3 Muslims killed by gunman in NC, USA

[Michael Hardner]

I merely brought it up as a comparison, where black against white violence is routine and rarely draws much attention, but the reverse catches the eye of the media.

I think a real discussion should start out with an agreement of objectives and methods, not by posting an inflammatory article.

[cybercoma]

Muslims have declared war on our way of life, we didn't declare it on them. In warfare people die, that's life.

Muslims have declared war on the way of life for other Muslims. Ever see or read about Afghanistan before the United States propped up the Taliban in their proxy war?

[WIP]

Reply to Shady - post #40

That's because you're ignoring the loooooong pattern of violence in the name of jihad over decades. Some a-hole is usually just random.

How about providing us with an authoritative source, so we can examine this "long" history of "jihad."

Because a quick synopsis would reveal that the pseudohistorians you are likely using as references, cherrypick out the violent or violent-sounding quranic verses and declare that Islam is a religion that began in violence and has carried on as a violent religion to this day. Wouldn't be so laughable if it wasn't for all of the contrived excuses to justify Christendom's empire building that has attempted to dominate the entire world in our time....although the core religious tenets of Christendom seem to be in the process of being cast off in favour of a new faith in secular humanism.

First off, I'm not even going to bother dealing with the fact that the term "jihad" is not the Arab equivalent for war in the first place! Bu, since warfare under Islamic rules is the only understanding of jihad that you want to deal with, I'll stick to that portion of the understanding of jihad.

Are you declaring that jihad or any Muslim nation or society should have never engaged in warfare to begin with? And right from the very beginning...soon after the death of their Prophet, the first caliph saw divisions within the caliphate that was supposed to spread forth and conquer the world. A governor from Syria rose up and questioned the authority of the first caliph and considered himself to be the one who should be the legitimate ruler. As opposing armies faced each other, each side picked their own scholars to argue and hopefully settle the dispute. But, while they were talking, a movement rose up (the Kharijites) who determined that both sides had to be in error because they were both trying to acquire power for themselves. Right from the beginning, the caliphs were made aware that compromise and pragmatism would be necessary, before they could even begin to try to expand the caliphate.

In the realms of Christendom, the Church of Rome became the heir to an empire that controlled the entire Mediterranean, and had to turn what was originally an end-of-days messianic cult into an established religion with political and economic structures, as well as 'Christian armies' for defense and offense. But, there was nothing originally within Christianity that was useful for establishing earthly institutions, and definitely no guide for any use of authority...especially having to fight and kill on a battlefield! And that's why St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas had to utilize Aristotle to craft a Christian version of "just war" theory! Just sayin!

In recent history, we went through a period of European colonization of most of the Middle East, with the few remaining independent states (Saudi Arabia) doing so as economic protectorates of foreign empires (America). Worth noting that within traditional Islamic teaching, no provisions were made for how to live as minorities within non-Muslim nations. It was just assumed that...as Islam spread forth, Islamic lands would be under Sharia rules and law. But, as Muslim territories were conquered by foreign Christian empires....and especially after many Muslims joined migrations westward to Europe and North America for better economic opportunities, the whole process of being a Muslim in a foreign land, was something that had to be crafted without any existing precedents. So, all of this crap about Muslims needing their own reformation is total b******it, because reformations and accommodations had already been made over the centuries...just like every other major, existing religion in the world!

What is different in our time, is the ramifications of OIL. They have it/ we want it! When Muslim nations find a banana republic despot of some sort installed by foreigners as their government, they might not accept it. Especially when they learn of how much of oil revenues is being sucked out of the ground beneath them for foreign export, while only a privileged minority favoured by the government see any economic benefits of the oil.

So, where are we today? My primary contention is that the tensions that exist and are growing between Muslims and the West, are being created either unintentionally or deliberately by foreign intervention.....I think more likely the latter now. Because Islam serves as the useful foreign threat to justify increased exploitation of oil-rich territories, ramped up military spending by weapons-makers, and attacks on civil rights and freedoms in our own countries....just as the threat of communist infiltration did half a century ago!

