Extremist Christian Group Members Charged in Detroit

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:00:16 PM EST
Tags: Hutaree, militia, Michigan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Nine people arrested over the weekend believed to be connected to an extremist Christian Militia have been charged in federal court in Detroit.

Nine members of a Michigan-based Christian militia group have been indicted on sedition and weapons charges in connection with an alleged plot to murder law enforcement officers in hopes of setting off an anti-government uprising.

In court filings unsealed Monday, the Justice Department accused the nine people of planning to kill an unidentified law enforcement officer, then plant improvised explosive devices of a type used by insurgents in Iraq to attack the funeral procession.

The Indictment (available here) was returned on March 23 and unsealed today. According to the Times: [More...]

The indictment charged that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants — led by David Brian Stone, 45, who also used the name “Captain Hutaree” — developed a conspiracy that they hoped would result in a war against the United States government. They allegedly decided they would kill a local law enforcement officer, and then bomb the funeral caravan. The killings “would intimidate and demoralize law enforcement diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective,” it said.

Afterward, the indictment said, Hutaree members would retreat to several “rally points” and wage war against the government, using prepared fighting positions as well as “trip-wired and command-detonated” bombs.

The indictment alleges that the group believed these actions would serve as a "catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the government.”

The charges include seditious conspiracy, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. One man and his son were also charged with teaching the use of explosives.

In plain English, the Indictment says the group planned to kill a law enforcement officer- such as after a traffic stop -- or by ambushing him at home -- or by making a phony 911 call and killing him when he responded, and then, attacking his funeral procession with bombs. It alleges the group believed these acts would demoralize police and render them ineffective. The group would then start a war with explosives and weapons against the Government.

The first defendant named, David Stone, aka Captain Hutaree, allegedly was to kill the law enforcement officer. When all the other officers had gathered for his funeral, the group planned to strike with bombs and IED's.

The group planned a recon mission for April, and authorities, believing innocent persons encountering the mission could be endangered, acted now to arrest them.

Hutaree is an extremist Christian militia group. Here's their doctrine. They are "preparing for the end of time to keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive."

Earlier post on this weekend's arrests is here.

< Regulatory Capture | Happy Passover and Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Extremist Christian Group Members Charged in Detroit | 161 comments (161 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

But Not Terrorism (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:09:40 PM EST

Because Christians never can be terrorists, that is a term only reserved for Muslims.

Muslims? (none / 0) (#4)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:27:11 PM EST

Only muslims? I think non-believing brown skinned people also count.


: Have Not Seen That (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:39:16 PM EST

These days, only when the brown skinned are labeled muslims are they considered terrorists. Although the violation of civil rights due to expanded terrorism laws do fall disproportionately on POC.
Terrorist is a term used largely by freedom fighters to describe essentially the same behavior that they themselves are doing, but with the self serving framework of being unprincipled and immoral.

Let's see what happens if the domesticated 'left' (none / 0) (#47)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:23:47 PM EST

starts getting out of hand.


William Ayers (none / 0) (#161)
by diogenes on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:54:05 PM EST

Obama's friend William Ayers was as much a terrorist as these Christian militiamen are.


So, has anyone gotten a quote (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by scribe on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:03:08 PM EST

on this from Lindsay Graham or Jeff Sessions or Liz "Deadeye's Little Deferment" Cheney? Like - "should these folks be consigned to Gitmo regardless?" Or "why do we have to bother ourselves with grand juries and indictments, let alone Miranda rights?"

Hmm?

: Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:18:30 PM EST

it doesn't matter even if you support foriegn terrorism against one of America's staunchest allies- as long as the terrorism isn't Muslim- see: King, Peter- if he had backed Hamas instead of the IRA he'd have served time instead he's a congressman and can criticize the Administration for being soft on terror.

Onward Christian Soldiers ... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by cymro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:31:47 PM EST

... was not meant to be taken literally.

Really? (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:47:54 PM EST

Seems pretty reminiscent of the Crusades to me:

Shmuel Golding, founder of the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, said that this hymn
"... explains fully the evangelical aim to conquer the world through their doctrines. [Arabs and] Jews should be warned by these words and chilled by the ghostly echo of distant crusades." ... "this is just one hymn that speaks of a united militant church. There are hundreds of others."2...
"Onward, Christians Soldiers" was adopted from the themes of Christian Crusades....
This Crusade heritage, the heritage of "Onward, Christians Soldiers," is certainly nothing to sing about! Instead of singing, Christians should hang their heads in shame, crying rivers of tears to wash the blood away; the very blood of innocent Jewish and Muslim children, women and men ― blood that was demanded and preached from the Christian pulpits for centuries of their evil history.

"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses. We should get rid of it as quick as we can." -Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008)

And this:

When Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt met in 1941 on the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to agree the Atlantic Charter, a church service was held for which Prime Minister Churchill chose the hymns. He chose "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and afterwards made a radio broadcast explaining this choice:[6]

We sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers" indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet has sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the same fundamental laws, of the same ideals ... it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the sure hope, of saving the world from measureless degradation.
--Winston Churchill

Wiki


"Accursed be he who.. (none / 0) (#33)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:38:15 PM EST

withholds his sword from blood"

St Bernard, I believe.


: this was apparently as much (none / 0) (#54)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:43:41 PM EST

a cult as a militia

Uh, Churchill was engaged in leading a (none / 0) (#129)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:55:35 PM EST

country that was fighting for its very survival against a regime that was busy conquering every country in site and kill 6 million Jews, Gays, Gypsies and other minorities.

