jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (363 posts)

How does it feel to be a terrorist?

  1. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Here's the story:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/homelan … errorists/

    Did you ever imagine as a child reciting the pledge of allegiance that it would be the sort of thing looked down upon? Not to mention being labeled a terrorist?

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing would surprise me anymore.

      The first thing Romney should do is tell that dude Napolitano over at Homeland Security to pack his crap and go home.

      Besides it's not very professional for a guy to wear a dress to the office anyway.

      1. 910chris profile image74
        910chrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you so much for that comment Longhunter!! I have been in some pain today, but when I read that it gave me the chuckle I needed to forget about it for a little while!

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Glad to be of some assistance and I hope you get to feeling better.

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wow! I didn't know Janet was a guy!

        When she (er, he) was governor of Arizona...

    2. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you support nationalism?  Pledging allegiance to the state, no matter what happens?  That is gargantuan government.  I pledge my allegiance to principles, not people.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What about the flag? That was what I was referring too.

    3. tussin profile image60
      tussinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Honestly, theblaze isn't exactly a credible news site. It makes Nancy Gracy look like mellowed out stoner.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ok enough griping about the Blaze.....won't use them again.
        Like I told the other guy I feel the same way about Daily Kos or Huffington Post.

    4. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting article.

      Maybe, just maybe Cagsil will begin to look even better with every action they continue to take which is becoming a detriment to the survival of America.

      I guess one can only hope. smile

    5. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Terry McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma federal building killing entire families--225 people. If you support that sort of thing, then carry on your complaining.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And then there are statements like that which makes JS completely right.  Thanks for making all liberals look uneducated and stereotypical.

      2. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Timothy Doc...Timothy.

  2. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    I clicked on yout The Blaze link and the first thing I saw was a banner saying "Glenn Beck is LIVE". So much for reading this because I know where this is going. Not into bias articles.

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh I understand. I feel the same way about links to the Daily Kos and Huffington Post.

      1. undermyhat profile image62
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Since there is no such thing as genuine, unvarnished objectivity - scientists must constantly check their methodology to weed out things like confrimation bias - information can be gleened from any number of sources.  We tend to read the things that reinforce our opinions rather than the things that challenge them.  Even in the most offensive sources, like The Daily Kos or Bill Maher, there is valuable information available.  It is good to see that those who consider themselves moderate and balanced in their own opinion can openly admit to being something else entirely.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed, I research a variety of sources... The Blaze seems to have just suddenly popped up and a lot of people are using that as their only source.

          Usually, just because you quote from one source does not mean that is the only one you looked at. Not accepting a source that is reporting on proven (note the emphasis on proven) facts is childish.

          And... Americans put way too much emphasis on flags... the bigger flag you have does not make you a better citizen...

          1. undermyhat profile image62
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Symbols are important.  The American flag has been a symbol of American independence, resistence and liberation throughout our history.  It is an aspect of the American national experience.  It is doubtful flag size is actually perceived by most Americans as a measure of patriotism or quality of citizenship.

            The idea that one opinion source has a lock on truth is a flaw of the human condition.  We all want to be affirmed in our beliefs, sources that share our world view are more comfortable to read because we resist the cogniative disonance that challenging and meritorious sources cause.

        2. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What a profound statement.  I am certainly guilty of that sometimes.

          Thank you.

          1. undermyhat profile image62
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It is a basic aspect of our condition - "birds of a feather flock together."   Old aphorisms tend to be good observations of the human condition.  We naturally seek comfort and that, frequently, means intellectual, spiritual, political...comfort.

  3. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 4 years ago

    Maybe you should check out hxxp://www.stormfront.org/forum/.

    You might also remember the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City's federal building.

    Leftwing, rightwing, anti-abortion, eco terrorists, religious nut jobs etc etc, it doesn't really matter where the bomb comes from if you are standing next to it.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The "preparedness" board on stormfront should be enough to convince anyone that right wing extremism is a serious threat terrorist wise, just on there, there are thousands and thousands discussing weapons, tactics, sharing tips and discussing how they are preparing for the "inevitable" race war where they will rise up against the n***ers and the n***er loving liberals and wipe them off the face of the country, the other troubling thing is they all have enormous arsenals.

      Some of their stated aims: the execution of all race traitors which is anyone on the left basically and anyone who has mixed their race with another. Then the expulsion of any non whites from the country with the execution of any who refuse to leave.

      The best thing is they will do it because they are (I quote) "true patriots".

      1. 0
        Chris Hughposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't throw conservatives in with white nationalists. That's just hate mongering. It's not fair.

        1. undermyhat profile image62
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In fact, real conservatism is anti-racial, insisting that race is meaningless as are religion, national origin, sex, etc....   The only criteria that matter are universal ones based on effort, industry, performance, application, etc....

        2. tussin profile image60
          tussinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you! Stormfront is a board for white nationalist lunatics, it has nothing to do with this discussion.  Drawing a comparison between the two is weak.  Surely a person can make better arguments than that.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They don't want to draw a comparison. That's the point of this forum.

          2. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well I suggest you go ask and find out how many are right wingers, also note that much of their discussion is about killing liberals and leftists as n***er lovers.

        3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Agree.  +1

      2. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I like how you managed to jerk people who just believe in the Constitution all the way over to the extreme right.
        That's mot what the main focus of that piece was and you know it.
        But you can't make us all look like monsters if you don't make us ll look like monsters.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I went on a thread and asked if they were left or right wing some months ago I got about thirty replies all but one of which was right wing the other was neither.

      3. 0
        Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Josak,

        Your talking about a small minority of people within a segment of the population. There are people that are preparing for several things - economic disaster, natural disaster, societal breakdown, etc. - but a majority of these people are doing so without so much as an inkling of a race component.

        Granted, there are some but they're a very small minority. Don't lump all Conservatives into this racist minority simply due to your own biases.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Longhunter,
          Josak's response is exactly why I started this forum.
          Notice how it went right straight there. That's the generalization.
          I am not sure how many know this, but Conservatives actually bear their young live.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            JS, Liberals like to think all Conservatives are doomsday preparedness experts, who are ALWAYS armed, and spoiling for a fight. Funny thing is it'll be the Liberals knocking on the Conservative's door IF society goes to hell on a rocket ship, looking for a handout, as usual.

            The Webster definition for a Liberal (noun) is one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.

            This can't be true as most Liberals I know are so uptight they couldn't pass a greased BB if they had to.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image87
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Since we're speculating (I assume since you are doing it, it is okay for me to do it, too), I think you could be wrong about who would come knocking on who's door.  I live in the rural part of a red state, and I can tell you that maybe conservatives have more guns, but it's also likely that liberals are more prepared to live without the food delivery infrastructure.  We are the leaders in the movement to grow our own food, collect our own water, and draw energy from the sun.

              And, because we live in a rural area, we know how to shoot varmints.

              Just sayin.'  wink

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Liberals also have the largest segment of the population that's dependent on the federal government. What are you going to do with them when society goes to hell in a hand basket?

                As for me, personally, I didn't come by the name Longhunter easily. I earned it and I'm just an amateur compared to some of my friends. We grow some of our own food and can hunt, fish, and trap as well as forage.

                Here in Tennessee, the patron state of shooting stuff, we know how to use a gun as well. smile

                1. Living Well Now profile image80
                  Living Well Nowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Conservatives are bigger recipients of government largesse, Longhunter. Red states take more of federal pie than blue states.

                  The whole "conservatives are being persecuted" meme is laughable.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So we really are terrorists then?

                  2. 0
                    Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Proof, Living Well? Links for other than Liberal BS sites?

                  3. denisemai profile image89
                    denisemaiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Living Well Now--just curious. What are you basing this statement on? Where is the statistic? I'd like to see it for myself. And I'd like to know how you define being a "recipient of government largesse". You see, I worked in marketing for many years and know how to manipulate statistics to get the result you want so I really prefer to see the raw data to make a truly intelligent decision. (i.e. "We are the number one new comedy!" Which actually means they are the number one new comedy on that specific network amongst 35-44 year old white males who drive suv's. See how that was manipulated?) So, really. What is your source?

