This is topic Terrorized Americans in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16885.html

Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
So Americans seem to be alarmed and fearful lately - so much so that we just had to have the Commander in Chief talk us gently out of the closets where we were cowering with our newly-bought guns, eyes darting left and right in case the sound of that car backfiring was actually Ram Amandeep or Adele Dazeem carrying out holy orders.

I thought it might be handy to trot out things more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack.

* crushed by furniture
* bitten by snakes
* left-handed people using right-handed implements (e.g. power saws)
* falling out of bed
* train crash
* food poisoning
* scalded by hot water
* vehicular collisions with deer

Time for a little bit of perspective - and I think we need to send in the ground troops against all those deer.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
We DO send in ground troops against all those deer. It borders on a holiday in some regions in my state where a lot of work stops for deer season. [Razz]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Stupid deer. Measly little flesh things. Doesn't seem fair they can wreck a car.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
* left-handed people using right-handed implements (e.g. power saws)
I live in frightening world, to be sure.

And, yeah, the deer thing too. All over the place this time of year.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
I keep thinking of the number of murders in 2013.

Over 14,000 according to one site I saw.

So San Berdoo terrorist attack made us 0.1% less safe.

And for that we should consider over a billion people as "dangerous." [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I'm happy everyone here agree on this, because there's an internet storm going on where the recent attack is being painted as 'the last straw' in how stupid Americans are to allow everyone to have guns. The "prayer won't stop this" headline is helping fuel this furor, and lots of people online that I know are posting the headline in solidarity with the idea of...I don't know exactly...taking away all the guns? Something like that. I don't think they would see banning assault weapons as going far enough.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
It's popular because it snubs not only gun rights advocates but also what they view as shallow religious posturing for political reasons.
Or, in some cases, an open hostility to religion.

This latest incident, being both gun violence of the sort we are "use to" (sorry Mr. President) and ALSO Islamic fundamentalist inspired terrorism is a perfect storm for this type of message/sentiment. The last thing some people want to hear in the wake of religiously inspired murder (as they see it) is to hear religious speech put forward as a proper (or worse, only) response.

The last straw is that it shames us as a nation to face that we have no response of substance, and the offers of sympathy and impotent attempts at politicking make us feel worse not better. We've had even our fantasy of "It will all be OK eventually" trampled on too many times.

Welcome to a free society where the solutions to exceedingly rare horrors are quite possibly the greater evil because of how impactful they would be in proportion to the risk they seek to mitigate. We haven't decided what sacrifices we are willing to make if any yet. Acknowledging that inaction IS a sacrifice and may be the "best" option is a level of horror most aren't willing to look at.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Wayward, the next time the Black Lives Matter movement laments the latest wave of killings of unarmed black men by cops in suspicious circumstances, I am sure you will dutifully point out to them that black men are far more likely to be killed by other black men than rogue cops. No doubt the percentage of black men murdered by cops is in the 0.1% range or thereabouts. I am sure they will feel quite relieved.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Now, see, the likelihood of being shot is not so remote. Firearms actually make the top ten of ways Americans die.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Is being shot by someone else in the top 10? Or is it firearm related death (which includes suicide)?

Seems relevant when discussing this in terms of things to be worried about.

Saying something like, "You are X times more likely to shoot yourself than be shot by a mass shooter.", is related to this topic still I suppose.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Wayward, the next time the Black Lives Matter movement laments the latest wave of killings of unarmed black men by cops in suspicious circumstances, I am sure you will dutifully point out to them that black men are far more likely to be killed by other black men than rogue cops. No doubt the percentage of black men murdered by cops is in the 0.1% range or thereabouts. I am sure they will feel quite relieved.

Are we paying the other murderers to do it?

And, BTW, Chicagoans Actually DO Protest Violence In Their Communities All The Time
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Is being shot by someone else in the top 10? Or is it firearm related death (which includes suicide)?

Seems relevant when discussing this in terms of things to be worried about.

Saying something like, "You are X times more likely to shoot yourself than be shot by a mass shooter.", is related to this topic still I suppose.

Firearm related death including suicide and accidents. Both of which are far more likely in homes where there are guns.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
So Americans seem to be alarmed and fearful lately - so much so that we just had to have the Commander in Chief talk us gently out of the closets where we were cowering ...
So let's be clear, this little meme of being afraid is unmitigated crap. It's a way for some to feel a sense of moral superiority, as though they are the enlightened adults surrounded by uninformed fools. It's crap. Americans are not afraid, they're not fearful. I suspect the reason this gets said so many time is the idea that repeating it often enough could make it true, it's like gaslighting on a national scale.

What Americans are is angry. They're angry at a dishonest leadership that habitually lies to them, a president that appears utterly devolved from reality and is more concerned with his bracket pick and what's on sports center than protecting American interests and lives and a media that completely abandoned all pretense of journalism and willingly becomes a propaganda arm to big government and corporate interest.

The idea that prompted this thread is a deceitful meme.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:


The idea that prompted this thread is a deceitful meme.

Tsk tsk... polling does not agree with you. In fact it looks like fear to me.

check it "Nearly half of Americans fear they or a family member will be victimized by terrorism at some future time. The highest level recorded was 59% post-9/11 - people not realizing their fears were and continue to be entirely unjustified."

[ December 07, 2015, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Which one is deceitful - that Americans are afraid, or that the risk to USA citizens as a result of terrorism is vanishingly small even when compared to other remote dangers, and that the real risk is overreaction?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Yeah. I am even less thrilled to arm angry people.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
If someone asks me if a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is likely or not, I may say yes.

If someone asks me if I think it is likely that I will be targeted or a victim of a terrorist attack, they will get a different answer.

Concern over national security is not the same as fear. We ARE capable of worrying about things within a context of probability. Some more than others.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Let's not put the cart before the horse. One reason some Americans may be afraid OR angry is because the media whips them into a frenzy any chance it gets. It's not like people suddenly start cowering in the corner in a vacuum, it's because they read a headline that says ISIS IS HERE NOW, IT MAY BE COMING FOR YOU!!

The mental health care issue is part of it, and so is the media's system of psychological manipulation.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Here's one that's about personal fear of terrorism. This isn't just about terror in the abstract sense... this is actually how stupid people are when it comes to statistics.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Is being shot by someone else in the top 10? Or is it firearm related death (which includes suicide)?

Seems relevant when discussing this in terms of things to be worried about.

Saying something like, "You are X times more likely to shoot yourself than be shot by a mass shooter.", is related to this topic still I suppose.

Firearm related death including suicide and accidents. Both of which are far more likely in homes where there are guns.
Your argument is less effective than you might imagine, because gun owners don't typically stay up at night worrying that they ate going to shoot themselves.

Another point: most Americans look to government to protect us from thugs and enemies; we don't see the government primarily as out personal babysitter to keep each person from harming herself.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Yeah. I am even less thrilled to arm angry people.

I am to my knowledge the only Offering to have been crippled in a mass shooting.

The shooter was an angry man who had been denied social security and believed that Judge Phillip Pro had discriminated
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Your argument is less effective than you might imagine, because gun owners don't typically stay up at night worrying that they ate going to shoot themselves.

Another point: most Americans look to government to protect us from thugs and enemies; we don't see the government primarily as out personal babysitter to keep each person from harming herself.

That's not MY argument at all Pete. I was just trying not to be dismissive or rude to those who do hold that opinion.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I did not mean to be dismissive. The point about suicides and accidents is both valid and relevant, and SHOULD be addressed in policy. My point was simply that the argument will have little purchase among gun rights advocates.

I apologize for my rudeness and flippancy. I was trying too hard to be funny.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I have little hope that any argument will have much purchase with gun rights advocates. Guns are security blankets, not insurance policies
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Then your point echoed my own Pete, but with more bluntness. [Razz] No apology needed in this direction.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
If someone asks me if I think it is likely that I will be targeted or a victim of a terrorist attack, they will get a different answer"

40% of Americans suffered severe depression and/or anxiety related to 9/11. Bin Laden boasted of that survey as if it was his intent to cause such distress.

In that light I think you should revise your assumption about the number of "victims" of terrorism.

Victims of terrorism include those terrorized by the initial brutality, and also those victimized by the bastardy who are inspired to brutality by the initial terrorist acts. Every victim of ISIS is a victim of 9/11. Bin Laden said 9/11,was to inspire the gathering of a grand validate, aka an Islamic state.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Agreed, replace victim with casualty. I think that's a more accurate label for "receiving physical harm" or "being killed by".
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Here's one that's about personal fear of terrorism. This isn't just about terror in the abstract sense... this is actually how stupid people are when it comes to statistics.

First of all, the poll you site combines "somewhat worried" with "very worried," which on a topic like this is probably unwarranted. I'm somewhat worried about tooth decay, doesn't mean I'm afraid of it. It's also a bit of a mislead to jump from worry to fear.

Second, terrorism wouldn't work if people actually understood statistics. But then, we wouldn't be talking about gun control either if people understood statistics.

Consider though that it's almost impossible these days to NOT be impacted by something like terrorism. The funny part of six degrees of Kevin Bacon was always how you could link two actors that quickly, in today's world I'd be shocked not to be linked through social media within six degrees to every person in the US. Slight exaggeration of course, but it's almost impossible to imagine, that a terrorist act occurs with many victims and your not linked to it through social media somehow.

Take any rare medical condition, and look on an active Facebook feed for a week, you'll probably see it come up in a link. Having people you know "talk" about these things in such immediate terms makes them seem much more real and local.

At this point, do you know anyone, who doesn't know someone (or someone who knows someone) directly impacted by 9/11?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have little hope that any argument will have much purchase with gun rights advocates.

Well certainly not illogical ones, or ones that advocate taking away the rights of millions without any reasonable basis.

