Radical Homosexual Terrorism

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Annee

 

Uh... that's the Houston chronicles faith section and there's also a link to the Boston edge in OP. Please try to at least read the OP before complaining.

Its in the Faith section. I read what it said. It comes directly from a bias position.

The website is not clear unless you are familiar with it. It did look odd to me.

Its still a one sided bias report.

Originally posted by Lightmare
Come on now, Mel. I know you're not that freaking dense. Why then do you insist on acting like you are? Your pathetic attempt to derail this thread by injecting non-applicable relativist implications indicates intellectual ineptitude on your part. I say again...I know you're not that dense. SO STOP ACTING LIKE YOU ARE!

Not one of your POINTLESS SPECULATIONS have done anything to change the FACTS that have been presented to you on this subject.

By being purposely blind and deaf to the FACTS which have been presented quite clearly, you not only insult our intelligence, but your own as well.

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Lightmare]

You're shouting at me again. The stupidity started on page 1.

I still haven't said I justify the actions of this group. Indeed, I think they were pretty stupid. But I'm not the one who started the hyperbole. They are not terrorists at all. They are just silly people who deserve to have a good ass-kicking and/or see a judge and get a few weeks holiday/community service.

This is the standard the OP is applying...

Terrorism means activities against persons, organizations or property of any nature committed by an individual or individuals acting on behalf of any foreign person or foreign interest:

1. that involve the following or preparation for the following:
a. use or threat of force or violence; or
b. commission or threat of a dangerous act; or
c. commission or threat of an act that interferes with or disrupts an
electronic communication, information, or mechanical system; and

2. when at least one of the following applies:
a. the effect is to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian
population or any segment thereof, or to disrupt any segment of the
economy; or
b. it appears that the intent is to intimidate or coerce a government,
or further political, ideological, religious, social or economic
objectives or to express (or express opposition to) a philosophy
or ideology.

Again, this is the definition that Whammy is attempting to apply. It says nothing about public, private, unselfish action, selfish action. Nada. Nothing about cleansing religion or acting on god's will against the will of other individuals (where've I heard that before...). You are being relativistic, I'm applying this objectively and literally. Rules are rules.

If we apply this blindly, like whammy wants to.

Then we can apply:

1a: Use of threat of force or violence (threw tables and money, harrassed animals and traders).

and

2a. the effect is to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian
population or any segment thereof, or to disrupt any segment of the
economy (Jesus affected the trading, Indeed, he stopped it).

2b. it appears that the intent is to intimidate or coerce a government,
or further political, ideological, religious, social or economic
objectives or to express (or express opposition to) a philosophy
or ideology (jesus was furthering religous and political objectives).

That's what he did. Those were his aims.

All protestors believe their actions are justified. Amazingly, so do terrorists. People who cheerlead such people also justify their actions when others readily deplore them.

I know you can't get beyond the jesus son-of-god thing. But lets apply the story to Phil the Barbarian.

Phil goes to his local temple and kicks off at some supposed offence. He causes trouble and is arrested. He justifies his action due to his own ideology. End of story. We all agree he did wrong in acting the way he did, even if we see he had a point somewhere along the way.

But you can't do that. You're hamstrung.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Lucid, that is GENIUS, LMAO

starred





Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17/11/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by melatonin


Wrong again, Mel. I can actually see beyond my own beliefs quite well thankyou. And I understand quite clearly what you are trying to say. I just think its pure crap. Simply not applicable here. OK?

Perhaps the word "terrorism" might be a slight overstatement for this situation. But only a VERY SLIGHT one. Sure, they didn't bomb the church or anything like that. But they did attempt to induce TERROR in the church attendees by dressing up like TERRORISTS. Thats like yelling the word "bomb" on a crowded jet plane. Not a very smart thing to do.

And the fact remains that these protesters had NO intention of peacefully attending the church service but they had EVERY intention of causing trouble. There is NOTHING you can say that will change that.

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Lightmare]

Originally posted by Lightmare
Wrong again, Mel. I can actually see beyond my own beliefs quite well thankyou. And I understand quite clearly what you are you trying to say. I just think its pure crap. Simply not applicable here. OK?

But I don't expect you, clearskies, whammy, or any other of that ilk to say much different.

I don't. You would justify all kinds of acts in the name of your god and its minions. They did a study with israeli kids and found the same. Ask them whether the genocidal actions of David are justified, and the majority say yay! Ask the whether the exact same acts by a chinese emperor are justifiable, and the majority say nay!

Same acts. One involves ingroup figure, t'other an outgroup figure.

