A few BABloggees have sent me a note about an argument over evolution and creationism in Australia that led to a fight which resulted in one man stabbing another.
The ironically named Alexander Christian York was convicted of manslaughter after stabbing to death Rudi Boa. They had been arguing over reality versus fantasy, with York taking taking the anti-reality side. It appeared to start innocently enough, with an argument at a bar. It escalated. York claims Boa attacked him, so York used the knife in self-defense.
There are a thousand snarky things I could write here, but remember that a man died. The argument could just as easily have been over coffee versus tea, Macs versus PCs or Mary Ann versus Ginger. But it was on evolution versus creationism, and it led to a death. Take whatever lesson home you like.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Religious fanatics are the most dangerous people in the world. All one need say, is I believe, and that ends the discussion. Belief is immune to reason.
Sadly, I think we will start to see more of this sort of thing.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am
“Belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.”
-Joseph Conrad (1857 – 1924)
“Blind belief is dangerous.”
-Kenyan Proverb
December 14th, 2007 at 11:30 am
How unfortunate. Why am I thinking that if the other guy had gotten killed, creationists would be jumping all over it saying it “shows” how evolutionists are crazy/insane/evil.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:33 am
@PD: That should be religious and other types of
fanatics. There is no room in this world for fanaticism. There are too many complex problems
facing humankind that do not need a fanatic mucking
the details.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Clearly if he had said Ginger instead of Mary Ann he would have deserved a few stitches(but not death).
On a serious note, the wacko in the above case only got 5 years for it and was recommended to get out in 3. The moral of the story is if you kill somebody in Australia it helps to be a religious nut. I believe the judge said something along the lines of he thought the defendant “seemed like a good guy”.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:51 am
To be honest, I think the events say more about drunk people than about religious people.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I would have to agree with Mr. Siefert on this one.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
It can’t happen the other way around. For the creationist, the evolutionists is killing his faith (blind faith), and he can’t confront the truth – because hi is weak and ignorant. For the evolutionist, the creationist is giving pity, so there is no reason to kill him, but help him.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Ginger v. Mary Ann?
Mrs. Howell. Argument solved.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
From what I understand, he got off relatively easy on sentencing. All it seems a relatively good time to be on the Christian side. There is now also a student suing his teacher as anti-Christian.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
It’s my experience that evolutionists don’t get violent to defend their principle of pure science, but religious zealots during this debate are frequently the ones that make it personal and get angry.
Tell me, how can the person who believes that he is evolved from primordial soup and that his life is ultimately without purpose and his consciousness is only a ccomplex series of chemical reactions be stabbed and killed by the man who believes in an all-loving, benevolent, God who does not tolerate murder?
The one who believes in love is the killer and the man who believes in nothing is the victim. Now that’s truly ironic… Maybe religion causes less “compassion” than it was intended to.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
@Antonio
Really? Then why was the evolutionist giving the first shove?
A few beer, a sharp object, something to argue about (and Mary Ann is way hotter than Ginger, mind swims in recalled fantasies – coconut cream pies) and someone gets killed is drawn to have any relevance on the Truthiness of creationism/evolutionism? Closed mindedness and fanaticism is dangerous even when it is “on the side of right.” The very words “on the side of right” ought to be a red flag.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to use my Mac to find old photos of Mary Ann while drinking my coffee (Starbucks, none of that Tim Horton’s crap).
December 14th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Like the BA says, this could have been over anything. The lesson to take home here is: don’t be a jerk. If we all lived by that rule, the world would be a much nicer place.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I’m with Mark, Thomas Sieferton, and Edward C on this one. Drunkeness is the main player here, and extremism is the big danger. Take any extremist you like and the thread uniting them all is that he is certain that he is right, end of line. Given that extremists almost never stay in their little camps keeping their Will To Power to themselves, they cannot be tolerated, no matter what line they offer.
To believe that it “can’t happen the other way around” is hubris of the highest caliber. “I and people who agree with me aren’t subject to the same base urges of the human animal as others.” May as well start calling oneself “The Fist Of God” next. True evil comes from people who cannot possibly perceive themselves or people like themselves as evil.
The lesson I take away from this is: two people got drunk, got in a fight, one got stabbed. Humans are still the animals they evolved to be. Whether it was Chargers versus Raiders or evolution versus creationism is irrelevant. What sports teams should we erase from the public discourse so people can’t argue over them? What colors? What philosophies? Mary Ann or Ginger?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Mark wrote:
“Really? Then why was the evolutionist giving the first shove?”
