A look inside the basket of deplorables

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not convinced that they actually would if they could. Who needs to carry out retribution when you think God is going to do it for you? However, the fact you think they would if they could does change things. Since if I thought Chick was that kind of person I wouldn't have had anything to say about it.

It is, as you said, unhealthy to revel in the deaths of people though, and I'm glad you said that. It's a red flag to me that someone is the vengeful type, and would be happy to kill those they disagree with.

Dying doesn't make him a saint, he was a truly deplorable human being.

You could make the same argument about Bin Laden, another person who felt God was punishing those who disagreed with him. But Bin Laden saw it as his duty to deliver that punishment, out of the straightforward belief that it's right to combat evil and a twisted view of what "evil" entails. In any ideology, twisted and hateful or benign, inaction is frowned upon; if you believe in something, of course you'll fight for it. With this sort of hateful worldview, that's inaction in actively beating down on others.

In supporting anti-abortion clinic terrorists and dominionist readings of Leviticus, that logic is present in figures like Phelps and Chick as well. All they lack is enough anger among people who aren't dyed in the wool fanatics to form an American Taliban movement.


Many people did this in the wake of Bin Laden's death, most of whom probably wouldn't kill those they disagree with.

I agree that it's a failing in that it does show a vengeful "retribution as an end in itself" mentality towards those who've harmed others, but if the state of many states' justice systems are to be believed, that's all too common.

Islam is different though. Because it's not about retribution it's about converting the World to Islam and exterminating those who won't.

About abortion clinic bombings, I'll admit I'm pretty ignorant about the subject. But is the goal to kill people, or just to put the clinics out of action? Because there haven't been many deaths.

Abortion's a tricky one morally too, I personally view abortion as a necessary evil, but what if I just saw it as plain evil? What if I saw aborting a baby as just as bad as pulling a newborn baby out of the womb and snapping that baby's neck?

Certain strains of Islam are like this. Speaking as someone who was raised Muslim and who would identify as irreligious now, I can tell you there's also Qur'anic justification for forced conversion being outright banned. This has been the view of most Muslims historically; non-Muslims often had to pay taxes that Muslims did not, but it was a rare regime where "people of the book" were forcibly converted.

e.g. Qur'an 109:1-6

"1. Say: O disbelievers!
2. I worship not that which ye worship;
3. Nor worship ye that which I worship.
4. And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
6. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion."

Like with any faith, people will pick and choose and interpret things based on their own preconceptions. In the West, we used to have forced conversions all over the place, as shown in the atrocities involved in the Crusades and on both sides of the Reformation. Since the rise of the Enlightenment and the ideology of liberalism/pluralism, that's faded and instead we get feel-good interpretations that emphasize the Sermon on the Mount and de-emphasize the harsher language. The Muslim world does not yet have this, so you're much more able to get said mass popular movement behind punishing those who "go against God's will."


Both. The clinics going out of business are the main goals. If a doctor or a mother are killed in the process, that's a killed "murderer," so good riddance. There have also been many attacks on abortion doctors by the same people, based on that logic.


What if you saw America stationing troops near Mecca as an imperial incursion built on the blood of Muslims? What if you saw Syria and Lebanon as conquered land previously held by the Church, deserving of liberation? Does this justify you in sponsoring an attack on the "Great Satan" in response, or declaring a Crusade on the Levant? These are all strange notions to us that have been very real to people throughout history, just like an anti-abortion bombers' worldview is real to them.

It's not that one shouldn't punish evil. It's that some people have: 1) what I'd view as a twisted idea of what constitutes evil from my vantage point as someone who values a fair legal system and not harming others, 2) disproportionate responses to said evil that don't take into account the harm said response does.

Yes, I basically agree with everything you said there. A person's response to their view of evil is important. We can call ISIS evil because there's absolutely no need for their couldn't make it up beyond horror movie levels of brutality to get what they want. And if we went and applied the same methods in fighting ISIS we'd be no better than them. And in the same way that's why someone like Rommel is generally regarded with a measure of respect even though he fought for the nazis and did so very effectively.

It's been nice talking to you.

Likewise.