Fate

And, of course, no support for your LIE about white Christians.

Recent studies reveal that most school shooters are White males, with 97 percent being male and 79 percent White. Over the last three decades, 90 percent of high school or elementary school shootings were the result of White, often upper-middle class, perpetrators. These shootings are a direct reflection of White male privilege and the consequences that occur when groups like the NRA control influential conservative leaders. - See more at: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/0 ... fUNxQ.dpuf

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/0 ... fUNxQ.dpbs

According to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, 70.6% of the American population identified themselves as Christians.
Now, i get it that the guy shooting up the Church isn't a real Christian.... But he was at one time a member of a church and attended.
Should other Christians have to defend their faith because somehow he failed to learn the lessons of the faith correctly?

rickyp wrote:Fate

And, of course, no support for your LIE about white Christians.

Recent studies reveal that most school shooters are White males, with 97 percent being male and 79 percent White. Over the last three decades, 90 percent of high school or elementary school shootings were the result of White, often upper-middle class, perpetrators. These shootings are a direct reflection of White male privilege and the consequences that occur when groups like the NRA control influential conservative leaders. - See more at: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/0 ... fUNxQ.dpuf

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/0 ... fUNxQ.dpbs

According to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, 70.6% of the American population identified themselves as Christians.

1. Not every mass shooting is a "terrorist attack." That's your first fallacy.
2. 70.6% of the American population claiming Christianity has no bearing on how many Whites claim Christianity. So, that's a fail as well.

You're not even close to proving anything. Still waiting for actual evidence that White Christians are doing most terrorist attacks.

Fate

1. Not every mass shooting is a "terrorist attack." That's your first fallacy

Please explain how 14 people being killed by a person inspired by Islamic extremists is different from 14 people being killed in a movie theater by a young white deranged male who was brought up in a Christian household?

When you can adequately explain why the results of one crime are different from the other then you have a valid comment. Otherwise you are, as usual, pointing out difference that have no distinction

The threat to Americans of being shot in a public setting by a young white male, raised in a Christian household, is many time greater than that of being caught in a terror attack by so-called Muslims...
Especially since there is no effort to deal with the threat from the young white males, but there is a laser focus on Muslims. Because they are Muslims.

Fate

2. 70.6% of the American population claiming Christianity has no bearing on how many Whites claim Christianity. So, that's a fail as well

well, in the case of the young white male shooters, we know their religious backgrounds and upbringing did them no good.
And in the case of the handful of Muslim's inspired by ISIL or their Muslim relatives in Russia (Boston), we know that Islam was perverted.
But the fact remains that young white men with christian backgrounds have killed far more Americans than anyone...

rickyp wrote:Fate

1. Not every mass shooting is a "terrorist attack." That's your first fallacy

Please explain how 14 people being killed by a person inspired by Islamic extremists is different from 14 people being killed in a movie theater by a young white deranged male who was brought up in a Christian household?

When you can adequately explain why the results of one crime are different from the other then you have a valid comment. Otherwise you are, as usual, pointing out difference that have no distinction

The threat to Americans of being shot in a public setting by a young white male, raised in a Christian household, is many time greater than that of being caught in a terror attack by so-called Muslims...
Especially since there is no effort to deal with the threat from the young white males, but there is a laser focus on Muslims. Because they are Muslims.

Fate

2. 70.6% of the American population claiming Christianity has no bearing on how many Whites claim Christianity. So, that's a fail as well

well, in the case of the young white male shooters, we know their religious backgrounds and upbringing did them no good.
And in the case of the handful of Muslim's inspired by ISIL or their Muslim relatives in Russia (Boston), we know that Islam was perverted.
But the fact remains that young white men with christian backgrounds have killed far more Americans than anyone...

Show me where the movie theater shooter sent a post about his lenience to the Pope, Jesus or any religious leader in the Christian community. Show me where there was a shooter who said "Jesus is Love" right before the attack.

I can show the San Bernadino Shooters did point to Islam.

rickyp wrote:Fate

1. Not every mass shooting is a "terrorist attack." That's your first fallacy

Please explain how 14 people being killed by a person inspired by Islamic extremists is different from 14 people being killed in a movie theater by a young white deranged male who was brought up in a Christian household?

To be clear about what bbauska said: it's simple; one was purposed by Islamist terrorists and the other was done by a madman. One was murder with a political/religious aim; the other was insanity.

When you can adequately explain why the results of one crime are different from the other then you have a valid comment. Otherwise you are, as usual, pointing out difference that have no distinction

The results were dead people in both cases. However, to say they are the same is to fail to grasp terrorism. That is murder designed to send a message. The message of Islamist terrorists: submit to Islam or die. The message of the Colorado shooter: I need help.

The threat to Americans of being shot in a public setting by a young white male, raised in a Christian household, is many time greater than that of being caught in a terror attack by so-called Muslims..

