Orlando: Worst Mass Shooting In US History

[Logan]

Thanks molson.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

we've seen what the all-or-nothing approach leads to.

It leads to tweeting #PrayForDeadPeople with one hand while you take NRA checks with the other. The left lost that argument a long time ago, and as long as Heller is law, that isn't changing short of a Constitutional amendment. The left isn't going to come CLOSE to a 2/3 majority in both chambers in my lifetime, let alone being able to ratify in 33 (or 34, whichever) state legislatures.

I don't think even a Constitutional convention would result in that outcome. Find me 34 states whose citizens would vote for a total ban on guns even if they currently support, like, expanded background checks.

Find me half that number.

I'll wait.

The reason they persist with the all-or-nothing approach is that it would require carnage on a truly breathtaking scale to create a backlash sufficient to power a total gun ban.

We're talking about a "soft targets" attack. One gay nightclub in Orlando? Try Times Square, the Mall of America, college tailgates, whatever. Coordinated. A mass shooting on THAT level and maybe a total gun ban finds its way onto the table.

Short of that? If the murder of elementary-aged schoolchildren in Newtown didn't put that option on the table, nothing else will. By re-electing the Congresscritters who moaned and wailed and did fuck-all else, we've already, collectively, assented to the sacrifice of innocent blood on the altar of firearms worship; after that, what else short of the aforementioned carnage on a massive scale would shock the national consciousness enough to do more than tweet self-serving hashtags?

I'm not arguing FOR such a ban, mind. I'm just saying that the argument that refusal to compromise is going to lead to a total ban is specious. We've seen the evidence of that for 20 years now.

I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, which if any luck, is another 40 or so years from now. It's the generations after us that will make that change. I'm not for a total ban. I'm an owner myself, but, if the gun lobby doesn't start showing some kind of common sense or compromise, then there will be enough people, eventually, that will say, "screw it, no one can have them then".

I have no confidence in the current politicians to make sensible changes and adjustments. After all, it's the same people that think Kinder Eggs are a danger to children and made changes, but, lack the spine (don't want their money disappearing) to make the sensible changes when it comes to guns. There is no solution that is going to make 100% of the people 100% happy though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm really surprised you (yes, even you ) are so hesitant to agree to a registry in my hypothetical scenario where you'll never have to argue for your own views on guns to keep on winning out, ever again.

Either I read your hypothetical too closely OR not closely enough, or something.

You proposal eliminated the arguments and/or battles over possible new regulatiions, etc. I don't see (even upon a third reading) where it technically eliminated eventual confiscation. Nor any of the other negative possibilities - such as the aforementioned targeting for thieves, others with an interest in locating & taking control of weapons, etc.

There's also another rather glaring flaw with the scenario: it presumes that it would accomplish anything.

Your stated purpose was to see "if initially legal guns are getting in the wrong hands". Hell, we know that happens already, without this foolishness. There are ample restrictions on the legal acquisition of firearms already, their effectiveness in the context of actually stopping illegal activity involving weapons is far less than any sort of panacea. The reality that "criminals aren't inclined to abide by laws" seems to once again be lost on this topic. And when we do manage to lock up someone for violating any of the various existing laws, lo & behold we have no shortage of useful idiots pleading with us to turn them loose.

Instead, your hypothetical seems to be ripe for abuse, eventual (sooner than later) use as another governmental revenue generator, a variety of other nefarious purposes ... whilst doing nothing particularly meaningful to stop existing criminal behavior.

Sorry if I don't just jump right onto that.

[AENeuman]

I say make it at 25 you get a "learners permit" for only few small guns. At 30, have it. It is amazing how many young uneducated or mentally ill or addicted men commit crimes with guns.

[CU Tiger]

I got my first shotgun at 8. I lost it through a few foster home moves. I bought my first gun I paid for at 15.

I've been convicted of over 40 crimes including 4 felonies. None involved a gun.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I say make it at 25 you get a "learners permit" for only few small guns. At 30, have it. It is amazing how many young uneducated or mentally ill or addicted men commit crimes with guns.

Some of the most responsible gun owners I know are both young & (in some cases) relatively uneducated (in scholastic terms).

The "legally mentally ill" are already prohibited from owning firearms or ammunition, as are "Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs".

