What's striking in the lady's diatribes against those "communist atheists" wanting to erect a Clarence Darrow statue at the courthouse where the Scopes Monkey Trial was held (to go with the William Jennings Bryan statue erected a few years back) is less the constant veiled threats of violence than the sense of utter entitlement. The US is a Christian Nation, the Bill of Rights is the same as the Ten Commandments, and anyone who doesn't believe as she does is not welcome and will be driven off… in some fashion. Dissent from and disagreement with her position is blasphemy and anti-American, and she's prepared to strike them down, just like Jesus and Oliver Cromwell did. It is everything one has to fear from state religion, embodied not by stormtroopers but by a nut with a gun whose religious fervor seems focused on anger and resentment, rather than love or awe.
I Spoke With a Christian Terrorist Threatening Atheists in Tennessee
She refused to say violence was out of the question.
+Dave Hill she no more represents all, or even a large segment of, Christians; in the same manner that bomb throwing Radicals represent all or even a large segment of Muslims. Christianity is very simple: love the Lord God with all your heart mind body and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. The rest is opinion, theatre and tradition.
Religion and batshit crazy are dear, old friends, rarely parted.
What's ironic is that we're finding that these imbeciles and the Republican Party as a whole are owned by Russian intelligence and Russian organized crime.
+John Rothenberg I agree completely. Alas, such as she tend to be the public face of Christianity.
I'm fairly sure that the current SCotUS will agree with her right to oppress those she disagrees with, especially those without the protection of a religion.
All of this can be aptly described as "I have a strong emotional response to perceived moral issues".
And that, to me, has always been the hallmark of fundamentalism. It's what separates them from reasonable people.
+Patrick Bick I don't necessarily have a problem with strong emotional responses to perceived moral issues. Slavery, genocide, child abuse, [actual] religious persecution, racism … any number of moral issues deserve strong emotional responses, regardless of one's metaphysics …
I don't know if the problem is a zany lack of proportionality, a lack of intelligence in guiding that emotional response, a compassion that appreciates others moral reactions, a pragmatism about how societies work, or what. I think it's more than just "I see different moral issues than she does," but I'm reluctant to be quite that dismissive (and it doesn't solve the problem anyway).