290 or more Dead in the Largest Terrorist Attack Since 9/11

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

But it does affect other people, Millions of women receive female genital mutilation and thousands of terrorist blow up innocent people. Islamic doesn't respect borders and boundaries.

It should no longer receive amnesty under the charter of rights and freedoms.

We can not sanction a satanic ideology.

Satanism?  It just means listening to Black Sabbath and dressing funny.  As long as they keep it down so I can't hear it, I'm okay with it.

 

[Robert Greene]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Thanks.  We need practical solutions that will receive a broad consensus, which is why policy must be carefully crafted.  The trick is to have a message that the centre can support that also de-escalates the militant fringes on the left and right.  Not easy.  

I just want the militant fringes to blockade mosques, and not blow all their support by killing normal Muslims. Violence just alienates 99% of your supporters. If they want to take action, do something that will make the news, but don't have anyone injured.

[Robert Greene]

Here learn a thing about the Quran.

 

[Robert Greene]

I kind of feel sorry for the moderate Muslims caught in the middle, but they always have the choice to walk away. If they start showing their hair maybe they will feel less persecuted.

We must explain to the moderates, that their religion is no longer valid.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Robert Greene said:

I just want the militant fringes to blockade mosques, and not blow all their support by killing normal Muslims. Violence just alienates 99% of your supporters. If they want to take action, do something that will make the news, but don't have anyone injured.

Anti-Muslim action is by definition discriminatory.  Establishing parameters that filter out threats to Canada's institutions and liberal-democratic values is fine and would apply to anyone of any background entering Canada.  Such parameters could also be established within government offices/institutions.  However, these should be minimal and err on the side of freedom of expression.  The ultimate purpose is increased freedom, not less, which is why dealing with religious dress is so difficult.  Increasing one freedom arguably decreases another. 

[jacee]

31 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know who Brendan Tarrant is, but that's beside the point.  The point is, whatever he did, he knows why he did it.  No-one else gets to tell him why he did it.  If he says his Christian beliefs led him to do whatever it was he did, then they did.  End of story.  Other Christians will, of course, differ.  Good job, too, if he did something bad.

We keep coming back to the same point, which is, it doesn't matter how much it bothers you, the motives of others for deplorable actions are what they are.

. 

He's the Christian terrorist who recently murdered 50 people in mosques in New Zealand. 

Is Christianity to blame for terrorists who claim 'Christian' motivation?  

Edited April 22, 2019 by jacee

[Robert Greene]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Anti-Muslim action is by definition discriminatory.  Establishing parameters that filter out threats to Canada's institutions and liberal-democratic values is fine and would apply to anyone of any background entering Canada.  Such parameters could also be established within government offices/institutions.  However, these should be minimal and err on the side of freedom of expression.  The ultimate purpose is increased freedom, not less, which is why dealing with religious dress is so difficult.  Increasing one freedom arguably decreases another. 

That's where you wrong. Should anti-Satanism be discriminatory? Should anti-fascism be discriminatory?

When a religion is no longer valid, it can't fall under the protections of discrimination.

I'm happy to discriminate against a sadistic politician system masquerading as a religion.

[Robert Greene]

The governments first responsibility is the defence and safety of their citizens. We can no longer tolerate a system that produces thousands of suicide bombers.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[DogOnPorch]

29 minutes ago, jacee said:

So does the Bible.

 

No, the Bible does not tell Christians to fight the unbeliever.

You're resorting to falsehoods...

[jacee]

26 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No it doesn't.  Smarten up.

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

https://biblehub.com/luke/19-27.htm

Apparently it does.

Not that I care. Religion is stupid.

But people are free to practice their religion within the law, without discrimination or people inciting or promoting hatred against them.

[Donnie]

45 minutes ago, jacee said:

It's the same as separating Christian terrorists from the religion they claim.

