Religion and Delusion: Branch Davidians and the Siege of Waco

[Warren Stupidity]

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 09:35 AM - Edit history (1)

The Branch Davidians are a religious organization that split off from the 7th Day Adventists.

The Branch Davidians (also known as "The Branch&quot is a religious group that originated in 1955 from a schism in the Seventh-day Adventist Church of the Shepherd's Rod (Davidians), following the death of the Shepherd's Rod founder Victor Houteff. Houteff founded the Davidians based on his prophecy of an imminent apocalypse involving the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the defeat of the evil armies of "Babylon". As the original Davidian group gained members, its leadership moved the church to a hilltop several miles east of Waco, Texas, which they named Mount Carmel, after a mountain in Israel mentioned in Joshua 19:26 in the Bible's Old Testament. A few years later, they moved again to a much larger site east of the city. In 1959, the widow of Victor Houteff, Florence Houteff, announced that the expected Armageddon was about to take place, and members were told to gather at the center to await this event. Many built houses, others stayed in tents, trucks, or buses, and most sold their possessions.

Following the failure of this prophecy, control of the site (Mount Carmel Center) fell to Benjamin Roden, the prime organizer of the Branch Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association (Branch Davidians). On his death, control fell to his wife, Lois Roden. Lois considered their son, George Roden, unfit to assume the position of prophet. Instead, she groomed Vernon Howell (later known as David Koresh) as her chosen successor. In 1984, a meeting led to a division of the group, with Howell leading one faction (calling themselves the Davidian Branch Davidians) and George Roden leading the competing faction. After this split, George Roden ran Howell and his followers off Mount Carmel. Howell and his group relocated to Palestine, Texas.

After the death of Lois Roden and probate of her estate in January 1987, Howell attempted to gain control of Mount Carmel Center by force. George Roden had dug up the casket of one Anna Hughes from the Davidian cemetery and had challenged Howell to a resurrection contest to prove who was the rightful heir to the leadership. Howell instead went to the police and claimed Roden was guilty of corpse abuse, but the county prosecutors refused to file charges without proof. On November 3, Howell and seven armed companions attempted to access the Mount Carmel chapel, with the goal of photographing the body in the casket as evidence to incriminate Roden. Roden was advised of the interlopers and grabbed an Uzi in response. The Sheriff's Department responded about 20 minutes into the gunfight, during which Roden was wounded. Sheriff Harwell got Howell on the phone and told him to stop shooting and surrender. Howell and his companions, dubbed the "Rodenville Eight" by the media, were tried for attempted murder on April 12, 1988; seven were acquitted and the jury was hung on Howell's verdict. The county prosecutors did not press the case further. While waiting for the trial, Roden was put in jail under contempt of court charges because of his use of foul language in some court pleadings, threatening the Texas court with sexually transmitted diseases if the court ruled in favor of Howell. The next day, Perry Jones and a number of Howell's other followers moved from their headquarters in Palestine, Texas, to Mount Carmel. In mid-1989, Roden used an axe to kill a Davidian named Wayman Dale Adair, who visited him to discuss Adair's vision of being God's chosen messiah. He was found guilty under an insanity defense and was committed to a mental hospital. Shortly after Roden's commitment, Howell raised money to pay off all the back taxes on Mount Carmel owed by Roden and took legal control of the property.


On August 5, 1989, Howell released the "New Light" audio tape, in which he stated he had been told by God to procreate with the women in the group to establish a "House of David" of his "special people". This involved separating married couples in the group and agreeing that only he could have sexual relations with the wives, while the men should observe celibacy. He also claimed that God had told him to start building an "Army for God" to prepare for the end of days and a salvation for his followers. Howell filed a petition in the Supreme Court of California on May 15, 1990 to legally change his name "for publicity and business purposes" to David Koresh; on August 28, he was granted the petition. By 1992, most of the land belonging to the group had been sold except for a core 77 acres (31 ha). Most of the buildings had been removed or were being salvaged for construction materials to convert much of the main chapel and a tall water tank into apartments for the resident members of the group. Many of the members of the group had been involved with the Davidians for a few generations, and many had large families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

We all know the rest of the story. It ends in the battle with the ATF in Waco and 86 deaths. April 19, 1993.

In 1995 another religious psychopath, Tim McVeigh, motivated by the events at Waco, blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. killing another 168 people.

