Hundreds attend funeral of Copenhagen gunman

[WinMacLin Guy]

Assert Western values and insist they are non-negotiable.

 

Muslims in the West aren't the problem. Fanaticism or extreme adherence is the problem.

I fully agree, I would even go as far as to say that individual religions should no longer be able to have their own private prayer centers; I think all religions should share a single public venue which has the potential of being monitored at all time.

 

With that being said I believe it is important to view people individually; like you say (and based on my own past experience) not everyone from a particular religion practices that religion to the letter (many just become associated with a religious through birth, even if they do not practice it in real life). This is something I can personally attest to coming from a background that is predominantly Muslim (although we have members who are Christians, Jewish, and even Agnostic, and Atheist; and everyone gets along with each other), despite the fact that my family never really practiced any of the religion and I am personally agnostic.

 

On somewhat of a side note, I think it is so sad that in 2015 much of humanity is still concerning itself with matters of religion, when there are some other important problems that we as a species need to be thinking of (such as How are we going to sustain ourselves in the next 100 years? What is our next plan after Earth can no longer sustain us? How do we address poverty? How should we improve our response to disease outbreaks in the future?, etc). Religious ideology has been holding us back from advancing. I sometimes ponder when people will realize that we do not need vague texts from the past (much of which has been changed or edited to fulfill some political purpose) to unite people and tell us how to live our lives; why not instead dedicate our lives to helping others, no matter race or creed they are from, as well the whole of the human race further, and focus on living a fulfilling life.

[trag3dy]

I fully agree, I would even go as far as to say that individual religions should no longer be able to have their own private prayer centers; I think all religions should share a single public venue which has the potential of being monitored at all time.

 

With that being said I believe it is important to view people individually; like you say (and based on my own past experience) not everyone from a particular religion practices that religion to the letter (many just become associated with a religious through birth, even if they do not practice it in real life). This is something I can personally attest to coming from a background that is predominantly Muslim (although we have members who are Christians, Jewish, and even Agnostic, and Atheist; and everyone gets along with each other), despite the fact that my family never really practiced any of the religion and I am personally agnostic.

 

On somewhat of a side note, I think it is so sad that in 2015 much of humanity is still concerning itself with matters of religion, when there are some other important problems that we as a species need to be thinking of (such as How are we going to sustain ourselves in the next 100 years? What is our next plan after Earth can no longer sustain us? How do we address poverty? How should we improve our response to disease outbreaks in the future?, etc). Religious ideology has been holding us back from advancing. I sometimes ponder when people will realize that we do not need vague texts from the past (much of which has been changed or edited to fulfill some political purpose) to unite people and tell us how to live our lives; why not instead dedicate our lives to helping others, no matter race or creed they are from, as well the whole of the human race further, and focus on living a fulfilling life.

 

Yeah...no. So much wrong with that idea its hard to figure out where to start.

[WinMacLin Guy]

Yeah...no. So much wrong with that idea its hard to figure out where to start.

 

The reason why I proposed that idea is to allow law enforcement to more easily monitor activities in these centers to ensure people are not promoting radical views and unlawful behavior. Having all religions share one public facility would also promote tolerance towards others religions amongst the other practitioners. At least that is my personal rational behind this, I am curious though to what your critic is of this idea.

[trag3dy]

 

The reason why I proposed that idea is to allow law enforcement to more easily monitor activities in these centers to ensure people are not promoting radical views and unlawful behavior. Having all religions share one public facility would also promote tolerance towards others religions amongst the other practitioners. At least that is my personal rational behind this, I am curious though to what your critic is of this idea.

 

Well I'm from the US so we'd basically have to throw the entire constitution in the trash for it to happen. Separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and all that.

 

Besides you're basically saying all religious people are guilty by association. But you're going even more broad than that.

[Rippleman]

i wonder how many times the mods can delete simple non offending opinions. Lets try again with this one.

[PaulATMOS]

@Rippleman

It's ok buddy, I read what you wrote before.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

<Thread cleaned>

Posts were removed because they either broke the rules or responded to a post that was removed. There is no need to then make a public post discussing moderator decisions, as that itself breaks the rules. If something happens and there is no notification, please contact a member of staff rather than publicly discussing the actions.

Just because I hadn't written anything here yet doesn't mean that I wasn't in the middle of doing so. I can only do so many tasks at once.

[theyarecomingforyou]

It's hard to believe that the Islamic community rejects violence wholeheartedly when a perpetrator of Islamic inspired violence has hundred of mourners.

