Texas Taleban?

Remove all ads!

Curious you would say that.

I just read this article a couple of minutes ago, and a more broad overview here: Christian Group ‘Repent Amarillo’ harasses Gays, Liberals and other ‘Sinners’.

Stalking of swingers? Outing them publicly? Intolerance against 'compromise(d) Christianity'? 'Warfare Map'? Never mind the tone of the latter article, if only 50% of what they say is true they have a big problem down there in Amarillo.

 

Does anyone else notice the irony of the symbol they're using above "Army of God"?

 

8, I don't think they're being ironic. To the contrary.

 

I'm assuming you aren't trying to imply that this is how Christians behave. Using the fringe to disparage the rest of them is unfair. It would be like using NAMBLA as indicitive of the homosexual lifestyle. I'm sure most gays would find that very offensive.

 

That Repent Amarillo site can't be legit. It just can't.

 

No, I am not. These people are a segment of a segment - Evangelical Christians, and a minority within a larger population segment.

What I am saying is that there is an activist (and latently violent) segment on the American Christian Right that has the potential to act in a harassing way, as demonstrated here - and as I may add, as demonstrated before. The picketing, stalking tactics, or sifting through garbage, and the gathering of information about targets aren't new. They were used against Dr. Tiller and his abortion clinic patients and staff before. You can bet that these people have files on their undesirables, just like the anti-abortionists had files on Dr. Tiller. I presume you wouldn't like to be the target of their activities. According to RAVEN Amarillo:

Of course my point is not that all Evangelicals are that way, but, as silly as it is to have to declaratively state that again and again, that these particular people are a problem, not just for 'sinners' and deviants in Amarillo whose life they make miserable. These swingers they went after didn't commit crimes but merely acted within their constitutional rights - and they were harassed because 'Repent Amarillo' didn't want them to exercise these rights because they didn't conform with biblical law. This vigilantism-short-of-physical-violence is a problem for the rule of law. People need not bleed for there being a problem.

If 'Repent Amarillo' had their way, then their views would be implemented as law - they would for example make swinging a crime, probably call it 'fornication' - and instead of them harassing their 'sinners' and deviants there would be police repressing them with the force of law, with real punishment, reflecting biblical law.

And lest we forget, they are expressing themselves through strongly religiously coloured (and militarist) language and expressly say they are 'Spiritual Warriors' for Jesus. While you will likely find Evangelicals condemning what they did - I doubt you will see them condemning their religious arguments, namely that these people are 'sinners'. They disagree on means, not ends. So, while you may not like that, it isn't exactly a leap to conclude that it is their brand of religion - Evangelical Christianity - that drives them to do what they do - go after 'sinners' and deviants. I dare say that that is a common feature of fundamentalists of all religions.

 

I'm sorry, but these 'christians' are hypocrites and heretics. In seeking to stamp out sin, they're committing grevious sins themselves. And some borderline (if not outright) crimes. Did anyone ever sue them for harrassment? Charge them with filing false reports? Charge them with disturbing the peace?

Ragusa, I agree with these people that the people they target are sinners. I disagree with them about what we do with sinners. They, apparently, feel justified in harassment, hate, and threats. I make sure they understand the Bible and leave it at that. If they choose to sin, that's their business.

Yes, yes it is a leap of logic, considering the thousands of evangelical christian churches that do no such things, the hundreds of non-christian groups (in the US) that do the same things, and my inability to find any credentials for this guy (not a great indicator, I admit, but I tried), and I think it's quite a stretch to say that it's Evangelical Christianity that drives this. It really is on par with saying homosexuality drives NAMBLA.

 

The greatest of fools will find anything to cling to in an attempt to justify their grievances and actions in responce.

 

Don't know. But then, imagine you visited a swinger club in the evening and a Christian protester in fatigue pants and a hoodie came up to you at the parking lot, called you a sinner, and called you by your name and told you where you live and work, would that count as intimidation, as a veiled threat, in your book?

Nice of you.

I knew you would say that. Of course they are. So what?

'Apparently'. Curiouser and curiouser! Just like in that 'apparently' Roeder felt justified in shooting Dr. Tiller? 'Apparently' as in 'for inexplicable reasons'? Don't be so intentionally obtuse. Isn't it an interesting question to ask why? They quote an awful lot of bible passages, don't they? Couldn't there conceivably be a connection between that and their actions? No leap at all my friend.

That they are a radical minority that chooses action where you are content with words doesn't matter in the slightest for their motivations to be indeed religious and rooted in Evangelical Christian theology. And that is all I am saying. You just shirk making that inevitable conclusion because you don't like the implications.

Exactly! And theirs only! Only that you didn't mean it that way. Question: If they 'choose to sin', do they then become fair game for a 'witnessing'? More to the point: Does it then become 'Repent Amarillo's business? Isn't that more than a little presumptuous? What are they, or rather, who do they think they are? Self proclaimed religious police?