So much attention in our media is focused on every incident where a Muslim kills a cartoonist or attacks a synagogue...as we are learning from the latest attack in Denmark by a Muslim who was also a member of a criminal gang...but somehow allowed to move about freely without surveillance! So, when I look at headlines with the same stupid catch-phrases "we are all Danes today" similar to the "je suis Charlie" ones a month ago; I wonder where are the "we are all Yemenis or Pakistanis" as Obama sent one drone bombing after another indiscriminately at territories that were uncontrolled, and took out at least four times as many civilians as legitimate targets. Where the hell was all the je suis back then?

The greatest potential damage done by the deliberate pouring of salt onto existing wounds....which is what I consider the various Islamophobia tropes to be, is that here in the West, we will force Muslim minorities to become further insular and withdraw as much as possible from mainstream society. Why would they want to liberalize or become more western when they are subjects of hostility and suspicion, and facing increasing levels of violence. Odds are that these strategies will increase 'fundamentalism' and the likelihood of engaging in terrorism. If things continue to degrade, I expect that at some point France, and then other Euro nations...and eventually America and Canada, will jetison their pretensions of liberalism and start calling for pogroms and ethnic cleansings of Muslims to remove the threat within. If Islam is an unreasonable and violent force in the world...as your side contends, then there is no other option than total war. The only thing I despise is that so few of the Islamophobes ever admit that total war against Islam is an option they are considering.

Edited February 15, 2015 by WIP

[-TSS-]

I think we all agree that if anyone wants to believe in a sky-fairy it is his or her private busines as long as that him or her don't start imposing that medieval superstitious claptrap on people who are not willing to receive it not to mention acting acting aggressively against such people.

[WIP]

Muslim's kill people for all the same reasons people of other religions do. They get jumped on when their inspiration/motivation was clearly religious, which isn't too difficult since they usually say outright that this was their motivation.

Don't believe everything people tell you! In psychology, we learn that the vast majority of our decisions are made from an unconscious level that we don't have conscious access to, because a sense of belief and certainty are secondary emotions/ NOT the results of conscious thoughtful deliberation...as the philosophers of old imagined it. Most of what we do is use our higher brain function to conflate justifications for the choices that we desire. At best, someone who does develop an appreciation of logic and reason, will let go of beliefs and conclusions that are lacking in evidence or have much merit. So, when a Muslim says he is on a suicide mission in the name of Allah, it is far more likely that he is a rootless young man looking for purpose in life, and doesn't see any value any longer...for whatever reasons, in continuing on in life in this world. So the only purpose he can find is killing himself and making a glorious exist from the world of the living.

And when it comes to religion, it's been pointed out time and time again, that the modern phenomena of the suicide bomber did not begin in Israel/Palestine, but in Sri Lanka, when a large number of Tamils began carrying out suicide bombings during the long-running civil war. So, if it's about religion...who's religion? Any religion can be turned into a suicide cult if you have the key ingredients mentioned above.

[WIP]

I think we all agree that if anyone wants to believe in a sky-fairy it is his or her private busines as long as that him or her don't start imposing that medieval superstitious claptrap on people who are not willing to receive it not to mention acting acting aggressively against such people.

And on the opposite side, we have to place a watchful eye on these Dawkins-type of atheists who declare that religions of all sorts must be eradicated. These antitheists may declare themselves to be against religion, but they have cobbled together a religion with anti-religious tenets, many of which cannot be substantiated with evidence....just like any other religion!

[WIP]

The whole world will gradually become secular. The so-called western world already is and even though it is very hard to believe today I have no doubt that in 50-100 years time countries such as Saudi-Arabia, Iran or any muslim-country will be as secular as our countries are today; religion will mean next to nothing for the vast majority of the population.

That may be true if your religion - the faith in technology and future progress is the true religion! I see a dystopian future coming at us in the coming years and decades. So, I don't give a crap whether a religion is based on reality or fantasy, as long as it helps people live their daily lives and be better towards others.

I don't see any evidence that the religion of antitheism is a good religion, and as this world becomes increasingly polluted and ravaged by war and increasing inequality and deprivation, I don't see a good future for the religion of atheism either!

[-TSS-]

And on the opposite side, we have to place a watchful eye on these Dawkins-type of atheists who declare that religions of all sorts must be eradicated. These antitheists may declare themselves to be against religion, but they have cobbled together a religion with anti-religious tenets, many of which cannot be substantiated with evidence....just like any other religion!