What should he have sang, "Tip Toe Through the Tulips?"


According to author of the lyrics, (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:22:03 PM EST

he wrote it quickly for Sunday School kids to march to. link


Sweet Innocent Children (none / 0) (#37)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:02:07 PM EST

And I am sure the author of this song was in a hurry too...

The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The branch of the linden is leafy and green,
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper;
"Arise, arise,
Tomorrow belongs to me"

I have always disliked the hymn (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:14:58 PM EST

"Onward, Christian Soldiers, marching as to war." Beloved by mainstream Protestants of a certain era, including my father, and every church I ever worked for.


That's a Good Sign! (none / 0) (#46)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:21:12 PM EST

See. We both think Mozart and J.S. Bach (none / 0) (#105)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:43:25 PM EST

are extremely difficult to play well and we both abhor Onward, Christian Soldiers.


With an open mind (none / 0) (#109)
by CoralGables on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:47:14 PM EST

we can usually find a hint of common ground.


Yes Better Stop There (none / 0) (#110)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:49:24 PM EST

The last time I suggested that we had much in common, you went into insult mode..


Why not just reply : yes. (5.00 / 3) (#113)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:52:54 PM EST

You (none / 0) (#114)
by CoralGables on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:05:11 PM EST

must have had your oreos today. Either that or it was the 20 game Swinging Friars package therapy.

Tip of the Padre cap to otherlisa for coming up with the best nickname for the nickname.


Just procrastinating getting my tax (none / 0) (#116)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:08:41 PM EST

sh*t together!


: that procratination- the story of my life! (none / 0) (#122)
by DFLer on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:22:36 PM EST

I got my Old School Brown and Yellow ready! (none / 0) (#152)
by otherlisa on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:02:05 AM EST

with the Swinging Friar on the cap!


That's actually from the musical... (none / 0) (#63)
by desertswine on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:55:39 PM EST

"Cabaret" by Kandor and Ebb. So they probably took their time writing it. But your point is still valid.


: Not Sure (none / 0) (#78)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:24:42 PM EST

I read that they the song was a pre Nazi, german folk song which they slightly altered.
In anycase the version from caberet has been co-opted as an anthem by white pride groups..

It's telling that religious warrior types (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Kimberley on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:43:29 PM EST

(devoted to doing physical battle with "evil") never hear evil coming in the idea of killing other people--particularly as a ruse to then ambush more and foist war onto a public that clearly doesn't find it necessary.

If these allegations are true, they meet my everyman criteria for terrorists. That said, I don't want them labeled as terrorists because I don't want them tortured and I don't want them to wind up in the legal limbo, reserved for such people, that is destroying my overall confidence in U.S. law.

I am glad they were taken into custody though, and without incident. Now it's up to juries to hear their cases and decide what to do with them.

Couldnt we just split (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:00:44 PM EST

the difference and waterboard the producer of 24 and Ted Nugent?

Besides, all the chickenhawks say it isnt really torture, anyway..As a matter of fact, like experiencing poverty, it probably builds character.


As a fan of The Amboy Dukes ... (none / 0) (#41)
by cymro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:09:46 PM EST

... I object to the proposal to torture Ted Nugent. Can we substitute Tom Izzo? I'm rooting for Butler anyway, and that might help them survive to the NCAA final.


Fairly eloquent guitarist.. (none / 0) (#51)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:41:44 PM EST

prototypical, wild-swinging rw "moran" when he stops playing and opens his mouth.


Actually, Leo Moran is the eloquent guitarist ... (none / 0) (#64)
by cymro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:58:32 PM EST

... who founded the Irish band The Saw Doctors ;-)


: Well I was searching (none / 0) (#70)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:06:31 PM EST

something nice to say..Rory Gallagher has been too soon forgotten too..speaking of the Irish
Im writing the Saw Doctors down. I didnt know about them.
Are we OT yet?

Heh (none / 0) (#72)
by Kimberley on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:08:33 PM EST

I have a sneaking suspicion they'd get enormous sexual satisfaction out of being beaten by all-American boys in uniform.

I suppose we could always create a dude ranch, no wait, a dude compound for those a-little-too-gung-ho conservatives and hire Xe to do the honors...

What do you think, about $6,000.00 for a weekend of water-boarding, interrogation, and general upbraiding by handsome, uniformed guys in a quasi-Gitmo environment sound about right? Hell, we could even arrange to have them snatched and hooded from the street to add that just-right touch of realism.

Know what the sick thing is? Somebody would actually book a weekend like that.

And if anybody rips this idea and starts making bank on it, I want my cut.


If they did what they're accused of, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:09:36 PM EST

they deserve what they will get.

: personally (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:45:29 PM EST

very glad to know they are watching these people.

: Do the crime, serve the time. (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:16:20 PM EST

I just wish (5.00 / 0) (#75)
by cawaltz on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:11:50 PM EST

these people would quit calling themselves Christians. I don't remember a single part of the New Testament or the teachings of Jesus Christ where Jesus told any of his disciples to smite anyone. Heck, He didn't even lift his hand to defend himself, let alone tell others to kill in his name.

Apparently "Thou shalt not kill" needs clarification for nutballs.

Blessed are the stockpilers (none / 0) (#112)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:51:56 PM EST

of automatic weapons..

Gird thy loins and donneth thy camouflage..

