|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
It's called a conscience and empathy. Empathy is an inherent trait in every animal because it increases our survivability. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world either, do you think we had no laws or morals before Christianity was invented? Please...
I begin to think a discussion with you is not possible, everything I write you just turn heads up and make it into something absurd. Where did I say those things? I simply stated the fact that our society is based on christian values, not that that are the right values, or the only ones, or original ones.
I also don't believe empathy as you describe it "is an inherent trait in every animal". Sure, for people you can relate to it might be somewhat true, but it is not something you feel for everyone. Just because it is natural to group up and help each other out, that does not "generate" morals or ethics. You only group up with people you need, that give you something useful and you only need a certain number of people, not everyone.
They had an idea about how the world worked, and they imposed it on everyone by spreading their propaganda. For years people have been oppressed just because of their conflicting views simply because religion is such a powerful manipulator. People were killed for suggesting that the Sun and everything in the universe did not revolve around the Earth. In Islamic countries, people are executed for apostasising. In Roman Catholic Christianity, being gay or using contraception is considered a sin.
Is this the fault of religion? It is the fault of people abusing it. Tell me where jesus or the bible justifies killing one of your own people. Tell me where they say contraception or being gay is a sin or that opposing the current view of the world is wrong.
|
Another question coming up to me: How much of "manifest" should be spreaded at all (especially, but not only talking about the media)?
I ask this question because i fear that this much attention to himself andhis "ideas" will very likely lead to imitators. So it's the right of free information vs the right to live of the potential victims of the imitators. Also shifting attentions away from the victims to him is in fact what he seems to want.
|
On July 24 2011 20:55 Thorakh wrote:
Stop insulting me by saying I sympathize with him or saying I am an extremist when I find some truth in his views. The keyword here is some, not all. Stop trying to make it look like I think everything he said is true. The only truth I found was that some cultures are just not meant to be together.
But you sir ARE an extremist. Saying Christians and Muslims can not live together in the same country is a very radical and extreme oppinion, which makes you an extremist. All those millions of Muslims living in Europe already, how do you plan to get rid of them? Because that's what have to be done according to you since we can't live in the same country. Or are we to de-muslimize them? I heard the spaniards used to have brilliant guys for the task.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 24 2011 20:23 MaGariShun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 19:35 Eurekastreet wrote:On July 24 2011 18:47 WhiteDog wrote:On July 24 2011 18:41 shabby wrote:
He states in his manifesto that the main problem is that Islam by it's very foundation seeks to globalize and convert every man, woman and child. This is why - he says - we cannot coexist even if we wanted to, and he seeks alliance, long or temporary, with pretty much everybody else. He is fighting to preserve christian cultural values in the west. It is an extremely strange and horrendous way to get forth your message as a knight of the peace, and he will be condemned and sentenced for his monsterous acts. But people will read his book (heck I've already been reading for hours), and that's all it is about for him and the Knights Templars.
We take pride in our openness in Norway. We are vulnerable by choice and will continue to be so. Even the thoughts and opinions of a mass murderer must be allowed for debate, but in honesty I believe it will take a long time before any of the wounds have healed enough to bring it up. It's wrong for half islam : the most extremist islam view Europe as desecrated earth that all muslim should flee to return to the house of Islam (the middle east), it's the moderate Islam that view Europe as a earth of proselytism. And every religion seek to globalize... it's the same for christianism, yet with time they came to forget that idea and became a pretty peaceful organisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growthBased on those figures, I wouldn't say christians have stopped trying to globalize. They'might be losing market share in some parts of Europe but it's probably insignificant for their worldwide business, they'll try and fix that if they need to I am sure. I would not call it a peaceful religion either. Unlike islam, they separated from the state politics in many places so every time a shitstorm happens, they can claim "not guilty" but still their sheeps seem to be very enclined to carry their message adamantly. Yesterday's event by a self proclaimed templar peaceful ? The past couple of years pedophilia scandals peaceful ? Rwanda genocide (christians massacring each other) peaceful ? Bush's "God Bless America" before going to Irak peaceful ? And so on and so on. The older I get, the more I think we'd be better off without any religion at all. The difference is that the founder of christianity (jesus) was a man who strictly opposed violence and preached to love everyone, even your foes. Mohammed on the other hand was also a military leader and promoted violence against those who don't believe. So those applying violence in any form in the name of christianity completely act against the nature and fundamental beliefs of the religion and its founder (I'm well aware the historical person might have been different to what is in the bible), while in the Islam Mohammed's actions and certain parts of the Koran (ofc prone to different interpretations) justify violence in various circumstances. Also keep in mind that christianity, while also trying to expand, does this in a peaceful manner (at least that is the theory, of course over the time people have abused the religion for their needs), while even mohammed himself tried to expand the Islam with force. I am not saying Muslims are evil and christians are good, but there is a fundamental difference between those two religions in their stance to violence. PS: I am not a christian (well technically I am, but I don't believe), but I agree with christian principles. I also don't hate or dislike muslims because of their religion, they are still individuals who decide for themselves what they do. I don't like the religion itself tho
This is certainly not the place for this discussion, but i just wanted to point how a-historical your explanation is.
