Orlando: Worst Mass Shooting In US History

[CU Tiger]

I still find it funny how alll the anti gun folks won't even acknowledge when a firearm prevents deaths.

I mean it's really all about the guns, right?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Keep white-knighting a religion behind almost all the terrorist attacks in the world these days and some of the most disgusting civil rights abuses on the planet. Fuck women, gay people, and anyone from the Western world. These people have slightly darker skin and must be defended to the end!

I don't think anyone is defending ISIS or that their extreme interpretation of a religion is a problem in the world today, however that doesn't mean the religion itself is to blame.

The alternative to this is for you to accept that Christianity is a similar problem in the world as many terrorists act behind its mask in an incredibly similar manner eg. the Lords Resistance Army, IRA and the NLFT (India).

Any extreme belief is often the cause of problems in the world, whether that is religious or otherwise (heck extreme support for sports teams can sometimes spill over into violence - look at issues which sporadically occur with some soccer teams).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I still find it funny how alll the anti gun folks won't even acknowledge when a firearm prevents deaths.

I mean it's really all about the guns, right?

I readily admit that there are cases when an armed person may act in a way which saves lives, however I firmly believe that there are more cases where unfortunately the opposite occurs.

This is largely because guns allow an easy and abrupt escalation in a situation without the personal risk to someone that they might feel through a physical altercation involving fists, knives or such (i.e. the wielder of the weapon isn't in direct contact with the victim) ... its also a weapon where the consequences of wielding it are often more immediate and damaging than other easily available weapons (ie. beating someone to death with your fists is hard and (in most cases) takes time, killing someone with a gun by contrast is fairly easy).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People were hacked to death in a bakery if they couldn't recite lines from the Quran. But that has nothing to do with Islam.

In Ireland there was a time if you said you were Protestant in a Catholic area (or vice versa) then you could find yourself beaten to a pulp ... that had everything to do with Christianity and nothing to do with politics or the people involved being violent idiots? ...

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I readily admit that there are cases when an armed person may act in a way which saves lives, however I firmly believe that there are more cases where unfortunately the opposite occurs.

This is largely because guns allow an easy and abrupt escalation in a situation without the personal risk to someone that they might feel through a physical altercation involving fists, knives or such (i.e. the wielder of the weapon isn't in direct contact with the victim) ... its also a weapon where the consequences of wielding it are often more immediate and damaging than other easily available weapons (ie. beating someone to death with your fists is hard and (in most cases) takes time, killing someone with a gun by contrast is fairly easy).

Right. But no one tells the story when it's a benefit.
Again go back to my first post in this thread, I'm no against all forms of regulation. I am against a biased media telling half the story and riling up a populous against a false or partially false agenda. I believe median has an obligation to tell both sides of every story to allow an informed populous to make rational decisions. Otherwise is counter to the fundamentals of democracy and a democratic republic.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

In Ireland there was a time if you said you were Protestant in a Catholic area (or vice versa) then you could find yourself beaten to a pulp ... that had everything to do with Christianity and nothing to do with politics or the people involved being violent idiots? ...

Can you please find andetailed link for me one instance where Pope John Paul spoke out I support of their cases at the time?

I think you will find the exact opposite.
Sure you can find individual clerics speaking out against islam, but not the leaders of the faith themselves.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I still find it funny how alll the anti gun folks won't even acknowledge when a firearm prevents deaths.

I mean it's really all about the guns, right?

I still find it funny how alll the anti Islam folks won't even acknowledge when a Muslim prevents deaths.

I mean it's really all about the religion, right?

Yep, it's snarky, but there is some crossover with the seemingly total lack of empathy and nuance on each side of these two arguments.

On one hand, the evil and destruction done by a few is dismissed because limiting it would be limiting the free exercise of all peace making,family first individuals. On the other, the evil and destruction by a few is an inevitable and growing outcome of a violent culture incorrectly interpreting historic text.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I still find it funny how alll the anti Islam folks won't even acknowledge when a Muslim prevents deaths.

I mean it's really all about the religion, right?

Yep, it's snarky, but there is some crossover with the seemingly total lack of empathy and nuance on each side of these two arguments.

