9 Dead in SC church shooting

[Brakeman]

It doesn't matter if they have them in their homes.  They have to be seen with them, or it has little or no impact on people's attitudes.  If groups of 10-12 black men strolled through white neighborhoods, openly carrying guns, that would be noticed.  But having a gun in their own homes does not any visual impact.

In the 60's, members of the Black Panthers marched and rallied carrying firearms.  The result?  The Mulford Act.
..

I thought this was apt..

[Brian37]

For those wondering I made the above statement, it is logically simple really.

For the same reason that the forces of nature, including diseases, cull our overpopulated earth, an act I view more as good than bad, the same can be stated for those people who murder.  They are being driven by their nature to kill, and I merely view it as a natural means of further lowering the population of the earth.

For a thinking, reasoning, response-able, otherwise intelligent being to put himself on the same level with mindless nature and disease is devolution, not evolution.

Your avatar alone suggests that you are not an atheist. If you’ve mistaken atheism for satanism, you’ve come to the wrong place. Yes, you can speak your depraved mind, but we’re not going to let you pretend to be one of us.

 Lets not pull the "true Scottsman" fallacy as atheists ourselves. All the word means is "off" or "empty" on god claims. 

Now if you want to argue that they have bad logic that leads them to make the claims they do, that is a different story. 

The only thing atheists have in common is "off" on god claims. But there are atheists who call themselves Satanists, just like there are secular Jews who don't believe in a god. I find the claim of being a Satanist absurd because the word is stemming from a mythological character stemming from religion anyway. 

But I do agree, saying "I am an atheist" in no way is a licence to be lawless or e rebel or harm others. But not even the word "atheist" automatically makes one moral. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution and not a patent invented by one label.

[Secular Elf]

Kitan, your view will never be a popular one, even if you set aside the empathy argument (and I suspect you're getting the reaction you wanted). Consider all the people who weren't shot in that church; I'm one of them. You asked for a few more, well, that could have been anyone one of us, or your family, or you. You have shown that you do not care who gets killed. You have shown that you do not value individual lives.

Good point Exian. Even I have empathy for people I have a basic philosophical difference with, the belief in the transcendental of any kind. I often criticize Christians and their religious beliefs, but I am not without a heart. Tears came to my eyes when I watched the news reports of the aftermath of the Charleston Church Massacre. Those 9 people were human beings, minding their own business, and opened their arms to Roof. Those 9 people did not have to die.

On my musings of what has transpired for the past few days, it occurred to me that in all the times I went to Atlanta Freethought Society meetings, who was to say some religious nutter with a beef against us heathens would never have come in to shoot up the Freethought Hall, and I as well as many others could be dead? It happened to Muslims, it has happened to Sikhs and Jews, and it could happen to us. Hate is not a respecter of anyone. It could have happened to any one of us.

So Kitan, please, have some dignity and humanity.

[Napoléon]

I am only disappointed that the number was not more than nine.

For those wondering I made the above statement, it is logically simple really.

For the same reason that the forces of nature, including diseases, cull our overpopulated earth, an act I view more as good than bad, the same can be stated for those people who murder.  They are being driven by their nature to kill, and I merely view it as a natural means of further lowering the population of the earth.

I don't remember you ever being this much of a nut Kitan. What happened?

[KUSA]

He has been persecuted by the church.

[Regina]

Kitan, your view will never be a popular one, even if you set aside the empathy argument (and I suspect you're getting the reaction you wanted). Consider all the people who weren't shot in that church; I'm one of them. You asked for a few more, well, that could have been anyone one of us, or your family, or you. You have shown that you do not care who gets killed. You have shown that you do not value individual lives.

Good point Exian.  Even I have empathy for people I have a basic philosophical difference with, the belief in the transcendental of any kind.  I often criticize Christians and their religious beliefs, but I am not without a heart.  Tears came to my eyes when I watched the news reports of the aftermath of the Charleston Church Massacre.  Those 9 people were human beings, minding their own business, and opened their arms to Roof.  Those 9 people did not have to die.

Exactly. I don't like any religion but that doesn't mean I think individual people who follow them have to die. It is still an abuse of human rights even if it's carried out by an atheist against religious people (I don't know if this situation was, I don't know Roof's religious beliefs, but just as an example).

I also agree with the people calling this a terrorist act. Let's call it like it is, it was a mass killing of innocent people which has scared other people, with the intent to further a political goal. It's textbook terrorism. It's not only terrorism if it's done by a Muslim, Dylann Roof is a terrorist.

[Brian37]

Good point Exian.  Even I have empathy for people I have a basic philosophical difference with, the belief in the transcendental of any kind.  I often criticize Christians and their religious beliefs, but I am not without a heart.  Tears came to my eyes when I watched the news reports of the aftermath of the Charleston Church Massacre.  Those 9 people were human beings, minding their own business, and opened their arms to Roof.  Those 9 people did not have to die.