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I've been convicted of over 40 crimes including 4 felonies. None involved a gun.

Where's that thread? There's gotta be some doozy stories in there somewhere.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Law enforcement sources now seem to be clarifying that it wasn't an AR-15 at all, but rather the higher capacity Sig Sauer MCX.

I mention that mostly 'cause it does help clear up the somewhat curious math about the number of rounds fired / time frame and kind of starts to put to rest any conspiracy theories along those lines.

[RainMaker]

Wife of Omar Mateen, Orlando nightclub shooter, talking with FBI - Orlando Sentinel

Sure seems like the wife knew a lot. This article says she wasn't cooperating till today. I read elsewhere that she denied knowing about anything until they showed her security footage of her with him as they cased joints.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I got my first shotgun at 8. I lost it through a few foster home moves. I bought my first gun I paid for at 15.

I've been convicted of over 40 crimes including 4 felonies. None involved a gun.

It is generally against federal law for a felon to own a gun (although there are circumstances where that isn't true, and I assume you wouldn't be posting this if you weren't among those special circumstances).

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It is generally against federal law for a felon to own a gun (although there are circumstances where that isn't true, and I assume you wouldn't be posting this if you weren't among those special circumstances).

Not to totally derail the thread...but never convicted of anything more than a minor traffic offense since 19 ...in the words of Cash, 'i was an unruly kid's.... when you have a troubled childhood and then become a productive member of society expungements aren't uncommon.

Anything before 15 is sealed as well...

[PilotMan]

Someone posted a link on FB that referenced a cop saying that the only thing that can deter bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

So, in that vein, the number of people that I actually know in public is very small. I was taught that strangers can be dangerous. I know that every stranger is a potential bad guy. Therefore, only the people that I know are good guys, so I'm clearly outnumbered.

If a situation were to arise I'd naturally assume that there were a shitload of bad guys, as would everyone around me. The end result could be horrific.

I'm the good guy. I have no idea if you are, so I have to assume that when you pull your gun, I should pull mine. This doesn't seem like a better situation to me.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Someone posted a link on FB that referenced a cop saying that the only thing that can deter bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

It's one kind of thing to hear that kind of flawed thinking from the average Joe on Facebook, but I hate to hear it (allegedly) enabled by Police. I'm pretty sure I read that the very first dude this guy engaged was a uniformed, extra-duty police officer, with whom he traded gunfire. Didn't stop this dude in the slightest, but yes I'm sure the next one would go differently if everyone in that gay nightclub was packing. Where are the heroes like Aqib Talib or Plaxico Burress in the gay community?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Not to totally derail the thread...but never convicted of anything more than a minor traffic offense since 19 ...in the words of Cash, 'i was an unruly kid's.... when you have a troubled childhood and then become a productive member of society expungements aren't uncommon.

Anything before 15 is sealed as well...

Fair. And good on you for turning your life around. Just pointing out, since there was no timetable attached to the original post, that gun ownership and felony convictions often don't play nicely with one another.

[SirFozzie]

btw, following up the "At least people aren't calling for their deaths HERE thing"

Sacramento Baptist Preacher Praises Orlando Gay Nightclub Attack « CBS Sacramento

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

btw, following up the "At least people aren't calling for their deaths HERE thing"

Sacramento Baptist Preacher Praises Orlando Gay Nightclub Attack « CBS Sacramento

Sure there are kooks in every sect.

Just remember his ramblings are in opposition to the words of the text of his stated religion.

While the Orlando gunman's actions were in compliance and encouraged by the text of his.

[chrisj]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If a situation were to arise I'd naturally assume that there were a shitload of bad guys, as would everyone around me. The end result could be horrific.

I'm the good guy. I have no idea if you are, so I have to assume that when you pull your gun, I should pull mine. This doesn't seem like a better situation to me.

Exactly. Look at any situation similar to this - the first reaction of everyone is panic (and rightfully so). I don't want anyone panicking to be shooting a gun because that is when mistakes will happen. I'd like to save that to law enforcement who are trained to handle such situations.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Sure there are kooks in every sect.

Just remember his ramblings are in opposition to the words of the text of his stated religion.

While the Orlando gunman's actions were in compliance and encouraged by the text of his.

