Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. Vega on February 11, 2015, 10:07:07 am
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/reports-3-young-muslims-slain-in-chapel-hill-shooting-n-c-man-charged/
The police are speculating Hicks may have murdered them in a dispute over parking, but his facebook page is also loaded with anti-Islam (and anti-Christian) posts, including this quote:
People say nothing can solve the Middle East problem, not mediation, not arms, not financial aid. I say there is something. Atheism.
Hmmm. I suspect that the term "militant atheism" is about to take on a whole new meaning. And I can't wait to see demands for moderate atheists to condemn the attacks (I know Dawkins has).
-
I bet it's got nothing to do with any of that.
If three Christians or three atheists were murdered or pretty much three anything, nobody would be jumping down that rabbit hole, at the very least so quickly.
Are we really going to get paranoid about someone saying atheism could solve the problem in the Middle East? Really? Seriously?
I could at least entertain the idea if he'd said nukes could solve the problem in the middle east, but even that is something people just throw around without meaning it.
It's entirely possible someone can murder three people and it have nothing to do with religion.
I'm not saying the idea this could have been religiously motivated should be discarded, not at all, but this kind of immediate sensationalist conclusion jump, no. Wait. Wait and see how the investigation goes. Whatever the motivation, he killed three people. He's 46 years old. He'll be lucky if he manages to avoid dying in prison.
-
People say nothing can solve the Middle East problem, not mediation, not arms, not financial aid. I say there is something. Atheism.
The guy has absolutely no idea what the problems in the Middle-East are about.
Anyway, yet another example that extremism isn't the fault of religion.
-
Was just about to post this.
Thus far the police are saying it appeared to be an escalation of a long standing mundane dispute.
from all the reports sounds like they were really awesome people :/
-
The shooting itself seems a fairly mundane affair. It seems like a fairly standard case of a short-tempered idiot losing his patience and neglecting to involve the often-underused organ known as a brain. It's nothing new, the entire world has idiots would would beat someone to death/shoot someone over a parking spot, a bottle of vodka or other similarly mundane things. The fact that thinking should precede action, not the other way around, never occurs to annoyingly many people, sometimes with tragic results. I have to say, Hicks lived up to his name.
What is interesting is how other people react to it. It seems to me that accusations of "hate crimes" are much more common than actual hate crimes. If the victims were black, he'd be accused of racism, nevermind that he's likely just a petty idiot with a gun and a grudge against those particular people. Similarly, we wouldn't have had this thread if they weren't Muslims - or indeed, hardly anyone outside the local community would've heard of it. It's just that hate crimes sell, apparently.
-
What is interesting is how other people react to it. It seems to me that accusations of "hate crimes" are much more common than actual hate crimes. If the victims were black, he'd be accused of racism, nevermind that he's likely just a petty idiot with a gun and a grudge against those particular people. Similarly, we wouldn't have had this thread if they weren't Muslims - or indeed, hardly anyone outside the local community would've heard of it. It's just that hate crimes sell, apparently.
Exactly. It bugs me. It's almost like people think there's no other possible reason someone could kill these people besides something racially motivated, when more often than not it has nothing to do with it. Compare to if it's the other way around, there's usually a solid reason for the speculation if it's a white person killed by a black person with a speculation of racial motive. That should be applied across the board.
On a lighter note, the Hicks thing, when I read Vega's post the first time, I thought he was saying they were killed by a bunch of hillbillies.
-
I suspect that the term "militant atheism" is about to take on a whole new meaning.
It may, but I agree with Lorric here. Isn't it too soon to attribute militant atheism as the prime motive here? Perhaps inference is warranted here, IDK I have to look into it deeper, but there are no fatwas against muslims in Atheism Holy Books, and so I'm kinda meh about it.
-
He's not referring to the killing itself (which, in itself, seems to have had nothing to do with race nor religion), but to comments people made after the fact. And plenty of them are very much militant *insert religion here*. And yes, "Atheism" in that context is very much a religion. Being religious is not directly correlated to believing in any divine being, most (but not all) religions require you to believe in one or several, but one can believe without being a member of religion. A small number of religions (certain forms of Buddhism, for instance) can also do without a supreme being that is to be believed in. There's a brand of Atheism that is essentially a religion based on non-existence of God (usually believing in "Science" instead). They have fanatics, militants and preachers, too.
