Gus: It is interesting to follow the rhetoric applied to spiritualise the sickness of a demented person into a sin... The Washington Post runs a regular column "On Faith" that let religious figures pontificate about their religious understanding of things. There is no religious discrimination nor apparently is there censorship of comments who are "atheistic" or opposed to the understanding of life through dogma... Here are a few samples:

------------------

Blame Sin, Not God

...

What we saw Monday morning is nothing less and nothing other than the result of one young man’s sin – his determination to do what he wanted to do, rather than what His Creator would have him do. It’s a choice each of us faces daily. The only difference is that Cho Seung Hui’s choice led to historically tragic consequences and the attention of a horrified world.

Rod Parsley is senior pastor of World Harvest Church of Canal Winchester, Ohio.  ------------  Gus: some postings like these followed:  -------------  Former Catholic:

This boy was obviously mentally ill -- you call that "sin"?

That's exactly the sort of stigma that keeps people from getting treatment for their mental illness. One does not choose to have diabetes, or hypothyroidism, and usually there is no stigma attached to seeking treatment for these illnesses. Neither do most people choose to have a mental illness -- depression, bipolor disorder, epilepsy -- and yet admitting to having these problems and seeking treatment for them is seen as shameful. Too often it's portrayed as a lack of self-control, or as though the person suffering is simply lazy.

It sounds like a handful of people tried to reach out to this young man, but didn't know how. I cannot condone his actions, obviously, but if he was truly mentally disturbed, that hardly constitutes a choice to ignore God, a choice to sin. Show some Christian charity and forgive him for something that may not have been entirely his to control.

Posted April 18, 2007 12:19 PM

Posted on April 18, 2007 12:19

wiccan:

"What we saw Monday morning is nothing less and nothing other than the result of one young man’s sin –"

No, what we saw was one young man's illness and the terribly irresponsibile attitude of Americans towards mental illness. Unless Cho had shown he was an imminent danger to himself or others he could not have been held for observation and/or treatment. Even then, mental health services are so grossly underfunded that he would have to wait for weeks or months for help.

Events like this have happened before, and they will happen again. And the fault for that lies with us.

Posted April 18, 2007 12:22 PM

Posted on April 18, 2007 12:22

Norrie Hoyt:

Rev. Mr. Parsley,

You have got to be nuttier than the VT shooter, and more out of touch with reality rhan he was, if you believe that what happened had anything at all to do with sin, God, or your theology.

What happened was the outcome of a whole series of natural causes and conditions, and had nothing to do with metaphysical concerns.

Posted April 18, 2007 12:47 PM

 

----------------

Gus: It is interesting to follow the rhetoric applied to spiritualise the sickness of a demented person into glory... To me for example, George W Bush is demented —mad!. It follows that he uses bad reasoning with exactitude to go to declare war illegally, but "we" accept it because he uses clever tricks of "God told me too" and "Saddam has this and that" which was total fabrication... "We" elected him to be "our" leader so "we" won't accept he's a dangerous man, but he is far more dangerous that that sick boy.

The sick part of a demented president is that he plays the same game — but on a huge scale, using other people to do his killings, with results of death "we' cannot comprehend because we have institutionalised the deeds. Any reason to go and kill people is a bad reason. War is tragic. Today (19/04/07) more than 200 people have lost their lives in Baghdad... same or more are badly injured... 2.5 millions have become refugees since the beginning of the war, more than 700,000 have lost their lives in the opening of Pandora's box...

If a president and his expert advisers were unable to foresee the bloodshed ensuing from their little war (that directly killed about 70,000 people till the "mission accomplished" speech), they do not deserve to lead the world on our behalf. If a president and his expert advisers knew it was going to be bloody, they deserve to be hung (not quite — prison would suffice since I'm against the death penalty).

How can we expect people to follow "moral" rectitude when "our" leaders, including Wolfowitz, are corrupt and have the blood of many innocent people on their hands and wipe a lot of it, by claiming "collateral damage...? And dine on champagne? (not the president Bush: he's a reformed alcolo.) Are we nuts?

The words of the pastor resonate with horror if we replace the words "Cho Seug Hui's" with "President Bush":

--------

"What we saw Monday morning [over the last 6 years] is nothing less and nothing other than the result of one young man’s sin – his determination to do what he wanted to do, rather than what His Creator would have him do. It’s a choice each of us faces daily. The only difference is that Cho Seung Hui’s [President Bush] choice led to historically tragic consequences and the attention of a horrified world.

---------------

Gus: but I prefer to believe that "President Bush" is sick. Very sick. dangerously sick.

In the blog above I also meant to mention that Osama is sick too — and his cohorts of mad blind fundamentalists are sick too... But the way to protect ourselves from them is not to become sick as well, if you see what I mean.

