TERROR ATACKS IN PARIS

[RCMerchant]

Muslims-as a whole-are good folks-I have nothing against their beliefs-as are Christians-but BOTH have used it as an escuse to kill-any one ever hear about the Spanish Inquistion,th e Crusades or the Salem Witch trials?

And...to add this:

The Salem Witch trials had nothing to do with religion.  It was essentially a real estate dispute and a sort of feud between two families.  The "judge" and political leaders involved were corrupt and more than a few innocents got caught in the crossfire.
and you know this-how?

The popular notion of the Witch Trials being a bunch of religious fundamentalists in a mass hysteria about witchcraft is not factual.  Further, it's been all but proven that the whole thing was premised on hoax claims.

-and you know this-how? It was proven-by WHO??
If yer gonna say its a proven fact to me-I wanna hear yer how this was proven.!
If yer gonna say Im a dumbass-lets hear yer PROVEN FACT.

[RCMerchant]

....and yes-the Salem witch trials had EVERYTHING to do about religion-these people burned people on steaks-now if steaks were cooked on people-I could do that-because when it all comes down tho the whole thing-I end up thinking about food.
I dunno why.
Ok-yeah

[ulthar]

-and you know this-how? It was proven-by WHO??
If yer gonna say its a proven fact to me-I wanna hear yer how this was proven.!
If yer gonna say Im a dumbass-lets hear yer PROVEN FACT.

Well, you will notice that I said "all but proven."  So, let's examine what I meant by that, just briefly.

The statements I made was a summary of historical analysis of the court records, the people involved, etc, as well as the apology delivered by Ann Putnam (one of the accusers).

Check this out:

http://historyofmassachusetts.org/the-salem-witch-trials/

Although the afflicted girls were the main accusers during the trials, many historians believe the girl's parents, particularly Thomas Putnam and Reverend Samuel Parris, were egging the girls on and encouraging them to accuse specific people in the community that they didn't like in an act of revenge.

{emphasis added}

And, about Ann Putnam (one of the afflicted girls):

http://salemmawitchtrials.weebly.com/about-the-accused-and-accusers.html

Ann Putnam Jr. was the leader of the circle of girls who were afflicted. She accused witches who were enemies of the family, but never admitted that it was on purpose. After the trials, Ann had a bad life. Her parent died a few weeks after the trials and Ann was stuck raising all of her younger siblings. Ann did held a public apology, but never admitted to not being bewitched.

This one gives a little more detail about Ann Putnam:

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/people/putnam.html

And, you can read the actual words of her apology at

https://kellibarker.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/ann-putnams-apology/

An excerpt:  "I, then being in my childhood, should, by such a providence of God, be made an instrument for the accusing of several persons of a grievous crime, whereby their lives were taken away from them, whom now I have just grounds and good reason to believe they were innocent persons;"

She still blamed Satan for doing it, but what exactly were her "just grounds and good reason to believe they were innocent" if not her own knowing she made the whole thing up?  Analysis of the other evidence at hand points to that as a distinct possibility.

Keep in mind this is just a BRIEF synopsis of the historical analysis that leads to the conclusion that the thing was not so much driven by religious fervor but political and personal motivations.

The Salem Witch Trials happened and were a tragedy.  A lot of innocent people were murdered, but the story is not as simple as "a bunch of religious freaks went on a witch hunt." 

[Rev. Powell]

-and you know this-how? It was proven-by WHO??
If yer gonna say its a proven fact to me-I wanna hear yer how this was proven.!
If yer gonna say Im a dumbass-lets hear yer PROVEN FACT.

Well, you will notice that I said "all but proven."  So, let's examine what I meant by that, just briefly.

The statements I made was a summary of historical analysis of the court records, the people involved, etc, as well as the apology delivered by Ann Putnam (one of the accusers).

Check this out:

http://historyofmassachusetts.org/the-salem-witch-trials/

Although the afflicted girls were the main accusers during the trials, many historians believe the girl's parents, particularly Thomas Putnam and Reverend Samuel Parris, were egging the girls on and encouraging them to accuse specific people in the community that they didn't like in an act of revenge.

