Nypd Designates Mosques As Terrorism Organizations

[Winchester]

Doesn't NYPD conduct random searches of people walking down the street?

 

NYPD is a terrorist organization.

[Gabriela]

No.  Obviously not.

 

Indeed, I got the details wrong:

 

 

 

ARMY TRAINING MATERIAL ON ‘RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM’ LISTS EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS, CATHOLICS AND SOME JEWS ALONGSIDE KKK, AL-QAEDA AND HAMAS

Apr. 5, 2013 10:29pm Jason Howerton

• 167
• 2.6K
• 4
• 7
•  
• 183

During a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania, a U.S. Army training instructor listed Evangelical Christianity, Catholicism and even “Islamophobia” as examples of “religious extremism,” Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports. Listed alongside them were the Ku Klux Klan, Hamas and al-Qaeda.

The incident reportedly occurred during an Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief on religious extremism. At the top of the list is Evangelical Christianity. However, other extremist groups included Sunni Muslims, and Nation of Islam and the Jewish Defense League.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/05/army-training-material-on-religious-extremism-lists-evangelical-christians-catholics-and-some-jews-alongside-kkk-al-qaeda-and-hamas/

[4588686]

It's quite wrong since it was apparently only the product of that individual presenter.  It's not clear what that presenter was trying to state.  Obviously, there have been extremist Catholic groups.  Internationally (Northern Ireland, Croatia, et cetera) as well as domestically (Fr. John Earl).  I really doubt that the Officer was claiming that 'Christian identity' was a terrorist organization since an identity is not an organization.  But, of course, presenting yourself as being offended and under siege is big business (literally).  No reason for the Clerical class not to cash in.  

[BigJon16]

All this talk of what constitutes someone as a terrorist sounds an awful lot like a Monty Python comedy routine about witches...

 

 

As you wish..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYO0joolR0

[CrossCuT]

As you wish..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYO0joolR0

 

Love

[Didacus]

Any government official would be welcomed to enter a church and listen to a priest's sermon, take that notes he wants on it and do so openly.  I would pose not a single objection - I have nothing to be ashamed of in my religion, and nothing to hide wihtin it.

 

Can all islamist mosques honestly say the same?

 

(just asking here....)

:unsure:

[Aloysius]

I would be outraged if a policeman came in an official capacity to take notes on what was being said in a sermon.  absolutely positively lividly outraged, it'd be a HUGE violation of our rights, a direct indisputable violation of the Constitution, it'd be the kind of thing that is done to intimidate priests against speaking freely to their flocks even if those things were not popular in the government, it'd be an absolutely orwellian nightmare, the beginnings of Soviet or Chinese oppression.  I can't believe you'd be okay with that.  I would be LIVID if that were happening, just as I am LIVID about the NYPD's tactics here.

 

it's not about being ashamed of what's being said at the pulpit, it's about standing up against governments that want to stick their noses in where it doesn't belong so that they can intimidate, and bully.  federal tactics on these kinds of operations are outrageous, too, they go around trying to trick people into breaking laws so that they have leverage against them and can pressure them into informing for them (which is what happened at Ruby Ridge, this is the kind of tactic that ends up escalating situations out of control, last thing we need to see happen is a Muslim Ruby Ridge--so stop spying on innocent people and require warrants issued on probable cause about SPECIFIC individuals before anyone can be searched or spied upon, as the Fourth Amendment requires)

[Didacus]

I would be outraged if a policeman came in an official capacity to take notes on what was being said in a sermon.  absolutely positively lividly outraged, it'd be a HUGE violation of our rights, a direct indisputable violation of the Constitution, it'd be the kind of thing that is done to intimidate priests against speaking freely to their flocks even if those things were not popular in the government, it'd be an absolutely orwellian nightmare, the beginnings of Soviet or Chinese oppression.  I can't believe you'd be okay with that.  I would be LIVID if that were happening, just as I am LIVID about the NYPD's tactics here.

