I'm not so sure that ALF is necessarily a 'religious' group.  It seems to me that they use the idea of religion because they've found a way for it support their beliefs in veganism/vegetarism - not the other way around.  They do have a link to a bible page but it also includes stuff about the Dalai Lama as well.  Also, there is a link leading to a page about abortion and, even though I read through it quickly, it didn't strike me that they were against human abortion. 

They are still a terrorist threat and they still attempt to enforce their beliefs on other people, regardless of whether those beliefs are religiously based or not.  While I tend to sit the fence regarding animal testing and the like I think the actions of ALF are unacceptable and illegal. 

Good blog post, baby!

I didn't mean for it to come off as they are strictly a 'religious' group.  Sorry if it sounded that way; that was just my main problem with them *today*. 

About them using religion because of it supporting their beliefs: since they are such an non-centralized group, it can go either way depending on which member or sub-group you are talking about.  Not that any one person can represent an organization as a whole, but lets face it, they have killed people and damaged property so there is not much to help fix their reputation.

If I were to go into all of the problems that I have with the ALF, PETA and similar groups, I could write you a 300 page book.  I am tired of feeling like I need to lie about my career and I am tired of these crazy people with their excuses.

I see all of the benefits of biomedical research first-hand; one of my co-workers helped develop a supportive care drug to be delivered with chemotherapy, which was given to my mom while she was dying of cancer to help battle the negative effects of chemo.  My pets get yearly vaccinations which never would have been developed otherwise.  One rat can save thousands of animal and human lives.  And I love all of our research animals for what they do.  They get lots of extra cuddles from me. =)

I could go on and on, but it's too late.

I imagine I probably feel the same way you do about groups such as ALF and PETA (shit, I hope my friends don't read this).  PETA has it's own dirty history and ALF truly is a terrorist group. 

I once thought PETA was a pretty decent animal rights group until I delved a little further into their beliefs but ALF was pretty much always on the extreme fringe.  I was swept up with PETA and the like when I was teenager a long time ago and listened to bands like Earth Crisis, etc (sheesh, what a poser).  I still think animals need to be protected and abhor any abuse to animals.  Frankly, I think I like animals more than I like people.

As I've said - I'm on the fence about animal testing.  I don't vilify the scientists that use these animals and I acknowledge that these tests can save thousands of people.  Yet, there is something still incredibly unsettling about the idea. 

I almost got wrapped up in PETA as well.  My first full-time animal job was in a no-kill animal shelter where most of our help was from volunteers.  A lot of really good people joined PETA, just for one of the programs (some kind of low cost spay/neuter for feral cats I think in once case), maybe not knowing everything about them, and therefore supporting all of their programs, good and bad. 

And I totally understand being on the fence about animal testing; during that time period I actually thought I was against the idea, but I hadn't actually given it much thought.  It wasn't until it started hitting home and then I ended up with a job at a pharmaceutical company that I opened up to the idea.  I was so scared my first day, I think I was shaking and probably didn't say much at all.  That didn't last long - I got my first pet rat at work about a week later and my entire mindset changed completely.  I can't wait for the day that it is no longer required.  When we finally have the technology to analyze this using human cells and/or computerized studies alone.  Until then, I just hope people like me can help make it as good as it can possibly get for our critters.

Talk about religious scapegoating. When did ALF become a Christian terrorist group? not to mention a religious one? 

Is this because they have quotes from religious people on the page? like one quote from Jesus? Does cognitive dissonance prevent you from ignoring the quotes on the page from nonbelievers, such George Bernard Shaw, Moby? 

Did you read the AFL credo, is there anything in there that leads you to assume they are a Religious organization, much less a Christian one?

AFL is secular organization, they have no religious affiliation whatsoever. 

But I'm guessing the rational response squad doesn't know how to tell its ass from its elbows. 

