Edit: Sorry guys, Google took it down, so it can't be viewed anymore.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8877708936425212842&q=Jesus+Camp&hl=en

This is an interesting documentary, especially since that minister ran into trouble recently. Watch at your own peril. It's almost 85 minutes long.

I really do fear extremists, on any side.

I like that Jesus shirt he wears that has the Reese's logo.

It should've said, "There's no wrong way to eat a Jesus."

I'm still going through with my "Jesus was a pacifist."

"So I kick ass for him."

shirt.

I don't really worry about these people using violence to reach their objectives. Rather, their weaponry consists of legislation, the courts, and their votes. Which method is more dangerous to the country is certainly debatable.

Oh, and the woman saying her "Pledge of Allegience" needs to be slapped for it.

looks like it got taken down

I watched the Jesus Camp video when it first came out.

It is truly terrifying to see what these lunatics want this country to become.

(janrich456 would no doubt feel right at home with them)

I think moderation is called for in thinking about fringe groups. We need to have some awareness of them and the dangers they represent, but at the same time we also have to be aware that they are fringe groups.

I think moderation is called for in thinking about fringe groups. We need to have some awareness of them and the dangers they represent, but at the same time we also have to be aware that they are fringe groups.

For me, the continuing and systematic indoctrination of huge populations with unalterable superstitious belief (one of the most prominent examples being the Christian belief system) represents a danger to all of humankind, and the Christian believers are no 'fringe' group.

____________________________

"Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric
Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved---Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These are
the sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal; God is the omnipotent father....hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in
those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires
total obedience from everyone on Earth, as he is in place not just for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him
must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can
truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth.
One God, one King, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home."______Gore Vidal

I think taking the attitude that Christianity is a fringe group is to set yourself up for inevitable fringe-ness yourself.

I think taking the attitude that Christianity is a fringe group is to set yourself up for inevitable fringe-ness yourself.

Maybe you need to re-read the post. I said the opposite.

As to fringe-ness.....yes.

I am in one of the tiniest "fringes" on earth. A pro-environmentalist, critical thinking, radical leftist, Democratic socialist, atheist.

But then, unlike the Xtians, we do not imperiously inform all other people on earth that failure to go along with our beliefs will result in them being tortured forever in a fiery underworld.

Unlike the gung-ho militarists and rednecks, we do not espouse a pilosophy of --"Either yer with us or yer agin us!.....if you don't go along, you're an unAmerican traitor who needs to get out of my country!"

"I am in one of the tiniest "fringes" on earth. A pro-environmentalist, critical thinking, radical leftist, Democratic socialist, atheist."

That's YOUR opinion of who you are... I see you more as an idiot wrapped in a moron.

That's YOUR opinion of who you are... I see you more as an idiot wrapped in a moron.

The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors. -----Sam Harris

The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors. -----Sam Harris
Seeing as how 80% of the world's population believes in some form of a God, sounds like you're the one living the fantasy life.

In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool. - Lord Chesterfield

Nearly 100% thought the world was flat at one time, popularity doesn't mean that something is true - it usually just means that there was some good marketing.

Actually, if I remember correctly, the church back then was responsible for maintaining the theory that the earth was flat.

Nearly 100% thought the world was flat at one time, popularity doesn't mean that something is true - it usually just means that there was some good marketing.

Actually, if I remember correctly, the church back then was responsible for maintaining the theory that the earth was flat.
Not to mention the theory that all the heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth... that one was held up by the church much more recently than the flat-earth theory. Galileo was almost executed for heresy, if I remember correctly.

Maybe you need to re-read the post. I said the opposite.

As to fringe-ness.....yes.

I am in one of the tiniest "fringes" on earth. A pro-environmentalist, critical thinking, radical leftist, Democratic socialist, atheist.

But then, unlike the Xtians, we do not imperiously inform all other people on earth that failure to go along with our beliefs will result in them being tortured forever in a fiery underworld.

Unlike the gung-ho militarists and rednecks, we do not espouse a pilosophy of --"Either yer with us or yer agin us!.....if you don't go along, you're an unAmerican traitor who needs to get out of my country!"
Did you ever hear of moderation?

