I’ve read a number of headlines that essentially frames it this way: “….the killing of 3 MUSLIM students”. By reading just the headlines before the story, the impression given to me is that this must be a case of anti-Muslim bigotry and a “hate crime” (I hate that term). As Retire pointed out to me a while back, supported by Pew research, anti-Semitism remains a larger problem than anti-Muslim bigotry.
After reading the actual known facts, it’s evident that those headlines are pushing a perspective and an agenda. Meanwhile, commenters whose own bias leads them to believe that this was a case of anti-Muslim prejudice and hatred, are whining about American media hypocrisy, drawing moral equivalency between this and Hebdo, blaming “Faux” news and “hate radio”; calling this a case of “Christian terrorism” and blaming mainstream media for not condemning it as such.
Dean Obeidallah of the Daily Beast writes a highly inflammatory, irresponsible piece. He’s essentially become the religious equivalent of an Al Sharpton race hustler. It is biased, agenda-driven trash. After patting himself on the back for being one of those “Muslim leaders” invited to meet with President Obama at the White House a week ago and warning the president of rising anti-Muslim bigotry, Obeidallah writes:
Yes, I know that we can’t be certain at this moment exactly why the gunman murdered three Muslim-American students—Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23; Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19—in cold blood. And true, the local police have noted that its “preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking.”
But I doubt very much that anti-Muslim hate didn’t play some role in this attack.
Why not? Because this is a writer and activist with a political agenda. He wants this to be a case of religiously-motivated anti-Islam bigotry.
After offering personal bias as “evidence” for this being a “hate crime”, mostly by relying on the personal bias of “friends and family” members, Obeidallah then admits,
As of now, we have no public statements from Hicks as to his motivation for the murders, although his wife insists it had nothing to do with the victims’ religion. Hicks’s Facebook page sheds a little light but it also paints a complex picture of the man. Hicks wrote, “Some call me a gun toting Liberal, others call me an open-minded Conservative.” He was apparently a supporter of gay marriage and a fan of certain progressive organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
He was also an avowed atheist and had expressed contempt for all faiths, including Islam. Hicks had posted passages from famed atheist Richard Dawkins and “liked” Sam Harris’s Facebook page, both of which have spewed hateful comments about Islam. Dawkins has condemned the attack on Twitter.
The investigation will continue into this tragedy that ended the lives of three young Muslim Americans. I can’t even imagine the heartbreak the parents feel, especially the father who lost two young daughters on the same day. And while part of me would prefer to wish that this was really a dispute over a parking space, I have little doubt that these three young people would be alive today if they were any other faith than Muslim.
Here’s what Hicks’ wife had to say:
“This incident had nothing to do with religion or the victims’ faith but was related to a longstanding parking dispute that my husband had with the neighbors,” she told reporters in front of her home.
She described Hicks as a champion of individual rights in many areas, including race and same-sex marriage, and thinks that “everyone is equal.”
Later Wednesday, she issued another statement, saying she’s divorcing her husband.
Her attorney, Robert Maitland, said there had been a dispute with the homeowners’ association over parking. Neighbors explained that each unit has one reserved space but that parking can be confusing.
“It is a simple matter that has nothing to do with the religious faith of the victims,” Maitland said. “It is a mundane issue of this man being frustrated day in and day out, and unfortunately, these victims were there at the wrong time at the wrong place.”
Where is the evidence that Hicks was driven to do his dirty deed by hate radio and Fox News?
One of the links Obeidallah provides in his selective reading:
Back in January 2011, Hicks commented on the shooting of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords, saying:
I guess after the horrible tragedy early this week in Arizona, all Glock pistols will officially be labeled “assault weapons.” While I never cared for Glocks personally, it stinks that anyone would blame a firearm rather than the operator of such firearm for such a terrible act. I think I’ll start blaming McDonalds for my weight problem, Christianity for the Ku Klux Klan, and Islam for terrorism.
Here is the post:
In the context of the sarcasm at the end, I’d say he isn’t putting blame on McDonalds for his weight problem, Christianity for the KKK; nor Islam for “terrorism”.
Hicks supported gay rights and was an avowed atheist. If you mine his Facebook page, you’ll be hard-pressed to find that he fits the profile of a Fox-news, talk radio-loving Islamaphobic-driven conservative hate-monger.
