CrackerJackAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

As a Christian I am not sure I agree with prosecution. No one was harmed.

I would pray, for an obvious miracle, that these people find God.

---

Being Christian doesn't mean you have to be a limp-wristed victim. This was threatening behavior that interfered with people's inalienable rights. It should be prosecuted.

---

That's your opinion. Not prosecuting doesn't makes you a limp wasted victim. Christ could have overcome his persecutors. He chose not to.

If you think they should prosecute or call in the military that is your opinion and I'm sure you have your justification. (Not assigning that to you but just echoing similar sentiments in this thread)

I don't think Christ taught us to seek justice. That's my opinion.

---

Seem Jesus overturned some tables somewhere at sometime.

Squadron7 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Remember when the money changers defiled God's house? Flipping tables and using a whip was an acceptable response.

---

Well, I think Christ was uniquely suited to defend his "Fathers House".

Obviously, I don't believe that I have that same street cred.

---

Are we to be more Christ-like or not?

---

I was following Christ's commands when I sold my cloak and bought a sword.

My sword was manufactured by Sig.

doubledog said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

As a Christian I am not sure I agree with prosecution. No one was harmed.

I would pray, for an obvious miracle, that these people find God.

---

Have you read the law?

If the same thing had happened at a masque, everyone would go to jail.

If you don't want to go to jail, follow the law.

Let's be very clear, if this had happened in my church in Houston, there is a high likely hood that someone gets shot.

---

A hate crime is still a hate crime... Or do we make exceptions now.

---

Define how forcibly removing disruptive and potentially dangerous people from a church service would be a hate crime.

Do hate crimes cover people who hate criminal behavior? Seems like a stretch.

Silvertaps said:

---

Interested to see where this goes. Today it was about immigration, soon it can be about a specific churches stance on abortion, LGBTQ, Israel…really any social issue where it contradicts. If Don Lemon and his mob get away with it, the precedence will be set for copy cats.

---

Yep. If these people are not being rounded up and put in jail by this Wednesday then I will bet you that almost 100 churches will be disrupted next Sunday by this breed of idiots. Then 1000 Churches will be disrupted the following Sunday.

The Crazy Left Dems/Libs hate the church and the people that attend church. Being able to drive people away from the church and/or making people to feel unsafe for attending church fits their agenda. So they will continue to do this until the risks/penalties are to great.

David_Puddy said:

---

Bet they wouldn't try that in a Mosque.

---

IF they did, they would go to jail under FACE.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

Well your opinion is why Christ ended up on a cross.

He died for us.

Never saw or read where he intended for us to live on our knees and take it in the ass.

Have a blessed day.

---

So many Christians have misunderstood the "turn the other cheek" passage. Christ did not mean for us to be meek and to not seek justice or defend ourselves.

---

I have read that turn the other cheek was an act of defiance, not an act of submission.

Make no mistake, this was done with the sole hope that the people inside the church would become violent to remove them. This would give them the headline they so desperately want, which is, "Ring Wing Christians Attack Peaceful Protestors!"

All of these protests and cameras are meant to capture clips to create the narrative they want. I am torn between not giving them what they want vs giving them more than they can handle.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

This is beyond ridiculous at this point and frankly getting concerning.

We have a cop at our church every Sunday morning because our church finally made the decision to do so last summer after all the attacks. These are local/county PD/sheriff. If a mob of degenerates tried to enter our church they would pull firearms.

---

Same with ours. We have multiple off-duty cops, and an armed security team. Unfortunately we've had wackos enter the church/sanctuary in the past (though nothing really bad has happened).

But disrupting a church service is a really really good way to get yourself shot.

Part of me thinks this is exactly what they want.

• correct, this is exactly what they want, which shows the Democratic Party leadership's complete lack of consideration for any of their minions that are injured or killed. Let alone the conservatives they attack.

Between the rioting agitators and events like this, one side appears obviously DESPERATE for their next George Floyd to rally around, and justify chaos.

---

You seem very stuck on the "no harm" component, but let's take the hypothetical that this disrupted an alter call where several non-believers would have been compelled to give their lives to Christ.

Would that not be the greatest harm possible?

I posit that tolerance in the face of evil is itself wicked. I've heard the term "Evangellyfish" and this type of passivity in asserting our purpose of worship is condemned in both testaments.

A luke-warm pacifist may try to pass off cowardice as principle, but men of conviction stand firm.

richardag said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

So many Christians have misunderstood the "turn the other cheek" passage. Christ did not mean for us to be meek and to not seek justice or defend ourselves.

