Well, unless you're going to suggest that perfectly rational people gunning down civilians is a regular occurrence, then you come up with a better idea.
Perfectly rational people use violence when they have decided that such a choice is the best alternative for whatever reason they can argue.
It is fully possible that this guy is mentally stable, and through political convictions decided that this was the right course of action. We find it abhorrent, of course, but you can not merely absolve yourself from considering such a possibility by simply labeling people who do - for us - horrible acts, as "crazy".
If that is the case I quite agree. But given that this fellow appears to have been a second-generation American using legally acquired weapons, possibly working with others, there's multiple vectors at work here, rather than solely Islamic terrorism.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Islam is the sole reason for what happened here. Mostly we are pointing out that Islamic doctrine - and now I'll try to state it weakly: lends itself easily to violent acts against people who do not behave according to scripture, and to condemning homosexuals as horrible criminals.
Fully appreciating this fact is important, but for decades we have seen far to many statements which not only tries to absolve Islamic doctrine from
any fault, but even goes as far as claiming perpetrators like these
aren't even Muslims:
Because, although there's no doubt that a terrorist is a terrorist, there's a good argument to be made as to whether these guys are Muslim.
Islam forbids the killing of innocents. Terrorism is therefore anti-Islam. In Daesch's quest to set up a Caliphate, it is targeting almost exclusively peaceful Muslims. Likewise, the boots on the ground who are fighting Daesch are Muslim.
To call murdering thugs "Muslim," confuses the victims with the perpetrators.
As you can see just a little previously in the tread, there can be a great deal of doubt about whether or not a terrorist is a terrorist.
But to claim that someone isn't Muslim, simply because you have decided that No True Scotsman Muslim acts in such ways, is both laughably tragic and shockingly usual!
I will grant you that there may still be some doubt as to whether this guy considered himself a Muslim, but if he did, you are in absolutely no position to deny him that identification! If he says he is a Muslim, he is one. Whether or not that agrees with your fantastical caricature of what a "true" Muslim supposedly is.
And for the record, the Koran is full of statements both supporting nonviolence and violence, including murder, rape, slavery and theft. Like all badly edited texts, a reader must pick and choose for themselves which parts to adhere to, but many interpretations are possible.
The Koran also makes it absolutely clear that homosexuality is an abhorrent and sinful crime, which should be punished. The Koran does not specify the punishment for homosexuality however, for that most Muslims seem to turn to the Hadiths and other sources.
That's one of the major problems of trying to deal with religious extremism or indeed with anyone who claims a religious motive for any tragedy.
There is no problem. Since religions claim absolute, unverifiable truth, but are built on nothing but pure fantasy, one must simply accept that every individual has a different understanding of his or her religion/spirituality.
What you call extreme, others might call prudent.
What must be noted however, is that while very very few Muslims turn to violence in countries where they are not in the majority, the vast majority of Muslims have a very unfortunate view of homosexuals (among many other groups). You may compare it to right-wing Christians if you like, but the few Christians still holding view similar to current popular views among Muslims is extremely small. We have effectively made it unpopular to hold such view among Christians, and we need to continue this work to make most Muslims feel the same.
Of course, that is rather difficult with the Saudi spider sitting in the back and constantly pushing out more horrible interpretations for Muslims to adopt. But to simply deny that there is a problem, like Zribbler just appeared to do, is both foolhardy and idiotic.
If you are a trans person right now in several US states, does it matter whether you're not being outright flogged, imprisoned or executed, compared to 'merely' being demonised for wanting to use public toilets and facing probable opprobrium and/or assault for daring to go out by yourself? I'm sure that they're feeling the tolerance.
You didn't like the way Otto read this, but I read it much the same way. And it reads really badly.
Of course there is a difference between the state/society trying to imprison, torture and murder you, and the state/society simply making you feel worthless and unwelcome. None is good, but the first is evidently worse than the second!
Would you have asked Jews whether it mattered to live in Germany in 1924, or to live in Germany in 1944? Or whether it mattered to an African-American to live as a slave in the US in 1824 or as a free, but mistreated free man in the US in 1984?
anic:
They are Christians, IMHO they're bad Christian ... but they're still Christians!