- You have a "essentialist" definition of the cores values of a religion. Christianism and Islam are defined entirely by their founders, disregarding any evolution of the dogma (a long history for both Islam and Christianism), any influence of their apparatus (the chuch) or the cross-influence of other social structures (like the relationship with the different local States).
- You don't realize the "image" of the founders of this religions are social and historical construction. Jesus as a pacifist hippy is fairly recent representation of the founder of this religion. It coexists with others, way more severe. I lived for a long time in South America and i can mention a bunch of movements (Legionarios de Cristo in Mexico, Opus Dei in Chile and Spain, Schoenstatt for girls) that defended a whole different representation, with a more severe god that died for your sins and that asked you to live in constant mortification. Same thing for muslims, you have a huge range of approaches to religion, ranging from asceticism as dervish from the Sunni to blown-up crazy, with a huge majority of people that just doesn't care (like christians).
- The stance on violence from both of these religions have changed over time and depends on you ask (by the way, Islam suffers from a PR problem as they don't have a centralized government as catholics do; therefore, you only have "opinions" from scholars. Nobody is going to hear what a crazy idiot as Monseigneur Lefebvre is going to say about how much he opposes to the Vatican II Council, because people realize how much of a marginal he is and you know the Pope is the official position of the church, but it doesn't work that way with Islam). Mainstream religion has abandon violence a long time ago. Their stance in violence is fundamentally the same.
- Religion is always a selective procedure, picking and emphasizing some stuff and forgetting some other. Being so contradictory is one of their strength as it makes religion a malleable tool. You can have both ultra conservative catholics and theologians of liberation under the same church. Same thing for Islam. It's just how religion works.
- It becomes intellectually dishonest and politically poisonous when you describe religions as a predefined set of unalterable values, and when you imply that they are "essentially" in contradiction.
|
On July 24 2011 21:16 iDoMiNaTe2.0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 20:46 Derez wrote:On July 24 2011 20:13 Weson wrote:
I dont like where this is heading. He want people to read his shit. The goal of his acts were to get people to listen to him. Now people reads his manifesto, spreads links to it and even discussing it in a way that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He's winning right now... He isn't winning at anything, except at being in prison for the rest of his life. His 'manifesto' lost all it's credibility the moment he shot at kids. People should read it, especially those on the (far-)right side of politics. It's a perfect example of how any ideology can be perverted up to a point where the logical outcome is killing civilians. If you have a sick enough mind, you get to be a terrorist for whatever cause you believe in: islam, christianity, anarchism, socialism, you name it. If anything these attacks should have people to reconsider their perspectives and their views of eachother. If a person from a certain group performs a terrorist act, we implicitly place some of the guilt on the entire group. Turns out every group has it's demons. You do know Norway hardest sentence is 21 years in prison right?
Most likely this guy in insane in some way and will prolly be taken into psychiatric care for longer than 21 years, either way it's clear they can't release him, ever. If he is found guilty he will never see daylight again.
|
On July 24 2011 20:50 Ardhimas wrote:
He wants a Judeo-Christian Europe.
That may be true, but you have to remember that his views on jews are not so great to be honest:
"The US on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem."
"Furthermore, while I oppose deniers of the Jewish holocaust I realise that the “holocaust religion” is an extremely destructive force in Europe."
