Religious tolerance and multiculturalism

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.

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.

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?

Hey Panda, This is all true. I am not saying that I believe that he was a success. I am saying that I believe HE thinks he is a success. As to people taking him seriously, before he was largely ignored, now people are actually listening to him. They had better take him seriously, particularly the judge who sentences him. Listening to what he says, having a captive audience is taking him far more seriously than he has ever been taken before. i disagree. Some things are worth dying for. And killing for. All of the soldiers I know would agree. Again, I am not saying Breicik was a soldier. I am just saying that a lot of people have ideologies that are worth fighting for, even to the death. Ending slavery would be a good example. I do 100% agree that this mans agenda was worth nothing more than some serious discussion.I know that Breivik did not die in for his cause. My point was that a lot more people seem to be willing to kill for their cause rather than die for their cause.The agenda I was meaning by people talking about it is the problems that currently exist with multiculturalism. I just performed a news search for 'Norway massacre multiculturalims debate' and in the first 4 results were these three stories.The Washington Times - Oslo massacre sparks multicultural debate in Europe - Washington TimesReuters - Page Not Found | ReutersEuronews - http://www.euronews.net/...-pinpoint-multiculturalism-debateThe issue is being discussed. It may not be the result he was hoping for. I do not think it is a very effective way to communicate. The way I see it, you resort to violence when you are not smart enough to come up with an effective argument. That was just one single highly televised event. I chose it because it because it was obvious. By many, I do not mean the majority. You know some nice muslims, so do I. I know some athiests who are arseholes. That does not mean that many athiests are arseholes. But I will use stats rather than poorly worded examples. Sorry it is 1:15 am here and I am up with a baby.This is from the Muslimsagaisnt Crusade website. They are a britsih Islamic group. http://www.muslimsagainstcrusades.com/shariahHere is another story from a Bristish paper regarding growing radicalisation of islam in Britain -
Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UKand another one -
News - Breaking News UK, World News and Headlines - Daily StarIt is more than 25 people. The people most negatively effected by these groups are the Muslims like your friends. They are not the majority but they are certainly making life more dificult for the Muslims that succesfully integrate. We have the same issues to a lesser degree here in Australia. they are a problem for everyone. If it was a very small, ineffective minority, we would not even be having this discussion. That would be nice. How happy will you be if Sharia law is democratically is voted into Britain? This is just a chat. Pick and choose as you like. It is always good to get another persons perspective.

I should also add that the problem with multiculturalism is not just the people arriving into a new cultural group.It needs to be working both ways for it to actually be working.The people who are already there need to be happy too.The fact that far right extremist groups (and individuals like Breivik) are beginning to appear in many European nations is evidence that mulitculturalism is not working. Groups like the English Defense League, neo-Nazi youth protest movements and SIOE are good examples. Also, the centre right to far right political movement is beginning to appear and gain strength in many nations. Check out this site discussing the various groups -
Europe's far right | Gallery | guardian.co.ukThat page shows the democratically supported parties that are openly anti immigration. We are not talking about a few fringe groups or small numbers of people. In Austrian 1999, the Freedom Party received 27% of the vote (2.25 million people), The National Front in France recently received 17% of the votes (6 million people), In Italy in 2001 the National Alliance received 4% of the vote (2.4 million people), In Norway in 2010, the Progress Party received 14.7 % of the votes or 700 000 votes, in Switzerland, the Swiss People Party received 22.5% or 1.7 million votes. This is a lot of people who are not happy with the way multiculturalism is working.We cant just tell these people that they are wrong and they need to change and be happy with the way things are going. For multiculturalism to work, these millions of people need to be happy too. Those examples are just the far right political groups. It does not include the percentage of voters who voted for lesser conservative parties with weaker anti immigration policies.Remember that multiculturalism is the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures. This goes both ways.