Gabrielle Giffords and Atheists: Murder and Hate (Is Bill Maher a Murderer?)

It appears that the person who sshot Gabrielle Fiffors, and murdered at least six people, is an atheist--or, at the very least, anti-religious in the extreme.

The shooter evidently had a "shrine" to the devil. In his writings, he parodies "In God We Trust" by saying something like "In God We Do Not Trust". He evidently refers to being given a Bible as the worst insult that could be offered him.

That leads to the inevitable question (using the standard of the Pima County sheriff, leftist politicians, and the mainstream media): Are atheists, and anti-religioius hate mongters like Bill Maher, feeding into a "climate of hate" that encourages unbalanced individuals to commit violent acts of murder. No, Bill Maher is not a murderer in a legal sense, but does he have MORAL responsibility for the hate he is spreading?

Are atheists, and anti-religioius people in general, a dangerous group of extremists feeding hate into the minds of unbalanced individuals such as the man who shot Gabrielle Giffords? It is certainly more likely than the absurd "messsage" the Pima County sheriff, the mainstream media, and other leftists are trying to push down our throats: a message that the Tea Party and conservative talk show hosts are responsible for every act of violence in the political arena--even when the shooter is a LEFTIST, lunatic anarchist, as is evidently the case here. As I have repeatedly said, at the extremes (lunatic fringe) the left and the right merge. There is NO difference between fascism and Communism--between Stalin and Hitler--which explains why th;is shoter would have a copy of both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. But there is NO case that this shooter was a "conservative", or the type of person to be "insired by talk radio (usually embracing God and religion). It is entirely plausible, however, that this lunatic could be "inspired" by the extreme anti-religiouis rhetoric of people like Bill Maher, or even more militant atheists who tell people that religion is the main evil in the world (although leftists in general try to give the truly intolerant Muslim religion a pass because leftists are even more anti-American than they are anti-religioius, and one of their cheirshed beliefs is that Americans are generally bigots towward "minorities" shuch as Muslims).

When so many anti-religious people on the left tell people that we are in dangger of turning into a religiouis theocracy, and that "right wing" religious leaders are planning to impose such a theocracy on this country, does that not contribute to a "climate of hate"? Does it not impact the mind of unbalanced individuals like the Fiffords shooter? Especially since the idea that we are in danger of becoming a theocracy is absurd--unbalanced itself?

Q.E.D. Atheists are a dangerous group--not to mention the mainstream media and leftists (big overlap with atheists) who are spreading the Orwelian Big Lie that the extremists" out there spreading hate are all, or even mainly, consope. Bill Maher IS a murderer--at least in a moral sense--IF you apply the "guilt by association" and "encouragement" to derangement, standard urged by the mainstream media and other leftists.

P.es, it is absurd to blame atheists and other anti-religious people for the actions of a single person who happens to share their unreasonable hatred of religion--which would be true even if Bill Maher had a reasonable hatred of religion, or if even more militant anti-religious people were more reasonalbe. That would be true even if the shooter--like Muslim extremist ssterrorists have done--announced he was killing people in the name of "atheism", or because he was directly inspired by Bill Maher. This is an EVIL of the mainstream media--"built by associaton" on a truly insane and evil scale: to suggest that people (so long as they are not members of groups favored by the media) are responsible for the twisted way in which a deranged mind might perceive--or be "inspired by"--what others say. Of course, that is not true when there is direct advocacy of violence, but this whole idea of WORDS creating a "climate of hate" (when the words do not directly advocate action) is a truly EVIL thing. This type of media insanity creates more of a "climate of hate" than any "right wing anger" out there. It is NOT "civility", or responsible "ublic discourse", to accuse people exercising their First Amendment rights in a non-violent way of being responsible for every act of "political" violence out there. Yet, that is what our evil mainstream media is doing, and Fox News is too willing to go along with it (part of the problem, and not part of the solution, as Fox News remains, even if Fox News is more willling to at least queston these evil absurdities than the rest of the mainstream media). IF you are going to adopt this idea that groups are responsible for the insanity of people who agree with them, but act irrationally on those beliefs, then the Fiffords shooter DOES condemn atheistsss, and other anti-religious people, as groups feeding into an insane mindset. This idea that ATHEISTS, and other anti-religious people, are responsible for the irrational Giffords shooter is MUCH more plausible than the idea that the Tea Party is responsible. The problewm is that BOTH ideas are EVIL thihngs--irratioinal in themselves. We have to get away from this idea that people who commit irrational acts can determine how the rest of the world works (for fear of "triggering" their irrationality). In that direction lies only madness (the idea that we must speak, argue and discuss in a way to avoid triggering the truly disturbed among us).

I do think Bill Maher is an anti-religious bigot--a bitter man spreading hate in the world. I do think that is true of much of the mainstream media, and certainly true of militant atehists (an oxymoron, in my view, in that atheism is suposedly based on SKEPTICISM) and other militantly anti-religious people (supposed "agnostics"). As an agnostic myself, I can hardly condemn all atheists and agnostics for the actions of one irrational individual without condemning myself. And I don't. I do regard INTOLERANT atheists, and anti-religous biots like Bill Maher, as wrong. I regard that they are spreading inolerance and hate. But that is NOT the same as saying they are responsible for the twisted mind of a murderer. If you can't make this distinction, as to many leftists cannot because their reason is twisted by their agenda, then I am sorry for you. Bill Maher deserves to be aatacked for his intolerant ideas. He does not deserve to be attacked for the actions of some nut who may have ideas vaguely like his. Similarly, the Tea Party MAY be subject to being questioned about their ideas, and even about the allegedly intolerant way in which they are expressed, but they do NOT deserve to be attacked because those ideas are allegedly spreading "hate". That is merely an attempt--Orwellian, at that--to avoid confronting the ideas in favor of attacking the person.

Shame on you, media. Shame on you, Pima Contry sheriff. Shame on you, CNN. Shame on you MSNBC. Sahme on you all who attempt to make groups responsible for the actions of irrational single actors, rather than contend in the arena of ideas. NO ONE is sresponsible for the actions of the Giffords shooter, except the Fiffords shooter and anyohne directly complicit with him. NO, it is an EVIL thing to suggest otherwise--which is not to say that we might not do better in doing something about obviously deranged individuals. But that is another article, and primarily the result of LEFTIST "reforms" making it really difficult to involuntarily commit people for mental illness.

Nest article: Gabrielle Giffords and Marijuana, the Killer Weed. See how a leftist pothead--his mind twisted by "reefer madness"--comes to kill six people. Yes, more murderers out there: the people who have encouraged marijuana use.

P.S. 2: Note, again, that the above is not either proofread or spell checked, due to poor eyesight, unless and until this note is deleted.