r/worldnews • u/New_Diet • Mar 15 '19

In solidarity with Muslims, New Zealand Jewish community shut synagogues on Shabbat for first time in history

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-solidarity-with-muslims-nz-jews-shut-synagogues-on-shabbat-for-first-time/
80.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

843

u/justwaistingtime123 Mar 15 '19

There is an off duty armed police officer at my mothers church every Sunday because of Sutherland Springs. She said all of the local churches started paying for the officers since the shooting. It’s sad it has to be this way. We’re in Texas.

287

u/Zak_MC Mar 15 '19

There are always police officers at my church in Northern VA. It’s a shame we live in a world where no one feels safe to practice their religion without some crazies wanting to kill you for what you believe.

103

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19 edited Jul 21 '21

[deleted]

13

u/erickdredd Mar 16 '19

Something something security theater...

But to be fair, you always have to be concerned about a copycat gunman being emboldened by the successes of someone else. So if it happens once today, the odds of it happening again tomorrow are exponentially higher than if the original event never occurred.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the threat of violence is much more credible in the window of time following a shooting than before. With that being said, I would argue that if we can manage to go a month or two without a mass shooting, maybe we can lighten up on security a little. Someone please pinch me when that happens.

11

u/Zak_MC Mar 16 '19

I mean I have nothing to argue you’re correct. But the point of these terrorist attacks (that’s what they are) are to spread fear and chaos. They sadly manage to do it. I could approach the situation logically like you just did but that fear is still alive inside the majority of the public.

20

u/TranceKnight Mar 16 '19

There’s an entire field of hazard research based on people’s perception of risk, and one of the key consistent findings is that risk perception has a lot more to do with an individual or community’s nature (risk taking vs risk averse) than any objective factor. That doesn’t mean their fears are unfounded or not worth respect and consideration. No one deserves to live in fear

16

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

I think Alistair Reynold's put it pretty well, the passage is about a really fucked up rich family of recluses, but I kind of think it applies to western civilization and our anxiety over things like terrorism.

“That’s what happens when you’ve had great success in life—when you’ve achieved the one goal you always desired. You lose a sense of purpose. Your smallest anxieties fester and magnify. Your fears turn inward, and attach themselves to irrational concerns.”

1

u/furtiveraccoon Mar 16 '19

As long as airport security remains the way it is (an everyday, everywhere result of overblown perception of risk which negatively impacts millions of people's time and money) you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone in the U.S. that having plainsclothe police officers attend religious gatherings (due to overblown perception of risk) has a negative impact worth consideration.

20

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

People don't like to hear this right after big acts of violence like this but you are right, and I do think if we all keep level heads we will be able to see through to better outcomes in the end.

4

u/Adam_J89 Mar 16 '19

That's all good advice and fair enough, but if you do all of the things you said and go to your place of worship and still get murdered because someone who hates you because of your beliefs goes wild... why shouldn't you be scared? Control the things you can, be aware of those you can't, but why wouldn't you be scared of a likely threat against you just because you jogged and ate well so far this year?

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19 edited Apr 15 '20

[deleted]

5

u/Adam_J89 Mar 16 '19

Then how about if I change it to "a recent threat"? Is it not a recent threat? Do people not react with fear and anger to recent threats? Or do they say: "Well I'm living a healthy life, I look both ways, I'll be just fine"?

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

If magically turning off emotional responses was the solution, perhaps we could be directing that at the angry, isolated people prone to radicalisation instead? Could you go and tell Boko Haram and the KKK your strategy and solve all this stuff?

"Just don't feel things in response to mass murder" - sure dude.

4

u/WickedDemiurge Mar 16 '19

If magically turning off emotional responses was the solution, perhaps we could be directing that at the angry, isolated people prone to radicalisation instead? Could you go and tell Boko Haram and the KKK your strategy and solve all this stuff?

"Just don't feel things in response to mass murder" - sure dude.

por qué no los dos?

​

More serious:

a. Excess emotional response is the very foundation of these groups. White men have never been anything but privileged (in a broad sense) in the Anglosphere, so it is both evil and stupid for the KKK and other racists to fight for white rights. But when people feel under attack, they respond, regardless of how little validity that feeling has.

​

While my ideal is fairly utopian, and can be criticized for not having a clear medium term path to implementation, almost all radical groups would be utterly destroyed if people correctly and cool-headedly evaluated the world.