Be happy though to revisit existing gun control laws that have been shown not to be effective, like say the prohibition on licensed concealed carry permit holders carrying in gun free zones.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have little hope that any argument will have much purchase with gun rights advocates. Guns are security blankets, not insurance policies

The issue is that these incidents of violence are irrelevant as regards the basic question of gun control in America. The use of a mass shooting by the media to push a gun control narrative is predictable but no less abusive of public's desire to 'do something' about mass shootings.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Fenring that's kinda like saying that gun rights groups are being abusive pushing a "gun free zone murder trap" narrative after an incident.

There is a group who wants to be protected from violence and will relinquish a certain amount of control to get some level of protection. Then there is a group who wants to protect themselves from violence and will not tolerate a loss of control which impedes that goal. They are two rather incompatible mindsets.

If a balance should be struck, and if so how to achieve it, is the basic question of gun control in America.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:


The idea that prompted this thread is a deceitful meme.

Tsk tsk... polling does not agree with you. In fact it looks like fear to me.

check it "Nearly half of Americans fear they or a family member will be victimized by terrorism at some future time. The highest level recorded was 59% post-9/11 - people not realizing their fears were and continue to be entirely unjustified."

Word a question that way to develop the framework and you get the response you're looking for Do they "fear" as in afraid for their lives about to be ended (as this meme purports) or do the "fear" as in suspect it is a distinct possibility? I fear it is the latter but I'm not really afraid, know what I mean?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Wayward, the next time the Black Lives Matter movement laments the latest wave of killings of unarmed black men by cops in suspicious circumstances, I am sure you will dutifully point out to them that black men are far more likely to be killed by other black men than rogue cops. No doubt the percentage of black men murdered by cops is in the 0.1% range or thereabouts. I am sure they will feel quite relieved.
No one is excusing blacks murderers for killing blacks. In fact, the police routinely search for such murderers and, when caught, prosecute them, all with great zeal.

The same cannot be said for cops who may murder people, including blacks. [Frown]

My point was that, while we should search for terrorist and prosecute them with great zeal, we should not use the excuse of terrorist to deny basic help to people. Especially when there is so little relative danger from such terrorists. Any Muslim coming into this country are in more danger from us than we are from them! [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
The issue is that these incidents of violence are irrelevant as regards the basic question of gun control in America. The use of a mass shooting by the media to push a gun control narrative is predictable but no less abusive of public's desire to 'do something' about mass shootings.
You have a good point, Fenring. We shouldn't use a mass shooting with 14 murdered to push gun control.

We should use the more than 9000 murders (as in 2013) with firearms each year to push gun control. [Mad]

We got to do something more to try to keep these guns out of the hands of guys like Farook and Dear, if only to enforce the current laws better.

Otherwise, those 9000 people are just the sacrifices we make each year for our right to bear arms. We shouldn't have to sacrifice so many just to have guns.

[ December 07, 2015, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Fenring that's kinda like saying that gun rights groups are being abusive pushing a "gun free zone murder trap" narrative after an incident.

There is a group who wants to be protected from violence and will relinquish a certain amount of control to get some level of protection. Then there is a group who wants to protect themselves from violence and will not tolerate a loss of control which impedes that goal. They are two rather incompatible mindsets.

If a balance should be struck, and if so how to achieve it, is the basic question of gun control in America.

I'd agree with you if I thought this mass shooting was the result of gun laws being as they are. Maybe in the case of a kid taking his dad's gun to school and going on a spree there's something to be said for this, but even then even with good gun control to screen adults that really has no bearing on what their kids do. It's not like someone's entire family gets screened along with the person applying.

In the case we're talking about here we're looking at two possible terrorists with alleged ISIS ties. Would it really be so hard for people like this to get some weapons off the black market? We're talking about an organized stockpile, not some yahoos who bought some guns at a gun show. So of all shootings to use as a pretext to push gun control in the media, this one is the least logical.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Especially when there is so little relative danger from such terrorists. Any Muslim coming into this country are in more danger from us than we are from them! [Roll Eyes]

Based on what? Seriously, the reaction and backlash in this country has been about as muted as is even conceivable. In what way are they threatened by us?

By the way, just listened to the President's speech. The whole thing was pretty weak, but one thing struck me as grossly beyond the pale, and it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. He called for the "common sense" measure of prohibiting those on the no fly list from buying assault weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is absolutely no due process associated with that unconstitutional government list. Government suspicion is NOT a basis for the curtailment of rights. Adding even more to a list that was unconstitutional in the first place is not common sense, its just another brick in the prison of the autocrat.

If you want to grant due process to those on the list, I have no problem with adding consequences.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
He called for the "common sense" measure of prohibiting those on the no fly list from buying assault weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is absolutely no due process associated with that unconstitutional government list. Government suspicion is NOT a basis for the curtailment of rights.
Yeah, he said "Freedom is more powerful than fear." Now let me take your guns away based on a secret list that only I control. Doesn't matter that this would not have prevented anything - the only person on the list known to have actually killed anyone is Ted Kennedy. There are, however, 72 people working at DHS on this secret list.

Can you believe this ****? Sounds like an onion article.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I really hope the bit about the no-fly list was just theatre. A way to put the opponents of gun control in a politically awkward spot.

That Obama accepted, for political expediency, that the no-fly list was a valid and functional tool that accomplishes something useful. I mean, the logic of too dangerous to fly, then too dangerous to have guns is sound. It's just that the premise that someone's on the no-fly list because it's too dangerous to let them on a plane doesn't hold up.

This kind of blatant political dishonesty is bad but not as bad as him treating the no-fly list as a valid indicator of a potential threat.

Rafi, that bit about 72 DHS employees isn't accurate:
http://www.snopes.com/72-dhs-employees-terrorist-watch-list/
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"If a balance should be struck, and if so how to achieve it, is the basic question of gun control in America"

Or rather, that's where we would be if it wasn't for the second amendment, and for the fact that the anti gun rights cannot show a single case of a gun control law resulting in a reduction of violence.

The rhetoric that ignores the 2ND amendment, or that uses idiotic word games and pseudo legal thaumaturgy to evade the plain language meaning of 2a, creates the threat of precedent that can sweep away all of our constitutional rights at the whim of the mob. If 2a can be brushed aside because of nutcases, how long until "blaspheming" Mohammed becomes akin to yelling fire in a crowded firehouse? And so on.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Since the right to travel is inherent to privileges and immunities (14a), the parallel to 2a is reasonable. But to extrapolate from what NH said, it's unreasonable and Tyrannical to take what is in effect a tyrannical system enacted ad how in the spirit of Martial Law, and turn it into some permenant exception to the constitution. If Obama was not making a joke, then this call suggests that his eagerness to embarrass Republicans exceeds his desire to honor his oath to uphold the constitution.

Since 14a applies to Citizens, it would make more sense for the no fly list to be barred from applying to citizens without due process. Say 30 days notice and a hearing prior to restrictions going in place on a citizen.

With those limitations, and with civil rights penalties applying to those that bring spurious or politically motivated charges, I would be OK to the list applying to gun purchasing rights as well as to flight rights.

With that said, I think we need to recognize the Right has a valid fear of the Obama Administration's good faith. A pattern of denying terrorism aspects of Fort Hood, etc, does give the impression that the Admin places a higher priority on disarming Americans than protecting them from Islamist terrorism. This bad faith stunt can only cement that sense of betrayal
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Lest you forget, Timothy McVeigh already demonstrate what home grown terrorists can do without guns.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:

Rafi, that bit about 72 DHS employees isn't accurate:

Nuh uh. It was on CNN. Must be true. [Razz]

No fly list is still crap though.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:

Especially when there is so little relative danger from such terrorists. Any Muslim coming into this country are in more danger from us than we are from them! [Roll Eyes]

Based on what? Seriously, the reaction and backlash in this country has been about as muted as is even conceivable. In what way are they threatened by us?
They are not threatened because they are Muslim; they are threatened because they are in this country.

Over 14,000 murders each year (assuming 2013 was a typical year). Over 9000 murders with firearms.

After the Paris terrorist attack, NPR interviewed the head surgeon at the Paris hospital that treated the shooting victims from the heavy metal concert. The interviewer mentioned that the guy's hospital didn't usually see many gunshot wounds.

"No, maybe one," the surgeon said.

"One a week?" the interviewer clarified.

"No, one a year. This is not America," the surgeon replied.

Just wrap your head around that for a minute. Imagine a major metropolitan hospital in the U.S. that only sees one gunshot wound a year. In New York. Philidelphia. Atlanta. St. Louis. Los Angeles. San Francisco. Washington D.C.

One a year.

About 5000 people murdered with knives, bludgeons, poison, or bare hands. Almost twice that much with pistols, shotguns, and rifles.

10,000 refugees, mostly women, children and old men, are a minor threat compared to ourselves. We are killing ourselves at a rate where a San Bernadino massacre only increased the local murder rate by about 30 percent, and national murder rate by less than 0.1 percent. And for this, we have a leading Presidential candidate calling for a band on Muslim immigration. [Roll Eyes]

It takes a World Trade Center massacre to make a dent in our murder rate. A piddly shooting like San Berdo would be hardly noticed if it weren't for the "terrorist" label.

The chances of any given Muslim actually wanting to murder people and pulling it off is pretty miniscule, compared to the chances of him being a victim of the crimes we regularly do to ourselves. Muslims don't need to be targeted to be in danger. We are all targets, every day, from ourselves.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I really hope the bit about the no-fly list was just theatre. A way to put the opponents of gun control in a politically awkward spot.

That Obama accepted, for political expediency, that the no-fly list was a valid and functional tool that accomplishes something useful. I mean, the logic of too dangerous to fly, then too dangerous to have guns is sound. It's just that the premise that someone's on the no-fly list because it's too dangerous to let them on a plane doesn't hold up.

