djones520 wrote: You're the one who made the statement that the folks out there are doing it because of racism.
No I didn't. I said that SOME of them are doing it because of racism.
Firstly, you provided nothing to back up your claim.
I also haven't provided anything to back up my claim that the sky is blue.
Secondly, you worded it to imply all groups, as many of us took it.
No I didn't, because the context of the statement was a direct reply about groups mentioned by the SPLC. They claimed that it was unfair for the SPLC to list them as hate groups, I pointed out that they're being listed as hate groups for a very good reason.
Now if you wanted to clarify that you were only speaking of groups spcifically mentioned by the SPLC, then that would clear a lot of the issue up.
That is what I said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I was trying so hard not to point out the irony myself First he complains about people misreading his comment, then he misreads mine
Oh, I know exactly what you said. I was criticizing you for complaining about a vague "some people" when nobody involved in the discussion is one of them.
Peregrine wrote: Oh, I know exactly what you said. I was criticizing you for complaining about a vague "some people" when nobody involved in the discussion is one of them.
So if you knew what I said why did you make the mistake of thinking I was referring to the SPLC instead of taking it as an aside concerning some people's opinion on immigration?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So if you knew what I said why did you make the mistake of thinking I was referring to the SPLC instead of taking it as an aside concerning some people's opinion on immigration?
Again, I was criticizing you for making an aside about "some people" that isn't relevant to the current discussion.
Evangelical Christians are extreme? Catholics are extreme? Only to an atheist. Thats 95% of all Christians in the US and the majority of all Christians.
You just equated Sunni Muslims, and most Christians with the KKK. Do you realize how offensive that is?
I can't use neo confederacy as an example as a Hate Group. Yes I can view them and say "IMO I feel they are a possible Hate Group". Its not my place to decide US Military policy on making a "Official decision" on any particular group. I can only give the frame work of what makes a group either a Hate or Extremist group.
KKK, Neo Nazi, Black Panther, or any particular group with a proven Hate theme I can get away with and use them as an example as extreme. The EOA/EO guy that threw AFA or whatever Christian Group that this dilemma snowballed into was lazy and just created power point slides with a list copied from SPLC and stood by it and got challenge by a Chaplain of all things. The instructor is suppose to conduct a class and facilitate it with the typical standard that stays within a given guide line. He/she is not suppose to lose control of his/her class by any means possible. He/she lost credibility in front of his/her peers and seniors by not going off a approve training program.
Instructor also used powerpoint... isn't that heresy?
Dang it... SPLC would probably classify me as a hater for hating-on powerpoint presentations.
Frazzled wrote: Evangelical Christians are extreme? Catholics are extreme? Only to an atheist. Thats 95% of all Christians in the US and the majority of all Christians.
Frazzled wrote: Evangelical Christians are extreme? Catholics are extreme? Only to an atheist. Thats 95% of all Christians in the US and the majority of all Christians.
Frazzled wrote: Evangelical Christians are extreme? Catholics are extreme? Only to an atheist. Thats 95% of all Christians in the US and the majority of all Christians.
The majority of the US are either Catholic or evangelical. That leaves Mormons (who are arguably are a subgroup of evangelical), and all fifteen people who belong to the Lutheran and Episcopal chuches.
Frazzled wrote: Evangelical Christians are extreme? Catholics are extreme? Only to an atheist.
Not even to most atheists. That list is just stupid. Not only do those groups not belong on a list of extremists they're also hopelessly broad. "Catholicism" covers everything from the ultra-conservatives to the most liberal "go to church on christmas" types. I don't think you'll find many atheists that would argue that all of them are religious extremists.
The majority of the US are either Catholic or evangelical. That leaves Mormons (who are arguably are a subgroup of evangelical), and all fifteen people who belong to the Lutheran and Episcopal chuches.
If those two groups constitute the majority of Christians in the US, it is a very slim one.
Of course, I suspect you're speaking from a Texan perspective; where Catholics and Evangelicals make up ~60% of the Christian population.
Frazzled wrote: Evangelical Christians are extreme? Catholics are extreme? Only to an atheist. Thats 95% of all Christians in the US and the majority of all Christians.
The majority of the US are either Catholic or evangelical. That leaves Mormons (who are arguably are a subgroup of evangelical), and all fifteen people who belong to the Lutheran and Episcopal chuches.
If those two groups constitute the majority of Christians in the US, it is a very slim one.
Of course, I suspect you're speaking from a Texan perspective; where Catholics and Evangelicals make up ~60% of the Christian population.
Who else?
-Methodists,
-Eastern Orthodox. OK that could be a big group in the northeast.
-Baptists are under the evangelical
Who else?
The majority of the US are either Catholic or evangelical. That leaves Mormons (who are arguably are a subgroup of evangelical), and all fifteen people who belong to the Lutheran and Episcopal chuches.
If those two groups constitute the majority of Christians in the US, it is a very slim one.
Of course, I suspect you're speaking from a Texan perspective; where Catholics and Evangelicals make up ~60% of the Christian population.
Who else?
-Methodists,
-Eastern Orthodox. OK that could be a big group in the northeast.
-Baptists are under the evangelical
Who else?
The majority of the US are either Catholic or evangelical. That leaves Mormons (who are arguably are a subgroup of evangelical), and all fifteen people who belong to the Lutheran and Episcopal chuches.
If those two groups constitute the majority of Christians in the US, it is a very slim one.
Of course, I suspect you're speaking from a Texan perspective; where Catholics and Evangelicals make up ~60% of the Christian population.
Who else?
-Methodists,
-Eastern Orthodox. OK that could be a big group in the northeast.
-Baptists are under the evangelical
Who else?
Don't forget the "Church of What's Happening Now".
Frazzled wrote: Evangelical Christians are extreme? Catholics are extreme? Only to an atheist. Thats 95% of all Christians in the US and the majority of all Christians.
The majority of the US are either Catholic or evangelical. That leaves Mormons (who are arguably are a subgroup of evangelical), and all fifteen people who belong to the Lutheran and Episcopal chuches.
If those two groups constitute the majority of Christians in the US, it is a very slim one.
Of course, I suspect you're speaking from a Texan perspective; where Catholics and Evangelicals make up ~60% of the Christian population.
Who else?
-Methodists,
-Eastern Orthodox. OK that could be a big group in the northeast.
-Baptists are under the evangelical
Who else?
It starts with a P...
Polish Kielbasa? Now thats a church I want to be a part of.
Although I also think the reaction has been somewhat OTT since then....
but it's a slow news day after all I guess...
I think I can see what the original author was trying to say, and I guess there's limits on what one can fit onto a ..a.. slide ? .. cell ? screen..? but one would suggest then that if what you're trying to show doesn't neatly fit into whatever then perhaps whatever is not the best medium for it.
Baptists would be split between several different classifications used in the data I presented, in fact all 3 of the Protestant ones.
Though it seems I misinterpreted that data. I assumed 51.3% of 78.4% indicated 39.2% and carried this interpretation down the line. What the relevant data actually indicates is that ~62% of US Christians are either Evangelical or Catholic, meaning that Fraz is right; if hyperbolic.
Frazzled wrote: That doesn't do anything. Its even more insulting, tying 2bn people to the likes of the Nazis and gang members. What kind of crap is this?
Frazzled wrote: That doesn't do anything. Its even more insulting, tying 2bn people to the likes of the Nazis and gang members. What kind of crap is this?
How did you arrive at the number of 2 billion?
No problem, but a quick reference shows I understated it
It lists:
1. Sunni muslims
Wiki: total population 87% sunni of 1.4bn muslims: 1.2bn at 2010
2. Catholics worldwide:
wiki: 1.2bn at 2011
So 2.4ish bn. Way to piss off a large group of people.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would suggest you take it up with the FBI, as they monitor hate groups and presumably have some criteria for identifying them other than gut feeling.
I don't believe I need to, as I'm pretty familiar with the law over here.
You're aware we don't have laws against hate groups, right? You continue to speak about us as though we're your beloved Europe, where people are thrown in jail for racist tweets and groups are hunted down simply for existing. We don't do that over here. It's not illegal to be a Black Panther member. You don't end up on a domestic terrorist list, as you earlier asserted, by saying something bad about homosexuals.
Don't forget the mormons. Don't ticke them off. They're the only group thats prepared for apocalypse. DON"T TICK EM OFF OR THEY"LL PUSH THE RED BUTTON!
The document also only noted Catholics presently residing in the US, so less than 76 million.
That's hardly ~33% of the global population.
Care to explain what the difference is between a Catholic living in the US and one living in England? Most religions have a global community, and if you insult the Sunnis living in Iraq, the Sunnis living everywhere else are going to be pretty pissed off.
Most religions have a global community, and if you insult the Sunnis living in Iraq, the Sunnis living everywhere else are going to be pretty pissed off.
No they don't, that's nonsense. A Suuni Muslim from Iraq cannot go to Indonesia and expect to be communally associated with a Suuni Muslim from Indonesia. They speak different languages and behave differently.
Care to explain what the difference is between a Catholic living in the US and one living in England? Most religions have a global community, and if you insult the Sunnis living in Iraq, the Sunnis living everywhere else are going to be pretty pissed off.
No they don't, that's nonsense. A Suuni Muslim from Iraq cannot go to a Indonesia and expect to be communally associated with a Suuni Muslim from Indonesia. They speak different languages and behave differntly.
Well the Iraqi Sunni would probably say Indonesian Sunni's aren't really Muslim because they do not speak Arabic, which is the only language that Islam is supposed to be practiced in.
Brilliant, what was it? It certainly wasn't in that cut and paste you did.
Sure it was. That cut and paste gave clear indication as to what the SPLC uses as criteria for labelling a group as hate. If your reading comprehension is that weak, take it up with whoever educated you. You ought to ask for a refund.
Care to explain what the difference is between a Catholic living in the US and one living in England?
The English one is Irish and the American one is Ecuadoran?
Could be of French descent too. We had a wave of immigration south when the English took over, just under a million folk. I've seen the 7 million figure quoted, as far as descendants. They would all be of Catholic origins.
Sure it was. That cut and paste gave clear indication as to what the SPLC uses as criteria for labelling a group as hate. If your reading comprehension is that weak, take it up with whoever educated you. You ought to ask for a refund.
Broad generalisations don't equate with claims that specific groups have engaged in hate or are hate groups. Nothing has been posted for instance to back up the claim that the AFA supports the murder of homosexuals. Someone supports Nigeria for instance restricting certain rights to heterosexuals, the bulk of the population that produces the next generation, so the best group to raise children. Because that country then takes it a step further does not mean that the AFA support that extended instance.
Perhaps you should stop fantasizing about being the next Michelle Obama and go do some reading yourself.
Brilliant, what was it? It certainly wasn't in that cut and paste you did.
Sure it was. That cut and paste gave clear indication as to what the SPLC uses as criteria for labelling a group as hate. If your reading comprehension is that weak, take it up with whoever educated you. You ought to ask for a refund.
Care to explain what the difference is between a Catholic living in the US and one living in England?
The English one is Irish and the American one is Ecuadoran?
Could be of French descent too. We had a wave of immigration south when the English took over, just under a million folk. I've seen the 7 million figure quoted, as far as descendants. They would all be of Catholic origins.
Maybe I should have clarified my point. Given that Catholicism has a central authority in the form of the Pope, what makes American Catholics extremists but British Catholics not?
Sure it was. That cut and paste gave clear indication as to what the SPLC uses as criteria for labelling a group as hate. If your reading comprehension is that weak, take it up with whoever educated you. You ought to ask for a refund.
Broad generalisations don't equate with claims that specific groups have engaged in hate or are hate groups. Nothing has been posted for instance to back up the claim that the AFA supports the murder of homosexuals. Someone supports Nigeria for instance restricting certain rights to heterosexuals, the bulk of the population that produces the next generation, so the best group to raise children. Because that country then takes it a step further does not mean that the AFA support that extended instance.
Perhaps you should stop fantasizing about being the next Michelle Obama and go do some reading yourself.
You asked for what reason the SPLC labelled the AFA a hate group. I showed you the list of activities and basic criteria that the SPLC uses when labelling a group a hate group. Therefore, your claim that the SPLC had never communicated us that information was only correct because you didn't bother to look up where the information was available, that is, 2 clicks inside their website.
And yes, broad generalisations equate to labelling of groups as hate groups. For the SPLC. Because that's the criteria they've given themselves. So saying that they haven't explained their reasonning, or implying that they are intentionnaly avoiding to give a straight answer on that, is simply false. You can defend the idea that the criteria is an incorrect one, but you certainly cannot say, as you did, that is wasn't made public.
Again, if you had bothered to read, you would understand that it wasn't necessary for the douchebag in command to support killing homosexuals, but simply attack them, either legally or criminally, for their essential caracteristics.
Maybe I should have clarified my point. Given that Catholicism has a central authority in the form of the Pope, what makes American Catholics extremists but British Catholics not?
That was simply a reply to Frazzle. But to answer your question ; culture, geopolitical and economic situations, or simply because Catholicism really isn't that united. There are many subsects (such as the Opus Dei, now made famous by D. Brown, or up here in Quebec the Army of Marie) which are much more extreme in their practices than 'regular' Catholics. But no, American Catholics aren't more extreme than other Catholics.
cadbren wrote: Perhaps you should stop fantasizing about being the next Michelle Obama and go do some reading yourself.
Meh. I don't want to replace Michelle. I want her to be right there in the middle of all the fun!
Fischer's theological point is well made, by removing prayer you remove the ability to provide prayer based intercession. Its a religious point and he is free to make it, and it isn't hate speech.
Err, lol? It's an absolutely ridiculous argument. A god that only prevents children from being massacred if prayer is legal (and let's not pretend that "no prayer in schools" means that nobody was praying while people were being murdered) is a petty and childish tyrant.
Pertegrine I am not going to try and talk reason to you because you have chosen to ignore in favour of a twisted theology. I wont repeat it because you aren't going to listen anyway.
If you are going to make comments on a religious doctrine you have to understand its methodology, this was done earlier in the thread and is internally consistent. There is no excuse to believe that anyone believing in intercessory prayer comes to any of the conclusions you have done so here, they are completely at loggerheads with teaching on the subject.
Fischer's theological point is well made, by removing prayer you remove the ability to provide prayer based intercession. Its a religious point and he is free to make it, and it isn't hate speech.
Err, lol? It's an absolutely ridiculous argument. A god that only prevents children from being massacred if prayer is legal (and let's not pretend that "no prayer in schools" means that nobody was praying while people were being murdered) is a petty and childish tyrant.
Pertegrine I am not going to try and talk reason to you because you have chosen to ignore in favour of a twisted theology. I wont repeat it because you aren't going to listen anyway.
If you are going to make comments on a religious doctrine you have to understand its methodology, this was done earlier in the thread and is internally consistent. There is no excuse to believe that anyone believing in intercessory prayer comes to any of the conclusions you have done so here, they are completely at loggerheads with teaching on the subject.
Do you truly believe that, during the shootout, no one actually prayed because it was made illegal for schools to conduct prayers in between classes? Because that's the burden Fischer's ''theological point'' must bear.
His argument certainly isn't that legislation made it impossible for God to intervene as a result of a request. It's that the legislation is to blame for the event being unavoidable. This is barely disguised, grade A 'blaming the victim' right there.
You asked for what reason the SPLC labelled the AFA a hate group. I showed you the list of activities and basic criteria
Which don't match up. If you think they do match up then give an actual example, except you can't because one doesn't exist. It's SPLC's own paranoia and disdain at issue here rather than the AFA.
... you [should] understand that it wasn't necessary for the douchebag in command to support killing homosexuals, but simply attack them, either legally or criminally, for their essential caracteristics.
Except in this case the essential characteristics of the group in question are not conducive to raising normal children so why should a pro-family group not rail against them? If the AFA were railing against the existence of homosexuals then maybe you'd have a point. What their focus is on is keeping homosexuals out of the raising of children which means no gay marriage and no gay adoption.
Their classification in itself is an attack on the essential characteristic of the AFA, an organisation that seeks to support family values and regards the position of homosexuals in the rearing of children as dangerous and counter-intuitive to healthy societies. No one argues that men should not take groups of girls camping without older females present. There are simply instances in life where one group of people are unsuitable for a particular activity.
His argument certainly isn't that legislation made it impossible for God to intervene as a result of a request. It's that the legislation is to blame for the event being unavoidable. This is barely disguised, grade A 'blaming the victim' right there.
What Fischer was saying is that God turned his back on society because society turned their collective backs on God. I'm non religious, an athiest I suppose, but I can see from a religious perspective that people like him see cause and effect. What is the point afterall in prayer if it has no real world significance? Sure you can say that prayer is a ticket into the box seat in the everafter, but most prayer seems to be about earthly matters rather than prepping for whatever comes next.
He's not blaming the victims, he seems to be discounting them as individuals, rather considering them as an extension of society in general. It's the whole god is angry at you and now you collectively will suffer from flood, plague, barred from national parks etc.
Which don't match up. If you think they do match up then give an actual example, except you can't because one doesn't exist. It's SPLC's own paranoia and disdain at issue here rather than the AFA.
''Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.''
We have proof that the leader of the group engaged in speech negatively targeting homosexuals for their essential characteristics in this very thread.
Otherwise :
Wikipedia wrote:The AFA expresses public concern over what it refers to as the "homosexual agenda". They state that the Bible "declares that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful" and that they have "sponsored several events reaching out to homosexuals and letting them know there is love and healing at the Cross of Christ."[82]
The AFA actively lobbies against the social acceptance of homosexual behavior ("We oppose the homosexual movement's efforts to convince our society that their behavior is normal").[83] The AFA also actively promotes the idea that homosexuality is a choice and that sexual orientation can be changed through ex-gay ministries.[84]
In 1996, responding to a complaint from an AFA member who was participating in an AFA campaign targeting gay journalists, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram transferred a gay editor out of a job that occasionally required him to work with schoolchildren. The AFA targeted the editor due to cartoon strips he created, which were published in gay magazines. The paper apparently acted on the AFA's unsubstantiated statement that the editor was "preoccupied with the subjects of pedophilia and incest."[85]
In 2000, vice president Tim Wildmon spoke out against gay-straight alliance clubs in schools, stating, "We view these kinds of clubs as an advancement of the homosexual cause."[86] In 2004, the AFA raised concerns about the movie Shark Tale because the group believed the movie was designed to promote the acceptance of gay rights by children.[6][87] On the October 11, 2005, AFA broadcast, Tim Wildmon agreed with a caller that cable networks like Animal Planet and HGTV featured "evidence of homosexuality and lesbian people" and added that "you have to watch out for children's programs today as well because they'll slip it in there as well."[88] In 2007, the AFA spoke out against IKEA for featuring gay families in their television ads.[89] In June 2008, the AFA protested a Heinz television advertisement, shown in the United Kingdom, which showed two men kissing, which Heinz then withdrew.[90]
The AFA's founder, Don Wildmon, was "instrumental" in initially setting up the Arlington Group, a networking vehicle for social conservatives focusing on gay marriage.[17]
You also have, on their website, this publication :
PRINCIPLES WHICH GUIDE AFA's OPPOSITION TO THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA
1)The scripture declares that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful. It is a sin grievous to God and repulsive to Christians because it rejects God's design for mankind as heterosexual beings. 2)Though there may be many influences in a person's life, the root of homosexuality is a sinful heart. Therefore, homosexuals have only one hope of being reconciled to God and rejecting their sinful behavior - faith in Jesus Christ alone. AFA seeks to use every opportunity to promote and encourage the efforts of ex-homosexual ministries and organizations. 3)It is the duty of individual Christians and Christ's Church corporately to bring the gospel to homosexuals and to speak out against the acceptance of sin in our culture. 4)We oppose the homosexual movement's efforts to convince our society that their behavior is normal because we fear the judgement of God on our nation. 5)The homosexual movement is a progressive outgrowth of the sexual revolution of the past 40 years and will lead to the normalization of even more deviant behavior. 6)The homosexual movement's promotion of same-sex marriage undermines the God-ordained institution of marriage and family which is the foundation of all societies. 7)We oppose the efforts of the homosexual movement to force its agenda on our sentiments in schools, government, business and workplaces through law, public policy and media. Our strong opposition is a reaction to the homosexual movement's aggressive strategies. 8)We oppose the effort to convince our culture that because individuals participate in homosexual behavior, they have earned the right to be protected like racial and other minority groups. 9)While we are resolute in our opposition to the homosexual movement, we recognize the importance of maintaining Christian integrity in all our efforts. By God's grace we will reject the temptation to become bitter or hateful in our words or actions. 10)Finally, we seek faithfulness more than victory. We work with the confidence that the one true Sovereign God of the Bible will fulfill His purposes.
Except in this case the essential characteristics of the group in question are not conducive to raising normal children
Lol no. It's not conducive to producing children.
If the AFA were railing against the existence of homosexuals then maybe you'd have a point. What their focus is on is keeping homosexuals out of the raising of children which means no gay marriage and no gay adoption.
