Read the following article:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RANCHING_STANDOFF_BUNDYS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-05-16-51-24
Answer the following questions related to the article:
1. Who are Dwight and Steve Hammond? Why are they at the center of this controversy?
2. How and why did Clive Bundy land himself in the media spotlight two years ago?
3. What reasoning is Ammon Bundy to justify his actions in Oregon?
4. How to the local landowners feel about Bundy's actions?
5. What does the LDS church officially say regarding this matter? Should they have put forth an opinion? Why or why not?
6. Stewart Rhodes, founder of another militia group, is quoted as saying, "We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it." Do you agree with this? If you have strong moral conviction about a certain issue, does that mean you should try to force others to accept what you deem as help?
Taylor Burge
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and Steve Hammond are ranchers in Oregon who set fires to federal land and are serving time in jail. They are at the center of this controversy because Ammon Bundy had is supporting them and rallying supporters for the Hammonds.
2. Clive Bundy was in the media spotlight two years ago because he had a standoff with federal officers over a debt he owed to the government.
3. Ammon Bundy justifies his actions because he says he was sent from God to help these men.
4. The local landowners agree that the Hammonds sentence was harsh but think Bundys methods coulg lead to bloodshed.
5. LDS church says they are troubled by these actions. They should put forth an opinion because it involves them directly with Bundy saying he speaks from God.
6. Yes whatever you believe you can not force your self onto another person no matter how much you think they need help.
Rett Saele.
ReplyDelete1. They are two Mormons that believe it is Gods mission for them to protect wildlife from the government. They are the two heading the revolt against the government.
2. By being the head of an armed revolt against the government over grazing rights.
3. That God told him it wasn't right what was happening to the Hammonds, and that he did exactly what the lord told him to do.
4. They don't approve or support it. They feel that he has gone to far.
5. They feel it is not a church matter and they are deeply troubled that reports say they are acting based off of scriptural principles.
6. No, people are going to believe in what they want to. However you can have a strong influence on what a person believes, but in the end people are going to do what they want. We're humans AKA the most selfish animals on the planet.
Cameron Simon
ReplyDelete1)Ranchers who set fire to federal land to protect it
2)He was in an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on gov't land
3)That God had told him to do it
4)They disapprove of it and said it could lead to violence
5)It isn't a church matter and are troubled that they are acting on scriptural principles.They should have voice an opinion because they might have been able to put some sense into the group.
6)I agree you should not force protection on someone who doesn't want it you should not try to force help just because of your own moralitybut take their consideration on the issue.
Will Ernest
ReplyDelete1. The owners of some property in Oregon. They are at the center of the issue because they already served time for a crime and were released, but a judge said that the time they served was below minimum sentencing and are to serve the minimum sentence.
2.He was in an armed stand for with federal agents. The agents wanted to seize the cattle because Mr. Bundy refused to pay federal land grazing permits.
3. He claims that God told him to go and help the Hammonds.
4. They are displeased, saying that he has picked the wrong fight.
5. That they don't like what is being done to the Hammond's, but do not want to be associated with the Bundy's. yes, they should have put their opinion forth, because no one wants to be linked to a militant force.
6. yes, people have the right to choice, forcing people to do things they do not want to do will only lead to more unrest.
Casey Coggins 1st
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and Steve Hammond are some of the people that Ammon Bundy is trying to "help." They were convicted for setting federal land on fire. They are in the center of this controversy because Bundy is protesting "on their behalf" for their unfair treatment, even though the Hammonds didn't mind facing their sentence.
2. Clive Bundy got into the media spotlight 2 years ago by holding an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land in Nevada. He did this because he felt divinely led to help ranchers get access to federal lands for their cattle.
3. Ammon Bundy is justifying his actions by saying that God wasn't pleased with the Hammond's treatment and feels the spirit guiding him to get these people fair treatment by means of protesting. He thinks that he was sent on a mission by God.
4. Local landowners disapprove of his actions and are afraid that his actions will cause violence; however, they do agree that the Hammonds have been treated unfairly.
5. The LDS church has officially rejected Bundy's tactics to "aid" these ranchers. Yes, they should have an opinion, because it is the church that Bundy is a part of, and his statement that it is a "mission from God" brings his church and religion into the matter.
6. I agree with this statement because everyone should have a choice regarding their life. If someone doesn't want something, then that is there choice, whether it is the right choice or not. When someone is bent on something, then they would only undermine the force put on them. You should never try to force others to accept help, even when convicted, because that would render the help useless. Instead, people must realize their need for help and make the effort to help themselves. You can't truly be helped until you accept it and help yourself.
Lauren Beatty
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and Steve are another group who have had trouble with rights on federal land. They are at the center of this controversy because they might be influencing others, like Bundy.
