Religious tolerance and multiculturalism

Hello Panda, I dont think it is a lack of pride in most people. Just a stronger sense of humbleness and humanity in people. You can be both proud and humble at the same time. This man lacked humanity. There is a coldness and ruthlessness about him that aloowed this manifestation of his pride. I am proud of my country too, but my pride is tempered by sufficient respect for my fellow man not to kill someone if they do something that I feel is bad for my country. I disgagree with many of my countries environmental laws and I feel they are damaging my country and this hurts me. But there are better ways of making ones voice heard. maybe not as explosively as this mans voice. But the horror of his act will overshadow any ideology he wishes to put forward as his reason. I think madness is too easy. I think it would be too easy to just say he was crazy. I could not find a word because I think that the english language does not yet have a word to properly describe it. All of the words I thought of, including madness were insufficient. I could not come up with a word that was strong enough. I dont think madness cuts it. I also dont think he was crazy. Any more than any soldier is crazy when they kill someone on a battlefield. That seems to be what he thought he was. This particular delusion may fit into the mental illness catagory as he certainly was not in a war as we see it. But in his eyes, he was a soldier. He is more than probably more than just mad. He seemed to hate liberal politics, marxism and political correctness above all else. He did not seem to hate the individual Islamic people themselves. He hated the form of government that allowed the problems that he was seeing. While there is a lot of anti Islamic sentiment in his ravings, he hates the people who have 'allowed' the things he disgrees with to effect his life. Those children were the best and brightest of the political system that he sees as responsible for the things he hates about the world around him. What was he after? He wanted someone to listen to him. From what I have read he was active in a number of far right web groups. He has been removed from some because of his extreme views. He left one because he thought that they were not extreme enough. He seems to be a loner. I doubt he thought people understood him. Which is not really surprising considering the nature of his views. I would say that he has been screaming for a long time and noone has been listening. If there can be a positive outcome to this it will be that intelligence groups will monitor the type of web groups he was in to try to spot people like this before they have the capabiltiy to do anything like this again. Hopefully they will be able to learn from him as they do from all killer, how to better spot people who could become a danger to others.As to inconsistancies and randomness. I would need you to point out what you mean. This guy was anything but random. He operated a small farming business for 3 years in order to purchase the fertiliser in sufficient quantity to make his bomb without arousing suspicion. I beliece he was so dangerous because he was not random or inconsistant.

Spot them and do what exactly.Do we need Thinkpol now?Edited by jar, : hit wrong button

Hello Caffeine,I poorly phrased the sentence where I said that we pretend their behavious is ok. What I was trying to get at is that many publishing outlets, nealry all in the USA, New Zealand and Australia as well as many in Europe self cencored in order to avoid negative publicity and violence. There were attacks planned and even carried out into 2010 on the newspaper and the cartoonists (the cartoonist survived by hiding in a panic room while police shot the axe wielding assailant). There are people who think that this behavious is acceptable. Those people are the people who were waving the banners, screaming for blood, the people who planned attacks on the newspapers, boycotted Danish companies and proclaimed their right to murder. These people thought that this was acceptable. This may be fine in their country. But it is not acceptable in the countries they were in. There is a disctict problem with any ideology that allows you to belive you have the right to hust another human being. Particulalry if that human being is doing something that is socially and culturally acceptable in the country he is doing it. No, that it is not what I said at all. To say society is failing is a very broad brushstroke. I said that multiculturalism in its current form, when applied to this set of issues is failing. I belive that this is true. I was not convinced of this because of one mans acts.Deranged psychopath may be an accurate description. But it will take a fair bit of professional work to establish that. He does generally fit the profile of a psychopath given his history. I would not jump to the easy diagnosis of mental illness so quickly though. I think it goes deeper for this particular man. I think you misunderstand me again.How do you accept someones beliefs as important to them?You act as if they are true.It does not mean I accept them, or believe them, but I have to act in the same manner that I would if I believed them to be true.Someone says that his religious beliefs say thet he has to wear a yellow shirt on Wednesdays. Our uniform is blue. In order to accept that these beliefs are important to this man, I have to allow him to wear his yellow shirt on Wedesdays. I have to act as i would as if this mans beliefs were true.Using your words - "You are not accepting these peoples beliefs as true. You're accepting them as important to these people. It's not the same thing at all."Given the yellow shirt scenario above, how would the two things you say are not the same thing pan out differently.As for the Ramadan thing. It is not a law as yet. However, a Ramadan paper was circulated through the federal government area my partner works in advising that all Islamic employees would not be able to eat during daylight hours. They were told to expect problems with certain tasks and some tasks would have to be allocated to other non Islamic staff as they would not be eating all day. The same goes for my company, additional tasks have been allocated to some staff in production in roles they do not normally perform to take up the slack for staff who have been issued lighter duries because they have advised they will be fasting during daylight hours. We cant just say that we dont believe in their religion so we are not recognising this problem for them. We have to act as if their religion were true and make allowances.