Again, lol no. Read the principles quoted. The AFA believes homosexuality to be unnatural and sinful. That means they believe it should stop existing.
Their classification in itself is an attack on the essential characteristic of the AFA, an organisation that seeks to support family values and regards the position of homosexuals in the rearing of children as dangerous and counter-intuitive to healthy societies.
Wow, triple lol no. Contingent things, such as being a bigoted abortion of a normal, mature human being, are not essential caracteristics.
No one argues that men should not take groups of girls camping without older females present. There are simply instances in life where one group of people are unsuitable for a particular activity.
What, wait, okay, quadruple lol no. I'll argue that any day. Why shouldn't men takes groups of girls camping without older female presents. Why shouldn't a father take his daughter camping if his wife is, I don't know, on a trip, or divorced or maybe even dead? The group of unsuitable people for that activity is child rapists, or people incapable of taking responsibility for the kids. And that's because we have very clear evidence that this group would end up harming the children, in very real ways. Bigots against gay adoption like to throw that around, but can never back their reasonning with any actual harm done to the children.
cadbren wrote: [. No one argues that men should not take groups of girls camping without older females present. There are simply instances in life where one group of people are unsuitable for a particular activity.
I'll argue that. As a father of two daughters. why should I not take my girls and their friends camping? I am an experienced camper and hiker, as well as trained in first aid. I know how to store food so as to discourage bears. It's perfectly safe.
Edit: unless your "should not...without" was not a typo, in which case I agree. Men should be able to take groups of girls camping without older females present.
Do you truly believe that, during the shootout, no one actually prayed because it was made illegal for schools to conduct prayers in between classes? Because that's the burden Fischer's ''theological point'' must bear.
Thats not the point being made.
A lack of intercessory prayer removed a layer of defense. This is a fair point theologically and people should be allowed to preach it without accusations of the doctrine being hate speech.
It doesnt mean that God didn't answer prayers of people caught in the shooting, besides those wouldnt prevent the shooting.
His argument certainly isn't that legislation made it impossible for God to intervene as a result of a request. It's that the legislation is to blame for the event being unavoidable. This is barely disguised, grade A 'blaming the victim' right there.
No it isn't. Victims of the shooting are not being blamed, besides the victims need not have prayed for themselves, intercessory prayer commonly covers other people. Also a lack of intercession doesn't make the attacks unavoidable, it removes a layer of defence.
A lack of prayer is no guarantee that bad things would happen, think of it more like insurance than protection money, though its different to both.
In any case religious people of all persuasions are entitled to believe prayer makes a difference in their lives, a sizable proportion also believe that prayer 'cover' makes their lives easier, banning prayer robs them of that assuredness. Fischer appears to claim that prayer has tangible benefits and denial of the opportunity to pray goes as far as robbing the people of those benefits, it is by no means a rare interpretation of the concept.
Do you truly believe that, during the shootout, no one actually prayed because it was made illegal for schools to conduct prayers in between classes? Because that's the burden Fischer's ''theological point'' must bear.
Thats not the point being made.
A lack of intercessory prayer removed a layer of defense. This is a fair point theologically and people should be allowed to preach it without accusations of the doctrine being hate speech.
It doesnt mean that God didn't answer prayers of people caught in the shooting, besides those wouldnt prevent the shooting.
His argument certainly isn't that legislation made it impossible for God to intervene as a result of a request. It's that the legislation is to blame for the event being unavoidable. This is barely disguised, grade A 'blaming the victim' right there.
No it isn't. Victims of the shooting are not being blamed, besides the victims need not have prayed for themselves, intercessory prayer commonly covers other people. Also a lack of intercession doesn't make the attacks unavoidable, it removes a layer of defence.
A lack of prayer is no guarantee that bad things would happen, think of it more like insurance than protection money, though its different to both.
In any case religious people of all persuasions are entitled to believe prayer makes a difference in their lives, a sizable proportion also believe that prayer 'cover' makes their lives easier, banning prayer robs them of that assuredness. Fischer appears to claim that prayer has tangible benefits and denial of the opportunity to pray goes as far as robbing the people of those benefits, it is by no means a rare interpretation of the concept.
Not at all, listen to what he says.
God will not answer the prayers of a people that have not been praying for the last 50 years, God didn't intercede because prayer has been banned from school. He says, and I quote, ''God would say, I would gladly come back in your school, but you must invite me back in, I will not go where I am not wanted, I am a gentleman (lol). Back when we had prayer in schools, we didn't need guns.''
He establish a clear causal link. This is not something up to interpretation. When someone says ''When prayer was in school, school shootings didn't happen.'', that's his point : additional blame is to be put at the feet of those who restricted the use of prayer in school, and the neoliberal majority for which this is normal.
A lack of intercessory prayer removed a layer of defense. This is a fair point theologically and people should be allowed to preach it without accusations of the doctrine being hate speech.
This...
Bryan Fischer wrote:
The question is going to come up, where was God? I though God cared about the little children. God protects the little children. Where was God when all this went down. Here's the bottom line, God is not going to go where he is not wanted.
Now we have spent since 1962 -- we're 50 years into this now--we have spent 50 years telling God to get lost, telling God we do not want you in our schools, we don't want to pray to you in our schools, we do not want to pray to your before football games, we don't want to pray to you at graduations, we don't want anybody talking about you in a graduation speech...
In 1962 we kicked prayer out of the schools. In 1963 we kicked God's word out of ours schools. In 1980 we kicked the Ten Commandments out of our schools. We've kicked God out of our public school system. And I think God would say to us, 'Hey, I'll be glad to protect your children, but you've got to invite me back into your world first. I'm not going to go where I'm not wanted. I am a gentlemen.
...is not an argument regarding intercessory prayer. The concept is not mentioned directly, or even alluded to. It is an argument that, were school sponsored prayer allowed in US public schools, the shooting at Sandy Hook would not have occurred. An argument which, given the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, requires blaming the victims.
So according to Page 5 Soldiers are prohibited from "[a]ttending a meeting or activity with knowledge that the meeting or activity involves an extreme cause". So if Catholics are an extreme group does that mean that going to mass is liable to lead to sanction? It flies in the face of the 1st Amendment
Without in any way picking a side on this, I'd just like to point out it's totally irrelevant if it does, since soldiers in the US have substantially restricted rights, including the first amendment. This is agreed to when they signed up.
"We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it." - Captain Frank Ramsey
Ouze wrote: Without in any way picking a side on this, I'd just like to point out it's totally irrelevant if it does, since soldiers in the US have substantially restricted rights, including the first amendment. This is agreed to when they signed up.
"We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it." - Captain Frank Ramsey
Page 4 of the presentation;
"Army Policy
Equal Opportunity
It is the policy of the U.S. Army to provide equal opportunity and fair treatment for all Soldiers without regard to race, color, religion, gender, or national origin"
With roughly 20% of the US military being Catholic it seems somewhat strange for the Catholic faith to be listed as an extremist group
Well, it's been a moot point since like, page 6 anyway.
George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, tells me the slide was not produced by the Army and it does not reflect their policy or doctrine.
“It was produced by a soldier conducting a briefing which included info acquired from an Internet search,” Wright said. “Info was not pulled from official Army sources, nor was it approved by senior Army leaders, senior equal opportunity counselors or judge-advocate personnel.”
Frankly not even sure why the thread kept going after that.
Ouze wrote: Well, it's been a moot point since like, page 6 anyway.
George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, tells me the slide was not produced by the Army and it does not reflect their policy or doctrine.
“It was produced by a soldier conducting a briefing which included info acquired from an Internet search,” Wright said. “Info was not pulled from official Army sources, nor was it approved by senior Army leaders, senior equal opportunity counselors or judge-advocate personnel.”
Frankly not even sure why the thread kept going after that.
How else are we going to get up our post counts? Post things that are meaningful?
My reading of the slide and the text is that every group can contain people who can, by any reasonable criteria, be labeled as "extremists", even groups which are fairly mainstream. If that had been my slide, my point would have been to get the audience to think about extremism not just in terms of extremist groups, but extremism inside of mainstream groups as well.
@Silver - That was my interpretation of the slide as well - nothing about it says that these are all extremist groups - just that extremism exists within each of these groups - which I think is pretty obvious.
@cadbren - Are you honestly saying that you believe gay people aren't suitable to raise children? Wow!
feeder wrote: As a father of two daughters. why should I not take my girls and their friends camping? I am an experienced camper and hiker, as well as trained in first aid. I know how to store food so as to discourage bears. It's perfectly safe.
It is not safe. Women attract bears - FACT. Man, did you not see Anchorman? Great documentary on this.
Brilliant, what was it? It certainly wasn't in that cut and paste you did.
Sure it was. That cut and paste gave clear indication as to what the SPLC uses as criteria for labelling a group as hate. If your reading comprehension is that weak, take it up with whoever educated you. You ought to ask for a refund.
Care to explain what the difference is between a Catholic living in the US and one living in England?
The English one is Irish and the American one is Ecuadoran?
Could be of French descent too. We had a wave of immigration south when the English took over, just under a million folk. I've seen the 7 million figure quoted, as far as descendants. They would all be of Catholic origins.
Maybe I should have clarified my point. Given that Catholicism has a central authority in the form of the Pope, what makes American Catholics extremists but British Catholics not?
-Shrike- wrote: Maybe I should have clarified my point. Given that Catholicism has a central authority in the form of the Pope, what makes American Catholics extremists but British Catholics not?
Because all current Christians have persecuted other people? Or out of some misguided need to see folks you disagree with persecuted?
Just curious as to your reasoning.
I'm thinking B.
I must have misunderstood him, or maybe I just hope that people are more reasonable than they appear in writing. I thought that, by "christers", he meant the kind of christian who hates gays/blacks/whatever with the burning passion that seb' posts showed that the guy holds. Not Christians in general. But I could have been off, maybe he'll clarify.
Apologies, ive been buisy lately. I was infact refering partly to those such as the west baptist church, whom persecute all they disagree with and picket dead soldiers funerals.
I was also refering slightly to the witch burnings. Centurys of innocents being drowned, burnt and crushed leaves quite a big Karmic debt.
Because all current Christians have persecuted other people? Or out of some misguided need to see folks you disagree with persecuted?
Just curious as to your reasoning.
I'm thinking B.
I must have misunderstood him, or maybe I just hope that people are more reasonable than they appear in writing. I thought that, by "christers", he meant the kind of christian who hates gays/blacks/whatever with the burning passion that seb' posts showed that the guy holds. Not Christians in general. But I could have been off, maybe he'll clarify.
Apologies, ive been buisy lately. I was infact refering partly to those such as the west baptist church, whom persecute all they disagree with and picket dead soldiers funerals.
I was also refering slightly to the witch burnings. Centurys of innocents being drowned, burnt and crushed leaves quite a big Karmic debt.
So you think modern day Christians who are perfectly nice people deserve to suffer for something done hundreds of years ago? Thanks for clarifying that. Apologies to Frazzled.
Because all current Christians have persecuted other people? Or out of some misguided need to see folks you disagree with persecuted?
Just curious as to your reasoning.
I'm thinking B.
I must have misunderstood him, or maybe I just hope that people are more reasonable than they appear in writing. I thought that, by "christers", he meant the kind of christian who hates gays/blacks/whatever with the burning passion that seb' posts showed that the guy holds. Not Christians in general. But I could have been off, maybe he'll clarify.
Apologies, ive been buisy lately. I was infact refering partly to those such as the west baptist church, whom persecute all they disagree with and picket dead soldiers funerals.
I was also refering slightly to the witch burnings. Centurys of innocents being drowned, burnt and crushed leaves quite a big Karmic debt.
So you think modern day Christians who are perfectly nice people deserve to suffer for something done hundreds of years ago? Thanks for clarifying that. Apologies to Frazzled.
As opposed to those who believe that babies born out of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or women who sleep with men outside of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or men who sleep with men are going to burn in hell, or that people are going to burn in hell because eve ate an apple and force fed it to adam and if we dont accept jebus and have some magic water splashed on us we cannot be seen by god as truely accepting of him(or whatever the hell it means)?
I'm happy to see that thinking that it is somewhat "karmically just" that the extreme fringes of christianity are considered as hate groups goes so much againat your moral compass you are happy enough to pass judgement upon some daring to suggest such.
Because all current Christians have persecuted other people? Or out of some misguided need to see folks you disagree with persecuted?
Just curious as to your reasoning.
I'm thinking B.
I must have misunderstood him, or maybe I just hope that people are more reasonable than they appear in writing. I thought that, by "christers", he meant the kind of christian who hates gays/blacks/whatever with the burning passion that seb' posts showed that the guy holds. Not Christians in general. But I could have been off, maybe he'll clarify.
Apologies, ive been buisy lately. I was infact refering partly to those such as the west baptist church, whom persecute all they disagree with and picket dead soldiers funerals.
I was also refering slightly to the witch burnings. Centurys of innocents being drowned, burnt and crushed leaves quite a big Karmic debt.
So you think modern day Christians who are perfectly nice people deserve to suffer for something done hundreds of years ago? Thanks for clarifying that. Apologies to Frazzled.
As opposed to those who believe that babies born out of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or women who sleep with men outside of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or men who sleep with men are going to burn in hell, or that people are going to burn in hell because eve ate an apple and force fed it to adam and if we dont accept jebus and have some magic water splashed on us we cannot be seen by god as truely accepting of him(or whatever the hell it means)?
I'm happy to see that thinking that it is somewhat "karmically just" that the extreme fringes of christianity are considered as hate groups goes so much againat your moral compass you are happy enough to pass judgement upon some daring to suggest such.
So your argument is that all Christians are haters then. Thats exceptionally brilliant AND bigoted at the same time.
I'm happy to see that thinking that it is somewhat "karmically just" that the extreme fringes of christianity are considered as hate groups goes so much againat your moral compass you are happy enough to pass judgement upon some daring to suggest such.
So your argument is that all Christians are haters then. Thats exceptionally brilliant AND bigoted at the same time.
I'm happy to see that thinking that it is somewhat "karmically just" that the extreme fringes of christianity are considered as hate groups goes so much againat your moral compass you are happy enough to pass judgement upon some daring to suggest such.
So your argument is that all Christians are haters then. Thats exceptionally brilliant AND bigoted at the same time.
I'm happy to see that thinking that it is somewhat "karmically just" that the extreme fringes of christianity are considered as hate groups goes so much againat your moral compass you are happy enough to pass judgement upon some daring to suggest such.
So your argument is that all Christians are haters then. Thats exceptionally brilliant AND bigoted at the same time.
So what do you consider "an extreme fringe" of Christianity?
GG
Well... i am tempted to say it is quite obviously the most extreme subsection of those who either call themselvesor could be considered christian. Those who through words, action or belief (though the latter cannot really be determimed or matter without the first two) have put thselves beyond the realm of reasonable behaviour.
In the specific case of chriatianity, i thinl we can all agree on what a "reasonable christian" wpuld be (no claims om this being an exhaustive liat as i am currrently crossing london on public transport and typing on phone but even if i had acceas to all the worka of man, there will always be something to miss ) - generally someone who lives a life by the guidancr set forward in the bible, lives constrained by human law, is thoughtful of their actions and how they affect others, undrrstandung that others live by different beluefs, etc... generally entirely the same as a reasonable peraon of any othrr religion ot lack there of.
The extreme fringe would contain people who push their religious vews (or some specific aspect of them) to the fore, generally to a point where they become the cebtral part of their existance, where they are uncapable of accepting that other people live other ways and acting hostiley towards those people either in attitude or physical.
I would suggeat the extreme fringe would include those with extremely stong views which conflict with those of society as a whole - people very stongly opposed to abortion, against non-married sex, using religiin to act against those of other races or religions etc.
Hopefully that covers some things - very hard to keep track of what i have written on pgone, so i will probably have missed stuff and not saud things well. Will not be able to reply point for point to any replies.
SilverMK2 wrote: ...that babies born out of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or women who sleep with men outside of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or men who sleep with men are going to burn in hell, or that people are going to burn in hell because eve ate an apple and force fed it to adam and if we dont accept jebus and have some magic water splashed on us we cannot be seen by god as truely accepting of him(or whatever the hell it means)?
If so, that's ridiculous. I know many Christians who do not make those claims.
The amount of generalisation and hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.
It's like when people try to claim that Stalin being an Atheist equates all Atheists as being evil. It's silly and juvenile, and is really just the association fallacy in it's purest form.
SilverMK2 wrote: ...that babies born out of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or women who sleep with men outside of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or men who sleep with men are going to burn in hell, or that people are going to burn in hell because eve ate an apple and force fed it to adam and if we dont accept jebus and have some magic water splashed on us we cannot be seen by god as truely accepting of him(or whatever the hell it means)?
If so, that's ridiculous. I know many Christians who do not make those claims.
For the most part, they don't. My MiL though... ugh... my wife marrying me was the "worst mistake of her life" according to the MiL, all due to me being an atheist. I'm still pissed about that 8 years later.
How the hell....
Okay i started this so i will finish it.
I did not mean Christians in general. Some of my friends are Christians and are perfectly nice peple.
Im on about the hate groups. Those whom condemn others. The extremists whom think that gays, bis, pagans, unmarried couples, etc are evil and should burn.
Those whom will kill because they think it is their right to do so to those whom differ from them.
I hope that this clarifys things and clears them up.
And more fool me for getting involved in a religious thread on Dakka.
master of ordinance wrote: How the hell.... Okay i started this so i will finish it. I did not mean Christians in general. Some of my friends are Christians and are perfectly nice peple.
Im on about the hate groups. Those whom condemn others. The extremists whom think that gays, bis, pagans, unmarried couples, etc are evil and should burn. Those whom will kill because they think it is their right to do so to those whom differ from them.
I hope that this clarifys things and clears them up. And more fool me for getting involved in a religious thread on Dakka.
MOO.
The progblem of course is, to be a Christian means to follow Christ. If you're not a Christian/baptized, you're not getting past the angelic rent a cops. So pagans by definition are going to have a problem. Now this of course doesn't address the issue of whether there are other means, or if Heaven can be entered through the means according to each person's faith.
Frazzled wrote: or if Heaven can be entered through the means according to each person's faith.
Or if there is no heaven, hell, afterlife or "higher power" and we are all just hating on one another for no reason.
All of which is besides the point, which we seem to have skipped ever further away from - whether the particular group(s) listed in the presentation are legitimate "hate groups", if so, why, and if not, why/how have they been included.
So what do you consider "an extreme fringe" of Christianity?
GG
Well... i am tempted to say it is quite obviously the most extreme subsection of those who either call themselvesor could be considered christian....etc.
I was hoping you would identify a certain group or groups, but I understand that you were in transit and not really able to answer that question fully.
Let me just throw out a problem with using the term "extreme fringe" without identifying a group by name. It makes it hard for us to "calibrate" ourselves with your definition. So let me jump in here with what I would call "extreme fringe".
One thing to remember as well, certain "extreme fringe" Christian groups present them selves as Christian organizations but are really nothing more than cults, and therefore not really Christian.
So my example of "extreme fringe" Christianity
1: Westboro Baptist
2:Christian Identity movement (I.E. skin head/ KKK)
3-10 I'm sure I've forgotten some
I do not consider the AFA an "extreme fringe" group.
Considering you are a pretty conservative Christian, that isn't surprising, but to non-Christians, non-conservative Christians, and, I would imagine, gays of all stripes, they are.
Because all current Christians have persecuted other people? Or out of some misguided need to see folks you disagree with persecuted?
Just curious as to your reasoning.
I'm thinking B.
I must have misunderstood him, or maybe I just hope that people are more reasonable than they appear in writing. I thought that, by "christers", he meant the kind of christian who hates gays/blacks/whatever with the burning passion that seb' posts showed that the guy holds. Not Christians in general. But I could have been off, maybe he'll clarify.
Apologies, ive been buisy lately. I was infact refering partly to those such as the west baptist church, whom persecute all they disagree with and picket dead soldiers funerals. I was also refering slightly to the witch burnings. Centurys of innocents being drowned, burnt and crushed leaves quite a big Karmic debt.
So you think modern day Christians who are perfectly nice people deserve to suffer for something done hundreds of years ago? Thanks for clarifying that. Apologies to Frazzled.
As opposed to those who believe that babies born out of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or women who sleep with men outside of wedlock are going to burn in hell, or men who sleep with men are going to burn in hell, or that people are going to burn in hell because eve ate an apple and force fed it to adam and if we dont accept jebus and have some magic water splashed on us we cannot be seen by god as truely accepting of him(or whatever the hell it means)?
I'm happy to see that thinking that it is somewhat "karmically just" that the extreme fringes of christianity are considered as hate groups goes so much againat your moral compass you are happy enough to pass judgement upon some daring to suggest such.
