How many Rolf Harris victims does it take to change a light bulb? 50. Three to do it now and then 47 to do it thirty years later when it is more profitable.
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Having said that, I believe that the leaders in question do everything they can to fight extremism in their congregations.
Quote from: odeon on January 12, 2015, 11:50:17 PMI'm not following, I must admit. Are we talking about the same thing? It's hard to tell when the subject changes. Seemed to be talking about state sanctioned murder led by government and enacted by the church, and possibly if lower ranking leaders should have taking a stand against higher ranking leaders of their own church. Though the question did seem to possibly be as simple as, should one take a stand against another taking a stand. Either way, my answer is sufficient as, sure why not. Quote from: odeon on January 13, 2015, 12:03:06 AMA more fitting analogy in this case is the shepherd slaughtering someone else's sheep.Appears to be more like sheep killing sheep of a different herd.
I'm not following, I must admit. Are we talking about the same thing?
A more fitting analogy in this case is the shepherd slaughtering someone else's sheep.
Not sure what that means.
Quote from: Jack on January 13, 2015, 06:16:03 PMNot sure what that means.I mean, its sheep of our own herd alright. We say its all in the sense of freedom and American ideals but that narrative is collapsing. Has been for quite a long time. The irrational belief that the state can provide rights and security is melting away a bit more each year.
Quote from: RageBeoulve on January 13, 2015, 06:18:53 PMQuote from: Jack on January 13, 2015, 06:16:03 PMNot sure what that means.I mean, its sheep of our own herd alright. We say its all in the sense of freedom and American ideals but that narrative is collapsing. Has been for quite a long time. The irrational belief that the state can provide rights and security is melting away a bit more each year.Okay, got it, that's right, and this topic could be about a number of things. Murder in the name of what? War? God? The law? It doesn't matter; some people are going to react when people around them are being killed. Could easily take the OP of this thread and make it about that killing and subsequent riot in Missouri, and people would think me mad if I said those black folks there need to have more respect for the law, just isolated cases of blacks being killed by cops after all. It's easy to sit back with my nose in the air and look down on both sides of it all, but when asked what's worse, can't help but to look to see who drew first blood.
Not really disagreeing with that, just won't sit stunned and wondering why when churches start burning. Also wont be surprised if the people of France with no interest in being vigilantes simply vote for extremist leaders of their own to address the church.
When it comes to murder, not certain there's a worse evil, if based on who is doing the killing.
Quote from: Jack on January 13, 2015, 07:04:57 PMWhen it comes to murder, not certain there's a worse evil, if based on who is doing the killing.People more willing to commit murder.
Quote from: RageBeoulve on January 13, 2015, 07:10:44 PMQuote from: Jack on January 13, 2015, 07:04:57 PMWhen it comes to murder, not certain there's a worse evil, if based on who is doing the killing.People more willing to commit murder.More willing doesn't make it a greater evil, and if anything it's not a matter of more willing but more authorized. People who support ideals which sanction murder don't generally feel personally accountable when people are killed.
Quote from: Jack on January 13, 2015, 08:06:46 PMQuote from: RageBeoulve on January 13, 2015, 07:10:44 PMQuote from: Jack on January 13, 2015, 07:04:57 PMWhen it comes to murder, not certain there's a worse evil, if based on who is doing the killing.People more willing to commit murder.More willing doesn't make it a greater evil, and if anything it's not a matter of more willing but more authorized. People who support ideals which sanction murder don't generally feel personally accountable when people are killed.They feel even less accountable when it is the norm, like under fascist systems.
Quote from: odeon on January 12, 2015, 11:56:13 PMQuote from: Parts on January 12, 2015, 08:51:37 PMQuote from: odeon on January 12, 2015, 10:29:01 AMQuote from: Jack on January 12, 2015, 05:54:38 AMQuote from: odeon on January 11, 2015, 11:52:40 PMQuote from: Jack on January 10, 2015, 11:22:28 AMQuote from: hykeaswell on January 10, 2015, 03:52:34 AMI can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.And who are the leaders, in this case?The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent. Comparing different time periods in this way is almost always flawed by the differences in culture between them The point is not as much what was, or is, possible, but rather if it's reasonable to blame one isolated group for the actions of another where their only common denominator is an admission of faith.Having said that, I believe that the leaders in question do everything they can to fight extremism in their congregations. I also believe that they know perfectly well that they have to be rather vocal about it since, regardless of actual blame, the actions of those few affect them and their religion.I see leaders, and Muslim individuals stand up against extremism. Just like there are also more going for the extremist pov. Would not be surprised if the aggression will shift more towards average Muslims not wanting to agree with extremism. It is important to get the average Muslim as integrated as can be, and safe.The split between extremist and average is not only happening for Muslims. I'm not that optimistic about the near future.
Quote from: Parts on January 12, 2015, 08:51:37 PMQuote from: odeon on January 12, 2015, 10:29:01 AMQuote from: Jack on January 12, 2015, 05:54:38 AMQuote from: odeon on January 11, 2015, 11:52:40 PMQuote from: Jack on January 10, 2015, 11:22:28 AMQuote from: hykeaswell on January 10, 2015, 03:52:34 AMI can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.And who are the leaders, in this case?The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent. Comparing different time periods in this way is almost always flawed by the differences in culture between them The point is not as much what was, or is, possible, but rather if it's reasonable to blame one isolated group for the actions of another where their only common denominator is an admission of faith.Having said that, I believe that the leaders in question do everything they can to fight extremism in their congregations. I also believe that they know perfectly well that they have to be rather vocal about it since, regardless of actual blame, the actions of those few affect them and their religion.
Quote from: odeon on January 12, 2015, 10:29:01 AMQuote from: Jack on January 12, 2015, 05:54:38 AMQuote from: odeon on January 11, 2015, 11:52:40 PMQuote from: Jack on January 10, 2015, 11:22:28 AMQuote from: hykeaswell on January 10, 2015, 03:52:34 AMI can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.And who are the leaders, in this case?The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent. Comparing different time periods in this way is almost always flawed by the differences in culture between them
Quote from: Jack on January 12, 2015, 05:54:38 AMQuote from: odeon on January 11, 2015, 11:52:40 PMQuote from: Jack on January 10, 2015, 11:22:28 AMQuote from: hykeaswell on January 10, 2015, 03:52:34 AMI can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.And who are the leaders, in this case?The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?
Quote from: odeon on January 11, 2015, 11:52:40 PMQuote from: Jack on January 10, 2015, 11:22:28 AMQuote from: hykeaswell on January 10, 2015, 03:52:34 AMI can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.And who are the leaders, in this case?The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.
Quote from: Jack on January 10, 2015, 11:22:28 AMQuote from: hykeaswell on January 10, 2015, 03:52:34 AMI can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.And who are the leaders, in this case?
Quote from: hykeaswell on January 10, 2015, 03:52:34 AMI can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.
I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.
Yes, it's been disturbing to read about things like a part of China recently cracking down on people wearing burqas. France actually has similar rules in places like schools. Why? Why would an otherwise freedom-loving nation do something like that? (France, not China. I would expect that behavior from China, sadly, and it may distract terrorist attention from the rest of the world to focus on conflicts there.) That's the kind of thing I mean by having respect for religion. Of all the things you could target, you pick something that's an important symbol to a religious minority and matters far more to them than it does to you?