News Stories

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

The article goes over that Glenn Beck himself has been involved in youth camps that have a distinct political bent to them.

Sounds like pretty good evidence that political youth camps are bad, to me.

(Not bad enough to kill anyone, mind you, but bad enough that they should be shut down.)

[Jinto]

I have troubles to actually classify the non-scientific ideology of the Nazis - that include the concept of a master race, the jews being their arch enemy... - as a political one. Thats closer to a religion then anything I would classify political (God's chosen people... infidels/heretics as arch enemies of another religion...). Then again there was also personality cult, thats something I consider political (although its not unseen in religion - the pope could be seen as an example for personality cult too).
Meh, now that Nazi-tourette-man actually made me think about his stupid comparison - what a filthy feeling.

[Echoes]

I listened to that Glenn Beck clip myself. It was too stupid to even be offensive. In the same video he mentions that he thinks Geert Wilders is from Denmark, so not a very well researched program overall. You'd think he'd make a bit more of an effort, seeing as how it is his job.

And just for the record, those kinds of camps are nothing like any sort of thing you might imagine if you've seen Jesus Camp or anything like that. (Certainly nothing like Hitler-Jugend, lol) It's mostly just kids having fun, with some political speeches and workshops thrown in.
That isn't to say I think they are a great idea, but they're nothing like the dystopian vision that, among many others, Glenn Beck thinks them to be.

[DonQuigleone]

A lot of youth camps have some kind of agenda behind them, though not usually a bad one. It can be as simple as, say, wanting to spread wilderness survival skills and love of the countryside, or bringing together people of a certain social or religious background.

I see nothing wrong with this so long as it doesn't become cultish, a la jesus camp or Hitler Youth.

[Vexx]

Lovely, now he's been quoted as praising Japan as a "model nation" .... having a mass serial killer praise you doesn't really appeal...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/0...58455120110726
http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/91135.php

As for the camp... good grief its no more dangerous than the Campus Mainstream Political Club on any given campus. To even insinuate a comparison to "Hitler Youth"... well, the United States branch of the Boy Scouts make a better comparison to Hitler Youth than this sort of summer camp (caveat: yeah, i was in the Boy Scouts before they went christian fundamentalist crazy at the top tier).

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Lovely, now he's been quoted as praising Japan as a "model nation" .... having a mass serial killer praise you doesn't really appeal..

Yeah, he names both South Korea and Japan as modern nations that he views as having a better model than modern Europe due to their rejection of full-scale immigration and generally more conservative societies culturally. He also praises Indian nationalist/Hindu theocratic movement as great potential allies to work with, and draws a lot of comparisons between the ruling class in India and in Europe.

But he praises a lot of people, ideas, works of arts, books and so forth in the incredibly long manifesto, believe me, I've read a good deal of it. I don't really think there's any point going over all of it and lamenting his approval of them, that would be a long and arduous task indeed. He even lists his favorite movies and other personal facts by the end. They're The Passion of the Christ, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and 300, by the way.

Also, I'm sure to no one's surprise, he's a big Ayn Rand fan.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Glenn Beck compares Norway shooting victims to Hitler Youth on radio show
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...adio_show.html
That idiot is doing it again...

related news...


NY-times and "msm" outlets are showing their true colors once again...


(...from the most watched cable news program - evening slot)

"Impact" segment tonight: mass murder in Norway. A vicious killer, Anders Breivik, has murdered at least 76 people in the Scandinavian nation of Norway. Breivik is a brutal fanatic who apparently objects to the presence of Muslims in Europe.

Last Friday he bombed buildings in Oslo and then took an automatic weapon to an island a few miles away gunning down 68 people. Norwegian authorities couldn't get to the island because they didn't have a helicopter, if you can believe it.

Now, on Sunday, the "New York Times" headlined "As Horrors Emerged, Norway Charges Christian extremist". A number of other news organizations like the "LA Times" and Reuters also played up the Christian angle. But Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.

Also Breivik is not attached to any church, and in fact has criticized the Protestant belief system in general. The Christian angle came from a Norwegian policeman not from any fact finding. Once again, we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.

