It does not require any establishment of religion to protect basic individual rights, as such.
Two dead in Oslo bombing
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
It does not require any establishment of religion to protect basic individual rights, as such.
The Way of the First
Do you not understand how the First Amendment works?
We can no more suspend other laws to benefit a religion than we can suspend a religion. Consider, for instance, that freedom of religion is not protecting Christian parents who victimize their own children by refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer. Consider, for instance, that we aren't letting abortion clinic shooters or bombers off the hook for acting according to their religious beliefs.
Do you really believe that the Constitution of the United States is strong enough to withstand those challenges, but weak enough to buckle in the face of radicalized assertions of Islam?
Hesperado said:
Do you not understand how the First Amendment works?
We can no more suspend other laws to benefit a religion than we can suspend a religion. Consider, for instance, that freedom of religion is not protecting Christian parents who victimize their own children by refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer. Consider, for instance, that we aren't letting abortion clinic shooters or bombers off the hook for acting according to their religious beliefs.
Do you really believe that the Constitution of the United States is strong enough to withstand those challenges, but weak enough to buckle in the face of radicalized assertions of Islam?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I would give the example of polygamy in Mormonism. Although US law prohibits it, the existence of an insular religious culture means that in some areas of the country, this practice thrives.
But without legal sanction, note.
Not that US law prohibits polygamy as such. It's just that you can't get the state to recognize more than one person as legally married to you. You can perfectly well live as man-and-wives in most every practical sense, without any trouble from the state.
:bravo: And seconded...
Yes...and because the women are legally single mothers, they draw welfare. That's how they are able to afford the extra wives and all those kids; your tax dollars at work...
And the FLDS people are now becoming critically inbred.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
"as such" is the operative phrase. In practice, it means a guy with a harem of underage girls who can't talk to the outside world.
An excellent example for consideration, indeed
Certainly, but:
Few who worry about the idea of a Sharia court in the United States ever voice any real concern about Judge Judy or any of the other binding-arbitration fake courtroom shows in which people trade away their legal rights for five minutes of fame.
And that is as much as Sharia court could be in the U.S. The Fourteenth Amendment will eventually get in the way of any state trying to create a Sharia niche.
In other words, a whole bunch of people are freaking out over something akin to the predecessor of reality television.
Spidergoat said:
Certainly, but:
(1) Polygamous marriage is not recognized by U.S. law.
(2) Where polygamy is specifically tyranny, corruption among law enforcement is a prerequisite.
(2) Where polygamy is specifically tyranny, corruption among law enforcement is a prerequisite.
Few who worry about the idea of a Sharia court in the United States ever voice any real concern about Judge Judy or any of the other binding-arbitration fake courtroom shows in which people trade away their legal rights for five minutes of fame.
And that is as much as Sharia court could be in the U.S. The Fourteenth Amendment will eventually get in the way of any state trying to create a Sharia niche.
In other words, a whole bunch of people are freaking out over something akin to the predecessor of reality television.
The Marquis:
There are some indications that he imagined he would be applauded for his actions by the wider society. He has entered a plea of not guilty to the criminal charges, as I understand it, imagining that he will be able to get away with his acts by making some argument of necessity or justifiability.
What he apparently beleived was that he would make life better for everybody, including himself - except his victims, of course, who he regarded as deserving of their fate.
As with other mass-murderers of this type, it appears the man has no ability to put himself in the shoes of somebody else. He is the classic sociopath. This flows from his acts right through to his inability to imagine how his society would react to his acts.
I can't really see how courage could come into his actions. It seems to me he thought he'd be lauded as some kind of hero.
Succeeded at what? Immeasurably damaging the cause of right-wing extremists?
There are some indications that he imagined he would be applauded for his actions by the wider society. He has entered a plea of not guilty to the criminal charges, as I understand it, imagining that he will be able to get away with his acts by making some argument of necessity or justifiability.
What he apparently beleived was that he would make life better for everybody, including himself - except his victims, of course, who he regarded as deserving of their fate.
As with other mass-murderers of this type, it appears the man has no ability to put himself in the shoes of somebody else. He is the classic sociopath. This flows from his acts right through to his inability to imagine how his society would react to his acts.
I can't really see how courage could come into his actions. It seems to me he thought he'd be lauded as some kind of hero.
Succeeded at what? Immeasurably damaging the cause of right-wing extremists?
this is what happens when people start trying to instill hate, anger, and fear. it is real easy for it to get out of control and burn far beyond what can be controlled.
