Soldier shot at National War Memorial in Ottawa

[Barrister]

As I've been looking into this it looks like there is less security at the parliament buildings than there is at my local courthouse.

Surely it's not too much to ask that we have armed guards, and ask visitors to pass through metal detectors, prior to entering our halls of government?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

@Viper37:
Wether you're impressed or not matters nought. And while Jesus may have been invoked to do all these things he -as far as can be known- never committed similar acts. Unlike muhammed. And muhammed, being the 'prophet', is the example against which muslims nominally measure themselves. Excuse me, but he is found wanting. There are better standards than that man.

Muhammad went on to conquer cities&tribes in the name of Allah to spread the faith.

Aside being considered a prophet, he was no different than any ruler of his time.  It's not like there were well defined rules of war and codified treatment of prisoners of wars.  The Byzantines weren't exactly saints, nor were the Persians.  I seem to recall Richard Coeur de Lion slaughtering prisoners himself after the ransom was refused.  Is he remembered the same way as Genghis Khan or is he some kind of folk hero?

If you look at Muhamad's conquests, prisoners of wars were offered freedom in exchange for conversion and submission.  Not much different than many other empires.  Marrying with underage girls was the norm in many empires&kingdoms.  Samuel de Champlain, founder of Quebec city, was married to a 12 year old girl while he was in his 40s.

If you tell me today, muslims in the general population, are preaching for the legalization of pedophilia, you might have a point there.  But is it?

That he was no different in his doings from others 1400 years ago is hardly an issue.
But pray tell: how many of these rulers of old are considered to be the prime example to be followed, today?
Next you'll claim that it is a religion of peace...

And given the practices regarding marriage in far too many islamic countries they're not putting up much of fight against pedofilia

Given your apparent defence of Christianity, pray tell how you reconcile your views with the events portrayed in the Old Testament?

myth, legend with a sprinkle of history and art. To be seen as such. No different than the Gilgamesh Epos, Greek/Roman/Germanic/whatever mythology.
christianity is just a lesser evil, when compared to all the other evils (old and new), but only because it has been defanged in the latter quarter of the last century. Before that: startout out well, went south pretty fast and stayed there for all to long.

and while I agree that doing unto others as you would have them do unto you (to use a common sense saying wrapped in a biblical, or philosophical -if you like Kant -iirc- more- package. Which just shows how fucked up it is if people aren't capable of doing the right thing without some imaginary being telling them to do so) is the way to go, it's foolish to turn the other cheek indefinately (to use another one of those).
At times it's necessary to go beyond saying that "enough is enough" and make it clear in more, primitive, distasteful ways. So that those who come beyond don't have to.
And repeat at nauseam.
10.000 years of civilization and the end result is cyclical misery.

[Barrister]

Given your apparent defence of Christianity, pray tell how you reconcile your views with the events portrayed in the Old Testament?

With the New Testament?

[crazy canuck]

Given your apparent defence of Christianity, pray tell how you reconcile your views with the events portrayed in the Old Testament?

With the New Testament?

That was the view of some Christians but the battle to not include the Old Testament was lost about 1600 years ago, give or take.

[Viking]

Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.

Yes because criticizing ideas, values, supposed metaphysical truths and actions is bigoted.

[Barrister]

Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.

Yes because criticizing ideas, values, supposed metaphysical truths and actions is bigoted.

Well it depends on how you do it...

[Sheilbh]

Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.

Yes because criticizing ideas, values, supposed metaphysical truths and actions is bigoted.

Homegrown or imported - this is what you get when you allow this pestilence of a death cult religion anywhere near civilization.   

And the apologists are already at work - it's not about Islam - even though the perpetrators themselves claim it is - these are just individual psychos...

I take the metro every day - and I see an increasing number of those bearded nutjobs reading their evil book.  I'm certain something will happen in there at some point. 

Wow. Much metaphysical truth.

[Viking]

Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.

