Radical Homosexual Terrorism

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Check your source dude. I think you just described the Old Testament. Fortunately, if you believe in Christianity, that isn't the way that Jesus worked. Or you could still work from the OT and get at people that have no impact on your day to day life.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Face it people...religion is the very cause of violence in this world above any other reason.

Wrong.. in this case the cause it is anti-religion. And historically the popes ancient inquisitions don't hold hold a candle to the 20th centuries Stalins and Maos. So you have it exactly backwards.

Especially in this case, the religious were assaulted while minding their own business in their own church by radical anti-christian invaders.

All in the name of TOLERANCE

[edit on 11/16/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

A lot of churches have to have security guards now due to whackos coming in and shooting up congregations as they worship.

 

I know what you mean AshleyD, we have had two church shootings in separate churches that has cost the lives of two of my friends...........

Originally posted by intrepid
Uh huh, unlike some radical Christians that protest at a gay persons FUNERAL???

Take the name at face value.... Bash BACK. It's a reaction to Christianity's un-Christian stance to gay people.

You would be refering to the Westboro Baptist Church headed up by Pastor Fred Phelps and his unholy band of bigots. Perhaps the gay community would have a right to "bash back" at that particular bunch of "christians" but I can see NO justification for some of these other stunts that they've been pulling lately. They are actually doing more harm to their cause than good.

reply to post by intrepid


Since you brought up African Americans and the civil rights movement, that opens the door for me to compare what I see occurring in this thread to something in a current thread regarding a white student who was 'attacked' (the articles words, although it was not a physical attack) by her black classmates while her black teacher did not interfere. There were a couple of comments in that thread that basically boiled down to what happened to the white student was excusable/undeserving of sympathy or rebuke, due to the fact blacks have been going through such things in this country for ages.

However, that simply doesn't sound right to me. Yes, my heart goes out to homosexuals who have had to endure persecution at the hands of others. The thing is, I will stand up and say both sides are wrong and will make absolutely no excuse for either group. I'm not going to defend Christians like Fred Phelps because I am a Christian. Likewise, I cannot 'excuse' or sympathize with what the homosexuals did in the OP under the guise, 'It's only fair.'

Homosexuality is indeed becoming more acceptable in society as time progresses. It might be a slow process but they are making headway. Things like this only set the community back further. Anyone a part of any cause, faith, group, etc., absolutely has to stand up for what is wrong and speak out against those in the group who give them all a bad name. If not, eventually a dark cloud will hang over that entire group's head.

Can I understand their frustration? Absolutely. Do I condone it or excuse it? No. I just can't. If a week from now there is an article posted that this church found out who the protesters were, showed up at their house, and broke all their dishes, I'd be equally disgusted.

Originally posted by asmeone2
I know a lot of mega churches have them.

I suppose having thousands of people in one room always carries the potential for trouble, regardless of whether it would be an attack or not. Somebody's more likely to have a heart attack, choke on a pretzel, get hit by lighteneing, whatever.

It would be wierd for a small church to have one though.

So...is this a mega church or a small one. I really know nothing about this church but I assumed that the authoratative manner in which many posted on this issue that there was a plethora of knowledge about the church out there. So at this point it could be a church full of pedophiles or the best Christians ever. No one really knows huh. No one seems to know why they have security guards, just guesses as to why a church might have security guards.

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.

wrong - "commission or threat of a dangerous act; "

Pulling a fire alarm is a dangerous act and a threat especially while invading the church in the manner they did, it would be reasonable and safe to assume the church was really on fire. This was a large church, a mass panic and run for the exits could easily result in lives lost. This is terrorism stop attempting to diminish and trivialize it.

I do not agree with Westboro baptist but I don't believe they have vandalized buildings and made false emergency calls to make their point. Amazing the same people making excuses for Bash Back are accusing them of being worse... oh the hypocrisy.

I can see it on the new now. The FBI has arrested pastor so and so for burning down his church to collect the insurance money in a scheme involving blaming gay terrorist for the incident. The FBI is looking for additional members of the congregation.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

No one really knows huh. No one seems to know why they have security guards, just guesses as to why a church might have security guards.

It is astonishing to me that you have to ask this question after what just occurred. Obviously the need guards, they will probably need a few more now. My church has 24 hours security guards. There are thousands of dollars worth of PA equipment, multimedia, and musical equipment, computers. Not to mention the collection plates contain large amounts of cash.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I personally did not bring up Westboro.

I still object to your mischaricterzing this as terrorism. Yes pulling a fire alarm is ganderous but it was likely a bad spur-of-the-moment decision and NOT in the same legue as 9/11 or Oklahoma City or anything else where hundreds or thousands of people actually died.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
wrong - "commission or threat of a dangerous act; "

Pulling a fire alarm is a dangerous act and a threat especially while invading the church in the manner they did, it would be reasonable and safe to assume the church was really on fire. This was a large church, a mass panic and run for the exits could easily result in lives lost. This is terrorism stop attempting to diminish and trivialize it.

I see where I can help here. Get off the MSM dude. You're hyped to see a "terrorist" anywhere. Even in religious discussion. I'm just trying to help man, you need to unplug. Nothing wrong with that. I did it this week. It was less stressful. Clears the mind.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Isnt that the very reason why there is violence...intolorance to other religion??? So we go back to the core of the reason....the "My God is bigger than your God" nonsense...which in turn is the cause for intolorance, which in turn is the cause for violence, which in turn is the cause of war, conflict, death, distruction...and so on and so on.