If they are linked.  They should remain linked.  Regardless of the people or the religion or ideology.  I play no favourites.  Nor should anyone else.

Evil is evil.  I will oppose all evil, regardless of its genesis.

[OftenWrong]

43 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

Spitting on the street isn't assault.

Oh, spitting on the street. I thought you meant spitting on the women. I guess so fella, if that's what you really want to do. I mean, if that what help you get over it, good for you.
Fill yer boots

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, jacee said:

He's the Christian terrorist who recently murdered 50 people in mosques in New Zealand. 

Is Christianity to blame for terrorists who claim 'Christian' motivation?  

His Christianity is.  Otherwise, why would he have done it?  It's the same with Muslims who commit vile acts because of their religion.

Those who don't are different of course.  Religion makes people do all kinds of different things.  I know a Christian who became a Nun.  I know one who didn't.  Both are Christians, with different views on what they had to do. 

You can go on and on until the cows come home about what motivates religious terrorists, but they know more about it than you do.

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Robert Greene said:

That's where you wrong. Should anti-Satanism be discriminatory? Should anti-fascism be discriminatory?

When a religion is no longer valid, it can't fall under the protections of discrimination.

I'm happy to discriminate against a sadistic politician system masquerading as a religion.

It's perfectly fair to call out bad messages in the texts of any religion or religious group.  If any group, religious or otherwise, is promoting values that are antithetical to our institutions and liberal democracy, then members of that group should not be welcome to Canada.  Home grown threats are of course another matter, because these threats are already here.  I think we need to be careful about who we let into the country and have programs in our country to contend with internal threats.  The threats are varied and shifting.  Islam does have some dangerous inherent messages, but that doesn't mean that mainstream Muslims are a threat.  Most are just trying to get along and get ahead like most other people.  The problems are on the fringe.  It's true that you won't find as many dangerous messages in the New Testament as the Quran, but that doesn't mean that everyone who considers him/herself Christian is playing with a full deck.  We have to screen for values and mental health and not let dangerous elements into the country.  We also need better ways of discerning these elements in our country and removing, or where reasonable, rehabilitating such elements. 

Religious zeal can be dangerous, which is why we have secular government.  Mainstream Canadian society moved on from religious war, but that doesn't mean that all other countries have or that we don't have religious extremists in the country.  It's true that there are more violent Muslim extremists than violent Christian extremists.    There are many non-religious extremists as well, some of them in-cels, white supremacists, anarchists, communists, or just plain whack jobs.  It's fair to look at the messages from different religions and ideologies and how these might influence believers, but people have free will and choose how to live their lives. 

[OftenWrong]

25 minutes ago, jacee said:

Is Christianity to blame for terrorists who claim 'Christian' motivation?

To me yes, if the christian leadership, in other words those who speak for Christinity, those who have "followers", sanction violence themselves. Do any christian leaders sanction, call for, preach to their followers to carry out terrorist violence?

[DogOnPorch]

54 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No it doesn't.  Smarten up.

https://biblehub.com/luke/19-27.htm

Indeed...this is part of the story of Zacchaeus rather than Jesus commanding somebody to do something in his name. Zacchaeus was a corrupt tax collector...short in stature...who climbed a tree to see Jesus pass. The crowd was shocked when Jesus offered to visit this well known sinner's home for dinner and conversation upon seeing him.

Full chapter...

http://www.readbibleonline.net/?page_id=248#Chapter19

Edited April 22, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[jacee]

28 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No, the Bible does not tell Christians to fight the unbeliever.

You're resorting to falsehoods...

https://biblehub.com/luke/19-27.htm

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

https://biblehub.com/luke/19-27.htm

 

See my previous post: you should be aware of what you're posting before you think you've discovered Jesus's secret murderous side.