"As of now, the “holocaust religion” is one of the major factors that are making Europe vulnerable and susceptible for Islamic conquest through demographical warfare."
|
On July 24 2011 20:55 Thorakh wrote:
Stop insulting me by saying I sympathize with him or saying I am an extremist when I find some truth in his views. The keyword here is some, not all. Stop trying to make it look like I think everything he said is true. The only truth I found was that some cultures are just not meant to be together.
what the fuck is wrong with you
|
I don't like the color blue.
I'm going to paint everything that is yellow I can find in red so you understand why blue is so bad.
I'm sorry but I didn't have any choice.
My deepest condolence to the unlucky ones.
|
On July 24 2011 21:19 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 21:16 iDoMiNaTe2.0 wrote:On July 24 2011 20:46 Derez wrote:On July 24 2011 20:13 Weson wrote:
I dont like where this is heading. He want people to read his shit. The goal of his acts were to get people to listen to him. Now people reads his manifesto, spreads links to it and even discussing it in a way that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He's winning right now... He isn't winning at anything, except at being in prison for the rest of his life. His 'manifesto' lost all it's credibility the moment he shot at kids. People should read it, especially those on the (far-)right side of politics. It's a perfect example of how any ideology can be perverted up to a point where the logical outcome is killing civilians. If you have a sick enough mind, you get to be a terrorist for whatever cause you believe in: islam, christianity, anarchism, socialism, you name it. If anything these attacks should have people to reconsider their perspectives and their views of eachother. If a person from a certain group performs a terrorist act, we implicitly place some of the guilt on the entire group. Turns out every group has it's demons. You do know Norway hardest sentence is 21 years in prison right? Most likely this guy in insane in some way and will prolly be taken into psychiatric care for longer than 21 years, either way it's clear they can't release him, ever. If he is found guilty he will never see daylight again.
God I hope so..
|
On July 24 2011 20:55 Thorakh wrote:
I am truly disgusted by the attitude presented by some people in here. Do you not think I care deeply for those killed by this terrorist? Do you not think I was moved by tales from eyewitnesses? It is never right to kill innocent people, and these were children for god's sake, they wouldn't even have understand what he was talking about. This monster destroyed the lives of those who would have a full life ahead of them.
And how is this not the place to discuss his motivation? Is it not directly connected to this act of terror? I believe in a world where everyone lives together peacefully, a world dictated by love, reason and logic. Not by hate, fear and the inability to see other people's views. However, I don't cover my eyes from all the problems when cultures clash. Some cultures are only a little different from others thus can live together and some have directly opposing views and it would not be wise to mix them. No matter how much I wish we could all live together, it just doesn't work like that. Some cultures are just better off staying away from each other minding their own business.
You know what is the value I hold dearest? Live and let live.
Stop insulting me by saying I sympathize with him or saying I am an extremist when I find some truth in his views. The keyword here is some, not all. Stop trying to make it look like I think everything he said is true. The only truth I found was that some cultures are just not meant to be together.
The Nazis were discredited after the world learned of the holocaust, because they took their belief that there should be no Jews in Europe to it's logical conclusion. Practically speaking, how else were the jews to leave? It was impossible to expel millions of them - the rest of the world wouldn't take them -, and even shooting them in mass graves was difficult, slow, and bad for troop morale. Hence the creation of the gas chambers. Since then, Naziism and antisemitism have been associated with the mechanised mass murder of millions of innocent people, because, to be fair to the Nazis, there was no other way of actually practicing their depraved racist creed. There are far rightwingers, and Breivik is one of them, who complains bitterly that the Nazis discredited HIS views.
Now you have been saying, with a great deal of wounded self-righteous wounded pride, that Muslims and Westerners cannot coexist, and complaining bitterly that you're being unfairly associated with Breivik because of it. How exactly would you put your beliefs in practice and seperate these supposedly incompatible cultures then? If you wouldn't, then why even say that these cultures can't live together?
We're talking about millions of people all over Europe whose social and cultural practices and deeply held religious beliefs are incompatible with yours. They're already living among us, and you're saying it's impossible for this to continue. I think it's perfectly possible for muslims and Westerners to live together in close proximity, modulo a few minor hiccups, but you don't. What do you do with millions of people you find impossible to live with, but are already beside you?