So - he did not commit those crimes because he was proud; many people are proud.
He committed those crimes because he lacked humanity.
Lacking humanity is a symptom of being a psychopath - i.e. insane. It is not the same as a soldier killing another combatant on a battlefield.
If a soldier kills an innocent bystander by accident he feels guilt.
If a soldier walked around shooting innocents on purpose he would be arrested and probably found to be insane. It was in a bit of my previous post you missed: His actions make little sense if the aim was to have people listen to him.
Even those people that agree with his opinions are distancing themselves.
Even if his actions were planned; his reasoning was completely illogical. Lessons were learnt a long time ago - but the media refuses to listen.
The best thing that can be done about mass-murders is not report them nationally or globally.
Every-time there is a mass-murder there are frequently copy-cat murders by people wanting the same publicity.
Publicity fans the flames of fanaticism.

Hey Jar,There would be a number of things they could do.I would say investigate if the person has access to weapons or bomb making material.Investigate any suspicious activity. eg scouting a particular location known to be used by the opposing groups, making large financial transactions for strange reasons etcLaw enforcement groups uncover terror cells and prevent attacks on a fairly regular basis.

But should they? What is wrong with having access to weapons?Do you know how easy it is to make a bomb and how many potential bomb components also have very legitimate uses? Do we want to make access to peoples daily actions and financial records even easier?

Hello Panda,I would say that pride was the underpinning trait that lead him to his particular ideologies. Lack of humanity lead him to commit the act.A soldier can kill an enemy combatant and justify this to himself. A fighter pilot who shoots a missile into a building would know that they are killing people who are not a direct threat. Snipers kill people from a great distance without that person even knowing they are there. There are a lot of examples of killing people that are not in a battlefield life or death situation. The soldier just needs to justify his actions to be able to do it. This man saw his enemies and saw himself as a soldier. He does feel guilty about his acts. He has said they were "atrocious but necessary". He has also stated recently that "He wanted to hurt the Labour party and halt its recruitment in the worst possible way, referring to party members as marxists."
(link - Redirecting) Essentially yes. He was attempting to hurt the group that he saw as most dangerous to his ideologies. He said he wanted "to give the Labour party a warning that 'doomsday would be imminent' unless the party changed its policies"It seems he did not blame the Islamic people for the problem he saw. He blamed the Labour government.I also strongly agree with your comments regarding the media and publicity. I was more referring to law enforcement groups learning from him. But your point is still a good one. The internet, Facebook and Twitter etc are very easy ways to find other people who share or at least support your ideologies. The media also inflates problems in order to sell papers. Some of the pressures that he felt were no doubt put into his head my media groups. And there would be individuals who support his ideology who are following this story with great interest.Sometimes it is a fine line between discussing controversial ideologies in order to get them out into the open so everyone is aware of a danger and blowing something out of proportian to make a buck.