There's also atheism, which is a more general term simply denoting lack of belief in a supreme being. But nobody cares about this definition anymore.
On a lighter note, the Hicks thing, when I read Vega's post the first time, I thought he was saying they were killed by a bunch of hillbillies.
Yeah, my first thought was like this, too. :) There was just one "hillbilly", thought appropriately named and likely having all the necessary traits (aside from actually living in the South). Apart from that, the story sounds like something you'd expect to happen "down south". Sadly, this mentality is common through the world. You can find plenty of people like that wherever you go (though in Europe, they tend to bludgeon you with farm implements or empty alcohol bottles, rather than shoot).
-
What this actually makes me think of is Matthew Shepard. His killers I believe claimed at the time (they certainly did later) that it was just a robbery that became a murder. Nobody bought that one. I'm not buying this one either. Maybe it was a parking dispute that finally set him off, but c'mon guys, he'd made his feelings on Muslims very clear prior to shooting 3 of them. That's one hell of a correlation to not be causation.
-
Even if it was militant atheism, this would be the very first time I have heard of an atheist killing religious people because of it. Even if it wasn't the first time, there is no pattern of this coming from atheists. There is no track record. That's as ridiculous as if a vegetarian killed someone for eating meat, or if someone straight edge killed someone for drinking or taking drugs. Does the view on those things change just because of a single lunatic?
What this actually makes me think of is Matthew Shepard. His killers I believe claimed at the time (they certainly did later) that it was just a robbery that became a murder. Nobody bought that one. I'm not buying this one either. Maybe it was a parking dispute that finally set him off, but c'mon guys, he'd made his feelings on Muslims very clear prior to this. That's one hell of a correlation to not be causation.
Come on, the worst they could cherry pick was atheism could solve the problem in the middle east? You can hear worse than that in my house (not from me.)
-
http://weaselzippers.us/213787-3-muslim-students-shot-to-death-in-chapel-hill-by-man-who-described-himself-as-militant-atheist/
I'm not going to put too much stock in calling yourself a militant atheist - I don't bat an eyelash at being called a militant feminist - but three people over a parking space? I'm just not buying it with that elephant in the room.
-
Remember the guy who shot someone in the cinema that was on here a few months ago? That was less than this even if it was just a single incident, and it was something that was ongoing, allowing rage to build up.
-
I am using all evidence available to me. I'm not going to go "let's just ignore this stuff and try to come up with an explanation without it so we can dismiss having to consider it."
-
I am using all evidence available to me. I'm not going to go "let's just ignore this stuff and try to come up with an explanation without it so we can dismiss having to consider it."
I'm not doing that.
I'm trying to show you people can and do kill over stupid little things quite frequently. It happens here in the UK, so in the US it's all too easy with guns all over the place.
I think the militant atheist thing should be looked into as well, but I think the evidence way too flimsy for people to be going on a conclusion jump.
-
It happens everywhere. In US, guns make it easier. In Poland (and Russia) vodka makes it quicker to happen and is almost always involved. In fact, it's so universal that I can tell a lot about Hicks without even meeting him (in fact, enough not to ever want to meet him). I can keep away from this kind of scum, so I do, but this is not always that easy. They're usually lower class (if one of them somehow gets higher than that, you get the worst kind of noveau riche), but so are many nice people who don't have an option of "just move out of this crappy district".
Remember the guy who shot someone in the cinema that was on here a few months ago? That was less than this even if it was just a single incident, and it was something that was ongoing, allowing rage to build up.
This is likely exactly the same reaction. Yes, three people because of a parking space. I've seen local news reported on people did worse (or tried to) for equally petty reasons. He likely was in the wrong, or otherwise unable to have this dispute resolved in his favor. It likely dragged on for quite long, too. This is something akin to beating up one's husband because he leaves the toilet seat up. Weak, unintelligent people often resort to violence when they have a problem and can't think of a way to solve it (not only against humans, this kind of reaction can also manifest as swearing and hitting a defective appliance that fails to work). This also goes hand in hand with acting on emotions instead of thinking.
