It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: onthedownlow

Did you hear that Ted Cruise has announce his virginia campaign co-chairs? Ya he picked Cynthia Dunbar as one of them.





Among other far-right views, Dunbar says she opposes the separation of church and state since she believes the founders wanted the government to promote religion. After leaving the school board, Dunbar admitted that she tried to shape the state’s curriculum in order to cure America of being a “biblically illiterate society” by teaching “the ‘laws of nature’s God’ revealed through the Holy Scripture.”

That came as no surprise, as Dunbar once led the board in praying for “a Christian land governed by Christian principles” and asserting that the Bill of Rights came straight out of the Bible. She similarly told a Washington, D.C., prayer rally that schools cannot instruct in an environment “devoid of the presence of the most high God,” praying for God to “invade our schools.” In a speech in favor of a sweeping anti-abortion bill, Dunbar asserted that lawmakers “don’t have the freedom to make any laws if they are contrary to what God has said in his Holy Scripture.”

Dunbar believes that the U.S. was designed to have “an emphatically Christian government” and must have a “biblical litmus test” for public officials, saying that they must have “sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern.”


- See more at: www.rightwingwatch.org...


seems to me that they aren't trying to bring moral issues into the political debate as much as they are trying to bring christian issues into it. They can't agree on just what that christian religion is about isn't debatable since there's seems to be one argument already presented on these boards over just what a christian believes in and yet, that their version of "God's :Law" should be considered to be above our gov't's laws and work so hard to convince the populace of this. and then proclaim complete innocence when some of that populace take their words to heart and think that since their version of "God's Laws" justifies the killing of people, well, the civil laws of this country should be ignored. heck one abortionist killer even tried to use something similar in his trial and was supported by some from the right wing.




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

Where is your proof that nutjob PP shooter acted in the name of chistianity?

He has been labeled a "christian terrorist" by many here at ATS and elsewhere but there is no evidence of it.

If nutjob is a christian terrorist just because he happened to be christian, then McVeigh is an agnostic terrorist by the same definition.


Fair enough, semantically you're absolutely accurate.

Now, would you address my question?

Did McVeigh kill for "agnostic principles"? If so, what were they?

Did Dear kill for "Christian (activist) principles, i.e. stopping the "baby murderers" at Planned Parenthood"?

Are you suggesting that there's no connection at all between activist Christianity and the anti-abortion movement?


Killing people that favor/have abortions is not a Christian principle. Just putting that out there as a true Christian.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
It certainly doesn't help the situation. Neither side is trying to calm the situation, both sides are guilty of propaganda that promotes an unrealistic threat to the listeners/ viewers existence. It's the people who only believe one side and then surround themselves with that media narrative can become dangerous no doubt.


Dare I say that it's not the propaganda that's the problem? If a person is mentally unstable enough to go kill from watching or listening to something, the issue is the person itself. The world has been increasing in crazy more and more since God and religion were taken out of the public. You can deny that all you want, but it's true.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: dawnstar

Yep.

When my sisters and I were kids, our family had two pets...a dog and a cat. They got along for the most part, usually snuggling up together at night to keep warm, once in a while fighting over the same toy.

But lock them in a room and throw a piece of baloney on the floor (whole other story...psycho sister and so on) and they went at it to the point of blood, and dad had to run into the room and toss a sheet over them to calm them down.

I don't know what made me think of that. Maybe unplugging the TV is what more people need to do. I did mine in 2009 and only turn it on when something extreme is happening, but then can only take so much and have to pull the plug again.

Control. It's definitely about control. And we are all susceptible to one degree or another. And we're the only ones who can neutralize the effects of psychos penning us in and throwing baloney at us.


I disagree with unplugging the television. Why can't people control their emotions? Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I hate it or want to kill it.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
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 Republican Tea Party candidate that is a libertarian? A Facebook debate? If he really believes what he says then he's just a loon. No true Christian believes in stoning the homosexual.

He's referencing the Old Testament anyways.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
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.


What propaganda videos? All people are asking for is proof, lol.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Nice find! Star for you! I do believe in a seperation of church and state. Come election time, I will make my choice based on personal values. I have long complained that the hard swing to the left will be countered by an equal swing to the right. I like the middle

ETA: the middle is still far to the right of current center IMHO
edit on 2-12-2015 by onthedownlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It appears to me that a pattern of logical disconnect may be emerging in this thread.