{emphasis added}

And, about Ann Putnam (one of the afflicted girls):

http://salemmawitchtrials.weebly.com/about-the-accused-and-accusers.html

Ann Putnam Jr. was the leader of the circle of girls who were afflicted. She accused witches who were enemies of the family, but never admitted that it was on purpose. After the trials, Ann had a bad life. Her parent died a few weeks after the trials and Ann was stuck raising all of her younger siblings. Ann did held a public apology, but never admitted to not being bewitched.

This one gives a little more detail about Ann Putnam:

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/people/putnam.html

And, you can read the actual words of her apology at

https://kellibarker.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/ann-putnams-apology/

An excerpt:  "I, then being in my childhood, should, by such a providence of God, be made an instrument for the accusing of several persons of a grievous crime, whereby their lives were taken away from them, whom now I have just grounds and good reason to believe they were innocent persons;"

She still blamed Satan for doing it, but what exactly were her "just grounds and good reason to believe they were innocent" if not her own knowing she made the whole thing up?  Analysis of the other evidence at hand points to that as a distinct possibility.

Keep in mind this is just a BRIEF synopsis of the historical analysis that leads to the conclusion that the thing was not so much driven by religious fervor but political and personal motivations.

The Salem Witch Trials happened and were a tragedy.  A lot of innocent people were murdered, but the story is not as simple as "a bunch of religious freaks went on a witch hunt." 

Maybe it's semantics, but even granting the truth of everything you say, it still sounds like the Salem trials had everything to do with religion. Witchcraft is a religious belief, not a secular one. No court today acknowledges "witchcraft" as a crime. You have to live in a society that believes in and fears witchcraft in order to make such false accusations in the first place.

[indianasmith]

One very slight issue I have with the comments about the Salem trials:

Not one person accused or burned for witchcraft was ever BURNED in the American colonies, or at least, certainly not in Salem.
Out of the twenty who were executed, nineteen were hung and one man was "pressed to death" (crushed with heavy stones piled on top of an oak slab he was tied under).  Still horrific, still awful, but the whole thing of burning witches at Salem is a Hollywood invention.

Indeed, the persecution of accused witches overall has been greatly exaggerated - Dan Brown, in his books and in an interview, stated with a straight face that twenty million women were burned as witches by the European Church during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.  The actual number was twenty thousand over a five hundred year period.  That's still twenty thousand too many, but it's an example of how, when attacking the church, the most grotesque exaggerations are routinely stated as fact (and yes, I know Dan Brown is a fiction writer, but he did claim that his book's historical claims on this issue were accurate).

[Trevor]

My thoughts are with the French people today: Vive la France!

My hate is for these murdering bastards who kill in the name of religion.

Baise-tu terroriste.  

[lester1/2jr]

whenever somethign like this happens people go to their usual hobby horses, we need to stop Muslim immigration or libertarians we need to get out of the middle eastwe need to ween ourselves off of oil.

I say let's do ALL of it. whatever we did so far didn't work at all. stop all Muslim imigration, get out of the middle east completely, do what we need to do within reason to support more electric cars and so forth. just focus solely on self preservation

[ulthar]

Maybe it's semantics, but even granting the truth of everything you say, it still sounds like the Salem trials had everything to do with religion. Witchcraft is a religious belief, not a secular one. No court today acknowledges "witchcraft" as a crime. You have to live in a society that believes in and fears witchcraft in order to make such false accusations in the first place.

At specific issue in this point of the debate is the court's acceptance of spectral evidence.  The community was religious, but the court system (the larger system) was biased strongly against acceptance of such evidence.  That this court allowed such evidence (even after receiving criticism for doing so) suggests the court was manipulating the juries and the popular acceptance of witchcraft verdicts.

But, this was a bit of an anomaly at that particular time.

The trials themselves were a travesty of justice, even when examined through the lens of that time.  Increase Mather, for example (whose son was the judge) urged against the acceptance of spectral evidence alone for convictions...and Increase was a minister. Spectral evidence was eventually rendered inadmissible and after that ruling, the conviction rate plummeted.

So, while it is true that the religious beliefs played into lay people believing the spectral evidence was important, the courts in MA had already generally divorced themselves from it and had decidedly gone more to a 'what can we physical prove' sort of mode.

The point is that this particular court acted in a way that flew in the face of accepted jurisprudence of the time.