 

it's not about being ashamed of what's being said at the pulpit, it's about standing up against governments that want to stick their noses in where it doesn't belong so that they can intimidate, and bully.  federal tactics on these kinds of operations are outrageous, too, they go around trying to trick people into breaking laws so that they have leverage against them and can pressure them into informing for them (which is what happened at Ruby Ridge, this is the kind of tactic that ends up escalating situations out of control, last thing we need to see happen is a Muslim Ruby Ridge--so stop spying on innocent people and require warrants issued on probable cause about SPECIFIC individuals before anyone can be searched or spied upon, as the Fourth Amendment requires)

 

Nope - I would welcome it.

No problem here.

 

I'm french-canadien ya know - eh?  Peut etre que c'est cela qui est la difference, meme si je ne trouve pas toujours mes accents!

 

 

 

My question above remains in mon opinion.

 

 

 

Hey... dUst - how come I can never find the french-canadien smiley anyways?  Are they like, always sold out - eh?

 

:sad2:

[havok579257]

Nope - I would welcome it.

No problem here.

 

I'm french-canadien ya know - eh?  Peut etre que c'est cela qui est la difference, meme si je ne trouve pas toujours mes accents!

 

 

 

My question above remains in mon opinion.

 

 

 

Hey... dUst - how come I can never find the french-canadien smiley anyways?  Are they like, always sold out - eh?

 

:sad2:

 

So you would welcome police trying to intimidate catholic priests and parishoners?  You welcoming them interrupting mass and arresting the priest during consecration because he used hate speech to try to start a riot against this country.  Cause he claims we should stand up to the government and condemn them accepting gay marriage and abortion.  So your good with a priest being dragged out of the church for that sermon, all the while the sacred body and blood is thrown all over the place by police because they don't care what happens? 

 

You honestly would welcome that?

[Didacus]

So you would welcome police trying to intimidate catholic priests and parishoners?  You welcoming them interrupting mass and arresting the priest during consecration because he used hate speech to try to start a riot against this country.  Cause he claims we should stand up to the government and condemn them accepting gay marriage and abortion.  So your good with a priest being dragged out of the church for that sermon, all the while the sacred body and blood is thrown all over the place by police because they don't care what happens? 

 

You honestly would welcome that?

 

Its a pretty long leap from listening, taking notes while attending mass and what you describe above.

[Aloysius]

of course it's a leap, but that's the only direction you'er going in when you start allowing spying in places of worship.  not necessarily that far, but the official sitting in the pew taking notes could be determining what kind of tax status the church is qualifyied to receive based on what's being said in the pews, for instance, as a means of intimidation against the priest being free to speak freely from the pulpit.  of course these things are being said in public, but the SECOND you have someone in the pews taking notes in an official capacity as a representative of the government, you have intimidation.  I guarantee you that even though you, personally, might be naively okay with that, the Church would never stand for it.  it's a matter of principle.

 

and let's not let this example distort what is going on here: this isn't someone walking in and listening to what's being preached, this is bugging and informants and infiltrating private settings... much more akin to if every private prayer group you had, private advice with your priest, even what was being said within the confessional, was being listened to or infiltrated by paid informants to see if you were plotting terrorism.  just like a church, any individual can go in and hear the public preaching being done.  heck, I'm living in Cairo here right now, so I'll tell you this, if we didn't have our Western noise ordinances, mosques in America would probably be all too happy to broadcast their sermons as loudly as they could into the surrounding streets lol.  what we're talking about here is a massive intrusion into places where people ought to have an expectation of privacy.  and in America at least (and of course, generally also according to the norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), you cannot intrude into places where people have an expectation of privacy unless you have a warrant signed by a judge for specific individuals based on probable cause that those specific individuals are engaged in criminal activity.  this is one of the most blatant and egregious circumventions of those basic norms of American law I have ever seen.

[Nihil Obstat]

Nope - I would welcome it.
No problem here.
 