What, exactly, are you encouraging Freethinker to have moderation in, Thislin?

Given the litany of extremist views he avowedly maintains, any moderation in almost anything would seem desirable.

I of course am reminded of the Buddha, who was raised in luxury and found it inadequate. So he adopted asceticism, and after a few years also found it inadequate. The middle way--not engaging in the constant pursuit of pleasure but also accepting pleasures moderately when they are appropriate, ended up being part of his path.

People who are extremists--both of the left and of the right--tend to be unable to see things from another's perspective. I blame that on an arrogant streak in their personality, but it also can be described as a form of immoderation--an insistence on having it all.

People who are extremists--both of the left and of the right--tend to be unable to see things from another's perspective.

I am 100% willing to see it from the religionists perspective!

The very minute that they show me, or in any other way demonstrate conclusively to me the existence of an omnipotent supernatural entity capable of creating a trillion suns with the wave of his hand, (yet who is at the same time fretful that people might wear a shirt of two different fabrics mixed) I will be the most willing convert in the history of the universe.

I blame that on an arrogant streak in their personality, ....

I will admit to arrogance in one respect;

I feel that I am VASTLY more rational and in touch with reality than any person who wholeheartedly believes in a book that claims --in no uncertain terms-- that donkeys can speak as humans do, and that dead people can arise from their graves and walk.

...but it also can be described as a form of immoderation--an insistence on having it all.

"having it all"........?!?!?!?!

When it comes to having a say, a voice in the country I am a citizen of as it concerns religious influence or adherance, I have as close to no say whatsoever as anyone alive.

This conversation is a good example of what I meant about atheists arguing with each other...

"I don't believe in God more than you don't believe in God!"

Geesh.

:bombout:

This conversation is a good example of what I meant about atheists arguing with each other...

"I don't believe in God more than you don't believe in God!"

Geesh.

:bombout:
This is a conversation between FT (an atheist) and Thislin (NOT an atheist). How did you get the atheists arguing with each other out of that??

Thislin has said he is an atheist. That was during a long heated discussion with Nappy, who also purports to be an atheist. Thanks for stepping in to correct me though. One never knows when I might just start making things up.

Thislin has said he is an atheist. That was during a long heated discussion with Nappy, who also purports to be an atheist. Thanks for stepping in to correct me though. One never knows when I might just start making things up.
Wow, Thislin said he was an atheist? I always though he was a Buddhist or an agnostic or a former Christian agnostic or something... He's quite mysterious. ;)

He's also very intelligent... sad to watch him waste it on people who mainly use this medium to hear themselves rattle.

02-06-2007, 11:18 PM
Thislin
Registered User Join Date: Jan 28, 2007
Location: Most of the time in HCMC (Saigon), Vietnam; also have condo in Bellevue, Washington
Posts: 183

"May I warmly invite you to get to know the forum and the people here rather than operating on stereotypes that you seem to associate with the word "atheist"." --Blob

That is a little puzzling, since you plainly have not gotten to know me and are operating on a stereotype with me. Although one can get into definitional problems, I certainly identify myself as an atheist.

I don't reject the idea of God, and I like trying to see what consequences might flow from such a being's existence, but I don't think it exists--I am relatively sure of it.

Gods are speculations, and as such a source of entertainment for those who like difficult puzzles, but in the meantime we have to tend our garden.

In the interests of "full disclosure," I suppose I should describe the present state of my opinions.

I self-describe as an "atheist" because I don't think "God," as usually described in the West, exists. Further, I think the physical universe is as the materialist describes it--entirely the result of natural processes (that are themselves derived from logical necessity), without intelligence or purpose.

Buddhism is an "agnostic" religion. The Buddha is described as seeing the question of the existence of gods as a speculation, tending to distract us from the serious business of extracting the poison arrow.

I would say I disagree with the other atheists hereabouts in several significant ways.

First, I think the good that religion does far exceeds any harm, and that dogmatism is the problem, not religion--and that dogmatic atheism is just as bad as dogmatic religion.

Second, in line with my rejection of dogmatism, and perceiving that I have changed my mind on things many times in my life, I see "truth" as we can conceive it as temporary and not something to ever be sure of. As a result I work hard at trying to see things from other perspectives (and thereby sometimes inadvertently mislead people into thinking I actually believe some of the things I may defend).