He could hate Muslims, Blacks, immigrants, everyone different from him. He probably does, since lack of tolerance common to this kind of people. But it's unlikely this was a hate crime, though it might have contributed to his frustration and accelerated it a bit. He hated those people in general, and in a more "personal" way than blanket hate for entire ethnic groups. Also, it's quite likely that this dispute contributed to his hatred of Muslims as well - it's common for anger at specific members of a group to be transferred to the group in general (TBH, many people are guilty of that one, not only uneducated louts).
-
What this actually makes me think of is Matthew Shepard. His killers I believe claimed at the time (they certainly did later) that it was just a robbery that became a murder. Nobody bought that one. I'm not buying this one either. Maybe it was a parking dispute that finally set him off, but c'mon guys, he'd made his feelings on Muslims very clear prior to shooting 3 of them. That's one hell of a correlation to not be causation.
You mean the comments about where he said that Muslims are all bad people and need to die? that's what he said right, your not just misrepresenting him because that's what you think and you want the racist punished, right? honestly, I'm at work and I haven't had a chance to read much on the details here, but he didn't like religion, he thought religion was bad, that didn't mean he hated people who were religious. you are jumping into a lynch mob. If you want to jump to conclusions here fine, but this is odd. you don't hear about Atheists killing people because they are religious very often. As eager as you may be to have that happen so you can jump to the defense of a vulnerable minority and use it as a tool to censor people you disagree with it's not something we have seen much up until now. Yeah, I have my own confirmation bias operating here too, but maybe you should take your own advice and wait to see what evidence comes forth. If the situation were reversed how would you be reacting? Show me how this is done.
-
"Atheism" in that context is very much a religion.
<semantics>under no context is atheism a religion</semantics>
if you want to argue make a separate thread
-
More than likely this guy is just an asshole. Assholes are killing people everyday all over the world, if the victims weren't Muslim and the assailant wasn't an internet troll this wouldn't be getting any more traction than any other triple homicide. Unless bands of atheists start holding murder rallies and burning Darwin Fish effigies in front of peoples' houses I think its safe to assume the atheism angle is nothing more than a media sound bite.
-
As eager as you may be to have that happen so you can jump to the defense of a vulnerable minority and use it as a tool to censor people you disagree with it's not something we have seen much up until now.
If you want to turn this thread into accusations about how I'm oppressing you, don't post in it. For everyone's sake.
And you'll notice I'm the only one in the thread pushing the hate crime angle. Somehow I'm the one trying to censor YOU.
-
**** you, atheists are as much an vulnerable minority as Muslims. you want to turn this into a thread about how atheists are just obviously hate murders maybe it's you who should not be posting.
-
**** you, atheists are as much an vulnerable minority as Muslims. you want to turn this into a thread about how militant atheists are just obviously hate murders maybe it's you who should not be posting.
I'm suggesting it's a strong possibility that these murders were hate crimes. I'm not the one shouting **** yous at people whose opinions I don't like. Is this your idea of a free exchange of ideas?
-
You compared atheists the the Mathew Shepard killers, I think a "**** you" is is more than warranted.
-
You compared atheists the the Mathew Shepard killers, I think a "**** you" is is more than warranted.
I compared a killer who happened to be an atheist to the Matthew Shepard killers, so I could point out a similarity in the speculation over their motives, which I find dubious in both cases. Reading comprehension!
-
BTW, I'm an atheist. I have been since I was 12. My father is a Methodist minister who does not approve of my beliefs. I am fully aware of what atheists in america go through (and that it's not in the same multiverse as what American Muslims go through). I'm just not a good enough internet atheist, I guess. I'm not dogmatically pure enough.
-
you have a knack for communication.
you know what, leaving the thread for the evening.
-
Moving on.
This is all going to hinge on what the cops find on the guy's computer.
-
Atheism can solve problems xD?
ukhm... Soviet Union... ukhm...
