Nice, France terrorist attack- 73 Dead

Originally posted by Raisen
Probably. But would you rather see our money spent on things that I mentioned rather than taking in refugees. Does it make sense to you that perhaps we could have close to a utopia if we didn't spend money abroad. Expanding upon that, does it appear that our politicians are not serving our best interests by sustaining foreigners and giving foreign aid

Well that's the thing. IMO a true utopia would be worldwide, and we wouldn't be bound by social constructs like nation states

The thing is we have to take care of our own first. I know that sounds harsh, but we have things here that need funding.

It has always sounded strange to me that a country that isn't bereft of homeless people would send millions of dollars to aid other people that are homeless,etc. in other countries. I'm not even talking about any specific place, just anywhere.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/neighbours-of-nice-truck-suspect-describe-a-loner/ar-BBumSgi?li=BBnb7Kz?ocid=ansmsnnews11

Terrorist was a Franco-Tusnian, not a Syrian refugee.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691895/He-drank-alcohol-ate-pork-took-drugs-NOT-Muslim-Truck-terrorist-Mohamed-Lahouaiej-Bouhlel-s-cousin-reveals-unlikely-jihadist-beat-wife-NEVER-went-mosque.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

He did drugs and alcohol, ate pork, and beat his wife. This is a perfect of example of how Islam itself isn't inherently violent, but used as an excuse ideology used by inherently violent people.

Yet you said religion is an excuse to hate when any ideology applies.

Originally posted by Surtur
The thing is we have to take care of our own first. I know that sounds harsh, but we have things here that need funding.

It has always sounded strange to me that a country that isn't bereft of homeless people would send millions of dollars to aid other people that are homeless,etc. in other countries. I'm not even talking about any specific place, just anywhere.

Exactly why I'm a libertarian

No religion is inherently violent or peaceful. It is all based on the subjective interpretation. Hell, there are actually Buddhist terrorists out there. Any religion can be twisted to bring hate or cultivated to bring love.

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/neighbours-of-nice-truck-suspect-describe-a-loner/ar-BBumSgi?li=BBnb7Kz?ocid=ansmsnnews11

Terrorist was a Franco-Tusnian, not a Syrian refugee.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691895/He-drank-alcohol-ate-pork-took-drugs-NOT-Muslim-Truck-terrorist-Mohamed-Lahouaiej-Bouhlel-s-cousin-reveals-unlikely-jihadist-beat-wife-NEVER-went-mosque.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

He did drugs and alcohol, ate pork, and beat his wife. This is a perfect of example of how Islam itself isn't inherently violent, but used as an excuse ideology used by inherently violent people.

Okay just for arguments sake..you realize that either way it's not a good sign right? If you are going to say Islam isn't inherently violent, but it is chalk full of so many utterly awful ideas that violent people tend to gravitate toward it more than any other religion as an excuse to act out..well, that doesn't actually make the religion itself look good.

Originally posted by Surtur
The thing is we have to take care of our own first. I know that sounds harsh, but we have things here that need funding.

It has always sounded strange to me that a country that isn't bereft of homeless people would send millions of dollars to aid other people that are homeless,etc. in other countries. I'm not even talking about any specific place, just anywhere.

Again, the stuff that needs funding will be shot down by congressional republicans. They don't want our tax money going to progressive agendas like health or homelessness. The homeless need to make their own way, says GOP Speaker Paul Ryan.

I agree that it is odd that we have such a huge homeless problem, but that's what happens when the GOP shut down any potential welfare programs because they're "socialist".

Originally posted by Lestov16
Again, the stuff that needs funding will be shot down by congressional republicans. They don't want our tax money going to progressive agendas like health or homelessness. The homeless need to make their own way, says GOP Speaker Paul Ryan.

I agree that it is odd that we have such a huge homeless problem, but that's what happens when the GOP shut down any potential welfare programs because they're "socialist".

I never said the republicans were on the side of the angels. I have things both parties do that I disagree with.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay just for arguments sake..you realize that either way it's not a good sign right? If you are going to say Islam isn't inherently violent, but it is chalk full of so many utterly awful ideas that violent people tend to gravitate toward it more than any other religion as an excuse to act out..well, that doesn't actually make the religion itself look good.

Okay just for arguments sake..you realize that either way it's not a good sign right. If you're going to say the Confederate flag isn't inherently violent, but it is chalk full of so many utterly awful ideas that violent people such as Dylan Roof tend to gravitate toward it as an excuse to act out...Well, that doesn't actually make the flag itself look good.