On one hand, the evil and destruction done by a few is dismissed because limiting it would be limiting the free exercise of all peace making,family first individuals. On the other, the evil and destruction by a few is an inevitable and growing outcome of a violent culture incorrectly interpreting historic text.

Define incorrectly interpreting...

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I still find it funny how alll the anti Islam folks won't even acknowledge when a Muslim prevents deaths.

I mean it's really all about the religion, right?

Yep, it's snarky, but there is some crossover with the seemingly total lack of empathy and nuance on each side of these two arguments.

On one hand, the evil and destruction done by a few is dismissed because limiting it would be limiting the free exercise of all peace making,family first individuals. On the other, the evil and destruction by a few is an inevitable and growing outcome of a violent culture incorrectly interpreting historic text.

Hey I provided a link to my prevention, your turn.

The religion of peace that promotes Slaughter and execution amongst it's most important tenets awaits

[CU Tiger]

And yes that's snarky and more sarcastic than my normal tone here. I mean it in good fun to be fair. But I also strongly believe in my position and not just trolling

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Define incorrectly interpreting...

"A well regulated militia"

it is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from ALL Muslims

[BishopMVP]

There's a ton of money and a few nation states that actively promote the violent strains of Islam, and strongly support clerics who direct their people's anger at "the West" (or Israel) hoping that it'll keep them in power. Christianity was also an exceedingly violent religion back when it was controlled by similar people, but we've advanced past that for the most part. Islam hasn't yet, and it won't until the money is behind Sufism or strains like that instead of Wahhabism.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Hey I provided a link to my prevention, your turn.

The religion of peace that promotes Slaughter and execution amongst it's most important tenets awaits

Oh, I get the media bias/ entertainment slant. Im just wondering if reporting on guns being used to protect and Muslims being peaceful do not make the news for essentially the same reasons.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Hey Media: Another Nightclub Shooting, This Time No Massacre

Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting at South Carolina Nightclub? : snopes.com

Deputies: CWP holder injures Spartanburg Co. nightclub shooting - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

This...this is a little different from the Orlando shooter, who set out to shoot people, no? Like, this hothead probably wouldn't have lost his cool and shot people if he didn't have a gun in there as a patron in the first place?

I mean, that's the real point of calls for not having as many guns around, I think. To prevent people from doing something while blinded by rage, or sadness, or just by accident which they may not ordinarily. Because that is where most gun deaths come from, not from spree shooters.

Also, it's not as if this concealed-permit guy took out the shooter. He was still hanging around at the club when the cops came.

[thesloppy]

Could that "Playoffz" joint be any more sketchy?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I don't think anyone is defending ISIS or that their extreme interpretation of a religion is a problem in the world today, however that doesn't mean the religion itself is to blame.

The alternative to this is for you to accept that Christianity is a similar problem in the world as many terrorists act behind its mask in an incredibly similar manner eg. the Lords Resistance Army, IRA and the NLFT (India).

Any extreme belief is often the cause of problems in the world, whether that is religious or otherwise (heck extreme support for sports teams can sometimes spill over into violence - look at issues which sporadically occur with some soccer teams).

It's not an extreme interpretation of the religion. If anything it's more in line with what their holy book says.

Christianity isn't even close to what Islam is today. Islam dwarfs them in terrorist attacks, repressive regimes, and human rights abuses. It's insulting to compare the two today.

The difference is that when Christianity does commit terrorism and does infringe on the rights of others (gay marriage, right to choose, etc), the Left calls them out on it. When Muslims do it, the Left rallies around to defend them. It's this bizarre hypocrisy that I'll never understand.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not an extreme interpretation of the religion. If anything it's more in line with what their holy book says.

Christianity isn't even close to what Islam is today. Islam dwarfs them in terrorist attacks, repressive regimes, and human rights abuses. It's insulting to compare the two today.

The difference is that when Christianity does commit terrorism and does infringe on the rights of others (gay marriage, right to choose, etc), the Left calls them out on it. When Muslims do it, the Left rallies around to defend them. It's this bizarre hypocrisy that I'll never understand.

