"Jesus Camp"

[pgwenthold]

This message could go almost anywhere in the forum, but P,CE,and SI is probably as good as any.

Rachel Maddow this morning discussed a documentary at the current movie festival in NY called "Jesus Camp." It is about a "bible" camp in North Dakota that is indoctrinating young (as in 4, 5, and 6) year olds to be militant christians.

Despite the source (Air America), it is clear that this characterization is not a great distortion. The comment from the pastor doing this was something like, "We want to instill a radical dedication to christianity, like how arab children are dedicated to Islam. Of course the difference is, we have the truth."

Not a perfect quote, but the "radical" part was definately her (the pastor's) description, not mine.

The crux: they are teaching kids to be willing to kill or die for Jesus.

They do things like dress the kids up in camouflage with grease paint on their faces.

This isn't just about religion, though. It is about politics. They aren't just learning the bible, they are being drilled about all the evils of secular society, including abortion, homosexuality, and Harry Potter, and how it is their responsibility to fight these activities.

Yes, Harry Potter. They played a clip where the pastor is ranting about Harry Potter being evil, and you hear these kids saying, "amen!"

And they are all of 5 years old.

Most people see these stories of islamic kids being indoctrinated as terrorists and cringe at the thought. These folks embrace the thought, and say, we need to do that with christians.

Right here in the US.

[Mark]

I fear for my country.

[ImaginalDisc]

I notice a resemblence between this group, and some Hamas camps.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/31/HAMAS.TMP

Oh, please IPU, don't let his spark an Israeli/Palestine discussion.

[BPSCG]

I notice a resemblence between this group, and some Hamas camps.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/31/HAMAS.TMP

Oh, please IPU, don't let his spark an Israeli/Palestine discussion. The main differences being that:

In the U.S., groups like this are considered so weird that when you hear about them, they make news; in the middle east, they are so much the mainstream that when you hear about Muslim schools that teach peace and tolerance for other religions, that's considered newsworthy.
In the U.S. if a group like this ever actually murdered someone over religion, everybody and my cats would condemn them as monsters, and the full weight of the U.S. criminal justice system would come down on them faster than they could say, "Holy #$%!". In the middle east, OTOH, they'd have streets named after them.Nice attempt to draw moral equivalency, though, pgwenthold.

[pgwenthold]

Nice attempt to draw moral equivalency, though, pgwenthold.

I don't want to wait until they grow up before stopping them from becoming terrorists.

[ImaginalDisc]

Nice attempt to draw moral equivalency, though, pgwenthold.

The differences you pointed out between the two groups of militant extremists only indicates that some Islamic extremist group have been more scucessful. In terms of pure craziness, they're locked in a dead heat.

[BPSCG]

The differences you pointed out between the two groups of militant extremists only indicates that some Islamic extremist group have been more scucessful. Nonsense. Militant extremists don't exist in some kind of societal vacuum. The differences I pointed out between the groups indicates that some societies have zero tolerance for murder, and punish it harshly, while others celebrate it, encourage it, and subsidize it.

[Cleon]

...And we have the requisite attempt to downplay these loons.

[ImaginalDisc]

Nonsense. Militant extremists don't exist in some kind of societal vacuum. The differences I pointed out between the groups indicates that some societies have zero tolerance for murder, and punish it harshly, while others celebrate it, encourage it, and subsidize it.

What? Extremists who fill small children's heads with militant non-sense are just as bad, whatever goals they may have achieved in the past.

Chrisitan extremist lunatics aren't better than Islamic extremist lunatics, they're just less common.

[pgwenthold]

The differences you pointed out between the two groups of militant extremists only indicates that some Islamic extremist group have been more scucessful.

Or, as I pointed out, just have a head start.

Perhaps if someone had stood up and nipped the formation of the muslim camps 20 years ago, there wouldn't be the problem there is today.

[ImaginalDisc]

Or, as I pointed out, just have a head start.

Perhaps if someone had stood up and nipped the formation of the muslim camps 20 years ago, there wouldn't be the problem there is today.

Islamic militant extremism, like Christian militant extremism or Communist militant extremism is in a historical decline. We've just set aside a lot of the extremism faster than they have in the Middle East.

[pgwenthold]

Islamic militant extremism, like Christian militant extremism or Communist militant extremism is in a historical decline. We've just set aside a lot of the extremism faster than they have in the Middle East.

Allowing the very young to be indoctrinated with the mentality is a good way to slow down the decline.

In fact, it is probably the key to keeping it alive in modern times.

[Ausmerican]

The main differences being that:

In the U.S., groups like this are considered so weird that when you hear about them, they make news; in the middle east, they are so much the mainstream that when you hear about Muslim schools that teach peace and tolerance for other religions, that's considered newsworthy.
In the U.S. if a group like this ever actually murdered someone over religion, everybody and my cats would condemn them as monsters, and the full weight of the U.S. criminal justice system would come down on them faster than they could say, "Holy #$%!". In the middle east, OTOH, they'd have streets named after them.Nice attempt to draw moral equivalency, though, pgwenthold.
These examples show no differences between the groups. merely differences in the societies they are formed in.

[Grammatron]

Sure the groups are similar and can exist anywhere. However, there's probably local and federal authorities monitoring their actions.

What do you want to do about those groups, though?

[shecky]

Somewhat related, a show from This American Life, with the theme of "summer camp". One particular small segment, found here (http://audio.wbez.org/tal/109.m3u) at the 21:18 minute mark, is a amusing anecdote from someone's experience as a youth in a "left wing Zionist" summer camp. The whole hour long show is amusing and worth listening to. I particularly liked the song with the Hitler reference. :D

[Mycroft]

Somewhat related, a show from This American Life, with the theme of "summer camp". One particular small segment, found here (http://audio.wbez.org/tal/109.m3u) at the 21:18 minute mark, is a amusing anecdote from someone's experience as a youth in a "left wing Zionist" summer camp. The whole hour long show is amusing and worth listening to. I particularly liked the song with the Hitler reference. :D

That was a pretty good one.

Where do you get those?

[shecky]

That was a pretty good one.

Where do you get those?

http://thislife.org

[Mycroft]

http://thislife.org

Thanks!

