Mass killers are atheists? That's what this popular and insightful blogger has observed:
Large-scale murder or small-scale slaughter, it's simply amazing how often these killers turn out to be explicit atheists, especially given the fact that they are such a small percentage of the population. Correlation may not be causation, but when this sort of statistical improbability regarding the behavior of a tiny minority becomes not only reliable, but downright predictable, that just may be the first clue the relationship is causal.
He might (might) have a point, but the shooters tend to be younger people, and one mark of the young person is brassy individualism, which often manifests itself in rejecting God. It's the best way to mark oneself as a "serious and independent thinker." I suspect the younger ranks (18 to 25) have a higher percentage of atheists than the general adult population, with the result that a shooter from that demographic is more likely to be an atheist than a shooter from the general adult demographic. It doesn't discredit Vox Populi's observation, but it might water it down a bit.
__________
Another scandal hits Halliburton: An alleged gang rape of a female employee while working overseas. The girl's story rings true. It's a ghastly crime, and I hope the perpetrators are de-organed.
As for a lesson behind this: Don't let your daughters grow up to hang out with cowboys. Young men, especially when horded together, are pigs. Don't bow down to feminism and think your daughter can hang with them. She can't (unless she's a pig herself). She'll just get hurt. Hopefully not as terribly as this woman, but she'll get hurt one way or the other.
__________
World Net Daily gives the USCCB film division some well-deserved whacks. I haven't looked into many of the USCCB's film reviews, but from those I've seen, the reviewers seem hell-bent to smile at every picture at least a little, as if "Say Something Nice" is part of the template. Such an approach has merits if motivated by charity, but I get the impression that the motivation is fear of appearing sectarian (or "close minded," which is the only intellectual shortcoming Americans recognize today). Unfortunately, when you're talking about a devil, you need to take off the gloves.
Later addendum: The Bishops have pulled the review. Do I hear new doors opening for reviewers Harry Forbes and John Mulderig? This no doubt will make them darlings of the Hollywood intelligentsia (sarcastic oxymoron intended).
__________
By the way, I keep meaning to ask: Why did Nicole Kidman make this movie? Awhile back, the Catholic blogosphere was buzzing about her reversion to serious Catholicism. Was the buzz bogus? The combox is open.
__________
I'm not sure I'll say much more about TGC. At this point, it's beginning to be look like piling on: everyone knows it's bad. One final word, though: I partly agree with the LA Times. They say Hollywood should have made the film to reflect the book, not water it down for a Christian audience. I agree (they also say TGC is great literature; I'm skeptical). Either make the film honestly/correctly or don't make it at all. I disagree with atheists, but I respect those who stand up for what they believe, even those who are dogmatic about the evil of dogmatism. It's the lukewarm agnostics that I find annoying, along with their close cousins: the atheistic androgynes, those who like God alright but hate religion. You might as well like football but hate the rules and referees (they break up the flow of the game, you know?). If you get rid of the rules and referees, the game itself will quickly fold. The same goes with religion and the pursuit of God: No organized religion, and the pursuit itself will fold.
__________
I like lists, and as long as we're on movies: This Drudge advertiser has put together a list of the worst movie remakes of all time. Unfortunately, you have to click through each one, but it moves very fast. (If you want to save 45 seconds: The 1998 remake of Psycho is number one.)