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I know, I know, "the Old Testament doesn't count because Christ made a new Covenant with the peoples of the world!"

Matthew 5:17:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Leviticus, in case you're curious, is part of the Law of Moses. The Law Jesus said he was come to fulfill.

And that's ignoring the oft-cited Romans 1:26-32 (whether that citation is used properly or improperly, it still gets used in this context).

TL;DR: don't fool yourself. The Christian holy texts prescribe death for homosexuals, too. It's just that radical Christians tend to go after abortion clinics instead of gay nightclubs.

[RainMaker]

Radical Christians are not on the same level in this world as radical Muslims. The statistics are staggering.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Radical Christians are not on the same level in this world as radical Muslims. The statistics are staggering.

Tell the victims in the Colorado Springs Abortion Clinic that. Oh right we can't because they're dead.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Radical Christians are not on the same level in this world as radical Muslims. The statistics are staggering.

Of course not. Catholic/Protestant relations in Ireland have never been anything but peaceful. Abortion clinics have never been attacked, and certainly not on the basis of false claims made to support a political narrative about a disfavored group connected to abortions.

Radical Christians never tried to assassinate the King of England, nor eventually had the King beheaded for treason.

The KKK never stated a desire to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible," never burned crosses, never bombed black churches.

Radical Christians never committed massacres of Muslims in the Central African Republic.

There is no radical Christian group in northeast India, they are certainly not called the National Liberation Front of Tripura, and even if they were, there have been no threats of attacks against tribal populations who don't convert to Christianity.

There is no militant Christian socialist movement in north India which spent 35 years committing kidnapping, extortion and murder in the name of the establishment of a Christian theocratic state in that region.

The Army of God hasn't been active in the United States since the 1980s, and certainly hasn't bombed abortion clinics or sent envelopes purporting to contain anthrax to abortion clinics.

There was never an attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin because the (Christian) shooter thought turbans on heads = Muslim.

And that's without reaching back to the Inquisitions and Crusades.

They aren't on the same level? What statistics are you using? Are you looking explicitly at the United States in the last 15 years, beginning with 9/11? "Welp, radical Christians didn't manage to pull off an attack that resulted in 3000 dead Americans and a decade of war, so we don't have to acknowledge them."

[SackAttack]

Look, I consider myself a Christian, but I'm also a student of history. I know better than to assert that radical Islam is the font of all violence against society and that Christians have never been radicalized, nor behaved in radical fashion.

[RainMaker]

Almost all terrorist attacks around the world are committed by Muslims.

[RainMaker]

Like you can pull out examples in virtually every belief system of bad things. But Islam by far has the most repressive regimes, least civil rights for women and homosexuals, and commit terrorist attacks globally at levels that are staggering.

If you care about making the world better, why whiteknight them?

[thesloppy]

Unfortunately, you could have said practically the same thing about radical arms of several different religions throughout history. For some places and religions that was hundreds or even thousands of years ago, for some it was tens. There was a fleeting moment in my youth where the Irish truly were the most feared terrorists in the world. To a lot of younger Americans today that probably sounds absolutely ridiculous.

That shouldn't excuse, or distract from the fact that in OUR times it is radical Muslims who are committing most of the violence and intolerance across the world, but it doesn't necessarily mean we should ignore all other context, or that kooks of other stripes should get a free pass to be slightly less hateful.

[thesloppy]

...also seems worth noting that this dude's narrative & motive still seem to be rather elastic. While some folks/outlets have settled on labeling this particular mass shooting as Muslim terrorism today, he seems to have enough folds and wrinkles that tomorrow we could find out he was also going to a fundamentalist Christian church 7 days a week.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like you can pull out examples in virtually every belief system of bad things. But Islam by far has the most repressive regimes, least civil rights for women and homosexuals

To the extent that repressive regimes are explicitly religious, it's usually as a means of controlling the population. The exceptions to that rule with specific regard to Islam might be Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the former is as it is in large part thanks to American meddling there in the previous century. I would argue that the extent to which Iran is repressive is less because of "Islam" and more because the old guard - the folks who staged the Glorious Revolution or whatever the hell they call it - are hitting late middle age and are desperate to ensure that the revolution doesn't die before they do.