Perhaps the word "terrorism" might be a slight overstatement for this situation. But only a VERY SLIGHT one. Sure, they didn't bomb the church or anything like that. But they did attempt to induce TERROR in the church attendees by dressing up like TERRORISTS. Thats like yelling the word "bomb" on a crowded jet plane. Not a very smart thing to do.

I'm sure anyone in a temple with dozens of goats stampeding around and some apparent madman screaming and turning tables would be 'terror'-inducing as well.

The gay group are silly people, I agree.

And the fact remains that these protesters had NO intention of peacefully attending the church service but they had EVERY intention of causing trouble. There is NOTHING you can say that will change that.

I agree. But you don't really know whether jesus intended on peacefully attending. Again, from some readings of the bible, it wasn't the first time he disrupted a temple. And even if it was, you and I can only really guess at the issue of premeditation. What we do have are his actions.

The definition used above above makes no requirement for premeditation. The actions and motivation are sufficient for categorisation.

Glad you can see this wasn't really terrorism, though. Just a group of idiots who are doing their group no good.

reply to post by melatonin


Are you calling me a 'ilk'?
I am SO mad!

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin

 

Are you calling me a 'ilk'?
I am SO mad!

Heh, don't be. I specified you, but I didn't want to say 'other Christians' as that could too much of a generalisation. Perhaps christian of a more 'fervent' persuasion. But 'ilk' is shorter and more ambiguous, lol.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by melatonin]

To try and put some humour against the act they did but shouldn't have,

But which as stated in the second post of the thread is probably a Blowback of sorts against the supporters and perpertrators of similar acts against themselves...

Well if the element of the The Radical Terrorist's who were wearing dresses and heals as they stormed the church did not, shave first, I am sure it would have been a lot more frightening to their victims.

Elf.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Bash Back Terrorists

Homosexuals Attack Pentecostal Church

Thirty members of a militant homosexual group disrupted a service at the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan last Sunday. After distracting the church's security guards, several of the demonstrators stood and shouted, "It's okay to be gay" and "Jesus was a homo."

The protesters from the group, Bash Back!, were dressed in pink and black material. Their antics included unfurling a rainbow flag from the balcony, setting off a fire alarm, and throwing fliers at the congregation. While this happened within the building, another group of protesters demonstrated on the outside.
Houston Chronoicle


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

A new kind of domestic terrorism that entails performing lewd acts while vandalizing a church , chanting "Jesus was a homo" , and hurling condoms at children and their parents who were innocently attending a Christian worship service. Then pulling the fire alarm to induce panic and fear - thus endangering lives.


Nothing garners public acceptance and tolerance like terrorizing churches on Sunday morning. :shk:

Also see: www.edgeboston.com...



[edit on 11/16/2008 by Bigwhammy]

While this can be seen as retaliation for actions the Christians have done against the homosexual community, it doesn't justify what they have done.

Actions like this and shoving a women and proceeding to stomp on her cross will not get the homosexual community the positive publicity they drastically need.

-Ign0RanT

reply to post by melatonin


WRONG AGAIN.

There are plenty of things done by others of my "ilk" that I would NEVER give my approval to. For example, that one guy, Fred Phelps and his group of hate-filled bigots. I do not approve of their actions and will never defend them regardless of whether or not they claim to be Christians. PERIOD. The same would go for any group of Christians that would use hatespeech as a means to express their disapproval of things which are in opposition to Christian doctrine. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean that I will mindlessly approve everything that other Christians do.

As for your endless attempt to shoehorn the actions of Jesus at the temple into this thread, I will say this. Show me where in the Bible it says that Jesus and his disciples said something like, "Hey guys, I've got an idea. Lets go start some trouble at the temple just to piss everybody off", and I might take you a bit more seriously on that. Good luck though. You won't find it because it is not there.

And there is the difference. Jesus was not trying to get attention by causing a ruckus. On the other hand, that is EXACTLY what these gay protesters were doing.




Edit: For leaving entire words out of sentences. I think I need sleep.

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Lightmare]

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Lightmare]

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Lightmare]

Originally posted by asmeone2
Read your own definition Bigwhammy, the definition of terrorism inherantly includes violent threats or actions, which is not the case here.

You're talking to BigWhammy here. As numerous discussions into Evolution vs. Creationism has illustrated, little things like reason, logic, temperance, education, comprehension, etc aren't his forte.

They did a study with israeli kids and found the same. Ask them whether the genocidal actions of David are justified, and the majority say yay! Ask the whether the exact same acts by a chinese emperor are justifiable, and the majority say nay!