The thing is, he didn't say that the extremist groups would be the ones to pay that debt. He may have meant it, but he didn't write it. I too believe that Westboro, KKK, all those groups are evil, even the AFA, because if you are going around bashing any kind of people then there is a very serious problem (not literally bashing in their case, but it still stands). But what is the difference between saying that all gays are bad because gay (I don't think their reasoning goes much past this), and all christians should suffer from some karmic debt because hundreds of years ago bad stuff happened. Ridiculous. Why not say Germany should suffer karmic bitchslaps for the next few hundred years, why not America for the whole indian thing, Spain for the Incans, how can you say that me saying 'thats the wrong thing to say' is the same as me saying all that horrible stuff you said in your first paragraph? I'm just as against the hate groups present in my religion, and in any other part of society, as any of you. I just don't like when the vitriol reaches down and touches the normal christians who are just nice people (not saying all are nice people, but the regular christians who are. I'm not sure if there needs to be a comma there or not to get that across, so I figured explaining it was easier). If MoO meant just the hate groups in terms of paying back that debt, then sure, I can understand where he is coming from. But if he meant all christians, he is starting to cross that same line.
edit: missed MoO's post. Good to hear he meant the extremists, the ones who hate perfectly nice people who happen to be gay/black/whatever else that group happens to hate. I do resent silver saying that I think they aren't hate groups though. I'm pretty sure in this thread I agreed (or maybe it was another one on Westboro or something, one of the crazy groups).
Off the top of my head Feeder I would strike out Faith Healers and Snake Handlers. Being they are more in danger of themselves (Snake Handlers) and the other a extortion (Faith Healer)
National Liberation Front of Tripura (India)
Iron Guard and Lăncieri (Romania)
Army of God (US and due to bombing clinics) I won't add in others due to individual members actions
Hutaree for going with training to how to make and employ IED's
Orange Volunters in UK. Not sure if their still active.
Extemists groups above. There are others on a "Watch List" but label as Hate groups.
Jihadin wrote: Off the top of my head Feeder I would strike out Faith Healers and Snake Handlers. Being they are more in danger of themselves (Snake Handlers) and the other a extortion (Faith Healer)
You don't think intentionally poisoning yourself is extreme? Being extreme isn't the same thing as being a terrorist, after all.
Well Ahtman. Look at this from another angle. Snake Handler placing his/her trust in God screwing around with Nature's critters with fangs with their conviction. A suicide bomber placing his/her trust into their God to see the "Promise Land" dying in a righteous cause.
Who ever the suicide bomber kills in their attack is their servants in the after life.
Edit
Above comment
That popped in my head because I think its been never mention in all our talks about Suicide Bombers.
Jihadin wrote: Off the top of my head Feeder I would strike out Faith Healers and Snake Handlers. Being they are more in danger of themselves (Snake Handlers) and the other a extortion (Faith Healer)
National Liberation Front of Tripura (India)
Iron Guard and Lăncieri (Romania)
Army of God (US and due to bombing clinics) I won't add in others due to individual members actions
Hutaree for going with training to how to make and employ IED's
Orange Volunters in UK. Not sure if their still active.
Extemists groups above. There are others on a "Watch List" but label as Hate groups.
I was going with "taking faith to the extreme" type of Christian. Someone who thinks God gives a re-rollable 2+ vs venom is pretty extreme IMO. Likewise, someone who genuinely believes (not a con artist) that they can remove tumors, polio etc by laying on hands and praying hard enough is too.
Jihadin wrote: Well Ahtman. Look at this from another angle. Snake Handler placing his/her trust in God screwing around with Nature's critters with fangs with their conviction. A suicide bomber placing his/her trust into their God to see the "Promise Land" dying in a righteous cause.
Who ever the suicide bomber kills in their attack is their servants in the after life.
They both seem pretty extreme, one is also a terrorist where the other isn't. One can hold extreme beliefs without harming others, or can harm others indirectly, like when people won't take their kid to the doctor for medicine/treatment when they are seriously sick becuase god will heal them.
Like looking at all the Christian groups in the world and finding out what is universal or close to universal for them and use that as the definition for standard Christian? Or would things become too generalized to be meaningful if that occurred?
generalgrog wrote: I was hoping you would identify a certain group or groups, but I understand that you were in transit and not really able to answer that question fully.
I can't claim to know enough about the Christian fringe to be able to come up with many I'm afraid, though certainly I have heard of some of those mentioned above (though I would not perhaps have gone straight for the snake guys or faith healers - both are almost certainly on the fringe of Christianity but I do not know enough about them to say whether they do anything "hateful" rather than simply strange ).
Let me just throw out a problem with using the term "extreme fringe" without identifying a group by name. It makes it hard for us to "calibrate" ourselves with your definition. So let me jump in here with what I would call "extreme fringe".
I think it is actually harder to determine what the extreme fringe is if you do name a specific group or groups. If you do, it takes no account of other groups which may be extreme in different ways, or of individuals who may belong to a more moderate group but who have extreme viewpoints or actions.
Having an understanding of what is "reasonable" or "moderate" allows us to look at all those who fall outside this grouping, examine them in isolation and determine how they differ from the mainstream and so on. Just like in a scientific experiment, you don't compare to an abnormal sample, you always compare to the normal. You need to know what the normal sample is before you can identify what is abnormal, and the specific abnormalities that are present.
One thing to remember as well, certain "extreme fringe" Christian groups present them selves as Christian organizations but are really nothing more than cults, and therefore not really Christian.
No true Scotsman I'm afraid. If they identify as Christian, or they have a large basis of their belief rooted in Christianity, they are still Christian even if they are doing things which go against the more moderate beliefs of Christianity. Certainly, moderate groups can disavow themselves from such extreme groups, but they cannot say "they are not Christian".
I do not consider the AFA an "extreme fringe" group.
May I ask why? As noted above - I'm not really up on Christian groups and who they are and what they do (especially American groups), but from what people have said and posted in this thread, it seems that the AFA has put out some quite... non-mainstream views.
Cheesecat wrote: Like looking at all the Christian groups in the world and finding out what is universal or close to universal for them and use that as the definition for standard Christian? Or would things become too generalized to be meaningful if that occurred?
It is the Nicene Creed that defines a church or sect as being part of mainstream Christianity.
That includes Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox churches, and most Protestant churches.
Presumably it would be possible to profess the catechism and also believe in snake handling, in which case you would need to rely on relative numbers as the indicator of non-mainstream status.
I'm not really up on Christian groups and who they are and what they do (especially American groups), but from what people have said and posted in this thread, it seems that the AFA has put out some quite... non-mainstream views.
Frankly there has been a lot of lies posted in this thread about the AFA. The really nasty things they've been acused of saying were actually said by other groups. The AFA opposes homosexuality being normalised so they are against gay marriage and adoption. They do not threaten, they do not commit acts of violence. They are also not a gay hate group. Looking at their site they have also campaigned against offensive language on tv and radio, and overly sexual and violent content aimed at children. It is only their stance in opposing the gay lifestyle being promoted as being as normal as a male-female relationship that has earned them a position on the SPLCs hate group list.
Cheesecat wrote: Like looking at all the Christian groups in the world and finding out what is universal or close to universal for them and use that as the definition for standard Christian? Or would things become too generalized to be meaningful if that occurred?
It is the Nicene Creed that defines a church or sect as being part of mainstream Christianity.
That includes Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox churches, and most Protestant churches.
Presumably it would be possible to profess the catechism and also believe in snake handling, in which case you would need to rely on relative numbers as the indicator of non-mainstream status.
Snake handling to me smacks of paganism. A lot of the old pagan temples had snakes in them as magical creatures to be used in ritual. St. Patrick was said to have driven the snakes out of Ireland, generally thought now to mean he banished some religion based around snakes. The only snake in a Christian context is the one that gets Eve to eat the apple suggesting a devil role, snake handling seems more like a pagan cult that some people who are otherwise Christian are invoved with. Kind of like various Christian clergy being inducted into druid orders, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury being a more famous example.
cadbren wrote: Frankly there has been a lot of lies posted in this thread about the AFA. The really nasty things they've been acused of saying were actually said by other groups.
Fischer’s anti-gay rhetoric has come close to calls for violence. While retelling the biblical story of Phinehas, Fischer said “nation had lapsed into rampant sexual immorality -- I don’t know if that sounds familiar to you, it certainly does to me” – but was redeemed after Phinehas killed a couple caught “in flagrante.” The message of the story, Fischer said, is that what “God is obviously looking for is more Phinehases in our day” and for “each one of us be a Phinehas in our own world and in our own generation.”
On issues of public policy, Fischer believes that “homosexuals should be disqualified from public office,” banned from serving as judges and barred from working as teachers, and that “homosexual behavior should be against the law.” Fischer advocates treating gays and lesbians in the same way as drug addicts, saying, “Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct.”
Fischer maintains that Christians should not vote for any candidate who supports gay rights in any form because, he says, homosexuality is an “abomination in the nostrils of God” that “no rational society should ever endorse.”
Gay Soldiers and an Effeminized Culture Ruined the Military
Fischer’s contempt for gays and lesbians even affects his outlook on members of the military. Social conservatives reacted furiously to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and many activists were enraged that even a handful of Republicans voted to overturn the discriminatory policy. Fischer was one of the loudest opponents of the repeal effort, and has made the commitment to reinstating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a litmus test for any Republican presidential candidate seeking his approval. Prior to the repeal vote, Fischer insisted that it would be one of the most important votes “in the history of our country” because repeal would be “utterly catastrophic” to the military.
Fischer warned that if the policy was repealed,
We would be left with a military comprised of nothing but sexual deviants and those who celebrate sexual deviancy. That is a guaranteed path to a permanently and irreversibly emasculated military that could not defend us if their lives -- let alone ours -- depended on it ... Every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of religious freedom. We as a nation must choose between the homosexual agenda and liberty, because we can’t have both.
After the Senate voted to repeal the policy, Fischer warned that the military would “now be feminized and neutered beyond repair” and insisted that “the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.” Fischer called repeal supporters “treasonous” and said the new Marine motto should be “The Few, the Proud, the Sexually Twisted.”
Fischer’s harsh words for service members aren’t only reserved for those who are gay or who don’t share his hardened anti-gay attitudes. When Army Sgt. Salvatore Giunta received the Medal of Honor for saving fellow soldiers who were under heavy fire, Fischer infamously criticized it as part of a “disturbing trend” that shows that “we have feminized the Medal of Honor.” Fischer lamented that the Medal of Honor no longer went to service members who killed enemies, but only those who saved fellow soldiers, and was thus a sign that American “culture has become so feminized.”
After the military rescinded a speaking invitation to Rev. Franklin Graham because of his harsh anti-Muslim statements, Fischer posited: “You want to know who’s now running the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy and the Marines and calling the shots where it counts? Fundamentalist Muslims and homosexual activists.”
Fischer’s animosity extends to people of color. In an article accusing government social services of destroying the African American community, Fischer likened African Americans to rabbits: “Welfare has subsidized illegitimacy by offering financial rewards to women who have more children out of wedlock,” Fischer wrote. “We have incentivized fornication rather than marriage, and it’s no wonder we are now awash in the disastrous social consequences of people who rut like rabbits.” Fischer, who has also defended the Constitution’s 3/5 compromise as an “anti-slavery clause,” ultimately removed his post and then altered it by taking out its most degrading comments.
Fischer insists that Native Americans deserved to be killed and forced out of their lands during American expansion because they didn’t all convert to Christianity. Angered that the memorial service for those killed in the mass shooting in Tucson included a Native American prayer, Fischer charged that since Native Americans were “steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality,” they were punished by God. Until Native Americans convert to Christianity, Fischer said, they cannot be considered full-fledged American citizens.
He went on to say that the divine punishment lasts to this day, as Native Americans “remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture.” Fischer said that America itself may soon receive the same punishment from God:
Even worse, the reaction will likely obscure the sobering lesson for today. America in 2011 is as guilty of “abominations” as the native American tribes we replaced. We have the blood of 53 million babies on our hands through abortion. We have normalized sexual immorality, adultery, and homosexuality, all horrors in the eyes of God, and are witnessing a surge in incest, pedophilia and even bestiality in our midst.
…
The only question that matters today is this one: how much time does America have left to repent of its superstition, its savagery and its sexual immorality before it is too late, before we will have filled up our own slop bucket and will have morally disqualified ourselves from sovereign control of our own land?
In what has become a pattern, the AFA removed Fischer’s article even after he dedicated his radio program to making the exact same arguments.
Muslims Must Convert…Or Die
Along with his ignominious attacks on people of color and borderline violent language towards gays and lesbians, Fischer reserves a special place in his vicious rhetoric for the American Muslim community.
Using eliminationist language, Fischer claims that American Muslims are a “toxic cancer” to American society and that Muslim Student Associations are “parasites.” Fischer, who has said that Muslims worship a “demon God” and that Islam is based on “the spirit of Satan,” has urged the U.S. to ban the construction of mosques, likened mosques to IEDs, and prayed for the destruction of the Dome of the Rock. He has repeatedly claimed that Muslims are inherently dangerous, unintelligent and mentally ill due to inbreeding.
Fischer believes that Muslims must be purged from the military and prohibited from enlisting. Moreover, he has continually demanded that the U.S. not only ban Muslim immigration but also deport and expel all American Muslims, asserting that “treasonous acts are likely committed on virtually a weekly basis here in the U.S. in many mosques and Islamic organizations.” Since Fischer believes that Islam is “treasonous at its core,” he maintains that only Muslims who renounce their religion and convert to Christianity should be allowed to come into and live in the U.S.
“Islam is an evil and wicked religion, and unworthy of a Christian nation,” Fischer writes, “…the less Islam there is in the United States, the better.”
Because he believes “tyranny is in the DNA of Islam,” Fischer says that the only way for democracy to emerge in a Muslim country is for the U.S. to bring about “a mass conversion of its people to biblical Christianity.” He has even insisted that soldiers who lost their lives in the Iraq War died in vain because the invasion didn’t lead to the conversion of Iraq’s people to Christianity.
For Fischer, Muslims only have one choice: convert to Christianity or die. He warned Muslims that if they reject Christianity, the consequences will be fatal:
So we say to them, look, if you don’t want our missionaries, fine, that’s your choice, we’ll take our missionaries and our Marines, we’ll take them home, but we’re going to let you know we have no hesitation about returning with lethal force if the forces in your country threaten us again. This time it’s Marines and missionaries, next time it’ll be Marines and missiles.
The Christians-Only Constitution
Despite the American Family Association’s claim that it “defends the rights of conscience and religious liberty,” Fischer claims that the Constitution is only meant to protect the rights of Christians.
According to Fischer, Muslims deserve no First Amendment rights: “Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy.” Since the religious rights of Muslims are only temporary and can be rescinded, he contends, “Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America. They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked.”
He instead believes that the Founding Fathers only wanted to extend rights to different Protestant denominations, and bizarrely justifies his argument by citing proposed amendments that were rejected by the drafters of the Constitution.
George Washington directly contradicted the majoritarian-favoritism now propagated by Fischer, writing in a letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island that the U.S. “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship,” Washington wrote. “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”
Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School writes, “Both the First Amendment and the No Religious Test Clause of the original Constitution were quite deliberately written to cover all religions…I know of no sources that suggested that anyone during the Framing era understood the Constitution as excluding ‘Mahometans,’ or non-Christians more generally, from either the Free Exercise Clause or the No Religious Test Clause.”
Fischer also denies the existence of the separation of church and state, which was established in the First Amendment and incorporated as applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and believes that states and localities should be allowed to establish official religions. Fischer also wants to model the U.S. justice system on the biblical law of ancient Israel (Fischer himself cites Genesis to attack Muslims and uses Leviticus to demonize gays and lesbians).
For Fischer, the separation of church and state is an idea straight out of Nazi Germany:
Secular fundamentalists in the United States know the same thing that Hitler knew. The only thing that stands in their way of the total takeover of our culture, the final removal of any mention of God from the public arena, and the shredding of the last remains of our Judeo-Christian value system, is the church of Jesus Christ.
Despite the Constitution’s clear pronouncement against religious tests for public office, Fischer questions whether a Mormon candidate like Mitt Romney should be allowed to serve as president. He urges people to ask Romney if “he embrace[s] the fundamentals of LDS theology” in order to “let the American people decide whether they want somebody with those convictions sitting in the Oval Office.”
and my all time personal favourite...
Fischer believes it is a great injustice that biblical law isn’t imposed on all aspects of American society, including our relations with the animal kingdom. Following the tragic news that the SeaWorld whale Tilikum had killed a trainer, Fischer demanded that the whale be put to death. He claimed that the courts should use the “ancient civil code of Israel” in dealing with Tilikum, citing Exodus 21:28-29, which calls for the stoning of animals that kill humans and the death penalty for owners if the animal kills again. When Tilikum began performing again, Fischer was incensed at the “ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture,” crying: “Tilikum is back in the water, ready to kill again.”
But whales aren’t the only animals that receive Fischer’s wrath.
Fischer blamed a deadly attack by a grizzly bear in Yellowstone Park on the fact that American “culture has jettisoned a biblical view” of animals, and called it a sign that God is punishing America: “God said a curse would fall on a land which turned its back on him, and one consequence would be more tragic deaths at the hands of predatory animals. The truly sad thing here is that we are bringing this curse upon ourselves.”
He later called for an open season on grizzlies in order to end the divine curse: “If it’s a choice between grizzlies and humans, the grizzlies have to go. And it’s time…God makes it clear in Scripture that deaths of people and livestock at the hands of savage beasts is a sign that the land is under a curse. The tragic thing here is that we are bringing this curse upon ourselves.”
After the gray wolf was taken off the endangered species list, Fischer ecstatically tweeted that it was time to finish off the species: “Great news for all who want to reverse the biblical curse of predators: can now hunt wolves in Idaho!”
So to summarise he thinks the Con. only applies to Protestants, wants Muslims deported and thinks we should stone animals to death.
RS...You quote an article from the people for the american way website (Alec Baldwin is board member, no less). I'm sorry but using a left wing liberally biased article to try and discredit Fischer probably wasn't the best choice.
I'm not trying to defend Fischer, because I don't know enough about him yet, but some of his quotes appear to be taken out of context by PFAW website article to destroy Fischer, rather than present a factual unfiltered representation of what he really believes.
If he really believes that homosexuals should be executed, than I have huge problem with that. But I don't see him expressly saying that. And I wouldn't trust that PFAW article either.
RS...You quote an article from the people for the american way website (Alec Baldwin is board member, no less). I'm sorry but using a left wing liberally biased article to try and discredit Fischer probably wasn't the best choice.
PFAW(founded in 1981 by television producer Norman Lear "in response to what he felt was the divisive rhetoric of such increasingly influential televangelists as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.") does not have to be "biased" to discredit Fischer.
I'm not trying to defend Fischer, because I don't know enough about him yet, but some of his quotes appear to be taken out of context by PFAW website article to destroy Fischer, rather than present a factual unfiltered representation of what he really believes.
Then I suggest you actually do some research instead of leaping to the defense of the man.
This is a tweet from his "Verified"(which means that he actually had to CONTACT Twitter and have another verified person vouch for him) account:
Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer 17m
If only the left found pornography, violence and profanity as offensive as a mascot in the NFL.
If he really believes that homosexuals should executed, than I have huge problem with that. But I don't see him expressly saying that. And I wouldn't trust that PFAW article either.
GG
Yet you'll trust what he says blindly, because he's "got no bias" huh?
Sorry I'm not trusting what he says blindly. I'm just not going to leap to destroy the man because of some liberal organisation's attempt to do so.
Some of those quotes were clearly taking him out of context in an attempt to make him out to be a monster. But that is the tactic used by activist liberals.
Keep in mind I'm talking about activist's. I'm not saying all liberals do this, but certain activists have no problem with this tactic.
For example:In reference to the biblical Phineas, they try and claim that because fisher referred to how Phineas executed 2 Homosexuals back in the bible days(because it was the law at the time..and so was executing adulterers and blasphemers), that this means Fisher thinks we should do the same. This is a clear attempt to make people think Fisher is in favor of homosexual execution. Perfect example of taking him out of context to make him out to be a monster.
Listen..I don't know this guy from Adam, have never listened to one of his speeches nor even heard of him before this thread. But I can identify a political hit job when I see one.
Some of those quotes were clearly taking him out of context in an attempt to make him out to be a monster. But that is the tactic used by activist liberals.
as opposed to the always honest people from the Xtian right of course.
But we'll go with that then, which of the comments that you don't think were taken out of context -- you say "some" of them are -- are defensible and not at all lunatic fringe ?
For example:In reference to the biblical Phineas, they try and claim that because fisher referred to how Phineas executed 2 Homosexuals back in the bible days(because it was the law at the time..and so was executing adulterers and blasphemers), that this means Fisher thinks we should do the same. This is a clear attempt to make people think Fisher is in favor of homosexual execution. Perfect example of taking him out of context to make him out to be a monster
Please explain what he did mean by this then ?
And also the comments about native americans, people of ethnic descent and muslims.
