Dig this headline at the Friendly Atheist: "After killing their son for wanting to leave church, these Christian parents will go to jail." Killing their son was justified "according to their religion," says Hemant. Gosh, and what was their religion, again? Um, um, let me think.... (Tick-tock, tick-tock) Oh, yeah! Christianity!
That's what Christians do. They kill their sons on instruction from their religion. Really evil book, that (lower-case b) bible.
Here's Hemant's powerful, completely unpredictable closing line: "What would you expect, though, from people who prioritize their religious dogma over common sense and love?" Which, incidentally, is how Hemant and his comment-section sickies define being a Christian--you know, as folks who value dogma over being decent people. In short, for the umpteenth time, Hemant is suggesting, in his usual sledge-hammer, yellow-journalism fashion, that This is How Christians Are. You know, because he was able to locate this example. That's science. Hail, science. Lucky science--you have such priceless advocates on our left.
Remember--these sick puppies believe that any and every believer is responsible for any and every act of any and every member of the Christian community, be that behavior good or bad--though they nearly never seem to notice the good stuff. (Could it be they don't want to?? Nah.) We believers are responsible for all of the words in the Bible (and don't bother quipping that you didn't write the book), whether or not we actually follow them. It's a convenient and cowardly position, since it makes them holy and correct by default, their preferred form of "debate" being "We, your morally superior and infinitely hipper counterparts, want to know why you're so fucked up. And don't pull the No True Christian™ on us." Of course, I need to point out once again that the cyber-atheist community is apparently collectively unable to comprehend the elementary point of logic that is the No True Scotsman Move. They think that the NTS "move" is occurring the moment, say, that the Pope declares Trump to be something other than a Christian. I remind you, if need be, that the NTS is all about the conflict between two propositions--an initial universal proposition ("No Scotsman...") changed, without acknowledgement or justification, to a logically necessary one ("No true Scotsman...") upon being falsified by a single counterexample. That's not happening when someone says, "Trump isn't a Christian," even if he or she modifies "Christian" with "true," "real," "genuine," "Bible-loving," etc. Repeat: not happening.
That's Romper Room-level logic. And these guys have been struggling with it for more than a decade (so a Google search confirms). And it's been kicking their butts.
Anyway, the FA is doing the usual neo-atheist offense to logic (they practice many of those) of selectively tacking data onto a bigoted perception by way of "proving" that perception. I mean, how can we deny that C.'s are horrible and that their Bible is an evil document when you have these parents (and church members) acting in this fashion? Well, we could factor that evil behavior into the behavior of Christians in general, whereupon we would see that it's way out there. But sane people already know that killing your kids is way out there in terms of C. behavior. Please.
And Hemant would readily acknowledge as much, and he'd retire his broad grin for a moment as he denied any intention to paint all C.'s with the same vile slurs. Bullshit. Again and again in his posts, Hemant aggressively proposes that such unacceptable behavior as killing your kids, persecuting minorities, pining for a theocracy, etc is in keeping with Christian beliefs and principles, so how is he not painting the majority (hell, the whole) of the C. community as evil?
Hemant sees the worst behavior of the Christian community as the most authentic, and that's precisely how he presents it. Yet we religiously allow folks like Hemant to get away with the "I didn't say that" lie, time after time. Why? I guess, because we're scared of them. Because we don't want to lose the "nones" vote, or something like that. (And didn't those folks vote for Bernie and/or Trump, even after we nominated the woman they hated?)
You tell me why we let these guys carry on like this without collectively raising a single objection. Think Rachel or Lawrence is ever going to call them out? You know better, and so do I.
Oh, and savor the sophisticated and enlightened comments following the piece. In case you think I'm judging these characters too harshly.
(Sample: Meanwhile thousands are spending life behind bars for minor drug offenses. They'll also probably be going to hell for eternity. But these murderers will be out of prison in a jiffy and spend the rest of eternity in heaven. Presumably licking god's balls.)