Extremo Lying for the Lord

One of the biggest problems with any kind of fundamentalism (and truly, most “isms”) is there are those who take controversial beliefs and nudge them just an nth further. Often, to the very edge of common sense and reason, and sometimes over that.

For example, we have Francisco Nava.

Princeton student Nava, who is a former Roman-Catholic-turned-ardent-Mormon-returned-missionary, claimed to have been attacked by two mask-wearing men who were pissed off because he was a conservative.

An alleged physical attack on a Princeton University student who is leading a movement to instill conservative moral values among undergraduates is rattling the campus here.

A politics major from Texas who is a junior, Francisco Nava, said he was physically attacked Friday, beaten, and rendered unconscious by two black-clad men about two miles from campus, he told the student newspaper, the Daily Princetonian, in an interview.

Now, shortly after his claim, of course, it was revealed that he had made some false allegations, while in high school, about death threats.

But the disclosure today that Mr. Nava fabricated a death threat against himself and his roommate when he was a high school student at the Groton School, has some students questioning his account of the last week’s attack as well as the series of death threats he said he received this semester after airing his morally conservative views.

In high school, Mr. Nava wrote a death threat using an anti-homosexual slur, the Web site Firstthings.com reported this morning. Mr. Nava’s roommate at Groton was a founder of the Gay-Straight Alliance, according to the Web site.

The “attack” has now been proven a lie.

A student at Princeton University who said he was beaten unconscious by two black-clad assailants Friday has said that he fabricated the assault, and that he sent e-mail death threats to himself, three other Princeton students, and a prominent conservative professor at Princeton, Robert George, police said today.

No charges have been filed against the student, Francisco Nava, pending further investigation, a spokesman for the Princeton Township Police said.

In an interview, Mr. George earlier described Mr. Nava’s wounds as “severe,” doubting that they could have been self-inflicted.

Over the weekend, Mr. Nava’s jaw was badly swollen, his face was covered with cuts and abrasions, and the inside of his mouth was bleeding, Mr. George said after visiting Mr. Nava in the emergency room.

Mr. Nava is a returned missionary, and apparently a rather ARDENT defender of morality, truth and the Rightwing Way…. so ardent he would beat himself SENSELESS in order to make liberals look bad.

Of course, he only made HIMSELF, conservatives, and Mormons, look stupid, radical, and desperate.

I suspect Nava has some mental issues (duh!) and before you Mormons get your big girl panties in a wad, I am not saying that ALL Mormons act like this, are told to act like this, or even WANT to act like this.

What this is, rather, is an example of how the rather dangerous, dark, and extreme teachings of Mormonism (blood atonement, conservatism, “ONLY TRUE THINGism,” etc.) can lead to this type of behavior in a mind that is already slightly unhinged.

Take, for example, the Lafferty Brothers. Or Brian David Mitchell.

WE realize, of course, that YOU MORMONS do not want him. Sorry, he is yours. To answer the nasty emails and comments I sense coming, let me just say:

1. I realize there are whacko Catholics and Baptists and Scientologists, as well. THIS BLOG is Trapped by the Mormons. So we won’t talk about them today, okay?

2. I am not saying this is what the Mormon Church teaches. I believe I mentioned MIND and UNHINGED. Okay? Okay.

3. I was born a Mormon, raised a Mormon, live with Mormons, am friends with Mormons…. Did I cover all those? Okay.

Advertisements

About Natalie R. Collins

Natalie has more than 30 years writing, editing, proofreading and design experience. She has written 20 books (and counting), has worked for the Sundance Film Festival, and as an investigative journalist, editor, and proofreader. She embraces her gypsy-heart and is following her new free-thinking journey through life. Follow her as she starts over and learns a bunch of life's lessons--some the hard way.
This entry was posted in Natalie's Posts. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Extremo Lying for the Lord

  1. azteclady says:

    Hmm… Now I want to read “Under the Banner of Heaven.”

    Like

  2. azteclady says:

    Oh dear me! *chuckling*

    Aside: when will people learn to read a bit before blasting?

    Like

  3. Renee says:

    Azteclady –

    When they hang up the damn phone and drive in Utah – in other words, never.

    🙂

    Like

  4. Tracy says:

    Shining, can’t you read, or do you like to skim only the parts you want to read?

    I don’t know how Natalie deals with it. I am just a casual observer, and I’m exhausted reading the comments.

    Like

  5. azteclady says:

    Hours of reading?

    Gee, is that how long it’d take to read the post right before this one? ’cause a lot of what you ponder in your first comment is explained pretty succinctly in that post.

    Like

  6. Tracy says:

    Shining, if you read anything Natalie said, she was a Mormon. She has family that is Mormon, and has Mormon friends.

    She has problems with the religion, and if you took the time to read the blog, you would know why.

    READ THE BLOG BEFORE YOU ASK ANYMORE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

    Sheesh!!!

    Like

  7. Renee says:

    Maybe the cell phone thing is universal but I LIVE and DRIVE in UTAH. And they won’t hang the damn phone up and drive. So I stick by my point. I was trying to make a point…about people who don’t listen. And there you have it…my point made.

    Sheesh, Shining is hung up on way too many things.

    Like

  8. azteclady says:

    Shining says, “It just seems very angry for something that is very common.”

    What? Are we supposed to meekly accept what’s common? Where is social progress in that one? ’cause it was common for women to be treated like property–until a substantial segment of the population started questioning that. It was also common for black people to be considered subhuman–and Latinos, and Irish, and Polish, and…

    Just because something is ‘common’ doesn’t make it right. And having people get into my personal space to tell me that I’m going to hell unless I profess the same shit they do… that may be common but it ain’t right.

    Natalie, pardon the language.

    Like

  9. Natalie says:

    LOL. I go away for a day and LOOK what happens! Don’t have time to address Shining right now, but you KNOW I will….

    Like

  10. Tracy says:

    “Wouldn’t it be easier to simply answer the question rather than Sheeshing me with your blog superiority and ironic intolerance?”

    No. I like my ironic intolerance and blog superiority. Bwahahahahaha!!!

    Like

  11. Renee says:

    Did Shining take his ball and go home?

    Like

  12. Richard says:

    Okay, two questions:

    – What happened to Shining’s comments?

    and…

    – What the hell is “ironic intolerance”?

    Like

  13. Renee says:

    I repeat – Shining took his ball and went home. Natalie can probably fill in more completely but that’s my take.

    Like

  14. Kate says:

    Is this what is meant by “theocratic ethics”, aka…”Lying for the lord”?

    Like

  15. hucktunes says:

    Perhaps Francisco will be the next Morton Downey, Jr.

    Like

  16. Shining says:

    I don’t know if anyone will see this post since the chain has dwindled, but because this is the location of the original chain I thought I would at least post my last SPAM-prohibited comment.

    azteclady– I wasn’t saying you have to accept what’s common, just explain why you are angered/bothered by it. If the motive of the anger is to promote social progress and counter groupthink, maybe a free-speech blog, where counter-majoritarian ideas are expressed would be a better medium; but free speech doesn’t look like the end you have in mind. You would prefer privacy to speech, e.g. nobody should have the right to express their opinion if it is offensive to others. Slightly contradictory, but at least it was an explanation. Thanks. Any others?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s