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey there... West Virginia is the patron state of shooting stuff.  I may not approve of guns but I can easily handle a 60lb pull on a compound bow and have never missed the broad side of the barn. smile And while it's been quite a few years since I decided to kill a whitetail with anything but my car at 14 I could field dress an 8 point buck and sling it over my shoulders to carry it home.

                  And I might be a liberal but I promise if you drop me and any one of most conservatives in the middle of the woods I'll likely be the first one to crawl out.  If I'm feeling real nice I might go back in and get the conservative... after I've had a good night's sleep.

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You wouldn't have to come back for this Conservative, Melissa. I'd just set up a base camp, hunt for the brother of that 8-pointer you mentioned, smoke most of the meat for later use, and cook the rest for dinner.

                3. PrettyPanther profile image87
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Liberals also have the largest segment of the population that's dependent on the federal government."

                  Not true.  See above post.

                  1. undermyhat profile image62
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    One must wonder at the construction of this point.  If states that voted for
                    McCain actually received more federal dollars than states that went for Obama does that mean that conservative individuals in the McCain states received more federal dollars as individuals?

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Your talking about a small minority of people within a segment of the population.
          Muslims who blow up buildings and people are also a tiny minority of Muslims worldwide.
          But mention this on an online forum and you'll see gobs of "real 'muricans" ask "Well if they're so peaceful, why don't they stop the lunatics?" or similar "where's the outrage" type sentiments.

          Oh, but we can make distinctions when we're talking about American lunatic fringers who give lip-service Conservative Christian values but also promote racial hatred: "We're not all like that!" "You can't judge the whole conservative movement based on the racist nutjobs!"

          And they're right: not all conservatives are racists: in fact, probably most aren't. But many of the same folks who are quick to differentiate the lunatic fringe from mainstream conservatism are surprisingly willing to paint all liberals as America-hating communists.

          Maybe we should all stop painting each other with that overly-broad brush, huh?

          Just a suggestion.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey great...you first?

          2. 0
            Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Granted, Jeff. You're right. But when it comes to racist, skinheads, and the KKK, the difference is Conservatives shout these people down and work with law enforcement to weed them out. We shame and ridicule them when their ignorant, backward ways come to light. Once their mindset is known, we shun them for what they are - uneducated bigots (I cleaned this up for the HP police, least I be banned). We help police our own. I haven't seen that from the Muslim community.

            My problem with what Josak said was he was lumping people who simply stock up on water, food, and ammo in with skinheads and racists he's read on some website most Conservatives have never seen.

            I have a stock of non-perishable food and water because I live in an area that has been known to be cut off by flood water. I carry a Bug Out Bag in my truck for bad weather. Yes, I have a permit to carry a gun. I'm prepared to take care of my family and myself if the need arises. But I'm not a racist.

            I also have a small stock of ammo. I'm also bald but that's due to genetics and giving up and shaving the rest. That doesn't make me a skinhead. All this makes me a man who's prepared for what may come and who just happens to be hair-folliclly challenged.

            Now, lets see. I've admitted I stockpile food, water, and ammo. I have a permit to LEGALLY carry a gun. I keep a Bug Out Bag in my truck just in case and I have a buzzed head. Because of that, I'm labeled a terrorist by Homeland Security. roll

            Nope, like so many other AMERICANS, I'm just a guy who can and will take care of my family and myself rather than wait for the government to so because, as we know (Katrina), our government officials couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heel.

            I would suggest others do the same. That's just a suggestion.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "My problem with what Josak said was he was lumping people who simply stock up on water, food, and ammo in with skinheads and racists he's read on some website most Conservatives have never seen."

              But I never said any of this, firstly the site is about people preparing specifically to fight in the race war they believe is coming, I have my own emergency supplies, nothing wrong with that.

              Also plenty of Muslims are working against he extremists so that is patently false.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Really?
                Who and where? First i have heard of it. Most of them fear for their lives.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Really? well just as an easy example the vast majority of the Afghan and Iraqi militaries are Muslim and they are fighting the Muslim extremists.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "our government officials couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heel."

              You exaggerate.  I know because it would empty into their lap as they sat at their desk and upended it to read the directions.

            3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I've admitted I stockpile food, water, and ammo. I have a permit to LEGALLY carry a gun. I keep a Bug Out Bag in my truck just in case and I have a buzzed head. Because of that, I'm labeled a terrorist by Homeland Security.

              No. See, in addition to the criteria you mention, you need to also be preparing for "them" (whether "them" is the Feds, or the Jews, or the UN, or some other chimaerical threat) to come and get you, and training to kill them when they do, as they inevitably will, or else getting ready to forcibly overthrow the government.

              See, without the paranoia, you're just prepared for a disaster, a power outage, or whatever. With the paranoia (which you haven't got), you become a potential terrorist.

              Conversely, someone with the paranoia, but without the guns and other preparation, isn't a terrorist. Just a hatemongering, fearmongering crank.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps you make that distinction Jeff, others don't and certainly there is not always distinction made for them.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps you make that distinction Jeff, others don't and certainly there is not always distinction made for them.
                  And I make the same distinction between 99% of Muslims and the tiny minority that are violent extremists. But others don't, and certainly there is not always distinction made for them.

              2. 0
                Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think it's paranoia, Jeff, but rather a healthy distrust of our government, the present administration, and Barack Hussein Obama as the powerful bullies. Yes, I tend to distrust government less when my side is in office but the distrust is still there.

                Government should be small, keep quiet, and the people elected to serve should understand they work for us, not the other way around.

                The exact opposite is going to happen as long as Barack Hussein Obama is president.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think it's paranoia, Jeff, but rather a healthy distrust of our government.
                  But that's, like, the Paranoid Oath! You raise your right hand, look over your left shoulder, and repeat that!

                  smile

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh so we are wrong? We work for them?

                  2. undermyhat profile image62
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The founders were themselves "paranoid" of government, given that they enshrined limitations on the power andscope of government in the Constitution.  Their distrust of government ran deeply enough that a second set of limitations were required for successful ratification, the Bill of Rights.  Suspicion of a national government was so engrained in that founding generation that the Federalist Papers were written to convince the population of the various states as to the necessity of and limitations on the federal government.

                    A healthy skepticism about the goals, scope and reach of the Federal governemtn is ingrained in America.  This is not a bad thing.  when a people invest too much trust in their government very, very bad things tend to happen.

          3. denisemai profile image89
            denisemaiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with the last part of your statement, Jeff Berndt. Broad brushes are bad. I don't think it's okay for any broad brushing to be done over anyone. For instance, I'm a conservative who doesn't hunt or shoot things so I guess I don't fit in the broad brush stroke. Melissa can have her patron saint of shooting things whatchamacallit. I'm a Christian but not a whacko and most of you would probably be happy to hang around me as I've heard I'm pretty fun. And funny. So, yeah. Enough with the broad brushing. I'll join you in the movement Jeff. I love being first! "Cuz if you ain't first, you're last". Sorry. Random Talladega Nights moment. Sometimes I can't control my fingers.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Melissa was replying to another post with a sense of humour.  I am a gun control advocate who wouldn't own one if you tried to give me one... Nor did I call Christians wackos.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You don't realize you're being played as a fool? I'm surprised Melissa. hmm


                Edit: What is Gun Control to you?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I would prefer they didn't exist but the realist in my just wants to make sure that gun owners are forced to go through safety training and background checks every couple years.  Owning a gun should be at least on par with getting a driver's licence.

                  Also if a child dies because you have improperly stored your gun then you get charged with murder.  Period.

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Interesting. hmm

                  2. undermyhat profile image62
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Holders of conceal carry permits are involved in very few crimes.  One big difference between liberals and conservatives - if a conservative doesn't like guns he simple doesn't own one, if a liberal doesn't like guns he wants no one to own one.  Perhaps a little more information would help.  "More Guns Less Crime" is a scholarly book written by an economist - evidence supports legal gun ownership.  I guess Alan West is right - if government can make you buy insurance because it is good for society than why not a gun?

                    Perhaps liberals should be forced to purchase fire arms by the next Republican president.

