Skip to comments.These Victims Are People, Too - What hate crimes have wrought.
Posted on 11/26/2002 6:35:24 AM PST by Fury
November 26, 2002 8:30 a.m.
arlier this year, I was on a flight from New York to Dallas, and found myself sitting next to an older couple who sported 9/11-related pins on their clothing. They were Southern Baptists returning home from working in Manhattan as part of a 9/11 relief effort. As a New Yorker, I thanked them for what they'd given to our city, and they could hardly have been more gracious.
Before long, though, they were asking questions about my personal life I found intrusive and unwelcome. They wanted to know about my relationship with God. The pair were witnessing to me, which as Evangelicals is a duty of faith. I hastened to assure them that I was a believing Christian, but that didn't dissuade the two, who wanted to be sure I was the right kind of Christian. Not wanting to tell the kindly couple that I was a mackerel-snapping papist I never would have heard the end of that I simply took the pamphlet they offered me, smiled, thanked them and returned to my book. And that was the end of it. They were good country people who had done my city a charitable turn, and there was no point in my making a scene.
You are asking: Rod, why didn't you strangle them and stuff their bodies in the overhead bin?
Good question. After all, this couple was advocating an exclusivist brand of Christianity, one that cannot be comfortably reconciled with my own beliefs. Their beliefs are also held by such well-known enemies of humanity as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They may even have been Republicans. Clearly, had I murdered these people, and had been tried by a jury of my peers that is, journalists I would have gone scot-free, provided my attorney had kept hidden from the jury the fact that I am neither a sexual or racial minority, a Muslim, or a member of any certified victim class requiring them to suspend normal standards of ethical judgment.
I reach this conclusion based on the deafening media silence around the savage murder of Mary Stachowicz, the middle-aged Chicago churchgoer allegedly killed by coworker Nicholas Gutierrez, a 19-year-old homosexual who reportedly snapped when the Catholic woman told him he should quit sleeping with men. According to Chicago police, Gutierrez confessed to killing Stachowicz in his apartment after arguing with her about his lifestyle. According to Chicago authorities, Gutierrez confessed that he set upon Stachowicz when she asked are you ready for this? "Why do you [have sex with] boys instead of girls?"
Obviously, this woman was a Nazi. As a state's attorney told the Chicago Tribune, "He got upset with her. The defendant punched and kicked and stabbed the victim until he was tired. He then placed a plastic garbage bag over her head and strangled her."
He reportedly then jammed her body into a crawlspace under his floor. A 19-year-old man allegedly did this to a 51-year-old woman, who came to visit him after receiving communion at a nearby Catholic Church, not because of anything she did to him, but of what she supposedly said to him. He didn't say, "Ma'am, my private life is none of your business, now please leave," or even, "Begone, bigot!" both of which are understandable and defensible responses. No, he allegedly tortured the poor thing to death.
Where have we heard of this sort of thing before? Why, when three redneck men killed Matthew Shepard a few years ago, after the homosexual young man propositioned them in a bar. Understandably, the men found Shepard's words offensive. They should have told him to get lost. Instead, they tortured and killed him.
There is no moral difference between these acts. Both were heinous, and both deserve publicity. Yet the American media made Matthew Shepard an overnight cause célèbre, and have so far said very little about Mary Stachowicz just as the media said very little about Jesse Dirkhising, the 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped, tortured, and strangled by homosexuals in 1999. Andrew Sullivan, who is probably the most articulate gay-rights advocate in journalism, explained in a 2001 New Republic article how stark the media bias was in these cases.
"In the month after Shepard's murder, Nexis recorded 3,007 stories about his death," Sullivan wrote. Sullivan continued:
In the month after Dirkhising's murder, Nexis recorded 46 stories about his. In all of last year, only one article about Dirkhising appeared in a major mainstream newspaper. The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times ignored the incident completely. In the same period, The New York Times published 45 stories about Shepard, and The Washington Post published 28. The discrepancy isn't just real. It's staggering.