Civil rights for women and gays, sure, I'll give you that, but I'll also remind you that civil rights for women and gays are reasonably recent developments in the United States. Much of the progress made in the sphere of gay rights has come in the last fifteen years or so; it isn't as if we were a bastion of tolerance in that realm for the duration of the Republic.

Most of the progress for women's rights has come since the '70s. It took almost 140 years from the formation of the Republic for women to get the right to vote.

And it's probably no accident that the growth of secular life beginning in the early 20th century overlaps the various civil rights movements. I'd argue that to the extent women and gays have fewer civil rights in Islamic countries, it's less explicitly about Islam and more explicitly about "religion." That is, an explicitly Christian nation languishing developmentally would probably exhibit similar characteristics.

The Ivory Coast is plurality Christian, and is one of the more repressive countries on Earth. Equitorial Guinea? Overwhelmingly Christian, one of the more repressive countries on Earth. Eritrea? Depends who you ask, but Christians (only three branches of Christianity are officially recognized) are thought to make up anywhere from 50-63% of the nation's population. One of the more repressive countries on earth.

But one of the things you find common that those three countries have in common with oppressive Islamic regimes is...development.

and commit terrorist attacks globally at levels that are staggering.

And most of those attacks take place in their own countries, against adherents of their own faith. That's one reason I'd argue that radical Islamic terrorism is more about the "radical" and less about "Islamic."

If you care about making the world better, why whiteknight them?

I think we disagree on what "whiteknighting" is in this context, but the larger reality is that there are a billion Muslims on the planet. There are about 3 million such living in the United States. If what drives radical Islamic terror were central to the faith, I think those 3 million Muslims would have already unleashed hell in the last fifteen years. Remember, what Timothy McVeigh did involved a rental truck and fertilizer. Even if just the tiniest percentage of those 3 million said "I can do that," you're still talking about a shitload of carnage. Yet, we haven't seen that. We haven't seen anything remotely close.

So maybe what that ought to tell us is that Islam isn't what causes terror, but rather what modern terrorists use to justify their terror.

As thesloppy put it, it's not so long ago that Irish Christians were the most feared terrorists in the world, but nobody is accusing Christianity of spawning terrorist plots, even though there have been any number of terroristic acts committed by Christians in the last 40 years (of course, because it's Christians committing them and not Muslims, it either doesn't get referred to as terrorism, or the faith of the terrorist just somehow never gets brought up).

[CU Tiger]

I suck at making my point, but I am going to try once again.

You said "There are 3 million Muslims in America, if Islam were the problem they would already have unleashed hell"

People as a whole aren't really good at doing things or avoiding things that are difficult.

A quick google search says that 83% of Americans identify as Christians. That puts us at 264,000,000 Christians in the US. Now how many of them follow the 10 commandments entirely?
Heck the adultery one alone probably knocks out half.

My point?

Just because the teachings calls for its followers to "unleash hell" doesn't mean they will listen and comply. For many that are less devout its just too easy to float along and enjoy the ease of life in this country.

Heck I identify as a Christian but I cant be troubled to routinely get up and spend 1 hour per week in Church, much less go out and kill some folks.

The fact that some members dont kill people simply because they are a different Religion doesn't discount the fact that, their IDEAL calls for them to.

As a Christian my text of my ideal is the New Testament of The Bible. There we even kind of repeal the 10 Commandments and just go with "Love your neighbor as yourself"...

As a Muslim the Quran quite clearly tells them to kill in the name of Allah.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"


Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be destroying for Allah is with you,"

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

Should I continue?

There is a difference between people saying they killed in the name of Christianity, where we clearly have the 10 Commandments that say thou shall not kill.

And people FOLLOWING the teachings of their ideals.

I clearly am not making my point.
I do not condone the actions of "extreme" Christians who blow up abortion clinics. But I would suggest that they are bastardized Christians or misguided Christians. In contrast with Extreme Muslims are the ones who follow the strictest laws and set the ideal others aspire to.

[rowech]

You ignore everything that is stated in the Old Testament which has some pretty violent rules for living.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I suck at making my point

But you're excellent at missing the point.

As a Christian my text of my ideal is the New Testament of The Bible.

If the New Testament is your ideal, you're cherry-picking. Because, again, Jesus was a Jew. He explicitly said He wasn't come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

There we even kind of repeal the 10 Commandments and just go with "Love your neighbor as yourself"...