Why is it so difficult to not accept things at face-value, and believe that this was simply a case of parking-rage? People in America are murdered each day by stranger stuff.
I don’t dispell the possibility that Hicks could have been motivated by anti-Islamic sentiments. I just haven’t seen evidence that points to this as being the case. If anything, I see evidence that points to the contrary.
Condolences to the victims and their family affected by this tragic murder. Let’s hope they are not further victimized by agenda-driven, wrongful propaganda.
*Update* 2-13-2015 00:18
Update 2-16-2015 13:38
He seems to have a bee in his bonnet over parking> This is a second post I’ve seen where he makes mention of something like this:
Here’s his other post, from last month:
There’s road rage. And then there is apparently parking rage.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Hicks was a Rachel Maddow fan. Clearly, it’s her fault.
Another feel good product of the PC society in which we live.
The baiters don’t need any. They didn’t have any with the Martin and Brown shootings but still made (and continue to make) the accusations. In the mind of the race and religious baiters out there, their wishful thinking outweighs facts. And it doesn’t stop with the race and religious baiters. There was ZERO evidence that Palin or any other conservative had anything to do with the Giffords’ shooting but the usual crowd was quick to jump on that bandwagon as well. As a matter of fact, the shooter’s profile suggested that he was not exactly the type of person who would listen to conservative people and who probably would have been just as comfortable shooting Palin as he was Giffords.
I think a lot of people have trouble believing that anyone who could be your own next-door neighbor would methodically execute a young man and two young women with a pistol simply because he was angry about a parking space. Everyone wants to find an explanation that goes deeper than that.
What a good point.
I have a neighbor who moved after she was living nearby a man who claimed his wife ”needed” a certain parking space in the free parking area because she was pregnant.
After a year went by and no baby bump or baby my now neighbor started parking in her favorite spot.
The guy went ballistic, threatening her that he had a shotgun and that she should not park in that spot.
She pointed out (in front of a board meeting) that he’d lied about his wife’s condition.
He started stalking her around the place when she’d get her mail or walk her dog.
What a creep!
She moved to where I lived right afterward.
Had I not talked with her about this story of the 3 dead Muslims in NC I would never have thought it could happen.
But it can.
@Nanny, #4:
You’d think nothing would be shocking these days, but I can still be shocked. I honestly don’t know if the world is getting worse or if it always seems that way to people as they get older.
On September 10, 2001, were you to walk into a store and see a woman wearing a hijab, chances are you would have been no more uncomfortable around her than you would have been around a woman who was clearly dressed according to the religious dictates of the Amish or the Mennonites or a man who wore a kippah. Then 19 men managed to kill almost three thousand in New York, Washington, D.C. and in a Pennsylvania field.
All 19 of those men, although from different nations, had one thing in common: Islam.
After 9-11-2001, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, formed in 1981, met in northern Virginia to discuss how to shut down any criticism of “political” Islam. The group, International Institute for Islamic Though, or IIIT, needed a way to stop dead in its tracks any criticism of Islam that was not politically correct. They looked at other groups to see what had worked. And they came up with a brilliant idea, mimic the homosexual movement. The term “homophobia” has worked well for the homosexuals, and they could alter that term to suit their goals of shutting down any negative discussion about Islam. The term “Islamophobia” was born. How ironic that they used the tactics of a group that they would be more than happy to hang from construction cranes if they could.
CAIR, being on their bandwagon, quickly adopted the term, and has used it to great effect ever since.
Now, useful idiots that would have done Lenin proud, continue to practice of political correctness trying to convince the rest of the nation that Islam is simply the religion of peace and that Muslims are a persecuted group that should be protected from any negative comments. It is political correctness on steroids.
I doubt that Dean Obeidallah has ever written an article relaying how Jews have been harassed, and even murdered, for no other reason than they are Jewish. Yes, it has happened in our own country and Jews are fleeing France in great numbers because they no longer feel safe in the nation where they were born due to the influx in Muslim immigration. Same with Denmark and all across the European map. Nor has Obiedallah ever written how only the radical Muslims are part of the “conversations” held at the White House while moderate Muslims, who want a reformation from radical idealism in Islam, i.e. political Islam, are ignored by this, and past, administration.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
Voltaire
Today I heard a new twist on the idea that religion is behind the death of CBS’ Bob Simon.
