Shinzo Abe murdered

[Politesse]

Assassination is not the best way to inform the public that you disapprove of another person's religion.

Actually, the assassination does happen to have focused the attention of the public on the ties between Abe's political party and the Unification Church. The reason for the assassination was to take revenge on the Moonies for what they did to his family. Like many evangelical religious cults, they grow rich by draining wealth from their base of believers. In some cases, that can lead to tragic consequences for the families of cult members, and that seems to have been what happened here.

So, would you say you support religious terrorism as long as it "works"?

Poli, I said nothing to support such a mischaracterization of my post. I merely disagreed with your opinion that this was just a religious issue. It was revenge for the suffering and humiliation that the assassin blamed on the church. If it were just a disagreement over beliefs or doctrines, there would likely have been no attack at all. The intent was likely to expose Abe's and his party's ties to the church, since Abe himself may well have had nothing to do with the financial loss. Any organization that had drained the assassin's finances might have led to such a vengeful crime. The fact that religion was involved is only part of the story.

So he was angry about what causes his mother supported financially, and took his revenge by murdering a politician generally connected to this organization, whose religiosity is completely tangential to the situation. Is that your position?

If so, I'm still not sure how that rates an "actually,...".

Because I don't support assassination of politicians for being connected to non-religious organizations either, nor do I think it is the best way to express disapproval of said organization. Which is what you were "actually"ing me about. I am not uninformed about the situation, we just have a very different moral and practical outlooks. The Unification Church is not going to cease activities in Japan because a well-liked and influential man was murdered for being too friendly to them, and even if it were to do so, the means of forcing them out of the country would still be morally reprehensible.

 

[Jarhyn]

In some respects this is not religious terrorism but anti-religious.

 

[Politesse]

In some respects this is not religious terrorism but anti-religious.

Oh, well, excuse me. Gosh, the different terminology just changes everything. Since I only oppose religious terrorism, not anti religious terrorism, I guess I'm fine with this murder. Jesus Christ.

 

[Jarhyn]

In some respects this is not religious terrorism but anti-religious.

Oh, well, excuse me. Gosh, the different terminology just changes everything. Since I only oppose religious terrorism, not anti religious terrorism, I guess I'm fine with this murder. Jesus Christ.

This is in fact the first instance of anti-religious terrorism I've ever seen, so it's pretty significant. Doesn't mean I'm fine with it.

 

[Elixir]

Hmmm. Seems more anti religion than anti religious. That is, the perp was pissed at a particular cult rather than at religiosity.

 

[Politesse]

In some respects this is not religious terrorism but anti-religious.

Oh, well, excuse me. Gosh, the different terminology just changes everything. Since I only oppose religious terrorism, not anti religious terrorism, I guess I'm fine with this murder. Jesus Christ.

This is in fact the first instance of anti-religious terrorism I've ever seen, so it's pretty significant. Doesn't mean I'm fine with it.

Should chat with a Falun Dafa missionary some time.

 

[Jarhyn]

In some respects this is not religious terrorism but anti-religious.

Oh, well, excuse me. Gosh, the different terminology just changes everything. Since I only oppose religious terrorism, not anti religious terrorism, I guess I'm fine with this murder. Jesus Christ.

This is in fact the first instance of anti-religious terrorism I've ever seen, so it's pretty significant. Doesn't mean I'm fine with it.

Should chat with a Falun Dafa missionary some time.

I have a few times. They are generally of the sort trying to get their camel's nose under the tent as it were with meditation and hiding all the cultish elements.

I wouldn't call them non-religious though...

 

[Politesse]

In some respects this is not religious terrorism but anti-religious.

Oh, well, excuse me. Gosh, the different terminology just changes everything. Since I only oppose religious terrorism, not anti religious terrorism, I guess I'm fine with this murder. Jesus Christ.

This is in fact the first instance of anti-religious terrorism I've ever seen, so it's pretty significant. Doesn't mean I'm fine with it.

Should chat with a Falun Dafa missionary some time.

I have a few times. They are generally of the sort trying to get their camel's nose under the tent as it were with meditation and hiding all the cultish elements.

I wouldn't call them non-religious though...

No, I meant they'll be happy to tell you about the many, many "disappearances" of their members, especially back in the People's Republic. Yes, they're a "cult". but it's a dangerous world to be a cult in, as this recent assassination also demonstrates. Or even just to know one, in Abe's case.

 

[bilby]

Assassination is not the best way to inform the public that you disapprove of another person's religion.

No, it isn’t. But it’s an excellent way to inform a religious or political entity that they cannot ride roughshod over your interests with impunity.

