• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Beware, liberals are about to frame Christians!

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
I love Barbwire. It is like a channel right into the ID of right wingers.

http://barbwire.com/2015/11/24/will-leftists-next-create-christian-terrorist-groups/

And this is why society must now ask: Will leftists next create “Christian terrorist” groups?
Leftists organizing and funding people to engage in terrorism designed to frame Christians would be a logical next step. Doing so would advance both their agenda (the eventual criminalization of Christianity) and narrative (Christians are violent and evil).
Click to expand...

Well of course. I mean whenever I hang out with other liberals all we do is talk about how we are going to criminalize Christianity. I mean what is there to not like about making belief systems illegal? That surely is what all of us really want when we talk about freedom of expression.

If you think such a thing unlikely to happen, remember that leftists already are attempting to frame their enemies with fake “hate crimes.” Leftists also celebrate murdering unborn babies, newly born babies, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, how could I forget about how much we hate the elderly, sick and disabled? I mean you walk into liberal centers in America and the discrimination against old people, sick people and disabled people is just rampant. In fact we hate those people so much we constantly try to help them get better access to doctors and medical care. Truly sick puppies we are.

And if the concept of leftists potentially creating and funding phony Christian terrorist groups still seems far-fetched, then remember that leftist educators, politicians, entertainers, and others have openly embraced leftist terrorists since the 1960s.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember when Carson had Red Army Faction on his show. That did seem a bit over the top.
 
It's the same ol' story. People in power tend to feel persecuted when their power is threatened, even when the "threat" is actually from a weaker position culturally. I'm not sure why they don't realize that:

1. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion -- the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the procedure. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

2. No one is restricting the free speech of an individual with regards to religion. The restriction is on the actions of government bodies. That includes local town meetings, public schools, and any government signage or displays, but it doesn't restrict private property or individual speech outside of the context of authority. It doesn't even restrict a teacher from expressing their opinion in class, but it does prevent them from sponsoring clubs or making religion a part of the curriculum in anything but a historical or cultural context (i.e. "Christians believe(d) such-and-such" is okay, but "Christ is Lord" is not -- there's a certain distance that must be maintained that has to do with fact and faith sorts of distinctions).

...and, of course, you've got the conspiracy nonsense running around on top of it. I don't understand why people aren't able to see these questions for what they are. Even if you disagree, you should at least understand the question. It's quite clear that some people don't understand the question at all and many of their leaders (including certain elements of the press) are encouraging that misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
It's the same ol' story. People in power tend to feel persecuted when their power is threatened, even when the "threat" is actually from a weaker position culturally. I'm not sure why they don't realize that:

1. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion -- the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the procedure. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

2. No one is restricting the free speech of an individual with regards to religion. The restriction is on the actions of government bodies. That includes local town meetings, public schools, and any government signage or displays, but it doesn't restrict private property or individual speech outside of the context of authority. It doesn't even restrict a teacher from expressing their opinion in class, but it does prevent them from sponsoring clubs or making religion a part of the curriculum in anything but a historical or cultural context (i.e. "Christians believe(d) such-and-such" is okay, but "Christ is Lord" is not -- there's a certain distance that must be maintained that has to do with fact and faith sorts of distinctions).

...and, of course, you've got the conspiracy nonsense running around on top of it. I don't understand why people aren't able to see these questions for what they are. Even if you disagree, you should at least understand the question. It's quite clear that some people don't understand the question at all and many of their leaders (including certain elements of the press) are encouraging that misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

This isn't a persecution complex. Evangelicals know that your two bullets are unacceptable compromise. Let's not pretend liberals are doing evangelicals any favors. Liberal advances are a blow to evangelicals and they justifiably oppose it.
 
psionl0 said:
I don't know why you are so interested in a Christian website nor why you would not post this in the religion section.

Mind you, this upcoming debate looks set to ignite the fireworks.
Click to expand...

This needs its own thread. A debate about a church sign that said: Jesus is God, Allah is Satan.

Off topic: I love how the columnist was able throw in this slam. "Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) is facilitating it [Islam destroying America]"
 
Manopolus said:
1. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion -- the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the procedure. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Click to expand...

Would you accept this argument?
No one is forcing anyone to murder an infant - the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the act. If you don't like infant murder, don't murder an infant. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Do you see why this argument doesn't work? You have assumed things which are in fact in dispute. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you cannot expect to convince people with this reasoning if they don't share those beliefs.
 
