Orlando shooting


Backroads
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I am issuing a public challenge to you, that we go to the Denver Islamic Society open house, which they often hold, and go and answer the question for yourself.  Will you go?

And I responded that I would go, but that there was, essentially, zero chance you or they could change my mind. I've already changed based on facts, and nothing new has arisen that makes me think that it (whatever it could be) would make me take up my old position.

What is it that you imagine I am ignorant of that would do what you want it to do? It's not contact with Muslims. It's not understanding their doctrine and practices. I've done all that. I've done a lot more since September 2001 than in the past. I've met and spoken with more Muslims than before then, too. So, where is my experience deficient?

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can absolutely understand the tendency to want to blame Islam/Muslims. And if we were to rely solely on our own experiences, I believe that we would arrive at that same conclusion. 

 

Fortunately, we have modern prophets and apostles to help keep us grounded in the Spirit so that we can see and understand things as they really are and as they really will be. 

 

"We value our Muslim neighbors across the world and hope that those who live by the tenets of their faith will not suffer. I ask particularly that our own people do not become a party in any way to the persecution of the innocent. Rather, let us be friendly and helpful, protective and supportive. It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down." - President Gordon B. Hinckley, Oct., 2001, The Times in Which We Live

 

Perhaps things have changed since that time, but how prophetic it was that President Hinckley made the statement one month after September 11...

Edited by Colirio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to state that I have not read the whole thread. I read enough to see The Folk Prophet's post about preaching the Gospel of Repentance being the key. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree. The Book of Mormon was written for our day and speaks often of secret combinations and Gadianton robbers. It also shows us several ways the Nephites dealt with them. Some of those ways worked and others led to the destruction of the people. If we hope to be successful in our endeavors against them, our guidebook is clear on what needs to be done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Colirio said:
Quote

"We value our Muslim neighbors across the world and hope that those who live by the tenets of their faith will not suffer. I ask particularly that our own people do not become a party in any way to the persecution of the innocent. Rather, let us be friendly and helpful, protective and supportive. It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley, Oct., 2001, The Times in Which We Live

No one here has said anything about persecuting anyone, in any way. I can speak only for myself, so I'll merely re-iterate what I've said earlier: we must be wary of Muslims because, while most are reasonably peaceful, there is no way to determine which of them is not, nor which will change and become violent. Both recent and past history bear this out. Vigilance is not vigilantism. Wariness is not wickedness. Preparedness is not presumptuousness.

I make no bones of my dislike of Islam. But I fully adhere to the spirit and the letter of both the I amendment and the XI Article of Faith. It is unfortunate that Muslims don't like either.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't resist but to chime in here!  I have actually put a lot of time and energy into studying Islam myself.  I am a huge fan of the writings of Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain.  I am well acquainted with Islamic history, including some of its most troublesome aspects.  I believe that the troublesome aspects in Islamic history/doctrine are significant for deciding whether one should accept Islam as truth, but should not be necessarily used to judge people who are already Muslims.

I believe that not all Islam is the same Islam.  For example, the Ahmadiyya Islamic Movement (which is the fastest growing "denomination" of Islam) has "fixed" much of the bad in greater Islam while retaining much of the good, resulting in a religion that reminds me of, well... Mormonism!  I also think we have little to worry about from Sufis, Barelvis, Ibadis, and the Shias (though Iran needs to drop is ridiculous, irrational, and frankly self-destructive rivalry with Israel).  I don't think that "normal" Muslims are dangerous, and being religious in these "denominations" is actually a barrier to extremism.  They may want to convert everyone in the world, but let's be honest - as Mormons we want to convert the world too.

I also believe that there are a very finite number of Islamic "denominations" which encompass most of the violence, or at least tolerate terroristic individuals.  I'm not going to say any names or bash these denominations. . . I have Ed Husain to do that for me.  If we want to counter terror, we should focus on the denominations of Islam which are truly troubled, not the ones which are peaceful.  Cutting Saudi funding and influence to American mosques is a great step in fighting terror.