2. Cliven Bundy landed in the spotlight by being at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land. Cliven did this because he claims he is following directions from God.
3. Ammon was hoping to gain support for his cause
4. The local landowners have broadly rejected Bundy’s tactics.
5. The LDS church says that the land dispute is not a church matter, and they were deeply troubled by reports saying the armed group is acting based on Scriptural principles. Yes, they should have put forth an opinion because they should clear their name. The LDS church does not want people thinking that they encourage this behavior.
6. I agree with this. I think you can always try and force others to accept your help, and sometimes they will accept it. However, if someone clearly does not want your “help” then you should not force it upon them.
Gabby Traywick
ReplyDeleteDwight and Steve Hammond are people who are known for setting fire to government land to poach deer. They are at the center of this controversy for being thought to have been associated with Bundy. Clive Bundy was in the spotlight two years ago for allowing his herd to graze on government land. Ammon Bundy justifies his actions by stating that he is on a mission from God. Locals agree with Bundy but they do not appove of his occupation believing it would lead to violence. The LDS Church says that they do not agree with Bundy and they should have an opinion before it becomes an idea that the public associates with all Mormons. If you have a strong moral conviction you should not try to force others to accept it but you could inform them as to why you have this moral conviction and they may follow it as well.
Kailee Post
ReplyDelete1. Father and son who were convicted three years ago of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006. People are biased about the consequences of the Hammonds' actions.
2. He justified his actions in religious terms against federal authorities in 2014, saying that he decided to challenge federal agents after praying for guidance.
3. He claimed he was doing the work of God.
4. A majority agree with Bundy that the second Hammond sentence was too harsh and are in support of turning government land to locally controlled land, but many locals are rejecting his rally for support to his cause.
5. They do not believe it is a church matter and are troubled by reports that suggest the armed groups are working are acting based on Scripture. Yes, they have the right to put forth their opinion and have the authority to in the situation because Bundy was part of the church and claims to be working through God and the church disagrees.
6. I don't think you should force others to accept what you deem as help, but I feel like the help should always be out there as an option to those people. We truly cannot force it on people who do not want it, even if you feel strongly about it. You can always persuade people into the belief, but people will usually believe what they want to.
Taryn Dockery
ReplyDeleteDwight and Steve Hammond set fires to federal land in 2006 and 2001. They are at the center of this controversy because Bundy is trying to defend them because they all acted for “religious reasons.” He was in the spotlight because he was disputing over another’s farming operation, doing what God was telling him to do. Bundy is rationalizing his actions by saying that he prayed about it, and he is doing what God wants. Local landowners do not agree with Bundy.
Mormon leaders say that this dispute is not a church matter. I think that they should have put forth their statement to show that all of their religious followers do not agree, and that this is an isolated incident. This statement is true. No matter how hard you try, some people are not going to agree with you, and you should not force them to, because everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want to. You cannot make someone accept your help. If they want it or really need it, they will accept it.
1. they were convicted three years ago of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006, and because they preferred to turn themselves in and serve out the sentence, later to only serve 1 of the 4 years.
ReplyDeleteThey lit the fires to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
2.He was in an armed standoff between him and the police
3.Because the "lord told him to"
4.They agree with Bundy that the second Hammond sentence was too harsh, but they disapprove of his occupation and fear it could lead to violence.
5.They rejected his rally and said it's not a church issue.
I think they have the right to say it's not a church issue because while he said that he was told to do so by God, he appears to only be saying it to gather people for his rally.
6.Absolutely. There's a thing called consent, and forcing someone into something does not follow it. Trying to change people's mind about something, or trying to convince them to join the rally is totally different than trying to force someone into something. If you cannot respect someone else's viewpoints, morals, or their right to not be a part of something they don't want to be apart of, then your "strong moral conviction" isn't as strong as you think. Hitler didn't force people to like him, nor did he force anyone to kill the jews. He convinced them because of his strong morals, even if bad.
Dillon Baker
ReplyDelete1. 2 people that Ammond Bundy went to defend from arrest but they declined his help and turned themselves in
2. He was arguing with government officials about the grazing rights for some land
3. He is doing it based on scriptural principles.
4. They condemn it and think he has gone too far
5. They say it is not a church matter; I don't think they should; because it is a church and i believe in a separation of church and state
6. I believe in dire enough situations you should push your help onto someone or something because what are you going to feel like when things do go bad and you aren't there to help. They'd have to live with that guilt forever.
~Blake E. Lockridge
ReplyDelete1. They are a father and son convicted of arson on federal land.
2. He was angered when federal authorities tried to completely take away his grazing rights. He then Had an armed, nonviolent standoff with authorities.