Bob Simon was Jewish, rather openly although I can’t recall him ever wearing his yarmulke on 60 Minutes.
His driver was Reshad Abdul Fedahi, of Queens, a driver whose license had been suspended 9 times by the day of this particular crash.
It is said this driver sped up to crash his cab in this case.
Reshad Abdul Fedahi only suffered minor injuries.
Reshad Abdul Fedahi re-obtained a license in October and was still in the six-month probationary period at the time of the crash, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission said.
Has he been targeting Jews?
I’d rather know the truth than hear a whispering campaign against him.
Is there an investigative reporter in business in NYC?
@Nanny: Just to add a bit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2951275/CBS-anchor-Bob-Simon-not-wearing-seat-belt-deadly-horror-crash.html#ixzz3RbQ8MREO
A Random Collection of Shootings Over Parking Spaces, and What They Tell Us About Violence and Beliefs
@Greg #3:
“I think a lot of people have trouble believing that anyone who could be your own next-door neighbor would methodically execute a young man and two young women with a pistol simply because he was angry about a parking space. Everyone wants to find an explanation that goes deeper than that.”
A lot of people have trouble understanding that people who do not have the benefit of having been schooled from the get-go in the basic values of Western Civilization simply don’t THINK the way we do. I had a kid living in my apartment building (when I was going to college) whose family lost everything when the Ayatollahs took Iran from the Shah, and his financial support evaporated. The landlord evicted him, so he moved his crap onto the front porch and proceeded to live there, absolutely certain that the landlord would be humiliated into allowing him back into his apartment for free. His misunderstanding of Western concepts of fairness and responsibility went way beyond this example, and I would have assumed that he was mentally handicapped, except that we had many Iranian students at the university, and they ALL were mentally… different. BTW, these students were all enrolled in ROTC, and were destined to be taught to fly fighter jets by the US Navy. It was a scary thought then, and it hasn’t gotten any better.
Again, the MSM makes assumptions of a shooter but now we know:
(1) was not a Christian as was asserted but an atheist.
(2) Fails to note that the majority of anti-Semitism tends to come from extremists on the left.
(3) Fails to note that here is yet another leftist who followed closely the Southern Poverty Law Center’s propaganda.
(4) The shooter tries to describe himself to be “an open-minded conservative”, but (as Wordsmith notes,) such claim does not appear to be logical given everything else we know about his decidedly leftist political beliefs. IMO the shooter is no more a “Conservative” than McClain or Boehner is.
(5) Some people have absolutely no regard or respect for the rights or lives of others. This has historically been shown to be more prevalent in urban areas, but general discontent has been growing for a long time now, as more and more persons get frustrated with what life hands them.
That is why I feel the Washington D.C. establishment and the leadership of both parties are playing a dangerous game of hammering rolls of caps on a powder keg., while the brat (who lives down the street in the white house,) strikes sparks at the tender he has built below.)
@Ditto #11:
“Fails to note that the majority of anti-Semitism tends to come from extremists on the left.”
What purpose would the MSM have in noting that? If it is true, does it justify the crime that otherwise is abhorrent? Do two wrongs make a right? Does diluting the message with irrelevant and extraneous information make it easier to understand, or simply too confusing to try.
You all here at FA repeatedly fuss about how every left-originating complaint fails to acknowledge the fact that the left has committed the same crimes. It doesn’t matter. Nobody is without sin, yet both sides throw stones at each other endlessly. That’s a given. So what is the point of reminding us all of what we already know? Is the purpose to distract the reader from your OWN mischief by diverting attention to your opponent’s mischief? Pretty childish…
@George Wells:
Your “No one is without sin” comment is a cop out when it is only used to excuse your own.
Glad to see your admission of that we already know, to whit, that ” the majority of anti-Semitism tends to come from extremists on the left.”
@Ditto #13:
“Excusing my own sin”?
I had to go back and re-read my post, but I still didn’t find where I said anything about my own sin, and I didn’t find any insinuation that sin should be excused, regardless of where it originated. So to this I’m drawing a blank. Maybe you could explain?
“Glad to see your admission of that we already know, to whit, that ” the majority of anti-Semitism tends to come from extremists on the left.””