                  3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Murder, really? I think that's a bit extreme. Negligence, perhaps. I could get behind that. If you have a gun, it's your responsibility, and you should take reasonable precautions to keep the gun from being used by someone who isn't you.

                    When I was house-hunting, some idiot left his revolver on the coffee table and my wife and I found it while we were viewing his house. She, I, or our realtor (or any other prospective buyers and/or their realtors) could have walked out with a handgun. If a couple with a kid had been there, and the kid had picked up the gun, someone could have been killed.

                    To leave a gun on the table when you know strangers are going to be visiting your house is criminally negligent, imo. But careless doesn't equal malicious, so I can't see charging the fool with murder if someone did get killed because he stupidly left a gun lying around.

                    Negligent homicide is about as far as it could be taken.

              2. denisemai profile image89
                denisemaiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Melissa--I read it. It was funny. I laughed. (But I really did think you were a gun person.) By including you I was referring to your banter on which state got to have the patron saint thing. I gave it to you. Mostly because I wanted the girl to win the manly shooting things contest. I never implied that you called Christians wackos. I was referring to the "broad brush strokes" referenced by Jeff that some people use to paint conservatives and illustrating that I, like many, in no way fit into those generalizations.

                But now I'm disappointed. I thought you really were a gun blazing Annie Oakly type that was going to out shoot all of the men. Oh, well. I guess your just like me. Although I'm not really sure about the Cagsil person who says you're being played as a fool. What's that about?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Cagsil is a rights advocate so we're gonna be on opposite ends of the spectrum on that particular subject smile

                  As far as gun toting Annie Oakly... I'm gonna get myself in HUGE trouble here.  I grew up in a very large redneck military/police family where I was the only girl out of 19 male cousins (and the baby).  They didn't know what to do with me so they took me to do what they were doing.  I was very very good at the hunting/fishing/shooting thing.  I took ribbons in marksmanship in both bow and guns... mainly bow.  I hated every second of it.  I was about 16 when I managed to convince everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt that I indeed had an innie instead of an outie and I would like to behave as such.

                  I know how to do just about anything that "traditional" redneck guys can do... including fixing cars.  On principle I won't even change the tire on my car.  I will literally stand beside the car looking forlorn until some nice guy in a pickup shows up and fixes it for me.

                  I am the anti-feminist.  If you have a penis please feel free to do whatever heavy lifting- repair work and oiling that you like.  I'll stick to birthing babies and fixing dinner (which under no circumstances short of a zombie apocalypse will I shoot or pull out of a lake)

                2. Cagsil profile image83
                  Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Denise, Gun Control what is to YOU the person? What does it mean?
                  It's about finding out whether or not someone is being played a fool.

                  If you think for a second the Federal government is interested in protecting the Second Amendment, which is now seen as equally as an individual right and a societal right, then you're obviously blind to other actions taken by government. Ever heard of NDAA and the Patriot Act? Both are rights violations, yet remain in place. One signed by a Republican and re-signed by a Democrat. NDAA was signed by a Democrat. Who is protecting your rights exactly?

                  By all accounts, the only true Gun Control is the responsibility of the Gun Owner. It shouldn't be the government, especially the Federal Government. I don't mind States enforcing some sort of Gun Control mechanisms to ensure responsible people are owners, not idiots.

                  The only Gun Control the Federal Government should be doing is hunting down the illegal dealers and the gangs who like to traffic in weapons. The Federal Government should be enforcing State Laws, not creating Federal Laws, which trump State Laws whenever a prosecutor feels like stealing a States case.

                  The fact that some Laws are Federal Jurisdiction is absurd. There should be common laws Nationally, so people don't have a problem with living or life, anywhere of their choosing.

                  The States(some) are about to allow voters to legalize cannabis. Giving them the choice, yet Federal Laws will remain in place? Which deems Cannabis illegal, even if States legalize it. It's already happened in California. People voted on medicinal cannabis and it passed. The Federal authorities arrested people who had it or who were complying with the Law passed and dealing in it.

                  1. denisemai profile image89
                    denisemaiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Dude. That's a long reply. I can't figure it out. Are you assuming I'm pro gun control? Where did you gain that info? Because I don't hunt? You are wrong in your assumption and preaching to the choir. I just think hunting is gross and I don't want to and I get a free pass on it because I'm a girl. Sheesh. But, my son and husband enjoy hunting very much and are safe with their gins. My son competes in small bore target shooting. I still don't get the fool comment. But that's ok.  I don't really need to.

              3. undermyhat profile image62
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                St. Gabriel Possenti has been proposed as the Patron Saint of Shooters for his skilled defense of a young woman against bandits about to rape her.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't play the rape card with me either...  If someone attempts to rape me and we both have guns then I'm still the one who's likely to die... not very many of them approach from the front ya know.  If someone attempts to rape me without a gun then I wish them all the good luck in the world and a speedy recovery.

                  1. undermyhat profile image62
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Cool, I am glad you could see the deeper point, wow.  Perhaps a little study on what happens when a woman is armed and assaulted would clarifiy

        3. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I did no such thing as lump them all in together just as I would not want to be lumped in with certain communist organizations I was simply pointing out that right wing terrorist from extremist right wing groups is very much a real concern.

  4. MelissaBarrett profile image59
    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

    IMO any group functioning on a "Because my God said to do it." level should be watched careful... no matter what God it is.  These people tend to do things for obscure reasons.

    The survivalist nut-jobs... no matter what their faith... should also be monitored  as anyone who is stockpiling large amounts of weapons and supplies WHILE gathering into groups is kinda dangerous on it's own.  I personally would feel safer living in a bloody mosque than next to a survivalist camp.

    Basically... if you have an extremist view and access to weapons and money you are a potential terrorist.  That's what they look like... sorry.

    Now as far as saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag... nope.  I will not allow it to be part of my kid's curriculum unless they... after being sufficiently educated on American History and the history of the flag... choose it to be part of their lives. Indoctrination into blind patriotism is as bad as religious indoctrination.

    1. Will Apse profile image90
      Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'. As they still sometimes say in the UK.

      1. undermyhat profile image62
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This does not, however, reject patriotism.  Love of one's country is a legitimate thing, as love for one's family and friends.  If anything, if one truly loves his country, he would want everyone to live as he lives and love his country as he loves his country.  This is not imperialism or ethnocentrism, it is love and faith. 

        I can relate better to a Russian patriot than with an anti-American American.

        1. Will Apse profile image90
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What on earth is an anti-patriot?

          edit: I think someone changed their post. I thought we had discovered a new particle of humanity.

          1. undermyhat profile image62
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            no edit - no use of anti-patriot

      2. lorlie6 profile image85
        lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Patriotism is a synonym for chauvinism-something to think on!

    2. undermyhat profile image62
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So you are saying that a mosque is dangerous but less dangerous than a survivalist camp?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was referencing the article.  It was whining about Muslims not being sufficiently dogged.

    3. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not sure where all that came from either.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Please try to keep up with the whole conversation... not just your points.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, however it is my forum so I think I am allowed a little leeway. Especially since I have only just come home from work and discovered all the hate mongering.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You discovered hate mongering when you came home?  Are the Westborough people outside your house?

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is a degree of it being bandied about on these pages.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Give us an example.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  See Longhunters reply to Josak and my reply to him.

    4. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      MO any group functioning on a "Because my God said to do it." level should be watched careful... no matter what God it is.  These people tend to do things for obscure reasons.

      Absolutely: "The company of someone who is seeking the truth is infinitely preferable to that of someone who thinks he's found it." --Terry Pratchett.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I love it when men quote Pratchett at me wink

  5. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    According to the shadow government of the Council on Foreign Relations, practically every American is a threat of homegrown terrorism.

    With the enactment of the Patriot Act in 2001, the legal definition of "terrorism" was expanded to include domestic as well as international terrorism. However, alternative definitions still exist at the FBI, Justice Department, Homeland Security Department, and Defense Department. Some descriptive terms (such as "sub-national," "pre-meditated," "noncombatant," etc.) are present in one definition and absent in others. Furthermore, many law enforcement groups, like the FBI, use the labels of domestic terrorism and violent extremism interchangeably


    http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizati … ates/p9236

    " attacks by individuals ",  It is the individual that is the main focus of these warnings!!!