[Achán hiNidráne]

Nonsense. Militant extremists don't exist in some kind of societal vacuum. The differences I pointed out between the groups indicates that some societies have zero tolerance for murder, and punish it harshly, while others celebrate it, encourage it, and subsidize it.

And you don't think that can happen in America? You don't think that if given enough time, money, and effort the Christian Right can not turn the U.S. into a society that celebrates, encourages, and subsidizes murder, albeit in the name of Jesus rather than Mohammed?

This little camp is a step in that direction.

[ImaginalDisc]

And you don't think that can happen in America? You don't think that if given enough time, money, and effort the Christian Right can not turn the U.S. into a society that celebrates, encourages, and subsidizes murder, albeit in the name of Jesus rather than Mohammed?

This little camp is a step in that direction.

Goodness, Christianty is religion of peace! No Christian would ever use the government to murder and....wait, what's that place called where Christian extremists took over the government?

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/510/memoriab6zk.jpg

P.S. Why wait until 1992 to put up a memorial? Were they waiting to make sure they weren't witches?

[clarsct]

Scary.

Can't they call that child abuse or something?

[BPSCG]

And you don't think that can happen in America? You don't think that if given enough time, money, and effort the Christian Right can not turn the U.S. into a society that celebrates, encourages, and subsidizes murder, albeit in the name of Jesus rather than Mohammed?No. Don't be an ass.

If you think it can happen, please complete the sequence of events leading up to it. You can pick up right after the necessary first step, which I have already obligingly filled in for you:
Hundreds of millions of Americans convert to a grotesque brand of "murder-thy-infidel-neighbor" religion they claim is based on the teachings of Jesus, in a bizarre parallel to Islam.
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)

[ImaginalDisc]

No. Don't be an ass.

If you think it can happen, please complete the sequence of events leading up to it. You can pick up right after the necessary first step, which I have already obligingly filled in for you:
Hundreds of millions of Americans convert to a grotesque brand of "murder-thy-infidel-neighbor" religion they claim is based on the teachings of Jesus, in a bizarre parallel to Islam.
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)

Gosh, why bother speculating about how it might happen when all we have to do is open a history and see how it has happened? Or, are you suggesting that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were secular humanists?

[BPSCG]

Gosh, why both speculating about how it might happen when all we have to do is open a history and see how it has happened? Or, are you suggesting that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were secular humanists?I certainly had no idea that 15th century Spain was a liberal democracy, or that you could draw any meaningful conclusions by comparing it to 21st century America.

[ImaginalDisc]

I certainly had no idea that 15th century Spain was a liberal democracy, or that you could draw any meaningful conclusions by comparing it to 21st century America.

I hestiate to Godwin the discussion, but Pre-WWII Germany was a democracy, BPSCG.

[UserGoogol]

Nonsense. Militant extremists don't exist in some kind of societal vacuum. The differences I pointed out between the groups indicates that some societies have zero tolerance for murder, and punish it harshly, while others celebrate it, encourage it, and subsidize it.

The fact that the Muslim equivalent of these clubs are more accepted in Palestine and other areas speaks rather poorly for Palestinian culture, but it does not make the clubs in-of-themselves worse.

We're not talking about society, we're talking about the clubs. They don't exist in a societal vacuum, but nothing exists in a societal vacuum. I don't see why we can't discuss the clubs in-of-themselves without referencing how the Muslim ones are so much more accepted in their respective cultures.

[BPSCG]

I hestiate to Godwin the discussion, but Pre-WWII Germany was a democracy, BPSCG.Okay, so you've given up comparing 21st century American democracy with 15th century Spanish monarchy, and have moved on to comparing it to Weimar Republic Germany.

Whatever.* You still haven't shown how you get to step 1 in handing over the entire government apparatus of the U.S. - from your local town council all the way up to Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue - to murdering fundamentalist theocrats. As you may recall, step 1 was: Hundreds of millions of Americans convert to a grotesque brand of "murder-thy-infidel-neighbor" religion they claim is based on the teachings of Jesus, in a bizarre parallel to Islam.You seem to be suggesting that the entire government apparatus of the U.S. - from your local town council all the way up to Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue - could be handed over to murdering fundamentalist theocrats even if murdering fundamentalist theocrats are a tiny outcast segment of the population.

If not, then again, please explain how we get to step 1, which, to remind you again, was:Hundreds of millions of Americans convert to a grotesque brand of "murder-thy-infidel-neighbor" religion they claim is based on the teachings of Jesus, in a bizarre parallel to Islam. * I suppose your next analogy will be to compare U.S. society with that of Striterax or Planet X or something...

[Tony]

I notice the usual apologists are in full force. It's truly is a weird occurrence when those who constantly demonize liberalism evoke that very liberalism to make some kind of point that the society they really want will never come about.

[BPSCG]

I notice the usual apologists are in full force. I'll assume you've lumped me in that group...
It's truly is a weird occurrence when those who constantly demonize liberalism evoke that very liberalism to make some kind of point that the society they really want will never come about....so I'll ask you to link to any posts of mine that suggest that the "society I really want" is some sort of Christian version of Sha'aria.

I realize I have over five thousand posts for you to sift through here, so take your time.

Or you can save your time and admit (select as many as you like):

You don't know what the freak you're talking about;
I wasn't one of "the usual apologists" you were referring to;
You've been drinking and posting again.

[pgwenthold]

The fact that the Muslim equivalent of these clubs are more accepted in Palestine and other areas speaks rather poorly for Palestinian culture, but it does not make the clubs in-of-themselves worse.


Moreover, while its easy to talk about what is "accepted" and what is not, it's worth noting that the existence of this camp is NOT causing major outrage. In fact, it is basically not even known what's going on there. The only way I have heard about it (and hence, the way you all have learned of it) is from an Air America story about the documentary.

Has anyone seen it in the main stream media? Has Dick Cheney seen it on Fox News?

How unacceptable is it in the US? How outraged could people be, since no one even knows it is going on? It seems to me that ignoring it is complicitly accepting it.

As Tony notes, it the liberal media (and the true liberal media - Air America) and those liberal independent film makers that are exposing it.

