That is literally the definition of "terrorist". Joshua Feuerstein is a terrorist. And by instructing others to do it, in a public call, he's a terrorist leader.

This isn't a "freedom of speech" situation. Freedom of speech doesn't permit you to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Freedom of speech doesn't permit you to threaten the lives of others. It's not the speech itself that you're restricting, it's the impact on others. For cases like this, it's called incitement, and in this case you'd probably call it "incitement to commit a terrorist attack".

Who's suggesting that we should make generalisations about an entire group of people? If you're looking at the OP, it doesn't say that Christians are at fault, it says that, because he's a Christian rather than a Muslim, the media is refusing to call it "terrorism". It's a criticism of the media.

The problem is, people are all too quick to make generalisations when it's a Muslim. One Muslim says something like this, they're immediately branded a terrorist worldwide (and rightly so, if they say something similar to this). But this guy is going to be pretty much ignored for saying it, because he's a Christian.

If everyone followed the law we wouldn't need police either. I have as link that explained what FoS is. I didn't give my opinion I stated a fact. FoS does allow you to go against popular opinion of the popular opinion is degrading, oppressing etc someone who has not done anything wrong or who is not being given his / her human rights. 

Your freedom ends where someone else's begins. He should be jailed for a short time.

Cause most every activist doesn't care about a fetus, but controlling women and sexuality in general.  I've yet to see a 'national adoption day' sponsered by them or anything like that.  Or a major push for free birth control - usually they work on 'abstiance only' programs (which lead to increased pregancy.)

But serious question. How is this guy much different han Charlie Manson?  Charlie didn't kill anyone, just got other people to do it - including the murder of a pregant Sharon Tate.  He is also going to spend the rest of his life in jail.

To play devil's advocate a bit, being "Pro Life" doesn't mean you aren't anti-capital punishment. You just believe that all have the right to life, and unborn babies certainly have done nothing to lose that right. Agreeing with capital punishment for those who commit the most heinous crimes doesn't contradict that sentiment as the right to life has been forfeited.

Well, it's not terrorism, because he didn't do anything. If took action against others, it would be a hate crime. If he went on some sort of crusade or rampage, then it would be domestic terrorism.

By telling other people, specifically his followers, to do it, he's inciting terrorism. That makes him a terrorist leader. Osama Bin Laden didn't take action, either. He just got his followers to do so. That doesn't mean he's not a terrorist.

Yeah. We have to protect these innocent, potential lives at all costs, therefore let's kill people. Logic at it's finest ladys and gentlemen.

No, That's exactly what we should do.