Christian LT Governor Dan Patrick Comments On Orlando Shooting

[PartySick 172,545]

Just now, YourSweet666 said:

 

They should be charged for supporting terrorism. 

It's tough to even pin them as a hate group for some reason...not for lack of trying, just because they've never physically hurt anyone. This is why we need some restrictions on free speech. Just like you can't yell "bomb!" on an airplane or "fire!" in a crowded place, you shouldn't be allowed to show outright praise and admiration for someone who just took 58 innocent lives.

*sigh*

[lego 44,165]

3 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

 

It's hard to be outraged over a redacted tweet when a stack of fifty slaughtered corpses line the wall of a gay nightclub. Last night's massacre should have made clear the stark differences between words and actions.

The reaction to this tweet is measured disgust, as it should be.

 

I understand, but this Governor just quoted his holy book/used his religion to approve/support the terror attack in Orlando.

The case of the Indiana man with explosives going to L.A. pride, shows some are ready to take action. Luckily he was arrested before he harmed anyone. But the intent was there.

 

The regular members who claim this type of hate comes only from one group of people, don't seem be to outraged or generalizing in these threads. Just saying. 

 

[SKANK 14,288]

12 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

I understand, but this Governor just quoted his holy book/used his religion to approve/support the terror attack in Orlando.

The case of the Indiana man with explosives going to L.A. pride, shows some are ready to take action. Luckily he was arrested before he harmed anyone. But the intent was there.

 

The regular members who claim this type of hate comes only from one group of people, don't seem be to outraged or generalizing in these threads. Just saying. 

 

 

The Governor deleted the tweet, and explained that it was scheduled to go up before the shooting. Now you can choose whether or not you believe that explanation. I don't buy it, as I'm sure you do not buy it. I don't doubt that he is bigot.

However his decision to delete the tweet for fear of being misunderstood, and his explicit condemnation of violence against LGBT people proves that his relationship to Christianity is in no way comparable to the gunman's relationship to Islam.

Apples and oranges. A bigoted tweet is different then a massacre.

As I said earlier on this site, shielding Islam from legitimate criticism in the name of equality is only going to exasperate problems.

[lego 44,165]

9 minutes ago, SKANK said:

no way comparable to the gunman's relationship to Islam.

 

The guy's ex wife and father claim he was not religious.

We have no idea about his knowledge of or relationship with Islam. 

His alegiance to IS could be politically motivated too, his parents are from country which was invaded by the U.S. army.

I didn't compare the tweet to massacre, I gave you another example of guy who planned to attack L.A. pride in the same way and there is no sign of certain members on that topic with their usual generalization. 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

26 minutes ago, SKANK said:

As I said earlier on this site, shielding Islam from legitimate criticism in the name of equality is only going to exasperate problems.

Well, I don't disagree entirely. I'd add that that inaccurate criticisms of Islam are reckless and irresponsible and they exasperate problems as well.

For one, we can criticize Islam itself without directly (intentionally or not) insulting and generalizing every person who believes in it. We don't have to promote hatred, discrimination, persecution, judgment, to do that, and the solution to this problem is not as binary as either "Let's ban them all!" or "Let's do nothing!" I think that's the distinction people aren't making. That's an oversimplification, but I digress...

Correct me if I'm wrong @YourSweet666, but the comment seemed directed at the members who go out of their way to generalize Muslims and Islam without context; e.g, finding Muslims scary, detrimental to their personal safety, a risk to American society, etc. but failing to ever criticize the wrongdoings of their own religion, or examining the historical significance of things that might explain Why things are the way they are. History can be an important tool in combating recurring problems and I just thought the level of criticism being hurled at muslims and Islam were way too large coming from people who can't even find fault in our/their own culture, religion, or society. It comes off as distasteful or ignorant; lacking introspective thought; Like the people saying it hadn't really thought it all through before they got to demonizing millions of people  