For example:In reference to the biblical Phineas, they try and claim that because fisher referred to how Phineas executed 2 Homosexuals back in the bible days(because it was the law at the time..and so was executing adulterers and blasphemers), that this means Fisher thinks we should do the same. This is a clear attempt to make people think Fisher is in favor of homosexual execution. Perfect example of taking him out of context to make him out to be a monster
Please explain what he did mean by this then ?
And also the comments about native americans, people of ethnic descent and muslims.
Oh and the USA Constituition too.
Allright I'll play.
I took it to mean Christians to stand up against the sin of homosexuality. In other words to preach what we believe about homosexuality and that it is a sin. That is light years away from preaching execution.
...i'll take a look at the other stuff and reply later.
Right now I'm watching Man-U vs Southhampton... :-)
.. * pun along the lines of a worthy goal to be placed here *
I think you're stretching beyond belief to sat that story about killing people for X/Y/X that is referenced is actually meant to be about 1/2/3
You're basically claiming that if someone says a person " went all Charlie Manson" they drfieted around aimlessly for a few years before becoming a common figure of reference.
Presumably in the same way that when we refer to people "going postal" we, of course, mean they get up really early 6 days a week and have an in depth knowledge of some neighbourhoods.
cadbren wrote: Frankly there has been a lot of lies posted in this thread about the AFA. The really nasty things they've been acused of saying were actually said by other groups.
Huge difference between making something illegal and the death penalty as people here are claiming.
As stated earlier, making it illegal to oppose homosexuality, which is what the SPLC is after, makes them and their supporters a hate group by their own definition.
Again, do you have any evidence for the absurd slippery slope argument that, in a country where the KKK (a group virtually everyone agrees is repulsive s) is allowed to speak without censorship, there is any realistic chance of making it illegal to oppose homosexuality? Or is this just more of the conservative-christian martyrdom thing?
Again, do you have any evidence for the absurd slippery slope argument that, in a country where the KKK (a group virtually everyone agrees is repulsive s) is allowed to speak without censorship, there is any realistic chance of making it illegal to oppose homosexuality? Or is this just more of the conservative-christian martyrdom thing?
Not in USA....yet..... but 10 or 20 years from now based on the way things are going. I see it coming.
------------------------------------
Preacher Arrested for Calling Homosexuality a Sin
Author
By Christian Newswire (Bio and Archives) Friday, July 5, 2013
Comments at bottom of page | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
12
WIMBLEDON, UK, —While on a public sidewalk in front of the Centre Court Complex during the Wimbledon Tennis Championships, An American preacher was arrested, fingerprinted, had DNA samples taken and then interrogated, after a woman out shopping called the police to complain that she was offended by what was being said.
Tony Miano, a retired Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff who traveled to the UK with Sports Fan Outreach International as part of a mission to bring the Gospel to England, was speaking from 1 Thessalonians which mentions “sexual immorality” and had cited homosexuality alongside “fornication” as examples of what he believed went against “God’s law”.
In an interview with Telegraph.CO.UK, Tony Miano stated, “As the questioning started it became apparent that the interrogation was about more than the incident that took place in the street, but what I believed and how I think,” he said. “I was being interrogated about my thoughts…that is the basic definition of thought police.” He said he had arrested many people in his career but never over something they believed. “It surprised me that it is possible for a person to be taken to jail for their thoughts,” he said. “It surprised me that here in the country that produced the Magna Carta, that an otherwise law abiding person could lose his freedom because one person was offended by the content of my speech.” He said he feared Britain and other countries were already on a “slippery slope” towards the erosion of free speech and has written to Parliament outlining his experiences.
An article by ChristianNews.net quotes Tony Miano, “It was surreal because I was interrogated about my faith in Jesus Christ,” Miano said. “I was asked if I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I was asked what portion of the Bible I was reading. I was asked if a homosexual was hungry and walked up to me, would I give them something to eat.”
Police then concluded by asking Miano whether he believed he did anything wrong, and if he would make similar statements again when released. Miano replied by contending that he had done nothing unlawful, and that he would indeed preach the same message again if he felt led to do so by the Lord. During questioning The officer asked him, “Do you feel that what you did is 100 per cent acceptable in a public place?” and “Will you do this again tomorrow?” Mr. Miano replied affirmatively to both questions. The investigating officer told Mr. Miano’s solicitor that his answers to these last two questions left him no choice but to seek prosecution.
Tony Miano is a full-time evangelist, speaker, writer and radio host; you can connect with him at TMiano.com.
Entire footage of the incident including the arrest is available on Tony Miano’s YouTube Channel.
3 Comments
Christian Newswire the Nation’s Leading Distributer of Religious Press Releases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grog. Freedom of Speech differs over there compare to here. DOMA and DADT was over turned. Before you bring up the prosecution of "Christians" in the military I want to point out there's a time to speck out loud and a time not to. When in uniform regardless of active, reserve or NG you must comply with military policy. Basically that policy is keep your thoughts to yourself and not speck out loud against policy. Individuals have to keep in mind that they are "Above the fray"
generalgrog wrote: RS...You quote an article from the people for the american way website (Alec Baldwin is board member, no less). I'm sorry but using a left wing liberally biased article to try and discredit Fischer probably wasn't the best choice.
Later on the same page, the General used an "article" that was a press release listed wholly from Christian Newswire to support his argument without seeing a shred of hypocrisy in doing so.
Me: "AT EASE!"
silence.
Me: Does not God forgive."
Chucklehead "You have to be truly and willing to accept God way" or something to that effect for forgiveness.
Me: You speak for God or know exactly what his chain of thoughts on this subject?"
Chucklehead "The Bible.."
Me "Hold......who wrote the Bible?"
generalgrog wrote: Not in USA....yet..... but 10 or 20 years from now based on the way things are going. I see it coming.
Again, this is the US where freedom of speech is considered to be a more important right (both legally and culturally) and even undisputed hate groups like the KKK are free to speak without fear of prosecution. The idea that we could see prosecution for criticizing homosexuality in 10-20 years is just laughably insane.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair to generalgrog, it was illegal to be homosexual 40 years ago, and that changed.
People are people, regardless of what colour, religious belief (or lack of), sexuality, favorite football team, etc... The same kinds of people who were against interracial marriage are pitting themselves against homosexuality, and for almost exactly the same "reasons" too.
SilverMK2 wrote: The same kinds of people who were against interracial marriage are pitting themselves against homosexuality, and for almost exactly the same "reasons" too.
SilverMK2 wrote: The same kinds of people who were against interracial marriage are pitting themselves against homosexuality, and for almost exactly the same "reasons" too.
Not entirely.
Really? It appears to me that a large number of the kinds of people involved are about the same, and if you cut out the words "homosexual", "homosexuality", etc from some of the stuff they are saying and replace them with "black" or "N-words" then what they are saying sounds almost exactly the same too...
Heck, depending on where you live there are still people who are not okay with interracial marriage. I still have people eyeballing us with disgust and judgement a couple times a week.
Strangely enough the percentage of interracial marriages in my circle of friends is pretty high, which is something that makes me happy.
It is the stated aim of the SPLC to bankrupt all groups it deems hate groups. Case in point. They're attacking the small town of Shannon in Lee Country, Mississippi because the town council and supporters do not want a gay bar there. It's a town of less than 2000 people so it's highly unlikely that there are enough gay people in town to support it meaning it would attract gay people from outside the town. The town doesn't want that but the SPLC doesn't give a flying fudge about the will of the local community, it only cares about the rights of a tiny handful over that of the majority. So yeah, by default, they are trying to make it illegal to oppose homosexuality because they're going to attack a town for doing just that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Heck, depending on where you live there are still people who are not okay with interracial marriage. I still have people eyeballing us with disgust and judgement a couple times a week.
Strangely enough the percentage of interracial marriages in my circle of friends is pretty high, which is something that makes me happy.
People like being around like minded people, you're no different.
Though again we are moving away from the point - which is whether the group mentioned in the op is a hate group or not, and the reasons for that either way. Less has been said about this than all the other tangents that have been created to sidetrack the issue
A town of 2000 people will most likely not be able to support a bar without relying on people from outside of that town.
So if they are unwilling to allow any kind of bar, then there is no problem. If they are opposing a bar solely on sexual orientation, then there is a legitimate concern. Especially since both "straight" and "gay" bars will need out-of-town customers to survive.
Of course that argument is also a prime example of the ability to exchange certain words and travel back in time. "The town doesn't want a bar that will result in black people coming to the town".
d-usa wrote: A town of 2000 people will most likely not be able to support a bar without relying on people from outside of that town.
So if they are unwilling to allow any kind of bar, then there is no problem. If they are opposing a bar solely on sexual orientation, then there is a legitimate concern.
No there isn't. The character of the town is normal, that is straight. Having patrons coming from outside the town who are straight strengthens the character of the town. Having patrons who are homosexual No need for the other term used here. Reds8n will weaken the character of the town. A town should preserve its character and cater to the will of the majority, that is what a democracy is about. Democracy is not just about national level politics, it is about the will of the people.
d-usa wrote: A town of 2000 people will most likely not be able to support a bar without relying on people from outside of that town.
So if they are unwilling to allow any kind of bar, then there is no problem. If they are opposing a bar solely on sexual orientation, then there is a legitimate concern.
No there isn't. The character of the town is normal, that is straight. Having patrons coming from outside the town who are straight strengthens the character of the town. Having patrons who are homosexual will weaken the character of the town. A town should preserve its character and cater to the will of the majority, that is what a democracy is about. Democracy is not just about national level politics, it is about the will of the people.
The character of the town is normal, that is white. Having patrons coming from outside the town who are white strengthens the character of the town. Having patrons who are black will weaken the character of the town.
Really? It appears to me that a large number of the kinds of people involved are about the same, and if you cut out the words "homosexual", "homosexuality", etc from some of the stuff they are saying and replace them with "black" or "N-words" then what they are saying sounds almost exactly the same too...
I'll disagree here, but preface it with saying I don't give a gak what you do in your own bedroom.
From a purely biological standpoint, interracial heterosexual couples can still procreate. Homosexual couples absolutely cannot. If "normal" was to be homosexual, humans would eventually become extinct, no?
The character of the town is normal, that is white. Having patrons coming from outside the town who are white strengthens the character of the town. Having patrons who are black will weaken the character of the town.
If the town was white, and the race of the people there is not stated, then it would be better to say traditional rather than normal as you can have towns of normal people who are not white. Heterosexuality is the normal state of humans, it's what the vast majority are. Otherwise you are correct. In order to maintain the local culture, limiting outside groups coming in would be necessary.
There's a small discussion on the problems associated with the spread of ultra orthodox jews into historically black neighborhoods in NYC here: http://forward.com/articles/171367/ultra-orthodox-jews-spread-into-once-black-brookly/?p=all
That's not making it illegal. Do you understand what "illegal" means?
Sure do. If someone enters the country without going through immigration, they've entered illegally, something which the SPLC seems to support. They're currently working with illegals and federal authorities to get 11 million illegals the right to stay - amnesty in other words. You can read about it on the SPLC website.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: How will the character of a town -- nebulous idea that this is anyway -- be weakened by a gay bar ?
Same way a suburban neighborhood would be weakened by having a brothel in it. It brings a seedy element into the area. In the end it should be up to the locals whether they want such a thing and not for outsiders to decide on their behalf.
reds8n wrote: How will the character of a town -- nebulous idea that this is anyway -- be weakened by a gay bar ?
Same way a suburban neighborhood would be weakened by having a brothel in it. It brings a seedy element into the area. In the end it should be up to the locals whether they want such a thing and not for outsiders to decide on their behalf.
You do know that not all gay bars are the leather and whip kind of fetish bars you see taken off on TV, right? Just the good ones. Some are just normal bars that identify as gay bars because the owner/chief investor/main clientele are gay.
There's a big difference between a bar and a brothel.
There's no evidence or justification for claiming that homosexuals are seedy.
And you still haven't actually answered as to how having a gay bar would lower the character of a town.
You've made some spurious and unsupported claims that it's better that towns stay " traditional", which is essentially trite and meaningless and totally unsupported by any actual evidence other than your crudely expressed opinion.
I'm sure we're all reassured though that non white people can be normal.
I've been happily interracially married for 13 years. I attend a church denomination that is 99% African American.
The only thing similar between African American Civil rights vs homosexual activism, is that homosexual activists have used similar tactics, and they have been quite successful, in blurring the lines between the two issues.
African's were bought and sold in a slave trade. kidnapped and were brought to the Americas as Chattel. Negro Africans are a distinct race going back generations, and were discriminated against wrongly.
This wrongfull discrimination also happened to people of Indian origin, Native American, Asian, and Latino. these are all classes of people that can trace their heritage back generations due to no choice of their own.
The homosexual cannot claim this, and has no equal ground to compare with someone or a class of people that were born to a racial group.
They have tried to prove that they are born homosexual(this type of thought started in Germany in the 1860's), but the science in trying to do this is quite shaky.
GG
anyway...silver is right..we are starting to get OT again...sigh
So yeah, by default, they are trying to make it illegal to oppose homosexuality because they're going to attack a town for doing just that.
Acting in support of the passage of a law which made it illegal to oppose homosexuality would be trying to make it illegal to oppose homosexuality. Simply mounting a legal challenge under current law is not.
Gay bars are... interesting places. I was taken to one by a group of female friends (I was not given an option to voice my opinion, and was further bribed with the promise of having my beverages paid for by my companions.) Apparently they knew what they were about, because once word of a straight guy being in the bar got around my friends didn't have to pay for my drinks either. It was certainly an enlightening experience as far as what the "hot chick" in a "normal' bar might go through with unwanted male attention.
As far as seedy goes... it was just a bar. A bar with a more fruity "girl" drinks then I knew actually existed, and restrooms that were actually clean, but a bar all the same. It was certainly less seedy then the types of biker bar fight clubs I normally like to drink at.
Sure do. If someone enters the country without going through immigration, they've entered illegally, something which the SPLC seems to support. They're currently working with illegals and federal authorities to get 11 million illegals the right to stay - amnesty in other words. You can read about it on the SPLC website.
The debate about illegal aliens in the the US has nothing to do with the debate about homosexuality in the US, and whether or not the SPLC was correct in classifying the AFA as a hate group.
The homosexual cannot claim this, and has no equal ground to compare with someone or a class of people that were born to a racial group.
You do realize what this sounds like, yes? Saying "The homosexual..." is like saying "The Jew..." or "The Christian..." (I'm leaving out the ones that include racial slurs). It is dehumanizing.
cincydooley wrote: If "normal" was to be homosexual, humans would eventually become extinct, no?
The concept of normality is not limited to majority. Homosexual behavior can be normal, and not be the predominant sexual behavior of any given group (outside self-identified homosexuals, obviously); indeed it is not so right now.
generalgrog wrote: I've been happily interracially married for 13 years. I attend a church denomination that is 99% African American.
The only thing similar between African American Civil rights vs homosexual activism, is that homosexual activists have used similar tactics, and they have been quite successful, in blurring the lines between the two issues.
African's were bought and sold in a slave trade. kidnapped and were brought to the Americas as Chattel. Negro Africans are a distinct race going back generations, and were discriminated against wrongly.
This wrongfull discrimination also happened to people of Indian origin, Native American, Asian, and Latino. these are all classes of people that can trace their heritage back generations due to no choice of their own.
The homosexual cannot claim this, and has no equal ground to compare with someone or a class of people that were born to a racial group.
...
Your logic is circular. It is based on the premise that discrimination against homosexuals is not wrongful, therefore discrimination against homosexuals is not wrongful.
That's not making it illegal. Do you understand what "illegal" means?
Sure do. If someone enters the country without going through immigration, they've entered illegally, something which the SPLC seems to support. They're currently working with illegals and federal authorities to get 11 million illegals the right to stay - amnesty in other words. You can read about it on the SPLC website.
...
It isn't illegal to argue in favour of legalising illegal aliens or to allow them into the country. It isn't illegal to try and drive a group into bankruptcy.
Obviously either you actually don't understand what illegal means, or else your argument is so weak that you need to resort to the fallacy of the false equivalence.
Kanluwen wrote: You need to stop thinking in terms of "liberals" and start understanding "rational".
You mean like your rational understanding that the NRA was a hate group, whenever the criteria you yourself provided showed that they were in fact a group - but that the hate element was missing?
That sort of rational??
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Gay bars are... interesting places. I was taken to one by a group of female friends (I was not given an option to voice my opinion, and was further bribed with the promise of having my beverages paid for by my companions.) Apparently they knew what they were about, because once word of a straight guy being in the bar got around my friends didn't have to pay for my drinks either. It was certainly an enlightening experience as far as what the "hot chick" in a "normal' bar might go through with unwanted male attention.
As far as seedy goes... it was just a bar. A bar with a more fruity "girl" drinks then I knew actually existed, and restrooms that were actually clean, but a bar all the same. It was certainly less seedy then the types of biker bar fight clubs I normally like to drink at.
I've known of a few ladies who frequent gay bars to avoid certain types of obnoxious male attention
Kanluwen wrote: You need to stop thinking in terms of "liberals" and start understanding "rational".
You mean like your rational understanding that the NRA was a hate group, whenever the criteria you yourself provided showed that they were in fact a group - but that the hate element was missing?
That sort of rational??
I understand that it's difficult for you to actually read posts when your natural reaction is to be a knee-jerk poster. The criteria that I posted:
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.
There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.
Kanluwen wrote: I understand that it's difficult for you to actually read posts when your natural reaction is to be a knee-jerk poster. The criteria that I posted:
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.
There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.
So confronting you with facts (you know, rational argument) elicits an emotional response and personal attack (y'know - irrational)?
Kanluwen wrote: Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm fine with not editing it. "Use" is a vague enough term in and of itself. It could be used to describe someone who brandishes their gun to frighten a potential mugger off or someone who actually shoots during a home invasion or any number of situations.
So you think more often than not gun owners have round reason to use their gun in such a manner? Really?
The majority of gun owners have done something of the sort you described?
Maybe not the majority, but considering how many people continually post nonsense here on Dakka about how "anyone who breaks into my house is leaving in a bodybag" or things similar to that, I'm comfortable with my statement.
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.
I'd love to hear the definition that you believe qualifies them.
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
LordofHats wrote: Baring #7 a lot of non-hate groups would fit those criteria.
Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.
Kanluwen wrote: That's the definition of a hate crime, not a characteristic of a hate group.
One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US.
Kanluwen wrote: the FBI compiled this list of characteristics of organized hate groups:
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
1) Possibly applicable to the NRA
2) NRA does not give a demographic breakdown of members by age
3) Very vague criteria, and works on the assumption that owning a firearm is a fringe belief not mainstream
4) Sounds like every group that ever existed, so again very vague
5) Not really applicable
6) What hate is the NRA cloaking and marketing?
7) If they do then they have managed to keep it remarkably well hidden
So in short only the vaguest possible criteria can fit the NRA, but then again these can also be applied to many other groups too. What should be the most telling criteria for a hate group (actual hate) falls short by a significant margin when you attempt to relate it to the NRA.
So you managed to prove (with the criteria your provided) that the NRA is a group, and that it fails to actually espouse and hatred or that it believes in a race war. Congratulations, you just managed to prove my point about your hypocrisy over trying to paint yourself as rational
There's a big difference between a bar and a brothel.
There's no evidence or justification for claiming that homosexuals are seedy.
High rates of promiscuity and unsafe sex leading to high rates of HIV. Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan on average as a result. Their "pride" parades are not exactly family friendly either.
There's a big difference between a bar and a brothel.
There's no evidence or justification for claiming that homosexuals are seedy.
High rates of promiscuity and unsafe sex leading to high rates of HIV. Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan on average as a result. Their "pride" parades are not exactly family friendly either.
And those 2000 people in the town are all going to have a slice of that gay sex as soon as a bar opens there!
Obviously either you actually don't understand what illegal means, or else your argument is so weak that you need to resort to the fallacy of the false equivalence.
As can be seen here, homosexual activists are able to use the new laws to push their presence in areas where they otherwise are not present or not wanted while taking financial resources away from the local population and wasting their time in courts simply to try and point score. This is precisely why groups like the AFA oppose homosexual law reform along with the issues regarding families mentioned earlier.
It should not be illegal in any case to oppose a theme bar that doesn't fit in with the character of the town, but again it will come down to the personal opinion of the judge presiding the case.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's not making it illegal. Do you understand what "illegal" means?
Sure do. If someone enters the country without going through immigration, they've entered illegally, something which the SPLC seems to support. They're currently working with illegals and federal authorities to get 11 million illegals the right to stay - amnesty in other words. You can read about it on the SPLC website.
I guess you don't understand the meaning of "illegal" if you think "lobbying to change the law so that something that is currently illegal is no longer illegal" qualifies.
In the end it should be up to the locals whether they want such a thing and not for outsiders to decide on their behalf.
Ever hear of this concept called "tyranny of the majority"? Because that's what's happening here, the majority have decided what business opportunities the minority are allowed to have, and so outsiders step in to give the minority a fair voice in the process.