1) A lot of that Christian infringement happens here at home, where we have a document that says Church and State are separate, while Christians keep trying to smush the two together. That's generally where the left's criticism of Christians comes from. You don't get the left demonizing demonizing every flavor of Christianity because some Christians are stridently anti-gay rights. Where the Left goes after Christians is when fucksticks like Roy Moore go "the Bible is a higher authority than the Constitution so I'm going to keep overturning laws even if the Supreme Court has already told me no." Or passes bills with the explicit goal of funding Christian private schools but not Islamic private schools (or Jewish or Sikh or...).

2) You're asking the Left to join you in holding an entire faith accountable for VIOLENT ACTS OF TERROR, and when it's pointed out to you that, look, Muslim terrorists are mostly killing other Muslims, not white, God-fearing Americans, you start in on "but women's rights and gay rights and I thought you believed this stuff WHY WON'T YOU CONDEMN THEM WITH ME." The ground you've chosen to fight on is that Islam is inherently evil and that makes all its adherents evil; you've put your political opposition in the position of having to defend the billion folks who, you know, are just trying to live their damn lives.

You don't get a lot of gap-bridging when you do that.

3) Stop, maybe, and consider that many of the people who rise to the defense of Muslims in the face of your vitriol are Christians themselves. If they get it, why don't you?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not an extreme interpretation of the religion. If anything it's more in line with what their holy book says.

Christianity isn't even close to what Islam is today. Islam dwarfs them in terrorist attacks, repressive regimes, and human rights abuses. It's insulting to compare the two today.

The difference is that when Christianity does commit terrorism and does infringe on the rights of others (gay marriage, right to choose, etc), the Left calls them out on it. When Muslims do it, the Left rallies around to defend them. It's this bizarre hypocrisy that I'll never understand.

I still can't believe someone I don't know thinks differently from me, shame on you.

your fist sentence is non-sense, of course. Maybe we can agree that's it's hard for an anonymous reader like me to take anything seriously you say about a religion you know nothing about, despite a passionate hate for it.

The reason I, and others, keep harping on you is your inability to see how you are talking completely differently about Christianity and Islam. For Christians, wrongdoing is about a person, or historical institution that was evil. For Islam, it's evey goddam mother fucker that's evil. For example, the Church sex abuse is one of the worst global crimes against humanity in modern history. Yet, you would just blame the priest, a sect,denomination, etc. You certainly wouldn't call the billion Catholics pedophiles. You are not dong the same for Muslims and it's ruining my cocktail, again, shame on you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

3) Stop, maybe, and consider that many of the people who rise to the defense of Muslims in the face of your vitriol are Christians themselves. If they get it, why don't you?

Maybe, just maybe, because they're the ones that DON'T get it.
I mean, just claiming Christianity doesn't make one immune to be dead wrong.

I hold them in equal contempt with all other Islamic apologists.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) A lot of that Christian infringement happens here at home, where we have a document that says Church and State are separate, while Christians keep trying to smush the two together. That's generally where the left's criticism of Christians comes from. You don't get the left demonizing demonizing every flavor of Christianity because some Christians are stridently anti-gay rights. Where the Left goes after Christians is when fucksticks like Roy Moore go "the Bible is a higher authority than the Constitution so I'm going to keep overturning laws even if the Supreme Court has already told me no." Or passes bills with the explicit goal of funding Christian private schools but not Islamic private schools (or Jewish or Sikh or...).

2) You're asking the Left to join you in holding an entire faith accountable for VIOLENT ACTS OF TERROR, and when it's pointed out to you that, look, Muslim terrorists are mostly killing other Muslims, not white, God-fearing Americans, you start in on "but women's rights and gay rights and I thought you believed this stuff WHY WON'T YOU CONDEMN THEM WITH ME." The ground you've chosen to fight on is that Islam is inherently evil and that makes all its adherents evil; you've put your political opposition in the position of having to defend the billion folks who, you know, are just trying to live their damn lives.

But the Left does hold entire faiths accountable for violent acts of terror. Read through the Huffington Post, Vox, Salon, and others right after the Planned Parenthood shooting.