3. He says he is following directions from God.
4. They are generally opposed to his actions. They don't want his help and want to comply with the federal government.
5. They stated that "it wasn't a church matter" but they condemned the seizure and were "deeply troubled" by their claims of acting on "Scriptural principals". They definitely should have put forth an opinion in the matter because if anyone might have the ability to sway the protesters the church does.
6. Yes; you can do all you can to convince someone that your way is the best, but you can't rightfully force your help on someone if they don't want it. This course of action will only hurt what little influence you DO have.
Drew Gardino
ReplyDelete1.Father and son who set fire to federal land in 2001 and 2006. Because the Hammond's turned themselves in to the police to serve out the arson sentences.
2.Clive was at an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights.
3.Ammon says that he is following directions from God.
4.The locals rejected Ammon on his actions.
5.The leaders of the church said, "This is not a church matter." Yes I do believe that the church did the right thing because if they did not speak put then some people might have seen it as the church joining the Bundy's side.
6.I do agree with this, because if you are a Christian that doesn't give you the right to force someone to believe in the same religion that you believe in.
April McCool, 3rd period
ReplyDelete1. They were convicted 3 years ago of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006. A blaze was to cover up deer poaching
2. He was at the center of an armed standoff about grazing rights on government land. The family has not made the payments of $1.1 million grazing fee and a penalty bill
3. He did exactly what the Lord asked him to do, to appeal to people to join him in Oregon to protest the treatment of the Hammonds
4. They agree with Bundy that the second Hammond sentence was harsh, but disagree with Bundy's occupation in worry that it could lead to violence
5. That the Oregon land dispute "is not a church matter" and we're "deeply troubled" by reports suggesting armed groups were acting on "Scriptural principles." They should have an opinion because it's the religion and community that has been there since 1847.
6. "We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it - and that clear statement or their intent should be the end of the discussion on this."
1. They are people who were previously convicted for setting fires on federal land. Ammon Bundy hears of their case and calls on the people of Oregon to protest the treatment of the Hammonds.
ReplyDelete2.He was at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land.
3.he said he did what the lord told him to do
4. Most of the locals agree with Bundy.
5."it is not a church matter", yes because Bundy is claiming to do these acts because it is the will of God and I think the church needs to communicate that what he is doing is not scriptural.
6.I think people are entitled to their own opinions/beliefs and they should be able to share them freely, but not force them. Helping someone is pushing them in the right direction, not carrying them up the mountain that is their own job. Just like it is their own job to determine how they feel on topics like this.
-Marlee Ashcraft-
Brandon Appling
ReplyDelete1.Dwight and Steve Hammond are two men that were convicted for setting fires on government lands three years ago. They are at the center of this controversy because the Bundy's say the Hammond's were wrongly punished by having four years added onto their one year sentence.
2.Bundy had an armed standoff with government officials over grazing rights in Nevada two years ago.
3.Ammon Bundy justifies his acts in Oregon by saying God is not pleased with the sentences on the Hammonds.
4. They do not agree with his actions even though he is trying to get them on his side.
5.The church has said that they have nothing to do with Bundy, however if the church really was no tied into this in some form they should never have released a statement in the first place.
6.I agree with Rhodes, one simply cannot force his/her help upon those who do not want it. If you have a strong moral conviction about a certain issue you should certainly pursue spreading it but you should avoid trying to force it upon anyone.
Abby Ingle
ReplyDelete1.They were convicted of setting fires on federal land between 2001 and 2006. They are at the center of the controversy because they claimed to have set the fires to protect their personal property from wildfires.
2.Cliven Bundy was involved in an armed standoff with federal officials.
3.Ammon Bundy claims that he did what God told him to do.
4.The locals disprove of his actions and think that it could lead to violence.
5. The LDS said that it is "not a church matter", and they didn't like that Bundy claimed his actions were for religious reasons. I think that they were obligated to comment on the issue, especially since they were affiliated with the Bundys.
6. I think that people should not be forced to do anything against their will, regardless of what the situation is. If someone does not want help, they should not be forced to take it.
~Heather Williams
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and Steve Hammond are father and son convicted of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006.They are at the center of the controversy for lighting the fire to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protecting their property from wildfires.
2. Cliven Bundy is in the media for being in the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land; he justified this with religious reasons.
3. Ammon Bundy justified his actions by saying that the Lord asked him to do it.
4. The locals said that they agree with Ammon Bundy saying that it was too harsh for the crime but disapprove of his occupation and fear that it can also lead to more violence.
5. The LDS church says that it "is not a church matter," but they condemned the seizure and said they were "deeply troubled" by reports that suggest the armed group is acting "based on Scriptural principles." They should not put forth an opinion because it could possibly make their church look bad of what they think is reasonable to deal with problems.
