Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
KichigaiKitsune

If you haven't heard...

This week in the news...

Westboro Baptist decides to picket the funerals of those killed in the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy. Because they're worthless scum.

The Ku Klax Klan has decided to counter-picket.
 This is not the first time the KKK has opposed the WBC. As many have said, you know your shit's unreasonable when the KKK steps in and goes "Whoa, buddy, too far." O.O

The online petition for the WBC to be classified as a hate group has reached enough signatures... this time. Americans, time to let your government know how you feel. Don't let the WBC shake a few religious hands, and whisper down a few back-channels at those politicians who secretly share their views, to get this petition quietly shafted. Because they can and they will if not enough noise is made about this. It's not a major accomplishment, for it won't make them disappear or change their views, but it's better than letting them get away with not being appropriately classified as the organized bigots they are.

Anonymous has declared total war on WBC.
"We will not debate, argue, or attempt to reason with you. Instead we have unanimously deemed your organization to be harmful to the population of the United States, and therefore have decided to execute an agenda of action which will progressively dismantle your institution of deceitful pretext and extreme bias. ... We recognize you as serious opponents and do not expect our campaign to terminate in a short period of time."

So, Anonymous is taking on the troubled-teen industry/gulag schools and now finally taking the kid gloves off to have at the useless oxygen thieves from WBC. This is after they stopped some dickhead trolls from trying to push a teenage girl to suicide. I think I officially have a crush on them, collectively.

Go get 'em, Anon. Let it not be said that their actions do not speak for the majority, not just of Americans, but of the entire international community; Anon's actions are not the actions of a small group with an ulterior motive. They're acting on behalf of us all. We all want to see this.

WBC, you have no friends. Not even God is on your side.



On a slightly different note...

People keep poking me about a certain political issue; one I really don't feel comfortable discussing right now. I don't know what to say about this, so I'm just going to take a deep breath and say things as they come to me...
The incident at Sandy Hook was a true tragedy, and I feel immense respect and sorrow for the staff members who did all they could to protect those kids. They were true heroes.
I can't fathom what could possibly drive a human being to harm such young children for no reason, and despite the tragedy occurring almost on the other side of the world from me and those I care about, I was still in tears as I read the news. This should never happen - not here, not in the USA, not in Africa. Nowhere.

It is too early to start politicking, folks. Keep your opinions to yourself for now, and let the world mourn this awful event without distraction of demeaning.
Oh, and journalists? Get the fuck away from those kids. Do you have no heart? No brains? You know what you're doing could cause copy-cat incidents. You sicken me. You sicken everybody.
Viewed: 69 times
Added: 6 years ago
 
Kepora
6 years ago
FYI: It DID cause copy-cat shootings.
KichigaiKitsune
6 years ago
I know, I just recently found out about that. Fucking fuck fuck.
vulPN
6 years ago
A couple of things.

Firstily, I find it ironic that Anonymous is punishing Westboro for practicing their First Amendment rights. There is no "unless we disagree" clause in free speech.

Secondly, you don't need to see what's wrong with your car if the check engine light is off. It's when the light is on that you need to look for a solution. America's check engine light is on. Now.
KevinSnowpaw
6 years ago
to be fare Anonymous is not exactly an organized group. They range from freedom fighters concerned with doing what they feel is best all the way to internet terrorist, concerned with doing what ever the fucking hell they want. Anybody can be a member, if you want to be one, and are willing to take action, no matter how small, for the internet your technically already a member by there own creed. Hell I sign every, single, internet neutrality petition that gets pushed at me, in some respects im anon to.

I think that anon as a whole, the upper tiers of it that I believe actually are organized, may very well have had enough with WBC. I must say more power to them those guys are not practicing freedom of speech there a hate cult, if they could find a way to justify it they would likely be perfectly willing to kill for there ideals.

Your absolutely right about that check engine light however. Time to look under the hood starting with Washington.


they can be damn sexy sometimes though. XD
KichigaiKitsune
6 years ago
Actually, WBC has apparently attempted to goad Anonymous before in the past, and Anon basically: "you guys are disgusting, but you have the right to free speech." Normally, I would agree. But frankly, picketing a funeral for 20 children and 6 adults is far too disgusting - such actions should not be protected under the auspices of the constitution. They have the right to say what they want - rocking up at the funeral and acting like this is sheer hate-speech; it's shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's being utterly disgusting, amoral and disruptive.

The WBC hate-cult has been able to hide behind "Freedom of Speech" for far too long. They're not speaking. They're shouting, in the faces of the traumatized, and they're shouting publicly unacceptable filth. They can go rally or post online or say whatever they want, but doing THIS at THAT time and place is unacceptable, constitution aside.