Not sure what's at the root of the God 'n Guns equation - other than that they're both things people turn to when they feel powerless - but they seem to be equated quite often by certain folks in this country..and of course that mentality is continually fed into by the fearmongering, any-regulation-is-bad, Becks of the country..

I also remember the outrage even at this site, when that "elitist" Obama dared to equate the clinging to god 'n guns with the desperate straits some people felt themselves to be in in this country..

Still think he was wrong?


Strongly disagree (none / 0) (#125)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:32:51 PM EST

First, Obama did not officially say that "clinging" bit as an intentional public statement. This comment was made as an insider sort of comment to a group of very wealthy elites in SF at a fundraiser. Does not matter if he is an elitist or not - the fact was that the intended audience for this comment was undeniably elite. People with power. The comment was meant to play well with that audience and it did.

Second, if it had been an official statement it would be prejudiced. And not helpful. The underclasses of this country are also part of the country and their powerlessness need to be addressed, not just dismissed.

People like Glen Beck feed on powerless emotions. Actually, he makes a lot of money from these emotions. I really cannot stand him and cannot watch him for longer than it takes Jon Stewart to skewer him. But, dismissing the underclasses and those who feel powerless only drives more audience to Beck's money grubbing hands.


"Intentional" (none / 0) (#128)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:54:17 PM EST

or not, apparently everything he said or listened to someone else say in the last 10 years was public information by the time the primaries were finished.

The question remains, is the gist of the statement true..and, if true, does it necessarily follow that it's a dismissal because it was said to a coterie of the kind of elites that every pol is required to suck up to? Whether a pol says something because they truly believe it or because it "plays well" requires a certain leap of faith to decipher, imo.


First of all (none / 0) (#131)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:18:22 PM EST

Politicians used to be able to play differently to different audiences. Many have been outed with technology in the past few years, remember the 'Macaca Moment'? I don't have a problem with politicians playing to their audience when they campaign. If they get caught saying things that could be offensive to people other than that audience (those who are excluded), I'm fine with that too.

So the gist of the question - Is it true that underclasses of powerless people tend to get violent? Is that the question? Let's see.... yes.

What plays well to elites in SF sounds a lot like "let them eat cake" to those who are in the powerless underclass. "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." --They sound pretty creepy, glad I'm not one of them!


It especially plays "let them eat cake" (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:50:49 PM EST

when it's spun and spun and spun that way.

Just as Ayers and Wright "played" as Obama's dark past of associating with America haters..to some.

And Hill doing shooters in a blue collar bar was supposed to play as her being the down-to-earth antidote to elites (that she never associates with)

I live amongst and around a few of those people Obama refered to and I can tell you that what he said was pretty on-target. Whether he cares enough or has the ability to help the situation is another story.


: Hey (none / 0) (#141)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:02:23 PM EST

its politics! Campaigns are all about spin. and after all this I need a couple of shooters too!
Also, and you probably know this, I would not advise telling your guns and bible clinging neighbors that they are that - to their faces. Maybe you have....might explain those animal noises outside your window.

Cannot help myself. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:02:05 PM EST

"God damn America."

Nice Empathy (5.00 / 0) (#97)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:14:34 PM EST

Good to put yourself in his shoes...


: Empathy with whom:? Whose shoes? (none / 0) (#106)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:44:34 PM EST

Heh. Where's the Rev. Wright (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by scribe on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:18:08 PM EST

when you really need him. No one can rip that line like he can.


Nope, not going to agree (none / 0) (#101)
by MKS on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:29:05 PM EST

they represent America or American values.....

Walt Whitman described America.....

These clowns come from some other place psychologically.....


hmmmmm (3.66 / 3) (#6)
by jbindc on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:43:15 PM EST

Seems like some commenters forgot that, in keeping with the mission of this site, these people are innocent until proven guilty. Or does that not aply to people with whom thet disagree, I wonder?

Given the position that (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:11:29 PM EST

I believe you took on Military Commissions v. Trial I can only assume you would be happier if the Administration had spirited these guys out of the country to "black sites" (which lets be honest, if we were really using the WoT in a anti-terror capacity would be a general line of thought). Or does that only apply to Muslims.


Please (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:09:06 PM EST

No one here has convicted anyone of anything. There is no criminal sanction that results from our gossiping. We do nothing under color of state authority.


So tolerant (4.00 / 3) (#10)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:08:33 PM EST

and non-prosecutorial of you, jb. Had a sudden change of heart, have we?


pointing out hypocrisy (3.00 / 2) (#12)
by jbindc on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:16:37 PM EST

: Indeed.. (4.00 / 3) (#15)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:34:31 PM EST

It just seems like generally, you're rather quick in to spring into the prosecutorial breach and showing remarkable restraint, tolerance and open-mindedness here..

Hopelessly Confused As Usual (2.85 / 7) (#9)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:56:06 PM EST

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that applies to the US system of Justice.

Personal opinions as to the guilt or innocence of those accused of a crime have nothing to do with, and no bearing on the term innocent until proven guilty.

Just because you believe in Guliani style tactics, and mouth right wing tough on crime positions which are insulting to many of us here, does not mean that commenters here cannot be appalled by the increase in right wing christian terror.

But, it is interesting to observe that your protests about only come when right wing christians are labeled criminals... quite telling, as to who your daddy is.