The same could be said of the Jewish community. In the recent Gaza War Israelis sat on a hill, cheering airstrikes killing thousands of innocent civilians. It's worth noting that the gunman was of Palestinian origin, a people who have been subjected to flagrant war crimes and human rights abuses by Israel in the name of Judaism and extreme-right Zionism. When people see their kindred suffering and feel powerless to stop it they often turn to violence.

 

That's not to excuse the actions of the gunman

[Nick H. Supervisor]

<Thread cleaned>

Last chance guys. This is not the place to discuss moderator actions. If I have to remove another post it makes more sense just to close the topic.

[FloatingFatMan]

If any child of mine perpetrated such a vile act of unmitigated evil, there would be no funeral, there would be no mourners. There would be a body thrown into the furnace without even a coffin, and the ashes flushed down the crapper where they belonged.

[compl3x]

The same could be said of the Jewish community. In the recent Gaza War Israelis sat on a hill, cheering airstrikes killing thousands of innocent civilians. It's worth noting that the gunman was of Palestinian origin, a people who have been subjected to flagrant war crimes and human rights abuses by Israel in the name of Judaism and extreme-right Zionism. When people see their kindred suffering and feel powerless to stop it they often turn to violence.

 

 

I never said it was unique to Muslims. You're engaging in whataboutery. If Muslims in the West say that this violence doesn't represent Islam yet Muslims go and mourn a cold-blooded killer are we supposed to simply assume that Muslims who oppose it are right and the Muslims who advocate it are wrong or misinformed or "not real Muslims" because it is more agreeable to Western society? We are getting 2 different narratives but are told we should simply believe the one we'd prefer to believe.

 

 

 

 

That's not to excuse the actions of the gunman

[theyarecomingforyou]

I never said it was unique to Muslims. You're engaging in whataboutery. If Muslims in the West say that this violence doesn't represent Islam yet Muslims go and mourn a cold-blooded killer are we supposed to simply assume that Muslims who oppose it are right and the Muslims who advocate it are wrong or misinformed or "not real Muslims" because it is more agreeable to Western society? We are getting 2 different narratives but are told we should simply believe the one we'd prefer to believe.

We're talking about some Muslims, just like some white people turned up to support Anders Breivik. That doesn't mean Muslims or white people are inherently evil.

 

Muslims aren't victims of Western culture

They absolutely are. Look at American Sniper - that movie resulted in a massive increase of hate crimes against Muslims because of its slanderous portrayal of Muslims as savages. That's without even going into all the laws and prejudices that work against Muslims in western society.

 

Muslims aren't victims of Western culture, they're victims of Islam. Muslims die at the hands of other Muslims, and indeed terrorists, at an extreme rate yet the outrage seems to be downright subdued among Western Muslims compared, to say, a crude cartoon drawing?

That just supports my point. Islam is being hijacked by some groups to support an agenda - it doesn't mean that Islam inherently supports such atrocities. We've seen the same with Judaism to support the war crimes against the Palestinian people and Christians to support the atrocities of the IRA.

 

You claim that the Muslim community doesn't reject violence but offer nothing but conjecture to support your statement. A few hundred white people offer their support to Anders Breivik? No big deal. A few hundred Muslims turn up to this funeral? Clearly Muslims support violence. Your argument is flawed.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

You claim that the Muslim community doesn't reject violence but offer nothing but conjecture to support your statement. A few hundred white people offer their support to Anders Breivik? No big deal. A few hundred Muslims turn up to this funeral? Clearly Muslims support violence. Your argument is flawed.

I think it is way easier to claim that Muslims do not support western thoughts on freedom of speech, equal rights, sexual freedom, etc.

From that point, it is way easier to make the claim that Muslims don't reject violence on a basis of massive disapproval with western lifestyles.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I think it is way easier to claim that Muslims do not support western thoughts on freedom of speech, equal rights, sexual freedom, etc.

And the Christian right doesn't support western thoughts on gay rights, abortion, contraception, separation of church and state (US), etc. The beliefs and cultural practices of a society aren't homogeneous. Many of my political beliefs are substantially divergent to that of the UK as a whole; there are many western values that I despise and I engage in the political process to shape the future direction of the country.

 

A few hundred Muslims attending this funeral isn't evidence that Islam is incompatible with western values, any more than Christians protesting the funerals of gay soldiers is evidence that Christianity is. The vast majority of Muslims in western society live peacefully and reject such violence.