---

I have read that turn the other cheek was an act of defiance, not an act of submission.

---

The fact that Jesus specifically names the right cheek first is important to context. If someone strikes your right cheek, they are hitting you with their left hand. That was not only offensive, but rude, since the left hand was considered to be dirty. Specifically, at that time period, people were taught to always wipe your arse with your left hand. You were not supposed to touch other people with that hand.

Turning your left cheek after your right cheek was struck is basically telling the guy to at least be courteous if he's going to be violent.

I would say it is more like Tommy Boy taunting Richard about hitting like a girl. If you are going to fight, at least be civil about it, arsehole.

DartAg1970 said:

---

Make no mistake, this was done with the sole hope that the people inside the church would become violent to remove them. This would give them the headline they so desperately want, which is, "Ring Wing Christians Attack Peaceful Protestors!"

All of these protests and cameras are meant to capture clips to create the narrative they want. I am torn between not giving them what they want vs giving them more than they can handle.

---

Correct. Dems have instructed the protestors to try and provoke a violent response from ICE which they can use to support their delusional narratives about ICE being a modern gestapo and Trump being "lawless". Dems are praying for another killing of one of their own to keep it going.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Marlin39m said:

---

It's fine that you feel that way. It isn't a crime against you, though. You aren't the victim and neither are those that were in that church trying to worship. It is a crime against the state and federal government. Your opinion on prosecution only matters if you end up on the jury. Once on that jury, you can wrestle with your belief vs the oath you take when sworn in.

---

I wouldn't be selected. I would be disqualified.

I understand my views are a bit extreme.

---

Not extreme, however, quite wrong.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Marlin39m said:

---

It's fine that you feel that way. It isn't a crime against you, though. You aren't the victim and neither are those that were in that church trying to worship. It is a crime against the state and federal government. Your opinion on prosecution only matters if you end up on the jury. Once on that jury, you can wrestle with your belief vs the oath you take when sworn in.

---

I wouldn't be selected. I would be disqualified.

I understand my views are a bit extreme.

---

I mean, I guess that this is fair.

I have disqualified myself for a jury because I didn't agree with applying the law of parties to give a guy life without parole because his friend brought a gun to a home invasion, even though he might not have known that his buddy had a gun.

Told the judge I had a problem with the law, and that I wouldn't be able to apply the law. He actually thanked me and sent me home.

richardag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Marlin39m said:

---

It's fine that you feel that way. It isn't a crime against you, though. You aren't the victim and neither are those that were in that church trying to worship. It is a crime against the state and federal government. Your opinion on prosecution only matters if you end up on the jury. Once on that jury, you can wrestle with your belief vs the oath you take when sworn in.

---

I wouldn't be selected. I would be disqualified.

I understand my views are a bit extreme.

---

Not extreme, however, quite wrong.

---

How so?

BusterAg said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Marlin39m said:

---

It's fine that you feel that way. It isn't a crime against you, though. You aren't the victim and neither are those that were in that church trying to worship. It is a crime against the state and federal government. Your opinion on prosecution only matters if you end up on the jury. Once on that jury, you can wrestle with your belief vs the oath you take when sworn in.

---

I wouldn't be selected. I would be disqualified.

I understand my views are a bit extreme.

---

I mean, I guess that this is fair.

I have disqualified myself for a jury because I didn't agree with applying the law of parties to give a guy life without parole because his friend brought a gun to a home invasion, even though he might not have known that his buddy had a gun.

Told the judge I had a problem with the law, and that I wouldn't be able to apply the law. He actually thanked me and sent me home.

---

This…

My issue has a lot to do with the application of the law and the sentencing.

Some people would say these protestors should go to jail for years.

I would never sit in a jury that could result in that.

I don't think jail time should be a first offense?

Asked to leave. Given a trespassing citation?

Come back?

Feeling and 30 days? That enough to **** up most peoples lives.

Sentencing has gotten stupid.

DOJ filing charges?

Haul Don Lemon in and question him since he claims he was given advance notice of this planned attack so he could be there. He knows who organized it. He likely knows who paid for it. That is participation, not journalism.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

richardag said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Marlin39m said:

---

It's fine that you feel that way. It isn't a crime against you, though. You aren't the victim and neither are those that were in that church trying to worship. It is a crime against the state and federal government. Your opinion on prosecution only matters if you end up on the jury. Once on that jury, you can wrestle with your belief vs the oath you take when sworn in.

---

I wouldn't be selected. I would be disqualified.

I understand my views are a bit extreme.

---

Not extreme, however, quite wrong.

---

How so?