Ziggurat said:
Would you accept this argument?
No one is forcing anyone to murder an infant - the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the act. If you don't like infant murder, don't murder an infant. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Do you see why this argument doesn't work? You have assumed things which are in fact in dispute. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you cannot expect to convince people with this reasoning if they don't share those beliefs.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Haven't courts outlawed murder? (Most places anyway.)

:boggled:
 
Ziggurat said:
Would you accept this argument?
No one is forcing anyone to murder an infant - the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the act. If you don't like infant murder, don't murder an infant. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Do you see why this argument doesn't work? You have assumed things which are in fact in dispute. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you cannot expect to convince people with this reasoning if they don't share those beliefs.
Click to expand...

Their problem.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I'm confused. Haven't courts outlawed murder? (Most places anyway.)

:boggled:
Click to expand...

It is illegal to murder an infant after it is born. Pro-lifers see the actual birth of the baby to be an arbitrary line. Thus killing a baby shortly before it is born is as morally repugnant as killing a baby shortly after it is born. Once they have defined the actual birth as arbitrary in determining morality of killing the newborn, then other defining lines (detectable heartbeat, viable outside of womb) become arbitrary as well. Using that logic, killing a human four months after it was born is as horrific as killing the same human four months before it was born.
 
I like this approach: it lets one dismiss any proof of a negative action by someone in one's own group. The No True Scotsman argument, but to an exponential power. My understanding of the No True Scotman's argument is that if someone believes themselves to be a member of your group, but does something you don't approve of, then they are not truly a member of your group as you define it. The current concept is even better: if someone claims to be a member of your group, but does something you don't approve of, they KNEW that they were not members of your group, they were only pretending to be members, and did the awful thing only to besmirch (I like that word) the reputation of your group. It fact, they were secretly members of the opposition group (you know, the evil, nasty, despicable ones you hate)! By definition. And the evidence of this? Well, first you know that your group is good and would never do such a thing, whereas the opposition group is bad and quite capable of such a thing. And second, well the fact that there is no evidence is in fact proof of just how successfully secret the infiltration was.
 
psionl0 said:
I don't know why you are so interested in a Christian website nor why you would not post this in the religion section.

Mind you, this upcoming debate looks set to ignite the fireworks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps to learn more broadly about the various arguments on a topic? Perhaps to discover thinking such as in the OP (why are governments so interested in the internal policies of other governments)? Do you yourself read only websites that support your own position?

As to the non-highlighted part- the quotes in the OP don't bear on religious issues, they represent the political views and actions of groups who use religious labels only to label themselves.
 
fuelair said:
Their problem.
Click to expand...

Of course. It's always their problem if there's a disagreement. You're always right, they're always wrong, logical discussion is pointless, and persuasion irrelevant.

In the end, only naked power actually matters.
 
Giordano said:
Perhaps to learn more broadly about the various arguments on a topic? Perhaps to discover thinking such as in the OP (why are governments so interested in the internal policies of other governments)? Do you yourself read only websites that support your own position?
Click to expand...
Travis is not exactly new to this forum. He would know that there are too many religious based websites to count and that many contain outlandish views.

If this site was significant in some way (eg a main stream religion or one that exerts political influence) then the views on that site might be worth taking notice of but this looks like a nothing site to me.
 
psionl0 said:
Travis is not exactly new to this forum. He would know that there are too many religious based websites to count and that many contain outlandish views.

If this site was significant in some way (eg a main stream religion or one that exerts political influence) then the views on that site might be worth taking notice of but this looks like a nothing site to me.
Click to expand...

Barbwire is not insignificant. They are part of the support network that was behind Kim Davis in Kentucky. If they can help things like that happen then they are not insignificant.

Read through their archive here. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/barbwire
 
Travis said:
I love Barbwire. It is like a channel right into the ID of right wingers.

http://barbwire.com/2015/11/24/will-leftists-next-create-christian-terrorist-groups/



Well of course. I mean whenever I hang out with other liberals all we do is talk about how we are going to criminalize Christianity. I mean what is there to not like about making belief systems illegal? That surely is what all of us really want when we talk about freedom of expression.



Oh, yeah, how could I forget about how much we hate the elderly, sick and disabled? I mean you walk into liberal centers in America and the discrimination against old people, sick people and disabled people is just rampant. In fact we hate those people so much we constantly try to help them get better access to doctors and medical care. Truly sick puppies we are.



Yeah, I remember when Carson had Red Army Faction on his show. That did seem a bit over the top.
Click to expand...

I hear Jon Stewart's impression of GW Bush when read this.
Heh heh heh heh,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom