Christianist Republicans Got What They Asked For

Valerie points out the predictability of this entire scenario.


Planned Parenthood Colorado assault

After months of verbal assault against Planned Parenthood and against women more broadly, Republican Christianists have gotten what they were asking for—bloodshed.

On November 27, a mass shooting left three dead and nine wounded at a Planned Parenthood clinic just miles from the headquarters of the Religious Right flagship, Focus on the Family. Was the shooting exactly what conservative Christian presidential candidates and members of congress wanted? Maybe, maybe not. But it is what they asked for. Republican members of the Religious Right incited violence as predictably as if they had issued a call for Christian abortion foes to take up arms. Inciting violence this way is called stochastic terrorism:

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf.”

In an incident of…

View original post 784 more words

20 thoughts on “Christianist Republicans Got What They Asked For

  1. I think the difference, in fairness, is that no Christians or Republican Presidential Candidates were calling for the deaths of PP workers while shouting “God is Great” at the tops of their lungs.
    opposition doesn’t equal death threats of incitement to violence/murder.
    we don’t even know if this guy is Christian yet, or if he’s even republican. talk about jump the gun (sorry, no pun intended).
    what of those American republicans who don’t oppose or even support abortion rights? how about those democrats who do oppose? just too early and not enough information to pile on once again. BTW, Libertarians are in the mix too… some opposed and some supporting. you can’t make this a Christian Republican thing yet. we don’t know that to be true


    • Your point is well-made, but from past incidents carried out by over-zealous Christians, I tend to think Valerie is spot-on.

      A person in power does not always need to make an exact statement to make his/her point. Often, the social climate dictates the meaning. And there are always those who fill in/interpret the meaning to match their personal biases and/or beliefs.


      • The posts title is not true. Name one christian republican leader who called for a mass shooting in response to their opposition to abortion. Be careful not do as the ‘gun nuts’ do and use this tragedy for political points


        • Are you speaking of her title or mine? I modified my title to go along with the statement that she had at the beginning of her post.

          And you’re correct — no one “called for a mass shooting.” But for those who are so inclined, exact words are rarely necessary to incite action when they believe it’s justified. Just consider some of the things that have been happening at Trump’s events.

          In any case. I can see you’re taking the high ground … and that’s OK. It IS possible this guy wasn’t actually motivated by all the talk related to PP. It may be all coincidental. Time will tell.


    • You make some good points KIA, but I honestly feel where Nan was going was simply that direct incitements to violence are not necessary when you label a large group of Americans as baby murderers or those who support baby murderers. And many of the Republican candidates who believe that we are a Christian nation, that we need more God in government and consider abortion murder create a culture where those that are troubled, alone, looking for away to get approval from others, to get famous, and/or to feel like they are doing the righteous work of God are likely, in this culture, to go after those that are considered “responsible” for murdering babies. The rhetoric on this issue, and what planned parenthood does has become extremely hyperbolic and thus we can expect hyperbolic reactions as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. At the very least we see here the danger in demonising others and maintaining a deliberately maintaining and emotional line of reasoning on an argument.

    Having recently come out of Christianity I am no fan of abortion. A lot of my concern revolved around the question of when does life actually begin? Unfortunately it is a topic around which it is hard to have any sort of open discussion. I recall Sam Harris suggesting that if the population as a whole knew more about the development of the human fetus then there would be less concern about early term abortions.

    I really do think that a discussion on when life begins is needed to overcome the perception from people of faith that abortion is akin to murder. Until that matter is addressed and agreed then this will remain an issue of heightened emotion. Of course the very real possibility is that after having such a discussion there still won’t be any agreement.


    • Peter, the discussion has been going on for a very long time and you’re correct … there still isn’t any agreement.

      The question that many ask is why is life before birth more important than life after birth.

      One last point related to abortion … I can’t give statistics, but from the discussions I’ve seen and/or been involved in, men are usually the one who argue the hardest against it. Does that tell you anything?


      • I find it a vexing matter.much like euthanasia. I see arguments on both sides of the debate.

        Nan, I think my ear is still sore from a discussion I had a few years ago with a professional Lady who was one of our Directors at work. We were having a pleasant discussion, she was telling me about her trip to Egypt, suggesting that the organisational capacity of the folk their made here seriously doubt if the current generation would be able to build the Pyramids. Somehow the discussion traversed to abortion and I ventured an opinion that suggested I had some reservations. I don’t think I was able to get another word in for the rest of the lengthy discussion, as she sought to ‘educate’ or ‘harangue’ me on the matter, probably a bit of both. She made some very good points in quite forceful manner, but I remained conflicted on the issue.

        For a long time I thought that adoption might be a avenue worthy of greater support, given the long waiting lists for prospective parents.

        It is not easy to change values and opinions one has developed over a life time.


      • Sigh, Arch, we live in an imperfect world. I am often conflicted between what one might see as an idealistic approach and a pragmatic approach.

        Recently in South Australia a law was proposed that if a pregnant woman was assaulted and the baby miscarried then it would be treated as a murder. What was interesting was that many groups were conflicted on this matter as they started to see the possible implications this had for abortion.

        I just wish life was simpler.


  3. The RWCRFM’s (Right Wing Conservative Republican Fundamentalist Morons) do have blood on their hands. This is a small sample. All they have to do is use the buzzwords, manage the media (ie Faux News), and play to the audience that loves them.

    This effectively winds up the nutjobs, points them in the right direction, and this is the kind of result. This is a pattern of religious brainwashing. Muslims, Christians, Jews, doesn’t matter what they call themselves. They are all equally despicable, and culpable. And they live in your town!

    Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.