The usual tripe from you (3.40 / 5) (#11)
by jbindc on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:15:30 PM EST

As usual, you have no reading comprehension skills. I never said I didn't find their views troubling - and yes, I hope they can nail them. But my goodness, if these people grew pot and were writing manifestos, you'd be the first one whining about the strong arm of the government. Seems like you're ok with a lot of things many people find troubling, but apparently, are not allowed to discuss here because it upsets you.

But then, I knew if I posted a comment, you do your usual thing and stalk me with your lunatic and uniformed rantings. It's what you do. I now await some comment about the primaries....you already got the standard "you're a Repblican" screed out. (I'm going to start a bingo card with the catch phrass you use a hundred times a day)


Stalking You? (4.25 / 4) (#13)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:21:11 PM EST

That is a laugh. But please if you would like to make a formal complaint to the management as you have done in the past, knock yourself out.

If you do not want to be responded to, or want to control the responses to your inane comments, you would be best served by starting your own blog.


I don't closely follow (3.67 / 9) (#24)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:20:11 PM EST

all the personalities on the TL reality show, but, yes, it does seem like you stalk several people Squeaky. Honestly, people do have differing opinions and its interesting to hear them, but all the personal attacks are repulsive. You do more to damage whatever positions/peoples you advocate for than you realize.


I usually lurk (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by jnicola on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:42:01 PM EST

and rarely comment, particularly on the non-crime blogs, but I'm un-lurking just to note that I, for one, find squeaky's views interesting and a useful counterpoint to the views which seem to be held by the majority of the commenters on the site, and would be disappointed to see him/her discouraged from commenting as much.


Thanks jnicola (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:50:05 PM EST

I appreciate that.


I agree with squeaky (3.67 / 6) (#34)
by Spamlet on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:43:35 PM EST

sometimes, and sometimes I don't. I suppose others could say the same.

But the trouble with squeaky, as far as I'm concerned, is her gratuitous rudeness and her constant resort to personal insults when she disagrees with someone. Her apparent compulsion to take over thread after thread with this BS is quite tiresome, especially since her behavior often puts her in violation of the TL site rules.

I have come to see it as attention-getting behavior. Why an adult should need so much attention, and seek it in such an offensive way, is something I just don't get.


Look In The Mirror (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:47:14 PM EST

the fact that you (4.00 / 3) (#90)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:53:49 PM EST

and your "raters" dont get it is entirely predictable.


Fine (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by Spamlet on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:14:25 PM EST

Count me out with your little "in crowd" of two.


apparently (3.50 / 2) (#98)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:16:55 PM EST

you do not count that well.
either.


Now you're counting more carefully than Spamlet? (3.00 / 2) (#115)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:06:03 PM EST

How else would you know that s/he doesn't "count that well". Here's what that says about you CH, according to you:

(3.00 / 2) (#77) by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:22:28 PM EST.
When people start counting comments
it means they have nothing else to say.
IMO. the reliable fallback of the defeated.

If your hypothesis is correct, we may now conclude that you "have nothing else to say". Right. That's all.


I'm not counting comments (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by Spamlet on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:11:34 PM EST

I'm counting the members of the mini-coalition that hijacks and cr@ps all over thread after thread.

1 + 1 = 2.

But I can guess who is about to tell me that 1 + 1 = some other number.


: There's more than one (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:26:22 PM EST

"mini-coalition" around this place.

: No argument here... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:07:21 PM EST

To clarify: I think that the most prolific commenters sometimes need to take stock of their overall output - especially when they have a long history of ad hominem attacks.
Evidently, it's hard to make that point without getting bashed for "counting comments", etc, etc.

My complaint re. Squeaky: s/he blogclogs (3.00 / 4) (#50)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:39:35 PM EST

It's not uncommon for Squeaky to make 40-50 comments per day. Like yesterday: 51.

That gets to be a bit overbearing, especially given the level of personal insult in many of those comments. Which leads me to wonder how one person has time, and the stomach, for that much conflict.


Ah Blogclogging (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:42:23 PM EST

Just as beauty remains in the eye of the beholder, so does blogclogging, evidentially.


It's more a matter of volume baby, volume! (2.33 / 3) (#60)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:51:18 PM EST

I.e. if you reply to this comment of mine, you will have made 38 comments already today. Go ahead, make our day ;-).

BTW, are you still grappling with the respective meaning of "evidently" and "evidentially"?


The Decider Speaks? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:59:08 PM EST

Nice to know that you are able to decide what blogclogging is and isn't.

Your definition is not universal, by a longshot.


: My definition of what? (2.33 / 3) (#73)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:09:07 PM EST

"Evidently" or "evidentially"? You decide. Does that make you the "decider" now?
BTW, "decider" is a legitimate noun - do you know what it means?

when people start counting comments (2.80 / 5) (#77)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:22:28 PM EST

it means they have nothing else to say.
IMO. the reliable fallback of the defeated.


She also refused (4.00 / 3) (#62)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:54:21 PM EST

to jump rope with you and do the "obot" chant..That was problem too..


Are you implying I've called anybody an obot? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:21:18 PM EST

I solemnly swear I NEVER have. My right hand to Gawd - for all that's worth.

On the other hand, Squeaky is on the record for using "Hilltards". Now don't you go doing the "Hilltard" chant with him/her OK.


Not My Coinage (none / 0) (#85)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:39:13 PM EST

Although, I do remember complimenting the inventor commenting that now I know what the other side of the obot coin is called.

And I have only used the term in conjunction with obots to describe the two main varieties of cults around these parts.


