Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[lionking]

Because complacency of a population and government overreach are things to be concerned about.

It doesn’t seem to concern New Zealanders.

 

[Axxman300]

I don't have a problem with pulling the shooting video footage. We all know it can be available to the public in the future. The immediate problem is to allow emotions to settle, and let the psychopaths of the world move onto another cause. Having it up on the net right now would serve only others looking for inspiration (and the video would become a how-to/what-not-to-do shooter training film) and those into death porn.

New Zealand will go forward in its own way, as it always has.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Tell that to the people who have died for it.

How long before your point of view can be seen as something worthy of censorship?

To people like you, free speech doesn't mean anything, until it is yours being limited.

Want to prove me wrong? In solidarity with NZ ,don't use the word government going forward.

I guarentee you will not give up a single word, yet you expect others to give up many.

I have zero cares about his manifesto being banned, this isn't about denying NZer's the right to read it, it's about denying a murderer, that killed 50 people in a bigoted rampage, a platform to continue to spread his hatred. And this is also why I have zero worries about my own free speech being limited, because I'm never going to go on a shooting rampage and kill a bunch of people for some messed up political ideology of hatred.

 

[Samson]

I don't have a problem with pulling the shooting video footage. We all know it can be available to the public in the future. The immediate problem is to allow emotions to settle, and let the psychopaths of the world move onto another cause. Having it up on the net right now would serve only others looking for inspiration (and the video would become a how-to/what-not-to-do shooter training film) and those into death porn.

New Zealand will go forward in its own way, as it always has.

Yes, claiming many things that are true and many false.
We have a land flowing with milk and honey running alongside extreme poverty and homelessness and not a damn thing being done.
Do not ever see a role model here. There is more brazen hypocrisy than you could shake a stick at.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, claiming many things that are true and many false.
We have a land flowing with milk and honey running alongside extreme poverty and homelessness and not a damn thing being done.
Do not ever see a role model here. There is more brazen hypocrisy than you could shake a stick at.

 

[The Atheist]

Meanwhile, the widow of one of the victims, who had a heart attack when she found out, has died.

I make that now 51 people died at Tarrant's hands. The official record will show 50, but there's no doubt she'd be alive today had she not had to deal with the shock of her husband being murdered.

 

[dann]

Why do we need a ban on criticizing Islam ?

I don't know. I don’t need a ban on criticizing Islam. Why do you think that we need a ban on criticizing Islam?

Just suppose there happened to be another Islamic terrorist attack and on the thread that would result somebody might point out that there are 13 countries in the world where apostasy is punishable by death and they're all Muslim countries.

I suppose that means that there are 32-37 Islamic countries in the world where apostasy isn't punishable by death:

According to the Pew Research Center in 2015 there were 50 Muslim-majority countries. Worldatlas.com (April 2017) identified 45 'Islamic countries'.
Muslim world (Wikipedia)

If you are interested in punishment for apostasy, the difference or similarity between Islam and Christianity doesn't seem to be a question of religion itself:

In classical canon law, apostasy a fide, defined as total repudiation of the Christian faith, was considered as different from a theological standpoint from heresy, but subject to the same penalty of death by fire by decretist jurists.
(…)
Temporal penalties for Christian apostates have fallen into disuse in the modern era.
Apostasy n Christianity: Penalties (Wikipedia)

 

[dann]

I have zero cares about his manifesto being banned, this isn't about denying NZer's the right to read it, it's about denying a murderer, that killed 50 people in a bigoted rampage, a platform to continue to spread his hatred. And this is also why I have zero worries about my own free speech being limited, because I'm never going to go on a shooting rampage and kill a bunch of people for some messed up political ideology of hatred.

But think of his freedom of speech, PhantomWolf!

'First they came for the bigoted rampaging mass murderers, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a bigoted rampaging mass murderer'

First they came ...: The text (Wikipedia)

 

[smartcooky]

Self righteous servility

No, its called realism!

 

[Planigale]

The rules don't need to be mended, but maybe it's time for the very outspoken anti-Muslims in this forum to recognize that Islam isn't very special in any respect. It's a religion, just like Christianity or Judaism. Like OT Christians, the anti-Muslims seem to think that Islam isn't just like any other religion. It's the wrong religion. That's the distinction that most of us argue against.




Are you implying that criticizing terror committed by Muslim extremists isn't allowed? Are you one of the guys who can't distinguish between Muslim extremists and ordinary Muslims and therefore get upset whenever somebody points out the difference?

