Athiest kills 3 Muslims after condemning all religions *tipping intensifies*

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Peregrine**

RivenSkull wrote:
It swings both ways.

You're right, it does. But "Christianity is just as bad" isn't a valid argument.

**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

**RivenSkull**

Peregrine wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:
It swings both ways.

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.

**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.

**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.

**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).

**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.

**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?

**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".

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**SilverMK2**

generalgrog wrote:
Perfect example of religious extremist.

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.

**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.

**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?

**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...

**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.

**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

**daedalus**

Alternate headline: "Man with no chin kills 3 Muslims after condemning all religions."

**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 .

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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?