In short, and this may be the only time I'll ever say this: fuck the first amendment, go get these cunts and figuratively beat them until they can no longer make the world miserable for others.
Gehenna
6 years ago
I should say something here.... The first amendments gives you freedom of speech so long as that speech does not lead to damage to others rights. The WBC has often straddled a fine line between the two which is why they have gotten away with it so far. So their could be a good case for and against their actions being covered by the first amendment.
KichigaiKitsune
6 years ago
I'm aware of that. What I pretty much meant in that comment to Vulpn was: I don't give a shit. Take em down. >:C
Gehenna
6 years ago
Me and you are going to have to agree to disagree on something fundamental.... I despise the WBC and everything they do, stand for, and propagate... but that alone, no matter how despicable, is not grounds to throw away the first amendment. If distasteful speech is grounds to shut someone down, then our ability to speak out against misjustice has been undermined significantly. On this note though, should the case be made that WBC has crossed the line between free speech and harming someone, then I will agree that they should be silenced.... the problem is that no one has made that case. Plenty of people have gone on about how vile and despicable they are, but no one has made the all important case.
vulPN
6 years ago
Snyder v. Phelps made that case, and that went to the Supreme Court, which sided in Westboro's favor. Yeah, they're shitheads, but what they do is totally legal.
squirrelfox
6 years ago
Incidentally, remember when that dude in Pennsylvania went into that Amish schoolhouse and shot 11 young girls, killing 6 of them?  WBC wanted to picket those girls' funerals.  They didn't because a local radio station offered them an hour of uncensored air time in return to NOT PICKET THE FUNERAL.  The WBC took that offer, with the radio station frequently cutting in to remind their listeners that they do not condone the views being aired by those psychos.

Really, the only way they get away with their sick interpretation of the First Amendment is that most of the adults in that cult are lawyers.

By the way... seriously, can we all just collectively IGNORE the WBC?  The right to free speech DOES NOT include the right to be heard or acknowledged.  So why don't we, as a culture, just stop acknowledging these whack-jobs?  Giving them media coverage only encourages them.
vulPN
6 years ago
But it is protected. Like I said, there is no "unless we disagree" clause in the First Amendment. On the other hand, identity theft is VERY illegal. So I find it ironic that Anonymous has chosen to punish something legal by doing something illegal. Firstly, it's vigilante justice, and secondly, it's trying to push your moral code over US law. It's quasi-religious fundamentalist, and I really don't like where that's going.
KevinSnowpaw
6 years ago
let me get this right, they actually think it's good that those kids were shot? in that logic, does that not make the shooter an instrument of divine will?


I don't know what creature they think they call God, but it's no God of mine.

Hate is not a god. These people are so twisted by there own self righteous fire and zeal that the hate simply propagates itself. They don't seem to need a reason, they just need to keep hating, because at this point there entire belief structure unravels and everything they are becomes invalid if they stop.
Kepora
6 years ago
They actually DID call it divine judgement, so...yeah. They think that all these tragedies are the result of some imaginary "Homosexual agenda"... =_=
KevinSnowpaw
6 years ago
Riiight and the Illuminati are behind the hike in gas prices. DX fucking morons
KichigaiKitsune
6 years ago
No no, this is how the WBC works. They're a religious hate cult, that take almost every evil, unconscionable thing out of the Bible, as well as some they just made the fuck up, and act on it. According to them, all of this is only happening because America tolerates homosexuals.

Hurricane Katrina? God did it, because fags.
Virginia Tech? God did it, because fags.
Soldiers die for their country? They deserved it, they were filth. God did it, because fags.

I believe you were right with what you said before: they would kill for their twisted, angry beliefs if they could get away with it. Which is why I don't view them as necessarily better than the KKK - the KKK lynched and burnt crosses and all kinds of heinous shit when they could get away with it; they generally don't do it now that they can't.
If WBC had been active like this 60 years ago, how many "fags" would be decorating low tree branches? Either because of actual WBC members or because of people inspired by similar hatred?

A questioned answered by the very concept of gay bashing, which still occurs today.
Gehenna
6 years ago
I hate to do this to someone who seems as good hearted as you... but sadly I have a duty to honesty. The Bible does explicity condemn homosexuality, and even prescribes the death sentence for it.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." KJV Leviticus 20:13

Also the WBC are biblical literalists.... so as much as it pains me to say this, they are actually acting within accordance with Gods law as said in the Judeo-Christian Bible.
Aerotan
5 years, 12 months ago
Going to the bat for this one. Which KJV? Which translation? Which translator? Was he Greek? Aramaic? What was his proficiencies in these languages? From what source was he working: The original documents, those kept by priests, those kept by laypersons, or those kept by the Vatican?