In the U.S., only the unreasonable leftists think Brevik has damaged the right wing
Perhaps in the world community Brevik has damaged the cause of right-wing extremists. But, well, you know we Americans are a strange bunch. While "non-conservative" atrocities are always chalked up to some sort of organized conspiracy, we have this tendency to consider right-wing violence in the context of "isolated incidents".
Just as we saw with Jared Lee Loughner, the proposition that right-wing rhetoric had any role in encouraging, justifying, or otherwise mitigating Anders Brevik's actions is virtually anathema in the U.S. I mumbled about that today for one of my blogs:
It's like when the white guy flew a plane into a building in order to make a political point: Oh, heavens, that's not terrorism.
Although I admit that most Americans were not terrorized by Joe Stack. Rather, we just shook our heads and said, "What an asshole."
James R said:
Perhaps in the world community Brevik has damaged the cause of right-wing extremists. But, well, you know we Americans are a strange bunch. While "non-conservative" atrocities are always chalked up to some sort of organized conspiracy, we have this tendency to consider right-wing violence in the context of "isolated incidents".
Just as we saw with Jared Lee Loughner, the proposition that right-wing rhetoric had any role in encouraging, justifying, or otherwise mitigating Anders Brevik's actions is virtually anathema in the U.S. I mumbled about that today for one of my blogs:
The idea that all of these are "isolated" incidents relies on a specific and distorted pretense. With all sorts of political violence, the empowered culture seems to be willing to draw very general conclusions. Whether it was labor, Anarchism, Communism, black people, or Muslims, the longstanding view is a fearful perspective presupposing some degree of sophistication and organization, an overarching scheme that bound the participants together. Yet when it is a different set of perpetrators whose common aspects happen to be pale skin and a disdain for liberalism, minorities, and other non-conservative issues, we should simply accept that the trend represents a string of random outbursts. There is no scheme. And it's true to a degree: One can certainly assert, with some appreciable confidence, that Jared Lee Loughner, Joseph Stack, Byron Williams, James von Brunn, and Scott Roeder weren't conspiring with one another.
But American conservatives are also those who argued that lyrical themes in music could turn children into mass murderers, and we still hear the same sort of argument about how tolerance will turn them into something even worse—homosexuals—so maybe it's time to ask them to turn their own theory of influence on the corrosive rhetoric of the right wing.
Actually, the better thing would be to simply drop that stupid theory of influence, but at some point we need to reconcile these disparate standards. Apparently, a bunch of would-be Muslims sending farm leaguers—who can't light a match, or end up burning their own balls off—is indicative of some worrisome conspiracy, but a bunch of right-wingers actually managing to kill a whole lot of people is, well ... you know: Nothing to see here, folks. Just go on about your business.
But American conservatives are also those who argued that lyrical themes in music could turn children into mass murderers, and we still hear the same sort of argument about how tolerance will turn them into something even worse—homosexuals—so maybe it's time to ask them to turn their own theory of influence on the corrosive rhetoric of the right wing.
Actually, the better thing would be to simply drop that stupid theory of influence, but at some point we need to reconcile these disparate standards. Apparently, a bunch of would-be Muslims sending farm leaguers—who can't light a match, or end up burning their own balls off—is indicative of some worrisome conspiracy, but a bunch of right-wingers actually managing to kill a whole lot of people is, well ... you know: Nothing to see here, folks. Just go on about your business.
It's like when the white guy flew a plane into a building in order to make a political point: Oh, heavens, that's not terrorism.
Although I admit that most Americans were not terrorized by Joe Stack. Rather, we just shook our heads and said, "What an asshole."
In the news (BBC), they said the terrorist gunman acted alone, yet he got to set up bomb, wearing police uniform, and got some automatic guns with rifles (?). How do this guy obtained this weapons and bomb(s)? Why did police come late to the island? In the news they said police come 1 hour late. In Germany, if you call police, they will come to you within 5 minutes radius wherever you are. Nobody brought mobile phones to the island? Do you guys think it is really a one man show or is something bigger going on?
Also, do you believe that the Norway gunman was able to set up bombs, got weapons, etc (possibly years of preparation), but not able to find 1 friend to cooperate with him?
Also, do you believe that the Norway gunman was able to set up bombs, got weapons, etc (possibly years of preparation), but not able to find 1 friend to cooperate with him?
