(no subject)

[badstar]

There's no registration to read either one. The first article is far more responsibly, and I suspect accurately written than the second one which is sensationalist pandering. At the heart of the matter, a woman is dead because her boyfriend killed her.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060503/NEWS03/605030448/1005

Anderson told police he is a druid -- an apparent reference to ancient Celtic religious traditions -- and said he was obligated to dispose of Miller's body by air, water or fire, Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor John Taylor said after the arraignment.


http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/9153619/detail.html

The man who killed a Milford teen told police he disposed of her body as part of a pagan ritual.

Jon Anderson, 23, confessed to killing Natasha Miller, 19, saying he did it because he is a druid -- part of an ancient religious group, Local 4 reported.

Anderson told police that according to his religion, he had to dispose of Miller's body either by fire, earth or water.

This section alone comprises nearly half of the story. Kinda takes the focus off the fact that he killed this woman There was no "pagan ritual", there was only a murder. The first artitcle says that he killed her because he was angry that she wanted to break off the relationship. The second one says he did it "because he is a druid"

Yeah, I wonder which is really true.

I wonder which claim will get more attention?

I am angry that he killed her.

I am angry that he claimed that it was part of a religion.

I am angry that news is reported and warped in this way.

Okay, belonging to a certain religion DOES NOT make you kill someone. Having serious issues that need to be addressed can make you kill someone. This woman is dead because a monster took her life. Focusing on his alleged religion is an insult to her and a detriment to the seriousness of the issue.

Comments

[fuego.livejournal.com]

Many have chosen differently then you in their view of religion. For some it is a means to an end to justify their worldview. For others it is the opposite. There's lots of shades of gray in there as well.
Now many mainstream varieties of popular religions in the west preach love and tolerance. Some even accept the idea of some free thought. Not all do.
It's kind of like the whole debate on homosexuality in Christianity.

So...you don't think that the person has to otherwise be somehow predisposed to violence? I see what you're saying, but someone who is otherwise not inclined to just go out and murder someone is going to need some pretty strong motivation to kill, even in the name of religion. ....mental illness, really serious political motivations, coercion, being seriously manipulated?

What I'm saying isn't that people don't see reason to kill in the name of religion- that's very obviously wrong- i'm saying that religion in and of itself is not what causes people to kill.

[tecie.livejournal.com]

All humans are inclined to kill given the correct motivation.
People killing in the name of religion isn't wrong. It simply isn't right. Religion CAN cause people to kill if they're using it as a means to and end.
For exmample, if someone has decided that they want to move up the ladder in getting into their diety of choice's graces, and they decide that the best way to do this is to start killing everybody who believes differently, then chances are they will find a passage in their religious document of choice to fit that. The religion becomes a means to an end.
So here's where it get's murky: do you believe in total freedom of religion or just those that fit into your version of what's acceptable.
That's why I personally like the idea of as completely a secular government as possible. My personal philosophy also tends to include: believe whatever you want as long as you don't harm or kill me or those around me. But I'm a cynic and damned selfish.
The way that we've currently dealt with this disparity, where you have the Rev. Phelps, this Druid dude, bin Laden, and other fun filled individuals is to have a complex series of codes that various minorities and majorities agree to over the years.
These days, lynching, electric chairs, and hanging are illegal, despite what various mainstream religious documents say.
Basically, to sum up here: Religion can either be an end to a means or a means to an end. If someone buys into something wholly, then there's all kinds of inferences both internal to every relgion I've studied and external to them (in mainstream and fringe society) to do things that are unacceptable and/or illegal. It just takes the right person to find it and exploit it.
I'm not saying murder is right. In fact, I'm rather against it.
But saying religion has no part in causing people to go do very bad things is both naive and dangerously detached from the actual state of western civilization.
(apologies for the spelling. I'm walking out the door right now and wanted to post this.)