Is Obama hoping a Racial Civil war breaks out in the US?

And the hidden hand.

Set up under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the DOJ’s CRS, the employees of which are required by law to “conduct their activities in confidence,” reportedly has greatly expanded its role under President Barack Obama. Though the agency claims to use “impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution procedures,” press reports along with the documents obtained by Judicial Watch suggest that the unit deployed to Sanford, FL, took an active role in working with those demanding the prosecution of Zimmerman.

Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Detail Role of Justice Department in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests

Wonder what the involvment is in Ferguson?

Ferguson stirred up by feds' 'Community Relations Service'

Hmmm.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: xuenchen
Additional fuel.......

EXPOSED>>> St. Louis Public School Lesson Plan on #Ferguson and Gentle Giant #MikeBrown – Part 2

"Act xxx": infiltrate the school systems.

I read about this earlier and I cannot find a reliable source. From what I can tell, it came from Jim Hoft at the Gateway pundit. If that's the case, it is possible that it is fake.

You may want to provide a real source to this, or you may be disseminating a fraud and a lie.

LOL - oh the drama.

There's a link in the stories.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, maybe the Feds should have found a Prosecutor that wasn't hosting bake sales for the accused's "defense fund?"

Or selling t-shirts, or whatever it was.

If Feds are supposedly manipulating the outcomes, they're not doing such a great job, eh?

Or, .... and this seems the most reasonable ... the Feds are doing what the Feds have always done, and this is much ado about nothing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn't know any Federal charges were pending or being sought.

Uh ... hello?

originally posted by: xuenchen
And the hidden hand.

Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Detail Role of Justice Department in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests

Wonder what the involvment is in Ferguson?

Ferguson stirred up by feds' 'Community Relations Service'

Hmmm.

Could have sworn you brought up the Feds. I must be sleepy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm beginning to believe in alternate universes, because we ATS posters are obviously posting from two completely different realities

Perhaps one of the most pertinent points that could be made on the subject, even if I do disagree with nearly everything else you have been saying.

Perhaps keep this train of thought alive, for this event and others to come. Truth can be stranger than fiction.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Do you have something of substance to add to what I said or to counter it?

You come on here with an attitude of superiority, insulting ATS and it's membership and then you come out with this? Hypocrisy. This is ATS. Love it or leave it. Make up your mind. If this place is as bad as you claim, and yet you keep coming back, then there is something wrong with you.


Every President would LOVE to have more power. George Bush accumulated more power when 9/11 happened. Obama doesn't have a 9/11 to take advantage of. I have no doubt he'd love to hype up and take advantage of civil unrest. The next president would most likely do the same. They are all corrupt.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I am certainly not "disagreeing with the dictionary."

I actually QUOTED Merriam Webster Online above.

As far as what published scholars in sociology and the study of religion say?

In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or other social group with socially deviant and novel beliefs and practices.

SOURCE: Stark, Rodney, William Brainbridge (1996). A Theory of Religion. Rutgers University Press. p. 124. ISBN 0813523303.

In the New York State Journal of Medicine of 1932, p. 84 (and other medical publications of the 1930s; e.g. Morris Fishbein, Fads and Quackery in Healing: An Analysis of the Foibles of the Healing Cults, 1932), "cultist" is used of those adhering to what was then called "healing cults", and would now be referred to as faith healing, but also of other forms of alternative medicine ("cultist" (in quotes) of a chiropractor in United States naval medical bulletin, Volume 28, 1930, p. 366).

And good old Wikipedia for general summary

It was first used in the early 17th century, borrowed via the French culte from Latin cultus (worship), from the adjective cultus (inhabited, cultivated, worshiped), derived from the verb colere (care, cultivate). The word "culture" is also derived from the Latin words cultura and cultus, which in general terms refers to the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time. Most of the Romance languages currently use various spellings of the word "cult" (such as "culto") to refer to worship or sometimes a ritual without any pejorative meaning at all, resulting in a class of false friends.