6. I agree that you cannot force them to accept the protection or anything, but I also think that you can do it from a distance of which they will not know or suspect. One cannot force a belief on anyone because everyone has their own opinion on how the world works.
Emily Free
ReplyDelete1.)The Hammonds were convicted three years ago of setting fires on federal land. Ammon Bundy believed that they were not treated fairly.
2)Cliven Bundy was at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land.
3)He said he did what the Lord asked him to do.
4)Some agree with his opinions, but they don't approve of his occupation and are fearful it could lead to violence.
5)They don't agree with his actions. I do think they should have put forth their opinion, because Bundy was basing the armed group on spiritual principals, and they should have the right to say that they don't condone his actions.
6) I agree with this, because I don't think that you should try and shove your opinions down someone's throat. That will most likely reject your ideas more. I think that it can be done in a more subtle way.
Cole Frederick
ReplyDelete1. Dwight Howard, father of Steve Hammond, were both convicted for setting federal land on fire. It is the center of the controversy because everyone believes their punishment was way too harsh.
2.He challenged federal agents after praying for guidance.
3. He is following instructions from God.
4. They disapprove of Bundy's occupation and fear it could lead to violence
5. They say that it is not a church matter; i think they should have spoken so it would possibly make Bundy slow his role.
6. It really depends on the situation. In most, you should not force your help but in rare situations, it is acceptable to force your help
1. Dwight and Steve are both Mormons. They are at the center because what they did are being used as an example for what radical Mormons have done.
ReplyDelete2. Clive was in the spotlight for challenging agents after praying for guidance.
3. Ammon’s justification for his actions was that The Lord told him to do it.
4. The local landowners disapprove of his actions.
5. The Latter-Day Saints church says that is not of a church matter and that they are deeply troubled by his actions.
6. I agree with Rhodes statement. As a Christian myself, I know that I’m supposed to be an advocate for Christianity, but I can’t force my religion on someone that doesn’t want to be open to my religion. You shouldn’t try to force anything on anyone because everybody is different.
1. Dwight and Steve Hammond are people who in 2001 and 2006 set fire to federal land sites. They were convicted three years ago. They are in the spotlight of this matter due to Bundy’s backing and support for the Hammond’s through his YouTube video. Bundy believed that the Hammond’s were serving an unjust sentence.
ReplyDelete2. Clive Bundy landed himself in the spotlight two years ago when he was at an armed standoff with government officials over grazing rights on government land. Bundy did this because he is “Following direction from god” while trying to lead an anti-government movement.
3. Bundy’s reasoning behind his actions in Oregon is that he was invoking his family faith and was following directions from God himself when committing these crimes.
4. The local landowners have not supported Bundy at all and are rejecting all of his actions.
5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (The Mormons) have rejected Bundy’s action and have released a statement that stated that the grazing issue on government land is not a church matter and that they are concerned that Bundy and his crew were acting on “Scriptural Principals”.
6. I do agree with this statement. I believe you should not force anyone or anybody to accept "help" or any kind of service no matter how strong you feel about any situation. In this case, Bundy held an armed stand off over the grazing of government land, trying to help out the community as a whole. The majority of the community rejected his actions and many groups, including the Oregon Cattleman's association, stated they didn't support any movement that was illegal or against the government. It's not right to force your "help" on anyone or any group, because theirs a possibility that it may end up hurting the groups cause.
Mayson McGee:
ReplyDelete1) They are a father and son who decided to set fire to federal land. This article is about damage to federal land and they destroyed a lot of federal land.
2) He was in an armed standoff with federal officials because of his cattle grazing on federal land.
3) They are wanting federal authorities to turn over their land to local control.
4) They disapprove of Bundy's occupation and fear that it could lead to violence.
5) They said that this is not church matter, and that they are deeply troubled by the way the armed group is acting.
6) Yes, I agree with this because people have to understand that there are other people who live on this Earth and not just us, so they have a say in things too.
kayla compton
ReplyDelete1. they are the first anti-government mormons to set fire to land claiming it was gods will.
2.he was in an armed standoff with federal officials over them taking away his cows.
3. he is claiming it is what the lord wanted him to do.
4. local land owners are with him because they dislike the regulations the government puts on the land
5.they say that it is not a church matter and they feel very uncomfortable with them justifying their actions because of scriptures. their opinion is necessary because it shows he just a local crazy guy and not the crazy spokesperson for the Mormons.
6.i do believe you cannot help people who want to be helped, and i do not believe that if i have a strong moral belief that i should force it upon others, that will not help them, but rather harm them.
Sarah McWaters
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and Steve Hammond are the Bundy's attorney and his son.