The difference in Christianity and Islam today is that one has a significantly higher rate of terrorism, human rights abuses, and repressive backwards regimes. There are bad Christians. Bad Mormons. Bad Scientologists. Bad Atheists. But one religion stands far ahead of all those others when it comes to the really bad stuff. At some point you have to ask yourself why that is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

For example, the Church sex abuse is one of the worst global crimes against humanity in modern history. Yet, you would just blame the priest, a sect,denomination, etc. You certainly wouldn't call the billion Catholics pedophiles. You are not dong the same for Muslims and it's ruining my cocktail, again, shame on you.

You are correct. It was an absolute disgrace and I have called out the abhorrent culture around the Catholic Church that led to it.

When something like this happens with Catholics, the left rightfully jumps in to demand answers. They call out those who protect predators. I agree with this 100%. But when it's Muslims doing it, we get Rotherham. Excuses and cover-ups as to not offend.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People were hacked to death in a bakery if they couldn't recite lines from the Quran. But that has nothing to do with Islam.

I have Muslim friends and it certainly has nothing to do with their interpretation of it. Is that too much of a defense? Does that mean I'm white-knighting them? Please enlighten me on how I should communicate with them and any other Muslims I may come across in my life? Should I punch them? Demand they pay for the sins of other Muslims?

[miked]

What about when the good guys with the guns do bad things?

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

Man shot to death by fellow parishioner during hymns was ‘only armed with his Bible,’ police say - The Washington Post

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But when it's Muslims doing it, we get Rotherham. Excuses and cover-ups as to not offend.

Dem's approved of Iraq/Afghanistan about the same amount and length as Rep's. We have a Dem president who is killing more civilians and Americans with drones than any other, with record high approval. Dem's have nominated a hawkish presidential candidate. So, not sure where you are getting your left just gives hugs narrative. Is it just not having similar aggressive readtions as you?

[jeff061]

Bush did a hell of a lot more chest pounding than Obama does(Shock and awe Mothafuckkas!!!!), which apparently is what RainMaker, all Trump supporters and many conservatives want. Why contribute to society when you can feel strong living vicariously through press releases and fiery speeches.

Personally, I'd rather we eliminate them all, brutally if necessary, with as little fanfare as possible. Why incite/create more extremists than necessary? How insecure are we?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by jeff061

How insecure are we?

I was wondering this this week while somewhere that had Fox News on. They were trying to promote the heck out of #proudamerican, and played CGI fireworks going to half the commercials. I know it's July 4th weekend, but I don't get the constant need to reaffirm patriotism. Is it some sort of contest?

edit: I know I've mentioned this before, but I thought this watching the debates, too. We're broadcasting the National Anthem before these now? Really?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I hold them in equal contempt.

That's okay, Jon. The list of people you *don't* hold in contempt is pretty short.

Which means your contempt, as far as I'm concerned, is as worthless as you are.

Happy Fourth!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Bush did a hell of a lot more chest pounding than Obama does(Shock and awe Mothafuckkas!!!!), which apparently is what RainMaker, all Trump supporters and many conservatives want. Why contribute to society when you can feel strong living vicariously through press releases and fiery speeches.

Personally, I'd rather we eliminate them all, brutally if necessary, with as little fanfare as possible. Why incite/create more extremists than necessary? How insecure are we?

Is that really the case? Terrorists sit around watching CNN? What chest pounding was Clinton doing that made Bin Laden decide he needed to ram planes full of Americans into the World Trade Center?

Maybe, more realistically, it's not our fault?

[jeff061]

Oh yeah, I forgot the overly simplistic, extremely black/white and horribly unrealistic view point all Trump fans and many conservatives have.

Slow your roll and use the lump that's three feet above your ass. Just because it's not your fault doesn't mean you can't spark change. It's called leadership. I'm still not sure how your post defends the need for Barack to get on TV and go on a "Fuck yeah!" spree detailing all the death and destruction he's causing (which he is). He's not killing any less than his predecessors, he's just not masturbating to it on live TV. Which seems to me to be the smart move.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's okay, Jon. The list of people you *don't* hold in contempt is pretty short.