So you admit to usage, but not coinage, (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:38:58 PM EST

of the "Hilltards" term Squeaky. And you say you "remember complimenting the inventor" for letting you know "the other side of the obot coin". (Never mind whether the terms "tard" and "bot" are equally offensive.)

Do you remember who coined the "Hiltards" term if not you? I was on a thread where you used the word and it was the first, and last time, I've ever seen anybody use it hereabouts. I believe Jeralyn deleted your "Hilltards" comment at my request didn't she?

If memory serves you weren't using the term in a 'fair and balanced' way to "describe the two main varieties of cults around these parts" as you claim. You were using it as a general characterization of Hillary supporters at TL. I believe that's why it was deleted.

Enough said.


Not Deleted (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:47:12 PM EST

And I certainly do remember who coined it. I have no problem with the word, as I find it quite descriptive.. I do admit that linking it bit insulting to those with cognitive disabilities to connect them with cultists, but can't make everyone happy.


: Not deleted? Care to find it? And who coined it? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:27:11 PM EST

It appears the pleasure of calling people "Hilltards" is of paramount importance to you in this equation. How reprehensible that you trivialize the inherent offense to people with cognitive disabilities by saying "you can't make everyone happy".
Well no Squeaks, you can't make everyone "happy", but you can make us ALL much less unhappy by not using an anachronistic term of derision like "tards".
Stick a fork in me, I'm done with you for now.

What's particularly funny ... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:49:55 PM EST

... is that she proudly uses the word "Hilltards" while chastising someone else for not having enough empathy.

I wonder if she's figured out what the "t@rds" in "Hilltards" represents?


Im telling mommy (3.43 / 7) (#58)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:47:09 PM EST

interesting that it's the same strident crew of avenging angels that showed up in 2008, that's now doing all the post-counting and selective incivility policing.

Last week it was Capt Howdy, this week it's Squeaky..


Ive been busy (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:49:52 PM EST

have to do some work or they wont pay me

dont worry. I will be back on the comment counters hit parade.


Wait...wait..."2008"...are you about to (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:59:32 PM EST

bring up the you know whats? It's a 9 letter word and none of the 'usual suspects' have used it yet on this thread today! Far be it form me you know.


Yes... (3.60 / 5) (#83)
by Thanin on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:36:44 PM EST

that clique tends to whine a lot.


What's yer beef with "its consistency" ? (3.00 / 2) (#87)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:43:18 PM EST

Thanin, what is the "it"? Do you know, cause I don't.

Can you express yourself on the matter? Way to go with the troll rating though.


what the hell are you even talking about? (5.00 / 2) (#89)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:50:44 PM EST

someone said "its stalking"

I said "no, its consistency"

what part of that do you not understand?


The use of language - never mind. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:08:45 PM EST

The phrases "its stalking" and "it's stalking" mean very different things. As do "its consistency" and "it's consistency".


so (4.00 / 3) (#95)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:14:19 PM EST

you are blogclogging?


: No, just trying to get clear about (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:45:40 PM EST

what you mean, even if you aren't. However, that quest has now become as tedious to me as it evidently is to you. So, I'm out.

since DWTS (2.00 / 1) (#121)
by CoralGables on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:18:22 PM EST

just started on the east coast I'll use them in my metaphor. Just like on DWTS, when it comes to blog conflict it also takes two to tango.


: Don't forget to tell it to Squeaky & Co ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:49:19 PM EST

BTW, I don't make a habit of this 24/7. But, every once in a while I take some time to address the more omnipresent and chronically hostile characters around here.
I believe Cream City came up with the "blogclogger" designation. If memory serves, it has to do with both the quantity and quality of comments.
Jeralyn also suggests that people not make more than 20-30 comments a day doesn't she? Anyway, I abide by that - for the sake of sanity.

Stalking Is a Crime (3.50 / 2) (#25)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:23:02 PM EST

Not to be taken lightly. Crying wolf is despicable and cowardly, imo.


continually disagreeing with the same people (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:42:53 PM EST

is not stalking its consistency.


What is "its consistency"? (3.00 / 2) (#79)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:24:58 PM EST

If you get my drift.


lol (2.00 / 1) (#57)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:46:15 PM EST

Although I do not disagree with people, just their comments. There are many comments that I agree with as well.


IMO, you do disagree with people, not (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:33:50 PM EST

just people's comments.


Well (2.67 / 3) (#146)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:28:55 PM EST

It may feel that way on your end but it is not my operating procedure. I prefer to agree but will not if I disagree.


IMO, it is preferable to comment on (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:19:37 PM EST

the comment and not analyze the commenter.

BTW, Murray Perihia performed on Performance Today tonight. Exquisite. He mentioned J.S. Bach's parisioners in Leipzig complained that he changed the harmony of some of the chorales.


: I Agree (none / 0) (#148)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:26:53 PM EST

And Bach was just making corrections...

Um, quite obviously. (none / 0) (#158)
by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:56:49 AM EST

While attacking/insulting disliked commenters, this crew will roll over with tail between legs when BTD says exactly the same things or calls them out. Not exactly a novel combination; classic behavior.

Why should we expect different human behavior on a blog thread vs. real life?


Growing pot (none / 0) (#71)
by cawaltz on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:07:14 PM EST

and plotting the assasination are two entirely different actions. Taking away someone's life and smoking a plant that gives you the munchies are not even in the same scope of extreme from where I'm sitting.

Frankly, I find what these people were allegedly planning completely froot loops and totally reprehensible.


There is a link (none / 0) (#7)
by MKS on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:46:52 PM EST

to the militia's own website....those views are chilling....