It's fine to criticize negative things in society, imo no matter how "sacred" they are. I'm a pretty outspoken critic of most all religion in general to those that know me, but I'd argue that most of the things people were saying about Islam earlier today were pretty much on the level of "It's bad! There's Violence! Homophobia! Sexism!" with very little context, plan of action, any substance at all. Some people really haven't actually read the book and are just flying on what the media tells them without ever having done any of their own research. I can't speak for the intentions of any one else criticizing the basic condemnations of the entire religion, but I think that's another reason why people can so easily be like "Uhm, all of those things apply to *insert religion here* too!" - the criticisms are too general and lack nuance. Islam as a religion/culture is not wholly bad, rife with homophobia and sexism, etc. the same way Christianity as a religion and culture isn't, despite both holy books condoning, promoting and being partially responsible for a certain amount of it throughout history.

If we're going to have discussions about this and they can't be at least respectful of the people we are generalizing in the process and it can't be productive either, what's the point  Maybe that's a bit defeatist or "anti-free speech" of me () but I don't care. I'd be interested in having an actual discussion on the issue at an appropriate time instead of just people throwing out stuff in the midst of chaos and a national tragedy personally

Spoiler

It also seemed like a half-serious clapback that didn't require a followup, but that's just how I took it  

 

[SKANK 14,288]

Just now, YourSweet666 said:

 

The guy's ex wife and father claim he was not religious.

We have no idea about his knowledge of or relationship with Islam. 

His alegiance to IS could be politically motivated too, his parents are from country which was invaded by the U.S. army.

I didn't compare the tweet to massacre, I gave you another example of guy who planned to attack L.A. pride in the same way and there is no sign of certain members on that topic with their usual generalization. 

 

 

His father defended the Taliban and hosted a youtube show which featured anti-American rants, he also happened to raise a son who pledged allegiance to ISIS before committing the worst mass shooting in American history - that isn't a man whom I would ever feel comfortable citing as a legitimate source in defense of a terrorist's dedication to his religion - but I suppose we all have different standards.

"His alliance to ISIS could be politically motivated..." - Had he chosen to attack an American Military base or Government run building I would understand that logic. But he didn't. He killed gay men. ISIS's brutality against homosexuals isn't motivated by American's foreign policy, it's motivated by religion. What religion is that? Islam.

Disturbing little pew poll for you.

 

 

 

[lego 44,165]

12 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Correct me if I'm wrong @YourSweet666, but the comment seemed directed at the members who go out of their way to generalize Muslims and Islam without context; e.g, finding Muslims scary, detrimental to their personal safety, a risk to American society, etc. but failing to ever criticize the wrongdoings of their own religion, or examining the historical significance of things that might explain Why things are the way they are. History can be an important tool in combating recurring problems and I just thought the level of criticism being hurled at muslims and Islam were way too large coming from people who can't even find fault in our/their own culture, religion, or society. It comes off as distasteful or ignorant; lacking introspective thought; Like the people saying it hadn't really thought it all through before they got to demonizing millions of people  

 

 

You are not wrong.

[lego 44,165]

3 minutes ago, SKANK said:

that isn't a man whom I would ever feel comfortable citing as a legitimate source in defense of a terrorist's dedication to his religion - but I suppose we all have different standards.

 

What about ex wife who said he wasn't stable and used to beat her? She said he was not religious.

Is she not legitimate source?

He doesn't need to attack military if he's politically motivated. The American forces did commit war crimes against civilians in Afghanistan too. Groups like IS support attacks on civilian targets. And choosing gay club means he was obvious homophobe too. 

 

[SKANK 14,288]

11 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

What about ex wife who said he wasn't stable and used to beat her? She said he was not religious.

Is she not legitimate source?

He doesn't need to attack military if he's politically motivated. The American forces did commit war crimes against civilians in Afghanistan too. Groups like IS support attacks on civilian targets. And choosing gay club means he was obvious homophobe too. 

 

 

We don't know what his relationship to his ex-wife was at the time of the attack, how long they had been estranged. It is certainly possible that he radicalized after their divorce. For her own self interest it might not be wise to admit to marrying someone who was a religious extremist. There are a lot of factors at play when considering how valid her statements are.