[Tony]

I'll assume you've lumped me in that group...
...so I'll ask you to link to any posts of mine that suggest that the "society I really want" is some sort of Christian version of Sha'aria. [/LIST]

There is no need to; you clearly support Bush, his policies and his supporters. If you don't want to be associated with those who want a Christian nation, perhaps you shouldn't align yourself with them?

[Achán hiNidráne]

No. Don't be an ass.

If you think it can happen, please complete the sequence of events leading up to it. You can pick up right after the necessary first step, which I have already obligingly filled in for you:
Hundreds of millions of Americans convert to a grotesque brand of "murder-thy-infidel-neighbor" religion they claim is based on the teachings of Jesus, in a bizarre parallel to Islam.
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
(Mark A. Siefert to complete)
Let's see:

1) Right-wing Christian becomes president (e.g. Dubbya): CHECK.
2) Supreme Court is stacked with right-wing Christians (e.g. Alito, Roberts, and the attempt to get Meyers on the court): CHECK.
3) The decisions of government agencies are being influenced by right-wing Christians (e.g. FDA blocking of Plan B, George Deutsch at NASA, etc.): CHECK
4) Both houses of Congress are dominated by a party that sympathizes with the aims of right-wing Christians (e.g. the GOP): Check.
5) Efforts on the state and national level to ban abortion, gay marriage, and even the sale of sex toys: CHECK.
6: Efforts to get "abstinance only" sex ed and "intellegent design" taught in public schools: CHECK.
7: A HUGE block of American citizens who enthusastically cast their votes for all of the above: CHECK!

[jj]

Let's see:

1) Right-wing Christian becomes president (e.g. Dubbya): CHECK.
2) Supreme Court is stacked with right-wing Christians (e.g. Alito, Roberts, and the attempt to get Meyers on the court): CHECK.
3) The decisions of government agencies are being influenced by right-wing Christians (e.g. FDA blocking of Plan B, George Deutsch at NASA, etc.): CHECK
4) Both houses of Congress are dominated by a party that sympathizes with the aims of right-wing Christians (e.g. the GOP): Check.
5) Efforts on the state and national level to ban abortion, gay marriage, and even the sale of sex toys,
6: Efforts to get "abstinance only" sex ed and "intellegent design" taught in public schools: CHECK.
7: A HUGE block of American citizens who enthusastically cast their votes for all of the above: CHECK!

Well, yes, but what does that say of people who still deny what is now recent history?

Maybe they just want the dominionists to win? I mean, after all, dominionists think it's ok to lie to people because the ends justify the means.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Oh, also forgot to mention violent attacks on abortion providers and homosexuals: CHECK.

[Tony]

...And we have the requisite attempt to downplay these loons...

..by loons.

[gnome]

I am appalled at what I have heard... however, I don't see it as a harbinger of doom. If one doesn't think that the media is spreading the story enough... spread it yourself. Phone your local news affiliates. Blog it. Spread it around.

In general I think as BPSCG does that our society will not tolerate them crossing any legal lines... in fact as much a disaster as Waco was, it's a good example of what can happen if one of these "cults" turn to criminal behavior.

If I may interpret to hopefully forestall continued bickering... BPSCG is not praising or minimizing the idiots in these groups at all--simply pointing out that the context they live in makes them less able to do harm. I agree with that.

That said, it is important that our public learn not to knee-jerk applaud anyone that says "jesus" real loud without paying attention to their actual message.

This sort of reminds me of a story someone told me once, of having been sent to a "summer camp" only to be hastily recalled home once his parents found out that they were engaging in target practice on cardboard cutouts of police.

I wish I remember the details, unfortunately I get them all mixed up with the movie "Pink Caddilac".

[Achán hiNidráne]

In general I think as BPSCG does that our society will not tolerate them crossing any legal lines... in fact as much a disaster as Waco was, it's a good example of what can happen if one of these "cults" turn to criminal behavior.

OK, maybe America won't descend into a Christianized version of Taliban era Afghanistan; that's the worst-case scenario. However, if you take a hard look at the "War On Christianity" meme along with the popularity of "End Times" Dispensationalism among American Protestants, I think there is reason for concern. Combine paranoid delusions of oppression by "secular" forces who must be influenced by satanic control along with the belief that the world must be made ready for the return of their messiah, and you've got a recipe for domestic terrorism.

I mean, why should Christian extremists fear punishment from earthly authorities when the Rapture is coming? (Hmmmm... that sounds familiar, only without the "72 virgins" schtick.)

[pgwenthold]

OK, maybe America won't descend into a Christianized version of Taliban era Afghanistan; that's the worst-case scenario. However, if you take a hard look at the "War On Christianity" meme along with the popularity of "End Times" Dispensationalism among American Protestants, I think there is reason for concern. Combine paranoid delusions of oppression by "secular" forces who must be influenced by satanic control along with the belief that the world must be made ready for the return of their messiah, and you've got a recipe for domestic terrorism.

I mean, why should Christian extremists fear punishment from earthly authorities when the Rapture is coming? (Hmmmm... that sounds familiar, only without the "72 virgins" schtick.)


An Air America host who apparently has a large role in the documentary in fact claimed that the group is indeed a "rapture is coming soon" gang, complete with the "George Bush was annointed to originate it."

They didn't play any audio from the movie that illustrated that thinking, however, so that's why I didn't include it in the OP.

[BPSCG]

There is no need to; you clearly support Bush, his policies and his supporters. If you don't want to be associated with those who want a Christian nation, perhaps you shouldn't align yourself with them?Okay, then your answer to my earlier question is that you've been drinking and posting again. Sixty four million Americans voted for Bush last time out, which I guess means, to your fevered brain, that sixty-four millioin Americans want to impose a Christian version of Sha'aria law on this country. If you truly believe that, can we all assume you have loads of guns 'n' ammo in the basement so you can defend yourself when we they come to get you?

[BPSCG]

Wow. So much intellectual dishonesty in such little space. I'm impressed.

Let's see:

1) Right-wing Christian becomes president (e.g. Dubbya): CHECK.Please explain when and how "right-wing Christian" became synonymous with right-wing violent fundamentalist Christian. I missed that memo.

