In the wake of the massacre in Norway by yet another Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist, we must now put up with, and rightfully condemn, the defenders of these murderers in print.  I was bemused to learn my name had been drawn into the fundamentalist fire in an essay published in on August 2, 2011.

Here’s the start of the harangue against me:

Dr. David W. Boles is the founder of the blog, Dramatic Medicine, and admittedly, a brilliant, multi-talented professor associated with many major universities as a professor, an adjunct professor, and visiting professor. He is also a prolific writer on his blog, often going beyond medical matters, despite what the name of his Blog implies. At 2:50 p.m., on June 1, 2009, the day after the murder of Dr. Tiller and the same day the county district attorney filed the Bill of Information—equivalent to an indictment—against Mr. Roeder, Dr. Boles posted an article entitled Fundamental Christian Terrorism on his blog.[2] The article is palatably anti-Christian. It is relevant here that among Dr. Boles’s personal interests are New Age concepts, including urban mysticism, universal life force theory (a species of Hinduism), and shamanism,[3] all of which the Bible condemns. In his article Dr. Boles wrote:

“(Mr. Roeder’s) Running away from the death is pretty good evidence that the Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist is no better than some of the thugs we have stowed away in the military hulks and at Guantanamo.” [Emphasis, mine]

(“Hulks” are bodies of old rusting ships still in the water. Dr. Boles is lying when he alleges that U.S. stowed anyone in military hulks. Liberals love the military, and cannot resist a zing even if off topic. I appreciate Dr. Boles’s lie; it is demonstrative that anything he writes outside of medicine must be contemplated with his liberalism in mind).

It’s funny how I’ve been fantasized into a “Dr.” by the author even though I’ve never claimed or earned that title.  The first clue someone is stretching for straw men is in the false build-up of the credentials of your avowed enemy and then pitying him for misusing a word even though he did not.

I’m not linking to the article because that article didn’t link here, so here’s a screenshot of the rant for public posterity, and I have saved a copy of the entire article because stories like these tend to get edited and revised and then disappear once the truth has sought them out.

Here’s the stave of my original argument — Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism — published right here in this Dramatic Medicine blog on June 1, 2009:

Let’s hope the radical right wing comes out against the killing of Dr. Tiller — but we know they won’t and they will only continue to celebrate Tiller’s death — and that is the divining rod that forever separates “us from them” because, too conveniently, the “them” becomes the “us” and those niches are purely dependent upon the side of the aisle on which you choose to stand.

One man’s murderer is another man’s savior; and one peoples’ occupation is another’s repression — and so as we try to dig ourselves out of Dr. Tiller’s grave — let’s remember the lessons of his death that must ring in our ears like warning bells at home and abroad when we take up arms and decide to shoot first instead of trying to find a peaceful end to irreconcilable, tragic, positions.

Now it’s time for the good and cogent people to decide which side they are on:  Do you support the killing of people for radical, religious, fantasies, or do you instead mourn the righteous and the innocent who were turned into an early grave by the paranoid hands of those who think they best know God’s will?


    1. Yes, it was a bizzarre invocation of my name and article — I think he was more attracted to refuting the title of piece and not the content.

Comments are closed.