 

I'm far more concerned that half a million people voted for the British National Party

[+Red King Subscriber²]

And the Christian right doesn't support western thoughts on gay rights, abortion, contraception, separation of church and state (US), etc. The beliefs and cultural practices of a society aren't homogeneous. Many of my political beliefs are substantially divergent to that of the UK as a whole; there are many western values that I despise and I engage in the political process to shape the future direction of the country.

Not the same thing. KKK is not, say, ISIL.

A few hundred Muslims attending this funeral isn't evidence that Islam is incompatible with western values, any more than Christians protesting the funerals of gay soldiers is evidence that Christianity is. The vast majority of Muslims in western society live peacefully and reject such violence.

That is one family doing the picketing. Not that same as multiple organizations with hundreds of thousand of people and nations like Pakistan as a whole.

"Person Y from group X is not violent, therefore Person Y is a good member of the society"

I'm far more concerned that half a million people voted for the British National Party

[FloatingFatMan]

Not the same thing. KKK is not, say, ISIL.

 

 

I'm sure that the hundreds of black people strung up in trees or burned alive for no reason other than the colour of their skin, really appreciate the differences.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Not the same thing. KKK is not, say, ISIL.

Nor is a few hundred people attending a funeral.

 

That is one family doing the picketing. Not that same as multiple organizations with hundreds of thousand of people and nations like Pakistan as a whole.

What has Pakistan got to do with Muslims in Denmark attending a funeral in a peaceful manner? Pakistan doesn't represent the Muslim faith. I could just as easily point to Indonesia or Morocco as evidence that Islam is inherently peaceful. I could point to Israel

[+Red King Subscriber²]

I'm sure that the hundreds of black people strung up in trees or burned alive for no reason other than the colour of their skin, really appreciate the differences.

Oh yes. I am reading about that right now happening in 2015. Oh wait that's ISIL and Boko Haram

 

What has Pakistan got to do with Muslims in Denmark attending a funeral in a peaceful manner? Pakistan doesn't represent the Muslim faith. I could just as easily point to Indonesia or Morocco as evidence that Islam is inherently peaceful. I could point to Israel

Edited February 28, 2015 by _Alexander

[theyarecomingforyou]

Oh, I don't know, maybe news like this,

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30848689

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30863159

I still don't understand how people protesting in Pakistan and Niger is evidence that Islam is incompatible with western values. Millions of Muslims live in the west, peacefully coexisting with those of different faith.

 

Catch 22 - Only Solution is Appeasement?

The solution is a cohesive and inclusive society, not one which treats Muslims as invaders. It comes down to which is the preferable ideology and at the moment countries like the UK are becoming less religious, not more. Atheism and agnosticism are the dominant trends, not Islam.

 

As for Sharia Law, there are various different interpretations - in many Muslim countries it applies only to personal status (marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody, etc) and not to criminal proceedings. Turkey is a predominantly Muslim nation where Sharia Law has no role in the legal system. It also only concerns Muslims, so it's not relevant to those of different faith. Only in religiously extreme countries, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, is Sharia Law applied in full.

 

Basically, your fears are misguided.

[T3X4S]

Ive read the Koran so I know who the enemy is.

who ?  Batman ?

[T3X4S]

 

 

They absolutely are. Look at American Sniper - that movie resulted in a massive increase of hate crimes against Muslims because of its slanderous portrayal of Muslims as savages. That's without even going into all the laws and prejudices that work against Muslims in western society.

 

huh ?  Where, When was this happening ?  I hadn't heard a single thing.

[compl3x]

We're talking about some Muslims, just like some white people turned up to support Anders Breivik. That doesn't mean Muslims or white people are inherently evil.

 

 

Your fixation on Brevik would be a little more convincing if anyone in the mainstream tried to equivocate and/or excuse what he did. No one argued his upbringing or his difficulties in life lead him to commit the atrocities that he did. When a wacko Islamist shoots up a magazine office all we hear is how it isn't really their fault because they are a victim of the corrupt Western society.

 

 

 

They absolutely are. Look at American Sniper - that movie resulted in a massive increase of hate crimes against Muslims because of its slanderous portrayal of Muslims as savages. That's without even going into all the laws and prejudices that work against Muslims in western society.

 

 

 

Which laws? The Western world absolutely outlaws discrimination based on race, religion, gender, political ideology,sexual orientation etc. That's not to say it is a perfect system but you said laws, implying there is some legislation in place which which singles out and discriminates against Muslims. Completely and utterly false. Muslims in the West enjoy all of the freedoms and benefits as much as anyone else does.The arguement that they are downtrodden and mistreated is absolute rot.