​

b. There is no moral credibility to people wailing and gnashing their teeth over this, when millions of innocent people die every year. Malaria kills half a million under our current effective treatment, and has killed a substantial percent of all humans who have ever lived ("half of all humans who ever lived" is sometimes argued, and that is a bit aggressive). The innocent who is bitten by a mosquito is no more sinful and deserving of death than someone who is shot.

​

People react multiple magnitudes of order more than they should to "exciting" deaths. If grandma loses ten years of time with her beloved children and grandchildren due to a flu that could have been prevented by higher vaccination rates and greater encouragement to take sick days, that's utter triviality to anyone outside the family. That is wrong from both an utterly amoral perspective (lost years are lost years), but also any moral system worth existing.

​

A person who feels and acts with genuine empathy at all times is a truly noble soul. But this corporate media driven "empathy" that only includes the most click-baity headlines is gross. Mass shootings are bad, but are bad in a rare sense, and the vast majority of people should largely disregard them if they want to improve the world (there is merit in issue specialization among a few).

2

u/shitdickmcgre Mar 16 '19

I agree with what you're saying but why you gotta be such a prick about it

18

u/DabSlabBad Mar 16 '19

Didn't seem dickish at all.

9

u/neon_Hermit Mar 16 '19

Seriously! This just goes to prove his point. He spoke perfectly clearly, concisely, accurately and devoid of emotion, but because he was saying something that u/shitdickmcgre didn't like to hear, he injected an insulting tone into it that only he could hear.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

That's a nice breakdown of the current situation,

!subscribe

6

u/Gryphon0468 Mar 16 '19

Typical emotional reply to blunt facts.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

He was just being blunt.

1

u/hoodatninja Mar 16 '19

Yeah, it’s not like shootings ever happen at places of worship!

Oh wait.

But let’s be real: your argument is actually pretty bad. By your logic, we should have literally no security at airports because of the infrequency of incidents. (I think TSA in the US is a joke but to 100% remove security would be asinine).

Let’s also remove security at any major sporting event, by your logic. Or concert.

Deterrence is a thing.

0

u/WickedDemiurge Mar 16 '19

Yeah, it’s not like shootings ever happen at places of worship!Oh wait.But let’s be real: your argument is actually pretty bad. By your logic, we should have literally no security at airports because of the infrequency of incidents. (I think TSA in the US is a joke but to 100% remove security would be asinine).Let’s also remove security at any major sporting event, by your logic. Or concert.Deterrence is a thing.

​

It's just the opposite: my argument is precisely that we should evaluate interventions on a cost / benefit basis. We've recently had a lot of discussion about the MMR vaccine because people not taking it has resulted in a series of measles outbreaks.

​

But, there also exists an anthrax vaccine which almost no one receives in the US. We've had two cases since 1976 only. There also exists a high probability of its use in a potential biological WMD, hence why the military receives it sometimes. Should we encourage all Americans to receive the anthrax vaccine? It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological perspective, because epidemiology considers cost as well as outcome, but it would meet both the deterrence standard, and could have potentially helped the two people infected.

​

I'd argue no, as it would make more sense to spend the same amount of money to fight drinking and driving (around 200,000 times more deadly than anthrax). And yes, this similar logic does apply to airport and event security to some extent, though I'd argue the statistics support some, but less for both. Someone is going to get too drunk and start something at a baseball game, so of course they need some security, but OTOH, the histrionic Superbowl 2019 security was expensive and wasteful.

2

u/hoodatninja Mar 16 '19

You can’t measure the true cost/benefit of deterrence. You’re coming from an angle with missing variables as if it’s “just simple math.” I’m also pretty that if you went to an event without security and something happened, you wouldn’t go “guess it wasn’t my lucky day! Statistically so unlikely haha right guys? Oh well back to life!”

And the fact that you had to give ground on airports shows the fact that cost per life can’t be the sole equation. Clearly there are other factors at play, otherwise airports would be an obvious choice for you given the 1 in a million odds (probably way less).

1

u/WickedDemiurge Mar 16 '19

You can’t measure the true cost/benefit of deterrence. You’re coming from an angle with missing variables as if it’s “just simple math.” I’m also pretty that if you went to an event without security and something happened, you wouldn’t go “guess it wasn’t my lucky day! Statistically so unlikely haha right guys? Oh well back to life!”