[Brettongarcia]

1. God gives us so much hope, with so much evidence of his fruits

A typically wonderful, inspiring story about the power of God to change lives. Such stories should inspire millions to have faith in the Father that made us all.

EXPLICIT DISCLAIMER: Yes, this is an ironic or sarcastic statement. Literalists should not take it at face value. No, I don't really mean what the words seem to say at first. Actually I mean this: measured by its fruits, much of religion, Christianity, appears to be extremely destructive, and even physically fatal.

Furthermore, the destruction is not just limited to "cults"; there are even worse things in mainstream faiths. If you know where and how to look.

[Prophet 451]

2. One could say the same of many things

No, I'm not saying religion should get a special pass but that other things, such as Communism, Capitalism (especially American hypercapitalism) and so on. And religions have also inspired some great benevolent works and some amazing art.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. There certainly are other ways mass delusional behavior can be induced.

However religion seems to be a very good framework for doing this.

[Starboard Tack]

36. How many would it take to constitute mass delusional behavior?

Seriously, Warren, how many people clinging to the obsession that all believers are delusional would induce what you define as "mass delusional behavior"?

Two? Three? More than three?
And if you can't meet those numbers and it's only one (in this case, you), what will that mean? Singular delusional behavior?

[AlbertCat]

71. I'm not saying religion should get a special pass

Like it does.... all the time....

[longship]

3. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Pshaw!

[Warren Stupidity]

6. As needed.

[longship]

9. Or, as not.

D'ya think it sometimes becomes something like a mindless tic? Or an obsession? Or maybe just trolling!

[Warren Stupidity]

43. You have the power at your disposal to trash threads, ignore posters etc.

Empower yourself.

Meanwhile I'll continue to document the close association between religion and mass delusion. I find the topic interesting.

[longship]

44. Well, Warren, one post gets the point across.

How many does it require?

I agree with every one of your points. But although the Religion group is not a safe haven, neither is it an atheist group. I don't think anybody is ignorant of what you are attempting to do here. I am only chiming in, not because of what you believe, but your actions.

You've made your point. Enough is enough.

My take on the group is that it should be a place for respectful discussion on religion, no matter what ones belief. I have friends here who are both non-believers and believers, although I am a lifelong atheist.

Since religion is nearly universal in the world, I do not judge people by what they believe but will respectfully interject my opinion and will defend my position, albeit without personal attacks. Unfortunately, the latter point is one that many here ignore. That's too damned bad.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. It requires as many as I see fit to post.

If you have something else you'd like to talk about feel free to start your own op. meanwhile, nobody appointed you the "topic post rate czar". Although as a host of this group, you are empowered to set new rules. I'll be fascinated to see how those rules can be framed such that only my posts on this particular topic are rate-limited.

[Brettongarcia]

50. If religion is literally murderous often, as in documented cases of genocide, then it is ...

highly immoral to be entirely respectful to it.

Your position sounds moderate at first. But it is actually quite extreme and privileging for believers. No matter how murderous and psychotic they might be - as documented here dozens of times by Psychology, and history - still we are expected to be respectful to them?

The notion that we must be respectful to all religions is a core liberal Christianity piety or dogma. But it is not an objective stand.

If you are chair of our section, then it seems to me that you are as yet, not sufficiently neutral. And should reconsider your current stand.

[longship]

59. I am a lifelong atheist.

However, I choose to recognize that although religion does horrible evil, not all believers are evil. I prefer Dennett's stance, that those in the pews are being led to beliefs by people who allegedly know better. Whether those in the pulpit know what they are doing or not one cannot know. I do not know what is in their mind. (Certainly, people like Benny Hinn do know they are a fraud.)

That is why I prefer to judge people, not by their beliefs, but by their actions. If somebody says they believe in a god, so be it. However, when somebody claims their belief in god justifies killing somebody, or suppressing another's rights, then I am going to have my say. But, as might Dennett ask, "Where do these people get these ideas?" They certainly did not come up with them on their own. It has to be a cultural thing, a meme.

Now, if one wants to have a discussion about whether liberal believers give shelter to those who have repressive religious beliefs, that is a discussion that is probably worthwhile. But if one thinks that religion is going to go away anytime soon, or that posting here will in anyway help bring that about, that is equally delusional as theism.

