The trial of Craig Stephen Hicks who killed three neighbors over a disagreement about use of a parking space in the condominium where they all lived has begun. North Carolina Killing Detailed gives the description in this LA Times, as the facts are not in dispute.
I'm posting this essay under the Dailykos Group, Atheist in America, but not for the usual reasons; which is to express our grievances, presenting various examples of how we are annoyed by having to recite the words "under God" and see crosses on public property. We also protest how religious groups gets preferred treatment, not only by tax relief but by different standards of law as defined by the "Restoration of Religious Freedom Acts." This story fits the literal title of this group, that I chose to give it when I set it up a few years back, since the murderer (I'll forgo "alleged") has expressed his atheistic beliefs. This confessed killer of three, whatever else he may be, is one of us!
Excerpt are from the LA Times article:
Hicks facebook described himself as an atheist or "anti-theist," His neighbors said it was all religions he hated not just those of the people he killed.
"He had equal-opportunity anger toward all the residents," neighbor Sarah Maness said of Hicks.
The "religious views" section of Hicks’ Facebook page says, "I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge, and to condemn me as an inadequate human being -- which your religion does with self-righteous gusto."
The comment did not mention a specific religion.
As I read this article this morning I was taken by how this disturbs my own prejudices and self identity. It is the religious bigots, those who combine religious certainty with rage at outsiders, either those of different religions are those who were not in the community of believers, whom I viewed as irrational. Yet, we have this example, this man whose particular homicidal aberration were directed against those with religion, any religion. Here's how the article described the event and those whom he slaughtered, with apparently no remorse.
Assistant Dist. Atty. James Dornfried told a packed courtroom as he petitioned a judge to apply the death penalty in the case.
Hicks confronted Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, at Barakat's front door and "there was a brief interaction, a discussion" involving parking. Hicks then shot Barakat several times, Dornfried said.
When Barakat’s newlywed wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 22, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, began screaming, Hicks stepped inside the apartment and shot both women...
Our world today is riven, not based on political-economics that in various forms underlied the centuries long contest between socialism and the free market -- on whether a rational international system of planned egalitarianism should replace free market capitalism.
Since the fall of Soviet Communism this conflict is over, with the largest so-called communist country, China, a bastion of Capitalism -- and socialism really existing only in smaller homogenous countries. Now wars are over whose God is greater, not only between Islam and Christianity, but of sub-groups within Islam, that while meaningless to the West, are enough to generate mass slaughter between Sunnis and Shiite.
My conviction that rational atheism is the answer is shaken by this one man. I'm making the assumption, as does his lawyer, that that the facts as reported are accurate, (while always subject to revision.) Other issues are following from this tragedy:
Two days after the shootings, the U.S. Justice Department announced that the FBI had begun a preliminary investigation into whether the shootings amounted to a hate crime. The decision came after the case received worldwide attention, propelled by a social media campaign tagged #muslimlivesmatter.
"Hate Crime" means that a criminal action is punished more severely because a given group was targeted. I understand the logic, but it doesn't seem to apply here. Craig killed three people, maybe partly because they were Muslim, or religious, or different. Unlike so many recent cases this one has no uncertainty other than of Craig's mental condition, yet there is no indication that he meets any criteria for being legally insane. He murdered three innocent people and the only decision for the courts to make is his punishment.
I am a supporter of capital punishment, for reasons illustrated by cases such as this. Others are quoted in the article as disagreeing. Yet their implied alternative punishment explains why I support execution.
"This is more than just about parking,” Barakat said. “Three people get shot in the head. The death penalty would not be enough."
This was expressing that the punishment of this man should not be more humane, but less so. My view is that the death penalty is enough, but not too much. In Norway Mr. Craig would serve at most a couple of decades in a comfortable setting and then be released. In Saudi Arabia he would be given a thousand lashes and then be-headed.
In this country we "only" execute, terminate the lives of those convicted of taking another life. I'll let others make the case that such punishment should be ended in this country. Those who oppose this as barbaric, as primitive retribution, should look at the degree of hurt, the rage that those such as this killer engender. It was a hate crime, an assault on a religious community, at least in part. I believe that our society, under due process, must take responsibility for providing revenge, or else it will be left to the mob, the religion, to take it upon themselves.
Romans 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
No, this atheist writer differs with those who follow the above edict. Vengeance is a human reaction to great loss at the hand of another person, that we must relegate to society acting under due process, which is now occurring in this trial. Craig Hicks must die for his actions, his "sin," so those close to the victims who were grievously hurt will remain invested in civil society. Mr. Hicks must know, and we should impose the realization on him, that he had no right to kill to advance atheistic principles any more than one with religious justification.
When Mr. Hicks propensity towards violence and possession of guns became known, in an ideal society he would have been engaged, his weapons removed and treatment imposed for his incipient rage. Yet, we are stuck with our second amendment culture of gun violence that is more than political, but that has infected our society in ways that often lie dormant, until tragedies such as this illustrate our vulnerability.
Addendum:
Punishment for crime evokes strong emotion, with comparative data on effectiveness of different country's approaches not easy to analyze. This long N.Y. Times Magazine article is useful as it compares Norway with the U.S, acknowledging that so much is different in the two cultures that conclusions are elusive.