35006
Post by: Medium of Death
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-craig-stephen-hicks-condemned-all-religions-on-facebook-prior-to-muslim-massmurder-arrest-10038126.html
Chapel Hill shooting: Craig Stephen Hicks condemned all religions on Facebook prior to 'Muslim mass-murder' arrest
The man arrested on suspicion of killing three young Muslims in North Carolina described himself as an “anti-theist” and criticised all religions online.
Police said 46-year-old Craig Stephen Hicks handed himself in to officers in Chapel Hill overnight in the wake of the deaths of 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19.
He has been arrested and charged with three counts of first-degree murder.
As tributes poured in for the young family, a Facebook page in Hicks’ name showed that he read paralegal studies at Durham Technical Community College and described himself as a supporter of “Atheists for Equality”.
A regular social media user, his last three posts were a cute dog video about the Pavlov effect, a viral advert for Air New Zealand involving mountain bikes, and a picture from United Atheists of America asking “why radical Christians and radical Muslims are so opposed to each others’ influence when they agree about so many ideological issues”.
TV programmes liked by Hicks include The Atheist Experience, Criminal Minds and Friends, while he describes himself as a fan of Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.
Hicks’ pictures largely consist of images with text mocking religion and supporting atheism, but include images of himself and his wife at Disneyland, what he describes as his “loaded 38 revovler”, and himself separately on a quad bike and wearing a suit.
The shooting of the three Muslims has been widely condemned across social media, including by Richard Dawkins himself, who tweeted: “How could any decent person NOT condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims in Chapel Hill?”
Other users have called on people to donate to a charity in Deah Barakat’s honour. The victim volunteered for a number of agencies providing dental relief to Syrian and Palestinian refugees, as well as caring for homeless people in the US.
There are no fedoras where he's going...
14070
Post by: SagesStone
He was too edgy for this world.
That's also how to do atheism wrong, but most like that simply do it to be edgy anyways. -.-
73007
Post by: Grimskul
Extremists, extremists everywar!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
This is going to be an interesting one for me to follow...
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Kan in the OT?
Mother of God.
I'm looking forward to this guys motivation to shoot these particular Muslims. I know he hated all religions, but you think you'd go and shoot up an entire Mosque/Church/Synagogue or something.
221
Post by: Frazzled
If that jurisdiction has hate crimes enhancement, he should be charged with such.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
 Medium of Death wrote:Kan in the OT?
Mother of God.
I'm looking forward to this guys motivation to shoot these particular Muslims. I know he hated all religions, but you think you'd go and shoot up an entire Mosque/Church/Synagogue or something.
It's possible he didn't have the balls to try and these people were just extremely unlucky.
34390
Post by: whembly
Long time no see buddy. 
I'm interested too. 
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/reports-3-young-muslims-slain-in-chapel-hill-shooting-n-c-man-charged/
“Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking,” the department said in a statement. “Hicks is cooperating with investigators and more information may be released at a later time.”
.. parking.
46277
Post by: squidhills
 reds8n wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/reports-3-young-muslims-slain-in-chapel-hill-shooting-n-c-man-charged/
“Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking,” the department said in a statement. “Hicks is cooperating with investigators and more information may be released at a later time.”
.. parking.
Of course he killed them because of parking. It's the only logical conclusion.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Off-Road Rage?
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/reports-3-young-muslims-slain-in-chapel-hill-shooting-n-c-man-charged/
“Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking,” the department said in a statement. “Hicks is cooperating with investigators and more information may be released at a later time.”
.. parking.
We'll see, or not. News never actualy follows up on a story any more.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Living a few years in a crap apartment complex just outside of Baltimore, I can believe this incident happened because of parking. I've seen some downright Hatfield vs McCoy type stuff all because of parking.
You want your ass kicked or your property fethed with? Move someone's lawn chair that they put in their parking spot they just cleared of snow. Its serious business. Even during normal weather, if someone gets their private parking spot taken... War.
People are scary weird about parking.
221
Post by: Frazzled
This is very very true.
34390
Post by: whembly
reds8n wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/reports-3-young-muslims-slain-in-chapel-hill-shooting-n-c-man-charged/
“Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking,” the department said in a statement. “Hicks is cooperating with investigators and more information may be released at a later time.”
.. parking.
24hr rule is in effect....
We often don't know the full details till later.
5394
Post by: reds8n
The comment was more horror/disgust that such a trivial thing could even be considered a motive.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
reds8n wrote: The comment was more horror/disgust that such a trivial thing could even be considered a motive.
We mustn't live in the same world... I've read of people being murdered because they didn't wan't to share a cigarette, compared to that parking is one hell of a good reason.
Also, even if the true reason for the murder was a parking space and not a religious crime, he should still suffer additional aggravating circumstances to his sentence for his help in divulging dog videos!
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Hey, remember that guy that shot that kid because he was playing his music too loud? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Frazzled wrote:If that jurisdiction has hate crimes enhancement, he should be charged with such.
Oh we definitely have hate crimes as an enhancement for crimes here.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Turns himself in? Well that is odd.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Evidence that they were killed because they were Muslims? This sounds like a parking dispute, according to the news.
50326
Post by: curran12
When have we let a thing like evidence of a religious motivation get in the way of condemning a religious murderer for hate crimes?
68355
Post by: easysauce
squidhills wrote: reds8n wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/reports-3-young-muslims-slain-in-chapel-hill-shooting-n-c-man-charged/
“Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking,” the department said in a statement. “Hicks is cooperating with investigators and more information may be released at a later time.”
.. parking.
Of course he killed them because of parking. It's the only logical conclusion.
Yeah... parkings a big deal in big cities... Ive seen lots of fights over parking.
In london, a parking spot costs more then most houses, stealing one means you often cannot do anything but frive around for hours/KM till you find somewhere to put your car. Most "reasons" to kill people are not that reasonable but I can definatly see the trigger here.
and now on with the jokes:
I thought aeithism was a non-religion of peace?
Where are all the moderate aetheists?
Did richard dawkings get black out drunk again?
21940
Post by: nels1031
Not so much. People that appear as otherwise normal and well adjusted can snap and do horrible things, immediately show remorse/regret and turn themselves in under their own volition.
I'd say the ones that escalate the situation by fleeing/barricading themselves up are the minority, its just that it becomes a bigger story when that happens, so it seems more common than it is.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 curran12 wrote:When have we let a thing like evidence of a religious motivation get in the way of condemning a religious murderer for hate crimes?
Where's the evidence again? A couple Facebook posts about religion? Using the Dakka-corrected vernacular, vague Facebook post about Atheism --> Religiously-motivated mass murder logic is "slowed."
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
That is so fethed up. If you hate religion (spoiler: I do), try to destroy religions, not people! Religions dies when people stop to believe in them and start believing in something else, not when every believer is killed…
Well, atheism is an absence of religion, not a system of belief. So of course it is not a non-religion of peace, or a non-religion of war. It is a non-religion of nothingness  .
Hiding from the extremists. They are here to get us .
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 nels1031 wrote:
Not so much. People that appear as otherwise normal and well adjusted can snap and do horrible things, immediately show remorse/regret and turn themselves in under their own volition.
I'd say the ones that escalate the situation by fleeing/barricading themselves up are the minority, its just that it becomes a bigger story when that happens, so it seems more common than it is.
I don't know about this. Something is strange about someone willingly going to jail for the rest of their life.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Not sure what you mean. People do it all the time.
It may even help with sentencing, when the time comes. But that usually depends on local laws and how zealous the prosecutor is.
50326
Post by: curran12
Adrenaline is a hell of a chemical. And add in some rage and a weapon and you got one hell of a formula for situations that are over way too quickly and are way too irreversible.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
This is an article from my local ABC affiliate on the matter.
Purportedly there were issues before and the reason that hate crimes were even brought up is as follows:
The statements prompted the Council on American Islamic Relations Wednesday to call on law enforcement to address a "possible bias motive" for the shootings.
"Based on the brutal nature of this crime, the past anti-religion statements of the alleged perpetrator, the religious attire of two of the victims, and the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric in American society, we urge state and federal law enforcement authorities to quickly address speculation of a possible bias motive in this case," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
So they don't think that it exists, but they want it to be clarified as quickly as possible so as to avoid issues that could crop up.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
How does this make world news?
Oh I get it, finally a atheist does something immoral that everyone can criticize and go "see, they're as bad as the rest of us after all"
If it had been a christian who claimed he was just standing his ground, defending his parking lot from muslims, Craig would already be home and nothing would have been said about it.
I would also like to point out the people in the ISIS thread wanting genocide, it would also include these 3 victims. Who seem like they were really decent people, and other dakkaites claim these victims were supporting terrorists just because they are muslims and read from the same book.
Road rage is nothing new, but how messed up do you have to be to shoot 3 people? How does a parking lot dispute turn into a triple homicide?
At least Craig will be tried and the truth revealed. I also hope that some good can come from this tragedy.
75482
Post by: Da krimson barun
Atheism is not compatible with the west...
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
curran12 wrote:Adrenaline is a hell of a chemical. And add in some rage and a weapon and you got one hell of a formula for situations that are over way too quickly and are way too irreversible.
Gun control “discussion” fuel  . Get your bingos, peoples!
21940
Post by: nels1031
sirlynchmob wrote:If it had been a christian who claimed he was just standing his ground, defending his parking lot from muslims, Craig would already be home and nothing would have been said about it.
Sure...
221
Post by: Frazzled
sirlynchmob wrote:How does this make world news?
Oh I get it, finally a atheist does something immoral that everyone can criticize and go "see, they're as bad as the rest of us after all"
It makes news because it was three Muslims that were killed at one time. You know like the Jews that were killed in the grocery store. This may or may not have been (un)religiously motivated. If so it falls under hate crime.
If it had been a christian who claimed he was just standing his ground, defending his parking lot from muslims, Craig would already be home and nothing would have been said about it.
Speaking of bigtoted statements.... 
68355
Post by: easysauce
Frazzled wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:How does this make world news?
Oh I get it, finally a atheist does something immoral that everyone can criticize and go "see, they're as bad as the rest of us after all"
It makes news because it was three Muslims that were killed at one time. You know like the Jews that were killed in the grocery store. This may or may not have been (un)religiously motivated. If so it falls under hate crime.
If it had been a christian who claimed he was just standing his ground, defending his parking lot from muslims, Craig would already be home and nothing would have been said about it.
Speaking of bigtoted statements....
I know right? its almost like being bigoted against certain factions is ok.....
34390
Post by: whembly
sirlynchmob wrote:How does this make world news? Oh I get it, finally a atheist does something immoral that everyone can criticize and go "see, they're as bad as the rest of us after all" If it had been a christian who claimed he was just standing his ground, defending his parking lot from muslims, Craig would already be home and nothing would have been said about it.
Oh  no man... if he was a Christian/TeaParty/Right-Winger, it'd be pushed so hard down our throats one EVERY news cycle, that'd the coverages of Michael Brown/Eric Garnder/Travon Martin would pale in comparison.
I would also like to point out the people in the ISIS thread wanting genocide, it would also include these 3 victims. Who seem like they were really decent people, and other dakkaites claim these victims were supporting terrorists just because they are muslims and read from the same book.
Road rage is nothing new, but how messed up do you have to be to shoot 3 people? How does a parking lot dispute turn into a triple homicide?
At least Craig will be tried and the truth revealed. I also hope that some good can come from this tragedy.
He may have been progressive and an atheist. But, it looks more to me, he just had a bad day and *snapped*.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
 easysauce wrote:I know right? its almost like being bigoted against certain factions is ok.....
Poor Christians have it so bad .
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Still waiting for evidence that his being an atheist is what motivated him to kill these people.
34390
Post by: whembly
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:Still waiting for evidence that his being an atheist is what motivated him to kill these people.
Seems he has a particular allergies against religion:
http://www.wncn.com/story/28083793/chapel-hill-triple-murder-suspect-says-he-felt-insulted-judged-by-religion
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -
The social media profile of a Chapel Hill man charged with fatally shooting three Muslim American students paints the picture of an outspoken atheist who felt insulted, judged and condemned by religion.
Chapel Hill police officers arrested 46-year-old Craig Stephen Hicks on Tuesday on first-degree murder charges in connection with the deaths of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha.
The three, who were students at UNC and N.C. State, were shot to death at the Finley Forest Condominiums on Summerwalk Circle in Chapel Hill.
A spokesman for Durham Technical Community College said Hicks was an "exemplary student" who was seeking three certificates in paralegal studies. In addition to being a student, his Facebook page also presented a very outspoken atheist, and an ordained atheist minister.
Hicks' profile further indicated he identified with anti-theism, a belief that opposes all forms of religion.
"I give your religion as much respect as your religion gives me," Hicks wrote. "There's nothing complicated about it, and I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge and to condemn me as an inadequate human being -- which your religion does with self-righteous gusto."
He continued, "When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I. But given that it doesn't, and given the enormous harm that your religion has done in this world, I'd say that I have not only a right, but a duty, to insult it, as does every rational, thinking person on this planet.
"Because the moment that your religion claims any kind of jurisdiction over my experience, you insult me on a level that you can't even begin to comprehend. Even if your beliefs had substance, the arrogance of that would be insult enough. But the fact that they have no substance, and are merely a transparent raft of delusions and lies, magnifies the insult enormously."
Police said the fatal shootings were the results of an ongoing parking dispute between neighbors, however there are also concerns that it may have been a crime motivated by hate. The Chapel Hill Police Department said it is investigating the possibility that the murders were "hate-motivated."
While Hicks' personal comments on Facebook are not directed at the single religion or person, the father of sisters Abu-Salha and Yusor Mohammad said their murders were a "hate crime."
"That's how hate works," Mohammad Abu-Salha told WNCN.
Many of Hicks' Facebook comments promote equality for all and anti-religious support. He also posted a picture of a revolver saying, "Yes, that is 1 pound 5.1 ounces for my loaded 38 revolver, its holster, and five extra rounds in a speedloader."
In addition to attending Durham Tech, Hick's Facebook profile indicated he was employed at Harris Teeter for several years.
Hicks appeared before a judge Wednesday morning in Durham. He was issued no bond and given a public defender.
His next court appearance will be on March 4.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Everyone is posting the same thing, but I'm not seeing anywhere where this constitutes a motive. If we have a guy who is an Eagles fan and he shoots a Cowboys fan over a parking space, is that guy waging a jihad against Cowboys fans, or is he just a dick who shot someone over a parking space?