Because no side guarrantees that a guy isn’t stupid enough to give a shove first. Let’s face it, there’s idiots that can’t have a decent convo everywhere on every side. These two are the proof.
(By the way, the murderer said he was shoved first, so let’s go easy on this. He could just be trying to save himself.)
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I don’t think this tragic case really informs on the creationism/evolution debate all that much. Aussies tend to be a no-nonsense bunch and I am willing to take the judge’s word for it that the perp was a basically decent guy who made a tragic mistake while under the influence of alcohol and an angry confrontation.
Perhaps the only pertinent point to make would be that it is generally assumed that if you are a regular church goer, you are a decent person. It’s almost as if it’s a kind of coded shorthand that supposedly fully explains how decent the person is even if no other evidence is offered up in support.
So I suspect that even in places like Australia and the UK where religion is much less important to most peoples’ lives than here in the US, there still exists a certain amount of institutional bias that assumes if you are involved in a church that you must be a good person.
If you are non-religious, you can’t get the same benefit of the doubt if you are a member of, say, an atheist organization or volunteer group, though if you volunteer for a local charity–helping the homeless, elderly, animals, etc–then you can probably acheive most of the same effect.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Just read the article. Very sad.
I think the takeaway here is that sometimes it’s better to just let the brick wall be a brick wall. For the evolutionist, this should be easy as there is no god to betray or soul to forfeit over the issue.
Pride is a sad reason to die.
My heartfelt condolences to all directly involved.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Thomas Siefert:
“To be honest, I think the events say more about drunk people than about religious people.”
Probably true but, if so, why did God create alcohol and rig our central nervous systems to respond to it?
December 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
> Probably true but, if so, why did God create alcohol and rig our central nervous systems to respond to it?
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
–Benjamin Franklin
And, to dust off my very very very old and battered Christian learnin’s hat, one of humanity’s core competencies is taking things that are generally proof of God’s love and completely ruining them.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Macs & Mary Ann. Elsewhere lies madness.
— why did God create alcohol
Because He loves us.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
@ Edward C.
I agree, a kook is a kook. Be he (seldom she) a religious nut case, or a secular crackpot.
But in my experience, I have found religious zealot’s to be much worse.
When a person gets his marching orders from a supreme being, nothing can match that.
P. S. Most religious people are not crazy. I hope nobody thinks I am implying that.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
[...] (quelle: Bad Astronomy) [...]
December 14th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
What’s ironic about being called Alexander?
December 14th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Just yesterday, my fifth grader cried because some kids were mean to her for not believing in Jesus. I am always telling her to be careful what she says to people, even if the other kids bring it up. Today it’s words, but tomorrow it could be a knife. In a million years I can’t imagine my daughter, who weighs 60 pounds soaking wet, intentionally taunting another kid for being Christian, but these Christian kids apparently have no problem with that kind of behavior.
So I don’t blame the alcohol. All it did was lower the guy’s inhibitions. If anything, it revealed his true self.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Duane says: “Ginger v. Mary Ann? Mrs. Howell. Argument solved.”
Eeeewwww!
Ginger is a completely insecure and tarted up bag of neuroses. Who else would go on a “3 hour tour” with several trunks of evening clothes?
Mary Ann is real and mysterious. Under that innocent, virginal exterior must lie a smoldering …
Uh, I’d better find a cold shower or risk doing something NSFW.
- Jack
December 14th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I agree also with Thomas Siefert. I think it does say more about drunkenness than religion. It’s Mary-Anne all the way! That dark hair, nice innocent eyes… “Scuze me for about twenty minutes or so…
December 14th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Survival of the fittest, eh?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I agree with Law Mum– “In Vino Veritas.”
December 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Mrs. Howell is rich and she doesn’t have long to live. What’s so creepy about that?
December 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
It could’ve happened to a more deserving Australian. That’s all I’ll say about that.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Mark, I don’t think “Truthiness” means what you think it means.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
back in the day it was air jordans vs. reebok…
so the creationist stabbed the evolutionist in self defense..
doesn’t that mean that the evolutionist physically attacked a person who doesn’t “believe” what they believe about origins?
this is obviously a microcosm of the state of affairs right now.. creationist and evolutionist attempt to “debate”… the evolutionist goes bonkers when a person refuses to be indoctrinated into this pseudo-scientific-religion called “evolution”.. and attacks the creationist physically since the verbal attempt to manipulate someone into “believing” in a “primordeal soup” usually won’t work on someone who knows the truth about “origins”.