The Serbian and Croatian terrorists who ethnically cleansed Bosnia and terrorised Kosovan civilians had a solution to this supposed 'incompatibility'. Anders Breivik had another solution. Both are utterly repugnant to the great mass of civilized mankind, and I fail to see any such solution that isn't. If you have no 'solution', then what did you have in mind when you said that "Muslims and the West just cannot live together"? You must have meant that they should be living apart somehow. What does that entail, exactly?
|
Northern Ireland2557 Posts
On July 24 2011 21:16 MaGariShun wrote:Show nested quote +
It's called a conscience and empathy. Empathy is an inherent trait in every animal because it increases our survivability. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world either, do you think we had no laws or morals before Christianity was invented? Please...
I begin to think a discussion with you is not possible, everything I write you just turn heads up and make it into something absurd. Where did I say those things? I simply stated the fact that our society is based on christian values, not that that are the right values, or the only ones, or original ones. I also don't believe empathy as you describe it "is an inherent trait in every animal". Sure, for people you can relate to it might be somewhat true, but it is not something you feel for everyone. Just because it is natural to group up and help each other out, that does not "generate" morals or ethics. You only group up with people you need, that give you something useful and you only need a certain number of people, not everyone. Show nested quote +
They had an idea about how the world worked, and they imposed it on everyone by spreading their propaganda. For years people have been oppressed just because of their conflicting views simply because religion is such a powerful manipulator. People were killed for suggesting that the Sun and everything in the universe did not revolve around the Earth. In Islamic countries, people are executed for apostasising. In Roman Catholic Christianity, being gay or using contraception is considered a sin.
Is this the fault of religion? It is the fault of people abusing it. Tell me where jesus or the bible justifies killing one of your own people. Tell me where they say contraception or being gay is a sin or that opposing the current view of the world is wrong.
I haven't turned anything on it's head and made it something absurd, religion is absurd so that is probably where you got that idea. Why is society being based on christian values being the correct ones? Also "original ones?" You realise humans, and society itself, existed for many years before the creation of Christianity? Science dictates that empathy is an inherent trait in all animals, co-operation increases our survivability and therefore any animals that do not co-operate or help members of their own species will be more likely to die and less likely to pass on their genes (more commonly known as natural selection.)
What does the fact that people are abusing religion have to do with whether religion is right or wrong? The truth is it doesn't matter if creationism IS how everything in the universe was created, what is more important is the fact that religion is designed to be based on faith, which is the belief of something in the lack of evidence. The fact that religion is immune to refinement and adjustment based on new discoveries makes it suboptimal compared to logic and reason.
If we did not have religion, then people would not be able to abuse it to control others to propagate their views such as patriarchy, execution of homosexuals, intolerance of other faiths and beliefs and censorship of the truth. Great men like Galileo were imprisoned because of religion which obstructed the development of science and our understanding of the world. What is RIGHT with that, I ask of you?"
"Science will win, because it works." - Stephen Hawking
As for biblical text on how homosexuality is wrong, here you go!
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
Seems clear as day that the bible advocates the execution of homosexuals
|
On July 24 2011 20:51 Weson wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 20:43 Huumy wrote:I don't think what the man did was right. Agression is never justified. Also I like to think people as individuals not as groups, so obviously I don't agree about muslims or christians as a whole being dangerous or evil. Also I haven't read his manifesto. Just making clear that I don't think what he did was anyway good or that I share his beliefs. I dont like where this is heading. He want people to read his shit. The goal of his acts were to get people to listen to him. Now people reads his manifesto, spreads links to it and even discussing it in a way that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He's winning right now... I don't agree with this. I think people who want to read it should be allowed. The worst thing to do is to bury it as something evil or tabu that no1 should know about. That makes the ideas and words of the manifesto that much stronger. In worst case it makes the manifesto to become some kinda underground go to book for the same minded people. This is only my opinion. Ofc you should be able to read it if you want. It's just that i dont like that it's getting promoted by some people. I dont think this is the place to discuss that. It's a lot of teenagers on TL and they can be easily affected by it.
And fortunately they can be easily affected out of it (and there's an educational system and hopefully reasonable parents for that).