From the ABC
Downer rejects claims of Iraq argument 'lie'

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has rejected Labor's interpretation of a speech by the British High Commissioner.

In a speech in Canberra yesterday Helen Liddell said Britain did not view Iraq as part of the war on terror.

"Our raison d'etre for our involvement in Iraq has not been about terrorism," she said. "We have never seen Iraq as part of the war on terrorism."

Labor pounced on the statement, saying it exposed the Government's argument for keeping troops in Iraq as a lie and proved Australia should pull out.

But Mr Downer disagrees.

"We don't think that in Darfur, we don't think it on a much more minor scale in places like East Timor," he said.

"We think in those places we should try to stop civil conflict and civil disputation.

"But apparently that's all right in Iraq. They can just go and kill each other and there can be mass murder. Well I don't think that is right actually, I think that's completely wrong."

------------------------

Gus: our flat-footed minister for Alien Stuff-ups and Cargo Cults is trying to ungainly conjure a trick by putting his fingers into our eyes and telling us to watch the cards... He's clumsy as all get out... but many people still want to see the trick again, blindfolded this time. "We" sux. Okay, what's the timeline again?

2001: "We" declare war on terror, following an attack (9/11) by mainly disgrunted Saudis...

2003: "we declare war on Saddam for 9/11 (see 9/11 anniversary speech by Dubya-the-imbecile), for having links with Al Qaeda and having weapons of mass destruction.

2002: ALL the reasons above, to go to war are FALSE. The "PROOFS" are totally fabricated by the US war machine of the US administration, complicit in the fabrication. In reality, Saddam, a ruthless despot hates Bin Ladden. Also KNOWN at the time by any respected "intelligence" agency in the world, Saddam had disposed of his WMDs soon after the first gulf war, 1991. The fact that weapons inspectors could not find any WMDs, then are told by the US to stop inspecting — because no matter what the US and its partners in crime, Blair and Howard, are going to war — is an indication that the US administration is either stupid or bloody. In all cases it deserves to be removed for incompetence or ruthlessness beyond what Saddam could ever dream of. The president needs to be impeached before hhe does more damage.

2002: many people, most with a brain, could see (foresee, imagine, know, one does not have to Einstein to guess) the coming bloodshed. Only the stupid morons (unless they are fiendish and diabolically clever) like the Clowners thought that they would be greeted like "liberators". But the US knew of the crap that was going to follow their incursion into Iraq, as — while the media showed "mass" joy and the falling of a Saddam statue, a well managed PR stunt — the army was protecting the place, and other startegic places not from Saddam's army, but from the IRAQI PEOPLE themselves...

2003-2007: The political situation in Iraq was a powder keg that needed to be slowly defused, not lit. What do our moronic Us president and his gangsters do? they lit the fuse... I don't know what they were hoping for apart from grabbing the petroleum, removing the influence of the Euro in Iraq, but the result is not pretty. nearly 700,000 dead, 2.5 million people dsiplaced and ruined. 20 million people living in fear and destitution. Corruption, a US major institution, runs high...

We also knew this war would immediately provide the recruiting outpost for many more "terrorists". Did we need to try it to find this out? No. But the morons sabre-rattling and our poisoned media could not help themselves... Bin ladden still rubs his hands. Bush rubs his hands because he's getting the oil...

2007: In the end, the thinking of our Clowner is totally faulty, possibly disingenuously so... trying to place Darfur and Timor in the same basket as Iraq is an insult to our intelligence. We started Iraq, we did not start Darfur, except via "our" history of colonialism. "We" started Iraq, we helped the situation develop badly in East Timor, because of the crooked deal we forced them to make on Gas. We also let Indonesia modify the ownership of West Papua... and so on.

I use the word "we" to define us all, those who supported the deeds and those who, like me, opposed it but were unable to stop it — either via the not loud enough noise we made or our inability to recruit enough intelligent people to fight the morons, some morons even professing degrees in legalled moronity, a degree they try to flog as proof of intelligence...

From our ABC

US combat troops' attitudes to Iraqis hardening: survey

A survey of US combat troops deployed in Iraq has found that one in 10 say they have mistreated civilians and more than one third condone torture to save the life of a comrade.

The study by an army mental health advisory team has found continuing problems with morale and that acute mental health issues are more prevalent among troops with lengthening tours or those on their second and third deployment to Iraq.

"They looked under every rock and what they found was not always easy to look at," said Ward Casscells, the Pentagon's health affairs chief.

For the first time ever, a sampling of soldiers and marines in combat units were questioned on issues of character and their answers suggested hardened attitudes toward civilians among front line troops.

About 10 per cent of soldiers surveyed reported mistreating non-combatants or damaging their property when it was not necessary, less than half of the soldiers and marines would report a team member for unethical behaviour and more than a third of all soldiers and marines reported that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or marine.