The truth , by the way, is that there is/was never such a thing as “primordeal soup”… or a “big bang”… the truth is that the so-called geologic column does NOT exist anywhere on earth except in a “science” textbook.. and that variations only occur inside species not IN BETWEEN species.. more simply put .. one organism does not/can not change into another type of organism.
If you “believe” it can, great! But you’d have to actually, you know, produce some evidence of this before a skeptic like me will believe it.
Ironic that the self-professed skeptics like Phil, PZ, etc.. are not skeptical of evolution.
Just apply the same critical eye to evolution that you all put towards creationism, and you’ll be surprised how many holes are in your balloon so to speak.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
It’s not surprising that most companies strongly discourage discussions involving religion and politics while at work.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
“I think the takeaway here is that sometimes it’s better to just let the brick wall be a brick wall. For the evolutionist, this should be easy as there is no god to betray or soul to forfeit over the issue.”
Just a small note.
While it does not apply to me, some people who believe in evolution do believe in god and souls etc.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
This is an awful tragedy, and it doesn’t matter whether the creationist or the evolution proponent is the murderer. I may disagree with creationism, but I think it would be hitting below the belt to blame the beliefs of either party for their actions in this incident. This murder was not caused by creationist beliefs, rather, I think it is more appropriate to say that it wouldn’t have happened if York were sober. Though I do not know anything about York, I can understand why the judge said this was an aberration. He was a biomedical scientist, and that probably differentiates him from most of the people the judge deals with on a daily basis. He made an extremely serious mistake, leading to the death of another human being. He is being punished and I’m sure he regrets his actions, but the judge’s comment, along with York’s career in science indicates that he’s probably not the type with a criminal record. Those of us who are convinced that life on Earth came about through evolution should remain aware that those who disagree with us are not necessarily amoral, potential murderers. Though creationists’ beliefs and opinions may be different from our own, we must keep in mind that York’s actions are far removed from those that the vast majority of creationists would be willing to participate in, and we should not judge them as though they were Alexander York.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
To be honest, I think the events say more about drunk people than about religious people.
I’d have to concur with that.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Mike J trolled: “Just apply the same critical eye to evolution that you all put towards creationism, and you’ll be surprised how many holes are in your balloon so to speak.”
Name one.
- Jack
December 14th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
unknownkadath – In a bar, then later at your tent, after plenty of alcohol, “we’re not talking about truth, we’re talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist.” “Truthiness is ‘What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.’ It’s not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There’s not only an emotional quality, but there’s a selfish quality.”
So, yes unknownkadath, I did use the word a bit wrongly but I was trying to be clever and ironic. Thanks for catching the error.
Quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness#Origin_of_the_term
December 14th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Just a thought: wouldn’t attributing stabbity to all X-believers based on the actions of one X-believer be an example of using a non-representative sample size to draw conclusions about the whole?
December 14th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I disagree that alcohol was the “main” player here. Alcohol is blamed for a lot of things, now especially, because people are reluctant to take responsibility for their actions, and are sympathetic to those who feel the same way. Alcohol doesn’t change people, it exaggerates them. It brings out who they really are, and takes away their ability to mask it when thinking rationally. This killer was just that: a killer. And a religious nutjob fanatic. Maybe sober he would have been smart enough to think about the consequences of his actions, but he would still have been hostile towards anyone who he saw as insulting his beliefs, plausibly wanting to cause them harm or at least wish it on them. No, I don’t forgive him because he was drunk. If they were arguing about creation v evolution, I would bet that was the driving force, whether he is willing to fess up to it or not.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:29 am
I was going to say the same thing and I get to the last comment and Ross has beat me to it.
While I’m here, who are Mary Ann & Ginger?
December 15th, 2007 at 4:56 am
It seems the basic takeaway from this discussion can only be:
SHOOT ALL EXTREMISTS!
December 15th, 2007 at 6:40 am
@ Christian
“Alexander” derives from ancient Greek words meaning “Guardian of Men”, so for a killer to have that name actually is quite ironic …
December 15th, 2007 at 7:53 am
“It seems the basic takeaway from this discussion can only be:
SHOOT ALL EXTREMISTS!”
No, sir, that would be extreme.
I would say the better thing to take away, for rational people, is: Be careful who you get into a religion v science discussion with, because they might be willing to kill you.
