Anti-Christian / Anti-Gay Terrorists Issue Death Threats to Kansas Minister.
The Wichita Eagle 12/05/2014 7:08 AM | Updated: 12/05/2014 11:43 AM
A Wichita minister says she has received death threats for performing same-sex weddings after the states ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by a federal judge last month.
The Rev. Jackie Carter, pastor of the First Metropolitan Community Church, said the church has been getting at least one phone call a day threatening to kill her or to perform acts of violence against her congregation.
The church belongs to a denomination that embraces the gay and lesbian community.
Carter said that she had received threats before the ruling, but they have escalated since she performed a wedding ceremony for 15 same-sex couples on the steps of the Sedgwick County Courthouse on Nov. 17.
Monday was probably the most scary time for me, Carter said. The phone rang and I went to answer the phone and it was just somebody heavy breathing on it. Then somebody rang the door bell and then somebody started throwing rocks at the windows.
Some callers tell her to repent so I dont have to suffer inhumane death at the hands of Satan. Others have threatened specific acts of violence. Before the group wedding ceremony last month, two callers threatened to chop off her head and put it on a stake.
Honestly, Im beginning to get more scared every day that this goes on, she said. Ive kind of talked myself into trying to be more calm about it and realizing that there are more people out there that are supporting us than threatening harm to us.
She said the church has instructed people to leave the building in pairs, especially at night, for safety. Carter said that she has reported some of the threats to the Wichita Police, but that the departments ability to investigate is limited because the callers have been anonymous and no number shows up on the churchs caller ID.
Carter said that she and the Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination with 300 churches worldwide, believes that Christs message is to embrace groups not accepted by all of society, such as the LGBT community. She said she was turning to her faith as a way to cope with the threats.
My faith informs me that this is exactly the message that Christ came to bring, that we were to include all people. And look what the world did when they heard that message to the bringer of the message? Carter said. I dont think were called to suffer, but I do believe if we bring the actual message of Christ we will anger people who dont want to include all people.
She and her colleagues are brave and I hope nothing happens to them.
This is what actual terrorism is. Sickening.
The Metroplitan Community Church has a storied past.
Two of your friends that posted in this thread before me would normally be off their heads, screaming at you for your changing the headline without notifying readers that the original headline reads
"Kansas minister who performs same-sex weddings reports daily death threats"
But I guess you get away with it because....well, we know why.
I'm just curious
1) why you changed the headline without posting a) what the original headline was and b) that you, indeed, changed the headline to something more inflammatory and hyperbolic
2) why you're calling the people issuing death threats as being "Anti-Christian." To the casual reader, that would imply that the death-threat callers are atheists, agnostics, or anti-theists. The opposite seems to be the real case: those calling death threats are using Biblical justification for their hatred towards this woman.
I'm curious why your headline is so purposefully dishonest and misleading. I mean that jokingly, really, because I know why it was purposefully dishonest and misleading. I just want to point out your nasty tactics to others who may be unfamiliar with you, your posts, and your dislike of Atheists (yes yes, I know, you're an atheist, but....)
and threatening to be punished at the hands of Satan seems totally like something an atheist and anti-Christian would say. Yup. Makes total sense.
To me, the most interesting question isn't why he changed the headline (because, like you say, that's obvious) but why those that normally have a fit about it don't seem to give a shit this time around.
people in this group (read: atheists) have been chastised by your Kewl Kids Krew for putting the headline of the article in the subject of the OP. When it is done this time to subtly indicate that atheists are at fault, nary a word from your Krew. Obviously that doesn't go unnoticed.
Suffice it to say, the posting histories, both OPs and replies, of self-proclaimed atheists in here are well-known. As are their motives.
But I'm not going to mewl about it.
...for performing church sacraments is anti-Christian terrorism.
There is absolute nothing misleading about it.
differences. Nothing anti-Christian about it at all.
...getting terroristic death threats over performing a church sacrament.
If that doesn't do it for you, I really don't know how to help you.
Do you have one? Or is it more of a "you know it when you see it" deal?