    Fear is being used as a control mechanism, it also creates a society in which everybody suspects their neighbors of wrongdoing.  The only terror plots foiled by Law Enforcement since 2001 have been those plots initiated by Law Enforcement agencies themselves.  All other plots have been disrupted by civilians or mistakes by the potential terrorists themselves!

  6. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Well all in all I find it sad how many of the liberals(or whatever handle you prefer) on these pages and forums actually agree with that article. We are not talking about skinhead nazis, we are talking about average people in your town and on your block. They are hated.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We are not talking about skinhead nazis,
      Except we are talking about skinhead nazis, and bomb-throwing anarchists, and other violent fringe groups.

      Now, these groups shouldn't be outlawed, because that'd be policing people's opinions, and we shouldn't do that, not ever.

      But they bear watching, 'cos anytime you get people who are a) angry (especially about stuff that isn't really happening), b) scared (especially of stuff that isn't even real), and c) armed, it's a bit of a time-bomb.

      Nobody's freaking out about your average conservative voter. Nobody's even freaking out about the folks who keep extra food and ammunition "just in case."

      The ones who worry us (and darn well ought to worry you, too) are the ones who are stockpiling ammo so they'll be "ready for when the dang {insert hated/feared group here} come for us, 'cos they're gonna: they've got a plan, and that's why I got laid off from the mill last year, and I can't get another job because of quotas."

      Regular folks who think Christianity is under siege aren't a problem (other than they're willfully ignoring reality), but they get uncomfortable when we point out that the "gettin' ready for the second Revolution" people say a lot of the same kinds of things.

      Maybe they siege-mentality folks should do some self-reflection rather than defending the siege mentality?

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh no....Christianity certainly isn't under siege(he said after hyperventilating on the floor in laughter for fifteen minutes).

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Christianity makes up 70% of the population and you think it's under siege, now that is laughable, as it happens about 80 something percent of our politicians are Christians.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Some of the forums here have some really deplorable things to say.....and that's just here.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Shall i find some examples of what Christians say about Atheism or other religions.

              The other day I was told as an Atheist I obviously support murder and a few months back a Christian told me Buddhism was stupid because they worshiped a fat man.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh I am aware and didn't say i supported a statement like that. But telling me Christians don't get slapped around in the media daily????????????????????
                Please Josak I am older than that.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It really depends on what media you are watching, while there are still televangelists I am not down with saying the media is attacking Christianity.

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You're confusing "not getting your way all the time" with "persecution."

                  Don't feel bad: many Christians make the same mistake.

  7. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Americans for Legal Immigration stated, “Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The ‘Missouri Documents’ also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancy novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!”

    The FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism program labels those who purchase food in bulk as possible terrorists, as well as those who use cash to purchase items and show interest in using the Internet in public places.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co … terrorists

    "Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living"

    How many Americans do not care about any of these issues?  All Americans are potential homegrown terrorists!

    "First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me."

    Martin Niemöller

  8. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.

    Freedom of Association.

    If you exercise this right, you may be labelled a potential terrorist?

  9. 0
    Longhunterposted 4 years ago

    I have a feeling that unless we're ready, willing, and able to pucker up and kiss Barack Hussein Obama's butt, you're probably labeled a terrorist.

  10. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Through our taxes we are nourishing the "homeland security" department to irrationally strike us!

  11. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago
  12. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co … terrorists


    Here, different source....non-Glenn Beck.

  13. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Here: Somebody needs to claim this guy. I'm supposed to claim skinheads.......



    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … el-HQ.html

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ecologists need to. There are whole lot of eco anarchists (like the Una bomber) so maybe the bomb throwing anarchists can take this one?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Crap... I'm a green-lover too.  Do I have to take him as well as the bomb-building anti-war protester?

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's a new game, I call it terrorist hot potato.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh! Oh!  I want Mikhail Bakunin! He's was an anarchist... that puts him on the liberal side right?

            Of course technically the conservatives have to take Bin Laden... It might have been a different religion but he was still a fundamentalist.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Bakunin was awesome and though he was an anarchist he was a leftist anarchist so yes we get that guy (sort of) and yup they get Osama and all the other religious nuts.  Not to be self promotional but I wrote a hub called: "introducing the four way political spectrum" which would probably clear up this discussion quite a bit.

            2. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Collective Anarchist (it was on the tip of my tongue) so he is bizarre combination of socialist and anarchist.

            3. undermyhat profile image62
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              fundamentalism is not conservatism - there are evangelicals who are also liberals - one a relgious concept the other a political/economic one - there are atheist conservatives

  14. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 4 years ago

    How many good citizens shoot evil guys preventing terrible outrages every year? Hardly any.

    How many bad guys shoot innocent people every year. Too many.

    How many kids end up dead in shooting accidents? Groan...

    Hand guns only have one use and it is a pretty unpleasant one.

    The sight of armed police stir my contempt, let alone private citizens who imagine they are Clint Eastwood. Without these gun toting fantasists, criminals would be far less inclined to carry guns and a lot of lives would be saved.

    Unfortunately, so many countries are so far down the wrong road with their killing toys, there is no way back.

    Score up another victory for stupidity and ugliness.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, the good citizens use guns to prevent or stop crimes between 1.5 and 4.5 million times per year. There are a dozen studies supporting this fact, one of which was done by leading criminologists, and another by the Department of Justice.

      Compare that to 11,000 firearm homicides. 613 accidental firearm deaths, 112 of which were minors.

      There is a lot more good done with guns than bad.

      1. Will Apse profile image90
        Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are quoting from some stuff put out by gun lobby site as far as I can tell.

        One stat is that homicide rates fell in Florida after carrying concealed guns was allowed. Were concealed guns a part of that? Who knows? All kinds of gun crime has seen big decreases in the last twenty years.

        As to the millions of crimes prevented by gun toters, all but a small percentage involved waving a gun in the air. Waving anything else would probably have had the same effect.

        Anyway a few stats from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention:

        The firearm homicide rate for children under 15 years of age is 16 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 5times higher than in neighboring Canada and 30times higher than in Japan.

        http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

        The thing most likely to reduce crime is high employment and decent life opportunities. Focus on that if you want to feel safer.

        As for the poison argument, what on earth does that have to do with guns?

        1. undermyhat profile image62
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The millions of crimes prevented by brandishing a fire arm are recorded by the FBI in its uniform crime statistics each year - not necessarily a pro-gun group.

          Again, I would recommend reading "More Guns, Less Crime" by Dr.John R. Lott, an economist and statistician.  As for gun deaths in other countries, the cultural differences probably account for much of the difference, in that Americans probably die from the misadventures of freedom more often than any one else.  Our expectation is freedom not comportment to some social standard.  It is more likely a matter of social-psychology than fire arms.

          1. Will Apse profile image90
            Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How much freedom does a murder victim have? Or his family locked into the grief? How many places are simply not safe to walk after dark? Not much freedom if you live in fear of gun crime?

            Misadventures of freedom?

            Licence to live out death dealing fantasies sounds closer to the mark.

            Get to the issues that matter. Make life worth living for everyone and see the fear recede.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So do you advocate total disarmament or just law enforcement only being armed?

              That of course would make it law enforcement AND the criminals.

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, I'm telling you about the two best studies that have been conducted. Kleck and Gertz
          http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
          and the Department of Justice
          http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm

          Both estimate defensive gun usage at a minimum of 1.5 million per year.

          The figures I gave for death rates come from the CDC

          http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html


          Yeah, what's really interesting is if you look at individual states when they change their gun laws. About half of the decrease follows the national trend, and half of the influence comes from when the gun laws are changed. So states that took longer to change their laws took longer to start coming down.

          Right. I'm sure you can just wave at someone who wants to mug you and he'll run away. Sorry, but that's a horrible argument. Guns work as a deterrant because criminals don't want to get shot.

          I was just telling you that we have much worse problems than guns that kill a lot more people.

          Comparing the US to other countries doesn't do any good. One major reason is our border with Mexico and the war on drugs. Apples to oranges. You can also look at countries with high gun ownership and low crime rates, but comparing different countries with different problems in different geographical locations does no good.