So no, I don't think the public statements of his ex-wife or extremist Father carry much weight. I'm interested in what he had to say. He pledged his allegiance to ISIS. I don't think it's a stretch to condemn Islamic extremism as a response to this attack, nor to condemn the wide spread homophobia disproportionately prevalent in Islamic-majority countries.

Worth repeating:

 

 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

2 hours ago, Yo GagaGaga said:

can't wait to hear what the westborough baptist church has to say

 

The tweets from that church on this subject are nasty. I didn't post them because they don't deserve the bytes of memory it would take up on the internet.

[lego 44,165]

8 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

We don't know what his relationship to his ex-wife was at the time of the attack, how long they had been estranged. It is certainly possible that he radicalized after their divorce. For her own self interest it might not be wise to admit to marrying someone who was a religious extremist. There are a lot of factors at play when considering how valid her statements are.

So no, I don't think the public statements of his ex-wife or extremist Father carry much weight. I'm interested in what he had to say. He pledged his allegiance to ISIS. I don't think it's a stretch to condemn Islamic extremism as a response to this attack, nor to condemn the wide spread homophobia disproportionately prevalent in Islamic-majority countries.

Worth repeating:

 

 

 

 

"Morally wrong" is the same view huge number of Christians have in Russia and Balkan countries, same with members of other religions in Africa and Asia, but there are no many polls on that. 

So idk how much this Pew and their polls are reliable and non-biased. 

 

@Kayla had some interesting post about these polls in the past. 

 

 

[SKANK 14,288]

Just now, YourSweet666 said:

 

 

"Morally wrong" is the same view huge number of Christians have in Russia and Balkan countries, same with members of other religions in Africa and Asia, but there are no many polls on that. 

So idk how much this Pew and their polls are reliable and non-biased. 

 

@Kayla had some interesting post about these polls in the past. 

 

 

 

You are wrong. There is polling on that. Here you go:

 

Pew Research Center is non-partisan and the international standard in poll taking. If you don't trust their research then there is no research you will trust.

"Muslim countries remain among the least accepting of homosexuality...

Overwhelming majorities in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed also say homosexuality should be rejected, including 97% in Jordan, 95% in Egypt, 94% in Tunisia, 93% in the Palestinian territories, 93% in Indonesia, 87% in Pakistan, 86% in Malaysia, 80% in Lebanon and 78% in Turkey."

Below is a link to their study on global attitude's toward homosexuality.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

 

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, SKANK said:

 

You are wrong. There is polling on that. Here you go:

 

Pew Research Center is non-partisan and the international standard in poll taking. If you don't trust their research then there is no research you will trust.

"Muslim countries remain among the least accepting of homosexuality...

Overwhelming majorities in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed also say homosexuality should be rejected, including 97% in Jordan, 95% in Egypt, 94% in Tunisia, 93% in the Palestinian territories, 93% in Indonesia, 87% in Pakistan, 86% in Malaysia, 80% in Lebanon and 78% in Turkey."

Below is a link to their study on global attitude's toward homosexuality.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

 

 

That is not proper poll, the question is flawed "should society...", I need specific poll asking Russian and Balkan Christians about homosexuality being "morally acceptable" also the Christians living in those same Muslim countries and their views.

 

[SKANK 14,288]

12 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

That is not proper poll, the question is flawed "should society...", I need specific poll asking Russian and Balkan Christians about homosexuality being "morally acceptable" also the Christians living in those same Muslim countries and their views.

 

 

The problem isn't with the poll dear. It's been my experience that when the facts don't sync up with your point of view, the problem isn't with the facts, it's with your point of view.

It's not just one poll either. Read the entire study which I linked to you. It discusses Russian specifically. If that isn't enough for you read Pew's other research about Islam, homophobia, and religion. The facts are enlightening.

There is no doubt that homosexuals face persecution in Christian-majority countries, no one would suggest otherwise. It is equally certain that Muslim-majority nations are statistically more likely to discriminate against homosexuals than their secular or Christian counterparts.

Religion is a problem, one religion is a bigger problem then the rest.

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

3 hours ago, Princess Die said:

 

What a piece of ****. 

He's not a governor.