This wouldn’t be the first time a religious nutjub has killed an atheist because he was an atheist. And it will not be the last. Don’t be that atheist. And to the religious: don’t be that christian. Because if you do, you could get a whopping (read: insulting) 3 years in jail.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Now you see why I as a christan hate fundamenalists and fanatics .The fundamenalist problem is they think only ther interpation of the bible is right and every one else is worng
December 15th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Now you know why as a chirstan I hate fatanics and fundimentalists while they claim to literly interpet the bible they leave out so many pasages like you shall not kill love your neighbor love your enemys
December 15th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Mike J trolled: “Just apply the same critical eye to evolution that you all put towards creationism, and you’ll be surprised how many holes are in your balloon so to speak.”
Name one.
- Jack
————————
Jack,
Firstly, a troll is a person who engages in ad-hominem attacks w/o any basis… see wikipedia and the name “Deb Frisch” to learn more!
I am a person who disagrees with evolutions primary foundations.
There is a big difference between “troll” and “disagreer”… as trolls won’t back up their “attacks” with facts.. rather they resort to name calling etc..
As for naming “one” hole in evolutions balloon… you obviously didn’t read my post… because right ABOVE where I typed about there being “holes in evolutions balloon” I named a few bedrock facts that basically disprove your big TOE… I’ll rename them here for your aid..
“…there is/was never such a thing as “primordeal soup”… or a “big bang” neither has ever been scientifically observed, studied, or recreated in the lab… the truth is that the so-called geologic column does NOT exist anywhere on earth except in a “science” textbook.. and that variations only occur inside species not IN BETWEEN species.. more simply put .. one organism does not/can not change into another type of organism. Is 3 enough, or should I give you 100 more?
If you “believe” it can, great! But you’d have to actually, you know, produce some evidence of this before a skeptic like me will believe it.”
December 15th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Really? Then why was the evolutionist giving the first shove?
Who said the evolutionist gave the first shove? Oh, yes, the creationist (slash convicted felon).
The deceased’s girlfriend gave a slightly different story:
Or if you prefer a more direct source, here’s the official document on the case. The judge accepted her account as “the more truthful”.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Mike J repeating creationist lies said:
>”“…there is/was never such a thing as “primordeal soup”… ”
That’s a bold assertion to make. How do you know? Were you there?
Seriously, back up that claim with some evidence. Otherwise, it is not a “hole” in anything except your ability to reason.
>”or a “big bang” neither has ever been scientifically observed, studied, or recreated in the lab”
But is a direct, logical inference from observed facts. The theory formulated to explain those observations has made predictions that have been borne out by further observations.
So, even if Big Bang Theory is wrong, it is, at the very least, a good approximation of reality.
>”… the truth is that the so-called geologic column does NOT exist anywhere on earth except in a “science” textbook..”
Except that it actually does in one or two places.
Plus, the concept of the geologic column is sound. Just because the same geological processes that have led to its formation can remove sections of it, does not mean that, as a tool to facilitate understanding (which is actually the way in which geologists use it), there is anything wrong with it at all.
>” and that variations only occur inside species not IN BETWEEN species.. more simply put .. one organism does not/can not change into another type of organism.”
Please define the term “species”.
Now, explain the difficulties encountered in the 19th century by botanists trying to classify plants. In your explanation, please strictly define the term “variety” as it applies in botany.
Now, explain why there are so many similarities between all living organisms, and yet so many differences. Please look up the word “explain” in a dictionary before you start.
Then, explain the mechanism that prevents variation “outside” a species.
Finally, speciation has been observed.
>” Is 3 enough, or should I give you 100 more?”
Well, (a) it was 4, and (b) they are all false claims, and (c) only one of your statements has anything to do with evolution at all. Also, it makes no difference how many false claims you make or how much wishful thinking you indulge in – reality is what it is, and evolutionary theory is the best explanation available for what we observe in biology.
Finally, you are a troll if you make wild claims without backing them up. You are a troll if you repeat claims that have been refuted. You are a troll if you avoid addressing any substantive objections made to your claims.
Here are some links that may prove useful if you wish to learn the truth about your claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
It would seem that, while most of your claims are re-wordings of old creationist arguments, your claim that “there was no primordial soup” is either new or so trivial that no-one has ever bothered to document its refutation.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Mike J
> “as trolls won’t back up their “attacks” with facts..”
Neither have you. Ergo – Troll.
> “there is/was never such a thing as “primordeal soup”… or a “big bang” neither has ever been scientifically observed, studied, or recreated in the lab… ”
Neither has creation.