Clearly you don't think Christians can threaten to kill someone, what else don't real Christians do?
If that doesn't do it for you, #2 and #3 are unlikely to help, and you would probably attempt to trash those threads, also.
"None are so blind as those who refuse to see."
(Another of my made-up Bible quotes, just for you.)
Some people (like yourself) feel quite comfortable declaring who is or isn't a Christian. I've never understood the criteria. How bad can someone be yet still be a Christian? What sins are allowed?
She administers church sacraments, and officiates at weddings.
She has never (so far as I know) engaged in terroristic threats against Christian sacraments.
So yeah, I consider her a good Christian.
As well as a victim of terrorism.
She has every right to administer church sacraments and marry loving couples.
And it is anti-Christian in the extreme for anybody to attempt to prevent her from doing so.
This is an example of Christianity under attack in this country.
You sound like Glenn Beck.
She is being attacked BY OTHER CHRISTIANS!
Why is it so hard for you to understand that.
You sound like Glenn Beck.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Please post Glen Becks comments on this terrorist act so at we can compare and contrast.
Taking an incident that is a episode of one Christian group going after another and calling it an example of Christianity under attack ibn this country is exactly the type of bullcrap that Beck and O'Rielly spew out.
That you even give credence to the Christianity under attack in America crap is ridiculous.
I'll go now because you are beyond reasoning with.
...this thread with O'Rielly's comments on this, also.
It doesn't have to be Beck.
I suspect that both will simply ignore it, and pretend that it didn't happen, so I won't hold my breath in anticipation.
Using stories that have nothing to do with an imagined "attack on Christianity" is exactly the type of thing Beck and O'Rielly regularly do.
You want to compare it to what they have said about this and only this story. That just isn't a valid argument to what i am saying.
That you continue to think it is shows me I see no reason to keep going.
And if Beck and O'Reilly want to call this an anti-Christian / anti-gay act of terrorism, they will receive some very rare praise from me for finally recognizing a bit of reality for what it is.
But I'm not expecting them to do so.
Nothing in their histories suggests that they would.
The event is real, that it is an attack on Christianity and not one Christian group attacking another is purely imagined by you.
I'd like somebody to tell me when I'm normally "off (my) head."
It couldn't possibly be that you're again posting baseless bullshit about DU members.
to excerpt a maximum of four paragraphs. You're running the risk of violating DU's Terms of Service by posting more than that, especially since you've posted more than half of the original article.
vs yours stand here for the hypocrisy of many posters in this group to stand for all to see.
Zealot: OMG! YOU'RE BEING DISINGENOUS
Anti-Christian: eh, no problem
especially here, where we can see how horrible it is to change headlines. Seems rather fitting for the OP, as well
cbayer (138,835 posts)
26. Everyone has an agenda, not least of which is you.
You changed the headline to suit your agenda You chose this particular article from the sensationalist Daily News to suit your agenda.
You are trying to score points against religion by using this horrible event involving a very psychiatrically disturbed and chemically dependent person.
Your point is completely debunked by both the article you post and the headline of the other article. His religiosity is prominent in both of them. In fact, the only dismissal is by one LEO. The religious "motives" are being very quickly and prominently brought up. I think it's wrong to do so when a person is suffering from an untreated and severe psychiatric illness that involves religiosity.
It's just plain wrong.
I'm sure the "Squad To Explain What Cbayer Really Meant When She Wrote...." will be along any time now to point how THIS is totally different from THAT because THAT was by someone and THIS is by someone in the Kewl Kidz Krew Who Can Never Do No Wrong. Ever.
that state that I have to follow your directions for threads? Cos I've been here for 13 years and don't remember seeing that. I know things change, so maybe you can point me to where I can find it.
Oh! Congratulations on being a host of the group. I mean, you *are* a host, right? Otherwise, you have no authority to tell me what I can and can't post about.
And this is people in real life, not just on the internet.
Judge Hanson's decision back in 2007 has made a big difference here.
Our friends were one of a handful of lucky couples who managed to get marriage licenses before the ruing was stayed pending appeal.
The got married here in a local church on Sept 2, 2007.