Assassinations are usually a response to imbalances of power, and the absence of any other effective means to bring the attention of the powerful to the suffering of the assassin (or of the group he represents).

 

[Copernicus]

Assassination is not the best way to inform the public that you disapprove of another person's religion.

Actually, the assassination does happen to have focused the attention of the public on the ties between Abe's political party and the Unification Church. The reason for the assassination was to take revenge on the Moonies for what they did to his family. Like many evangelical religious cults, they grow rich by draining wealth from their base of believers. In some cases, that can lead to tragic consequences for the families of cult members, and that seems to have been what happened here.

So, would you say you support religious terrorism as long as it "works"?

Poli, I said nothing to support such a mischaracterization of my post. I merely disagreed with your opinion that this was just a religious issue. It was revenge for the suffering and humiliation that the assassin blamed on the church. If it were just a disagreement over beliefs or doctrines, there would likely have been no attack at all. The intent was likely to expose Abe's and his party's ties to the church, since Abe himself may well have had nothing to do with the financial loss. Any organization that had drained the assassin's finances might have led to such a vengeful crime. The fact that religion was involved is only part of the story.

So he was angry about what causes his mother supported financially, and took his revenge by murdering a politician generally connected to this organization, whose religiosity is completely tangential to the situation. Is that your position?

I don't know any more about this guy than you do, so why do you think that is my position? Obviously, I don't condone murder or revenge, and you should know me well enough to know that by now. This guy committed murder for revenge, but I have no reason to believe that religion was any part of his motive. I do have reason to believe that he felt anger and hatred for the religious organization because it used its influence over his mother to take a substantial portion of his family legacy away. I suspect he would have felt a murderous rage toward any scam artists or greedy movements that did the same thing to do harm to him or his family.

If so, I'm still not sure how that rates an "actually,...".

Given that you were going for the religion angle, I don't think that the "actually" was out of line. Sorry if it offended you. I'd be happy to replace it with something like "On the other hand" or even "But I think..."

Because I don't support assassination of politicians for being connected to non-religious organizations either, nor do I think it is the best way to express disapproval of said organization. Which is what you were "actually"ing me about. I am not uninformed about the situation, we just have a very different moral and practical outlooks. The Unification Church is not going to cease activities in Japan because a well-liked and influential man was murdered for being too friendly to them, and even if it were to do so, the means of forcing them out of the country would still be morally reprehensible.

We have no differences at all about supporting assassination or murder, and I'm truly surprised that you would draw that inference out of my post. You've known me online for years, yet you still want to accuse me of condoning assassinations?

Now, regarding the Unification Church, I can't say for certain what was in the mind of the assassin, although you seem to believe he thought it would maybe cause them to cease operation in Japan or be forced out of the country. Maybe so. I think we can agree that he probably wanted to get revenge or cause harm to them. To my knowledge, Abe himself had nothing to do with his personal issues, so it seems plausible that the assassin was looking to publicize his grievance in some way--that is, to expose a connection to Japan's ruling elite. He probably expected to at least wound Abe and that all of this would come out in the aftermath. If that was his motive, then I would say his dramatic act worked the way he had intended it to. Some people throw pies and shoes at politicians to make a point. Some commit murder. My feelings about committing murder and assassination for that purpose are likely the same as yours, so please stop pretending otherwise. It was a horrific way to make a point.

 

[Politesse]

You "correct" me for making a post condemning murder, in a thread where only Jimmy Higgins and myself had yet suggested that the killer had even done something wrong, or indeed that Abe's death was deserving of anything other than a callous and not particularly funny joke making fun of the name of the deceased. Then you are offended by my suggestion that you might approve of the act that you not only failed to condemn, but felt compelled objected to my condemnation thereof, for some reason.

I guess because I made the killing sound too religious in motive? When the only stated motive, thus far, was at least tangentially religious. I don't really see your point at all, to be honest. Even if the religious angle was minor, that doesn't make anything I said wrong. I realize you are not generally "pro-murder", Copernicus. Literally no one thinks of themselves as pro-murder, in fact. The only difference between any two people is which murders outrage them, and which ones get a yawn of indifference. These lists are different for everyone.

 

[Copernicus]

You "correct" me for making a post condemning murder, in a thread where only Jimmy Higgins and myself had yet suggested that the killer had even done something wrong, or indeed that Abe's death was deserving of anything other than a callous and not particularly funny joke making fun of the name of the deceased. Then you are offended by my suggestion that you might approve of the act that you not only failed to condemn, but felt compelled objected to my condemnation thereof, for some reason.