Also, it's funny how outsiders are only bad in some situations. For example, if the military labels the AFA a hate group suddenly it's appropriate for non-military members to start telling the military what to do.
cadbren wrote: High rates of promiscuity and unsafe sex leading to high rates of HIV.
Yeah, because straight people are never promiscuous...
Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan on average as a result.
Just keep in mind that a major factor in this average is suicide resulting from bullying/discrimination/etc.
Their "pride" parades are not exactly family friendly either.
So what? Is every event required to be family friendly? Is it ok to judge an entire class of people by the actions of some of its members (hint: not every gay person goes to or even supports those parades)?
cadbren wrote: Heterosexuality is the normal state of humans, it's what the vast majority are.
By that standard, the 'normal state of humans' is 'Chinese'...
That would be Han as they are the dominant group within China but you're wrong anyway as homosexuals can't form pure nations like normal people due to their limited reproduction capacity. If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation. Any other group of people including mixed groups from different ethnic and racial backgrounds are capable of forming permanent communities.
cadbren wrote: As can be seen here, homosexual activists are able to use the new laws to push their presence in areas where they otherwise are not present or not wanted while taking financial resources away from the local population and wasting their time in courts simply to try and point score.
You realize that there probably are gay people in that town, right? The fact that a group doesn't have enough political power to protect their interests and has to call in outside support does not mean that they don't exist.
This is precisely why groups like the AFA oppose homosexual law reform along with the issues regarding families mentioned earlier.
I'm still not seeing how this has anything to do with the insane claim that it will be illegal to speak against homosexuality within 10-20 years. Disagreement over zoning laws is not even close to infringing upon the right to free speech.
It should not be illegal in any case to oppose a theme bar that doesn't fit in with the character of the town, but again it will come down to the personal opinion of the judge presiding the case.
Sigh. Nobody is arguing that it should be illegal to oppose the bar. Protest about it all you want. The issue here is whether the town is allowed to deny the necessary permits to a potential business just because certain people in that town don't like it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cadbren wrote: but you're wrong anyway as homosexuals can't form pure nations like normal people due to their limited reproduction capacity.
What does that have to do with anything?
If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation.
Or they'd just have disgusting heterosexual sex to make children, just like how plenty of closeted conservatives have wives and kids until they're caught paying attractive young men to "lift their luggage".
The real reason you'll never have a purely homosexual nation is that, unlike race, homosexuality is not a 100% inherited trait. In this hypothetical nation you'd inevitably have lots of heterosexual children born in that nation and the only way to keep the nation "pure" would be to kill or exile anyone who isn't sufficiently gay (something that will never happen).
Any other group of people including mixed groups from different ethnic and racial backgrounds are capable of forming permanent communities.
Only because of how inheritance of traits happens to work in that case. Which makes that a pretty laughably bad argument in any moral context.
cadbren wrote: If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..
You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.
cadbren wrote: If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..
You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.
And all these non-gay people somehow have gay children. That will complicate the " dying out" timeline a bit...
I guess you don't understand the meaning of "illegal" if you think "lobbying to change the law so that something that is currently illegal is no longer illegal" qualifies.
This thread was about the classification of the AFA as a hate group by the SPLC and those that support that organisation and it's classifications. The AFA do have a right to challenge the current law, the case in Shannon was to show that the SPLC are a pro-homosexual group, not that they don't have a right under current law to do what they're doing. They're also a pro illegal immigrant group which is why that got mentioned. All this supports the intital acusation of the SPLC being a far left activist group rather than an unbiased anti-discrimination group.
Ever hear of this concept called "tyranny of the majority"?
Yup, it's also called democracy. You may not like what the majority have to say on an issue, but they are the majority and it ensures that communities stay strong and cohesive.
Also, it's funny how outsiders are only bad in some situations. For example, if the military labels the AFA a hate group suddenly it's appropriate for non-military members to start telling the military what to do.
The military didn't label them independently though, they took a list from an outside group to begin with so that roasts that strawman right there.
Just keep in mind that a major factor in this average is suicide resulting from bullying/discrimination/etc.
Yeah, 'cause straight people never commit suicide.
So what? Is every event required to be family friendly?
An example of seedy behaviour was asked for and I obliged.
Is it ok to judge an entire class of people by the actions of some of its members?
Yes and we do it all the time, it's all part of risk assessment. It also depends on how often members of a group do something and what the reaction of the rest of the group to that action is. Gay parades are supported by the leaders of the LGBT communities, they are not fringe events within that community.
cadbren wrote: If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..
You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.
And all these non-gay people somehow have gay children. That will complicate the " dying out" timeline a bit...
Take it as read that the group in question is isolated so there is no more inputs into the population.
Non-gay people have gay children the same way they can have mentally and physically disabled children, something goes wrong during development.
cadbren wrote: If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..
You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.
And all these non-gay people somehow have gay children. That will complicate the " dying out" timeline a bit...
Take it as read that the group in question is isolated so there is no more inputs into the population.
Non-gay people have gay children the same way they can have mentally and physically disabled children, something goes wrong during development.
cadbren wrote: This thread was about the classification of the AFA as a hate group by the SPLC and those that support that organisation and it's classifications.
What does that have to do with anything being illegal? You know that the SPLC isn't a government organization, right?
The AFA do have a right to challenge the current law, the case in Shannon was to show that the SPLC are a pro-homosexual group, not that they don't have a right under current law to do what they're doing.
So now anyone who acts to support gay people, no matter what the circumstances are, is a "pro-homosexual group"?
They're also a pro illegal immigrant group which is why that got mentioned.
No, you mentioned their "pro illegal immigrant" status as a response to a point about making anti-gay speech illegal.
All this supports the intital acusation of the SPLC being a far left activist group rather than an unbiased anti-discrimination group.
Or it just supports the argument that most discrimination comes from the right, so an anti-discrimination group will usually be on the same side as the left.
Yup, it's also called democracy. You may not like what the majority have to say on an issue, but they are the majority and it ensures that communities stay strong and cohesive.
Well, at least you're honest. So are you going to continue to be honest and accept the consequences of that belief? For example, slavery was supported by a majority in slave-owning communities, so should it have continued to be legal out of respect for the will of the majority?
The military didn't label them independently though, they took a list from an outside group to begin with so that roasts that strawman right there.
Stop being an outsider and telling the military what to do. If the military wants to use a list from an outside group then you have no business criticizing them for it.
Yeah, 'cause straight people never commit suicide.
Sigh. Maybe you should spend a few minutes researching suicide rates in various groups before talking.
An example of seedy behaviour was asked for and I obliged.
What does a pride parade have to do with a bar?
Yes and we do it all the time, it's all part of risk assessment. It also depends on how often members of a group do something and what the reaction of the rest of the group to that action is. Gay parades are supported by the leaders of the LGBT communities, they are not fringe events within that community.
Gangs and drugs are supported by leaders of the black community, so we should have white-only towns to protect law-abiding citizens from those crimes.
As can be seen here, homosexual activists are able to use the new laws to push their presence in areas where they otherwise are not present or not wanted while taking financial resources away from the local population and wasting their time in courts simply to try and point score.
It appears the bar had been owned and operated by a local, homosexual resident who subsequently attempted to reopen the establishment (following a hiatus) at the behest of former patrons. The owner of the building also appears to have willingly leased it to the woman.
As can be seen here, homosexual activists are able to use the new laws to push their presence in areas where they otherwise are not present or not wanted while taking financial resources away from the local population and wasting their time in courts simply to try and point score.
It appears the bar had been owned and operated by a local, homosexual resident who subsequently attempted to reopen the establishment (following a hiatus) at the behest of former patrons. The owner of the building also appears to have willingly leased it to the woman.
Your logic is circular. It is based on the premise that discrimination against homosexuals is not wrongful, therefore discrimination against homosexuals is not wrongful.
Would you allow a known unrepentent pedophile into your home? Would you allow a known violent drug addict into your home? If not...you have just discriminated.
You see..some discrimination is wise and healthy.
disclaimer..before the "out of context police" start jumping in..I'm not comparing "the homosexual" (that's for you dogma ) to pedophiles and violent drug addicts. I'm simply making an analogy for the purposes of showing that people do discriminate, and sometimes that's a good thing.
cadbren wrote: If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..
You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.
Because they entered into relationships before coming out.
Are you saying that if you took a group of male and female homosexuals that they would form male-female relationships if left in an isolated environment? Wouldn't that fall into the territory of saying that homosexuals choose to be like that rather than being genetic?
cadbren wrote: If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..
You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.
Because they entered into relationships before coming out.
Are you saying that if you took a group of male and female homosexuals that they would form male-female relationships if left in an isolated environment? Wouldn't that fall into the territory of saying that homosexuals choose to be like that rather than being genetic?
I think if they were the only people there, they might be ready to have heterosexual coitus in order to continue whatever form of society they'd formed as a possible last resort. Might not like it, but it's better than going extinct.
cadbren wrote: If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..
You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.
Because they entered into relationships before coming out.
Or you know, they got someone/friend to be artificially inseminated...
disclaimer..before the "out of context police" start jumping in..I'm not comparing "the homosexual" (that's for you dogma ) to pedophiles and violent drug addicts. I'm simply making an analogy for the purposes of showing that people do discriminate, and sometimes that's a good thing.
We aren't talking about discrimination in the broadest sense, such as liking corn-on-the-cob but not hominy, and seems to be a bit of equivocation to try and make an end run around the topic.
Would you allow a known unrepentent pedophile into your home? Would you allow a known violent drug addict into your home? If not...you have just discriminated.
You see..some discrimination is wise and healthy.
disclaimer..before the "out of context police" start jumping in..I'm not comparing "the homosexual" (that's for you dogma ) to pedophiles and violent drug addicts. I'm simply making an analogy for the purposes of showing that people do discriminate, and sometimes that's a good thing.
GG
Except that a pedophile or violent drug addict can be expected to actually pose a danger to the inhabitants of my home. A homosexual cannot.
GG, you are going to find yourself on the wrong side of history on this matter in this world and no special rewards for it in the next. Jesus doesn't care about who one loves, only that he does so.
cadbren wrote: Are you saying that if you took a group of male and female homosexuals that they would form male-female relationships if left in an isolated environment?
No, we're saying that in that (completely unrealistic) situation they would have heterosexual sex to produce babies. This would probably happen entirely outside of the sex they're having for love or for fun, and those babies would probably be adopted and raised by homosexual couples.
Wouldn't that fall into the territory of saying that homosexuals choose to be like that rather than being genetic?
No, it's saying that if you put people in a sufficiently desperate situation they will act against their normal desires. Having completely unsatisfying (and probably disgusting) sex because you need to produce children does not mean that your actual desires are a choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cadbren wrote: Because they entered into relationships before coming out.
Coming out and being gay are two very different things. As a general rule the people in those relationships didn't have happy heterosexual sex and marriage and then suddenly decide one day that they don't like their spouse anymore, they had unsatisfying relationships where they didn't realize what was wrong yet because of social pressure to get married and have kids. And, in the case of the typical closeted conservative, they remain in those relationships (and even have more kids) while having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms because of that social pressure.
. And, in the case of the typical closeted conservative, they remain in those relationships (and even have more kids) while having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms because of that social pressure.
Look up the Tearoom study. It is pretty famous about anonomous homosexual sex in a bathroom. One things interesting is the guys who did it where ordinary, hetero, christian men. they where not even gay in some cases, just having gay sex
hotsauceman1 wrote: Look up the Tearoom study. It is pretty famous about anonomous homosexual sex in a bathroom. One things interesting is the guys who did it where ordinary, hetero, christian men. they where not even gay in some cases, just having gay sex
If you are willingly seeking out and having gay sex, I would think you are gay or bi sexual no matter what some study says. The alleged background proffessed may be straight, but it sounds like the guys or gals just aren't out of the closet yet.
cadbren wrote: Because they entered into relationships before coming out.
And? They were still gay before they came out.
Are you saying that if you took a group of male and female homosexuals that they would form male-female relationships if left in an isolated environment?
I'm saying that if they were concerned about survival of their species, they might have male-female sex in order to reproduce.
Neither sexual attraction nor a bonded relationaship is a requirement of the reproductive process. The former is just something that is supposed to make the process easier and more pleasant, and the latter is completely cultural.
Wouldn't that fall into the territory of saying that homosexuals choose to be like that rather than being genetic?
No, it falls into the category of 'you don't necessarily have to be attracted to someone to make a baby with them...'
Peregrine wrote: And, in the case of the typical closeted conservative, they remain in those relationships (and even have more kids) while having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms because of that social pressure.
Similar things happen with democrats/liberals as well, Peregrine. Why fixate on conservatives?
Or is it only permissible to gloat about ones homosexual indiscretions if they are part of a political party you don't endorse?
Peregrine wrote: And, in the case of the typical closeted conservative, they remain in those relationships (and even have more kids) while having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms because of that social pressure.
Similar things happen with democrats/liberals as well, Peregrine. Why fixate on conservatives?
Or is it only permissible to gloat about ones homosexual indiscretions if they are part of a political party you don't endorse?
It's probably because those same conservatives are usually in the public eye talking about homosexuality "being wrong" or any number of hypocritical statements.
I agree with the Bi tendancies, and I note in the Tearoom Tradem the author uses the term self percieved when the subjects talk of thier sexual orientation. One thing to remember here is that this book was written in 1970 when there was a great deal of stigma attatched to being gay. I suspect those claiming to be straight, even though they regularly sought out gay sexual encounters would nowadays declare for being gay or bisexual.
disclaimer..before the "out of context police" start jumping in..I'm not comparing "the homosexual" (that's for you dogma ) to pedophiles and violent drug addicts. I'm simply making an analogy for the purposes of showing that people do discriminate, and sometimes that's a good thing.
To draw an analogy is to compare two things.
Moreover my objection was not about a comparison, or analogy, but a turn of phrase which is commonly viewed as being offensive due to it being used to dehumanize people. Perhaps you did not intend to dehumanize homosexuals, but that is how your statement came off to me.
Really Dogma..your grasping for a context to "monsterize" me. I know you don't mean too... but come on.
W.E.B. Dubois had no problem to refering to African Americans as "The Negro" in his book titled...The Negro
If your going to do that to me, you should be consistent and may as well call one of the greatest African American writers and founders of the NAACP a dehumanizer of African Americans.
generalgrog wrote: W.E.B. Dubois had no problem to refering to African Americans as "The Negro" in his book titled...The Negro
He was also born in the 19th Century, and grew up in very different circumstance then even the oldest of us here have, excluding Frazzled who predates written language. Saying a man used the word Negro during the turn of the century, knew people who actually were slaves, and lived under Jim Crowe used it, so it must have the same connotation decades/century later (and coming from a white guy) is an extraordinarily clumsy and inept defense.
Really Dogma..your grasping for a context to "monsterize" me. I know you don't mean too... but come on.
I am explaining to you how you present yourself based on my personal opinions, and those of people I know. If you feel this paints you in a monstrous light, then perhaps you should revisit the manner in which you present yourself.
W.E.B. Dubois had no problem to refering to African Americans as "The Negro" in his book titled...The Negro
Du Bois' book was built on the repudiation of the notion that people of African descent are inferior. His usage of the phrase was an act of dismissive ownership, not insult.
Over time the perceptions of gay will change. Someone already made the best comparison already of change over time. Interracial marriage. The main issue is "you", are you able to separate your professional responsibilities from your personnel belief. Mainly at "you" being in a authority position with a gay individual on your team. I do believe everyone knows what my personnel beliefs are on this issue. Though I do "hate" one particular gay guy. Chris who takes me to my limit on creativity on beating him and his Imperial Guards. His WalMart of Fire power drives me up the wall.......200+ dice roll to hit a Five Man Fire Team of Space Marines...ggaaaahhhhhhh. Sebster be jealous he also a big BattleTech player to and has quite a regiment of Inner and Galaxy of Clan...like me. His Imperial Guards though he ask me lot's of questions on how we deploy weapon systems and typical "doodah" on uniforms
generalgrog wrote: W.E.B. Dubois had no problem to refering to African Americans as "The Negro" in his book titled...The Negro
He was also born in the 19th Century, and grew up in very different circumstance then even the oldest of us here have, excluding Frazzled who predates written language. Saying a man used the word Negro during the turn of the century, knew people who actually were slaves, and lived under Jim Crowe used it, so it must have the same connotation decades/century later (and coming from a white guy) is an extraordinarily clumsy and inept defense.
Well we've reached the point in the thread were we start dissecting the typed word on an internet forum, and try to psychoanalyze the poster behind it. I think this thread has run it's course.
Kanluwen wrote: That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.
There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.
I've asked you this several times in this thread now, and you've refused to answer. I'll try one more time before concluding that you're trolling.
What is the target of the NRA's hate? If you cannot point to a target, are you contending that hate groups can exist without actually hating anyone?
Seaward wrote: I've asked you this several times in this thread now, and you've refused to answer. I'll try one more time before concluding that you're trolling.
What is the target of the NRA's hate? If you cannot point to a target, are you contending that hate groups can exist without actually hating anyone?
He won't answer that because he can't. So far he's tried to say that the NRA is a hate group because it ticks some of the criteria that the FBI uses to determine what is a hate group The criteria that the NRA ticks just show that they are a group, which no one is disputing, but that any hate is absent.
But continuing to claim that the NRA is a hate group because it may conform to the group criteria that the FBI uses (minus any indication of actual hate) is clearly a rational position. It's not like someone is trying to distort their position by claiming that they meet some criteria of a hate group, right?
Kanluwen wrote: That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.
There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.
I've asked you this several times in this thread now, and you've refused to answer. I'll try one more time before concluding that you're trolling.
What is the target of the NRA's hate? If you cannot point to a target, are you contending that hate groups can exist without actually hating anyone?
I'm contending that a "hate group" at this point in time is not what people are used to thinking of for a hate group. You have to look at things with a wider perspective than simply "Is the group hating people?", which is why in the original statement that you took umbrage with I used the term "could" rather than "is" and why I made such a point in my reply to Dreadclaw to say that "The criteria is not used in a vacuum".
With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.
You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.
Kanluwen wrote: With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.
Okay. Let's look a bit closer, as you suggest.
You'll start providing the links to evidence now, I assume.
You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.
And I'd argue that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know what joining the NRA is? Signing up on the website and paying the cash. That's it.
Kanluwen wrote: With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.
Okay. Let's look a bit closer, as you suggest.
You'll start providing the links to evidence now, I assume.
Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources--as inevitably always happens whenever I get questioned on something, but never happens when you or the other die hard Conservatives here on Dakka go out of their way to try discrediting things like the SPLC.
You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.
And I'd argue that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know what joining the NRA is? Signing up on the website and paying the cash. That's it.
The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.
Kanluwen wrote: Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources--as inevitably always happens whenever I get questioned on something, but never happens when you or the other die hard Conservatives here on Dakka go out of their way to try discrediting things like the SPLC.
So in other words, you have zero evidence, but you dislike the NRA, so it's a hate group.
The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.
When the NRA comes calling, people do answer.
Yep. It has insanely passionate gun rights members. How many meetings a year does the NRA have, pray tell? How does it communicate with its members, and how often?
I know these answers. I know that you do not. Again, this boils down to you not liking something and applying a pejorative label to it without reason.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm contending that a "hate group" at this point in time is not what people are used to thinking of for a hate group. You have to look at things with a wider perspective than simply "Is the group hating people?", which is why in the original statement that you took umbrage with I used the term "could" rather than "is" and why I made such a point in my reply to Dreadclaw to say that "The criteria is not used in a vacuum".
Uh huh. So we should start saying that groups that are not hate groups when you've made such a big deal out of trying to say the NRA is a hate group, if not on its way to becoming one;
Kanluwen wrote: One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US
Kanluwen wrote: Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.
Kanluwen wrote: Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.
Kanluwen wrote: With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.
And this conspiracy theory of yours is more evidence of just how rational you are?
Kanluwen wrote: You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.
So the NRA are now liable for the actions of outside parties/groups, or what their members do outside the NRA?? Do you apply this wholly unreasonable burden to all groups that exist, or just the ones you do not like?
Kanluwen wrote: Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources
The nerve. Imagine asking someone to substantiate a position that they themselves have put forward.....
Kanluwen wrote: The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.
When the NRA comes calling, people do answer.
Remind us again, was Colorado about a racial issue? About hating a protected class of people? Or about Second Amendment rights??
Kanluwen wrote: Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources--as inevitably always happens whenever I get questioned on something, but never happens when you or the other die hard Conservatives here on Dakka go out of their way to try discrediting things like the SPLC.
So in other words, you have zero evidence, but you dislike the NRA, so it's a hate group.
No, I'm saying if I wanted to I could apply the label to it with a certain set of criteria.
Same way that I could use those criteria to apply the label of "hate group" to Black Separatist movements or things of that nature.