> “the truth is that the so-called geologic column does NOT exist anywhere on earth except in a “science” textbook.. ”
Ah, must be the old evilutionist CONSPIRACY then. (snicker)
> “and that variations only occur inside species not IN BETWEEN species.. ”
Well THAT bit’s right.
> “one organism does not/can not change into another type of organism.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html
> “3 enough, or should I give you 100 more?”
How about a better idea? How about giving us your scientifically testable alternative?
December 15th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
You can have Ginger and Mary Ann, I’ll take the professor
December 15th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Nicely done Nigel.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Why does it look like some people desperately want Boa to be a martyr for reality? Make it easier to dehumanize the enemy and make broad assumptions based on isolated cases?
December 15th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
“Why does it look like some people desperately want Boa to be a martyr for reality?”
Because you’re seeing what you want to see, and not what’s actually there. Religious people have been known to get violent when their faiths are challenged (see: entire history of the middle east). I’m simply calling a spade a spade. This guy got into a religious battle and killed someone. Don’t blame the alcohol: blame th man.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Individual religious people, yes. You may want to call a spade a spade, but then you go the next step and call everything else in the tool shed a spade as well because they’re all made of bits of wood and low-grade steels.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“You may want to call a spade a spade, but then you go the next step and call everything else in the tool shed a spade as well because they’re all made of bits of wood and low-grade steels.”
So then you agree they’re all tools.
Seriously, though, I’m not afraid to shy away from blaming religion for the things it’s responsible for. Of course, not all religious people are insane killers. In fact, my girlfriend of 6 years is religious (though not crazy), and I have nothing against her, or most of my family. But, in this particular case, I’m extremely reluctant to blame alcohol over religiosity for this murder. Religious people have been known to kill for their beliefs. Many are willing to die for them, and we shouldn’t be surprised they’re willing to kill too. It may sound quick to judge, but I’m not very forgiving. This guy’s full of crap, and deserves life in prison, not a slap on the wrist.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Darth Robo, you know, of course what Mike J will say about your link (assuming he bothers to read it in the first place)?
“Sure, sure, the microbes exhibited micro changes, but we still haven’t seen one species change into another”
Most creos insist that for them to accept ToE we have to show a cow giving birth to a whale, or some such.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:17 am
> So then you agree they’re all tools.
Please to not be putting words in my mouth, thank you.
> Religious people have been known to kill for their beliefs.
And this makes them different from, oh, avowedly atheist Communists, such as Che Guevara, how?
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you want to suggest that X tends to make people who believe in X kill, then pretty much everyone on the planet has a tendency to kill for whatever ideology they believe firmly in. This includes me, in which I am readily able to admit perhaps not a tendency but at least a willingness, when it comes to defending the rights and freedoms of the USA, and this includes you as well for whatever things you believe in.
The problem isn’t with judgment. The problem lies with the immediate assumption of superiority and the intimation that you and people who share your ideology, despite being exactly as human and exactly as fallible as anyone else in the species Homo sapiens sapiens, could never sink so low.
If you want to give him more than a slap on the wrist, do it because he lacked the self control to avoid murdering someone. Exactly what ideology of his added emotional fuel to a state scientifically proven to decrease inhibitions and exaggerate emotional effects is, as the Doctor pointed out, absolutely irrelevant.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Dominic, thanks.
I felt it imperative to rebut Mark J’s wild claims striaght away, lest any casual visitor believe they had any merit (and had not already been refuted several times).
Overall I’m inclined to agree with our myriapod friend. We should not use this incident as an example of what creationists do, because, AFAICT, it is a one-off. Sure, creationist extremists have issued death threats in the past, but we cannot characterise this as “typical” creationist behaviour.
“Typical” creationist behaviour is more along the lines of lying for Jesus, and, when confronted with the actual evidence, putting their hands over their ears and going “la, la, la, not listening”.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:35 am
D’oh! I meant Mike J, of course.
Proofreading is a good thing.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:47 am
> with our myriapod friend
You got it right!
The Centipede APPROVES, for he is not an insect nor an arachnid nor, technically, a bug.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Thanks, Centipede. I remembered the term from the last time someone used the I-word to refer to you.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“> So then you agree they’re all tools.
Please to not be putting words in my mouth, thank you.”
That was meant as a joke.
“> Religious people have been known to kill for their beliefs.
And this makes them different from, oh, avowedly atheist Communists, such as Che Guevara, how?”
