More on the church shooting
This morning’s local talk radio interviewed a lady who was at the church during the shooting. She stated that the shooter got off the first shot, then the second, and the third shot was into the air because people were already taking the shooter down. She said the whole shooting part took less than five seconds.
Also, reports are coming out about the shooter, Jim D. Adkisson. Apparently, he didn’t like churches or Christianity. And one of his neighbors called in local talk radio this morning to say that the guy had, in the past, expressed anger at the fact that the Bible was confusing and contradictory. Maybe. But I think the Bible is pretty clear on that whole shall not kill thing.
Michael Silence has a round up of news, including that police found a letter from the shooter that may detail exactly why this crazy fuck is a crazy fuck.
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations on guns.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:56 am
i don’t like churches or religion either, but i’m clever enough to figure out that this is one problem you can’t shoot fixed. i suspect this goblin was the type who would’ve found something or other to take eventually fatal offense at; religion just happened to be it. if it hadn’t been, i think likely he’d’ve settled on something else instead.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Umm, speaking as a former UU, it is not, a Christian church. Both the UUs and the Criatian churches are clear about this.
Even if we go way back to when ties were closer and the two faiths hadn’t merged, Unitarians didn’t believe in the Trinity and the Universalists belived in (essentially) the universal redemption of souls, both of ’em deal-breakers tp most other Christians. Fast-forward a few hundred years and the ties between UU and traditional Christiaity are even looser.
I’m okay with that. But it means the shooter was a moron in addition to being evil.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Rats, horrid proofreading. Again. Sorry, no time to fix.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Seems to me like the national press (who didn’t bother talking to his neighbors) wrote the stories in a way like they were hoping this guy was some wild eyed Christian fundamentalist who wanted to teach the heathens at the Unitarian Church a lesson.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Well, the proclamation establishes that they don’t like guns, and that they believe the power of government should be used to regulate and discourage ownership of guns, but I don’t see anything in it that says “thou shall not possess any” nor do I see anything that says “you can’t have one here.”
Does TN law prohibit carry in churches?
July 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Roberta, I have to second your “the shooter is a moron” sentiment.
One of the things Pagans did through most of the 90s was find a bit of cover in association with certain UU congregations via CUUPS. I thought the UU association has since thrown them overboard, but a quick Google search shows that I may be wrong on that. How many Christian churches would do that? (How many Christians are appalled by the notion?)
It was one of the many things Wiccans and Pagans did to get the tax advantages for their congregations, and also to try to influence the Veterans Administration. (The VA had steadfastly refused to allow Wiccan or Pagan markers on grave sites. Until they lost law suit on First Amendment grounds, they just plain refused to recognize Wiccans who died in service to the country.) Of course the DoD had to lose a similar law suit before Wiccans serving in the military could freely exercise their religion while serving. The simple act of getting tax advantages for a Wiccan congregation has also taken a law suit in the past. (Religious freedom but only for state-approved religions.)
And yes, a lot of people did assume that he was “someone” going after the non-Christian, gay-friendly Unitarian/Universalists. It would not have been surprising if he was. It is surprising that he has so little concept the beliefs of people he was trying to kill because of their beliefs. “Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.”
July 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It is surprising that he has so little concept [of] the beliefs of people he was trying to kill because of their beliefs.
This is usually the case with anti-religious people.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
update: seems he wasn’t so much anti-religious as just plain fucked up.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Very good to hear that the people of the church were able to react that quickly – True heroes, all of them. That
July 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I generally don’t care why a crazy fuck is a crazy fuck, and I couldn’t care less what a crazy fuck has to say. Just as likely he’ll say he had to kill people because the spores in the air around his head were ordering him to do it, or something equally enlightening. The others involved need only be concerned with position, grip, sight picture…
I’d far rather study why a sucessful and well-adjusted person is sucessful and well-adjusted.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The media of course will be looking for something that fits their narrative, so they’ll be hoping they can term him a Christian conservative gun-nut NRA member, hunter, anti-communist, greedy racist, sexist, bigoted homophobe flag waiver who wants to dirty the air, torture jihadists, tap your phone lines, start wars to enrich the corporations, deny health care to seniors and starve children.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“But I think the Bible is pretty clear on that whole shall not kill thing.”_uncle
A small nit to pick, but important. The original commandment was “Thou shalt not murder”. Murder being unjustified killing. It was never intended to be used as it now is, as justification for not defending life.
That didn’t happen in this case, but it has been used by the other side as justification for making helpless the citizenry.
Having said that, Uncle’s real point is well taken, and unassailable.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Now Straight Arrow, if you want to start picking apart the appalling translation of Hebrew (or Greek) into English, you could be here all night, and probably offend a lot of Christians. (And no, this isn’t what I started to say – isn’t that PC of me?)
In the book immediately following “Thou Shalt not kill” there is all kinds of reference to “their blood shall be upon them.” Not to mention all the infractions that are supposed to result in being stoned. Or the injunctions to put various people to the sword.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
ergo the difference between murder and killing. One is sometimes both, but not always.
All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.