My thoughts on the shooting of two terrorists in Garland, TX

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I always am confused by this. Why shouldn't we judge all religions and their danger by all of the effects they have on the world? The reasonable Muslims should be taken into account, just as the extremists should. this seems to be the way that all religions are dealt with today.

To be honest though, the only religion I have seen cause people to murder unarmed civilians in cold blood over drawings would be Islam. Isn't that enough for scrutiny?

Delving back into Canadian history, Darcy McGee (a Catholic himself) was assassinated by another more hardline Catholic for suggesting that new Canadians should leave Protestant-Catholic disputes behind when they come here.

I'd say that this suggestion is - or ought to be - much less offensive than any cartoon.

... and I could give you a list as long as my arm of people who have been killed by religious extremists of various stripes for nothing at all.

 

[leibowde84]

Delving back into Canadian history, Darcy McGee (a Catholic himself) was assassinated by another more hardline Catholic for suggesting that new Canadians should leave Protestant-Catholic disputes behind when they come here.

I'd say that this suggestion is - or ought to be - much less offensive than any cartoon.

... and I could give you a list as long as my arm of people who have been killed by religious extremists of various stripes for nothing at all.

I would say that is a lot more offensive to most than a cartoon. Not that it is justified. What are some examples of "killing for nothing at all" in recent history?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say that is a lot more offensive to most than a cartoon. Not that it is justified. What are some examples of "killing for nothing at all" in recent history?

Many terrorist acts target the public randomly.

If you want a specific example, since I'm on a Canadian history kick at the moment, there's the 1985 Air India bombing, where 329 people (or 341, if you include the 2 baggage handlers who were killed when the second bomb went off prematurely) were killed by Sikh separatists effectively for nothing more than travelling to India.

 

[powellbr5591]

Delving back into Canadian history, Darcy McGee (a Catholic himself) was assassinated by another more hardline Catholic for suggesting that new Canadians should leave Protestant-Catholic disputes behind when they come here.

I'd say that this suggestion is - or ought to be - much less offensive than any cartoon.

... and I could give you a list as long as my arm of people who have been killed by religious extremists of various stripes for nothing at all.

And this is why I have an extreme distrust of organized religion, because eventually it grows so big that all they are concerned with is power and not the state of ones relationship with God

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this is why I have an extreme distrust of organized religion, because eventually it grows so big that all they are concerned with is power and not the state of ones relationship with God

Per capita, I'd say I distrust disorganized religion even more than organized religion. A lone individual who thinks he has "a relationship with God" doesn't have anyone else to keep him in check.

 

[powellbr5591]

Per capita, I'd say I distrust disorganized religion even more than organized religion. A lone individual who thinks he has "a relationship with God" doesn't have anyone else to keep him in check.

But you also have no one to tell you what to believe and how to believe which is how it should be. So as a result you can have a much more personal and intimate relationship with God without someone yelling in your ear that you're wrong when you really start to believe and find God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you also have no one to tell you what to believe and how to believe which is how it should be. So as a result you can have a much more personal and intimate relationship with God without someone yelling in your ear that you're wrong when you really start to believe and find God.

... but if you really are wrong, you also have nobody to tell you.

 

[YmirGF]

Many terrorist acts target the public randomly.

If you want a specific example, since I'm on a Canadian history kick at the moment, there's the 1985 Air India bombing, where 329 people (or 341, if you include the 2 baggage handlers who were killed when the second bomb went off prematurely) were killed by Sikh separatists effectively for nothing more than travelling to India.

This is a pretty grossly inaccurate analysis of the event, 9-10ths_Penguin. The plane was targeted to draw attention to the perceived plight of Sikh's at the hands of the Indian government. It was perhaps a random flight to India on a given day, when they were "good to go", but there was a rather strong point to the murderous lunacy.

Living in the Vancouver area, at the time, I was already familiar with the term "Khalistan", but this event put it into everyone's consciousness.

 

[Wirey]

This is a pretty grossly inaccurate analysis of the event, 9-10ths_Penguin. The plane was targeted to draw attention to the perceived plight of Sikh's at the hands of the Indian government. It was perhaps a random flight to India on a given day, when they were "good to go", but there was a rather strong point to the murderous lunacy.

Living in the Vancouver area, at the time, I was already familiar with the term "Khalistan", but this event put it into everyone's consciousness.

Also, that bomb was supposed to go off after the plane had landed and everyone was on the ground, but a flight delay had them in the air:

Air India Flight 182 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean, not much of a concession, but still.

 

[Aquitaine]

Except South Park is very tongue-in-cheek, and it parodies and satirizes an entire range of bigotries. That, and Cartman is the only character who gives Kyle a hard time for being Jewish, and very frequently Cartman is forced to eat his own words.

Likewise, for example, Charlie Hebo attacks other faiths as well. I was responding to Servant who wanted to find examples of it "against the Jews".

 

[ChristineES]

See, I think that is irresponsible. As I said above, of course the peaceful, reasonable Muslims should be given their fair share of representing their religion, but we have to take the bad with the good and judge the religion as a whole. I think that is the only fair way. I am not blaming peaceful Muslims for anything, but I am not going to treat the extremists as not being Muslim at the same time.

