So is his point invalid because other bad things have happened to other people?
On another thread, not necessarily. On this thread -- where Blue Moose tries to turn the focus from two victims victimized by a Mormon murder to some property damage that their insurance $ has already kicked in and rebuilt at little-to-no financial loss to the church, yes.
Blue Moose, like you and a few other Mormon allies, repeatedly attempt to make this thread about somebody other than Gribble.
For BM, this thread's been about Mormon buildings being victimized -- not about the Gates family. Why should Mormons like BlueMoose care about victims of Mormon murderers? (By comparison, Blue Moose has simply raised a straw man not relevant to the thread)
For you & a few other posters on this thread, it's been about me -- the messenger...to take the focus off of the news reality about Gribble. (Another straw man...sorry, my actions aren't banner heads on the East Coast)
Discerning by the posts you've written on this thread, apparently according to your worldview, the provocateurs of the world aren't the slashers who go about amputating feet, and slaughtering the mothers of 11 yo -- perhaps before the very eyes of the 11 yo...no, what seemingly upsets you is that Web content and commentary isn't "censored" enough for your standards.
Apparently, you would like ANY and ALL religious references removed media-wise from any criminal acts if associated with the criminal. [BTW, did you go to the link of this article & write a letter-to-the-editor asking them to remove that paragraph about Gribble being a "devout Mormon?" If not, why not? Where's the consistency of your outrage re: "Mormon" references? Aren't you being rather "choosy" about that?]
What's ironic in all this that I originally planned to only highlight the religion reference in my first two posts and move on...yet YOU have ensured that the entirety of the thread focus remains on the religious adherence of this murderer...you, Raider Sam, along with a few other posters, have ensured that Mormonism remains front & center -- no matter how much you keep trying to make the thread about me.
Well, let's see. Here's one other question, Sam.
BlueMoose was highlighting arsonist-criminals in his link. A case could be constructed that...
(1)...arsonists who act anti-religiously are acting upon generic religious motives -- even if we never know specific motives. [See more below on how I believe nobody is 100% irreligious...and therefore how even anti-religious behavior cannot be 100% de-linked from a person's religious convictions/affections]
Therefore...
(2)...it would seem to me that both you, Sam, and BlueMoose hint here that it's "OK" on this thread to discuss...
...religiously-based "anti-Mormon" sentiments of arsonist criminals...
...yet the tenor of all your other posts on this thread is that we shouldn't be discussing the religiously based "Mormon" ties of murderer criminals.
I ask you: Why do you imply Sam that the "anti-Mormon" (or at the very least potential religious) sentiments of arsonist criminals is a "valid" point to discuss on this thread; yet the "Mormon" sentiments of a murderer criminal is somehow invalid & off-base?
Doesn't that appear inconsistent to you, Sam?
My explanation as to why I believe nobody is 100% irreligious:
A hard-boiled atheist who claims God doesn't exist can be 100% so convicted of that; and perhaps has more faith in that premise than many "religious" people do about their convictions.
Ann Coulter in one of her books mentions how liberals' "faith" in liberalism is just as much a "faith" as Christians. Misguided, yes. But still it constitutes a "faith."
My contention is that even atheistic pagans act religiously. Nobody is God-free or idol-free. That vacuum becomes filled. It can be a belly, the apostle Paul told the Colossians. It can be another person. It can be the American Idol winner or some celebrity. It can be Satan. It can be $. It can be an addiction like sex or substance abuse. It can be self.
Nobody is ultimately 100% "irreligious." (By degree, some are more so than others; but even negative convictions about religion are themselves religious convictions -- even if drawn at the well of the cult of "self").
All at least worship at that altar of self or $ or a relationship -- if not some thing. They religiously adhere either to an idol, a series of idols, or pretend gods, or THE real God.
Hence, all arsonists who attack religious buildings have underlying "religious" justifications/convictions about why they think that's "OK" to do that...[And I state for the record that these acts are reprehensible]
So why are the arsonists' sentiments presumed to be wide-open on the table for thread discussion here; but if you happen to be a murderer of a certain religious persuasion, and if that wee little sentiment association is mentioned, well, hell hath no fury than if that given sentiment is scorned.