Except no such thing. He was asked "which Commandment is the most important?" To which He replied, essentially, "Love." Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy soul and thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself.

"The most important" is not the same thing as "the only ones that matter."

To the extent that "we" as Christians repeal the Ten Commandments, it's because cherry-picking. "We" pick the feel-good stuff that makes us feel good about being Christians, and ignore the kind of repugnant stuff that's scattered throughout both the Old Testament and the New.

Even the bit about unclean animals being made clean, that didn't come from Jesus, who I remind you, said that He was not come to destroy the Law. That came from Paul.

If a woman is raped? She has to marry her rapist. Deuteronomy 22:29. Oh, but only if she isn't already engaged to another man. If THAT's the case, THEN the rapist is to be put to death, because he has effectively stolen the other man's property.

If a man falsely accuses a woman of not being a virgin, he has to pay a fine for defamation. If the accusation is true, she gets stoned to death. Also Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 21 sez if you're disobedient to your parents, you should be stoned to death.

As a Muslim the Quran quite clearly tells them to kill in the name of Allah.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"


Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be destroying for Allah is with you,"

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

Should I continue?

Deuteronomy (20:10-14) - "When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you."

Oh, but that's for far away cities. When you go a-viking, either enslave everybody, or kill the men and take their women.

Nearby cities, EVERYBODY was to be put to the sword. Because otherwise they might make you sin. Read the book of Joshua sometime; the entire population of 31 separate cities were treated that way.

And people FOLLOWING the teachings of their ideals.

Intellectual inconsistency. You're cherry-picking what your ideals are, and you're prescribing what are to be the ideals of the adherent of another faith, without giving them the agency to decide what they're actually called to do or not do. You ignore the whole of the Old Testament because it doesn't fit your idea of Christianity, but a Muslim who doesn't feel the call to run around murdering non-Muslims, you essentially accuse of being a lazy Muslim.

I clearly am not making my point.

Or it's not a valid point to begin with.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by rowech

You ignore everything that is stated in the Old Testament which has some pretty violent rules for living.

Christ was the new covenant. The whole point is to follow his teachings, not what came before or the interpretations that came before. The differences between the sects of Christianity is not the central tenet, it is the interpretations that surround the central core of the faith.

An interesting aside, there are some who say the God of the Old Testament and God of the New Testament are different beings, for exactly the reason rowech mentions.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Christ was the new covenant. The whole point is to follow his teachings, not what came before or the interpretations that came before. The differences between the sects of Christianity is not the central tenet, it is the interpretations that surround the central core of the faith.

An interesting aside, there are some who say the God of the Old Testament and God of the New Testament are different beings, for exactly the reason rowech mentions.

Yes. One of the points I make is that Islam has not had such a change on their laws whether it be through a new figure (Christianity) or simply deciding that they won't apply such laws. (Judaism). Many Muslims have decided they should not be applied but others have not. I believe that eventually the rest will follow and adapt to ignoring those aspects of the laws. But I must admit, I'm starting to have my doubts.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

An interesting aside, there are some who say the God of the Old Testament and God of the New Testament are different beings, for exactly the reason rowech mentions.

Old Testament God got burned out and turned over simming duties.

[ISiddiqui]

And lets be honest, we can dispense with all of the pedantic New Testament vs. Old Testament battles and just look at the Jews. The "Old Testament" is simply their Scriptures. Should we be wary of Jewish people then?

For what it's worth the most progressive country in the Middle East towards women in the 1980s (and 90s) was Iraq. The most progressive country in the Middle East for women in the 1970s was Iran. And a lot of the Arab nationalist movement was for more women's equality than those regimes are currently. Of course the US feared that they were too socialist.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

An interesting aside, there are some who say the God of the Old Testament and God of the New Testament are different beings, for exactly the reason rowech mentions.

A long time heresy, first articulated by Marcion in the 2nd Century.

[Kodos]

A friend posted this on Facebook the other day, which got me into a bit of a battle with strangers. My point was that non-religious people are not the problem. Religious fanatics are the ones who get inspired to go kill people in the name of their god. I also pointed out that there are plenty of Christians who go out and do this. Of course, I was told that when a Christian kills people, they're "not a real Christian". How convenient. And the Crusades were justified...

