Friends and former colleagues interviewed by AP described Boelter as a devout Christian who attended an evangelical church and went to campaign rallies for President Donald Trump.
He was so deeply religious and conservative that he donned a fucking breaking bad mask to do some murder and mischief.
Thou shall not kill?
/waits for the Right wingers to declare “mental illness”. The only time mental health matters to them.
No surprises here.
I’m sure there’s some passage that instructs stoning people for some trivial fucking reason.
surprised pikachu
He abided strictly by the 13th commandment: “thou shall not kill those who agree with you”
We must have lost that one somewhere along the way
You take my CEO I take more of your Democrats
The first shots have been exchanged
Not a trans person, gay person, Muslim or Mexican??? CRAAAAZYYYY!!!
He was groomed by a trans person. For sure.
Funny how people who believe in imaginary ‘friends’ tend to be the first to reveal themselves as psychopaths. Was it “god’s plan” for you to be a murderer?
Labeling a religious figure as an imaginary friend is very reductionist. Instead, go to the root issue. Right wing political messaging corrupted and brainwashed this person to be an ultra nationalist using lies to prey on his core beliefs through fear, religion, and superiority complex.
Reductive? Maybe. Accurate? Certainly.
The point is- this person’s brain was primed with indoctrination already. He just swapped gods. Religion is a sickness, and he is a great example of how bad that sickness can get.
Religion is a sickness in YOUR opinion. Rationalism is just as dangerous as any other -ism whether it be Buddhism, Catholicism, Confucianism, Moral Absolutism, or Atheism. Just because you think you’re right doesn’t mean that you are. Instead maybe focus on spreading your moral message constructively instead of destructively. You’re bullhorn-ing exactly what his indoctrinators said the outside world is trying to do–destroy his religion.
I’m sorry you feel that way. You’re just wrong, though. Religion is cancer, and should be treated as such. Private spirituality is fine, but once you start saying what others are allowed to do based off of your religious upbringing, it’s literally just fascism with an imaginary friend as the leader.
I see the issue. You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously telling others what they can and can’t do or sowing violence while using your religion as justification is bad. But even the bible says that spirituality should be practiced in private. There’s nuance to the world and just because bad things happen due to corrupted religious teaching doesn’t mean that all religion or spirituality is bad.
Obviously telling others what they can and can’t do or sowing violence while using your religion as justification is bad.
Yet that’s every single religion. So yes, toss the baby with the bathwater.
But even the bible says that spirituality should be practiced in private.
It also says the exact opposite.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20)
You’re conflating missionary messaging with publicly practicing faith and praying. The message there, presumably, is to bring philanthropy to every person on the planet to teach and recruit others to do good in the world. If your sticking point is “teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” then yes that’s every religion but also every government faction and moral think-tank in totality. People telling people what they can and can’t do.
What’s your end goal here? Ban all religion and tell people what they can and can’t believe in? If you and someone share philosophical beliefs you’re not allowed to meet up and talk about them?
I’m sure he thinks he’s doing gods work
Ah yes, I believe it’s the 6th commandment “Thou shalt not kill, unless you disagree with the person you’re killing then it’s totally fine”
Technically the commandment is, “Thou shalt not murder” and I’ve heard some use that as an out. If the commandment was “Thou shalt not kill”, then one would violate it if one were in the military or police and had to kill someone, or even if one had to kill someone in self defense. They see it as a rule against committing unjustified homicide. If the person deserves to die, then it’s okay to kill them.
Yeah, convoluted logic, but we’re talking about people who believe an invisible sky wizard is watching them all the time and will consign them to eternal torture if they whack off.
Carlin’s 2 Commandments:
Always be honest and faithful to the provider of thine nookie.
Try real fuckin’ hard to not kill anyone unless they worship another invisible man than you.
This is the exact bullshit we could brand someone that follows Islamist ideology with.
The major difference: Islamist groups purposely (as I recall learning in a college level North American religions course taught me) twist actual Islamic ideology while the Christian Right just doesn’t understand the religious text they claim to follow.
EDIT: Going to Trump rallies could be equated as the Christian Right version of terrorist training camps.
EDIT 2: My point about describing someone who assassinated people as “religious”, will place a false connotation on a group. It either paints the killer as misguided or followers of that religious faith as bad people. This is what happened with 9/11.
The FBI, CIA, DOJ have been warning about violent Christian Nationalism for years now. They’ve been the biggest threat to America for a long time now.
Pretending these people aren’t religious nuts doesn’t help anyone.
Islam, just like Christianity, has many different groups that believe the same basic doctrine but disagree on many points. The main splits in Islam (that echo some aspects of the Catholic vs. Protestant split) as Sunni and Shia. Each divides and divides again into small communities centred on one mosque (just as, eg, Protestantism divides and divides down to individual congregations).
The big question is: how do groups of people decide which parts of the religious documents, history and practice are more relevant or even correct?
Some groups are quite ‘secular’ (like the Church of England) while others are quite ‘fundamental’, meaning that they much more strictly follow whatever the group decides are the foundation of the religion.
Is it possible to be able so say which of these groups is right? It seems to me that we have been fighting over this since before records began, so we most definitely do not have a way to do this that any majority agrees with. I don’t think anyone can say:
Islamist groups purposely … twist actual Islamic ideology while the Christian Right just doesn’t understand the religious text they claim to follow.
the Christian Right just doesn’t understand the religious text they claim to follow.
A less generous interpretation is that they do but don’t care about the parts they disagree with. There’s a lot of cherry picking going on with them, and that totally tracks with being the world’s #4 exporter of cherries.
The party of domestic terrorism strikes again
Of course he was deeply religious and conservative.
That’s in keeping with his conduct.
