Preacher protesting Troy Davis' scheduled execution is arrested

[rug]

Soon after the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles announced Tuesday that it was denying clemency to Troy Davis, the man convicted of killing a Savannah police officer, the Rev. Marvin Morgan, 63, showed up outside the board offices in downtown Atlanta and chained himself to the flagpole where the Stars and Stripes fluttered above.

A reporter encountered Morgan, a minister at Atlanta's First Congregational United Church of Christ, around lunchtime as he was sitting on the ground in overalls, Nikes and a red, white and blue windbreaker, nearly alone on the concrete plaza outside the government building. For days, the plaza had been the site of protests that have drawn hundreds of people as Georgia moves forward with plans to execute Davis despite the recantations of numerous witnesses in his original 1991 trial.

Now, on this overcast afternoon, it was quiet -- though not for long. Protesters said they plan to gather on the state Capitol steps at 7 p.m. Tuesday. Davis is scheduled to be executed at 7 p.m. Wednesday.

Morgan, bespectacled, with a graying moustache and clerical collar, said he had begun a hunger strike to protest the execution.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/davis_protester_arrested.html

Go Marvin!

[cleanhippie]

1. Wrong forum.

What does this have to do with religion/theology?

Unless there was some kind of point you are trying to make here?

[humblebum]

2. Sometimes people forget that we only see anti-religious stuff posted here.

Anything pro-religious probably belongs in General Discussion.

[cleanhippie]

3. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Considering that rug leaves no comment on why or for what he posted this.

Color me not surprised.

[Angry Dragon]

9. I would guess he wanted to post it here because it involved

a man of the cloth, religion.

If you feel it should be moved then alert and state your case to the mods.
I myself find nothing wrong with it here.

And He said onto the multitudes, "Lay down your hate, lay down your anger and follow me"

[Goblinmonger]

4. Hey, your hypocrisy is showing.

Why is it OK for this preacher to tell other people what to believe but when an atheist group does it against a religious group it is a sure sign of the apocalypse? This is every bit as bigoted as you claim the atheist demonstration was.

[humblebum]

5. So how is a minister protesting execution of a possibly innocent man

somehow demeaning to atheists? Am I missing something here. Even if it was an atheist protesting this, I would applaud him. He is certainly not the only one protesting the execution. this is a huge international matter and will probably have severe repercussions for the State of Georgia.

[Goblinmonger]

6. It's not demeaning to atheists.

Perhaps, unlike you I guess, everything isn't always about me. But the problem you had with the atheists is that they were telling others that their beliefs were wrong. Same thing this guy is doing. People believe that capital punishment is justified. Many even use the bible to support their opinion. How dare this pastor tell others that their beliefs are wrong and his are right?

If this were an atheist protesting, your head would explode. You would want to applaud him but wouldn't. I have very little tolerance left for you after your broad brush "all atheists are the same" post in a different thread.

[humblebum]

7. I have never said that all atheists are the same. But then I

honestly don't care what you think. I also think that capital is often justified, but when 7 of 9 witnesses recant and there is a serious lack of certain types of evidence, the death penalty needs to be halted. There is entirely too much doubt of his guilt. Much of the world is protesting this one, and rightfully so.

[Goblinmonger]

8. So whether a protest is OK

is dependent upon your view of what is being protested. It isn't, as you said in another thread, about someone telling another what they should believe (which I still disagree with as an interpretation), it is about someone telling someone something that YOU disagree with. Got it.

Your hard on for atheists is apparent.

[humblebum]

10. Putting it quite bluntly, sir, his protest did not amount to bigotry

against another group of people.

[Goblinmonger]

11. So he wasn't protesting

against those that believe in capital punishment? Those that supported this particular instance? It was just him against nobody? Quite the protest.

[humblebum]

12. Is there a difference between a, say..., a white supremacist rally

and blocking the entrance to a coal power plant (or whatever)? That's the sort of comparison you are making here.

[Goblinmonger]

13. No, I am going with what you said.

And I quote from post 11 in the atheist protest thread "I also agree that atheists have no right to decide how others may act." Then in post 13 you equated the atheists with "Klan protesters who are targeting another group and its beliefs." Then again in post 19, you restate your original point "The subject of their protest is the beliefs of another group of people. Clear bigotry. And they need to be called on it."

The pastor in this OP is doing just what you railed against the atheists doing. He is trying to decide how others act (stopping a capital punishment that the law ordered and a jury agreed with). He is targeting another group and its beliefs (those that support the death penalty in general and this instance in specific). But since this guy is religious, you don't feel that he needs to "be called on it."

Again, your hardon for atheists is clear.

