ArcturusMengsk Revenge Fantasy

[ArcturusMengsk]

Hey, jerknut, where'd ya go? I so wanted you to post a hastily-worded response, so that I can picture your chubby little face turn red beneath the Nixon mask that I fantasized about strapping on your head while I line you and your ilk against a long stone wall, with a bottle of rum in one hand and a .44 Special in the other...

These two posts were part of a split from the thread-Bean

[Pablo Sanchez]

Mmmm. No. This is not the kind of thing we want in N&P.
These two posts were part of a split from the thread-Bean

[ArcturusMengsk]

Frankly, the only sort of event that will both guarantee homosexual rights immediately and preserve them in the future against any Redeemer-type movements (as has now taken root in California, in reaction to the judicial ruling recognizing marriage there) is a full-scale, militant neo-abolitionist Movement. And just as Emancipation was won, not by the submissive minority, but instead by well-intentioned, crusading members of the majority willing to sacrifice life and limb and social prestige for the cause, so to will this Movement be dominated mostly by heterosexuals - the problem heretofore with the LGBT movement has been its inability to properly create an alliance with members of the majority who do not feel threatened by them. And the watchword must be, peace if possible, force if necessary. The Mormon cult in Utah and the Southern states must be put on high alert by a force of men-at-arms willing to fight and to bleed for the sacred liberties of others, free from the soul-poison of Christianity. Identity politics have accomplished not a thing in four decades, and a stronger tonic is required.

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, the only sort of event that will both guarantee homosexual rights immediately and preserve them in the future against any Redeemer-type movements (as has now taken root in California, in reaction to the judicial ruling recognizing marriage there) is a full-scale, militant neo-abolitionist Movement. And just as Emancipation was won, not by the submissive minority, but instead by well-intentioned, crusading members of the majority willing to sacrifice life and limb and social prestige for the cause, so to will this Movement be dominated mostly by heterosexuals - the problem heretofore with the LGBT movement has been its inability to properly create an alliance with members of the majority who do not feel threatened by them. And the watchword must be, peace if possible, force if necessary. The Mormon cult in Utah and the Southern states must be put on high alert by a force of men-at-arms willing to fight and to bleed for the sacred liberties of others, free from the soul-poison of Christianity. Identity politics have accomplished not a thing in four decades, and a stronger tonic is required.

So basically, you're advocating supression of religious groups by the threat of a violent militia that explicitely excludes Christians in a predominantly Christian country. Getting your movement labeled as terrorists and both inciting and legitimizing violent retaliation against you. Good call there . Until systematic violence is being used against you, how do you justify such a disproportionate act of retalliation? Because that's what I see here: vigilanty thuggery in retaliation for political injustices.

The current situation is in no way comparable to the issue of emancipation in pre-Civil War United States, despite your refferences to abolishionism. If it was, maybe such an aproach could be justified. As matters currently stand, however, your suggestion is simply that of an idiotic wanker.

[ArcturusMengsk]

So basically, you're advocating supression of religious groups by the threat of a violent militia that explicitely excludes Christians in a predominantly Christian country. Getting your movement labeled as terrorists and both inciting and legitimizing violent retaliation against you. Good call there . Until systematic violence is being used against you, how do you justify such a disproportionate act of retalliation? Because that's what I see here: vigilanty thuggery in retaliation for political injustices.

Go tell that to John Brown, who was in his day cast in precisely the same role as you would hold me; the only difference between us being that he was motivated out of a Christian morality, and I out of an anti-Christian ethos.

Dramatic social changes involving the recognition of a caste of people previously relegated to the status of 'second-class citizen' have almost universally involved some form of carnage or another, up to and including the modern day. These are not relatively petty-ante issues involving things such as busing and segregation, which, awful and ornery though they were, did not directly threaten the very existence of an entire group of people. The homosexuals of today are in the same position that African-Americans were during Reconstruction: they are recognized as human beings, and even given a token member of their group to represent them politically (Hiram Revels, Barney Frank), but this is very much subject to change: if this coming economic crisis turns ugly, we could see a repeat of the events of Weimar Germany, in this nation. African-Americans have long since past the point in which they are accepted as citizens, albeit hesitatingly by certain reactionary elements of society. Homosexuals have not been afforded that luxury.

And so I say that, yes, I propose vigilantism, and you may call it thuggery if you wish. I call it necessary, and probably inevitable if historical parallel holds.