I will absolutely grant you that maybe saying the NRA was a hate group in and of itself is a bit far, but I stand by the implication that the organization is used as a recruiting ground for hate groups and whatsmore the organization knows that such behavior goes on and allows it.
The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.
When the NRA comes calling, people do answer.
Yep. It has insanely passionate gun rights members. How many meetings a year does the NRA have, pray tell? How does it communicate with its members, and how often?
I know these answers. I know that you do not. Again, this boils down to you not liking something and applying a pejorative label to it without reason.
Do enlighten then.
I "don't like" the NRA for quite a few reasons. I have made no real secret of this, and if anyone asks I'll admit it.
I find them to be a despicable organization which wraps itself in the Constitution to justify some very ridiculous stances. They are the PETA of Constitutional protections.
cadbren wrote: They really don't and they admit as much when they say things like 'including support of slavery' meaning that that is not a criteria and that not all groups believe that. They include groups that glorify the Confederacy and it's military which given that the groups involved are descended from the same is hardly atypical. Most people focus on the good aspects of their family/ancestors and friends and tend to forgive the negative, that's hardly cause for being labelled a dangerous hate group with plans of overthrowing the government.
To repeat my point... unless you're claiming that there is only 93 neo-confederate groups in the US, then you have to accept that the SPLC doesn't deem them all hate groups simply for being neo-confederate. Understand this or don't, I don't really care.
Meanwhile, no-one has yet managed to mention one specific group that the SPLC has called a hate group that isn't. Not one. There's been lots of claims that they're biased, and lots of vague silliness about how they might be unfair, but not one case of a group that isn't a hate gruop being listed as such the SPLC.
Does the language filter not apply to OT?
Yes, that's why it says 'fething'.
Quotes by members of AFA explicitly calling for the death of homosexuals? Haven't seen a single one so far.
Are you saying its only hate when its calling for someone's death? That's ridiculous.
Speaking out against homosexuality is not tantamount to wanting to kill homosexuals which is what the claim against the AFA here has been. SPLC's claim against them is based entirely on their anti-homosexual rhetoric and nothing more.
Given there are many, many groups that campaign against homosexual equality who aren't called hate groups by the SPLC, your claim above is wrong. Instead, the AFA is called a hate group because of the way in which it goes about campainging against homosexuality. It tell lies, claiming science where there is none. It claims links between homosexuality and paedophilia where there is none.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: Sebster I wasn't talking about splc, I'm talking about the concerning turn of events that the US army, teaching soldiers, who have guns and tanks, that certain Christian beliefs as aspoused by the AFA are hate. Is there a unit of soldiers coming to my church in the future to round me and my family up, because I don't agree with the current fad of enablism in the USA?
The actions by one army officer were not authorised, and the Pentagon announced such very quickly. And you'll be pleased to know that treating people equally despite their sexual preference won't ever end up with a tank coming up to your house to force you to start being nice to gay people.
I'm glad to have relieved of that fear, I hope you can sleep easier now.
There was a lot more than Ernst Roehm (i'm assuming that's your "one"). Some people believe Hitler was one, admittedly speculation. Remember Rohm was Hitlers #2 man for a long time. Besides Roehm, there was Reinyard Hienrich, Baldur Von Shirach...and others. The nazis were attempting to revive some of the pagan Hellenistic traditions form ancient Greece, where "manly" homosexuality was considered normal.
Yes, Roehm was gay. The claims about the others come from a mid-war propaganda piece created by the OSS. It's as credible as the claim that Hitler has one ball.
You read junk, and accept it purely on the basis of fitting with your bias. Stop doing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: I dont need to take anything up with the SPLC, from the research seen in this thread they are a private unaccountable organisation that allocated the status of 'hate group' according to its own partisan agendas.
Yet they demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions. This is dangerous.
You're making stuff up. The SPLC isn't demanding people follow their list. One officer did, and the Pentagon very quickly issued a statement saying 'don't do that'.
The 'dangerous' issue is entirely in your head.
However it allows groups like the AFA to be targeted as iof they were extremists. If they merely dislike the AFA it would not be enough to call for the group to be boycotted by public officials and be placed on a list of unwelcome organisations by the military. By the SPLC's own actions they rate the AFA as severely actionable for censuring.
Yeah... and all the groups are extreme. Some are more extreme than others. Some actively encourage violence, others just tell lies. Different scale, but it's all extreme hate mongering.
This isnt about free speech, the SPLC is calling for censure of the AFA by government institutions.
If the SPLC simply called out the AFa and be done with it this thread wouldnt exist.
Except that's what the SPLC did. Then some officer used that list... and the Pentagon said 'don't do that'.
This thread exists because lots of people like to nash and worry about the great big left wing censorship machine that doesn't actually exist.
SPLC is entitled to its optinions just as the AFA is.
Yep... when one group tells hate filled lies, and another group says 'those people are telling hate filled lies' that is the system working as it should. And that's exactly what has happened.
Theologically he has a point, and it is defensible, the indefensible part is the assumption that what he is saying is because Fisher worships 'an evil petulant God'.
Yeah, no. That's absurd. A God that would otherwise protect children, but chooses not to because those children are being assaulted in a place that no longer requires them to pray to God. Which is pretty evil and petulant by the basic definitions of those words.
Fischer's theological point is well made, by removing prayer you remove the ability to provide prayer based intercession. Its a religious point and he is free to make it, and it isn't hate speech.
Prayer hasn't even been removed... it simply is no longer mandatory. Which is, of course, a distinction that nutters have attempted to muddy for years.
You are allowed to pray, and during an attack by a guy with a gun no-one is going to stop you. Seriously, you're not this ridiculous. What the hell?
Regarding other things like racist comments on Hispanics etcc etc he is on his own.
No, he's with the AFA... the group being called a hate group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Edit: And quite frankly... the SPLC's rationale for calling some of those border groups hate groups is flimsy at best. Unless you want to call not wanting to give hand outs to people being in the country illegally a "hate" category, or talking to cooky people also a hate category. In that case, Obama should be careful of the SPLC given some of his past associations.
Here it is again, just a vague claim that some groups called hate groups by the SPLC aren't really... but never an example of a group listed as a hate group that shouldn't be.
It's almost as if there aren't any such groups... but a lot of people with a desperate need to believe there are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The majority of the US are either Catholic or evangelical. That leaves Mormons (who are arguably are a subgroup of evangelical), and all fifteen people who belong to the Lutheran and Episcopal chuches.
I don't think you understand how protestantism works. Evangelicals are a subset of protestantism. Evangelicals make up about 60% of total protestantism in your country, but to ignore the other 40%, or 25 million people, is either a product of ignorance or just really rude.
Kanluwen wrote: Same way that I could use those criteria to apply the label of "hate group" to Black Separatist movements or things of that nature.
Or Sea Shepherd or Wikileaks, right? I mean, if you're going to cherry-pick criteria and then claim that the group in question doesn't need to actively hate anyone, I believe we could apply Kanluwen's definition of a hate group to just about anything short of governmental or corporate organizations. Hell, maybe even some of those.
I will absolutely grant you that maybe saying the NRA was a hate group in and of itself is a bit far, but I stand by the implication that the organization is used as a recruiting ground for hate groups and whatsmore the organization knows that such behavior goes on and allows it.
And you're providing absolutely zero evidence for that assertion. You can't even call in an appeal to authority by pointing to credible watchdog groups that say anything of the sort.
Flip the script and apply that argument to me saying that MoveOn.org is a hate group. I'm just going to assert it, because I believe hate groups recruit from within it. I'm not going to provide you with any evidence. How credible am I?
Do enlighten then.
I already did. You sign up and pay your dues. There's a big meeting once a year where the leadership and guests give speeches. You get e-mails weekly about gak Congress or your local legislature is doing to limit gun rights. These e-mails ask for NRA-ILA donations and tell you how to vote/contact your legislator/whatever. That's it.
Kanluwen wrote: You need to stop thinking in terms of "liberals" and start understanding "rational".
Yep. If that ever happened... to everyone who first checks for tribal loyalty and then views any facts through that lens... well dakka debates would be a lot shorter and a lot more interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cadbren wrote: As stated earlier, making it illegal to oppose homosexuality, which is what the SPLC is after, makes them and their supporters a hate group by their own definition.
You're making up stupid nonsense. Stop it.
The SPLC publishes a list of groups they believe to be hate groups. There is no legal mechanism attached, nor is there any proposal for such a thing to be created. They're just looking to encourage discussion and awareness. Nor do all groups that oppose homosexuality get listed, because that in itself is not enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Again, do you have any evidence for the absurd slippery slope argument that, in a country where the KKK (a group virtually everyone agrees is repulsive s) is allowed to speak without censorship, there is any realistic chance of making it illegal to oppose homosexuality? Or is this just more of the conservative-christian martyrdom thing?
Yeah, when the Westboro Baptists continue to shout hateful, homophobic stuff at the funerals of dead soliders and remain constitutionally protected, the idea that you're on track to have regular homophobia suddenly becoem illegal is just the silliest fantasy.
But it's a fantasy with a lot of traction, because it puts anti-gay person at the centre of great social battle, crusading for free speach and freedom from the government oppression that's just around the corner. Remove that story and he's just a bigot trying to remove other people's equal treatment.
A mate and I walked in to a bar, and after a few minutes we got the feeling there was something a little different but we couldn't figure out what it was. Then YMCA kicked in and the whole room started singing along and we figured it out
And yeah, the idea that they're any more seedy is just wrong. There's seedy straight bars just as there's seedy gay bars, and far more places that just overcharge you for drinks and play crappy music.
There's a big difference between a bar and a brothel.
There's no evidence or justification for claiming that homosexuals are seedy.
And you still haven't actually answered as to how having a gay bar would lower the character of a town.
You've made some spurious and unsupported claims that it's better that towns stay " traditional", which is essentially trite and meaningless and totally unsupported by any actual evidence other than your crudely expressed opinion.
I'm sure we're all reassured though that non white people can be normal.
Actually a better argument for not wanting such a bar, is that it would attract hipsters and other city folk. Hipsters have no right to live.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Of course it's shaky if one dismisses everything that doesn't fit into one's own point of view.
Holy crap, the last few posts in this thread are like watching a professional wrestling match when all members of the teams are in the ring pounding on each other in different corners!
A lack of intercessory prayer removed a layer of defense. This is a fair point theologically and people should be allowed to preach it without accusations of the doctrine being hate speech.
This...
Bryan Fischer wrote:
The question is going to come up, where was God? I though God cared about the little children. God protects the little children. Where was God when all this went down. Here's the bottom line, God is not going to go where he is not wanted.
Now we have spent since 1962 -- we're 50 years into this now--we have spent 50 years telling God to get lost, telling God we do not want you in our schools, we don't want to pray to you in our schools, we do not want to pray to your before football games, we don't want to pray to you at graduations, we don't want anybody talking about you in a graduation speech...
In 1962 we kicked prayer out of the schools. In 1963 we kicked God's word out of ours schools. In 1980 we kicked the Ten Commandments out of our schools. We've kicked God out of our public school system. And I think God would say to us, 'Hey, I'll be glad to protect your children, but you've got to invite me back into your world first. I'm not going to go where I'm not wanted. I am a gentlemen.
...is not an argument regarding intercessory prayer. The concept is not mentioned directly, or even alluded to. It is an argument that, were school sponsored prayer allowed in US public schools, the shooting at Sandy Hook would not have occurred. An argument which, given the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, requires blaming the victims.
That is incorrect.
School sponsored prayer is intercessory prayer, 'pray for x' or 'pray of y' is exactly what that means, intercession. Prayer consists of only two things , thanksgiving and intercession, pretty much every prayer from the Lords Prayer onwards contains both, and the majoprity of prayers are intercession orientated. He didn't have to use the theological term for the theological principle to be present, even the simple statement 'God Bless America' is a form of intercession when spoken as a prayer.
Also the argument does not require 'blaming the victims' because the victims were not those not permitting prayer in school. For your comments to hold water the pupils/staff at the school, would haver had to be decision makers for the choice to remove prayer from schools, and this was alluded to have happened in the 60's by your own quote.
Orlanth wrote: I dont need to take anything up with the SPLC, from the research seen in this thread they are a private unaccountable organisation that allocated the status of 'hate group' according to its own partisan agendas.
Yet they demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions. This is dangerous.
You're making stuff up. The SPLC isn't demanding people follow their list. One officer did, and the Pentagon very quickly issued a statement saying 'don't do that'.
The 'dangerous' issue is entirely in your head.
The Pentagon made the right call. And by your own comment then the SPLC's decision to categorise the AFA as a hate group is proven to be dangerous because people take action based on it.
However it allows groups like the AFA to be targeted as iof they were extremists. If they merely dislike the AFA it would not be enough to call for the group to be boycotted by public officials and be placed on a list of unwelcome organisations by the military. By the SPLC's own actions they rate the AFA as severely actionable for censuring.
Yeah... and all the groups are extreme. Some are more extreme than others. Some actively encourage violence, others just tell lies. Different scale, but it's all extreme hate mongering.
Who get to make those decisions, on what evidence and under what purview.
For independent unaccountable organisations to do so is dangerous and discriminatory, especially when hotheads feel open to accuse members of all those organisations of being 'extreme hate mongers'.
The mission of the American Family Association is to inform, equip, and activate individuals to strengthen the moral foundations of American culture, and give aid to the church here and abroad in its task of fulfilling the Great Commission.
Extreme hate mongers? Thats a big call to make.
This is what you are directly doing, if someone is AFA affiliated they are open to abuse from being categorised as an extreme hate monger, no questions asked, simply because they are part of that group, because that is the minimum standard you have set yourself by accepting the SPLC's list.
Not only is that dangerous, its bordering on a hysterical witchhunt.
This is why collective labels are bad, and any categorisation of groups should come from accredited accountable parties.
SPLC is entitled to its optinions just as the AFA is.
Yep... when one group tells hate filled lies, and another group says 'those people are telling hate filled lies' that is the system working as it should. And that's exactly what has happened.
No, the system is not working as it should until an accountable organisation, the Pentagon, shut down the accusations against the AFA utilised by some military personnel to discriminate against the AFA.
The very fact that an accountable organisation is challenging the decision to censure the AFA is proof that there is disagreement from those in authority against the labeling.
This is proof positive as to why it is dangerous for such labels to be allowed to be proliferated from partisan unaccountable groups like the SPLC. Ultimately the Pentagon can be held to public account, the SPLC is acting like a loose cannon.
If you want to accuse the AFA of hate mongering, and thus expose its members to discrimination or its activities to public censure then at the very least do so through legitimate means. The US government in its many forms opposes hate groups at home and abroad. If the FBI or another accountable organisation denounces the AFA you can go ahead, until then your no better than an ignorant frightened angry peasant with a pitchfork and a firebrand.
Theologically he has a point, and it is defensible, the indefensible part is the assumption that what he is saying is because Fisher worships 'an evil petulant God'.
Yeah, no. That's absurd. A God that would otherwise protect children, but chooses not to because those children are being assaulted in a place that no longer requires them to pray to God. Which is pretty evil and petulant by the basic definitions of those words.
Intercessory prayer was explained earlier, if you are going to argue against a theological comment do so from within the understanding of the theology. Protection for the children is not guaranteed. Take the quote dogma helpfully found:
Bryan Fischer wrote:
The question is going to come up, where was God? I though God cared about the little children. God protects the little children. Where was God when all this went down. Here's the bottom line, God is not going to go where he is not wanted.
Now we have spent since 1962 -- we're 50 years into this now--we have spent 50 years telling God to get lost, telling God we do not want you in our schools, we don't want to pray to you in our schools, we do not want to pray to your before football games, we don't want to pray to you at graduations, we don't want anybody talking about you in a graduation speech...
In 1962 we kicked prayer out of the schools. In 1963 we kicked God's word out of ours schools. In 1980 we kicked the Ten Commandments out of our schools. We've kicked God out of our public school system. And I think God would say to us, 'Hey, I'll be glad to protect your children, but you've got to invite me back into your world first. I'm not going to go where I'm not wanted. I am a gentlemen.
The theology that God doesnt 'inhabit' a place where he is not wanted is standard theology, and evil or petulance has nothing to do with it. Its about God 'endwelling' when he is invited, its a positive presence by invitation. Also no comment is made against individual protection, see below.
Besides the point Fischer is also making is that mas shootings in schools did not occur during the age when corporate prayer still existed. I wonder if this is true, have school shootings increased notably since the 60's and if so can someone claim that increased godlessness in the community is a significant factor? School shootings do appear to be a relatively recent phenomena, so its not as far fetched as you might prefer to think.
You are allowed to pray, and during an attack by a guy with a gun no-one is going to stop you. Seriously, you're not this ridiculous. What the hell?
Again the intercessory prayer we are discussing, corporate prayer, is what the issue is about. There is no reason to suggest that God would not listen to individuals praying at the time. Its clear theology that a person can prayer to God from anywhere, even if the local environment is hostile to God, also God can hear prayers from anywhere.
There is no evidence to suggest Fischer is saying anything contrary to that, and if he did it would be exposed almost immediately because its totally contrary to the theology of prayer. The concept of personally praying when in an unfriendly or 'godless' environment is as old as 'As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil...'
For your argument to hold any logical validity Fischer would have to be totally and transparently ignorant of biblical prayer.
His comments didn't specifically include whether individuals can effectively pray to God during duress at schools where prayer if forbidden, because there would be no reason to do so, its taken as a given by anyone with any idea of what prayer is that one can.
Meanwhile, no-one has yet managed to mention one specific group that the SPLC has called a hate group that isn't. Not one. There's been lots of claims that they're biased, and lots of vague silliness about how they might be unfair, but not one case of a group that isn't a hate gruop being listed as such the SPLC.
Please, please, PLEASE! Broaden your research onto the operations of SPLC. They are NOT an organization to blindly support... ALWAYS be critical of their report because there's an obvious agenda.
Meanwhile, no-one has yet managed to mention one specific group that the SPLC has called a hate group that isn't. Not one. There's been lots of claims that they're biased, and lots of vague silliness about how they might be unfair, but not one case of a group that isn't a hate gruop being listed as such the SPLC.
Please, please, PLEASE! Broaden your research onto the operations of SPLC. They are NOT an organization to blindly support... ALWAYS be critical of their report because there's an obvious agenda.
Do you even look at the sources you cite?
"legalinsurrection.com"?
If exaggeration is the same thing as lying, then there's a lot of liars on the internet. "Exaggerating" in a report is pretty commonplace, no matter the agenda.
Part of it is that witnesses tend to inflate events to reflect how they think events should have worked. Look into any kind of reports detailing the credibility of witness statements and you would see that is the truth.
well even if we accept that they messed up there, Mr. Sebster would still only be wrong if one was to claim that the KK aren't a hate group/organisation/whatever. yes ..?
Meanwhile, no-one has yet managed to mention one specific group that the SPLC has called a hate group that isn't. Not one. There's been lots of claims that they're biased, and lots of vague silliness about how they might be unfair, but not one case of a group that isn't a hate gruop being listed as such the SPLC.
Please, please, PLEASE! Broaden your research onto the operations of SPLC. They are NOT an organization to blindly support... ALWAYS be critical of their report because there's an obvious agenda.
Do you even look at the sources you cite?
"legalinsurrection.com"?
If exaggeration is the same thing as lying, then there's a lot of liars on the internet. "Exaggerating" in a report is pretty commonplace, no matter the agenda.
Part of it is that witnesses tend to inflate events to reflect how they think events should have worked. Look into any kind of reports detailing the credibility of witness statements and you would see that is the truth.
I thought you can be rational and all to piece this together...
If you are going to fething publish a "hate map" and push it out there... you better have credible source. Otherwise, it's just hackery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: well even if we accept that they messed up there, Mr. Sebster would still only be wrong if one was to claim that the KK aren't a hate group/organisation/whatever. yes ..?
Well... good point. It was the first one that came up on Google.
Point being, SPLC isn't a group to hold in high esteem. But, we're getting distracted from the OP here...
If you want to accuse the AFA of hate mongering, and thus expose its members to discrimination or its activities to public censure then at the very least do so through legitimate means. The US government in its many forms opposes hate groups at home and abroad. If the FBI or another accountable organisation denounces the AFA you can go ahead, until then your no better than an ignorant frightened angry peasant with a pitchfork and a firebrand.
If the AFA wants to accuse homosexuals of ruining the state, corrupting the youth and being generally icky then they at the very least ought to do so through legitimate means. The US government in its many forms opposes corruption and treason at home and abroad. If the FBI or another accountable organisation denounces homosexuals you can go ahead, until then you're no better than an ignorant frightened angry peasant with a pitchfork and a firebrand.
Seriously though, why is the AFA allowed to express their opinion but the SPLC not allowed to express theirs on the opinions of the AFA?
Orlanth wrote: The Pentagon made the right call. And by your own comment then the SPLC's decision to categorise the AFA as a hate group is proven to be dangerous because people take action based on it.
