Shifting the blame: The religious right’s wrong response to the Colorado massacre

July 24, 2012 | Filed under: Anti-Secularism,Views | Posted by: Rob Boston

The nation is still trying to come to grips with the recent mass shooting of movie-goers in Aurora, Colo., where a deranged gunman killed 12 people and wounded 58.

The carnage is unfathomable. At a time like this, our often-divided nation yearns for a sense of unity. In light of that effort, certain comments just aren’t helpful.

Consider, for example, the bile spewed by U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). During a Friday radio interview with former U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Gohmert blamed the shootings on the nation’s failure to embrace his version of fundamentalist Christianity.

“You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place,” Gohmert said.

He then added, “When people say, ‘where was God in all of this?’… In fact, we’ve threatened high school graduation participants that if they use God’s name that they’re going to be jailed… I mean that kind of stuff. Where is God? Where, where? What have we done with God? We told him that we don’t want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present.”

The day of the shooting, conservative evangelical mega-pastor Rick Warren sent a tweet reading, “When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it.” Warren later tried to delete the tweet and is now asserting that he was referring to another issue, not the Colorado shootings. Pardon me for being skeptical.

But perhaps the most offensive blather was unleashed by Jerry Newcombe of Truth in Action Ministries. In a column distributed by the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, Newcombe went out of his way to shift the blame away from James Holmes, the killer. It’s really our fault, he says.

“I can’t help but feel that to some extent, we’re reaping what we’ve been sowing as a society,” Newcombe wrote. “We said to God, ‘Get out of the public arena.’ Lawsuit after lawsuit, often by misguided ‘civil libertarians,’ have chased away any fear of God in the land — at least in the hearts of millions.”

Newcombe also opined that fear of a fundamentalist Hell – full of fire, brimstone and demons – might have kept Holmes in line.

“Tens of millions of young people in this culture seem to have no fear of God,” Newcombe asserted. “It’s becoming too commonplace that some frustrated person will go on a killing spree of random people. If they kill themselves, they think it’s all over. But that’s like going from the frying pan into the fire. Where’s the fear of God in our society? I don’t think people would do those sorts of things if they truly understood the reality of Hell.”

In my years of monitoring the Religious Right, one thing I’ve noticed is that these groups claim to emphasize personal responsibility. One of the central tenets of their merger of right-wing politics and fundamentalist Christianity is the need to own up to your actions and fend for yourself. Indeed, they often score progressives for believing that government should “take care” of people. The politicians who pander to the Religious Right promote this message constantly.

If they really believe this, why are they so eager to exonerate mass murders and shift the blame to nebulous forces like godlessness, secularism, failure to fear Hell, etc.? A simpler narrative is more likely true: Holmes was a disturbed young man with access to dangerous weapons. You do the math.

A lot of people are hurting right now, and there is much pain and grief in the land. I really wish that Religious Right leaders and their political allies, who by their statements have made it clear that they have nothing of value to say, would for once do the right thing and stop talking.

13 Responses to Shifting the blame: The religious right’s wrong response to the Colorado massacre

drumdaddy July 24, 2012 - 5:01 am

Like ambulance-chasing attorneys, religious vultures descend on every tragedy to cast blame while jockeying for middle-man status between generous charitable donors and needy recipients. Godsuckers love a good tragedy.

Asteroid Miner July 24, 2012 - 2:22 pm

A written test, the MMPI [Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory] can identify sociopaths, schizophrenics and other insane persons before they cause destruction. The MMPI is a written test that is machine-gradeable. Everybody should have to take the MMPI in high school. Any background check is clearly incomplete if it does not include an MMPI. Why is it that “The tragic shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., on July 20 has reignited a long-running debate about gun control and laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.”? “The tragic shooting” should have reignited a debate about the lack of insanity identification. I heard a psychologist or psychiatrist on CNN say that schizophrenics are not dangerous “If they are on their medication.” A very important caveat. The shooter in Aurora, Colorado was clearly identifiable as schizophrenic by the MMPI. As for gun control, it works. Just ask Hitler. In those holocaust movies on TV I noticed one thing: Jews who owned firearms lived longer than Jews who did not own firearms. I sat on the fence for years before those movies came out. The holocaust is what gun control laws are really about.

- Ed July 24, 2012 - 8:14 pm
  
  Thank you for your last comment. A crime like this could result in Americans putting out the fire with gasoline. Please also remember James Holmes passed all the background checks when he legally bought his firearms (and explosives.)
  
