If you would take some time to read and think about some of what you post you might recognize that articles like this are designed to feed your anger while intentionally misleading you about the facts. Humor me while I deconstruct what this journalistic gem of an article states as fact and what it then wants you to infer.
Historic West Virginia Catholic church burned to ground by arsonist, police say
St. Colman Catholic Church is only the most recent church to face an arson attack
So the headline is accurate about the facts. This church (which hasn't been used since 1984) burned down, arson is suspected and there have been other catholic churches that have been set fire by arsonists recently. All true.
Based on how the article is written, here is what the article wants you and others to infer:
This potential arson is related to the recent SCOTUS ruling on abortion. Yet the article doesn't mention abortion, supreme court, protest or anything else related because there are no facts support that conclusion other than the timing but that's clearly how you are intended to interpret the article.
To help you along the path of inferring what they want you to infer, they share that "Catholic churches across the U.S. and in Canada have
faced a spate of vandalism and arson attacks in recent years." They want you to believe that this isn't an isolated occurrence but it is in fact a pattern of liberals burning down Catholic churches (feeding your headline of "example #1,254,239"). Yet when you click through to their supporting article, there isn't a single example from the US and the nine churches burned down in Canada are related to protests against the century and a half practice of forced removal, assimilation and abuse of indigenous children. It has nothing to do with abortion or any other liberal grievance and is entirely a Canadian issue that becomes more horrible the more that is uncovered about it. Yet this article clearly wants you to tie churches, arson, liberals and abortion into a nice little angry knot in your head. Mission accomplished.
This particular situation may turn out to be related to the recent ruling, although if I were angry enough to burn down a historic, unoccupied and unused church as a protest I might be inclined to leave behind some indication of the nature of my protest.
Now, let's look at other reporting of the event. The National Review has an article, and they do actually provide some facts regarding other vandalism against Catholic churches. However, it doesn't support the narrative of liberals being solely responsible.
"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has
tracked at least 142 incidents of vandalism at Catholic sites in the U.S. since May 2020. The incidents, which have occurred across 36 states and Washington, D.C., include arson; statues beheaded; statue limbs cut, smashed, and painted;
gravestones defaced with swastikas and anti-Catholic language and American flags next to them burned; and other destruction and vandalism."
You may not know that hardcore white Christian nationalists dislike Catholics and the Catholic church almost as much as they dislike Jews. That may or may not be relevant in WV but the overall circumstances of vandalism against Catholic churches is certainly more complex than what your article would have you believe.
If you want to read about vandalism against houses of worship, google "synagogue vandalism". That will keep you busy for quite a while. Here is Nick Fuentes, who
@Zonadog knows is a favorite of Wenday Rogers, Paul Gosar and some other republicans, not being subtle about inflaming anti-jewish anger and violence.
Thank you for sharing the article. It is a great example of how disingenuous organizations (both right and left) intentionally fuel anger to increase clicks and harvest our money.
www.foxnews.com
