Former evangelist: Religious right is ‘trawling for assassins’

No, it is not your responsibility unless you preached that God wants him to go postal, or if you knew his intentions and did not tell the authorities. But if God told him to do it, then it was an effect that religion had upon him.

Wakeup...

I don't see how the one follows the other. Just because someone thinks God is telling them to kill a rock star or a politician or a supermodel or whatever that person's particular fixation happens to be, I don't see how "religion" is the unquestionable cause. Much evil has been done in the name of religion - of that we can be certain. But much good has been done in the name of religion, too. Mother Theresa may be the most famous of the nuns who have suffered extreme deprivation and witnessed horrors that would send most of us completely around the bend, but she was just the most famous among thousands -- a story that is being repeated all over the world day in and day out.

I have not suggested that good people cannot be religious. I also did not say that every psycho murderer that hears voices is religious. But in instances when a religious person looks to a sacred text to find justification for murder (or even finding a reason to be pleased with someone else's act of murder) in order to please God, then I can say that religion has had a dangerous effect. When faith supercedes morality and justifies inhumane action (as it has clearly done throughout history and still continues to do), we must conclude that it is a danger to humanity. Agreed?

For the record, I'm not trying to attack. I know that there are truly wonderful people from every religion. I would venture to say that these people would be wonderful if they were not religious. Perhaps the same would be true about the dangerous religious people, but at least they would have to take full responsibility for their choices rather than deferring it to God's will. They would also find it harder to get external justification for their impulses.

It would have been better if you said disgracing God---but good none-the-less.

My point exactly.

Those that were killed were not killed unjustly. They were given a chance and they refused. A single tower stood with a prostitute being the inhabitant that believed she would be saved...along with her family. Genocide is a lying statement.

She and her family were spared because they were traitors that helped Joshua plan his strategy. In a sense, they converted.

To avoid a long and lengthy circular debate with you, I will concede that because 1 family survived the slaughter, it was not a 100% successful genocide. I don't think, however, that you will find many who would agreee with you that the term is not applicable unless every single individual of the entire group perishes. It is still the deliberate destruction of a cultural group. From what I have read, the Bible makes no mention of the Israelites giving them a "chance" as you claim. If I am wrong, please provide me with the scripture.

I know I shouldn't click submit, but here it goes.....

Genocide would mean they didn't like the group of people. Saving the family in the LONE Impossibly standing tower says a lot and so does your use of Traitor.

I knew I shouldn't have responded to you since you like your own walls you put up to your thinking. No need to change since you already think you're so right.

Bible lesson for JJ. They didn't like them (weird that you would even think that they didn't have animosity), and the harlot was a traitor to her people.

Joshua 6:

17And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.

18And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.

....

21And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

22But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.

23And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.

24And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

25And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

And? This isn't the days of today. Writing and acceptability of what was said was different. Of course this would offend the sensitive. They like PC talk. If they really hated them as you state they wouldn't have walked around the walls six days in a row.

I knew I would regret this... I give you a direct quote from the Bible that clearly shows that your previous claims were incorrect, and you quickly try to deflect it with a weak counter-argument. You are not perfect JJ, and neither am I. But if we accept that we can learn from eachother, perhaps these debates on Current might be more productive.

No matter how you slice it (even with the PC factor) calling an entire people accursed and then savagely murdering them means YOU DON'T LIKE THEM. And yes, the harlot was traitorous.

You showed me words without explanation. I do not think like you. I stated that they marched around the walls once every day for six days. If what you stated was true then they'd have just killed instead of wait that long. But you can't explain that away. I base my view on context. You base your view on not liking the bible.

Well, at least you're consistent...

Joshua 6:

1Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.

2And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.

3And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

Let me explain these words for you. Verse 1 says that the Israelites barricaded Jericho thus shutting the Canaanites in. Verse 3 says that God instructed Joshua to march around the walls of Jericho. Nowhere does it mention that mercy was shown to those who decided to leave their home, BECAUSE no one was allowed out, Verse 1.

You are basing your view out of context, that is why I am quoting the Bible and you are not.

{edit: upon further research, JJ is correct that the Israelites did not barricade the entrance to Jericho. This version's choice of words were ambiguous. The New Living Translation reads as follows:

1 Now the gates of Jericho were tightly shut because the people were afraid of the Israelites. No one was allowed to go out or in.

