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.

 

Christian street preacher physically attacked by homosexuals (video)

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 

I'm not from the US and so good with "first amendment rights".

But in the OP's clip there is a sporadic incident, but neither the marchers or the police stop the group, although I highly doubt that their conduct was as "meek" as portrayed in the short clip.

The person who punched the protestor was arrested.

They are not removed in this clip, although it seems they were escorted from protests in the past.
They also protest very non-liberal groups.
Unless Muslims and Catholics are suddenly seen as "liberal"?

So by the same argument Westboro can protest and troll where ever they like?

At the beginning many gay parades had to be protected from violence.
If anyone can just come and shout their invective over a gay parade then where is our freedom of speech?
Surely the group that organized and perhaps gave funds for an event should get preference for that day.

This group abuses freedom of speech, and causes needless problems and costs.

Sure, this is an embarrassing clip to the pride march.

However it's actually so decontextualized.
But why bother?
According to the people who hate us with their daily "freedom of speech", we're already the most perverted, violent and evil people on the planet.
So I'm not sure why they're all acting so shocked and outraged.
They got what they wanted to see ...
But that's OK, because a lot of people think the same about them and their absurd behavior.


edit on 12-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 



Not everything, but some of it. Blame versus responsibility, sure. I think young women should be sensible, and try to avoid situations that could make them victims of sexual assault, too. I would never blame them, though.


Agreed. Which is all I was saying. So which parts then do you not agree with me on?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Superhans
 

I'm not from the US and so good with "first amendment rights".

But in the OP's clip there is a sporadic incident, but neither the marchers or the police stop the group, although I highly doubt that their conduct was as "meek" as portrayed in the short clip.

The person who punched the protestor was arrested.

They are not removed in this clip, although it seems they were escorted from protests in the past.
They also protest very non-liberal groups.
Unless Muslims and Catholics are suddenly seen as "liberal"?

I was talking about the people's attitude towards this event, not what the police did.



So by the same argument Westboro can protest and troll where ever they like?

No, i went over that. Please review the thread.



At the beginning many gay parades had to be protected from violence.
If anyone can just come and shout their invective over a gay parade then where is our freedom of speech?
Surely the group that organized and perhaps gave funds for an event should get preference for that day.

lol no, if it worked like that every corporation would just purchase days and there would be no protests at all. Think before you post...



This group abuses freedom of speech, and causes needless problems and costs.

Not really, they are both pretty stupid and pointless. The christian guy for showing up and being a retard and the gays who want equality and want to be treated like everyone else but want their own special parade, they need to accept the fact that they are gay and get over it.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 



they need to accept the fact that they are gay and get over it.


Right because their acceptance alone is going to solve all the social injustices.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Superhans
 



they need to accept the fact that they are gay and get over it.


Right because their acceptance alone is going to solve all the social injustices.


Write a thread about it...



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 

There are many other groups who have parades (and some of these groups have been similarly trolled).
So nobody can have equal rights (which they don't in any case) and have a parade that's open to all?
Nobody can have a carnival?
As I've consistently said there's not even any evidence that any of the people in the OP's clip were actually gay.
It could just as well be seen as a straight brawl on the fringes of a gay-themed event.

But yeah, you have some strange ideas.
Nobody who wants or has equal rights can have an event.
How bizarre.

Fascist Christian dystopia here we come, everybody else must stay indoors!
The Other in Western society mustn't make a squeak, because they have so many rights!
What a joke.


edit on 13-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 




But yeah, you have some strange ideas.
Nobody who wants or has equal rights can have an event.
How bizarre.

No, the only bizarre thing is that you felt that you had to make that up to make some sort of a "point". I didn't say they couldn't i said it was stupid- huge difference.

Going back over my responses to you it is clear that you have reading comprehension issues, im done with you. Learn to read and have a good night.
edit on 13-7-2013 by Superhans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 

Oh well, my apologies then.
tsk, tsk.

I think there is however a stream of thinking that could find it sad that humanity still finds the need to highlight divisiveness.
In that sense, yes I do think it's sad that we still have a separate march.
Although it's not really separate or exclusive, and it has so many cultural meanings nowadays.

