I'll bet they even read them their Miranda rights
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9380) 12 years ago
http://tpmmuckraker.talki...rrests.php

The only question I have is which should come first, waterboarding them or attaching the car batteries to their testicles?
Top
Posted by stephen (+258) 12 years ago
Yep, that's seriously messed up. Sad though, its people like that who give Christians such a bad stigma for me. It reminds me of a question i asked my religions teacher.

Name three things during the last century that are good that religon has done, compared to the bad. (Holocaust, World trade centers, Catholic priests "touching little boys")
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9380) 12 years ago
And I would argue that all of those things are motivated more by authoritarianism than by the facade of religiosity that cloaked these actions. Remove religion from the mix, and bad things will still happen, they'll just have different justifications. The one thing that doesn't change is the totalitarian mindset and the fundamentalist (be it Christian, Muslim or Communist) viewpoint that enables that mindset.

Religion's not bad Stephen - it's Fundamentalism in all forms that should worry you.

Well, that and the idea that we can torture our way to safety....

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (3/29/2010)]
Top
Posted by stephen (+258) 12 years ago
Now your just arguing semantics. The things people do for religion can be bad, and they can be good, depending on the person leading the religion, or a person in power. Yet these people doing the bad things feel justified in their actions because of their religion.

Religion is bad, it promotes hatred and war. Not in the religion in itself, but in the way people interpret the religion, and the fear that if some other religion might be right we have wasted our lives. So by eradicating the people who believe differently they will have the advantage.

By all means believe in god, do it in the privacy of your own home, and don't bring it into the public. Your relationship with a deity is not worth the life of someone else. Ever.

The world would be a million times better place if religion wasn't socialized. People could believe what they want to believe and no one would have to get hurt.
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+592) 12 years ago
When people start talking about their church,religion, or how good of a chritian they are, my first tendency is to check my wallet for safe keeping.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9380) 12 years ago
I'm arguing ontology, not semantics.

Religion is used by people with rigid authoritarian impulses as a framework within which they can express those impulses. Take away religion, and they'll construct a different framework that will allow them to be rigid fundamentalists.

You're worried about the symptom, I'd rather discuss the disease.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6173) 12 years ago
The world would be a million times better place if religion wasn't socialized. People could believe what they want to believe and no one would have to get hurt.


I agree with Bridgier that it's the fundamentalism and authoritarian aspect of some religions that cause the problems, not religion itself. You'll never find devout Unitarians at the root of a suicide bombing. I think that the movers and shakers in these atrocities simply have found a convenient justification for their actions. If not religion, they'd find something else.

But I don't agree with stephen's statement that the world would be a million times better without organized religion. It's the organization that allows churches to do the charitable good that they do. Churches provide a major portion of the charitable work and social services done in the world. I owe my own life to the adoption wing of Lutheran Social Services. I don't think that the good organized religion does should be ignored.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3708) 12 years ago
Stephen, maybe I'm slow, but explain how religion caused the holocaust? And give an example of something "good" that religion, or any force for that matter, could do which would in your mind "balance out" the ills that you attribute to religion. What is an act of good that could be done on that scale?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9380) 12 years ago
devout Unitarians


Wendy is very funny.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6173) 12 years ago
Thought you'd like that, Bridgier!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9380) 12 years ago
You know how you drive a unitarian out of your neighborhood?

Burn a question mark on his lawn....
Top
Posted by stephen (+258) 12 years ago
Hitler was a catholic, he thought he was doing the work of god, it says it quite clearly in Mein Kampf.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

[This message has been edited by stephen (3/29/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1913) 12 years ago
Send the procreateers to Gitmo!


Or Hardin!
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3708) 12 years ago
Stephen, try reading a source that isn't anti-religious propaganda. Yes he was raised a Catholic and sometimes used religion in his own propaganda, but no historian would tell you that he was motivated by his religion or was even a fan of the church. If he was a holy warrior doing God's work then why did he never even attend mass after leaving his parent's home? You would think that a man that dedicated to religion might have at least gone to church now and then in the last 30+ years of his life eh?

This is a stupid discussion though. If you look at history, it's full of people doing terrible things. Some of them used religion, some didn't. If religion is to blame for the atrocities of religious people, what is to blame for the atrocities of non-religious people? Most things like that are founded in the desire for power and control. In some places and times the church has been an effective way to achieve this. It's simplistic to think though, that if the church hadn't existed, these people wouldn't have had the same ambitions or acted in the same way.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3794) 12 years ago
A zealot is a zealot, is a zealot, regardless of motivation, be it religious or power. The sad part is that there will always be insecure, disenfranchised, people willing to follow, obey, kill or die if given something to cling to that gives their life or death, for that matter, meaning.