Also, while perhaps seemingly a minor point, the Salem trials occurred at the tail end of the witchcraft fervor in Europe and the Colonies.  While it might be reasonably argued the religious motivation was widespread and widely accepted in the 1400's, this was far, far less true in the 1690's.

So, to say that trials had everything to do with religion is not quite on the mark.  The trials were (mostly) about a real estate dispute, and one side of that dispute used the fear of witchcraft has a tool to consolidate power in the town.

[ulthar]

And bringing it back On Topic, I think the point I'm trying to make is that we should not let ourselves get distracted by scapegoats.  The scapegoat in this case is "religion."

Evil people do evil things.  Murdering people is the epitome of evil.  THAT should be the focus of our anger.

That these people hide behind a claim of 'religion' (like others in history have done) is a smokescreen.  Evil is evil, no matter what brand of "Mommy's Skirts" it is trying to hide behind or how it dresses itself up.

The Salem Witch Trials is an excellent example of what I'm trying to say.  The trials were not about "religion" nor were they really about "witchcraft."  The ONLY reason 20 people were murdered in Salem was because a small group of evil people manipulated the emotions of others for selfish reasons.  That's it.  It was GREED, not "religion."

That's not much different than most of the evil we see today, whether it's over "religion" or "drug money" or "political power" or whatever.  How the evil dresses up is just costuming, and getting our panties all twisted over the costume is to ignore the evil.

[dean]

I'll leave the running commentary for others, but this video has gone viral here and is probably worth a look.

https://www.facebook.com/theprojecttv/videos/10153243154568441/

[Rev. Powell]

I'll leave the running commentary for others, but this video has gone viral here and is probably worth a look.

https://www.facebook.com/theprojecttv/videos/10153243154568441/

May I?

http://youtu.be/VVEy_augkys

This is pretty much my exact position.

[dean]

I'll leave the running commentary for others, but this video has gone viral here and is probably worth a look.

https://www.facebook.com/theprojecttv/videos/10153243154568441/

May I?

http://youtu.be/VVEy_augkys

This is pretty much my exact position.

Ah thanks, I couldn't find a copy that wasn't tied to some newspaper.

Remember there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If even just 1 in 10 wanted to destroy everyone else that would be 160million people. That's more than any active service personnel worldwide [as of 2013 through here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.TOTL.P1/countries/1W?display=graph ]

Other important stats worth thinking on:

In the USA according to the data I could find through the CDC: in 2013 [latest year I could find data for] there were 11,208 firearms deaths or 3.5 per 100,000 people.

In France there have been approx 160 deaths [sadly most of them this week] due to incidents relating to terrorism in the last fifteen years.

Not to be somewhat dismissive of a passionate and big issue, but put in that light it's not really a statistic threat to your everyday life. Cars kill more people in 1 month worldwide than terrorists do in years.

Not saying I have any solutions and I certainly hate the situation as it is, but worrying and hating is certainly not something I will partake in. It's the whole point of why terrorism works and I don't want those bastards to get what they want.

[Newt]

I just want those bastards to be stopped.  Completely and for good.

[ulthar]

Not to be somewhat dismissive of a passionate and big issue, but put in that light it's not really a statistic threat to your everyday life.

Risk Assessment is not only computation of the odds of the occurrence, but also the consequence.

You can high risk three ways:

Odds are high, consequence is pretty severe
Odds are very high, consequence is not very severe
Odds are low, consequence is very severe

Risk managers and engineers of life critical systems would never take an approach that says "oh, the odds of that happening are low, but if it DOES happen, lives will be lost to it's okay."  They take high consequence events, even low probability ones, very seriously.

The other problem with looking only at odds of something happening is that when it happens to you, the odds just went to 100%.  It's not about groups and collectives....and statistical populations.  These are the actions of INDIVIDUAL murderers killing INDIVIDUAL people.

Finally, your numbers are very a bit misleading.  You lump all gang-on-gang violence (about 80% or more of that number you quoted) into one pot for the US, but only look at terrorism related violence for France?  Nah.  Throwing a flag on this one.  Whatever conclusion you are trying to imply is not supported by numbers that compare apples to green beans.

[Leah]

ISIS is about Islamic/Muslim as Westboro/KKK is for Christianity. I would go on, but seeing as how many people have strong opinions on this I wont.