While the literal sense of the word in English is still in use, a derived sense of "excessive devotion" arose in the 19th century. The terms cult and cultist came to be used in medical literature in the United States in the 1930s for what would now be termed faith healing, especially for the US Holiness movement which experienced a surge of popularity at the time, but extended to other forms of alternative medicine as well.

The Sociology of Cults and the Need to Belong

... [C]ults and NRMs are generally understood to be distinct from traditional religions, even though scientists and politicians alike appear to have difficulty explaining what it is about cults and NRMs that makes them different from traditional religions. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has suggested that the only difference is that cults and NRMs are modern developments, whereas traditional religions have gained increased validity with the “passage of time.” Other scholars, such as James R. Lewis, see them as different because they are “assigned to the fringe of the dominant religious culture.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, yes, Flyers, if you want to go back to the 17th century definition, any religion is a cult.

If you are for some specific reason trying to use the most general definition of the word cult, then technically, any religion is cult.

IF, on the other hand, you are using the word as it is used in modern English, both informally and formally, then the word is SIMPLY NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH RELIGION.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Cherry-picking a few incendiary quotes and claiming that everyone involved in Black Liberation Theology is a cult advocating violence is entirely misleading and almost deceptive:

Aren't you cherry picking away the problems it has and ignoring them? That would be like a Catholic looking at the Catholic church and saying it's wonderful but without acknowledging that there is a pedophile problem as well as a corruption problem in the Vatican bank. Cones is like the Godfather of Black Liberation Theology. To his credit, he is honest about violent nature of the cult. At one point he even says that if God isn't behind Black Liberation Theology, then black people must 'kill God'. (meaning to stop worshipping Him and fight against God). That's pretty hard core.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

How can I be "cherry-picking" when I didn't give any specific examples? You used a number of "quotes" that represent your take on BLT and thereby are classifying EVERYTHING that could come under the heading of Black Liberation Theology, which is applied to far more than the words or works of one man or even one church, as violent in nature, which is specious in the extreme, in my opinion.

And besides that, I have never stated that there is not violent rhetoric involved, I have only maintained that Black Liberation Theology is a factor of MANY African-American-centric Christian churches in this country. You may not approve of these teachings anymore than I would approve of the Southern Baptists saying that all gays are going to hell, but it is still inaccurate in the extreme to refer to these folks as comprising "a cult."

originally posted by: Jainine

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Do you have something of substance to add to what I said or to counter it?

You come on here with an attitude of superiority, insulting ATS and it's membership and then you come out with this? Hypocrisy. This is ATS. Love it or leave it. Make up your mind. If this place is as bad as you claim, and yet you keep coming back, then there is something wrong with you.


Every President would LOVE to have more power. George Bush accumulated more power when 9/11 happened. Obama doesn't have a 9/11 to take advantage of. I have no doubt he'd love to hype up and take advantage of civil unrest. The next president would most likely do the same. They are all corrupt.

With all due respect, what does your assessment of Sheepslayer's posting behavior have to do with the subject at hand?

Are you contrasting your view of President Obama, or any speech he's ever given, or any action he's ever taken, that could be construed, as the OP does of "wanting a race war" with something Sheepslayer has stated?

Or are you, for some odd reason considering your posting history, merely focusing on what you think about another long-term ATS member?

What do you think of the President's Ferguson speech, for example? Can you quote anything from that or any other source of the man's actual words that would lead you to believe? Any references to specific Obama actions that you can offer?

Or merely that you think Presidents are power-hungry and exploitative?

In terms of insulting other ATS members, why not get the log out of your eye before you try to get the dust-speck out of someone elses? With all due respect, of course.

originally posted by: Serdgiam

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm beginning to believe in alternate universes, because we ATS posters are obviously posting from two completely different realities

Perhaps one of the most pertinent points that could be made on the subject, even if I do disagree with nearly everything else you have been saying.

Perhaps keep this train of thought alive, for this event and others to come. Truth can be stranger than fiction.