Instead, my position is similar to Dennett's. We need to study religion and possibly learn how to help it evolve into a less virulent species. But eliminating it is undoubtedly a non-starter.

If you disagree, that is fine. That is a discussion which would be worthwhile to me. I would welcome it. I only hope that you would learn as much as I would by such a discussion. But I would be satisfied by my understanding your point of view.

Regards.

[Brettongarcia]

65. My position: presenting academic, clinical, historical papers should not be considered insulting.

In academe, we respect well-written and well-researched papers by experts. These are also deserving of respect.

Among professors in fact, the very hint that academic papers and findings should be censored, or excluded from discussion as prejudicial and insulting to popular beliefs, would be considered extremely incendiary. And indefensible. And would raise a huge outcry.

Out PhD's are often very intelligent people. Who work hard for years to be specialists in the field that they write about. Generally they are considered far more reliable and respectable than popular opinion. Even when they seem to counter popular sacred cows.

To exclude writers like Freud, and then more modern psychiatry, on the grounds that they contradict popular belief, does not seem good.

And it seems necessary to re-present them now and then. Just to remind people of things they are obviously all too willing to forget.

[longship]

70. I would concur.

And you are correct, there is a lot of older thinking on religion which should be considered, like all those radical 19th century German Biblical textual critics who helped bring to light concepts like Markan priority and other Biblical history. It apparently has had Christian apologists twisting in the wind. The apologists publish whole books trying to align Biblical discrepancies, which amazingly and simultaneously they deny exist.

I often wish I could stomach the language of the English Bible. I find the narratives interesting, but the language is horrible. If one is to be well armed against the fundie Christian believers, it helps to know the Bible. But getting through it is an utter pain. I've tried and failed multiple times. Cannot get through Numbers, let alone through the rest of the Septuagint. I love reading, but the Bible is worse than James Joyce or Thomas Pynchon. One ends up throwing the book across the room before one gets very far into it, screaming, "Am I supposed to be able to make any sense of this crap?"

Maybe that's why I am an atheist.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

68. Are you going to take believers to task for posting "lather, rinse, repeat" posts?

Because I haven't seen the same tone policing from you in that regard.

Or is it only wrong when atheists do it?

[longship]

75. Well, this is the Religion group.

One should be able to express religious beliefs here, as well as non-belief. Again, the measure is not belief, or not.

And I take sides consistently against the usual anti-atheist narratives.

Concerning the recent lather, rinse, repeat. This delusion discussion is one which has been going on for some number of days. (Actually, it has been going on for decades -- didn't Freud, among others, address this?) I ignored it because I find that discussion uninteresting, in spite of my appreciation of Dawkins' The God Delusion. I see no point in bringing it up here. It's old wine.

But when there is thread after thread on the same topic within a couple of days, then it becomes near trolling. So I have a say about that. I can understand a couple of threads -- one can contribute or not. But this is getting ridiculous.

Again, I don't give a damn what people believe, and I do think that religion is a sort of delusion -- the same way that a rustling in the savannah grass is always a lion is delusional. But there is probably an evolutionary advantage to such beliefs. Therefore, I do not malign people for their beliefs in spite of the fact that I do not share them.

However, I will defend my right to not believe and will promote atheist rights. I just don't have a need to convert my theist friends to non-belief. They can decide for themselves, like I did. And If they want to talk religion with me I certainly don't insult them for their beliefs.

What's bad about that?

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. Yes, the Branch Davidian leadership and Tim McVeigh ended up hurting a lot of people.

They abused their power, and that's why religious leadership should be exercised responsibly, with plenty of accountability to the other members. Those considering joining religious groups should take that in to account when deciding whether or not to join. And people should resist any religious leader who tries to force them to surrender their independent judgment or inherent worth/dignity.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. It seems to be quite possible to induce mass delusional behavior using religious memes.

[Htom Sirveaux]

11. Are you suggesting we ban religion as too potentially dangerous?

If there was a vote on whether to repeal the free exercise clause of the first amendment, would you vote to repeal? Or would you vote to amend the "free speech" clause to make it inapplicable to religion? Or both?

[edhopper]

12. But it seems only the religious part of the free exercise clause

in which people get offended when you reject their position and say why it isn't true.
In other political debate, opposing sides are welcome, even encouraged. Being able to say the other side is full of shit is seen as the measure of a strong Democracy.
But saying that about a religious belief is seen as insulting and those beliefs should be left unchallenged.
(I am not talking legally, but how our society treats these subjects)
Hobby Lobby, the faith of the owners must be unchallenged by the workers, and they have no burden to show it is true.
Funny that.

