Common Beliefs Are Now Indicators of Terrorism

[DBCowboy]

I think the term is likely overused.

If someone is against a war with a country who never attacked them, are they anti-American? But the problem is, people find a way to interject their politics with what America is. People can disagree with the current state of America, and claim they have a different interpretation of it. That isn't unconstitutional. 

It's the reason why they added freedom of speech. Protecting freedom of speech doesn't mean we are protecting the right of people to say things everyone agrees with. It's to protect speech and ideas many might find offensive or abhorrent. And more than that, it's the freedom to be critical of those in power. And there in lies the power, if you look at any political campaign, they use language to imply they are the only salvation for the country. Then people act as if you must hate the country if you're critical of their platform. That's not unique to an individual or party. 

So this all goes back to my original point. Who get's to define anti-American? Who would be in charge of labeling people anti-American? I'm sure we could even start with a couple of good baselines, but it would start to blur over time. It happens with anything deemed "hate speech". At first, it's clear as day, you pick the people who really say what many could deem hateful, and then it slowly just becomes anything that people may find uncomfortable, or "adjacent". 

I don't hate America. I'd be shocked if I ever live somewhere else, and I have the means to do so if I really wanted to. But loving a place, where you're from is kind of like family. I can still be critical of my family members. I can still suggest that we better ourselves in certain ways. The same is true of country, but we've seen before there are certain periods where people pervert patriotism to imply that any criticism is hate. I find that premise ridiculous.

If you are against the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, then you are anti-American.

[CriticalStinker]

If you are against the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, then you are anti-American.

A lot of the "terrorism indicators" on their own are freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. If we're being honest, yes, all of them combined is probably a troubled individual. But to try and associate people to terrorism for just having views is pretty wild, and something the right should remember intimately. 

I think when you zoom out on the Constitution, the whole point was to promote individualism and the rights to seek that in any way fit. I say that because of the rights, and how SCOTUS has viewed a lot of cases, and also a big reason why we're here. But you also have to look at the people that made up the early stages of America. They were basically religious refugees, coming to a land they can practice their religion because they at least perceived where they were leaving was hostile.

So, one of these "terrorist indicators" is anti-Christianity. What is that, who determines that? Could a Protestant then be critical of Catholicism? Can Christians say that Mormonism is wrong since it proclaims its base in Christianity like Christianity does from the Jews?

That's the problem with trying to over label things. There's no way to allow for nuance, and that's why the Constitution said freedom of religion, speech, expression and many more.

[UltraBudgie]

So, one of these "terrorist indicators" is anti-Christianity. What is that, who determines that? Could a Protestant then be critical of Catholicism? Can Christians say that Mormonism is wrong since it proclaims its base in Christianity like Christianity does from the Jews?

And I'm going to guess, should that "indicator" ever make its way to actual legislation, it will be generalized to "anti-religion" or "discrimination based on faith", then somehow, mysteriously, almost exclusively applied to those who object to Israel or America's unquestioning support of their actions.

[CriticalStinker]

And I'm going to guess, should that "indicator" ever make its way to actual legislation, it will be generalized to "anti-religion" or "discrimination based on faith", then somehow, mysteriously, almost exclusively applied to those who object to Israel or America's unquestioning support of their actions.

Maybe, or that might just be an added bonus.

I did see recently there was an antisemitism bill that would define certain speech as antisemitic. One of those was the notion that Jews killed Jesus. Now, for the record, the Romans killed Jesus. But there are people out there who believe the Jewish people of the time helped, seeing him as blasphemous to their religion. I don't think that is a crazy premise, there has been animosity with the Christians and Mormons over certain things, and there has been a level of tension, albeit mostly civil for much of the time. 

Even Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, and the reason why is a sensitive topic depending on who you talk to. And that is because even in Christian and Jewish texts, there is a story behind Abrahams first born son.

When we talk about religion, it's almost more sensitive an issue than politics. People who are religious often believe in an afterlife, one that may be an eternity. So this life, while important, is only the precursor to the next more important after life after salvation. With that context, I can appreciate why people are so convicted when it comes to religion. And we're all critical of religions we don't agree with, with the simple act of not following them. So in our very nature, we could be anti whatever religion just by believing something that contradicts their religion.

