Terrorist Attack on a Norwegian Youth Camp Leaves (at least) 90 Dead

littledorrit wrote:

I'm seeing a pattern: everyone who suffers deserves it somehow.

Unless they are rich, attractive, conservative Christians?

littledorrit wrote:

I was a Muslim for six months (a phase), and though there is always disagreement about everything that has to do with religion, I can say that Islam is not a "go kill everybody" religion. It's not anti-conflict the way the Christianity of the Gospels is, but it's not as ultra-militant as people make it out to be.

The Islamic code of war that Muhammad drew up during his conflicts with the Meccans has the following rules: do not wage aggressive war, do not target civilians, do not rape women, and do not hurt the environment. There are violent verses in the Qur'an, but no more than there are percentage-wise in the Old Testament and Revelations; as with the four anti-homosexual verses in the Bible, they get exaggerated by extremists. Same with anti-Semitic verses. Though it is reiterated again and again that dying in the name of the faith is honorable, the deaths discussed involved (a) peaceful people who were persecuted for being Muslim, like the martyr Sumaiya, or (b) Muslims being killed while battling their (military) enemies face-to-face. I don't even know where the kamikaze shit came from.

"Jihad" was originally a word that rarely meant physical war. It was a war of wills, both within the Muslim himself or out in the marketplace of ideas (i.e. Jihad is holding your own in a debate).

I'm not a wholesale defender of Islam. I just want to share what I know.

Thank you for saying this! I keep saying that, but no one seems to hear me. Keep spreading the sanity.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

littledorrit wrote:

I'm seeing a pattern: everyone who suffers deserves it somehow.

Unless they are rich, attractive, conservative Christians?

Or fetuses.

littledorrit wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

littledorrit wrote:

I'm seeing a pattern: everyone who suffers deserves it somehow.

Unless they are rich, attractive, conservative Christians?

Or fetuses.

Wait...

Wait.

What if I said that because I am an atheist, my fetus is also an atheist. Therefore, its untimely abortion was due to both of our lack of belief in a deity? That fetus got what was coming to it! Just a little early.

Sakurelf: Doesn't work like this, to my knowledge. Every unborn is "pure" and therefore free of sin. That's the reason so many Christians are so ga-ga over fetuses and don't give a shit anymore once it's pushed out, because apparently, once the amniotic fluid is gone, they get slapped with all that Original Sin bullshit. And even then, children below a certain age are supposedly good for Rapture no questions asked (then again, the Rapture is not canon to begin with - some 1830's Scottish preacher made that shit up after listening to a chick from his parish "speaking prophecy", and an American con-man snuck it into the annotations of one of the most common English Bible translations - I just learned that on NatGeo TV ).

Rats. *shakes fist*
Their arguments are so solid and impenetrable!

@Saleha: FWIW - "Original Sin" is mostly a Catholic thing, not an intrinsic part of Christianity.

Saleha wrote:

Sakurelf: Doesn't work like this, to my knowledge. Every unborn is "pure" and therefore free of sin. That's the reason so many Christians are so ga-ga over fetuses and don't give a shit anymore once it's pushed out, because apparently, once the amniotic fluid is gone, they get slapped with all that Original Sin bullshit.

There are Christian fundies in the Netherlands who believe our first sin is being born naked.


I really want to know how they take a shower or anything.

Freezer wrote:

@Saleha: FWIW - "Original Sin" is mostly a Catholic thing, not an intrinsic part of Christianity.

Ah, I see. I don't really presume to know the differences between all the different branches of Christianity, so it happens sometimes that these things get mixed up in my head. To be fair, I'm pretty sure I've heard the concept mentioned at a Methodist service before, though I don't remember in which context.

grmblfjx wrote:

There are Christian fundies in the Netherlands who believe out first sin is being born naked.


I really want to know how they take a shower or anything.

With eyes firmly closed/in a rain poncho? I sure hope it's the former, because in the latter case, I don't want to be in the same room with them on a summer day.