That really is the core issue there. If the logic that the no-fly list is not accurate enough to actualyl take measures to curtail their access to other forms of violence, then the no-fly list itself is of little to no value in the first place as currently implemented and needs to be revised or thrown out.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
With that said, I think we need to recognize the Right has a valid fear of the Obama Administration's good faith. A pattern of denying terrorism aspects of Fort Hood, etc, does give the impression that the Admin places a higher priority on disarming Americans than protecting them from Islamist terrorism.
RAther that they've carefully constructed a case for that doubt by repeating lies like the ones you reference about "denying terrorism" often enough that people accept them as truth.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
That really is the core issue there. If the logic that the no-fly list is not accurate enough to actualyl take measures to curtail their access to other forms of violence, then the no-fly list itself is of little to no value in the first place as currently implemented and needs to be revised or thrown out.
Well, yeah. I'm just hoping that Obama knows that instead of thinking using it to impose restrictions on owning guns is actually a value-added activity.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I really hope the bit about the no-fly list was just theatre. A way to put the opponents of gun control in a politically awkward spot.

Don't really see how it could be. The way he was talking this is a no brainer, how could it just be theatre? Honestly, this was one of those unguarded kind of moments that just reinforce to me that this President is an autocrat at heart. I don't find that at all surprising in a constitutional scholar. Feels about the same to me as all the Atheists who can quote religious texts word perfect, manipulate them to their own ends, but always miss the point of them.
quote:
Pete at Home:
Since 14a applies to Citizens, it would make more sense for the no fly list to be barred from applying to citizens without due process. Say 30 days notice and a hearing prior to restrictions going in place on a citizen.

That's a start, though I don't have a problem with it going into effect immediately on a showing of evidence similar to what an injunction requires. It's really an egregious violation of our rights to have a no fly list that does not provide for due process.
quote:
With those limitations, and with civil rights penalties applying to those that bring spurious or politically motivated charges, I would be OK to the list applying to gun purchasing rights as well as to flight rights.
And to free speech as well? After all the power of ISIS isn't in their weapons and arms, it's in their ability to influence people here. How do you make "people" safe if you let the "bad guys" keep their most powerful weapon? Curtailment of rights really ought to rest on more than suspicion.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Based on what? Seriously, the reaction and backlash in this country has been about as muted as is even conceivable. In what way are they threatened by us?
They are not threatened because they are Muslim; they are threatened because they are in this country.

Over 14,000 murders each year (assuming 2013 was a typical year). Over 9000 murders with firearms.

Really did not realize that was where you were going with this. You realize that is almost certainly less dangerous than they are used (even before the war). That they are making a choice about the safety here versus other places they could seek to go.

But your claim is off, they aren't really in that much danger here either. Unless they join a gang they are more in danger from what they bring with them, than from the general state of the US.

By the way, not sure that you're using the statistics correctly, pretty sure the FBI includes self defense kills in that total.
quote:
The interviewer mentioned that the guy's hospital didn't usually see many gunshot wounds.

"No, maybe one," the surgeon said.

"One a week?" the interviewer clarified.

"No, one a year. This is not America," the surgeon replied.

And how many violent deaths does he see in a year? No doubt, guns are a preferred weapon of killing in the US, but that comes at the expense of a lot of other ways that people kill each other.

I'm also interested why that answer amazes you? There's about a million doctors in the US, how many do you think treat more than one gun shot wound victim in a year? Even when you consider that the number of wounds almost has to greatly exceed the number of deaths, I'd still bet that there's a small number of doctors that treat the vast majority of such wounds.
quote:
Just wrap your head around that for a minute. Imagine a major metropolitan hospital in the U.S. that only sees one gunshot wound a year. In New York. Philidelphia. Atlanta. St. Louis. Los Angeles. San Francisco. Washington D.C.
There are 381 metropolitan areas in the US (so sayeth google), how many hospitals are in each one? Chicago has over 400 gun deaths this year. How many do you think occurred in the top 50 metropolitan areas? How many does that leave for the other 331, how many hospitals in each? Bet you get to similar numbers pretty quickly.
quote:
10,000 refugees, mostly women, children and old men, are a minor threat compared to ourselves.
10k refuges who share almost no cultural elements with us. 10k refugees from a country with a much higher population growth rate. 10k refugees who already harbor views we find repugnant (anti-gay, anti-women, pro-terrorism) in much greater percentages than average. 10k refugees, whose children could easily be the next generation of "home grown" terrorists. Correct?

I have no problem with temporary settlement, but long term stays are not compatible with our way of life.
quote:
It takes a World Trade Center massacre to make a dent in our murder rate. A piddly shooting like San Berdo would be hardly noticed if it weren't for the "terrorist" label.
Really? Last I checked any mass killing gets national play and gets pushed as a "we must do something moment". This one is actually derailed because of the terrorism angle.

How do you reconcile that gun deaths have been decreasing year over year, yet the paranoia over mass murders is going up?
quote:
The chances of any given Muslim actually wanting to murder people and pulling it off is pretty miniscule, compared to the chances of him being a victim of the crimes we regularly do to ourselves.
Chances of a random terrorist coming from a Muslim community also small? The chance of anyone being a terrorist are miniscule, that doesn't mean its a good idea to increase a portion of the population for which the chance is a multiple or even one or more factors greater.
quote:
Muslims don't need to be targeted to be in danger. We are all targets, every day, from ourselves.
Your lifetime chance of being murdered (without adjusting for demographics - which makes a huge difference in reality) is less that half a percent. We are not all targets, every day, not from ourselves, not from anyone. Like I said, if we're being honest with statistics gun control itself is a big joke.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
What are the limits on and/or levels of scrutiny required to limit the relevant sections of the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments?

I assume that these rights are not absolute...
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Don't really see how it could be. The way he was talking this is a no brainer, how could it just be theatre? Honestly, this was one of those unguarded kind of moments that just reinforce to me that this President is an autocrat at heart. I don't find that at all surprising in a constitutional scholar. Feels about the same to me as all the Atheists who can quote religious texts word perfect, manipulate them to their own ends, but always miss the point of them.
It wouldn't be very good theatre if it was obvious. How does a televised address count as an unguarded moment, anyways?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
You realize that is almost certainly less dangerous than they are used (even before the war). That they are making a choice about the safety here versus other places they could seek to go.
They are certainly safer here than where they are coming from, agreed. But they certainly are in more danger from us than we are from them, which was my point.

quote:
And how many violent deaths does he see in a year? No doubt, guns are a preferred weapon of killing in the US, but that comes at the expense of a lot of other ways that people kill each other.
Guns just happen to be more effective than any other common weapon, which means they kill more often than other common weapons.

quote:
I'm also interested why that answer amazes you? There's about a million doctors in the US, how many do you think treat more than one gun shot wound victim in a year? Even when you consider that the number of wounds almost has to greatly exceed the number of deaths, I'd still bet that there's a small number of doctors that treat the vast majority of such wounds.
But this wasn't just any doctor. This was the head surgeon in a Paris hospital. He sees everything that happens in that hospital.

quote:
There are 381 metropolitan areas in the US (so sayeth google), how many hospitals are in each one? Chicago has over 400 gun deaths this year. How many do you think occurred in the top 50 metropolitan areas? How many does that leave for the other 331, how many hospitals in each? Bet you get to similar numbers pretty quickly.
And Paris isn't the 300th largest city in France, or even 100th. It's comparable to Chicago, New York or Washington, D.C., not Podunk, AK.

quote:
10k refuges who share almost no cultural elements with us. 10k refugees from a country with a much higher population growth rate. 10k refugees who already harbor views we find repugnant (anti-gay, anti-women, pro-terrorism) in much greater percentages than average. 10k refugees, whose children could easily be the next generation of "home grown" terrorists. Correct?
And whose views are reinforced by their community. Take them out of that community, and how long before they start losing those repugnant views? How long before they start weakening?

Besides, we're very good at growing our own terrorists. We just call them "crazy" or "insane." [Smile]

quote:
How do you reconcile that gun deaths have been decreasing year over year, yet the paranoia over mass murders is going up?
Interestingly enough, because while the homicide rate has been declining, mass shootings are on the rise.

quote:
Your lifetime chance of being murdered (without adjusting for demographics - which makes a huge difference in reality) is less that half a percent. We are not all targets, every day, not from ourselves, not from anyone. Like I said, if we're being honest with statistics gun control itself is a big joke.
And by that same logic, we are that much less targets of terrorism, having a fraction of that half a percent chance of being killed by a terrorist. Much less than of being killed by an American.

So why the sudden fear of terrorists when it won't even increase our murder rate by a half of a percent? Why not address the bigger issue, the half of a percent, instead of the tenth of a percent? Why is it permissible to ignore freedom of religion, but not the right to bear arms?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
And how many violent deaths does he see in a year?
Took a quick look at the Wikipedia page. France had 665 homicides in 2012 (#194). The U.S. had 12,253 in 2013. (A couple of thousand lower than the count I saw.)

So chances are, he probably doesn't see many in a year.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Mass shootings are on the rise? Not really. Such assertions are made based on a absurdly broad definition of "mass shooting". For example, the most popular source for these claims is from a website started by a couple of rabid anti-gun nuts that include a incident where a 12 year old shot his buddies with a pellet gun and bruised them. The rise and count are manufactured for consumption by a specific group of people and doesn't really stand scrutiny.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
After the Paris terrorist attack, NPR interviewed the head surgeon at the Paris hospital that treated the shooting victims from the heavy metal concert. The interviewer mentioned that the guy's hospital didn't usually see many gunshot wounds.

"No, maybe one," the surgeon said.