Lots of people bitch about this and that on social media. I'd like to see something beyond Facebook First World Problems ( tm) come into play when we are making assumptions about potentially religiously-motivated premeditated murder. By that same logic, it's impossible for a member of one religion to kill a member of another religion without it being a hate crime.
34390
Post by: whembly
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Everyone is posting the same thing, but I'm not seeing anywhere where this constitutes a motive. If we have a guy who is an Eagles fan and he shoots a Cowboys fan over a parking space, is that guy waging a jihad against Cowboys fans, or is he just a dick who shot someone over a parking space?
We won't know for sure for weeks.
I'd still stay it was a passion crime (over parking space).
50326
Post by: curran12
I'm not quite ready to say that the murder was purely motivated by religion, that said there's more than adequate suspicion that religion played a role in the mindset.
Was it caused by religion? Probably not. Is it worth looking at in detail? Absolutely.
34390
Post by: whembly
curran12 wrote:I'm not quite ready to say that the murder was purely motivated by religion, that said there's more than adequate suspicion that religion played a role in the mindset.
Was it caused by religion? Probably not. Is it worth looking at in detail? Absolutely.
You mean anti-religion... right? 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ask the ones in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt about it. Don't ask the ones that have been crucified. They're already dead. You could go to Nigeria and visit the thousands of burned churches if you wish.
50326
Post by: curran12
 whembly wrote: curran12 wrote:I'm not quite ready to say that the murder was purely motivated by religion, that said there's more than adequate suspicion that religion played a role in the mindset.
Was it caused by religion? Probably not. Is it worth looking at in detail? Absolutely.
You mean anti-religion... right?
Right.
I don't think his religious views were what caused him to murder 3 people. At least not yet.
I do think that they probably contributed to the escalation of the situation over parking into murder.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Frazzled wrote:
Ask the ones in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt about it. Don't ask the ones that have been crucified. They're already dead. You could go to Nigeria and visit the thousands of burned churches if you wish.
Some folks choose to believe that all Christians are middle-aged, married white folks living in the 'burbs with their 2.4 children.
Don't confuse them with facts!
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
I will ask the atheists in Syria, Iraq and Egypt to ask them.
Surely they cannot be discriminated against, unlike Christians!
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I will ask the atheists in Syria, Iraq and Egypt to ask them.
Surely they cannot be discriminated against, unlike Christians!
No? Muslims discriminate against atheists all the time - it's part of their religion. A Muslim who doesn't discriminate against non-Muslims is simply not being a very good Muslim, the same way that a Jew who violates the 10 commandments is being a bad Jew. When it comes to living among Muslims, you really aren't safe from discrimination no matter your faith. Not even other Muslims are safe from the violence visited upon them by "the other" Muslims. For being the wrong kind of Muslim, of course.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Here in NZ, my girlfriend is working in a pet store, some family parked their car and walked around a couple of shops then another car parked nearby. Turns out these 2 guys knew each other and that coupled with awkward parking lead to a fist fight (we dont have guns here). If they hadnt known each other apparently they would have simply gone their way.
But they had history (one guy was an ex husband and the other guy a current husband) and that just added fuel to the fire. Maybe its a similar case here, held nothing back because of his history with the victims.
I dont know, either way this guy is a dirt bag and he can have his reward of rotting in prison (or death sentence in the USA? not sure of Laws there) for a long time.
I hope he feels really bad, I mean he literally killed 3 people for trivial reasons. As Yoda says "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... Suuufffeerrrinngg...."
Its pretty funny seeing all this talked about on reddit though. Reminds me of Youtube comments.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm guessing you're not a Jesus freak or just woke up onthe wrong side of the bed this morning.
of you're a bigot against Christians, or religious people in general.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I will ask the atheists in Syria, Iraq and Egypt to ask them.
Surely they cannot be discriminated against, unlike Christians!
No? Muslims discriminate against atheists all the time. When it comes to living among Muslims, you really aren't safe from discrimination no matter your faith. Not even other Muslims are safe from the violence visited upon them by "the other" Muslims. For being the wrong kind of Muslim, of course.
I live next door to a muslim and around the corner to 2 families of jehovahs witnesses, and up the road are some baptists. They are all nice to each other and go about their business, say high on the street (religious people are nice like that) even lend their lawnmowers when someone is in need. I feel very safe from muslim discrimination. Its actually worse having your atheist friends talk behind their backs about how stupid they are. Atheists make me cringe. Like reading your comment actually. The only people in the world I have ever heard any discrimination come from is atheists, at college, primary school and even at work sometimes.
No one is safe from atheist discrimination, even atheists hate each other (as witnessed at college etc). Sick group of people. Really toxic and horrid.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Swastakowey wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I will ask the atheists in Syria, Iraq and Egypt to ask them.
Surely they cannot be discriminated against, unlike Christians!
No? Muslims discriminate against atheists all the time. When it comes to living among Muslims, you really aren't safe from discrimination no matter your faith. Not even other Muslims are safe from the violence visited upon them by "the other" Muslims. For being the wrong kind of Muslim, of course.
I live next door to a muslim and around the corner to 2 families of jehovahs witnesses, and up the road are some baptists. They are all nice to each other and go about their business, say high on the street (religious people are nice like that) even lend their lawnmowers when someone is in need. I feel very safe from muslim discrimination. Its actually worse having your atheist friends talk behind their backs about how stupid they are. Atheists make me cringe. Like reading your comment actually. The only people in the world I have ever heard any discrimination come from is atheists, at college, primary school and even at work sometimes.
No one is safe from atheist discrimination, even atheists hate each other (as witnessed at college etc). Sick group of people. Really toxic and horrid.
Those Muslims are not practicing their faith correctly, according to the "real Muslims." Have you paid your infidel tax lately? If not, then "real Muslims" would consider your neighbors to be "fake Muslims" who don't follow the book properly.
If you actually read what the Koran says, it's institutionalized discrimination against anyone who is not a Muslim. I've known some pretty cool Muslims, and also a few who were totally insane. The problem is that the religion itself is fundamentally geared toward discrimination.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Swastakowey wrote:Here in NZ, my girlfriend is working in a pet store, some family parked their car and walked around a couple of shops then another car parked nearby. Turns out these 2 guys knew each other and that coupled with awkward parking lead to a fist fight (we dont have guns here). If they hadnt known each other apparently they would have simply gone their way.
But they had history (one guy was an ex husband and the other guy a current husband) and that just added fuel to the fire. Maybe its a similar case here, held nothing back because of his history with the victims.
I dont know, either way this guy is a dirt bag and he can have his reward of rotting in prison (or death sentence in the USA? not sure of Laws there) for a long time.
I hope he feels really bad, I mean he literally killed 3 people for trivial reasons. As Yoda says "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... Suuufffeerrrinngg...."
Its pretty funny seeing all this talked about on reddit though. Reminds me of Youtube comments.
Shooting people over a parking space is bad no matter how you slice it.
If they were neighbors this could have been a building conflict.
I've had neighbors that I had dark thoughts about.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I will ask the atheists in Syria, Iraq and Egypt to ask them.
Surely they cannot be discriminated against, unlike Christians!
No? Muslims discriminate against atheists all the time - it's part of their religion.
You are not good at detecting sarcasm, or you are trolling me.
Frazzled wrote:I'm guessing you're not a Jesus freak or just woke up onthe wrong side of the bed this morning.
of you're a bigot against Christians, or religious people in general.
Is that related to the Atheists in Syria, Iraq and Egypt?
221
Post by: Frazzled
No, you. Thats the second post we're you're giggng Christians.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Swastakowey wrote:
No one is safe from atheist discrimination, even atheists hate each other (as witnessed at college etc). Sick group of people. Really toxic and horrid.
Fraz, this is what a bigoted statement looks like.
Speaking of christians discrimination and north carolina:
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
In the states they like to enshrine the discrimination into laws. Just look at their marriage equality issue. It must be nice to live in a place with no discrimination, Or do you just own really thick blinders? atheist discriminiation, lol. Tell me, how does a minority discriminate against a majority? Did your friend not bake a cake for someone?
@whembly why did you leave out James Howard Allen?
http://www.wncn.com/story/28055891/elderly-nc-man-shot-by-police-officer-checking-on-him
he didn't reach my local paper, now your cops are killing vets in their own homes, how do you get called to check on someone to see if they're ok after a surgery yet end up shooting him?
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Swastakowey wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I will ask the atheists in Syria, Iraq and Egypt to ask them.
Surely they cannot be discriminated against, unlike Christians!
No? Muslims discriminate against atheists all the time. When it comes to living among Muslims, you really aren't safe from discrimination no matter your faith. Not even other Muslims are safe from the violence visited upon them by "the other" Muslims. For being the wrong kind of Muslim, of course.
I live next door to a muslim and around the corner to 2 families of jehovahs witnesses, and up the road are some baptists. They are all nice to each other and go about their business, say high on the street (religious people are nice like that) even lend their lawnmowers when someone is in need. I feel very safe from muslim discrimination. Its actually worse having your atheist friends talk behind their backs about how stupid they are. Atheists make me cringe. Like reading your comment actually. The only people in the world I have ever heard any discrimination come from is atheists, at college, primary school and even at work sometimes.
No one is safe from atheist discrimination, even atheists hate each other (as witnessed at college etc). Sick group of people. Really toxic and horrid.
Those Muslims are not practicing their faith correctly, according to the "real Muslims." Have you paid your infidel tax lately? If not, then "real Muslims" would consider your neighbors to be "fake Muslims" who don't follow the book properly.
If you actually read what the Koran says, it's institutionalized discrimination against anyone who is not a Muslim. I've known some pretty cool Muslims, and also a few who were totally insane. The problem is that the religion itself is fundamentally geared toward discrimination.
Really? Is it? Because you know, religious texts are studied in whole. Ever read the bible for example? Down the middle you will see an index type of thing, all through out the bible there are letters, each letter takes you to a letter in the index which then takes you to a different scripture that has relevant info or gives more perspective on the original scripture in question.
Like for example the bible has a lot of lee way in how one decides to live their life. Take jehovahs witnesses. they are about as fundamental as you can get fr Christians. They understand they are separate from the world in their views. It says to stay neutral from politics for example. So a Jehovahs witness will never join a rebellion, vote for a member or join a political party. But at the same time it says to obey those with power UNLESS it directly contradicts their faith. So in Nazi germany when Hitler wanted Jehovahs witnesses to salute him, they would not. They had the choice to salute him or go to concentration camps. So off to the camps many went and they simply carried on their faith as best they could. Yet if Jehovahs witnesses pay taxes, how can they not be hypocritical when paying their taxes? Well there us another verse in the bible that states (famously I believe) about paying the taxes owed despite it going to many places such as military and political costs or whatever.
So taking your example, im gonna assume you have not studied the koran in whole and have instead read it, took out some bits out or read what someone else wrote about the koran etc. Anyone could read the bible and read the part that talks about keeping neutral in politics and declare it gods will that you will not pay taxes in support of the government. Then a whole load of 13 year old atheists will read it and declare how bad the bible is for encouraging skipping on taxes etc.
Its same with many Americans protesting Gays. The bible talks about being peaceful and letting the world go about its business. They shouldn't care what the Gay people get up to, for according to them the Gay people, like all others who dont follow the bible, will simply die and return to dust, for they are having their reward in full. While the faithful get their reward later in life. And so on.
So like Jehovahs witnesses, im pretty sure my muslim neighbor has taken his holy book, read it, and taken it all in and decided that he can follow his religion while being at peace around his neighbors. Which I think is reasonable and still qualifies him as a "real muslim". You are right though, he could have taken one part of the koran and decided he will be hateful towards us, but he obviously found something different in his book to what you saw and lived his life respectfully. As most people do.
He certainly doesnt rage to everyone about how bad other people are anyway.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Speaking of christians discrimination and north carolina:
And it would get knocked out by the ACLU instantly if anyone tried it.
atheist discriminiation, lol. Tell me, how does a minority discriminate against a majority?
You're directing this at me like I said something about atheists in the thread. please refresh your recollection.
oh and minorities oppress majorities all the time. If you think they don't: be poor and go to Rodeo Drive and see how that works.
34390
Post by: whembly
Um... how is that remotely ontopic here? While tragic, I don't have all the info on that particular event.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm not seeing how this thread is shifting sideways. Oh well.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
sirlynchmob wrote:How does this make world news?
Oh I get it, finally a atheist does something immoral that everyone can criticize and go "see, they're as bad as the rest of us after all"
If it had been a christian who claimed he was just standing his ground, defending his parking lot from muslims, Craig would already be home and nothing would have been said about it.
Easy, Dude it's only February. You've got ten more months to come up with The Most Idiotic Post of 2015. Pace yourself.
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
Now we have non-religious extremists.
The world is definitely a dangerous place.
24779
Post by: Eilif
reds8n wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/reports-3-young-muslims-slain-in-chapel-hill-shooting-n-c-man-charged/
“Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking,” the department said in a statement. “Hicks is cooperating with investigators and more information may be released at a later time.”
.. parking.
This is what I heard on the radio this morning as well. I don't find it at all surprising. Most murders are not the direct result of gang culture, hate crimes or pre-planned killings, though these can be the cause, are often contributing factors and may yet prove to be a part of this case.
However, most come from inter-personal conflicts that spiral out of control. Petty arguments, public disagreements, perceived slights, etc. People kill each other for the stupidest stuff.
21940
Post by: nels1031
 SlaveToDorkness wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:How does this make world news?
Oh I get it, finally a atheist does something immoral that everyone can criticize and go "see, they're as bad as the rest of us after all"
If it had been a christian who claimed he was just standing his ground, defending his parking lot from muslims, Craig would already be home and nothing would have been said about it.
Easy, Dude it's only February. You've got ten more months to come up with The Most Idiotic Post of 2015. Pace yourself.
He may be trying to take a run at all ten of the Top Ten Most Idiotic Posts list though.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Edited: too mean, not worth the trouble.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Frazzled wrote:No, you. Thats the second post we're you're giggng Christians.
I was just pointing to the absurdity of pretending Christians have it worse than others in regard to discrimination. Especially in Europe/America.
Swastakowey wrote:Like for example the bible has a lot of lee way in how one decides to live their life. […]
So taking your example, im gonna assume you have not studied the koran in whole and have instead read it, took out some bits out or read what someone else wrote about the koran etc.
Sure. Assume that the Bible and the Quran are the same. No need to actually study what the Quran is about, you have already studied the Bible. .