2) Supreme Court is stacked with right-wing Christians (e.g. Alito, Roberts, and the attempt to get Meyers on the court): CHECK.

I won't repeatedly point up your intellectual dishonesty of equating right-wing Christians with right-wing violent fundamentalist Christians any more.

Instead, I'll just insert a Homer Simpson each time you do it, because that is about the intellectual level of your argument when you do so.

3) The decisions of government agencies are being influenced by right-wing Christians :homersimp (e.g. FDA blocking of Plan B, George Deutsch at NASA, etc.): CHECKAre you saying that government employee should be subject to some kind of religious test before he is allowed to make a decision?

Or are you simply complaining because this administration is right-wing, by the will of the electorate, and that, since this country is predominantly Christian, people making decisions on behalf of this administration are likely to be right-wing Christians?

4) Both houses of Congress are dominated by a party that sympathizes with the aims of right-wing Christians :homersimp (e.g. the GOP): Check.Yes, they do. Now, please show me your evidence that both houses of Congress are dominated by a party that sympathizes with the aims of right-wing violent fundamentalist Christians.

5) Efforts on the state and national level to ban abortion, gay marriage, and even the sale of sex toys: CHECK.And if we have become a violent fundamentalist Christian theocracy, how come abortion is still legal in 50 states and nearly every attempt to restrict it at the national level has failed? And why is gay marriage much closer to becoming a legal fact than it was when the last liberal Democrat was president?

6: Efforts to get "abstinance only" sex ed and "intellegent design" taught in public schools: CHECK.And where is ID today? Becoming increasingly marginalized; if you want your kid taught about ID, you'll have to home-school him. Odd, in a nation run by violent fundamentalist Christians.
7: A HUGE block of American citizens who enthusastically cast their votes for all of the above: CHECK!

:homersimp :homersimp :homersimp :homersimp :homersimp

[BPSCG]

OK, maybe America won't descend into a Christianized version of Taliban era Afghanistan; that's the worst-case scenario. No, that's the "my brain has become so unhinged by its hatred of George Bush that I can believe anything about him, including that he has sex with babies, then kills them and drinks their blood because he's a pederast vampire" scenario.

Combine paranoid delusions of oppression by "secular" forces who must be influenced by satanic control along with the belief that the world must be made ready for the return of their messiah, and you've got a recipe for domestic terrorism.You're leaving out two small, but vital ingredients:

A large number of people who both believe that and;
Are willing to slay anyone who doesn't.Let me ask you a question: How many people who fit the above description do you believe there are in this country? Be as generous with your estimation as you like.

[ImaginalDisc]

BPSCG,

Are you trying to deny that violent right-wing wing Christians pose a threat to our government and way of life?

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9814/oklahomacitybombing6ei.jpg

Is this unfamiliar to you? This was the work of a violent right-wing wing Christian. It was a faith-based initiative.

[BPSCG]

BPSCg,

Are you trying to deny that violent right-wing wing Christians pose a threat to our government and way of life?

Is this unfamiliar to you? This was the work of a violent right-wing wing Christian. It was a faith-based initiative.And what happened to the guy who did it? Oh, yeah, that's right. He was captured by the government, prosecuted by the government, convicted by the government, sentenced to death by the government, and put to death by the government His execution was announced nationwide by the right-wing president, who said the scum deserved what he got (not in so many words). And the only loud objections were from left-wing bleeding hearts opposed to the death penalty.

You're attacking a straw man. Are violent right-wing fundamentalist Christians dangerous? Yes. They should be watched like hawks, spied on where appropriate, infiltrated, their plans to commit crimes disrupted, and they should be arrested, vigorously prosecuted, and harshly punished when they commit violent crimes. Just like any extremist group that espouses violence.

But this country is in no danger of having Timothy McVeigh or his ilk running the show.

And you know it. So you set up a straw man, suggesting I'm arguing Timothy McVeigh and others like him are not dangerous people.

Here, you get one, too: :homersimp

[ImaginalDisc]

BPSCG,

Before you go accusing others of attacking strawmen, this is what you said:

Nonsense. Militant extremists don't exist in some kind of societal vacuum. The differences I pointed out between the groups indicates that some societies have zero tolerance for murder, and punish it harshly, while others celebrate it, encourage it, and subsidize it.

You're again failing to acknowledge that it is our liberal (in the classic sense), secular government which protects us from being run by violent right-wing Christians such as him. However, protecting the secularism of our government requires constant vigilance, against the influences of religious extremists of all creeds. Neither The United States nor Christianty are imbued with any magical protection against abuse by religious extremists.

We are special because we struggle to remain secular.

[Achán hiNidráne]

They might not be "violent" now, but give them a few years. They'll get around to it.

[gnome]

And the only loud objections were from left-wing bleeding hearts opposed to the death penalty.

Just as a point... speaking from the other side, it was my impression that the "left-wing bleeding hearts" opposed McVeigh's death penalty for the sake of consistency, but were hardly passionate about it. These events were met with universal outrage on both sides of the political fence.

[gnome]

If I might add... the argument going on is pointless. Everyone agrees these people are dangerous and need to be watched. Aside from that, what is there to fight over?

[Mycroft]

BPSCG,

Are you trying to deny that violent right-wing wing Christians pose a threat to our government and way of life?

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9814/oklahomacitybombing6ei.jpg

Is this unfamiliar to you? This was the work of a violent right-wing wing Christian. It was a faith-based initiative.

I have no idea if Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not, but nowhere have I seen that his action was motivated by Christianity. He was anti-government.

[a_unique_person]

Just as a point... speaking from the other side, it was my impression that the "left-wing bleeding hearts" opposed McVeigh's death penalty for the sake of consistency, but were hardly passionate about it. These events were met with universal outrage on both sides of the political fence.

I found the response to Waco interesting. There turned out to be a lot of support for the Davidians.

[Mycroft]

You're again failing to acknowledge that it is our liberal (in the classic sense), secular government which protects us from being run by violent right-wing Christians such as him.

Such as who, Timothy McVeigh?

I challenge you to produce any evidence that at the time of the bombings that Timothy McVeigh considered himself a Christian.