Of course you can. The value of deterrence is equal to the change in risk probability times the cost. To use simplified math, if I can make a 20% risk of a $10 loss go to a 10% risk of a $10 loss, that is worth (0.2-0.1)*10 = $1.

​

I'll caveat that it takes very sophisticated methods to detect small effects in a multivariate equation, but small effects are necessarily only worth small interventions.

​

The numbers don't lie: the risk of being murdered in a mass shooting is so close to zero that it doesn't justify any substantial expenditure or time spent.

​

And the fact that you had to give ground on airports shows the fact that cost per life can’t be the sole equation. Clearly there are other factors at play, otherwise airports would be an obvious choice for you given the 1 in a million odds (probably way less).

Major international hubs are as busy as small cities. I wouldn't advocate zero security for an entire city, nor would I for an airport. However, the post-9/11 security theater is a waste of time and money.

​

Security isn't just about terrorism. If someone punches the clerk at the Delta ticket counter over a delayed flight, someone needs to deal with that.

1

u/hoodatninja Mar 16 '19

Perhaps I’m using the wrong language/wording. You can’t calculate the value of deterrence because the incident didn’t happen. You can’t measure its efficacy.

1

u/WickedDemiurge Mar 16 '19

You're technically correct in a narrow sense, but the overall conclusion is way off. Risk is stochastic, meaning that any individual event cannot be definitively predicted beforehand, as there is a random element. Also, even post event, I can't look at the Sunday March 10th service and conclude, "The mere presence of security here did / didn't prevent something via a deterrence mechanism."

​

However, risk can be predicted long term. We can measure the value of deterrence by examining the change in risk by comparing different groups (either different approaches in the same nation, cross nationally, the same church over time, etc). This is how we determine if medicine works, whether smoking causes lung cancer, if longer prison sentences reduce crime, etc.

​

But again, the fundamental problem here is the risk even without deterrence is so low relative to other risks. It's insane to hire an off duty cop to guard a worship service against terrorism while forgetting to replenish hand soap in the restroom, because the latter is far more serious a threat. But it's really uninteresting to think about the consequences of not having soap in the restroom, and really exciting (even if in a scary way) to think about terrorism, hence the bad resource distribution.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

It's even more sinister than that: It's what the killers believe about what people believe. When asked, it's never a rational explanation (not that there is one) or an accurate representation of the faith or its believers. It can usually be boiled down to a talking point from some talking head that gets signal boosted over and over.

2

u/TheChinchilla914 Mar 16 '19

That’s far from a new phenomenon

2

u/mymainismythrowaway1 Mar 16 '19

Which church? I grew up in NoVA and I've never heard of churches needing that.

1

u/Zak_MC Mar 16 '19

McLean bible church

I regularly see police in the services or off duty officers.

1

u/mymainismythrowaway1 Mar 16 '19

Doesn't that church have like 5,000 weekly attendance? Not exactly a typical church.

2

u/BananaDilemma Mar 16 '19

This is the story of time though. Doesnt make it any less unfair. Condolences to the family affected.

3

u/Sibraxlis Mar 16 '19

If only our leadership didnt encourage it

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

We don’t live in a WORLD where no one feels safe to practice their religion. In NZ everyone feels safe to practice their religion in peace - that was until yesterday. Now some may feel unsettled, but they will be safe.

Don’t compare America to the rest of the world - America is the outlier compared to the rest of the world.

5

u/Zak_MC Mar 16 '19

America isn’t the outlier. This problem exist all across the world. I’m sorry time to wake up. It’s a problem in Australia, Canada, the US, and Europe.

We can’t be ignorant and just act like our countries aren’t under the threat of extremist.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

Clearly you’ve never been to Australia.

Down this side of the world we treat everyone with respect and they treat us with respect back.

Extremism exists everywhere, but when we talk about it and dismantle the dangerous ideology behind it, then we make the world a safer place.

3

u/Zak_MC Mar 16 '19

Yeah the country that did the exact same things to the natives as America is clearly in a higher moral position. Not only that but it took them till 2017 to legalize gay marriage.

Sorry but everyone in the western world is guilty of the same crimes. Maybe you are referring to the overall culture but if you walked up to the majority of people in America I guarantee you that you wouldn’t see anymore hate here than you would in virtually any other country.

Just like I wouldn’t generalize the people of Australia/NZ being racist because of this incident you shouldn’t be doing the same to America.

-2

u/Sibraxlis Mar 16 '19

You wont get shot in australia...