I'm french-canadien ya know - eh?  Peut etre que c'est cela qui est la difference, meme si je ne trouve pas toujours mes accents!
 
 
 
My question above remains in mon opinion.
 
 
 
Hey... dUst - how come I can never find the french-canadien smiley anyways?  Are they like, always sold out - eh?
 
:sad2:

Because the Canadian government has never shown an interest in trampling all over the rights of the Church or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guibord_case

[Didacus]

Ok - dudes, dudettes, I really think you're taking this out of proportion here, and many important points are being missed in the process.

How about we take a step back here a minute...

 

A sermon is essentially a public speech.  Granted it is performed in the context of worship, but nonetheless at its essentials it remains a public speech.  Not only a public, but the institutions who promulgate these speeches, including our own Mother Church, invites everyone to come and listen and take part.  Why would the government NOT be interested in hearing what is being said in public?  This is not spying on two individuals, behind closed doors of their homes while believing they are in their respective sanctity of privacy - THIS IS A PUBLIC SPEECH, how can you say its spying if the purpose of a sermon is to be heard by everyone or by as many people as possible and everyone (in principal) is welcomed to hear (and even take part of any ceremony within which it is contained)?

 

I believe some of you in this thread are in contradiction within your own beliefs to take this matter as scandal, at least on its onset.

 

 

So chill wills ya?  Just chill a bit ya'll. eh?  Then maybe we can start having an actual discussion instead of crying to high heavens falling on everyone's heads and throwing manure at poor little didacus and his corporation who has nothing other than benevolent intents.

 

 

the last thing I want to do is beat a dead horse... if the horse is dead, it had enough.

:deadhorse:

[Aloysius]

sermons are public, sure, but that doesn't mean it's in any way okay for the government to have an official sitting there in a public capacity  taking notes.  I think you might be okay with that because you're relatively okay with your government (though as Nihil points out, maybe you shouldn't be), but re-work the image--how about the Chinese Government having an official sitting in the pews taking notes?  How about the Nazi government having an official sitting in the pews taking notes?  How about Caesar having someone sitting in the catacombs taking notes?

 

and of course, it's not spying if it's listening to a public sermon, but of course that's not all the NYPD is doing here.... but even if it was, it's inherently intimidating for government to be officially noting what's being said in sermons.  that's more obvious when it's a hostile government, but of course, if we're talking about the NYPD and mosques, I think it's obviously a hostile government.

 

many other things may be public that it's not okay for the government to send officials or police asking questions or taking notes about.  honestly, I'm not even really okay giving a government official my name unless he has probable cause the suspect me of a crime, because that name could end up in a police report.  governments collecting information are governments trying to determine if their policies are being enforced, so every instance of a government collecting information is in some ways intimidating compliance with their laws, and there are definitely places in which that doesn't belong--churches and mosques, homes, places of business--without particular probable cause about a specific individual.  just because an area is public, or a speech is public, doesn't mean we're okay with big brother watching it.

 

anyway no worries didacus, and I'm sure your corporation is limited liability so I doubt any of the manure will be able to touch it.  don't refuse to send me a t-shirt just because I actually godwinned you up there a teensy weensy bit. :P

[Didacus]

The Judicial Committee ruled that the church officials had to allow Guibord's remains to be buried in the Roman Catholic section of the cemetery, although without full religious rites. The case caused great political and religious controversy in Quebec

 

 

Of course I would take objection and be part of the controversy in the example given.  (And PS; there are far worse examples than that, you didn't have to go back over 100years here...)

 

However, we are talking about listening, and taking notes - THAT's all.  I for one is ok with that.

 

Actions taken based on those notes, I may or may not agree.  If my priest cheers for his parishioners to murder and kill neighbors of other religions; I would probably turn him in myself.  (would you?)

 

 

Does anyone know why the NYPD starting this practice?  With what intent?  What are they reacting to?

 

Edited September 6, 2013 by Didacus