No , not like everyone else. I guarantee that ratio. It literally the starting and the most important point.
I wanna know even here in GAF . How many Muslims belief that Quran is not word of God ?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Mass shooting at Orlando gay nightclub [50 dead, 53 injured]
- Thread starter dc89
- Start date
- Status
No , not like everyone else. I guarantee that ratio. It literally the starting and the most important point.
I wanna know even here in GAF . How many Muslims belief that Quran is not word of God ?
Jag
Member
Well, fuck. Amazing we can't make any progress in this world of ours.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
No. He's right. There's a decent number of gun owners on GAF. Even Evilore is a gun owner. But we have the discussion everytime this happens. And the subject is run into the ground.
A Link to the Past
Banned
And my discussion is that if you swap out the Quran for the Bible in the Middle East, the same marginalization, discrimination, and criminalization of/against homosexuality would occur. And as such, people making this out to be uniquely an Islamic problem are ignoring the reality of the situation.
Astral Dog
Member
Canada hmmm
"And while a 2013 Pew Research poll found that 80 per cent of Canadians agreed that homosexuality should be accepted by society, only 36 per cent of Muslims agreed with that"
....
"Canadian Poll 64 % Of Muslims Say Gays Should Not Be Tolerated, 43 % Say Muslims Should Not Integrate"
Okay, I get what you're saying now. But asking whether it's a product of Islam or a product of the Middle East seems backwards to me, as the Middle East has been so deeply shaped by Islam. So it's a chicken or the egg kinda thing.
But is Islam inherently more prone to radicalism than Christianity? Maybe. I'm getting to a point where I'm not comfortable in my knowledge of Islam to debate this, but from what I've understood, there's no real separation of state and religion in Islam. Jesus' teachings are more about personal morality than law. There's passages like "Render unto Caesar what it Caesar's", establishing that personal faith and the state are different. This, to my knowledge, does not exist in the Koran. The Koran sets up laws for an Islamic caliphate, including laws about taxes and inheritance and so on. Of course it can be interpreted as a more personal thing, but the text is about establishing a religious state.
I admit I'm on shaky ground here. If someone knows more about Islam and thinks I'm totally off-base, please correct me.
The thing is, when we currently think of a "radicalised Christian", we think of abortion clinic bombers and crazy preachers. But if the definition of a radicalised Christian is someone who lives and breathes the teachings of Christ, I'd argue it describes someone like Francis of Assisi.
Someone who reads the New Testament and is "radicalised" will sell their belongings, turn the other cheek, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and pray in private. If they truly take the text seriously, that is what they should do. There is no text in the New Testament urging believers to form a "Christian state". Someone who reads the Koran and takes it seriously will want to live in a caliphate where thieves have their hands cut off, because that's what the text says.
So if radicalism is defined as wanting to have a religious state, yes, I'd say the radicalism of Islam in the ME is the product of Islam.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Pretty much. Don't have as much time to stay on top of these threads as I used to but I still try to join the conversation because nothing worse to a discussion than lack of diverse viewpoints.
I'm a minority in a nation where a lot of its members would be glad to turn me into strange fruit, so yea...I'm armed.
But at the end of the day I do believe that there can be ways to implement change that many seek. Ideally specific changes that would prevent this from happening again. But often times in explaining that it needs to be a step by step state by state process one gets accused of placating the issue by not advocating for an outright gun ban which I don't think is feasible right now. In a generation or two? Possibly. Now? Not happening.
Astral Dog
Member
compared to other places? yes,
We're dealing in hypotheticals that can't in any way be verified. It's an Islamic problem in the same vein that it is a Christian problem, I very much agree - but that doesn't mean strategies put forth to try and tackle homophobia within Islam would necessarily work within Christianity. The geographic, political, and social issues don't mesh well between the two populations.