[ImaginalDisc]

I have no idea if Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not, but nowhere have I seen that his action was motivated by Christianity. He was anti-government.

He had connections with "Chrtian Identity", one of the most terrifyingly racist, intolerant, anti-semitic and violent movements in the United States today.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/dawning_1.html

It was at this time that he discovered The Turner Diaries. He obsessed over this novel by former American Nazi Party official William Pierce. Writing under the name Andrew Macdonald, Pierce pumps out a litany of hate through the main character Earl Turner. This "hero" demonstrates his contempt for gun control laws by truck-bombing the Washington FBI headquarters. He also appears to favor Adolf Hitler and dismiss blacks and Jews as worthy of annihilation.

http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh3.html
For more than a decade, federal lawmen have sternly advised all visitors not to go near the place. When US marshals tried to fly surveillance missions across the nearby hills, the pilot suddenly pulled away when he saw what he thought were muzzle flashes from the ground. Rumors hold that everyone who lives there, down to the smallest child, is trained and armed; that great underground bunkers hold vast stores of munitions, even chemical and biological weapons. It is a place that federal informants seek to infiltrate, and for which federal agents have laid out secret contingency plans for a Waco-type siege. And it is a place where everyone knows that to appear uninvited risks being shot on sight. The place is Elohim City, an isolated religious community in the Ozark Mountains of eastern Oklahoma. Founded by a bearded former Canadian Mennonite preacher named Robert Millar, and currently being led by his son John, it is home to seventy-five men, women, and children who are true believers in the religious doctrine known as Christian Identity.

Clearly, this is a religious community with a difference. Its members believe that government is the enemy, that America's secular, multicultural society is a present-day Gomorrah, and that Elohim City is a bunker in a great battle between the children of darkness (the Jews) and the children of light (the Aryan race). Elohim City became the subject of scrutiny in the last year when telephone records revealed thatTimothy McVeigh made calls to the rural enclave in the weeks prior to the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. More recently, however, it has been learned that Timothy McVeigh was heavily involved with the domestic terrorists who frequent Elohim City and who practice Christian Identity. But McVeigh's involvement is just one of a host of links that connect the increasingly violent activists of the racist far right to the doctrine which helps to inspire them. Christian Identity, which elevates white supremacy and separatism to a Godly ideal, is the ideological fuel that fires much of the activity of the racist far right.

[Mycroft]

He had connections with "Chrtian Identity", one of the most terrifyingly racist, intolerant, anti-semitic and violent movements in the United States today.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/dawning_1.html



http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh3.html


From your own source:

"Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic. There is nothing indicating that he ascribed to the Identity religion. His political ideology, however, was the same as those who follow the Identity teachings."

Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. What he had in common with these people was his hatred and distrust of government.

http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh3.html

[ImaginalDisc]

From your own source:

"Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic. There is nothing indicating that he ascribed to the Identity religion. His political ideology, however, was the same as those who follow the Identity teachings."

Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. What he had in common with these people was his hatred and distrust of government.

http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh3.html


That's what the article says, though the issue of McVeigh's religious beliefs has become such a bone of contention that I'm having trouble sifting the facts from the spin. I'm willing to drop the subject of his religion altogether until I can get the facts more carefully. However, what is certain Christian Identity has been connected to other violent criminal acts.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=Christian_ID

Violence and Hate

Christian Identity's racist and apocalyptic qualities helped lead to several well-known incidents of domestic terrorism during the past quarter century. In North Dakota in 1983, Gordon Kahl demonstrated how radical Identity adherents could be when he killed two U.S. Marshals who had come to arrest him for a parole violation (a mourner at one funeral was Assistant Attorney General Rudolph W. Giuliani, later to become all too familiar with such funerals). A four-month manhunt ended in another shootout in Arkansas, where Kahl killed a local sheriff before he himself was killed.

That same year, the white supremacist terrorist group known as The Order began its series of armed robberies (to which it would add additional crimes ranging from counterfeiting to assassination). Several members of the gang were Christian Identity, including David Tate, who in 1985 killed a Missouri State Highway Patrol officer attempting to reach an Identity survivalist compound called the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (CSA). An ensuing standoff resulted in the demise of the CSA and the arrest of its leadership. During the 1980s, several Identity groups attempted to follow in the footsteps of The Order, including The Order II and the Arizona Patriots, who committed bombings and an attempted armored car robbery, respectively.

In the 1990s, Identity criminal activity continued apace, including efforts by an Oklahoma Identity minister, Willie Ray Lampley, to commit a series of bombings in the summer of 1995 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. The following year, the Montana Freemen, whose leaders were Identity, made headlines for their "paper terrorism" tactics and their 81-day standoff with the federal government. In 1998, Eric Rudolph, who had been associated with Identity ministers such as Nord Davis and Dan Gayman, became a fugitive after allegedly bombing gay bars, the Atlanta Summer Olympics, and an abortion clinic. The following year, Buford Furrow, a former Aryan Nations security guard, went on a shooting spree at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, wounding four children and an adult, and later killing a Filipino-American postal worker.

Perhaps the most chilling manifestation of Identity terrorism can be found in the concept of the Phineas Priesthood, set forth by Richard Kelly Hoskins in his 1990 book Vigilantes of Christendom. The Priesthood is based on the concept of the obscure Biblical character Phinehas, an Israelite who used a spear to slay a "race-mixing" fellow Israelite and the Midianite woman with whom he had sex. Hoskins conjured up the idea of an elite class of "Phineas Priests," self-anointed warriors who would use extreme measures to attack race-mixers, gays, or abortionists, among other targets. Over the years, some have committed crimes using the Phineas Priest label, including a group of about eight who committed bombings and bank robberies in the Spokane, Washington, area in 1996 (four of whom were caught and sentenced to lengthy prison terms). In 2002, two Aryan Nations splinter groups openly adopted Phineas Priest names or symbols.

[Mycroft]

That's what the article says, though the issue of McVeigh's religious beliefs has become such a bone of contention that I'm having trouble sifting the facts from the spin.

I would suggest that sifting through the facts is not so difficult at all, but that you are having trouble with the obvious conclusions.


I'm willing to drop the subject of his religion altogether until I can get the facts more carefully.