2. He was in an armed standoff with armed officials over cattle grazing lands.
3. He is following directions from God and invoking his Mormon faith.
4. Bundy's tactics have been widely rejected by the people of Oregon and the Mormon church.
5. The LDS Church is 'deeply troubled' by Bundy's actions. I believe that it was right of them to put forth an opinion. I believe this because if they had not said anything it would be justifiable to believe that they were silently supporting the Bundys.
6. No. Even if an issue is close to your heart and you will defend it until you die it does not give you the right to forcefully press it upon another person. You may, however, argue your point so long as you do it peacefully and respectfully.
Colby Free 3rd
ReplyDelete1 Oath keeper founder and his dad Dwight, they turn themselves in.
2 Cliven Bundy was at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land.
3 It was based on scripture
4 Sentence was too harsh, considering the crime, but they disapprove of Bundy's occupation and fear it could lead to violence.
5 They say is not a church matter,but its deeply troubled by reports that suggest the armed group is acting based on Scriptural principles.
6 no, I don't think you should do anything you done believe in or believe that its right. You defiantly shouldn't force others to view it that way.
Frankie Malveo Jr.
ReplyDelete1. Who are Dwight and Steve Hammond? Why are they at the center of this controversy?They are arsonists. The Hammonds were convicted three years ago of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006.
2. How and why did Clive Bundy land himself in the media spotlight two years ago? He had a standoff with government officials over grazing land.
3. What reasoning is Ammon Bundy to justify his actions in Oregon? The Lord told him to do it.
4. How to the local landowners feel about Bundy's actions? They are rejecting his help.
5. What does the LDS church officially say regarding this matter? Should they have put forth an opinion? Why or why not? They have publicly stated that they are not affiliated with the issue and do not support them. They were right to put out an opinion because they don't need anymore bad press especially since most people believe that they don't like black people. Think about it can you name one black Morman off the top of your head. Ok exactly.
6. Stewart Rhodes, founder of another militia group, is quoted as saying, "We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it." Do you agree with this? If you have strong moral conviction about a certain issue, does that mean you should try to force others to accept what you deem as help? Yes I agree with his statement. Like the old people say you can bring a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink the water. You should not force someone to side with you but try to convince them instead.
BRIAN PHAM
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and Steve Hammond are members of the Hammond family that set fire to government land in 2001 and 2006 which were made to cover up some of their crimes. They are a the center of the controversy because many thought that their treatment in court was unfair.
2. Clive Bundy landed himself in the media spotlight two years ago because he wanted to address grazing rights on government land.
3. The reasoning behind Ammon Bundy's justification is on religious terms in which he had prayed for guidance.
4. The local landowners disapprove of Bundy's actions and rejected him, saying that he had gone too far.
5. The LDS Church said that the land dispute was not a church matter and they highly disapproved of Bundy and his actions.
6. No, I do not agree because the militia was put together to protect people, even if they might not need it. That is simply a role that protectors play, to diverge from that role would mean that these protectors are not protectors at all. If extreme moral conviction was involved, however, I would not force others to accept my "help" because that would mean you are a vigilante. Protectors do what is just, not what they think is right. Justice is key.
Julie Morrison
ReplyDelete1. They where brothers who where convicted of setting fires to federal land in 2001 and 2006.
2. Cliven Bundy was at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials about government land.
3. His reasoning was in religious terms saying that he decided to challenge them after praying for guidance.
4. Many of them agree with what Bundy is doing and is saying how they feel about it in the debate.
5. They didn't support it. They should have put their opinion in because it could change peoples views on it.
6.Yes I agree that we cannot force people to take our help if they do not want it. I don't think we have the right to force people into what we believe in but, I believe in not giving up. So, you should always try your hardest to convince the person or people.
Brooke Allen
ReplyDelete1) They are the ranchers who refused Bundy's involvement with the dispute over their ranching operation.
2) He was involved in an armed standoff with federal officers over government grazing land.
3) He claims that he prayed for guidance and God led him to his decision.
4)They don't support the illegal actions done by Bundy.
5) They said that Bundy's actions do not comply with scripture nor do they support him. I think that it is a good thing that they released a response because it shows that Bundy's actions are not supported by the church and they are the actions of an individual, not a religion.
6) Yes, I do agree with this statement. If an individual doesn't want someone's help, you shouldn't force them to take your help.
Ashlyn Grantham
ReplyDelete1. They were convicted 3 years ago of setting fires in federal land in 2001 and 2006. One was set to cover up deer poaching as well as to rid their land of invasive plants and prevent wildfires.
2. he was at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land and refused to pay the $1.1 million grazing fee and penalty bills.