And to react to the previous poster :
How exactly can he be winning ?
People discussed these things before him and will discuss them after him, his theories are nothing new. He's just a deranged freak who thinks his action will change things.
He's only winning if his actions let him influence the way you think about it all, and go into his direction because of it. Freaks like that should be studied like animals in the zoo, but my political opinions, whatever they are, will certainly not be based on the actions of one looney.
Let him rot in his Ikea cell, and I hope in 50 years he still gets mad everyday when he opens the newspaper and sees that everything he did was absolutely useless.
|
On July 24 2011 21:23 Dhalphir wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 20:55 Thorakh wrote:
Stop insulting me by saying I sympathize with him or saying I am an extremist when I find some truth in his views. The keyword here is some, not all. Stop trying to make it look like I think everything he said is true. The only truth I found was that some cultures are just not meant to be together. what the fuck is wrong with you
seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with you? more than ninety people are dead and you want to start a discussion like this? you have some fucking problems. get the fuck out.
|
|
|
On July 24 2011 21:26 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 20:55 Thorakh wrote:
I am truly disgusted by the attitude presented by some people in here. Do you not think I care deeply for those killed by this terrorist? Do you not think I was moved by tales from eyewitnesses? It is never right to kill innocent people, and these were children for god's sake, they wouldn't even have understand what he was talking about. This monster destroyed the lives of those who would have a full life ahead of them.
And how is this not the place to discuss his motivation? Is it not directly connected to this act of terror? I believe in a world where everyone lives together peacefully, a world dictated by love, reason and logic. Not by hate, fear and the inability to see other people's views. However, I don't cover my eyes from all the problems when cultures clash. Some cultures are only a little different from others thus can live together and some have directly opposing views and it would not be wise to mix them. No matter how much I wish we could all live together, it just doesn't work like that. Some cultures are just better off staying away from each other minding their own business.
You know what is the value I hold dearest? Live and let live.
Stop insulting me by saying I sympathize with him or saying I am an extremist when I find some truth in his views. The keyword here is some, not all. Stop trying to make it look like I think everything he said is true. The only truth I found was that some cultures are just not meant to be together. The Nazis were discredited after the world learned of the holocaust, because they took their belief that there should be no Jews in Europe to it's logical conclusion. Practically speaking, how else were the jews to leave? It was impossible to expel millions of them - the rest of the world wouldn't take them -, and even shooting them in mass graves was difficult, slow, and bad for troop morale. Hence the creation of the gas chambers. Since then, Naziism and antisemitism have been associated with the mechanised mass murder of millions of innocent people, because, to be fair to the Nazis, there was no other way of actually practicing their depraved racist creed. There are far rightwingers, and Breivik is one of them, who complains bitterly that the Nazis discredited HIS views. Now you have been saying, with a great deal of wounded self-righteous wounded pride, that Muslims and Westerners cannot coexist, and complaining bitterly that you're being unfairly associated with Breivik because of it. How exactly would you put your beliefs in practice and seperate these supposedly incompatible cultures then? If you wouldn't, then why even say that these cultures can't live together? We're talking about millions of people all over Europe whose social and cultural practices and deeply held religious beliefs are incompatible with yours. They're already living among us, and you're saying it's impossible for this to continue. I think it's perfectly possible for muslims and Westerners to live together in close proximity, modulo a few minor hiccups, but you don't. What do you do with millions of people you find impossible to live with, but are already beside you? The Serbian and Croatian terrorists who ethnically cleansed Bosnia and terrorised Kosovan civilians had a solution to this supposed 'incompatibility'. Anders Breivik had another solution. Both are utterly repugnant to the great mass of civilized mankind, and I fail to see any such solution that isn't. If you have no 'solution', then what did you have in mind when you said that "Muslims and the West just cannot live together"? You must have meant that they should be living apart somehow. What does that entail, exactly? This is a great post. Allow me to explain; the solution I had in mind would be that both Westerners and Muslims accept each others views and adjust their own views so that they can live together in peace. But this isn't happening at the moment and that's why I said what I said. I believe our unchanged cultures will clash when the amount of Muslims increases in Europe. So we both have to change our cultures.