Because of the stay, they were not able to actually turn in their marriage licenses in for another two year until the Iowa Supremes ruled unanimously (7-0) in Varnum v Brian 2009.
Because if not, that's a pretty shitty thing to accuse someone of.
Do you think the people that are issuing these threats who talk of sin and damnation are not actually Christians? Are they self-loathing Christians? Could they possibly think that this minister isn't a Christian?
But it's very clear that these people who are being terrorized are both Christian and gay. A fact that she - and you - are quite deliberately ignoring in your hunger for meta meat to gnaw on.
From what is said by those doing it to them, they are also Christian. I don't know if they are also gay.
Putting the OP in with what was put in by the OP clearly tries to make this seem like it is something coming from atheists. Certainly we don't need that in here.
And so you have it one more time, it is horrible what is happening to these gay Christian people. The Christians who are doing it to them are reprehensible.
Do atheists normally threaten Christians with damnation? Somehow I seriously doubt it.
On the other hand, I don't doubt that what we have here is manufactured outrage whose real purpose is to harass the OP because he doesn't toe the A/A party line.
You don't get to control what people decide to talk about.
Sometimes that sucks, but. ..
...ever to use the N-word with me again, you should refrain from posting to me.
Find somebody else to harass.
I don't give a flying fuck what you call your friends.
I'm not your friend.
No friend of mine uses that kind of language around me.
Unless you and I are having a discussion about the reclamation of words, I have no reason to use it with you. At all. So there's my promise.
How about you admit that you continued to lose your shit even after I stopped using it? The picture you posted a couple times is one that says "n-word" on it, yet you still continue to point to that as proof of me using the word.
And since we are talking about our "demands," when have you ever shown that I have used it as an epithet (I have provided a definition of that word previously in case you don't know)? I haven't. I would appreciate you stop acting like I have.
Just a straightforward promise without the wiggle room.
But if not, in that case there's no need for either of us to post to each other ever again.
to respond to whatever I want to.
I've told you the conversation with might precipitate that word. I have other words I can use in that discussion. Though I have no idea why we would need to discuss that again, but who knows?
Interesting that you only wish to address your demands and not mine.
Oh, well. I will lose no sleep.
...I don't intend to start one now.
But I'm not interested in a qualified promise. Sorry.
I have no demands. I'm not requesting a conversation.
In PMs about your use of terms that weren't well received in A/A. It is the only time I have used the "n-word" with you for goodness sake.
I am still not willing.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the N-word.
But I'm done here.
You are still unwilling to make an unequivocal promise.
We never have that discussion, you have my word. I've also indicated I have other words I can use if that discussion does come up. That isn't "wiggle room." That is telling you what conversation it would come from. It won't just come out of nowhere.
Your wiggle is over a topic I never discussed with you, but which you are already claiming as an excuse for your previous behavior.
Let's just stop this here, shall we?
Sticking in your past excuse as a wiggle for future conversations does not fill me with confidence.
There's nothing to stop you from making he same claim the future.
Look, it's no big deal.
There are plenty of folks here for both of us to talk to.
You don't need me, and I don't need you.
In a PM to you about the use of words. You must remember this.
..refusing to being pushed into the closet as a militant atheist somehow opens myself up having the N-word used with me even after saying "no" multiple times.
Sorry, but I got burned once by that very same wiggle.
Not going to let it happen again.
We all have a right to say, "no".
And I am saying, "no".
I have no problem promising anybody not to use the N-word with them.
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you, but it doesn't really matter.
We both have plenty of people to talk to here.
Response to stone space (Reply #20)
Last edited Sun Dec 7, 2014, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Or to any of your buddies here who are trying to trash this thread about these ugly death threats she's been receiving?
Our place in line at the evil atheist conspiracy dead baby buffet is dependent on such things.
Although I don't consider periodic swarming to be an evil atheist conspiracy. It's simply a petty and disruptive annoyance.
looking for things to alert on (and if you don't troll it, please explain how you knew about the post that you alerted on because then you are part of "periodic swarming" after someone points you there), your claims of petty and disruptive mean absolutely nothing.