[CaptainChewbacca]

You don't see how insanely dangerous and prone to backfire a militant, anti-christian vigilantie organization could become, and that it would only accomplish its goal at the expense of thousands of lives?

John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was one of the polarizing events that led to the civil war, arguably the most violent and turbulent period of American history. If you want to bring about equality for homosexuals in an orgy of blood, you probably havn't considered a better way.

Edit: I'd also like to point out, that in the 20th century, the greatest strides toward equality of minorities was done through nonviolent means and political pressure, not force of arms.

[Ender]

Ok internet tough guy, you first. You want to violently rise up and oppress a group, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. Start organizing, arming, etc. I'll follow the news to see if this pans out for you.

Or is this more of "Other people should sacrifice for my ideals while I sit at home like a fat nerd" that gets thrown about here every so often?

Yeah, thought so.

[Kodiak]

You don't see how insanely dangerous and prone to backfire a militant, anti-christian vigilantie organization could become, and that it would only accomplish its goal at the expense of thousands of lives?

John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was one of the polarizing events that led to the civil war, arguably the most violent and turbulent period of American history. If you want to bring about equality for homosexuals in an orgy of blood, you probably havn't considered a better way.

Agreed. If your only desire is to inch the nation towards war, form a militant anti-religious movement and send them against the most reactionary and (if stereotypes are to be believed) well-armed segment of the populace. I believe homosexuals should have every right of heterosexuals, but I don't know that it would be worth the death of thousands or millions of American lives to make it so WITHOUT FIRST EXHAUSTING peaceful actions. Prop 8 passed by a very thin margin in California- time and peaceful action are your friend in this matter. Incensing the majority and provoking a potentially bloody backlash is not.

[ArcturusMengsk]

You don't see how insanely dangerous and prone to backfire a militant, anti-christian vigilantie organization could become, and that it would only accomplish its goal at the expense of thousands of lives?

Of course it would be dangerous. No great undertaking is accomplished without some amount of hardship. However, I have seen among my close friends in my generation - thanks in no small part to my 'prostelyzation' efforts on a local level, but also a growing trend absent myself - an increase not only in atheistic, but anti-Christian sentiment. If such an event occurs, it will happen in this century; I do believe that the economic difficulties of our day will continue for some duration, and will precipitate at least a parallel historical framework to that of the mid-nineteenth century. And I believe that this social issue will be at the heart of the conflict, if and when it comes.

Moreover, I have been led to understand that you are a Mormon (I may be wrong), and that I may have offended your sensibilities. If so, I mean no insult to you, but I would just as soon see the entire organizational structure of your faith disappear in a nuclear fireball as to see it spread to another single individual. Mormonism today is growing at a faster rate than any other Christian faith, and it has as dictatorial a predisposition as any Baptist group; moreover, unlike the Southern Baptist Conference, it has cohesion enough as a unit to prove a dire threat to individual liberties should it orient itself in that position. All individuals concerned with such trivialities as 'separation of church and state', 'freedom of conscience' and the like ought to wage a campaign of words against it, and, if it comes to it, of action, against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I feel that, had Lincoln implemented his anti-Mormon as well as his anti-slavery programme, the United States would be the better for it today.

John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was one of the polarizing events that led to the civil war, arguably the most violent and turbulent period of American history. If you want to bring about equality for homosexuals in an orgy of blood, you probably havn't considered a better way.

Some wars are necessary. The First World War, for instance, was not; it was avoidable, at least America's entry into it, and would have been avoided had not Wilson bungled the concept of armed neutrality. The Civil War, on the other hand, would have come sooner rather than later. Had it not occurred in the 1860s, then perhaps it would have began forty years later, when the tools of war and the strategies for utilizing them would have caused even greater devastation than happened in reality. Occasionally nations must undergo catharsis to purge the bad and terrible things from its body-politic.

Ok internet tough guy, you first. You want to violently rise up and oppress a group, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. Start organizing, arming, etc. I'll follow the news to see if this pans out for you.

Cut me a check and fund my efforts, then, and I will. And I could bring at least ten men into the fold myself if given the munitions, one of them having already been arrested and charged for assaulting a Jehovah's Witness missionary, and being generally more ill-disposed towards the sect than I am. I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. Indeed, several of my friends have already made preliminary plans for such an event, but as a contingency in the case of a general economic collapse, when the theocratic forces will be at their strongest.