[Htom Sirveaux]

24. I support critically examining religious beliefs when they are brought into political debates.

I support critical thinking about religion in general. Shutting down discussion through taking offense at every possible question does not show respect for others as an audience for your ideas. But there are other ways of failing to show respect for people, like reducing them to labels such as "delusional." It seems like a tit-for-tat thing, a "we'll call you 'delusional' because you're trying to ignore or discount us" thing But perpetuating a cycle of disrespect doesn't seem like a solution to the problem, it seems like the problem itself.

[Lordquinton]

48. gotta go past last tuesday to see the story

It's only a tit for tat thing if you don't look at the whole picture. The believers here have always been offended at any challange, and they ignore solid arguments to focus on unimportant points and derail the discussion.

Believers obsessed over the whole delusion thing so some people decided to press it because it wasn't being let go. If they actually engaged here insteas of deflecting and projecting there could be a dialog, but as you have seen even when an atheist trys to be polite they still get torn apaet by the usual crowd. It's not the atheists here that have a problem.

[Htom Sirveaux]

84. Personally, I've found that both believers and atheists largely want the same thing from each other.

To be treated with respect as individuals with the power to explain themselves on their own terms. That's what I heard when I asked each side what they wanted in my early days here, and nothing since then has dis-confirmed that perception.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Where did I suggest that?

I've never made any such suggestion. What I am suggesting is that we start recognizing that organized religion has problems.

[Htom Sirveaux]

15. Ok, I'll rephrase.

Should we ban religion as too potentially dangerous? If there was a vote to repeal the free exercise clause, would you vote to repeal? Or would you vote to amend the free speech clause to make it inapplicable to religion? Or both?

Now I'm not asking if you've suggested those things, I'm putting the questions directly.

[edhopper]

17. Why is it when someone

posts something that vehemently argues against everything the GOP stands for and points out how wrong and harmful they are, no one asks if they are saying the Republicans should be banned or destroyed?

[Htom Sirveaux]

26. Probably because nobody is claiming that our political system can function without an opposing party

Whereas people are trying to make the case that we don't need religion, that we can live without it. It's a legitimate question to ask whether people arguing that case about religion are implicitly working off of a comparison to high-powered weaponry, which is also decried as dangerous and unnecessary, and which many people do want to ban.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. We don't need religion we can live without it.

That does not imply that I am suggesting that religion be outlawed. However you seem to be asserting that we do need religion and we can't live without it. Is that correct?

[Htom Sirveaux]

31. No, that is not correct.

I think some people need it, some people want it, and some people don't want or need it. Blanket statements like "everyone needs it" or "nobody needs it" don't adequately capture this situation.

By itself, the statement "we do not need religion, we can live without it" doesn't imply that you think it should be outlawed. However, when combined with assertions about how dangerous religion can be, particularly it's ability to cause "mass delusional behavior," it does raise the question of whether you think it should be banned, whether you would vote to alter the first amendment in the ways I've stated. And if you think that even liberal/moderate religion is dangerous because it enables fundamentalists, that raises the question even more strongly.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Well, in this forum there are quite a few people who proclaim that religion is just ducky.

And appear to resent any and all suggestions that religion is not just ducky and is in fact quite problematic. I also think rightwing ideologies, and some leftwing ones too, are hugely problematic, but I don't think any of them should be banned, nor do I think that criticism of awful ideologies ought to muted for fear of offending Nazi fuckwits, teabag idiots, or lost in the 70's Marxist revolutionaries.

I think it is important to recognize that religion is not revealed truth, that it is a system of indoctrination, that many religions indoctrinate people to believe unquestioningly in whatever nonsense the authoritarian leaders of that religion deem to be "revealed truth", that in some cases that system of indoctrination can produce mass delusional behavior that we should all agree is wrong. Instead of pandering and deferring to religiosity we should be wary of it. Are there 'good' religions? Certainly there are some religious sects that do no harm, that do very little indoctrination, that invite skepticism, that do not defer to an authoritarian hierarchy.

We would be much better off in this country if religion were much less important, if our society was much more secular.

[Htom Sirveaux]

85. If you don't mind my asking, what has been your personal experience with religion?

Were you raised in a religious household?