Also consider: King James Version of the Bible was commissioned by and named after King James the first of England after the widespread use of many different translations led to issues between the various factions using them. The Authorised King James version was assembled from what he considered acceptable books and translations. It has been revised four times, officially, with the most recent being called the "21st century King James Version".

Quite a few accounts from linguists who've studied some of the earlier texts mention that the word used for the second instance of 'man' where it's in most King James bibles is one that held a much different connotation. The most often cited is man/mankind, but more accurate would be 'male whore/prostitute', and the word was generally used at the time to refer to a young male kept by certain temples for use in placating the carnal urges of its male supplicants, to the best of my understanding.

Quite a few denominations of Christianity hold the opposing view, that to condemn someone for being a homosexual is arrogant and brash, and justifying that condemnation in the name of God is just this side of blasphemous. At least one book of the New Testament can be rather easily interpreted to represent a male couple. My personal opinion tends to follow this line, and is summed up with a quote: "Where there is love, there is God."

Furthermore, the only claims I can find as to which version WBC endorses seems to point to the 1611 compilation, the original. If it reads like other documents from 1611 do, then it's likely difficult enough to understand as it is, and also most likely translates Leviticus differently.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that Leviticus' origins themselves, particularly the holiness code, seems to be a matter of generations of doctrine and habit for the Hebrew faith more than from any particular prophet. The first few sections all talk about rites and rituals of the temple, the bit you're talking about there is Leviticus' 18th chapter, the 22nd commandment of it. The Committee of Jewish Laws and Standards has also recently been moving toward abandoning the legitimacy and applicability of that law, and quite frankly when the people who wrote the law in the first place start questioning its legitimacy, derivative works sort of lose some of their oomph.

Of course, you're welcome to do research of your own on the subject, the majority of my information was pulled from a combination of Wikipedia articles and Google searches for research papers on the subject.

Christ that was wordy. Sorry Kichi.
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 12 months ago
Don't apologize; this is a great comment.

I used to debate a lot online, and religion was a perennial favorite. So, I'm aware of all these issues, but there's one problem: most people's Bibles, in their homes, feature those lines. As far as most people are concerned, that's the correct interpretation. Heads of major Christian sects echo the sentiments, especially the Pope.

Ultimately, you can wrangle and debate the exact meaning or accuracy of a given Biblical quote, but to many people there are authorities on the matter (either that or they're too stupid to know that the Bible has alternate translations/to have even read their Bible), and those authorities generally agree that consummating homosexuality is a sin.

Granted, the issue therefore is not really the Bible itself. My point is that it achieves nothing to point out the nature of the Bible to a religious person who has been convinced of a particular view. They're not following the Bible, nor do they want to invite that uncertainty into their lives: they're following the rhetoric of their church, their pastor, their Pope, their parents' bigotry, etc.

The enemy isn't a book, but shallow minded bigots in positions of power, and the sheep that are all too eager to ascribe to their hatred and conceited judgment. The common translation of the Bible, as it exists in a typical household, is a problem, but we can't get people to entertain the notion of "inaccurate translations" as long as they're so wrapped up in this cult-like mentality. How can we get them to think when they're so desperate to never think for themselves?
KichigaiKitsune
5 years, 12 months ago
Oh, and I have quite a few Christian readers/friends, actually, and they've discussed this issue with me. Most of them hold the opinion that homosexuality is just fine, and are quite willing to discuss how and why they arrived at that conclusion. =D

I think that's really cool.
Gehenna
5 years, 12 months ago
I'm sorry to inform you, but you just stepped into the wrong pile. That particular passage is translated to mean just what I put the first time.... every time.

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." NIV Leviticus 20:13

 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." ASV Leviticus 20:13

You get the idea.... Also the Greek word being translated here does translate to "Mankind". Further more, you mention that the 'holiness' of Leviticus is in question, but fail to ask the reasonable follow-up question. "If Leviticus is not god inspired, then what says the rest of the bible is inspired". You also mention the new testament, but fail to mention Jesus saying he had not come to abolish the prophets, but fulfill them.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." NIV Mathew 5:17

The line being accepted to mean that the Old Testament is still valid, and that the NT had not come to replace it.

Now, I saved this bit for last, because I was trying to think of a way to say it politely... but sadly I may fail. You mention that "Quite a few denominations of Christianity hold the opposing view, that to condemn someone for being a homosexual is arrogant and brash, and justifying that condemnation in the name of God is just this side of blasphemous".... do you even see what is wrong with this? What is wrong with this has little to do with the current argument at hand, and more to do with Christianity as a whole. Christianity has splintered into literally THOUSANDS of denominations, all disagreeing about what the "inspired word of God" has said. If God is omnipotent, then why did he let his word become such?