IrishNinja
Member
yeah, the right's hard-on to call this radical islam but not acknowledge that basic truth is pretty telling
goddamn, first more armenian genocide hissy fits, now this...turkey stays holding that L
A Link to the Past
Banned
But we have tons of people in the US who want the US to be a Christian nation. That's one of the cornerstone of "making America great again" and "the good ol' days" (with the others being slavery, women being subservient, and LGBT being valid targets of hatred).
To borrow your statement, my point is that you cannot approach Islam with a broad brush. You can't cite what's happening in the Middle East and then use it to argue that we need to approach Muslims in the US with that in mind. The Middle East is fucked, and Islam is an excellent thing to get behind to encourage hate.
But in the US, the best strategy to push all religions left is to move away from a non-secular society. religious people become noticeably more supportive of LGBT people after they lose legal battles (like the sodomy laws and DOMA). Hopefully the bathroom issue will have the same effect. Looking at the data, we can see that this has been true of Christianity, of Hinduism, and of Islam.
To borrow your statement, my point is that you cannot approach Islam with a broad brush. You can't cite what's happening in the Middle East and then use it to argue that we need to approach Muslims in the US with that in mind. The Middle East is fucked, and Islam is an excellent thing to get behind to encourage hate.
But in the US, the best strategy to push all religions left is to move away from a non-secular society. religious people become noticeably more supportive of LGBT people after they lose legal battles (like the sodomy laws and DOMA). Hopefully the bathroom issue will have the same effect. Looking at the data, we can see that this has been true of Christianity, of Hinduism, and of Islam.
Preach it, brother. I know how tiring it can be.
You mean we're not simply repeating the same discredited pro-gun views anymore. No one is shouting about gun laws don't work or that people will just stab dozens of people to death. Instead we're talking about changing the law and discussing the merits of restricting firearms. If anything, we use to be running the subject into the ground and now we've moved on.
Not just middle least but everywhere. Islamic doctrine is incapable to move in 21st century the way it's been set up . Not saying Christianity has no issue. Keep in mind we also are bias from our experiences . I am an ex Muslim who lived in Muslim society broad and here in USA .
Islam is a huge problem. But, that doesn't mean Muslim are . Problem is Quran and its authority. It needs to be marginalized for reform to take place. And I don't see that happening in near future
A Link to the Past
Banned
I agree. There are tons of facets about this thing that need to be discussed (religious extremism, LGBT hate, gun control, etc.), but it's unfortunate when one of these issues is patently ignored.
Though I will say that in this specific instance, we should be focusing most on the LGBT community and how it seems like it's a footnote of the issue, even for people on the left.
But how can you make that argument that Islam is incapable of moving into the 21st century any more than Christianity is? Undeniably as a whole Christians are on average more supportive of same-sex marriage, but if Islam does require such strict adherence, I would not be of a mind to say that many Muslims in the US do strictly adhere to it, which does speak to the more problematic aspects of the Quran being ignored just as they were in the Bible.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Agreed. I can't fathom how one casually glances past the fact that this was an anti-LBGT hate crime and simultaneously a terror attack. It doesn't have to be nor should it be one or the other.
The discussion of this terrible tragedy needs to be made in three fronts simultaneously:
-This person who's once in a terror watchlist having access to a firearm.
-The perversion of Islam as a excuse and perverted justification to conduct acts of terrorism.
-The serious homophobic attitudes in many cultures.
But it's not supported by the text, at least the New Testament. You may not think that's important, but it is.
When a Christian theocrat and a Christian moderate debate scripture, the moderate wins. That is incredibly important for the creation of a secular society.
A Link to the Past
Banned
For an LGBT person, it is irrelevant whether something is in the Old or New Testament because people very recently (and to a smaller extent still are) using the Old Testament (well, parts of it) to limit LGBT rights.
Mammoth Jones
Member
It's the same discussion we've been having. Everyone brings various ideas to the table.
My point remains as its been: We are not banning guns any time soon, it's a moot point in America. People need to work it on a State level to craft laws.
A Link to the Past
Banned
State laws would be ineffective. Ban guns in Minnesota, get guns from Iowa.