Anyhow, my two cents on the subject.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

I've had a lot of thoughts on this subject and want to get some of them out there. A lot of people seem to think this is one thing or another, depending on what their political leaning and agenda is, and that there is one easy answer to prevent it from happening again. The fact is, this is is a complex situation with multiple cultural factors at play, and no simple solution.

First and foremost, this was a hate crime. A young religious fanatic felt threatened enough by the LGBT community to feel justified to go into one of their nightclubs and shoot people. Whatever other factors were at play, the most glaring thing about this tragedy is that the shooter hated the LGBT lifestyle and wanted to do something about it. The LGBT community is hurting right now, and they need our compassion. And FWIW, I've seen plenty of it amongst a lot of the more unpleasant dialogue that has resulted from this event.

Secondly, this was an act of Islamic terrorism. The shooter may not have been an official ISIS recruit or agent, but it seems clear that he was inspired by ISIS at the very least. This is a fact that can't be ignored, but it also shouldn't be used to justify taking actions that would jeopardize the liberties of peaceful American citizens in the Muslim community. There has to be some middle ground between doing nothing and vilifying an entire religious group. I'd be lying if I said that recent events haven't awoken the "angry atheist" in me to some extent, but I simply can't use this tragedy to justify a general distrust of Muslims. We need to continue to use concentrated military action against ISIS whenever possible (and we REALLY need to stop supporting militias in the Middle East), but we also need to reach out to the Muslim communities here in the US and make it clear that we don't see them as enemies. Just like the LGBT community, the Muslim community needs out compassion now more than ever. Otherwise, we're going to keep proving that ISIS is right about us and our culture, and more American Muslims will radicalize as a result. 

Finally, this was yet another act of gun violence, this time with a weapon that has only one purpose: to fire a large number of bullets quickly and accurately. Just as the left often lets political correctness deter them from addressing the threat of Islamic extremism in the US, the right seems to have their own PC-like views that magically make gun legislation a taboo topic after events like this. We need to stop pretending that there's nothing we can do to prevent these shootings. We need more "common sense" gun laws to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on deadly weapons. Yes, I know that a lot of criminals will get their hands on a gun anyway, or that they'll use some other weapon to carry out their intentions, but that doesn't mean we need to make it easy for them. The gun laws that a lot of people want to see implemented (including many gun owners) won't take away the right of a well-adjusted law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun. I myself would love to own a gun someday, and I fully expect for there to be some control measures in place both before and after I purchase a deadly weapon. Once again, we need to find middle ground, something between complete inaction and banning all guns (something that a majority of gun control advocates don't support, btw). The NRA has brainwashed its members to believe that ANY attempt to legislate gun safety and responsible retail is an attack on the Second Amendment, and that is simply not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The always thoughtful Nathaniel Givens has some good thoughts, here.

 

He's wrong on a few points. 

Edit: Note: I'll expand more later. Gotta run for now. I'm not just being cryptic on purpose.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Finally, this was yet another act of gun violence, this time with a weapon that has only one purpose: to fire a large number of bullets quickly and accurately. Just as the left often lets political correctness deter them from addressing the threat of Islamic extremism in the US, the right seems to have their own PC-like views that magically make gun legislation a taboo topic after events like this. We need to stop pretending that there's nothing we can do to prevent these shootings. We need more "common sense" gun laws to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on deadly weapons. Yes, I know that a lot of criminals will get their hands on a gun anyway, or that they'll use some other weapon to carry out their intentions, but that doesn't mean we need to make it easy for them. The gun laws that a lot of people want to see implemented (including many gun owners) won't take away the right of a well-adjusted law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun. I myself would love to own a gun someday, and I fully expect for there to be some control measures in place both before and after I purchase a deadly weapon. Once again, we need to find middle ground, something between complete inaction and banning all guns (something that a majority of gun control advocates don't support, btw). The NRA has brainwashed its members to believe that ANY attempt to legislate gun safety and responsible retail is an attack on the Second Amendment, and that is simply not true.