Which means your contempt, as far as I'm concerned, is as worthless as you are.

Happy Fourth!

I'm not the one rendering comfort nor aid to our enemies these days, unlike those who insist on tolerating the intolerable.

Happy 4th to you too.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Oh yeah, I forgot the overly simplistic, extremely black/white and horribly unrealistic view point all Trump fans and many conservatives have.

Slow your roll and use the lump that's three feet above your ass. Just because it's not your fault doesn't mean you can't spark change. It's called leadership. I'm still not sure how your post defends the need for Barack to get on TV and go on a "Fuck yeah!" spree detailing all the death and destruction he's causing (which he is). He's not killing any less than his predecessors, he's just not masturbating to it on live TV. Which seems to me to be the smart move.

I'm not criticizing Obama's method. Nor Bush's method. What I'm saying is that it's pretty irrelevant to the terrorists decision to bomb or not bomb.

[jeff061]

So you think they come out the womb that way and there is no external influence, as complex and multifaceted as it may be, to them or their parents. Because if there was any external influence that would be akin to not blaming the bomber.

Got it. Humans and societies have never ever evolved for thousands of years and geopolitical issues and violence never changes. You are born how you are born and that's it. If we are lucky the violence gene skips a generation, because us humans certainly have no influence over anything.

[Dutch]

I'm not sure I am following you.

[ISiddiqui]

I consider it to be highly disrespectful and close to fucking offensive to go after the religion of the VICTIMS of terrorist acts. What exactly do you think the majority of people in Istanbul or Dhaka or Baghdad or Medina believe? But it is their religion that resulted in this? What... they asked for it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I consider it to be highly disrespectful and close to fucking offensive to go after the religion of the VICTIMS of terrorist acts. What exactly do you think the majority of people in Istanbul or Dhaka or Baghdad or Medina believe? But it is their religion that resulted in this? What... they asked for it?

No more than a child in the Catholic Church would be to blame for the molestation scandals.

You can be critical of a religion and the culture it permeates without blaming every single person who adheres to it.

[CU Tiger]

I for one am ok if it's offensive.
Maybe when it gets offensive enough the "true good" sect will speak out loudly and proudly condeming the acts of their brothers, until then I apologize if I lump all of them together.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You can be critical of a religion and the culture it permeates without blaming every single person who adheres to it.

Bite your tongue; that is far too much for many to comprehend.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No more than a child in the Catholic Church would be to blame for the molestation scandals.

Exactly, that's how fucked up it'd be to blame Catholicism for Catholics getting molested.

Oh wait, you wanted to blame the organizational structure? Then go ahead and blame ISIS, but you aren't actually doing that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Maybe when it gets offensive enough the "true good" sect will speak out loudly and proudly condeming the acts of their brothers, until then I apologize if I lump all of them together.

It is a ridiculous and bald faced lie that they don't.

Saw Something Said Something | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee | TBS - YouTube

[RainMaker]

How come the Muslim world is such a repressive shithole if there are all these good Muslims and the bad ones are just a small contingent?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How come the Muslim world is such a repressive shithole if there are all these good Muslims and the bad ones are just a small contingent?

Does Turkey count as the "Muslim world"? India, which has the 3rd most Muslims in the world? Tunisia? Indonesia?

For example, how oppressive and crappy are Muslim countries in Africa compared to their Christian neighbors on the continent? Perhaps that may allow you to be able to put 2 and 2 together and realize that something else may perhaps be at play.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Does Turkey count as the "Muslim world"? India, which has the 3rd most Muslims in the world? Tunisia? Indonesia?

For example, how oppressive and crappy are Muslim countries in Africa compared to their Christian neighbors on the continent? Perhaps that may allow you to be able to put 2 and 2 together and realize that something else may perhaps be at play.

India is predominately Hindu so Muslims do not have as strong of a say in the laws. Despite that, Muslim leaders successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to outlaw homosexual sex in 2013. Female genital mutilation is high in the community. In the predominately Muslim Bengal region, domestic violence is the highest in the entire country. I'd mention the issue with child brides but the Hindu religion likes to get in on the child sex market just as much as the Muslim community in India.

