Here’s how far-right Christians incited stochastic terrorism at a Colorado Springs PP

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dawnstar

And the way to focus on this is by starting a purely one-sided discussion as if this only a one-sided issue?

Isn't that in an of itself a form of what the OP is claiming exists?

Ironic that the very same people straining to form this connection are the same ones who jump up an down foaming at the mouth to deny any possibility that there might be a connection between terrorism and radical Islam, not even normal Islam, but simply radical variants like those espoused by ISIS and al Qaeda.

Which side would you like a two-sided discussion to begin at? Or would you prefer it start at the middle? Or four years ago?

That this relates to current events and is, as you keep repeatedly claiming, one-sided, is simply a current example of what is currently being discussed out there.

I don't see where anyone has denied the possibility in this thread that there is a connection to this and extremists of any ilk. Quite the opposite in fact, from the OP onward.

As for your same ones comment. Whatever your perception is is your reality, and that probably isn't going to change, particularly not in this thread that you insist on continuing to derail from a concept due to the example used to springboard a discussion.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

We have seen far right Christians do some crummy things. Going to military funerals and protesting, accusing homosexuals of being the root cause of natural disasters, and pretty much telling everyone unifiliated with them that they are going to hell. That is really just rabid fascism at its root. Is there any difference in what these Christian bashing threads are doing?

a reply to: onthedownlow

We've seen a lot of people of many persuasions do a lot of crummy things. And most of us don't condemn an entire religion based on those things. Unfortunately, many do, and the question here is are the people inciting or propagating or encouraging that kind of thinking in an incessant manner doing so for a purpose?

The premise here, once again, is, is there a possibility that a non-stop barrage of information repeated incessantly a tactic or a contributing factor to why people think in extremes?

Can this kind of saturation affect someone on the edge, fringe, disenfranchised, or otherwise perhaps vulnerable and susceptible to commit an act of violence or terror?

Is this kind of rhetoric responsible for some of the things we're seeing in society today?

Are certain factions using, oreverusing, using this tactic more than others to control and manipulate? If so, do they have moral and ethical responsibilities or even legal ones?

It's a debatable premise. Debate it and not the example.

a reply to: ketsuko

I have feet that hurt like heck, I don't jump up and down for anything....

but well, just who is denying that Islamic terrorism isn't connected to what might be a warped version of islam.
some might be claiming that not all muslims are terrorists, the few I know, well, I don't think that are. but yes, it's connected. I mean it's kind of hard to refute isn't it if they are yelling how great their god is when they blow themselves up.

But, is the fact that there are a well, probably more than a few nutcases a justification to go and bomb the hades out of another nation, considering that desparate people can do some pretty stupid desparate things?
But let me ask you this one....

Just what is motivating those who want to go and bomb innocent people in far away lands to defend the world against the radical terrorists? Do they fear that the terrorists might come here and blow them up? Do they feel the moral obligation to protect those victims whoever they may be from these thugs? Are they afraid that they will gain the power in their country and remove their freedoms and rights, destroy their way of life???

How many people in the US have been killed by terrorists this year? Well, about 650 women have die from their pregnancies each year. If you fear that those terrorists will blow you up so much that you are willing to jump on the bandwagon and scream that we start bombing, well, just how do you think a women feels if she's told that she has a good chance of being one of those 650 people. you can't justify the bombing and killing of hundreds or thousands while denying that women the right to protect herself from that one that poses a threat to her!

Is it because you are concerned about the safety and well being of strangers that might be harmed? Well then how do you think a women feels if she is told that a pregnancy has a good chance of making so ill that she have to be hospitalized and unable to care for her own.... You can't hold your concern for strangers as being stronger or more virtuous than the concern that women would for her own children!

Concerned about your freedoms and way of life??? really???

you responded to a post I made that didn't refer to anything outside of the nazis... and decided to bring ISIS into it...why? I am pretty sure you knew I would respond in the manner I did. I have in the past.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: onthedownlow

We've seen a lot of people of many persuasions do a lot of crummy things. And most of us don't condemn an entire religion based on those things. Unfortunately, many do, and the question here is are the people inciting or propagating or encouraging that kind of thinking in an incessant manner doing so for a purpose?