Actually, they are different.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Swastakowey wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Swastakowey wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I will ask the atheists in Syria, Iraq and Egypt to ask them.
Surely they cannot be discriminated against, unlike Christians!
No? Muslims discriminate against atheists all the time. When it comes to living among Muslims, you really aren't safe from discrimination no matter your faith. Not even other Muslims are safe from the violence visited upon them by "the other" Muslims. For being the wrong kind of Muslim, of course.
I live next door to a muslim and around the corner to 2 families of jehovahs witnesses, and up the road are some baptists. They are all nice to each other and go about their business, say high on the street (religious people are nice like that) even lend their lawnmowers when someone is in need. I feel very safe from muslim discrimination. Its actually worse having your atheist friends talk behind their backs about how stupid they are. Atheists make me cringe. Like reading your comment actually. The only people in the world I have ever heard any discrimination come from is atheists, at college, primary school and even at work sometimes.
No one is safe from atheist discrimination, even atheists hate each other (as witnessed at college etc). Sick group of people. Really toxic and horrid.
Those Muslims are not practicing their faith correctly, according to the "real Muslims." Have you paid your infidel tax lately? If not, then "real Muslims" would consider your neighbors to be "fake Muslims" who don't follow the book properly.
If you actually read what the Koran says, it's institutionalized discrimination against anyone who is not a Muslim. I've known some pretty cool Muslims, and also a few who were totally insane. The problem is that the religion itself is fundamentally geared toward discrimination.
Really? Is it? Because you know, religious texts are studied in whole. Ever read the bible for example? Down the middle you will see an index type of thing, all through out the bible there are letters, each letter takes you to a letter in the index which then takes you to a different scripture that has relevant info or gives more perspective on the original scripture in question.
Like for example the bible has a lot of lee way in how one decides to live their life. Take jehovahs witnesses. they are about as fundamental as you can get fr Christians. They understand they are separate from the world in their views. It says to stay neutral from politics for example. So a Jehovahs witness will never join a rebellion, vote for a member or join a political party. But at the same time it says to obey those with power UNLESS it directly contradicts their faith. So in Nazi germany when Hitler wanted Jehovahs witnesses to salute him, they would not. They had the choice to salute him or go to concentration camps. So off to the camps many went and they simply carried on their faith as best they could. Yet if Jehovahs witnesses pay taxes, how can they not be hypocritical when paying their taxes? Well there us another verse in the bible that states (famously I believe) about paying the taxes owed despite it going to many places such as military and political costs or whatever.
So taking your example, im gonna assume you have not studied the koran in whole and have instead read it, took out some bits out or read what someone else wrote about the koran etc. Anyone could read the bible and read the part that talks about keeping neutral in politics and declare it gods will that you will not pay taxes in support of the government. Then a whole load of 13 year old atheists will read it and declare how bad the bible is for encouraging skipping on taxes etc.
Its same with many Americans protesting Gays. The bible talks about being peaceful and letting the world go about its business. They shouldn't care what the Gay people get up to, for according to them the Gay people, like all others who dont follow the bible, will simply die and return to dust, for they are having their reward in full. While the faithful get their reward later in life. And so on.
So like Jehovahs witnesses, im pretty sure my muslim neighbor has taken his holy book, read it, and taken it all in and decided that he can follow his religion while being at peace around his neighbors. Which I think is reasonable and still qualifies him as a "real muslim". You are right though, he could have taken one part of the koran and decided he will be hateful towards us, but he obviously found something different in his book to what you saw and lived his life respectfully. As most people do.
He certainly doesnt rage to everyone about how bad other people are anyway.
Answer this: Yes or no. Does the Koran state the non-Muslims must pay a special tax?
75482
Post by: Da krimson barun
nels1031 wrote: SlaveToDorkness wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:How does this make world news?
Oh I get it, finally a atheist does something immoral that everyone can criticize and go "see, they're as bad as the rest of us after all"
If it had been a christian who claimed he was just standing his ground, defending his parking lot from muslims, Craig would already be home and nothing would have been said about it.
Easy, Dude it's only February. You've got ten more months to come up with The Most Idiotic Post of 2015. Pace yourself.
He may be trying to take a run at all ten of the Top Ten Most Idiotic Posts list though.
What about "katanas!Sharpness!Control!" guy?I think he is a contender.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Technically yes, but as far as im aware this is no longer enforced outside of extremest conquered zones.
So by your logic of "true muslims should be nasty because this..." means that no muslims fit that criteria except the truly nasty ones. Which we all knew anyway.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Swastakowey wrote:Technically yes, but as far as im aware this is no longer enforced outside of extremest conquered zones.
So by your logic of "true muslims should be nasty because this..." means that no muslims fit that criteria except the truly nasty ones. Which we all knew anyway.
Well now we're assuming that there's real debate in Islamic communities over how the laws of the 'good book' should be enforced. I'm not sure that's the case. A lot of the time, the difference between the extremists and "moderates" lie in actions rather than beliefs. The "moderates" won't necessarily blow themselves up in an elementary school gymnasium to make their point, but they aren't going to condemn persecution of non-Muslims. After all, the book says you're supposed to do it. "Moderation" really isn't tolerated in Islamic societies whether or not the majority of people are willing to do the awful things that they passively condone.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Swastakowey wrote:Technically yes, but as far as im aware this is no longer enforced outside of extremest conquered zones.
So by your logic of "true muslims should be nasty because this..." means that no muslims fit that criteria except the truly nasty ones. Which we all knew anyway.
Well now we're assuming that there's real debate in Islamic communities over how the laws of the 'good book' should be enforced. I'm not sure that's the case. A lot of the time, the difference between the extremists and "moderates" lie in actions rather than beliefs. The "moderates" won't necessarily blow themselves up in an elementary school gymnasium to make their point, but they aren't going to condemn persecution of non-Muslims. After all, the book says you're supposed to do it. "Moderation" really isn't tolerated in Islamic societies whether or not the majority of people are willing to do the awful things that they passively condone.
Woah wait, Muslims passively condone Terrorist acts?
They dont condemn violent acts against non believers?
Well why did they stop the non believer tax then? Why is it when charlie was killed many muslims spoke out in disgust? Why did muslim and christian leaders march against the christian persecution?
I know you have some deep rooted hatred in there, but generalizing masses of people to fit your idea of them is always a big no no. Because when you generalize you are always wrong.
There is no changing your mind. I think maybe you need to meet some Muslims and ask if they want you dead but don't want to kill you. You will find your answer there. I can guarantee no Muslim will say "yes nuggz, I want you dead, but I wont do it, ill let him over there do it! After all its in my trusty book, it must be what I want!"
Personally I think the environment has more to do with terrorism than the religion. BUT the religion is part of that environment. Its an incredibly complex issue but to point at the fact that outdated and old concepts in the book are the cause of terrorist acts (many of which directly hurt many Muslims) even though many of those are not adhered to or followed is a bit far for me. Considering the more unstable the region, the more there is muslim support for suicide bombings for example (passive support), however the more stable the region, a lot less support. Clearly extremism has a bit more to do with the environment, although like all of us, im no expert.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Swastakowey wrote:Technically yes, but as far as im aware this is no longer enforced outside of extremest conquered zones.
What does that mean?
Technically yes. Which verses? Why is it not applied? Do Muslims that do not apply it say it is not what the Quran ask, or that what the Quran ask is wrong, or what?
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Swastakowey wrote:Technically yes, but as far as im aware this is no longer enforced outside of extremest conquered zones.
What does that mean? Technically yes. Which verses? Why is it not applied? Do Muslims that do not apply it say it is not what the Quran ask, or that what the Quran ask is wrong, or what?
I don't know? ask a Muslim for a decent perspective. Why is it if someone is apart of something they need to support everything about it? I mean technically because in the Koran there is a tax for believers and non believers. Some governments used to tax non believers more than believers, but now the 2 taxing systems have been ,merged or more accurately there is now one taxing for all. although im no expert.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
My friends are ex-muslims .
But actually, it is your perspective I am interested in.
Swastakowey wrote:Why is it if someone is apart of something they need to support everything about it?
Basically, the Quran is supposed to have been literally worded by God (and unchanged, ever). So, I would like to know how to reconcile believing it is worded by God, God being perfect and good and omniscient and omnipotent and all that, and not applying part of the Quran.
I would like your perspective on this.
Swastakowey wrote:I mean technically because in the Koran there is a tax for believers and non believers.
Again, I am asking for reference. Is that really in the Quran? Or the hadith? How is it worded?
Swastakowey wrote:Some governments used to tax non believers more than believers, but now the 2 taxing systems have been ,merged or more accurately there is now one taxing for all.
But who made this change? Was it done by a government, or by some religious figure? How does it go with the very, very uncentralized nature of Sunni Islam?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Swastakowey wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Swastakowey wrote:Technically yes, but as far as im aware this is no longer enforced outside of extremest conquered zones.
So by your logic of "true muslims should be nasty because this..." means that no muslims fit that criteria except the truly nasty ones. Which we all knew anyway.
Well now we're assuming that there's real debate in Islamic communities over how the laws of the 'good book' should be enforced. I'm not sure that's the case. A lot of the time, the difference between the extremists and "moderates" lie in actions rather than beliefs. The "moderates" won't necessarily blow themselves up in an elementary school gymnasium to make their point, but they aren't going to condemn persecution of non-Muslims. After all, the book says you're supposed to do it. "Moderation" really isn't tolerated in Islamic societies whether or not the majority of people are willing to do the awful things that they passively condone.
Woah wait, Muslims passively condone Terrorist acts?
They dont condemn violent acts against non believers?
Well why did they stop the non believer tax then? Why is it when charlie was killed many muslims spoke out in disgust? Why did muslim and christian leaders march against the christian persecution?
I know you have some deep rooted hatred in there, but generalizing masses of people to fit your idea of them is always a big no no. Because when you generalize you are always wrong.
There is no changing your mind. I think maybe you need to meet some Muslims and ask if they want you dead but don't want to kill you. You will find your answer there. I can guarantee no Muslim will say "yes nuggz, I want you dead, but I wont do it, ill let him over there do it! After all its in my trusty book, it must be what I want!"
Personally I think the environment has more to do with terrorism than the religion. BUT the religion is part of that environment. Its an incredibly complex issue but to point at the fact that outdated and old concepts in the book are the cause of terrorist acts (many of which directly hurt many Muslims) even though many of those are not adhered to or followed is a bit far for me. Considering the more unstable the region, the more there is muslim support for suicide bombings for example (passive support), however the more stable the region, a lot less support. Clearly extremism has a bit more to do with the environment, although like all of us, im no expert.
They didn't stop the nonbeliever tax.
In Egypt they were just killing Christians for failing to pay it. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/egypts-muslim-brotherhood-convert-islam-or-pay-jiz/
They do it in Syria: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10666257/Militant-Islamist-group-in-Syria-orders-Christians-to-pay-protection-tax.html
They do it outside of Islamic countries too: https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/modern-jizya-table/
Everywhere they can get away with it, they force their beliefs on non-Muslims or kill them outright. Claiming that they "stopped" the non-believer tax is an outright lie.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Swastakowey wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Swastakowey wrote:Technically yes, but as far as im aware this is no longer enforced outside of extremest conquered zones.
So by your logic of "true muslims should be nasty because this..." means that no muslims fit that criteria except the truly nasty ones. Which we all knew anyway.
Well now we're assuming that there's real debate in Islamic communities over how the laws of the 'good book' should be enforced. I'm not sure that's the case. A lot of the time, the difference between the extremists and "moderates" lie in actions rather than beliefs. The "moderates" won't necessarily blow themselves up in an elementary school gymnasium to make their point, but they aren't going to condemn persecution of non-Muslims. After all, the book says you're supposed to do it. "Moderation" really isn't tolerated in Islamic societies whether or not the majority of people are willing to do the awful things that they passively condone.
Woah wait, Muslims passively condone Terrorist acts?
They dont condemn violent acts against non believers?
Well why did they stop the non believer tax then? Why is it when charlie was killed many muslims spoke out in disgust? Why did muslim and christian leaders march against the christian persecution?
I know you have some deep rooted hatred in there, but generalizing masses of people to fit your idea of them is always a big no no. Because when you generalize you are always wrong.
There is no changing your mind. I think maybe you need to meet some Muslims and ask if they want you dead but don't want to kill you. You will find your answer there. I can guarantee no Muslim will say "yes nuggz, I want you dead, but I wont do it, ill let him over there do it! After all its in my trusty book, it must be what I want!"
Personally I think the environment has more to do with terrorism than the religion. BUT the religion is part of that environment. Its an incredibly complex issue but to point at the fact that outdated and old concepts in the book are the cause of terrorist acts (many of which directly hurt many Muslims) even though many of those are not adhered to or followed is a bit far for me. Considering the more unstable the region, the more there is muslim support for suicide bombings for example (passive support), however the more stable the region, a lot less support. Clearly extremism has a bit more to do with the environment, although like all of us, im no expert.
They didn't stop the nonbeliever tax.
In Egypt they were just killing Christians for failing to pay it. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/egypts-muslim-brotherhood-convert-islam-or-pay-jiz/
They do it in Syria: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10666257/Militant-Islamist-group-in-Syria-orders-Christians-to-pay-protection-tax.html
They do it outside of Islamic countries too: https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/modern-jizya-table/
Everywhere they can get away with it, they force their beliefs on non-Muslims or kill them outright. Claiming that they "stopped" the non-believer tax is an outright lie.
"They"
or "Muslims"
How many Muslims are part of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?
How many Muslims in Syria are in that militant Islamist group?
What government enforces this tax? None. No country has this tax. Only extreme groups, which we all knew as said before.
These are groups of some groups of Muslims. Not Muslims. Muslims are not one giant group of people. As I said: Technically yes, but as far as im aware this is no longer enforced outside of extremest conquered zones.
So there you have it. Its a complex thing, anyway, like most people, im not a fan of bigots. So lets agree to disagree. I got crummy spread sheets to think about.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Not even Saudi Arabia? Are you sure?
You know, I do not think anything you could say would convince Nuggz.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Apparently the non believer tax is not used in Saudi Arabia no. The Jizya (according to the internet) is not enforced by any government or nation. Only by extremists.
Which even according to the nuggz, is true since he could only fond evidence to support this.
89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
So who pays toward the crusader wager for deaths by atheists?
1185
Post by: marv335
I'm an Atheist from the UK, I live in Saudi Arabia.
No-one has ever asked me to pay any tax.
Of course, I don't tell anyone.