"One a week?" the interviewer clarified.

"No, one a year. This is not America," the surgeon replied.

Just wrap your head around that for a minute. Imagine a major metropolitan hospital in the U.S. that only sees one gunshot wound a year. In New York. Philidelphia. Atlanta. St. Louis. Los Angeles. San Francisco. Washington D.C.

One a year.

Sometimes I think that the problem is that Americans are defective human beings.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
From wikipedia, France has 3 firearm related deaths versus 10.5 (per 100,000)

Now, the homicide rate is more skewed. 3.55 versus 0.22, or 15x less.

As to whether a doctor sees a gunshot case, I guess it depends on how good the shooter is at killing the person, since you won't go to the ER if you're stone cold dead. Maybe the French just have really good aim.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Detroit has a rate of 35.9, DC 19, Chicago 11.6 and LA 9.2, all from gun violence, all places with signifanct gun control laws.

Still want to do these comparisons?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It wouldn't be very good theatre if it was obvious. How does a televised address count as an unguarded moment, anyways?

Good question, it came across that way to me because of it didn't seem to me like it even occurred to him to question. If he'd even considered the issue, I think we would have spoken differently, and that he didn't even consider it is shocking.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You realize that is almost certainly less dangerous than they are used (even before the war). That they are making a choice about the safety here versus other places they could seek to go.
They are certainly safer here than where they are coming from, agreed. But they certainly are in more danger from us than we are from them, which was my point.
Unless they join a gang, they are in more danger from their friends and family than they are from "us." That's true for virtually everyone in this country, stranger murders are pretty uncommon.
quote:
But this wasn't just any doctor. This was the head surgeon in a Paris hospital. He sees everything that happens in that hospital.
And? Hardly changes the point that for all but a small group of US doctors the same statement would be true.
quote:
And Paris isn't the 300th largest city in France, or even 100th. It's comparable to Chicago, New York or Washington, D.C., not Podunk, AK.
It's not comparable on any meaningful demographic basis of which I'm aware. Certainly not to any of the three cities that you listed. Why do you think so? Just being an important city doesn't make for good comparisons.
quote:
quote:
10k refuges who share almost no cultural elements with us. 10k refugees from a country with a much higher population growth rate. 10k refugees who already harbor views we find repugnant (anti-gay, anti-women, pro-terrorism) in much greater percentages than average. 10k refugees, whose children could easily be the next generation of "home grown" terrorists. Correct?
And whose views are reinforced by their community. Take them out of that community, and how long before they start losing those repugnant views? How long before they start weakening?
I see so you're going to prohibit them from associating with members of their communities and force them to integrate. Are you going to insist they not be able to settle near co-religionists or other people of Syrian background as well?

What specific safeguards are you implementing to ensure they are removed from their community, and how would they have prevented this latest shooting event?

I think you're making a big and unwarranted assumption when you just decide that the next generation will "of course" just be liberal Americans with the same values as everyone else.
quote:
Besides, we're very good at growing our own terrorists. We just call them "crazy" or "insane." [Smile]
We're not very good at growing "terrorists," unless you intend to trivialize the meaning of the term. We've had a small handful that have arisen directly out of the mainstream culture, with the vast majority of those we've "homegrown" coming from minority cultures, that have in fact deliberately not integrated and raised their children as isolated from mainstream culture.
quote:
quote:
How do you reconcile that gun deaths have been decreasing year over year, yet the paranoia over mass murders is going up?
Interestingly enough, because while the homicide rate has been declining, mass shootings are on the rise.
That stat was effectively debunked in the other thread. I saw it a couple days ago (and the debunking) and wondered if I could get anyone to cite to it. Lol. If you accepted that at face value you'd be confused at least, but you might want to consider whether you are suffering from confirmation bias internally, when the problems with that stat were obvious from the start.
quote:
And by that same logic, we are that much less targets of terrorism, having a fraction of that half a percent chance of being killed by a terrorist. Much less than of being killed by an American.
True, I don't spend any time at all being concerned about directly being killed by terrorism, sure it could happen but it's incredibly unlikely as a random event. However, the media spends an inordinate amount of time directly promoting it as a risk, and that does have a direct impact on how people perceive the risk.
quote:
So why the sudden fear of terrorists when it won't even increase our murder rate by a half of a percent?
Because the media sells terrorism everyday for ratings, and pays no penalty for such an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

But you're asking the wrong question when you focus on "fear." Fear is not statistically justified. Concern however is a different story. I am concerned about the risk of terrorism, not because I'm likely to die that way, but because someone is likely to die that way and the impact of that death and the method will have a grossly disproportionate impact on the people of the country and the county itself. Pyscologically, terrorism always is going to generate a disproportionate impact, and when you have a media like ours that effect is going to be even more magnified.

But just being concerned is not proof that a particular course of action is justified. We all still have to explain why our solutions are the best fit. That's exactly where the larger gun control argument always fails, none of the solutions proposed are logically tied to reducing any of the risks connected to the shooting, other than the collective punishment of barring tens of millions of innocent gun owners from owning weapons that do far more good than harm, to try and stop thousands of people from acting inappropriately. Of which at least, what, half? would commit the murder in another way without the gun. And more than half of which would go away if you dealt with the gang problem itself.
quote:
Why not address the bigger issue, the half of a percent, instead of the tenth of a percent?
Happy to address the bigger issue, more than willing to come up with ways to come down harder on gang members who aid other members in committing murders, or you know as I'd put it, actually addressing the issue you're complaining about. What I'm not willing to do is impose ridiculous and onerous restrictions on millions and millions of gun owners who will never commit a crime with a weapon because you're scared of a tool and want to avoid dealing with the real issues.
quote:
Why is it permissible to ignore freedom of religion, but not the right to bear arms?
This comment doesn't even make sense. No one is ignoring freedom of religion. Are you under a mistaken belief that refugees have a RIGHT to be settled here? And somehow not agreeing to accept them is an interference with their religion?

In fact the only way I can parse what you're implying to mean anything relevant is if you believe that its part of the freedom of a religion to engage in terrorist activity and we're suppressing that freedom. As there is no way that's what you actually mean, can provide an actual explanation of how you think anything here interferes with the freedom of anyone's religion?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I'll just add that the Wikipedia list of significant domestic terrorists attacks in America is extremely short. Here's the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Notable_domestic_terrorist_attacks

There are a couple from 1910 and 1920, then it jumps right to the Unabomber, who didn't use guns and was in any case unhinged because of being subjected to MKUltra experiments while at Harvard. The next few are all bombings until 2012 when there are four mass shootings counted as terrorism between 2012 and 2015 (including San Berardino).

It doesn't seem like that's that much domestic terrorism over the long haul, and certainly not that much of it was gun-related.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Detroit has a rate of 35.9, DC 19, Chicago 11.6 and LA 9.2, all from gun violence, all places with signifanct gun control laws.

Still want to do these comparisons?

Sadly, Chicago does not have a wall between us and Indiana which has insignificant guns laws. (Do we really have to go over this again?)
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
From wikipedia, France has 3 firearm related deaths versus 10.5 (per 100,000)

Now, the homicide rate is more skewed. 3.55 versus 0.22, or 15x less.

As to whether a doctor sees a gunshot case, I guess it depends on how good the shooter is at killing the person, since you won't go to the ER if you're stone cold dead. Maybe the French just have really good aim.

To be accurate on evaluating the doctor's statements, you need to look at all gunshot wounds_ as well not just deaths. The Doctor didn't say one death/year, he said one wound/year. That's inclusive of intentional and accidental injuries, as well as those successfully treated and those that die despite treatment. Then add in those that never make it to the hospital because they're dead at the scene, assuming that the emt, coroner, or the like that verifies death is outside of what the doctor is talking about.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Detroit has a rate of 35.9, DC 19, Chicago 11.6 and LA 9.2, all from gun violence, all places with signifanct gun control laws.

Still want to do these comparisons?

Sadly, Chicago does not have a wall between us and Indiana which has insignificant guns laws. (Do we really have to go over this again?)
Thank you, that's the point. These comparisons are being made without context and once you begin putting thought into it rather than simply running out numbers the comparisons are not really meaningful.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Unless they join a gang, they are in more danger from their friends and family than they are from "us." That's true for virtually everyone in this country, stranger murders are pretty uncommon.
You keep missing the point, Seriati. While stranger murders are pretty uncommon in this country, terrorist murders are even more uncommon. Especially from terrorists that emigrated from other nations.

Now while we should not ignore the possibility of such occurring and do what we can to prevent it, we should keep that in mind when people suggest to deny refugees entrance into this country because of its danger. The vast majority of such refugees are harmless, and to deny them help on basis of a threat that pretty, pretty uncommon is just plain cowardly and heartless.

quote:
quote:
quote:

But this wasn't just any doctor. This was the head surgeon in a Paris hospital. He sees everything that happens in that hospital.

And? Hardly changes the point that for all but a small group of US doctors the same statement would be true.
How many heads of U.S. hospitals "only see" 1 shooting victim a year? And what makes you think he was talking only about himself, and not about the hospital? A hospital in a major metropolitan area?

How many heads of hospitals in major metropolitan areas in the U.S. can say they only see maybe 1 shooting victim a year? Can you name two?


quote:
quote:
quote:
And Paris isn't the 300th largest city in France, or even 100th. It's comparable to Chicago, New York or Washington, D.C., not Podunk, AK.
It's not comparable on any meaningful demographic basis of which I'm aware. Certainly not to any of the three cities that you listed. Why do you think so? Just being an important city doesn't make for good comparisons.
Well, what U.S. city would be comparable, in you opinion? Paris has a population of over 2 million, in a metropolitan area of over 12 million. That sounds a lot like L.A. to me. But where would you compare it to? And how many of their hospitals see maybe 1 shooting victim a year?

quote:
I think you're making a big and unwarranted assumption when you just decide that the next generation will "of course" just be liberal Americans with the same values as everyone else.
What can I say? I'm an optimist. I have high hopes for them and the Republican Party to eventually see the light. [Smile]

Besides, I know that liberals help mollify Republicans, regardless of what Donald Trump says. So I expect the same to work with other conservative immigrants.

