On Wednesday June 14, James T. Hodgkinson shot Congressman Steve Scalise in a baseball park in Alexandria, Virginia.
On Wednesday June 14, Jimmy Lam shot and killed Benson Louie, Wayne Chan and Michael Lefiti at a United Parcel Service (UPS) facility in San Francisco, California.
Two shootings in the United States on the same day. These shootings were not the lead stories on some radio and television news broadcasts, and did not make the front pages of some newspapers.
What if James T. Hodgkinson and Jimmy Lam had been Muslims? Would both shootings be lead stories on radio and television news, and on all front pages of newspapers? Would leaders around the world condemn the shootings, and express sympathy for the victims’ families? Would people around the world hold vigils for the victims and state, “We stand in solidarity with the people of Alexandria and San Francisco.”?
The UPS shooter was identified as Jimmy Lam. Was his first name James? The baseball-park shooter’s first name was James. Should authorities pass laws against, and arrest and imprison all men whose first name is James to make sure that their violence never happens again?
Fortunately, neither James T. Hodgkinson nor Jimmy Lam was a Muslim. We can assume this, but we don’t know because their religion was never mentioned. So, there is no need for the media to report much more on these shootings; there is no need for world leaders to address the violence in Alexandria and San Francisco; there is no need for any worldwide vigils for the victims; and there is no need for authorities to pass laws and arrest and imprison anyone since both Hodgkinson and Lam are dead. And the victims’ families feel good knowing that their loved ones were not killed by Muslims.
If I did not know better, then I would think a terrorist is a Muslim who plans and commits violent acts. Non-Muslims who plan and commit violent acts are only criminals. This is the message that the government and media present.
Police in Halifax, Nova Scotia, received an anonymous tip and foiled a violent act. Some people were going to go to a popular Halifax shopping mall on Valentine’s Day, and massacre people. Police arrested two of the people. A third shot himself before they could arrest him.
Canadian Justice Minister Peter Mackay said that there were no links to terrorism, and dismissed the group as “murderous misfits.”
In June, 2014, in Moncton, New Brunswick, Justin Bourque dressed in camouflage clothing, killed three police officers and wounded two others. Justin Bourque had anti-government views yet his violence was not considered an act of terror.
There were no links to ISIS with the killings of soldiers in Ottawa and Montreal last fall. There was a history of drug abuse and mental health issues with the Ottawa killer. The two killers were not connected other than both were Muslims. The government and media not only said that they were terrorists, but suggested links to ISIS by calling their acts “ISIS-inspired.”
Why are the government and media determined to call acts of violence by a Muslims terrorism, and dismiss acts of violence by non-Muslims as crimes?
The Christian leaders of western countries have an odd way of loving their enemies. I don’t understand it, but it has something to do with violence and dropping bombs. Perhaps these leaders have taken lessons from Jian Ghomeshi.
I am not a Christian. I do not accept Jesus as my savior, but reading his words sometimes moves me to tears.
Imagine a country is attacked and its Christian leader says, “We must love the people who did this to us. Let us pray for them.” And that is it. No war. No retaliation. Just love . . . That is as likely to happen as Rush Limbaugh converting to Islam.
I once spoke to a devout Christian who hated Muslims and favored the war on terror. I asked him about these words from Jesus.
“Shouldn’t we be turning the other cheek and not striking back?” I asked.
“Don’t be ridiculous!” he said. “You want the world to see us as cowards?”
“But what about Jesus saying to love your enemies and turn the other cheek?”
“Well when Jesus said that, he didn’t mean that literally.”
“Then how did he mean it?”
“Uh-er-uh-I-I don’t know, but he didn’t mean for people to walk all over us? You can’t run a country by praying for your enemies and turning the other cheek.”
A smart bomb destroys a neighborhood killing fifty-two people. These fifty-two people make up seven families. One of the families is a mother and her four children. The children range in age from 4 years to 12 years. The woman’s husband, and father of the children, is not home. All the other families die together. All are civilians with no ties to any terrorist organizations. This includes the woman’s husband.
If the Western media reports this bombing at all, then it reports that a jet took out a military target. If word leaked out that a smart bomb killed innocent civilians, then a military spokesperson will list the deaths as collateral damage. No names. No information about their lives. Just collateral damage.
The husband and father returns to find his home and neighborhood destroyed, and his wife and children dead. Shock, grief, anger, and then hate run through him. He decides he has no reason to live and will get revenge before he dies.
The Western media reports that a Muslim terrorist, using an AK-47, massacred twenty-six innocent people in a shopping mall before police shot him dead. The Western media lists the names of the twenty-six victims, and gives information about their lives. People, in Western countries, hold candlelight vigils for the victims. Leaders express shock and outrage over the terrorist’s “barbaric act.” They vow to step up the war on terrorism, and pass new laws to make people safe.
The Bible and The Quran state, “Thou shall not kill.” What would the world be like if Christians and Muslims obeyed this law?