This must not stand!
Tell them about the alerts. Don't forget to tell them the number of posts in the group you host that were hidden by their peers.
And I have no need to go to ATA. And I think the three of us handled that alert pretty damn well and pretty quickly. You're welcome for us doing a bang up job with the group we host.
Maybe you should look at the alerted posts before calling people trolls.
And WTF alert are you talking about? You really need to step back a bit.
You have received this Alert message because you are currently a Host of the group: Atheists & Agnostics.
ALERTED DISCUSSION THREAD
-- Author: Manifestor_of_Light
-- Title: Carolinayellowdog says atheists are authoritarian.
-- Location: Atheists & Agnostics
-- Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014, 05:53 PM
-- Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/123031890
-- Sent by: rug
-- Reason: This discussion thread violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum.
-- Alerter's comments: Using a safe have to personally attack another DUer by name in another safe haven?
Way over the top and a blant misuse of DU.
Sounds like an apt use of DU. Why would you lock a thread on a troll alert?
Any other alerts you care to discuss?
Atheism is most certain not anti-Christian.
That's a myth.
Pretty sure atheists don't threaten people with horrible death at the hands of Satan.
...offering church sacraments is a pretty anti-Christian act.
Unless we're going to start a game of "No True anti-Christian".
How the hell can Christians be anti-Christian?
Maybe self-hating chrisitans?
And think people are better off with beliefs in myth.
Atheists who think rejecting the claims of believers is wrong?
Yeah I've seen a few of those.
By a person who claims to be an atheist.
Even some atheists believe the myths.
DU could really use an atheist group to counter such extreme cases of ignorance.
Actually wanted to contribute.
I got banned from interfaith for pointing out rank institutionalized misogyny, and you don't see me crying about how we need a new interfaith forum that allow discourse about religion, but keeping it secondary to observing Democratic/Progressive ideals.
...and attempting to push us back into the closet, while denying our very existence.
That's Milquetoast Atheism.
Designed to be non-threatening to the status quo, and quash dissent among atheists.
They feel threatened by the very existence of militant atheists, who they believe gives milquetoast atheists a bad name.
From anything that resembles that claim. Here's a quote from an actual militant atheist:
"It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done."
So if you keep calling your self militant I will have to assume you feel that religion should be destroyed regardless of the body count, because that's what being a militant atheist means.
"No true christian" with your title.
You are saying the Christians making the threats are Anti-Christain.
Are they not Christians? Are the self hating Christians?
How are Chrisdtains anti-Christain?
Immigrants can be anti-immigrant.
Would you like me to go on?
Explain how you've decided they are anti-Christain.
Are you saying these can't be real Christians who oppose gay marriage?
...against a Christian minister for offering church sacraments.
This ain't rocket science.
The real question is how terrorists can make death threats against a minister for offering church sacraments, and have folks object to the terrorists being labeled as anti-Christian.
It's one thing not to like church sacraments.
It's quite another thing to threaten to murder somebody over church sacraments.
'anti-Christian' is pointing an awful lot of fingers at an awful lot of people. These are Christian fundamentalists that are pissed because the minister that has been targeted doesn't adhere to their fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity.
No need to play coy about who the threats are coming from.
The allegations in that article point to fundamentalist Christians. Plenty of types of anti-Christians' that had nothing to do with this.
And, you're making up shit, trying to build a classification of Christian that is 'anti-christian'.
And plenty of anti-gay folks out there, also.
But most folks in both groups somehow manage to go trough life without murdering ministers out of hatred for their church sacraments.
Start making terroristic threats like that, and folks will take notice.
I'm sorry if that offends you.
people actually harassing these ministers.
"But most folks in both groups somehow manage to go trough life without murdering ministers out of hatred for their church sacraments."
You fucking know exactly what you were doing when you selected that phrase.
You did it on purpose.
...anti-Christian / anti-gay terrorists out there who have absolutely nothing to do with this particular minister.
Anti-Christian / anti-gay terrorists are a proper superset of the set of people actually terrorizing this particular minister.
I never claimed otherwise.
I agree that atheism and anti-christian are two entirely different and unrelated things. If someone equates those two things they are most likely an anti-christian atheist whose identity is wholly wrapped up in both things.
But, thankfully, they are very much a minority. Just nod and keep walking.
"If someone equates those two things they are most likely an anti-christian atheist whose identity is wholly wrapped up in both things."
Or they just don't like people pushing the meme that bad people can't be Christians. Your demonization of others is not cool.
You editorializing? Are you saying fundamentalist Christians who are anti-gay, are anti-Christain? Don't you think they consider themselves true Christians?
Who decidesvwho is a Christian?
They may claim to love Christians.
They may claim to love gays.
But their actions expose them as ant-Christian and anti-gay.
"By their fruits ye shall know them".
(If it ain't a Bible quote, it should be!)
Arbitrator of what a true Christain is?
Are the Popes Christian? He is anti-gay you know?
"It appears you are a biblical literalist who believes that the bible quotes that you toss around are self-explanatory."
Is it actually a real live Bible quote?
Damn, I'm good!
Perhaps I missed my true calling as a Theologian. The hell with mathematics!
But this thread isn't about me. Nor is it about you.
It is about Christian minister getting terroristic death threats for administering a church sacrament.
It's an attack on religion itself.
Churches should be allowed to have their sacraments without the threat of terrorism.
This is an attack on one religion by another one. As they have tended to do since, well, the 2nd religion appeared.
That's just a diversion by those who are made uncomfortable by this article, and who are trying to trash the thread.
They are uncomfortable with your presentation of it.
Please try to understand the difference.
that liberals and progressives should support, while the ones who are threatening her are not. They can call themselves whatever they want, but it's not the kind of christianity that the liberal left has tended to endorse.
While no one can really decide who is a christian or not, it is important to be able to see the differences and use a little critical thinking to make distinctions.
The only people I see who wish to lump them all together are the anti-relgionists, but they have their own axe to grind.
In fact the title should be Christian / Anti-Gay Terrorist, because that id what they are.
What you wrote would be fine as a comment on this post.
But the OP has stood by his claim that the are Anti-Christian, they aren't, they are Pro-Christian, it's just that their version of Christianity is particularly noxious.
It's not about lumping them together ,if we acknowledge the good acts done by a religious person, like this minister, we can't dismiss the bad, like those making the threats, who are also acting because of their religion.
You always claim that you will condemn religious people when they act badly due to their beliefs.
Well, here you have3 some. And calling them Anti-Christian is letting that part of Christianity off the hook.
Do they actually have to carry out the threat and assassinate her?
as you keep missing the point.
Just as Sunni terrorist who attack Shia are not "Anti-Muslim".
These terrorist are not Anti-Christian.
They are in fact Christian terrorist.
It is the anti-Christian label I object to, not the terrorist one.
I don't change titles, but others do. I don't generally add any editorial comments either, but others do.
The question arises as to intent when that occurs. I don't see any malicious intent here, but you might.
But what does it really matter. IMHO, she's a good christian, they are bad christians and I don't give a crap what anyone calls them.
I dont' think anyone in their right mind is dismissing what these people are doing. They are most likely religiously driven.
The important point is the ability to critically distinguish, not what someone may or may not label them.
BTW, there is a lot of "no true atheist/agnostic" stuff that goes on around here. Just take a look at those that have been banned from the A/A group for being the wrong kind of atheist. That is much closer to home than this.
So when A/A's act badly due to their beliefs, do you not let them off the hook?
anyone who acts on their4 christian beliefs as anti-christian.
Horrible people, terrorist, idiots, maybe, but not anti-Christian.
Calling one group of Christians who act badly against another anti, just strikes me as a no true Scotsman, or maybe defending the faith.
Now I would say the town in the south that stopped the Mosque or the people in NY who tried to stop the Islam Center downtown as anti-Muslim. So that is a anti-religion parallel.
There are posters here who have nothing good to say about the Christian faith or think it's completely bullocks, they could be seen as anti-christian, at least philosophically.