 

 

 

That just supports my point. Islam is being hijacked by some groups to support an agenda - it doesn't mean that Islam inherently supports such atrocities. We've seen the same with Judaism to support the war crimes against the Palestinian people and Christians to support the atrocities of the IRA.

 

You claim that the Muslim community doesn't reject violence but offer nothing but conjecture to support your statement. A few hundred white people offer their support to Anders Breivik? No big deal. A few hundred Muslims turn up to this funeral? Clearly Muslims support violence. Your argument is flawed.

 

 

Why is it being "hijacked"? Again, you presenting this ideology as one that only preaches and teaches positive ideas while rejecting bad ones. This is demonstrably false. It isn't being hijacked, some people are interpreting it literally and being fundamentalists.

 

My claim was simple: there are inconsistent narratives coming out of the Islamic community when it comes to Islamis/Jihadi violence. I never argued Muslims by and large support violence & I never argued that this horrifying display of mourning for a murderer indicted and implicated all Muslims as bad people who condone the actions.

 

I understand you might argue with or see a lot of anti-Muslims bias based on racism or xenophobia but my objections to and criticisms of Islam aren't motivated by any of that. It's tiring to have to have to constantly defend against accusations of racism or general bigotry often used as a counter-argument.

[theyarecomingforyou]

When a wacko Islamist shoots up a magazine office all we hear is how it isn't really their fault because they are a victim of the corrupt Western society.

No, what we hear is the narrative that you're spouting - that Islam is a religion of hate. Never mind that a billion  Muslims live in peace, never mind that millions of Muslims live in western nations without incident. Somehow a few hundred people turning up to a funeral is evidence that Islam is a dangerous threat and Sharia Law is nearly upon us.

 

Which laws? The Western world absolutely outlaws discrimination based on race, religion, gender, political ideology,sexual orientation etc. That's not to say it is a perfect system but you said laws, implying there is some legislation in place which which singles out and discriminates against Muslims.

In the US we've seen countless laws banning Sharia Law, for starters. And just because there are laws against discrimination doesn't mean that it doesn't happen - there is a lawsuit going before the Supreme Court regarding discrimination against a woman because of her perceived Muslim faith. There are laws to stop racism but that doesn't mean it's been eradicated. Recently there has been a growing resentment amongst the black community and its supporters of the treatment of black suspects by the police. If black people feel they're not being treated fairly in the US then imagine how much worse Muslims have it.

 

Why is it being "hijacked"? Again, you presenting this ideology as one that only preaches and teaches positive ideas while rejecting bad ones. This is demonstrably false. It isn't being hijacked, some people are interpreting it literally and being fundamentalists.

Because hundreds of millions of Muslims live peacefully without conflict. I oppose all religion, so I'm not attempting to justify or excuse the misdeeds of Islam, I'm just pointing out that the religion isn't inherently violent, certainly not when compared to any other religion.

 

My claim was simple: there are inconsistent narratives coming out of the Islamic community when it comes to Islamis/Jihadi violence. I never argued Muslims by and large support violence & I never argued that this horrifying display of mourning for a murderer indicted and implicated all Muslims as bad people who condone the actions.

That was the impression you gave, considering you claimed that the Muslim community doesn't reject violence.

 

I understand you might argue with or see a lot of anti-Muslims bias based on racism or xenophobia but my objections to and criticisms of Islam aren't motivated by any of that. It's tiring to have to have to constantly defend against accusations of racism or general bigotry often used as a counter-argument.

Disliking Islam isn't racist or bigoted, as I dislike all religion and don't respect those who practice it. However, what you've posted suggests an intolerance of Muslims - you oppose their right to practice their religion peacefully (as evidenced by the claim you would protest against a mosque being built and opposing Sharia Law). You support actions that only increase friction and undermine social cohesion. You would rather make the situation worse than try to improve society.

 

Anyway, we're not getting anywhere with this discussion. You seem to be of the opinion that Islam is inherently violent and incompatible with western culture; I think that, like any other ideology, it is exploited by some elements to further their agenda.

[compl3x]

No, what we hear is the narrative that you're spouting - that Islam is a religion of hate. Never mind that a billion  Muslims live in peace, never mind that millions of Muslims live in western nations without incident. Somehow a few hundred people turning up to a funeral is evidence that Islam is a dangerous threat and Sharia Law is nearly upon us.