Finally, and I think this is most important, although I am an atheist, I am not a materialist. I accept the Eastern (Buddhist but also Hindu) idea of karma. I see "karma" as being a non-physical "assumption" (that is I have no idea what it might really be) that one can infer from the presence of mind (in ourselves and presumably in others) along with the existence of sensate (self-aware, experiencing) beings.

Let me say a word about karma--I think it is something that was discovered by people making a practice of meditation, and can be seen as nothing more than a word used to identify something that is otherwise incomprehensible--wrapping up ideas we have of justice, purpose, experience, self-ness, compassion, free will, ethics, beauty, and so on.

Unlike the materialist, who must, in the end, try to describe these things as illusions derived from natural selection, I see them as real things--as manifestations of aspects of existence we do not and probably never can "understand." Rather than deriving from natural selection, I see natural selection, in its blind way, as having tapped into karma for survival purposes (using it to provide the mechanism of sensation), thereby making us possible.

A word about my Buddhism--Buddhism, unlike Christianity, has never taught that animals and humans are different. It has never conceived the cosmos as anything other than what it turns out it is. It has always had a psychology land a physics that is entirely consistent with the best of Western science. All of this while Christians were killing people for saying that worlds other than our own exist (Bruno).

In other words, Buddhism, while making no pretense at being "scientific" (a Western invention) is nevertheless consistent with science. It is also a source of wisdom that I have only begun to explore--derived from a very long period of time of people sitting and meditating.

I am, however, a "liberal" Buddhist (to follow the Western model). I take the stories of the Buddha as myth--helpful stories and a Buddhist vocabulary--not as literal truth--much as a liberal Christian takes the Christian story. As such, the two stories tell us much the same thing.

Wow, I never knew you were an atheist.

Given the litany of extremist views he avowedly maintains, any moderation in almost anything would seem desirable.
So, you are urging FT to be moderate, not to have moderation.

I'm having another conversation on a different forum about Jesus Camp, I thought Evak might find it interesting. Maybe just mildly. Basically its the general Christian view on the subject.

Here's what I wrote.

http://www.tvguide.com/detail/movie.aspx?tvobjectid=282748&more=ucmoviereview

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/fall2006/features/holy_war.php

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/filmforum/060921.html

Theres all the info I can give you on the subject in case you have been living in a cave and havent heard about it.
Atheist abound have been thriving on it. Every time I see or hear anything about it it looks strikingly like a tool for the devil.
A camp where in kids are being taught to be what is very strong in appearence, radical.
As a Christian I'm all for teaching your children all you can about God. This seems more like brain washing then teaching however. The kind of thing that is dramatically over done. Leaving the kids in a state of mind that could very well block out any chance of recieving the Holy Spirit. Having faith forced on them rather then allowing them to understand it for themelves. In essence, handing the church over to satan.
Children, who will grow up having an overwhelming amount of faith in what their parents said. Rather then understanding the word of God for themselves.
the quanities of children being sent to the camp is staggering. Leaving a large number of people who will grow up ready to spread their kind of understanding anyway possible.
Laying a foundation for what we all know will happen according to the bible.


The reply from another poster.



When the movie first came out, I wrote the following post in another thread. I hope the info helps you further:

'Jesus Camp' documents the camps and conferences of 'Kids in Ministry', an organization directed by Ms. Becky Fischer who also pastors the camps. This organization promotes false 'prophets' Cindy Jacobs, Chuck Pierce, Kim Clement, Bill Hamon, Rick Joyner [LINK] ... all members of the dangerous 'New Apostolic Reformation'. Kids in Ministry supports false Word of Faith teachers as well. A few basics about the NAR:

- Falls under 'Kingdom Theology' [aka Domionisn, Latter Rain], whereby God loses dominion over the earth and needs man to restore it. Ultimate goal is world domination.

- Authoritarianism: Office of Apostle and Prophet has been 'restored', and members fall under their sole authority.