          What does good is to look at states before and after a change in gun laws. When you do, you see a pretty clear picture.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are 30 times as many accidental poisonings as accidental firearm-related deaths every year. 6 times as many accidental drownings. 37 times as many deaths caused by falls. 77 times as many traffic accident deaths.

      If you want to pick a cause, there are much more rampant problems.

  15. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    We have veered onto this gun control thing which makes me wonder if the idea is if you are a Conservative and own a gun you can't be trusted?

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't mean to veer into this conversation... I just stated a personal preference in passing a couple pages ago and it got picked up on. 

      Personally... like I've said before...  I don't particularly care what you do.  I will vote for those who support background checks mandatory gun safety classes and stiffer punishments for those who are irresponsible with their guns and that results in a death or injury.  If you are a responsible gun owner that really shouldn't bother you.

      I don't trust guns.  I don't care if you are republican democrat buddhist rastafarian.... whatever.  I don't want them around my kids or myself.  That is MY right to gun control and it seems pretty damn rude to try and convince me that using MY rights is wrong because you don't agree with them.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I understand. Just trying to see if I can veer it back.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry I jumped a little too hard on you.  I really don't like debating this topic... like I said before there is no point in it for me.  I am walking away from this one so everyone else can get the last word on the gun thing.

          If you can pull the topic back to original I'll be happy to debate.  It was a pretty cool topic.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah I wasn't out of sorts about it. That's your view and I respect it.
            Keep an eye on the forum. I just think you tripped Jackson's trigger(no pun intended). It will veer back.

  16. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Must be feeling hot. Is around 100% in DC 'bout now.

  17. Cagsil profile image83
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    The ambiguity around "who" is a terrorist is so unrealistic. However, government has taken steps which are too much for it's limited power and that's just wrong.

    When government steps outside it's boundaries with regards to citizens rights, then it's only to mean that tyranny is the next step.

    It must be stopped.

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yep. There are two things and two things only...
      Liberty and tyranny.

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Liberty and Tyranny? lol

        You do realize most people have no problem with "50 shades of grey"(pun intended and not actually referring to the book).

        Honesty and Dishonesty? People seem to think there are "Grey" areas and they apply that reason to their own subjective moral understanding.

        So, it would beg to say- Liberty and Tyranny would be looked upon as some liberty must be given up for the greater good without actually living in a Tyrannical society. hmm

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So what do you considr tyraanny as relates to this administration...solely?

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Tyranny has already existed since the inception. It's in a disguise and dressed up as government.

            The government in place replaced a tyrannical regime, yet has taken the exact same steps as the previous regime over the entire totality of America's existence.

            Why people fail to see it? Is beyond all comprehension, especially in such a conscious world that today has become.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well I don't know why people don't see it.It's accelerating. We will actually have drones in the sky watching us and people just shrug their shoulders.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Denial

              2. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't get it. Most don't want to get involved. Most don't want to be bothered with politicians because all they do is lie, distortion and feed misinformation, for it's own agenda, powered by the ideology of America's interests and National Security.
                Yes it is. The fact that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act and there was NO outrage on behalf of citizens, shows that citizens are not represented properly. A Republican put the Patriot Act in place and then to have a Democrat re-sign it...proves there's only ONE political agenda.

                Not to mention, NDAA was signed and implemented by Obama, to protect what exactly? The status quo- corporate protectionism.
                Most likely.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yes the NDAA bothered myself and others too. But like I said. Shoulders just shrug.

                  Hey what's up with Snookie and the gang?

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Good it should.
                    Of course, because people don't want to get involved and fail to realize what is happening.
                    I don't know who that is?

            2. slcockerham profile image82
              slcockerhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Of course, once in the place of power, they all seek to protect their grasp on power.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And that should show you how much character they lack. hmm

  18. slcockerham profile image82
    slcockerhamposted 4 years ago

    According to recent documents released by DHS, those who believe in limited powers for the government, constitutional rights, support pres. candidates like Ron Paul, believe in Bible prophecies being fulfilled, are against abortion, or have bumper stickers advocating any of these things; you should be watched as a potential terrorist. I'll have to let you know when they openly declare us terrorists for believing any of the things I believe.

  19. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Unfortunately, the media and statements like those which this forum is about foster THIS sort of image of Conservatives:



    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6866958_f248.jpg

    1. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Okay, this is too funny.  I've seen this image shared on Facebook by conservatives!  They seem to be proud of what it says.

      Just sayin'.

      LOL

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh yeah I got a big laugh. I do think it's funny but it is funny because it is a stereotype I know is BS for the most anyway.
        There are those who think that shot is REAL. They will believe anything you say about Conservatives and that article I started this rant about fosters that however unintentionally.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          To be realistic... there is some grounds for that stereotype.  I personally know conservatives who are exactly like that and I do live in West Virginia.  I know that not ALL conservatives are like that as I am married to one who isn't.  BUT... these people do exist and you do have to claim them. 

          In addition the article does perpetuate the stereotype and likely not accidentally.  No journalist can slant an article that badly on accident.  So I guess the question is WHY would they?  This is a conservative written article.  What would conservatives gain by stirring fear and antagonism within their own ranks?

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They were informing people about what had been said by a government official.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No... if Jason would have been informing people of what had been said by a government official the he would have listed complete and accurate information.  He would have given both sides of the story.  He is not a random blogger who was stating an opinion... he is a trained journalist and has been taught ethical responsibilities as well as exactly how to misrepresent a situation.  The later was completely explained to him so that he wouldn't do it accidentally. 

              He knew that by only giving a specific partial quote out of a longer text that the message would be highly inflammatory.  He was jerking his readers around on purpose.  If he had listed the full definition in the report he knew it wouldn't have made everyone angry.  He also knew that if he was to state the FACT that left wing terrorist groups were ALSO included in that original report that it would show that homeland security was being completely impartial.

              In short... He was spreading propaganda to further a cause.  Now again... why would he do that?

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know. I'm just a terrorist and don't realize it.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No... and I know that.  So does everyone else including the author of that article.  The point was he was trying to convince you and other conservatives that everyone else... including the government... thinks you are.

                  Now... again... why would someone within your own party want you thinking that everyone thinks you are a terrorist?  I assure you that Mr. Howerton's literacy skills are quite high.  He read that report and knew what it REALLY said.  So why would he want every conservative thinking that the government thought they were terrorists?

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know. There are lots who aren't spreading propagnada on the right that want you to think we are murderers and did 9-11 ourselves. That was supposed to be us you know.
                    Nope. We aren't really blames for anything.

      2. undermyhat profile image62
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Speaking as a conservative, that made me laugh.  A sense of humor about one's self is essential.

    2. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol lol

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah you know I'm right don't you Cagsil?

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The high possibility is actually too scary to even think about, much less do anything about it.

          If that were true, then I would have to seriously increase my plans and I'm not presently ready yet to do that. I'm not of the understanding it has reached that level of stupidity as of yet, but is coming close.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No...
            I meant you know that is a stereotype that is fostered don't you?

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A mentality that is fostered by either side that would make that true would be a sure sign of the end of America. hmm

              Funny and sad at the same time.

  20. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    The skew this forum took is fully indicative of just exactly how anti-Christian most of the folk on HP are.
    Thanks. You help make my case.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Approving of porn vs. not approving of it has nothing to do with Christianity.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well  perhaps that's true Melissa, however I doubt I would have received the responses I did had the posters not known I had outed myself as a Christian.
        Like I say...plaster the outside with the stuff. It will make for great public conversation.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm pretty sure most of the posters know that I'm a Christian too...

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Frankly Melissa that's not the direction your comments point.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *Shrugs*  I'm not really that upset about whether or not you think I belong to the club or not.  I'm pretty comfortable in my faith.  You might want to make sure you aren't confusing politics and religion though.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No Melissa I am not and no I don't wonder if you are part of the "club".

      2. undermyhat profile image62
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is a unique perspective, one not often shared by any Christian theology or clergy that I have ever read, met, talked to, heard of, etc....