I'm sure they use religion like many organizations to help legitemize their image. Hitler did...... Bush did it...... Terrorists do it. As long as god is on your side it seems easier to get some that might not be willing participants to become involved. I don't believe for a minute that only religious facets drive terrorism in the Middle-East, but it's easier getting someone to blow themselves up if you add a little religion to the equation.

That being said, the unintended consequences of many of these groups are still unknown. I remember not that long ago PETA released a bunch of mink from a mink farm to save them from being slaughtered, only to affect a massive change in the natural order as what one would expect releasing hundreds or thousands of meat eating animals into the environment. Most died of starvation but those that survived wrecked havoc on local bird and mammal populations.

I don't normally do this, but I am standing up with the theists on this because the use of religion doesn't make it a religious group. EHHHHHHHHH now I feel all icky for some reason. Thanks for the post, because I didn't realize the extent to how well animals used in research were treated (as a whole).

See I just got done defending theists now I have to smack you down TheIdiot. I don't think the post from one individual constitutes the entire RRS. No one member can claim to speak for everyone here just like Jerry Falwell doesn't speak for the entire christian community.

Of course AFL is a secular organization, but if you want a christian terrorist groups they are still around plotting to kill abortion doctors. Groups like Christian Identity have been responsible for the killings of 3 in a series of clinic bombings. See there is a difference in their motivation so yes...... christian terrorists exist, but AFL I don't think has killed anyone so they have that going for them at least.   

Sooooooooo which are you an ass or an elbow bitch? I'm guessing ASS.

I never stated that the ALF was a religious organization, nor do I think they are.  However, they have many members that are religious and try to use their religion to promote their own, screwed up messages. 

And, although the ALF has not ever been officially blamed for killing anyone, they harm the progress of medical research, therefore preventing and delaying urgently needed medical advances.  The way the ALF is an unorganized group, and anyone who fits into their criteria may be a member, could allow members to commit crimes, including murder, without implicating the organization.

Thank you for noting that, as others have done, however I do not claim that the ALF is a religious group.  I only meant to speak about those members that do use religion.  The group does not have a written formal standard on whether they require you to be religious or not; they have a short criteria that you must fit into in order to call yourself a member.  Here is a link to their credo: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm

I am fortunate to have the ability to speak out about how well most animals are treated in research from my experiences in animal research.  If it weren't true, I would be the first person to report a company to the authorities, because I love those little critters!

You didn't? This is what you titled you post:

"More Good Christian [Terrorist] Morals - The Animal Liberation Front"

Let's reword this title a bit, let's see if you can face up to your cognitive dissonance:

"More Good Atheist [Evil Men] Morals - Nazi Party"

Would you assume by this title that I was implying that the Nazi Party was an atheistic organization? I sure would? 

Do you care to back this up? Can you show me the evidence for the many members who are "religious and use their religion to promote their own, screwed up messages"?

Your title claimed "more Good Christian [Terrorist]", you narrowed it down to Christian? What lead you to this assumption? or would you like to admit that you were wrong here?

If you realize that you based this implication on pretty much nothing, could you at least admit that you were wrong for making this inference? 

[quote]

You're right, I apologize I assumed that  K9sByte was a high ranking member of the RRS, but I was wrong in this assumption. There for, it was incorrect for me to take her views as representative  of the RRS. 

Here: "Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that killing medical researchers was "morally justified" to save laboratory animals (worldnetdaily.com)."

"I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many," Vlasak opined. "I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million or 10 million nonhuman lives(sfgate.com)."

The reason why the Animal have not killed anyone yet, is because there "threats of violence and intimidation work. Last year, UCLA researcher Dario Ringach sent an e-mail to Vlasak in which he proclaimed, "You win" -- he would stop research with animals. Vlasak sent out a triumphant press release (sfgate.com)."

But regardless we're not taking about Christian Terrorist, or Islamic Terrorist, or Secular Terrorist, we're talking about the mislabeling the AFL, as religious terrorist, when in fact they are Secular Terrorist, who come from all walks of life, "all beliefs and none (wikipedia)." 