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Almost all terrorist attacks around the world are committed by Muslims.

can you say that there was at least a time when Christian terrorism worse? If so, what methods do you think were used to repress them? Can those methods be used on Islamic fundamentalism?

My guess is:
It's first and foremost a poverty/ corrupt politicians problem. Once the regime changed and/or a middle class started things get better. I have a feeling these radicalized young men have more in common with radical political revolutionaries than they do with "true" religious warriors.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I clearly am not making my point.
I do not condone the actions of "extreme" Christians who blow up abortion clinics. But I would suggest that they are bastardized Christians or misguided Christians. In contrast with Extreme Muslims are the ones who follow the strictest laws and set the ideal others aspire to.

As someone who works with a lot of Muslim students I would say this is totally wrong. They are just as upset, angered and embarrassed how a faith they believe is rooted in love can be turned into such an evil thing. If someone takes a "literal" reading from either Bible or Koran they can legitimize evil and be a radically different version of mainstream faith.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

There was a fleeting moment in my youth where the Irish truly were the most feared terrorists in the world. To a lot of younger Americans today that probably sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Not only that, but there were thousands of Americans in New England who were ardent supporters of the IRA, shipping them money and arms. I went to high school with a really big IRA supporter who was perfectly fine with English people getting killed in the quest for a united Ireland, free from British rule.

[molson]

Has anything good ever happened from blaming a group for the actions of a small number of individuals in the group? Maybe someone could point to something, but I'd bet anything that the bad from that blaming outweighs the good, historically.

When you attack the members of the group that aren't participating in the bad stuff (whether that be Muslims, gun owners, police officers, etc.), you're attacking the people who have the very best chance of effectuating positive change, you're marginalizing their role in helping to bring about that change, you push more people towards the bad actions you dislike in the first place, and you're making lots more of the group defensive and resistant.

[Neuqua]

Originally Posted by molson

Has anything good ever happened from blaming a group for the actions of a small number of individuals in the group? Maybe someone could point to something, but I'd bet anything that the bad from that blaming outweighs the good, historically.

When you attack the members of the group that aren't participating in the bad stuff (whether that be Muslims, gun owners, police officers, etc.), you're attacking the people who have the very best chance of effectuating positive change, you're marginalizing their role in helping to bring about that change, you push more people towards the bad actions you dislike in the first place, and you're making lots more of the group defensive and resistant.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

Has anything good ever happened from blaming a group for the actions of a small number of individuals in the group? Maybe someone could point to something, but I'd bet anything that the bad from that blaming outweighs the good, historically.

When you attack the members of the group that aren't participating in the bad stuff (whether that be Muslims, gun owners, police officers, etc.), you're attacking the people who have the very best chance of effectuating positive change, you're marginalizing their role in helping to bring about that change, you push more people towards the bad actions you dislike in the first place, and you're making lots more of the group defensive and resistant.

Well said.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

can you say that there was at least a time when Christian terrorism worse? If so, what methods do you think were used to repress them? Can those methods be used on Islamic fundamentalism?

My guess is:
It's first and foremost a poverty/ corrupt politicians problem. Once the regime changed and/or a middle class started things get better. I have a feeling these radicalized young men have more in common with radical political revolutionaries than they do with "true" religious warriors.

I don't know why you think I give any of those things a pass. If Christians, Buddhists, Scientologists, or Atheists repress people, I'm against it. I don't give a pass and make excuses because someone's skin is a little darker.

The Muslim world has major cultural problems. This is apparent to anyone who has ever been to that part of the world. When I spent time in Egypt I can't tell you how horribly women were treated on the street. Men yelled at them, made sexual gestures and groped them. This was considered a moderate Muslim country when I was in it.

I guess what I'm saying is that we criticize culture all the time. But some cultures get a pass because their skin is a little darker or something.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Muslim world has major cultural problems. This is apparent to anyone who has ever been to that part of the world. When I spent time in Egypt I can't tell you how horribly women were treated on the street. Men yelled at them, made sexual gestures and groped them. This was considered a moderate Muslim country when I was in it.

I guess what I'm saying is that we criticize culture all the time. But some cultures get a pass because their skin is a little darker or something.