I also suppose it depends where in the world one is situated.
Unfortunately mass action is still a necessary form of protest in many places.
So that's a means to equal rights, not necessarily wanting both equal rights and separation.
And yes, unfortunately it has become a symbol in the culture wars, which means that it's much bigger than how it started, but making Pride a focus of protest means it is validated even more as a cultural event.

Ideally people should just be people, but it's not an ideal world.


edit on 13-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans

No, the only bizarre thing is that you felt that you had to make that up to make some sort of a "point". I didn't say they couldn't i said it was stupid- huge difference.


Actually you said stupid and pointless. Meaning they shouldn't have them. Sure not the same as saying "can't" but I doubt based on your attitude you would be opposed to it.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Superhans

No, the only bizarre thing is that you felt that you had to make that up to make some sort of a "point". I didn't say they couldn't i said it was stupid- huge difference.


Actually you said stupid and pointless. Meaning they shouldn't have them. Sure not the same as saying "can't" but I doubt based on your attitude you would be opposed to it.


Actually I said stupid and pointless. Meaning that i think its stupid and pointless. You too eh? If you don't have anything to say you can just not say something you don't have to say something that is stupid and pointless...



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 



You too eh?


Me too what?

What is it you think you derived from my post?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Superhans
 



You too eh?


Me too what?

What is it you think you derived from my post?


That you have reading comprehension issues and that instead of saying something with substance you resort to stating the obvious followed up with crap you made up.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 


What did I make up? Saying something is pointless is functionally the same as saying it shouldn't be done. From there I suggested you'd likely support their banning. That part wasn't made up either as it was clear it wasn't mirroring something you said directly but what I believed might be the case.

Do you have to be so antagonistic?
edit on 13-7-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Well, perhaps if some people were king of the universe we could have a gay parade, but it would be declared stupid and pointless (which is indeed stupid and pointless).

But to me it is not stupid and pointless at all.
I felt so isolated and alone when much younger, and just the simple fact that there were other people like me who made headlines with the parade was so fantastic!
Suddenly I was not so conceptually alone, and the world had hope and meaning.

For that reason alone, from my perspective, Gay Pride can never be stupid or pointless.

edit on 13-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Don't shoot the messenger.
However that's how the law is.

This is like that other thread where the christian group went to a muslim festival and got kicked out by the cops.
If your speech is likely to incite imminent lawless action then you are responsible.

To me this is like poking a stick at a bee hive and then complaining when the bees sting you.



Are you talking about the time the out of control Muslims STONED a group of peaceful Christians, and the cops did nothing? Are you excusing that?

WARNING - This footage could be disturbing, and is quite violent. Not recommended for minors, or those easily upset.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj



I'm sure you'd feel different if you'd been assaulted for being a heathen. But since the victim is a Christian (which you are on record all over ATS for hating) you make excuses. This thread is an amazing social experiment. Personally I'm not at all surprised by the results.


Ya know, your words are kind of implying that you are annoyed by my comments here at ATS. But, you can't see how the poster-waving and bible-toting Jesus freaks in that clip were annoying to the people who were just out enjoying a sunny day. There's a word for that. I think it called being a hypocrite.


edit on 7/12/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)


So, are you saying that it's alright for someone to beat you up if you annoy them in public? That's what it looks like you are saying.


Originally posted by Superhans
People are getting way to distracted over the groups involved. Let me dumb it down for the easily swayed minds.
Imagine it was a dog lover exercising his first amendment rights at a cat pride event and then the cat lovers attacked him without cause.
Its a pretty funny little liberal conundrum, must support the liberal version of equality but at the same time the first amendment is being stomped on


That deserves applause!



Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Superhans
 

*snip*
But in the OP's clip there is a sporadic incident, but neither the marchers or the police stop the group, although I highly doubt that their conduct was as "meek" as portrayed in the short clip.


Proof? None of them were arrested. No sign anyone else was struck. Not liking what someone says is not an excuse to attack them. Plus, the others there were NOT quick to respond; they waited till things escalated, and ignored the many smaller physical attacks.


Originally posted by halfoldman
If anyone can just come and shout their invective over a gay parade then where is our freedom of speech? Surely the group that organized and perhaps gave funds for an event should get preference for that day.