That reminds me of a Presbie friend of mine talking about one year at a Church retreet some of the women wore bathing suits to shower because it was an open shower instead of individual stalls.

grmblfjx wrote:

Saleha wrote:

Sakurelf: Doesn't work like this, to my knowledge. Every unborn is "pure" and therefore free of sin. That's the reason so many Christians are so ga-ga over fetuses and don't give a shit anymore once it's pushed out, because apparently, once the amniotic fluid is gone, they get slapped with all that Original Sin bullshit.

There are Christian fundies in the Netherlands who believe our first sin is being born naked.


I really want to know how they take a shower or anything.

Wasn't our first sin making clothes out of fig-leaves?

Incidentally, the first sin was not in committing a sin, but the act of not doing what God bloody well tells you to. Later on that was expanded to 'and not asking for forgiveness'. The Tree of Knowledge was no different to any other tree; too many people (conservatives, no less) interpret it as being a special tree.

The Simpsons especially ballsed up on this one - Eve asked for forgiveness but it was not granted. Great interpretation, Matt Groening. Your grasp of the bible is legendary.

What we gained knowledge of, if you listen to that entire crock, was guilt for disobedience. Adam and Eve then dressed in fig leaves to hide their guilt, which they were so ashamed of. Then God comes along, knowing damn well they ate from the tree and He'd rather like them to ask for forgiveness, which in theory he will grant, but they don't, so get out. If you look, God does have a tendency to grant forgiveness where asked. Well, if he gives you time to ask before turning you into a pillar of salt or burning your city to the ground or sending an army against your people.

But anyway, I bet Anders is adamant that he's a good man.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Incidentally, the first sin was not in committing a sin, but the act of not doing what God bloody well tells you to.

...that's what a fucking "sin" is.

Quote :

Later on that was expanded to 'and not asking for forgiveness'.

No.

Quote :

The Tree of Knowledge was no different to any other tree; too many people (conservatives, no less) interpret it as being a special tree.

"And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’"

Yeah, shut up.

Quote :

The Simpsons especially ballsed up on this one - Eve asked for forgiveness but it was not granted. Great interpretation, Matt Groening. Your grasp of the bible is legendary.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Well this clears it up. He's absolutely not a Christian... Christians simply can't be terrorists... it's impossible!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Them Muslims, on the other hand...

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Wasn't our first sin making clothes out of fig-leaves?
(...)
Adam and Eve then dressed in fig leaves to hide their guilt, which they were so ashamed of.

You answered your own question there (hint: the answer is "no"). Trying to hide their nakedness was the result of their sin, not the sin itself.

karmyn31 wrote:

That reminds me of a Presbie friend of mine talking about one year at a Church retreet some of the women wore bathing suits to shower because it was an open shower instead of individual stalls.

I don't find that all that crazy. People here do that occasionally at public swimming pools. Not everyone is comfortable getting naked in front of people they don't know (or in front of their new boyfriend's entire female half of the family. Yeah, that was awkward).

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Incidentally, the first sin was not in committing a sin, but the act of not doing what God bloody well tells you to. Later on that was expanded to 'and not asking for forgiveness'. The Tree of Knowledge was no different to any other tree; too many people (conservatives, no less) interpret it as being a special tree.

At the risk of nit-picking I read that the original sin was passing the buck, not taking responsibility for your actions. 'Yeah I ate it but the woman told me it was ok.' and 'Yeah I ate it but the snake told me it was ok. Now this Norwegian Christian Fundie sack of crap is going 'Yeah I killed all these people but God told me it was ok.'

WD40 wrote:

Well this clears it up. He's absolutely not a Christian... Christians simply can't be terrorists... it's impossible!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Them Muslims, on the other hand...

At least some of the papers here in Sweden seem to have wibbled a bit on the terms, but then they went back to calling him a terrorist. Gold star there, at least.

