Neal Horsley explains why terrorism has a basis in scripture

[Memekiller]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1765-Underground-Examiner~y2009m4d30-Candidate-for-governor-Neal-Horsley-says-terrorism-has-basis-in-scripture

In his list of "Aborted Doctors", he refers to the names of the people who killed these doctors as "terrorists". Because his site has been pulled down so many times, he says he copied the list from a pro-choice sight, and lists the names, somewhat disingenuously, as "victims of legalized abortion." So we ask if he would call them terrorists.

"Yeah. I call Paul Hill terrorist," Horsley says. "The Bible says that ministers of government was given the sword of terror for those who has done wrong. The idea that someone uses terror to enforce the law is a Biblical concept, and I’ve never hesitated calling all people involved in terrorism for anti-abortion causes terrorists." He says those people would object, but it's BS. He's going to use whatever terms allow him to speak the truth.

Is he saying terrorism is sanctioned by the Bible?
He gives an emphatic yes and refers us to Romans 13 that claims gives ministers of government the sword of terror to stop law breakers. "As Paul says, government is not made for righteous people...the law of God is not made for righteous people, it’s made for law breakers." Somehow, I get the feeling that those who deserve the sword of terror are not the "good Christians", but "law breakers" like you and me. "All the people on the Nuremberg list were law breakers. George Bush is on there. If I was consistent, I would put my name up there, because I’m just as much a collaborator with this nation as everybody else is, I’m just contesting it."

[AnnieBW]

1. The Macabees were the first religious terrorists

If you interpret your Bible in such a way. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

[struggle4progress]

2. Unfortunately, Horsley's preaching of violence isn't merely theoretical:

... In 1997, a pro-life activist affiliated with ACLA gave a much longer list of more than 200 "abortionists" to anti-abortion hardliner Neal Horsley, who then posted them on a section of his Christian Gallery Web site labeled "Nuremberg Files." Horsley highlighted the names of those doctors and others murdered by anti-abortion terrorists by striking through their names on the list; those who were merely wounded had their names grayed out. Several abortion providers listed on the posters and the Nuremburg Files site sued ACLA and twelve anti-abortion activists. A jury later found that the defendants violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, awarding the plaintiffs $107 million in actual and punitive damages. The judge enjoined the posters and restricted the content on the Web site ... On appeal, the defendants argued that the content of the posters and Web site were protected speech under the First Amendment. But the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ACLA's liability, finding that the content on the posters and Web site constituted an unprotected true threat. The court defined a true threat as a statement made when a "reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm" ... http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=556

[windowpilot]

3. just another mule fucker! n/t