I never said – or implied – otherwise.
I spend much of Valentine’s Day arguing – to liberals – that the left is entirely too trigger-fingered when it comes to crying “racism” whenever a Black gets shot by a cop or a Jew gets blown up in a café or a convenience store. Yes, I’m sure that racism SOMETIMES figures prominently in the culprit’s motivation, but liberals ASSUME it ALWAYS does, and that simply isn’t the case. Sometimes the black kid MAKES the cop shoot him, just like sometimes White perps choreograph their own executions, and sometimes random violence just happens and the right (or wrong) person gets in the way of a bullet or a home-made bomb. In final effect, a race-motivated murder is no more tragic than a person getting killed by a stray hunter’s bullet. But the greater damage comes when a group of people get riled up over the slowness of deliberate justice and turn instead to mob violence predicated on ANTICIPATED racism. Yes, a race-motivated killing is bad, but a riot instigated on the HUNCH that racism played a role can be a hundred or a thousand times worse. The threat of such mob justice is extortion, and has no place at all in a civilized society.
On the other hand, neither did I make a point of assessing which SIDE of any of these disputes carried the quantitatively larger portion of guilt.
I’m not sure what difference it makes WHICH party owns 51% of racism any more than it makes any difference WHICH side in the Arab-Israeli conflict started it. The perpetuation of BOTH, for whatever reason, is plain wrong. Racism is wrong when Democrats are guilty of it, and it’s wrong when Republicans are guilty of it. Tell me again why you are keeping score, because I evidently missed that part.
It seems to me that the most immature, or uneducated, or irresponsible factions are probably causing the greater amount of these problems. But if the OTHER side then points to the MORE guilty side and cries “It’s YOUR fault, it’s YOUR fault, Na-Na-Nee-Na-Na!” I’m not sure that’s conveying a message of maturity, education or responsibility. It’s not a good way to demonstrate leadership.
I’ve pointed out plenty of times before that here on FA, there is an abundance of blame assignment, but very little suggestion of realistic solutions to the problems identified.
My #10 here was my explanation of why there seems to be so much misunderstanding between Middle Eastern and Western cultures. I didn’t BLAME conservatives for anything, but right on schedule, YOU blamed liberals for the majority of anti-Semitism. I assure you that no improvement in ANY of these conflicts will EVER occur until we ALL get beyond blaming each other.
That is a truth you can take to the bank.
@George Wells:
What I wrote was:
“Your own” does not always simply mean “your personal,” any more then “no one” means “nobody.” It is a proper use of English, which in this case I meant “excuse your own side of politics.”
What you clearly implied, was that there was no need for the MSM to recognize (“… that the majority of anti-Semitism tends to come from extremists on the left.”) because:
The hypocrisy of the political left, is that leftists never seem to think it’s important to look at the behavior (peccadillo’s, scandals, corruption, etc…) of “their own” claiming the “let he who is without sin” argument (as you do above) , but when they discover the bad behavior of a Republican, why it’s suddenly newsworthy. I think that in examining racism, it’s very important to question why it is that antisemitism is more prevalent amongst the political left. Blowing it off as unimportant with pat rhetoric such as “let he who is without sin” is a refusal to give serious thought to the issue.
With the continual revelations that many shooter incidents have not been “right-wingers”, (as the MSM often first assumes the shooter to be,) but have instead been found to be from the radical left (as also has been learned in the case of this Chapel Hill shooter,) I think it important to discuss the MSM’s own profiling assumptions and how they so often are wrong.
You can not address a growing problem if you ignore the particular facts of the case. There is also a tendency for the gun control crowd to use these cases to push gun control, ignoring that most of the new gun control measures they are pushing would not have stopped these shooters from getting their weapons.
@Ditto #15:
Try this on for size:
I have repeatedly acknowledged that the Left is responsible for “more than it’s fair share” of race-baiting and racially-motivated violence.