I must say I do agree with you on this one; Many people who have made a claim to have no religion are keeping a bit too much noise about their choice anyhere and everywhere.

[Argus]

I think a real discussion should start out with an agreement of objectives and methods, not by posting an inflammatory article.

No discussion in the history of Mapleafweb has started out with an agreement of objectives and methods.

[Argus]

Don't believe everything people tell you! In psychology, we learn that the vast majority o

Would this be a good time for me to tell you that I regard psychology as only slightly more scientific than astrology?

I will believe what people say of their motivation until someone disproves it, especially when it's accompanied by actions.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Argus

[msj]

And on the opposite side, we have to place a watchful eye on these Dawkins-type of atheists who declare that religions of all sorts must be eradicated. These antitheists may declare themselves to be against religion, but they have cobbled together a religion with anti-religious tenets, many of which cannot be substantiated with evidence....just like any other religion!

Dawkins has stated religion can be eradicated "only by education and reason" rather than your implied militaristic atheist violence - so please take your libellous ad hominem nonsense elsewhere.

See very bottom of this: http://salmonriver.com/environment/dawkinsinterview.html

Edited February 15, 2015 by msj

[jacee]

That may be true if your religion - the faith in technology and future progress is the true religion! I see a dystopian future coming at us in the coming years and decades. So, I don't give a crap whether a religion is based on reality or fantasy, as long as it helps people live their daily lives and be better towards others.

I don't see any evidence that the religion of antitheism is a good religion, and as this world becomes increasingly polluted and ravaged by war and increasing inequality and deprivation, I don't see a good future for the religion of atheism either!

We don't care what you think you see.

.

Edited February 16, 2015 by jacee

[kimmy]

Sorry for getting back to this thread late...

Sure but when it comes to double standards... If this was a muslim that shot a bunch of other Americans or Canadians it would be a massive story. The government would be drafting legislation with words like "freedom" or "patriot" in the title, that lets them read peoples emails or conduct warrantless surveillance, and millions of spineless sycophantic cowards would be cheerleading them.

This *is* a massive story, that has drawn international attention. But had the victims not been Muslims, this is a story that few people outside Chapel Hill would have heard of. Only the potential anti-Muslim aspect of this story has made it notable in the least.

So while "terrorism!!!" makes for big fat headlines in the newspapers, so does "hate crime!!!"

-k

[kimmy]

Sure, in much the same way that Eliot Rogers and Marc Lepine were motivated by misogyny: less an ideological commitment than a vehicle for a mentally ill individual to latch on to.

This is something I've been thinking of more and more lately, given that a significant chunk of these "homegrown" terrorists seem to have converted to Islam not long before committing violence or shipping off to foreign lands to join the cause.

Maybe these converts are just full of fiery zeal and enthusiasm for their new belief system, kind of like how ex-smokers are often the most obnoxious anti-smoking crusaders.

But I can't help thinking that perhaps the joining Islam in the first place was motivated by something other than genuine religiosity. Maybe these angry young mooks feel like something is missing in their lives and get excited about the idea of joining a cause.

When Muslims kill people it's terrorism. When white atheists kill people it's mental illness. I think that's the comparison you were looking for.

Why not both? I don't think being mentally ill precludes you from being a terrorist. Although some people use the word "terrorism" anytime a Muslim does something violent, it's a word that has a fairly specific meaning. It's violence and threat of violence with the intention of achieving political goals. It can be reasonably applied to a guy who decided to kill Stephen Harper in retaliation for Canada's actions against ISIS, even if the guy's mental stability is debatable. If he's sane enough to be capable of forming intent at all, that's all that's required to meet a reasonable definition of terrorism. Terrorism could also apply to lots of other situations, like sniping abortion providers or setting fire to a mosque.

-k

[August1991]

But I can't help thinking that perhaps the joining Islam in the first place was motivated by something other than genuine religiosity. Maybe these angry young mooks feel like something is missing in their lives and get excited about the idea of joining a cause.

Years ago, I recall meeting American leftists abroad, defenders of the Soviet Union, and I realized that they weren't Marxists or even knowledgeable of Bolshevism; they were "anti-American". At the time, I reckoned that Americans were self-absorbed.