So there you have it, my peaceful solution that does not involve comparing me to Nazis or Serbes.
seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with you? more than ninety people are dead and you want to start a discussion like this? you have some fucking problems. get the fuck out.
The only person with which something is wrong is you as you clearly cannot discuss in a civil manner.
|
On July 24 2011 21:19 legaton wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 24 2011 20:23 MaGariShun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 19:35 Eurekastreet wrote:On July 24 2011 18:47 WhiteDog wrote:On July 24 2011 18:41 shabby wrote:
He states in his manifesto that the main problem is that Islam by it's very foundation seeks to globalize and convert every man, woman and child. This is why - he says - we cannot coexist even if we wanted to, and he seeks alliance, long or temporary, with pretty much everybody else. He is fighting to preserve christian cultural values in the west. It is an extremely strange and horrendous way to get forth your message as a knight of the peace, and he will be condemned and sentenced for his monsterous acts. But people will read his book (heck I've already been reading for hours), and that's all it is about for him and the Knights Templars.
We take pride in our openness in Norway. We are vulnerable by choice and will continue to be so. Even the thoughts and opinions of a mass murderer must be allowed for debate, but in honesty I believe it will take a long time before any of the wounds have healed enough to bring it up. It's wrong for half islam : the most extremist islam view Europe as desecrated earth that all muslim should flee to return to the house of Islam (the middle east), it's the moderate Islam that view Europe as a earth of proselytism. And every religion seek to globalize... it's the same for christianism, yet with time they came to forget that idea and became a pretty peaceful organisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growthBased on those figures, I wouldn't say christians have stopped trying to globalize. They'might be losing market share in some parts of Europe but it's probably insignificant for their worldwide business, they'll try and fix that if they need to I am sure. I would not call it a peaceful religion either. Unlike islam, they separated from the state politics in many places so every time a shitstorm happens, they can claim "not guilty" but still their sheeps seem to be very enclined to carry their message adamantly. Yesterday's event by a self proclaimed templar peaceful ? The past couple of years pedophilia scandals peaceful ? Rwanda genocide (christians massacring each other) peaceful ? Bush's "God Bless America" before going to Irak peaceful ? And so on and so on. The older I get, the more I think we'd be better off without any religion at all. The difference is that the founder of christianity (jesus) was a man who strictly opposed violence and preached to love everyone, even your foes. Mohammed on the other hand was also a military leader and promoted violence against those who don't believe. So those applying violence in any form in the name of christianity completely act against the nature and fundamental beliefs of the religion and its founder (I'm well aware the historical person might have been different to what is in the bible), while in the Islam Mohammed's actions and certain parts of the Koran (ofc prone to different interpretations) justify violence in various circumstances. Also keep in mind that christianity, while also trying to expand, does this in a peaceful manner (at least that is the theory, of course over the time people have abused the religion for their needs), while even mohammed himself tried to expand the Islam with force. I am not saying Muslims are evil and christians are good, but there is a fundamental difference between those two religions in their stance to violence. PS: I am not a christian (well technically I am, but I don't believe), but I agree with christian principles. I also don't hate or dislike muslims because of their religion, they are still individuals who decide for themselves what they do. I don't like the religion itself tho This is certainly not the place for this discussion, but i just wanted to point how a-historical your explanation is. - You have a "essentialist" definition of the cores values of a religion. Christianism and Islam are defined entirely by their founders, disregarding any evolution of the dogma (a long history for both Islam and Christianism), any influence of their apparatus (the chuch) or the cross-influence of other social structures (like the relationship with the different local States). - You don't realize the "image" of the founders of this religions are social and historical construction. Jesus as a pacifist hippy is fairly recent representation of the founder of this religion. It coexists with others, way more severe. I lived for a long time in South America and i can mention a bunch of movements (Legionarios de Cristo in Mexico, Opus Dei in Chile and Spain, Schoenstatt for girls) that defended a whole different representation, with a more severe god that died for your sins and that asked you to live in constant mortification. Same thing for muslims, you have a huge range of approaches to religion, ranging from asceticism as dervish from the Sunni to blown-up crazy, with a huge majority of people that just doesn't care (like christians). - The stance on violence from both of these religions have changed over time and depends on you ask (by the way, Islam suffers from a PR problem as they don't have a centralized government as catholics do; therefore, you only have "opinions" from scholars. Nobody is going to hear what a crazy idiot as Monseigneur Lefebvre is going to say about how much he opposes to the Vatican II Council, because people realize how much of a marginal he is and you know the Pope is the official position of the church, but it doesn't work that way with Islam). Mainstream religion has abandon violence a long time ago. Their stance in violence is fundamentally the same. - Religion is always a selective procedure, picking and emphasizing some stuff and forgetting some other. Being so contradictory is one of their strength as it makes religion a malleable tool. You can have both ultra conservative catholics and theologians of liberation under the same church. Same thing for Islam. It's just how religion works. - It becomes intellectually dishonest and politically poisonous when you describe religions as a predefined set of unalterable values, and when you imply that they are "essentially" in contradiction.