---

You are misinterpreting the teachings Jesus.

The fact is the two sides are too different, now. We will simply see, whichever party is in power, will prosecute the other side as much as they feel they can get away with. Then the next party will come in, pardon those previously convicted, and then arrest and prosecute those who oppose them. Rinse and repeat until one side feels so disenfranchised that they result to extreme violence that is reciprocated by the other side.

That begins the civil war.

Onward Christian soldiers….

Which forum am I on? Religion?

PCC_80 said:

---

Silvertaps said:

---

Interested to see where this goes. Today it was about immigration, soon it can be about a specific churches stance on abortion, LGBTQ, Israel…really any social issue where it contradicts. If Don Lemon and his mob get away with it, the precedence will be set for copy cats.

---

Yep. If these people are not being rounded up and put in jail by this Wednesday then I will bet you that almost 100 churches will be disrupted next Sunday by this breed of idiots. Then 1000 Churches will be disrupted the following Sunday.

The Crazy Left Dems/Libs hate the church and the people that attend church. Being able to drive people away from the church and/or making people to feel unsafe for attending church fits their agenda. So they will continue to do this until the risks/penalties are to great.

---

There's actually a very salient, terrifying point in your take.

There is video of the bearded crazy guy screaming at people sitting quietly at church, accusing them of passively ignoring "their neighbors" and "resting on their privilege". IN THEIR CHURCH.

So the message is clear. Either you stand and create chaos with them, or you are the enemy and nowhere will you be safe. There can be no passive resistance to those who are not passive in THEIR resistance.

Law enforcement MUST step in at this point.

Don Lemon being found guilty of the Klan Act would be hilarious.

The increase in persecution of Christians is straight up end times prophesy, spoken by Jesus himself. The volume of end times prophesy we are witnessing before our very eyes does nothing but confirm the accuracy of the Bible.

The more I chew on this, the clearer it becomes to me that this has to be a hard red line. The people responsible need to be dealt with swiftly by the DOJ and to the fullest extent of the law. This is profoundly un-American and a dangerous escalation that *will* get people killed if it isn't stopped immediately.

I can't think of a single church I work with that takes the safety of its congregation lightly or hasn't made concrete preparations to respond to threats that try to burst through its doors. This is not a game, and a church is not an appropriate venue for intimidation, harassment, or political theater.

That tired neo-racist trope that "white people have no culture" is nonsense. The freedom to worship openly, without threat or coercion, in a church of one's choosing is precisely why large numbers of white European refugees came to this country in the first place. It is no accident that freedom of religion and freedom of assembly were explicitly codified in our founding documents, and you do NOT get to storm a house of worship, menace congregants, make implicit or explicit threats toward clergy, and then pretend what you're doing is acceptable.

Eff off, commies. And cut this **** out at MFing once.

Quote:

---

The more I chew on this, the clearer it becomes to me that this has to be a hard red line. The people responsible need to be dealt with swiftly by the DOJ and to the fullest extent of the law. This is profoundly un-American and a dangerous escalation that *will* get people killed if it isn't stopped immediately.

---

My concern as well. Growing up in the 60s, have seen this movie before that ended in bombings.

This will escalate unless the people organizing them are arrested, no bail. (Who am I kidding? They will be out before they even warm up from coming inside the station.)

Which raises a point that has been nagging at me. Since the local law enforcement agencies have been ordered to stand down, what about their jails? Can the feds still use that jail space?

I hope lemon gets arrested. I hope he does it again. Interrupting and protesting Christian churches will only help MAGA movement

It is a bad idea to deploy US Marines for domestic operations. We aren't communists trained to break, kill and destroy the enemy to the point of complete destruction. Not a good look taking down the pawns of the deep state ( ie liberal white woman, queers, **** men, ignorant minorities ) via USMC. The army is better suited to occupy and pacify without massive casualties.

Ducksplat said:

---

It is a bad idea to deploy US Marines for domestic operations. We aren't communists trained to break, kill and destroy the enemy to the point of complete destruction. Not a good look taking down the pawns of the deep state ( ie liberal white woman, queers, **** men, ignorant minorities ) via USMC. The army is better suited to occupy and pacify without massive casualties.

---

But the President technically needs congressional approval to deploy the Army. He can deploy the Marines for, I believe up to 48 hours, anywhere in the world, without Congressional approval.

Ducksplat said:

---

It is a bad idea to deploy US Marines for domestic operations. We aren't communists trained to break, kill and destroy the enemy to the point of complete destruction. Not a good look taking down the pawns of the deep state ( ie liberal white woman, queers, **** men, ignorant minorities ) via USMC. The army is better suited to occupy and pacify without massive casualties.

