Talk:Army of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] POV
This article seems to have a definite POV to me.It refers several times to the organisation as terrorists and extremists.It seems to put forth the view that they are all evil and violent and has next to nothing on what the organisation actually does.While I am not affiliated with them (nor do I condone killing)it definitely seems one-sided.Serenaacw 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, I see, killing people and blowing up clinics are 'moderate' positions, right? Ck4829 16:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This page appears to be biased towards the subject of the article, and needs more objective information. Missing are mention of certain acts in this organisations past that can be considered "terrorism". Springyard 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this artical seems not only unproffesional, but biased. Im a little confused as to what it is talking about, since I got it from a list of terrorist groups, yet the first paragraph seems to just be a bunch of stuff on something other then what it was originally made for. IM a little confused --Passerby25 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems NPOV to me. An extremist organisation with infamous bombers being described as an extremist organisation with infamous bombers. Did you want to add a paragraph about their traumatic childhood to partially justify them or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.90.141 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's been a long time since the AOG people have killed anyone, and even when they did their activities definitely did not fit the dictionary definition of the word "terrorist." But they certainly are "extremist." I doubt that even they would argue with that. NCdave (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clean up
Reworded introduction, removed description of two different groups. As to the POV nature of the word terrorism, really that is the only word that truly summarizes the spirit of people who engage in acts of violence (like bombings and targeted murders) to force their will on others. Anynobody 10:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, the word "terrorism" has a specific dictionary definition. Terrorists attack society as a whole. Typically, they try to slaughter innocent civilians uninvolved in their particular dispute. Terrorists attack buildings full of civilians, blow up nightclubs and restaurants and subways, and engage in gruesome massacres designed to horrify and intimidate an entire society.
- Targeted murders, bombings & arson are used by many people who are not considered terrorists, such as Mafiosi and street gangs. The purpose is intimidation, but only of specific people, not of society as a whole. NCdave (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unsupported Allegations
This article contains unsupported allegations that may very well be libelous. Either the allegations must be substantiated with references or they must be removed.
Example: "The Army of God is associated with several individuals:" With the exception of Donald Spitz, Michael Bray, Bob Lokey, and Neal Horsely, who have acknowledged that they are in some way "associated" with AOG, I'm not aware of any evidence that any of the others named in this Wiki are in any way "associated" with AOG. Before naming someone as being "associated" with any organization, and particularly an organization that is alleged to have "employed terrorist tactics in their effort to end abortion in the United States," it's imperative that some evidence be provided to support that allegation.
The fact that someone is a known pro-life activist does not make them associated with AOG. The fact that the AOG web site lists some of those named here as "Anti-Abortion Heroes of the Faith" isn't evidence that they are in any way "associated" with AOG. To make such allegations without any evidence is libelous, particularly when most of those named here have never "employed" or advocated any alleged "terrorist tactics in their effort to end abortion in the United States."
Either provide the specific references for each person named or remove the names for which no references can be provided. --Frame-work 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wiki user Tim Long is a self-professed defender of anti-abortion violence. -- --PRUNOMAN 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I do not understand the significance of your point, PRUNOMAN. Who is Tim Long? Are you saying that he is connected to Frame-Work? Or what? NCdave (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Going through that list of people will obviously be a tedious process. But I started with the first one on the list: Eric Rudolph. The article currently says of him, "He was the first to announce the then unknown 'Army of God.'" Of the twenty names listed, Rudolph is the only name with a link to a supporting reference. But when I clicked on the reference, it took me to a 3/18/2002 CNN article[1] that doesn't support the claim. According to the article, two letters had been found claiming to be from the AOG expressing support for Rudolph (not from Rudolph supporting the AOG). There's no indication in the article that Rudolph was a member of or supported the AOG. What's more, the incident is from March, 2002, which is after the 2001 anthrax scare, so the "first to announce" claim is obviously incorrect.
- Additionally, the Wikipedia article about Rudolph says that he says he has said, "I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible," which certainly doesn't sound like an AOG-type. That quote is supported by a reliable source, too: a 7/5/2005 USA Today article.[2]
- So, inasmuch as the Rudolph reference is obviously incorrect, I'm going to delete it. If someone can find a reliable source indicating that he "has publicly associated himself with the group" then please add his name back onto the list (but without the incorrect "first to announce" claim). NCdave (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lawful terrorist???
| “ | The Army of God (AOG) is a pro-life terrorist organization which holds that it is lawful and theologically justified to use force to end abortion in the United States. | ” |
- Can someone explain how it can be a lawful organization and also a terrorist organization at the same time. It would appear that it would be one or the other. Or perhaps a lawful organization which is accused of being a terrorist. Tiggerjay 07:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- They find their position lawful (taking the life of a murderer before they have the chance to murder), but the law sees them as terrorists. They would never describe themselves as terrorists. - 74.136.218.239 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Most people don't consider themselves terrorists, but they doesn't make their actions any less those of a terrorist, even if some people might happen to agree with them. 24.140.55.164 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Kill the killers?" Well, then, they should kill themselves. -Laikalynx 16:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, so the statement really needs to be re-written since it is expressing the views of two different sides without any form of separation. I will take a look at this again in-context and will edit to make it more clear that they believe that they are lawful, while they are considered terrorist by the government -- however I believe that both of these will need some sort of citation/reference. Tiggerjay 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- If they are considered terrorists, how do they promote the "White Rose Banquet" in Washington, DC? Wouldn't they be arrested? How would a terrorist organization get away with hosting a well known public banquet? --71.242.39.58 06:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. But they did, indeed, hold a "White Rose Banquet" at least as recently as 2003; see http://www.armyofgod.com/wrbmikebray.html NCdave (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Any practical definition of the word will refer to the AoG as terrorist. They are capable of holding such a banquet because the powers that be did not contradict them. They are terrorist, they just happen to have a government mandate. 24.140.55.164 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Terrorist?
Should the group be labeled as terrorist, though? I mean, I read the discussion above, and while I feel abortion is reprehensible and should be outlawed in most cases, I in no way agree with the actions this group takes, but what I think it ultimatley comes down to for the terrorist or not issue is: does the United States government consider the group a terrorist organization? I know the ELF and ALF are considered terrorists, but I've never heard the FBI classify the AoG as such. I haven't been able to find out for sure, but if they aren't officially labeled as terrorists by US Law Enforcement (which seems likely as, if they were a designated terrorist group most of the people listed would be in jail rather than living out in the open) then the group should instead be referred to as an "extremist group" or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is the definition of "terrorism," from the American Heritage Dictionary:
- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
- The AOG does, in fact use and threaten force and violence against people and property. But they aren't intimidating or coercing entire societies or governments, they are just threatening and (occasionally) attacking abortionists and abortion clinics. So what they do plainly does not meet the dictionary definition of "terrorism."
- Consequently, I'm going to change the article to avoid the misuse of that word. NCdave (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, but they do intend to coerce society to fit their ideology. Even if they aren't successful it doesn't change their intentions, and all their actions point towards the same trends shown in terrorist groups. By that same argument one could call the KKK a non-terrorist organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.125.108 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