After all, we also have laws that restrict what they can and cannot do. [Wink]

quote:
quote:

quote:
How do you reconcile that gun deaths have been decreasing year over year, yet the paranoia over mass murders is going up?
Interestingly enough, because while the homicide rate has been declining, mass shootings are on the rise.
That stat was effectively debunked in the other thread. I saw it a couple days ago (and the debunking) and wondered if I could get anyone to cite to it. Lol. If you accepted that at face value you'd be confused at least, but you might want to consider whether you are suffering from confirmation bias internally, when the problems with that stat were obvious from the start.

So both the sources that FiveThiryEight cited have been "debunked?" Could you be more specific? Considering they used different sources and came to the same conclusion makes me suspicious that they were really debunked. Perhaps there is some conformational bias on your part, too. [Wink]

quote:
quote:
Why is it permissible to ignore freedom of religion, but not the right to bear arms?
This comment doesn't even make sense. No one is ignoring freedom of religion. Are you under a mistaken belief that refugees have a RIGHT to be settled here? And somehow not agreeing to accept them is an interference with their religion?

In fact the only way I can parse what you're implying to mean anything relevant is if you believe that its part of the freedom of a religion to engage in terrorist activity and we're suppressing that freedom.

I was specifically thinking of Donald Trump's (the current Republican presidential front-runner) remark about closing mosques in the U.S.

But more to the point, excluding Moslems because they are perceived as "terrorist" is simply fear and bigotry in its most blatant form. Only a small percentage of the 1.6 billion Moslems support terrorism. Saying that Islam is terroristic makes as much sense as saying Christianity is terroristic. And those who say so, or support those who say so, should be ashamed of themselves.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
The left has the weirdest disconnect from reality around Islam. [DOH]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
What you'd find is that if there wasn't a lot of ignorance and bigotry about Islam, the left would tend toward the critical. Sadly many people feel forced to address the bigotry which is then mistaken for apologetics.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
I seriously doubt I'd find that. Very seriously. The kooks at Westboro hold up signs "God hates fags" and the left rails against the intolerance of all Christians. A rather large and diverse number of Muslims kill gays or Muslim countries do horrible things to them and the left demands we understand and tolerate. So yeah, I doubt what you're saying.

[ December 10, 2015, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Rafi ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The kooks at Westboro hold up signs "God hates fags" and the left rails against the intolerance of all Christians.
Some factions do. They are not the entirety of the left. The vast majority of the left in the US, in fact, _are_ Christians and instead make an effort to practice their faith in more positive ways.

quote:
A rather large and diverse number of Muslims kill gays or Muslim countries do horrible things to them and the left demands we understand and tolerate.
False equivalence. It's the cultures of those countries that allow Islam to be used as justification. Christianity is used as justification for similar acts in similar countries. And the left is opposed to the small factions that actively promote such behavior. It's active bigotry, though to apply that behavior to the entire religion, just as it is to apply the behavior of WBC to all Christians.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I seriously doubt I'd find that. Very seriously. The kooks at Westboro hold up signs "God hates fags" and the left rails against the intolerance of all Christians. A rather large and diverse number of Muslims kill gays or Muslim countries do horrible things to them and the left demands we understand and tolerate. So yeah, I doubt what you're saying.

We don't understand and tolerate. We just don't have a lot of control over those countries. Just like we don't understand or tolerate Christians in Uganda but there isn't much we can do about it.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The vast majority of the left in the US, in fact, _are_ Christians and instead make an effort to practice their faith in more positive ways.

I have to tell you that I have trouble believing this. There's probably a difference in demographics in big cities versus smaller towns or rural areas, but overall I don't get the sense that liberals living in big cities are practicing Christians in the vast majority. Cultural Christians, for sure, but you mention practicing their faith and I don't know about that.

On the face of it I tend to agree with Rafi's point here in the double standard, as I've witnessed anti-Christian bigotry (non-violent) in America first-hand countless times. However, I think a clarification is needed here. Just as we're aware that the radical right in politics doesn't speak to what most conservatives really think, likewise it seems that the far left politically doesn't speak to what many liberals believe. This may be especially so in universities and in the MSM, where ultra-liberal or progressive messages are often disseminated as fact even while not at all being universally accepted among liberals. In academic settings it may even be commonplace to mention offhand how misguided and ignorant Christians are, and certainly one finds this in the blogosphere, but it's true as Pyr points out that this surely doesn't represent the view of all liberals. The system is set up right now to force moderate liberals and conservatives to respond to straw man extremist versions of their counterparts and make it seem like those on the other side are crazy. This is part of the game, and as such casting aspersions towards the other side based on political or internet trends should be done with caution.

On the subject of anti-Christian sentiment in particular, though, I've heard it too often, from too many people, and in too many places for it to be a mere trifling amount of liberals who really think this way.

kmbboots, you're right that it's not quite fair to compare how liberals speak about domestic Christians versus Muslims in other countries. However I would suggest to you that the political ramifications of the American partnership with Saudi Arabia make it so that you need to think twice about why the establishment isn't interested in pushing anti-Wahhabist rhetoric. Maybe even think three times about it. What do you think are the odds that certain social media technicians would permit an anti-Saudi trending meme to start on Facebook, for instance, when the government had no intention of jeopardizing their relationship with Saudi Arabia?

[ December 10, 2015, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Fenring, The Onion said it best today.

It's nothing more than the usual victimhood claiming in order to grab some easy moral high ground. Everybody loves to think of themselves as put upon underdogs - it's morally fashionable and "brings people together" in the traditional "us vs. them" way.

[ December 10, 2015, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Christianity is used as justification for similar acts in similar countries.
Why don't you go ahead and back that whopper up.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Fenring, my family has a number of liberal Christians who attempt to practice their faith in positive ways. It's just that they're Anglicans so they're subtle about it.

The Establishment is a decidedly illiberal institution. It may be leftist or progressive in some ways but at its core it seeks to preserve the status quo to avoid risks to itself or its supporters.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Fenring, The Onion said it best today.

It's nothing more than the usual victimhood claiming in order to grab some easy moral high ground. Everybody loves to think of themselves as put upon underdogs - it's morally fashionable and "brings people together" in the traditional "us vs. them" way.

Who said anything about victimhood? Most Christians I know don't really complain about it even though they feel it. They're not bothered that much and certainly don't feel like they're oppressed, although they do feel that in certain social circles (such as in many artistic areas) they are all but prohibited from speaking their mind on certain topics for fear of being blackballed. In this specific case (social shunning in ultra liberal circles) their life choice really is censured in some senses, meaning a Christian would be free to mention being a Christian but the particulars of their views must be kept to themselves essentially so as not to trigger people.

The Onion is a clever publication much of the time (I have a subscription) and this article's premise is too vague to relate it specifically to casual anti-Christian sentiment. It could just as soon be about the religious rights issues that we've talked about on Ornery many times, where Christians are perceived by some to be trying to use a defensive posture as a means to oppress others. But that's a question of law, and what I'm talking about is...well, more about attitudes and snide remarks. I think anyone would be within reason to be dismayed at being ridiculed for their faith, which is a completely different thing from the issue of Christians who feel that the legal system is out to get them. These issues aren't in the same department, maybe not even the same building.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Fenring, my family has a number of liberal Christians who attempt to practice their faith in positive ways. It's just that they're Anglicans so they're subtle about it.

The Establishment is a decidedly illiberal institution. It may be leftist or progressive in some ways but at its core it seeks to preserve the status quo to avoid risks to itself or its supporters.

I'm sure you're right. Anecdotes like these are always good food for thought, but I was responding to Pyr's statement that the vast majority of liberals are practicing Christians. I'm sure many of them are...I'd be skeptical of 'majority' even but it could technically be true...but 'vast majority'? That really sounds wrong to me.

Incidentally it does bear mentioning that the definition of 'liberal' may also be an issue here. I'll bet that some people who call themselves liberals would be called conservatives if assessed by other kinds of liberals. So now we get into 'classical liberalism', new liberalism, etc etc. In fact by my standard I would even be tempted to call the very newest brand of liberalism quite illiberal as assessed by any previous standard. So sweeping statements probably don't serve us too well on topics like this, especially when the same word can mean quite different things. As if the raison d'etre of most liberals these days is the pursuit of liberty.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I seriously doubt I'd find that. Very seriously. The kooks at Westboro hold up signs "God hates fags" and the left rails against the intolerance of all Christians. A rather large and diverse number of Muslims kill gays or Muslim countries do horrible things to them and the left demands we understand and tolerate. So yeah, I doubt what you're saying.

You have the weirdest disconnect from reality around liberals.

Really, though, the pattern I'm describing is real. Some domestic controversy prompts generalizations about Islam or Muslims, liberals object to what they see as an overgeneralization or expression of bigotry, and then conservatives say that liberals love Islam and think its more admirable than Christianity, even though that's not what liberals were saying at all. Explanations such as kmbboots offered above are ignored.

The same thing happens on other topics. Conservatives present their narrative of something that happened with Obama or Clinton, liberals object to what they see as distortions or misrepresentations, and conservatives claim that liberals are incapable of seeing any flaws in their leaders, ignoring plentiful evidence to the contrary.

I suppose it probably happens in the other direction too, but you should be capable of seeing this pattern in your conclusory declarations about liberals.

