes, and I would agree that we must tread carefully here, but again, unless you think the sentences for murderers and arsonists are plenty long enough and it would be a grave injustice for them to serve longer terms, I don't see it as a huge problem.

    This whole debate illustrates something about conservatives. Muslims it seems can be victims of actual thought police and conservatives are mum, but aggressively prosecute a couple of rednecks for killing a gay man? Now you've gone to far.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 15, 2014 at 7:22 PM

      Popeye, I'm sure you will be as shocked as I am that I completely agree with you (assuming I understand you correctly) about many of the so-called "terror" prosecutions we've seen recently in the news.

      Most, if not all, of those (I can't recall the details for all of them) were - in my opinion - open-and-shut cases of entrapment. That is, to use a vastly overused word, chilling. The government is out of control.

      Delete
    2. I'm not surprised. I already suspect that on occasion you secretly agree with me.

      -KW

      Delete
  8. murder is evil and the murderer should be executed.
    However I don't agree there is any such thing as anti semitism.
    All there is IS right or wrong accusations against people or people groups.
    Its fair and square to say jews run this or that and that it is morally and legally wrong.
    Its murder thats wrong and not free speech against other wrong things.
    I like this forum but don't agree with this special prohibition against questioning or accusing jews or anyone of anything.
    If it was a WASP, white, white protestant, white Christian, man etc etc there would be no problem with questioning and accusing them as having wrongly power, influence, and motives that are unwelcome in a mutually held nation and society.
    Jews do have power, influence, and motivations in North America that are out of proportion to their numbers.
    one can and must oppose any injustice from this if one sees it .
    Just as one opposes murder or violence.
    As Abe lIncoln said STand with the man when he is right and don't stand with him when he is wrong.
    This murderer should be executed but i also say this Jewish community centre should not exist. its a centre for a segregated ethnic/nationality and is anti American and breaking the contract upon which they were allowed into the country.

    By the way REMEMBER the pro gay people likewise say opposition to Homosexuality is homophobia. the same equation/tactic used to silence opposition to wrong jewish things in history and today.
    if the author of Egnorance reads this PLEASE explain why there is any difference in his prohibition then the gay lobby and thier friends???
    Its all saying these opinions are evil and illegal.
    If a gay person was killed by a anti gay murderer its no reflection on those opposed in passion to the gay agenda.
    Seems that way from Canada here if i may say so(and I just did)

    ReplyDelete