I hope they are not trying to do what they have been charged with....But their views...are very troubling....


I don't think wondering why these are (none / 0) (#8)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:50:13 PM EST

not terrorism charges violates the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle.


Lots and lots of amens in this group no doubt (none / 0) (#126)
by Rojas on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:38:04 PM EST

I wonder how many of you that comment (1.00 / 1) (#142)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:13:57 PM EST

negatively about Christians, etc., actually regularly and routinely attend church??

I mean the comments are so ..... well "staged" "rehearsed."

hmm .... (1.00 / 1) (#159)
by nyrias on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:12:38 PM EST

where are all the pro-defendant defense lawyers go?

I thought you guys are all for representing the worse kind of scum to make us "a better people".

Where are all the sympathy posts about "innocent before proven guilty"? I wonder if the tune of this site will change if these are ISLAM terrorists instead of CHRISTIAN terrorists?

Hypocrisy is alive and well in the whole political spectrum.

What people are learning in some (none / 0) (#1)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:03:55 PM EST

of those churches these days... sigh.

Is this really something that's being taught (none / 0) (#38)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:06:32 PM EST

in actual churches?


You'd have to define "actual church" (none / 0) (#42)
by cymro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:14:56 PM EST

It might take you some time to reach a consensus on that definition.


Fair enough. (none / 0) (#56)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:45:56 PM EST

I guess I could see some people who have these ideas to establish a "church" that they and their fellow unstables would be a part of that might meet on-line or in someone's garage, but I have not heard of murdering policemen being taught from the altar of what one would commonly think of as a church.


Churches enjoy (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:02:18 PM EST

a very high level of legal protection in this country. And it seems legal definition of a church is broad. It is one reason organizations that call themselves churches can harbor horrible abuses and trying to alter their legal status as a church is really very difficult.


Not To Mention (none / 0) (#69)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:06:21 PM EST

Tax evasion...

It is one reason organizations that call themselves churches...

Very true (none / 0) (#74)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:11:41 PM EST

I have a friend who is a lawyer in California and has been trying to re-classify a church that is actually an abusive cult where the leader does all manner of horrible things. Tax evasion is a big one and lots of money flows into churches. Donations can be mandatory, and hidden. But this cult is not violent (as far as I know), not like extremist fundamentalist Christian groups. Still, with all of them the $$ factor is huge and hidden.


Well, you're kind of dancing around here a little, (none / 0) (#80)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:25:44 PM EST

but I think I'd agree that there are violent extremist fundamentalist Christian groups, but maybe not agree so much that extremist fundamentalist Christian groups are by definition violent, or or are you saying that the definition of extremist fundamentalist Christian groups is that they are violent?


You know, sorry to be blunt, but you (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:28:38 PM EST

would have to be really freakin' stupid not to take armed people with ideas this far out seriously when they talk about their violent plans. There is nothing coy or subtle about this crowd or any other militia group for that matter.


Inclusiveheart (none / 0) (#134)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:34:19 PM EST

not sure who you are addressing this comment to.

Evidently this group has been taken seriously. What I've learned from my anti-cult lawyer friend is that these groups still have rights, and much is done in secrecy in remote locations. Defectors are a good source of information which is why some groups strongly discourage defection.


I was addressing the comment (none / 0) (#135)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:44:33 PM EST

from sarcastic unnamed that suggests that they aren't really violent even though these groups manifestos and attached imagery suggests something quite the contrary. I am not at all suggesting that all these people be rounded up and arrested on the basis of their views of family photo albums, but I DO think that they should be taken seriously - taken at their word - that they mean harm when they tell people that is their intent.

I think it is foolish to ignore people who are brandishing guns and calling for whatever form of armageddon.


: "the comment (none / 0) (#145)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:18:47 PM EST

from sarcastic unnamed that suggests that they aren't really violent even though these groups manifestos and attached imagery suggests something quite the contrary
You really didn't read what I wrote very well, that is not at all what I said.

To be blunt (none / 0) (#137)
by Rojas on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:51:11 PM EST

about 80% of these violent plans are the fabrication of some infiltrator. An objective person would learn to insist on seeing the data.

Good lord, I have to wonder just who are the religious extremists? Those who take at face value these pronouncements without a shred of corroborating evidence? How many times have these revelations proved to be false?
This is how we got in to that I'll see your Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and raise you a Patriot Act mode. Enough already.


Some Infiltrator? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:56:10 PM EST

You mean a leader, like Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Mussolini et al.?

Nothing to worry about, they are just good ole folk... on their own they wouldn't hurt a fly...

But they are not on their own, due to the "infiltrators" aka leaders.


: Infiltrator.. as in the only ones who pay (none / 0) (#140)
by Rojas on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:01:04 PM EST

their dues.

Hey - I think I've made it pretty clear (5.00 / 2) (#139)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:58:59 PM EST

that I don't believe that these people should be arrested for bad thoughts, but I also think that it is ridiculous not to take their threats seriously when they make them. Dismissing them out of hand as not threatening is foolish.

Meanwhile, our government spends their time infiltrating Quaker groups as if they pose a real threat.

In the case of these wackos in Michigan, they've posted pictures of themselves armed and dangerous - posted a manifesto of their belief that they are ordained to protect and preserve the teachings of Jesus - and the founder's ex-wife says that it all started with church, praying and taking care of their families, but might have gone too far. No sht sherlock.