3. He says he is following direct instructions from God.
4. They reject him and his reasoning, along with the church the family has attended for years.
5. They decided it was not a church matter and they were deeply troubled that Bundy would bring religion and God to be responsible for his actions.; Yes, they are believing in the same God by which Bundy thinks told him this, and if that were true, they would at least see some sort of insight or understand Bundy.
6. No, you should not try to convince others of anything. You should provide reasoning and true explanations of why you believe a certain way, but you should never force them. You should be able to do what you think is right without having to worry about having to force someone to accept you.
Ashlyn Grantham
ReplyDelete1. They were convicted 3 years ago of setting fires in federal land in 2001 and 2006. One was set to cover up deer poaching as well as to rid their land of invasive plants and prevent wildfires.
2. he was at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land and refused to pay the $1.1 million grazing fee and penalty bills.
3. He says he is following direct instructions from God.
4. They reject him and his reasoning, along with the church the family has attended for years.
5. They decided it was not a church matter and they were deeply troubled that Bundy would bring religion and God to be responsible for his actions.; Yes, they are believing in the same God by which Bundy thinks told him this, and if that were true, they would at least see some sort of insight or understand Bundy.
6. No, you should not try to convince others of anything. You should provide reasoning and true explanations of why you believe a certain way, but you should never force them. You should be able to do what you think is right without having to worry about having to force someone to accept you.
Jane Frances Armour
ReplyDelete1. They are Mormons who spent three years in jail for setting fires on federal land. They are at the center of this controversy because Bundy was trying to get support to protest the treatments of the Hammonds.
2. Clive landed himself in the media spotlight for two years by having a showdown with federal authorities over grazing rights because after praying for guidance he decided to challenge federal authorities.
3. His reasoning is that he is following directions from God and defends his family's faith.
4. They fear that Bundy's occupation could lead to violence and do not support his illegal activities against the government.
5. The LDS church officially said that the land dispute is not a church matter and that they were troubled that armed activist are based their action on Scriptural principles. Yes, because the church should not be dragged into something they have no part of and they should defend their Lord if someone is trying to use him as an excuse to do illegal things.
6. Yes, you should try to convince them of your moral conviction, but if they do not accept it you cannot make them and forcing something on someone does not make them want to accept it. Also, you can not violate someone's rights because you want them to believe something you believe.
Hannah Glasscock
ReplyDelete1. The Hammonds were convicted three years ago of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006. Their beliefs bring a tension between Mormon doctrine and culture.
2. He was at a standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land. The dispute remains unresolved, therefore Cliven still has tension about it.
3. That his armed group is pressing federal authorities to turn over government land to local control.
4. They have been broadly rejected by them.
5. The LDS church rejected it. Yes I think they should've because his beliefs are having something to do with how he thinks that this is his directions from God and it also invokes his family's faith. His church that he and his family go to should most definitely have a say so on his actions.
6. Yes because you shouldn't force anything on anyone. everyone has their own opinion on certain issues and just because they don't feel the same way that you do about a certain topic doesn't mean you should force them to believe what you think will help them. You should always give them an option, but never force anything.
Grace Glasscock
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and Hammond turned themselves in and served their sentence for setting fires on federal land; because they are making a big deal out of the federal land.
2. He made a big deal over grazing rights on government land.
3. Because he wants government land turned over to local control.
4. Many people agree with Bundy's actions but some disagree with Bundy's occupation because they fear it could lead to violence.
5. They say it is not "a church matter". They should not have put forth an opinion because they should not even say anything if they don't see it affecting the church or being a church matter.
6. Yes. I agree with this. If you have strong moral conviction about a certain issue, it does mean that you force others to accept what you deem as help because others can have different moral conviction about a certain issue and they have the right to have them.
Sam Andrus
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and Steve Hammond were convicted three years ago of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006. They are at the center of this controversy because they committed crimes on federal land, similar to Bundy, but were punished for it.
2. Clive Bundy was at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land because he thought he needed to fight against the government for his cattle grazing rights.
3. To justify his actions in Oregon, Ammon Bundy reasons that he was acting in accordance with the will of God.
4. Many of the local landowners reject Bundy's actions and fear it will lead to violence, although they do agree with him that the second Hammond sentence was too harsh.
5. The LDS church has officially stated, "While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a church matter, church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land." This is a very clear opinion that the laws of the land are to be kept, not broken. It is important that the Church put forth this opinion because it clarifies that the Church respects the just laws of the U.S.
6. I definitely agree with Stewart Rhodes. God has given everyone free will. This is very important because it allows us to determine our own fate and to deserve our consequences. When we try to force what we think is right onto others, it debilitates their ability to make their own choices. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can present a man with a righteous path, but you cannot make him good.