"Raised in a Christian home" is NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

What is so hard about saying, "I made a mistake"? Why can't you do it? It's either arrogance or stupidity.
.

Especially since there is no effort to deal with the threat from the young white males, but there is a laser focus on Muslims. Because they are Muslims.

I don't give a fig about "Muslims." I care a great deal about "Muslims who believe killing infidels is a necessary component of their faith."

Can you see the difference? If not, please stop posting on this matter.

Fate

2. 70.6% of the American population claiming Christianity has no bearing on how many Whites claim Christianity. So, that's a fail as well

well, in the case of the young white male shooters, we know their religious backgrounds and upbringing did them no good.

This is yet another idiotic statement. You have ASSERTED they were raised in a Christian home. Please note: 1) that is not the same as being "Christian." Many are raised in "Christian homes" and never taken to church, taught the Bible, etc. So, that is a rather meaningless standard; 2) you would have to list the individuals and delve into their childhoods to prove your ASSERTION. Instead, you just make a blanket claim as if it's true.

That's bunk.

And in the case of the handful of Muslim's inspired by ISIL or their Muslim relatives in Russia (Boston), we know that Islam was perverted.

That's rather meaningless. If enough people believe in this form of Islam, they are a threat--whether or not they are ideologically pure Muslims.

But the fact remains that young white men with christian backgrounds have killed far more Americans than anyone...

No, the ASSERTION remains. You have ZERO "facts," some theory, and a truckload of Bolshevik.

You are being so dishonest it's pathetic.

I think the thing you are missing Ricky is the role of ideology. Most mass shootings in the United States are not linked by a coherent ideology. Right now , ISIS has an ideology that advocates war against the West. Thus far, this year we have two attacks out of a total of several mass shootings (counting four or more dead ). Since ideology is involved these kind of attacks are essentially repeatable by others that share the same ideology. And that's what makes these attacks by Muslims who are inspired by ISIS so concerning is that they are acting out of an ideology and we can expect more attacks from adherents of that ideology.

I do agree that the Planned Parenthood was an attack based in ideology. We can expect similar attacks. But there is no Christian sect that I know of advocating such attacks but clearly there are a least some people who believe that violence against abortion clinics is justified because they believe abortion is murder. But with ISIS you have a large group that advocates violence against the West and seeks to inspire Muslims living in the West to make attacks there . They only need to inspire a very small percentage of Muslims to cause a lot of damage. Christians are against abortion and may at times use strong rhetoric but they are not advocating the use of violence . So that's a big difference. Whether they should be concerned that strong rhetoric may influence those who are mentally unstable to use violence is something they may want to ponder but that's up to them as long as they are not advocating violence. But ISIS is advocating violence.

Even if most shooters in the United States are Christian they are not doing the shooting because of their religious beliefs . Muslims carrying out attacks because they subscribe to radical Muslim beliefs are acting out of religious belief. So your point regarding the fact that most mass shooters in the United States are Christian is not relevant.

freeman3 wrote:I think the thing you are missing Ricky is the role of ideology. Most mass shootings in the United States are not linked by a coherent ideology. Right now , ISIS has an ideology that advocates war against the West. Thus far, this year we have two attacks out of a total of several mass shootings (counting four or more dead ). Since ideology is involved these kind of attacks are essentially repeatable by others that share the same ideology. And that's what makes these attacks by Muslims who are inspired by ISIS so concerning is that they are acting out of an ideology and we can expect more attacks from adherents of that ideology.

For a moment, rickyp has managed to unite us.

I do agree that the Planned Parenthood was an attack based in ideology.

Oh, that was brief. Do you have anything to substantiate this? Everything I've read seems to indicate this is a man who should have been in psychiatric care for quite some time. He does not appear to be religious, nor does he appear to have left a manifesto--none that I've seen anyway.

We can expect similar attacks. But there is no Christian sect that I know of advocating such attacks but clearly there are a least some people who believe that violence against abortion clinics is justified because they believe abortion is murder.

I know plenty of people who believe abortion is murder. I don't know one that believes murder in response is acceptable.

But with ISIS you have a large group that advocates violence against the West and seeks to inspire Muslims living in the West to make attacks there . They only need to inspire a very small percentage of Muslims to cause a lot of damage. Christians are against abortion and may at times use strong rhetoric but they are not advocating the use of violence . So that's a big difference. Whether they should be concerned that strong rhetoric may influence those who are mentally unstable to use violence is something they may want to ponder but that's up to them as long as they are not advocating violence. But ISIS is advocating violence.

And, if I knew a Christian who was going to attack a PP clinic, I would alert the authorities--after I tied that person up. Murder is not acceptable. Period.