Atheists are discriminated against heavily here though, we were actually officially declared terrorists last year.
Penalty is beheading.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Yeah, but it is Saudi Arabia. Triple standards means you should be fine.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Well if he did it for his country which is a christian nation, it should count for the crusader wager.
But I think the guy will go bankrupt, if he's even man enough to pay up, after this.
speaking of oppression and christians:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
I dont think you read the article.
A mostly Muslim force took over the land, the leader stepped down, the Christians who were victim to the mostly Muslim army have decided to flush them out now that the Muslim force left over from the ex rebel leader are no longer able to protect themselves from the christian vigilantes.
Of course, this does not excuse the situation, just next time read the article. Its a bit more complex than christian oppression.
65916
Post by: mitch_rifle
Imagine if he done it with a katana
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Swastakowey wrote:
I dont think you read the article.
A mostly Muslim force took over the land, the leader stepped down, the Christians who were victim to the mostly Muslim army have decided to flush them out now that the Muslim force left over from the ex rebel leader are no longer able to protect themselves from the christian vigilantes.
Of course, this does not excuse the situation, just next time read the article. Its a bit more complex than christian oppression.
It's like the crusades all over again.
57811
Post by: Jehan-reznor
Damn so now Atheists are dangerous too, I am glad that i am Dudeist, At least It is safe in the Bowling alley
Uhm maybe not.
59984
Post by: RivenSkull
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Answer this: Yes or no. Does the Koran state the non-Muslims must pay a special tax?
Answer these: Yes or no Does the Bible condone of mass murder and rape? Does the Bible support slavery? Does the Bible support sex slavery? Does the Bible state that the punishment for disobeying a priest is death? Does the Bible state that conquered peoples must convert or be killed? It swings both ways.
5470
Post by: sebster
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Those Muslims are not practicing their faith correctly, according to the "real Muslims." Have you paid your infidel tax lately? If not, then "real Muslims" would consider your neighbors to be "fake Muslims" who don't follow the book properly. If you actually read what the Koran says, it's institutionalized discrimination against anyone who is not a Muslim. I've known some pretty cool Muslims, and also a few who were totally insane. The problem is that the religion itself is fundamentally geared toward discrimination.
I’m sure this will totally blow your mind, but any group with thousands members, let alone millions or even a billion, is going to have a lot of diversity. No part of that group has any right to call itself any more real than any other. So just as you get atheists who hate religions and think stopping other people believing will achieve something, you also get atheists who just think people can believe whatever they want. Neither is more real than the other. And you get Muslims who believe that they must remain separate to non-Muslims, and others who think no such thing. And of course, in every case you get outsiders assigning typically negative beliefs to all of a group because, you know, bigotry exists. If you want a hard number to prove how wrong your claim is - in the US 45% of Muslims marry outside of their faith. Automatically Appended Next Post: Swastakowey wrote:No one is safe from atheist discrimination, even atheists hate each other (as witnessed at college etc). Sick group of people. Really toxic and horrid.
You shouldn't confuse know it all jerks at college with what people are like once they've had some sense kicked in to them.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Dont worry dude, I didnt mean it. My best friend was like that once. Now we get to laugh about it today.
Of course, not everyone grows out of it though.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
You're right, it does. But "Christianity is just as bad" isn't a valid argument.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Eilif wrote:This is what I heard on the radio this morning as well. I don't find it at all surprising. Most murders are not the direct result of gang culture, hate crimes or pre-planned killings, though these can be the cause, are often contributing factors and may yet prove to be a part of this case.
However, most come from inter-personal conflicts that spiral out of control. Petty arguments, public disagreements, perceived slights, etc. People kill each other for the stupidest stuff.
Yep. There were about 700 gangland murders in 2013, and in comparison there were 2,259 murders of family, boyfriends and girlfriends, about half were a result of arguments and other personal stuff.
There was 127 cases of neighbours killing neighbours, and about half were just arguments.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls
59984
Post by: RivenSkull
 Peregrine wrote:
You're right, it does. But "Christianity is just as bad" isn't a valid argument.
No it's not. But it also means that decrying "Look at what is written in [ enter any holy text]! All of them are evil!" isn't a valid argument. Nor is the "They aren't truly practicing their religion because true followers would do X, Y, & Z" a valid argument. Stones and glass houses and what not.
What it does is show that each of the books, written in semi-similar times, in the same region of the world, have very similar writings. It can easily be said that they were written when humans were at a very different point in our social evolution; and that as modern civilized people, we can look back on what was written as law in each and see the barbarism.
5470
Post by: sebster
Swastakowey wrote:Dont worry dude, I didnt mean it. My best friend was like that once. Now we get to laugh about it today.
Of course, not everyone grows out of it though.
Cool. And yeah, not everyone grows out of it.
34390
Post by: whembly
Learned a new word today.
Athiestphobia.
O.o
Da Fuq?!!
Anyhoo, reading by twitter feed, with RT galore regarding this event gave me ebola.
I guess the point is that just as we're on the lookout to prevent/point-out islamophobia, bias, or whathaveyous... we need to ensure that Athiest aren't painted with larges brushes as well.
5470
Post by: sebster
 RivenSkull wrote:No it's not. But it also means that decrying "Look at what is written in [ enter any holy text]! All of them are evil!" isn't a valid argument. Nor is the "They aren't truly practicing their religion because true followers would do X, Y, & Z" a valid argument. Stones and glass houses and what not.
What it does is show that each of the books, written in semi-similar times, in the same region of the world, have very similar writings. It can easily be said that they were written when humans were at a very different point in our social evolution; and that as modern civilized people, we can look back on what was written as law in each and see the barbarism.
I think what we need to do is understand that humanity, all of it, is in a constant process of review. We are constantly analysing and evolving our values, and reconciling those values with traditional beliefs.
What’s incredible is that once we more or less reach a consensus, we quickly pretend it was always clear. Reading about the debate over slavery before the ACW, and you see a real debate with both sides relying heavily on the bible. A generation later and arguing that the bible supported slavery was be treated with outrage. The old text for slavery is still there, but quickly people had learned to ignore those bits.
But while people will accept the editing of their own faiths to something aligned with modern morals, they refuse to believe other faiths might do the same. So they go hunting through the Koran for the nasty bits, and happily conclude that Muslims must believe that nasty stuff, and couldn’t possibly have gone through a similar process of ignoring the bad bits (or creatively interpreting them to mean something way different).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 sebster wrote:Reading about the debate over slavery before the ACW, and you see a real debate with both sides relying heavily on the bible. A generation later and arguing that the bible supported slavery was be treated with outrage. The old text for slavery is still there, but quickly people had learned to ignore those bits.
Just to nitpick a bit, but this isn't really true. Slavery was ended by military force and an anti-slavery government that was imposed on the south. The attitudes responsible for slavery lasted a lot more than a generation, and large areas of the south did everything they could to have slavery in all but name. And the people who embraced segregation, lynching, etc, probably would have eagerly returned to slavery if they thought there was any chance of winning that fight. Even now those pro-slavery attitudes aren't gone entirely, the people who hold them have just learned not to admit it in public.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:Just to nitpick a bit, but this isn't really true. Slavery was ended by military force and an anti-slavery government that was imposed on the south. The attitudes responsible for slavery lasted a lot more than a generation, and large areas of the south did everything they could to have slavery in all but name. And the people who embraced segregation, lynching, etc, probably would have eagerly returned to slavery if they thought there was any chance of winning that fight. Even now those pro-slavery attitudes aren't gone entirely, the people who hold them have just learned not to admit it in public.
Yeah, I hesitated when I said 'a generation' because it wasn't that simple. But if we drop the immediate timeline, and compare the debate that existed then with modern opinion, you can ask how many people are even aware of the bible verses that support slavery?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:Yeah, I hesitated when I said 'a generation' because it wasn't that simple. But if we drop the immediate timeline, and compare the debate that existed then with modern opinion, you can ask how many people are even aware of the bible verses that support slavery?
Probably not that many (unless you ask activist atheists, in which case the number is pretty close to 100%). But I'm not convinced that this represents a major revision of religion. I think it has a lot more to do with a shift to justifying racism with "scientific" arguments instead of religious arguments and advocating segregation and slavery-in-all-but-name instead of openly calling it "slavery". The better question to ask would be how many people, once they were given the bible verses that support slavery, would agree with those verses at least privately. And I suspect that the answer to that question, in a lot of places in the south, is "way too many".
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:Probably not that many (unless you ask activist atheists, in which case the number is pretty close to 100%).
Ha! 
But I'm not convinced that this represents a major revision of religion. I think it has a lot more to do with a shift to justifying racism with "scientific" arguments instead of religious arguments and advocating segregation and slavery-in-all-but-name instead of openly calling it "slavery". The better question to ask would be how many people, once they were given the bible verses that support slavery, would agree with those verses at least privately. And I suspect that the answer to that question, in a lot of places in the south, is "way too many".
Yeah, I couldn’t answer that. I mean, the closest I’ve ever been to the South is a day trip in to Virginia, so I’m not going to speculate that on that.
My point is that religions change over time, despite the books they’re based on being permanent. Elements are re-interpreted, re-prioritised or just plain ignored. And that’s fine, but it’s weird that people forget that happens.
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
The point of atheism is dis-illusionment not having your judgment clouded and killing people for disagreeing with you. re-education yes, execution no.
92786
Post by: david choe
 the shrouded lord wrote:The point of atheism is dis-illusionment not having your judgment clouded and killing people for disagreeing with you. re-education yes, execution no.
People have been killing people for ages. Some use religion to justify, and some use freedom to justify, and some use survival to justify... in the end... people will kill.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Perfect example of religious extremist. Whether it's ISIS, Inquistion, Salem Witch trials, or ultra religious athiests.
And yes athiesm can be a religion.
http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
GG
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
david choe wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:The point of atheism is dis-illusionment not having your judgment clouded and killing people for disagreeing with you. re-education yes, execution no.
People have been killing people for ages. Some use religion to justify, and some use freedom to justify, and some use survival to justify... in the end... people will kill.
where there's a will, there's a clouded justification to murder someone.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Except that in this case it's not - appearing more to be a dispute over parking than anything else, happening to feature someone who is somewhat outspoken on the subject of religion and some people who were, apparently, religious. And yes athiesm can be a religion.
Debatable. Athiesm can be the stance of a system of behaviour which in turn can be akin to a religion, such as with humanism, but in of itself cannot be considered a religion any more than thiesm can be considered a religion. As someone who is athiest, the way I live my life and interact with others is not governed by some system of behaviour derived from my not believing in magical beings. I could however join a group with certain beliefs in how to behave which does not have a thiest core (as is generally the case with most religions where they are built around a belief in magical being(s)). In that case, the group I joined could, possibly, be called a religion. Personally I would call it a philosophy rather than a religion.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Wow, that guy really was scum
http://news.yahoo.com/man-arrested-3-shot-death-north-carolina-080105974.html
Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, describes himself as a "gun toting" atheist. Neighbors say he always seemed angry and confrontational. His ex-wife said he was obsessed with the shooting-rampage movie "Falling Down," and showed "no compassion at all" for other people.
"That always freaked me out," Hurley said. "He watched it incessantly. He thought it was hilarious. He had no compassion at all," she said.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
Darn it, now they are going to call this guy a militant atheist. Why cant dawkins be the militant atheist?
Temp thread hijack. Seperation of church and state- My school is performing an opera using a bunch of religious music- however, the chorus director- she is writing the opera around musical pieces. So she is writing the plot which is roughly outlined as follows. A girl whos name is sinner has a visitor one day named grace. She says that she has a message from god. Temptation(a guy) kills her, and she gets redeemed and goes to heaven.
She has worked on this opera during her work hours. She has gotten a grant from the school board. Students who are part of the chorus work on details during study halls and out of school.
Is this violating seperation of church in state?
221
Post by: Frazzled
sirlynchmob wrote:Wow, that guy really was scum
http://news.yahoo.com/man-arrested-3-shot-death-north-carolina-080105974.html
Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, describes himself as a "gun toting" atheist. Neighbors say he always seemed angry and confrontational. His ex-wife said he was obsessed with the shooting-rampage movie "Falling Down," and showed "no compassion at all" for other people.
"That always freaked me out," Hurley said. "He watched it incessantly. He thought it was hilarious. He had no compassion at all," she said.
Always loved that movie...
21940
Post by: nels1031
Yep, me and my co-workers quote that movie everyday, it seems like.
I always think of it when I get an unsightly burger, particularly.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
It wasn't a hate crime and he's being charged with 3 counts of first degree murder so clearly he's being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If our death penalty statutes weren't tied up in state courts they'd probably seek it in this case. Hopefully, people will stop trying to politicize this tragedy but that seems to be par for the course whenever our idiotic hate crime laws are brought up.
CHAPEL HILL — Neighbors say Craig Stephen Hicks was a confrontational man who regularly harangued them about parking their cars in the wrong place and noise at the condominium complex where they lived.
But the neighbors and Hicks’ wife say his angry and loud behavior did not include references of religious intolerance or racial hatred that some people say may be behind a fatal shooting in the complex Tuesday. The three victims were Muslim and of Middle Eastern descent; Hicks is white and a self-described atheist.
Neighbor Samantha Maness, a 25-year-old Durham Technical Community College student, said Hicks was difficult to everyone, regardless of race or religion.
“He was aggressive toward a lot of people in the community,” said Maness, standing outside the building where Hicks lived. “He had equal opportunity anger toward a lot of the residents here.”
Things got so bad, Hicks’ neighbors held a community meeting last year at the clubhouse in their Finley Forest neighborhood about his tirades because his actions made them feel “unsafe and uncomfortable,” Maness said.
Hicks’ wife of seven years, Karen Hicks, and her attorney, Robert N. Maitland II of Chapel Hill, held a press conference to echo police in saying that the shootings were about longstanding parking concerns.
This was about “the mundane issue” of Hicks not being able to park his car and the “victims being in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Maitland said.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/02/11/4548732_chapel-hill-neighbors-describe.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
19370
Post by: daedalus
Alternate headline: "Man with no chin kills 3 Muslims after condemning all religions."
21720
Post by: LordofHats
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:Darn it, now they are going to call this guy a militant atheist. Why cant dawkins be the militant atheist?
Temp thread hijack. Seperation of church and state- My school is performing an opera using a bunch of religious music- however, the chorus director- she is writing the opera around musical pieces. So she is writing the plot which is roughly outlined as follows. A girl whos name is sinner has a visitor one day named grace. She says that she has a message from god. Temptation(a guy) kills her, and she gets redeemed and goes to heaven.
