Theist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

[Uzumaki Macho]

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IJsuJ1QpKZA[/video]
Looks like anti-atheist bigotry is still alive and well in the US.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Guess neighbors don't mean anything.

 

[Aimee Sky]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Oh no!
That's so sad *sniff*
Why are people so bad nowadays? :NO::NO::T_T:

 

[Scooby Doo]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

It seems more like a hate crime to me, I don't see where the political motive lies in this case to call it terrorism...

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

It seems more like a hate crime to me, I don't see where the political motive lies in this case to call it terrorism...

Terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation for political and/or religious reasons.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation for political and/or religious reasons.

First of all, terrorism has no universal definition.

But as we are talking about an American case here, let's see the federal definition of terrorism:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

- Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
- Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
- Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

You must be registered for see links

It still seems like a hate crime to me.

 

[demon of the leaf]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

It seems more like a hate crime to me, I don't see where the political motive lies in this case to call it terrorism...

Indeed it is my friend terrorism is more over to insite fear in the masses to believe in a certain way if i ever see the **** though im gonna break him till the only thing he will be able to do is read coloring books and drink food from a straw

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

And that means? ._.



First of all, terrorism has no universal definition.

But as we are talking about an American case here, let's see the federal definition of terrorism:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

- Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
- Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
- Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

You must be registered for see links

It still seems like a hate crime to me.

You're nitpicking and you know it. It technically not being terrorism doesn't make it any less worse.

 

[demon of the leaf]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

You're nitpicking and you know it. It technically not being terrorism doesn't make it any less worse.

He wasnt down playing it hate crimes are treated with extreme prejudice in the usa

 

[Scooby Doo]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

You're nitpicking and you know it. It technically not being terrorism doesn't make it any less worse.

And you're arbitrarily making up a definition to make a provocative thread title. I didn't say the action is not a crime, nor did I contend that beating up someone for religious motivations is any less worse than beating up someone for other reasons, I simply identified the action based on the legal definition. This being a hate crime doesn't mean it's less worse, but it's simply not terrorism.

 

[Kazehime Seirin]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Beating up a disabled man? That's cruel

 

[Marin]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Is there any other source of this?

*not in the mood to look it up*

 

[hixa kuogame]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

It wasn't terrorism. The headline/title is more dramatic than it should be. Belief in God doesn't mean you're Christian either. Stop lumping vicious fanatics in with enlightened Christians who actually follow their religion's practice.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Is that all? Please, this is why she's just a lowly follower. A truly anointed one, like a prophet, would have prayed to God to kill her with bears like he was a little boy.

 

[Wparker6804]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Every single group or title you can think of has people who completely mess it up & send a bad example. Fuel for the fire, as a friend said. Religious followers, atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, politicals all have people who are absolute jerks & in most cases use those beliefs to justify giving in to the worst of human nature & the human condition. It doesn't mean there all that way despite their bad examples.

Two quotes on FB I'd like to share:

"That's people who use religion as an excuse for their own actions of hate. God is not religion. I am not those people who you described but I believe in God, worship him, and consider myself a Christian. Their actions are more so their own twisted and closed mind, who are more so brain washed by other humans rather than religion and just use that as an excuse for their actions because it's how they were raised and is influenced by other humans rather than God."

"I'm sorry but that's not at the fault of religion. People look for fuel to toss on the fire for anger, agression & conflict as well as a way to sanction their own actions. One of the easyest ways to do that is use things like religion out of context. If religion didn't exist at all the same people would be doing the same thing for different excuses.

It's not religion it's people. I could go deeper into this but that would be a looooong summary."

There are people out there who are a danger that call themselves religious but turn out to be dangerous. But it's not religion it's those individual people. Just because someone believes in something someone else doesn't it doesn't mean that either has to strike down or think badly of the other person. Judge & observe the individual because of their actions not their title.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Haha I guess Cali changed the title to theist xd It's more fitting for sure, if you insist on calling it terrorism...

 

[Nobel]

How can i be suprised....

 

[Illuminater]

Hold up me and my squad boutta go and knock the living day lights out that bastard.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Dark Sonic]

dat title change. thank you Cali lol

 

[Caliburn]

Re: Christian terrorist beats up a disabled man for not believing in God

Terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation for political and/or religious reasons.

Dad beats his son because he's favoring a rival football team. According to you the father is a terrorist...this is plainly absurd. No matter how you define terrorism, there are still very well reasons as why such a term is used in the first place and a woman hitting a man with a walking stick for being atheist can not even remotely be considered to be an example of it. Occurrences like these happen all around the world daily, but no one is going to label them as being terrorism. That would render the use of the term mute as there is nothing different about it anymore.

You're nitpicking and you know it. It technically not being terrorism doesn't make it any less worse.

This is not nitpicking. You are intentionally trying cause a stir by using a provocative title that gives a complete misplaced impression of the subject on the people who read it. This is no small matter as you completely derailed your entire thread because of it, so this is not nitpicking. At this point I'm inclined to believe you did that on purpose, that you abused the topic by using irrelevant, misplaced and/or provocative terms to cause a scene.

I changed the title, but next time you do this I'm going to close the thread as you're intentionally forcing the thread and the posters into an unneeded argument.