[Yogi]

Frankly, the only sort of event that will both guarantee homosexual rights immediately and preserve them in the future against any Redeemer-type movements (as has now taken root in California, in reaction to the judicial ruling recognizing marriage there) is a full-scale, militant neo-abolitionist Movement. And just as Emancipation was won, not by the submissive minority, but instead by well-intentioned, crusading members of the majority willing to sacrifice life and limb and social prestige for the cause, so to will this Movement be dominated mostly by heterosexuals - the problem heretofore with the LGBT movement has been its inability to properly create an alliance with members of the majority who do not feel threatened by them. And the watchword must be, peace if possible, force if necessary. The Mormon cult in Utah and the Southern states must be put on high alert by a force of men-at-arms willing to fight and to bleed for the sacred liberties of others, free from the soul-poison of Christianity. Identity politics have accomplished not a thing in four decades, and a stronger tonic is required.

Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement managed to avoid all that.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement managed to avoid all that.

Need I remind you that the Reverend King came into a leadership role a full century after the Civil War - a century which, might I add, saw the Ku Klux Klan reach an organization strength in the millions, the destruction of entire black shanty-towns in Florida and Alabama, and the lynchings of tens of thousands of African-American individuals in the decades between? King was the culmination of that history, not the start of it.

[Ender]

Ok internet tough guy, you first. You want to violently rise up and oppress a group, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. Start organizing, arming, etc. I'll follow the news to see if this pans out for you.

Cut me a check and fund my efforts, then, and I will. And I could bring at least ten men into the fold myself if given the munitions, one of them having already been arrested and charged for assaulting a Jehovah's Witness missionary, and being generally more ill-disposed towards the sect than I am. I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. Indeed, several of my friends have already made preliminary plans for such an event, but as a contingency in the case of a general economic collapse, when the theocratic forces will be at their strongest.

So again, I should sacrifice for your ideals by funding you rather then you putting it on the line for what you think is right.

Put up or shut up, loser.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Put up or shut up, loser.

Very well. I'll report back to you when I've acquired the munitions to carry out my plans, at which point I expect, no doubt, that you'll report me to the police. So be it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Of course it would be dangerous. No great undertaking is accomplished without some amount of hardship. However, I have seen among my close friends in my generation - thanks in no small part to my 'prostelyzation' efforts on a local level, but also a growing trend absent myself - an increase not only in atheistic, but anti-Christian sentiment. If such an event occurs, it will happen in this century; I do believe that the economic difficulties of our day will continue for some duration, and will precipitate at least a parallel historical framework to that of the mid-nineteenth century. And I believe that this social issue will be at the heart of the conflict, if and when it comes.

Now, who was it who hoped to concentrate the cultural ill-will toward a religious group last century? I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure it turned out alright for everyone involved. Seriously, when has long-term planned religious persecution EVER turned out well? You'll become something worse than that which you oppose.

Moreover, I have been led to understand that you are a Mormon (I may be wrong), and that I may have offended your sensibilities. If so, I mean no insult to you, but I would just as soon see the entire organizational structure of your faith disappear in a nuclear fireball as to see it spread to another single individual.

I'll pass your well-wishes onto Kodiak, my brother, who IS Mormon. I was raised protestant (Presbyterian) and currently attend a nondenominational evangellical church. I also voted in favor of gay marriage, and am against Churches getting involved in politics.

Mormonism today is growing at a faster rate than any other Christian faith, and it has as dictatorial a predisposition as any Baptist group; moreover, unlike the Southern Baptist Conference, it has cohesion enough as a unit to prove a dire threat to individual liberties should it orient itself in that position. All individuals concerned with such trivialities as 'separation of church and state', 'freedom of conscience' and the like ought to wage a campaign of words against it, and, if it comes to it, of action, against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I feel that, had Lincoln implemented his anti-Mormon as well as his anti-slavery programme, the United States would be the better for it today.

So, you think an armed military conflict AGAINST the Mormon church is going to be beneficial to human history?

Some wars are necessary. The First World War, for instance, was not; it was avoidable, at least America's entry into it, and would have been avoided had not Wilson bungled the concept of armed neutrality. The Civil War, on the other hand, would have come sooner rather than later. Had it not occurred in the 1860s, then perhaps it would have began forty years later, when the tools of war and the strategies for utilizing them would have caused even greater devastation than happened in reality. Occasionally nations must undergo catharsis to purge the bad and terrible things from its body-politic.