I, for one, am happy that the freepers have decided to build a conspiracy that says the shooter is a secret liberal and/or Muslim. It's better than them saying that what he did was AWESOME and that he should be a cult hero. They started down that road, what with Glenn Beck comparing the summer camp in question to the Hitler Youth, but it's almost as if they've backpedaled by shifting the blame off the far right.

If the freepers just out-and-out decided that they loved Breivik and wanted to emulate him, the world would be a little less safe. I am all for replacing one illogical belief with another to keep them from murdering us all. Cynical? Sorry. It's not like they're going to wake up sane tomorrow.

THANKYOU, Zootie.

Note that everybody's forgetting it ever happened now of course. It's not brought up on the news. Kind of like when priests get raping kids and it leaves the news for "My cat is stuck up a tree!"

Oh, it's all over the news over here still. Also the racist parties of Scandinavia are sweating bullets, and yelling at their members to shut up and stop drawing attention to themselves saying stuff like what that Glenn Beck said. Because at least here in Sweden they got a lot of votes from people who don't really support them but voted on them as a show of contempt for the other parties, and if they lose those and can't get them back they run a great risk of not making it into the government next election (which unfortunately is a few years away so they could make it).

Also the social democrats in both Norway and Sweden at least have seen a huge surge in members for their youth leagues.

So all is not glum, at least, thankfully.

CaptainMcNeil wrote:

Glenn Beck compared the camp to the Hitler Youth.

Here.

Keep it classy, Beck.

My mom had that on Monday and IIRC he said something more along the lines of "Any camp for kids that's called a political camp reminds me of the Hitler Youth. But only a monster would attack kids."

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with 99% of the things that come out of this guy's mouth. But he wasn't going on and on about them being like the Hitler Youth and how it was good that they'd gotten shot. Wait a few days and I'm sure he'll go back to telling the world how Muslims are going to rise up and kill us all and we should go and save Isreal, because there's nothing more they love then some Mormon holding rallies about them.

Beck, being the offense to one's sense of human decency that he is, has seemily forgotten the tea party summer camp his 9/12 foundation endorses.

Of course he didn't forget. He just knows that nobody will ever call him out on it and that, even if they did, it wouldn't change the association he's made in the minds of his audience that "Norwegian youth camp = Hitler Youth".

Exposing the national idiots here, because my country would look sane otherwise...
Mario Borghezio, Senator of the North League and a member of the European parliament, in a phone call at a radio broadcast, managed to say that Breivik's ideas are "good, in some cases very good ideas" as far as they concern Islamic fundamentalism, and they ought to be "shared" once the incitation to violence is removed.

Borghezio's party, in the person of Minister for Simplification Calderoli, has forwarded its official apologies to Norway for the "terrible and unqualifiable views expressed by Borghezio, views that I already defined as raving".
Borghezio has been suspended from his functions within the party for three months, I'm happy to say.

You know you stepped in it when this man:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
famous for walking his pet pig on the proposed site for a mosque, says you've gone too far.

grmblfjx wrote:

Owlish wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

I also feel that you don't get to shoot nearly 90 teenagers and still call yourself Christian.

But do people who fly planes into buildings and kill thousands get to call themselves Muslim?

This is a good point. But I don't know enough about it; I mean I know Jesus was all about love and forgiveness and turning the other cheek and I don't know what the Quran says about these things, so "I also feel that you don't get to fly a plane into a building and kill thousands and still call yourself Muslim" is a statement that's going to have to come from someone who knows more about it than I do.

While I understand your inclination, you shouldn't have to know anything about Islam or Christianity to recognize the flawed thinking here. Almost everyone here knows enough about Christianity to recognize the contradiction, but because Islam is a minority belief system in the west it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt that those who commit atrocities in its name are defying their religion. I really think that the words Christian and Muslim in western dialogue no longer refer to religious practice--they've become cultural codewords. Christian has become synonymous with "someone who does things I agree with," and Muslim has become synonymous with "someone who does things I disagree with." Bill O'Reilly has summed it up nicely here: Bill O'Reilly: Media Labeling Norway Killer Breivik 'Christian' Because 'They Don't Like Christians'

Quote :

Bill O'Reilly sternly criticized the media for describing Anders Behring-Breivik, the man who has admitted to committing the mass killings in Norway, as a Christian, saying that such a thing was "impossible."

