Is that the religious angle?

Really?

it's contained in the very last line of the article.

Here's more

I went to their site and they don't identify themselves as religious or mention anything religious anywhere that I can see.

What does this really have to do with Religion? It's just an article about a lunatic who has, maybe, the thinnest thread of connection to some bizarre category called Christian metal. Their grammy nomination was for Best Metal Performance and was not in the religion category at all.

This is just petty.

That some people that identify as Christian do bad things or suffer from drug abuse or mental illness?

Should we start posting stories about every non-theist who does the same? Would that say something about non-theists in general or just about the individual?

I guess I really don't understand why you do this.

If you're bothered by what I post in here, please put me on ignore or simply trash the thread. Your obsessive need to comment on every thread in this forum comes off as nothing more than territorial pissing.

And it is in indeed an open forum, SM. If my posting comes across as territorial pissing to you, feel free to put me on ignore.

In the meantime, I'll comment on any thread I want and all of them if I choose.

That.

What hypocrisy.

What conclusions should I draw from this?

Unless, as has been suggested here, that some are exploiting religious rock to make it when they cannot in the secular rock community.

Then, you might have something. But I doubt that this one story rises to the level of good journalism to establish such a fact.

I generally do not like popular music, especially metal. It just sounds like noise and hearing damage to me. Louder is better? I don't think so. And don't get me started about rap, or whatever it's called these days. I guess I'm old.

The whole popular music business has screwed so many people over the decades.

No thanks. I'll stick to classical and jazz. (And quite a few of them got screwed, too.)

the accused innocent until proven guilty

From a personal PoV, I'll add that I've never heard of this guy or his metal band, and that the genre doesn't seem very interesting to me

From a religious PoV, on the theory that he might indeed have solicited murder, I would merely add that I suspect the majority of persons who regard themselves as Christian, would not think (say) that any general prohibition of homicide could be conveniently side-stepped by hiring a contract killer to perform the actual deed -- nor that, if (say) the motive were to side-step the general prohibition of adultery, this could be conveniently achieved by first murdering one's spouse. But the actual religious objection is not the technical violation of some rule or rules: it is, rather, the failure to love others as much as one loves oneself

whose religion doesn't forbid that act. It's the driver behind the shabbat goy and the reason medieval bankers were Jews.

shabbat work, does not involve the breech of any universal moral law: the Jewish position on the day of rest has never been, so far as I know, that EVERYONE is obliged to take the seventh day off, but merely that particular religious community, and the hiring of someone to do shabbat work might actually be regarded as the performance of a mitzvah, by which one provides livelihood to someone else, who does work one could normally have done for oneself

Nor is the banking analogy necessarily apt: one might have personal scruples against lending money at interest oneself and yet feel no such scruples against borrowing money at interest from another. But this analogy comes closer to the mark from a historical perspective, since the borrowers were typically feudal lords, whose repayments were made by exploiting others and who, when they found repayment inconvenient, too often decided to moot the debt by stirring up popular antipathy against their creditors

sanctioned by a number of religions over the years. It's particularly common to find religious approval of killing women; I believe you'll find that to be the explanation of the ritual of suttee. I choose that one because it was applied against otherwise blameless women, to find approved homicide against women for trifling causes is even easier. So called honor killings, for instance, jump to mind.

simply permits murder, as a general rule, typically do not survive long

The question, of how groups carve out exceptions to this, by allowing the killing of "criminals" or of otherwise supposedly "inferior" populations (say, slaves or victims of conquest) is interesting, I suppose, and rather depends on place and time: in England only a few hundred years, one could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread; in parts of the US not much more than a century ago, one could still be hanged for horse theft

Sad to say it still goes on in isolated parts of the subcontinent.
Long, IMHO. Too long.

In the period best documented in the early nineteenth century, the known incidence seems to have been about 0.2 cases per 100K of population per year. Current death rates in India are around 750 per 100K of population per year and were certainly much higher in the early nineteenth century. So sati cannot have been very common

homicide in quantity, look to the Aztecs. They had it in abundance. Or if we stay on the subcontinent, look to the curious rites of Thuggee. To them homicide was a cardinal virtue. Also a long lived cult (though small) until done in by the hated Brits.