I NEVER believe the government, but I generally do believe people who are armed and make the claim that they are interested in using violence when they make those statements publicly - like on the internets in this case. k? Get it?


If you're a child (none / 0) (#143)
by Rojas on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:21:00 PM EST

then you should be excused. If not then you simply have not paid attention.


Paying attention to what? (none / 0) (#155)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:18:52 AM EST

The Haitian kids who couldn't afford a gun and didn't have a website promoting a totally bizzaro pseudo-Christian militia manifesto that got railroaded?

I've been paying attention.

Or do you just think that there are no bad people in the world? That everything is some sort of government conspiracy? I happen to think that there is some of both - bad people on both sides.

In any case, these militia folks documented their own activities and ideas. We aren't getting this through a filter - this is some first had info. Apparently, other militia enthusiasts thought these people were off the rails. We'll see whether or not the government has a case, but I think it is pretty clear that these people are pretty screwy.


I don't have much time (none / 0) (#156)
by Rojas on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:27:20 AM EST

If you're fishing you use bait. The website could very well be just that.
Hardly anyone pays attention after the original indictment. If you followed some of these cases through trial you'll find that many times the most extream ideas comes from the agent or paid informant that infiltrated the group.


: I have followed these cases (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:45:17 AM EST

and I understand that, but I also grew up around people who were members of the KKK - and I know first hand that there are groups in this world whose ideas are indeed extreme - and they don't have "infiltraitors" giving them these ideas - they come up with them themselves and are very committed. The government's burden at this point is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this crowd intended to act on their ideas as they have claimed in their accusations against them. If these people are as insane and dangerous as they appear to be based on what they say about themselves, I hope the government hasn't screwed up or over reached as they so often do.
You know, aside from the real and tragic consequences for wrongly accused people that government screw ups yield, there is also a public safety issue - which is that when the government blows it by arresting the wrong person or cheats in getting the right one - we are often cheated out of the protection from real criminals they claim to offer.
We will see what happens here.

Just my pov, but (none / 0) (#84)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:37:51 PM EST

Fundamentalist religious groups are not necessarily violent. Often repressive which is a passive kind of violence, but not aggressive.

But groups that are violent and passionately hateful and murderous will very often use fundamentalist religious ideas to justify themselves - and to pump up their motivation. There is material in religious documents, with all that rich symbology, for interpretations that they can hide behind.


: Fair enough, I can agree with that. (none / 0) (#86)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:40:20 PM EST

Apparently. (none / 0) (#44)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:15:35 PM EST

HuffPo has a quote from his former wife saying that it started with going to church, praying and taking care of the family and that "he took it too far" - or something along those lines.

There's evidence that they're teaching some of this Christian soldier weirdness within our own military, too.

Some of the video I've seen from the mega churches reveals a really dark, militaristic side of how some people interpret the Bible.


and Blackwater too (none / 0) (#48)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:24:27 PM EST

Just saw a clip about this on CNN which was shocking. Not surprising that apparently the group watched Glen Beck. Apparently he ran 4 shows about secret detention camps, but decided in the last show it was not true, but by that time many people believed it.

I would say these people are terrorists. Regular fundamentalists (of all religions) are not this aggressively violent. But essentially violent hate groups are fueled by fundamentalism and it always includes a basic contradiction of the original religion.


OK, but the church itself (none / 0) (#61)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:51:40 PM EST

at the corner of Main and Oak streets was using their pulpit at the 10:00AM Sunday service to exhort their "flock" to murder policemen? That's kind of what your comment implies, is that really what you meant?


I don't know about the one at Oak and (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:59:19 PM EST

Main, but, yes, there are some churches that are fanning the flames of some folks' paranoia.

Rapture Ready

Take a look at this mini-doc. This video is what finally gave me insight as to why so many conservative religious types on TV seemed to wince and recoil when anyone talked about peace.

I am not sure how you've missed this trend in American Christian life - or the trend away from the mainline towards these more radical types, but it would not be difficult for you to catch up. Hagee's crowd is just one of many that people like Fredrick Clarkson and some other prominent Christian bloggers follow.


Hagee and some others (5.00 / 2) (#120)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:16:20 PM EST

of that ilk have a very..shall we say symbiotic, relationship with the Israeli right and the former? regime-change-or-bust crowd.

Peruse any Walmart book section and you'll usually see - along with the latest (My) Left Behind tome - three or four different variations on the God-wants-us-to-bomb-Iran "prophetic" theme.

Well, I've been to a few Christian churches. (none / 0) (#82)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:31:14 PM EST

I think you're talking about real outliers.

They may be getting more riled-up over the past years, and there may be more of them than there were 2 or 5 or 10 years ago, but to suggest that it's much more than the real fringy-types that are exhorting their "flock" to murder policemen and then bomb the funeral procession is ridiculous.


So you are feeling defensive? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:46:53 PM EST

I chose my words very carefully when I said "some" churches.

And, I don't think that mega churches are "outliers" anymore.

I think that if you really care about the Christian church, that you would be better off joining me in questioning this trend by focusing your energy on the people who are bastardizing the teachings of jesus - and not me.

Unless, of course, you agree with these people who seem to think that Jesus was on a militaristic combat mission that they should emulate and replicate.


No, I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that (none / 0) (#92)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:06:12 PM EST

teaching people to murder policemen and bomb their funeral procession is a trend in American Christian life. Call me crazy...


You should turn on Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:24:51 PM EST

right now or seek out the interview I am watching with a guy called Chip Berlet who has been studying these people since the early 90s.