John McDonough
ReplyDelete1. Dwight and steve hammond are ranchers in Oregon who lit fires allegedly to hide evidence of poaching. They rejected protection from an armed occupation of federal lands and turned themselves in they were sentenced to under the minimum of 5 years for arson and were re-sentenced to 5 years.
2. Clive Bundy landed himself in the spotlight by leading an armed standoff against federal agents over grazing rights on federal land and to prevent the seizure of his Cattle.
3. He prayed for guidance and did what the Lord asked him to do.
4.Local land owners rejected Bundy's tactics and did not support his occupation.
5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims that it is not a church matter and is concerned that the group is acting Scriptural principles. They are justified in their claim because if they are likely to be thought to be involved in the illegal activites or if it will make a bad name for their belifs they should set the record straight.
6. I agree with him on this because there is no evidence that his protection will benefit the people and violence that could occur as a result of the occupation would be detrimental to the very people he is trying to help. When imposing your belief is not for the purpose of benefiting others then you should not try to impose your belief on someone else if they resist. However when your belief will benefit or save lives then you should try to turn people to your opinion regardless of their resistance to your idea. You should never resort to violence to bring people to your side because it will likely do more harm than the change you are hoping to bring about will benefit and in most cases will appear ,and in some cases actually be, very hypocritical.
1. the Bundy's attourney and his son.
ReplyDelete2. HE committed arsenol on federal land and was convited of it.
3. He is " following the direction of God"
4. They are strongly opposed to them.
5. They have not given an opinion, yes they should so that they can show not all christians believe the same thing as the Bundys.
6. No, you should never force your opinions or beliefs on others. However you can enlighten individuals on what you believe, but shoving it down their throats is wrong.
Victoria Jones
Haden Jones
ReplyDelete1.two ranchers that burned federal land and served time in a federal prison back in 2012 amd are going back in trial because they didn't serve the minimum time someone is require in federal prison
2. He had an armed standoff with police after disputing grazing rights on gov't land
3. "The Lord was not pleased with what was happening to the Hammonds"
4.they do not want the Bundy's help
5.They are deeply disturbed and disapproved of this opinion. They should have said their opinion. Because without it, Clive Bundy would drag down the church by saying he's a follower of that church.
6.No, I certainly do not think that anyone should force their "help" onto others because their version of help could be the absolute antithesis of the help the person they are trying to help wants or needs. Also, morals in of themselves are completely subjective, for instance I'm strongly for gun control but you don't see me going around breaking into people's houses and taking their guns and turning them in to the police or vice versa for someone against gun control.
Gretchen Whisenant
ReplyDelete1. The Hammonds were convicted of setting ires on federal land in 2001 and 2006. They are what inspired Bundy to get involved.
2. To bring awareness that he was not getting to use his land the way he wanted to.
3. He says he is following directions from God and invokes his family's faith when explaining the anti-government movement he is attempting to lead.
4. His tactics were rejected by the locals.
5. They feel it is not a church matter but they were deeply troubled by some of the reports saying that he did this based on scriptural principals. I they should have put forth an opinion so Bundy could see what they think about the matter and maybe change his mind about it.
6. Yes. If you have a strong moral conviction, I believe you should express it to others and give them a chance to accept it, but definitely not force it.
Michael Ayala
ReplyDelete1. Two people who were convicted of setting fire on property.
2. A person who believed he was chosen by God to challenge the federal government.
3. That God told him to do it and that he will follow what he has told him.
4. That he is a little bit crazy and they don't really approve it. But think that he was told by God that it must be true.
5. They feel like this is crazy. Yes they should they could convince the guy of his wrong doings and can probably help him understand that this is insane.
6. "We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it, And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this."
Austin Levins
ReplyDelete1.They are a father and son who were arrested for setting a fire to protect wildlife. They are at the center because, they like the Bundys, thought they were doing the right thing. They served an extremely harsh crime for it.
2.He had a standoff with officials in Nevada over land and he said he was ordered to do it by God.
3.He claims he was ordered by God to do it.
4.Many of the locals agree with the Bundys in that it is there land and shouls be able to use it to best suit their needs
5. They say it is deeply troubling, and that they are not involved in the armed protestors. They have to put forth an opinion in order to maintain their peaceful image.
6. No. you cannot force your opinions on others regardless of circumstance.You should instead try to lead others to your opinions. I disagree with his tactics but i beleive his ideals are correct
1. Dwight and Steve hammond were convicted of setting fires to federal land in 2001 and 2006.Ammon Bundy and Cliven bundy publicly justified the actions of the hammonds saying, "the Lord was not pleased with what was happening to the hammonds."