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So, if the people in the movies(Porn) were married(making the only issue Christian theology would have with the actions of porn stars), then the sex wouldn't be an issue...correct? Last time I checked, no religions addressed making movies. lol

          No wonder why the world is still completely uncivilized.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why?  I know plenty of non-Christians that don't agree with porn.  I also know many Christians that watch it.

          It's existence-per say- doesn't really bother me.  I am not likely to want it displayed in public.  I don't really get upset by seeing a naked body but I'd prefer my kids didn't.  So my objection... I guess... would not come from my religion but from the fact I am a parent.

          Faith doesn't always determine our views... or it shouldn't anyway.  I am more than my religion.

    2. Cody Hodge profile image84
      Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You enjoy playing the victim don't you?

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        On HP I don't have to "play" anything.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The skew this forum took is fully indicative of just exactly how anti-Christian most of the folk on HP are.
      No, it had nothing to do with any imagined anti-Christian sentiment.
      Rather, it had to do with a distaste for double-standards and an understanding of what equal treatment really means. (At least in my case.)

      I doubt I would have received the responses I did had the posters not known I had outed myself as a Christian.

      Waitwait...did you seriously just say that you "outed yourself as a Christian?" Like, you had to hide your faith for fear of being shunned by your friends, disowned by your family, losing your job, getting evicted from your apartment, or losing custody of your kids?

      Cos that's the kid of thing that sometimes still happens to gay people who get "outed."

      By the way, you don't "out" yourself. You "come out." If you get "outed," that means someone told your secret before you were ready to let people know. If you're going to steal the words of an oppressed minority in a vain attempt to be seen as a victim yourself, at least have the courtesy to do it right.

      But back on topic, you got the responses you got not because you're a Christian, but because of--and only because of--the things you posted on this forum, to wit:
      *Your continued insistence that Christians are an oppressed minority even though it's been demonstrated that a) most of the time Christians actually get preferential treatment and b) your 'evidence' of 'persecution' was actually an incident where, unusually, a Christian was required to follow the same laws as everyone else, and punished for breaking them.
      *Your insistence that decorations that offend someone who isn't you should be allowed to stay up, but that decorations that offend you must be taken down, and your inability to see this as a double standard.
      *Your implication that someone who disagrees with you (specifically, me) has no morals.

      You help make my case.
      lol Too funny. So very absurd. lol

      Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are right Jeff.
        i am an idiot.

      2. slcockerham profile image82
        slcockerhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Jeff, I thought this was about you being considered a terrorist not gay. Correct? But you seem to be attacking other's beliefs quite liberally. You rerap what you sow.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And did you happen to bother to read the last 14 pages? You would had noticed that the topic of this thread has changed several dozen times. Just recently, to get the thread back on track, the person who started the thread admitted that the thread had gotten off track and wanted to get back on track. You will notice right after he states it, I then posted to the forum directly to bring it back on track.
          You would be right. The thread isn't about being gay.
          Actually, he isn't attack the beliefs. He is attacking the irrationality of some of the posts most recently posted.

          1. slcockerham profile image82
            slcockerhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I also thought that Christians, or those that don't trust gorernment are considered possible terrorists. Was that inappropriate regarding the question?

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think the terrorist thing even mentioned Christians.

            2. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              People who are anti-government are possible terrorists, and yes some are citizens.

              I guess I could be considered one. I'm not anti-government. I'm for a limited government, both State and Federal.

              As to whether or not that was inappropriate regarding the question...I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

          2. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks Cagsil.
            That's what happens when people don't want to talk about what you are talking about.
            It's also a progressive strategy. Freeze the opponent, make him the target(thought I didn't know that stuff did you Jeff), and so on.

            The fact remains that I was told I had to accept that some right wing people might be terrorists....however Josak said we were playing terrorist hot potato and denied the Discovery Channel guy who was obviously a left wing loon. Nope nobody was having any of that.
            It's a painful lesson for them when they realize the odor emanating from the bathroom they just left is the one they produced.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Um... yeah.  Intelligent debate is most certainly attacking someone else's beliefs.

          I'm curious. Would there be a way to you to NOT attack someone else"s beliefs that didn't involve "Yes... you are absolutely correct"?

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But you seem to be attacking other's beliefs quite liberally.

          The only "belief" I've attacked in this thread (and a few others, I admit) is the paranoid delusion that the majority religion in the USA is somehow also an oppressed minority--all evidence points to the opposite.

          I haven't attacked the moral or theological beliefs of the majority religion, its members, or any single of its members.

          Correcting someone who has made a factual error (in exactly the same way that "Canada is hostile to the United States" is a factual error) is not the same as attacking his beliefs.

          Actually, he isn't attack the beliefs. He is attacking the irrationality of some of the posts most recently posted.
          Exactly so.

          The fact remains that I was told I had to accept that some right wing people might be terrorists.
          And some (a small minority) certainly do fit the profile.
          Most don't, but there are a few who do, and they use the same words to advance their cause as mainstream conservatives use to advance theirs.

          Sure, plenty of stupid people lump all conservatives into the "violent extremist" category in the exact same way that (different) stupid people lump all liberals into the "commie traitor" category, or all Muslims into the "violent extremist" category (a different one). I never denied that, and in fact I agree that people who make that mistake (no matter which group they're lumping) are being very stupid indeed.

          If you'll go back and look at the actual stuff that people have been posting, you'll see that once upon a time, I very clearly said that the average conservative voter isn't someone to be scared of, but that the rhetoric of the lunatic fringe makes extensive use of the same siege-mentality language that mainstream conservatives also use, specifically, the idea that Christianity is an oppressed minority in the US, rather than the dominant majority that it actually is.

          JS replied with this:
          Christianity certainly isn't under siege(he said after hyperventilating on the floor in laughter for fifteen minutes).
          Which is no less than a willful denial of reality. I thought that we were done after a brief discussion of the differences between "getting the same treatment as everyone else" and "persecution."

          But then JS went and posted an article that he thought supported the siege-mentality, but which actually didn't. Of the four incidents mentioned in the article of Christian groups being told that they had to (*gasp*) obey the law, three of them ended with the law being changed to accommodate the Christian groups, and only one resulted in a Christian actually being made to obey the law (and, eventually, imprisoned for continuing to break it in spite of repeated rulings, court orders, and so forth). This is not persecution, it's prosecution. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.

          Any discussion of whether Christianity is "under siege" in the US (pro tip: it isn't) continued because JS kept bringing it up.

          I don't think the terrorist thing even mentioned Christians.
          It didn't, Josak.

          The running discussion of Christianity and how it's not actually under siege grew out of my (correct) observation that the siege-mentality of so many mainstream Christians directly feeds the minds of the lunatic fringe. Every time Bill O'Reilly talks about his made-up "war on Christmas," he's lending legitimacy to the lunatic fringe's ideas about either some shadowy group or else a secret government campaign being "out to get them," and justifying their need to prepare for the "inevitable" day when "they come for us."

          But let me make sure I'm being clear:
          Are mainstream conservatives likely to become terrorists? No they are not.
          Do lunatic fringe groups appropriate the trappings of mainstream Christianity? Yes they do.
          Do the lunatic fringe groups think they are under siege? Yes they do.
          Do mainstream Christians also make use of the "under-siege" rhetoric? Yes, sadly, many of them do.

          Mainstream Conservatives/Christians and the right-wing lunatic fringe have exactly one thing in common: both promote the false idea that the most powerful mainstream religion in the United States is somehow also a persecuted minority.

          Josak said we were playing terrorist hot potato and denied the Discovery Channel guy who was obviously a left wing loon.
          Oh, clearly the Discover Channel guy was a left-wing loon. No question. And he's an anomaly. A minority of one, if you will.
          Which brings us to yet another of the inconsistencies in JS's rhetoric. He repeatedly insists that conservatives have nothing to do with their lunatic fringe, and decries 'liberal' efforts to lump all conservatives into the lunatic fringe pile, but at the same time tries to hold up one guy and lump liberals into that...well, can you have a pile if there's only one of something in it?

          I guess the whole thing can be summed up by this: when I suggested that maybe we should stop painting with such broad brushes, and JS said,
          Hey great...you first?