She has worked on this opera during her work hours. She has gotten a grant from the school board. Students who are part of the chorus work on details during study halls and out of school.
Is this violating seperation of church in state?
Some might disagree but I would not think so. Separation of Church and State != No religion on school grounds ever. My own school put on a show of Paradise Lost (a play adaptation of the Book, not the play of the play  ). Paradise Lost is a classic of literature. That it is also a religious piece should not exclude it from anyone's education.
Really, I think the bigger question is why is the chorus director putting on an original piece? This is a school right? Not her personal studio. What? The Death of a Salesman isn't good enough for her XD .
23
Post by: djones520
Firstly, there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. What the 1st Amendment states is that there will not be a state sponsored religion. All religions are equal in the states eyes.
The "militant atheist" types have pushed the separation thing to the point of people not understanding that anymore though.
Your director doing this is not the "state" elevating one religion over another. It is ok to discuss Christianity in schools.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 LordofHats wrote:Some might disagree but I would not think so. Separation of Church and State != No religion on school grounds ever. My own school put on a show of Paradise Lost (a play adaptation of the Book, not the play of the play ). Paradise Lost is a classic of literature. That it is also a religious piece should not exclude it from anyone's education.
Yes, but that's a very different situation. Paradise Lost is an important literary work and can be performed/studied/etc purely on its literary and historical merits without implying any endorsement of its religious message. That's not at all the same as a teacher creating a new play that seems pretty clearly intended to present her own religious beliefs.
 djones520 wrote:Your director doing this is not the "state" elevating one religion over another.
Err, lol? Since when is an employee of the state, acting in a position of power granted by the state, not a case of the state elevating one religion over another?
It is ok to discuss Christianity in schools.
Yes, it is ok to discuss Christianity in schools in an academic context. You can talk about the influence of churches (and the Church) in history, you can explain Christian images in literature, etc. What you can't do is endorse Christianity (or any other religion) or have classes/events/etc which have no legitimate academic purpose and exist solely to promote Christianity over other religions.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
Doesn't it fail the lemon test though? By advancing or inhibiting religion? And while I agree paradise lost is a classic of literature full of value as a literary work, it is pre existing. There is a difference between- this literature already exists and happens to contain religious elements vs. This is religious literature that I am making to be performed at school.
It is kind of making me dread coming there everyday, I really shouldn't have to sing about how a girl named sinner in latin is damned to eternal torment for not believing in my chorus directors imaginary friend.
23
Post by: djones520
What position of power? The director has no power to establish law, grant special favors, etc...
It's like you're saying I have a position of power. I'm an employee of the state. Hell, I actually have special powers granted to me by the state. But even so, I cannot do anything to elevate a religion or anything like that.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
djones520 wrote:What position of power? The director has no power to establish law, grant special favors, etc...
It's like you're saying I have a position of power. I'm an employee of the state. Hell, I actually have special powers granted to me by the state. But even so, I cannot do anything to elevate a religion or anything like that.
Yes she does. She established the chorus into two tiers after auditions for solo roles were completed. And it does elevate religion, you are basically preaching a message to about 20 students a day, as well as having an official school function based on a religious event.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
djones520 wrote:What position of power? The director has no power to establish law, grant special favors, etc...
Do you really not see how a school employee is in a position of power over the children at that school, especially when that employee is in charge of running school activities for them?
23
Post by: djones520
Peregrine wrote: djones520 wrote:What position of power? The director has no power to establish law, grant special favors, etc...
Do you really not see how a school employee is in a position of power over the children at that school?
Not in a 1st Amendment sense regarding religion. Why don't you read it, and explain to me how a teacher can "make a law..." so forth and so on.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
djones520 wrote: Peregrine wrote: djones520 wrote:What position of power? The director has no power to establish law, grant special favors, etc...
Do you really not see how a school employee is in a position of power over the children at that school?
Not in a 1st Amendment sense regarding religion. Why don't you read it, and explain to me how a teacher can "make a law..." so forth and so on.
The point is, if she can do this, why can't my literature teacher write a book about jesus and force us to read it?
23
Post by: djones520
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: djones520 wrote: Peregrine wrote: djones520 wrote:What position of power? The director has no power to establish law, grant special favors, etc...
Do you really not see how a school employee is in a position of power over the children at that school?
Not in a 1st Amendment sense regarding religion. Why don't you read it, and explain to me how a teacher can "make a law..." so forth and so on.
The point is, if she can do this, why can't my literature teacher write a book about jesus and force us to read it?
Why couldn't she? You don't have to ascribe to it. You don't have to follow the beliefs. The Amendment is clear. Congress shall make no laws that establish a religion, nor shall they make laws that restrict a persons right to freely practice a religion.
In High School, I was required to read religious text. This was in a public school. The world did not end. I'm still an atheist.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
djones520 wrote: Peregrine wrote: djones520 wrote:What position of power? The director has no power to establish law, grant special favors, etc...
Do you really not see how a school employee is in a position of power over the children at that school?
Not in a 1st Amendment sense regarding religion. Why don't you read it, and explain to me how a teacher can "make a law..." so forth and so on.
Yea, just read the 1st amendment, but don't you dare read anything Jefferson wrote. And ignore all the court cases throughout the years that have addressed religious icons in schools. Just read the 1st.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
Yeah, its not like the establishment clause means ANYTHING  Please, just type in "seperation of church and state schools" on google and look at the government site.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
RivenSkull wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Answer this: Yes or no. Does the Koran state the non-Muslims must pay a special tax?
Answer these: Yes or no
Does the Bible condone of mass murder and rape?
Does the Bible support slavery?
Does the Bible support sex slavery?
Does the Bible state that the punishment for disobeying a priest is death?
Does the Bible state that conquered peoples must convert or be killed?
It swings both ways.
I'm not a Christian. I have no idea. I can tell you that Christians don't reference the bible when committing those crimes nearly as often as Muslims, who constantly reference the Koran when committing rape, murder, persecution, sex slavery, and extortion.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
NuggzTheNinja wrote: RivenSkull wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Answer this: Yes or no. Does the Koran state the non-Muslims must pay a special tax?
Answer these: Yes or no
Does the Bible condone of mass murder and rape?
Does the Bible support slavery?
Does the Bible support sex slavery?
Does the Bible state that the punishment for disobeying a priest is death?
Does the Bible state that conquered peoples must convert or be killed?
It swings both ways.
I'm not a Christian. I have no idea. I can tell you that Christians don't reference the bible when committing those crimes nearly as often as Muslims, who constantly reference the Koran when committing rape, murder, persecution, sex slavery, and extortion.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html
Also, you are stereotyping muslims. Would you like to compare histories worst christians with histories worst muslims?(they are about the same)
djones520 wrote:FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: djones520 wrote: Peregrine wrote: djones520 wrote:What position of power? The director has no power to establish law, grant special favors, etc...
Do you really not see how a school employee is in a position of power over the children at that school?
Not in a 1st Amendment sense regarding religion. Why don't you read it, and explain to me how a teacher can "make a law..." so forth and so on.
The point is, if she can do this, why can't my literature teacher write a book about jesus and force us to read it?
Why couldn't she? You don't have to ascribe to it. You don't have to follow the beliefs. The Amendment is clear. Congress shall make no laws that establish a religion, nor shall they make laws that restrict a persons right to freely practice a religion.
In High School, I was required to read religious text. This was in a public school. The world did not end. I'm still an atheist.
And what if your religion prohibits being involved in another religion? Like an (insert religion here) person would be prohibited from singing in a church choir?
241
Post by: Ahtman
You aren't a Muslim either but that never stopped you.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Ahtman wrote:
You aren't a Muslim either but that never stopped you.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Ahtman wrote:
You aren't a Muslim either but that never stopped you.
No, it didn't, because unlike the Christian bible I've read parts of the Koran. What exactly are you claiming? Automatically Appended Next Post: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Also, you are stereotyping muslims. Would you like to compare histories worst christians with histories worst muslims?(they are about the same)
I'm not stereotyping Muslims. I'm accurately describing ISLAM. Religions are IDEAS and as such, are not protected from criticism.
Furthermore, I'm not interested in comparing history's worst Christians with the worst Muslims. I'm far more interested in comparing TODAY'S Christians with TODAY'S Muslims.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
djones520 wrote:Not in a 1st Amendment sense regarding religion. Why don't you read it, and explain to me how a teacher can "make a law..." so forth and so on.
Clear precedent disagrees with you. School officials promoting their religion has been found to violate the 1st amendment. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because that would be a blatant case of the teacher promoting their own religious beliefs?
In High School, I was required to read religious text. This was in a public school. The world did not end. I'm still an atheist.
Why is it so hard to understand the difference between reading a religious text in an academic context (for its literary or historical value) without endorsing it, and a teacher or other school official saying "read about how Christianity is awesome"?
5470
Post by: sebster
the shrouded lord wrote:The point of atheism is dis-illusionment not having your judgment clouded and killing people for disagreeing with you. re-education yes, execution no.
The ‘point’ of atheism is that you’ve come to a conclusion that there isn’t a God or anything beyond the material world. Whatever the individual atheist decides to do with that is up to them.
And we have no idea if this man’s atheism was directly linked to his dispute with his neighbours. Automatically Appended Next Post:  generalgrog wrote:Perfect example of religious extremist. Whether it's ISIS, Inquistion, Salem Witch trials, or ultra religious athiests.
Once again, there is nothing at this point to suggest his atheism was related to the murder. People are just making a massive leap from ‘he posted some militant atheist stuff on line’ to ‘his neighbours were religious therefore that’s why he killed them’.
And yes athiesm can be a religion.
It can certainly be a conviction held as strongly as any religion, but it isn’t actually a religion. Really, you’re doing religion a disservice when you keep making this argument. Automatically Appended Next Post: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:So she is writing the plot which is roughly outlined as follows. A girl whos name is sinner has a visitor one day named grace. She says that she has a message from god. Temptation(a guy) kills her, and she gets redeemed and goes to heaven.
She has worked on this opera during her work hours. She has gotten a grant from the school board. Students who are part of the chorus work on details during study halls and out of school.
Is this violating seperation of church in state?
I have no idea if it violates church and state. I think you should oppose it on the grounds that it sounds really, really crappy.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:And we have no idea if this man’s atheism was directly linked to his dispute with his neighbours.
From an article linked to on the previous page:
Neighbor Samantha Maness, a 25-year-old Durham Technical Community College student, said Hicks was difficult to everyone, regardless of race or religion.
“He was aggressive toward a lot of people in the community,” said Maness, standing outside the building where Hicks lived. “He had equal opportunity anger toward a lot of the residents here.”
Obviously not conclusive proof either way, but it looks more and more like this was a "conventional" murder and religion had little, if anything, to do with it.
5470
Post by: sebster
NuggzTheNinja wrote:I'm not stereotyping Muslims. I'm accurately describing ISLAM. Religions are IDEAS and as such, are not protected from criticism.
Religions are ideas, but more importantly they complex and changing ideas. As such, trying to criticise any religion by picking out clobber verses and insisting that the faith must put those verses first and foremost, and therefore that faith is evil is a really, really dumb way of going about discussing a religion.
Furthermore, I'm not interested in comparing history's worst Christians with the worst Muslims. I'm far more interested in comparing TODAY'S Christians with TODAY'S Muslims.
And so now once you seem to have accepted, more or less, that both religions have had awesome people and total gaks, then you need to start to realise that maybe other factors are much more important than any religion or the book it is based around. And then you might want to look around the world at the places in which religious violence takes place. Look at Africa and you’ll see both Christian and Muslim violence, and loads more violence in which religion is a cover for underlying political and material ambition.
Start to actually look at the issue and you’ll see no single religion is a constant, and nor is religion as a whole. The constant is poverty and a lack of education. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:From an article linked to on the previous page:
Neighbor Samantha Maness, a 25-year-old Durham Technical Community College student, said Hicks was difficult to everyone, regardless of race or religion.
“He was aggressive toward a lot of people in the community,” said Maness, standing outside the building where Hicks lived. “He had equal opportunity anger toward a lot of the residents here.”
Obviously not conclusive proof either way, but it looks more and more like this was a "conventional" murder and religion had little, if anything, to do with it.
Yeah, I know, that does seem more likely. But for the sake of brevity, and because we don’t have all the information I was happy to go with ‘we have no idea’.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
sebster wrote:As such, trying to criticise any religion by picking out clobber verses and insisting that the faith must put those verses first and foremost, and therefore that faith is evil is a really, really dumb way of going about discussing a religion.
Would a good way be to ignore verses?
sebster wrote:And so now once you seem to have accepted, more or less, that both religions have had awesome people and total gaks, then you need to start to realise that maybe other factors are much more important than any religion or the book it is based around.
I thought that showed there was more important factor to someone that his/her religion.
sebster wrote:Start to actually look at the issue and you’ll see no single religion is a constant, and nor is religion as a whole. The constant is poverty and a lack of education.
How convenient would that be! Except religious extremism and religious discrimination has happened and still happens in rich countries, like, say, Saudi Arabia. And some very educated people end up being terrorists that kill themselves up to kill infidels.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
sebster wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:I'm not stereotyping Muslims. I'm accurately describing ISLAM. Religions are IDEAS and as such, are not protected from criticism.
Religions are ideas, but more importantly they complex and changing ideas. As such, trying to criticise any religion by picking out clobber verses and insisting that the faith must put those verses first and foremost, and therefore that faith is evil is a really, really dumb way of going about discussing a religion.
Furthermore, I'm not interested in comparing history's worst Christians with the worst Muslims. I'm far more interested in comparing TODAY'S Christians with TODAY'S Muslims.
And so now once you seem to have accepted, more or less, that both religions have had awesome people and total gaks, then you need to start to realise that maybe other factors are much more important than any religion or the book it is based around. And then you might want to look around the world at the places in which religious violence takes place. Look at Africa and you’ll see both Christian and Muslim violence, and loads more violence in which religion is a cover for underlying political and material ambition.
Start to actually look at the issue and you’ll see no single religion is a constant, and nor is religion as a whole. The constant is poverty and a lack of education.
This would be true if not for the fact that Muslim immigrants to Western countries, 2nd generation, have perpetrated terrorist attacks. The Boston Marathon bombers, the 7/7 bombers in the UK, all of them were 2nd generation immigrants.