[Brettongarcia]

51. Actually, SCOTUS reads parts of the Constitution and Declaration to put some limits on religion

For example, when your religious dogmas break other laws. So for example, one famous Supreme Court case decided that Mormon polygamous religious could be simply declared to be illegal. Because it broke other monogamy laws.

Likewise, some ancient religious demanded live adult sacrifice. But these "religious rights" were in many countries simply declared to be illegal. Since they violated the 1) rights of others. And 2) the laws against murder.

So in the same way that Freedom of Speech is circumscribed in some ways, the Supreme Court also noted limitations to religious freedom.

Amazingly enough.

Yes in fact, the law HAS banned many religions or religious practices as too dangerous, already.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Right, because nobody else had noticed that?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Just about every time an example is brought up here by anyone identified as an atheist

the gnashing and wailing commences.

But I am glad you agree that mass delusions from religious indoctrination are real and are a problem.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Of course I agree. How could I not agree? I see it daily

The delusions are so bad that many end up becoming antitheist bigots.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. keep the insults flying tacky. It is so charming and civil.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Like "tacky"? Those kind of insults?

Maybe you'd like to point out whom I insulted?
Oh, I get it. You're saying you felt insulted. Why would you feel insulted by what I said? Did you think I was talking about you?

[Warren Stupidity]

49. oh my gosh you are so clever.

I am in awe.

[Starboard Tack]

54. For once, I am in complete agreement with you

I'm happy to see you making progress. Now, don't try to rush things. Take it nice and easy at first. That sunshine can be quite blinding after a long darkness. Most importantly, pay attention to what others say. It can be very enlightening.

[AlbertCat]

72. Are you suggesting we ban religion as too potentially dangerous?

Wow, just wow.....

That's lot of straw, man!

[rug]

8. I'm still waiting for your thread on Masada.

[edhopper]

13. What was the reason for the suicide at Masada?

[rug]

16. Roman legions building a ramp to kill them.

[edhopper]

18. What was their reason for killing themselves?

Was it to avoid more painful slaughter by the Romans, or a spiritual belief?

[rug]

20. I suspect they were trying to avoid crucifixion.

You do know the Great Revolt was a national uprising, don't you?

[edhopper]

22. So how it Masada

similar to Heavens Gate or The Branch Davidians, other than the superficial connection of suicides?

[rug]

33. It is as similar to Heaven's Gate, or Waco, or any other aberration Warren is fixated on,

as they are to religion.

Superficiality and hasty generalizations do not make an argument.

[Brettongarcia]

53. In Masada, Zionists - religious extremists? - would not cooperate with another, Roman religion

Rather than cooperate with another religion - which peacefully inherited Jerusalem in 64 BC - religious/nationalist extremist Zionists cornered themselves and killed themselves. Rather than cooperate with another religion earlier on. They could have made a peaceful cooperation agreement with them earlier; but they would simply not cooperate with other faiths, and administrations.

Today, even some secular Jews regard the Zionists of Masada, as extremist fundamentalists. And they no longer support them; any more than they support say, Hassidic beliefs.

So yes, this case of mass suicide might be considered to be related to other mass religious suicides.

In fact, the Jones Town suicides made analogies to Masada; claiming that the threat of government takeover or closure of Jamestown necessitated ... drinking the poison Kool-aid.

Masada in other words, is not necessarily the exception that proves the rule.

And by the way? Note here the strange affection religion has for death; in this case, suicide. Championing "martyrdom" champions death, after all.

[rug]

55. Ah, a defense of literal imperialism.

One-trick ponies end up in the oddest places.

[Brettongarcia]

58. Israel itself invaded Palestine, killing the original Philistines etc..

Then, in the Bible, Judaism constantly asserts its right to domination over the entire world, the whole earth, and all nations.

Strange how religion always ends up fighting ... itself.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us," said Pogo.

"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" says the Bible.

It's Poetic Justice. One imperialistic power ... inspires destruction by another.

[rug]

60. Actually there was no Palestine then, it was Canaan.

Palestine is derived from the Roman word for the province after its conquest.

As for the rest of your post, the only thing in there that makes senses is Pogo.

[Brettongarcia]

63. Actually, Caanan isn't quite inclusive enough; the newer word "Palestine" gets the broader geography

As ancient Jews took over more and more land; as documented in the Bible itself. And then later History.