Islam is a broad religion just as Christianity is. Because catholic priests are pedophiles does not mean the rest of the world should treat all christians as a threat to our children. (There are people out there saying that!) Because christian believe they eat human flesh and drink human blood every Sunday does not mean they our going to steal our children and serve them up for Sunday lunch. There are many odd Christian sects; the Brethren mentioned above, polygamous mormons, JW's with their rejection of evolution and blood products. Most enforce a 'traditional' role on women and ban apostates from any contact with church members. The catholic church does not allow females to be priests. Islam does not have central authorities in the way that christian churches do; much is determined by tradition. There are women imans and there is an increasing move towards having non-gender separated mosques and increased women's participation in the management of mosques. Much of orthodox judaism has similar rules to that found in traditional mosques with gender segregation and including the requirement of women to conceal their hair in public (I rather like the option allowed of wearing a wig to cover your own hair.)

The one criticism I would have of Jacinda Adhern is her decision to wear Hijab. What a woman wears in Islam should be down to ones own belief. The only requirement is to be modest. Currently there is a fashion to wear hijab, partly imho this is to show off one's religiosity - almost the opposite of modesty. It is not a requirement. I call it a fashion because if you look back at pictures of the Islamic world from the 60's and 70's bare heads were far more common. I guess from her name Jacinda may be from a catholic family and wearing a hat and covering her shoulders in church may have been what she did, so wearing a head scarf would be natural to her. I understand that this was primarily a political point showing solidarity but it sends a message that I think is wrong; that to be a woman in Islam you need to wear hijab; I believe you can be a women in Islam and not wear hijab.

Jihad means to battle or struggle, but this does not mean armed struggle any more than a crusade against injustice means people wearing crosses will put people to the sword, or those fighting poverty are armed, or those who battle their inner demons do so with bombs. Language is messy.

 

[Stout]

I don't know. I don’t need a ban on criticizing Islam. Why do you think that we need a ban on criticizing Islam?

That question was largely rhetorical and part of a larger idea but to answer it directly. We don't. Hopefully we don't but given the reactions in this thread to ideas like wearing a garment that identifies someone as a member of a religion as a symbol of that religion probably isn't the best idea ( see post 1524 for an example ) it's worth exploring the idea at least.

Sure criticizing Islam is bigoted, duh, so is criticizing Christianity. Criticizing Christianity is "old hat" for us atheists but this criticizing Islam, now that seems to light people on fire and there's an awflu lot of willingness to toss those western progressive values under the but in order to not be seen as a "racist"

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Open, unmonitored access to that content is as reckless as open, unmonitored access to the crime scene.

It is "unsecured" and full of "social bombs" meant to sew confusion, division, and fuel more hate.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I have a question that might be answered here. The attack came up for a brief discussion with a a guy I know; he claimed that one of the mosques that was attacked was the source of some ISIS soldiers in the past.

Here is a story about some guy from New Zealand who was killed in US drone strike who had converted to Islam and became radicalized attending the Al-Noor mosque. It's not clear from the story if the guy was technically an ISIS soldier. But the mosque does have a connection with radical Islam. (The mosque denies that it has any connection with recruiting jihadists or preaching violence. But of course they're going to deny it)

I reminded him that it was an immigrant that conducted the attack and there is no evidence that he killed any ISIS soldiers or sympathizers. As far as I know some of the people he killed were born in NZ.

Why would you remind him that the shooter was an immigrant unless you're trying to stir up anti-immigrant hatred? Most immigrants are peaceful law abiding citizens who are just trying to make a better life for themselves.

Did I get anything wrong?

The mosque is used for recruiting radical jihadists but maybe not ISIS soldiers. You're right about the shooter being an immigrant. There's no evidence he killed any ISIS soldiers but it's likely he killed some sympathizers. Like that would make it better or worse anyway.

 

[smartcooky]

Islam is a broad religion just as Christianity is. Because catholic priests are pedophiles does not mean the rest of the world should treat all christians as a threat to our children. (There are people out there saying that!) Because christian believe they eat human flesh and drink human blood every Sunday does not mean they our going to steal our children and serve them up for Sunday lunch. There are many odd Christian sects; the Brethren mentioned above, polygamous mormons, JW's with their rejection of evolution and blood products. Most enforce a 'traditional' role on women and ban apostates from any contact with church members. The catholic church does not allow females to be priests. Islam does not have central authorities in the way that christian churches do; much is determined by tradition. There are women imans and there is an increasing move towards having non-gender separated mosques and increased women's participation in the management of mosques. Much of orthodox judaism has similar rules to that found in traditional mosques with gender segregation and including the requirement of women to conceal their hair in public (I rather like the option allowed of wearing a wig to cover your own hair.)