Lol! Until you can find something that says that what you want to be true is true?


However, what is certain Christian Identity has been connected to other violent criminal acts.

These guys are just as violent and dangerous as you fear them to be, but they have nothing to do with “right-wing Christianity”, at least not the kind that influences the Republican party and nominates judges to the Supreme Court.

Fifteen years ago, neo-Nazis were embracing “neo-Odinism” (Thor, Odin, Loki, and the rest of that pantheon) because they couldn’t figure out how to remove the Jew from Judeo-Christian. This is just an extension of that, only they’ve figured out a way to reinterpret the bible to justify their racism.

This isn’t extremist Christianity; it’s extremist racist ideology that happens to have a Christian angle to it.

[ImaginalDisc]

I would suggest that sifting through the facts is not so difficult at all, but that you are having trouble with the obvious conclusions.



Lol! Until you can find something that says that what you want to be true is true?

I find your lack of manners appaling. I found some sites which directly conradict the assertion above. I'm trying to find the conclusions drawn by the FBI, who I trust we'd accept?

This isn’t extremist Christianity; it’s extremist racist ideology that happens to have a Christian angle to it.

What's the difference? One hundred and fifty years ago, racism was heavily justified by dogmatic (not scriptual) Christian beliefs. Many protestant sects viewed dark skin as the mark of Cain, and considered blacks to be less than human.

[a_unique_person]

I find your lack of manners appaling. I found some sites which directly conradict the assertion above. I'm trying to find the conclusions drawn by the FBI, who I trust we'd accept?

You had better get used to it.

[Mycroft]

I find your lack of manners appaling. I found some sites which directly conradict the assertion above. I'm trying to find the conclusions drawn by the FBI, who I trust we'd accept?

If you found them you didn't show them. Nothing you quoted showed McVeigh to be a Christian much less linked his crime to Christian beliefs.


What's the difference? One hundred and fifty years ago, racism was heavily justified by dogmatic (not scriptual) Christian beliefs. Many protestant sects viewed dark skin as the mark of Cain, and considered blacks to be less than human.

For starters, the difference is one hundred and fifty years.

[Tony]

Okay, then your answer to my earlier question is that you've been drinking and posting again. Sixty four million Americans voted for Bush last time out, which I guess means, to your fevered brain, that sixty-four millioin Americans want to impose a Christian version of Sha'aria law on this country. If you truly believe that, can we all assume you have loads of guns 'n' ammo in the basement so you can defend yourself when we they come to get you?

Noted and dismissed as an ad hom argument. Have anything of substance?

[Polaris]

Is this anywhere near Jesus Ranch? I think Tenacious D might have to look into a copyright infringement suit.

[BPSCG]

BPSCG,

Before you go accusing others of attacking strawmen, this is what you said:Nonsense. Militant extremists don't exist in some kind of societal vacuum. The differences I pointed out between the groups indicates that some societies have zero tolerance for murder, and punish it harshly, while others celebrate it, encourage it, and subsidize it.
You're again failing to acknowledge that it is our liberal (in the classic sense), secular government which protects us from being run by violent right-wing Christians such as him. Who is "him?"

In any case, I am acknowledging exactly that. What do you think I was referring to when I said, "some societies have zero tolerance for murder, and punish it harshly"? Our liberal (in the classic sense) secular government protects us from violence, whether it is from religious survivalist wackos or left-wing kooks intent on bringing on "the revolution."

However, protecting the secularism of our government requires constant vigilance, against the influences of religious extremists of all creeds. Neither The United States nor Christianty are imbued with any magical protection against abuse by religious extremists. No argument. But there are those here who seem to think that a takeover by Fred Phelps and his legions clique of crazies is just around the corner. It's not, because even if this country twice voted to make a conservative Christian its leader, it did not vote to make a murdering religious lunatic its leader.

If you want a taste of what would happen to those people if they ever seriously tried to enter the public debate - say at your local school board meeting - go back and look at that video of Phelps's daughter on Hannity and Colmes. Even Sean Hannity, who many of you here seem to think of as Rush Limbaugh's eviler brother, tore into her like she'd kicked his mother. Hannity's no friend of abortion, but he called her every name in the book (wish I could get the streaming audio at work so I could mine a few of the choicer ones). Colmes was a little nicer; he simply started out by asking her if she was out of her mind.

And, that, my friends, is what the murderous religious nutjobs in this country are up against - the entire range of political opinion that lies between the hard conservatism of Sean Hannity and the hard liberalism of Alan Colmes. If they ever tried to act on their beliefs, they'd get stomped, in a hurry.

And the conservatives here, I can guarantee you, would be among the most eager stompers.

So, yes, keep careful tabs on the loony fundamentalists. But have no fear they will ever have the power to do anything more than frighten alarmists who see a fundamentalist takeover of the U.S. government every time they pass an Episcopal church.

[BPSCG]

Noted and dismissed as an ad hom argument. Yeah, sometimes I get that way when I'm called an apologist for violent fundamentalist Christian wackjobs. Not that calling me an apologist for violent fundamentalist Christian wackjobs would be an ad hominem argument, of course...

Have anything of substance?Sure, the minute you say something that isn't so ridiculous it makes me spew my morning coffee through my nose onto the keyboard. I was thinking about asking you to come over here and clean it up, but then I remembered you'd been drinking and posting again and you might spew something up yourself and make things even worse.

[AWPrime]

So the US gov is keeping the christian loons in check, but what will happen if the government falls (nothing lasts forever you know)?

[BPSCG]

So the US gov is keeping the christian loons in check, but what will happen if the government falls (nothing lasts forever you know)?Oh fer petesake, what will happen if the bolt that keeps your ass attached to your back falls out? If the U.S. government falls, then you're talking about the greatest societal upheaval this country has ever seen, where the Constitution is no longer in effect.

In that case, the violent fundamentalists - and all the other tiny, violent crackpot groups - will be in a lot of trouble, because they will be vastly outnumbered and they are far from being the only people with firearms. The Constitution and the government don't only protect us from them - it protects them from us.

[ImaginalDisc]

BPSCG,

"Him" refers to McVeigh.