[humblebum]

14. I think you're trying to spin things so they make sense to you and only you.

"Again, your hardon for atheists is clear" - when the bulk of the R/T thread is antireligious and mainly anti-christian in nature, that statement is absurd. You've got no room to complain.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Just because what you said and argued in one thread

no longer makes sense with what you are saying in this thread, doesn't mean the rest of us don't see the hypocrisy.

Nice deflection, by the way. I gave you the specific quotations from the other thread that apply here and your response is "well I think you're a dick, too." How compelling. Don't know why I didn't think of that one myself.

We aren't talking about the "bulk of the R/T threads." We are talking about YOU and YOUR lack of intellectual consistency which stems from your desire to spout off whatever comes to your mind in your crusade against the evil atheists. I believe someone in the other thread pointed it out to you as painting yourself into a corner. Your skill at being able to do that in two threads is amazing. You should be proud.

[humblebum]

16. You're making some pretty wild accusations, buddy, especially

when the trend is very anti-religious and anti-christian. All I can say is get used to it. I am not anti-atheist, but definitely anti-radical (or whatever you care to call it) atheist.

[cleanhippie]

17. Get used to what? You are making no sense at all.

Here is what you just posted:

"You're making some pretty wild accusations, buddy, especially when the trend is very anti-religious and anti-christian. All I can say is get used to it."


Get used to what? What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you even know?

[Goblinmonger]

18. Get used to being shat upon?

Let me tell you, already had my fair share. Contrary to your twisted opinions, it isn't all beer and skittles for atheists in this country.

And how are my accusations wild? I gave you quotations from your posts. If you want to argue the content/context of what you said, go ahead. But the fact that you are turning to some bizarre threat of "get used to it" as a response to my calling out your hypocrisy rather than actually deal with the issue is pretty telling that you have fuck all in response to the hypocrisy charge.

[humblebum]

20. Like I said, you are making some pretty wild charges.

The R/T Forum is dominated by anti-religious and anti-Christian rhetoric. And if you are calling any challenge to that hypocritical charge wrong, then by all means feel free to express your opinion, because I certainly will mine. That's what I meant getting used to it. So get used to it.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Why do you not understand that I am not talking about the whole of R/T

I am talking about the fact that clearly--and I QUOTED YOU--have a different standard for atheist protesters than you do the religious. Deal with your quotations if you want. I quoted 3 of your posts. You have never dealt with them. Your standard on the other thread was that it was bigotry to tell people how to believe. That is happening here yet you say it is OK.

You can challenge all you want. But when you are hypocritical in your challenge, expect to be called on it.

Some response by you to the charge of hypocrisy would be good. Please don't tell me about the rhetoric of R/T again because that has fuck all to do with YOUR double standard which is what I'm dealing with here. Your deliberate obfuscation is getting old.

[humblebum]

25. I will only answer this by saying "see post #24".

The only double standard is the one you have created. And I will continue to reference the R/T thread when it serves a purpose. And I will continue to criticize organized atheism.

[Goblinmonger]

27. But you will not criticize any religious group for doing the same thing.

I created no double standard. I have only pointed out yours.

[cleanhippie]

69. And that is classic cognitive dissonance.

QED

[NMMNG]

19. I have to agree with Goblinmonger here

You previously declared that it's bigotry to protest the beliefs of another group of people. This guy is protesting the beliefs of everyone who thinks this man should suffer the death penalty. By your definition that makes him a bigot.

So either you think this pastor is a bigot, or you really do have a hypocrisy problem.

[humblebum]

21. It should be quite obvious that I am referring to religious beliefs.

Perhaps in this case I should have used the word opinion instead of belief. But I should have not had to explain. However, I still feel that open public ridicule of anyone's religious beliefs, by publicly destroying or defacing something held as sacred to that group, for the purpose of ridiculing them, it is clear bigotry. That rises beyond mere criticism.

[Goblinmonger]

23. This pastor IS dealing with religious beliefs.

MANY christian sects believe that capital punishment is fine and will quote the bible to support their argument. This pastor is telling those people that their religious beliefs are wrong. Therefore, by YOUR standard on the atheist protest thread, this guy is a bigot.

QED

[humblebum]

24. He is dealing with a moral belief, not a religious belief. It had

absolutely nothing to do with belief or not in a diety. i am sure there were probably many non-religious people who felt the same.

[Goblinmonger]

26. That's just bullshit semantics.

So the only time one is bigoted when telling someone what to belief is when it is at the macro level of a belief in gods. Give me a fucking break. That is not what you said in that thread (and you said it multiple times so you had many chances to make yourself clear) and you are just back pedaling now. This guy violates your standard of bigotry on the other thread and you don't have to stones to either call him a bigot or admit that you were talking out of your ass in the other thread. Speaks volumes about you.