At this point it seems like the right wing is better than the left at framing debates and setting up the reactions that then turn into narratives like "liberals think Islam is just WONDERFUL". From my point of view, that's because they are more shameless about running with talking points that don't conform to reality.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
The disconnect may be that I don't just base my conclusion on what they say but what they do. It is undeniable that the left despises Christianity. It is doing anything it can to eliminate Christmas terminology, gets apoplectic that the most minor sign of Christianity would be in a public space and ridicule them for "clinging to their bibles" etc. etc etc. You know this, we all know this. We see it constantly.

But we also see the was the left supports Islam. They worry about a largely nonexistent backslash to the point the attorney general threaten to prosecute negative comments, they refuse over and over again to call Islamic terrorism when it's obvious, they insist it's a great religion of peace.

The difference is incredible. It's obvious and undeniable(although you're obviously trying to).
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Case in point, NASA Was directed by Obama to have, as one of its top three priorities, Muslim outreach to make Muslims "feel good". Could you imagine a similar directive regarding Christianity?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

The Obama/NASA thing is also a good example. You have one guy who says something that is frankly pretty weird (it doesn't make sense), which the White House officially denies with a clarification that does make some sense, and you're pretending the original misstatement is evidence of a liberal love affair with Islam. Even if Obama said that (he didn't, it's laughable), that would be Obama, not "liberals".

Here you are, providing a perfect example of what I was talking about - just running with ridiculous talking points, ignoring contradictory facts, and using the fact that I'm pointing this out to you as evidence for your stupid talking points.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity.

I think it would be more accurate if you inverted your statement to read "you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by Christianity with hatred of Christians." In my experience when a liberal has serious problems with Christianity it tends to revolve around historical practices of Christianity and not around specific actions by current Christians. I've heard exchanges dozens of times where when asked what Christianity does wrong the answer comes back as "the crusades! the inquisition! Galileo!" I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity. What's happening is not generalization from individual actions to the religion as a whole - the objection begins with the religion as a whole and bypasses the particulars of what any given Christian or denomination has done for the last 50 years. Most examples I hear about how bad the Church is come from a long time ago, and more often than not in such discussions the issue of denomination doesn't even come up. It's just "Christianity."
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The vast majority of the left in the US, in fact, _are_ Christians and instead make an effort to practice their faith in more positive ways.

I have to tell you that I have trouble believing this. There's probably a difference in demographics in big cities versus smaller towns or rural areas, but overall I don't get the sense that liberals living in big cities are practicing Christians in the vast majority. Cultural Christians, for sure, but you mention practicing their faith and I don't know about that.
What, exactly, are your criteria for "practicing Christians?
quote:


kmbboots, you're right that it's not quite fair to compare how liberals speak about domestic Christians versus Muslims in other countries. However I would suggest to you that the political ramifications of the American partnership with Saudi Arabia make it so that you need to think twice about why the establishment isn't interested in pushing anti-Wahhabist rhetoric. Maybe even think three times about it. What do you think are the odds that certain social media technicians would permit an anti-Saudi trending meme to start on Facebook, for instance, when the government had no intention of jeopardizing their relationship with Saudi Arabia?

Well, sure. But that isn't the left.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity.

I think it would be more accurate if you inverted your statement to read "you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by Christianity with hatred of Christians." In my experience when a liberal has serious problems with Christianity it tends to revolve around historical practices of Christianity and not around specific actions by current Christians. I've heard exchanges dozens of times where when asked what Christianity does wrong the answer comes back as "the crusades! the inquisition! Galileo!" I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity. What's happening is not generalization from individual actions to the religion as a whole - the objection begins with the religion as a whole and bypasses the particulars of what any given Christian or denomination has done for the last 50 years. Most examples I hear about how bad the Church is come from a long time ago, and more often than not in such discussions the issue of denomination doesn't even come up. It's just "Christianity."
Either you are surrounded by a very narrow group or you aren't paying attention.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Christianity is used as justification for similar acts in similar countries.
Why don't you go ahead and back that whopper up.
Uganda.
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
kmboots are you saying that using the crusades isn't THE most vastly common example for most people arguing the "Christianity is bad too" point?

You might be projecting a bit, because the group that would begin with that example reflexively is hardly a narrow one.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
"I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity."

You all have "heard" me complain about the actions of particular 20th (and 21st) century Christians here. And I am Christian!
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I'm sure you're right. Anecdotes like these are always good food for thought, but I was responding to Pyr's statement that the vast majority of liberals are practicing Christians. I'm sure many of them are...I'd be skeptical of 'majority' even but it could technically be true...but 'vast majority'? That really sounds wrong to me.
The vast majority of people in the US are Christians. The small segment that aren't, even if you assume that they're 100% liberals, ignoring Libertarians, Objectivists, etc... aren't enough to make up the majority of liberals put together.

There is absolutely a faction of atheists, pagans, and other smal beliefs taht are actively anti-Christian and tend to be more visible in online and intellectual crowds, but they're a distinct minority of the people in the US, and it's more an indication of the circles that you tend to run in than their actual prevalence that makes them seem like they're everywhere.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
I think Armanda Marcotte says it best here:

quote:
It’s time to say it straight: Just because conservatives believe there’s some kind of global battle between Christianity and Islam doesn’t mean that liberals have to agree, much less that they take the “Islam” side of that equation. On the contrary, most liberals see fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam as categorically the same and categorically illiberal in their shared opposition to feminism and modernity...

What liberals object to is the conservative tendency to erase all distinctions between the relatively few Muslims around the world who have violent views and the majority of Muslims who, whether they are conservative or not, do not agree with ISIS or Al Qaeda’s distortion of Islam. Imagine how Christians would feel if liberals blamed Christianity, categorically, for the attack on Planned Parenthood. They would be angry and they would have a right to be. After all, a lot of Christians are liberal and believe abortion is a perfectly acceptable choice. And many others may disapprove of abortion, but they think it should be legal and they generally support Planned Parenthood’s overall reproductive health care mission. There are even some Christians who are anti-choice but disapprove of the heated rhetoric that fueled this attack. Just as it’s important to maintain these distinctions when talking about Christianity, it’s equally important to keep these distinctions in mind when talking about Islam.

There’s nothing in that logic that suggests that liberals have some secret googly-eyes for demagoguing radical Muslim fundamentalists, anymore than we love Pat Robertson. On the contrary, we tend to see them as basically the same kind of misogynist, homophobic authoritarians who hide behind God to get their way. To suggest otherwise is not just dishonest, but irresponsible, since it can hinder the very diplomatic efforts we need to keep people alive.

You should read the whole essay, Rafi. It pretty well spells it out for you.

If you want to see how Liberals feel about Muslims killing gays or other atrocities in Muslim countries, start a thread on it. Personally, I'll be dancing a jig when those ISIS cockroaches finally get their due. (And believe me, their due ain't pretty. [Mad] )

But if you want to use the atrocities of a minority of Muslim to support some jihad against all of Islam, well, we're going to point out that Christianity ain't so squeekly clean using the same criteria. Because Christianity is composed of the same thing as Islam--people, that come in a variety of moral and ethical stances. And religion doesn't change that substantially.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
My very narrow group includes exactly zero people who have a negative view of Christianity yet give Islam a pass.

The hypocritical views regarding religious criticism rest exclusively with my religious right (Christian) leaning acquaintances.

The liberal's brand of hypocrisy instead takes the form of anti-religious bigotry wearing the mask of an anti-bigotry crusade.

Then I have more moderate acquaintances who trend more towards disinterest than any particularly enlightened view.

Contrary to the anti-Christian liberal meme, I think the only defense Islam as a religion of peace I've encountered has come from moderate Christians in my group (and never from the liberal anti-Christian crowd). Possibly a view based on, "They came for the Islamists and I said nothing..." theme.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
kmboots are you saying that using the crusades isn't THE most vastly common example for most people arguing the "Christianity is bad too" point?

I'd go with kids today, in the US that are being disowned and kicked out of their homes on religious grounds because their parents reject their sexual identity/orientation.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Christianity is used as justification for similar acts in similar countries.
Why don't you go ahead and back that whopper up.
Uganda.
And .....
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
And...what? Why do I need to provide an "and"?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity."

You all have "heard" me complain about the actions of particular 20th (and 21st) century Christians here. And I am Christian!

Right, but I'm speaking more of people who have a problem with Christianity in general, which I assume isn't you. Conscientious objection to particular acts or views of Christians is something I've definitely heard from Christians, but rarely from non-Christians, precisely because they are ignorant of details like that. They tend to be
uninterested in learning about particular Christian thinkers or policies other than the broad strokes they hear in the media.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The vast majority of people in the US are Christians. The small segment that aren't, even if you assume that they're 100% liberals, ignoring Libertarians, Objectivists, etc... aren't enough to make up the majority of liberals put together.

There is absolutely a faction of atheists, pagans, and other smal beliefs taht are actively anti-Christian and tend to be more visible in online and intellectual crowds, but they're a distinct minority of the people in the US, and it's more an indication of the circles that you tend to run in than their actual prevalence that makes them seem like they're everywhere.

Ok, but what you said specifically was that the vast majority of liberals are Christians who practice their faith. This can't mean anything other than active faith and a practice that goes along with it. I won't say that categorically must include going to Church, although Christians I know tend to view people who cease going to Church as not being practising during periods where they aren't going. But certainly to be called 'practicing' even casually means at the very least to think of living 'in the name of God' or some such. If you're talking about people who vaguely believe in God and try to live like good people this is not what is meant by any usage of "practicing Christians". As I said before, it's probably true that the vast majority of American liberals are cultural Christians, and maybe even a majority of those would say they believe in God, but saying that the vast majority (80%? 90%) are practicing Christians seem to me almost certainly inaccurate.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity."