The problem is not poverty alone. Poor Jews don't perpetrate these types of attacks in Western countries. Poor Christians don't perpetrate these attacks in Western countries. Poor Hindus don't perpetrate these attacks in Western countries. Poor Buddhists don't perpetrate these attacks in Western countries.
To be clear, I'm not saying that all Muslims are going to commit terrorist attacks. I'm not saying that all Muslims condone violent terrorist attacks. I'm saying that Islam is a contributing factor to violent behaviors that cannot be accounted for by factors such as SES.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
NuggzTheNinja wrote:I'm saying that Islam is a contributing factor to violent behaviors that cannot be accounted for by factors such as SES.
How exactly is Islam a "contributing factor" when Christians (and members of other religions) have committed plenty of terrorist attacks?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Peregrine wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:I'm saying that Islam is a contributing factor to violent behaviors that cannot be accounted for by factors such as SES.
How exactly is Islam a "contributing factor" when Christians (and members of other religions) have committed plenty of terrorist attacks?
How does what Christians do have anything to do with Islam as a contributing factor? When was the last time Christians shot up a cartoon studio for publishing cartoons about Jesus? When was the last time Christians blew up a bunch of innocent people for Christian holy war? When was the last time Christians beheaded non-Christians for failing to praise Jesus?
When was the last time poor atheists beheaded anyone for any reason at all, other than being totally insane, and in isolated incidents? The Koran lists beheading as a punishment for apostasy. ISIS didn't get this idea from nowhere - it's in "the good book."
Keep burying your head in the sand though. I expected decent counter-arguments. These are kind of pathetic. You're arguing that Islam plays zero role in Muslims committing suicide bombings, beheadings, and other acts of murder?
39550
Post by: Psienesis
... that would mainly be because Western societies are not continuing a program of repression and violence against these non-Muslim communities, from where these 2nd generation immigrants descend. If the US was, say, actively bombing Israel, instead of being its staunchest military ally (while the state of Israel continues its pogrom against the Muslim Palestinians), then you can bet there'd be some Jewish terrorists.
Want to know something funny? The Middle East isn't the largest concentration of Muslims on the planet. That would be the western (from the US' perspective) Pacific Rim. Indonesia and such. Bunch of stuff goes on there, mostly over political issues and resource conflicts between various factions that are generally (but not always) aligned along religious lines... but this does not make such conflicts a religious conflict, as politics and religion closely align for many people.
When was the last time Christians blew up a bunch of innocent people for Christian holy war?
Last few years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/shooting-reported-at-temple-in-wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Psienesis wrote:... that would mainly be because Western societies are not continuing a program of repression and violence against these non-Muslim communities, from where these 2nd generation immigrants descend. If the US was, say, actively bombing Israel, instead of being its staunchest military ally (while the state of Israel continues its pogrom against the Muslim Palestinians), then you can bet there'd be some Jewish terrorists. Want to know something funny? The Middle East isn't the largest concentration of Muslims on the planet. That would be the western (from the US' perspective) Pacific Rim. Indonesia and such. Bunch of stuff goes on there, mostly over political issues and resource conflicts between various factions that are generally (but not always) aligned along religious lines... but this does not make such conflicts a religious conflict, as politics and religion closely align for many people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Indonesia Want to know something funnier? Most of the terrorist attacks carried out in Indonesia have been by Muslims. What were you saying again? Everywhere that Islam borders other religions there is violent conflict of the worst kind; usually involving the brutal murder of innocent women and children. Keep it up though... That last part was hardly necessary, motyak
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:How convenient would that be! Except religious extremism and religious discrimination has happened and still happens in rich countries, like, say, Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is kind of a misleading example because it isn't really a rich country. It's a poor country with massive income inequality that just happened to get lucky and exist on top of a lot of valuable oil. So there are a few people at the top with obscene amounts of money, but the country as a whole has more in common with poor countries than with countries like the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:How does what Christians do have anything to do with Islam as a contributing factor?
The point is that you can't call Islam a "contributing factor" if people from other religions are guilty of the same crimes. Islam clearly isn't necessary for terrorism, so it doesn't make much sense to single out one religion for responsibility.
When was the last time Christians shot up a cartoon studio for publishing cartoons about Jesus? When was the last time Christians blew up a bunch of innocent people for Christian holy war? When was the last time Christians beheaded non-Christians for failing to praise Jesus?
Why are you narrowing it down to specific kinds of terrorism instead of terrorism in general? Remember how Anders Breivik murdered a bunch of people because of extremist Christian ideology? Remember the Christians who have murdered doctors for providing abortions and cited Christianity as justification for their actions? Remember the Christians in the US claiming that gay people should be killed for their crimes against god?
You're arguing that Islam plays zero role in Muslims committing suicide bombings, beheadings, and other acts of murder?
No, I'm arguing that your "Christians/Jews/etc don't do this therefore it must be Islam" argument is nonsense.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Want to know something funnier? Most of the terrorist attacks carried out in Indonesia have been by Muslims. What were you saying again?
Uh, I said as much. Let me quote myself, since you apparently missed it while thinking yourself clever:
Psienesis wrote: Bunch of stuff goes on there, mostly over political issues and resource conflicts between various factions that are generally (but not always) aligned along religious lines... but this does not make such conflicts a religious conflict, as politics and religion closely align for many people.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Psienesis wrote:Want to know something funnier? Most of the terrorist attacks carried out in Indonesia have been by Muslims. What were you saying again?
Uh, I said as much. Let me quote myself, since you apparently missed it while thinking yourself clever:
Psienesis wrote: Bunch of stuff goes on there, mostly over political issues and resource conflicts between various factions that are generally (but not always) aligned along religious lines... but this does not make such conflicts a religious conflict, as politics and religion closely align for many people.
You argue that it's not a religious conflict. I argue that if this were the case, Islam would not be at war with the rest of the world. As it is, it is very much a religious conflict.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Islam isn't at war with the rest of the world. If it was, we'd all be dead.
5470
Post by: sebster
NuggzTheNinja wrote:To be clear, I'm not saying that all Muslims are going to commit terrorist attacks. I'm not saying that all Muslims condone violent terrorist attacks. I'm saying that Islam is a contributing factor to violent behaviors that cannot be accounted for by factors such as SES.
And there, I sought of agree with you. Within Islam there are extremist wings preaching violence, and these calls are getting heard by middle class kids in wealthy countries. That is certainly an Islamic phenomenon. The point is that you were wrong when you tried to claim that this issue was somehow inherent to Islam, as if it were a feature of the majority of the faith. Automatically Appended Next Post: NuggzTheNinja wrote:I argue that if this were the case, Islam would not be at war with the rest of the world.
Oh, so it’s basically just the old ‘clash of cultures’ crap. Wow, massive flashback to 2003.
89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
On the topic of religion in public schools, pocket bibles were handed out at my highschool and someone had a speech with my year level gathered.
Cant remember what the conversation was about but a kid in my class got preachy over something between homegroup and lessons.
Little did he realise, our first lesson for the day was chemistry. Now I may burn an eternity of hell, but his face for the few minutes that pocket bible met the bunsen burner was worth it!
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I wasn't being sacreligious! I was just testing the combustibility!
I did a similar thing for a history project once (We were making mock museum displays) and I wanted to make a Bible look old so I figured singe the edges a bit... Let's just say Bibles burned really well. Thin paper and all that.
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference.
Now, believing in something, and supporting it, are different things. for example, I believe in my school's existance, but do not actively support all of it's rules.
Honestly, if a person fully supports (not believes in) the bible, there is something wrong with them.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
the shrouded lord wrote:I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference.
The secret is to douse the pages in water first Otherwise the whole thing just goes up like a roman candle. Took me about 2 Bibles to get it right, and probably waaaay more time than the A+ was actually worth, but the effect was effective XD
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
LordofHats wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference.
The secret is to douse the pages in water first Otherwise the whole thing just goes up like a roman candle. Took me about 2 Bibles to get it right, and probably waaaay more time than the A+ was actually worth, but the effect was effective XD
I see what you did there!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
the shrouded lord wrote:I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference.
So you've decided that you want to do something incredibly offensive and provoke people, but you can't even bother to come up with something original?
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
Peregrine wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference.
So you've decided that you want to do something incredibly offensive and provoke people, but you can't even bother to come up with something original?
yes. you know who it will offend? people who think that tiny splothes of ink on a bunch of sheets of paper bound in animal skin is something that their god is concerned with.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
the shrouded lord wrote:yes. you know who it will offend? people who think that tiny splothes of ink on a bunch of sheets of paper bound in animal skin is something that their god is concerned with.
Or just people who get your "I don't respect your religion, now let me prove it" message. Seriously, if you want to be offensive at least have the decency to be honest about it instead of pretending that you can't understand how anyone could object. And try to do something a little less cliche than burning a bible.
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
Peregrine wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:yes. you know who it will offend? people who think that tiny splothes of ink on a bunch of sheets of paper bound in animal skin is something that their god is concerned with.
Or just people who get your "I don't respect your religion, now let me prove it" message. Seriously, if you want to be offensive at least have the decency to be honest about it instead of pretending that you can't understand how anyone could object. And try to do something a little less cliche than burning a bible.
or rather blunt honesty about the ignorance of assuing ones' god gives two gaks about a bunch of words. tho this is the same god that not only approves of but demands the murder of homosexuals, and anyone of differing religion yet refuses to prove his own existance. hnestly if the god depiced in the bible (Bib-lehey) exists, he's either autistic or the single stupidest being to ever exist.
19370
Post by: daedalus
the shrouded lord wrote:
or rather blunt honesty about the ignorance of assuing ones' god gives two gaks about a bunch of words. tho this is the same god that not only approves of but demands the murder of homosexuals, and anyone of differing religion yet refuses to prove his own existance. hnestly if the god depiced in the bible (Bib-lehey) exists, he's either autistic or the single stupidest being to ever exist.
The point is that you're going through a remarkable amount of effort to prove an otherwise unoriginal point by offending people in the same way people have been offending them for otherwise tedious amounts of time. I have no problem with offending people, and Peregrine certainly doesn't seem to either. Your idea is mindnumbingly trite though. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you shouldn't use autistic as a slur. Particularly not here. That's uncool in very many ways.
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
 daedalus wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:
or rather blunt honesty about the ignorance of assuing ones' god gives two gaks about a bunch of words. tho this is the same god that not only approves of but demands the murder of homosexuals, and anyone of differing religion yet refuses to prove his own existance. hnestly if the god depiced in the bible (Bib-lehey) exists, he's either autistic or the single stupidest being to ever exist.
The point is that you're going through a remarkable amount of effort to prove an otherwise unoriginal point by offending people in the same way people have been offending them for otherwise tedious amounts of time. I have no problem with offending people, and Peregrine certainly doesn't seem to either. Your idea is mindnumbingly trite though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you shouldn't use autistic as a slur. Particularly not here. That's uncool in very many ways.
It wasn't a slur.
Altough, perhaps bi-polar would be a better term?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Might be closer to what you're looking for. The Christian god might be a lot of things, but "autistic" is certainly not a word that I would use to describe it.
The above comment still stands though. Be a little more creative in your outrage-mongering, if that's what you want to do.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
The best thing about being an atheist is being able to not give a gak about what other people think or believe. People want to believe in sky ghosts, airborne pasta, ancient squids, cosmic turtles, space elephants, or mystic powers from living creatures?
I don't give a feth. More power to them. Literally nothing I say will ever change their minds, and posting juvenile YouTube videos of burning books isn't either.
5394
Post by: reds8n
If we don't have anything constructive to add then it's much better not to post.
Thank you.
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
ahh, right. sorry big red.
anyway I hate the fact that this man killed people, and I hate the fact that religion was his justification. I also hate the fact that this guy makes atheists look bad, in the exact same way any extremist makes his or her religion look bad.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
If you read the thread previously you would realize that religion wasnt his reason. He was constantly angry and finally snapped.
Back to the question I was asking though- what legal precedents would it violate? I can think of part 2 of the lemon test, but that is about it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
the shrouded lord wrote:I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference.
Now, believing in something, and supporting it, are different things. for example, I believe in my school's existance, but do not actively support all of it's rules.
Honestly, if a person fully supports (not believes in) the bible, there is something wrong with them.
Burn a Koran. Tell us how that works out. Lets see if President calls and asks you not to.
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
Frazzled wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference.
Now, believing in something, and supporting it, are different things. for example, I believe in my school's existance, but do not actively support all of it's rules.
Honestly, if a person fully supports (not believes in) the bible, there is something wrong with them.
Burn a Koran. Tell us how that works out. Lets see if President calls and asks you not to.
If extremists come for me I'm moving to alaska and blaming you.
221
Post by: Frazzled
the shrouded lord wrote: Peregrine wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:yes. you know who it will offend? people who think that tiny splothes of ink on a bunch of sheets of paper bound in animal skin is something that their god is concerned with.
Or just people who get your "I don't respect your religion, now let me prove it" message. Seriously, if you want to be offensive at least have the decency to be honest about it instead of pretending that you can't understand how anyone could object. And try to do something a little less cliche than burning a bible.
or rather blunt honesty about the ignorance of assuing ones' god gives two gaks about a bunch of words. tho this is the same god that not only approves of but demands the murder of homosexuals, and anyone of differing religion yet refuses to prove his own existance. hnestly if the god depiced in the bible (Bib-lehey) exists, he's either autistic or the single stupidest being to ever exist.
Burn a Bible-all it will do is let everyone know how much of a er you are. Oh and someone might punch you in the face. Again, if you want to prove then now burn a Koran. Put it on youtube along with your physical address. What could go wrong? Or even better you could stick all that nonsense in a hole and go practice random acts of kindness. Automatically Appended Next Post: the shrouded lord wrote: Frazzled wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference. Now, believing in something, and supporting it, are different things. for example, I believe in my school's existance, but do not actively support all of it's rules. Honestly, if a person fully supports (not believes in) the bible, there is something wrong with them.
Burn a Koran. Tell us how that works out. Lets see if President calls and asks you not to.
If extremists come for me I'm moving to alaska and blaming you.
If you don't like extremists best not to move to Alaska. Also a bad place if you don't like facial hair.
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
Frazzled i I burnt any kind of holly book and put my adress with it we both know I would be murdered multiple times.
221
Post by: Frazzled
the shrouded lord wrote:Frazzled i I burnt any kind of holly book and put my adress with it we both know I would be murdered multiple times.
You have books made from Holly?
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
ink is the blood of christ. to far?