We are back to the hard on you have for atheists showing.

[humblebum]

28. I think you just called MLK a bigot. nt

[Goblinmonger]

29. No, I think YOU called MLK a bigot.

You just didn't realize when you were spouting off your anti-atheist bullshit in the other thread that that is what you were saying. You thought you were being clever with your new way to call atheists bigots. As soon as you posted it, I knew you would violate that standard and praise someone religious for doing the same thing. I didn't think it would come one day later, but I knew it would come.

I don't think the atheists nor the pastor here are bigots. Nor MLK. But applying the standard you created in the atheist thread, we know where you should stand on this pastor and on MLK.

Or you could just admit that you were being a dick in that other thread and you will have unpainted yourself from the corner.

[humblebum]

30. And I have certainly qualified my statement. It should not even

need to be mentioned that I was referring to religious beliefs. But I have explained myself and you are still on the bandwagon. So that puts the ball in your court buddy.

[Goblinmonger]

31. And I have very easily shown how this protest

is one aimed at religious beliefs. Plenty of christians believe that capital punishment is supported by their holy scripture. It is a religious belief and this pastor is telling them they are wrong. Just because you used some bullshit moral vs religious distinction doesn't mean it isn't at the core of scriptural interpretation. And, according to you, he is a bigot for telling people they are wrong about something they hold sacred (yeah, I haven't forgotten that part of the other thread, either).

[humblebum]

32. No, I never even implied that. The fact is that you are being totally

dishonest about it. I have already clarified myself. so if continue using the reasoning that you to be not true, then by extension every person that has ever taken a breath is a bigot. An atheist could have been doing the same thing as that pastor and it would have made no difference because it was most certainly a moral opinion. So evidently an atheist would have been protesting on religious, according to you, which makes no sense.

[Goblinmonger]

33. You didn't just imply it; you said it.

So you don't have to scroll all the way up to the other post, here's the three quotations that I gave you from your posts on the other thread. Please show my where your moral/religious distinction is clear because you made it very clear that it was about telling someone one to believe. This protest is telling others not to believe that capital punishment is right. It isn't about religion vs morals for you. It is about making someone's beliefs the subject of a protest. That is being done here.
--------------------------------
And I quote from post 11 in the atheist protest thread "I also agree that atheists have no right to decide how others may act." Then in post 13 you equated the atheists with "Klan protesters who are targeting another group and its beliefs." Then again in post 19, you restate your original point "The subject of their protest is the beliefs of another group of people. Clear bigotry. And they need to be called on it."

[humblebum]

34. I stand by those statements. How you interpret them is up to you.

I have no control over that. If you continue to insist that any opposing belief in any form is bigotry then you are including the entire human race, which is clearly absurd.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Please tell me how to interpret them differently?

I gave you the quotations. They support what I am saying. And it isn't like I am just taking one comment out of context, you said it in more places than I quoted from. You had plenty of opportunities to clarify yourself.

[humblebum]

40. Now let me get this straight. Assuming that we are discussing

the atheist group supposedly tearing up bibles or copies of bible verses, do you not think that they are protesting the (religious) beliefs of another group?

[Goblinmonger]

60. Yes.

I would hope that those are beliefs you would think are wrong, too. But who knows with you.

[okasha]

38. No, you haven't.

What the newspaper article actually identifies as the source os the protest is the pastor's belief that "If the state of Georgia can intentionally kill a person in a case surrounded with this much doubt, then we're all subject to the same fate."

That is not a religious tenet. It is a simple statement that the death penalty is inappropriate and unjust when there is substantial doubt--as there is in this case--about the guilt of the person convicted. And the pastor rightly notes that if one man can be railroaded, so can anyone else. You are injecting the leap of illogic that makes this a case of opponents vs. proponents of the death penalty per se and the further leap that identifies those as religous positions.

[Goblinmonger]

42. The standard held by humblebum is that it is bigotry

to tell someone what they should believe. This pastor is telling people that support this execution (some on religious groups I would imagine) that they are wrong and should believe differently. Therefore, according to humblebum logic, this pastor is a bigot.

As I've said many times, I don't think that is the case. But I'm pretty tired of humblebum railing on atheists and not holding others to the same ridiculous standards. He calls atheists bigots for one thing but then says it is different for the religious.

[okasha]

43. But you're still misrepresenting the issue.

If the pastor's position demonstrates a belief in any text, it's the Constitution. What some of his opponents believe, and why, is irrelevant to that,

[Goblinmonger]

44. That was never an issue in the other thread

humblebum had numerous opportunities to make that the case and did not. It was bigotry to tell someone what to believe. Period.