It is a bit frustrating when people apparently don't understand the point I am trying to make. What I am saying is that 1. Guns never get charged with murder or assault, but the people who shoot them do, because a gun can't shoot itself 2. A car never has an accident without a person driving it, a car can't drive itself.
It's the same with religion: It's inanimate. It does nothing by itself. The people who follow it are doing the actions.

 

[leibowde84]

It is a bit frustrating when people apparently don't understand the point I am trying to make. What I am saying is that 1. Guns never get charged with murder or assault, but the people who shoot them do, because a gun can't shoot itself 2. A car never has an accident without a person driving it, a car can't drive itself.
It's the same with religion: It's inanimate. It does nothing by itself. The people who follow it are doing the actions.

That is a completely unreasonable analogy, though. Religions aren't objects, they are ideologies or systems of belief with doctrine and teaching that often lead people to think and reinforce those thoughts that violence is OK when done in the name of God. Those things can become dangerous when they are open to the interpretation that causes violent outbreaks in its name. Islam has led many (still a minority of its adherents of course) to do some horrible things in its name. This is because of certain passages in the Quran and Hadiths that have been misinterpreted, but that does not mean that the danger is not still there. Religions are not inanimate like Guns, that is a ridiculous claim. Does a gun influence a person's ideology and world-view? Do people kill in the defense of a Gun?

Islam is a human institution, and as such, is fair game for criticism. It is responsible for the actions of all of its adherents, as it plays a huge role in shaping their ideologies and world-views. Something that has this huge of an impact in how people act on a daily basis is in no way inanimate. Sure, it is not a personal entity, but ideologies have often been rightly blamed for horrible actions of its adherents.

Here's another thought. Don't you think that the fact that the stance of the Catholic Church, until the late 1960s, that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus played a large role in the development of anti-semitism. This rise in anti-semitism then led, eventually, the the mass-extermination of over 6 million innocent people. Now, obviously this was the Catholic Church, but the religion made a huge error, and should be held partly responsible for what it caused. In other words, I would never blame Islam for the actions of its adherents, I would blame it for inciting the actions of its adherents, whether those adherents are completely misled or not.

 

[ShivaFan]

I have now gone back and forth on this overall question three times, once again yesterday, and now have finally given up.

Too many nutjobs, it is impossible to make everyone happy. Impossible.

And now, it seems clear ISIS is here in the United States, they have already decided that they are offended by me even being alive.

What's REALLY dangerous is when a government, Big Brother (or Big Sis depending on the circumstances) thinks THEY are offended by something someone says or reports in the news or creates a video on youtube, etc., and at the same time THEY get to decide WHAT is offensive or not. Once they have the power to define "offensive", or once you are so stupid to give them that power, then pretty soon the government is going to decide anything that makes them look bad or counters their agenda is "offensive" and they start collectivizing gulags of political prisoners or murdering people, be it the Obamanists putting people into political prison for making a video or ISIS shooting you in the back of the head point blank because they are the government and they are "offended" by you.

I was almost sidetracked from real common sense by Donald Trump's call for common sense yesterday regarding how he was offended by the non-common sense of those offending Muslims in Garland.

Now I reslize, this being offended has no limits. No end. And so the real solution, albeit best effort only, is to NEVER give Big Brother or Big Sister, the obese government, the power to define what is offensive. If you do, people and probably yourself, will die.

So the best effort is never give government such power, folks will just need to get a life and be offended, tough luck you offended does not give you the right to go postal.

And as far as the ISIS types, there is no "solution" or "peace" because they think they should be Big Brother with all power to define what is "offensive", and already shown that they intend to murder everyone because because they are "offended". So the only answer now, before they murder our children, is to kill them in the act of their "being offended".

 

[leibowde84]

It is a bit frustrating when people apparently don't understand the point I am trying to make. What I am saying is that 1. Guns never get charged with murder or assault, but the people who shoot them do, because a gun can't shoot itself 2. A car never has an accident without a person driving it, a car can't drive itself.
It's the same with religion: It's inanimate. It does nothing by itself. The people who follow it are doing the actions.

Religions shape the way that people think. A gun does not have that ability.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

@ShivaFan : ''they have already decided that they are offended by me even being alive''.

Are you kidding us?
If you were minister in the Indian Govt i understand. Why would ISIS go after you?

 

[ChristineES]

Religions shape the way that people think. A gun does not have that ability.

Actually, the teachings of a religion might help shape a way a person thinks, not the religion itself. Any kind of teaching, religious or not, can help shape how a person thinks, too.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, the teachings of a religion might help shape a way a person thinks, not the religion itself. Any kind of teaching, religious or not, can help shape how a person thinks, too.

what is a religion if not it's teachings/ideology?

 

[ChristineES]

what is a religion if not it's teachings/ideology?

It's about faith, at least in my case. Not all religions have faith as a base, but mine does. In fact, I call what I follow a faith rather than a religion, although some don't see any difference.

 

[leibowde84]

It's about faith, at least in my case. Not all religions have faith as a base, but mine does. In fact, I call what I follow a faith rather than a religion, although some don't see any difference.

Fair enough. So, if "faith" is "religion", don't you think that the "faith" inherent in the Islamic tradition has some kind of responsibility in how the extremists think?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...ct-geller-anti-muslim-venom-article-1.2198043
Jews, reject Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim venom: Leviticus teaches us what it's like to be treated like lepers

Thanks, Rabbi.​

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...ct-geller-anti-muslim-venom-article-1.2198043