-
Fwiw, killing people over parking spaces is not something I find rare. I've heard ridiculous stories of the same kind here in Portugal as well, where even finding guns is something way more difficult. Some people are just too violent over silly things. This story seems to me as a building up of hatred from one guy with axes to grind against these people, then one day a heated discussion over another ridiculous thing made the guy tick. I can easily admit that the fact these people were Muslims and acted the part possibly contributed to his action. It's a lot easier to hate those we deem different and on the wrong, foreigners, outsiders.
I think the whole atheist hatred angle is getting bad rap mostly because it's one singular incident. One data point doesn't a trend make.
-
Pretty much this. It's the first time I've heard of an atheist hick (pun intended), but it's not inconceivable they exist. This particular incident, however, had nothing to do with him being an atheist and everything to do with him being a hick. Also, he might have hated religious people in general. And even if he did hate Muslims more, because of both his conflict and the recent news (opinions held by those types tend to be shaped by whatever was on TV), I don't think this tragedy wouldn't have happened if the victims were of any different race or religion (at most, it would have happened sooner or later, likely not by much).
Atheism can solve problems xD?
ukhm... Soviet Union... ukhm...
Well, it didn't have problems with religion... :) Actually, Soviet Union is an example where atheism came in very handy. Not for people, but for government. Since atheism was state-mandated, this means separation of church and state was about as high as it possibly could be. Aside from very despotic periods where it was actually persecuted (but then, it wasn't the only thing persecuted in those times...), Soviet government mostly ignored religion and left churches to on their own. Which is exactly how a government should handle those things. I wouldn't say its atheism fixed anything, but it certainly contributed little to its problems (though that is saying like tossing a salt shaker overboard contributed little to the salination level of the Dead Sea... :) ).
"Atheism" in that context is very much a religion.
<semantics>under no context is atheism a religion</semantics>
if you want to argue make a separate thread
Did you notice the quotes and the capital letter? :) It should've tipped you off, I mean "Atheism", not atheism. The former is, as the quotes helpfully indicated, not a correct usage of the word. Not that it stops people from using it that way (but then again, it's usually not the only thing they miss the point of).
-
I meant that there were times where a red a**hole called Josif Djugashvili created a different kind of extremism in terms of religion. All types of religions were persecuted equally. In that matter atheism did not solve the problem of violence because it was the reason of it.
To the point. None ideology can keep relations between people peaceful. What does is the rational and reasonable thinking which some ideologies lack of :P
-
I meant that there were times where a red a**hole called Josif Djugashvili created a different kind of extremism in terms of religion. All types of religions were persecuted equally. In that matter atheism did not solve the problem of violence because it was the reason of it.
To the point. None ideology can keep relations between people peaceful. What does is the rational and reasonable thinking which some ideologies lack of :P
Atheism in Soviet Union was Lenin's idea, not his. Also, in Stalin's case atheism was not the reason for the violence, but merely yet another excuse. Here, it was about religious leaders having a degree of power over their subjects. Stalin, of course, would have none of that. His extremism went way beyond religion and extended to anybody who dared to disagree with him. Besides, in his times, the atheism was actually pretty arguable - one could interpret what he did with both himself and Lenin (who must've been spinning like a top in that mausoleum of his...) as an apotheosis of sorts. There's a reason why he (and many others) is said to have had a "cult of personality". It's certainly an interesting approach - one could even call Soviet Union (or indeed, any dictatorship with a similarly deified leader) of that time a theocracy on that basis. It is certainly possible to draw many parallels between dictatorships and theocracies.
Also, atheism is merely a principle (hence Bobbeau's response on the proper usage of the world) or an idea that there is no God. By itself, it's really not an ideology, but may form a part of one (indeed, the idea itself is pretty old, in Europe it dates back to Enlightment period, I think, and other civilizations might've had godless philosophies before that). It is a useful principle, certainly closer to experimental results than the alternatives, but its main advantage is denying people a "simple" answer to basic questions about the universe (answering "God made it so" is just an elaborate rephrasing of "Just coz'"), thus forcing them to think it through (this is why it's more compatible with Eastern religions - Western ones preferred ordinary people not to think much, or at least not about difficult questions). Which does not help those to who such questions never occur or who don't care about the answers (then again, thinking is usually not the forte of such people). For a state, it's also useful in that it allows it to disregard religious issues, and as such not only treat all religious people equally, but also separates all clerical organizations from the state, which is a very desirable thing if you're dealing with a multicultural state.