Yes because criticizing ideas, values, supposed metaphysical truths and actions is bigoted.

Homegrown or imported - this is what you get when you allow this pestilence of a death cult religion anywhere near civilization.   

And the apologists are already at work - it's not about Islam - even though the perpetrators themselves claim it is - these are just individual psychos...

I take the metro every day - and I see an increasing number of those bearded nutjobs reading their evil book.  I'm certain something will happen in there at some point. 

Wow. Much metaphysical truth.

There is only one god, muhammed is his prophet and the quran is the final revalation. That is a supposed metaphysiscal truth.

[mongers]

As I've been looking into this it looks like there is less security at the parliament buildings than there is at my local courthouse.

Surely it's not too much to ask that we have armed guards, and ask visitors to pass through metal detectors, prior to entering our halls of government?

I guess it's a question of balance, the public thinks security for the white house/national parliaments and so forth should be like in the films, with hair trigger guards prepared to mow down dozens with the most fearsome weaponry available.

The reality is an intruder gets into the white house grounds and gets tacked by dogs and arrested alive, uninjured. It's a much more risky approach, but mitigates against a some possible tragedies. I prefer that to dead innocent civilians who pulled their umbrella out of their coat pocket in a too sudden or odd way.

The times I've been to the House of commons, the security seemed tight or thorough to my untrained eye, would the armed guards have gunned me or someone down if they'd bolted thorough the barriers, I don't think so. I'd guess someone would just try and tackle them given the number of innocent people about waiting to be hit by a stray bullet.

My real concern is suicide bombers, in effect there's not much you can do to stop them, especially if acting as a team, as you see in Syria or Iraq, where one detonates and takes out the outer security point/gate and the other couple then run/drive further into the target to attack more vulnerable/soft targets.

[Viking]

@Viper37:
Wether you're impressed or not matters nought. And while Jesus may have been invoked to do all these things he -as far as can be known- never committed similar acts. Unlike muhammed. And muhammed, being the 'prophet', is the example against which muslims nominally measure themselves. Excuse me, but he is found wanting. There are better standards than that man.

Muhammad went on to conquer cities&tribes in the name of Allah to spread the faith.

Aside being considered a prophet, he was no different than any ruler of his time.  It's not like there were well defined rules of war and codified treatment of prisoners of wars.  The Byzantines weren't exactly saints, nor were the Persians.  I seem to recall Richard Coeur de Lion slaughtering prisoners himself after the ransom was refused.  Is he remembered the same way as Genghis Khan or is he some kind of folk hero?

If you look at Muhamad's conquests, prisoners of wars were offered freedom in exchange for conversion and submission.  Not much different than many other empires.  Marrying with underage girls was the norm in many empires&kingdoms.  Samuel de Champlain, founder of Quebec city, was married to a 12 year old girl while he was in his 40s.

If you tell me today, muslims in the general population, are preaching for the legalization of pedophilia, you might have a point there.  But is it?

The difference between Mohammed and Richard the Lionheart (I prefer the comparison to Egil Skallagrimsson who was a true scumbag who has cultural cache in iceland) is that today Richard is a historical figure and man of his time while Mohammed is supposed to be a prophet with access to gods final revelation for mankind, as well as being a supposed model for religious muslims. Richard's crimes are just that. Mohammed's crimes need to be justified and good. That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.

It's part of the muslim problem with terrorism today. Any act conducted against israeli civilans cannot be absolutely rejected because it seems that whatever is done to the israelis cannot be categorically rejected. Any act performed by the prophet cannot be categorically rejected or even be considered necessary evils since no religious prophet would be forced into making human like choices.

[dps]

Do we declare war on all left of the center ideology?  Do we forbid all "Green" political parties in Europe?

Wouldn't be the worst thing we've ever done in the West.

[Queequeg]

And, of course, Islam as practiced by hundreds of millions of people all over the world through history is irrelevant. They may be good people, but they're bad Muslims. The people who've got the correct interpretation are a relatively recent radical sect of extremists.