I don't think a ban is the right idea, not right away anyway, but serious gun control needs to be pushed. And we absolutely need to start designing guns to be safer (like fingerprint identification among other advances).
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
No. It's referring to the argument, cited by Trump and others, that restricting immigration and/or banning Muslims from immigrating into the country would have helped prevent that.
Just asking a bunch of questions which would take me 10-100 times longer to research/answer than you took typing them isn't really fair debating, and won't get you anywhere (not with me at least).
If you have some actual reasons as to why my claim was irrelevant or wrong, just post them.
I don't know man . Your only example is USA and even there it's less than 50%.
According to the survey, the French are more accepting than any other population polled. 78% of non-Muslims and 35% of Muslims viewed homosexuality as morally acceptable.
Germany came in second with 68% of non-Muslims and 19% of Muslims demonstrating acceptance towards homosexual acts.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Holy shit.
It does not matter what the New Testament says if tons of people adhere to parts of the Old Testament.
You're essentially saying that LGBT people should appreciate that the Bible contains a passage that is ignored by millions upon millions of Christians. You can't just ignore what the Old Testament says about homosexuality just because it got "retconned", because that passage is STILL to many an important tenant of Christianity.
And 10 years ago, Christians had an even worse record as far as support goes (I think the figure was close to what white Evangelical Christians are now). I mean shit, we could have had a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Imagine if that happened, how hard it would have been to reverse that.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'm not talking about banning at all. I am however absolutely talking about gun laws in most states eventually shifting closer to NY's system. Like it or not I can absolutely see that happening. Where there are only 10 round magazines and you can't buy any gun legally without a background check. And if you want a pistol you need a permit just to own and it's a year long process to get approved.
If done in good faith I don't mind extra checks. But I don't support arbitrary restrictions they'd need to be specific.
But like I said guns is only one facet about this. The anti-LGBT attitudes many still have are absolutely a part of this as well as terrorism. All three can be dealt with.
Agreed. These posts from earlier in the thread supplement your point:
Adherent of Islam are just as capable of accommodating and supporting 21st Century progressiveness as any other religious group, regardless of scriptures. Claiming that the scriptures are the Words of God is not a "Be-all and end-all" proposition, as evidenced by the existence of secular and moderate Muslims. Furthermore, total adherence to the scriptures is a misguided endeavor, as that approach is only effective if you're living in a vacuum with no other opposing philosophies/entities/institutions.
It matters because it's a tool moderate Christians can use to shut down the violent theocrats, as has pretty much happened in Europe. If that tool didn't exist, we'd all be in deeper shit. I don't see what is controversial about this to you.
Okay:
In Christianity, Catholics and Protestants consider each other atheists. Each sub sect that isn't as big as that two STILL considers all the other sects functionally atheists and heathens. There are Christian churches that do not even do baptism as a ritual.
In Judiasm, there's Reform and Orthodox, and subsects.
Islam is split the same way.
And of all 3 of those, there a lot of people that are just 'culturally' that religion, ie they grew up in it but mostly nap in the back of the oom and put up with it because that's what makes life easier, but they don't completely leave the social circle either.
The idea that all Muslims interpret and follow Islam the same way is bullshit fed to you by dickstilts like Richard Dawkins. like, straight up 5 minutes of googling will show you the sunni/shiite split already indicating to someone that Islam isn't any more capable of lockstep agreement than anyone else. Every christian sect also thinks their interpretation and wording is the literal one. The Quran being officially only in Arabic doesn't even prevent reinterpretation because Arabic has also changed a bit over the centuries.
What would be more accurate is that the issue is with the wahhabist sect - roughly the equivalent of the KKK movement here in the US and Europe except they've successfully become the government and held it. They consider every non-wahhabist Muslism an apostate much like the KKK did for Catholics.
Either way, unless one is ever going to follow up the "problem with Islam" with what they want to say how they're going to solve it.. our problem is not the religion of Islam. The problem is kookoo nutbar criminals have access to the Amazon River of Guns here in our country.
purvispisgah
Member
I haven't really seen this addressed in this (now huge) thread, but how in the world did this one individual manage to kill or wound ~100 out of ~300 without using any kind of explosives? How many rounds did this person have, and how did they carry all that ammo?