That would deny the free speech of all others. The free speech of one doesn't negate the free speech of another. This wasn't some private lecture hall or something, but a public park, open to all.


Originally posted by halfoldman
This group abuses freedom of speech, and causes needless problems and costs.


The group that attacked? Or, do you mean the victims, who some decided didn't have free speech rights?


Originally posted by halfoldman
I really would make a distinction between a fringe incident and a virtual riot, such as in Dearborn between Muslims and Christian protestors:


The only difference is in the number of people that participated. One is more severe, but the same lack of respect for others is at the root of both. Posted that video myself; truly sickening event. One major difference is that the cops there did nothing, where, in this case, they acted as they should.


Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 



Not everything, but some of it. Blame versus responsibility, sure. I think young women should be sensible, and try to avoid situations that could make them victims of sexual assault, too. I would never blame them, though.


Agreed. Which is all I was saying. So which parts then do you not agree with me on?


I asked,


So, you blame the attackers in the video?

I didn't see an answer.

Then you state this:

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Superhans
 



they need to accept the fact that they are gay and get over it.


Right because their acceptance alone is going to solve all the social injustices.


Don't you consider it a social injustice that a small group pf Christians was attacked this way? Again, this goes to respect for others.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by grey580
 



To me this is like poking a stick at a bee hive and then complaining when the bees sting you.

Well, they poked a stick at a beehive when they beat up a lone Christian with a sign....and were caught on camera.

That Christian group can....and should use this video as evidence against the people who assaulted them.



So much for turning the other cheek.

I'm not excusing the actions of the others.
It certainly is wrong.

However as a christian you shouldn't go out looking for trouble.
edit on 12-7-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)


Apparently, you have little to no understanding of the Bible. We are told to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. We are told that the world will hate us for His name's sake. Do you even have any idea how many of the early followers died a violent death? They weren't told to stop by Jesus.

Plus, that some cretins have no self control or respect for the rights of others does NOT mean that these young men didn't have every right to be there, with their signs and words. The ONLY fault is with those who attacked.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 



So much for turning the other cheek.

I'm not excusing the actions of the others.
It certainly is wrong.

However as a christian you shouldn't go out looking for trouble


So much for turning the other cheek?
More like so much for "freedom of speech".

Holding a sign and expressing a view is not the same as looking for trouble. Its like saying gays who express their views are also looking for trouble, and thereby justifying any violence against them.

Since you like using Christian standards against Christians... why not hold the gays by the "freedom" and "equality" that they claim to pursue. Why weren't the Christians free to hold signs in a public space? Doesn't freedom of expression apply equally to all?

The gays went out looking for trouble when they attacked a guy with a sign. If the Christians use the video evidence against the gays who attacked them, its a fine lesson for the gays who seek to assault people simply because they have a different view.

PS - I am not a Christian.
edit on 13-7-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj



I'm sure you'd feel different if you'd been assaulted for being a heathen. But since the victim is a Christian (which you are on record all over ATS for hating) you make excuses. This thread is an amazing social experiment. Personally I'm not at all surprised by the results.


Ya know, your words are kind of implying that you are annoyed by my comments here at ATS. But, you can't see how the poster-waving and bible-toting Jesus freaks in that clip were annoying to the people who were just out enjoying a sunny day. There's a word for that. I think it called being a hypocrite.


edit on 7/12/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)


The difference is I wouldn't assault you for expressing your views, and I would condemn (without excuses) anyone who did. You would be racking up stars and flags with anti-christian vitriol if the roles of the people in the video were reversed. THAT, is the definition of being a hypocrite.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
Sometimes I really wonder when will the so called Christians ever get it right. Scripture does not say that a person that is homosexual will be sent to hell for homosexuality.



1 Cor 6:9
"Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


However the homosexual will be sent to hell because he broke God's law. If your unsure what that is, they is the ten commandments and not ten suggestions.


Actually it is more along 613. The big ten are merely the headings of all of the others.


Everyone is guilty of breaking the law and all are headed for hell for that reason not because they are homosexual.


Homosexuality is breaking the law.

Sin is transgression of the law. If sin stops one from inheriting Heaven, and homosexuals do not inherit Heaven, homosexuality is breaking the law.


edit on 14-7-2013 by Shimri because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join