[humblebum]

46. Goblin, what case are you even talking about. you are calling this pastor

a bigot, not me. You are knowingly misrepresenting statements. You have been set straight and you are still making false claims. Period.

[humblebum]

45. No, you are claiming that "The standard held by humblebum is that it is bigotry"

which is a calculated misrepresentation of my position. Never said it, never implied it. You are being unbelievably ridiculous. And where did get this jewel: "He calls atheists bigots for one thing but then says it is different for the religious." You are being knowingly and openly dishonest. Why can't religious be bigots? They can be and they are at times. Never stated otherwise. Quit telling me what I have said.

[Goblinmonger]

52. I gave you your quotations where you set the standards for atheists.

The exact same standard (it is bigotry to tell someone what to believe) can be applied directly to this case yet you applaud this case and the other is bigotry. It's not that hard, really.

Please tell me I quoted you incorrectly from the other posts.

[NMMNG]

48. So religious beliefs get special protections?

Why? What makes them so bloody deserving? Why is it OK to protest political ideologies, philosophies, musical tastes, literary choices and everything else--but somebody's religious beliefs are automatically off limits? Why do they get special rights?


By your reasoning, nobody can protest the RRRW's deeply held religious beliefs that gay people should be denied equal rights (if not put to death), that abortion and birth control should be banned, that women should be subordinate to men, etc. It would be bigotry to protest Muslims who believe women should be required to wear burqas and be 100% submissive to men under penalty of "honor killings". If a Christian group stated that followers of other religions should be put to death (Exodus 22:20) it would be "bigotry" for anybody else to protest, at least according to you.

But from what I've seen you only think it's bigotry when atheists do the protesting. When clergy protest--even against other believers--they're righteous dudes, and you cheer them on. Then you wonder why people think you've got a hypocrisy problem and a raging hardon for atheists.

[humblebum]

49. You have a right to protest anything you so choose. That being said,

if you are openly and knowingly destroying something that is sacred to a group, for the purpose of... whatever, then you need to accept any consequences. Doesn't matter if it painting a swastika across a star of David or tearing up a bible, or hanging a noose in front of a black school - it's bigotry, period. Oh, you have the right, but you are slapping the label of bigot across your own forehead, so to speak.

[NMMNG]

50. Your precious, sacred Bible says I should be put to death

at least three times over. I'm a lesbian, an atheist, and I had sex before I got married. According to your special, sacred book my wife, who I love dearly, is also worthy of death. So are countless others who've done nothing to harm anybody in their entire lives. Go ahead and call me a bigot because I don't find your Bible worthy of any respect, and don't give a shit if somebody rips it up or even sets it on fire. Your chosen religious beliefs and your little idols don't deserve any respect just because you call them "sacred".



If somebody rips up their own Bible, destroys their own Star of David or burns their own copy of The God Delusion that's their right. It only becomes a problem if they destroy somebody else's property, or if they do the act on somebody else's land. You need to get over the notion that religion deserves some special protection from dissent. We're not living in a theocracy, and we don't have blasphemy laws. You don't get to make anything off limits by declaring it sacred. That's ignorant and dangerous.

[humblebum]

61. If we had lived 2000+ years ago, we would have probably all been

slaughtered, but I don't see a lot of that happening in this country today. But there is this little thing about ALL having sinned and deserve condemnation. I know I'd be a goner if those laws were still in force, because I have done all that you say you have, but the fact is they are not, and you live in a free country.

And you are right, you are free to do whatever you desire. I have never said that you aren't, but consequences are consequences. And if I want to consider organized atheism a hate group, I am free to do so. When C.Hitchens calls for religion to be shown "ridicule, hatred, and contempt,"such behavior will be challenged. And we can do that. It is our right. If I want to make fun of atheism, its my right. Why do I own them any respect?

"If somebody rips up their own Bible, destroys their own Star of David or burns their own copy of The God Delusion that's their right." - I don't and won't debate your right to do such things. Have at it if it makes you feel better. But don't tell me I owe you any respect. The Bible only has authority over those who freely accept it. And they are free to abandon such authority at any time. People are allowed to vote, and to think, and to believe as they so choose. All I am saying is that you are free to act any way you choose, just like anyone else. But don't tell me that respect is deserved or that I am required to stay silent, or to not believe as I choose. Have a ball.

[NMMNG]

62. But you call the book that advocates those things "sacred"

Whether or not all of those things are actively enforced today they're still in the book you call "sacred". You stomp your feet and cry "bigotry" when people protest a book that endorses slavery, genocide, infanticide and countless other atrocities. That's pretty frigging warped. Your claims about marauding, militant, Organized Atheists are rather amusing in light of that. But keep it up. You're rather like the Fred Phelps of anti-atheism.

