From Churchgoer to Charges as Church Burner

[groovedaddy]

LINDALE, Tex. — Jason R. Bourque grew up in a house full of crosses. At his grandparent’s spacious home here, where he was raised, a small forest of crosses stands on a table by the front door, and one wall of the living room is filled with more than a dozen decorative crosses of wrought iron, ceramic and wood.

In a hallway leading to the 19-year-old’s bedroom, there is a picture of him graduating with honors from Van High School, where he was a state champion in debate, along with his framed Eagle Scout badge. He built a picnic area for a local church as his final scouting project. That good deed came after he had gone on several summer missions for his church to build housing for the poor.

But law enforcement officials say something went awry over the last year in Mr. Bourque’s sense of good and evil. He and a childhood friend, Daniel G. McAllister, 21, now stand accused of breaking into 10 churches since Jan. 1, piling hymnals and furniture up around the pulpits and pianos and then setting the churches ablaze, according to search warrants and arrest affidavits.

“This was not his character — he was raised Christian,” his mother, Kimberly Bourque, said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/us/02church.html?th&emc=th

[dmallind]

1. And the assumption yet again passes wuithout comment

Since when did being "raised Christian" make you less likely to be a criminal or to have a moral and ethical character?

[notadmblnd]

2. Did he burn the church he attended or just churches other people attended?

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Sounds like he kind of went off the deep end after figuring out

that he'd been lied to all his life.

[humblebum]

5. I guess reading Nietzsche and other assorted atheist

material can do that to you, huh?

"On his Facebook page, Mr. Bourque said he was a fan of bonfires and listed his religion as “Christian-other.” He also posted a quotation from Friedrich Nietzsche stating that remorse for wrongdoing was useless: “Never give way to remorse, but immediately say to yourself: That would merely mean adding a second stupidity to the first.”

[darkstar3]

10. It was already established in your own thread on this subject

that the perpetrator of this crime read many more books aside from those that would be considered "atheist material." Your thinly veiled attempt at laying the blame for this church burning at the feet of atheism or atheist writers has failed again.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

11. Is that what you think?

Did the atheist material cause this in your opinion?

[humblebum]

12. No. I am just being fecicious. I think that some people are prone to

extremist behavior and any source or impetus that they feel strongly enough about can set them off.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

13. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth

Case in point:

Sentence 1: "No, I am just being fecicious {sic}."

Sentence 2: "..people are prone to extremist behavior and any source or impetus that they feel strongly enough about can set them off."

Your first sentence seems to say that you were just joking, while your second sentence blames the atheist material for setting this guy off. You also imply that atheism is extremist behavior - why do you think that?

So, which is it: were you just being facetious, or do you really think that the material had something to do with it?

[humblebum]

14. I meant what I said. And nowhere did I imply that atheism equals

extremism. However, it is possible to be both extremist and atheist just as it is possible to be a Christian or Muslim or nationalist extremist. For instance, if this gentleman took to heart C. Hitchens' words to treat religion with "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" and wore clothing with the emblem of crossed assault rifles above the words "Militant Atheist", and if he was given to anti-social behavior - then I would say that he might have committed the crimes of which he stands accused. In this case would atheism have been the direct cause? Of course not. But the rantings of a non-violent, but extremist atheist might have been a catalyst for his extreme behavior.

Extremist Christians attack Muslims and blow up abortion clinics. Extremist Muslims will cut off your head. What do they all have in common? They are extremist, fanatical human beings. It's a trait common to all groups. And here I am not being facetious. Obviously something caused someone to torch 11 churches. If young impressionable minds are continuously bombarded with books, and movies, posters, speeches denigrating a certain class, or race, or religion - anything can happen, be it 1920's Vienna, 1950's Birmingham, or 1930's Nizhniy Novgorod.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

15. So let me ask you this

Do you consider Hitchens' books to be "hate speech"? Do you believe that the atheist material found in the arsonist's possession denigrated christianity and assisted this gentleman in his descent into extremism?

[humblebum]

17. I consider some of Hitchens' work inflammatory (by design I suspect)

and some well reasoned, and some hate speech. When the word 'hate' is actually being advocated, it's hard to classify it as anything but that. As far as what was found in the arsonist's possession, we really don't know enough to make any judgments yet.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

18. Provide something created by Hitchens that you would consider hate speech

I'm seriously interested in seeing what you would consider hate speech. It might differ from what I would think of as hate speech.

Just remember that inflammatory doesn't equal hate speech.