We already have laws in place.  Control measures and everything.  It's not easy for criminals to get their hands on one - legally.  This guy was not a criminal.  YET.  Legislating gun safety further only causes law-abiding citizens to become less powerful than the criminals.  The mental health issue is a different matter.  That is very tough to legislate.  You're basically making doctors responsible for terrorism.  As bad as the healthcare situation is now, anything that causes mental health doctors to be legally liable for any act of terrorism, or even domestic crime, involving a firearm is going to make advances in mental health medicine to screech to a halt.

The weapon you are talking about is the AR15.  It cannot fire a "large number of bullets quickly and accurately".  The AR15 is not designed for that.  It fires as fast as your trigger finger can move.  The faster your finger, the less accurate your are - unless you're one of these sportsmen that goes to tournaments.  And even then, if your finger is quite fast and accurate, the rifle overheats and jams.  The guy was in there for THREE HOURS - the doors held shut to keep the killer inside with over a hundred people trapped with him.  It was a "shooting fish in a barrel" incident.  The guy could have had an assault ax and still kill that many.  He could have blown the place up with a home-grown IED and kill everyone instead of just half of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Godless said:

We need more "common sense" gun laws to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on deadly weapons.

I keep hearing this phrase from the left, yet I have yet to hear any legislation that is not already on the books which would qualify.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The weapon you are talking about is the AR15

He who-should -never-be-named did not use an AR15. It was a Sig Sauer MCX.

Sig1_630_0.jpg

It's odd to see this sort of misinformation in the media. Oh, wait …

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

He who should never be named did not use an AR15. It was a Sig Sauer MCX.

Sig1_630_0.jpg

It's odd to see this sort of misinformation in the media. Oh, wait …

Lehi

WHOA!  How did I miss that?  All the local news outlets either didn't mention the model or said AR15.  More than half of them called it an assault rifle.  But then, journalists are so crappy these days they can't tell an AR15 from a battle ax.

Would've been nice to hear a Sig Sauer get vilified instead of the Armalite for a change.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Godless said:

Finally, this was yet another act of gun violence, this time with a weapon that has only one purpose: to fire a large number of bullets quickly and accurately. Just as the left often lets political correctness deter them from addressing the threat of Islamic extremism in the US, the right seems to have their own PC-like views that magically make gun legislation a taboo topic after events like this. We need to stop pretending that there's nothing we can do to prevent these shootings. We need more "common sense" gun laws to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on deadly weapons. Yes, I know that a lot of criminals will get their hands on a gun anyway, or that they'll use some other weapon to carry out their intentions, but that doesn't mean we need to make it easy for them. The gun laws that a lot of people want to see implemented (including many gun owners) won't take away the right of a well-adjusted law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun. I myself would love to own a gun someday, and I fully expect for there to be some control measures in place both before and after I purchase a deadly weapon. Once again, we need to find middle ground, something between complete inaction and banning all guns (something that a majority of gun control advocates don't support, btw). The NRA has brainwashed its members to believe that ANY attempt to legislate gun safety and responsible retail is an attack on the Second Amendment, and that is simply not true.

There is no such thing as gun violence.  It's amazing that you would even use the term "common sense".

Apparently you know nothing about guns, and have never shot or perhaps even touched one, yet all of a sudden you are an expert.  It's more than your lack of knowledge of God that you have here.

What you saw was people violence.  Religious fanatic violence.  Terrorist violence.  Islamic violence. 

No gun ever did any violence.   UNLESS someone was in control of it and used it for their purposes.

It's a fools errand to look at the instrument used, rather than who and why violence was done.

It's like calling a drunk driver (dui) hit and run killer ... car violence.  Would you call that car violence?  No?  Well then you see how idiotic it is to call this ... gun violence. 

Would you call a stabbing knife violence?  No? 

The tail doesn't wag the dog.  The gun doesn't do anything.

And the NRA follows it's members, not leads them.

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The always-magnificent Nathaniel Givens has some excellent thoughts, here.

 

Warning. The following is not politically correct:

I find it odd that any Book of Mormon reading Latter-day Saint would fail to distinguish the difference between a group of faithful Saints being slaughtered and the Ammonihahites being destroyed by the Lamanites, and---moreover, apparently, totally incapable of applying the concepts in the BOM to our day.

