How to deal with Atheist and homosexual cyber-stalkers

[Goblinmonger]

Two of the most vile hate-fueled groups in America are the Atheists and homosexuals and ironically they claim to be victims. Their cries of "bigotry" and "discrimination" are just thinly veiled attempts to divert attention away from their predatory behavior. So vile has their behavior become that Christians have been forced into a mass silence and are now even being arrested in parts of the world for speaking out against them.

What is a Christian to do? And most importantly, what would Jesus do? One of the most effective ways for combating Anti-Christian bigotry on the web is to ignore it and/or report the individuals to the police. Alternatively you can take a leaf out of Keith's book and fight fire with fire. We are Christian soldiers - not meek peasants who will roll over when an Atheist or homosexual starts e-terrorizing us. Atheists and homosexuals only know hate and insults and can't contend with reasonable honest debate so we already have the upperhand in that department. The problem is when you invite these people to dialogue, you also invite them to cyber-stalk you - and its relentless. These "people" set up sock accounts on twitter to direct vile insults (many of them sodomy-related) toward Christians who dare correct them on their fallacies and then they turn around and play victim should you address them.

Here is our 3-step program for dealing with Atheist & homosexual cyber-stalkers:

1. Reply to cyber-stalker with honest and reasonable debate.
2. If they insult you, pull out some scripture on them. Alternatively block them.
3. If they continue to harass you, contact police.

We wish you luck on your endeavor to combat this vile behavior.

http://christiansforamoralamerica.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-deal-with-atheist-and-homosexual.html

Just in case people were wondering what atheists (and homosexuals) have to deal with in the real world and why we might, possibly, be a little put off about things.

[cbayer]

1. This represents the real world? The person who posted this is totally loony

tunes, imo (or is providing amazing satire).

Other titles in his repetoire include:

How feminism has ruined America.

American must invade Iran to ensure our survival.

Progressive "Liberalism" results in mother giving 7yo daughter Liposuction

and my personal favorite,

Hollywood is a whore for Satan.

This is somebody way, way at the fringes and is an equal opportunity hater.

[dmallind]

6. Yeah - people call AFA etc "fringes" too - and their opinions are similar

When do fringes with hundreds of thousands of supporters and millions in donations become non-fringe. Do you REALLY think only a few believers think like this? There are thousands of these "fringe" sites, and the only difference between them and big players like Robertson and Fischer is the spelling.

[cbayer]

7. Good point. I guess what I am trying to emphasize is that while these kinds

of people and groups exist, they are not representative of all believers or religious groups. I also wanted to point out that this particular blog also attacks feminists, liberals and other groups and do not confine their hate to only two groups.

They are clearly not on our side - and by our, I mean the people who are members of this site.

[cleanhippie]

18. While not indicative of all believers, it does represent the one that have the influence.

An the ones that have the influence ate the ones that matter.

You want common ground? Working together to take away the religious rights influence is where it's to be found.

[cbayer]

20. Then let's work together to do just that.

By supporting and promoting the people inside the tent that are doing the right thing and are on our team (Democratic party and principles), we can diminish the influence of the radical right.

We will not do it by beating down the members of religious organizations who are on our side.

[cleanhippie]

26. And relgious members need to stop beating their own drums about religion

and get on with the business of working together for change.

My point is, that we all have different reasons and motivations for wanting to change things and work together, I see no need to constantly harp on those reasons and motivations, as religious organizations frequently do. This serves to only alienate and turn away those that do not share those religious motivations.

What GETS us to the tent is important only to us as individuals. Once IN the tent, we need to come together in common cause, not to try and promote our individual motivations for being there. Would you agree?

[cbayer]

27. Well said. Now read it as if someone had written it to you from the other perspective.

I would only add this. This is the Religion forum. Members come here to discuss religion. This is not harping. This is not promoting anyone's individual cause. This is the appropriate place to discuss the role of religion in reaching the goals of Democrats and the Democratic Party. It's also the place to discuss the role of atheists in reaching those goals. If you wish to discuss our political agenda without the insertion of religion, then there are plenty of groups to do that. This is the place to talk about religion and politics.

IMHO, however, it is not the place to demean, degrade, insult, attack or otherwise dismiss those who hold different perspectives from a religious or atheistic POV. Particularly if all of those people are actually on the same side in the big picture.