You all have "heard" me complain about the actions of particular 20th (and 21st) century Christians here. And I am Christian!

Right, but I'm speaking more of people who have a problem with Christianity in general, which I assume isn't you. Conscientious objection to particular acts or views of Christians is something I've definitely heard from Christians, but rarely from non-Christians, precisely because they are ignorant of details like that. They tend to be
uninterested in learning about particular Christian thinkers or policies other than the broad strokes they hear in the media.

I have all sorts of problems with Christianity as some people practice and understand it.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I don't know what you mean by "living 'in the name of God' or some such".

http://religion.answers.wikia.com/wiki/What_is_a_practicing_christian

This will give you an idea of what Pyrtolin likely meant and what most people would understand him to have meant.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity.

I think it would be more accurate if you inverted your statement to read "you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by Christianity with hatred of Christians."
Um, no, because Rafi was talking about people he thinks "despise Christianity", not "despise Christians". And I'm not assigning those overreaches to "Christianity", but to certain Christians.

Are you sure you know what I'm trying to say?


quote:
In my experience when a liberal has serious problems with Christianity it tends to revolve around historical practices of Christianity and not around specific actions by current Christians. I've heard exchanges dozens of times where when asked what Christianity does wrong the answer comes back as "the crusades! the inquisition! Galileo!" I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity. What's happening is not generalization from individual actions to the religion as a whole - the objection begins with the religion as a whole and bypasses the particulars of what any given Christian or denomination has done for the last 50 years. Most examples I hear about how bad the Church is come from a long time ago, and more often than not in such discussions the issue of denomination doesn't even come up. It's just "Christianity."
OK, so you're now talking about criticism of (or really, just recognition of) historical atrocities done in the name of Christianity or by Christians. That's a talking point that often comes up when people claim that Islam is more fundamentally violent than Christianity, yes.

But Rafi was making a claim about how liberals view Christianity vs. Islam, and specifically claiming that they "despise Christianity". I don't think awareness and condemnation of historical atrocities equates to current despisement, but I suppose that might not be immediately obvious.

The reason Rafi thinks liberals hate Christianity is that liberals criticize things that Christians have done recently or propose to do now, not because of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. Today's Christianity is not the Christianity of the middle ages, thank goodness. And he thinks liberals have a blind spot for Islam because liberals respond to anti-Muslim prejudice.

The reasons why these patterns exist are pretty simple, they've been explained (even in this thread), and don't amount to preferring Islam over Christianity. The article WS linked explains it quite well.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Ok, but what you said specifically was that the vast majority of liberals are Christians who practice their faith.
No, I said that they practice their faith in more productive ways. Even if that means that they just keep it to themselves and don't go hitting other people over the head with it, which, sad to say, is more productive than many are at the moment.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
This is surely the most beautiful man I'll see today:

http://www.fox4beaumont.com/community/features/community-news/stories/local-imam-says-he-forced-resign-because-he-agrees-trump-muslim-immigration-1932.shtml

"... "I think any future candidates, presidents who do not support the fact that we need to be more safe and more cautious about whom to bring into this country, whether a Muslim or not," Dr. Alsayyed said. His comments he said had nothing to do with politics, but the former Imam said Trump's comments are in line with the Islamic religion. "The text of the holy Qur'an says the loss of one life is equivalent to killing the whole mankind," he said. His viewpoint, in part, shifting after lingering questions about the backgrounds of the couple responsible for the mass shooting in San Bernardino. "But the way it happens when you see this mass shooting and you see some people coming with such a very peaceful background and all of the sudden the intelligences themselves, the agencies are not able to figure out what's happening, why all of a sudden this guy or this girl or that lady open fire and kill 15 people, because American Muslims are not doing their job in the country. So we need to stop, we need to stop taking new ones until we fix the existing situation," Dr. Alsayyed said. The religious leader said there is a problem with some American Muslims seeing a conflict between following their religious beliefs and their patriotism to the U.S., and an issue differentiating the religious community and its political role. He said the two should not mix..."

One good thing among many about this Muslim and his position is that it means that not everyone who agrees with Trump is necessarily a racist Islamophobe. They can't be. He certainly isn't.


Obviously the sad thing is that he was forced out which means that apparently most Muslims are not willing to admit there is a problem which is of course the necessary first step toward finding a solution.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I refer to history of Christendom in response to particular allegations about the nature of Islam. Especially when Islam is made out to be inherently more violent and less tolerant than Christianity.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
One good thing among many about this Muslim and his position is that it means that not everyone who agrees with Trump is necessarily a racist Islamophobe. They can't be. He certainly isn't.
How does that follow? Not taht it's necessarily true or false, but the're no reason that he can't be biased.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Just like black people can't be racist against other blacks. It's like a law or something.

He's no former Muslim apostate after all. He's a Muslim imam. How can he hate Muslims.

He may fear some of them. After all, we are told all the time that the people Muslims kill most are other Muslims. That doesn't make him an Islamophobe though because if he was really that afraid of Islam would he convert out of it?

Oh yeah.. he gets the death fatwa if he does that. I guess you might have a point.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Just like black people can't be racist against other blacks. It's like a law or something.
That's totally not how it works.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Just like black people can't be racist against other blacks.
They absolutely can be. Their color doesn't prevent them from buying into racial prejudices about themselves and even reinforcing and perpetuating stereotypes and discrimination.

quote:
He's no former Muslim apostate after all. He's a Muslim imam. How can he hate Muslims.
He can be influenced by, but into, and repeat prejudicial statements, even from the inside. Especially since he's in a position of power and authority that will give what he says more credibility among those who hear it.

quote:
That doesn't make him an Islamophobe though because if he was really that afraid of Islam would he convert out of it?
Why would he change his beliefs just because he shares prejudices about other believers of the same thing? That misunderstands the nature of religious belief.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have all sorts of problems with Christianity as some people practice and understand it.

Right, and the specificity with which you describe these problems isn't present in the kinds of people I'm talking about. They don't even tend to specify which denomination troubles them, but more often reference "Christianity" or sometimes even 'religion' as inherently being a problem.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I don't know what you mean by "living 'in the name of God' or some such".

http://religion.answers.wikia.com/wiki/What_is_a_practicing_christian

This will give you an idea of what Pyrtolin likely meant and what most people would understand him to have meant.

Hehe, I had just read that page prior to making my previous post [Wink]

I think I was broad enough in my definition when I included not only Church-goers but also people who pray or vaguely assign to their actions or thoughts something to do with 'in the name of God.' I'm pretty sure someone who doesn't consciously think of it as acting in the name of Jesus can't be considered to be a practicing Christian, even though they can be a good cultural Christian.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Um, no, because Rafi was talking about people he thinks "despise Christianity", not "despise Christians". And I'm not assigning those overreaches to "Christianity", but to certain Christians.

Are you sure you know what I'm trying to say?

I can't, of course, be sure of what you're trying to say, but I do my best to read it accurately. One thing I will say is that I don't equate how you, personally, evaluate facts with how I see most people I encounter in life doing it. You are far more conscientious in your claims and try to be more rigorous in knowing what you're talking about. This is not anything close to standard if you're taking a cross-section of the average population. I never said these were great scholars who talk like this, although many of them are 'educated', whatever that means.

The reason I tried to separate Christianity from Christians is not because of how I think you separate historical atrocities from modern Christian people, but rather because I see anti-Christian sentiment nowadays that frequently takes the form of impugning the sins of Christendom's past onto acts by modern day Christians. This is the thing which I think is both irrational and also self-serving since it allows someone to endorse their chosen lifestyle by means of negating someone else's.

I hear a lot of talk of 'Christianity is all about guilt' and 'it makes people repressed and messes them up' and such generalizations, but in terms of criticizing specific acts by the Church or prominent Christians you tend to devolve back to pointing at extremes, often historical ones. If it's not the crusades or the Inquisition you'll get comments about the Westboro Baptist Church or crazy evangelicals who mouth off. Quite frankly I think a large proportion of anti-Christian sentiment has strictly to do with views on sexuality, and more specifically with Christian denominations that don't believe in sex before marriage. The prohibition on fornication offends a vast amount of people who want to have their sex and eat it too, and I don't think anything other than literally recanting on this topic could change people's minds away from thinking that the Church is sexually oppressive and hateful.

[ December 11, 2015, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I'm not sure what's worse, that lack of a sense of humor that makes, "It's like a law or something." NOT an obvious tongue in cheek comment, or that the preceding comment was seen as something cherry may say and mean literally.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have all sorts of problems with Christianity as some people practice and understand it.

Right, and the specificity with which you describe these problems isn't present in the kinds of people I'm talking about. They don't even tend to specify which denomination troubles them, but more often reference "Christianity" or sometimes even 'religion' as inherently being a problem.
Yes. Goodness knows we wouldn't want people to generalize about our religion.
quote:

The reason I tried to separate Christianity from Christians is not because of how I think you separate historical atrocities from modern Christian people, but rather because I see anti-Christian sentiment nowadays that frequently takes the form of impugning the sins of Christendom's past onto acts by modern day Christians.

I think that this argument comes up when people are trying to paint Christianity as a religion that is always peaceful and benevolent and Islam as always violent and evil.
quote:

I hear a lot of talk of 'Christianity is all about guilt' and 'it makes people repressed and messes them up' and such generalizations, but in terms of criticizing specific acts by the Church or prominent Christians you tend to devolve back to pointing at extremes, often historical ones. If it's not the crusades or the Inquisition you'll get comments about the Westboro Baptist Church or crazy evangelicals who mouth off.
[quote] Who, sadly, have a lot of political power these days. And have a lot of access to media which makes them quite loud.
[quote]Quite frankly I think a large proportion of anti-Christian sentiment has strictly to do with views on sexuality, and more specifically with Christian denominations that don't believe in sex before marriage. The prohibition on fornication offends a vast amount of people who want to have their sex and eat it too, and I don't think anything other than literally recanting on this topic could change people's minds away from thinking that the Church is sexually oppressive and hateful.