What people believe doesnt affect me one bit. Others can believe what they wish, as long as no one tries to enforce their belief onto me, and if they do then there will be a problem. And I for one would never try to enforce my belief onto anyone else.

Its just too bad that there are those who cannot understand that simple concept. To let others believe what they believe in, and leave well enough alone.

Its a huge universe..plenty of room for differences in religious beliefs. And plenty of room for tolorance. The reason why there is no tolorance is because others try to force beliefs onto others who do not wish to believe in different beliefs. Thus intolorance, and everything else that goes with it.

IMO, religion is primative, antiquated, and has kept humanity held back for centuries, and will continue to do so.

Just because we have airplane, cell phones, internet, comptuers, dosent mean that humanity acts like it is the 21st century. More acting like its the 1st century.

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-11-2008 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by Lightmare



You would be refering to the Westboro Baptist Church headed up by Pastor Fred Phelps and his unholy band of bigots. Perhaps the gay community would have a right to "bash back" at that particular bunch of "christians" but I can see NO justification for some of these other stunts that they've been pulling lately. They are actually doing more harm to their cause than good.

That is my point. I cannot see how rational people could think this behavior could help further their cause in any way. But as I have said, there are not guards at my church and no gay militant attacks or shootings either. So why was this particular church targeted? Am I the only person that thinks that there just may be a reason they picked this church?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

It is astonishing to me that you have to ask this question after what just occurred. Obviously the need guards, they will probably need a few more now. My church has 24 hours security guards. There are thousands of dollars worth of PA equipment, multimedia, and musical equipment, computers. Not to mention the collection plates contain large amounts of cash.

First of all, your response implies that they had security because it was necessary because of the incident that happened, AFTER they already had the security because of it?????Is John Titor the head of logic there?

Sorry but that is not the norm. It may be your church and their church but where I come from in sleepy quiet NY, we do not have guards at any of the churchs in my city. Not one. Like I said before, perhaps I am overly ignorant but..... I did not know because it is not familar to me. That is why I asked. This is how learning works.

I still see alot of people defending the church without seeming to have any knowledge of it at all. I will not defend the actions of the protesters one bit, but I will not jump on defending this church until I know a little more about why it was targeted to begin with. I would think most ATS members would be equally curious before forming opinions to stand behind at all cost. Guess I was wrong.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Am I the only person that thinks that there just may be a reason they picked this church?

Yes, I think you are the only person who thinks that.

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Isnt that the very reason why there is violence...intolorance to other religion??? So we go back to the core of the reason....the "My God is bigger than your God" nonsense...which in turn is the cause for intolorance, which in turn is the cause for violence, which in turn is the cause of war, conflict, death, distruction...and so on and so on.

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if there were a place where religion was something you practiced in private. I do not mean at home in the dark but you went to your church and you said your prayers and you celebrated your holidays and that was it. Your neighbors would all be allowed to do the same. People of different religions could work and live together without their religions ever intruding on each other's lives. Would that not be great. I learned in grade school that some people got in some boats to go do that somewhere. I wonder what happend. Hard to see it from this anti-gay legislating because God said so country that I live in.

Wow you guys are ridiculous if not obscene. Your unfounded excuses don't really merit a response. Why anyone would stoop to defend such irresponsible action is incredible. This goes beyond the typical political correctness I am used to here at ATS. What a bunch of hypocritical terrorist apologists we have here, sure there are different degrees of terrorism but using intimidation by surprise invasion, vandalizing property, and threatening arson for a political/social agenda is terrorism.

If they aren't trying to terrorize, why do they pose with bandannas over their faces while holding weapons on their blog page???

bashbacknews.wordpress.com...

That's a rhetorical question, I don't care to read your absurd apologies for the photo as well.

[edit on 11/16/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Lightmare

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Am I the only person that thinks that there just may be a reason they picked this church?

Yes, I think you are the only person who thinks that.

Then why are you not curious. We have churches that have been burned and pastors mudered and it turns out that they molested kids. Sometimes they molested kids, covered it up, helped it happen again, and so on. We have Westboro that tramples soldiers graves even if they are straight. Sorry but I do not just assume that any "church" is automatically good in nature. Statistically speaking, the Catholic church is the largest, longest running, and most successful pedophile ring in history. You will have to excuse me if I might just think that both sides of this argument are wrong and that it is at least worth looking into.

But do not let my interest in the facts get in the way of your blind anger and bigotry. Please go on reading one side of the story and feeling empowered enough to espouse your well formed opinions about it. I am almost envious that you do not need all the facts to be so arrogantly opinionated.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


You shouldn know by now that not eeryone on ATS agrees with you, don't post about such a controversial topic if you can't take varying opinions.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Wow you guys are ridiculous if not obscene. Your unfounded excuses don't really merit a response. Why anyone would stoop to defend such irresponsible action is incredible. This goes beyond the typical political correctness I am used to here at ATS. What a bunch of hypocritical terrorist apologists we have here, sure there are different degrees of terrorism but using intimidation by surprise invasion, vandalizing property, and threatening arson for a political/social agenda is terrorism.

If they aren't trying to terrorize, why do they pose with bandannas over their faces while holding weapons on their blog page???

bashbacknews.wordpress.com...

That's a rhetorical question, I don't care to read your absurd apologies for the photo as well.

[edit on 11/16/2008 by Bigwhammy]

I am not defending them whatsoever but I am curious if you are saying that this action is on par with what happend on 9/11 or Oklahoma City. Just curious if this is all even to you.