a)Nice post
b)Interesting views and examples
c)Not sure Monseigneur Lefebvre is known outside of France (and Belgium ;d)
d)We're going off-topic so I'll end it here.
|
On July 24 2011 18:03 Sokalo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 16:41 NEWater wrote:
Right now the onus lies on the US to keep an eye on their own right-wing lunatic groups. Everyone knows that they have too damn many extremist conservative Christian "militia" groups who will be all too eager to copycat their compatriot in Norway. Outside of...wait...I honestly don't know of any "extremist" or "militia" Christian groups in the US that operate anywhere outside of mainstream politics. The Tea Party is essentially a hearty chunk of the Republican party. The Klan died out a long time ago. The Neo-Nazis hang out in Idaho and do whatever it is they do. I'm curious what all these groups are that everyone knows about.
Well, let's see..
American Front
Aryan Nations
Council of Conservative Citizens
Creativity Movement
Elohim City
Greater Ministries International
Hammerskin Nation
Institute for Historical Review
League of American Patriots
Little Shell Pembina Band
Militia of Montana
National Alliance
National Socialist Movement
Nazi Low Riders
New Black Panther Party for Self-Defence
Volksfront
None of these groups need to operate in mainstream politics in order to cause the sort of horrific harm that one single man achieved in Norway. Even so, it's also widely-known that the Tea Party is heavily infiltrated by white supremacists who constantly urge the Tea Party leaders to hew towards their end of their ideology.
|
|
|
On July 24 2011 21:19 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 21:16 iDoMiNaTe2.0 wrote:On July 24 2011 20:46 Derez wrote:On July 24 2011 20:13 Weson wrote:
I dont like where this is heading. He want people to read his shit. The goal of his acts were to get people to listen to him. Now people reads his manifesto, spreads links to it and even discussing it in a way that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He's winning right now... He isn't winning at anything, except at being in prison for the rest of his life. His 'manifesto' lost all it's credibility the moment he shot at kids. People should read it, especially those on the (far-)right side of politics. It's a perfect example of how any ideology can be perverted up to a point where the logical outcome is killing civilians. If you have a sick enough mind, you get to be a terrorist for whatever cause you believe in: islam, christianity, anarchism, socialism, you name it. If anything these attacks should have people to reconsider their perspectives and their views of eachother. If a person from a certain group performs a terrorist act, we implicitly place some of the guilt on the entire group. Turns out every group has it's demons. You do know Norway hardest sentence is 21 years in prison right? Most likely this guy in insane in some way and will prolly be taken into psychiatric care for longer than 21 years, either way it's clear they can't release him, ever. If he is found guilty he will never see daylight again.
Read the god damned op. This has been up so many times! He will most likely never be free again.
The maximum jail time for murder is 21 years.
However, you can be put into what we call "Forvaring".
Forvaring is basically the same as prison, but instead of being there as your punishment, you are deemed to dangerous to be put back into society.
This sentence can be up to 21 years.
When the sentence is almost up, the persons behavior and current situation will be reaccessed, and if he is deemed fit to go back to society, he will be let into society. If he is deemed unfit, he can be put into another 5 years of Forvaring. This process repeats until the person is either let back into society, or he dies.
|
You do know Norway hardest sentence is 21 years in prison right?
You do know that reading the OP is a good thing? It can be extended indefinitely and most assuredly will. No way in hell he is getting back out on the streets anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