Ancient Jews believed that they had been given a divine or religious directive from God himself to do this: killing thousands of others, and taking over their land. But today, even many secular Jews deplore all these religious murders; those by Jews, and those by others as well.

And many believe such things as typical religious violence, are ultimately self-destructive; the Pogo saying means that violence begets violence.

In this case, religious violence begets countervailing religious killings. In what today social scientists call the "cycle of violence."

[AlbertCat]

73. Actually there was no Palestine then, it was Canaan.

Oh yes!

Because what to call these places and people is the most important point of this discussion.

[okasha]

21. And when he's done with Masada,

there's Montsegur.

[rug]

34. That's a good one.

We should send him some crib notes.

[okasha]

37. Fortunately, he'll just need to type it, not pronounce it.

[mr blur]

62. Oh goodie, it's the old comedy double act!

[AlbertCat]

74. Fortunately, he'll just need to type it, not pronounce it.

Gosh, you guys are SO SMART!

Because pronouncing foreign names is what this thread is about.

[Brettongarcia]

57. In Monsegur, religious extremists - Cathars - gave up their lives rather than be taken by Catholics

Or rather, they allowed themselves to be taken by Catholics, and executed by them.

Here, two religious extremist groups were probably both to blame. Both sides, note, seem all too dedicated to Death. Either by murdering others (Catholics), or semi- selfdestruction, in the case of Cathars. By giving themselves up to be killed by Catholics.

Two more great examples of the murderous and suicidal element in religious folks.

Thank you Rug, and the inestimable Okasha.

Got any more?

[AlbertCat]

76. there's Montsegur.

Interesting....

Another fine example of religious delusions, fighting religious factions and suicide/murder/death. Apparently, only those who wouldn't renounce their Cathar faith were murdered. Those who did were allowed to leave.

" The Cathars were a direct challenge to the Catholic Church, which denounced its practices and dismissed it outright as "the Church of Satan". (from Wiki)

But apparently THEY sorta started it

"The murder of representatives of the inquisition by about fifty men from Montsegur and faidits at Avignonet on May 28, 1242 was the trigger for the final military expedition to conquer the castle." (from Wiki)


Oooooo.... they even had the holy grail there and smuggled it to safety! Call Indiana Jones!

That this insanity goes on from century to century and even into the 20th century shows how destructive religious nuttery is.

[trotsky]

10. Religion is a framework in which it is insisted (and accepted)...

not only that 1) you don't NEED evidence to accept a claim, but also 2) that if you are presented with evidence contrary to the claim you should reject the evidence ("other ways of knowing" - a position supported right here on DU) - yeah, it makes it far more likely for people to accept delusions.

[okasha]

19. McVeigh was an atheist when he blew up the Murrah Bldg.

[edhopper]

23. From Time Magizine interview 2001

Time: Are you religious?



McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.



Time: Do you believe in God?



McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.

[okasha]

25. You missed the point.

McVeigh apparently made a nominal conversion while awaiting execution, probably to comfort his devout Catholic father.

When he blew up the Murrah Building, he was an atheist. He didn't share the Branch Davidian's religion; he hated the federal government.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. McVeigh was associated with radical christian white supremacists when he blew up the Murrah

building.

[okasha]

40. He was associated with his old Army buddy,

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Terry Nichols!, who doesn't seem to have been even one "radical christian white supremacist," much less plural.

[Brettongarcia]

52. And some recognize something like PTSD in Nichols and others. Delusions.

Here his allegedly entirely secular delusion overlapped and likely was strengthened by similar sentiments in his religious buddies.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. He was also associated with Elohim City

A Christian Identity settlement. You seem to be very concerned that McVeigh not be associated with the right wing Christian militia movement he was so clearly associated with.

[okasha]

64. Conspiracy theory, Warren?

A phone call to a fellow gun show nut and one dubious."witness" who "believed" he saw McVeigh there do not constitute an "association."

[Brettongarcia]

66. 1) McVeigh's own statement said he acted in response to "Waco"; the religious group

2) We have McVeigh's statements claiming loyalty to Catholicism, "all along."

3) If his anger was directed against the Government, then the anger of many religions is often directed against what they see as religiously-repressive governments.

Nichols in turn, worked with McVeigh. And likely picked up some of his delusions from him.