And, as typical, the Book of Mormon sets an example of how to react. We mourn for the tragedy. We defend our brethren even when they are wicked. But to imply that there's no relationship of wickedness to prophesied calamity?

I also find it particularly incongruous to throw out the concept of "judge not" in the same breath as a judgmental concept such as "they didn't deserve it". How utterly blind. Of course many will interpret this statement of mine as saying they DID deserve it. I am not saying that. I reserve judgment, as should we all. Saying the did or did not deserve it is judging. We don't know if they deserved it. But even if they did, it doesn't matter as to the mourning, care, and support we should give and offer.

But of course we feel conflicted. And I don't see what's wrong with that. I also feel conflicted when someone driving 120mph on the freeway crashes and dies. Of course that's not exactly the same thing, because the speeding in that case was the direct cause of the death. So perhaps a better "gay" analogy would be someone who got AIDS from homosexual activity. But even then, it would take a particularly un-Christian Christian to go to "They deserved it!" alone and have no sense of compassion or sorrow over such a thing.

There's nothing wrong with feeling conflicted. Not feeling conflicted, in my opinion, would be a problem. It means we're either writing off the compassion or writing off the reality that it was a den of iniquity.

We don't have to be stupid and blind to reality to show and feel compassion. This was the example set by the Savior. He showed compassion. But He also saw sin for what it was, and felt great sorrow, and even repulsion because of that sin. Sin is bad. We should feel disgusted by sin. That does not mean we shouldn't feel compassion as well.

In the grand and eternal scheme of thing, the tragedy for which we should be mourning constantly was well established before the deaths. That tragedy is sin. Death happens to all of us. To the righteous it need not be feared. Of course we mourn the death. But in the eternal scheme of things the death matters much less than the sin. It is for that we should truly mourn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Godless said:

First and foremost, this was a hate crime. 

Secondly, this was an act of Islamic terrorism. 

 

Hoo boy.  So, 9/11, Sandy Hook, and San Bernadino were all not quite so bad somehow, because they weren't hate crimes.   Nah, sorry, I'm going to go ahead and reverse the order of priority you've got there Godless.  I agree with your comments on your second point.

The gun laws that a lot of people want to see implemented (including many gun owners) won't take away the right of a well-adjusted law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun. [...] Once again, we need to find middle ground, something between complete inaction and banning all guns (something that a majority of gun control advocates don't support, btw). 

How about you propose what you've got in mind.  I'm not brainwashed, and I'm not a member of the NRA.  I'd be happy to evaluate your proposal and respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, TFP, I don't think Givens is saying "judge not" re the sinful behaviors of those who died.  (The only time he talks about "judging" in the post I linked to, is when he tries to emphasize that he has no animus towards the folks with whose Facebook posts he disagrees.)  And the Lord can reward righteousness and punish wickedness in whatsoever way He will; without any help from the rest of us.  I think your remarks about the ultimate tragedy being sin--and particularly, that these particular victims died in sin with no further chance for repentance--are very apropos; and it is perhaps unfortunate that as Latter-day Saints our brand of mourning, unlike theirs, must go largely unexpressed due to the prevailing mores of the day.

But as to feeling conflicted:  I can see the inherent conflict in cases of--say--a car crash caused by reckless driving; or a lethal STD brought about by sexual promiscuity.  Those are natural risks.  But in the US of A, being mowed down by a maniac with a gun is not a natural risk of doing something that said maniac happens to believe is immoral.  In addition to the spiritual worth of the victims' lives that Givens discusses at some length, I believe that as a society we have a mutual obligation to preserve each other's life and liberty.  An attack on one is an attack on all; and the death of one constitutes a failure to protect on the part of the greater whole. 

The conflict, to me, arises when support and compassion and empathy for the dead, is expected to manifest itself in the form of acceptance of the lifestyle and the political agenda; and there's already a lot of tomfoolery of that sort going around.  Brazilian television, for example, is reporting that Mateen's ex-wife believes that Mateen was actually gay--a story which, if true, would kind of blow the whole "hate crime" and "this is all the fault of you bigoted, nasty Christians!" narrative out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share