The trial of Vince Li, who seven months ago stabbed, decapitated and partially cannibalized 22 year-old man Tim McLean on a Greyhound here in Canada, has come to an end with the unsurprising declaration that due to his mental ill-health, he cannot be held criminally responsible for his actions.
A letter writer wrote in to today's National Post griping about how, while Islam suffers through a reputation of being violent and hateful, Christianity gets off scott-free when (the writer assumes the Christian) God commanded Mr. Li to kill (and - to prevent his regeneration - dismember and partially eat) Mr. McLean, thinking him a demon.
A letter writer wrote in to today's National Post griping about how, while Islam suffers through a reputation of being violent and hateful, Christianity gets off scott-free when (the writer assumes the Christian) God commanded Mr. Li to kill (and - to prevent his regeneration - dismember and partially eat) Mr. McLean, thinking him a demon.
Oversimplification is a tempting tool to use when winning people over to the side of your argument, but it can never be said that actions borne of a sick mind are ever simple. Even to someone such as myself - a layman to psychology - it's blindingly obvious that Li did not kill because of his religion; he killed because he was a paranoid, delusional schizophrenic off his meds. Rather than masterminding the gruesome act, Li's religion merely acted as a medium through which he interpreted his delusions, nothing more. Let it never be said I'm unfair when it comes to religion's relationship with violence.
However, the letter writer attempts to skirt around a simple and obvious fact: that religion - including but not limited to his own - can and does convince otherwise sane people to commit acts of hatred or violence. The list is long of perpetrators of such acts who are smart, educated members of the middle (and even upper) class with absolutely no prior records of mental ill-health.
So no, this is not a matter of preferential treatment for some religions, and unfairly bad raps for others. This is the judgement of each action on its own individual basis; sometimes religion itself is to blame, sometimes not.
However, the letter writer attempts to skirt around a simple and obvious fact: that religion - including but not limited to his own - can and does convince otherwise sane people to commit acts of hatred or violence. The list is long of perpetrators of such acts who are smart, educated members of the middle (and even upper) class with absolutely no prior records of mental ill-health.
So no, this is not a matter of preferential treatment for some religions, and unfairly bad raps for others. This is the judgement of each action on its own individual basis; sometimes religion itself is to blame, sometimes not.