A HUGE roll eyes here - what you described as problematic in Egypt happens in Italy (esp Rome) all the time. But it's an example of how horribly women are treated by Muslims if Egypt does it, so what does it mean about Catholics when Italians do it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

There are about 3 million such living in the United States. If what drives radical Islamic terror were central to the faith, I think those 3 million Muslims would have already unleashed hell in the last fifteen years.

We don't allow that kind of stuff in this country. We have laws in place that protect rights for everyone.

And my issue isn't with the 3 million Muslims living in the United States. The culture here is much different. It's with the Middle East and the culture that permeates it. The individual in Orlando wasn't radicalized by the beliefs of the Orlando community, he was radicalized by the beliefs of individuals in the Middle East. He was seduced by a culture that genuinely believes in things like Shariah Law, believes that homosexuals should be put to death, that women are property, that non-Muslims are infidels.

What I'm saying is that we should be free to call out that culture in the Middle East. Why is our President bowing to the leader of Saudi Arabia? Why is a Presidential candidate taking millions of dollars from that regime? That part of the world is a cancer to civilization and we should be calling it out any chance we get.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why is our President bowing to the leader of Saudi Arabia? Why is a Presidential candidate taking millions of dollars from that regime?

For whatever it's worth to you, I don't really agree with your politics, or your stance on Islam/radicalists/terrorism, but I still consider those to be very valid questions/issues.

[ISiddiqui]

Well being friends with Saudi Arabia is somewhat simple. They allow us to control some Mideast politics by not caring if we store some troops there. For the previous administration, S.A. was beneficially in overthrowing Iraq. For the previous and current administration, S.A. is a powerful bulwark against Iran controlling the entire region.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A HUGE roll eyes here - what you described as problematic in Egypt happens in Italy (esp Rome) all the time. But it's an example of how horribly women are treated by Muslims if Egypt does it, so what does it mean about Catholics when Italians do it?

Italy has a very sexist culture. But are you really comparing it to what women go through in Egypt?

Like 90% of the female population in Egypt has gone through female genital mutilation. Marital rape is legal. Men are free to divorce for any reason they choose while women must waive financial rights and even return the dowry paid to the husband. There is also an enormous stigma placed on women who seek divorce.

Women are pulled out of schools at young ages so that they don't mingle with men. They are segregated in many workplaces. You have "virginity tests" administered on a regular basis. The use of sexual violence to keep female protesters in check by the government. Child marriage is quite common and these children are often sold like slaves. They even have these things called "seasonal marriages" where you marry a child for a day/week/month so that you can have sex with her. It's actually a law. They legislated in child sex trafficking.

But Egypt is just like Italy, right?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Italy has a very sexist culture. But are you really comparing it to what women go through in Egypt?

Like 90% of the female population in Egypt has gone through female genital mutilation. Marital rape is legal. Men are free to divorce for any reason they choose while women must waive financial rights and even return the dowry paid to the husband. There is also an enormous stigma placed on women who seek divorce.

Women are pulled out of schools at young ages so that they don't mingle with men. They are segregated in many workplaces. You have "virginity tests" administered on a regular basis. The use of sexual violence to keep female protesters in check by the government. Child marriage is quite common and these children are often sold like slaves. They even have these things called "seasonal marriages" where you marry a child for a day/week/month so that you can have sex with her. It's actually a law. They legislated in child sex trafficking.

But Egypt is just like Italy, right?

Wait, so which is it? The list which you've placed there without attribution or what you originally said?

When I spent time in Egypt I can't tell you how horribly women were treated on the street. Men yelled at them, made sexual gestures and groped them. This was considered a moderate Muslim country when I was in it.

Or are you upset that you just got called on your bullshit?

Btw, this is what we call shifting goalposts. You took things that you believe make Islam look bad based on your own observations in Egypt, without regard of whether other places do them as well. And that's the problem. Listing existing women equality issues is fine (mind you how much of that stuff is common in the largest Muslim country in the world?), but saying that women get groped and catcalled and that shows how bad Islam is for women is just being blind.

[RainMaker]

I think the harassment of women in Egypt is worse. Mind you I only have spent a few days in Rome but I don't believe sexual assault on the street is common. I do know catcalling and such is prevalent. But I can't fathom any woman would rather live in Egypt over Italy.