Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

More than a white man burning down black people's building because of racism? Fill me in?

No, that was my point, that there's almost definitely racist motivation, especially considering prior history of church-burning in this country. There's also the fact that, a church being a fairly public place, you could easily be endangering lives without knowing it.

[Fenrir]

I do not hold churches to be sacred, and their churchiness would not make burning them more reprehensible to me.

Fetch Glepnir, and bind me again, because there is no telling what I might do.

[fqllve]

They're willing to burn one thing considered sacred, why not another, human life?

That's not necessarily true. Human life is much more universally considered sacred. I will admit that burning down a building poses an inherent risk to human life though.

These guys, on the other hand, I'm not sure how much they'd have cared if someone had been in there.

[Truean]

Who said it had to be "universally true?" It doesn't have to be absolute, because nothing is. It's true enough in this sense, you've missed the benchmark.

The thing that keeps someone from burning down a building is fear of punishment and community disdain for the act (where the punishment comes from). Some houses are ugly. Frankly, someone'd be doing the world a favor reducing them to ashes, and I mean this. [I'm lookin' at you smurf blue house, you know who you are]. Yet the community frowns on burning down said houses whether or not doing so would help the community as a hole (O,yes that's intentional).

People in general, consider it far worse to burn down a church than most other buildings and thus that community disdain is greater against that type of action compared to other similar ones. It could be "right or reasonable," to have said disdain, or it could be "completely nuts and not make sense, because a church is a building like any other." Not the point.

The point is, "If in light of the heightened stigma of burning a church (no matter the validity of that stigma) what would keep you from burning something with a lesser stigma?"

It's the presence and intensity of the stigma, not its validity....

[scriver]

No, that was my point, that there's almost definitely racist motivation, especially considering prior history of church-burning in this country. There's also the fact that, a church being a fairly public place, you could easily be endangering lives without knowing it.

If you rereax my first post after Nadaka's, you'll see I new it was a racist act. I did not know about it's historical background, however, but now I do.

It's not like it's still a common thing today or even the last century, isn't it?

In the US it was mostly a thing during the Civil Rights Movement, actually. In fact, I'm pretty sure that MLK's church was bombed and burned by a racist mob.

Ah, I see. I actually mean to write "last half century", but that doesn't matter.

Also, just to be certain I'm not misunderstanding anything; MLK means Martin Luther King, right?

Why not? That social stigma against burning a church didn't stop anything from lighting up. Neither did the associated fear of punishment. They're willing to burn one thing considered sacred, why not another, human life?

There is absolutely no reason to make such huge leaps of assumption. Most people care a lot more about people than churches. They also probably wanted to attack a symbol of black culture, not black people themselves. That's what it was to them - a symbol, not a church.

[I'm lookin' at you smurf blue house, you know who you are]

...My house is smurf blue... *grabs binoculars and searches the bushes*

[fqllve]

The point is, "If in light of the heightened stigma of burning a church (no matter the validity of that stigma) what would keep you from burning something with a lesser stigma?"

It's the presence and intensity of the stigma, not its validity....

Well that's a much more interesting argument. With lesser stigma? Not much. But my point was that taking a human life is not only an act with greater stigma but the stigma is much more widely held.

[Leafsnail]

Surely the key in the long sentence is racism (ie he's likely to strike at black people again in the future if he's not incarcerated) rather than churchiness.  I mean, a church holds value for people, but so does pretty much any other building.  I'm not sure what reason there is to elevate it over other things.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Also, just to be certain I'm not misunderstanding anything; MLK means Martin Luther King, right?

Yes, that's right.

[kaijyuu]

The point is, "If in light of the heightened stigma of burning a church (no matter the validity of that stigma) what would keep you from burning something with a lesser stigma?"

It's the presence and intensity of the stigma, not its validity....

A lot of things could keep them from wanting to burn something with a lesser stigma. Namely, their motivation for burning something with a high stigma may not apply to other things with a stigma (other churches, people, etc).