So why is the angle being played up? Two reasons:

First, the liberal media wants to make an equivalency between the actions of Breivik and the Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh and al Qaeda. The left wants you to believe that fundamentalists Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are.

In fact, in the "New York Times" today an analysis piece says that some believe we have overreacted to the Muslim threat in the world. Of course, that's absurd. Jihadists have killed tens of thousands of people all over the world. The Taliban, Iran and elements in Pakistan use governmental power to support terrorism by Muslims. But the left-wing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and McVeigh to state-sponsored terrorism and worldwide jihad.

Again, dishonest and insane.

The second reason the liberal media is pushing the Christian angle is they don't like Christians very much because we are too judgmental. Many Christians oppose abortion. Gay marriage and legalized narcotics, secular left causes. The media understands the opposition is often based on religion. So they want to diminish Christianity and highlighting so-called Christian-based terror is a way to do that.

The primary threat to this world comes from Islamic terrorism. Iran is a major problem. If the country gets nuclear weapons and it's desperately trying to, does anyone doubt those weapons could be used? A Muslim in Pakistan exported nuclear technology to North Korea. And Muslim suicide bombers blow innocent people up almost every day.

Yet, once again the liberal media wants you to fear Christian terrorists. And going forward when jihad is mentioned, you know Breivik and McVeigh will enter the conversation.

Sometimes I think the world is going mad. This Breivik guy is a loon, a mass murderer who apparently acted out of rank hatred. No government supported him. No self-proclaimed terror group like al Qaeda paid his bills. Breivik is just another loser who caused tremendous horror by murdering innocent people. There is no equivalency to jihad. No worldwide Breivik movement. Just another violent pathetic legacy stemming back to Cain.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by flying ^

But Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.

No true Scotsman fallacy. A moderate Muslim would say the same thing about suicide bombers.

Originally Posted by flying ^

The Christian angle came from a Norwegian policeman not from any fact finding. Once again, we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.

That is just a plain lie. He describes himself as a Christian on facebook, and numerous times throughout his manifesto. He even tells you which church he visited previous to the event, which he describes as his last martyr mass*, and tells us that it brought him great inner peace. He also explains how he'll be praying to God while he commits the act, the quote is in one of my previous posts.

* Note that he did not inform anyone of what he had planned to do, and this does not in any way implicate the church of any of the other worshipers or clergy in any way whatsoever.

Originally Posted by flying ^

First, the liberal media wants to make an equivalency between the actions of Breivik and the Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh and al Qaeda. The left wants you to believe that fundamentalists Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are.

I am in perfect agreement with you if your point is that in today's society, Islamic fundamentalism is a greater danger than Christian fundamentalism, but if your point is that Christian fundamentalism poses no threat at all, then I don't think you're being terribly honest.

Originally Posted by flying ^

In fact, in the "New York Times" today an analysis piece says that some believe we have overreacted to the Muslim threat in the world. Of course, that's absurd. Jihadists have killed tens of thousands of people all over the world. The Taliban, Iran and elements in Pakistan use governmental power to support terrorism by Muslims. But the left-wing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and McVeigh to state-sponsored terrorism and worldwide jihad.

Agreed, if their point is that they pose an equal amount of danger, then that's a dishonest statement at this point in time.

Breivik should not be linked to any Christian organizations he was not a part of, extremist or otherwise. But he was a Christian, and defending the Christian values of Europe was very much part of his agenda, right down to the name he gave his supposed group "Knights Templar Europe."

[cors8]

A Christian that believes Christians wouldn't commit mass murder needs to study history. None of the 3 major religions are innocent of blood.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by cors8

A Christian that believes Christians wouldn't commit mass murder needs to study history. None of the 3 major religions are innocent of blood.

Aye, that's the one liner that puts that whole pile of poorly thought diatribe to shame. History. Facts. Something much of that ilk fails miserably at. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic (Abrahamic) faiths drip in blood throughout history, sometimes in defense but often simply to rationalize taking things violently.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by cors8

A Christian that believes Christians wouldn't commit mass murder needs to study history. None of the 3 major religions are innocent of blood.