I will, however, make note that there is absolutely no verse that suggests mercy would have been shown to the Canaanites (seeing as how the Israelites murdered the men, women, and children) if they had been given the option to leave.

So we would have to work with the text that we are given, not the text that we want to assume. Again, there is no verse that even offers a warning to the people of Jericho much less an option to leave with their lives.}

I've read the Bible. I'm waiting for you to state what is the problem. I can quote you Shakespeare....doesn't mean I understand it.

None came in or out because they decided to stay in. It does not state that they were forced to stay int.

I'm wasting my time with you JJ. I can't keep giving you Bible lessons, not to mention how far off topic we've gone. I hope that an army doesn't surround your house for 6 days and slaughter you because God told them to.

You wanted to discuss. Your replies show you want me to coincide to you being smarter based on you thinking so not because you proved anything.

I make replies to what you state and you come back with "why do I bother" as if that's good enough to counter what I asked. It is not. But you may go. You are wasting your time if you want agreement.

I made an edit above. Thanks for the second set of eyes JJ.

I show you where they are warned and you'll change your entire viewpoint?

I would thank you for helping expand my knowledge on this one event in the Bible, but the truth of the matter is that we have gone off on a tangent. You think it is just to sack a town and murder all of its inhabitants as long as you give them a warning to leave their homeland. ("Those that were killed were not killed unjustly. They were given a chance and they refused.")

Whether or not they were warned, this entire story is a perfect example of the danger of organized religion. It does not hinge on whether or not these people were able to leave their homes, which they weren't as verse 1 states.

That being said, if you can prove that they were warned to leave, I will appreciate having learned something new today.

I think you came to a conclusion and now EVERYTHING you read about the bible you'll link it to that conclusion. How is that open minded?

What conclusion? I believe that there are very important lessons in the Bible. One can learn these lessons elsewhere, but still there are good parts to every organized religion. That does not make them entirely good however, and the damage that can be done from the dangerous elements is significant, even if only psychological for most.

All good lessons have a source to where they came from.

I believe that every lesson can have multiple sources. That is why the golden rule has been passed down through the ages and every religion has a form of it (although it is contradicted). I also believe that these lessons of morality can be learned outside of religion with less cherry picking and therefore less confusion. Just my opinion. I know that you feel differently.

No. Lovers of freedom are going to restrict them.

That isn't a distinction to those people.

which people?

Good point, though I admit I vaguely knew of it.
Hopever, the author hasn't fanned out a team of pastors across the nation to gather parishioners to join in imprecatory prayer for the death of their own duly-elected President.
The comparison of the two is a false equivalency. A distasteful film that nobody really heard of except a few NY Daily News Readers is not the same as tax-exempt 'faith' organizations across the country advocating for the President's assassination.

Berardinelli commented that "If this was a serious examination of the possible long-term ramifications of George Bush's current foreign policy, or if it had anything interesting to say about Bush's legacy, it might be justifiable. But that's not the case. The decision to use Bush rather than a fictional representation of him is for no reason other than self-promotion."

I personally think it was a terrible idea to use Bush as the presidential character in this fictional movie. The filmmaker is British. He may have had political bias, but it seems he just wanted the contraversy to help boost his film's advertising. Many democrats spoke out against it at the time.

A duh... Rachel's show has only been on the air for a year. The movie was released in 2006 and Rachel got her show in 2008, so you don't know what you're talking about.

Did she speak out against it? She had venues to do so.....has she?

If not she agreed. - liberal mentality of how to agree.

A duh... Rachel's show has only been on the air for a year. The movie was released in 2006 and Rachel got her show in 2008, so you don't know what you're talking about.

You beat me to it nox.

Noxi,

She was on the radio then and said nothing about it either.

"All in all Christian terrorists are about as dangerous as any other terrorist which in truth are not all that dangerous at all."

what reality do you live in? i assume you haven't experienced any type of danger that wasn't on the screen, let alone terrorism. Since you lack experience, do some research in to the matter of how dangerous terrorists (of any type) are dangerous, before making such a bold claim.

Bone head statement of the night. Terrorists are not dangerous...sheesh you sound like a spoiled a-hole to me.