The one criticism I would have of Jacinda Ardern is her decision to wear Hijab. What a woman wears in Islam should be down to ones own belief. The only requirement is to be modest. Currently there is a fashion to wear hijab, partly imho this is to show off one's religiosity - almost the opposite of modesty. It is not a requirement. I call it a fashion because if you look back at pictures of the Islamic world from the 60's and 70's bare heads were far more common. I guess from her name Jacinda may be from a catholic family and wearing a hat and covering her shoulders in church may have been what she did, so wearing a head scarf would be natural to her. I understand that this was primarily a political point showing solidarity but it sends a message that I think is wrong; that to be a woman in Islam you need to wear hijab; I believe you can be a women in Islam and not wear hijab.

Jihad means to battle or struggle, but this does not mean armed struggle any more than a crusade against injustice means people wearing crosses will put people to the sword, or those fighting poverty are armed, or those who battle their inner demons do so with bombs. Language is messy.

I think you are misunderstanding something about why women visiting a Muslim place wear a head covering. I want to show you some pictures of mostly non-Muslim women tourists in Iran on a "Persian Tour"

Notice what all of the women are wearing?

Why do you think this is?

 

[Steve]

I think you are misunderstanding something about why women visiting a Muslim place wear a head covering. I want to show you some pictures of mostly non-Muslim women tourists in Iran on a "Persian Tour"

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/f68s8qrz410vy2q/Persia1.JPG?raw=1[/qimg][qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/3uvr7cq6onxhaie/Persia2.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]
[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/7l9xzbgxrke6rbh/Persia3.jpg?raw=1[/qimg][qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ce3vs6hfr7w8f3i/Persia4.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

Notice what all of the women are wearing?

Why do you think this is?

1. They have to to avoid being harassed by Muslims?
2. They signed on as agreeing to do so as part of the tour requirements.?
3. They just casually agreed to do so without any consideration of any implications?
4. They are familiar with Muslim customs and are wearing them out of respect?
5. It is a convenient way to keep the sun off their heads?

ETA It is another example of women treated as inferior by the religion because head coverings are obviously optional for males.

 

[smartcooky]

1. They have to to avoid being harassed by Muslims?

Really? You really believe this?

2. They signed on as agreeing to do so as part of the tour requirements.?

Very likely

3. They just casually agreed to do so without any consideration of any implications?

I seriously doubt that

4. They are familiar with Muslim customs and are wearing them out of respect?

Very likely

5. It is a convenient way to keep the sun off their heads?

Bwhawhawha? Really?

ETA It is another example of women treated as inferior by the religion because head coverings are obviously optional for males.

Bollocks

I do a video editing for a tour company called Zagros

http://www.tourpersia.co.nz/

owned by a local man, who conducts guided tours of Old Persia. They ask that the women wear a headscarf in public min defence to local customs, but it not compulsory.

Most comply with this request.

 

[Steve]

Really? You really believe this?



Very likely



I seriously doubt that




Very likely




Bwhawhawha? Really?



Bollocks

I do a video editing for a tour company called Zagros

http://www.tourpersia.co.nz/

owned by a local man, who conducts guided tours of Old Persia. They ask that the women wear a headscarf in public min defence to local customs, but it not compulsory.
Most comply with this request.

Are local customs largely secular or do they predominantly exist because of religion?

Are local customs local, or do they apply to the entire area identified as Persia? An area that predominantly follows the tenets and customs of Islam?

I provided some possible answers to the question you asked. I think there is some truth to all the answers, and it will vary between individual women.

Does your friend ask everyone to cover their heads or just the women? From the pictures you posted it appears that all the women use the same type of traditional head covering while the men who do cover their heads use a variety of head covering that are in no way connected to local customs. Playing baseball is not a Persian custom.

Women are treated as second class in most major religions, Islam included. To call this "bollocks" regarding Islam is denial of reality. The primary reason the women in your photos are wearing head coverings in deference to religion. A religion that does not consider them equal to men.

 

[banquetbear]

To call this "bollocks" regarding Islam is denial of reality.