I don't need to condemn it, because I never gave you any reason to believe that I needed to. And you continue to pretend that it is somehow important for me to condemn it, even though I made clear in my last post that I have the same attitude towards it that you do. It is annoying that you persist in rhetorical games like this rather than simply accept that.

I guess because I made the killing sound too religious in motive? When the only stated motive, thus far, was at least tangentially religious. I don't really see your point at all, to be honest. Even if the religious angle was minor, that doesn't make anything I said wrong. I realize you are not generally "pro-murder", Copernicus. Literally no one thinks of themselves as pro-murder, in fact. The only difference between any two people is which murders outrage them, and which ones get a yawn of indifference. These lists are different for everyone.

They may be, but they aren't for you and me in this case. So doubling down on your complaint isn't helping. And you did understand my point. I did feel that you made the killing sound too religious in motive, and that was what motivated me to raise a quibble with the way you had stated it. Again, apologies if that upset you, but it probably upsets me more that you continue to act as if there is an iota of difference between you and me in the degree of fervor with which I condemn murder and assassination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Assassination is not the best way to inform the public that you disapprove of another person's religion.

No, it isn’t. But it’s an excellent way to inform a religious or political entity that they cannot ride roughshod over your interests with impunity.

Assassinations are usually a response to imbalances of power, and the absence of any other effective means to bring the attention of the powerful to the suffering of the assassin (or of the group he represents).

Assassinations are generally the acts of nuts.

 

[Politesse]

You "correct" me for making a post condemning murder, in a thread where only Jimmy Higgins and myself had yet suggested that the killer had even done something wrong, or indeed that Abe's death was deserving of anything other than a callous and not particularly funny joke making fun of the name of the deceased. Then you are offended by my suggestion that you might approve of the act that you not only failed to condemn, but felt compelled objected to my condemnation thereof, for some reason.

I don't need to condemn it, because I never gave you any reason to believe that I needed to. And you continue to pretend that it is somehow important for me to condemn it, even though I made clear in my last post that I have the same attitude towards it that you do. It is annoying that you persist in rhetorical games like this rather than simply accept that.

I guess because I made the killing sound too religious in motive? When the only stated motive, thus far, was at least tangentially religious. I don't really see your point at all, to be honest. Even if the religious angle was minor, that doesn't make anything I said wrong. I realize you are not generally "pro-murder", Copernicus. Literally no one thinks of themselves as pro-murder, in fact. The only difference between any two people is which murders outrage them, and which ones get a yawn of indifference. These lists are different for everyone.

They may be, but they aren't for you and me in this case. So doubling down on your complaint isn't helping. And you did understand my point. I did feel that you made the killing sound too religious in motive, and that was what motivated me to raise a quibble with the way you had stated it. Again, apologies if that upset you, but it probably upsets me more that you continue to act as if there is an iota of difference between you and me in the degree of fervor with which I condemn murder and assassination.

Of course there's an iota of difference. I actually condemned the killing with words, whereas you feel you have "no need to". There's at least an iota of space between those conditions. You don't feel the need to type it out loud. I do. Especially in the very specific context of a joke thread about an assassination. In which I don't think the gravity of the situation is in any way assumed. Because it is a joke thread about an assassination, and in that context the gravity of the situation is very obviously not assumed.

If you just want me to say "I believe that Copernicus, in general, disapproves of killing", I'm happy to do so, as I think that is true. But I think we have more important things to discuss here than your personal image of yourself as a good person or whatever. The former president of a nation has just been gunned down in cold blood, in part because his killer thought he was too close to a fringe religious group. That isn't incidental or unimportant to me; I think it says a great deal to me about the present state of world affairs. It's not a "mixed blessing" to me, in which it's bad that Abe was murdered but unmasking a cult is a good thing that has come out of it. No. Assassination and persecution of minority religious groups are both serious and present dangers to the coherence of the state, not unrelated affairs, and it is especially disturbing that it was in Japan - normally gunless, and for the last decade or so relatively free of religious violence if certainly not religious controversy - that this has occurred. The last time religious distrust tipped over to religious violence in Japan, it resulted in the Aum Shinrikyo subway poisonings and years of fear and paranoia. I don't agree with your assessment that this is just about the killer's upset feelings about his Mom's bank account, nor do I believe that the opinions of those in this thread, not just you, are above being colored by the word "cult" and its associations.

To put it another way, I do not think the assassination was merely a "horrific way to make a point", as you say. I also think the point itself is dangerous as hell. None of us can live comfortably in a world where the populations begins to feel emboldened to enact violence against whomever they consider to belong to a cult. Everyone's orthodoxy is someone else's cult. And many different nations are now seeing waves of rising bloodshed between rival ideological groupings, be they political or religious in character.