          Well, you can lead a horse to water....

          From what I have seen here and in other forums your main operating procedure seem to be to try and twist as much of whatever whomever the conservative is says ...
          That's the mantra of everyone who ever lost a debate, ever. Maybe instead of blaming your opponent for using your own words against you, you should try using some better words?

          ...and become combative...
          Now your confusing "disagreeing" with "being combative."

          ...and get insulted by things...
          When someone says insulting things to me, I tend to feel insulted. Wouldn't you feel insulted if someone told you that you have no morals?

          You proved nothing. Ok?
          Well, you did a lot of the work for me, so I suppose I can't take all the credit.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am curious about the discovery building guy, while he was an eco nut which is generally associated to the left the other half of his manifesto was about how terrible Mexican immigrants were and how they are taking over the country which is generally right wing rhetoric, a newspaper called him an eco fascist and I am inclined to agree, as I see it he isn't really either's nut because he does not fit comfortably into either category.

          2. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What you were engaging in was hardly a debate. You basically just call people delusional.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You basically just call people delusional.
              No, I said you were mistaken and confused, and further, that it isn't your fault, considering the many prominent people telling you that Christianity is under siege. I called the idea that the largest, most powerful religion in America is also somehow a persecuted minority delusional.

              If I had stopped there, then your post above would be 100% correct: if I'd just said you were mistaken and called the idea delusional, all I'd have been doing was saying stuff, and not debating.

              But I backed up my claims with facts and logic, which is what it means to engage in debate.

              You haven't been able to refute my points (yet--maybe you'll come up with something today or tomorrow, and I won't be able to refute it, and I'll have to change my mind), so now you've taken refuge in attacking not my arguments or my facts, but pretty much everything else (you're trying to pretend that I've been insulting and combative when I haven't, you've implied that I have no morals, and you've tried to blame me for the digression when you were the one who led us down that path).

              I didn't tell you that you had no morals Jeff. You imagine that.
              Oh, really? So you mean when you said,
              Why isn't porn ok?
              Because I have morals and so do a few others. That's why you prefer the porn to a manger scene.

              you weren't grouping people into "those with morals" and "those without morals," and implying that I fall into the latter? Really?

              Even if you genuinely didn't mean to imply this insult (which I suppose is possible), it's fairly hard to believe that someone who has a good command of the language (as you have: your posts are clear and articulate, plus you're really good at sarcasm) can't see how that post looks as though it's meant to imply that I have no morals.

              But given that you can look at four different cases in which Christians have broken the law, three of which resulted in the law being changed or waived in favor of the Christians, and only one of which resulted in the Christian being punished only after continued and flagrant defiance of the law, and still conclude that Christians are a persecuted minority, I suppose it's not surprising that you can read what you wrote and not see how it looks insulting.

              Ah, well....everyone's human.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I wouldn't have made that leap had you not given me the impression that was how you feel.
                We are going to get off this hijack topic now. It's not about terrorists.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I wouldn't have made that leap had you not given me the impression that was how you feel.
                  Oh, so I wasn't "imagining" things?
                  You did mean to say that I have no morals?

                  Leaving the personal insult aside for a moment, I'm curious: which of my statements led you to conclude that I have no morals?

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I get the feeling you feel insulted when you step out of bed.
                    We are going to talk about the terrorism issue now I you don;t feel so inclined then don't.
                    You have even had others tell you we were going there.

          3. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't tell you that you had no morals Jeff. You imagine that. i told you that I have morals.

      3. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Jeff....and I bow to your obviously highly superior and stupendous intellect....you belive what you want to believe and I will agree to disagree with you. From what I have seen here and in other forums your main operating procedure seem to be to try and twist as much of whatever whomever the conservative is says and become combative and get insulted by things and so forth.

        You proved nothing. Ok?

  21. schoolgirlforreal profile image76
    schoolgirlforrealposted 4 years ago

    talking about it doesn't really help, I mean unless people don't already know. Tired of all of this.

  22. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    To add to my possibility of being a terrorist....not bad enough that I am Conservative and a Christian....I was a Cavalry scout team chief who was trained on how to blow up bridges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Holy moley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are those some of the qualifications? lol

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just sayin. That was thirty years ago and I was joking then they were training me to be a terrorist. Never dreamed anyone would be actually sizing me up for the role.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, first off I was only joking. Secondly, I recently did a political test which the results are posted. I don't fall into a conservative model. And I'm not Christian, plus I don't know how to make bombs or fly a plane. So, I guess I okay. lol
          30 yrs ago, I was 13 years old. So, I'm not going there. And trust me, you don't want to know what I learned at 13. lol
          That's okay. Don't feel bad. I'm told I'm nuts more often than not. I'm told I'm an idiot more often than not.

  23. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 4 years ago

    Alienation and weirdness can be found everywhere. It increases dramatically when people feel they have little power or influence.

    It is very noticeable that the greatest levels of alienation in advanced democracies are in the US and UK (measured by voter turnout in elections, self-reporting and general levels of contempt for politicians).

    People have given up and allowed the special interest groups, especially corporations, to run their country.

    There was a recent major study of key elements of democracy in the UK recently, declaring it was in 'terminal decline'. http://democracy-uk-2012.democraticaudi … _is_uk.pdf

    The American Economic Association (mainly salt water economists Stanford, Yale etc) maintains a mass of data on the same subject for countries around the world. You can download the (rather detailed) data set here if you are interested http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data/mar06_data_20031166.zip

    Frankly, I loathe anyone having power over me but democratically elected government and the rule of law is preferable to rule by those whose only interest is their self-interest.

    1. undermyhat profile image62
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It seems to me that a little self interest goes a very long and productive way.  Self interest and selfishness are not the same thing.

      1. Brandon Tart profile image61
        Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I would venture to say that they are all fairly terrified themselves and have a need to express what has been instilled, if not beaten into them:  fear and terror.

  24. slcockerham profile image82
    slcockerhamposted 4 years ago

    To those who call Christians being persecuted and viewed as possible terrorists, worldwide in the last 100 years more Christians have been martyrred around the world than the rest of the existence of Christianity. Recently, in Phoenix a Christian pastor was raided by a swat team for having a home Bible study. He's now in jail for 60 days, 3 yrs. probation, and a $12,000 fine for having a home Bible study. Of course, you can throw parties in the neighborhood, have bbq's, or have a tupperware party. But having a Bible study warrants a raid with jail time and a large fine. This would seem to indicate unconstitutional targeting of Christians by government officials. Wouldn't it? Very relevant issue to how it feels to be a terrorist!

    1. undermyhat profile image62
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If there are sources for this story it would be valuable to cite them.  If this is indeed the case,  with no mitigating issues, I would be surprised.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The mitigating circumstance would be that he built a  2,000 square foot building in his backyard and was using it as a church (It has chairs for as many as 40 people. There is a pulpit. There’s a sign out front  along with a cross) He lied to public officials to get the permits saying it was for a garage expansion.  He violated 67 (yes 67) building code violations. There were "bible studies" three times a week.

        This is not a small gathering in his home.  He built a bloody church in a residentially zoned area AND in addition failed to meet the code requirements for a church.  It was a traffic bottleneck... a fire hazard... and a completely illegal building for the area.  The laws apply to everyone... churches don't get to be built wherever you want to plop them down.

        http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to … study.html

        http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanont … udies.html

        Note that both sources are conservative and wicked slanted but even they couldn't slant the story enough for it appear that Salman was being "persecuted"... and he sure as hell wasn't a martyr.

        1. undermyhat profile image62
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That sounds so cool, a giant building with couches, a wide screen tv and a giant BEARS banner out front - Sunday at my house. 

          Oh by the way, Fox News employs Geraldo Revera, Shephard Smith, Greta Van Sutstren and Juan Wiliams ,among others, who are anything but conservative.  Fox News is hardly conservative given its connections to Saudi interests.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Note that both sources are conservative and wicked slanted but even they couldn't slant the story enough for it appear that Salman was being "persecuted".

          Heck, not even the one JS originally posted was able to do that, and they conveniently omitted the fact that the "gazebo" wasn't really a gazebo, and that the guy lied in order to get the building permits for it.