I also gave you this:
“(T)he left is entirely too trigger-fingered when it comes to crying “racism” whenever a Black gets shot by a cop or a Jew gets blown up in a café or a convenience store. Yes, I’m sure that racism SOMETIMES figures prominently in the culprit’s motivation, but liberals ASSUME it ALWAYS does, and that simply isn’t the case. Sometimes the black kid MAKES the cop shoot him, just like sometimes White perps choreograph their own executions, and sometimes random violence just happens and the right (or wrong) person gets in the way of a bullet or a home-made bomb. In final effect, a race-motivated murder is no more tragic than a person getting killed by a stray hunter’s bullet. But the greater damage comes when a group of people get riled up over the slowness of deliberate justice and turn instead to mob violence predicated on ANTICIPATED racism. Yes, a race-motivated killing is bad, but a riot instigated on the HUNCH that racism played a role can be a hundred or a thousand times worse. The threat of such mob justice is extortion, and has no place at all in a civilized society.”
I can’t see that this amounts to my denial of these important problems, or to an ethical hypocrisy, or to a cynical effort to draw attention away from them by attacking right-wing extremist versions of similar bias.
While YOU have been attacking the left, where has been YOUR condemnation of YOUR own? Did you intend to give the impression that there is no racism on the Republican side of the isle? Did you mean to claim an exemption forgiving Republican mischief simply because Democrats have been the greater offenders?
And for what purpose did you introduce the issue of gun control into OUR discussion? I have already and REPEATEDLY asserted my support of the 2nd Amendment. NOTHING I’ve ever said could possibly have given you the mistaken impression that I seek to restrict your rights to own and to bear arms. Either this was an effort to create a distracting smoke screen or the interjection of an intentional implication of a falsehood. Please try to stay on topic.
Equal opportunity anger issues:
Jesse Walker
Interesting comment by Hicks, April 5, 2012:
@George Wells: George, you’re good people, man. I mean that.
What you’re describing sounds like a concept called “mimetic mirroring”, a term coined by philosopher Rene Girard. In a nut-shell, it states “you become what hate”.
I’d say your correct in your assertions. One of the main reasons I’ve felt myself “right” of center for the past few years is because the left became everything they were fighting against (or claimed to). The same could be said for the right (in decades past), but I considered the greater offender to be the left (as this moment). However, you see both “sides’ shouting almost identical things. I’m one of those who felt forced out of the left by way of bad philosophies. I find it unfair to tell a portion of America they can’t believe what they want, using bigotry to fight bigotry.
The left mirrored what they thought they saw (and did see, but in the usual small proportions, exaggerated for the effect of energizing a mob) in the right. I find the left to be worse than the right, Obama the actual president that we were told Bush was (authoritarian, vain, and not interested in compromise, and not very competent).
Check out this professor’s blog. He gives a good intro into the subject:
What is Mimetic Theory?
The short of it:
Basically, the root of all evil exists in wanting what others have. That produces all kinds of self-righteousness, fear, and hypocrisy…you’d be hard pressed to find a culture that doesn’t experience this.
Right now, the left is mirroring the exaggerated image of the right. While the right has it’s issues, you see much, much more internal criticism from the right concerning any number of issues and politicians. The scary issue around Obama in 2008 was that the Dems lined up, no back talk, no argument.
That’s what scares me.
So in short, I’m in danger of mirroring the sins of the left by only wanting the right to “win” in the next election (which is what the left did, not caring about Obama’s lack of real candidacy). While your claim of the right’s lack of self-condemnation isn’t unfounded, you have to acknowledge that the right can’t operate like the left, given the propaganda complex in favor of the left (Honestly, I believe even you see this and would admit it). Due to the current media climate, the left enjoys an unfair advantage of media bias.
If the NYTimes tells people to hate Scott Walker, they will. They can say anything. That’s not good. “Faux” news can do the same, but we’re talking about 80% of the media out there leaning left. It’s not a fair system and the right is being marginalized by those who have crossed from fighting injustice to committing it themselves.
Anyway, I agree with you to a point, but the right is clearly more self-criticizing compared to the left…for now. The left desires “fairness” for all except those they deem as unfair…which makes the left the new unfair bunch of elite bigots holding others down.
Another fb post that does not suggest an Islamaphobic bent.
99% of his postings are barbed at Christianity.
@Nathan Blue #20:
Thanks for the in-depth analysis, and for the encouragement.
I read your linked material, being unfamiliar with mimetic theory, but won’t try to translate much of my comments here into its terminology, since I’m not at all proficient in the language of that theory.