Your ideas of what were and were not historic inevitabilities are quite curious, as Wilson was actually TRYING to get us into world war one. Likewise, your musings of the necessity of periodic PURGES of the law-abiding civilian population of a nation, are something that would make Stalin beam with pride.

Need I remind you that the Reverend King came into a leadership role a full century after the Civil War - a century which, might I add, saw the Ku Klux Klan reach an organization strength in the millions, the destruction of entire black shanty-towns in Florida and Alabama, and the lynchings of tens of thousands of African-American individuals in the decades between? King was the culmination of that history, not the start of it.

And the KKK was not combatted with force of arms, but through political and social will of the people. The blacks of the south didn't organize militia to fight them, nor was the army deployed to rout them out.

OkCut me a check and fund my efforts, then, and I will. And I could bring at least ten men into the fold myself if given the munitions, one of them having already been arrested and charged for assaulting a Jehovah's Witness missionary, and being generally more ill-disposed towards the sect than I am. I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. Indeed, several of my friends have already made preliminary plans for such an event, but as a contingency in the case of a general economic collapse, when the theocratic forces will be at their strongest.

At this point, you are advocating the commission of specific crimes against a specific religious group, which I believe qualifies as hate speech. You should probably stop.

[Ender]

Put up or shut up, loser.

Very well. I'll report back to you when I've acquired the munitions to carry out my plans, at which point I expect, no doubt, that you'll report me to the police. So be it.

Uh-huh. I look forward to your continued posting instead of you actually working towards this, with this topic only to be broached again in the future when you feel there is enough groundswell for you to post such bullshit and get away with it.

[Kodiak]

At this point, you are advocating the commission of specific crimes against a specific religious group, which I believe qualifies as hate speech. You should probably stop.

As persons advocating armed conflict against the LGBT community on this board would face serious discipline from the mods, shouldn't the standard apply in reverse? This is far beyond grand posturing, and as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I feel it is dangerous and offensive.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Uh-huh. I look forward to your continued posting instead of you actually working towards this, with this topic only to be broached again in the future when you feel there is enough groundswell for you to post such bullshit and get away with it.

I don't expect to garner any support on this particular forum, since even the atheists here are of the garden-variety Dawkinsonian stripe, and the very reason why secularism is in decline in the first place. When the Christian feels his 'rights' are threatened, he beats the drums of war and goes on the march; when the secular humanist feels likewise, he gently sobs into his hands and surrenders, quivering, without a fight. Most of you are as contemptible as the groups against which you rail, with the added problem of being mostly inept at political manuevering and hence ineffectual at securing the liberties you seek. However, I assure you that the day will come when, seeing as opportunity to realize their theocratic regimen in the event of economic pandemonium, the religious forces in this nation which have to date been bottle-necked by the political limits of liberal democracy will rise forth, and not one of you will be able to, or will even attempt to, prevent it.

[Ender]

Uh-huh. I look forward to your continued posting instead of you actually working towards this, with this topic only to be broached again in the future when you feel there is enough groundswell for you to post such bullshit and get away with it.

I don't expect to garner any support on this particular forum, since even the atheists here are of the garden-variety Dawkinsonian stripe, and the very reason why secularism is in decline in the first place. When the Christian feels his 'rights' are threatened, he beats the drums of war and goes on the march; when the secular humanist feels likewise, he gently sobs into his hands and surrenders, quivering, without a fight. Most of you are as contemptible as the groups against which you rail, with the added problem of being mostly inept at political manuevering and hence ineffectual at securing the liberties you seek. However, I assure you that the day will come when, seeing as opportunity to realize their theocratic regimen in the event of economic pandemonium, the religious forces in this nation which have to date been bottle-necked by the political limits of liberal democracy will rise forth, and not one of you will be able to, or will even attempt to, prevent it.

And you continue to sit on your butt, basking in the illumination provided by your LCD screen rather than stand up for what you profess to believe in. So yeah, you are another wuss who just likes to talk big on the internet. Thanks for proving me right. Man, that happens a lot.

[Ender]

At this point, you are advocating the commission of specific crimes against a specific religious group, which I believe qualifies as hate speech. You should probably stop.