For me, fundamentalism, zealotry and even jingoism are all based in ignorance and fear that manifests itself in violence. The aforementioned are the most divisive forces I see in the world today. It's getting rather tiresome.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3708) 12 years ago
Getting back to the original story, I listened to a podcast this morning that pointed out that as reprehensible as this plot was, the way that they chose to charge them is odd and maybe even disturbing.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/ar...z0jsg5quLR

A federal grand jury indictment unsealed Monday charges the defendants with seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction. The government alleges group members planned to kill a police officer and use bombs to attack the scores of officers drawn to the slain officer's funeral.


Seditious conspiracy? Really? Plotting to kill police officers is no joke, but it's a far cry from attempting to overthrow the US Government. And "weapons of mass destruction"? That is a ridiculous term. They were trying to build bombs in the class of a hand grenade/IED/land mine. If that's "WMD" then Bush is vindicated because Saddam certainly had weapons like that.

Don't get me wrong, I think these folks should go to jail, but these charges are blowing what they actually did way out of proportion and I'm afraid that doing that is likely to make martyrs out of these morans and prove to other militia types or would-be militia types that the government is as evil as they thought.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9380) 12 years ago
I'm going to pour a big glass of Schadenfreude Stout and watch people suddenly discover that overzealous government prosecution can be applied to people that /look/pray/dress/ just like them.

I say a day or two in the brig with Jose Padilla isn't out of line. What's sauce for the muslim extremist should be sauce for the christian militant gander.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 12 years ago
Some more reading while you enjoy that tall cold one, Bridgier.

http://www.latimes.com/ne...full.story

In one case last year, U.S. special operations forces killed an Al Qaeda-linked suspect named Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan in a helicopter attack in southern Somalia rather than trying to capture him, a U.S. official said. Officials had debated trying to take him alive but decided against doing so in part because of uncertainty over where to hold him, the official added.

So the new 'humane' policy is "a bullet to the head, ain't no rights to be read" Not sure that was quite what you said you were looking for.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1913) 12 years ago
I knew you'd defend "Christian Terrorists", Rickenhawk.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4952) 12 years ago
another group raises their ugly head....???

http://www.nytimes.com/20...hreat.html
They are coming out of the woodwork bigtime....

[This message has been edited by howdy (4/3/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 12 years ago
Didn't defend anyone, Bob. Just pointing out that all of the pre-Obama gnashing and weeping over what to do with terrorist detainees has led to a new solution on where to detain them... six feet underground.

People are being executed instead of detained to make sure your panties remain happily twist-free.

Needless to say, Obama's new "Snuff 'em, don't cuff 'em" policy has done wonders for the MSNBCompassion epidemic in this country.

Guessing that would've been tough to pull off in Michigan though.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/3/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1913) 12 years ago
Then let's hear it, Rick. I want you to state that the militia group in question are a bunch of paranoid, ultra-right wing, psuedo-christian thugs who need to be dealt with harshly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 12 years ago
That's mostly how I'd characterize them, Bob.

We just need to remember though that when our nuts get caught plotting violence against cops, authority, etc, they get some jail time and then live a life of ridicule.

When your nuts plot violence, really kill cops, make explosives etc etc, they get book deals, academia rock-star street cred, and have fundraisers for future Presidents.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9380) 12 years ago
Well, I must say now I'm confused. Rick was against due process before he was for it? Or do I have that backwards?
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+594) 12 years ago
So Rick, you are aligned with these folks? You did state: 'our nuts.'

Explains a lot..
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4459) 12 years ago
My argument all along is that Due Process is irrelevant in most of these cases. This is a war. These are combatants. Due Process is utopian fantasy.

My pointing out that Obama doesn't come close to the standards you held for his predecessor doesn't change what I've been saying all along.

http://online.wsj.com/art...40710.html

The irony is, now the administration is now holding someone who's been ordered released by a federal judge. The clock is ticking. Where's the due process?

My guess is the 'show trial' accusation will be confirmed. Detainees' trials will be honored for convictions, ignored for acquittals.

Entry number 8343 in the "What if Bush had done it?" files. Held a detainee against the ruling of a federal judge? Our ears would all bleed from the banshee screams of outrage.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9380) 12 years ago
Like you give a poop.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1913) 12 years ago
I don't think Rick has any nuts. Or brains.
Top