What I mean by this is the apparent assumption being made that extremist rhetoric, from let's just say the left in this example, would only potentially ignite action from the, again in this example, left.

incendiary rhetoric from either "side" most definitely has the potential to affect actors on either or even both sides, depending on how the rhetoric is processed and reacted to.


It takes a mentally ill person to react the way Dear did. Having said that, I agree with you.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

Where is your proof that nutjob PP shooter acted in the name of chistianity?

He has been labeled a "christian terrorist" by many here at ATS and elsewhere but there is no evidence of it.

If nutjob is a christian terrorist just because he happened to be christian, then McVeigh is an agnostic terrorist by the same definition.


Fair enough, semantically you're absolutely accurate.

Now, would you address my question?

Did McVeigh kill for "agnostic principles"? If so, what were they?

Did Dear kill for "Christian (activist) principles, i.e. stopping the "baby murderers" at Planned Parenthood"?

Are you suggesting that there's no connection at all between activist Christianity and the anti-abortion movement?


Killing people that favor/have abortions is not a Christian principle. Just putting that out there as a true Christian.


NONE of the victims in the 'Dear' rampage were clients or employees of PP.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Dupe post.
edit on 12/2/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

Where is your proof that nutjob PP shooter acted in the name of chistianity?

He has been labeled a "christian terrorist" by many here at ATS and elsewhere but there is no evidence of it.

If nutjob is a christian terrorist just because he happened to be christian, then McVeigh is an agnostic terrorist by the same definition.


Fair enough, semantically you're absolutely accurate.

Now, would you address my question?

Did McVeigh kill for "agnostic principles"? If so, what were they?

Did Dear kill for "Christian (activist) principles, i.e. stopping the "baby murderers" at Planned Parenthood"?

Are you suggesting that there's no connection at all between activist Christianity and the anti-abortion movement?


Killing people that favor/have abortions is not a Christian principle. Just putting that out there as a true Christian.


NONE of the victims in the 'Dear' rampage were clients or employees of PP.


If by victims you mean the three dead, right. One was a first responder and rhe other two there with patients, I believe.

But there were more than three victims....on a number of levels.

But where's the point here regardless?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

Killing people that favor/have abortions is not a Christian principle. Just putting that out there as a true Christian.



Doesn't it take a rather incredible degree of what the Bible calls "pride" to claim that you, in your limited human understanding and belief, are absolutely correct and are following the the only "true" way?

Doesn't pride go before a fall if I remember correctly?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

My point is that this lunatic was choosing people randomly to shoot...with a heavy emphasis on cops.
Seem like his warped thinking was heavily influenced by BLM.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It appears to me that a pattern of logical disconnect may be emerging in this thread.

What I mean by this is the apparent assumption being made that extremist rhetoric, from let's just say the left in this example, would only potentially ignite action from the, again in this example, left.

incendiary rhetoric from either "side" most definitely has the potential to affect actors on either or even both sides, depending on how the rhetoric is processed and reacted to.


potential affects?.....from the Cristian right it's called actual affects, like 8 murders , and over 150 fire-bombings of PP clinics.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
Killing people that favor/have abortions is not a Christian principle. Just putting that out there as a true Christian.


The guy was truly a nut case on many levels that his religious beliefs were most likely the least of his issues.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

But there were more than three victims....on a number of levels.

But where's the point here regardless?


The point is people kill all the time, and there are some really crazy people mixed within our 330 million. A couple of weekends ago Chicago had 52 people shot with 8 of them dead and I would bet a years wage none of the shooters were anywhere near the Right spectrum of politics. Human race is one nasty animal and that is basically the point in all this...
edit on 2-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LSU0408

Killing people that favor/have abortions is not a Christian principle. Just putting that out there as a true Christian.



Doesn't it take a rather incredible degree of what the Bible calls "pride" to claim that you, in your limited human understanding and belief, are absolutely correct and are following the the only "true" way?

Doesn't pride go before a fall if I remember correctly?






I think true Christianity can be established by adherence to the basic principles of Christ. I don't think LSU was speaking pridefully, just pointing out that actions going against christian principles might be less than christian
edit on 2-12-2015 by onthedownlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

This is what I was talking about in this post. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I didn't have the language, so I called it "wingnut culpability".



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join