Edited April 22, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, jacee said:

https://biblehub.com/luke/19-27.htm

No context or sense of metaphor...Old Testament passages, which are in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, demonstrate eye for an eye morality, injustice for injustice, the King destroys destroyers.  The passage you quote from the New Testament is essentially a parable that references the old story of the Three Talents and the idea that even if you have very little, it too will be taken away if you don't do anything with it, so use your talents.  Anyway if you don't get it I shouldn't bother explaining it.  You're an adult.

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, jacee said:

Is Christianity to blame for terrorists who claim 'Christian' motivation?  

If you can find some examples of Christ committing acts that were akin to terrorism then you can say that the Christchurch attack was motivated by Christianty OK Jacee?

I can definitely provide you with well-sourced examples of mohammed committing serious war crimes if you want, but I'm sure that by now you know what they are. 

I'll tell you right now, you lose and it's not even close. 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Robert Greene said:

Not spitting at them, spitting at the ground beside them. It doesn't make us though, It shows we ain't gonna put up with their chit no more.

Why should they have to put up with your sh!t. 

You're the dumbo spitting at women who are likely just doing their shopping.

Are you a cellar dweller? 

Do you own guns? 

Lots of RED FLAGS on you, buddy. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by jacee

[Goddess]

31 minutes ago, jacee said:

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

https://biblehub.com/luke/19-27.htm

Apparently it does.

Not that I care. Religion is stupid.

But people are free to practice their religion within the law, without discrimination or people inciting or promoting hatred against them.

Nice try.  Do you wonder why Jesus' followers never went around slaying everyone who refused to be ruled by Jesus? 

Because it was a parable.  A story about a nobleman.  Not a command. 

 

[Queenmandy85]

Robert, if you are going to rip head coverings from muslim woman, I presume you will also be doing the same to Roman Catholic nuns. Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet. As for Christian terrorism, "Roman Catholic" terrorists just murdered a journalist in Londonderry. They murdered thousands of Christians over the last fifty years. I know they are not acting for the Roman Catholic Church, any more that the so-called islamic terrorists have anything to do with Islam.

It can be argued that Islam represses women. So can it be shown that the RC's repress women. 

Both Islam and the Roman Catholic faith are great religions and must not be tarred with the insanity of terrorism. The problem is not the religion, it is the fundamentalists in that religion. Fundamentalist Hindus have murdered hundreds of thousands of Muslims, extremist Buddists attacked muslims in Burma, fundamentalist Muslims have been in the news for terrorism. The average terrorist is a young male who can't get laid and is a wannabee soldier, too yellow or stupid to be accepted into a real army. They want to be famous and lack the brains to do anything useful. 

 

[jacee]

19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

If you can find some examples of Christ committing acts that were akin to terrorism then you can say that the Christchurch attack was motivated by Christianty OK Jacee?

I can definitely provide you with well-sourced examples of mohammed committing serious war crimes if you want, but I'm sure that by now you know what they are. 

I'll tell you right now, you lose and it's not even close. 

I repeat: Religion is stupid. My point was that all religions are equally stupid. I have no interest in your battle-of-religions. It's stupid, and it's dangerous. 

People are free to have the religion  they choose, and to practice it within the law and without discrimination or people inciting or promoting hatred against them.

I don't believe every member of a religion should be blamed for violent criminal terrorists who use their name.

Edited April 22, 2019 by jacee

[WestCanMan]

Just now, jacee said:

I repeat: Religion is stupid. My point was that they are all equally stupid. I have no interest in that debate. 

But ... people are free to have the religion  they choose, and to practice it within the law and without discrimination or people inciting or promoting hatred against them.

Of course you have no interest in that debate, because it's not a debate at all. You put yourself in the most untenable position in the history of debating and now you're trying to weasel out of it with a lecture about religious tolerance. Like I said, you lose.

I'll spell it out for you: Equating "Christianity's ties to terrorism" with "islamic ties to terrorism" is extremely stupid.  If you want to say it, that's fine, it's a free country. Just defend your position with some well-sourced facts or you'll just keep getting called out.