To me, it's all a mess. This problem has existed since recorded history, and America was quite literally made to be a safe haven from such conflicts. The idea is, all ideas go here. So long as your rights don't impede on someone else's, it flies. What we're seeing is some of the early stages towards ideological rules. The concerning part to me, is just how vague it's laid out.

[DBCowboy]

A lot of the "terrorism indicators" on their own are freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. If we're being honest, yes, all of them combined is probably a troubled individual. But to try and associate people to terrorism for just having views is pretty wild, and something the right should remember intimately. 

I think when you zoom out on the Constitution, the whole point was to promote individualism and the rights to seek that in any way fit. I say that because of the rights, and how SCOTUS has viewed a lot of cases, and also a big reason why we're here. But you also have to look at the people that made up the early stages of America. They were basically religious refugees, coming to a land they can practice their religion because they at least perceived where they were leaving was hostile.

So, one of these "terrorist indicators" is anti-Christianity. What is that, who determines that? Could a Protestant then be critical of Catholicism? Can Christians say that Mormonism is wrong since it proclaims its base in Christianity like Christianity does from the Jews?

That's the problem with trying to over label things. There's no way to allow for nuance, and that's why the Constitution said freedom of religion, speech, expression and many more.

I have no idea what you are saying

[CriticalStinker]

I have no idea what you are saying

You said that someone who is anti freedoms enshrined in the Constitution are anti American. 

Circling back to the thread, the list of new indicators of terrorism, I picked one "Anti Christianity" and showed how that may be problematic. 

I think being anti religion is being anti Constitution, but there's a point where being pro your religion might be anti another religion, so the freedom has to remain that people are able to express their freedoms of speech, expression and religion.

[DBCowboy]

You said that someone who is anti freedoms enshrined in the Constitution are anti American. 

Circling back to the thread, the list of new indicators of terrorism, I picked one "Anti Christianity" and showed how that may be problematic. 

I think being anti religion is being anti Constitution, but there's a point where being pro your religion might be anti another religion, so the freedom has to remain that people are able to express their freedoms of speech, expression and religion.

You're changing the paradigm.

[UltraBudgie]

Even Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, and the reason why is a sensitive topic depending on who you talk to. And that is because even in Christian and Jewish texts, there is a story behind Abrahams first born son.

I don't think there's anyone who argues that it is not. That's why "Judeo-Christian" was coined—in my opinion, a contradiction in terms—so people could talk about Abrahamic religions but exclude Islam.

Also let's not forget that the English Pilgrims were fundamentalist religious radicals and the last thing they wanted was freedom from religion. It's a miracle they didn't slaughter each other before enough generations had passed for the fervour to wear off somewhat, and grudgingly allow a détente of sorts to be established. Their legacy persists to this day. In many ways this is a country of extremists still.

[CriticalStinker]

You're changing the paradigm.

I disagree. I merely put case studies that could be problematic towards trying to define wrong ideas. It would inevitably come right back to ideologies it's trying to protect.

[CriticalStinker]

I don't think there's anyone who argues that it is not. That's why "Judeo-Christian" was coined—in my opinion, a contradiction in terms—so people could talk about Abrahamic religions but exclude Islam.

Also let's not forget that the English Pilgrims were fundamentalist religious radicals and the last thing they wanted was freedom from religion. It's a miracle they didn't slaughter each other before enough generations had passed for the fervour to wear off somewhat, and grudgingly allow a détente of sorts to be established. Their legacy persists to this day. In many ways this is a country of extremists still.

Freedom of religion is still a debate, one I've seen raised on this board, or ATS.

The funniest irony to me is that Atheists often act religious, almost in an evangelical way. You even get the two breeds, the good will missionaries and fire and brimstone type.

That said, no religion is kind of it's own religion. And then you have the people who are "spiritual", but just don't belong to any of the organized religions. 

All that to say, I think freedom of religion is freedom from it too.