 

Yeah, when I look at the Islamic world the first word which pops to mind is "peace". When I look at the centuries of in-fighting among Muslims, I think "peace". It's not like you to exaggerate someone's position as you have done so with mine. I never made any hysterical claims about Sharia Law or argue that this particular issue made Islam a dangerous threat. Islam's theology makes Islam a threat to even a moderately modern person, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

 

 

 

In the US we've seen countless laws banning Sharia Law, for starters. And just because there are laws against discrimination doesn't mean that it doesn't happen - there is a lawsuit going before the Supreme Court regarding discrimination against a woman because of her perceived Muslim faith. There are laws to stop racism but that doesn't mean it's been eradicated. Recently there has been a growing resentment amongst the black community and its supporters of the treatment of black suspects by the police. If black people feel they're not being treated fairly in the US then imagine how much worse Muslims have it.

 

I agree calls for banning of Sharia Law is nonsensical and it is no doubt motivated mostly by irrational fear but that is hardly the same as laws enacted to disadvantage Muslims. The irony is many of the Anti-Sharia activists are probably conservative Christians who would agree with many of the ideas contained within Sharia.

 

But your point of:

 

 

all the laws and prejudices that work against Muslims in western society.

 

suggested that there was some organised, sophisticated laws created intentionally to disadvantage Muslims specifically. That is false.

 

 

 

 

Because hundreds of millions of Muslims live peacefully without conflict. I oppose all religion, so I'm not attempting to justify or excuse the misdeeds of Islam, I'm just pointing out that the religion isn't inherently violent, certainly not when compared to any other religion.

 

 

I generally agree. Unfortunately, the adherents of Islam seem to have a propensity to violence over being offended. Seemingly much more so than other religionists. You'd have to look long and hard for an example of a Christian going nuts and shooting up a magazine office in the West because they mocked Jesus. In fact, Hebdo was viciously critical of Catholicism and the Catholic church. I'm sure there are plenty of disadvantaged Catholics in France, why weren't they Hebdo's door mowing down cartoonists with Kalashnikovs? Or how about Salam Rushdie's years in hiding because of the Fatwa put on his head? How about Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has to essentially live under constant protection because she exposed how poorly women are treated in the Islamic world? You could ask Theo Van Gogh about how Islamic violence effected him if he wasn't butchered in the street following the film he made criticising Islam.

 

 

 

 

That was the impression you gave, considering you claimed that the Muslim community doesn't reject violence.

 

Didn't say that. Frankly, I don't even think I implied it.

 

 

 

 

Disliking Islam isn't racist or bigoted, as I dislike all religion and don't respect those who practice it. However, what you've posted suggests an intolerance of Muslims - you oppose their right to practice their religion peacefully (as evidenced by the claim you would protest against a mosque being built and opposing Sharia Law). You support actions that only increase friction and undermine social cohesion. You would rather make the situation worse than try to improve society.

 

 

Utter nonsense. 

 

 

 

Anyway, we're not getting anywhere with this discussion. You seem to be of the opinion that Islam is inherently violent and incompatible with western culture; I think that, like any other ideology, it is exploited by some elements to further their agenda.

 

 

If you no longer wish to discuss this I understand but I am not going to allow you to misrepresent my view. 

[+Red King Subscriber²]

I still don't understand how people protesting in Pakistan and Niger is evidence that Islam is incompatible with western values. Millions of Muslims live in the west, peacefully coexisting with those of different faith.

"Pakistani politicians passed a motion condemning Charlie Hebdo for publishing the latest cartoon"

"Religious leaders openly called for journalists at the magazine to be hanged, and several religious groups called for protests after Friday prayers."

"At least three people have been killed and six churches attacked in Niger amid ... protests against... Charlie Hebd[o]"

"The death toll in Zinder rose from four to five when emergency services found a burned body inside a Catholic Church."

Another article,

'"Leave Gaza, you French, or we will slaughter you by cutting your throats," the protesters chanted'

"There were similar scenes in Iran, where protesters burned U.S. and Israeli flags."

If this is not evidence that Islam is incompatible with the west then what is?

Need I remind you that Abdel Hamid El-Hussein wanted to silence free speech against Islam?

A false dichotomy on Islam and western society is a safe choice - a better choice than the no true Scotsman sprouted by liberals and other Islamic apologists.

Don't you agree?

Here is an ultimatum: Stand up for your convictions. Insult Islam similar or worse than Lars Vilks (attaching your name & address to it of course). Otherwise you don't really believe your own words.

Edited March 1, 2015 by _Alexander