If your point is "they were obviously very inclined to do this as they were willing to face the social stigma against it" then sure. That doesn't give light to their further actions though, just shows that it was desired enough to not care about the consequences. Whatever their motivation was, it was strong.

[Frumple]

Jr. Don't forget the Junior

S'one of those minor neat things, I actually had a teacher (WWII vet, taught philosophy of history) that shared a class (German, iirc) with MLK. Teach remembered being blown out of the water by King, grade wise

[Nadaka]

I do not hold churches to be sacred, and their churchiness would not make burning them more reprehensible to me.

Fetch Glepnir, and bind me again, because there is no telling what I might do.

Attacking the church is symbolically and literally attacking the community as a whole. It destroys the central social gathering place, the symbol of a people culture and causes harm to all its members. Its "churchiness" does make it more reprehensible an act than burning an empty warehouse or an individuals home.

[Truean]

The point is, "If in light of the heightened stigma of burning a church (no matter the validity of that stigma) what would keep you from burning something with a lesser stigma?"

It's the presence and intensity of the stigma, not its validity....

Well that's a much more interesting argument. With lesser stigma? Not much. But my point was that taking a human life is not only an act with greater stigma but the stigma is much more widely held.

Ah, good, now that we're where I wanted to go:

a.) Let's forget entirely about the possibility of burning the occupant of a building, which is a very real and foreseeable possibility with arson, often leading to felony murder. Cause, you know, how sure ARE you that no one's inside?
b.) The crime charged is arson, not murder, not felonious assault, arson, or maybe aggravated arson. The arson, of any type, including that of a church, is not as bad as the murder or felonious assault of a human being. However, arson of of a church is worse than most other types of arson. This is due to that heightened stigma not compared to murder or felonious assault, but compared to other types of arson.

Worst: Murder
Much worse:Felonious assault
Worse: arson of church or other similar structure
bad: arson.

[Frumple]

Attacking the church is symbolically and literally attacking the community as a whole. It destroys the central social gathering place, the symbol of a people culture and causes harm to all its members. Its "churchiness" does make it more reprehensible an act than burning an empty warehouse or an individuals home.

Well, when the church actually represents that for a particular community, anyway. It's... not that clear cut, nowadays. Especially when areas where there's a... saturation, I guess, of churches. There's five or six within a 10 minute drive of my house. Maybe double that if you drive another 15 min. And that's only of the same religion That kind of situation isn't uncommon in parts of the US, especially the less populated areas.

Intent would definitely be what would influence my reaction toward the arsonist, I guess. In this case, it was racism more than anything else. Symbolic (but perhaps not literal, or at least literal only regarding a subset of the community) attack on a social group, yeah. Hitting a school or valued non-Caucasian community member would be just as reprehensible (to me).

Of course, my most honest urge toward racists in general would be to burn every damn one of them until they stop breeding, but I obviously can't act on that. Logistics, at the very least, to say nothing of the legal or moral aspects. Some day, all those bastards will die. Might not be until the rest of the species does, but at least I'll be able to take that bright note with me. Though that's tiredness and ever simmering frustration (I live in/around a g'damn nest of bigots, and their shit wears on me.), not rational faculty (Which condemns bigotry in general as either hypocrisy or heresy, depending on the source. Re: Christianity, at least, intolerance/bigotry, at all, is a direct violation of the teachings of Jesus and sin against their deity.) [/rant], I guess.

[Fenrir]

Attacking the church is symbolically and literally attacking the community as a whole. It destroys the central social gathering place, the symbol of a people culture and causes harm to all its members. Its "churchiness" does make it more reprehensible an act than burning an empty warehouse or an individuals home.

Not by my measure. The destruction of a gathering place is not, to me, more distasteful than burning a place where someone lives. People can gather in other places, but finding a new home is not so easy, and I suspect the loss of a home more demoralizing. What is more, one would lose many of the belongings contained within. Some belongings have sentimental value and can never be replaced.

[Leafsnail]

And people are pretty damn likely to be in their houses late at night (and asleep and unable to escape) in a way that people aren't usually in churches.