I don't think there's as much of a distinction between the Extremists, and the fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists, in power right now, are trying to make this country more intolerant of atheism, homosexuality, and less welcoming to immigration. The only distinction I can see between those people we agree are whackos and those in power in right now is the methods they would care to use to marginalize segments of society, not their goals, modivations, or justifications.

[BPSCG]

BPSCG,

"Him" refers to McVeigh.Oh. Well, you haven't shown any persuasive evidence that McVeigh was driven by religious convictions, and everything I've ever seen about him said he was simply a rabid anti-government loon.

I don't think there's as much of a distinction between the Extremists, and the fundamentalists. Who are these "extremists" you speak of?

Christian fundamentalists, in power right now, Could you do us all a big favor? Could you identify the top ten "Christian fundamentalists in power right now" for us? Everyone keeps saying Christian fundamentalists are in power, as if it's actually true. I'd like to see a list as well as an explanation why they are fundamentalists (and just saying "He's a Southern Baptist" won't wash - Mrs. BPSCG's mother is a devout Southern Baptist, but by no stretch a fundamentalist).

are trying to make this country more intolerant of atheism, homosexuality, Interesting that the White House just had its annual Easter Egg Roll and for the first time, gays were there with their kids, openly advertising their homosexuality. I don't recall any of them being carted off in cuffs or thrown out. Now why do you suppose that is?

and less welcoming to immigration. You'd better read up on the issue, because the HFIC (Head Fundie In Charge) at 1600 Penn is at odds with much of his own party; he favors relaxed immigration laws. Now why do you suppose that is?

The only distinction I can wee between those people we agree are whackos and those in power in right now is the methods they would care to use to marginalize segments of society, not their goals, modivations, or justifications.Oh, cripes. You want another Homer Simpson? I got lots.

[ImaginalDisc]

You have obviously failed to read the posts where I took back the assertion that McVeigh was religiously modivated, though I stand by the fact that he had links Christianty Identity.

I'm not going to run around making lists for your amusement. Senators such as Santorum have a place in the making of laws, and Judges like Scalia rule on them, and Bush, who callously insults and seeks to limit the rights of atheists and homosexuals runs the White House.

[BPSCG]

I'm not going to run around making lists for your amusement. Kinda what I expected you to say (in lieu of saying, "Oh, I don't know...").

Here; I've made a list of people who are arguably the most powerful people in the United States government right now, in no particular order. Why don't you tell me which ones are "fundamentalist Christians"?

George W. Bush - President
Bill Frist - Senate Majority Leader
Dennis Hastert - Speaker of the House
Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
Condoleezza Rice - Secretary of State
Dick Cheney - Vice-President
John Roberts - Chief Justice
Alberto Gonzales - Attorney General
Harry Reid - Senate Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi - House Minority lLeader
John Boehner - House Majority Leader
John Warner - Chair, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ben Bernanke - Chairman, Federal Reserve Board
Judd Gregg - Chairman, Senate Budget Committee
Richard Lugar - Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Arlen Specter - Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Jerry Lewis - Chairman, House Appropriations Committee
Jim Nussle - Chairman, House Budget Committee
James Sensenbrenner - Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
Bill Thomas - Chairman, House Ways and Means CommitteeJudges like Scalia rule on themI wasn't aware that Scalia was a fundamentalist. Could you please supply a citation?

[Tony]

Yeah, sometimes I get that way when I'm called an apologist for violent fundamentalist Christian wackjobs. Not that calling me an apologist for violent fundamentalist Christian wackjobs would be an ad hominem argument, of course...

It's not, it's an objective fact, as evidenced by your statements on this thread. You just don't like facing reality.

Sure, the minute you say something that isn't so ridiculous it makes me spew my morning coffee through my nose onto the keyboard. I was thinking about asking you to come over here and clean it up, but then I remembered you'd been drinking and posting again and you might spew something up yourself and make things even worse.

I take that as a "no".

Continue on with apologizing for fundy christian wackjobs. Hell, you're probably one.

[BPSCG]

Continue on with apologizing for fundy christian wackjobs. Hell, you're probably one.Well, it's obvious what you're trying to do. You saw Cleon made my sig line by calling me a racist and you got all envious and figured anything he could do, so could you, so you call me a "fundy christian (sic) wackjob."

Sorry, I'm bumping up on the 500 character limit, and your slur isn't any better than Cleon's, and not nearly as imaginative as Orwell's, so you're S.O.L. Keep working at it, though; if you want to improve your invective, I recommend you have someone start reading Mark Twain to you regularly.

[Tony]

Well, it's obvious what you're trying to do. You saw Cleon made my sig line by calling me a racist and you got all envious and figured anything he could do, so could you, so you call me a "fundy christian (sic) wackjob."

Sorry, I'm bumping up on the 500 character limit, and your slur isn't any better than Cleon's, and not nearly as imaginative as Orwell's, so you're S.O.L. Keep working at it, though; if you want to improve your invective, I recommend you have someone start reading Mark Twain to you regularly.

*yawn*

Come back when you have something meaning to say fundy.

[cbish]

Why don't you tell me which ones are "fundamentalist Christians"?

George W. Bush - President
Bill Frist - Senate Majority Leader
Dennis Hastert - Speaker of the House
Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
Condoleezza Rice - Secretary of State
Dick Cheney - Vice-President
John Roberts - Chief Justice
Alberto Gonzales - Attorney General
Harry Reid - Senate Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi - House Minority lLeader
John Boehner - House Majority Leader
John Warner - Chair, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ben Bernanke - Chairman, Federal Reserve Board
Judd Gregg - Chairman, Senate Budget Committee
Richard Lugar - Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Arlen Specter - Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Jerry Lewis - Chairman, House Appropriations Committee
Jim Nussle - Chairman, House Budget Committee
James Sensenbrenner - Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
Bill Thomas - Chairman, House Ways and Means CommitteeI wasn't aware that Scalia was a fundamentalist. Could you please supply a citation?
Here's a couple of fun websites to mull over:http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/senate_ratings.xls
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/house_ratings.xls

[BPSCG]

Come back when you have something meaning to say fundy.Oh, BTW, Manny asked us to pass this on to you (http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/quotes.html#confirm).