On the other hand, I have always marveled at how often we are challenged by a particularly onerous adversary, only to adopt many of the same characteristics that we find objectionable in the foe that we fight. I see this particular phenomenon at play in our response to violent terrorism and the religion-inspired extremism that encourages it.
Whether you are studying the Bible or the Koran, there is some good to be found in each, but if you look hard enough, there is also more than enough doctrinal justification for violent opposition of those who do not follow your own particular set of beliefs (note Deuteronomy 13: 7-12, to paraphrase: “Kill those who believe differently than you.”) I’m no expert on the Koran, but one hears repeatedly that it encourages more or less exactly the same violent intolerance. It isn’t too much of a stretch to wonder if both books didn’t get this admonition from the same source. But in any event, Christians should give pause before concluding that their “Good Book” is devoid of the inflammatory rhetoric that THEY so easily find in their opponents’ scriptures.
Even more to the point, as Islamic extremism has blossomed, it seems to me that Christian extremism has also become more militant. I’m not making this comparison to inflame Flopping Aces contributors, and I’m not necessarily equating the two. Instead, I’m suggesting that human nature (perhaps as explained by mimetic theory?) more or less REQUIRES such a response. Certainly the venerable refrain “An eye for an eye” suggests a proportional response to an attack, at the very least, and I think that “Survival of the fittest” requires a more aggressive response in which the application of escalated damage to the point of deterrence is warranted – thus Jordan and Egypt’s more-than-proportionate response to ISIS assassinations.
We decry the limitations on individual freedoms that Islam imposes, and one of the first steps our governments take to combat terrorism is to restrict our individual freedoms (ref. just about everything Bush AND Obama have approved in the name of Homeland Security, to include but not limited to torturing prisoners and mining personal data).
We one up Sun Tzu’s Art of War: “Know your enemy.” We BECOME the enemy! The mimicry implied I think is more a function of the fact that we are fundamentally social creatures than just a consequence of our collective greed. Right from the womb, we learn from mimicry, and our adult behavior resembles “monkey-see, monkey-do” more than we are comfortable admitting.
“While your claim of the right’s lack of self-condemnation isn’t unfounded, you have to acknowledge that the right can’t operate like the left, given the propaganda complex in favor of the left (Honestly, I believe even you see this and would admit it). Due to the current media climate, the left enjoys an unfair advantage of media bias.”
I reprinted your entire thread on this thought, just so there would be NO misunderstanding of what it was that I was agreeing with. YOU ARE RIGHT. 100% Right. However, that doesn’t give Republicans a free ride doing what they point out that Democrats do better, or more of. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and neither does a ten-to-one ratio equal “all-and-none.” Yet every time I address a particular problem that I see, instead of addressing that same problem, the folks around here instead recount similar problems caused by Democrats and accuse me of not admitting to them. My bountiful admission of Democrat’s faults is a matter of record here, and needn’t be endlessly repeated. And my support of most Republican positions one would think would gain more than a modicum of respect, but it doesn’t. The eat-your-own, drum out the “RINOs” approach to internal GOP politics will be the downfall of the Republican Party. In this one area, the Democratic Party has lapped the GOP, as you note with dismay: “the Dems lined up, no back talk, no argument.”
That wins elections, doesn’t it?
@Wordsmith #19:
Your “interesting” link draws a very fine line between “respecting the right to express a religious belief” and “NOT respecting the “right to tell you you’re going to Hell.”
Seems to me that the latter might very well be a “religious belief,” considering that “Hell” surfaces in conversation in only two ways: as a profanity, and as a place where religions suggest evil people go after they die. Further to the point, the Bible gives plenty of encouragement to people who would identify “sinners” and take the matter of punishing those sinners into their own hands, as opposed to leaving the matter to God’s discretion. (The Old Testament is lousy with such mischief.) The expression of one’s Christian “beliefs” can hardly avoid condemning all of the sin one sees in the world, and doing so tramples on everyone, as none are without sin. Pretty much assures we’ll be at each other’s throats for the duration, I think.
Perhaps you meant to restrict the right of religious “expression” to the right to repeat scripture verbatim? But that would make such a right quite awkward to police, wouldn’t it?
@George Wells: Awesome. I thought you’d like mimetic theory. And I also agree with you, with one large exception.
