The difference is that these "Christian" terrorists aren't acting on the instructions of respected religious leaders, nor are they following the teachings of the founder of the religion. Face it, the only major modern world religion that advocates violence is Islam.
Prominent US politicians and figures, including the president-elect, have called for the Christian equivalent of Sharia in some way, shape, or form (or have at least pandered to those sharing such sentiment). A basic example of this is the repeated attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ted Cruz openly implied that anyome who doesn't "fear God" or pray daily should be barred from becoming president. Mike Huckabee openly praised Chick-Fil-A in the not-too-distant past. A fierce battle had to be waged against the "theory" of "Intelligent Design" around a decade or so ago. Furthermore, even if there were no factor of dictates from "prominent leaders," we are still left with the fact that it doesn't take such leaders for people to take the violent texts of a book literally. That aspect and the one about the "founder of the religion" are chicanery at best. No single religion or group of people has a monopoly on fundamentalism. Buddhist fanatics have a history of carrying out violence against Muslims in Myanmar. The same is true of Hindu fanatics in India (the ruling BJP party has done such things). Joseph Kony's LRA wants Uganda to be subjected to the "rule of the Ten Commandments". Face it, the truth of the matter is that Christianity and Islam are closely related (they are both offshoots of Judaism). The Bible advocates plenty of violence, including genocide: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/genocide.html http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html?m=1 The main culprit of Islamist terrorism is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The US government has a long history of backing Islamist movements to further its own interests. Take their support of Bin Laden and Co. during the Soviet-Afghan War. They have long maintained an alliance with Saudi Arabia. The Middle East was destabilized by Bush and Obama (that place is going back to the Dark Ages, i.e. conditions there make fertile ground for religious fanaticism, just like how such conditions did the same thing for European Christians in the Middle Ages). The US government armed and financed "moderate rebels" (read: terrorists) against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. *EDIT* It seems that some people in those "Sharia patrols" have gotten into legal trouble: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/24/muslim-patrol-gang-arrests-homophobic-video
Other religions changed with the times, as their leaders understood that the primary goal of religion (uniting communities) no longer called for violent action in a decreasingly violent world.
And now we have arrived at special pleading. Everything I said above about other religious groups carrying out acts of terrorism to this very day can be objectively verified. Predominantly secular Muslim groupings like the Kurds also constitute a fly in the ointment here.
Why the hell do I keep putting myself through this? You know as well as I do that acts of radical Islamic terrorism happen almost daily, while modern "Christian" terrorism is extremely rare. You also know as well as I do that the reason Islamic terrorism is so prevalent is because many respected Islamic religious leaders actively encourage it. Even the most hateful of prominent Christians refrain from encouraging violence.
These nugatory statements of "you know..." are contradicted by actual evidence. Such an approach violates even the most elementary rules of logic. I have already put forth evidence and examples above that fatally undermine your contentions, and it is conveniently brushed aside for the sake of an agenda (painting Muslims with the "terrorist brush"). Truthfully, this method is analogous to those employed by anti-gun advocates; the facts are disregarded for the sake of pushing an agenda. What is objectively right happens to be disregarded for what "feels" right. MorphinBrony effectively refuted such an approach with a single sentence. The rotten special pleading also continues in the form of using quotations marks for instances of Christian terrorism and a lack of them when it comes to instances of Islamic terrorism.
Yeah, pretty much what I figured. Common knowledge means less than obscure "evidence." Liberal Logic 101.
The more I watch the Yoshi's Woolly World Let's Play the more I like it. I'll likely end up getting the 3DS port when it comes out.
And once again, we are left with the same methods employed by Alex Jones, "anti-vaxxers," The Flat Earth Society, North Korean propagandists, religious fundamentalists, etc. The facts literally mean nothing according to this method. Crass subjectivism and petty prejudices are simply reclassified as "common knowledge," and factual information that undermines one's contentions is simply brushed off as "Liberal Logic 101" or something similar. Such a method is so simplistic that anyone can use it to "prove" anything. For that reason alone, it should not be employed!
With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office Make corruption great again!
Isn't that the very same office that, under a Democrat, allowed corruption in the DNC to run so rampant that the party was able to successfully rig a national primary election?
Yes, because this is definitely going in the right direction. Transparency and accountability is only for when the dems are in charge apparently. Republicans just hate the US, it seems.
The House already has an Ethics comity and this independent one had no power in the first place. All it's ever done is act as a generator for propaganda.
Yeah, under the Dems, it was as corrupt as they are, but I still think that gutting it was a bit hasty.
I don't see the need for the redundancy. It will never be independent if it's staffed my members of Congress.
Well, like you said, it's always been a generator of propaganda. So it seems short-sighted to simply do away with it, rather than simply pointing that propaganda in a more conservative direction. And, like Trump pointed out, there are more important issues to deal with. This move temporarily strengthens the GOP, but it does nothing for the American people as a whole. There's too much going on to waste time with party politics.