As persons advocating armed conflict against the LGBT community on this board would face serious discipline from the mods, shouldn't the standard apply in reverse? This is far beyond grand posturing, and as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I feel it is dangerous and offensive.

Seeing as how his sig is a reference to this and how we would respond if there was a sig "Hitler had the right idea" we would boot them, yeah, it probably should.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And you continue to sit on your butt, basking in the illumination provided by your LCD screen rather than stand up for what you profess to believe in. So yeah, you are another wuss who just likes to talk big on the internet. Thanks for proving me right. Man, that happens a lot.

Jesus, are you going to hold up any standard of debate or logical discussion here, or just engage him in a HURR HURR HE MAN YOU REALLY TOO PUSSY TO MEAN YOUR SHIT contest? There's plenty to point out as flawed by him and his reasoning, but you don't debate and then go for the jugular as he repeats himself, you started out with "Ok internet tough guy, you first." Thanks, Esteemed Senator, for showing us the way to productive debate. I know you may think you're really putting him in his place, but we have mods, we have a Mike already. How is this really increasing the quality of discourse and contributing to a conflict of ideas? This is just garden-variety cock-measuring. Its no more becoming on you than it is on him.

I digress:

Frankly, the only sort of event that will both guarantee homosexual rights immediately and preserve them in the future against any Redeemer-type movements (as has now taken root in California, in reaction to the judicial ruling recognizing marriage there) is a full-scale, militant neo-abolitionist Movement. And just as Emancipation was won, not by the submissive minority, but instead by well-intentioned, crusading members of the majority willing to sacrifice life and limb and social prestige for the cause, so to will this Movement be dominated mostly by heterosexuals - the problem heretofore with the LGBT movement has been its inability to properly create an alliance with members of the majority who do not feel threatened by them. And the watchword must be, peace if possible, force if necessary. The Mormon cult in Utah and the Southern states must be put on high alert by a force of men-at-arms willing to fight and to bleed for the sacred liberties of others, free from the soul-poison of Christianity. Identity politics have accomplished not a thing in four decades, and a stronger tonic is required.

I must say, you are my favorite relative new poster, because you're the only one I've met that even approaches (and not there, even) the absurd delusions of the media and mainstream right in this country that there is a far left segment in this country anywhere close to as activist and aggressive as the far right. That said, I disagree with your basic thesis. The evidence for a medium-term economic collapse and theocratic oppression is way too threadbare and unclear to support the need to plan for militant aggression against theocratic elements. And premature preparations and organization for it will only aid the right's political propaganda against the progressives, especially in the quite possible scenario your fears never come to light. There is a strong possibility it will be counterproductive and cause needless violence and divisiveness in the body politic. However, I do think that there obviously is a scenario where what you are calling for would be well-justified, at least by common American historical narratives and the mainstream political rhetoric used to justify myriad attempts to bring freedom by the sword. Therefore, I am going to play somewhat the devil's advocate and defend you against your detractors.

John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was one of the polarizing events that led to the civil war, arguably the most violent and turbulent period of American history. If you want to bring about equality for homosexuals in an orgy of blood, you probably havn't considered a better way.

Clearly abolitionists should've said please and thank you while resisting the ownership and torture of an entire race of people. And if you want to bring equality for blacks in an orgy of blood, then you haven't found a better way? Are you seriously criticizing the Union in the Civil War as fighting a moral conflict when it ended black slavery?

Edit: I'd also like to point out, that in the 20th century, the greatest strides toward equality of minorities was done through nonviolent means and political pressure, not force of arms.

Only after enormous race riots and the rise of black seperatism in the form of Malcolm X and the like; MLK was the civil rights leader they could work with, but it was the pressure to mollify a potentially radicalizing movement which made it so successful.

I believe homosexuals should have every right of heterosexuals, but I don't know that it would be worth the death of thousands or millions of American lives to make it so WITHOUT FIRST EXHAUSTING peaceful actions.

Did you vote for Bush in 2000? 2004? What was your position on freedom from the tip of a bayonet in Iraq?

Mengsk, you need to cool out about advocating violence as opposed to a discussion of its ideological merits in intellectual scenarios; you cannot advocate religious violence from a community hosted in Mike's room. That goes beyond your rights.

[hongi]

Diocletian had the right idea.