Exactly. I don't like any religion but that doesn't mean I think individual people who follow them have to die. It is still an abuse of human rights even if it's carried out by an atheist against religious people (I don't know if this situation was, I don't know Roof's religious beliefs, but just as an example).

I also agree with the people calling this a terrorist act. Let's call it like it is, it was a mass killing of innocent people which has scared other people, with the intent to further a political goal. It's textbook terrorism. It's not only terrorism if it's done by a Muslim, Dylann Roof is a terrorist.

I hate the word "terrorist" because unfortunately, that is a subjective word. From the killer's perspective they are trying to right an injustice. The core to violence in reaction to a perceived injustice, is a deep seeded disenfranchisement,  combined with utopia idealism. McVeigh thought he was fighting the power the same as Isis. The only way to reduce this mentality, is for more humans to accept that there is no such thing as a utopia.

[Regina]

That's still textbook terrorism though. The hijackers in 9/11 probably thought they were martyrs who were doing justice to the world, that's how terrorists think. They rarely think of themselves as "terrorists". Calling it "terrorism" stigmatises this kind of violence towards a political goal, it's necessary. You are right by saying we have to accept no such thing as a utopia, but part of doing that is to make it clear being violent to achieve goals is futile, unnecessary and is terrorism.

To me motives are unimportant, it doesn't matter what he was thinking. Mass violence to further a political goal is terrorism.

I also feel like if you try and be relativist and consider his point of view, you're pandering to him. It makes it sound like his actions are somehow less reprehensible because "well he thought he was right". I'm sure you don't really think he was right, and I know most people don't. We have to be honest here, we're dancing around calling it what it is because he's white and his victims are black. "oh well, it might be terrorism, but let's consider his point of view". Nobody else gets that red carpet treatment, nobody.

[Brian37]

That's still textbook terrorism though. The hijackers in 9/11 probably thought they were martyrs who were doing justice to the world, that's how terrorists think. They rarely think of themselves as "terrorists". Calling it "terrorism" stigmatises this kind of violence towards a political goal, it's necessary. You are right by saying we have to accept no such thing as a utopia, but part of doing that is to make it clear being violent to achieve goals is futile, unnecessary and is terrorism.

To me motives are unimportant, it doesn't matter what he was thinking. Mass violence to further a political goal is terrorism.

I also feel like if you try and be relativist and consider his point of view, you're pandering to him. It makes it sound like his actions are somehow less reprehensible because "well he thought he was right". I'm sure you don't really think he was right, and I know most people don't. We have to be honest here, we're dancing around calling it what it is because he's white and his victims are black. "oh well, it might be terrorism, but let's consider his point of view". Nobody else gets that red carpet treatment, nobody.

Yea, well you can stigmatize any word. "Atheist" while those who use it value themselves, others use it as a slur to stigmatize those who don't hold a god belief. I don't like the word "terrorist" because yea, it may be an attempt to shame the perp, like you said they do it to be martyrs for a cause. "Terrorist" to me elevates what should be a mere criminal into a ideological hero. 

Its been said before by countless, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". I don't think you solve human divisions by using that word. "Terrorist" is a political word. Criminal is a mundane word and that is what we need to do, call them criminals. It should not matter what their ideology is. Remove that ideology, you are left with a street thug murderer. McVeigh was no hero he was a criminal. Isis are nobody's hero, they are murders, criminals. We should not be elevating either with the word "terrorist". Calling them that I think gives them more motivation than simply calling them criminals.

[Mister Agenda]

Another aspect of this story is how we Seculars are being criticized for our response.  Here is the link: How "Secular Humanists" Responded to Charleston Church Shooting  http://www.fitsnews.com/2015/06/18/how-s...-shooting/

That was the very first thing I wanted to look at after watching the news this morning.  My question was "I know we would criticize the prayer response, but I want to know how we should offer support for the people who are hurting from this."  You know, show our humanity towards those who lost their loved ones.  I am not saying we should not criticize the prayer response, I criticize it.  How would each one of us offer our support to them.  

I for one, would like to offer some kind of support in a fund to help offset their funeral expenses.  The hands that help are better far than lips that pray, as Ingersoll said.

An organization I am proud to have founded, the Freethought Society of the Midlands, has started a fund for the families of survivors that has raised over $3000. I know the Secular Humanists of the Low Country based in Charleston and other humanist groups in the state are also involved.
http://www.fsmidlands.org/

Just want to add that freethought/humanist groups across the state participated and raised over $12,000 as of yesterday afternoon. More groups than I knew we had.