Science is not a belief, religion is. Atheism is not a belief, communism is. Communists kill for their belief in communism just like capitalists kill for their belief in capitalism. To say that a communist atheist killed for his communism to defend communism because he was an atheist is ridiculous. He did it for his communism. Just like if some christian in Iraq killed to defend capitalism/america, I wouldn’t immediately say he killed for christianity.
“What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
Depending on the sauce that you’re referring to, that could make the gander gay….
“If you want to suggest that X tends to make people who believe in X kill, then pretty much everyone on the planet has a tendency to kill for whatever ideology they believe firmly in.”
Logical fallacy. X = beliefing in ideology x. Y = killing for ideology. Z = believing in ideology z. X causes Y, therefore Z causes Y. False. Not necessarily true (though, I will give you, also not necessarily false). Also a straw man, because my argument actually was: X has been known to Y. Someone who X’ed, for-sure-partially-Y’ed. Therefore, its entirely plausible that X caused Y, and A didn’t cause Y.
“The problem isn’t with judgment. The problem lies with the immediate assumption of superiority and the intimation that you and people who share your ideology, despite being exactly as human and exactly as fallible as anyone else in the species Homo sapiens sapiens, could never sink so low.”
Except that my assumption wasn’t of superiority, but that religious people kill for religion. As far as I can tell, that’s not an assumption, it’s a proven fact. Given that it’s a fact that people do kill for their religion, it’s plausible that the guy killed for his religion. Given my experience with alcohol, and the bitch-fests that it’s caused, and the stabbings that haven’t happened over other things, I would say that alcohol was not the main catalyst. I won’t deny that it had some role to play, but I also won’t say that we should cut him some slack because he was drunk. “I’m sorry drunk, I was ocifer, and I didn’t see the car that I ran into and killed the passengers of.” Nope, don’t think I’ll dismiss that.
“If you want to give him more than a slap on the wrist, do it because he lacked the self control to avoid murdering someone.”
That’s enough for me.
“Exactly what ideology of his added emotional fuel to a state scientifically proven to decrease inhibitions and exaggerate emotional effects is, as the Doctor pointed out, absolutely irrelevant.”
From a legal standpoint, yeah, it shouldn’t matter why he killed, but I’m not going to dismiss the fact that religious people kill for their religions AND this one killed during a religious argument. I personally would prefer only one degree of murder: life in prison without parole. That’s all there should be, no matter why you killed someone. The fact remains that he killed someone and since he took someone else’s life, his is now worthless
December 18th, 2007 at 7:57 am
And my point is very, very simple: any set of ideologues can be ‘proven’ to kill for their ideology, because at least one of them was so fervently attached to the ideology that they killed to defend it. Simple as that. Religion is not a special case.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Crap! Post lost due to keyboarding error. Take 2.
Thank you to Citizen Z for providing some actual facts. There has been too much conclusion-jumping from both sides based upon a sketchy news report. People are letting their personal biases intrude.
Boosterz said:
> On a serious note, the wacko in the above case only got 5 years for it and was recommended to get out in 3. The moral of the story is if you kill somebody in Australia it helps to be a religious nut. I believe the judge said something along the lines of he thought the defendant “seemed like a good guy”.
Case in point. There is a perception that Mr. York was given leniency because of his religious beliefs. This is an unsupported assertion.
a) There were two accounts given of the altercation: one by Mr York (the accused) and one by Mr. Boa’s girlfriend (the witness). Both parties had been drinking heavily, both were interviewed over time, both were emotionally involved, and perceptions from different parties will be different based upon their own points of view. The judge speaks of evaluating both stories and trying to find the likly truth out of the muddle from both sides. He does say he gives the witness’s account more credit.
b) Mr. York claims he was attacked and defended himself. Just prior to that, he shoved the girlfriend to the ground. Mr. Boa approached Mr. York. It is not clear how aggressive Mr. Boa was in that approach, but it is conceivable Mr. York felt physically threatened.
c) Mr. York reacted by thrusting/shoving out with his hand. He was already holding a knife. Note that he did not pick up the knife for the confrontation, but was previously holding it from cooking/preparing food. The judge notes that as playing a role in his evaluation of the circumstances. Mr. York didn’t set out to stab Mr. Boa, but reacted to an aggressive move.
d) The circumstances of how aggressive Mr. York was in his response are murky. The judge notes that with conflicting views and no way to factually determine the actual situation, he must default to the most lenient interpretation (what with presumption of innocence and all). Ergo, he interprets Mr. York’s response as defensive, not aggressive.
e) Mr. York tried to help afterwards, and expressed remorse. Mr. York also tried to arrange a guilty plea to manslaughter prior to the case going forward, but the Crown (state) rejected that offer. The judge took that into account on sentencing, and discounted the sentence 20 percent.
f) The presumption is that Mr. York’s religious beliefs were the basis of the judge’s determination that he was of good character. There is no evidence to support it. The judge makes no mention of his religious beliefs or practices.