"What we are seeing, I fear, is a logical consequence of the culture that hate-crimes rhetoric promotes," Sullivan wrote. "Some deaths if they affect a politically protected class are worth more than others. Other deaths, those that do not fit a politically correct profile, are left to oblivion."
We are seeing the same dynamic at work in the media silence over Mary Stachowicz's sensational murder. One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of gay blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz's strangling:
The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.
I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves. Paul Marshall, who tracks religious persecution for Freedom House, told me recently that the Western media routinely omit anti-Christian motivation in acts of sectarian violence overseas.
In just the past week, you could observe this dynamic at work in reporting on two widely reported stories. In Nigeria, Muslims angry over a line in a newspaper article destroyed churches, beat and maimed Christians, and even murdered some of them. Yet in many of the press accounts, there was no mention of who started the violence (Muslims), and who the victims were (Christians). Typical of the nonjudgmental approach was a report I heard Monday from CNN correspondent Nancy Curnow, who mentioned "religious violence between Muslims and Christians."
Similarly, consider the headline on a report from Monday's New York Times reflecting on the murder in Lebanon of a Christian medical missionary, an Evangelical Protestant who was murdered last week in her clinic by an unidentified assassin. The Times headline read: "Killing Underscores Enmity of Evangelists and Muslims." But the enmity unmistakably goes only one way. The dead Bonnie Witherall's husband and colleagues proclaimed their love for the people of southern Lebanon, even after the murder. "Whoever did this crime, I forgive them," Garry Witherall said at her memorial service. "It's not easy. It took everything I have, but I can forgive these people because God has forgiven me."
The missionaries, on the other hand, had been denounced by local Islamic leaders, in part because, as one Muslim magazine quoted by the Times put it, "They destroy the fighting spirit of the children, especially of the Palestinian youth, by teaching them not to fight the Jews, for the Palestinians to forgive the Jews and leave them Jerusalem."
Obviously, this story is so tangled that the only thing for a self-respecting journalist to do is declare moral equivalence, and be done with it. What rot.
Admittedly, this kind of thing is an old story, and even a stale staple of conservative journalism. But as long as it keeps happening, it has to be pointed out. The media don't tell us what to believe, but they do set the terms of public discussion. The narrative model that insists Christians can never be victims of bigotry, violent or otherwise, will ultimately have consequences beyond merely angering pious readers and viewers.
In Canada, Christians are having their freedom of speech and worship taken away by hate-speech laws designed to protect homosexuals from having their feelings hurt. Meanwhile, incidents like the radical feminist trashing of Montreal's Roman Catholic cathedral a couple of years ago (they even threw condoms and soiled tampons at the altar, and burned crosses on the cathedral steps) not only merited little comment in Canada's press, it didn't move the Canadian authorities to file anything stronger than minor trespassing charges. Prosecutors said the event didn't trigger the country's hate-crimes law.
This didn't come from nowhere. And one trembles to think of where it's going. This is why we have to talk about Mary Stachowicz.
So, just as Jennings was prohibited from even mentioning the circumstances under which Torricelli quit, he is also unable to mention this fairy murderer or it's victim.
This is why I agree with Dashole. The new Congress must pass legislation that will free the old media from the censorship that prevents them from doing an objective job of informing us. Who knows how many fairy, black or democrat criminals are operating out there? Isn't it about time we were allowed to know?
. . . this couple was advocating an exclusivist brand of Christianity,
They tell everone of any race about it and invite them to join, and this is exclusivist how?
10-4. I can't imagine anyone believes it's OK for someone to physically attack a person for simply expressing his beliefs. Shows there are more dangerous wackos out there that it appeared earlier.
Of course, some of us believe that always being armed and aware of possible threats is simply a wise decision that preserves life in most cases.
