Essay talk:Be Thankful for Orlando

"Radical imams"

Would you also have the FBI monitor Bundy-esque Christians? FuzzyCatPotato of the Pimpalicious Cubicles (talk/stalk) 06:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Me, atheist (publicly agnostic humanist, like Bernie) president of the US with a slim but loyal majority in both houses? Sure. PBfreespace (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved here

I like what you wrote, though have a few criticisms:

• Banning insane people (what many Republicans like and you seem to suggest) from having guns is denying them agency. Though it may be effective, this has been hard to advocate in politics ever since the lunatic asylum system was disbanded.

Any restrictions of mentally disabled people (be it forced medication for schizophrenics, not allowing them to vote (we know in pensioner's home they are occasionally coerced by their so-called caretakers) or make own financial decisions) ::will unlikely be written into law. Ironically, people able to carry out a mass shooting may be above a low limit (say IQ 70), since good task execution requires some brainpower.

• Gun access is now difficult to restrict for criminals (in that, the NRA is probably right). There are millions of weapons in the States and most homicides are committed with handguns rather than assault rifles.

Perhaps restricting the amount of ammunition or "smart guns" might remedy the problem.

• You are not harsh enough on mosques :) Full religious freedom is called theocracy and the government should be able to fight all religious groups that intend to overthrow the state.

I live in Glasgow (UK) where the local mosque was likely complicit in an attempt to bomb the airport and had hate preachers. Some weeks ago, a Muslim was murdered by a rival Muslim sect for wishing someone "happy Easter".

You can see propaganda against this sect openly in shop windows in the south side of this city :|

And yet who was arrested? A Twitter user who called a Muslim's reaction to the event a "mealy-mouthed reply". While of course the poor fanatics must be protected from Islamophobia.

And while a PUA was banned from entering the country, several islamists and criminals are allowed to enter the country and even live there with total impunity. Often because their "human rights" might be violated in case of deportations.

I have futher no sympathies for the government creating jobs and funding mosques for people because of their religion. In this fashion, truly dangerous religions like Islam get (protection) money paid even if their loyalty is dubious, can ::have their critics arrested for "hate crimes" while rather well-behaved religions like Scientology or Anglican Christians get no such money, representatives or blasphemy protection.

193.62.251.21 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Its good to know there are people here more authoritarian on the issue than me. I used to be very close to the total freedom side of the whole Muslim argument. Since then I've grown a little. If we're going to have the FBI doing a shit-ton of surveillance like we have right now, why not have them take a good look at the mosques? Now I'm willing to accept either side on this issue, since I don't think it's very important either way. The proposition I made in this essay doesn't necessarily reflect my actual belief; it was simply a proposition. PBfreespace (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Fully disagree

Any restriction of religious freedom is morally problematic and, more importantly, counter-productive. How, exactly, do you intend to be "harsh on Mosques," for instance? The solution is not crackdowns on extremism but state anti-theism. Even a child can refute the religious position; with a strong educational campaign in schools regarding the Abrahamic religions and their apologetics the next generations will reject ignorance in ever increasing percentages.

The obstacle standing in the way is not the Islamists (at least not in the West) but the regressive left, who refuse to admit religion is a social ill - and if they do, they frequently handwave it anyway via cultural relativism. The state must be willing to only step on toes, but contain riots and similar unrest in religious communities who will not like their children taught rational worldviews. Additionally, optional religious schools must be banned - though believers should still be able to send their children to extracurricular schooling, such as Sunday school or Qur'an classes.

The lynchpin of the strategy is the fact that learning more about religion is the key to dismissing it. Believers must be allowed to present their best arguments and education, so that learners can see how intellectual hopeless the religious position is.

Also, note that by "anti-theism" I don't mean attacking all belief, or even belief in Allah/God per se. I only mean assaulting the Abrahamic religions. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself. You started out by saying we shouldn't restrict religious freedom, and ended by saying the state should 'assault the Abraham religions'. Just pointing that out. Now it's ironic that you should criticize me for that, because I'm getting the sense we actually agree on this issue.

First, I never said we should restrict religious freedom. I guess our disagreement here stems from what the definition of religious freedom is. The Constitution says that free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited. That's subject to interpretation, and quite frankly, genuinely and seriously calling for a certain group of innocent people to be killed doesn't count as religious freedom in my book.

Regarding state policy, I think the government should be openly secular. I don't actually believe the government should 'crack down on mosques'. CCTV cameras, mosque marshals, etc. aren't really needed. All I'd actually do as President is ensure FBI is investigating mosques that moderate Muslims have complained to the government about. It already works that way in some places in America, and that should be the norm. PBfreespace (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I want the religious to be able to do whatever they want short of violence - build places of worship, say whatever, etc. That is how I define religious freedom. The state should gradually remove the Abrahamic religions via education and counter-apologetics, however. This is not contradictory - you can choose to believe whatever you want at the end of the day, and build churches/mosques/etc, but the state will nonetheless inform you that your beliefs are not supported. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "I want the religious to be able to do whatever they want short of violence". I'll leave it at that. PB (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Syntax

• whacko lived in a Muslim bubble where his father kept telling him how bad men living and other is.

Not sure what was intended here, but the last part seems to have fumbled over syntax. Also, the Wounded Knee Massacre remains the deadliest mass shooting in US history. This may be the largest one caused by a single gunman, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up. PBfreespace (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Be thankful

Not sure why we should be thankful things might but probably wont change, and not disgusted that its come this. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not be thankful for massacres. I also can't see why it would be "harder for Republicans to blame the left for trying to implement its evil agenda" when they are already blaming the incident on immigration policy & multiculturalism. Any gun control debate emerging from the Orlando massacre is likely to be indistinguishable from that after every mass shooting, & will probably be overshadowed by framing the massacre as a terrorist attack. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

We've been the closest to achieving gun control in three and a half years, since Newtown. Sadly the pussy Democrats ended their sit-in and conceded like little loser bitches to the supposed might of the NRA-backed Republicans, claiming their sit-in was to raise awareness for the campaign and not to actually get a fucking bill passed. Ridiculous. I have no representatives in Congress besides Bernie Sanders. PB (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)