-
"People say nothing can solve the Middle East problem, not mediation, not arms, not financial aid. I say there is something. Atheism."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement, and certainly there is some truth in it. Any average Joe could have posted a comment like this, nothing abnormal here.
I have yet to see any good reason why atheism should have anything to do with these murders. Just because they were muslims does not mean this was a hate crime at all.
-
There's plenty wrong with that statement. The vast majority of the Middle-East's problems are political, and they wouldn't just disappear if everyone suddenly accepted that God wasn't real. Religion is used by relatively intelligent people to get more simple-minded or desperate people to do as they say. It's a tool, not the problem itself.
Hell, you only need to look at the Internet to see that extremism and douchebaggery doesn't need religion to exist.
-
found an archive of the guy's facebook page
https://archive.today/pWYYn
-
Let's all remember to keep it civil when discussing such contentious real-world news, particularly when strong opinions are involved.
This is not directed at anyone in particular; no posts have been reported and no sanctions are being taken.
Carry on.
-
There's plenty wrong with that statement. The vast majority of the Middle-East's problems are political, and they wouldn't just disappear if everyone suddenly accepted that God wasn't real. Religion is used by relatively intelligent people to get more simple-minded or desperate people to do as they say. It's a tool, not the problem itself.
Hell, you only need to look at the Internet to see that extremism and douchebaggery doesn't need religion to exist.
That means he doesn't grasp the complexity of the situation, not that he hates the religious. He probably thinks with everyone believing the same thing everything will magically sort itself out, but as you and I know, it wouldn't.
I think you probably know this though. I'm just saying.
-
found an archive of the guy's facebook page
https://archive.today/pWYYn
I've read that first page. This is normal. It's actually tamer than I expected it to be. The cherry picked quote isn't even his own words, it's a quote from someone else. There is nothing in there at all I would remotely describe as hateful. Not even close.
This one I find more interesting:
"It is official, I am a grumpy old man. I now am sure of this, as when I saw a couple having sex in their vehicle in my parking lot a little bit ago instead of just ignoring it I called Chapel Hills finest on them."
-
I read it too, there is a lot of atheism themed posts but nothing abnormal or extreme. There is a picture of a gun.
-
There's plenty wrong with that statement. The vast majority of the Middle-East's problems are political, and they wouldn't just disappear if everyone suddenly accepted that God wasn't real. Religion is used by relatively intelligent people to get more simple-minded or desperate people to do as they say. It's a tool, not the problem itself.
Hell, you only need to look at the Internet to see that extremism and douchebaggery doesn't need religion to exist.
I totally disagree with this sentiment. I cannot see something like ISIS existing without divine justification. People will cling to every single difference between "tribes" to justify any atrocity, but religion is a real show stopper here. If one had a magic wand and made it so that religion suddenly disappeared from that land, I ****ing would in a heartbeat, I think that would be the single greatest "divine intervention" that could happen there. The reason why this is silly is different. It's not atheism that is going to make this mess disappear, it's the exact other way, this mess will have to sort itself out through decades and then atheism will be able to prosper.
-
...nothing abnormal or extreme. There is a picture of a gun.
:|
...you sure about that first part?
-
There's plenty wrong with that statement. The vast majority of the Middle-East's problems are political, and they wouldn't just disappear if everyone suddenly accepted that God wasn't real. Religion is used by relatively intelligent people to get more simple-minded or desperate people to do as they say. It's a tool, not the problem itself.
Hell, you only need to look at the Internet to see that extremism and douchebaggery doesn't need religion to exist.