“i assume you haven't experienced any type of danger that wasn't on the screen, let alone terrorism.”

Yeah and you know what they say about assumptions. Seriously you’re basing your entire opinion of my experience on a couple words, all the while I have ALL of history to draw my opinion of how serious a terrorist is. BTW what the hell do you want from me. Should I scan and post my OG card, or go on a huge rant about my street cred? GTFO of here because you’re focusing on some irrelevant nonsense.

So to repeat and expand on what I meant; no I don’t think terrorists are that big of a deal. In my country we kidnap suspected terrorists from their homes, we torture them, imprison them without trial, deprive them of even the most basic human rights and spend billions of dollars to eradicate a group of people that hardly have a thousand dollars between them. So in the scope of things I have a MUCH greater problem with how my enormous, we-can-do-whatever-the-hell-we-want government operates than a bunch of backwater religious zealots.

Ajil stop drinking the kool aid. It kills your perspective.

“Bone head statement of the night. Terrorists are not dangerous...sheesh you sound like a spoiled a-hole to me.”

LOL you caught me. I belong to that super rich cadre of rich folk that loves to laugh at the tribulations of the poor. 9/11 was a riot, particularly since Al Qaeda attacked the twin towers which apparently was not the economic center of the same spoiled a-holes I supposedly belong too.

All organized religions are flawed in one way or another because they are run by men who are imperfect. I would not go as far as calling them terrrorists, but I understand the point being made. I would label such people as hypochristians! Talkin the wrong talk and not even coming close to walking the walk. Totally 180 of what they are reading, if they are reading at all. If you follow any teaching that you are truly passionate about, spinning it to suit your needs and beliefs dillutes its impact. Turns people off, especially those on the fence who are seeking some form of spirituality in these trying times. If one is led to believe in a concept of God, I personally do not subscribe to this warped view. Nor do I consider ourselves left or right, we are human kind my brother.

or the crazies just get more airtime. Thats what im hoping it is

That quote does not apply seeing as how no one is in servitude, however, it does show your true colors on the subject.

Yes - indeed it does, I have no guilt or shame in opposing Obamaniacs and their blind servitude to a most obvious pathological NPD demagogue.

...but on the subject at hand?

You like to think that progressive thinking is solely dependent on the fact that Obama is president, but you are very wrong. We don't think that he is the "chosen one" as your ilk like to claim. We just happen to agree with him more often than not. Some of his decisions have disappointed me, but even if every decision disappointed me, I would never attempt to justify thinly veiled threats on his life. Your dangerous liberty quote only serves to inflate these threats against the president. There is no servitude, there is no king, but there is a democratically elected president, and there is plenty of dangerous.

I make no justifications for thinly disguised threats on his or anyones life, contrary to how it is chosen to be personified by progressives such as Frank Schaeffer, who although may be an evangelical, he is a liberal none-the less, and his disingenuous portrayal of his peers furthers no cause but to justify the lefts vitriol to all who oppose their progressive perceptions, IMHO.

"Not only have the Wall Street Journal and the hosts of Fox News been issuing their usual dark mutterings, but a new slogan has began appearing on bumper stickers, tshirts, and even teddy bears: "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8."

That psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."

... And your response is to call for dangerous liberty. It's not too hard to make the connections here.

I make my own stand, and because of a fringe group you choose to make judgment upon me? My point is that I and many others are unwilling to roll over to the status quo, and I am willing to fight for it, but you would have me hang my head in servitude because I disagree? Excuse me, but kiss my grits !

Whoa! Chillax there partner. Read the article and then read your original comment to this conversation. Why would you choose that quote of all quotes, and how exactly does it relate to the topic of this post if not to suggest violence? I hope you can at least understand the confusion if you aren't suggesting that we need to employ dangerous liberty. I know you want Obama to be tyrannous because you would be able to use a lot more quotes that actually apply. Unfortunately for you, he's not. His initiatives are quite popular, and seeing as how he was elected by the majority of Americans, you can throw the tyrant label out the window. I'm not going to judge you because of a fringe groups actions. I'm going to judge you based on your comments on an article about said fringe group, and whether or not your comment seems to support their beliefs.

Off-topic much, AKA?