I do believe that there is no religion innocent of blood, lest maybe the Native American religions and spirituals. And that could merely be because of lack of records.

But, it is important to keep in mind that almost always, religion doesn't give command to kill people, it is who people kill people. Kinda like guns.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Can think of the Crusades, the Ottoman Empire and its precursors, and (pre-Christian) Rome's various wars with Judea off the top of my head if you just want to stick to ancient history and nothing 'modern'.

A religious war is a righteous war, God's on your side meaning you can do no wrong... apparently.



I'd say Buddhism is pretty bloodless.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

I'd say Buddhism is pretty bloodless.

Ummm Taiwan? Southern China?

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

In comparison to the other 3 though? I've never really looked at Buddhism - and gave up on the other 3 years ago. Was it ever used as an excuse to carve out an empire, and to kill thousands (millions?) who didn't follow your beliefs and so on.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by flying ^

related news...


NY-times and "msm" outlets are showing their true colors once again...

Seems more like Billo showing his true colors there to me.

[Decagon]

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

In comparison to the other 3 though? I've never really looked at Buddhism - and gave up on the other 3 years ago. Was it ever used as an excuse to carve out an empire, and to kill thousands (millions?) who didn't follow your beliefs and so on.

There were three major sects of Tibetan Buddhism several hundred years ago but two were culled in Tibet by the sect most people recognize plainly as Tibetan Buddhism today. As one example. There's also been Hindu on Muslim violence in India for a while if anyone didn't know about that side of another eastern religion.

[Echoes]

Trying not to stray too far off topic here, but let's just make we're sure on what is actually being claimed when he says that a Christian cannot be responsible for mass murder. I'm pretty sure what he's claiming isn't that the obvious events that come to mind of most informed people never happened, but that these the people who committed them, in spite of their claims, were not actually following "Christian teachings." They were hence not true Christians, but either mere pretenders or deluded fools who misunderstood, hence not true Christians.

It's still wrong and absurd on the face of it. Trying to impose your own definition universally on something that has a history of incredibly broad interpretation and over 30 000 denominations alive and well, each with their own each idea of what a true believer constitutes, just doesn't hold water.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Seems more like Billo showing his true colors there to me.

O'Reilly's true colors were never in doubt. We always knew he was a first-class moron.

Originally Posted by Echoes

Trying not to stray too far off topic here, but let's just make we're sure on what is actually being claimed when he says that a Christian cannot be responsible for mass murder. I'm pretty sure what he's claiming isn't that the obvious events that come to mind of most informed people never happened, but that these the people who committed them, in spite of their claims, were not actually following "Christian teachings." They were hence not true Christians, but either mere pretenders or deluded fools who misunderstood, hence not true Christians.

That's still a No True Scotsman fallacy. Actually, that's pretty much the very definition of a No True Scotsman fallacy. It's not a legitimate argument. You cannot move the goalposts. You cannot say, "oh, he was a Christian right up until now." That doesn't work, and anyway, he was never excommunicated.

Was he a Christian before he shot 68 people and bombed Oslo? If we went back in time, two or three years ago, and knew Breivik then, would he be a Christian?

O'Reilly is basically legitimizing the idea that someone can be a Christian and perform all sorts of shady activity, but the moment they're caught, OH NO THEY WERE NEVER A CHRISTIAN.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Ummm Taiwan? Southern China?

What does either issue has to do with Buddhism?

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

In comparison to the other 3 though? I've never really looked at Buddhism - and gave up on the other 3 years ago. Was it ever used as an excuse to carve out an empire, and to kill thousands (millions?) who didn't follow your beliefs and so on.

I don't know about India but in China, while there were some conflicts with other religion. Most were pretty minor, none resulted in Crusades or Holy Wars. Certainly wasn't used by any Chinese Emperor as a pretext to declare war on anyone.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

That's still a No True Scotsman fallacy. Actually, that's pretty much the very definition of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Of course, that's why I said it. I was merely trying to clarify any misunderstandings.