Amazon.com Widgets

« Check out the set on that "Baggage handling" area. | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Weekend »

Onward Christian Terrorist?


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
In the Name of the Fodder
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook


 

Comments

This is especially tragic because at first the right-wing nutters were absolutely joyous in thinking that the slaughter in Norway was the work of Muslims. As if we even need another reason to think that Fox is a complete piece of shit.

I think it showed the christian bias in a lot of our media.

Sigh. Sometimes even the mighty Jon Stewart can't take the edge off how fucked the world is. :(

Or at least how fucked a torrent of Fox News clips is.

"Onward Christian Terrorist" is, umm... an interesting title for this post, RedSeven.

Just a point about the place where the aparent line ,between a christian act and something that isn't a christian act, lives.

Shooting someone for a county, ok. Shooting someone for your interpretations of christian belief, not ok?

And yes, I know the original meaning of the sone was different than the current ussage.

When will we figure out that Terrorism is not about religion. It's about extremism.

Tim McVey was crazy. The Norwegian dude is crazy. The political extremists in the House of Representatives are intent on destroying the global economy. None of it's got anything to do with which God or non-God is whispering in their ears.

You know, I have to say, I think you are wrong. Its true that terrorism is insane and therefore the act of crazy people, but extremism indeed feeds it and extremism is a radicalized mainstream belief in many cases.

I think what is clear is that for large scale and common place acts of mass terror you need all those things, a complicit mainstream, an active community of radicals, and insane individuals.

I think saying that religion is not responsible is every bit as much of a cop out as saying that the individual isn't responsible.

What if you could diagnose all the 9/11 bombers? What then?

re: "I think what is clear is that for large scale and common place acts of mass terror you need all those things, a complicit mainstream, an active community of radicals, and insane individuals."

comment: Well but, I don't think a complicit mainstream is evident in the Norwegian case, nor is an active community of radicals apparent. With Tim McVey, I understand that he found common ideological ground with others in the gun-show subculture, but it seems in the end, it was just he and an unwilling buddy.

re: "I think saying that religion is not responsible is every bit as much of a cop out as saying that the individual isn't responsible".

comment: OK, I don't think I expressed my notion properly. IMO, guys who go out and kill hundreds of innocents for some ideology are fairly crazy, whether they be Christian, Islamist or Anarchist. But what I was trying to say, is that aside from the insanity part, it isn't religion per-se that triggers terrorist activity. It's Extremist attitudes that are the problem. These are neither always religious, nor are all religious beliefs extreme. There are a fair number of radical House representatives who think their views on Economic theory are secular, but the notion that honorable folk might legitimately disagree is alien to them. They are willing to 'take no prisoners' in imposing their minority views on the rest of the country. They were willing to wreak havoc on the global economy but are not willing to close a single tax loophole for the richest among us. That degree of Extremism is far more dangerous to a democratic society.

Well but, I don't think a complicit mainstream is evident in the Norwegian case, nor is an active community of radicals apparent.

There hasn't been conclusive reporting one way or another. I saw some interviews from people who new him and they seemed to think he wasn't a classic "loner". Seems like he was testing his anti-muslim ideas on the internet looking for like minded folks.

Seems unlikely he wouldn't have found any given the anti-muslim sentiments floating about some circles of europe these days.

But what I was trying to say, is that aside from the insanity part, it isn't religion per-se that triggers terrorist activity.

I have met some pretty crazy people that are into model trains or play WOW all the time. Crazy people aren't all killers, some just latch onto ideas and obsess until they come up with an insane solution.

If that idea is that muslims are evil, or abortion doctors deserve to die, or that the western world is a threat to Islam, or somply that any non believer is not as valuable a life, than the results can be pretty bad.

It can happen in any philosophy, but the risky ones are those that proclaim to know absolute morality.

re: you said: "Crazy people aren't all killers, some just latch onto ideas and obsess until they come up with an insane solution." ... "It can happen in any philosophy, but the risky ones are those that proclaim to know absolute morality."

OK then. I think perhaps we're pretty close to agreement about this. I'm no psychiatrist, so am uncertain of the formal notion of "crazy", beyond some test of reasonableness - e.g., does a person's words or proposed course of action appear sort of kinda reasonable?? If not, then maybe crazy is the right word. But it is, as you say, the CERTAINTY (or absolute morality) factor that creates risk. A modern society needs folks to respect diversity of perspective. When a person or group of people are not only certain of their rightness, but also unwilling to acknowledge the possibility and legitimacy of an opposing or even just different point of view, then we get the nonsense coming out of Washington.

And, I admit that using "God" as the arbiter of Rightness, makes applying logic as any persuasive alternate appeal particularly difficult. It doesn't hardly really matter who's God it is, nor which religion one chooses, certitude is problematic.

Perhaps I find this certitude on the part of the Tea Party folks particularly hard to swallow because I'm an "on the one hand..., but on the other hand..." kind of girl. I mean, if the Bush tax cuts were eliminated and tax loopholes closed, (e.g., if we were actually SERIOUS about deficit reduction), I'd be willing to look at Medicare cost management in a minute. Why, for example, do we spend so much money in the last 3 months of life of our old folks? Why NOT Hospice? In the last few months of my Step-Mother's life her lucid moments were filled with pain, her (more frequent) demented moments filled with terrifying hallucinations but damn if the Doctors weren't intent on dealing with her 85 year old heart condition. After all, Medicare payed the bills. We've all gotta die from somethin'.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives