Conservative kills worshippers because they’re liberals
Matt Gunterman July 28th, 2008
When Barack Obama (D) is president, Democrats are the majority, and progressive liberalism is the dominant intellectual force in the nation, get ready for more of this sort of behavior from the lunatic conservative Republican fringe.
Fundamentalist religion is a great danger facing this nation. It has nothing to do with Christianity because the spiritual filth these types push is about as far removed from the teachings of Christ as George W. Bush’s administration is from the politiclal ideals of the Founding Fathers.
This was an act of terror:
Police: Man shot churchgoers over liberal views
By DUNCAN MANSFIELD, Associated Press WriterKNOXVILLE, Tenn. - Knoxville’s police chief says the man accused of a shooting that killed two people at a Tennessee church targeted the congregation because of its liberal social stance.
Chief Sterling Owen IV said Monday that police found a letter in Jim D. Adkisson’s car. Owen said Adkisson was apparently frustrated over being out of work and had a “stated hatred of the liberal movement.”
Adkisson is charged with first-degree murder. Police say a gunman entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church during a children’s performance Sunday. No children were hurt.
The church is known for advocating women’s and gay rights and founding an American Civil Liberties Union chapter.
- Fundamentalists
- Comments(9)
“conservative Republican fringe”. that what I’m afraid of alway a few that will take it to far,you want believe how many times I have heard the N word this year..
“Red State of the blue grass”
kilowat, I’ve heard it too many times.
I consider what this gunman for Jesus did an act of terrorism!!
The homosexual lifestyle has no appeal to me. I disagree with it. However we do have a Constitution in this country that the American Civil Liberties Union has help to uphold many times when the right wing nut jobs try to destroy the Constitution. Even though I have no interest in homosexuality, the homosexuals do have rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Many things are carried out in the name of religion which cause harm to other humans. An excellent example of this is the Middle East. In this region of the world there is no reason, other than the corrupt interpretation of Religion that the people of the Middle East can not live in peace and harmony whether they are Christian, Islamic, or Jewish.
Homosexuality isn’t a “lifestyle” with which to disagree or to find unappealing. It just is.
To Terri:
I suppose that you are correct in your statement. Genetics is not my speciality and I know very little about this. However you must admit that people who are attracted to the same sex do have the same rights as everyone else to live on this earth without harrassment or the fear of being killed.
Charles: If you have no interest in homosexuality, why make an announcement? I have no interest in lima beans, so I neither eat them nor cook them. But I don’t feel the urge to tell people about it.
You’re teetering on the cliff edge of protesting too much there, guy.
And be quite sure that nobody you don’t have sex with cares what you think about homosexuals.
Let’s all attack Charles, after all he only agrees with us 90% of the time. We don’t need his type helping us liberals to defeat the despicable Republican Mitch McConnell, we have a REALLY LIBERAL candidate in Bruce Lunsford that does not need help from people like Charles!
Lifestyle - manner of living: the way of life that is typical of a person, group, or culture.
I have a lifestyle because of those I associate with, and share a common interest with. I was born white (or black, or homosexual ). I had no choice in that circumstance of birth. I do have a choice in who I latter associate with, and share activities with. Being white, (or black, or homosexual ), I have a natural tendency to gravitate towards the group that I was born into, but I do have the choice of rejecting part or all of the indoctrination and brainwashing I receive from my peer group. I don’t have to be Prancing Nancy, Redneck Bob, Ghetto William, or whatever.
In that sense, Charles is as correct as his detractors. Charles says he does not agree with a lifestyle, but then allows them their right to exist. That is somewhat liberal thinking.
Lighten up folks!
For some strange reason I don’t find it strange that the self-serving, agenda-driven article mentions nothing about the church being the place of worship of his former wife. Perhaps mention of her divorce filing serves no political agenda…
Oh, buddy, if you want to argue that the guy was a misogynistic spouse-abuser on top of a homophobic liberal-hater, be my guest.