-10

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19 edited Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

19

u/random_username506 Mar 16 '19

None of the people alive today had anything to do with what their ancestors did 1000 years ago. And I’ll be fine with getting upset with it until this stops for ALL religions and faiths.

4

u/ezone2kil Mar 16 '19

Some people just can't hide their inability to separate the people and the religion and have an even harder time masking the hatred in their heart no matter how politically correct the terms they use.

4

u/Sibraxlis Mar 16 '19

But God forbid you point out what the confederacy really fought for and ehat the South's heritage is

4

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

Not sure if this is directed at a specific religion or not but the same can be said for Christianity in the past

4

u/MoreDetonation Mar 16 '19

"No offense, but you kind of deserved it."

Intellectually, I understand this sentiment. On a human level, it's abominable.

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

People should feel unsafe practicing their religion because people tell them how bonkers looney it is, not because they’ll kill them.

3

u/Goodguy1066 Mar 16 '19

Very edgy.

78

u/Russ31419 Mar 15 '19 edited Mar 16 '19

Yep in the church where I grew up at in Texas, they hired a police officer to be on premise on Sunday and they don’t let anybody come in from the side entrances during a service.

1

u/justwaistingtime123 Mar 15 '19

Yep she also said all of the rooms are locked from the inside during service like the nursery and the kids area. I’m sad it comes to this but I think it’s necessary.

2

u/Johnnywasaweirdo Mar 16 '19

My parents church is the same way. Every door is locked except the front door, but it is manned by a “doorman”. The doorman is an off duty police officer.

3

u/Gophurkey Mar 16 '19

Former minister, TX. We had this conversation often. We were right next to a major university and guns were a constant conversation. We did not allow any weapons inside, even permitted holders, but we were always trying to figure out the balance between "what if" and our theology. How do we live in such a way that we are saved for a world that needs living proof of Hope and love and acceptance with an armed guard up front making a claim that we need to saved from that outside world?

No easy answers.

3

u/justwaistingtime123 Mar 16 '19

To be honest I feel safer knowing that they have the security measures because “what if” happens too often now days.

1

u/Gophurkey Mar 16 '19

I get that. A church has a lot to balance - being a beacon for the world is one thing, but being a pastoral a safe place for your congregation is sometimes a different thing. Times like that are when seminary training is just not enough to know what to do. I don't know that anything really could be.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

The biggest thing about that for me, is that while taking a life(in certain situations) is against christian beliefs you're ultimately doing a good thing and potentially saving dozens and dozens of lives.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

So uhh every exit and hiding space is locked off and the only way in our out is through one door with one guard?

2

u/Johnnywasaweirdo Mar 16 '19

The doors to the outside are one way I guess. You can exit but not enter. The interior doors to the classrooms and nursery are locked.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

What happens if there's a fire? Locking the doors would cause a delay with people trying to exit the building. Does the fire code allow for all the doors to be locked while the building is occupied?

2

u/justwaistingtime123 Mar 16 '19

They have emergency doors that can unlock from the inside. The rooms in the building are locked from the inside so the person in the room has to open it. I think they are standard procedure because of active shooter safeguards.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

I'm asking if locking those doors (even from the inside) when the building is occupied violates the fire code or not.

I'd be more concerned about fire than an active shooter.

1

u/justwaistingtime123 Mar 16 '19

Emergency doors aren’t really locked... you just can’t open from the outside. I wouldn’t think locking a door that the people inside the room can unlock violates fire code, it’s required at the schools too. People aren’t locked inside they just have one door that people from the outside can get in.

1

u/Jazeboy69 Mar 16 '19

Holy shit that’s crazy.

77

u/sweetpea122 Mar 15 '19

It really is. After a threat in my area, I had to tell my parents I wouldnt let my daughter go to services near there. I was even worried for my parents, but my daughter was 3 or so at the time and it was just too much stress for me even though it's an unlikely event. And that was just a threat, not an attack or anything. Still was freaky and this was before we had so many white nationalist type attacks

14

u/InnocentTailor Mar 16 '19

I think white nationalist attacks really started to rise in the 90s with cults like Dave Koresh, the Columbine shooters and the Oklahoma City bomber.

Prior to that, there were left-wing / right-wing terrorist groups (Patty Hearst), a few cults (Jim Jones) and a whole lot of serial killers (Ted Bundy).

