The part that creeps me out the most is that the Paul Hill folks are planning *a re-enactment of the murders as part of the "celebration"*.

A re-enactment. Of the murders. As part of a celebration of a murderer.

"The righteous rise
with burning eyes
of hatred and ill will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies,
to beat and burn and kill."

Rick,

Scarier still, there are links at the bottom of the page to “Extremist Groups” One is the Army of God. If you follow that link, you will see a lot of appauling stuff, so I don’t recommend that you do. It’s not safe for work.
One of the pages on the Army of God website is this one:

http://www.armyofgod.com/LeaderlessResistance.htm

Here's an excerpt (can you say Christian Identity?):

With this in mind, current methods of resistance to tyranny employed by those who love our race, culture, and heritage must pass a litmus test of soundness. Methods must be objectively measured as to their effectiveness, as well as to whether they make the government's intention of repression more possible or more difficult. Those not working to aid our objectives must be discarded or the government benefits from our failure to do so.
As honest men who have banded together into groups or associations of a political or religious nature are falsely labeled "domestic terrorists" or "cultists" and suppressed, it will become necessary to consider other methods of organization--or as the case may very well call for: non-organization. One should keep in mind that it is not in the government's interest to eliminate all groups. Some few must remain in order to perpetuate the smoke and mirrors vision for the masses that America is a "free democratic country" where dissent is allowed. Most organizations, however, that possess the potential for effective resistance will not be allowed to continue. Anyone who is so naive as to believe the most powerful government on earth will not crush any who pose a real threat to that power, should not be active, but rather, at home studying political history.

Wow! I didn't even consider the death-fetish angle when I posted that story. As a rule, I'm not really into martyrdom.

I was more impressed by the wife's ability to forgive those who committed such a horrible act.

I'm not sure I could.

Vance,

That's actually how I understood YOUR take on it (the forgivness aspect).

However, the article was clearly glorifying death and martyrdom...something I heard more than enough of in the course of my experiance with Christianity, and something that is stressed even in the mainstream.

The cheapness of life is, I think, the worst result of religious extremism.

Well, I didn't take the story that way. Rather, I read it and thought, "What a horrible way to die! What a horrible way to lose a husband and father! Yet what faith it must have taken to forgive the killers!"

That didn't sound like extremism to me. It sounded like the kind of behavior religion is supposed to bring about.

Vance,

I think I mentioned that I understood your take on it was the forgiveness aspect in the above comment. I understand that you took the article differently than I did.

I can understand why you have one take on it, but still think mine is valid.

I'm OK with that. You give your interpretation on YOUR blog, and I'll give mine on mine. Peace. K?

Absolutely! That's what blogs are for!

Happy to provide you with cannon fodder in the process :)

One thing I dislike about blogging, though, is that I think things written are too easily misinterpreted. Not so much the meaning, but the spirit of delivery. Sometimes things sound harsh or disagreeable when, if you heard it or could see the facial expression, you'd know what was meant.

We need better emoticons.

Vance,

OK. cool.

Anyway, I wasn't using YOU for cannon fodder (which I think you understand, but I want to be sure)...just the article itself, which I thought was a prime example of what I wanted to comment on.

We had another such incident recently, although I suspect the person actively wanted to misunderstand to start a fight so he could storm off in a huff and not address the difficult questions being raised.

Thanks for sticking it out and being reasonable.

*the person actively wanted to misunderstand* Haven't seen him in a while, huh? 8-|

BTW. Trees. I read the article in pretty much the same way but I just sighed and moved on.

It's interesting that it is now religion (Islam) being used to justify these kinds of killings though. 30 years ago it was Marxism , 60 year Nazism and Stalinism and 90 years ago, anarchist movements.

The deeds don't change. Just the labels we apply to them.

"*the person actively wanted to misunderstand* Haven't seen him in a while, huh? 8-| "

My favoritest part about him was how he would lecture about the importance of using logic and reason - to people who WERE using logic and reason - while refusing to use those things himself. And then bristle when his illogic was pointed out to him and treat it as a personal attack. Oy.

Well, it's all over now.

The world is full of illogic, and most of it seems to make perfect sense to those who belive it. Nothing to be done about it.

It would have been nice to persuade him to stop funding a rather unsavory group, but that was a long shot from the get-go.

He's a nice enough guy, all that aside, and I'd rather save my ammunition for the baddies.