ReplyDelete2. In 2014 cliven bundy engaged in an armed stand off with federal officers to protect his grazing rights on government land
3. Ammon Bundy voluntarily turned himself in and served a prison term in 2012
4. Many believe that Bundy is right for saying the sentence for the Hammonds was too harsh.
5. The church didn't make any official statements on the matter. It prevented more conflict by concealing an opposing opinion
6. Everyone should have the right to say whether they want protection. Some people can protect themselves just fine and and forced protection would be an infringement on their rights.
Matthew Sloan
ReplyDelete1. The attorneys for Hammond. They are the center because they are directly involved in the situation.
2. He was ina standoff with the police over grazing rights.
3. Religion and that he is on a mission.
4. rejected by most locals.
5. They did not support this and said it was not in scripture. Yes they should give an opinion because this delusional person has been influenced to think this way.
6. Yes i agree with this statement because thinking oppositely is very wrong and unconstitutional. it is wrong because lets say for example, i believed that our society would run better in a nazi type regime, does that mean i should go around forcing this idea upon people, of course not. Many christians would disagree with me, for example missionary trips, and i would say to them that preaching your beliefs are ok(free speech) but forcing them is not at all okay.
Nadaisha Mckinstry
ReplyDelete1.Dwight and Steve Hammond is a father and son due that started a fire on federal lands in 2001 and 6. Ammon Bundy is putting them in the middle of it.
2.Clive put himself in the middle of the spotlight over grazing rights on federal land he did it because God gave him “Guidance”
3.Ammon said the Lord asked him to help the Hammonds.
4.The land-owners does not live his occupation because they think it will lead to violence and they agree on the second Hammond sentence.
5.The say and I state, “Is not a church matter,” and they were “deeply troubled” that the armed group was acting on “scriptural principles” and they should have put forth an opinion because they could acknowledge the fact the group is not with them.
6.No I will not do that because it is wrong because if people does not want to be helped then they can’t be helped an only revert to their old ways.
Christina Cabanero
ReplyDelete1) Dwight and Steve Hammond were convicted of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006.
2)In March of 2014, Cliven Bundy was in the middle of an armed standoff with federal officials due to grazing rights on government land. The Bureau of Land Management says the family has not made payments toward a $1.1 million grazing fee and penalty bill.
3)Ammon Bundy tries to justify his actions by saying that he is doing as God wishes.
4)Local landowners believe that Ammond Bundy is too aggressive and hey do not wish to do illegal things against the government, saying it is too extreme.
5) The LDS church says that they are sad to see Hammond justifying his actions under God. They should have put forth an opinion because he is claiming his religion has lead him to this, when in fact the church does not condemn it at all.
6) I agree with Stewart Rhodes in saying that you cannot force yourself or your own protection onto those who do not want it, the same way as you cannot force your own beliefs or opinions onto others. This country was founded own freedom of speech, beliefs, and religion, and that is the way it should remain, not one person's beliefs being shoved onto others.
Abby Nelson
ReplyDelete1. Steve is Dwight's son and the Hammonds were both convicted of setting fires on federal land three years ago. They are at the center of this because Bundy says that the lord told him that the Hammonds were being sentenced unfairly.
2. He was at the center of an armed standoff with some federal officials. This standoff occurred over grazing rights on government land.
3. He says he came there and his actions were made as he hoped to rally support behind his cause.
4. They dissaprove of them as they are scared that his actions could lead to violence.
5. They say that it is not a church matter. Also, they shouldn't put forth an opinion because if they say it isnt a church matter, then the church doesn't have the right to say anything.
6. Yes i agree and no you shouldnt force others to accept help if they dont want it.
Katelyn Hardy
ReplyDelete1. Steve is Dwight's son and the Hammonds they were both convicted of setting fires on federal land 3 years ago. Bundy says that the Lord told him that the Hammonds were being sentenced unfairly.
2. He was at the center of an armed standoff with some federal officials. This standoff occurred over grazing rights on government land.
3. He says he came there and he hoped to rally support behind his cause.
4. They dissaprove of them as they are scared that his actions could lead to violence.
5. They don't think it's a church matter, and no they shouldnt, so the church doesn't have the right to say anything.
6. I agree, and no you shouldnt force others to accept help if they dont want it.
James Atchison
ReplyDelete1st
1:they were convicted of arson on federal land. The bundy's use them as examples
2:Clive protested publicly.
3:His reasoning is religious, saying he did what the Lord asked him to do.
4: They agree with Bundy to a certain extent. They fear what he's doing may lead to violence.
5: They officially claim the matter isn't a church matter. They were right in speaking up because it absolves them of potential responsibility/involvement.
6: I agree with his statement because it violates the basic principles of freedom to force yourself or your help on someone. Even if you feel strongly about the subject or if the solution is truly good for the other person, the most you can do is offer help. To force it would break personal liberty.