I've been saying for a long time that the only respectable prejudice remaining in America is anti-Christian prejudice. This horrible event, and the way it's been treated by the media in general and homosexual partisans -- that is, pundits who are determined to make homosexuality a political interest group with special rights and privileges -- in particular are evidence to that point. This, in a country that's 74% Christian and supposedly upholds the equality of all persons before the law.
Are Jehovah's Witnesses fair game, now? I mean, they come to your doorstep. They quiz you about whether you read your Bible. No non-Witness really likes that sort of thing.
What about Mormon missionaries? All Latter-Day Saints do two years' missionary work; it's required of them by their church. The Mormons are as concerned about homosexuality's hazards to your spiritual health as we Catholics are. Is there a target pinned to their backs, too?
Catholics, of course, are always bottom-of-the-pile when it comes to respect for rights or tolerance for their convictions. The great irony of this is that American Catholics have so completely pulled in their horns. An American Catholic is less likely to talk religion to a non-Catholic than any other Christian denomination.
The Mystical Body of Christ has taken some temporal wounds.
With regard to "exclusivism": I understood Dreher to mean the word in its application to one's prospects for salvation. The Catholic Church concedes that one need not be a Catholic communicant to be saved. There are other Christian denominations that aren't that broadminded. This is entirely separate from the "one true church" claims that all religious denominations make.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
May she rest in peace.
May that poor woman rest in peace and God have mercy on her killer.
Where else would you get your news? It would never even occur to me to watch television news. Isn't that an oxymoron to begin with?
Rod Dreher mentions that no "major news outlets" like the Boston Globe, New York Times or Washington Post covered the Arkansas story. Well how would you know? Would anyone even consider reading those rags?
Before you think that I'm just out in the middle of flyover country and don't understand the necessity of reading these papers when you live on the East Coast, I did live there for many years, but I never felt obliged to contribute to the support of the liberal establishment.
Give me Howie Carr and the Boston Herald any day! And there's always the Wall Street Journal which is a much more useful paper in any case. If I lived in DC I could survive with the Washington Times just fine, thank you.
I know very conservative friends who insist on subscribing to the Washington Post because they claim they need to stay informed. Give me a break. Misinformed is more like it. And you'll be 100 times more informed if you get your news from the internet.
This might sound like groundbreaking news to some people, but it's entirely possible to live without EVER participating in support of the liberal news establishment. I haven't seen the faces of Rather, Brokaw or Jennings since 9/11 (well, maybe 9/12). I would no more think of watching them then I would consider having a voluntary root canal for fun.
Dr. Johnson said "Clear your mind of cant." It's impossible to do this while you are listening to non-stop regurgitated pap 24/7, no matter how discerning a listener you believe you are. It's much better to simply free your mind from the vice grips of the establishment.
If anyone thinks we have to read and listen to them in order to combat their message, they need to get a life. Life is too short to waste time listening to evil propaganda. My mom used to get annoyed when my dad would watch Dan Rather just to shout at him. Look, the TV doesn't hear you. Much better just to turn your back on the whole kit and caboodle, ignore them completely, make them totally irrelevant.
It's already happened to TV news. No one watches them. All 3 major stations plus CNN are money-losing sinkholes that long ago sold away the intellectual justification for their existence, and now have no commercial justification either. If the networks CARED about the news, they would have replaced those 3 buffoons years ago when the ratings started to drop. But they treat the news department like a slightly batty old uncle that you keep around for old times sake.
The same thing can happen to the Boston Globe, the New York Times and the Washington Post if conservatives shun them entirely. There wouldn't be enough liberals to support them if the conservatives didn't buy them as well. Don't feel obliged to keep up with the Joneses. Just say "No" to liberal media.
Read the rest of the article, and examine the real issues he is addressing.
It will be worth your time if you do.
Maybe no one really cares - not even on this forum - about the murder of a Catholic woman at the hands of a homosexual man.
Why not just leave gays alone? In return, I expect them to leave me alone as well. I don't want to know about their lifestyles, or have to approve of their lifestyles.
Gays don't "have to change." They just have to stay out of my face, and I'll stay out of theirs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.