Even if most shooters in the United States are Christian they are not doing the shooting because of their religious beliefs . Muslims carrying out attacks because they subscribe to radical Muslim beliefs are acting out of religious belief. So your point regarding the fact that most mass shooters in the United States are Christian is not relevant.

And, I would note: his "point" remains unproven. All he did was cite the percentage of the population that claims Christianity. His next "logical" step was to conclude that proved most shootings were committed by White Christians. Of course, he never even bothered to define terrorism or concern himself with actually proving that White Christians engage in terror more often than Islamists. Then again, "proof" and rickyp are like water and gasoline--they don't mix and it's pointless to try.

freeman3 wrote:I do agree that the Planned Parenthood was an attack based in ideology. We can expect similar attacks. But there is no Christian sect that I know of advocating such attacks but clearly there are a least some people who believe that violence against abortion clinics is justified because they believe abortion is murder. But with ISIS you have a large group that advocates violence against the West and seeks to inspire Muslims living in the West to make attacks there . They only need to inspire a very small percentage of Muslims to cause a lot of damage. Christians are against abortion and may at times use strong rhetoric but they are not advocating the use of violence . So that's a big difference. Whether they should be concerned that strong rhetoric may influence those who are mentally unstable to use violence is something they may want to ponder but that's up to them as long as they are not advocating violence. But ISIS is advocating violence.

I don't agree completely here. Depends what you mean by "sect". The Army of God advocated and carried out violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_G ... _States%29 and they seem to still exist.

There is also the Phineas (or Phinehas) Priesthood who are more of a loose ideological sect than an organisation and advocate and carry out violence (as inspired by the story of Phinehas in Numbers 25:7 who killed a mixed Isreali-Midianite couple to apparently end a diving plague on Israel). Last year a follower of the Priesthood, Larry Steven McQuilliams shot up a courthouse, police station and Mexican consulate in Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Priesthood

Even if most shooters in the United States are Christian they are not doing the shooting because of their religious beliefs . Muslims carrying out attacks because they subscribe to radical Muslim beliefs are acting out of religious belief. So your point regarding the fact that most mass shooters in the United States are Christian is not relevant.

Apart from the above - and I would say that we have to keep an open mind on whether Robert Dear will turn out to have been inspired by religious beliefs - in the general case I agree that most violence by white males in the US is not inspired by Christianity, even if they are often nominally Christian at least.

Not that this diminishes the actual threat from non-Muslims, or the threat specifically from extremists of the White power / militia / anti-abortion / "patriot" tendencies etc.

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I do agree that the Planned Parenthood was an attack based in ideology. We can expect similar attacks. But there is no Christian sect that I know of advocating such attacks but clearly there are a least some people who believe that violence against abortion clinics is justified because they believe abortion is murder. But with ISIS you have a large group that advocates violence against the West and seeks to inspire Muslims living in the West to make attacks there . They only need to inspire a very small percentage of Muslims to cause a lot of damage. Christians are against abortion and may at times use strong rhetoric but they are not advocating the use of violence . So that's a big difference. Whether they should be concerned that strong rhetoric may influence those who are mentally unstable to use violence is something they may want to ponder but that's up to them as long as they are not advocating violence. But ISIS is advocating violence.

I don't agree completely here. Depends what you mean by "sect". The Army of God advocated and carried out violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_G ... _States%29 and they seem to still exist.

Um, I read your link. Compared to Islamists, they don't have a very "impressive" resume.

There is also the Phineas (or Phinehas) Priesthood who are more of a loose ideological sect than an organisation and advocate and carry out violence (as inspired by the story of Phinehas in Numbers 25:7 who killed a mixed Isreali-Midianite couple to apparently end a diving plague on Israel). Last year a follower of the Priesthood, Larry Steven McQuilliams shot up a courthouse, police station and Mexican consulate in Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Priesthood

Bad people to be sure, but in the real world a bit of a joke in comparison.

How many of these people are there in the US? I'll bet there are more ALF and ELF members than there are of those two groups put together and multiplied by 10.

Even if most shooters in the United States are Christian they are not doing the shooting because of their religious beliefs . Muslims carrying out attacks because they subscribe to radical Muslim beliefs are acting out of religious belief. So your point regarding the fact that most mass shooters in the United States are Christian is not relevant.

Apart from the above - and I would say that we have to keep an open mind on whether Robert Dear will turn out to have been inspired by religious beliefs - in the general case I agree that most violence by white males in the US is not inspired by Christianity, even if they are often nominally Christian at least.

Not that this diminishes the actual threat from non-Muslims, or the threat specifically from extremists of the White power / militia / anti-abortion / "patriot" tendencies etc.

No, but it is some "whataboutery" for sure.

No, DF. "Whataboutery" would be bringing up Muslims in a thread about a white man attacking a PP site. Or bringing up the ALF and ELF.

You may diminish it, but anti-abortion violence has claimed lives.