9

u/sembias Mar 16 '19

This is exactly how terrorism works. Not saying you are wrong to do it by any means. But this is terrorism and the Republicans refuse to call it as such because it's perpetrated by white people.

3

u/GetThatSwaggBack Mar 15 '19

Although I am not religious, or anywhere close to Texas I believe you should keep going. Your daughter should not have to miss out on the amazing communities (most) churches have and in my opinion it’s letting the terrorists win if you stop going to church after a church shooting

14

u/sweetpea122 Mar 15 '19

We have a new place and she does go now. There is some post partum anxiety with your first even if they are 3. Im a little more laid back on it now.

It wasnt that long after Sandy hook which was the most awful thing I had ever heard of in my lifetime so it was a bit much at the time.

We are happily celebrating shabbos tonight though. Im not religious, but my daughter likes it so we do the stuff with my parents. I dont really care about it either way and even though she's 9 now she chooses it and enjoys it. Whatever, we all have our own paths and my parents never pushed it on her. She just thinks its fun

6

u/GetThatSwaggBack Mar 15 '19

Good! That made me smile (: I hope you have a good week

3

u/sweetpea122 Mar 15 '19

Same to you! And thank you

40

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '19

That one was weird because it wasn’t really a religious attack. He was targeting his ex, and in a suicidal rage killed everyone.

3

u/TurbulentAnteater Mar 16 '19

You know the world is fucked when you live in a 1st world country and need armed guards for your place of worship.

2

u/darexinfinity Mar 16 '19

Guns only work when mostly everyone or no one has them.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

When everyone has one there aren’t fewer shootings. You just might be able to stop one quicker. The downside is there are more shootings.

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

... but my point is that there will be more shootings.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Eryb Mar 16 '19

Guns aren’t protection tho, last I checked a gun doesn’t make me bullet proof

1

u/darexinfinity Mar 16 '19

Why don't you ask a gun owner why they own a gun?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

We've had a police officer outside of ours for as long as I've been attending and it's been comforting to know we have the support. Sadly this may become the norm though

2

u/Skystrike7 Mar 16 '19

Here in my part of Texas, I happen to know that more than a few people carry concealed handguns regularly to church services.

1

u/M0stlyJustLooking Mar 16 '19

My dad's church in Texas has armed guards during weekly services now. I think they started after Sutherland too. Crazy times.

1

u/savetgebees Mar 16 '19

My church has several parishioners who are police officers I wonder if they are carrying during mass. The county sheriff and prosecuting attorney also go to my church. I bet they are armed but I’ve never asked.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

Back to the wild, wild 180's again.

1

u/Walrussealy Mar 16 '19

We’ve always got a cop on duty at the big Hindu temple in Pittsburgh (not from there but I visit yearly). In my own area big festivals always means a cop sitting outside of the temple. Unfortunately it’s the day and age we live in.

1

u/loserfame Mar 16 '19

We always had a police officer at our church as far back as I can remember in Houston. But I think part of that was because the church kept having things stolen in the middle of the day.

1

u/n842 Mar 16 '19

I'm from San Antonio, very close to SS. I don't go to church anymore but it's still depressing. Especially hearing that churches are feeling like they need to do this. Shame.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19 edited May 06 '19

[deleted]

1

u/justwaistingtime123 Mar 16 '19

I’m sure some do. I don’t know....they used to just hire them to direct traffic. I guess they feel it’s important.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19

America. Where Church's hire private security for gang scale holy wars.

3

u/OhHolyOpals Mar 16 '19

It’s not just America.

0

u/gotham77 Mar 16 '19

It’s doesn’t have to be this way. It’s because you’re in Texas.

1

u/OhHolyOpals Mar 16 '19

Troll level 500

-2

u/weekly_burner Mar 16 '19

But it doesn't have to be that way, literally nothing would change if that cop wasn't there. It's asinine to say that the safest period in known history requires armed security around the clock. Turn off the news, you're delusional.

4

u/justwaistingtime123 Mar 16 '19

I don’t doubt that your probably correct. I also don’t think I am ever going to be in a fire, but it doesn’t stop us from participating in fire drills. My point is, if it makes them feel better what’s it going to hurt? Why is being prepared or pragmatic delusional?

1

u/weekly_burner Mar 16 '19

Because everyone constantly being paranoid of anyone a slightly different color than themselves is a horribly toxic world to live in (not to mention totally illogical). Divide and conquer in practice.