Is how people live their private lives something their fellow citizens are supposed to uninvitedly involve themselves in? Is one's private life something one's neighbours ought to concern themselves with? Maybe they ought to check from time to time on one's marital fidelity, or that one don't use any form of pregnancy prevention, just to make sure one doesn't lapse on his biblical obligations, and corrupt others with a sinful life? That would be a logical extension of that idea.

In fact that's a very protestant approach to communal policing. In the Netherlands houses still tend to have no curtains. That's Calvinist heritage. The idea originally was that everybody's private life ought to be transparent to their neighbours to ensure social control of adherence to the law, biblical and worldly. The general idea, apparently, hasn't entirely lost its appeal over the centuries. Well, to the best of my understanding, the US constitution, apparently, does not embrace that approach.

Starting with swinging and ending with worshipping of 'false Gods' - i.e. adhering to Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam etc. (just check that map of theirs) - these things are private and nobody's business - not the states and not their fellow citizen's. These sins aren't crimes either. Like it or not, they are exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Maintaining to be only 'witnessing' to people who 'choose sin' (or heresy, or worshipping 'false gods'), to 'help' them (and if not them, at least to deter others, for their own good) 'to find the right way', even if that involves bankrupting them as in the case of the swinger club, is just a pious excuse for petty rank and file bigotry and harassment.

 

Where are the white hoods and the burning crosses?

 

So, other than to show there are nutcases on extreme sides of any issue, what was the point in this?

 

There of course is the curiosity value of the story. Still, I started that thread because the CPAC thread went too off topic already and I wanted to support the point Chandos made about social conservatives trying to impose their view of morality on others.

There is and has been for a long time, an activist segment of the Christian Right that is not content with just having a different opinion, but wants to see America changed to reflect their views (which they imagine America previously held). The epic battles over abortion immediately come to my mind. Or the regularly recurring debates about the ten commandments in front of court houses. Or the assertion that America is a Christian Nation (tough luck Jews, Muslims, Buddhists ...). The Amarillo thing is that happening at the grass roots level, another skirmish in the American culture war, like the school board battles over Darwin and evolution.

I find it remarkable to see NOG's ambivalence toward 'Repent Amarillo'. He admits that his disagreement with these guys is about means, which he profoundly condemns, but not ends. Not their theology is flawed, but the excessive actions they derive from it. That's a remarkable point to see made.

But there is another point I previously overlooked: NOG, you said they are heretics - in what respect? Because they commit sins themselves while cracking down on vice? Or is there another reason?

 

Actually, I think nearly every group tries to impose their view of morality (or right and wrong) on others. You can see this with religious groups (I lived in Utah for four years -- the longest four years of my life), pro-choice, PETA, Greenpeace ... if there is a stance to be made someone is trying to impose it on others. It's not just social conservatives; however, when we agree with the particular group we never say anything about it.

 

We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights to prevent that. Maybe we should honor it, along with the Due Process of Law, and there won't be a problem.

 

LOL, I should have said that in my post.

 

I'm sure there will be a lot more chances for you, Snook.

Oh, and great thread, Ragusa.

 

Granted, but who has more and more (and more vocal) followers and political pull in America today - PETA, Greenpeace or Evangelical Christians? Granted, the latter's influence has waned somewhat of late now that Bush is out of power, but still, I have yet to see them out-influenced by PETA or Greenpeace or something else from 'the left'.

 

Chandos you're wrong there. Freedom of speech allows for people to say whatever they believe in -- as forcefully as they want (obviously not to the point of using force). Most groups will use any means they believe necessary to get their message across. Various organizations hold vigils, pay for advertising, run telephone campaigns, etc..

The first amendment applies in these cases whether or not we agree with the content.

Ragusa ... I would hope listing every conceivable liberal organization would not be necessary to demonstrate a point -- if that's the direction you feel we must go in then enjoy yourself. My point is simply that it's done by both sides of the aisle, by reasonable people trying to gain support for a cause they believe in and nutcases who wish to use any means necessary to influence. Unless this kind of thing is classified as "terrorism" (which would be a huge stretch of Cheney proportions) it's simply not going to go away. People can and should sue the nutcases -- poverty can sometimes be an influencing source.

 

I don't know much about PETA, other than that they are for animal rights; Greenpeace is Canadian although they do have some offices here (like many organizations), and I don't think the other one is from this planet.

I do get the point of your thread though, regarding the Taliban, Ragusa: Sometimes you can just swap "Christian," for "Muslim," (or the religion of your choice), and the rest of the blanks are filled in for you.

I guess I don't get your point, unless you just felt like telling me I was wrong about something I agree with you on.

 

Chandos:

It sounded like you were stating the constitution and bill of rights prevents people from imposing their view of morality on others; when in reality it allows them to do it through freedom of speech. I agree with your sentiment, but the argument didn't seem technically correct to me (even though I think it should be).