http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/03/alabama.churchfires/index.html
Five churches in Bibb County and one in adjacent Chilton County (home of the finest peaches in the world, he states non sequitur-ly) burned overnight. Some fucking arsonist is on the loose again. I wonder if its the same racist motherfuckers who burned the black churches in the '90’s.
It’s sad that this news from Alabama does not surprise me. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same guy or same group of drunk white trash assholes.
From the link in the OP:
Bolding mine. Still sucks, though.
You mean the ones who burned 37 black churches and 23 white churches?
Like in the 90’s when the arsonists included
Just a little Googling turned up this guy. I don’t know who he is, but he has been published in The Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and American Spectator. I realize that those cites will be too far to the right to qualify as factual here, not sure if the Washington Post is too far right or not.
So yeah, burning churches=bad. Does jumping to conclusions and knee jerk calls of racist=good?
Could simply be an arsonist who thinks churches make for spectacular blazes, what with the steeples and so forth.
Yeah, you’re right. Probably meth-addled rednecks without a political or social statement to make. Just dumb bastards of questionable human worth…but yeah, it still sucks.
I live here. I know that there is still destructive racism here. My calls of “racism” are not knee-jerk. The memory of the Birmingham church bombings live on in this state.
I was admittedly wrong about the racism angle. I apologize. But don’t ever think I don’t have reasons for guessing in that direction.
And I’m no fucking leftist.
…he states non sequitur-ly.
You may very well end up being correct, they can’t be very bright racist arsonists if they are burning nearly as many (then) or more (now) white churches.
Ac tually, that was more or less in response to Duke’s implications about the cites he provided, as well as my experience with Duke’s general political orientation.
[spits] ‘twas nuthin but a good old fashioned cross burnin’. Thar jus happent ta be a whole bunch of structural material betwixt the ground and the cross.
I wasn’t trying to imply that you were a leftist, just that cites from right-leaning sources are at best taken with a grain of salt on this board, and usually roundly criticized. Googling “Black churches burning” turns up all sorts of cites, some I recognize as left or right, but sometimes newspapers throw me. A “Post” and a “Times” from the same city can be vastly different in their political orientation and I usually end up picking the “wrong” one.
Really, I think “not very bright” and “racist arsonist” pretty much go together by default.
Gotcha.
Of course they do. In either coupling.
I was just as apalled when I heard about this on the news. Then I started wondering how long it would be before it was pinned on a white supremecist before any evidence was in. (The last spate of church burnings turned out to be not the sole work of the evil white man.)
I wasn’t disappointed, as I’m posting in a thread that blamed racists whites. Ogre, it seems you’re backing off from the full-bore accusation of the KKK being involved right off the bat. Good on you. It may turn out to be the case, but we have more recent history to look at than Birmingham in the '60’s.
However, even in your post that seemed to back off from direct racist charges, you mention that the rednecks did it. How many blacks would you consider rednecks? Or are you still flailing about over the inherent racism all whites feel and therefore is the only cause of arson?
Whoever is responsible for this is complete scum. I’d offer some punitive options for them, but around here they aren’t viable choices. Based on history, there’s a good chance it was some drunk hick that had nothing better to do, but exceptions to that rule have been shown a few times recently.
And why isn’t anyone looking at the denominations of the churches?
It’s the Lutherans. That’s who you need to focus on. Damn heathens! 
:dubious:
My money’s on the Zoroastrians.
Keep in mind that the arsonist who merely wants a spectacular fire has a greater likelihood of success with a church. Lacking full time staff personnel, they’re often empty, and sanctuaries are huge unpartitioned spaces in which fire volume can grow exponentially prior to detection. Unless it’s sprinklered and a monitored alarm system notifies authorities immediately, the chances of saving the structure are typically slim to non-existent.
The actor may wish to effectively say, I burning your house, God!
They’re just the “Ancients” of Lutheranism. Same club, different currency when paying the dues.
[sub]OK, I got nothin’ here[/sub] 
Steady on, son. I wasn’t shooting for factual accuracy. I was ranting about the churches being burned. Now, I happen to believe that there’s a better than average chance that the perpetrators were, in fact, white, lower-tax-bracket, meth-addled REDNECKS (Cite? Except for the meth-addled part, I’m a primary source!), but even if not, I’m allowed to rant and use hyperbole and exaggeration and broad, sweeping generalizations.
I know about reasoned debates and carefully massaged statements and the rules of logic and evidence. I simply chose to rant instead. If you don’t like it, blow me.
It’s not a matter if I like it or not, so don’t expect to be feeling really good in a few minutes. 
I figured I knew what you meant, just wanted to clarify it. Wasn’t an attack.
Just know this. I know how you feel about it and I agree with you. Even if there are a ton of differences in the overall big picture, there are churches burning, and this can’t be tolerated. We can argue over a beer at the pool hall, but when the torch is lit, I think you’ll find I’m standing beside you rather than across from you.