My final comment though is this, and it has to do with your request for me to look stuff up... you have no idea how much that made me chuckle. At the age of 16 I began training for the Priest hood... I was in line to becoming one when I left BECAUSE I had looked everything up. Now I am a happy Atheist.
Aerotan
5 years, 12 months ago
כב  וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה:  תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא." 22" - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."
JPS Hebrew to English Bible, taken from the Masoretic text. ( http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm#22 )

Of the three editions you mentioned, only one other used the same text as a base, according to the translators.

As to the Inspiration or non-Inspiration of the rest of the text, I've always firmly believed that in the case of certain passages of the Old Testament, there was some Divine inspiration in the part of the original texts, but the idea that God would intervene to keep the text pure is laughable since there are so many translations., and it goes against the precept of His first gift to us as humans. Free Will. Inherent in the freedom to choose is the freedom to choose poorly and make mistakes.

The New Testament is generally a different matter entirely, as most of it is in first and secondhand accounts rather than anything claiming to be Inspired. We also have better records of these accounts, thanks to the Vatican and Paul before them making an effort to collect and preserve any writings to do with Jesus' life and the other Apostles.

However, the thing that's probably most important to bear in mind isn't the fallability or infallabiliy of God, it's the fallability or infallability of the humans reading and interpreting it. That is to say that even if a human was given the word of God directly (and I really don't think it would be given in any language if He felt it appropriate to speak to us) there's no guarantee he'd be able to understand it. And even if he did, anyone who claims they can perfectly understand and explain the will of God is more than a little arrogant.

We're human. To assume we can understand something explained to one guy on a mountain several millennia ago is foolish. The only thing we can reasonably assume is that we should live our lives in the best way we know how.
Gehenna
5 years, 12 months ago
So how do you decide Divine Inspiration? Is it arbitrary, do you have system, or do you just assume that of whatever you disagree with? Since we are also on this topic... what do you think of God condoning (And sometimes outright ordering) the slaughter of villages, infanticide, animal abuse, rape, murder, and how do you explain the purpose of a global flood which would kill thousands of infants?  Furthermore, how do you explain inconsistencies in the bible? Is that also the infallibility of men?

On that note... you say "... the idea that God would intervene to keep the text pure is laughable..."  which raises some rather... hair raising questions. Namely, "So he doesn't care if you go to Hell?". Since the different translations have often conflicting rules, and you say God has no interest in keeping them pure, that must mean that God has no interest in insuring you actually follow his laws how he wants you to, but since you go to Hell if you do not.... the conclusion is obvious.
Aerotan
5 years, 12 months ago
As to which parts are Divinely inspired and which aren't, my personal rule of thumb is to look at the purported source. If the chapter says God, an angel, or Jesus said something, or if it could only possibly have been Divine Will that a thing be known (a lot of Genesis), Divine inspiration. Otherwise, tradition or dicta from men wrote it. And in either case, use a grain of salt.

The Bible never talks about people going to Hell for disobeying the laws. The harshest punishments laid out for anything in Leviticus were death or exile from the tribes. Exile included a lack of Promised land or support from the community, but not much else. There's some talk about Gehenna, which was a refuse disposal area in Jesus' time, and the place to which the Morning Star and his defectors were sent (a dark place with a great gnashing of teeth) which is only used in reference to them. And of course, the end-times when the world will be reduced to less than ash and remade, but no specific punishment is laid out for the soul. Furthermore, through Jesus we learn that only faith can lead us to the Kingdom of Heaven. Faith in God.

Furthermore, I didn't say that He has no interest, only that He can't act without infringing on the free will He gave us.

However this is somewhat off the topic of what that verse in Leviticus says and whether or not it has any bearing on who I should or shouldn't boink.
Winterimage
6 years ago
I guess it's too much to ask for that the WBC and the KKK rip each other's throats out, and raise the average IQ of the world to near-human levels.
Jancit
6 years ago
"When teachers, students, truck drivers, social workers, Anonymous hackers, and preachers agree that you're a piece of shit, you're a piece of shit" - fantastic mr fox
squirrelfox
6 years ago
Hey, did you hear about the Republican Congressman whose response to this was to suggest arming teachers?  He's from Texas!

I really wish I was kidding.
squirrelfox
5 years, 12 months ago
In Massachusetts, it's against the law for anyone to bring guns onto a school campus.  At most universities in the state, public safety will be staffed by trained state police officers... who do not carry guns.  The only time I've seen armed police at a university I've attended was one day when they'd received a threat that someone was gonna shoot the place up.  Then there were no fewer than a dozen armed state police officers patrolling campus -- including four at each entrance to the campus.
DestructiveImpulse
5 years, 12 months ago
This is fucking disgusting. I didnt know anonymous targets rtc's
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.