[a_unique_person]

Well, it's obvious what you're trying to do. You saw Cleon made my sig line by calling me a racist and you got all envious and figured anything he could do, so could you, so you call me a "fundy christian (sic) wackjob."

Sorry, I'm bumping up on the 500 character limit, and your slur isn't any better than Cleon's, and not nearly as imaginative as Orwell's, so you're S.O.L. Keep working at it, though; if you want to improve your invective, I recommend you have someone start reading Mark Twain to you regularly.

orwell was apologising to you. Which is funny, since you made such a big deal of apologising to someone else, and expecting a pat on the back for it.

[BPSCG]

Here's a couple of fun websites to mull over:http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/senate_ratings.xls
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/house_ratings.xlsThanks! This is neat - I love this kind of thing.

I took the average scores from each of the five columns in each spreadsheet, then got the average of those averages. I think that gives a really interesting idea of how conservative or liberal the House and Senate are.

The average Senate score was 50.40 on a 0-100 scale, with Ted Kennedy at zero and Orrin Hatch at 100.

The average House rating was 52.35, indicating the House is somewhat more conservative than the Senate.

I'm sure there are similar rankings by liberal groups. I wonder if they'd show similar, but inverse results.

[BPSCG]

orwell was apologising to you.Yeah, that's the second time you've said that, but search as I might, I can't seem to find the words, "I'm sorry," or "I apologize" in that sig line. Could you show me where it is?
Which is funny, since you made such a big deal of apologising to someone else, and expecting a pat on the back for it.Could you please show me where I indicated I expected a pat on the back for apologizing to Dog Boots? I castigated him, harshly, wrongly, and at length, in public; he was entitled to nothing less than a public apology. Or do you believe one should criticize publicly and apologize only privately?

[UserGoogol]

The average for Senate Republicans was 92.5, and the House of Representatives is too big for my crappy Excel skills to be able to get a number out of it.

Of course, this doesn't imply that Republicans are all fundy loonies, but it says something. Of course, the most conservative interpretation of the data (the religious right likes Republicans more than it likes Democrats) isn't especially surprising, but still, 92.5 is a big number.

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, that's the second time you've said that, but search as I might, I can't seem to find the words, "I'm sorry," or "I apologize" in that sig line. Could you show me where it is?
Could you please show me where I indicated I expected a pat on the back for apologizing to Dog Boots? I castigated him, harshly, wrongly, and at length, in public; he was entitled to nothing less than a public apology. Or do you believe one should criticize publicly and apologize only privately?

He said that he was aware he said something just for the sake having a dig at you, making conciliatory noises, it's pretty obvious. instead of seeing if he was prepared to make a formal apology, you take his statement and use it to humiliate him. When you apologised, you didnt' do it in the thread, or via PM, but started a whole new thread in a community.

[Mycroft]

Yeah, that's the second time you've said that, but search as I might, I can't seem to find the words, "I'm sorry," or "I apologize" in that sig line. Could you show me where it is?
Could you please show me where I indicated I expected a pat on the back for apologizing to Dog Boots? I castigated him, harshly, wrongly, and at length, in public; he was entitled to nothing less than a public apology. Or do you believe one should criticize publicly and apologize only privately?


As much as it kills me to agree with AUP and even more so in defense of Ex Lion Tamer Orwell, the statement was an admission of wrong-doing and was conciliatory in tone.

He is, of course, completely nutters on the Dog Boots issue. That was a flash of class an no amount of paranoid seething can make it otherwise.

[BPSCG]

As much as it kills me to agree with AUP and even more so in defense of Ex Lion Tamer Orwell, the statement was an admission of wrong-doing and was conciliatory in tone. Okay, let's put this one to bed for good, shall we?


I honestly don't recall what Orwell's "dig" was, and I can't seem to be able to find it in its original context in a reasonable amount of time. Let's just say he probably didn't say anything really horribly insulting to me, because only a_u_p, Cleon, and Tony have ever done that. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing Orwell just made the same kind of wiserack most of us do here, which gets passed over quickly because nobody truly takes much offense, if any. If I demanded apologies for every time someone launched a mild insult, I'd be doing little else.
Orwell's jibe isn't there as an example of his rudeness - he's no worse than many here, and better than some - but because of the last four words, which I thought were hilarious.
A statement is not an apology without some form of one of the following three phrases: "I apologize," "I am sorry," or "I regret." And even if the last two are present, they do not necessarily constitute an apology, where the apology is not for the offender's action, but for the offendee's reaction ("I'm sorry if you were offended"). There's the old joke, "Johnny, apologize for calling your sister 'stupid.'" "Aw, gee, sis, I'm sorry you're stupid."So Orwell did not offend me (as far as I can remember), he did not apologize, and, as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't owe me one.

Okay?

Now can we get back to why Bush is an eeeeeeeeeevil fundy Christian vampire pederast bent on subjugating the world?

[BPSCG]

The average for Senate Republicans was 92.5, and the House of Representatives is too big for my crappy Excel skills to be able to get a number out of it.

Of course, this doesn't imply that Republicans are all fundy loonies, but it says something. Of course, the most conservative interpretation of the data (the religious right likes Republicans more than it likes Democrats) isn't especially surprising, but still, 92.5 is a big number.The average for Senate Democrats was 11.4...*

Of course, this doesn't imply that Democrats are all commie atheists, but it says something. Of course, the most conservative interpretation of the data (the religious right likes Democrats less than it likes Republicans) isn't especially surprising, but still, 11.4 is a tiny number.

*(I put Independent Jeffords with the Dems, since he votes with their caucus.)

[a_unique_person]

[quote=BPSCG;So Orwell did not offend me (as far as I can remember), he did not apologize, and, as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't owe me one.

Okay?
[/quote]

So why try to humiliate him?

[BPSCG]

So why try to humiliate him?With his own words?

Tell you what; why don't you ask Orwell if he was actually trying to apologize for whatever it was he said to me, and if he says he was, then I'll replace his quote in my sig with Tony's calling me a "fundy christian wackjob." Fair enough?

Maybe I'll even stick yours in there, too, when you called me a racist (no apology sought, BTW).