To kill or wound 1/3 of such a large group seems like an insane ratio. Did this person block the exits or something? Something seems off to me about this.
To kill or wound 1/3 of such a large group seems like an insane ratio. Did this person block the exits or something? Something seems off to me about this.
Well said.
He had a 30 round mag and a semi auto precision rifle
A Link to the Past
Banned
Most Christians do not counter the more extremist ones. At best, they silently condemn them. Yes, it's a tool that could be used, and it'd be nice if it was used, but unfortunately it's NOT used. The march to the left by Christianity has been a forced march. It is not because moderates helped shut down extremists, it is because a secular society shut them down.
Why should a civilian be able to have that?
I know I'm deep into the Islam stuff but that doesn't mean I don't think America's gun laws aren't awful and also responsible for this.
By secular, do you mean atheists? I think you're vastly overestimating the political influence and number of non-theist secularists
The club was at capacity + he probably reloaded a few times.
Let's not start a conspiracy
purvispisgah
Member
Sure, but that's a minimum of 4 magazines, assuming only one bullet per victim. That seems extremely unlikely, even for someone with a lot of military experience (which this individual lacked). If we assume something more reasonable like 3 bullets per victim, then the magazine count is more like 10-11. That's a lot of magazines.
There just seem like some logistical aspects of this that aren't totally adding up for me. Weren't there like 1500 people at the hall of the Paris attack, with 3 people killing ~90? This person seems efficient in a way that is hard to believe.
It's not about a conspiracy, I'm just genuinely confused about how something like this is possible for one person without explosives.
OriginofHysteria
Banned
One thing I keep hearing regarding gun control is that towns with open carry laws have low crime rates. Well so does my town in NJ without an open carry law. You can't take a small sample size of a town of 5,000 people and apply it to a country of 300,000,000. Shit, you can't even apply that to a city like New York.
The New Testament certainly does not advocate tolerance for lgbt, condemn slavery or establish women as anything but a level below men in the "Christian Congregation". The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are pretty chill but once you get into Paul's writings (Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians etc), that's a different story.
A Link to the Past
Banned
No, I mean people who are able to separate the political from the religious. The decision by the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage for instance was a secular one.
Terrible tragedy.
You don't have to be an atheist to be secular.
I think most are just dumb-founded by how easy it is to kill so many with so little. Probably didn't help that people most likely went into a panic making his job easier.
You don't have to be an atheist to be secular.
I think most are just dumb-founded by how easy it is to kill so many with so little. Probably didn't help that people most likely went into a panic making his job easier.
The club is very small, people were packed in together, and with an assault rifle of the calibre he was using it's possible the bullets could travel through one person to the next.
He could also have been carrying higher bullet count magazines, or even carried a bag of magazines in with him.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe this was right sometime in the past. But Catholicism has come a very long way when it comes to interfaith reconciliation.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I think the point was that like other religions, there are different sects of Islam.
But you just said
I'd say people who separate politics from religion count as moderates.
Uhhhh what? Your very first sentence is probably one of the most ludicrous things I've ever read on this forum and I am agnostic.
The problem is the increasing turn to the text of the Quran as the sole guidestone for a large number of the world's people instead of turning away from the text or using other interpretive methods to modernize the religion. Your shiite/sunni distinction also has no real basis in reality because both groups condemn same sex relations.
For goodness sake, we're talking about a theocratic system which punishes women who are raped for engaging in illicit relations.
partyphone
Banned
why are we arguing about religion when this attack was very clearly committed by a home grown bigot?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Moderate Christianity is a part of why change took so long. Please stop trying to rewrite history to undo their involvement. The reason why SSM took off is because we told Christianity to fuck off.
gutter_trash
Banned
he used religious extremism to justify his bigotry... then was able to buy guns.
religious nuttery and homophobia are not mutually exclusive
- Status