'Hostage situation' portrays killers as Christians

[jono201 0]

I think the word VERSION says it all.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

And as I said. You're perfectly correct.

I"m glad you could get your frustrations out on me.. lol

Oh Leatha, you give yourself far too much credit. You don't frustrate me, you amuse me. I would have thought you would realize that by now.

Like it or not, the issue is simple. It is not your job to determine who is xtian and who isn't.

Damn straight I am correct. If your God existed he'd agree with me and you know it.

Cheers.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

I'm sad to see the increasing shrill tenor in our little discussion here.

Hmmm.... it wasn't shrill until the xtians started getting a dose of their own medicine.

Perhaps we should use pretty words to hide behind, too??

When the numbers are a little more even then it is bad. See a pattern here?

[mousecrazy 2]

Even though our discussion had some deep divisions, it did not sink to juvenile levels until recent posts. Even though Laurend and I do push each other's hot buttons, we do not use terms like "neener neener" with each other.

We also don't end our sentences with "K?" when we have a question.

I am not offended by atheists or humanists. As stated earlier, I think they are people, just like all other people. I am not offended by the use of Christian terrorists in the hostage situation...it just makes me wonder.

The discussion is about whether or not choosing this particular group was for the purpose of "political correctness" and to avoid the outrage that would have occurred if another group had been chosen. Not whether or if Christians can be or are violent. It's about why the ACLU doesn't jump out and offer to defend the group chosen, like they would if another group had been chosen. Or, do only certain groups actually have civil liberties?

Of course there is disagreement in this thread. Please, participate without reverting to kindergarten playground behavior. The temptation is understandable, but it's just annoying.

(I only offered to pray for Laurend...so no one else has to worry...)

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Actually, it was going rather calmly until you suddenly popped in to give me a cyber-spanking. :help:

IOW, nobody was calling you on poor behaviors?

If you can dish it out you had best be able to take it. You know, like an adult.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Even though our discussion had some deep divisions, it did not sink to juvenile levels until recent posts. Even though Laurend and I do push each other's hot buttons, we do not use terms like "neener neener" with each other.

We also don't end our sentences with "K?" when we have a question.

I am not offended by atheists or humanists. As stated earlier, I think they are people, just like all other people. I am not offended by the use of Christian terrorists in the hostage situation...it just makes me wonder.

The discussion is about whether or not choosing this particular group was for the purpose of "political correctness" and to avoid the outrage that would have occurred if another group had been chosen. Not whether or if Christians can be or are violent. It's about why the ACLU doesn't jump out and offer to defend the group chosen, like they would if another group had been chosen. Or, do only certain groups actually have civil liberties?

Of course there is disagreement in this thread. Please, participate without reverting to kindergarten playground behavior. The temptation is understandable, but it's just annoying.

(I only offered to pray for Laurend...so no one else has to worry...)

You dodge the issue of your manipulation. That was my point. It wasn't necessary and to be quite honest, I was making a point with the child's play wording and amazingly, it worked quite well. Some people, that's all they understand and any other method zips right over their heads.

I don't think anyone actually would worry about what you do with a prayer so there is little need to fret over that one. If I decide to meditate with my focus on you, would you be offended? Really? Most respect your right to do as you wish. You can point fingers at me all you wish, I don't care. Honestly, do you really think it matters to me? But let's face reality here, all I have done is point out your own behaviors and attempts at distortion and manipulation.

If I sat back and attempted to tell people who is xtian and who isn't, you folks would have been most insulted. But when you pull those behaviors and I point it out, I'm merely being mean. Bah! If I did any of the things you guys have done you would be up in arms. But it's DIFFERENT when you behave this way, right? You were quite content when it was everyone beating up on Lauren. When the "pack mentality" went out the door all the sudden I am mean. Can we say projection?

The ACLU doesn't jump out and defend anyone because there are no rights being violated. Perhaps your sense of fair play was offended, but the Bill of Rights does not promise you that you won't be offended. See the difference?

I could use flowery words and pretty phrases and infer something that nobody can nail me on, but that isn't very honest, is it?

I could go to church on Sunday (assuming weather makes me comfortable and it isn't inconveniencing me) and ask my pastor what my opinions are, would you hold more respect for that?

I could manipulate the truth and distort the facts. Is that better?

You may not like my methods but that doesn't change reality.

[anonemouse 1]

It's about why the ACLU doesn't jump out and offer to defend the group chosen, like they would if another group had been chosen. Or, do only certain groups actually have civil liberties?

Actually, the ACLU does protect the rights of Christians, just as long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of other people. I believe that you should find some instances if you search the ACLU website. I would imagine that, like WASaBubble Butt said, they aren't getting involved in this case because no one's rights were being infringed.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Actually, the ACLU does protect the rights of Christians, just as long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of other people. I believe that you should find some instances if you search the ACLU website. I would imagine that, like WASaBubble Butt said, they aren't getting involved in this case because no one's rights were being infringed.

Perhaps the real question is to specifically ask which civil liberties have been abused here.

I don't think the school's choice in scenarios was bright, but it wasn't wrong either. There are all kinds of xtians out there, everything from Fred Phelps to Grandma going to church on Sundays to Momma T. But the fact remains, xtianity is not exempt from whackjobs. They exist in every group including xtianity and atheism. Since the school was quite clear that they are not suggesting the scenario represents xtianity but instead, explained it was the right wing nut cases, I don't see the problem here.

Some people merely have the need to play victim and push the agenda of persecution. If there really was persecution, it wouldn't be necessary to label everything disagreeable as persecution. They could point out the facts instead.