I totally disagree with this sentiment. I cannot see something like ISIS existing without divine justification. People will cling to every single difference between "tribes" to justify any atrocity, but religion is a real show stopper here. If one had a magic wand and made it so that religion suddenly disappeared from that land, I ****ing would in a heartbeat, I think that would be the single greatest "divine intervention" that could happen there. The reason why this is silly is different. It's not atheism that is going to make this mess disappear, it's the exact other way, this mess will have to sort itself out through decades and then atheism will be able to prosper.
Except that things like ISIS have happened before without religious motivation. Probably the single best example I can think of is the Russian revolution and civil war. The way ISIS is fighting its war is very similar to the way the Bolsheviks fought theirs. The biggest difference is that Lenin was really smart strategically, and al-Baghdadi... isn't.
ISIS is nothing new.
-
...nothing abnormal or extreme. There is a picture of a gun.
:|
...you sure about that first part?
Are you talking about the gun? We were looking at the atheist stuff. But even so, that's American gun culture. Perfectly normal in America, though it still creeps me out even though I've become more desensitised to it since I come from a culture which basically wants nothing to do with guns and wholeheartedly agree with that. It's creepy to me to see a culture regard guns with fondness. As something to show off and be proud of.
-
...nothing abnormal or extreme. There is a picture of a gun.
:|
...you sure about that first part?
A picture of a gun, in a society with legal and socially accepted gun ownership, and it was a neutral picture of a gun being weighted, with no threatening message. So yeah, nothing abnormal or extreme.
-
Except that things like ISIS have happened before without religious motivation. Probably the single best example I can think of is the Russian revolution and civil war. The way ISIS is fighting its war is very similar to the way the Bolsheviks fought theirs. The biggest difference is that Lenin was really smart strategically, and al-Baghdadi... isn't.
ISIS is nothing new.
Ideologies and beliefs are important. Be it communism or islam. Sometimes they are merely justifications for violence that would happen anyway, but sometimes they are the direct root cause of it. I disagree with this notion that somehow it is all political and religion has nothing to do with it.
If the middle east magically turned atheist by tomorrow, it would not be perfect but there would be a significant reduction in violence. For a region plagued by religious extremism, that much is clear.
-
Except that things like ISIS have happened before without religious motivation. Probably the single best example I can think of is the Russian revolution and civil war. The way ISIS is fighting its war is very similar to the way the Bolsheviks fought theirs. The biggest difference is that Lenin was really smart strategically, and al-Baghdadi... isn't.
ISIS is nothing new.
ISIS is "nothing new", but so isn't religion... No one is claiming that violence would suddenly disappear if religion disappeared. At least in this board. If your peeve is about saying that throwing out religion would not solve everything, well then I'll be by your side absolutely. However, to ignore the role of Wahhabism, its version that established current Saudi Arabia rule, its export to the rest of the Middle East, like a plague every time any region of it is in anarchic trouble. This radicalization is not new, but it has been steadily growing through the last 100 years in that area and is now being able to even start to create their own "state".
I don't think bolshevik communism as an ideology was that good for the russians, nor do I think that Wahabbism as understood by ISIS is going to be good for that ME region.
-
My point is that if you removed religion completely and everyone in the Middle-East was suddenly an atheist, you might get a temporary peace. Until some other smart, educated person realizes that all these desperate people with nothing to lose and looking for revenge or a purpose or whatever presents a ripe opportunity to expand his power and finds an ideology that'll gain traction. In the Middle-East right now, that's radical Islam. In Russia, it was Marxism. In a Middle-East without religion? I don't know, but someone would find something.
Radical Islam isn't the cause of the Middle-East going to ****, it's a result of it.
Poor people with nothing to lose are easily swayed by someone who can convince them he can lead them to something better. You don't need divine justification for that. Like I said, the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War are a perfect example of a similarly brutal secular movement (and it wasn't limited to just the Bolsheviks).
I don't think bolshevik communism as an ideology was that good for the russians, nor do I think that Wahabbism as understood by ISIS is going to be good for that ME region.
I have no idea why you think that's what I'm saying. I made no moral judgments here.
-
I didn't.
-
Holy **** this is practically in my back yard.
-
trying to separate Islam from politics in the mideast is like trying to separate wetness from water.