Tunisia currently outlaws homosexuality. It's punishable by up to 3 years in prison. 65% of the country believes in punishing homosexuals. 10% believe the country should not. Women only inherit 50% of what Men do. This law comes straight from Islamic law. It was less than a year ago that Women were finally given the right to travel with their children without the Father's permission. Men retain guardianship upon divorce and children are barred from living with the Mother if she chooses to remarry. By the way, Tunisia is considered the most progressive country in the Arab world for women.

And then Indonesia. A country that allows provinces to enact Sharia law. 100 lashes for being a homosexual. Some localities require women to wear the hijab. Police and military forces are required to provide women with "virginity tests" before they can be hired. 97% of females have their genitals mutilated before they reach adulthood. The government had to install women only train cars because women were being sexually harassed so much.

Mind you, you went out of your way to find the most progressive countries in the Arab world. That sure does say something about that part of the world. But keep defending that way of life. Women, children, and homosexuals I'm sure appreciate it.

[AlexB]

A fair bit of the criticisms of Islam are things that were considered commonplace in the progressive west until 50 years ago, 100 years ago: gay-bashing, women's rights, racial rights, etc. even gay marriage only recently was legal in all 50 states.

In a human history spanning thousands of years, is it best to lord and crow "we were early adopters, fuck all you heathens", causing even greater rifts between the communities than currently exist, or better to educate and encourage - hearts and minds.

No-one is white-knigting the terrible things done in the name of Islam, but most people seem to realise evolution by force is less effective than evolution by teaching.

For another example of the former failing, see the creation and then the break up and civil wars of Empire. For an example of the latter, see the evolution of penal systems from torture to punishment to incarceration to education, and that very few countries have the death penalty now (ironically this is something that the US and the Muslim world has in common)

Forced submission to a different way of life has proven to be less effective than voluntary change, and that is why most people do not want to obliterate an entire section of the world in order to eliminate a small number of atrocious human beings.

Edit to clarify: I mean the above in terms of educating the young people, those vulnerable to being recruited under false promises of martyrdom and heaven, giving them an alternative, a reason not to become extremist. And to show a positive alternative to those already signed up as they believed that there was no other future.

All for taking out the heads of the terrorist organisations and the recruiters, etc - it's multi-faceted: cut off the top and the bottom in different ways.

[RainMaker]

Who cares what was commonplace 50 years ago? Is there some grace period we have to give when our culture changes ways? A part of the world made it common to gas Jewish people to death 70 years ago, has it been long enough that I can call that practice evil?

No one on the left seemed to say what you're about Kim Davis a year ago. She was called a bigot who was restricting the rights of others and told to step down. Didn't hear any "well it was commonplace just a few years ago so let's not cause a greater rift".

I also haven't advocated forcing them to do anything or bombing them at all. I'm saying that the culture is abhorrent and maybe if people started admitting that instead of assuming the Middle East is just a few bad eggs, we could actually get change. Your idea of education is great. But if you feel it's just a handful of bad people doing this, that education isn't necessary for the majority of the public.

I guess I'd also like to stop providing aid to these countries that have abhorrent laws and support terrorists (Pakistan for one). And maybe we shouldn't be selling billions in lethal fighter jets to countries like Qatar that support terrorist organizations.

[CU Tiger]

TIL that former illegality of homosexuality that was rarely enforced and if so only a small monetary fine is analogous to currently outlawing homosexuality and punishing by public stoning to death.

Also paying a woman less than a man in the work place is equal to removing her clitoris using non surgicallly sterile methods to prevent her from the atrocious sin of enjoying sex.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who cares what was commonplace 50 years ago? Is there some grace period we have to give when our culture changes ways? A part of the world made it common to gas Jewish people to death 70 years ago, has it been long enough that I can call that practice evil?

No one on the left seemed to say what you're about Kim Davis a year ago. She was called a bigot who was restricting the rights of others and told to step down. Didn't hear any "well it was commonplace just a few years ago so let's not cause a greater rift".