- Levels of authority: Amounts of spiritual authority is delegated by the ‘spirit’, and they have classified apostles into categories such as vertical apostles, horizontal apostles, market apostles,etc, and have given them reign over ‘spheres’.

- Spheres: Categorized areas such as churches, people, territories, government, cities. Different types of 'apostles' have authority over different spheres, their authority is only activated within a divinely-appointed sphere.

- Prayer Warriors: NAR has created and implemented a system to combat Satan thru various militaristic 'mission' groups and individuals. Combines New Age mysticism with pseudo-military lingo to create concepts like ‘Geographic continuums of spiritual power’, ‘power points’, ‘spiritual mapping’, 'strategic-level spiritual warfare’,‘commitment to the land’, and so on.

- False prophets: they are aplenty in this movement.

This probably explains why we hear so much military talk in the clips of 'Jesus Camp' and the emphasis on 'taking back America'. A few excerpts from the Kids in Ministry website:

Link: Teaching kids to hear God's voice: "We discussed the characteristics of various animals, both good and bad. We asked the children to look at someone and see what animal God showed them and what the Holy Spirit might be saying about that person as a result. With both the colors and the animal exercises, it was amazing the prophetic accuracy the children operated in. We had numerous people give testimony to this end. With each event, the children gained new confidence in their ability to hear God's voice and be a blessing to others as a result."

My comment: This has absolutely no grounding in the Bible. These children are being taught to obey a 'voice' without question. This is going to become more and more dangerous when that 'voice' leads them into even stranger territories.

Link : Did kids raise a baby from the dead? "The drummers got more intense. The dancers grew more wild, stomping crying, waving their arms dramatically in the air. We led the children in calling out for their generation to come to Christ. We began to pray for their gifts and callings to come forth through our dancing and drumming. The artists drew what they were seeing and feeling. You could tell we had stepped into true spiritual warfare.

A little girl, Taeler, with us from North Dakota began to cry and ran to my helper saying, "I feel like something bad is going to happen." I had begun to holler over the noise encouraging them to continue, "You don't know whose life you might be saving right now!" Another boy about ten or eleven, Jordan, felt he heard God tell him something was going to die."

My comment:
1. The children were being whipped into an emotional frenzy... of course they felt something bad was going to happen.
2. The burden for 'saving lives' is being put on children's shoulders. Lovely.

Read the remaining story to find out where it goes. Here's an excerpt from 'PeeWee Prophets':

Link: Prayer is a powerful tool. Tyson, child prophet, aged 10: "But in order for it to work you have to first understand your authority as a believer. God has given you authority over the enemy. You need to be aware of that authority. Kenneth Hagin gave the illustration of a policeman. If a policeman raises his hand he has the authority to stop the traffic. People respect that authority because he has the law of the land backing him up.

Another main tool to use to have prayer manifested is faith. Pray and believe that it is coming to pass and it will come to pass. Believe and thank God for the answer before you see it and you will see it. Miracles aren't always instant if you pray for healing you won't necessarily be healed immediately but keep believing and you will be healed."

My comment: This is WOF heresy, as 'received' and taught by a 10 year-old, and supported by 'Kids in Ministry'. Quoting Kenneth Hagin is never a good sign. These are just a few of the examples of what I would call gross child manipulation, deception, and occult practices that are scattered around the site.

Aleric, to your OP question: Is it a sign of the end times? Personally I believe we've been in the end times since the time of the apostles. Domionism and it's by products [such as Kids in Ministry] are definitely heresies, but throughout history heresies have come and go. Domionism does lean towards a 'hostile takeover', but it's impossible at this point to say how far it will go.

He's also very intelligent... sad to watch him waste it on people who mainly use this medium to hear themselves rattle.

02-06-2007, 11:18 PM
Thislin
Registered User Join Date: Jan 28, 2007
Location: Most of the time in HCMC (Saigon), Vietnam; also have condo in Bellevue, Washington
Posts: 183

"May I warmly invite you to get to know the forum and the people here rather than operating on stereotypes that you seem to associate with the word "atheist"." --Blob

That is a little puzzling, since you plainly have not gotten to know me and are operating on a stereotype with me. Although one can get into definitional problems, I certainly identify myself as an atheist.

