Church Arson

[Koravin]

Cirosan

It's interesting to see the sides of this argument.

I'm fairly certain that everyone in here, with their innate distaste for religion, had a small, primal voice in the crevices of their brain cry out, "Yeah! Church burned down! Score!" before the voice of reason chimed in.

That is human nature, is it not? That one small feeling that can never quite be quelled, where the light of common sense and the greater good cannot shine. Nay, we all have the desires of anarchy, that primal feeling of every-man-for-himself driving us.

We must never allow ourselves to backtrack to that point. The voice of reason, the drive that allows us to care about people other than us (and by extension institutions that we are not a part of), is all that separates us from animals.

To burn down a church solves nothing. To build a church solves nothing. Perhaps one day we'll learn what to burn down and what to build to solve something. Until then, it's purely trial and error.

I can understand why the suspect burned down a church. It was certainly not right, but I can see their side of the story.

I don't think that is 'human nature.' I don't believe you can really find any behavior that humans unilaterally possess. I didn't have that tiny voice that you do. I also have Asperger's Syndrome, so have very few emotions in common with 'normal' people.  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

Koravin

Cirosan

It's interesting to see the sides of this argument.

I'm fairly certain that everyone in here, with their innate distaste for religion, had a small, primal voice in the crevices of their brain cry out, "Yeah! Church burned down! Score!" before the voice of reason chimed in.

That is human nature, is it not? That one small feeling that can never quite be quelled, where the light of common sense and the greater good cannot shine. Nay, we all have the desires of anarchy, that primal feeling of every-man-for-himself driving us.

We must never allow ourselves to backtrack to that point. The voice of reason, the drive that allows us to care about people other than us (and by extension institutions that we are not a part of), is all that separates us from animals.

To burn down a church solves nothing. To build a church solves nothing. Perhaps one day we'll learn what to burn down and what to build to solve something. Until then, it's purely trial and error.

I can understand why the suspect burned down a church. It was certainly not right, but I can see their side of the story.

I don't think that is 'human nature.' I don't believe you can really find any behavior that humans unilaterally possess. I didn't have that tiny voice that you do. I also have Asperger's Syndrome, so have very few emotions in common with 'normal' people.

I agree with your perspective, from AS. I have the same, and I was struck with sorrow for the peoples' loss before anything else.

And I also agree that there's no real perfect "human nature." I do think, though, that we're all still affected by our instincts on some level, some more than others, and while it's not absolute, it generally causes some to be a bit barbaric at times. It can also weaknesses that we don't even notice.  

[Sagara-kun-Blue]

Tenth Speed Writer

You need to grow up, Anon. You clearly embrace Atheism as an act of rebellion more than anything. Stop using the title as an excuse to make yourself feel superior and grow some empathy for your fellow human beings.

I quite agree. That's horrible.  

[Sagara-kun-Blue]

AnonymouZ

Tenth Speed Writer

You need to grow up, Anon. You clearly embrace Atheism as an act of rebellion more than anything. Stop using the title as an excuse to make yourself feel superior and grow some empathy for your fellow human beings.

Well, seeing that you are NOT even an atheist... i can clearly take your opinion and put it on my "i don't give a ******** what gutless agnostics want ME to do" However. If you can't see atheism as a form of rebellion MORE than anything... well, it's so ******** obvious to ME that that was the reason why you gave up on it in the first place. Current WORLD views hold true the thought that there ARE invisible beings that like to ******** and heal the world at will. Going against something that rules the lives of half the world IS a ******** rebellious act. "What about those that are NOT violent" you say? Well, it's still a ******** rebellion of the mind.

re·bel·lion [ri-bel-yuhn]
–noun
1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.
2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
3. the act of rebelling.

I go mostly for the second meaning... but what the hell do "I" know.

ProjectOmicron88

I don't give a damn how much someone disagrees with religion, harming innocent people or unwarranted destruction of property is never justified, under any circumstance.