In understanding Christianity, you need to know the words of the Old Testament are … oh I might get in trouble for this, …how to proceed….the Old Testament has a different emphasis than the New when talking of Christ. Christian teaching and text is not analogous to what’s in the Koran. Christians follow Christ, and Christ did not condone violence or genocide or anything like that. He did whip some people, true. But He didn’t kill, or tell anyone to kill. It goes much deeper than that, so I would ask that you read the New Testament (or re-read) and pray to God for answers yourself.
I can only say that, for those who seek it, the Christian faith offers more than that of “just another religion”. I know: all religions claim that, but still…there are many clear differences with Christianity, despite many of the faithfuls actions to the contrary.
Back to your other points:
Wins elections? Yes, but at what cost? We saw our governor here in Colorado do things and agree with things we knew he didn’t want to, all to provide unity for the Dem party. I know the dems have differing voices, and I want to hear them all. “Winning” like that only makes bad blood. The cost will be a feud that lasts longer than it need to. It also culls out the political diversity of this nation, and a one-party authoritarian government is a potential outcome.
A story: My pastor told me once of talking to a Muslim. The Muslim said “You know, I can out-think Christians, and I can out-talk Christians….
….but I can’t out-love them.”
That’s the real point, and while many secular and agnostics might scoff at this, there is a real heart of Christianity that transcends what you see in the media. A real Christian response to the Middle East would be so crazy, so full of radical notions that those not committed to Christ would have a hard time following along.
Those who burnt the Jordanian pilot alive? Forgiven, and offered an ear to hear what they are upset about.
Food for the orphans, a military complex converted to construction and non-lethal defense force. First aid, asylum. You name it.
Anyway, I think you understand what I’m talking about, George.
@Nathan Blue #24:
Oh, I understand quite well what you are talking about. Your faith is a very modern invention of the grace and the forgiveness of God, something that was NOT part of the philosophy and myths contained in the Old Testament. To the great extent that “CHRISTianity” is really about the New Testament, it is, in my opinion, a very problematic fact that BOTH testaments are published TOGETHER under the label “The Holy Bible”. I find precious little “holy” about the Old Testament. It was the OLD TESTAMENT that provided encouragement to the Crusaders, the negative consequences of which we are still struggling to overcome. It is the OLD TESTAMENT that provides encouragement to self-righteous bigots today. Evidently WE were unable to distinguish the un-Christian nature of the Old Testament then, and we STILL are, so it really doesn’t surprise me that Islam can’t tell the difference either. To them, the violence encouraged by THEIR “Good Book” is no different from the violence encouraged by ours. Trying to explain the difference to a Muslim is like talking to a brick. Like I said earlier, they don’t think like we do, and the difference is cultural, not organic.
Regarding your complaint of Democratic strategies for winning elections, please don’t forget that both sides employ iterations of the same philosophy. Republicans started out in 2008 stating that their first priority was to insure that Obama was a one-term president. Judging by the productivity of recent congresses, that “first priority” must also have been the ONLY priority. A singularly myopic approach to governance, don’t you think? And the GOP’s approach to the “primary” process of selecting their candidates invariably requires that all but the most extremely “right” contenders be burned at the stake. This is NOT a process for hearing and evaluating differences of opinion. This is NOT a process for encouraging political diversity. This is NOT a process for selecting a candidate that can appeal to a broader segment of the country than white evangelical males. This is NOT a process for winning elections. This is NOT good for the nation.
The machinations of the Democratic Party have given it an advantage in Presidential Elections. The machinations of the Republican Party have given it an advantage in representative elections. So we get a “one-party authoritarian presidency” and a “one-party authoritarian House of Representatives, and never the twain shall meet. This MIGHT be for the better, considering the corrupting influence power has on those who are touched by it.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up for a truly Christian resolution to the Middle East Problem if I were you.
It’s a nice thought, but…
@George Wells:
Of course not. As Wordsmith knows, I recognize that nearly all mass groupings of people will have individuals who are bigoted in some measure. The personal views of an individual are not necessarily representative of the group. Except perhaps when an overwhelming majority of a group shares them. Yet, even so, there might still reside within a group individuals who do not accept wholly or in part a particular viewpoint that the majority does.