@ AKA
"My point is that I and many others are unwilling to roll over to the status quo, and I am willing to fight for it, but you would have me hang my head in servitude because I disagree?"

Unwilling to roll over for the status quo? You are the status quo! Now your mad because people are fighting to change that. What your talking about is keeping the status quo, you've got it backwards.

"My point is that I and many others are unwilling to roll over to the status quo," i.e. the current state of affairs...
To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are.
I believe I got it right... i.e. the current state of affairs is afu and getting worse by the day.!

The fifth column is entirely comprised of Christian Evangelicals. They are the unholy, nationalist army of the ghost of Stalin who congregate to raise their prayers to the eradication of every Muslim, Jew and Latino and African (American or otherwise) and liberal on the face of the earth.
They embrace torture, lobby for war, deny climate change and some rather powerful fundies, ones that have served in high office, believe that nuclear conflagration is the path to rapture.

I hear Satan is supposed to be pretty clever. You don't suppose this god they have been praying to is actually....nah.

BTW, who could be more qualified than Frank Shaeffer to discuss the inner workings of the American Taliban? Anyone?

~What a crock of utter bullshit, SleepDirt. For your edification, the fifth column is a group of people who act traitorously and subversively out of a secret sympathy with an enemy of their country.
~and man that describes the progressive liberal left to a tee, and it sure as hell isn't the evangelicals.

~So the fifth column is a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders.
~and nothing fits that description better than Obama and his team of fabian socialist and all the rest of the spineless leftist p/c apologists, trying to appease the Muslims within our own borders, the very ones that are beginning to bare their teeth to a nation that has given them santuary...does Ft Hood ring a bell?

No one enables terrorists like those who publicly advocate executing suspects picked up hundreds or thousands of miles from the battlefield without due process.

Right-winger war-mongers like yourself are anti-American, pro -AQ and promote terrorism like no nobody's business.
There's your fifth column. You are bin Laden's BFF

SleepDirt, I could counter that with real logic, but without a doubt it would be lost within the convoluted thought processes that you attribute to rational thought.

Doubtful. But I can.

Rumsfeld-commissioned 2004 review of Bush policies, particularly Middle East occupations, effect on radicalism by the Defense Science Board Task Force
observes:

To succeed, we must understand the United States is engaged in a generational and global struggle about ideas, not a war between the West and Islam. It is more than a war against the tactic of terrorism. We must think in terms of global networks, both government and non-government. If we continue to concentrate primarily on states (“getting it right” in Iraq, managing the next state conflict better), we will fail. Chapter 2 of this report examines the complex nature of this new paradigm and implications for sustained and imaginative action.

1.2 The New Strategic Communication Environment Anti-American attitudes. Opinion surveys conducted by Zogby International, the Pew Research Center, Gallup (CNN/USA Today), and the Department of State (INR) reveal widespread animosity toward the United States and its policies. A year and a half after
going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe, weakened support for the war on terrorism, and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide. Media commentary is consistent with polling data. In a State Department (INR) survey of editorials and op-eds in 72 countries, 82.5 % of commentaries were negative, 17.5% positive.3Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities. Terrorism, thin coalitions, harmful effects on business, restrictions on travel, declines in cross border tourism and education flows, and damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power are tactical manifestations of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility.

"...does Ft Hood ring a bell?"

Yes it does. Does the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq ring any? Several.

So which side's attitudes and approach is more enabling to terrorism?
Yours by a country mile, according to Bushco's own studies.

What type of men shot Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Regan?

Americans, and therefore a high likelihood of christian affiliation and negligible likelihood of atheist affiliation.

better are those liberals that sit there and give out billions to anyone who is in big business.

Wait a second. How the hell can you complain about the "us verse them" mentality present within organized religion while you yourself take an "us verse them" mentality toward all of organized religion? Sweet fucking Jesus man did you read what you wrote before posting it?

Ricky....

I am a humanist. I am not in the "us vs them" mentality. I am in the "us" mentality. That does not mean that I cannot make observations about extremism or even basic differences in opinions. I don't have to agree with everyone in order to avoid the "us vs them" mentality. My objectivity allows me to want others to have mutual respect, and at the same time, not want to kill anyone based on my beliefs.