Hi Butterflytyrant, The ideology is not illegal. It is also not a sign of madness. No-one is complaining about him being prideful.
It is the killing of innocents that is both illegal and a sure sign of him being insane. Then he was behaving irrationally - like a madman would. That is still a million miles away from walking up to innocent children and shooting them dead.
I repeat: if a soldier did what Breivik did - he would be arrested and considered insane.
A soldier could not walk around Helmand Province shooting children without being tried for war crimes.
Giving Breivik the status of being a soldier is an insult to both his victims and to soldiers in general.
He was not a soldier "fighting the good fight" - he was a psychopath murdering innocent people. Yup - sounds like the sort of thing a nut-job would say.He was unhappy with society - he picked one aspect of it at random and went off and shot loads of kids "to make a point".
I am really unsure why you think he wasn't completely mentally deranged.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hey Panda,You are very quickly and confidently jumping to the conclusion that this man is mentally ill. The motivation behind his acts is not insanity. This was not a psychopathic rage. A person does not spend 3 years planning to be insane on a particular day. He may have mental problems that allowed him to do these things but I am not confident of that either.Let me put it another way.The ability to kill another human being does not require mental illness.It is incorrect to assume mental illness in all people who kill other people.The kamakazi bombers in WW2 were not mentally ill. Suicide bombers are not mentally ill. A person who shoots someone to get away with a robbery is not mentally ill. Evidence of this can be seen with the low amount of insanity pleas that actually succeed.Killing innocent people is not a sign of madness.Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate reasoning, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful or more illogical than other more rational alternatives. This is the def of irrationality - Irrational behaviors of individuals include taking offense or becoming angry about a situation that has not yet occurred, expressing emotions exaggeratedly (such as crying hysterically), maintaining unrealistic expectations, engaging in irresponsible conduct such as problem intoxication, disorganization, or extravagance, and falling victim to confidence tricks.This individual was not irrational. He had a perfectly rational reason to be unhappy with his government. The level of his choice of response is extreme. This does not make him mentally ill. He is aware of the horror of his actions. An irrational person would not be aware that their actions are unacceptable. He knows that he did the wrong thing.
He chose to do the wrong thing. I am not giving him the status of soldier. This is his description of himself. He considered himself as a soldier. There are plenty of examples of people who call themselves soldiers and kill civilians. Look at the IRA, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, abortion doctor killers and soldiers in the American War of Indepenence. Like these examples, he thought he was a soldier fighting the good fight. Again I say that he is aware that his actions were reprehensible. He knows this. But he thought they were necessary. His does not fit the definition of sane. However, no killer does. No killing can be considered sane by its definition. Even if he is a soldier. He was unhappy with society. He did NOT pick one aspect at random. He was very careful in his selection. If he was picking a target at random he could have chosen people who litter, or people who read books he does not like. He did kill children to make a point. This is not an uncommon thing. Salmun Rushdie had to go into hiding because people thought they had the right to kill him to make a point. Ayaan Hirsi Ali still has to have armed guards bevause people want to kill her to make a point. People are killed regularly to make a point.
It does not make their would be killers mentally ill.I am not defending this man. I have as yet seen no evidence that he is completely mentaly deranged. Not all killers are. The biggest factor against this idea that he is completely mentaly deranged is that he was 100% aware that he was doing the wrong thing. Not just in a legal sense. He knew he was performing a terrible act.

But he did in fact have unrealistic expectations.He wants, does he not, to advance his agenda? And his excuse for his murders is that he committed them in the hope of so doing. And yet the fact is that his actions will not advance his agenda. Instead, it will associate his agenda with murder and hate and death. His actions will, if they have any effect at all, work against anything he thinks he wants to achieve.When Panda asked you: "So he chose targets that also hurt his cause?" you replied: "Essentially yes."So as an example of rationality, it's on a par with McDonald's trying to sell hamburgers by taking out ads saying that they kick puppies to death and then grind them up for hamburger meat. It's asinine.His expectations that his murders would help his cause are as unrealistic as unrealism can be. And by the definition that you yourself have supplied, that is irrational thinking.

Hello Dr Adequate,It remains to be seen if his expectations were unrealistic. He has said that the important part of his work begins with his arrest. We dont know what will come of this yet. It depends on what happens in the future. Sometime over the next few years or decades, his expectations may be fulfilled.With regards to Pandas questions : "So he chose targets that also hurt his cause?"I may have misunderstood what he meant. When i said yes to this I meant that he chose the victims because they were damaging to his cause. I did not mean that killing them would damage his cause. He believes that killing them would help his cause. And it has. He wants people to listen. People are definitely listening now. These killings have had a huge positive impact on his cause. Evidence of this is the huge amount of press he has received. His manifesto has now been read by a much larger audience. We are talking about it now. Being arrested for the crime is one key part of his plan. International attention to his cause is one of his objectives. It is quite rational to believe that killing a lot of people will get you a lot of attention.

I do not see the positive impact you claim has happened.
Even the National Front (an unsubtle racist organisation) has suspended members for supporting Breivik's actions.Sure, if all Breivik wanted was to be heard - then he has achieved his aim.
But if he wanted people to support his cause, then he has failed miserably.
In fact, only a madman would expect that murdering innocent children would make anything but a pariah of themselves.Yes, as you say, we are talking about him.
But we are not talking about his agenda.
We are just discussing how mad (or not) he is and how disgusting his actions were.His agenda is insignificant compared to the atrocities he committed.
I doubt that anyone (except the most committed racists) would bother to read his 1500 page diatribe, anyway.If you can see a positive result following on from his killings, perhaps you could describe it?
Being listened to is not positive if people condemn you for what you are saying.No-one is going to be convinced that multiculturalism is wrong by shooting their children.
Only someone completely removed from reality could think that it would.

Hello Jar, Nothing, I have a number of guns in a locked cabinet in my home. However, I do believe that some people cannot use their weapons responsibly. Brievik is one such man. I believe that the families of his victims would have preferred it if he had not been able to get hold of guns. The laws in Australia are quite strict with regards to weapons. It is pretty hard to get the and they are checked at random. Only a few weeks ago some police came to do a check on our weapons and storage. I wont get into the gun debate though, I just follow the laws of my country. Also, I believe that even with much more strict gun laws, this guy would have got them anyway so I dont think that stronger gun control would have stopped it.As to the bomb making materials. I found a copy of the terrorist handbook when I was much younger and made things that went bang out of normal household chemicals. Nothing serious. Just a bit of childish (though probably pretty dangerous) fun. I am aware that it is pretty easy.But if you find a guy who is sounding like he is pretty militant in his ideologies, has got his hands on some guns and has recently bought a shitload of fertilizer, it should ring some bells. I am no fan of a police state. I do think that police should be able to look a little harder at people they believe may be dangerous. However, after thinking about it a bit I have realised that I would probably have been under a this scrutiny if it did exist. I own guns, some of my views are far right, some are far left, on my bookshelves I have a huge amount of controvercial books including Mein Kampf, Manifesto of the Communist Party, The Satanic Verses, The Peacefull Pill Handbook, 1984 etc, I also work with fertilizers and poisons in large quantities. Maybe this is not a great idea after all?

