Random Politics & Religion #00

That part actually doesn't matter. The defining characteristic of a conspiracy is the intent for a negative effect. Whether that be an illegal act or just a means to inflict a negative result on someone or something.

Collusion is the synonym for conspiracy. Again, indicating an illegal or harmful act.

It's a simple mistake, especially in a living language (and second language as well). Why so defensive?

Mr. Kerry is chilling in my new hometown about 4km away from where I am.

Geez, it's not even a slow news day and there's still an irrelevant debate going on in here

Met Kerry once, briefly. He doesn't have that realpolitik vibe you get from watching Hillary, but he also didn't have that warmth and I got meeting my other senators like Elizabeth Warren, who allowed me to call her Lizwo.

Speak English dammit!

Enough with your imperialism!

UK Parliament voted on whether to bomb IS or not

397 for, 223 against

Today its a happy day for me, in particular.

The impeachment process was triggered and now the president has to pay for her incompetence.

Time to kick those populists scums out of this continent. Enough of lies and delusions. There is no other way but hard working and virtue. Feeding the poor with alms isnt a social politics. Its just plain bribing.

Retired Obama, John Kerry, & ft President Snowden

The important leaders are discussing this also.

@amyschumer
it doesn't have to be this way. join the movement and help us #endgunviolence -> http://wecanendgunviolence.org

Sadly enough I dont live in Iceland, but this is a religious organisation i would actually want to join and support (although zuists apparently is an ancient religion from 4000 years ago, from the current Iraq region), I've always stronly believed there should be an absolute separation between church and state.


Iceland: New religion aims to cut church-state ties
Board member Arnor Bjarki Svarfdal Arnarson says Zuists want the state to stop funding religious organisations

Icelanders are flocking to a recently founded religion which is promising them a rebate on their religious taxes, it's reported.

In recent weeks hundreds of people have registered as Zuist, a relatively new religion based on ancient Sumerian beliefs, the Iceland Monitor website reports. While it is officially recognised as a religious organisation in Iceland, its main aim is to achieve a legislative change - to abolish state funding for religious groups, apportioned from citizens' income taxes and known as parish fees.

The organisation is promising to give the cash it receives back to its members, and is calling for the government to stop collating information on Icelanders' religious beliefs. According to the Visir news website, more than 1,000 people have registered as Zuist, meaning they now outnumber Muslims in Iceland's population of 323,000. A Zuist spokesperson has since told the BBC that the figure now stands at about 3,000 members. Board member Arnor Bjarki Svarfdal Arnarson tells Visir that the Zuisim in Iceland group will disband once they achieve their objectives.

Newly registered Zuists expecting a parish fee windfall may be disappointed to discover that they'll be expected to pay income tax on any refund they receive, Iceland Monitor points out.

Recent polling has suggested that most Icelanders would favour a complete separation between church and state. A Gallup survey published in October shows more than 55% of people want the ties to be cut, an increase of almost 5% on the previous year.

Thanks for mentioning Iceland.

Dammit, now I have to go listening to Árstíðir.

I"m just shocked people live in a place called "iceland"

The name's there to fool you. It's beautiful.*Greenland works the same way, but in reverse, trying to get people to go there. -.-;
--Both images indicative of results returned on a basic Google search of the respective countries.

*Not that Greenland isn't also beautiful. It's just beautiful and cold and snowy.

I don't doubt it's beautiful but don't think I'd want to live there anyways.

Can we admit Islam have a violence problem today? Or are we still all gonna cover our eyes?

ftfy

Obviously there is a problem with people using Muslim/Islamic beliefs as a basis for horrific acts. Did anyone say otherwise? We simply refused to condemn everyone who follows a religion because its outliers are violent fanatics.

Was the shooting in California definitively linked to terrorism or Islamic beliefs yet, though? (Not a sarcastic question, last I knew, it hadn't been, it simply hadn't been ruled out.)

It wouldn't surprise me if it was given the facts we do currently know, but there appear to be additional factors at play.

But is condemning an entire religion based on fringe lunatics a good idea?

Can we admit that, black or white, secular or otherwise, our country has a gun violence problem even without blaming it on religion or race?

Or maybe humans in general just *** suck at society.

Who knows.

I think George Carlin may have said it best.

"People suck, *** hope."

To each their own.

I'm living where I am now for the foreseeable future one way or another, but I think it's a really beautiful place.

Can't be terrorism cause they didn't say "allah akabur" before shooting.

We don't have a gun violence problem, we have a human violence problem.

Until the guns rise up from their oppressors and slavers and start killing humans without the need of humans pulling their triggers, we cannot blame an inanimate object for our own faults.

People are going to kill people regardless of what tool they use to kill people with.

Don't worry about it Obama is going to stop this !

No, see, here's the thing. I'm not advocating for gun bans, you're taking what I'm saying as a standard knee-jerk "ban all guns" reaction, and I can see why, but that isn't my point at all.

We're a country founded on violent revolution in the era of firearm development. Guns have always been part of the American Mythos. The Bucktail Regiment sharpshooters. Davy Crockett's mythic musket skills and defending the Alamo. The old west six shooter. The gritty detective and his Colt .45. Dirty Harry and his .44 Magnum.

We have a culture that has tied itself and its notion of freedom, masculinity, and honor to guns. Taking them away isn't about simply getting guns out off of the street or out of the hands of criminals. If that was what gun bans did, it would be supported far more widely, and it is not.

Instead, we've intrinsically tied guns to our culture, and a certain portion of the population will rally -- to the death, by their own rhetoric -- before they let you take away a part of that national pride.

Hell, I'm against anti-gun legislation and I can see the benefits of it, even, at least in theory. I just don't think it will actually do much good in curbing America's very unique gun problem. Like so many other things that we've discussed in regard to social support programs, education, etc. that work in other countries, America is not a place where those same programs can be implemented in the same fashion and have the intended results.

What I'm suggesting is that we need to set the course now to begin shifting our patriotism and national pride away from glorifying guns and violence and death. Because that's precisely what we do right now.

This is where economics, education, and culture all tie together, and it's both America's strength and weakness.

All of these things meld to cause these issues. Our treatment of race and religions. Our treatment of the poor. The way we handle education.

They are all factors. Just banning guns is idiotic, we need to look at ourselves as a country and be willing to acknowledge our problems before we can fix them.

Some people would just rather insist they have no flaws, and that we as a country have no problems, and everyone else is to blame for the flaws in our country. Be it different social or economic classes, other countries, immigrants, whatever.

Look at ourselves how can we do that when we have smartphones ? And so many distractions that are more fun that mass shootings.

A root canal is more fun than a mass shooting. That's sort of the point. Try to keep some perspective.

Edit: That is to say, your point is part of them problem. Far, far too many people would rather *** about the speed of their Smartphone data connection than, you know. Something *** important.

Obama just talked all gun violence will now end.

The shooter worked for the government. His background was clean. What are lawmakers proposing that would have prevented this specific shooter from obtaining firearms?

They are pivotting ASAP to gun control to cover their *** because they know it is likely an ISIS related attack.

We are working on that King.

I didn't say that you were anti-guns. I'm just pointing out the misconception of "gun violence" where it's really "human violence" that's the issue at hand.