Let's hope you meant that in a humorous way. 

Gotcha.

You didn't see this part

"In one article, the ALF cite quotes which are supposedly from early Christians, including “Christ’s teachings”, in an attempt to push their vegan/vegetarian ideals on people. "

I'm not going to say that they didn't make up/corrupt Christian teachings to make their point (that would make the ALF a church) but I can see where a reader could narrow it down to Christian from that snippet.

Yea, from that same Logic we can narrow it down to Atheism, being that AFL quotes atheist such as George Bernard show quite often, since they use an atheists teachings to make their point. (it should be noted that AFL uses quotes from everybody and anybody to support their cause, from Buddhism, to Hinduism, to Deist such as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein etc..)

From that same logic we can infer from Richard Dawkins article "Atheist for Jesus", and narrow it down that Richard Dawkins is a Christian. 

The AFL is a secular group, reaching out to all beliefs, and no belief for a common cause. 

I believe K9 is referring to the article "Were Jesus of Nazareth & Early Christians Vegetarians". K9 incorrectly claims the AFL cites early Christians and Christ, when in fact the AFL did no such thing. They just attached at article from the Pamphlet: "Where the Early Christians Vegetarian?", by the Universal Life - Inner Religion, not AFL.

In fact you'll find other linked articles such as "Islam & Animal rights", "Buddhism and Animals", "Jewish Vegetarians", Hinduism and animal rights, and etc. All of these articles are not their own. They are not even written by individuals who are associated with the AFL, they are just articles by religious individuals of various faiths that support veganism, and compassion for animals.

In fact if you go over to their Philosophy section, you'll find a number of links to articles by atheist in support of the same things, such as Peter Singer's "All animals are Equal", Carl Sagans "Pale Blue Dot", and etc...

By your logic after reading Peter Singer's "All animals are Equal", a reader can narrow it down to Atheist from that "snippet".

These articles have as much to do with AFL, as my next door neighbor who loves his dog does, or my best friend who is an atheist and a vegan does. 

Please, this is just another classic example of the irrationality that appears time and time again on this forum, by unbelievers who are so deluded by their passionate distaste for religion, that they can't even think straight. Even after being confronted by their error, they still remain in delusional denial. 

Where did I say it was a correct assertion? I simply said I could see where the assertion could be made. Just as you took different snippets and made your assertions.

As for your insistence for "the passionate distate" atheists have for religion - nah, not me. There are some of its practitioners I find distasteful but the religion itself doesn't bother me anymore than any other mythology.

After all, the Bible (and I'm sure other religious books) makes an issue of zealotry being a positive. Haven't seen anything about being zealous for atheism yet.

K9sByte explained this in her second post. There's no excuse for you in making this post.

I am considering this as an act of harassment. Be warned.

concering this

K9sByte explained this in her second post. There's no excuse for you in making this post.

Uhm, no she didn't really clarify, in fact in the third post she goes on to claim:

"However, they have many members that are religious and try to use their religion to promote their own, screwed up messages. "

I asked her where the evidence is for many AFL members who "are religious and use their religion to promote their own screwed up messages."

I asked her if she had evidence to back up this claim, and if she didn't if she would apologize for her erroneous assumption. 

I'm a religious individual, and I'm offended by religious scapegoating, particularly when it's the result of individuals twisting the facts for their own agendas.  Pointing this out to someone is not harassment. 

An act of harassment? Criticizing an erroneous and offense claim by an unbeliever on this forum, you want to label that harassment? Well you go ahead and do that. I don't know what that's suppose to mean. Are you trying to threaten me with censorship? by banning my account or something? If that's what you or someone who has the power to do, or desires to do then go ahead. It's a private forum, the owners and mods can censor and remove whatever individuals the want, including me, but that's up to them, and if that is their choice, than Jake speed. But trying to threaten me isn't going to get you too far. 