[cleanhippie]

28. I think we may differ on what constitutes discussing roles.

I will use your Fathers posts as an example. This is not an attempt to discuss your Fathers posts, I am using it as a reference.

He has stated that no one would want to live in a world without a solid basis in religious ethics (or something along those lines) and posts stories about how religion is playing a role in OWS. The first is opinion and open to strong criticism, and belongs in this forum as a discussion topic. The second is what I see as an example of what I was talking about above, where OWS is the tent with a lot of people there for a lot of different reasons.

I want to continue with the second example, as I feel that is what is relevant here. I see these kinds of proclamations as drum beating for religion and unnecessary to promote the OWS movement. In fact, this type of drum beating serves to turn away, and even exclude, other that support OWS for their own reasons that are not religious. As I said before, the common cause here is OWS, not the reasons we are supporting OWS.

If there are examples of how non-believers are trumpeting their non-belief as the reason why they are supporting OWS (and not in response to the religious trumpeting as a counter-point), I would strongly condemn that too.

Are we still on the same page here?

[cbayer]

29. Let me be straight with you here.

Much of what I see from you here is repeated postings of pretty much anything that can be found that will shine a negative light on religion, religious organizations or religious people. Much of what I see from you here is repeated pouncing on members who hold religious beliefs. Many of these devolve into childish snipefests where you type things like "zzzzzz" or "yawn" or use some dismissive emoticon. Granted there is always someone on the other side going right there with you, but I am addressing you right now.

This continual harping on a statement made by a new member who did not understand the dynamics of this group and made some gross mis-steps early on has gotten really old. Let it go already. You yourself admitted to having made a mistake yesterday. So what. People say things the wrong way, present ideas without proper sensitivity or context. When that happens and other pick it up and use it as a stick, that's my definition of bullying.

The common cause for the bigger group here may be OWS in general, but this is certainly the forum to discuss the role of various religious groups or individuals in that movement. If some people support OWS because of their religious beliefs, they certainly have the right to discuss it right here and not be attacked for it. You were the one, actually, who tried to make the claim that religious groups played no part in OccupyRoseParade. So how can you object when your claim was answered with evidence that it did.

Frankly, I don't give a shit whether non-believers trumpet their non-belief as a motivation for supporting OWS. Why in the world would I care? But if they wanted to, this might be the right place to do it.

[cleanhippie]

30. And I guess this is the part where we strongly disagree.

My attempt to not make this exchange personal was an exercise in futility, as you felt the need to berate me. As I stated, I was using those posts as examples of my point, nothing more. I even tried explaining to you that I did not want to discuss those posts at all, other that to use them as a reference to support my point, which was not your fathers posts. Nonetheless, you felt it necessary to critique ME, not my ideas, not my opinions, but ME, the PERSON. How can we have open and honest conversation when an honest offer to have that exchange is met with a (very loosely interpreted) personal attack?

That aside, I'm willing to move on past that and continue to discuss the topic at hand, which is whether or not people should be trumpeting their personal reasons for being at OWS (or other common cause event), and I gave you my opinion on why I feel it is a bad idea; it is divisive and exclusionary. You say you don't care. THAT is the discussion we are having. Its not about your fathers posts, nor my posting style, it is the disagreement we have regarding whether or not making proclamations about ones reasons for being there are productive or not.

I say that not only are they not productive, they are COUNTER-productive. And if something is counter-productive, it is harming the common cause, no? And if that is true, why do you NOT care about that?

[cbayer]

31. Just trying to clear the air here, as there has been bad blood, imo.

I see what you are saying to some extent. If a particular group were claiming to own a movement, and that group excluded other groups or individuals based on a difference in ideology, that would certainly be a problem for me. And I think I can understand how members who are not a part of that group might feel excluded and insulted. However, I don't see religious groups being involved in OWS as doing that. I don't seeing them trying to own or co-opt the movement.

There was a great deal of religious group involvement in the civil rights movement, and their involvement was critical to it's success. But there were also other groups who were involved and I am not aware of any groups or persons being excluded or feeling unwelcome because they were not part of a particular religious group.