Ah yes. I thought it was tenth who was going to come up with the harming people argument. To that i should clarify that i go for arson, not harming people. Not yet, anyway. However, i think you're stretching a lil' too much the phrase "under any circumstance." If i had been raped by a priest of a certain church, had tried suing the ******** and he gets away with a slap on his wrist and another location where he can abuse his position again i would've done something to that extent. If i was the parent of a kid like that, i'd do the same. If the church leader kept attacking my way of life and kept stirring people up against me, and i was also in dire need of lithium, i'd burn the damn thing. Why the ******** not? It's only a church, and no one got injured... did they?

Lethkhar

But doesn't that just prove to them that religion is necessary for morality?

No, violence is never the proper route. We have to show compassion for people, or we're no better than them.

It would prove there's still crazy people out there. But... who are we kidding here? Are you telling me that christians don't do arson?

Violence is not the answer? I bet many of you were all excited when "V" finally blew up the parliament. Violence, in the right setting and context can bring awesome amounts of change in a determined location. And if used or enhanced properly, it can change a whole lot of people beyond this determined location. Look at ANY countries fight for independence. Look at their revolutions. Civil wars and FIGHTS (literal ones too) for rights and recognition all finally started to pick up or gather more strength when violence was used.

"What about Gandhi" you say. "He gained a whole lot of people's independence with a PEACEFUL movement!" And to that i say. Was it sustainable? Is something like that truly achievable, AGAIN?

With media that gets more ratings by telling lies, or distorting the reports; with a government bolder than before that COULD just take you out of the picture by putting you in a prison who knows where, or might as well kill you; with all this in mind, WHO THE ******** IS WILLING TO BE A MARTYR? For ANY cause now? Those that are doing it right now, would we EVER find out about their actions? With censored news, and a government that is already against this... i think not.

Violence gets attention. The age of idealistic, peaceful movements came and went. Either that, or current leaders have NO balls, since they already know how that ends up. ALWAYS.

John F. Kennedy - Assassinated (murdered, depending your point of view)

Martin Luther King - Assasinated

Gandhi - Shot (murdered)

Vernon Jordan - shot and critically wounded (civil rights leader)

Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, James Miller. - Run over by army bulldozer, shot while taking a kid away from gunfire, and murdered(?) (respectively)

Zilla Huma Usman - murdered (for not wearing a veil)

*edit* damn you danneskjold... now it seems like i copied your ideas! Still... mine seem to be a bit more "radical" so i'm just gonna leave mine as is too... domokun

My god, you sound just like my exboyfriend. And he used to be a Nazi. Now he's just an a-hole. He hated Ghandi because he had "no balls" word for word, this is creepy..... evil talk2hand  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Well, Ghandi and his uber-pacifist ways were beyond pathetic, they were counter productive. It was not due to the 'peaceful protests' that everyone celebrates, but the independence fighters, those running around shoting the british police and soldiers, that made independece worth the Empire's while.

Oh, and to the comment by Tenth back on page 1 about Martin Luther: He was no pacifist: He tried to rally the german nobility into a war against the Pope. It was onlt when he got into a controversy with Thomas Muenzer, where Thomas was more radical(at times he came out even as an atheist... That and he had the whole 'kill all the nobles who oppose us and take their stuff' style of primitive communism) than Luther. So, Luther toned his rhetoric down, and then went in the opposite way, he brought back the fire and brimstone against Thomas Muenzer.

Now, while I share the disdain for pacifism that Anon radiates, I do so out of an acceptance of force as necessary in history. Anon's ranting is rather childish, and among friends, where all know when another is joking, I would say some of the same things that that child has said. But it would be nothing more than me going 'hehe, suckers' in a more elaborate fashion.

After that rather large disclaimer I have to say this: Violence is not inherently bad. It has the same value as what it accomplishes (and then there is the issue of the repercussions of said violence upon the initial goal).


As Trotsky said to the people suggesting the Red Army rely solely on propaganda: Truth is not stronger than Artillery.