          People see what they want to see. If you already think the government is out to get you, you're going to see persecution if you get pulled over for running a red light so you won't be late for church. (Dang cops shouldn't be working on Sunday anyway; all this sabbath-breaking is clearly part of a conspiracy to bring down Christianity and set up the Antichrist as head of a one-world-government.....)

          1. undermyhat profile image62
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I get mad every Sunday in Indiana where I cannot by a 6 pack of beer at the grocery.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That law exists because the (Protestant) Christian majority put it there, and it's having a heck of a time getting repealed because in spite of their anger about government control, the conservative Christian movement doesn't seem to be interested in defending freedoms they don't want to exercise.

              1. undermyhat profile image62
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                From your mouth to God's son's ear - that little old wine maker, Jesus.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know about the worldwide martyrdom statistics, so I won't comment on them.

        What I can tell you is that the case in Phoenix is the case we've already discussed, the one case out of four when the Christian guy who was breaking the law was actually required to obey it, and then when he insisted on continuing to disobey the law, was fined and imprisoned.

        Here's the article, again, and here's the relevant quote:

        In 2008, the City of Phoenix ordered Michael Salman to comply with code requirements for a church after neighbors complained about his weekly Bible studies, which often drew 50 people to a gazebo in his backyard. Salman refused [to obey the law], claiming the order violated his free exercise rights, and was sentenced to 60 days in jail, fined $12,000, and given three year's probation...

        No mention of a "raid" or a "SWAT team" is made in the article, and no mention of any order to stop holding a Bible study. I have to assume that the SWAT team raid got in there during the usual telephone game, and that slockerham only passing on someone else's falsehood rather than making stuff up on his own.

        Apparently mistaking prosecution for persecution is a pretty common mistake. I think I'll have to address this in my next grammar hub.

        This would seem to indicate unconstitutional targeting of Christians by government officials. Wouldn't it?
        Well, if the guy really had been targeted merely for "holding a Bible study," then yes. But he wasn't. He was cited for zoning violations, and prosecuted for his continued refusal to obey the law, even after multiple warnings.

        "Having to obey the same zoning laws as everyone else" isn't "being unconstitutionally targeted by the government."

        1. undermyhat profile image62
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So being a polite and good citizen is not expected of Christians - I always thought that was precisely the kind of conduct required of Christians.  I say that as an active, Catholic Christian.  If that little community feels abused than the only reasonable response is to lodge complaint if any one else in the neighborhood inconveniences his neighbors with the traffic from a weekly cook out, football game, sex toy party, whatever...sauce for the gander.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So being a polite and good citizen is not expected of Christians - I always thought that was precisely the kind of conduct required of Christians.  I say that as an active, Catholic Christian.
            Well, I kinda thought the same thing, so...
             
            If that little community feels abused than the only reasonable response is to lodge complaint if any one else in the neighborhood inconveniences his neighbors with the traffic from a weekly cook out, football game, sex toy party, whatever...sauce for the gander.

            Either that, or work within the system (like the other Bible-study groups did) and try to get the rules changed.

            1. undermyhat profile image62
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Or both, insist on the law being enforced until it can be changed.  It is fine to be critical of a law it is not fine to flaut the law, unless there is a profound moral issue at stake like slavery.  But usually, if a profound moral issue is at stake the opposition is usually willing to risk imprisonment or death - like the Chinese pro-life protestor and personal friend of Hillary "I'll see you at the airport" Clinton, Chen Guangcheng.

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good citizen maybe.  Nothing in my religion I've ever found anywhere says I have to be polite smile .  I'm kind but I'm not nice ... and I love my neighbors but that doesn't mean I have to like them.

            1. undermyhat profile image62
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are required to love them.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And I DO love them.

                However... if love doesn't stop me from telling my hubby and children what I think of them then it's not going to stop me from telling my neighbor.

                It's like this... I LOVE a drunk driver enough to be KIND enough to administer first aid when he wrecks his pickup in front of me.  I don't LIKE him enough to be NICE enough to not verbally ream him a new ass while I'm doing it.

                1. undermyhat profile image62
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So for the person who has made poor life choices you have some powerful words.  Does this count for the poor, many of whom are so precisely because they have made stupid life choices?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If I feel the words are warranted... yep.  And I do quite a bit of charity work.  Trust me I've had words at times.

        2. slcockerham profile image82
          slcockerhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Bill of Rights does give us the freedom of religion without government interference. I think that this would be government interference.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh... so if my religion involved human sacrifice then that would be cool with you?

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The Bill of Rights does give us the freedom of religion without government interference. I think that this would be government interference.
              Well, I guess it could be construed as government interference, but not government interference in the free exercise of someone's religion.

              It's government interference in what kind of building may be built in that neighborhood, and what kind of use it may be put to.

              Again, the guy wasn't punished for holding a Bible study. He was punished for breaking zoning ordinances.

              Unless you think that the law shouldn't apply to people who happen to be breaking the law to do something religion-y, there's no way that that this counts as persecution.

              Of course, if you think someone breaking a law for religious reasons should get an automatic "get-out-of-jail-free" card, then the Rastafarians get to smoke all the ganja they want, and nobody can arrest them on drug charges, 'cos, freedom of religion. Those Mormon fringe groups in the hills of Utah can have all the wives they want, 'cos, freedom of religion. If the local Wiccan coven wants to do a skyclad ritual in the city park on Lughnassa, they can do it, and nobody can stop them, 'cos, freedom of religion. If a Houngan wants to behead a rooster on the local soccer field to help his kid's team to victory, then he can do it, and nobody can stop him, 'cos, freedom of religion.

              Or maybe we should make everyone to follow the same rules, no matter what faith they follow?

              'Cos if you let the Christians break the rules, then you gotta let everyone else do it too, and you'll end up with this, which I'm pretty sure you don't want at all.
              http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6055782_f248.jpg

              File it under the "be careful what you wish for" heading.

              1. undermyhat profile image62
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps the question should be - "Does local, state or federal government have the Constitutional authority to zone real estate so that a place of worship cannot be built in that zone?"  Most churches are built in residential areas, why is this one different?  There must be some reason why this has become an issue beyond the issues polluted with a false religious conflict.  What is the church crowd like?  After all there are organizations that wrap themselves in religion when they are busy spouting race hatred.

                Arizona does not impress me as a rabidly anti-Christian place.  I would expect this strict zoning some place like prosperous suburban Los Angeles or even presperous suburban Indianapolis.  I thought Arizona was one of those western states where individual rights trump everything else.  So it is not like Wyoming?

                As a side issue: Imagine what a neighborhood in Houston can be like - there are very few or maybe there are no - zoning rules.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Most churches are built in residential areas, why is this one different?

                  Don't know, but I'd speculate that lot size, street width, the lack of a parking lot, and the need for traffic lights to accommodate the increased traffic all might be contributing factors.

                  Add to that the facts that the guy told the city that he was going to be building a "gazebo" when he applied for the building permit, but instead built a very different building, and that churches in that community need to have certain features (like fire exits, restrooms, etc.) which this building apparently didn't have.

                  We can argue about whether it's right or wrong to have these rules, and that would be a valuable discussion, but it has nothing to do with free exercise rights.

                  After all there are organizations that wrap themselves in religion when they are busy spouting race hatred.
                  There are, but I haven't caught even a whiff of hatemongering in connection with this story. I really don't think this church is one of those.

                  It just seems to me a case of some guy thinking that because he's doing God's work, he gets to break whatever the heck rules he wants to in the process, 'cos, God.

                  1. undermyhat profile image62
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So ultimately it comes down to this guy not being honest and a good citizen.  Sounds like the locality has a point.

                    If being Christian is reason enough to be freed from legal considerations than why did Jim Bakker end up in prison, multiple Catholic priests resign in shame and Jim Jones flee the country?

                    (it is hard to type wearing work gloves)

  25. schoolgirlforreal profile image76
    schoolgirlforrealposted 4 years ago

    Well, when you ask that question,
    are you worried about being arrested? By the new NDDA act?


    I'm not. but  are you?

 
working