The premise here, once again, is, is there a possibility that a non-stop barrage of information repeated incessantly a tactic or a contributing factor to why people think in extremes?

Can this kind of saturation affect someone on the edge, fringe, disenfranchised, or otherwise perhaps vulnerable and susceptible to commit an act of violence or terror?

Is this kind of rhetoric responsible for some of the things we're seeing in society today?

Are certain factions using, oreverusing, using this tactic more than others to control and manipulate? If so, do they have moral and ethical responsibilities or even legal ones?

It's a debatable premise. Debate it and not the example.

Ok. Mind control. We see Charles Manson serving consecutive life sentences for it. Are you asking me to debate whether or not he is culpable, or the women who committed the crimes? Or am I debating whether or not there is a link between Christianity and mind control?

The culprit has been many things. Video games, Hollywood, moral decay, entitlement, etc. Is it plausible that a very small part of society has a wiring problem, and that they may act out regardless of their environment? With some serial killers we can see events in early childhood... Some of them torture small animals, for example. Childhood abuse is not a telltale sign, as a very large portion of society has suffered from childhood abuse, but not all serial killers were abused as children.

No, I do not think that there is a conspiratorial connection between Christian extremism and mass shootings. Keep in mind that Christians do not advocate murder. I will not accuse abortion of devaluing life, although the value of life, or the lack there of is a constant factor in mass shootings... Although, the value of life might be a good starting point when looking for an explanation. I would agree that some extreme Christian view do devalue life of others, be it these are extreme fringe groups, and their is not enough of a measurement to draw conclusions. If we do want to look at devaluing life, we need to look at society, and decide where that moral decay began.

a reply to: onthedownlow

Okay, I have to run or this would be a longer response.

In the meantime, here's a thought (maybe two) for you. Are the people doing this really Christians? Or are they maybe something or someone else.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

ya know, they might not fit your definition of "christian" and still believe they are christian right?? what about the christian pastors who seem to preach that god says that the abortionists should be killed, are they christians, even if you say no. do you think that they might believe that they are??

a reply to: dawnstar
Good point.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: onthedownlow

Okay, I have to run or this would be a longer response.

In the meantime, here's a thought (maybe two) for you. Are the people doing this really Christians? Or are they maybe something or someone else.

Yes, thy're something else.... They're Crazy!
Although, several of you here are on the record as consistently conflating that word with 'Christian'...practically every chance you get.
I seldom take those responses seriously...as they generally reflect ignorance and extremism.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Absent the evidence of an organized movement, we cannot draw the conclusion that the PP shooting was the product of stochastic Christian terrorism. I can't recall any recent examples of such, so it is probably safe to say that it doesn't exist.

a reply to: onthedownlow

Keep in mind that Christians do not advocate murder.

Sure they do but they just put in a it's a punishment from God wrapper. Look at how they are wanting to put homosexuals to death.
Tea Party Candidate Says It's OK To Stone Gays To Death

Scott Esk, a Republican Tea Party candidate in Oklahoma, got into a debate on Facebook last summer in which he advocated killing homosexuals. “I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” Esk wrote in comments uncovered by Oklahoma journalist Rob Morris. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.” When pressed, Esk added: "I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it." Esk is running for the state's House of Representatives. The primary is scheduled for June 24. When contacted by Morris, who runs the news outlet Moore Daily, Esk didn't deny making the comments or back down from the rhetoric. "That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God," Esk said, adding: "I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins."

How is this not advocating murder? Oh yeah that's right it's "God's will".

a reply to: buster2010

He references the 'Old Testament'.

ETA: he is obviously speaking from the standpoint of an extreme libertarian.

So the exact same people who keep on blaming obama for a comunist revival and an increase of racism in the usa cant talk about propaganda video that might have influenced a crazy man.



Blame everyone else and find excuses.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: buster2010

He references the 'Old Testament'.

ETA: he is obviously speaking from the standpoint of an extreme libertarian.