He says that 30-40% of the population believes that the apocalypse is going to happen and that 15% believe that it will happen during their lifetime - and are, as a result, preparing for it.

I am happy for you that you've been living in blissful ignorance of these folks, but the reality is that they are not insignificant in numbers, they do exist, and they are pretty scary - even though you personally aren't aware of them.


: Well if Chip says it's so, I suppose it must be... (none / 0) (#144)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:15:41 PM EST

Now, stay calm. I'm just curious. (none / 0) (#94)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:08:52 PM EST

Have you read "Under the Banner of Heaven"? Definitely an outlier.


Never heard of it. (none / 0) (#100)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:25:31 PM EST

By Jon Krakauer. Non-fiction about (none / 0) (#102)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:32:54 PM EST

fundamentalist break-away Mormons.


Oh, that book (none / 0) (#118)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:11:53 PM EST

Had a friend who listened to it while working and she wanted me to. I tried, but, just could not. She described it in detail and I've heard other stories about the fundamentalist mormons. Really out there - and violent too. At first I thought it was exaggerated, but a couple of years ago there was a murder here in Oregon that was an fundie mormon action.

I think these 'outlier' groups are literally that - they are located outside of populated areas. Not an absolute but generally. - part of the rural vs urban tension.


: I listened to the audio book while driving. (none / 0) (#119)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:13:26 PM EST

Really frightening.

I know nothing about the book. (none / 0) (#149)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:31:08 PM EST

But, hey, I could easily write a book about the Mormons too. I've spent time with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Mormon families. Heck, I'd even put it on tape for you.

Waaaay back in the day, I had a job that had me sitting in 20-30 family living rooms every single day, 6 days a week, throughout Utah and Idaho, and those living rooms were easily 99% Mormon.

And 99% of them were/are the most sincere, caring and loving people you ever met. Farmers, mostly. Literally salt of the earth. Completely aware that they were mere human beings, as flawed as we all are, doing the best they could under the circumstances. Completely aware of the criticisms directed at their religion, and humbly hoping that what they believed was true.

You are not suggesting that this "break-away" Mormon group you describe is in some way typical of the "trend in American Christian Life," are you?


: No. And in fact Krakauer makes the point (none / 0) (#150)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:45:11 PM EST

that most religions teach they are the only, one true way, and many religions resort to force.

: As I understand it (none / 0) (#151)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:50:31 PM EST

the book was about --fundamentalist-- Mormons - truly a sect unto themselves. Not regular Mormans. If there is such a thing. I don't mean to offend any "regular" Mormons. Mitt, if you are reading, you are certainly regular. But there are fundie Mormon sects that are truly 'out there'. Maybe they were not on your route.

Chilling. (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:11:53 PM EST

What I find chilling is the scenario where (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:22:57 PM EST

a law enforcement may be targeted and then, while his or her colleagues from all over the country march in uniform in memory of that person, the colleagues are targeted. Reminiscent of gang warfare where one person is shot down and then the funeral party is under fire too.


The security around the (none / 0) (#18)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:48:54 PM EST

recent memorial for the 4 Lakewood officers near Seattle was incredible. The police are aware of the danger they face when they all gather in one location.

(On a lighter note, I was amazed to see the MI State police cars.)


State Police Cars (none / 0) (#35)
by peon on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:45:39 PM EST

So what was so amazing? Your link did not show image of the car.


: Hah! MSNBC switched the photo (5.00 / 0) (#49)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:29:33 PM EST

I haven't seen a police car with a single red light on the top in decades....they use the old "cherry on top" car. I think Yahoo news had the same photo of the cars (before they pulled together the mug shots).

The trend (none / 0) (#16)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:42:47 PM EST

of christian anger has made me nervous for awhile already.

Saturday, I went to my daughter's house just NE of Seattle (highly populated suburb on Lake Washington). Driving by a private christian school (they have 6 local campuses, all pre-school thru grade 12), I was surprised to see what I did. Thinking it was for the troops, I turned around to read the sign.

This is a church that begins brainwashing early, it appears. Using their own children to send their messages is pretty sad.


Im gonna guess that (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:56:00 PM EST

a lot of that concern for "the innocents" evaporates into thin air, when it comes to things like regime change in the M.E..or the children who grow up in virtual war zones in many of our cities..


: Probably a pretty good guess (none / 0) (#21)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:09:45 PM EST

Those who stand so firm on abortion are generally pretty quick to demand the death penalty be used more, too.

Saw this in New Mexico out on some highway (none / 0) (#17)
by Angel on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:48:44 PM EST

bewteen Santa Fe and Madrid. This stuff gives me the creeps.


looking at the (none / 0) (#81)
by ZtoA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:28:51 PM EST

"their doctrine" link Jeralyn provided I'm wondering what is it with violent fundamentalist groups and virgins? Female virgins, of course. Virgins and camouflage patterns. There's a lot of girl virgins and Masters coming language, and death and righteousness.

Huh... (none / 0) (#153)
by otherlisa on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:13:10 AM EST

I thought I was pretty familiar with the personalities and opinions on this site but I actually could not follow the argument above at all. Maybe I've had too many margaritas.

The "parent" button didn't help? (none / 0) (#154)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:07:28 AM EST

I agree, the back and forth is pretty confounding. But I find it more or less coherent, given that I started following the thread while it was unfolding.


: Next time I will double-check! NT (none / 0) (#160)
by otherlisa on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:53:31 PM EST