[humblebum]

63. The Bible does not endorse slavery, genocide, infanticide and countless other atrocities, BUT IT DID

many centuries ago. And that was the way of the world 2 or 3 or 4000 years ago. Jesus said, "I give a new commandment, that you love one another." That's what the bible endorses today. Guess what? Your relatives and my relatives from 20 or 30 centuries, were probably involved in slavery, genocide, infanticide and countless other atrocities. Every society that existed in that time was involved in those things. The Bible does NOT endorse those things today. It is a record of the way things were long ago. So, don't tell me that the bible endorses those things. It does not. Now if you want to talk about atrocities committed by atheists well within the last century, we can go on all night.

[NMMNG]

64. So it would be OK to tear up or burn just the Old Testament?

That's not "sacred"?

Jesus also said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

So is all of the OT stuff that condones slavery, infanticide, genocide, killing gay people and the like no longer part of scripture, as you claim, or is it still part of scripture as Jesus and Paul claim?

[humblebum]

66. "I have come not to abolish but to FULFILL" - He was the

end of it. That's what fulfill means. It was over and done with. They had a choice. He was calling on people to follow him, not the law any longer. "slavery, infanticide, genocide, killing gay people - all of those things were still pretty much in vogue 2000 years ago, and bad habits take awhile to break. Slavery was a way of life back then. It was part of the way the social order worked. That's why Paul was telling masters to love their slaves as brothers and slave to honor their masters.

Gay people? Personally, I think "gay" people were the eunuchs that Jesus spoke about and that the Bible actually gives a very high regard and status, too. And I think that will be recognized as time goes on, just as slavery disappeared. Not all eunuchs were men who had been castrated and unable to father children. In Matthew 19:12 - Jesus said, "For some are eunuchs because they were BORN THAT WAY; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." There is no shame in that.

Isaiah 56: 4-5 says: "For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant--
(5) to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

[NMMNG]

67. And to think that atheists are accused of moral relativism

Meanwhile someone here thinks I've never encountered any Cafeteria Christians. :rofl:

[humblebum]

68. It is what it is. nt

[NMMNG]

65. Delete, dupe

[darkstar3]

51. So you've never destroyed anything that is sacred to a group "for the purpose of...whatever"?

[Goblinmonger]

54. You didn't learn from the beef thing in the other thread did you? n/t

[humblebum]

57. Nope. i just emulate the atheists I see eating at McDonald's.

They say it's alright. It's alright.

[darkstar3]

58. And if we say blasphemy is all right, you go nuts.

How very hypocritical.

[Goblinmonger]

59. We aren't the ones saying that destroying something sacred = bigotry.

That would be you.

You really do have a problem being held to the standards you hold others to, don't you?

[Thats my opinion]

37. the poster did not mention atheists

Everything in this forum is not about atheism. That is just one aspect of religion and theology, not the only one.

[Goblinmonger]

41. The person I am discussing with

DID mention atheists in a different thread and holds atheists to a different standard than the religious. THAT is the point of my discussion. I never said this forum had to be just about atheists. That would be silly. We have a group for that.

[humblebum]

47. So if I mentioned atheists in a different thread, why are you

carrying it to this thread. You have been nothing but dishonest.

[Goblinmonger]

56. How have I been dishonest?

Have I misquoted you from the other thread? Have I taken things out of context the multiple times you said them there? You created a standard for atheists in another thread and then praise people for the same thing in this thread. Calling you on your shit isn't so crazy, is it?

[Thats my opinion]

53. Tell us why ch suggested that this bit was inappropriate in this forum? s fdorum.

[Goblinmonger]

55. How the fuck do I know why he said that?

We don't have meetings about why and what we are going to post.

[Thats my opinion]

36. Wrong forum?

Why should you try and wall out as inappropriate a bit that describes what someone did for an important issue out of his religious commitment, when you must spend half of your waking hours digging up stuff about how people do terrible inhuman things out of a religious commitment? Why not just call this the "anti-religion" forum. Then you can have it all to yourselves.

[okasha]

39. Oh my.

Someone seems to have forgotten all those posts he's made about relgious persons committing crimes or moral outraages, which he invariably attributes to those persons' religion. A post about a religious person doing good belongs in this forum just as much as its opposite does.

[LeftishBrit]

70. Good for Marvin - and I hope that one day the death penalty is abolished in every country

It was abolished in the UK in the 1960s, partly because of cases where people had been hanged and then found out to be innocent, too late.