I'm mostly befuddled by your comment. What have I said here that you disagree with? What evidence do you offer in return? Why is my metaphorical jibe about "alternate universes" so critical, in your opinion?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
it is still inaccurate in the extreme to refer to these folks as comprising "a cult."

Sorry bud .. they are a cult. I gave the definition. There are more than one definition of the word cult, and they fit one of them. They are a cult. It's just the way it is. Christianity is. Judaism is. Islam is. Black Liberation Theology is. The Amish are in a cult. The Mormons are. Etc. All are cults by dictionary definition.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Sorry "gal" you gave one definition of many that is so general as to be meaningless. Why wouldn't you say "the religion of Black Liberation Theology" if that is truly what you meant? You know as well as I do that the word "cult" has a pejorative meaning in modern English. And given your comments on the matter, it is clear that you intended to display the worst aspects of BLT, and thus, intended the pejorative meaning of the word rather than the historical general one.

You got called out on your use of the word and have since retreated into mere semantics, if I may say so without insult to you.

I've demonstrated clearly in response to your claims that "any religion" is not the preferred or usual definition of the word, and further, that the archaic meaning of "cult as any religion" is not used academically or sociologically to refer to specific groups under study.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
what does your assessment of Sheepslayer's posting behavior have to do with the subject at hand?

The same thing that HIS opening statement assessment of other ATS members posting behavior has to do with the subject. Not a darn thing. How about you address HIS off topic insults which were posted first?

another long-term ATS member?

That 'long term' member says he rarely posts here due to the alleged stupidity of posters. It doesn't matter if someone is here one day or ten years, for anyone to come on and start posting nonsensical off topic insults and then insist others stay of topic is absurd. If it's supposedly that bad then use the log off button and don't come back.

As for my position - asked and answered. My position has been clearly stated. Presidents are power-hungry and exploitative. Bush43 or Obama. No different.

a reply to: Jainine

Did you make any substantive comments or provide any counter-examples to Sheepslayer's arguments about the topic of Barack Obama starting a race war or civil war or whether the speech given about the Ferguson matter proves either position?

Or have you merely commented on you reaction and interpretation (skewed, I might add) of another poster?

I'm (trying) at least to encourage you to engage the issues, even engage other posters in terms of material content of posts, rather than merely suggesting that they stop posting because you didn't like what they said, or rather, what you thought they said.

I really want to engage with you on President Obama specifically and any quotes you can offer from any speech or comments he has actually made or given, that support the idea that he is plotting or planning or advocating for a Race/Civil War in this country. I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter!

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Sorry "gal" you gave one definition of many that is so general as to be meaningless.

ha ha .. no. If that's the case than your choice of which definition to use with 'cult' is also meaningless. The definition is straight from the dictionary as well as psychology and sociology sources. The definition I gave is exactly how it was used in my psychology classes in college. It is still widely in use. You just don't like it, that's all.

You got called out on your use of the word and have since retreated into mere semantics,

Only in your dreams. I wasn't 'called out' and I haven't 'retreated'. Not even close.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Hmmm. How long ago was college for you again? I mean, not to make it personal, but the only evidence you're offering is your recollection of the past.

I've shown the dictionary definitions. I've shown what sociological textbooks and scholars have said. I've provided generally accepted summaries of what is meant, in the modern sense, by the term.

What are you offering? Your interpretation and your memories.

Frankly, why are you so insistent on calling BLT a cult? Since the terms are equivalent in your eyes, why not refer to BLT as a religion? You have personal problems with some of the rhetoric used in the Christian religion of Black Liberation Theology? Are you going to pretend that the Christian religion itself is not filled with violent imagery?

I mean, one of the most common symbols of the faith is a man dying a tortured death on a Roman cross??? The Baptists, et. al., screech from pulpits every Sunday about being punished by immersion in an eternally burning lake of magma or fire if you don't follow their particular take on social and moral values? And Jesus Christ himself is quoted as saying that he came here not to bring peace but a sword? And to set brother against brother and parents against children and so forth???

When does your classification of Black Liberation Theology, therefore, as a religion, make any difference in the discussion?