-
Or Christianity from politics in the US (and in Poland, too), for that matter. :) That said, life in the Middle East sucks unless you're an oil sheik. That always leads to various nuts coming out of the woodwork and telling people that it would not suck, if it wasn't for something they just happen to detest. Extremism leads to immediate and tangible change (not necessarily for the better), so people tend to flock to such nuts, especially if their experiences with "moderates" were along the lines of "everything stays the same, no matter what we promise" (as it's often the case when corruption runs rampant). It could be about religion, race, ethnicity, social status, anything that allows one to single out a group and say "Your life sucks because of THEM!" prompting a crusade against that group. Taking away religion could, at most, lead to increased suicide rates, because the only hope the poorest people out there have in their lives might often be in religion. People need hope in their lives. It's understandable that they come towards those who offer it, especially if they have none by themselves. And life in the Middle East is pretty hopeless, with survival often hinging on the village well not running dry and harvest being good enough to survive for a little longer.
-
I have a few thoughts.
First, I'm not going to make this about religion or lack thereof until there is some actual evidence that suggests it is. The fact that he is a "militant atheist" and the victims were all Muslims isn't a compelling reason to jump to hate crime.
I am also dismayed by the number of progressives harkening to the Charlie Hebdo reaction and calling on all atheists to denounce these as a parallel to the number of people who called on all Muslims to denounce the Charlie Hebdo massacre. I realize they are doing this to illustrate a point, but why the hell are we lowering ourselves to the level of people who are willing to brand an entire religion with the brush to make this point?
Among all the politics, three innocent people are dead. We should care because they were people and they were murdered. All other concerns are playing politics at this point. If it turns out that the religion of the victims was a motivating factor, then charges as a hate crime are appropriate.
-
We don't think they actually owe a group apology. It's their own hypocrisy that now compels them to make it.
Although they (by which I mean the NA's) might also want to think about randomly antagonizing the Islamophobes who are jumping on the atheist bandwagon due to their attacks on Islam. That might help. The accusations that the atheist movement is being hijacked by old colonial jingoism are only going to increase.
-
Although they (by which I mean the NA's) might also want to think about randomly antagonizing the Islamophobes who are jumping on the atheist bandwagon due to their attacks on Islam. That might help.
What's an NA?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you think they should start antagonising, or they're already antagonising and should stop?
-
We don't think they actually owe a group apology. It's their own hypocrisy that now compels them to make it.
Ridiculous. Here, have some Sam Harris telling you what's really going on regarding these shootings:https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/sam-harris-on-the-chapel-hill-murders/
Also, interesting to know that the murderer is actually someone who professed more respect towards Muslims than Christians, for he as someone belonging to a minority himself could relate to the persecution of them. Funny that isn't it. But lets not stop righteous campaigns against those bad atheists with things like facts or proper research into these matters, that would be a waste of a good time for slandering.
I won't forget the incredible rethoric advanced against atheists in this affair. The more I know the more disgusted I become.
-
We don't think they actually owe a group apology. It's their own hypocrisy that now compels them to make it.
Ridiculous. Here, have some Sam Harris telling you what's really going on regarding these shootings:https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/sam-harris-on-the-chapel-hill-murders/
Also, interesting to know that the murderer is actually someone who professed more respect towards Muslims than Christians, for he as someone belonging to a minority himself could relate to the persecution of them. Funny that isn't it. But lets not stop righteous campaigns against those bad atheists with things like facts or proper research into these matters, that would be a waste of a good time for slandering.
I won't forget the incredible rethoric advanced against atheists in this affair. The more I know the more disgusted I become.
I'm disgusted and I'm not even an atheist. It seems any group you name, there's a pack of enemies waiting for just one member to go off the rails so they can have a media feeding frenzy. Let no crisis go to waste, right?
-
Politics. It's everywhere. We need to get the politics out of everything not politics. And then get the politics out of politics, as well. :ick:
-
Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them in their own confusion.
-
Politics. It's everywhere. We need to get the politics out of everything not politics. And then get the politics out of politics, as well. :ick:
2nded.