This is why I don't want to engage with you on this thread - and increasingly on the site.

danivon wrote:No, DF. "Whataboutery" would be bringing up Muslims in a thread about a white man attacking a PP site. Or bringing up the ALF and ELF.

You may diminish it, but anti-abortion violence has claimed lives.

This is why I don't want to engage with you on this thread - and increasingly on the site.

Ooh, ouch. That really hurts.

Anti-abortion violence has claimed lives. How many? A dozen? 30? 40? 50? Can you get over 100 if you go all the way back to Roe v. Wade?

Meanwhile, abortion has claimed many millions.

I cannot and will not justify anti-abortion violence. However, it's not even in the same league as Islamist violence.

And,. more importantly, you have ZERO evidence that PP was related to Christianity and nearly zero that it was anti-abortion.

As for "whataboutery," you dragged in the Army of God and the Phinehas Priesthood, which don't appear more than one attack in the last 19 years--and it was by one guy. You say it's not "whataboutery." Fine, then please tell us how Dear is connected to either organization.

It's fairly clear that Robert Dear shot up the clinic because he wanted to stop abortions. That's an ideology--he had a belief that violence was necessary to stop abortions. And given that there has been violence against other abortion providers, it's clear that others share the same ideology. I am not going to get into the origins of that ideology but clearly it exists and given the track record of violent attacks on abortion clinic prior to Colorado, we can expect more violence against abortion providers in the future. ( please note that I am not making any allegation here that Christianity is involved in any way in that ideology but only that it exists).

freeman3 wrote:It's fairly clear that Robert Dear shot up the clinic because he wanted to stop abortions.

I am fully ready to concede that--as soon as there is more evidence than 4 words in the middle of who knows what. Really. Give me some proof and I'll fold faster than Trump when he finds out he'll spend hundreds of millions to not win the Presidency.

That's an ideology--he had a belief that violence was necessary to stop abortions.

Lay it out for me. Pretend this is a court. A link to a manifesto? A link to a transcript of his rambling? Anything?

And given that there has been violence against other abortion providers, it's clear that others share the same ideology. I am not going to get into the origins of that ideology but clearly it exists and given the track record of violent attacks on abortion clinic prior to Colorado, we can expect more violence against abortion providers in the future. ( please note that I am not making any allegation here that Christianity is involved in any way in that ideology but only that it exists).

I know people who picket abortion clinics. I know people who engage in evangelism at abortion clinics. I don't know anyone would commit violence at a clinic. I know every one of those people would defend the clinic workers against assault.

Again, I just want some evidence. I'll throw in the towel faster than if I had to get in the ring with Floyd Mayweather. To be clear: evidence of Dear's being motivated by some rabid hatred of abortion.

Doctor Fate wrote:As for "whataboutery," you dragged in the Army of God and the Phinehas Priesthood, which don't appear more than one attack in the last 19 years--and it was by one guy. You say it's not "whataboutery." Fine, then please tell us how Dear is connected to either organization.

Well, one of freeman's links contains a claim that Dear said that the Army of God were heroes back in 2009.

There is a clear common factor with the Army of God, which has advocated violence and justified the murders of John Britton and James Barratt by supporting the "Second Defensive Action Statement". They have a list of "heroes" on their website which includes murderers. As yet they do not lionise Dear, but are saying that PP had it coming: "reap what they sow", and also link the "baby parts" thing.

Let's see over time whether Dear reveals what drove him (do you want to bet money that it was hazelnuts?)

However, I mentioned them both because Freeman had been saying there were no Christian sects who are promoting an ideology that supports terrorism. However you may want to diminish them, or to pretend that they are irrelevant, they are examples of an organisation (AoG) and a sect (Phineas) who have promoted and been linked with ideologically motivated violence.

You can quite easily claim, of course, that because they do not agree with your view of Christianity - and particularly due to their actions - they are not Christians. This is the same as a moderate Muslim claiming that ISIS are not true Muslims.

And your sophistry that there is "nearly zero evidence" that Dear was motivated by anti-abortion views is really starting to grate. If someone attacks a synagogue would we not say there was a likelihood it was anti-semitic? Especially if accompanied by a report of mentioning Jews when they are caught, and mentions from their past of having issues with Judaism, and supporting those who have attacked Jews.

And what would you think if someone kept on insisting that it was not at all about that? (by the way, this is not "whataboutery", it is analogy)

I get that it is uncomfortable for you personally as a committed Christian who opposed abortion to accept that there are others who you may not personally know, but who have that in common with you who will go further, and will use their beliefs and even scripture to justify violence and terrorism. Imagine how a peaceful Muslim feels (or a peaceful Irish Catholic, or indeed a peaceful socialist).

But please do not allow that discomfort to lead you into mental gymnastics and to attack those who disagree with you.

By the way, this is not a court of law.