MD Jazz said:
Do you like the fact he quoted the bible? And noted the victims were not blameless?
At what point did the victims take the sword? I know a guy threw an EFTPOS machine at the killer but he didn't have an AK-47 handy.
Do you support his words?
I don't think what he said was appropriate given how emotionally charged people are, but I can see some truth in some of what he says but a lot of what he says is false. I put you on the spot rather than most of the other people that have reacted emotionally to what Anning said because you aren't a staunch cheerleading full blown socialist like they are so I thought you might be someone worth talking to about it.
I see you have missed the start of what his statement read:
"I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and I totally condemn the action of the gunman." - good start.
"However, whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence. The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place" - seems obvious to me that there are many people upset with the numbers of Muslim's that have moved to AU/NZ. I'm not so quick to think shouting "RACISTS" is a sufficient response like a lot of people are. I think people should have the right to determine who comes to not only live in their community but to join with them politically. Many people feel disenfranchised with the current immigration and citizenship policy and when they do not have a peaceful solution to it, their options become limited. Given how charged people throughout history have become to perceived injustices at the hands of other groups and given how illiberal Muslim countries are to the rights of other groups such as other religions, homosexuals, women etc, I think it is inevitable that crazy people will resort to violence like we saw last week. I think Muslim's in western countries that have seen high rates of immigration face further risk of attack. When Muslim attacks increase in kind, then Nationalist movements will really become a strong political force. Describing Muslims as fanatics is completely unhelpful as all it will serve to do is p!ss people off or stoke ill feelings towards Muslims. It leaves no room for Muslims that respect the rights of individuals.
"The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith." - I agree with that.
"It is the religious equivalent of fascism." - not an entirely accurate statement, but in the sense that Islam is political it is similarly an authoritarian, collectivist ideology that stresses the importance of the interests of the religion (as opposed to the "national interest" with fascism) over the rights of individuals.
"And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless. As we read in Matthew 26:52, ‘all that take the sword, shall perish by the sword’ and those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us, cannot be too surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind" - describing Islam as savage is again unhelpful and he ruins the truth value of what he is saying by giving no room for Muslims that don't wish to murder Westerners. There were also children murdered which is ridiculous to suggest they are guilty of anything related to politics and again ruins the truth value of his statement. Clearly there are Muslims that can fit into secular society, however I don't think this is the majority as most of them do not come from a culture of liberalism and respect for the individual. Anning also seems to ignore the fact that Westerners have waged war on the Middle East for years now and continue to interfere in the affairs of countries they have no right to interfere in. Sure there are thousands of people murdered by Islamic terrorists each year but that dwarfs in comparison to the numbers of innocent people killed by western bombs and bullets. By Anning's argument he too lives by the sword and should not be too surprised if a Muslim takes him at his word and responds in kind.
So in summation, I agree with Anning that immigration policy has been terrible but so has our foreign policy. Doesn't it occur to people that bombing a country then allowing their citizens into your country is not such a great idea? His choice of language is largely unhelpful and his generalisations are patently false.
