February 7, 2006
THEY BURN THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NUTS AND CRIMINALS:
What's behind church burnings?: White churches are the most frequent targets - and crime is often the motive. (Patrik Jonsson , 2/08/06, The Christian Science Monitor)
"There is really nothing unusual about the rate of church fires," says Conrad Goeringer, who has written about the issue for American Atheist magazine. "There's a tendency to construct a conspiracy theory or link fires together that are totally unrelated."The National Fire Protection Association agrees, citing a five-year investigation in the late 1990s by the Department of Justice, which concluded there was no broader racial conspiracy. The motives for church arsons mirrored reasons given by arsonsists for torching homes and businesses, says John Hall, vice president for fire analysis at NFPA in Quincy, Mass.
As with most such issues. Michael Fumento has done the best debunking. Amazingly though, even many conservatives still seem to believe there was a spate of black church burnings in the Clinton years. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 7, 2006 6:39 PM
I'm just waiting for one of these arsonists to claim that they were just exercising their "free speech rights" and expressing their anti-Christian beliefs in the only way available to them.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 7, 2006 7:13 PMOld Clinton-watchers may remember his claim to vividly recall Arkansas church-burnings in his youth that later research appeared to show were nonexistent.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 7, 2006 7:22 PMTo be absolutely accurate, Clinton never claimed these church burnings of his youth took place in Arkansas; instead he used the phrase "my own state". When the NAACP researcher came forward with no recollection of Arkansas church burnings, someone I think tried to make the argument that by "my own state" Clinton was referring to some place other than Arkansas. Whether Clinton himself ever attempted to clarify the statement I do not know.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at February 7, 2006 8:19 PMJohn Barrett Jr. :
What other state could he possibly mean?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 7, 2006 8:48 PMMatt:
You don't get it. It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Posted by: obc at February 7, 2006 8:58 PMIn this case it probably depends on what the definition of "state" is.
Posted by: John at February 7, 2006 11:35 PMMatt:
If you think Clinton was sincere with the original statement (possible, I suppose), the only non-Arkansas explanantion for "my own state" that makes sense would be if he was referring to America itself - an awkward formulation, but perhaps it's what he meant.
If you doubt his sincerity, then the statement is just an empty "Look Ma! He cares!" bit of puffery meant to score brownie points with his base, and which he expected not to be called on. Given that this is the man who conducted polls on where he should spend his Presidential vacations, I'd trust his sincerity the way I'd trust him with my daughters - which is to say, not at all.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at February 8, 2006 3:28 AMOr it could simply be a case of false memory. Bush has gone on record with some untrue statements about what was happening around him when the Towers were hit on 9/11. I don't think it was because he was lying. Clinton was probably the same.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at February 8, 2006 1:19 PM"What's behind church burnings?" Copy cat arson to collect insurance money.
I rmember reading that it accounted for some of the bombings during Clinton's reign.
Posted by: erp at February 9, 2006 10:26 AM