Well, this self-absorption has now spread to other Western countries. In 1958, if a young American wanted to declare his hatred for America, he claimed his belief in Marxism and flew to Moscow. In 2015, if any young Westerner wants to declare his hatred of the West, he becomes a Muslim.

But Kimmy, there's a broader point, quite aside from Western self-absorption or what some young Western kids do. The Soviet Union existed and was once a threat to us. We defeated these Soviet thugs.

=====

Brian Mulroney was instrumental in forcing South Africa to drop its apartheid system of treating people of different skin colours differently. Maybe Canada could be instrumental in changing Saudi Arabia's Wahhabite system for treating women and men differently.

Edited February 16, 2015 by August1991

[kimmy]

On the general topic of atheism/antitheism...

Well you've certainly left us a steaming pant-load to talk about. Let's look into it.

I could plainly see that...since I had become an atheist long before the rise of the internet, that the cyberworld was turning atheism into a movement with an ideology! You could see it starting to come together in the early 2000's with the rise of new atheist celebrities, and in the last 10 years, the atheist movement has clearly fractured into competing ideologies...often over political differences, which usually range from mainstream liberal to radical libertarian. The great untold story that most non-atheists who have never went to a local atheist group meetup or spent a great deal of time on atheist forums online, is the problem that both cyber and real world atheists who want to have an atheist - non-theistic identity are almost all men, and almost all white and middle class!

People who self-identify as atheists tend to be white and middle class. Ok. And?

This says nothing about the belief system itself, but does raise interesting questions about why some people choose to self-identify with it while others prefer not to.

There seems to be a certain comfort zone needed to be and remain an atheist in mostly religious societies. If someone is living on the economic margins or is living in some of the extreme conflict zones that keep growing in size today in the third world, it's pretty rare to find anyone who will self-describe as an atheist!

It's pretty hard to find atheists in the third world, period. It's not like they can just stroll down to their local college campus and join the Secular Students Association.

When it comes to women...there could be a number of reasons why atheist movements don't appeal to many women...it tends to be dry and bereft of emotion and social concerns, and...don't quote me on this, but if you have come across Dual Process Theory as an explanation for how our decision-making systems work, we are informed by some psychological researchers that female test subjects will skew towards intuitive understandings and decisions more so than men. Going with intuitions is going to mean often incorporating that sense of 'presence' that many of us may sometimes feel at different times in our lives. If this experience is more common among women than men, you're not going to have a majority of women becoming atheists! The best the radical antitheists trying to stamp out religion could hope for, is a transition away from organized religion to spiritual-based beliefs.

This is drivel. More men than women self-identify as atheists, but the number of people who identify as non-religious is pretty much equal between the sexes. If your implication here is that women will cling to religion because their silly little female brains don't like science and prefer magic... it's crap.

And this goes back to the earlier question regarding why young educated males are more comfortable self-identifying as atheists, while women prefer to self-identify as "not religious". Personally I believe it's the same reason why many women prefer not to self-identify as feminists: the word itself carries a bunch of baggage that people just don't want to be associated with even if they do share many or most of the core beliefs.

And many of the women who do go to atheist meetups or even on some of the online sites, or attend atheist or skeptic conventions in particular, have come away with horror stories about male sexual predators and the lack of interest and concern from the organizers...

You know where else women go and return with horror stories? Gamer conventions. Gamer websites. Software developer conventions. In fact, the same probably goes for just about any community which is overwhelmingly male.

...who in the case of at least one of the major skeptic organizations is a sexual predator and a rapist himself. But, I won't mention the name, because aside from claims and testimonials, he hasn't faced any criminal charges....yet! Could be another Bill Cosby story but what we do know for certain is that a lot of women have a lot of bad things to say about him and his skeptic organization!

You're obviously referring to "ElevatorGate" situation involving Rebecca Watson. Her only complaint was that being one of the few females at the conference resulted in her getting hit on a lot; she suggested attendees ought to stop doing that if they wanted more women to attend in the future. Suggesting that any sort of Bill Cosby situation occurred is an outrageously inaccurate misrepresentation of her complaint. And suggesting that Richard Dawkins himself may have been behind Bill Cosby type behaviour is utterly slanderous. You've stooped to a new low here.