This entire thread is in regards to responses to shooter situations. The gun-control touting crowd drools over shooter situations. Ergo, mentioning their tactics is relevant to the overall discussion. We who post here may reply to a single poster, yet include comments towards the group and others in the discussion as a whole. You will note that my mention of the gun-control tactics was not preceded by a quote from you. You and I are not the only people involved in this overall discussion or forum, nor are those who are the only readers. Everything is not about you.
@George Wells:
Wordsmith (in #19) was simply quoting the written words of the shooter. Those words are not Wordsmith’s words, else he would not have given the link or placed them within a quotation block. Quoting someone is not an indication that the person who posted the quote “agrees” with the content which was quoted, unless that person adds their commentary outside of the quote to indicate such agreement. It is simply placing the quoted content out there for all to see. In regards to the quote itself, the shooter’s (atheism-derived,) opinion on restricting the right of religious “expression” is unconstitutional, and as such unenforceable.
@Ditto #26 and #27:
If you want a reply to a specific comment, please indicate which post you are commenting on. You will notice that I always afford that consideration so that the particular thread-within-a-thread can be followed.
And when I address a response to YOU, I don’t confuse the issue by mixing in material that is irrelevant to your question or the specific issue that you raised. Anything else would be a smokescreen. General comments should be left to unaddressed posts. Since you presume to lecture me on blog etiquette.
@George Wells:
YOU are not a moderator on this blog. I will continue to post as I will.
@Ditto #29:
Obviously.
My #28 was my answer to your lectures #26 and #27.
You got the point.
I’m not sure that it’s worth repeating.
@George Wells:
From Your reply toWordsmith You responded to him as if he had posted a comment. He didn’t, he quoted the shooter and provided a link to the original. You responded to the quoted words of Craig Hicks (the shooter) but aimed your response at Wordsmith, clearly asking Wordsmith to reply to the words as they were his own. I merely tried to point out your error and you got all snippy about it.
Apparently, you are in need of more lecturing, as you still seem not capable of understanding how “b-quote,” links or clicking “Reply” on Flopping Aces works. (Clicking “Reply” inserts an “@” symbol with the name of the person and creates a link it to the post you are replying to with red letters. If you click on that name in red it will take you directly back to that person’s post. (No need to insert “#30)
Savvy?
It is not at all uncommon at all here on FA for a poster to reply to someone, and then continue on discussing the general topic. There is no established “etiquette” rule on FA that requires them to start a new post to separate a reply from a continuation of the discussion.
You got that? There are no “etiquette” rules listed on Flopping Aces, although there are a few things that the moderators will not stand for (such as sockpuppets). If you would like the full list, ask Curt or one of the moderators to enlighten you.
If you don’t like the structural format someone posts with, that’s your problem not the poster’s. You post in the manner you like, and the rest of us will do the same. As you are not a moderator, we are not beholden to follow your rules of engagement. If this gets your panties in a bunch, you’re free to go whine to the moderators:
Just returned back to this thread and skimmed through.
Thanks, Ditto. Much appreciate your attempts at clarifying on my behalf.
@George Wells #23:
My point in citing Hicks’ “interesting” fb posting, if you take it in the context of my post and the thrust of the position that I’ve taken- is that by him- a militant atheist and anti-theist- defending the Ground Zero Mosque and bringing up religious freedom to practice, confirms his wife’s statements as to his being for equal rights for everyone; and defies the belief that Hicks’ parking rage was motivated by Islamaphobia and hatred of Muslims.
Yes, he hates all religion. But unless there’s evidence to the contrary, his murder of 3 beautiful people didn’t have to do with their religious faith. It had to do with his fixation on the parking situation.
@Wordsmith:
Thanks Wordsmith, “Blockquote” has confused many of us until it was explained. (myself included, once upon a time.)
@Wordsmith #32:
Your point is well taken.
My #23 comments focused primarily on what I saw as Hick’s errors of judgment, drawing too fine a distinction between freedom of religious thought and freedom of religious comment. My apology if I made too direct a connection between his statements and your opinion.
Sometimes “sh*t happens,” the converse of “random acts of kindness.” Sometimes people “wake up on the wrong side of the bed,” or suffer “a bit of undigested potato.” Or, as you suggest, a pet peeve becomes a momentary obsession, or worse. The tendency to extrapolate backwards and speculate on the causes of such random tragic moments to fit one’s political agenda is mischief and no more. A rational person recognizes the difference.