You mean that they would have to stop having sexually oppressive and hateful views (like boiling down people who have problems with the sexual views of some religions as just people who "want to have their sex and eat it too" for example) before people will stop thinking of them as sexually oppressive and hateful?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:

The reason I tried to separate Christianity from Christians is not because of how I think you separate historical atrocities from modern Christian people, but rather because I see anti-Christian sentiment nowadays that frequently takes the form of impugning the sins of Christendom's past onto acts by modern day Christians. [/qb]

I think that this argument comes up when people are trying to paint Christianity as a religion that is always peaceful and benevolent and Islam as always violent and evil.
It's true it has come up in this context recently, but there are many discussions non involving Islam where the same point is made. You can find this in debates between atheists and Christians (there are hoards of debates like this), but it also comes up in casual conversation as well. In terms of casual conversation most instances I've heard of comparing Christianity as a whole to specific atrocities don't involve any comparison with Islam but are made a stand-alone arguments that frequently are more anti-religious in general than anything else since Christianity is the biggest game in town in America.

quote:
You mean that they would have to stop having sexually oppressive and hateful views (like boiling down people who have problems with the sexual views of some religions as just people who "want to have their sex and eat it too" for example) before people will stop thinking of them as sexually oppressive and hateful?
You may think I'm referring to hot topics such as people against gay marriage and so forth, which many react to by calling those views hateful. But actually I was referring to basic notion of fornication in and of itself. I suppose you may not subscribe to the existence of such a thing (in other words 'sex is sex' and the presence of marriage or not is irrelevant) but I'm not sure it's reasonable to call the belief in such a thing as fornication being wrong to automatically be hateful and oppressive. I mean, it's entirely reasonable to say belief in those things is incorrect, but like any kind of ascetic belief some self-denial is required, and I don't think that makes it by definition hateful. My point was that some people in America view the entire notion of abstinence as hateful, a la 'you're just making these people sexually repressed.'
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
I was trying to think of an example of blacks being racist or negrophobic against other blacks and then I remembered Jesse Jackson saying “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

So I suppose I may have been mistaken. Not the first time. Probably not the last. Unless D.W. is correct about it being somewhat tongue in cheek...

So if Jesse Jackson is racist against blacks and this imam is Islamophobic and racist against Muslims (yeah I know it's not a race but that doesn't stop liberals from saying it amounts to the same thing), then what does that mean when it comes to judging, let's say white people, who may share some of the same sentiments?

It doesn't provide them any cover at all?

Just on a side but related note as far as Islamophobia also being racism, wouldn't that mean that the white person if they were racist would be more accepting of Muslims who happened to be white, like converts? If they hate/fear those white convert Muslims even more than the Arabic and black ones then does that make them less racist or at least maybe more racist against white people than blacks and Arabs? Or does trying to think about this too much just lead to more confusion?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
So what you are looking for is "cover" for your racism?
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
So you're of the opinion that Islamophobia is racism then?

Is that always or just sometimes?

Like what about the Arab ex-Muslims who are under the threat of an active death fatwa for converting from Islam to Christianity?

Are they racists even though they are also Arabs or are they Islamophobes or both?

Just did an internet search on this out of curiosity and this is one of the first things that popped up and caught my attention:

http://formermuslimsunited.org/apostasy-from-islam/

"Ms. Al Imam’s incredible courage was on display in an internet chat room, where she announced that she is not afraid, will stand up for the human rights of apostates and refused to leave her homeland, Egypt. This was immediately followed by attacks and calls for death of the 36 year-old graduate of Al Azhar Islamic University. Egyptian media not only reported the threat but actually participated in the attacks. Ms. Al Imam was literally lured by a TV station ‘Al Mihwar’ with the pretext of inviting her for an interview. Upon arrival to the studio she was told the show she was to appear on was cancelled. She was then taken forcibly to a room where she was held against her will for hours inside the studio. She was assaulted, threatened and insulted by several people. She was able to escape, and went to her internet chat room telling the world what happened and said she will demand protection from the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Such actions are common not only against apostates but also against Arab reformists, journalists, intellectuals and feminists who are critical of the oppression of Sharia. They are often intimidated, threatened or even killed for the slightest independent views using the apostasy card to keep them quiet. Journalist Farag Foda, accused of apostasy for advocating women’s rights, was gunned down in 1991 in front of his home in Cairo."

--------------------------------------

First it's good they have this support group type thing going on.

Second, Ms. Al Imam says she is not afraid so would that mean she's not an Islamophobe? Then is she just a racist? So what's going on there?

I suppose to put the question in a more answerable form, is everyone who disagrees with Islam an Islamophobe and racist?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
You are talking as if Islam is one thing. It is not - any more than Christianity is one thing. I am a church-going, "practicing" Catholic but I disagree with much of current Catholic doctrine and much of how Christianity is practiced. That hardly makes me a Christian-o-phobe.

Some Muslims are scary; most are not. American Muslims raise more than $100,000 for families of San Bernardino shooting victims

Some Christians are scary Lord's Resistance Army; most are not.

Being afraid of all of either because of the actions of some is racist.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
Scifi:

That article doesn't seem very accurate to me. The totality of Christian practice and belief isn't really exclusively defined by the Nicene creed--in spite of what certain institutional authorities may claim.
quote:
All Christians believe that Jesus Died on the Cross and was Ressurected on the Third Day (Easter).
This kind of statement simply isn't true. There are plenty of people who consider themselves Christian who don't believe in the resurrection.

This is from the Wikipedia entry on Reverend John Shelby Spong, of the Unity Church (which considers itself Christian, regardless of its non-compliance with Nicea):
quote:
A prominent theme in Spong's writing is that the popular and literal interpretations of Christian scripture are not sustainable and do not speak honestly to the situation of modern Christian communities. He believes in a more nuanced approach to scripture, informed by scholarship and compassion, which can be consistent with both Christian tradition and contemporary understandings of the universe. He believes that theism has lost credibility as a valid conception of God's nature. He states that he is a Christian because he believes that Jesus Christ fully expressed the presence of a God of compassion and selfless love and that this is the meaning of the early Christian proclamation, "Jesus is Lord" (Spong, 1994 and Spong, 1991). Elaborating on this last idea he affirms that Jesus was adopted by God as his son, (Born of a Woman 1992), and he says that this would be the way God was fully incarnated in Jesus Christ.[1] He rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth (Spong, 1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Spong, 1994). In 2000, Spong was a critic of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church's declaration Dominus Iesus, because it reaffirmed the Catholic doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church and, perhaps even more importantly, that Jesus Christ is the one and only savior for humanity.[8]
(This isn't to imply concord with Fenring's construction of Christian practice, obviously. Neither Fenring's notion of Christian practice, nor his observations regarding the criticism of Christianity seem accurate to me...)

[ December 11, 2015, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
You don't think that to practice Christianity requires one of either going to Church, believing in Christ, or thinking of one's actions as having supernatural consequences?

[ December 11, 2015, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
I don't think it requires going to church. I think it certainly implies believing in Christ, but I don't think it requires believing in the literal veracity of all elements of a specific narrative of Christ (eg Christ was resurrected on the Third Day). I think it does necessarily imply knowingly trying to follow the teachings of Christ, but I think that there is room for disagreement about exactly what those are (ie I don't think one has to accept the canonicity of the New Testament in order to be Christian).

edited to respond to edit of third criterion:

I don't believe that a belief in the supernatural is necessary.

[ December 11, 2015, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
That sounds more like a Christian philosophy or mindset than a religion.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
Perhaps it does, based on your conception of the meaning of the term "religion." But following the same logic, we might claim that a substantial subset of Buddhism sounds more like a philosophy or a mindset than a religion.

Do note that I already cited the teachings of a prominent leader of a self-defined "Christian sect" in support of my view...
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
SP, I agree with you that defining exactly which dogmas should be counted as 'Christian' should not be required in assessing whether someone is a practicing Christian or not. In a sense the term can be casual and still mean something, since a given person will likely know whether he/she is actively pursuing the faith or not. That being said I think the criteria I offered are extremely liberal on this score and don't require any denominational categorization for them to be true. I don't see how someone can be a Christian if they don't accept Christ as God, for instance. Like JoshCrow said, that would be a regular old thinker who believes that Christ was a wise man, but that's not a Christian. The Muslims believe that Christ was even a prophet and a wise one at that, but they're obviously not Christians purely on the basis of admiring his teachings.

I think there are many cultural Christians who believe in God to varying degrees, some more as agnostics and some who definitely believe in a deity, but it's another thing altogether to believe specifically in Christ as God, since that carries with it all sorts of specificities that go beyond merely recognizing the existence of the divine. It gets into eschatology, relationship with God, salvation, and all that. I wouldn't really be surprised to learn that the vast majority of American liberals believe in God in some sense, but I sincerely doubt the vast majority of them accept Christ as their savior. This is perhaps even more basic than the standard of whether they go to Church, although the Catholics do have a term for people who believe in Christ but have stopped praying and going to Church - lapsed Catholic. It just means they've put their faith on hold for a time, not that they aren't Christians. But in Roman Catholic parlance I think 'lapsed Catholic' is roughly synonymous with a non-practicing Christian. Maybe kmbboots can explain how American Catholics describe this sort of thing (my knowledge of Catholicism is almost exclusively about Roman Catholicism, as I'm sad to say I haven't had a chance to read the books kmbboots recommended to me a while back [but I will eventually]).

[ December 12, 2015, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1