Perhaps the editorializing in the OP title, was a misstep, one that could clearly have been fixed early on. Instead the OP seemed to double down on the anti-Christian thing.
I don't know enough about what has happened in the AA group to comment.
Technically, I would say that people that hate christians are anti-christians. If they hate certain kinds of christians, that doesn't make them less so and it doesn't mean that they themselves are not christians.
And there is the atheist corollary. There are apparently atheists who hate certain kinds of atheists. One could call the anti-atheist or not.
The no true scotsman argument cuts both ways. One can't use it for one example and dismiss for the other.
Again, I don't think there was any malicious intent here and there is certainly nothing that would indicate that this was posted as a slam against non-believers.
What the OP does or does not do is entirely up to him. I see very little of this very long thread, but I could guess what is going on here. I have no interest in participating in that aspect, but I suspect the OP is getting the no true atheist treatment.
Again, I don't think there was any malicious intent here and there is certainly nothing that would indicate that this was posted as a slam against non-believers.
No I don't think it was. Didn't mean to give that impression.
I really wish the OP had seen that maybe the title was a mistake and not really what this story was about, especially since it did become an issue with others. It could have been changed early on. I have done this myself when I found out my OP title was mistaken or took the discussion away from the subject.
The story was important and should have posted without making it about something that it wasn't.
This is a story about a good preacher doing the right thing. And also about other Christians who should be condemned.
That the OP wants to stick to this Anti-Christian idea and co0ntinue to double down on it shows to me that is what they want to thread to be about, at least partially.
I think that most of the time, the intent is merely to attract readers, but sometimes it is just too much editorializing.
I've gone so far as to completely delete some OP's when they created the kind of maelstrom that I was not looking for.
It is unfortunate that a good story got so sidetracked, but that is often the case in this room, and I can't claim to be an innocent bystander for some of them.
There are many here for the fight and not the discussion. If you build it, they will come.
if one wants to use the post to make a point, that is fine, but if the interest is in posting the story, the less the better.
An example is Warren's recent posts on "New Atheists" he is making a point with these post. (which I assume he wants to be a part of the discussion)
But you are right, if you don't want that sort of thing, stick with the linked story headline.
Ministers should feel free to offer their church sacraments to gay people.
And those who use terrorism to prevent those sacramental rites from being performed cannot reasonably expect others to defend them from charges of being anti-Christian / anti-gay terrorists.
If they are so offended by being called anti-Christian / anti-gay terrorists, they can always change their behavior, and people like me will stop calling them that.
Calling them out is not the problem.
to want to direct vitriol at.
Why can't you call them christian fundamentalists? Calling 'them' out is great, but you should put down the giant brush, and stick with the actual target. You're confusing any passer-by as to who you are talking about. (and I'm sure that's unintentional...)
...anti-Christian /anti-gay terrorists, let them change their behavior.
Until then, let them be offended.
I don't care about their delicate fee-fees.
I just don't.
If it bothers them, tough!
I refuse to believe you really don't understand what I am saying. It is clearly deliberate.
I belong to a superset of people who might be identified as 'anti-christian'. I don't threaten ministers for catering to LGBT christians. I'm actually on the other side of the issue; I want to make life uncomfortable for institutions that discriminate against LGBT customers. Shame these institutions publicly, revoke state/federal funds, you name it. Whatever is legally possible.
Your brush is hitting people who ARE NOT THE TARGET of your well-deserved vitriol. By all means, shit on the Christian fundamentalists causing problems here. Right there with you. Defend the christians that are being inclusive. I'm there with you as well. The world could use more progressive christians.
Don't play games with wording YOU introduced into this discussion, that casts doubt on the behavior of people that have FUCK ALL to do with harassing these ministers.
It genuinely appears you are doing this shit on purpose.
This thread isn't about you.
As difficult as that may be for you to comprehend.
beyond christian fundamentalists that the content of the story discusses.
And you did it on purpose.
Waste someone else's time.
and some Shia Muslims attack each other and blow each other up, I want to know;
Which are the anti-Muslim terrorist?