So what if he is talking about the old testament. Jesus said that book was to be followed also so the it's from the old book so it isn't Christian dodge doesn't work.

a reply to: onthedownlow

and, believe it or not, there are some groups of christians that give that old testament law just as much credibility as the new...

but I think it might be wrong to pin the blame on the christians, I think it's the far right wing of the republican party is at least partly responsible. Either a part of the christian sects or a part of the right wing politicians decided it was a good idea to exploit the other for their gain. although, I guess it could have been a mutual agreement between the two, but well....
let's not forget the ones who have been enjoying the higher poll numbers every times they talk about those baby body parts...

a reply to: buster2010

In not dodging anything. You might want to familiarize your self with what Jesus said.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I just finished reading the other thread on this and found your link to another very interesting thread there.

I believe over 1,000 people were murdered due to the actions of a UK national newspaper

So much food for thought there.

There is also some pretty interesting stuff related to media law and ethics as it relates to this topic in general, some of which is related to current events and some to past events such as came out during the Nuremberg trials. [Link]

But of course, opinion shows get a pass on all this, even though some people take it as gospel and truth. Therein lies some of the danger, in my opinion.

I remember that thread. That guy took an awful lot of heat when he was presenting an *idea*, and yet people perceived he was somehow attacking free speech, or God forbid, "The Dailey Mail". Here's my post from 2009:

If people could understand what is being unwittingly accomplished through this choice of wording, they might begin to understand how the media contributes to racial issues, wars, the economy, and other injustices.

Sometimes it goes beyond contributing.....it's downright creating issues.
This we know and have seen.

And here we are almost seven years later, but now people are beginning to speak up, and letting the media know we prefer facts now. When you own or work for a 24 hr. news TV station, all that time has to be filled somehow, and I know it can be difficult at times which is why they so often stay on one topic for days and days, and have so many opinion and interview shows.

At the same time, you see these concepts in action and even as you watch the comments on this thread, you see the 'Right Vs. Left" divide turn into the Grand Canyon, and then you fill it with distrust and absolute hatred.

The question becomes Why are we doing this to ourselves? And if you think it through, what will be it's logical conclusion?

originally posted by: NthOther
Could persistence in insinuating there is an extremist Christian movement afoot be, in itself, considered "stochastic terrorism"?

I mean, what if all this rhetoric incites violence against Christians? We know the Atheists are prone to dim wits and short tempers. What if one of them went nuts one day and decided to go Rambo on the fundies?

You know, for America and everything. Because Christian terrorism is a much greater threat than other kinds.

At least, that's what "they" are saying. Gotta defend the homeland, you know?

The hippy movement spawned Charles Manson. It's not inconceivable that this could happen. Hasn't yet that I'm aware of though. Might be because there is a careful difference of rhetoric used to make sure the wrong ideas aren't fostered when speaking critically about Christianity, but I don't know I'm not a Sociologist.

a reply to: dawnstar

Its safe to say that moral issues should come up in political debateI.There are many in this country looking for political recourse, but outside of a few nutjobs on both sides of the political spectrum, no one is advocating murder.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I just finished reading the other thread on this and found your link to another very interesting thread there.

I believe over 1,000 people were murdered due to the actions of a UK national newspaper

So much food for thought there.

There is also some pretty interesting stuff related to media law and ethics as it relates to this topic in general, some of which is related to current events and some to past events such as came out during the Nuremberg trials. [Link]

But of course, opinion shows get a pass on all this, even though some people take it as gospel and truth. Therein lies some of the danger, in my opinion.

I remember that thread. That guy took an awful lot of heat when he was presenting an *idea*, and yet people perceived he was somehow attacking free speech, or God forbid, "The Dailey Mail". Here's my post from 2009:

If people could understand what is being unwittingly accomplished through this choice of wording, they might begin to understand how the media contributes to racial issues, wars, the economy, and other injustices.

Sometimes it goes beyond contributing.....it's downright creating issues.
This we know and have seen.

And here we are almost seven years later, but now people are beginning to speak up, and letting the media know we prefer facts now. When you own or work for a 24 hr. news TV station, all that time has to be filled somehow, and I know it can be difficult at times which is why they so often stay on one topic for days and days, and have so many opinion and interview shows.

At the same time, you see these concepts in action and even as you watch the comments on this thread, you see the 'Right Vs. Left" divide turn into the Grand Canyon, and then you fill it with distrust and absolute hatred.

The question becomes Why are we doing this to ourselves? And if you think it through, what will be it's logical conclusion?

excellent!