I don't reject the idea of God, and I like trying to see what consequences might flow from such a being's existence, but I don't think it exists--I am relatively sure of it.

Gods are speculations, and as such a source of entertainment for those who like difficult puzzles, but in the meantime we have to tend our garden.You forgot to post the reasons I suggested Thislin made unfair generalisations. No doubt a simple clerical error on your part, SMW:
No puzzle and no stereotype. I am not making generalisations or steroetyping based on this or that label, I am appealing to you to reconsider your own generalisations, such as:

the typical atheist or materialist is way too glib about the answers
...
Of course that is what atheists say, and reflects, I fear, a deep misunderstanding
...
there is more to existence than the mechanical ("materialist") atheist would permit

Although to be fair you did elsewhere come to acknowledge that the atheists here (not all of them, admittedly) are "sophisticated" I think is the word you used. So kudos for that one.
Source (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?p=276434&highlight=#post276434)

You forgot to post the reasons I suggested Thislin made unfair generalisations. No doubt a simple clerical error on your part, SMW:

Source (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?p=276434&highlight=#post276434)

Ah, it seems you are not interested in responding to specific problems that are raised, but only in accusing people of overgeneralization (an accusation that, conveniently for you, it is almost impossible to refute, no matter how specific one actually is).

Ah, it seems you are not interested in responding to specific problems that are raised, but only in accusing people of overgeneralization (an accusation that, conveniently for you, it is almost impossible to refute, no matter how specific one actually is).I already partially refuted it myself:
Although to be fair you did elsewhere come to acknowledge that the atheists here (not all of them, admittedly) are "sophisticated" I think is the word you used.I have no interest in accusing anyone of anything. I do feel that those three specific statements you made were in of themselves unfair generalisations; however as you can see in my quote above I also felt you made statements that more fairly pointed to atheists who do not fit those generalisations and acknowledged that point.

I already partially refuted it myself:
I have no interest in accusing anyone of anything. I do feel that those three specific statements you made were in of themselves unfair generalisations; however as you can see in my quote above I also felt you made statements that more fairly pointed to atheists who do not fit those generalisations and acknowledged that point.

I don't know how you propose I respond to this sort of vague accusation.

Let me post my problem with "atheism" as we often if not usually see it represented on message boards (and in atheist literature).

1. It is primarily about what it is against--religion and specifically Christianity--rather than what it might be for.

2. Its primary attitude is one of intellectual superiority and it uses tactics such as mockery and sarcasm rather than reasoned discussion.

3. Its attacks on religion, and, again, specifically against Christianity, tend to engage in name-calling (like the "fascism" we saw yesterday), exaggeration, and, most importantly, a tendency to either ignore or minimize the good things religions do.

4. It all too often refuses to defend itself as a belief or opinion, taking an attitude of, since you can't prove the religions are right, I am necessarily right (by default).

5. It refuses to penetrate deeply enough into atheism to deal with the objections religious believers raise--the lack of moral foundation, of a basis for altruism and compassion, of a basis for hope or even purpose in existence. These charges are never really addressed, but only angrily rejected.

--Martin

Such atheists surely do exist online. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of your book and post numbered lists making simplistic misrepresentations of that which they take issue with. Then they'd look more reasonable.

Such atheists surely do exist online. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of your book and post numbered lists making simplistic misrepresentations of that which they take issue with. Then they'd look more reasonable.

My points are "simplistic misrepresentations." I therefore conclude that whatever you don't like is a "simplistic misrepresentation."

My points are "simplistic misrepresentations." I therefore conclude that whatever you don't like is a "simplistic misrepresentation."I increasingly suspect that the self-refuting irony of such comments is totally unintentional on your part.

I increasingly suspect that the self-refuting irony of such comments is totally unintentional on your part.

Here is my perception of this exchange. First I am accused (an accusation you endorsed) of overgeneralization.

I respond to the effect that "overgeneralization" is an easy charge to make and a virtually impossible one to refute (my implication being that it is a useless and trite way of avoiding responding with substance).

However, you persist, so I then produce a very specific list of items. I even numbered them so that you could refer to them by item number--no vagueness here.

What do you do? You merely repeat the accusation.