How relatively recent is relatively recent?  When Omar sacked Ctesiphon and raped the women of the Sassanid court, or when Mahmud of Ghazni or Timur made pyramids of the skulls of Hindus? 

[Queequeg]

If you go through the history of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs you are not ever, under any circumstances, going to come away with the idea that Islam as the first generation practiced it resembles the wishy-washy psuedo-Unitarianism of Reza Aslan or Irshad Manji. 

[crazy canuck]

That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.

That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims Christians/Jews good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things God either ordered that it be done or saw that it was good.

See how silly that sounds?

and just so there is no confusion about how graphic the Bible can get on these topics.

Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid or discouraged.  Take the entire army and attack Ai, for I have given to you the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land.  You will destroy them as you destroyed Jericho and its king. But this time you may keep the captured goods and the cattle for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city."  So Joshua and the army of Israel set out to attack Ai.  Joshua chose thirty thousand fighting men and sent them out at night with these orders: "Hide in ambush close behind the city and be ready for action.  When our main army attacks, the men of Ai will come out to fight as they did before, and we will run away from them.  We will let them chase us until they have all left the city. For they will say, 'The Israelites are running away from us as they did before.'  Then you will jump up from your ambush and take possession of the city, for the LORD your God will give it to you.  Set the city on fire, as the LORD has commanded.  You have your orders."  So they left that night and lay in ambush between Bethel and the west side of Ai.  But Joshua remained among the people in the camp that night. 

    Early the next morning Joshua roused his men and started toward Ai, accompanied by the leaders of Israel.  They camped on the north side of Ai, with a valley between them and the city.  That night Joshua sent five thousand men to lie in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city.  So they stationed the main army north of the city and the ambush west of the city.  Joshua himself spent that night in the valley.  When the king of Ai saw the Israelites across the valley, he and all his army hurriedly went out early the next morning and attacked the Israelites at a place overlooking the Jordan Valley.  But he didn't realize there was an ambush behind the city.  Joshua and the Israelite army fled toward the wilderness as though they were badly beaten,  and all the men in the city were called out to chase after them.  In this way, they were lured away from the city.  There was not a man left in Ai or Bethel who did not chase after the Israelites, and the city was left wide open. 

    Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Point your spear toward Ai, for I will give you the city."  Joshua did as he was commanded.  As soon as Joshua gave the signal, the men in ambush jumped up and poured into the city.  They quickly captured it and set it on fire.  When the men of Ai looked behind them, smoke from the city was filling the sky, and they had nowhere to go. For the Israelites who had fled in the direction of the wilderness now turned on their pursuers.  When Joshua and the other Israelites saw that the ambush had succeeded and that smoke was rising from the city, they turned and attacked the men of Ai.  Then the Israelites who were inside the city came out and started killing the enemy from the rear. So the men of Ai were caught in a trap, and all of them died. Not a single person survived or escaped.  Only the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to Joshua.

    When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside.  So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day – twelve thousand in all.  For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed.  Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua.  So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day.  Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate.  They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today.

[Razgovory]

The difference between Mohammed and Richard the Lionheart (I prefer the comparison to Egil Skallagrimsson who was a true scumbag who has cultural cache in iceland) is that today Richard is a historical figure and man of his time while Mohammed is supposed to be a prophet with access to gods final revelation for mankind, as well as being a supposed model for religious muslims. Richard's crimes are just that. Mohammed's crimes need to be justified and good. That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.

It's part of the muslim problem with terrorism today. Any act conducted against israeli civilans cannot be absolutely rejected because it seems that whatever is done to the israelis cannot be categorically rejected. Any act performed by the prophet cannot be categorically rejected or even be considered necessary evils since no religious prophet would be forced into making human like choices.

Serious question:  Do you talk to a lot of Muslims about this or are you just getting this entirely from other Athiests?