No silly it wasn't a threat. Someone can call me a "bitch" all they want, while they hide behind a computer, call it online courage, but it's not going to really elicit a reaction out of me. I said I hope him calling me a bitch, as well as you, was done in humor, because if it was done in anger, than I suggest he figure out what's wrong with him. There was nothing to get angry about, or start calling individuals a "bitch". If he was angry I'd believe that he has some issue that he himself needs to confront. 

And of course you, who earlier warned me of harassment, go and call me a bitch? Yea, I wonder what's worse, anything that I've said in my posts, or you going around calling people bitches? But whatever floats your boat buddy. 

But we warned, I'm considering this as an act of harassment.

If I saw that blog title, it would get me to go read it, because it would catch my eye and seem interesting, isn't that what titles are supposed to do?  What would you have the title of the blog be?  "The Christian members of the Animal Liberation Front upset me because they use their religiosity to help advocate violence?"  Please, go ahead and rename my blog for me if you think you can fit the entirety of what I am trying to say in less than ten words. 

I did not feel the need to because I think you know how to use the internet.  In case you forgot, here just click a few of these links.  Some of the stories I was talking about are listed here.  There are only a few examples; I could go on but please excuse me for having better things to do than cater to you, who calls me wrong for claims I never made.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Early%20Christian%20Vegetarians.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/XtiansandAnimalTesting.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Novels/JesusWasVegan.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/FaithGoesGreen.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/10CommandforAnimals.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/ReligiousQuotes.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/Speciesism/ElephantsSuicide.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Christianity%20and%20the%20Rights%20of%20Animals.htm

I would list more but I am tired and I think you get the point. 

I believe you said this before, did you not?  I've answered your questions and now you are just trying to upset me.  Could you just leave me alone if you don't have anything else to discuss, please?

Correct, you could do that, but you hopefully would have read the entire blog and understood what I was trying to say.  Obviously, many people did not understand what I was saying and I apologize for that.  I do not blog often so I am not the best at expressing my thoughts.

I did not claim they were a strictly religious organization and I absolutely never claimed to represent the rational response squad or their views.  I can see how if you take offense to something I say, you can easily break it apart and find ways to argue that I made those statements.  However, I have expressed repeatedly that this was not my intention. 

I understand and meant no offense.

So I cannot speak to some of its members and state that I am upset by their use of religion? 

No, here are two of the articles I read.  http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Early%20Christian%20Vegetarians.htm http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/XtiansandAnimalTesting.htm

I never thought anyone would interpret my blog quite this way.  I guess it is an example of how easy it is to take one sentence out of context and use it to argue that someone said something they didn't. 

Uh, no I did call you a bitch. If you come in screaming like a bitch, I'll treat you like a bitch. This is not the "kill em with kindness board" so if you come in crying about one post scapegoating christians expect to run up against some less than PC atheists. I've read the christian boards on other sites so don't even think about comparing what I've seen atheists called. If you come in generalizing don't expect me to sit back and take it, online or on the street. I'm sick of religion getting a free pass and I don't mind saying so. I don't speak for anyone else here but I owe an apologize to K9sByte if I stirred up a hornets' nest. Sorry K9sByte.

However, if you had read the post more carefully and not gotten hung up on the heading you would have seen that it was not a blanket statement saying christians are bad. That's why I pointed out that organizations will use religion to legitamize acts of terrorism. "Many" is a subjective term so interpret it as you want to. I don't think most reasonable people will ask for stats unless you say a majority.

I even defended christians because I knew someone would mis-construe the heading and see it as an attack on christianity. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones if you apologize for your original post and I will do the same. If I recall you instigated the whole problem by saying the RRS was unable to tell their ass from their elbows.

If you have a problem with one post maybe you should direct your anger at the individual posting what you find offensive and leave the rest out of it. Don't expect most of the members here to stand by while atheists are derided as a whole and not stick up for our own. I am more than willing to stand up for the rights of individuals or groups I disagree with, but not for someone who is hypocritical. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your post.