Dude I don’t know if you’re always this way but I will say that concerning this particularly issue you are completely and utterly full of it. First off I could care less how you label yourself. A Christian can and will sin from time to time just like an atheist can place a degree of blind faith in something. So really the whole, “hold on a second man, I’m a Humanist” line is just a waste of breath/bytes.

“Religion in an of itself is dangerous” is such a laughably unremarkable assertion that it is in and of itself a useless concept. Little if anything is truthfully dependent on that little nugget of info just like little if anything is going to be confirmed by the proclamation of your self identity.

Anyways, if that’s truly the base of your consideration of religion then you do possess an “us verse them” mentality. The reason being because you’re attempting to frame the lack of religion as not dangerous opposed to the acceptance of religion as being inherently dangerous. Do you see the “us verse them” mentality now?

No one was trying to say that an opinion automatically labels you a bigot. All I’m saying is that lazy/insanely unrealistic generalizations, are in fact tell-tale signs of a bigoted opinion.

BTW the hell isn’t “inherently” dangerous? Leaving my house is inherently dangerous, being a non-believer is inherently dangerous. I mean seriously are you trolling for laughs or just regurgitating the conventional wisdom of the anti-religious community?

You don't have to agree with my comment, but let's at least stop arguing the semantics of "us vs them". I will use an analogy to share my opinion of the concept. If you are a spectator at a tennis match, you are neither player 1 ("us") nor player 2 ("them") because you are not participating, you are merely observing.

@Ricky
You say being a non-believer is inherently dangerous, what are you talking about? I'm going to have to side with WakeUp on this little argument his/her statement makes sense to me.

I don't see this as an argument of semantics at all. You've expressed an opinion of the entire body of organized religion that comes in direct conflict with your own supposed revulsion of the "us verse them" mentality.

As to the tennis concept; all I can say is bullshit. If I was actually an outside observer maybe you'd have a point. However from the way I see it you are in fact doing the same thing as "organized religion," by ostracizing and demonizing a segment of society based on the same inconsequential difference which is religious belief.

In the end the idea that you can ultimately and unquestionably determine the morality of an individual based solely on religious affiliation is about as realistic or accurate as trying to determine the "dangerousness" of an individual based on his allegiance or rejection of ALL organized religion.

@Lurkistan

You completely missed the point I was trying to make.

"Sweet fucking Jesus man did you read what you wrote before posting it?"

"....you are completely and utterly full of it."

"I mean seriously are you trolling for laughs or just regurgitating the conventional wisdom of the anti-religious community?"

"...all I can say is bullshit."

I'm not sure why you are so hostile. Could we not have shared perspectives in a civil discussion?

"...the idea that you can ultimately and unquestionably determine the morality of an individual based solely on religious affiliation ..."

Nowhere in my comments have I attacked an individual based on their religous beliefs. My comments were in regard to the dangers of organized religion. I completely support individual spirituality. I personally am a Diest, but I know that you "could care less how [I] label [myself]."

As far as everything else you postulate, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Oh wow, I would like to say I can’t believe you would pull the “your too hostile card” but it does go right along with everything I’ve already said. You really have a twisted perception of yourself but then again so do most bigots. If you can’t figure out how hate speech about organized religion and religious people would insight hostility then all I can say is good luck with that.

Where is my hate speech? Quote me. Discussing the danger in something is not the same as hate speech. I don't know where you get the idea that I am a bigot, but it is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I will say that most bigots wouldn't be as open-minded to the individual's choice of spirituality the way I am. I have my own spiritual beliefs, but I do not force them upon anyone, and I would never use violence to support my beliefs. I do not think that my beliefs are the only right way of thinking, but that does not prevent me from sharing my perspective and defending it to people like yourself. If this is your opinion of a bigot, then I suppose I can say nothing to change your mind. I'm sorry if you take offense to my thinking, but I can assure you that I was not attacking you or any individual. I was making observations on the dangers of organized religion.

That's over generalizing.

"It too often breeds extremism..."

I did not say always. I don't think that statement is considered over generalizing.

I was making observations on the dangers of organized religion.

That is.....not some...you included ALL.

Yes, all religions have dangerous elements... even Buddhism, although that is the one that rejects all forms of violence.