Online, I've noticed many of the worst misogynists are often atheists. The Christian or fundamentalist misogynist may often be condescending or demeaning to women, but I seem to come across a lot of young male atheists who are outright hostile and a possible danger to women in the real world.

Online, I've found that the worst misogynists (aside from the hilariously misnamed MRAs) are gamers, personally. The online atheist community and online gamer community have some things in common. They're overwhelmingly male, they're young, and they tend to be shall we say, socially marginalized. I don't believe that people who are socially successful tend to seek out this sort of identity for themselves-- once again, the key is that these are not all atheists nor all gamers, these are the ones who choose to make that an aspect of themselves that they build an identity around. It's a way for them to build themselves up, find a peer group, find some sort of positive identity as opposed to being a dork or nerd or outcast. They choose to identify themselves as atheists because they would like to think of themselves as intellectuals or freethinkers instead of being outcasts. And it's no mystery that many young men who feel socially marginalized have resentment for women.

For me, I play games but I don't go to gamer conventions or participate in the gamer online community or identify myself as a gamer. It's something I do, not who I am. Likewise with atheism. I am an atheist but I am not part of the atheist community and I don't go to atheist conventions or rallies or announce my atheism to people. If anybody asks, I'll say "not religious", because I don't want to deal with confrontations and stereotypes and negative associations that the word "atheist" carries. I never really thought of myself as an atheist at all, actually. It was only persistent badgering and attacks on the non-religious by Betsy here on the forum that convinced me to take a stand.

-k

[kimmy]

Years ago, I recall meeting American leftists abroad, defenders of the Soviet Union, and I realized that they weren't Marxists or even knowledgeable of Bolshevism; they were "anti-American". At the time, I reckoned that Americans were self-absorbed.

Well, this self-absorption has now spread to other Western countries. In 1958, if a young American wanted to declare his hatred for America, he claimed his belief in Marxism and flew to Moscow. In 2015, if any young Westerner wants to declare his hatred of the West, he becomes a Muslim.

I'm not entirely sure whether it's hatred of the west or the desire to find some purpose in their life beyond pouring double-doubles at Tim Horton's. But either way, I think we're at least on the same track here.

But Kimmy, there's a broader point, quite aside from Western self-absorption or what some young Western kids do. The Soviet Union existed and was once a threat to us. We defeated these Soviet thugs.

I don't know how much of a threat Islamism really poses to us in the west. You've been reading my posts for long enough to know that I'm not one to make excuses for Muslim treatment of women and religious minorities and their barbarism in general. But I'm not sure how much of a threat they are, in the bigger scheme of things.

Brian Mulroney was instrumental in forcing South Africa to drop its apartheid system of treating people of different skin colours differently. Maybe Canada could be instrumental in changing Saudi Arabia's Wahhabite system for treating women and men differently.

I'd be all for it. I'm not sure what leverage we have, though. Even our powerful American friends are willing to bend over forwards to maintain happy relations with the Saudis; I'm not sure how we Canadians could possibly make a difference.

-k

Edited February 16, 2015 by kimmy

[cybercoma]

So why are we letting these people into our country in the first place? They are only causing division. Look at how much hostility it's causing just on this forum. We shouldn't be fighting each other but we should be banding together to make our country stronger. These Muslims are only weakening us as a nation. I don't see how allowing Muslim extremism to grow in Canada can make us stronger as a nation. Do you care to explain yourself?

You read my post yet you still can't see that there is no ubiquitous Muslim. You just refer to Muslims, then you slip into "Muslim extremism" as though they're the same thing. Until you recognize that all cats are animals, but not all animals are cats, then there's not much else to say to you on this.

[GostHacked]

Cybercoma, I'm not trying to be funny. It isn't like the extremist Muslims wear a t shirt that says they are extremist so it's safer to just treat them all as potential extremists. Please stop acting like no such thing as extremist Islamic people in Canada, it's disingenuous and dangerous to boot.

So you are suspect of every Muslim you meet? How troublesome to be living in constant paranoia.

[jacee]

So you are suspect of every Muslim you meet? How troublesome to be living in constant paranoia.

I doubt he meets any, and in most cases he wouldn't know if he did.

.

Edited February 16, 2015 by jacee

[GostHacked]

I doubt he meets any, and in most cases he wouldn't know if he did.

.

I've met a few, one was a roomate. A non-practicing one at that. He would have fit the radical bit that Capt Canada talks about, but it was more of him doing too much drugs and drinking and being an overall ass. Sometimes people are just jerks no matter what religion they decide to follow.

[WIP]

I must say I do agree with you on this one; Many people who have made a claim to have no religion are keeping a bit too much noise about their choice anyhere and everywhere.

I think it's mostly a dodge to avoid having to defend a set of beliefs.

The simple reality is that everyone has a set of beliefs (worldview), so atheists have to establish beliefs and principles that guide them through life. Except for a handful of philosophers in earlier times, most of us are copying ideas that sound worthwhile and fit in with the established worldview we've already grown up with/ or changed later in life.

Very few people are really motivated to drop their existing beliefs for something totally new...whether it's converting to a new, foreign religion, or deconverting to atheism. So, I get a little nauseated about the new atheist claptrap of building a secular world with no religion.

Most people would rather adapt the religious traditions they've grown up with, than scrap it and try something new. And, some atheists have noticed that new atheist movements are taking on all the trappings of religion....establishing core principles and tenets of non-faith based usually justified by scientific evidence.

But the new atheist doctrine that all religion is harmful and should be eradicated, is not something that can be demonstrated with any evidence. On the opposing side, religious traditions that have existed for centuries, more than likely have features that nonbelievers (including atheists) can learn from...such as ethics principles and even such mundane aspects as organization strategies. Modern atheist groups don't do a very good job at organizing for mutual benefit or giving aid to others. It might be better to learn from them than try to reinvent the wheel!

[WIP]

Would this be a good time for me to tell you that I regard psychology as only slightly more scientific than astrology?

I will believe what people say of their motivation until someone disproves it, especially when it's accompanied by actions.

Feel free to wallow in ignorance then! Psychology is divided into several branches dedicated to understanding the mind, and in modern times, as new devices have been developed to study brain activity, brain imaging results have to be correlated with tests developed by psychologists to gain any degree of understanding of how the brain generates a conscious sense of self, that is separate from the world around us.

When it comes to understanding people's motivations, that's somewhat more understood than neuroscience. A good topic to look up would be Terror Management Theory, for some insight into how the basic fear of death has created almost every aspect of culture, and motivates many people to act violently, and even suicidally....like our whole culture is doing today!

[WIP]

Dawkins has stated religion can be eradicated "only by education and reason" rather than your implied militaristic atheist violence - so please take your libellous ad hominem nonsense elsewhere.

See very bottom of this: http://salmonriver.com/environment/dawkinsinterview.html

Dawkins is a regular guest and in close agreement with Neocon atheist Bill Maher, on his HBO Real Time show. They are supporters of American and allied interventions in the Muslim World, and after at least 100,000 Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. led Invasion and Occupation....with more dying every day as the non-stop legacy, they have no legitimate right to point fingers at Islam as the most violent religion, while the West has been trying to manipulate their resources for the past several decades.

Terrorism by "non-state actors" as the War On Terror terms them, is no different in actuality than terrorism deliberately instigated by nations! So, in the latest round, let's tally up the casualties from drone attacks vs. the shootings and bombings by Muslim terrorists and I'd say western terrorists are still winning the terrorism war....if that's any accomplishment.

*My deconversion from Dawkins's new atheism came after reading a 20 year old essay he wrote called "Viruses of the Mind." What a piece of crap! His 'replacing bad religious memes with good scientific memes' to "cure" the "patient" of religion, sounded like it came off the scientology site.

[Big Guy]

Having a religious faith is believing in a set of templates for society. Because it is belief and faith, it cannot be defended to those who do not believe or have faith. I wonder why one would want to.

I have been envious of the very religious at times. It must be very comforting when tragedy strikes to believe that it happens for a reason. Many bad things happen in life. It must ease the pain of death for survivors and/or the anticipation of an imminent death for those with terminal disease if one believes in an after life.

Religion is also a good means of teaching children the survival skills in life. It does give them the parameters of acceptable behaviour and a sense of morality with which to begin. They can always choose their own way after they reach an age of maturity.