The key is motives. If the motives were based upon religion, as they were, then people will take from it a view of that religion.
mattemuse is cool guy. eh rules forum and doesn’t afraid of anything.
The teaparty is not any more crazy than some democrats I have witnessed. Personally. IN real life. But I guess they are now the popular targets eh? (looks at the thread title) Yep.
And yes. Matt is too good for this place. He could open his own blog/forum so that he can condescend all he wants without others getting all but hurt about it. But that is just mah red hair speaking.
Everyone has to have someone they hate. Liberals hate Tea Partiers. Conservatives hate radical environmentalists and the like. Its nothing new.
It is however true that the most extreme liberals I know are 10X worse than the worst conservative I know, and I know some pretty extreme conservatives.
The teaparty is an actual organization, a self-righteous and obnoxious one at that. Then again, my view is biased towards youtube and internet images.
Hey thanks guys, this thread turned unexpectedly heartwarming for a second.
Also, Mayor Bloomberg (R-NY) probably made some new enemies yesterday by saying Times Square was probably “someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the healthcare bill.”
FTFY
Nothing in the Qu’ran says to do what those on 9/11 did. Unless, of course, you feel that abortion clinic bombings have religious motivation even though nothing in the Bible says to do that.
By the way, I’m a liberal and I don’t hate tea partiers. I don’t know of a liberal that does. I just question their motivation…and the name they chose.
question : why do you guys call them “tea parties” ? I mean what’s the exact meaning behind those words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests
They say they’re against being overtaxed even though their taxes were probably cut by Obama and even for those that are getting their taxes raised are getting them raised to a far lower level than presidents like Reagan proposed.
It is my opinion that the Tea Party protesters (that’s what they call themselves…they also call themselves a sexual term which I won’t get into here) have no knowledge of history and are simply protesting it because a Democrat is doing it.
Its not a question of whether or not the Qu’ran or the bible says so, it matters what they think it says. The same applies to the clinic bombings. If the perpetrator thinks the bible says to do it, its religious.
Unless, of course, they have other motivations and are simply blaming it on religion. “I really hate gay people but I can’t say that I do, so when I killed that homo, I say I did it because God told me to.”
Is that a religious motivation?
Except I suspect the reason they hate gays is basically religious.
I read that he had a vaild US passport and can live there, so that makes him an American civilian, so shouldn’t he be charged with Treason against America ?
Probably.
Or they’re trying to deflect blame and/or garner support from the like-minded. Some say* that Hitler** did not have religious motivations and was simply using religion to try to make what he was doing seem right in the minds of his supporters.
My question becomes: How do you know that one’s motivations are religious or not? I once argued, at length, with someone who swore up and down that the ONLY reason he didn’t want gays to have the same rights as the rest of Americans is that the Bible said it’s the right thing to do. Finally, I got to the truth of the matter:
He didn’t like gays and found homosexuality disgusting. He was using religion as an excuse, not a reason, as a way to remove responsibility.
The way I see it, if you hate gays, Americans, Christians, Muslims, or whatever else and you say it’s because of your religion, you’re only fooling yourself. Otherwise, every religious person would feel the same exact way. I see religion as being amoral, like a screwdriver or automobile. It’s a great tool in the hands of the responsible and mature, but an irresponsible and immature person will use that tool to harm others.
The problem with religion, however, is that it makes a lot of otherwise responsible and mature people believe the excuse and get people on your side. Murder is one thing and is harder to get people to side with you on–“I killed him because God told me to” is essentially the same as “My cat told me to do it”-- but it’s a lot easier to say “The Bible/Qur’an says it’s wrong so you shouldn’t have the same rights as others” even though neither says that.
tl;dr: I don’t think religion is a sole motivating factor, else everyone in that religion would be that way.
*Yes, I hate that term too
**No, I’m not attempting to Godwin the thread.
Actually, he’s an American citizen. He probably won’t be charged with treason but that doesn’t mean that he won’t be charged with all sorts of fun crimes that, if convicted, will put him away for a very, very long time. It is extremely hard to be convicted of treason in the United States and no one since the late 1800s has been charged with it (though that’s not to say that the term is bandied about carelessly by too many).
We’ve gotten a touch off topic. As far as Al Quaeda and that fun bunch go, I think their hatred is truly religiously based. They take passages from the Qu’ran that suit their beliefs, exclude others, and go kill people because of it. Most people do the opposite, excluding all passages that go against modern thinking and modern movements (less so in the Middle East), like things that have to do with discrimination and killing, and focus on the loving parts. Through this, you end up with a religion with two polarized areas, one who chooses to embrace the romantic side of religion (Jesus loves everyone, even non-Christians), and the other the violent side of religion (you will burn in Hell if you don’t believe).
It’s more a case of some leaders misrepresenting their religion to a few people in order to use them to your advantage.
Times Square guy was somehow involved with Taliban, which is accurately described as a religious movement, and not AQ. But individual recruitment is primarily based on coercion (they’ll cut off your fucking head if you’re fighting age and don’t enlist) and percieved injustices (occupation, civilian casualties, puppet governments) against the local population. So it’s arguable either way, but I’d weigh in on the side of danielsangeo and burb that you can’t just blame it on Islam, it’s not that simple.
When I heard about it I immediately thought it was a domestic attack.