 

[Copernicus]

You "correct" me for making a post condemning murder, in a thread where only Jimmy Higgins and myself had yet suggested that the killer had even done something wrong, or indeed that Abe's death was deserving of anything other than a callous and not particularly funny joke making fun of the name of the deceased. Then you are offended by my suggestion that you might approve of the act that you not only failed to condemn, but felt compelled objected to my condemnation thereof, for some reason.

I don't need to condemn it, because I never gave you any reason to believe that I needed to. And you continue to pretend that it is somehow important for me to condemn it, even though I made clear in my last post that I have the same attitude towards it that you do. It is annoying that you persist in rhetorical games like this rather than simply accept that.

I guess because I made the killing sound too religious in motive? When the only stated motive, thus far, was at least tangentially religious. I don't really see your point at all, to be honest. Even if the religious angle was minor, that doesn't make anything I said wrong. I realize you are not generally "pro-murder", Copernicus. Literally no one thinks of themselves as pro-murder, in fact. The only difference between any two people is which murders outrage them, and which ones get a yawn of indifference. These lists are different for everyone.

They may be, but they aren't for you and me in this case. So doubling down on your complaint isn't helping. And you did understand my point. I did feel that you made the killing sound too religious in motive, and that was what motivated me to raise a quibble with the way you had stated it. Again, apologies if that upset you, but it probably upsets me more that you continue to act as if there is an iota of difference between you and me in the degree of fervor with which I condemn murder and assassination.

Of course there's an iota of difference. I actually condemned the killing with words, whereas you feel you have "no need to". There's at least an iota of space between those conditions. You don't feel the need to type it out loud. I do. Especially in the very specific context of a joke thread about an assassination. In which I don't think the gravity of the situation is in any way assumed. Because it is a joke thread about an assassination, and in that context the gravity of the situation is very obviously not assumed.

If you just want me to say "I believe that Copernicus, in general, disapproves of killing", I'm happy to do so, as I think that is true. But I think we have more important things to discuss here than your personal image of yourself as a good person or whatever. The former president of a nation has just been gunned down in cold blood, in part because his killer thought he was too close to a fringe religious group. That isn't incidental or unimportant to me; I think it says a great deal to me about the present state of world affairs. It's not a "mixed blessing" to me, in which it's bad that Abe was murdered but unmasking a cult is a good thing that has come out of it. No. Assassination and persecution of minority religious groups are both serious and present dangers to the coherence of the state, not unrelated affairs, and it is especially disturbing that it was in Japan - normally gunless, and for the last decade or so relatively free of religious violence if certainly not religious controversy - that this has occurred. The last time religious distrust tipped over to religious violence in Japan, it resulted in the Aum Shinrikyo subway poisonings and years of fear and paranoia. I don't agree with your assessment that this is just about the killer's upset feelings about his Mom's bank account, nor do I believe that the opinions of those in this thread, not just you, are above being colored by the word "cult" and its associations.

To put it another way, I do not think the assassination was merely a "horrific way to make a point", as you say. I also think the point itself is dangerous as hell. None of us can live comfortably in a world where the populations begins to feel emboldened to enact violence against whomever they consider to belong to a cult. Everyone's orthodoxy is someone else's cult. And many different nations are now seeing waves of rising bloodshed between rival ideological groupings, be they political or religious in character.

I'm glad you got that off your chest, and I'm sorry that you took my criticism so personally. I never meant it that way, and I certainly don't intend to dignify your loaded question with an answer. I'm not even sure what you are going on about with your reference to "joke thread", so it's entirely possible I misunderstood something about your post that set you off. Again, I apologize for triggering you with the word "Actually", but I see that it was a terrible mistake on my part.

 

[bilby]

Assassination is not the best way to inform the public that you disapprove of another person's religion.

No, it isn’t. But it’s an excellent way to inform a religious or political entity that they cannot ride roughshod over your interests with impunity.

Assassinations are usually a response to imbalances of power, and the absence of any other effective means to bring the attention of the powerful to the suffering of the assassin (or of the group he represents).

Assassinations are generally the acts of nuts.

Yeah, being ignored by people you are appealing to to stop treating you like shit can drive you nuts.

Of course, they might be ignoring you because you believe irrationally that they are able to help, but refusing to; But then again, they might just be uncaring of your plight.