While it is probable that people mentioned his religious beliefs, there is no evidence the judge took that or weighed it more than statements to his being a nice guy, not generally being violent, etc.
g) The judge specifically notes that it is Mr. York’s first time in prison, that he is far from home and family/friends to visit him. Furthermore, the guy came to the country to work and sight-see, not intending to commit a crime (like drug trafficking). These were all points for consideration of leniency in sentencing.
It is that full string of reasoning, and not any one point, that led the judge to rule on a 5 year sentence, parole in 3 years. There is not any positive evidence to suggest religion played a role in that determination.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I should also point out that in this particular case, religion wasn’t the cause of the death. Yes, it was the cause of the original animosity, but Mr. York did not stab Mr. Boa over whether or not macroevolution occurs, or even the reasonableness of believing in a deity.
Rather, during the religious/science argument, comments were made that Mr. York took as insulting. There apparently was also some animosity toward the other two hogging the booze and the marijuana. The incident at the tents is muddled, but there was apparently an exchange of unpleasantries stemming from raised emotions. By this point, the difference of opinions over religious beliefs were secondary to the hostility that had built up on the one hand and the frustration on the other. It was the exchange of insults that turned into shoving that caused the stabbing, not any sense of righteousness of position or unwillingness to grant the other person an alternate opinion.
Mark said:
> Really? Then why was the evolutionist giving the first shove?
Factually in error, jumping to conclusion from the sketchy news article. The case summary describes that the first physical exchange was the Creationist (York) batting the pizza box out of the girlfriend’s hands and shoving her by the neck to the ground.
Not that it matters, because, as I just explained, the argument by this point was over who was being the bigger jerk.
The Supreme Canuck said:
> Like the BA says, this could have been over anything. The lesson to take home here is: don’t be a jerk. If we all lived by that rule, the world would be a much nicer place.
Exactly!
The Centipede said:
> To believe that it “can’t happen the other way around” is hubris of the highest caliber.
Especially in this case. The argument was no longer over who was right about the nature of the universe, the argument was over who was the bigger jerk.
Christian X Burnham said:
> What’s ironic about being called Alexander?
What’s funnier? His middle name.
Mike J said:
> doesn’t that mean that the evolutionist physically attacked a person who doesn’t “believe” what they believe about origins?
> this is obviously a microcosm of the state of affairs right now.. creationist and evolutionist attempt to “debate”… the evolutionist goes bonkers when a person refuses to be indoctrinated into this pseudo-scientific-religion called “evolution”.. and attacks the creationist physically since the verbal attempt to manipulate someone into “believing” in a “primordeal soup” usually won’t work on someone who knows the truth about “origins”.
Nope. See above. Now it’s your prejudices showing.
thadd said:
>>“I think the takeaway here is that sometimes it’s better to just let the brick wall be a brick wall. For the evolutionist, this should be easy as there is no god to betray or soul to forfeit over the issue.”
> While it does not apply to me, some people who believe in evolution do believe in god and souls etc.
Yes but irrelevant to the remark. Whether or not the evolutionist believes in a god or a soul, he/she does not believe his god if betrayed or soul is forfeit if he gets the answer wrong. The Creationist, on the other hand, typically justifies position because of belief over what evolution says about his religious state. Ergo, the creationist sees being an evolutionist as rejecting God and thereby endagering his soul.
ross said:
> I personally would prefer only one degree of murder: life in prison without parole. That’s all there should be, no matter why you killed someone. The fact remains that he killed someone and since he took someone else’s life, his is now worthless
That’s a very naive and impractical position. What about a person with a spotless driving record hitting a patch of ice and losing control of their car, ending in the death of their passenger? Is that the equivalent of plotting for months and the executing a brutal, weeklong torture and murder of a rival? Either way, someone is dead.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Irishman, you’re guilty of some of your own criticisms:
> I should also point out that in this particular case, religion wasn’t the cause of the death. Yes, it was the cause of the original animosity, but Mr. York did not stab Mr. Boa over whether or not macroevolution occurs, or even the reasonableness of believing in a deity.