Translation: "I am Christian, therefore someone who does something I think is wrong cannot be Christian." Because Bill O'Reilly, and every other self-righteous American Christian gets to decide who is a real Christian and who isn't. It's not about religious practice or even textual interpretation, it's about identity politics.

Penguin wrote:

So, at this point, while people make it out to be a simple black-and-white issue, modern Islam does lend itself to radicalized beliefs and terrorism more handily than modern Christianity, but right now, that's largely due to a host of issues that range from economics to tribal politics. It's not an issue with the religion so much as the conflict and economics of the parts of the world where it's been practiced the longest.

Precisely. The reasons why "Islam" has become radicalized are not religious but are political and economic in nature. Yes, the texts can be interpreted in a violent way, but so can the Bible--it's all about which parts you pick and choose. It's in the same vein as the gay marriage debate in the US. Yes, you can interpret the Bible as being against homosexuality, but your interpretation is really not standard and you're ignoring other parts of the text which contradict your belief. It's the same with the Quran. People who have a specific agenda are using parts of the text to justify their acts, but their interpretation does not comport with the majority of Muslims.

It's also why I laugh at the whole "racial profiling" thing when applied to Muslims. Not all Muslims are from the Middle East, and not everyone of Middle Eastern descent is Muslim. You can't racially profile Muslims, because--gasp--some Muslims are white! People in favor of profiling don't realize that they're hitting upon a key point, that they're profiling people from a certain turbulent region of the world, not Muslims. Terrorists come from a specific economic and political--not religious--background.

littledorrit wrote:

I was a Muslim for six months (a phase), and though there is always disagreement about everything that has to do with religion, I can say that Islam is not a "go kill everybody" religion. It's not anti-conflict the way the Christianity of the Gospels is, but it's not as ultra-militant as people make it out to be.

The Islamic code of war that Muhammad drew up during his conflicts with the Meccans has the following rules: do not wage aggressive war, do not target civilians, do not rape women, and do not hurt the environment. There are violent verses in the Qur'an, but no more than there are percentage-wise in the Old Testament and Revelations; as with the four anti-homosexual verses in the Bible, they get exaggerated by extremists. Same with anti-Semitic verses. Though it is reiterated again and again that dying in the name of the faith is honorable, the deaths discussed involved (a) peaceful people who were persecuted for being Muslim, like the martyr Sumaiya, or (b) Muslims being killed while battling their (military) enemies face-to-face. I don't even know where the kamikaze shit came from.

"Jihad" was originally a word that rarely meant physical war. It was a war of wills, both within the Muslim himself or out in the marketplace of ideas (i.e. Jihad is holding your own in a debate).

I'm not a wholesale defender of Islam. I just want to share what I know.

Great explanation, and I just would like to add that the concept of jihad (as I was taught academically) is a war for one's own spirituality, ie, keeping halal, observing the proper religious rituals, proper thinking, avoiding temptation, etc. It only acquires a physical interpretation when someone threatens you physically, as in martyrdom. It is not waging a war for anyone else's spirituality. The externalized interpretation of the word is much more modern and political.

Quote :

because Islam is a minority belief system in the west it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt that those who commit atrocities in its name are defying their religion.

No, it gets the benefit of the doubt from me. But saying "if you do this, you can't call yourself Muslim" is a pretty strong statement and much more of an opinion than I feel I can afford to have based on my minimal knowledge.

I get what you're saying in your post, and I agree with your point, I just don't feel comfortable making an opinionated statement like that about something I'm not terribly familiar with.