I recall hearing about that study on NPR one day and found it fascinating. However, I believe they asked two separate groups of students from the same town and similar neighborhoods. For control purposes, I assume. One group they asked about David, the other the fictional Chinese dictator. What struck me was that percentage ratio of the responses was extremely similar, although inverse. In the neighborhood of around 15% to 85% I think. It's been awhile, so I may be a bit off.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


Amusing that you employ blatant ad hominem logical fallacy to demonstrate your self proclaimed superior reason. If that's what you call "reason", you can keep it, I prefer the non fallacious variety.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Lasheic

 

Amusing that you employ blatant ad hominem logical fallacy to demonstrate your self proclaimed superior reason. If that's what you call "reason", you can keep it, I prefer the non fallacious variety.

Protip: You can't really employ the "Ad Hominem" card in this case, since I wasn't trying to debase your character as a defense of my point. The debasement of your character WAS my point. Edit and this thread is a typical thinly veiled slander against an entire group of people based on the actions of a few, I assume, because "Your god told you to hate them". Or some other silly reasoning. I'm sure you'll say that's not the case, but it's certainly the image you portray for yourself, especially though your wording. Beyond that though, when was the last time you posted a thread about a preacher or a church harassing homosexuals, which tend to include threats of eternal damnation and hellfire. Perhaps not an immediate physical threat of violence, but certainly a threat of impending harm non-the-less.



[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lasheic]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lasheic]






Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 17/11/2008 by Sauron]

- After distracting the church's security guards, several of the demonstrators stood and shouted, "It's okay to be gay" and "Jesus was a homo." -

Haha...that is pretty funny.

Originally posted by Lasheic
You're an idiot, and this thread is a typical thinly veiled slander against an entire group of people based on the actions of a few...

This is something I don't understand. There have been many threads where some religious group does something deplorable and the comments not only boil down to that entire religion is horrible as well as its followers but you will often see 'This is why all religion should be eradicated and made illegal.' How is pointing out what radicals in a group do reflect on the entire homosexual community? Would you still have had a problem with this thread if a user you were not familiar with and considered an 'idiot' had posted this?



I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at some of the comments in this thread. Why is it the Christians don't flock to threads defending and making excuses for Fred Phelps and why is it Muslims on ATS will speak out against news stories where Islamic terrorists have done something horrible but on this thread, the typical crowd is either pointing the finger back at the victims or trying to justify the actions of the perpetrators?

Why is it being claimed all homosexuals are being lumped together but several times in this thread then, ironically, one of the justifications of the harassment this church endured is acceptable due to what other Christians of the Fred Phelps sort has done, thereby lumping all Christians together?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by WickedStar

This thread is lunacy's

You heard it here folks. This thread is mine!

I encourage an environment here that doesn't include personal attacks. But I agree with you that the moderation on ATS towards anti-gay slander is quite flexible! I am sugar coating here of course. I have seen some horrible horrible things said against gays and directly towards gay ats members that have yet to be moderated...

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by AshleyD


Well, for one thing, most Christians are smart enough to distance themselves from hate groups like Fred Phelps and his followers. We know better than to allow ourselves to be counted among them, be it in the eyes of the world or the eyes of God.

As for rest, many of the non-Christians around here apparently feel threatened by the absolutist views in Christian doctrine. Therefore they look for any reason to try to discredit and silence anything that sounds like a fundamentalist point of view.

They preach tolerance and acceptance but show nothing but fear and distrust.

reply to post by AshleyD

Why is it being claimed all homosexuals are being lumped together but several times in this thread then, ironically, one of the justifications of the harassment this church endured is acceptable due to what other Christians of the Fred Phelps sort has done, thereby lumping all Christians together?

You are right that some Christians do not act like that. However, we have seen over and over and over again how some Christians treat homosexuals. So much that it appears as if ALL Christians are doing it.
In fact, just tonight my friend who is a Christian and I have been discussing about this on yahoo messenger. My friend said that at a conference last weekend they have been talking about this very problem. Some Christians have made it look like all Christians hate homosexuals.
Another problem is that many Christians have no real understanding of homosexuality and that they have misinterpreted the Bible to make it appear that homosexuality is immoral.
I am in no way making justifications for this group that disrupted the church service. However, you have to wonder why they did this. Something went wrong, of course.
Also, I agree with some people here that the use of the word terrorism is a bit much.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Deaf Alien]

As long as Churches are using the pulpit for political leverage against particular groups of Americans... They should expect an occasional political circus distrupting their services. This is the result of banning other peoples freedom to pursue their own happiness. Marriage promotes monogamy (unless your a hetero polygamist). This is why they want marriage illegal for gays... They like to keep the old stereotypes alive and continue to accuse gays of being promiscuous and immoral.

We all know the real threat to traditional marriage is divorce! Where is the rally cry to ban divorce?? Notice the silence...