What the fuck? Are you insane or do you just like supporting mass murderers?

[The Romulan Republic]

Ok internet tough guy, you first. You want to violently rise up and oppress a group, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. Start organizing, arming, etc. I'll follow the news to see if this pans out for you.

Cut me a check and fund my efforts, then, and I will. And I could bring at least ten men into the fold myself if given the munitions, one of them having already been arrested and charged for assaulting a Jehovah's Witness missionary, and being generally more ill-disposed towards the sect than I am. I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. Indeed, several of my friends have already made preliminary plans for such an event, but as a contingency in the case of a general economic collapse, when the theocratic forces will be at their strongest.

So again, I should sacrifice for your ideals by funding you rather then you putting it on the line for what you think is right.

Put up or shut up, loser.

I know you don't agree with him, but you shouldn't encourage him to carry out his ideas, even to make a point. If he walks into a church full of Mormons tomorrow and blows a kid's head off, you would share in the blame for that crime.

But as for this little shit, he has boasted that he plans to violent acts against a religious group, and has admitted that he knows people who have made similar plans. He is advocating terrorism, and violating board policy in doing so. Not to play mod, but isn't that a banable offense?

[Illuminatus Primus]

We should demand he explain himself and verify if he is sincere about committing random violence or if he has more nuanced plans. Quite frankly, I don't think there's anything that radical about organizing and arming if you're LGBTQ or atheistic; as I said, its really nothing more than the Malcolm X approach. However, deliberately initiating violence against civilians for ideological offenses is clearly unacceptable.

[Stormbringer]

And now we have to wait and see if he'll at least make attempts on his promises.

He probably will try but don't expect him to actually spend any political capital on it. The Dems can pretty much take gays for granted and have taken shameless advantage of them. The Democrats know the gay vote isn't going to desert and they still have to appease their religious nutters.

There isn't likely to be much done of significance because there are a ton of religious reactionaries in the Democratic party. Both the African-American and Hispanic demographics are virulently against gay rights and they're a significant part of Democratic success. On top of that, much of the Union vote is also bigoted as hell. In good economic times those voters may stay away or actually cross party lines on social issues. That soft support was one area that helped Bush eke out his electoral victories. Those matter less now but by the same token there is not much attention or drive to address those issues. The Democrats have too much to lose by pushing for gay rights, at least on the national level.

I think Obama may be the beginning of a trend to take it a bit more seriously, as he's got far more of the youth vote. The one bright spot is that the younger generations tend to be more tolerant, regardless of party affiliation. But there's simply not the impetus yet for it to be a major issue like abortion or guns are now.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't expect to garner any support on this particular forum, since even the atheists here are of the garden-variety Dawkinsonian stripe, and the very reason why secularism is in decline in the first place.

How is secularism in decline? A very vaguely religious President has been elected over the objections of a vocal nativist minority which suspected him of African-Muslim or atheistic socialist Manchurian Candidate characteristics. Gay marriage is a reachable reality which may yet be victorious in CA. It is in Mass and Conn. The youth is more non-religious and atheistic than any previous generation. Churchgoing is at all-time lows. The probably growth capacity of the Mormon and Southern churches is limited, and is definitely blunted by the overall atheistic-shift of society. I say what we are seeing is a desperate reaction.

When the Christian feels his 'rights' are threatened, he beats the drums of war and goes on the march; when the secular humanist feels likewise, he gently sobs into his hands and surrenders, quivering, without a fight. Most of you are as contemptible as the groups against which you rail, with the added problem of being mostly inept at political manuevering and hence ineffectual at securing the liberties you seek.

Is the test for contemptiblity purely one of ideological virility and aggression? Or logical value, potential to aid human development, and associated with culture and education?

However, I assure you that the day will come when, seeing as opportunity to realize their theocratic regimen in the event of economic pandemonium, the religious forces in this nation which have to date been bottle-necked by the political limits of liberal democracy will rise forth, and not one of you will be able to, or will even attempt to, prevent it.

As I said before, the Malcolm X approach may be extreme, but in some sectors of American culture, clearly justified; LBGTQ people are at high risk of social alienation and aggression by the religious majority. And in the event of your scenario, clearly armed struggle to secure survival and liberty would be desirable. But the evidence to establish such an event as inevitable and immanent, and thus ethically sanction aggressive preemption on the part of progressives and atheists is not established.