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Peregrine wrote:Saudi Arabia is kind of a misleading example because it isn't really a rich country. It's a poor country with massive income inequality that just happened to get lucky and exist on top of a lot of valuable oil. So there are a few people at the top with obscene amounts of money, but the country as a whole has more in common with poor countries than with countries like the US.
It is a culturally backward society, but as far as I can tell, it is a rich country. Not only because of the global amount of money, but also because of how their citizen live. And I must emphasize citizen here: the “slave” class immigrant do not count.
Psienesis wrote:Islam isn't at war with the rest of the world. If it was, we'd all be dead.
Uh, I am pretty sure you mean Islam would be dead. Because the only Muslim government with access to nuke is Pakistan, and they never got anything to send them further than India because they do not need to.
LordofHats wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:I am acually considering making a video showing a bible burning nd then a non-fiction book burning, my point being that even if you believe in the bible there should be no difference.
The secret is to douse the pages in water first Otherwise the whole thing just goes up like a roman candle. Took me about 2 Bibles to get it right, and probably waaaay more time than the A+ was actually worth, but the effect was effective XD
When I burned my Quran, I had to torn out all the pages before…
It would not burn otherwise.
Frazzled wrote:Burn a Bible-all it will do is let everyone know how much of a er you are. Oh and someone might punch you in the face.
Again, if you want to prove then now burn a Koran. Put it on youtube along with your physical address. What could go wrong?
I laugh at your persecution complex. No, you are not unjustly oppressed.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Hey, the King James version ain't worth much anyway I was doing the Puritans and damn it I was shooting for Authenticity!
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
the shrouded lord wrote: tho this is the same god that not only approves of but demands the murder of homosexuals, and anyone of differing religion yet refuses to prove his own existance. hnestly if the god depiced in the bible (Bib-lehey) exists, he's either autistic or the single stupidest being to ever exist.
To paraphrase Dr. Jones Sr.: Goose stepping morons should try reading books instead of burning them.
Your ignorance is appallingly glaring, more so than usual.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
the shrouded lord wrote: Peregrine wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:yes. you know who it will offend? people who think that tiny splothes of ink on a bunch of sheets of paper bound in animal skin is something that their god is concerned with.
Or just people who get your "I don't respect your religion, now let me prove it" message. Seriously, if you want to be offensive at least have the decency to be honest about it instead of pretending that you can't understand how anyone could object. And try to do something a little less cliche than burning a bible.
or rather blunt honesty about the ignorance of assuing ones' god gives two gaks about a bunch of words. tho this is the same god that not only approves of but demands the murder of homosexuals, and anyone of differing religion yet refuses to prove his own existance. hnestly if the god depiced in the bible (Bib-lehey) exists, he's either ...... or the single stupidest being to ever exist.
To be fair though, God comes from a broken home. He never had any parents, not even foster care nor a orphanage to teach him right and wrong. Some people just do not do well in extreme isolation and when they finally emerge from isolation they're a bit off in the head.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
sirlynchmob wrote:To be fair though, God comes from a broken home. He never had any parents, not even foster care nor a orphanage to teach him right and wrong.
Listen to yourself, dissing Joseph and Mary like that!
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:To be fair though, God comes from a broken home. He never had any parents, not even foster care nor a orphanage to teach him right and wrong.
Listen to yourself, dissing Joseph and Mary like that!
That was untold countless eons between god coming into being and that event. God probably just did it so he could finally have a sense of family and belonging
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
sirlynchmob wrote:That was untold countless eons between god coming into being and that event.
Yeah. But remember, god is omniscient. He already knows the future. He already had memories of those moments yet to come. So, no excuses for him . Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, was not God supposed to always have been? Did he actually came to being?
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:If you read the thread previously you would realize that religion wasnt his reason. He was constantly angry and finally snapped.
Back to the question I was asking though- what legal precedents would it violate? I can think of part 2 of the lemon test, but that is about it.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:Darn it, now they are going to call this guy a militant atheist. Why cant dawkins be the militant atheist?
Temp thread hijack. Seperation of church and state- My school is performing an opera using a bunch of religious music- however, the chorus director- she is writing the opera around musical pieces. So she is writing the plot which is roughly outlined as follows. A girl whos name is sinner has a visitor one day named grace. She says that she has a message from god. Temptation(a guy) kills her, and she gets redeemed and goes to heaven.
She has worked on this opera during her work hours. She has gotten a grant from the school board. Students who are part of the chorus work on details during study halls and out of school.
Is this violating seperation of church in state?
Nope. It violates nothing. It could conceivably be in poor taste if students and/or parents find it objectionable but writing a fictional play/opera for a school performance is entirely different from forced religious indoctrination of students. My english lit class read Angels in America in high school, that's a play that involves God, angels, AIDS, homosexuality, etc. and that fact that it has some relgious content and context did not infringe on anyone's personal beliefs or force anyone to participate in a religion against their will. Religion is just an idea and being exposed to ideas and theories is part of an education. I also had to read Huck Finn in school, since Mark Twain put the "n word" in it multiple times does that mean that I and all my classmates who also read it are now racists? Of course not. If my kids' math teacher used a demo game of WH40K to highlight probability and other aspects of math that wouldn't mean that my kids were going to become 40K players or that they consequently wouldn't play WarmaHordes or Malifaux.
It is perfectly legal to have religion in public schools as long as the school doesn't require students to perform religious acts. My kids go to public school, every morning after the pledge of allegiance there is a moment of silence during which any student/faculty member can take the time to silently pray. Every day in the cafeteria some of our kids' friends say grace before they eat, there's nothing illegal about it. Faculty and students can wear religoius iconography/jewelry there's nothing illegal about that either. Everyone is free to hold the personal relgious beliefs of their choice and students can be exposed to religious ideas/themes. It happens in schools all across America throughout the school year and nobody is harmed by it in any way.
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wife-alleged-n-c-shooter-believed-everyone-was-equal/
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. - The man accused of murdering three of his neighbors was a "champion of Second Amendment rights" who "believed everyone is equal," according to his wife and her attorneys.
Karen Hicks, flanked by attorneys Rob Maitland and Michelle English, told reporters Wednesday that she and suspect Craig Hicks had been married seven years and that the shooting he is accused of "had nothing to do with religion...but was in fact related to the long-standing parking disputes" with his Muslim neighbors.
Craig Hicks, 46, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder for allegedly shooting Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife, Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, at their Chapel Hill apartment.
Attorney English told reporters that Craig Hicks carried a weapon and had a concealed carry permit, and that he was "a champion for Second Amendment rights." Attorney Maitland said that Hicks "had a problem with many of his neighbors," and that the shooting "highlights the importance of access to mental health care services." He would not comment on a reporter's questions about whether Hicks had a history of mental health issues, but said, "obviously, it is not within the range of normal behavior for someone to shoot three people over parking issues."
The father of the two female victims has told reporters that he believes his children were targeted because of their Muslim faith. He told the Raleigh News and Observer that his daughter had previously told him that Hicks "hates us for what we are and how we look."
But police have said they believe the shooting may have been sparked by the parking dispute Karen Hicks mentioned.
Attorney Rob Maitland told reporters that Hicks had "unsuccessfully" attempted to address the parking problem with the home-owners association at the complex where he lived.
Maitland said that the shootings stemmed from "the mundane issue of this man being frustrated day in and day out with not being able to park where he wanted to park. And these victims were at the wrong time and the wrong place."
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Of course he was "a champion of Second Amendment Rights"...
Way to taint the jury pool, lady.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No no. Port is the blood of Christ. And its 18.7% alcohol by volume. Get it right!
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Damn I hope Jesus was not driving that night!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:To be fair though, God comes from a broken home. He never had any parents, not even foster care nor a orphanage to teach him right and wrong.
Listen to yourself, dissing Joseph and Mary like that!
If you want to have some weird internet anti Christian circle jerk why don't you get a room already. You're not being edgy. you're being angsty teeny. And frankly it has nothing to do with the OP.
Frazzled wrote:
Burn a Bible-all it will do is let everyone know how much of a er you are. Oh and someone might punch you in the face.
Again, if you want to prove then now burn a Koran. Put it on youtube along with your physical address. What could go wrong?
I laugh at your persecution complex. No, you are not unjustly oppressed.
I am a Texan. We are not the oppressed. We are the oppressors! Automatically Appended Next Post:
he doesn't have to drive. He just takes the short cut to get to his flat across the lake...
47598
Post by: motyak
Indeed, this thread is about this sad crime and the information surrounding it. Mutual backpats about mocking a religion, or self backpats about edgy book burning, are definitely OT
221
Post by: Frazzled
The whole "showed up at my door with a gun" would have resulted in 911 calls of man with a gun threatening me.
I wonder if the police were called previously.
i know some people don't answer their door. That sounds like good policy.
89127
Post by: Matthew
But guys, don't worry, he's white so he's just a troubled lone wolf, if he'd been a muslim we'd all be scared.
121
Post by: Relapse
sirlynchmob wrote: the shrouded lord wrote: Peregrine wrote: the shrouded lord wrote:yes. you know who it will offend? people who think that tiny splothes of ink on a bunch of sheets of paper bound in animal skin is something that their god is concerned with.
Or just people who get your "I don't respect your religion, now let me prove it" message. Seriously, if you want to be offensive at least have the decency to be honest about it instead of pretending that you can't understand how anyone could object. And try to do something a little less cliche than burning a bible.
or rather blunt honesty about the ignorance of assuing ones' god gives two gaks about a bunch of words. tho this is the same god that not only approves of but demands the murder of homosexuals, and anyone of differing religion yet refuses to prove his own existance. hnestly if the god depiced in the bible (Bib-lehey) exists, he's either ...... or the single stupidest being to ever exist.
To be fair though, God comes from a broken home. He never had any parents, not even foster care nor a orphanage to teach him right and wrong. Some people just do not do well in extreme isolation and when they finally emerge from isolation they're a bit off in the head.
How do you know that about God, though? 
47598
Post by: motyak
It's been less than 10 posts since my last warning. Don't follow this OT line
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
reds8n wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wife-alleged-n-c-shooter-believed-everyone-was-equal/
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. - The man accused of murdering three of his neighbors was a "champion of Second Amendment rights" who "believed everyone is equal," according to his wife and her attorneys.
Karen Hicks, flanked by attorneys Rob Maitland and Michelle English, told reporters Wednesday that she and suspect Craig Hicks had been married seven years and that the shooting he is accused of "had nothing to do with religion...but was in fact related to the long-standing parking disputes" with his Muslim neighbors.
Craig Hicks, 46, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder for allegedly shooting Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife, Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, at their Chapel Hill apartment.
Attorney English told reporters that Craig Hicks carried a weapon and had a concealed carry permit, and that he was "a champion for Second Amendment rights." Attorney Maitland said that Hicks "had a problem with many of his neighbors," and that the shooting "highlights the importance of access to mental health care services." He would not comment on a reporter's questions about whether Hicks had a history of mental health issues, but said, "obviously, it is not within the range of normal behavior for someone to shoot three people over parking issues."
The father of the two female victims has told reporters that he believes his children were targeted because of their Muslim faith. He told the Raleigh News and Observer that his daughter had previously told him that Hicks "hates us for what we are and how we look."
But police have said they believe the shooting may have been sparked by the parking dispute Karen Hicks mentioned.
Attorney Rob Maitland told reporters that Hicks had "unsuccessfully" attempted to address the parking problem with the home-owners association at the complex where he lived.
Maitland said that the shootings stemmed from "the mundane issue of this man being frustrated day in and day out with not being able to park where he wanted to park. And these victims were at the wrong time and the wrong place."
Do we have more information on the mental health of the perpetrator? Was he ever committed for example
5534
Post by: dogma
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do we have more information on the mental health of the perpetrator? Was he ever committed for example
Nothing I can find about being committed, but his first wife cited "repeated, extreme mental cruelty" as grounds for divorce.
The fact that his current wife is also filing for divorce leads me to believe that the guy had issues which caused her to fear doing so before his arrest.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Dreadclaw69 wrote: reds8n wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wife-alleged-n-c-shooter-believed-everyone-was-equal/
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. - The man accused of murdering three of his neighbors was a "champion of Second Amendment rights" who "believed everyone is equal," according to his wife and her attorneys.
Karen Hicks, flanked by attorneys Rob Maitland and Michelle English, told reporters Wednesday that she and suspect Craig Hicks had been married seven years and that the shooting he is accused of "had nothing to do with religion...but was in fact related to the long-standing parking disputes" with his Muslim neighbors.
Craig Hicks, 46, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder for allegedly shooting Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife, Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, at their Chapel Hill apartment.
Attorney English told reporters that Craig Hicks carried a weapon and had a concealed carry permit, and that he was "a champion for Second Amendment rights." Attorney Maitland said that Hicks "had a problem with many of his neighbors," and that the shooting "highlights the importance of access to mental health care services." He would not comment on a reporter's questions about whether Hicks had a history of mental health issues, but said, "obviously, it is not within the range of normal behavior for someone to shoot three people over parking issues."
The father of the two female victims has told reporters that he believes his children were targeted because of their Muslim faith. He told the Raleigh News and Observer that his daughter had previously told him that Hicks "hates us for what we are and how we look."
But police have said they believe the shooting may have been sparked by the parking dispute Karen Hicks mentioned.
Attorney Rob Maitland told reporters that Hicks had "unsuccessfully" attempted to address the parking problem with the home-owners association at the complex where he lived.
Maitland said that the shootings stemmed from "the mundane issue of this man being frustrated day in and day out with not being able to park where he wanted to park. And these victims were at the wrong time and the wrong place."
Do we have more information on the mental health of the perpetrator? Was he ever committed for example
He had a valid concealed carry permit so he had a clean criminal record and didn't have any past or current mental health issues severe enough to cause him to lose his permit. Things like involuntary commitments or being ruled a danger to yourself or others would have resulted in his permit getting revoked.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Psienesis wrote:Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.
In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.
If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
It's also worth noting that not having a license in no way precludes you from carrying a firearm. It just makes it illegal to do so... but, I've noted that a lot of people don't seem to care about that technicality.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Psienesis wrote:It's also worth noting that not having a license in no way precludes you from carrying a firearm. It just makes it illegal to do so... but, I've noted that a lot of people don't seem to care about that technicality.
