Anti-Christian hostility is reaching a new, more violent level.
2 maybe 3 anti-Christian killings in 10 years does not seem like a major increase unless there were none in the 10 years before that.
Maybe you should actually investigate what you copy from the internet.
I did not compile the list myself. Clearly it's a just list of shootings that happened at churches. I never asserted that they all were motivated by this or that.
No you didn't because apparently all you did is cut and paste an article off of a website. However, the article gave the list after the statement that "the full extent of violence against the church has not been adequately discussed" and then stated afterword "Anti-Christian hostility is reaching a new, more violent level". These two statements framing the incident list show the writer's intent to portray this list as examples of "violence against the church" and "Anti-Christian hostility". Your posting of the article indicates that you agree with the author's conclusions. Now you want to tell me that you didn't understand the article?
Playing stupid is not an adequate defense.
And I wasn't anticipating a whitewash job. That move took me by surprise.
I guess you are not used to someone actually looking into one of your claims.
A good deal of that which you'd write off for one excuse or another just can't be written off.
The Joplin story, for example. The man killed three church leaders, and wounded four other people. He's supposed to be "upset with his family"? Why then does he target the church leaders? Why not target his family? Why not go to their house and catch them all together?
The article I cited clearly said he had a problem with people in his community making disparaging remarks about him, not his family. They would all be in church together. His killing the church leaders isn't necessarily targeting them. The preacher would be standing up and so easily shot at. The deacons may have been standing and/or likely to react to the situation first.
Seeing as he was also charged with sodomizing a juvenile, it's even more absurd to pretend one cannot connect the dots.
You have some information that hatred of Christians and child molestation are causally linked? Please present your evidence.
This business may rate its own thread, actually. I'm not going to take the time to research it fully just now. There's a lot more of this going on than folks probably realize. The media sure downplays it, and it looks like the Feds are in on that game as well.
Check this out The FBI’s 2007 Hate Crimes Statistics list 3,870 race-based hate crimes, 1,400 religion-based, 1,265 crimes based on sexual orientation and 1,007 based on ethnicity or national origin.
Broken down by anti-religious bias, 969 reported crimes were anti-Jewish, 130 were anti-Other religion, 115 were anti-Muslim, 61 were anti-Catholic, and 57 were anti-Protestant.
So far so good, huh? Not so fast.
Colorado Springs, Dec 6, 2008 / 08:01 am (CNA).- As the anniversary of the 2007 Colorado shootings at a youth missionary dormitory and a prominent megachurch approaches, CNA has learned that the homicidal incidents were not classified as hate crimes in state and federal reports.
The perpetrator, 25-year-old Matthew Murray, posted heated anti-Christian remarks on the internet during the 12 hours between the two attacks he carried out,....
The exclusion of the incident from state and national hate crime reports calls into question the reliability of hate crime statistics and the consistency of “hate crimes” classifications.
He was mentally ill and kicked out of that missionary prep center in 2002. His roommate there knew Murry was "hearing voices" in his head. Murry did things that "scared" the counselors but all they did was dump him from the program.
While it is not a satisfying answer, it seems that the shootings were
not reported as a hate crime by the Colorado Springs police. I guess if the hate crimes bill had been passed before the shootings, then the reporting of that hate crime (I do believe it was a hate crime) wouldn't have depended on the whim of the overworked police or liberal reporters. Your claim that the federal government is hiding hate crimes is a bit weak.
You mock "evolutionists" and a great number of Christians on the internet and in print do the same. Should "evolutionists" consider themselves "persecuted"?
What in the world do you think you're talking about? Exposing liars constitutes "persecution"? Isn't it a shame you have to distort every other word in the language?
You haven't even come close to showing that the great majority of biologists, geologists, physicists and cosmologists are lying. So that statement is pure baloney.
I'll tell you something right now. I can defend myself, my beliefs, my friends, and my family. I can and will use words to accomplish the job, and if words aren't enough, I can and will use other resources.
You're the one who decries the tactics you claim are being used by the evolutionists, yet you use the same tactics. Can you say "hypocritical"? I knew that you could!
Call that whatever you want in evospeak, or just plain untruth. It's the way things are. I don't have to take crap, and you can't make me. Neither will you make me ashamed of the policy.
Not ashamed of the end-justifies-the-means policy? Why not? Do you think you can win people to your side by publishing half-truths and insults? When did that become part of Christ's Great Commission?
What a splendid example of twisting the credibility clean out of one's own words. Shooters come in and gun down folks in church, and if you think you can sell (yourself - won't nobody else buy it) any other possible motive it's not persecution. But my defense of truth is.
So now it's the truth to depict a troubled man's suicide (first incident in the list) as a hate crime against Christians? Did he hate his own Christianity?
You're playing this junk on the wrong audience. You need a crowd of atheists so blinded by hate and rage they don't care that everyone knows they don't think or talk straight. I can PM you some links to that kind of forum, if you'd like.
Your invectives against me indicate that you are the one who hates. All I need is an audience that is interested in the whole truth not implied truths that are manufactured by shading the information and leaving out the details. It is this very type of reporting that you have railed against concerning evolution. Why is it ok for you to use it to support your side? You have torn into me for my mistakes of the past and then used that undermine my credibility. Fair enough, but don't expect different treatment than you are willing to provide.
Aligning yourself with the spin doctors of Christianity does nothing except to get the undecided to dismiss your opinions out-of-hand.