[humblebum]

20. I do not totally agree with your assessment that inflammatory

doesn't equal hate speech. Very often it does. And that fine line is becoming more blurred over time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYIs1fkZ2wo Particularly at about the 4 minute mark.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

21. I've seen this particular speech by Mr. Hitchens

Give me the exact quote and/or passage from his presentation that you consider to be hate speech.

I just don't see any hate speech here unless I'm missing something completely.

[humblebum]

22. Have a nice day. nt

[darkstar3]

23. Another failure to substantiate. n/t

[EvolveOrConvolve]

26. Did you put me on ignore?

:shrug:

[humblebum]

27. No. nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

28. Okay, just checking.

[humblebum]

24. If you fail to see anything resembling hate speech here, then perhaps

Borque was merely taking to heart Hitchens' exhortation to treat religion with "ridicule, hatred, and contempt". Nothing hateful about that! And if you substituted the word 'religion' with the word 'atheism', I wonder if you would then consider the words to be hate speech.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. I would consider that divisive and even inflammatory

But there's a wide gulf between hate speech and inflammatory statements. Under your definition of hate speech, almost anyone here at DU is guilty of that offense, especially in regards to neo-conservatives, George W. Bush, Anne Coulter, etc. I'm not disagreeing with you that you consider it hate speech, but it's really not, and to make that claim is to start down a slippery slope that you really don't want to navigate.

I define hate speech as that which incites violence against or restricts the civil rights of a person or group. If you can show that the particular book on atheism promoted violence against the religious or promoted the restriction of religious peoples' civil rights, and then Borque used those words as a catalyst for violence, then perhaps it would be hate speech. I don't see any evidence of that.

Again, can you show me a passage, either from the book this kid owned or from Hitchens, that incites violence against christians or calls for the limiting of their civil rights, please post it.

[humblebum]

29. We really have no idea what this kid had read or owned. I

was merely using a 'what if' scenario. But as far as the existence of hate speech, I think Hitchens crosses the line here by advocating "ridicule, hatred, and contempt". Those are ambigous words of action.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

30. But, do you see how many of us at DU would be guilty of "hate speech"

were we to go by your definition? I often call for the ridicule of R's, even hate some of them, and I have a definite contempt for certain conservatives. Because I advocate those things, does that mean I'm guilty of "hate speech"?

[humblebum]

31. I believe there is a very fine line here. Probably most of us are

guilty of inflammatory language. The word 'hatred' has a special meaning, and when the directive is given to 'treat with hatred', I find it hard to see that as anything but hate speech, especially when it is used by such a influential figure on an international forum.

[darkstar3]

16. Hey, it's another spin on ad hom to quoque!!

This line of argumentation is transparent and tired. "If atheists don't kill people or burn buildings because of their atheism, then religious people don't kill people or burn buildings because of their religion." This is an old spin on an even older argument: "If religious people commit atrocities because of their religion, then atheists commit atrocities because of their atheism."

It's called ad hom tu quoque, or in English, the "you did it too!" defense, and it's a fallacy for a reason: it doesn't excuse anyone's actions. Put it another way: Throwing mud at someone else doesn't negate that fact that you have mud on you as well.

There's another problem here: You, and others, have still failed to show how atheism can be used a motive. It has been shown many times that religion can be a motive, but with no dogmas, no holy writs, no leaders, and no pious actions, there is nothing to show that atheism is a motivator for anything. In other words, "atheists did it too" doesn't work as an argument for other reasons aside from being a simple logical fallacy.

Finally, the idea that any author such as Hitchens or Nietzsche qualifies as an "extremist" is risible to a fault. An extremist is someone who flies a plane into a building or someone who dives into a crowd wearing a bomb. An author is so far removed from actions such as these as to make your usage of the term "extremist" cast doubt on your comprehension of English.

[MineralMan]

4. Without Jebus, he couldn't control his violent impulses, you see.

If he had stuck with Jebus, he'd still be a nice boy. That's the moral they want you to take from this.

[dmallind]

6. So he lied on his Facebook profile? Seems like he was still Xian. NT

[laconicsax]

7. I thought he was an atheist...

Isn't that what this thread was about?

[DeSwiss]

8. “This was not his character — he was raised Christian,”

Well mom, it certainly was not YOUR fault. And it's not even HIS fault.

- It was the devil what done it.......

[trotsky]

9. Because, duh, real Christians NEVER do bad things.

They are automatically kicked out of the Scotsman club when they do.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

19. Maybe he got sick of all Jebus all the time.

I got sick of that crap about "our righteousness is as filthy rags" and how we are all sinful and horrible, yada yada......decades ago.

When you believe the authority figures that tell you how worthless you are without the magical touch of Jeebus, you get extremely depressed.

Christianity is a death cult. It's all about sadism and masochism.