Didn’t you say yourself that the details were muddy? Where’s the evidence that this was the case?
> Rather, during the religious/science argument, comments were made that Mr. York took as insulting. There apparently was also some animosity toward the other two hogging the booze and the marijuana.
I don’t remember that second part.
> The incident at the tents is muddled,
So how do you know your interpretation is the correct one?
> but there was apparently an exchange of unpleasantries stemming from raised emotions. By this point, the difference of opinions over religious beliefs were secondary to the hostility that had built up on the one hand and the frustration on the other.
Didn’t you just use the phrase “The incident at the tents is muddled”? How do you know that they weren’t still pissed about the religious argument
> It was the exchange of insults that turned into shoving that caused the stabbing,
Let’s get the facts straight. York did BOTH the shoving AND the stabbing. He was the aggressor all the way around, and was not out to defend himself. I find it more probable that York shoved the other guy’s girlfriend while wielding a knife, and he came in to defend her when York stabbed him.
>Mark said:
>> Really? Then why was the evolutionist giving the first shove?
>
>Factually in error, jumping to conclusion from the sketchy news article.
No jumping to conclusion, just factual error.
> The case summary describes that the first physical exchange was the Creationist (York) batting the pizza box out of the girlfriend’s hands and shoving her by the neck to the ground.
Good, we agree on that part.
> Not that it matters, because, as I just explained, the argument by this point was over who was being the bigger jerk.
Wait a second, your whole argument is that he accidentally stabbed someone in defense. But he was the aggressor! He threw the first punch, and somehow that doesn’t matter? Of course it does!
>The Supreme Canuck said:
>> Like the BA says, this could have been over anything. The lesson to take home here is: don’t be a jerk. If we all lived by that rule, the world would be a much nicer place.
>Exactly!
Partially. Find me an instance of someone killing over all the things mentioned above (sports teams, tv stars, etc), and I’ll consider not calling this a ridiculous claim.
>The Centipede said:
>> To believe that it “can’t happen the other way around” is hubris of the highest caliber.
>Especially in this case. The argument was no longer over who was right about the nature of the universe, the argument was over who was the bigger jerk.
Coincidentally, the guy wielding the knife won.
>Mike J said:
>> doesn’t that mean that the evolutionist physically attacked a person who doesn’t “believe” what they believe about origins?
>Nope. See above. Now it’s your prejudices showing.
You forgot the part about how the evolutionist (god I hate that word) didn’t actually do the attacking.
>ross said:
>> I personally would prefer only one degree of murder: life in prison without parole. That’s all there should be, no matter why you killed someone. The fact remains that he killed someone and since he took someone else’s life, his is now worthless
>That’s a very naive and impractical position. What about a person with a spotless driving record hitting a patch of ice and losing control of their car, ending in the death of their passenger? Is that the equivalent of plotting for months and the executing a brutal, weeklong torture and murder of a rival? Either way, someone is dead.
Except that what I was talking about was murder, and what you’re talking about is an accident. I don’t believe for a second that it was an accident that someone who happened to be in a heated argument happened to be holding a knife at just the right position such that the person that he happened to be arguing with happened to just kinda accidentally fall into it. An accident is losing control of your car, making a good faith effort to regain control, and ramming someone and killing them. A murder is getting piss-drunk and then ramming another car full of people killing them because you were too dumbass drunk to control yourself. An accident can be forgiven, and that’s when someone truly means no harm and no ill will to anyone, and was being careful to not cause harm, but a person just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone else made an honest mistake.
It’s entirely plausible that this situation could have played out differently, where the evolution guy actually was the aggressor, and was weilding an iron pan or something charging at the creationist, who had not previously shoved the evo’s gf. He sees this, grabs a knife, and the two proceed to engage in a two-second fight ending in the creationist killing the biologist with a knife. If that were the case, I would have no basis to claim that the religionist should be put in jail forever, and little basis for him going at all. But that’s not what happened. I can’t say for sure, but it appears that the creationist was very much in the wrong and deserves a much worse punishment than he got. And however it played out, I refuse to forgive anyone for anything they did after choosing to consume alcohol. You always have a choice; this guy made the wrong one.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
What happened to turn the other cheek? What happened to thou shalt not kill? What sort of “Christian” stabs someone else over a theological argument?
This guy is a ‘Bush christian’. Jesus saves, I kill.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
y’know, god created man and wanted us to love each other, but ironically, religion causes more pain than anything in the world. I think God is crying right now.