On October 18, 2004, Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn't believe in God.
On December 18, 2005, after many months of postponements, Arthur Shelton, with his defense attorney, Seymour Swartz, appeared at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice in Detroit, Michigan, before Judge Gregory D. Bill to face charges of murder in the first degree brought by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Christina Guiruis.
The trial began with the taped phone call Arthur Shelton placed to the Taylor police department in Taylor, Michigan, October 18, 2004, at precisely 12:44 AM. Shelton sounded calm and pridefull when he told the dispatcher he had just shot "the devil himself" with a revolver and a shotgun because "he (Hooper) didn't believe in God." Shelton told the dispatcher he was "still armed and ready to shoot again in case he moves. I want to make sure he's gone." When the dispatcher asked how many times he shot the victim Shelton replied, "hopefully enough."
Source: Parallel Politics and Comment
Now, I know (and hope) most Christians wouldn't take it upon themselves to "take out" their atheists friends like Arthur saw fit to do. Yet, there is an underlying message writ here: Arthur felt and "knew" that his action was justified. What brought about this rationale to justify murder? After all, doesn't it say in the bible "Thou shalt not kill"? Do those words have any meaning to Christians like Arthur? Apparently not. What else? Take this example a bit further in what I have argued in past posts (here and there); the bible is left for interpretation and cannot be relied upon for "rules to live by". The moral code of the bible is a mish-mash of contradictions in this regard.
So, if Arthur is an avowed Christian; Why did he see fit to ignore the sixth commandment of (G)od? Plainly, I could say that being an atheist forfeits your protection afforded in the sixth commandment. Or, any other infidel (yes, infidel is not exclusive to Islam).
Also, I see this coming a mile away, most Christians will say that he wasn't a "true" Christian. Why wasn't he? This argument is complete bullshit. After all, we've got plenty of denominational churches in this country (and world wide), some declaring that this/that/and the other and not a true church. Would Anglicans see fit to compromise theirs to attend and become members of a Pentecostal church? I wouldn't think so, because it's the "wrong" church. If Anglicans don't go to that church then it's obvious they don't think Pentecostals are "true" Christians (Shit! We are seeing the schism of the Anglican Church right as I type this). Otherwise we wouldn't see all these spin-offs of Christianity. Martin Luther comes to mind. Yeah, you know, the guy who hated Jews. I wonder where Hitler got his "final solution" from.
No matter how it's spun, religion is the "final solution" for all of us.
Google Search: "Larry Hooper" atheist
Atheist Blogroll Search: "Larry Hooper"
"This is so disgusting and disheartening. I myself am an eagle scout and describe myself only as agnostic, but the actions here are only more evidence that religion can bring out the most evil anyone has ever seen. After reading the article I am convinced that this was a product of upbringing, as it seems the boy's entire family behaves the same way and probably thought he did the right thing! I'm definitely siding with Richard Dawkins on this one..."- njackson