- James Kessler July 25, 2012 - 10:52 am
  
  Gee, Ed, you don’t think there might have been a clue that something was about to go wrong when he somehow managed to accrue 4000 rounds of ammo? And as for you Asteroid, don’t be stupid enough to equate gun control laws and the holocaust. Unless of course you want me to equate pretty much the right does as being just like the Nazi’s did and the holocaust…..Lets see..the Nazi’s treated those who weren’t white and Christian as lesser then human. And oh look..the GOP and the rest of the right wing just loves protraying anyone who isn’t white and Christian as lesser than. Hell Michele Bachmann is sitting there arguing that Muslims are secretly trying to sabotage the United States..just like Hitler argued that Jews were trying to sabotage Germany…. Oh and by the way…if you take enough of Europe that you equal the population of the United States you find out that they have lower gun crime. Now either gun control laws work…or the citizens of the United States are more violent. Which is it? And before either of you spout off about the 2nd amendment…I’m not arguing for the banning of all guns. But gee..the first three words of the 2nd amendment are “A well regulated” Pay attention to that word “regulated” because I hate to break it to the NRA..it doesn’t mean “No regulations whatsoever.” So my suggestion to you two is grow enough sense to realize that gee..maybe we should approach this issue with a bit of balance and common sense instead of one side arguing for the banning of all guns and the other side arguing that people should be allowed to own rocket propelled grenades like Wayne LaPierre did some years ago.
  
  - Mike Daniels July 25, 2012 - 3:27 pm
    
    James, I think you’re missing an important part of Asteroid’s comment.
    
    Everybody should have to take the MMPI in high school. Any background check is clearly incomplete if it does not include an MMPI. Why is it that “The tragic shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., on July 20 has reignited a long-running debate about gun control and laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.”? “The tragic shooting” should have reignited a debate about the lack of insanity identification. I heard a psychologist or psychiatrist on CNN say that schizophrenics are not dangerous “If they are on their medication.” A very important caveat.
    
    It seems to me he’s suggesting that everyone should be tested at a young age, and those with psychological problems get treated early. This would help prevent mass shootings. Those who aren’t treated, well, they should not have access to weapons. His comment about the Holocaust isn’t (by my read) saying that ‘banning guns is Nazism’, but rather that sometimes people need to defend themselves against their own government . . . hence his reference to Jews who owned firearms living longer than those who did not. (Probably only by a few minutes, in most cases.) In their case, only the government was allowed to own weapons, so there was no effective way to fight back. You can only do so much with a board with a nail in it. Besides save the world, that is.
    
    - James Kessler July 25, 2012 - 6:37 pm
      
      If I understood what he meant then I apologize for that. But since no one is talking about banning all guns I don’t think we need to worry about it. That and what exactly is a assault rifle going to do against an M1A2 tank?
      
      - James Kessler July 25, 2012 - 6:53 pm
        
        Bah, misunderstood rather.
      - Mike Daniels July 26, 2012 - 9:20 am
        
        Not much, but the Nazis weren’t driving tanks door to door to round up Jews.
James Kessler July 26, 2012 - 11:08 am

And what would have stopped them if they had?

- Mike Daniels July 26, 2012 - 4:06 pm
  
  That’s not a realistic scenario. It wouldn’t be a reasonable or effective means to round up a large number of people, then or now. They’d still have to get out of the tanks to go into the buildings. Armed people at least have the option of fighting back. Unarmed people do not.
  
  - James Kessler July 26, 2012 - 7:13 pm
    
    Or they could have just blown up the buildings. But it’s not a realistic scenario to think that people with handguns and semiautomatics are going to somehow be able to successfully resist a government bent on tyranny in the modern day. Now I’m not saying guns should be banned…but I am saying the first three words of the 2nd amendment include the word “regulated”
    
    - Mike Daniels July 27, 2012 - 8:34 am
      
      Seems to be working reasonably well in Iraq and Afghanistan, James. Are they winning? No. But they’re doing a lot of damage. And the point is “able to fight back”. Not “able to put down the entire military”. A bully doesn’t tend to go after the ones who will fight back, even if the ones fighting back are smaller and will lose. The bully goes after those who won’t fight back. Oh, and “just blowing up the buildings” wouldn’t accomplish “round them up”. Wouldn’t need tanks for that, either. Just bomb the neighborhoods. Of course, if you want the buildings and the possessions, you can’t really bomb the neighborhoods.