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]

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.

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 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]

- 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?

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...