---

Agree. The ideology of conservatism and the Right cannot win against the ideology of the left if military and police state force is applied.

This is a jar we desperately do not want to open.

Lathspell said:

---

Ducksplat said:

---

It is a bad idea to deploy US Marines for domestic operations. We aren't communists trained to break, kill and destroy the enemy to the point of complete destruction. Not a good look taking down the pawns of the deep state ( ie liberal white woman, queers, **** men, ignorant minorities ) via USMC. The army is better suited to occupy and pacify without massive casualties.

---

But the President technically needs congressional approval to deploy the Army. He can deploy the Marines for, I believe up to 48 hours, anywhere in the world, without Congressional approval.

---

POTUS can deploy troops for up to 60 days with a 30 day extension available if they notified congress within 48 hours of their deployment.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Ducksplat said:

---

It is a bad idea to deploy US Marines for domestic operations. We aren't communists trained to break, kill and destroy the enemy to the point of complete destruction. Not a good look taking down the pawns of the deep state ( ie liberal white woman, queers, **** men, ignorant minorities ) via USMC. The army is better suited to occupy and pacify without massive casualties.

---

Agree. The ideology of conservatism and the Right cannot win against the ideology of the left if military and police state force is applied.

This is a jar we desperately do not want to open.

---

We can have a battle between ideologies if order is restored. What the left is doing is using disorder as a deterent for order. Has MN not ALREADY been invaded? They say they have. So good, we've already crossed that bridge. Let's get on with it.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

As a Christian I am not sure I agree with prosecution. No one was harmed.

I would pray, for an obvious miracle, that these people find God.

---

Being Christian doesn't mean you have to be a limp-wristed victim. This was threatening behavior that interfered with people's inalienable rights. It should be prosecuted.

---

That's your opinion. Not prosecuting doesn't makes you a limp wasted victim. Christ could have overcome his persecutors. He chose not to.

If you think they should prosecute or call in the military that is your opinion and I'm sure you have your justification. (Not assigning that to you but just echoing similar sentiments in this thread)

I don't think Christ taught us to seek justice. That's my opinion.

---

Wrong. He taught us to not seek vengeance.

Justice? Absolutely.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

El Chupacabra said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

As a Christian I am not sure I agree with prosecution. No one was harmed.

I would pray, for an obvious miracle, that these people find God.

---

As a Christian, I'm disappointed the church isn't a crime scene with lots of chalk.

I believe that terrorists should suffer swift, aggressive consequences that ends their ability to terrorize ever again.

Christians, the right, conservatives have turned the other cheek for too long, and now it is out of control. These terrorists aren't far from chaining doors shut and lighting buildings on fire.

---

So not Christianity. Nothing in the Gospels tells of turning The Jews or Roman's into chalk lines

---

So per your interpretation, hiring an off duty armed cop to protect the worship service and potentially kill a gunman is not Christianity. We should simply let the gunman come in and kill everyone?!

---

That would be an extreme understanding today.

However, not out of line of early Christian followers during the pre-Nicene. It would have been the prevailing ideal at the time.

I don't believe this is the case for me. I think there is an obvious case for defending the lives of your family and friends.

IN THIS CASE NO WAS ONE PHYSICALLY HARMED.

You are creating false scenarios to justify the ends you desire.

---

So, if someone pulls out a gun and shoots several rounds at you, but misses, since no one was physically harmed, there's no crime to be punished?

No harm, no foul...

AggiePetro07 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

As a Christian I am not sure I agree with prosecution. No one was harmed.

I would pray, for an obvious miracle, that these people find God.

---

Being Christian doesn't mean you have to be a limp-wristed victim. This was threatening behavior that interfered with people's inalienable rights. It should be prosecuted.

---

That's your opinion. Not prosecuting doesn't makes you a limp wasted victim. Christ could have overcome his persecutors. He chose not to.

If you think they should prosecute or call in the military that is your opinion and I'm sure you have your justification. (Not assigning that to you but just echoing similar sentiments in this thread)

I don't think Christ taught us to seek justice. That's my opinion.

---

Wrong. He taught us to not seek vengeance.

Justice? Absolutely.

---

ALL forms of justice Christ spoke about were spiritual and not worldly. Some use the Parable of the Persistent Widow as justification for this point but that is not generally how it is taken and out of context with ALL of the other teachings of Christ.

Your statement is unequivocally false and cannot be backed up by scripture. Unless it's a "what the scripture says to me" type interpretation.