...what is "bollocks" is the claim that "it is another example of women treated as inferior by the religion because head coverings are obviously optional for males". In New Zealand head covering for woman are obviously optional as well. In New Zealand you cannot be compelled to cover your head. And in New Zealand many woman choose to cover their heads, and many choose to not do this. Women have agency, and if they choose to cover their head why do you have a problem with that?

Women are treated as second class in most major religions, Islam included.

Women are treated as second class not just in religion: but everywhere. Everywhere you look. In America women routinely get thrown in jail for having consensual (paid) sex with somebody else. Don't you find that ****** up?

The decision made by many women in New Zealand (including our Prime Minister) to wear a head covering was not just about respect. It wasn't just about solidarity.

It was about fear.

This last week we've had many Muslim women come forward and tell their stories about fear. Not fear of what would happen if they "didn't cover their heads." But the fear of simply walking down the street. They shared their experiences of abuse, of hatred. Because of the clothes that they wear, and often because of the colour of their skin.

I was cynical at first when I heard about the plans to "#wearahijab" for a day. But on reflection I got it wrong. The clear message we got from most of the Muslim community was that this is helping them heal. It is helping them feel more safe. And this close to the shootings I don't think that there is anything more important to worry about right now.

I won't pretend that as a religion Islam doesn't have to make a lot of changes in the way they treat women. But the changes (in New Zealand) that have to be made in a way echo the way women are (generally) treated on the Marae. I know of many young, progressive Muslim women who will be fighting for those changes, and by shining a spotlight on the religion in the way that New Zealand has embraced this week we have made the job easier for them. Its a problem. But it isn't a problem that will get fixed by "pointing at them and screeching." Its a problem that will get fixed by rejecting the culture of hate that prompted the shooting in the first place, that pushes the religion "into hiding" so we don't really understand or know what is happening. It will be fixed by empowering those that are in the position to make that change.

So you can keep on "pointing and screeching" all you like. Its all just noise to me now. It makes me sad in a way, but then I remember that I live in a country that collectively reacted in a way to this tragedy that supported and cared for the people that were most vulnerable, I remember how lucky I am to have been born in this country, and I feel just a little bit less sad.

 

[cullennz]

...what is "bollocks" is the claim that "it is another example of women treated as inferior by the religion because head coverings are obviously optional for males". In New Zealand head covering for woman are obviously optional as well. In New Zealand you cannot be compelled to cover your head. And in New Zealand many woman choose to cover their heads, and many choose to not do this. Women have agency, and if they choose to cover their head why do you have a problem with that?



Women are treated as second class not just in religion: but everywhere. Everywhere you look. In America women routinely get thrown in jail for having consensual (paid) sex with somebody else. Don't you find that ****** up?

The decision made by many women in New Zealand (including our Prime Minister) to wear a head covering was not just about respect. It wasn't just about solidarity. It was about fear.
This last week we've had many Muslim women come forward and tell their stories about fear. Not fear of what would happen if they "didn't cover their heads." But the fear of simply walking down the street. They shared their experiences of abuse, of hatred. Because of the clothes that they wear, and often because of the colour of their skin.

I was cynical at first when I heard about the plans to "#wearahijab" for a day. But on reflection I got it wrong. The clear message we got from most of the Muslim community was that this is helping them heal. It is helping them feel more safe. And this close to the shootings I don't think that there is anything more important to worry about right now.

I won't pretend that as a religion Islam doesn't have to make a lot of changes in the way they treat women. But the changes (in New Zealand) that have to be made in a way echo the way women are (generally) treated on the Marae. I know of many young, progressive Muslim women who will be fighting for those changes, and by shining a spotlight on the religion in the way that New Zealand has embraced this week we have made the job easier for them. Its a problem. But it isn't a problem that will get fixed by "pointing at them and screeching." Its a problem that will get fixed by rejecting the culture of hate that prompted the shooting in the first place, that pushes the religion "into hiding" so we don't really understand or know what is happening. It will be fixed by empowering those that are in the position to make that change.

So you can keep on "pointing and screeching" all you like. Its all just noise to me now. It makes me sad in a way, but then I remember that I live in a country that collectively reacted in a way to this tragedy that supported and cared for the people that were most vulnerable, I remember how lucky I am to have been born in this country, and I feel just a little bit less sad.

What utter twaddle

 

[banquetbear]

What utter twaddle

...great rebuttal there mate. Excellent work. 10 out of 10. Well done, go straight to the head of the class.