NC has legal open carry, you don't need a concealed carry permit to openly carry a pistol but the same restrictions on where you can carry apply. You can't open carry or concealed carry in state or federal govt buildings, public schools, private business with posted signs, etc. NC residents do need to obtain a pistol purchase permit from their county sherrif in order to buy a pistol (thanks Jim Crow!) and the purchase permit is in some ways more arduous to acquire than the concealed carry permit. However, if you move to NC from another state and you already possess a pistol you can bring the pistol with you to NC with no paperwork/permit/registration required. There's no gun registration in NC at all, just concealed carry and purchase permits for pistols.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Prestor Jon wrote: Psienesis wrote:Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.
In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.
If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.
NC is a shall issue state, so while violent crimes would prohibit him from obtaining a concealed carry permit, a single drunk driving conviction would probably not, depending on aggravating factors. The law states that crimes carrying sentences > 1 year make people ineligible for obtaining a concealed carry permit. As long as your DUI is below a level 2 you are A-OK to get your carry permit in North Carolina as the maximum sentences are below one year.
Not like it matters a whole lot for this particular case but I wanted to clarify.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Prestor Jon wrote: Psienesis wrote:Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.
In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.
If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.
NC is a shall issue state, so while violent crimes would prohibit him from obtaining a concealed carry permit, a single drunk driving conviction would probably not, depending on aggravating factors. The law states that crimes carrying sentences > 1 year make people ineligible for obtaining a concealed carry permit. As long as your DUI is below a level 2 you are A-OK to get your carry permit in North Carolina as the maximum sentences are below one year.
Not like it matters a whole lot for this particular case but I wanted to clarify.
If you have an impaired driving conviction within 3 years prior to applying for your concealed carry permit you will be denied. It's on page 17 of the NC firearms law explanation from the NC doj that I posted, reason #7 for denying a permit. It doesn't state that it has to be a level 2 sentence for impaired driving only that you are convicted of impaired driving as established by NC GS 20-138.1, 20-138.2, 20-138.3. You can also be denied for violent misdemeanors. Which law are you referring to that stipulates it has to be a minimum of a 1 year sentence to qualify as a reason to deny a permit application? I'm not familiar with it.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Prestor Jon wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:Prestor Jon wrote: Psienesis wrote:Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.
In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.
If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.
NC is a shall issue state, so while violent crimes would prohibit him from obtaining a concealed carry permit, a single drunk driving conviction would probably not, depending on aggravating factors. The law states that crimes carrying sentences > 1 year make people ineligible for obtaining a concealed carry permit. As long as your DUI is below a level 2 you are A-OK to get your carry permit in North Carolina as the maximum sentences are below one year.
Not like it matters a whole lot for this particular case but I wanted to clarify.
If you have an impaired driving conviction within 3 years prior to applying for your concealed carry permit you will be denied. It's on page 17 of the NC firearms law explanation from the NC doj that I posted, reason #7 for denying a permit. It doesn't state that it has to be a level 2 sentence for impaired driving only that you are convicted of impaired driving as established by NC GS 20-138.1, 20-138.2, 20-138.3. You can also be denied for violent misdemeanors. Which law are you referring to that stipulates it has to be a minimum of a 1 year sentence to qualify as a reason to deny a permit application? I'm not familiar with it.
Good catch - PA doesn't have that law but NC and PA do share the > 1 year max sentence clause. See p. 7 for that clause, item B.
Persons convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one (1) year. A person would not be ineligible under this criteria
if the person has been pardoned for the crime or conviction, the crime or
conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had his/her civil
rights restored, and under the law where the conviction occurred, the person is
not prohibited from receiving or possessing any firearm;
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Prestor Jon wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:Prestor Jon wrote: Psienesis wrote:Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.
In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.
If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.
NC is a shall issue state, so while violent crimes would prohibit him from obtaining a concealed carry permit, a single drunk driving conviction would probably not, depending on aggravating factors. The law states that crimes carrying sentences > 1 year make people ineligible for obtaining a concealed carry permit. As long as your DUI is below a level 2 you are A-OK to get your carry permit in North Carolina as the maximum sentences are below one year.
Not like it matters a whole lot for this particular case but I wanted to clarify.
If you have an impaired driving conviction within 3 years prior to applying for your concealed carry permit you will be denied. It's on page 17 of the NC firearms law explanation from the NC doj that I posted, reason #7 for denying a permit. It doesn't state that it has to be a level 2 sentence for impaired driving only that you are convicted of impaired driving as established by NC GS 20-138.1, 20-138.2, 20-138.3. You can also be denied for violent misdemeanors. Which law are you referring to that stipulates it has to be a minimum of a 1 year sentence to qualify as a reason to deny a permit application? I'm not familiar with it.
Good catch - PA doesn't have that law but NC and PA do share the > 1 year max sentence clause. See p. 7 for that clause, item B.
Persons convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one (1) year. A person would not be ineligible under this criteria
if the person has been pardoned for the crime or conviction, the crime or
conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had his/her civil
rights restored, and under the law where the conviction occurred, the person is
not prohibited from receiving or possessing any firearm;
I'll have to make a note to remember that one in the future. I wish states would consolidate their statutes better, everytime I try to pull out just the important stuff I always miss something.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, and new details are apparently emerging about Hicks keeping meticulous records associated with the whole "parking dispute" angle.
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (Reuters) - North Carolina prosecutors will seek the death penalty against a man who police say kept detailed notes on parking at his condominium complex before gunning down three young Muslims in a neighboring unit, according to documents released on Monday.
Craig Hicks, 46, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the Feb. 10 shooting deaths of a newlywed couple and the wife's sister about two miles from the University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill.
The Durham County District Attorney's Office said on Monday it filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty for Hicks last week.
A hearing will be held in early April for prosecutors to present their evidence to a judge, a member of the district attorney's office said.
The decision by prosecutors comes as federal and local investigators work to determine whether Hicks, a paralegal student who portrayed himself on Facebook as an atheist, was motivated by hatred toward the victims because of their religion.
Police have said their initial investigation indicated a dispute over parking may have prompted the killings, which drew international attention and sparked widespread use of the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter on social media.
Newly released search warrants indicate Hicks' wife suggested the theory of a parking incident as a possible motive.
A search of Hicks' computers showed he kept pictures and notes on parking activity in the lots around his condo, police said in the warrants.
Police seized a cache of firearms and ammunition from his home, according to the documents.
Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, a University of North Carolina dental student; his wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, a student at North Carolina State University, were killed in the shooting.
Their families have urged authorities to investigate the case as a possible hate crime, saying Hicks had made the victims feel uncomfortable.
The search warrants show officers were reviewing the victims' cell phones to see if they contained any evidence of confrontations or interactions the victims may have had with the suspect.
I'm still not convinced on the "hate crime" angle, but I think it will very much depend on what Hicks was doing to "make the victims feel uncomfortable".
34390
Post by: whembly
 Kanluwen wrote:Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, and new details are apparently emerging about Hicks keeping meticulous records associated with the whole "parking dispute" angle.
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (Reuters) - North Carolina prosecutors will seek the death penalty against a man who police say kept detailed notes on parking at his condominium complex before gunning down three young Muslims in a neighboring unit, according to documents released on Monday.
Craig Hicks, 46, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the Feb. 10 shooting deaths of a newlywed couple and the wife's sister about two miles from the University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill.
The Durham County District Attorney's Office said on Monday it filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty for Hicks last week.
A hearing will be held in early April for prosecutors to present their evidence to a judge, a member of the district attorney's office said.
The decision by prosecutors comes as federal and local investigators work to determine whether Hicks, a paralegal student who portrayed himself on Facebook as an atheist, was motivated by hatred toward the victims because of their religion.
Police have said their initial investigation indicated a dispute over parking may have prompted the killings, which drew international attention and sparked widespread use of the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter on social media.
Newly released search warrants indicate Hicks' wife suggested the theory of a parking incident as a possible motive.
A search of Hicks' computers showed he kept pictures and notes on parking activity in the lots around his condo, police said in the warrants.
Police seized a cache of firearms and ammunition from his home, according to the documents.
Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, a University of North Carolina dental student; his wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, a student at North Carolina State University, were killed in the shooting.
Their families have urged authorities to investigate the case as a possible hate crime, saying Hicks had made the victims feel uncomfortable.
The search warrants show officers were reviewing the victims' cell phones to see if they contained any evidence of confrontations or interactions the victims may have had with the suspect.
I'm still not convinced on the "hate crime" angle, but I think it will very much depend on what Hicks was doing to "make the victims feel uncomfortable".
My initial reaction is:
Even though my opinion on state sanctioned death penalty is evolving (to only life in prison).
Probably not a hate crime... but, there's plenty there to put him away for life.
89994
Post by: natpri771
The evidence suggests that this was not a religiously motivated crime, but over a parking dispute
722
Post by: Kanluwen
natpri771 wrote:The evidence suggests that this was not a religiously motivated crime, but over a parking dispute
Hate crimes do not necessarily have to be about religion, and as mentioned before, the hate crime tag being added is nothing but a sentencing enhancement.
The family of the victims have stated, repeatedly, that Hicks had bothered/harassed the couple for some time. The neighbors of the victims have stated that Hicks has harassed them as well relating to the whole "parking dispute" angle.
However from what I have seen on my local news(which is pretty local to this case  ), it seems like the only people who Hicks went to confront about parking while carrying his gun was this specific couple.
Of course we're not going to have all the information publicly available yet as it would taint any potential jury pool.
86302
Post by: Crimson Heretic
Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:If that jurisdiction has hate crimes enhancement, he should be charged with such.
Oh we definitely have hate crimes as an enhancement for crimes here.
hate crimes are not the easiest for prosecutors to push and win, unless he wrote die muslims on the front of there house after he killed them then it is not a slam dunk. The defense will argue it was motivated by anger towards the parking dispute. If it goes to jury its going to be quite hard to tip a jury towards siding with hate crime, seeing as the news has indirectly been brain washing us into thinking all muslims are future ISIS fighters. the united states judicial system is a very odd and clunky machine, sometimes it works as expected and sometimes it wanders off course and suprises everybody....best example i can think of off the top of my head..the OJ simpson trial...I was tought as a law student that everybody knew he did it, but they wanted to avoid a race war so they let him go.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
OJ walked because the investigation of the case was shoddy, and the defense provided reasonable doubt.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Crimson Heretic wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:If that jurisdiction has hate crimes enhancement, he should be charged with such.
Oh we definitely have hate crimes as an enhancement for crimes here.
hate crimes are not the easiest for prosecutors to push and win, unless he wrote die muslims on the front of there house after he killed them then it is not a slam dunk. The defense will argue it was motivated by anger towards the parking dispute. If it goes to jury its going to be quite hard to tip a jury towards siding with hate crime, seeing as the news has indirectly been brain washing us into thinking all muslims are future ISIS fighters. the united states judicial system is a very odd and clunky machine, sometimes it works as expected and sometimes it wanders off course and suprises everybody....best example i can think of off the top of my head..the OJ simpson trial ...I was tought as a law student that everybody knew he did it, but they wanted to avoid a race war so they let him go.
Wut?
Were you seriously instructed in law school that the primary reason that OJ Simpson wasn't convicted was due to a govt conspiracy that wanted to avoid a race war? That's incredible.
I always thought that the lack of a weapon, a witness, a clear motive and the whole glove debacle were the key contributing factors to OJ avoiding a conviction.
Sorry for the off topic comment.
86302
Post by: Crimson Heretic
Prestor Jon wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:If that jurisdiction has hate crimes enhancement, he should be charged with such.
Oh we definitely have hate crimes as an enhancement for crimes here.
hate crimes are not the easiest for prosecutors to push and win, unless he wrote die muslims on the front of there house after he killed them then it is not a slam dunk. The defense will argue it was motivated by anger towards the parking dispute. If it goes to jury its going to be quite hard to tip a jury towards siding with hate crime, seeing as the news has indirectly been brain washing us into thinking all muslims are future ISIS fighters. the united states judicial system is a very odd and clunky machine, sometimes it works as expected and sometimes it wanders off course and suprises everybody....best example i can think of off the top of my head..the OJ simpson trial ...I was tought as a law student that everybody knew he did it, but they wanted to avoid a race war so they let him go.
Wut?
Were you seriously instructed in law school that the primary reason that OJ Simpson wasn't convicted was due to a govt conspiracy that wanted to avoid a race war? That's incredible.
I always thought that the lack of a weapon, a witness, a clear motive and the whole glove debacle were the key contributing factors to OJ avoiding a conviction.
Sorry for the off topic comment.
yes my class was instructed of that, his legal team is still to this day considered one of the best of all time..but it was one of those trials that that showed how the judicial system can be engineered and swayed including jurys. Do i think he did it? i have no idea i was not present for the proceedings or discovery of evidence. Anyway back to the hate crime idea...it is possible but in this day and age its not an easy push in the religon department, with the news churning out articles/news casts about muslim violence in the middle east and how so many muslims are flocking to join ISIS, its putting good hearted none violent muslims in a bad light and programming us in our minds to think that too. Theres this strange cycle in human history where we show incredible hate and prejudice towards certain race/creed at certain points in history..the irish, the jews, the blacks, gypsys...is this crime sad? yes very..just trying to shine some light on the hate crime prosecution idea.
46277
Post by: squidhills
Crimson Heretic wrote:
yes my class was instructed of that, his legal team is still to this day considered one of the best of all time..but it was one of those trials that that showed how the judicial system can be engineered and swayed including jurys. Do i think he did it? i have no idea i was not present for the proceedings or discovery of evidence. Anyway back to the hate crime idea...it is possible but in this day and age its not an easy push in the religon department, with the news churning out articles/news casts about muslim violence in the middle east and how so many muslims are flocking to join ISIS, its putting good hearted none violent muslims in a bad light and programming us in our minds to think that too. Theres this strange cycle in human history where we show incredible hate and prejudice towards certain race/creed at certain points in history..the irish, the jews, the blacks, gypsys...is this crime sad? yes very..just trying to shine some light on the hate crime prosecution idea.
If your law professor literally told you that OJ was let go to avoid a race war, you need to go back to that school and demand your money back.
There are a lot of reasons why he wasn't convicted, and "avoiding a race war" is not one of them.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
it is possible but in this day and age its not an easy push in the religon department, with the news churning out articles/news casts about muslim violence in the middle east and how so many muslims are flocking to join ISIS, its putting good hearted none violent muslims in a bad light and programming us in our minds to think that too. Theres this strange cycle in human history where we show incredible hate and prejudice towards certain race/creed at certain points in history..the irish, the jews, the blacks, gypsys...is this crime sad? yes very..just trying to shine some light on the hate crime prosecution idea.
It's real easy to avoid such programming: turn the television off.
|
|