Hey Panda, I was not refering to positive impacts to you or I, I was referring to impacts he would see as positive.a list of objectives he would see as fulfilled1. A direct loss of life of individuals he saw as the cause of his problem.
2. The wide distribution of his manifesto.
3. Huge amount of media attention to his cause. He has stated that the significant part of his plan begins with his arrest.
4. People now take him seriously.I would say he would consider his actions have been a great success.As to his actions. I am aware that pretty much everyone is distancy themselves from his actions. But who is distancing themselves of the ideology? It is true that it is doubtful that he will win over anyone new. But a lot more people are discussing the issue he wants discussed. Today I have read articles in the New York Time, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Washington Times, EuroNews, The Herald Scotland, The Foreign Policy Journal, The Guardian and many others specifically discussing the multiculturalism debate in light of this massacre. And the stories are often quite similar. Despise the actions but discuss the ideology. I disagree. How do you make that judgement? How many lives is his agenda worth? How many lives is anyones agenda worth? I would not make a judgement like that because it is very subjective. Many people have causes they believe are worth dying for. The amount of people with agendas they believe are worth dying for is usually less. I personally dont understand most of the arguements for killing people to justify your opinion. But everyone is different.I am far from a committed racist and I have a copy of his manifesto. So do my brothers and my father. We have a copy to study it. Also, he was not a racist. Islam is not a race. Keep in mind that there are black, white and middle eastern Muslims in Norway (probably some Asian ones too). Also keep in mind that he killed mostly white people. This is not an issue of race. The people he hated most were liberal, white, democratic Norwegians. True. But many people are not condeming him for what he was sying. They are condeming him for the way he said it. people are now talking about the elephant in the room. Also true. Forcing someone around to your way of thinking will not work. But there are a lot of groups now discussing the multicultural issue. There are plenty of people who do not know anyone who died in the attack who would be starting to discuss the issue. There are a lot of people who have been too afraid to discuss multiculturalism because they would incorrectly be labled as a racist or that silly new word islamophobic. Now it has to be discussed. It is too serious an issue to be treated with soft gloves anymore.The current system is not working. Many immigrant Islamic people are not happy with how their lives are in different countries, the bombs in London buses would be a very good example of this. Many people in those countries are not happy about how things are going either. examples of this are the far right neo nazi groups, the EDL on the extreme end and the fact that in many European nations, the second biggest parties have openly anti immigration policies. It is not just the fringe minotrities who are beginning to voice their concerns.If there is such strong opposition from both sides with the way things are, then we need to come up with something new. Something both sides are happy with.What I am suggesting is that we work out a way that people like Breivik, the people on the street screaming for blood after the Danish cartoons, the people who want to kill Salmun Rushdie, the people who want to wear burqas, the people who want to have Islamic schools and the people who want to smear peanut butter on their bodies and do nudey runs can all be happy.Is there something wrong with that?

Hi Butterflytyrant, "Huge amount of media attention to his cause." - and most of it is negative. Gary Glitter had massive media attention too. On balance: not a success.
"The wide distribution of his manifesto." - Yes, it has been widely distributed.
"A direct loss of life of individuals he saw as the cause of his problem." - since many of them were below the voting age, I suspect only a madman could blame them for the government's policies - but since he is mad, I expect that he does consider their deaths a success.
"People now take him seriously." - I am not sure what you mean by 'take him seriously'. Before the attack he was ignored - and now he is loathed. Is that a good thing for him? How many lives is someone's agenda worth? IMO: None.
And you may not be willing to make a judgement about how many lives an agenda is worth, but Breivik was more than willing to.
He decided it was as many as he was able to kill. 76 lives in total.
I am not sure why you are asking about causes people are willing to die for, as Breivik didn't die for his cause.
It was only innocent people that died for his cause. But most people aren't talking about his manifesto.
Here is a good example: http://mangans.blogspot.com/...s-ideology-doesnt-matter.html
Many voices, but none actually talk about the details of the manifesto.
If someone does talk about the details they tend to be told to shut up: http://en.rian.ru/world/20110728/165431856.html
Breivik has undermined his own agenda. Most people are distancing themselves from his ideologies.
As I said previously, even the National Front is distancing themselves from his ideologies.
As a consequence of Breivik's actions, it is now very difficult to criticise multiculturalism without being tarnished by Breivik's 'psychopath' brush - and no-one wants to be touched by that brush. If by 'many' you mean about 25, then I might agree.
But if by 'many' you mean 'the majority of' then I strongly disagree.
I have friends who are Muslims - I work with Muslims - I have customers who are Muslims: they all like living in Britain.
The bombs in London were planted by psychopaths and were condemned by the majority of Muslims. We already have a way - it is called democracy.p.s.
If I have missed out responding to any part of your post it is not because I am ignoring it, but I am trying to mitigate each reply getting longer and longer.
If you feel I have skipped a particularly important remark, then please repeat it and I will address it.