Last edited:
From your link:
Do you think the thoughts of Mr. Breivik represent the majority thoughts of the Norwegians or Europeans or their governments in general, or is it just him? I do not understand the thoughts of these intolerant people. The only reason muslims or foreigners in general exist in European countries is because their governments allow them or even inviting them (like giving visa for state-less people, giving out student visas, working visas, citizenships, etc.). So it is their own governments to blame. If they want to prevent islamisation or multiculturalism, they should ask their governments to "close their borders", not gone into shooting spree. Whats up with the "come here and we'll shot you"? :bugeye:
To be honest, muslims should be more annoyed by them. In my home country, which is the biggest Islamic nation on earth, many oil companies and business are owned by foreigners. Their governments also dictating us what to do. Their products especially electronics and automotive are dominating our market, etc. No wait, clothes, shoes, movies, musics, etc. (the list is too long to mention), they are all in our markets making them rich. But we don't go shooting them or making them uncomfortable in my country, they are enjoying luxurious life and we treat them well.
Do you think the thoughts of Mr. Breivik represent the majority thoughts of the Norwegians or Europeans or their governments in general, or is it just him? I do not understand the thoughts of these intolerant people. The only reason muslims or foreigners in general exist in European countries is because their governments allow them or even inviting them (like giving visa for state-less people, giving out student visas, working visas, citizenships, etc.). So it is their own governments to blame. If they want to prevent islamisation or multiculturalism, they should ask their governments to "close their borders", not gone into shooting spree. Whats up with the "come here and we'll shot you"? :bugeye:
To be honest, muslims should be more annoyed by them. In my home country, which is the biggest Islamic nation on earth, many oil companies and business are owned by foreigners. Their governments also dictating us what to do. Their products especially electronics and automotive are dominating our market, etc. No wait, clothes, shoes, movies, musics, etc. (the list is too long to mention), they are all in our markets making them rich. But we don't go shooting them or making them uncomfortable in my country, they are enjoying luxurious life and we treat them well.
Last edited:
kira said:
Hence the "not a Muslim" terrorist attack on the government buildings, because he holds the Labour party responsible for inviting the immigrants and making them welcome. Therefore by shooting their kids, he demonstrated how uncomfortable it makes him to live among foreign violent extremist wannabes
He set up an agricultural business which allowed him to buy large quantities of fertiliser to make the bomb.
He joined a gun club and had licenced weapons.
They apparently had trouble finding a boat to get to the island, then had engine problems on the way (possibly due to an overloaded boat).
Lots of people made mobile calls from the island.
Not clear right now. My guess is that it is essentially one man, although you could argue he had lots of moral support from right-wing extremists on the web and elsewhere.
Yes. Probably he didn't tell anybody.
No. Perhaps 10% of people in Norway share similar right-wing views to Breivik, but only a tiny fraction of those would ever consider carrying out a violent act.
Maybe he should have asked the labour party why are they inviting the immigrants. Back then in home country, even until now (from university newsletters), I got to see announcements how the UK needs 20,000 Asian IT engineers, how this and that countries will grant working visa to some best fresh graduates from the best universities in Asia including my country, etc. We see it as brain drain, but we have no options because we can't give them better salary or better advance education in home country. Then, some of use also go abroad to do menial jobs or housemaids and got beaten or raped abroad. These rich people want to get cheap labors, because they can't find their own people to do terrible jobs (mostly in Saudi Arabia), but they tortured us, too. Then their governments do nothing to stop it :bugeye: .
[Edit]: The UK government is sending this kind of "shortage occupation list" to universities in my home country:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/workingintheuk/shortageoccupationlist.pdf
Can you blame people in my home country who want to improve their living condition? :shrug:
[/edit]
Is he an engineer or chemists? I once read in the news that he studied business.
Ok, thanks for info, I should have looked that up by myself. I will try to look it up before asking such questions.
Ok. So I hope things don't get worse here. I like Europe and Europeans. I have some pretty close European friends, and in general Europeans are very gentle (except some who are working as receptionists in dentist or as cashiers in supermarkets, but I blame my accent). I hope I will never meet anyone like the Norway terrorist duschebag....!
Last edited:
It is an unfortunate quirk of human nature that we retreat into the shelter of a group identity when we are challenged as individuals.
That smelly unwashed guy on the corner who demands your change. He has no respect for you, doesn't like you particularly much... but he's angry because you have none for him. The thought never crosses his mind that it is he who is an imposition upon you. It never occurs to him that he represents something which no man will ever really have respect for, as much as some try to tell themselves they do. He will never openly tell himself he is something nobody would ever truly like or admire.
No, none of that.
He tells himself that you just hate him because he's black.
Yes, that is an excellent characterisation of the average neo-nazi personality.
kira said:
Of course not. Everyone has the right to improve their circumstances by hard work. The kind of people who resent that are usually those who believe they are entitled to advantages but do not want to work for them.