Understanding that assassins usually believe themselves to have a genuine grievance against their targets is a great deal more helpful in preventing future assassinations than simply declaring them to be “nuts”, particularly as such dismissiveness is often a major contributing factor in their escalating from merely angry, to murderously angry.

 

[Hermit]

Completely shocking. That it happened at all. The gruesome, public manner of the murder. The ambiguity of the motive. Nothing good can come of this. And no, not a joking matter at all.

There is no ambiguity about the assassin's motive at all. Tetsuya Yamagami told police that he does not hold any ill feelings toward Abe’s political convictions. So, no political motivation. He never uttered a word of disparagement concerning the theology of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, formerly named Unification Church and colloquially referred to as The Moonies. That's any religious motivation out of the scenario. This leaves personal motivation. Tetsuya Yamagami's mother's donations sent the family bankrupt. This is the only reason the assassin ever gave for the murder.

 

[Politesse]

Completely shocking. That it happened at all. The gruesome, public manner of the murder. The ambiguity of the motive. Nothing good can come of this. And no, not a joking matter at all.

There is no ambiguity about the assassin's motive at all. Tetsuya Yamagami told police that he does not hold any ill feelings toward Abe’s political convictions. So, no political motivation. He never uttered a word of disparagement concerning the theology of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, formerly named Unification Church and colloquially referred to as The Moonies. That's any religious motivation out of the scenario. This leaves personal motivation. Tetsuya Yamagami's mother's donations sent the family bankrupt. This is the only reason the assassin ever gave for the murder.

Hermit, I wrote the post you're quoting before anyone knew much anything about the killer, except that he was mad that Shinzo was associated with a "certain organization" (sic). I'm glad you're belatedly reading the thread you're contributing to, though. Before you comment insightfully, I'm pretty sure Jayjay knows that "Abe" and "Abe" are pronounced differently as well.

Also, I thought you were smart? You really think this is just an argument about where donations should go, not fear and rage toward a religious organization Yamagami considers a dangerous "cult" secretly entwined with the government at the highest levels, that conned his mother out of the family fortune that should rightfully have come to him? I don't think that makes any sense at all. If this were "strictly personal" he would have killed his mother, not Abe Shinzo. He killed Abe Shinzo because of the perception of governmental conspiracy to allow a doubly foreign cult into the country, not because he had anything personally to do with his mother's charitable giving.

Running out of cash, Yamagami decided in early July to kill Abe | The Asahi Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis

www.asahi.com

 

[Copernicus]

Completely shocking. That it happened at all. The gruesome, public manner of the murder. The ambiguity of the motive. Nothing good can come of this. And no, not a joking matter at all.

There is no ambiguity about the assassin's motive at all. Tetsuya Yamagami told police that he does not hold any ill feelings toward Abe’s political convictions. So, no political motivation. He never uttered a word of disparagement concerning the theology of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, formerly named Unification Church and colloquially referred to as The Moonies. That's any religious motivation out of the scenario. This leaves personal motivation. Tetsuya Yamagami's mother's donations sent the family bankrupt. This is the only reason the assassin ever gave for the murder.

Hermit, I wrote the post you're quoting before anyone knew much anything about the killer, except that he was mad that Shinzo was associated with a "certain organization" (sic). I'm glad you're belatedly reading the thread you're contributing to, though. Before you comment insightfully, I'm pretty sure Jayjay knows that "Abe" and "Abe" are pronounced differently as well.

Also, I thought you were smart? You really think this is just an argument about where donations should go, not fear and rage toward a religious organization Yamagami considers a dangerous "cult" secretly entwined with the government at the highest levels, that conned his mother out of the family fortune that should rightfully have come to him? I don't think that makes any sense at all. If this were "strictly personal" he would have killed his mother, not Abe Shinzo. He killed Abe Shinzo because of the perception of governmental conspiracy to allow a doubly foreign cult into the country, not because he had anything personally to do with his mother's charitable giving.

Running out of cash, Yamagami decided in early July to kill Abe | The Asahi Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis

www.asahi.com

That news article seems to support exactly what Hermit said. Yamagami's main complaint was not that his fear and rage was caused by his political or religious beliefs. It was because he felt his mother had been brainwashed into sending massive donations--her family's wealth--to the Unification Church. Abe had been a public supporter of the Unification Church, and his family apparently had a history of supporting them. So that made Abe the best opportunity for Yamagami to get back at the Unification Church. Apparently, he expected to die after committing his act of revenge. Killing his mother would not have satisfied his thirst for revenge, because he blamed the cult and its enablers, not her.

 

[Politesse]

This thread is starting to remind me of "Breakdown in Civil Order". Never mind.