(By the way? I find that religious blogs are often extremely superstitious about Post # 66. Quite often certain folks let that post remain vacant for longer than usual - waiting for someone else to step into it. Suggesting some kind of in-group behavior. Though in my theology, I discovered that the "devil's number" s - repeating numbers like 66 - tend to be parts of the Bible written not BY the devil. But warning ABOUT him. Particularly these are parts that find evil, the "devil," in elements religion itself.)

[Warren Stupidity]

67. As I said, you seem very concerned about denying any association at all between

McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah building on the anniversary of Waco, and rightwing Christian militia extremism.

[okasha]

69. I don't deny that McVeigh had contact with several militia groups.

I am denying that the one you allege in support of your conspiracy theory was significant.

Now tell us what you think about the President's birth certificate.

[Brettongarcia]

87. McVeigh is sporadically confesses a link to religion: the Catholic Church, the Branch Davidians

His testimony is at times inconsistent. But McVeigh's motivation for killing lots of people, often seems to be very influenced by religion.

Nit-picking the problematic nature of McVeigh's possible relation to one particular explicitly right-wing Christian group, is obviously a sophistical attempt by Okasha to distract from the central point.

And what WAS the central point? Note that in any case, the story of McVeigh was here appended to this OP, as a mere footnote in effect to the real story: the BRANCH DAVIDIAN. Which clearly and overwhelmingly of course, is a typical case of religious extremism causing many deaths.

That is the central point that Okasha is desperate to cover up.

Why is Okasha so desperate to defend or distract attention from major crimes by religion? Why are she and Rug so eager to cover them up, obscure them, whitewash them? That is the interesting question. And of course, the motivation is obvious. Okasha cannot face the sins of the churches she once embraced. And in effect, she cannot face, she is in Denial of, her own continued complicity with those sins. As she now serves as their apologist and chief whitewasher. Desperately trying to distract attention from the central point.

[Fix The Stupid]

30. I am gobsmacked at this post.

"Time: Do you believe in God?



McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes"

Did you really say "When he blew up the Murrah Building, he was an atheist".

How can you be so dishonest? How can you even post that drivel with a straight face?

Where's your evidence that he said this to "comfort his devout catholic father"?

Really?

[okasha]

32. Go right ahead and be gobsmacked.

In American Terrorist in 2001, he declared that science was his religion. The day before he died, he called himself an agnostic. We have all been told that means he lacked a belief in gods.

The speculation that he received the last rites for his father's sake was all over the news st the time. Look it up for yourself.

Sorry. This is one fanatic you can't blame on religion. Right wing politics, yes. Religion, no.

[trotsky]

42. No, okasha, one can be either an agnostic theist OR an agnostic atheist.

You claim to be able to read minds and just know that McVeigh was an atheist when he committed his crime. How nice it must be to have such powers.

[AlbertCat]

78. Right wing politics, yes. Religion, no.

You cannot, in this day and age, separate the two.

"The speculation that he received the last rites for his father's sake was all over the news st the time. Look it up for yourself."

You're unbelievable!

[okasha]

79. Oh, dear.

While I'm deeply honored that you want to be my stalker, you're going to have to do better than echolalia to qualify.

[AlbertCat]

80. While I'm deeply honored that you want to be my stalker,

No one wants to stalk you, dear.

But BS must be called out!



(try not to be so egotistical in your snark)

[okasha]

81. Don't take your rejection so much to heart.

Tomorrow's another day.

[AlbertCat]

82. Don't take your rejection so much to heart.

Oh, you're playing "the last word" game, I see.

With the usual unfounded and infantile "rubber/glue" tactic.


Have fun! Your turn!

[okasha]

83. And do stop talking to yourself.

[AlbertCat]

86. And do stop talking to yourself.

Oh...the irony!

[Brettongarcia]

61. McVeigh's statement: he did it as revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge"

Waco being the religious group.

Was McVeigh insincere when he said he was always a Catholic? Then proclaimed Catholics are often insincere.

Certainly he was raised Catholic.

Finally McVeigh himself cited religious reasons as among his primary reasons for blowing up a building.

[AlbertCat]

77. You missed the point.

No he didn't.

You were wrong.
100%
Period.

[phil89]

28. I bet mcveigh also didn't believe in Santa

When he blew up the federal building... What's your point? Does that imply something about people who don't think Santa is real?