I also haven't advocated forcing them to do anything or bombing them at all. I'm saying that the culture is abhorrent and maybe if people started admitting that instead of assuming the Middle East is just a few bad eggs, we could actually get change. Your idea of education is great. But if you feel it's just a handful of bad people doing this, that education isn't necessary for the majority of the public.

I guess I'd also like to stop providing aid to these countries that have abhorrent laws and support terrorists (Pakistan for one). And maybe we shouldn't be selling billions in lethal fighter jets to countries like Qatar that support terrorist organizations.

The second half of your post I am in complete agreement with, except you missed the point about educating the masses to stop the few who prey on the lack of education to radicalise others. Education is likely worthless for the leaders.

On the fist part you're fine to call the practices wrong, but evil is wring IMO. Evil implies that people are aware of all possibilities and make a fully reasoned choice.

My belief is that this is not the case, much as in days gone by the western world were bigoted against the black and LGBT community until we were more educated about it (remember people used to say you could 'cure' gay people? )

There's a lot of false equivalences, including in CUT's post, based on our situations, our evolution and education which is simply not the case in rural Pakistan for example. Don't write off the entire nations or peoples until there is enough information and understanding for them to make a reasoned decision.

Notice I didn't include relgions in that sentence, as I also believe all religious groups are wrong, eastern and western, in that there is a vested interest in keeping the masses as I'll informed as possible in order for the elders to maintain their elite status.

IMO small groups with strange and irrational beliefs that cintrol their followers are called cults. Huge groups with strange and irrational beliefs that conrol their followers are called religions.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Can you please find andetailed link for me one instance where Pope John Paul spoke out I support of their cases at the time?

I think you will find the exact opposite.
Sure you can find individual clerics speaking out against islam, but not the leaders of the faith themselves.

There isn't a single 'leader' of Islam in the same manner as the Pope for Catholics so what you're requesting is quite impossible as I'm sure you're aware.

There are MANY Islamic leaders who do speak out against such atrocities as you're also undoubtedly aware (going by your comment) - but apparently that is irrelevant to you?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by AlexB

My belief is that this is not the case, much as in days gone by the western world were bigoted against the black and LGBT community until we were more educated about it (remember people used to say you could 'cure' gay people? )

There are still HUGE issues with both the cases stated here in nearly all western countries - I was shocked at the racism which is common place in Florida when I emigrated here and saddened by the recent mass murder in Orlando which was definitely aimed at the LGBT community.

I think it is wholly incorrect to either promote or attack a single religion because of the interpretation of it by a section of their membership, it'd be like interpreting Christianity through the eyes of the Westboro Baptists.

It is also worth realizing that one of the reasons that some areas of the world have so little education and are somewhat behind the curve on such things is because the unstable political setup in those regions (which was at least influenced by the west) has prevented their evolution somewhat.

PS - Please note that when I say 'influenced by the West' I fully include the UK in this; we've gone out of our way to screw up the Middle East at various times in the past ...

[Edward64]

Do we need to make a distinction and break this down into Sunni and Shiite Muslims?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

There isn't a single 'leader' of Islam in the same manner as the Pope for Catholics so what you're requesting is quite impossible as I'm sure you're aware.

There are MANY Islamic leaders who do speak out against such atrocities as you're also undoubtedly aware (going by your comment) - but apparently that is irrelevant to you?

To be totally fair, I have studied Islam very little. Several years back on a quest for spiritual enlightenment I read the major text of several religions over a 2 year period, including the Quran. For that reason I feel somewhat justified in speaking to its teachings, though I recognize my knowledge is limited there because it was an English translation and... well subject to interpretive translation. I have not, however, spent any substantive time analyzing the organizational structure of the Muslim faith. So I am not sure what the hierarchy is. I know locally every time there is an Isis event the Charlotte, NC CBS affiliate will trot out a local cleric who says that he and his congregation do not endorse the actions, I have noted that he has never used the words condemn or deplore the actions only that they didnt endorse them.

So, to be fair, I dont know who would be a global or regional spokesman. But I suppose there has to be some hierarchy beyond the leader of a 100 man mosque, right?