I have no choice but to conclude that you are a single-hit "star," fast sinking into ossified oblivion. You are only interested in reading things you agree with, relegating anything else to "overgeneralization" or "misrepresentation."

The nature of generalizations is actually rhetorical, not logical in nature. To make good generalizations requires rhetorical skill. One cannot logically prove a generalization, one can only get others to agree with you. Get enough people to agree with you, and the assertion stands. If you are unable to hold the assertion with your force of personality, you just get attacked and forced to give it up.

Most people should probably just stay away from them.

One cannot logically prove a generalization, one can only get others to agree with you. Get enough people to agree with you, and the assertion stands. If you are unable to hold the assertion with your force of personality, you just get attacked and forced to give it up.

I agree with you on this, but would add that almost anything one might say can be accused of being an overgeneralization if one has an "opponent" willing to engage in that sort of thing.

For example, if I were to say, "The world is round," someone, who wishes to argue just for arguing's sake, might call that an "overgeneralization." They would say, "The world is not actually round but spheroidal, and even not quite exactly that."

This is my point--the charge is glib and incapable of specific refutation. It is a tactic of those who wish to avoid dealing with what has actually been said.

The problem is that real overgeneralization also exists. It takes honest participants in a discussion to actually get anywhere, but, unfortunately, when people are set only on proving points and winning debates, such honesty gets lost.

You seem to me to be woefully under-prepared for this whole debate/discussion thing, to not be able to deal with such tactics. Be a man! Call bullshit for what it is, and don't whine about it! Complaining that people aren't being honest? What kind of debate is that?

You seem to me to be woefully under-prepared for this whole debate/discussion thing, to not be able to deal with such tactics. Be a man! Call bullshit for what it is, and don't whine about it! Complaining that people aren't being honest? What kind of debate is that?

Now what is accomplished by doing what you describe other than maybe gratifying a juvenile sadism?

Well, you'll stop looking like a loser, for one. I'm seeing this whiny persecution complex inherent in your posts. It would be nice for everyone involved if you were to lose that.

The only way to learn is to not be afraid to get your hands dirty, instead of being finicky and only discussing when conditions fit your preconceived notions of 'accomplishment'.

I'm still not terribly sure what you mean for a discussion to 'get anywhere'. Are you thinking of taking us to India?

And don't tell me that 'I know what you mean.' Because you should be able to explain it without resorting to plaintive emotional assertions.

You are the whiner, and I tire of you again. I am not here to engage in your "pissing contests." It is entirely too juvenile for me and a waste of time to boot. Why don't you go to bed like a good boy. No doubt it is way past your bedtime.

There you go, whining again.

Why don't you go to bed like a good boy. No doubt it is way past your bedtime.
My mommy said I could stay up a little while longer. Oops, gotta go! Gotta brush my toofies and wash my face afore I go ni-night!

You seem to me to be woefully under-prepared for this whole debate/discussion thing, to not be able to deal with such tactics.His mixture of hyper-sensitvity to the slightest difference of opinion set against his continuous barrage of petulant insults is delightful. And the blatant irony of the insults he keeps tossing my way seems totally lost on him. You couldn't make it up.

I get the impression the guy has memorised a lot of clever sounding stuff and can repeat it at will. But the fact that many of his posts are only tenuously related to the topic under discussion and then he has hissy fits when anyone tries to engage with him suggests that debate and discussion is indeed alien to him.

I'm done bothering. It's very rare a poster takes offence to me on any forum and I see no need to put up with his handbag-swinging tantrums. Plus the guy is boring anyway - a person who complains continually about the use of humour on a discussion board is guaranteed to be a yawn-merchant.

Doubtless he'll be overjoyed with this post of mine - he's just bursting to have something on me. Shouldn't really give him such a gift but there we go.

I don't really worry about these people using violence to reach their objectives. Rather, their weaponry consists of legislation, the courts, and their votes. Which method is more dangerous to the country is certainly debatable. That is violence. Just government endorsed violence. If the cops come to arrest you for being gay and you resist what happens? If you go with them what happens? You're freedom is stolen by the dictatorship of the suppossed majority.

They may not be slinging bombs but they are hardly non-violent.