Similarly, I see OWS as a very inclusive movement and the participation of religiously based groups as an asset. If they are proclaiming that they own it or others aren't welcome, that is certainly problematic. It may have happened, but I haven't seen it. There are also labor groups, medical groups, military based group, etc. that are involved. When they write about how and why they are contributing is that a "proclamation"? Does that make others feel that they are not welcome?

I would re-iterate that the most appropriate place to discuss the involvement of religious groups in OWS is is this group. While it might be inappropriate in more general forums, I think it is perfectly appropriate to talk about and even celebrate the positive contributions made by such groups right here. If someone doesn't care about those contributions, they don't have to read about them. I haven't seen anything that says they own it or that indicates that they don't welcome the involvement of non-religious people.

I would not be disturbed by any groups doing this, including groups of non-believers, as long as they were not owning it or trying to exclude others. That's what I meant when I said I don't care.

[Thats my opinion]

2. That sort of thing represents the worst about religion. It is an embarrassment and a scandal.

It gives the rest of us a bad name. I apologize on behalf of progressive Christians for that sort of bigotry.

[ZombieHorde]

8. OK, then I apologize for Stalin. nt

[cbayer]

10. You crack me up!

[dmallind]

15. Guess that means I have to say sorry for Pol Pot too. ;) nt

[PassingFair]

19. And Jesse Ventura. n/t

[dmallind]

23. No. He was right (and not genocidal). nt

[Dorian Gray]

21. Heh

[Dorian Gray]

3. That's crazy

I wish I could explain why people are so filled with hatred for others. Or fear. I can't, though.

I'd also love to see the police officer's face when he or she got a phone call that someone said something mean about Christians on the internet.

[Jokerman]

4. "If they continue to harass you, contact police."

That phrase right there shows what we are up against; A group of people who think that Atheists, Gays, and anyone who disagrees with them is harassing them and should be punished by law.

Not that there aren't real "cyber-stalkers" out there who deserve an official visit by the police, but these people seem to thrive on making themselves victims.

[tama]

5. I assume

whole blog is parody (by an atheist homosexual)?

[Goblinmonger]

12. Hard to tell. n/t

[MarkCharles]

14. Not if you read the entire blog, a disgusting collection of the most vile...

and bigoted, the most ignorant and proportedly "Christian" belief set.

The blog ENDORSES Rick Santorum, and insults liberals of any variety, attacks women's rights causes, and accuses President Obama of treason.

I doubt any atheist homosexual would be that absurd, nor would they waste days and days posting such as some sort of "parody". It's the real deal, and it's the worst kind of Christian free speech out there. I assume at least 51% of Christians will find a lot to disagree with on that blog, maybe higher.

[Leontius]

9. What is different about this post from the one posted at 10:39

That post was a 5-1 vote to hide. Kinda makes one wonder.

[Goblinmonger]

11. Don't even know if this one was alerted on.

Does make one wonder, doesn't it.

[cbayer]

13. While I neither alerted on or was on the jury for the first post,

I think the difference here is the explanatory note about why it was being posted.

[Goblinmonger]

16. That's what I was testing for.

Don't know if this one was alerted on, but an interesting point if that is all it took.

[LeftishBrit]

24. I think what's different is that the OP here added lines to make it very clear that they disapproved

In the other case, while it should have been obvious, especially to anyone who knew the poster, it was not made quite so clear in the post itself. And hate-sites *have* been posted uncritically on DU in the past: notably whale-to on the Health Forum; and a a few years ago, wakeupfromyourslumber.

[cleanhippie]

17. Thank you Goblinmonger! I fucked it up the first time.

I appreciate the back-up.

[Evoman]

22. He has a point. Scripture is like kryptonite to atheists. Boring, mind numbing kryptonite.

It's stopped me from e-stalking Christians many times. I'm not sure about homosexuals though.

[justiceischeap]

25. I'm an atheist, homosexual cyber-stalker

but only if being a cyber stalker means actually participating in discussions about why it's okay to kill homosexuals or deny us rights because the bible, a book that once stated the world was flat and the sun went up and down, is used to justify their bad behavior and circumvent the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Since, they talk about pulling out scriptures, I'd like to pull one out on them: The real meaning of Sodomites

Ezekiel 16:48-49 tells us: “This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God’s eyes.”