See how that argument doesn't work. You're committing a logical fallacy by generalizing the entirety of Islam as savage fundamentalists. You must be very smart to know the collective behavior of 1.3 billion people across 200 countries if you're going say they're all dangerous, because if the religion is inherently dangerous, that means all 1.3 billion Muslims are dangerous for practicing it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
No religion is inherently violent or peaceful. It is all based on the subjective interpretation. Hell, there are actually Buddhist terrorists out there. Any religion can be twisted to bring hate or cultivated to bring love.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Okay just for arguments sake..you realize that either way it's not a good sign right. If you're going to say the Confederate flag isn't inherently violent, but it is chalk full of so many utterly awful ideas that violent people such as Dylan Roof tend to gravitate toward it as an excuse to act out...Well, that doesn't actually make the flag itself look good.

See how that argument doesn't work. You're committing a logical fallacy by generalizing the entirety of Islam as savage fundamentalists. You must be very smart to know the collective behavior of 1.3 billion people across 200 countries if you're going say they're all dangerous, because if the religion is inherently dangerous, that means all 1.3 billion Muslims are dangerous for practicing it.

I wasn't saying all Muslims are dangerous. What my point was either way you look at it if someone is saying Islam is inherently violent or someone saying it is not inherently violent it just attracts violent people...that is a no win situation. You aren't listing any options that portray it in a positive light.

Originally posted by Kurk
Someone watches too much Reza Aslan

I don't watch television period, so no.

Originally posted by Surtur
I wasn't saying all Muslims are dangerous. What my point was either way you look at it if someone is saying Islam is inherently violent or someone saying it is not inherently violent it just attracts violent people...that is a no win situation. You aren't listing any options that portray it in a positive light.

Look, you have to realize I'm only trying to argue from the perspective of an Abrahamic religious practitioner. Personally I hate Islam and all Abrahamic religion.

If it were up to me, all world religions from African tribes on up would be replaced with Zoroastrianism. But sadly Abrahamic religions are what the world practices, so I'm just trying to figure out how they can co-exist with the least amount of violence.

Don't blame me. Abraham's the little punk bytch who decided sacrificing his son to an invisible man (setting the precedent that inflicting suffering is okay if one believes God ordered it) was righteous, thus giving Christians, Jews, and especially Muslims the excuse to be intolerant to anybody who defies their dogma.

(... If they choose to be intolerant. Like I said, the Abrahamic religions can be used to spread good, but it all depends on the subjective belief of the practitioner)

Look, I would LOVE it if every Muslim was a violent terrorist. It would make it so much easier to just go over and mow them down. Unfortunately for my subjectivity, I grew up with a tolerant Muslim father who was not only tolerant enough to marry a Catholic woman, but also tolerant enough to be accepting of homosexuality. My brother is gay, and both him and his boyfriend were at my Muslim dad's 4th of July cookout a couple of weeks ago. My Muslim dad is the one who told me we should have invaded Iraq to crush ISIS.

So you can't tell me all Muslims are violent and it is an inherently violent and intolerant religion, because I've personally seen with my own two eyes that it isn't. Unfortunately it is not as simple as Islam=evil. I would love it if it were, but I know and have seen for a fact that it isn't.

Islam isn't evil, but a lot of evil done in the world today is done in the name of Islam. Is that a fair thing to say?

ex-Muslim here who believes all religions are flawed in some way or another and honestly have no purpose in the 21st century other than give insecure people an excuse to be moral. How many people are there alive who worship the Aztec or Mesopotamian Sun gods? Not many; why? Because it's unreasonable to rip out a persons heart to save them. More and more with Christianity, Islam, etc. people are picking and choosing which parts of their traditional teachings to ignore based on what they think is reasonable. So in the end, it is subjective to other environmental conditions not just what is written in a thousand year old book. By definition all interpretations are valid, however some are more reasonable than others. The cultural and environmental factors determine what is reasonable. Stoning women to death might be unthinkable in a developed western country while it is completely acceptable in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Female genital mutilation is widespread through parts of Africa; both Christian and Muslim countries alike. There are many other factors to account for.

SO will France now be trying to enforce Truck Control Laws?

The lengths some people will go to to catch a pokemon are horrifying.

Originally posted by Kurk
ex-Muslim here who believes all religions are flawed in some way or another and honestly have no purpose in the 21st century other than give insecure people an excuse to be moral. How many people are there alive who worship the Aztec or Mesopotamian Sun gods? Not many; why? Because it's unreasonable to rip out a persons heart to save them. More and more with Christianity, Islam, etc. people are picking and choosing which parts of their traditional teachings to ignore based on what they think is reasonable. So in the end, it is subjective to other environmental conditions not just what is written in a thousand year old book. By definition all interpretations are valid, however some are more reasonable than others. The cultural and environmental factors determine what is reasonable. Stoning women to death might be unthinkable in a developed western country while it is completely acceptable in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Female genital mutilation is widespread through parts of Africa; both Christian and Muslim countries alike. There are many other factors to account for.

In the light of your post, the argument I've heard a numer of times and I think is very reasonable and is that while Christianity had its Reformation a few centuries ago that purified it of the most radical aspects (kinda like catharsis after 16th and 17th century religious wars in Europe, Lutheranism, etc.), Islam remains in a dire need of reformation nowadays.