Yes the Pentagon made the right call, because they shouldn't use any list that government doesn't have complete control over. But you're now trying to sidestep the fact that your original claim "Yet they (the SPLC) demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions" is completely wrong. Nonsense. A thing you made up.
And your assertion that an organisation should be called dangerous because things it says might be acted upon by others is a very interesting standard... considering you're trying to form an argument for why a private organisation can't call out groups that tell lies about minorities.
[quoteWho get to make those decisions, on what evidence and under what purview. For independent unaccountable organisations to do so is dangerous and discriminatory, especially when hotheads feel open to accuse members of all those organisations of being 'extreme hate mongers'.
The SPLC makes that decision, and they do it on behalf of no-one but themselves. Their evidence and method is stated on their website, and is open to debate and disagreement, as people are attempting in this thread.
Extreme hate mongers? Thats a big call to make.
Are you honestly going to sit there pretending that a mission statement is how we ought to judge an organisation, as opposed to their actual statements and actions? Statements and actions that have already been listed on this thread...
This is what you are directly doing, if someone is AFA affiliated they are open to abuse from being categorised as an extreme hate monger, no questions asked, simply because they are part of that group, because that is the minimum standard you have set yourself by accepting the SPLC's list.
That only works if you assume that people simply read the SPLC and apply no judgement or assessment. Instead if you realise that people have actual functioning brains that they often use, then you realise that each and every group is able to explain why it shouldn't be on that list.
That no group has been able to say 'actually we aren't a bunch of hatemongering donkey-caves' is not, as you prefer to assume, because the SPLC is actually pretty thorough and considered in deciding who gets added to its list.
Not only is that dangerous, its bordering on a hysterical witchhunt.
Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Getting put on a list is not actually a hysterical witchhunt.. it's getting put on a list. It's an action that only has meaning as long as that list has meaning.... which requires that that list holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled.
[This is why collective labels are bad, and any categorisation of groups should come from accredited accountable parties.
Unaccountable... the SPLC stops having power the second it starts listing organisations that shouldn't be on there.
Which is something you and others have tried to claim has already happened, except of course you haven't actually been able to point to a single organisation on that list that shouldn't be there.
No, the system is not working as it should until an accountable organisation, the Pentagon, shut down the accusations against the AFA utilised by some military personnel to discriminate against the AFA.
When you think one guy acting outside of his authority (and getting quickly corrected) represents the system, I think it's fair to say you don't have any idea what a system is.
This is proof positive as to why it is dangerous for such labels to be allowed to be proliferated from partisan unaccountable groups like the SPLC.
You keep saying 'dangerous'... you do understand you're talking about a private organisation doing nothing more than stating their own opinion about other private organisations.
And you're calling that dangerous... seriously dude, you are off the reservation. You're in a place that can't be seen from the real world.
If you want to accuse the AFA of hate mongering, and thus expose its members to discrimination or its activities to public censure then at the very least do so through legitimate means.
Forming a private list is legitimate means. Which is obvious, and it's really weird that I would have to tell you that.
Intercessory prayer was explained earlier, if you are going to argue against a theological comment do so from within the understanding of the theology.
And also completely irrelevant to Fischer's statement and to the massacre. Which would be obvious to you if you weren't grabbing on to any piece of nonsense in order to try and defend the statement.
Please, please, PLEASE! Broaden your research onto the operations of SPLC. They are NOT an organization to blindly support... ALWAYS be critical of their report because there's an obvious agenda.
What? I ask for people to provide one group that is listed as a hate group that shouldn't be, and you give a link to a conservative blogger claiming that the SPLC's . Even if true, no-one is denying the Klan is a hate group, just that they don't exist in Rhode Island.
So come on, anyone... anyone going to go through the SPLC list and provide all the groups that have been wrongfully called hate groups? There must be some reason to doubt the SPLC's list, there must be some organisation on there that isn't really a hate group.
Or are you all just going to continue to claim the SPLC list can't be trusted, without listing a single organisation that shouldn't be on it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Point being, SPLC isn't a group to hold in high esteem. But, we're getting distracted from the OP here...
The point is that you keep saying that, but are yet to actually identify a single group listed by the SPLC as a hate group that shouldn't be. At some point you actually have to come up with some substance for your claim.
The SPLC lists several veterans groups as hate groups of one kind or another, including the recently more radical Oathkeepers. While the Oathkeepers might be looking a little nuts now, I have not actively seen them discriminate against any one, and their functions I have attended have had plenty of minorities around.
The SPLC's blog is called "Hate Watch," and its tagline is, "Keeping an eye on the radical right." It sure has been fun watching people trying to claim they operate without bias, though.
djones520 wrote: I may have missed it in the beheamoth of this thread. The Kanluwen Standard?
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
That's what Seaward and Frazzled are referring to.
That set of standards was established by the FBI and Department of Justice following the Oklahoma City bombing. The criteria do not all have to be met to justify a group being classed as a "hate group", but the criteria are used as part of an ongoing investigation of a group.
Also it's worth noting that those are the standards that the government uses to classify an organization as a hate group. I don't know if the Southern Poverty Law Center uses the same standards or their own standards.
St. Jude’s Children's research hospital system 1)Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally. Yep. Highly structured international organization – aka the Catholic Church 2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30. Doctors, nurses, and administrators 3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image. yep 4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric. Latest in anti cancer treatments for children free of charge. Actively use social media to support their cause. 5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads). They have thousands of members. I are one. I'm a hata! 6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate. They hate cancer with a passion 7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races. They will not stop until cancer is gone.
You cannot hate something that isn't "people"? Who set this rule, cause they're full of gak.
It stems from Kan's attempt to classify the NRA as a hate group earlier in the thread. He was unable to determine who, exactly, the NRA hates, but is dead certain that all sorts of other hate groups recruit freely within the NRA.
Orlanth wrote: The Pentagon made the right call. And by your own comment then the SPLC's decision to categorise the AFA as a hate group is proven to be dangerous because people take action based on it.
Yes the Pentagon made the right call, because they shouldn't use any list that government doesn't have complete control over. But you're now trying to sidestep the fact that your original claim "Yet they (the SPLC) demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions" is completely wrong. Nonsense. A thing you made up.
Here is part of SPLC's own mission statement on 'hate groups'
The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We publish our investigative findings online, on our Hatewatch blog, and in the Intelligence Report, our award-winning quarterly journal. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.
By their own definition they
1. Classify 'hate groups' . Which is according to their own criteria.
2. 'Expose' them to law enforcement and the media. This involves accusing them of being criminals.
Training Law Enforcement
SPLC representatives communicate regularly with law enforcement agencies about extremist activity and conduct in-person training for officers at the local, state and federal level. Thousands of officers have received training that helps them recognize and deal with hate crimes as well as threats posed by extremists. This training is available free to law enforcement agencies.
By getting people in authority to 'recognise and deal with hate crimes' means to get them to define hate according to the standards of the SPLC, not the US government. So for example the FBI defines a hate group and hate crime differently to what the SPLC does, and limits hate crime to actual violence and calls for violence against a persecuted party. This is a fair definition of hate crime.
The SPLC lists the AFA as anti-gay, fair enough, but they are not obl;iged to be pro-gay, nor are they obliged to like gays, and if they believe that gays cause evils in the worlds then thats an ok opinion so long as they don't call people to commit hateful actsd against them. So far noone has given any indication that the AFA is calling for gays to be persecuted.
However fro this the SPLC labels therm a hate group and 'educates' those in authority to discriminate against them by 'teaching' them how to be intolerant of a group that is exercising its free speech rights by vocally not liking gays.
The SPLC makes that decision, and they do it on behalf of no-one but themselves. Their evidence and method is stated on their website, and is open to debate and disagreement, as people are attempting in this thread.
You made that up, they try to reeducate law enforcement into seeing and categorising hate according to their standards.
Are you honestly going to sit there pretending that a mission statement is how we ought to judge an organisation, as opposed to their actual statements and actions? Statements and actions that have already been listed on this thread...
I highlighted the mission statement, but linked the entire webpage. Stop clutching at straws.
This is what you are directly doing, if someone is AFA affiliated they are open to abuse from being categorised as an extreme hate monger, no questions asked, simply because they are part of that group, because that is the minimum standard you have set yourself by accepting the SPLC's list.
That only works if you assume that people simply read the SPLC and apply no judgement or assessment. Instead if you realise that people have actual functioning brains that they often use, then you realise that each and every group is able to explain why it shouldn't be on that list.
You must be pretending to be naive, because you cannot possibly to so stupid as to believe that people don't jump on a frenzy when a group is categorised as an actionable ostracisable group.
This is the main difference between the AFA and SPLC in this, the AFA doesnt like what they consider a rise of homosexuality, and it is their right to do so under free speech, but have not called on homosexuals as actionable for discrimination or hatred. The SPLC doesn't like the rhetoric of the AFA, which is acceptable equally under free speech, but then have called for them to be discriminated against because of what they believe in.
This goes back to the irrefutable point that if you are going to have public groups ostracized or discriminated against the criteria for doing so must be done by accredited accountable public figures. All that should remain are justifiable threat warnings against dangerous groups by law enforcement, medical and defence authorities and those alone.
Some of the earlier press reports on this thread called the AFA a hate group directly on tha backs of the sPLC's report.
To cover the other point. They also confirm that the press (and the OP) considered the decision to categoriased the AFA as a hate group came from the 'US army'. Even the mainstream press made that comment in that way. Indeed this was to a large extent true as the comments came from US army personnel training, at least until countermanded by as higher authority. So this is not all made up by me, stop pretending otherwise.
Not only is that dangerous, its bordering on a hysterical witchhunt.
Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Getting put on a list is not actually a hysterical witchhunt.. it's getting put on a list. It's an action that only has meaning as long as that list has meaning.... which requires that that list holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled.
Getting put on a list that has resulted directly in:
- US military officials discriminating against the AFA.
- Media calling them hate groups without further explanation.
Mud sticks, even if unjustified, the indirect consequences to the AFA can be drastic.
It's an action that only has meaning as long as that list has meaning.... which requires that that list holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled.
The list has meaning because some in the media give it meaning, because it had so much meaning it ended up in major pres articles about USD army training and a thread on Dakka. It has meaning because the only thread on Dakka on the AFA on this site has been about 'hate crimes' when the organisation is decades old and its focus is on family values, not attacking gays. For most including myself it was my first media exposure to the AFA.
If I didn't have the moxie to actually check up about this and to not take every vigilante call to expose 'hate groups' at face value then my own opinions might well have been soiled, as perhaps many have here.
None of that in any ways means that the accusation was backed up by any evidence with to which "holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled".
You were born in the wrong time at the wrong place Sebster. Are you are seriously dumb enough to believe that just because there is a published 'List' of undesirable organisations then the list must therefore be valid and developed with 'care and accuracy'? If so you would have made an excellent NKVD officer, or a henchman for one of Sulla' pogroms.
[This is why collective labels are bad, and any categorisation of groups should come from accredited accountable parties.
Unaccountable... the SPLC stops having power the second it starts listing organisations that shouldn't be on there.
Please at least try not be be so painfully naive.
Lets spell this out.
- The SPLC are group of lawyers, with a partisan socio-political agenda.
- They want to highlight what they see as hate groups.
- The only way to shut them up would be to either publically debate them or take them to the courts.
- Either action could be tied up for years because they are professional lawyers, and that is what lawyers often do..
- Either action would certainly expose far more publicity than list trying to ignore the SPLC.
- Finally if extra media attention is highlighted the SPLC's track record of handling genuine cases of discrimination will work against you. aka because the SPLC successfully prosecuted someone from an organisation who who committed a race attack, then people will assume those are the sorts of peo-le SPLC deal with than thus the group you are with is similar to the groups that carry out such attacks.
This is known as guilt by association. As the SPLC doesnt distinguish on its lists between groups that hang people in trees because they are black and those who don't like that homosexuality is now far more outwardly profiled than it used to be.
Which is something you and others have tried to claim has already happened, except of course you haven't actually been able to point to a single organisation on that list that shouldn't be there.
The AFA shouldn't be there. I don't know of any others, perhaps there are other groups which are listed because they exercise their right to express vocal opinions that the SPLC doesnt like them having, but I need not bother.
Its enough to know that at least one group of 'First Amendment exercisers' is being labeled alongside dangerous violent extremists who have been convicted of murders thanks to the SPLC and that they are all lumped in the same. Perhaps they have done good work in the past, but it is the SPLC and its 'hate list' that is tainted not the AFA.
By they way have you pointed out which groups should or should not be there, because you have been quite content to call them all unequivocably as "extremist hate mongers" just for being on the list. Which is kind of sad because of what a little research turns up.
No, the system is not working as it should until an accountable organisation, the Pentagon, shut down the accusations against the AFA utilised by some military personnel to discriminate against the AFA.
When you think one guy acting outside of his authority (and getting quickly corrected) represents the system, I think it's fair to say you don't have any idea what a system is.
Sebster, if an official in the US army acts on this own authority while in uniform doing the job he was asked to do he is still representing the US Army in an official capacity. The fact that he was quickly corrected which is the higher ups establishing their position, that was the system of seniority and control working.
You are choosing to forget that the officer concerned was a supervisory instructor, authorised to teach in the fields concerned and those he taught were in effect under his orders, because funnily enough enough, soldiers are expected to do what they are taught to do in training, not just take it as someone elses opinion.
Now had the story been about a random officer who denounced the AFA then you would be right, it would not be the US armies doing. however as they allocated this man as an instructor in this field what he spoke he spoke with the authority of his uniform.
In a nutshell the single instructor spoke for the US army officially, right up until the Pentagon stated otherwise. Press reports that the discrimination against the AFA came from the 'US Army' are not incorrect, even though it did not represent the formal official stance of that organisation.
This is proof positive as to why it is dangerous for such labels to be allowed to be proliferated from partisan unaccountable groups like the SPLC.
You keep saying 'dangerous'... you do understand you're talking about a private organisation doing nothing more than stating their own opinion about other private organisations.
By I keep proving dangerous.
- If it wasnt dangerous US army personnel wouldnot have taught other US army personnel to discriminate against the AFA in official training.
- Media would not be flatly labeling the AFA as a hate group without explanation.
- You wouldn't be jumping on this. By youer own words you lumped all the orgnaisations
I wonder how many narrow minded Sebsteristas are out there, and might they discriminate against someone if they have AFA member written on their resume?
This is important, customary always thought burden of proof was on the accuser, when denounced for reasons of hate dogmas the burden of proof is on the defence. I have been forced to attempt prove that the AFA are innocent by showing they do not categorise as a hate group by FBI standards and have been 'cleared' by the Pentagon. Wheras you have confirmed a solid belief that they are 'extremist hate mongers' just because they are on the list, because the list must of course be accurate. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.
You cannot hate something that isn't "people"? Who set this rule, cause they're full of gak.
It stems from Kan's attempt to classify the NRA as a hate group earlier in the thread. He was unable to determine who, exactly, the NRA hates, but is dead certain that all sorts of other hate groups recruit freely within the NRA.
He was also unable to determine who, exactly, was recruiting for their militia/hate group/etc. from the NRA.
I think Kan is happy enough to point and say that the NRA ticks X number of points on the FBI hate group criteria in an attempt to discredit them, but fails to mention that all he can do is prove that the NRA is a group and that hate is absent
Also it's worth noting that those are the standards that the government uses to classify an organization as a hate group. I don't know if the Southern Poverty Law Center uses the same standards or their own standards.
The SPLC uses whatever standard that will help to continue to bring in the donations.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why does the AFA not belong on a hate group list?
Because disagreeing without something doesn't automatically make you hateful.
Being hateful and being a hate group are not the same thing, blancmange, etc.
Back on topic, as far as I know, the AFA aren't on the hate list for disagreeing, but for the form of their disagreement, which I was under the impression involved lies and slurs.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why does the AFA not belong on a hate group list?
Because disagreeing without something doesn't automatically make you hateful.
Being hateful and being a hate group are not the same thing, blancmange, etc.
Back on topic, as far as I know, the AFA aren't on the hate list for disagreeing, but for the form of their disagreement, which I was under the impression involved lies and slurs.
Do you say that these quotations are in fact lies made up by the SPLC?
Treading dangerous ground here, but I'd say of those linked qoutes, only that last one is really questionable, and falls under "hateful". The others are issue of debate, that whether or not you agree with them, could be argued with evidence.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you grant that these quotations are things that the AFA has published, not made up by the SPLC?
Of course they are, that is not the question though. Qoutations that are backed up by factual information does not constitute hate, or evidence there of. Now granted, the qoutations aren't telling the whole story, or are entirely accurate, but if your going to label someone a hate group because they skew things, then their list of groups needs to grow 10 fold.
You asked if the qoutes were lies, not if the SPLC made them up.
Lets look at the first qoute.
“[T]he homosexual lifestyle is characterized by anonymous sexual encounters and celebration of sexual obsession and perversion unparalleled in any other social group.”
Published in 1994. From that time period, how was the homosexual lifestyle not characterized like that? Widespread attention of sexual promiscuity in bath houses, theaters, night clubs, etc... their "gay pride" parades, which at best were soft-core porn rallies on the open streets. Stuff like that.
“If President Obama, Congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.”
Well guess what. They got their wish, and that is EXACTLY what is happening now.
So the SPLC is pointing at qoutes, saying it's evidence of hatred, yet what they said was true. So how is pointing out the truth hatred?
Do you believe that the statements made by the AFA are factual? For example:
“As with smoking, homosexual behavior’s ‘second hand’ effects threaten public health… . Thus, individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population.”
— Gary Glenn, president of Michigan chapter of AFA, 2001
“Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”
— Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010
I already pointed out that the Hitler qoute was OTT, and while I don't have first hand knowledge on it, my gut tells me it's wrong.
As for the first qoute, I'd say that it is true. The rampant sexual promiscuity of homosexual society of the 70's and 80's led to an explosion of HIV/AIDS within the country. That is fact. Second hand effects have led to it's greater introduction into the heterosexual segment of the population. Without the rampant growth in the homosexual segment, the growth in the hetero would likely have been much slower.
Edit: I'm not longer going to argue that they are right or wrong. That is not anything I want to do. I'm just going to stand by my original assessment that the majority of the cited material is material that is backed by factual information, and using it to justify claiming they are a hate group is weak at best.
Kilkrazy wrote: It was my question. Thank you for answering.
Do you believe that the statements made by the AFA are factual? For example:
“Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”
— Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010
On this question... I would disagree with the way Mr. Fischer phrased his comment. By that I mean it was incorrect.
While there were Homosexuals in the NAZIS, and quite frankly I believe it was a big part of the NAZI movement, I think it is incorrect to say that homosexuality "caused" the NAZIS and the holocaust.
I think he should have chosen his words a bit more carefully.
Kilkrazy wrote: It was my question. Thank you for answering.
Do you believe that the statements made by the AFA are factual? For example:
“Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”
— Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010
On this question... I would disagree with the way Mr. Fischer phrased his comment. By that I mean it was incorrect.
While there were Homosexuals in the NAZIS, and quite frankly I believe it was a big part of the NAZI movement, I think it is incorrect to say that homosexuality "caused" the NAZIS and the holocaust.
I think he should have chosen his words a bit more carefully.
GG
You do realise that homosexuals were targeted to be sent to death and work camps? It's silly to state it's a big part when only singular members were homosexual, as it would be generalisation to claim that it was homosexuality that influenced the Nazi movement as a whole.
Bloody hell you did know that homosexuals were targeted by the Nazi's right? Rohm was murdered during the Night of the Long knives, while his influence had slowly degraded . This idea that Nordic and Viking theme's might of caused homosexuality to be seen as a positive by the Nazi's in their ideology is tripe. It was only really Himmler and the SS that were into the Nordic ideology, with Hitler didn't truly approve of.
You do realise that homosexuals were targeted to be sent to death and work camps? It's silly to state it's a big part when only singular members were homosexual, as it would be generalisation to claim that it was homosexuality that influenced the Nazi movement as a whole.
Bloody hell you did know that homosexuals were targeted by the Nazi's right? Rohm was murdered during the Night of the Long knives, while his influence had slowly degraded . This idea that Nordic and Viking theme's might of caused homosexuality to be seen as a positive by the Nazi's in their ideology is tripe. It was only really Himmler and the SS that were into the Nordic ideology, with Hitler didn't truly approve of.
Of course I realize this, but they persecuted the effeminate homosexuals. Many of the leaders of NAZI's believed in an Idealized Aryan "Homoerotic" fantasy of what a heterosexual German should be, but also what a homosexual german should be. A lot of this came about from the homosexual movements of Weimar republic, which were huge and very open during the early 20th century. NAZIS like Rohm pictured "Butch" homosexuals the only acceptable form of homosexual, much like the Greeks did, where many of their warriors were homosexual, but in a hyper masculine way.
Anyway, I didn't want to post this stuff, because it's kind of off topic.
If you want to know more about the history of homosexuals in the NAZI's and Adolf Hitlers past here ya go.
HBO documentary The Hidden Hitler. It's eye opening.
You do realise that homosexuals were targeted to be sent to death and work camps? It's silly to state it's a big part when only singular members were homosexual, as it would be generalisation to claim that it was homosexuality that influenced the Nazi movement as a whole.
Bloody hell you did know that homosexuals were targeted by the Nazi's right? Rohm was murdered during the Night of the Long knives, while his influence had slowly degraded . This idea that Nordic and Viking theme's might of caused homosexuality to be seen as a positive by the Nazi's in their ideology is tripe. It was only really Himmler and the SS that were into the Nordic ideology, with Hitler didn't truly approve of.
Of course I realize this, but they persecuted the effeminate homosexuals. Many of the leaders of NAZI's believed in an Idealized Aryan "Homoerotic" fantasy of what a heterosexual German should be, but also what a homosexual german should be. A lot of this came about from the homosexual movements of Weimar republic, which were huge and very open during the early 20th century. NAZIS like Rohm pictured "Butch" homosexuals the only acceptable form of homosexual, much like the Greeks did, where many of their warriors were homosexual, but in a hyper masculine way.
Anyway, I didn't want to post this stuff, because it's kind of off topic.
If you want to know more about the history of homosexuals in the NAZI's and Adolf Hitlers past here ya go.
HBO documentary The Hidden Hitler. It's eye opening.
People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish. This idea of 'Aryan' and the 'Nordic' ideals of SS are somewhat different. Even then, the SS's chief Himmler who was one of the few to be really into such Nordic ideologies, did not approve of homosexuality. Let's also remember Rohm's influence ended before 1935, and that even if specific individuals approved, it does not equate to an entire ideology. As a whole, homosexuality was openly opposed by the Nazi party. Rohm was a similar case to the phrase; "There's always a good jew", seen as a singular case and exception to the rule.
People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish. This idea of 'Aryan' and the 'Nordic' ideals of SS are somewhat different. Even then, the SS's chief Himmler who was one of the few to be really into such Nordic ideologies, did not approve of homosexuality. Let's also remember Rohm's influence ended before 1935, and that even if specific individuals approved, it does not equate to an entire ideology. As a whole, homosexuality was openly opposed by the Nazi party. Rohm was a similar case to the phrase; "There's always a good jew", seen as a singular case and exception to the rule.
There are a lot of rumours about Hitlers private life his sexuality and even claims he had Jewish grandparents. IIRc most of this stemmed from wartime propaganda. I am sure it is not hard to understand why such a rumour mill would be useful.
People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish.
He was also claimed to have had some black ancestry according to DNA taken from some living relatives. Wow, what a combination, black, jewish and gay, no wonder he was so evil.
If only the Nazis had quit diverting resources from their Gay Bomb program to such fantasies as the STG and the ME 262 they might have been able to stop the Rooskie hordes at the gates of Berlin. Oy Ve!
People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish.
He was also claimed to have had some black ancestry according to DNA taken from some living relatives. Wow, what a combination, black, jewish and gay, no wonder he was so evil.
Hitler can be whatever you want him to be that's what makes him so special.
People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish.
He was also claimed to have had some black ancestry according to DNA taken from some living relatives. Wow, what a combination, black, jewish and gay, no wonder he was so evil.
Hitler is composed of whatever people feel like insulting at the time...
d-usa wrote: This thread feels like a History Channel "gay secrets of the Nazi's" special now...
They should just rename that to the Nazi Channel as that is all they seem to show, oh, that and men carefully chosen to look like medieval peasants rooting in the mud for old floor plans - winning stuff.
People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish.
He was also claimed to have had some black ancestry according to DNA taken from some living relatives. Wow, what a combination, black, jewish and gay, no wonder he was so evil.
Hitler can be whatever you want him to be that's what makes him so special.
Definition of Hitler (Hit-ler)
1. A historical figure used in arguments to sour the opponents arguments during debates, or associate with groups to ruin their reputation, see examples below;
Hitler was an Atheist, thus all Atheists were evil
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, thus all Catholics are evil
Hitler was a gay, black, transgender Jew/Atheist roman catholic, thus all gay, black, transgender, Catholics are evil
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The SPLC lists several veterans groups as hate groups of one kind or another, including the recently more radical Oathkeepers.
Oath Keepers pretty regularly engage in all kinds of weirdo New World Order nonsense, and being an active, militarily capable organisation set to defend the constitution from the government (which is totally going to go evil any day now, guys) is pretty much their entire reason for being.
The defence of these guys typically comes down to "but they're veterans, and veterans served and therefore we can't question anything a group of soliders does".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: They are by the SPLC. That doesn't make it so, however. Not that I'm a strong defender of the Oath Keepers. I've always gotten a weird vibe.
So you're not going to defend them, but you are going to criticise another group for attacking them.
Nevertheless, we'd have to be using Kanluwen's rules to declare them a hate group.
Or we could use the SPLC's rules. Which I've already given to you.
The defence of these guys typically comes down to "but they're veterans, and veterans served and therefore we can't question anything a group of soliders does".
The defence of these guys typically comes down to "but they're veterans, and veterans served and therefore we can't question anything a group of soliders does".
There are extensions to that argument that are understandable though. My neighbour hates Japanese people. Not in a 'I'll kill them with a knife' way, but he will leave a corner store if he sees a Japanese person enter, refuse to talk to them and give them the time of day, etc. Now that's pretty bad, but he did fight them for years in some of the worst terrain around, and saw his friends tortured and killed at their hands. So you can forgive a 96 year old guy for holding onto his hate.
But 'veterans should be able to break laws and stuff because they are veterans' is a problem.
Orlanth wrote: Here is part of SPLC's own mission statement on 'hate groups'
The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We publish our investigative findings online, on our Hatewatch blog, and in the Intelligence Report, our award-winning quarterly journal. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.
By their own definition they 1. Classify 'hate groups' . Which is according to their own criteria. 2. 'Expose' them to law enforcement and the media. This involves accusing them of being criminals.
Oh come on. Informing a government agency about someone doesn't mean you're accusing them of being criminals. "Hey, there's this group that you should be aware of" is not accusing them of being criminals.
You came in to this having no idea how the SPLC actually worked, and went off on some weird idea about how the SPLC's list of hate groups meant there was government action. You were wrong, and are now just contriving whatever you can to get away from that basic fact.
Just stop it.
By getting people in authority to 'recognise and deal with hate crimes' means to get them to define hate according to the standards of the SPLC, not the US government.
They're not hypnotists, "you are getting sleepy, when you open your eyes you will believe entirely in the definition of hate groups as defined by the SPLC and that their classification of all hate groups is true and unquestionable..."
The SPLC tells people about their definition and the groups they believe meet that definition... and people are free to agree or disagree. What happens is discussion and awareness. That's how conversation works.
What you're trying to do is invent some ridiculous idea that simply the act of saying a thing is so pervasive that it is, in your own words 'dangerous', and that's a thing that's so fething stupid that it's been quite remarkable to witness how you've ended up there.
The SPLC lists the AFA as anti-gay, fair enough, but they are not obl;iged to be pro-gay, nor are they obliged to like gays, and if they believe that gays cause evils in the worlds then thats an ok opinion so long as they don't call people to commit hateful actsd against them. So far noone has given any indication that the AFA is calling for gays to be persecuted.
Once again... there are lots of groups opposed to homosexuality or any movement towards more rights for homosexuals that the SPLC doesn't list. What sets the AFA apart is their constant stream of lies about homosexuals, and the extremely minimal amount of time they spend on anything other than homosexuality (other than abortion).
Not a single beating, theft or call for a beating or a theft is mentioned, not one. Just people practicing free speech.
Yes, because the SPLC is not concerned simply with crime. fething duh.
The SPLC is concerned with the speach used by groups like AFA, and they use their own free speach to raise awareness about that.
You made that up, they try to reeducate law enforcement into seeing and categorising hate according to their standards.
What? They're not fething hypnotists. They have exactly as much power over police as you, me or anyone else that wants to spend their private time telling police departments about groups that we might personally think are terrible... because the police then get to make their own decision.
I highlighted the mission statement, but linked the entire webpage. Stop clutching at straws.
The KKK could have a website that's nothing but fun learning games for kids aged 7-10... and linking to it in the face of the public statements by their members and leadership would be the most inane drivel.
And, well, we've got a thread full of horrible statements made by the leadership of the AFA, and you still think it's okay to link to their webpage and say 'but none of the contraversial stuff is on here, so they must be fine'.
You must be pretending to be naive, because you cannot possibly to so stupid as to believe that people don't jump on a frenzy when a group is categorised as an actionable ostracisable group.
Of course that can happen, if people attempt to use demogoguery and other methods. It hasn't happened in cases involving the SPLC because that isn't their method, but that reality doesn't seem to phase you one bit.
This is the main difference between the AFA and SPLC in this, the AFA doesnt like what they consider a rise of homosexuality, and it is their right to do so under free speech, but have not called on homosexuals as actionable for discrimination or hatred. The SPLC doesn't like the rhetoric of the AFA, which is acceptable equally under free speech, but then have called for them to be discriminated against because of what they believe in.
They haven't called for them to be discriminated against. That is lunacy you made up in your head. "Hey, people should look at what these people are saying" isn't a call for discrimination.
That should be fething obvious.
This goes back to the irrefutable point that if you are going to have public groups ostracized or discriminated against the criteria for doing so must be done by accredited accountable public figures.
It's not irrefutable. It's fething insane. I mean, you are saying that private groups are not to be allowed to use their own free speach to criticise other groups for their own speach.
Totally fething bonkers.
Getting put on a list that has resulted directly in:
- US military officials discriminating against the AFA.
Once, and immediately after the Pentagon immediately said 'don't do that'. And this is a great big problem that you think means a private organisation should no longer be able to speak freely about other private organisations.
- Media calling them hate groups without further explanation.
So because a private organisation called another private organisation a hate group, then a third private organisation also called them a hate group. Holy gak, scandal!
The list has meaning because some in the media give it meaning, because it had so much meaning it ended up in major pres articles about USD army training and a thread on Dakka.
Yes, because their lists is well regarded and considered very accurate by many. Which would stop being the case if the SPLC started using it as a political beat stick.
On the other hand, the list and SPLC is criticised by many because the list includes some organisation to which they owe sympathy, if not allegiance, are included... even though those organisations are exactly as the SPLC described them.
I mean, here you are trying to defend an organisation that prior to this thread you knew nothing about. You don't know how they operate, or the kind of statements they regularly issue. You just wanted to defend them and attack the SPLC because 'christian'.
For most including myself it was my first media exposure to the AFA.
I follow a Christian blogger (and the greater network of Christian bloggers he is part of) who regularly dismantle and attack statements made by the AFA. I wasn't aware they were listed as a hate group by the SPLC before this thread, but I knew they were an extremely hateful organisation.
And that, I think, is a massive part of the problem. Lots of people, and you especially, came in to this with little knowledge, but a strong opinion.
You were born in the wrong time at the wrong place Sebster. Are you are seriously dumb enough to believe that just because there is a published 'List' of undesirable organisations then the list must therefore be valid and developed with 'care and accuracy'? If so you would have made an excellent NKVD officer, or a henchman for one of Sulla' pogroms.
That's nothing to do with what I stated, and is just hopelessly lazy nonsense on your part. I have not, at any point, said that the list must include only hate groups simply because it was claimed to be completed with care and accuracy.
I have said that, in my experience, the organisations listed on the SPLC list have been shown to all be deserving of their place, and if that wasn't true then I'm sure someone should be able to pick out an organisation that shouldn't be on there.
In response, you've said you aren't aware of any organisation that shouldn't be on there and aren't going to attempt to find any, but you're just sure there must be some that shouldn't be.
As the SPLC doesnt distinguish on its lists between groups that hang people in trees because they are black and those who don't like that homosexuality is now far more outwardly profiled than it used to be.
Actually, they distinguish between different types of hate groups, and for each group they state the behaviour that caused them to put the group on their list. Stop making up nonsense.
By they way have you pointed out which groups should or should not be there, because you have been quite content to call them all unequivocably as "extremist hate mongers" just for being on the list.
Umm, my position is that all of the groups listed meet the SPLC criteria. And did you note how I went and got multiple hateful things stated by Bryan Fischer, to establish why that group is on the list?
Which is kind of sad because of what a little research turns up.
Except, of course, that its been very little research, and that effort took multiple requests from me before anyone bothered at all. And even then consisted of someone mentioning an organisation that they kind of like, without any effort to contradict why the SPLC listed them, and your effort of linking to the AFA main page... and a really weird effort to rationalise one of the multiple bits of hate speach by Fischer.
So if you want to call that enough evidence... well it's probably a good indication of why your position on this issue has been so ridiculous.
Sebster, if an official in the US army acts on this own authority while in uniform doing the job he was asked to do he is still representing the US Army in an official capacity. The fact that he was quickly corrected which is the higher ups establishing their position, that was the system of seniority and control working. You are choosing to forget that the officer concerned was a supervisory instructor, authorised to teach in the fields concerned and those he taught were in effect under his orders, because funnily enough enough, soldiers are expected to do what they are taught to do in training, not just take it as someone elses opinion.
I'm not choosing to forget it, I simply understand that a system exists even when a person acts outside that system, but is quickly corrected by higher ups. If a teacher gives a lesson on history and uses some alternate textboook she found that tells a story that differs from the official curriculum... and this is identified and corrected... the education system still works. We wouldn't have a big freak out and insist that it is 'dangerous' for alternate textbooks to exist.
This should be fething obvious.
cincydooley wrote: Because disagreeing without something doesn't automatically make you hateful.
And you're just going to decide that that's all the AFA does? Because they don't just 'disagree'... they publish wildly innaccurate 'science' that makes all kinds of nonsense claims (such as claiming that homosexuality can be 'cured') and spread lies about them (such as claiming that most homosexuals are paedophiles).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: This thread feels like a History Channel "gay secrets of the Nazi's" special now...
Actually, GG watching a special that argued Hitler was gay is exactly why this exists.
Except it wasn't made by the history channel, it was made by Cinemax. Seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: There are extensions to that argument that are understandable though. My neighbour hates Japanese people. Not in a 'I'll kill them with a knife' way, but he will leave a corner store if he sees a Japanese person enter, refuse to talk to them and give them the time of day, etc. Now that's pretty bad, but he did fight them for years in some of the worst terrain around, and saw his friends tortured and killed at their hands. So you can forgive a 96 year old guy for holding onto his hate.
My Grandad served in the war, and while he didn't see action*, lots of the guys he served with did, and some of them harboured resentment years later. My Grandad once told my cousins and I something very similar to the above. It was powerful because he managed to get the tone just perfectly between making it clear that racism is wrong and not acceptable, but a lot of people have had some really powerful experiences in their lives, and it is easy and lazy to just judge them from afar.
In comparison, my Grandmother was an incredible racist. Said the most outrageous stuff, like once commenting that she felt really bad for half castes, because they don't belong in either world. I've never really been able to figure out if my Grandad's words should apply to stuff his first wife said...
But 'veterans should be able to break laws and stuff because they are veterans' is a problem.
Yeah, that's basically it. That said, I should clarify that neither I nor the SPLC are saying the OathKeepers have broken any laws... just that they shouldn't get a free pass on paranoid New World Order stuff just because they served.
*Somehow managed to turn up in each location just as Japanese resistance ended. Incredibly lucky.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The SPLC lists several veterans groups as hate groups of one kind or another, including the recently more radical Oathkeepers.
Oath Keepers pretty regularly engage in all kinds of weirdo New World Order nonsense, and being an active, militarily capable organisation set to defend the constitution from the government (which is totally going to go evil any day now, guys) is pretty much their entire reason for being.
The defence of these guys typically comes down to "but they're veterans, and veterans served and therefore we can't question anything a group of soliders does".
And I'm right with you, none of that though, including "Hey guys prepare for the end days" makes them a hate group, which the SPLC calls them.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: And I'm right with you, none of that though, including "Hey guys prepare for the end days" makes them a hate group, which the SPLC calls them.
Actually they don't call them a hate group. When they do pop up it is part of anti-government 'Patriot Organizations', but that is about it, which makes sense what with their language on the government and Americans they don't like, but if you go to the hate map and check all the lists they never come up, even in their home state of Nevada. They aren't considered a hate group, but they are increasingly paranoid and heading to the fringes.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: And I'm right with you, none of that though, including "Hey guys prepare for the end days" makes them a hate group, which the SPLC calls them.
Paranoid worldviews makes them a group worth watching, I think. I get that that doesn't mean 'hate' per se, but honestly the difference between 'these guys peddle hate' and 'these guys believe crazy radical stuff that could quickly get dangerous' kind of feels like splitting hairs from where I'm sitting.
That said, I have to admit I'm not completely sure if SPLC classifies them as a hate group. Ahtman notes they're just classified as a Patriot Group, and that's all I can find them appearing as on SPLC's website*. Wiki shows the Oath Keepers listed as a hategroup, though...
*Man the SPLC website sucks. You guys want to find a way to discredit the organisation, pick that
the difference between 'these guys peddle hate' and 'these guys believe crazy radical stuff that could quickly get dangerous' kind of feels like splitting hairs from where I'm sitting.
Who decides that latter part though? You can believe in crazy radical stuff and not be dangerous except to another ideology. The crazy radical stuff is also subjective, it depends on where you stand with your own ideologies. That's when subjective opinion starts getting masqueraded as thoughtful opposition to radicalism, to extremism.
Those two descriptions are only splitting hairs because the audience is only allowed to choose between believing a group is nuts and believing a group is evil. How about the group in question has a different set of beliefs that do not affect people outside the group and don't pose a threat to those outside the group. The threat being posed is that they choose to live a lifestyle that another group finds intolerable.
The logic I'm seeing here is that anti-abortion activists threaten to kill doctors etc so they're classified as haters. A moderate group like the AFA also oppose abortion so they must be haters too.
Mary hates apples. John hates apples. John is Mary. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
While there were Homosexuals in the NAZIS, and quite frankly I believe it was a big part of the NAZI movement,
Define big.
I read something about nazi homosexuals or whatever they were. The concept is that homosexuals represent some kind of evolution beyond the physical need for procreation. Sounds all very well until you consider that a true evolution would be self sustaining. I'd also settle for some kind of ascention to a higher form of being, but rolling over for some hairy guy just doesn't fit my definition of evolved being.
Crazy ideology is not defined by its position relative to someone's individual beliefs, it is defined in relation to the general beliefs of society.
If you take US society as a whole, the majority view is that black people should not be made slaves. Anyone who thinks they should, due to some kind of unproved justification (the Bible, innate superiority of whites, or other) has espoused a crazy ideology.
Obviously they themselves will not see it as crazy, and they will see everyone who opposes them as crazy.
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
d-usa wrote: It's the scale that the government uses.
They just call it the Kanluwen Scale to sound hip.
And because it makes it less true I guess...
To be fair, I've been popping in and out of this thread because it devolved into pointless gak really quickly and I never caught the name of the actual scale I only saw it referenced as the "Kanluwen Scale" I do not wish to be or sound hip, for such an attack on my character, I bite my thumb, sir!
d-usa wrote: It's the scale that the government uses.
They just call it the Kanluwen Scale to sound hip.
And because it makes it less true I guess...
To be fair, I've been popping in and out of this thread because it devolved into pointless gak really quickly and I never caught the name of the actual scale I only saw it referenced as the "Kanluwen Scale" I do not wish to be or sound hip, for such an attack on my character, I bite my thumb, sir!
cadbren wrote: Other than number 7, the Scouts would fit that definition of a hate group too.
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
Technically it's not highly structured internationally. The Scouts in America are structured differently than the scouts in New Zealand, England, etc...
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
It is a youth organization...
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
What is the mainstream image that the scouts are projecting? The BSA as an organization might be projecting the no gays in scouting image, but they've gotten pushback from leaders, scouts, charter organizations, etc... Unless you're talking about the Scout Law, Oath, Motto, and Mission Statement, which most organizations have.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
I've never seen the boy scouts on cable television, and with the exception of the computer merit badge, most scouting activities are done via good old fashioned newsletter.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
Maybe they fit this description, but I'm not entirely sure what they mean by this.
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
This one I'm fairly certain they don't do either...
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
There will be a global war... It's the giant game of capture the flag held at the World Jamborees
cadbren wrote: Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.
Clearly you do not understand logic.
No, he's right. If this is what the FBI uses to help figure out if an action was caused by a "hate group" then it is. There are plenty of examples of groups that fit the profile of a hate group, and aren't white. The New Black Panthers probably being the most obvious.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure I believe that the list that Kanluwen brought up is an FBI thing. If my 12 years in the FedGov has taught me anything, labeling anything a specific color is a fast way to make bad things happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: Crazy ideology is not defined by its position relative to someone's individual beliefs, it is defined in relation to the general beliefs of society.
If you take US society as a whole, the majority view is that black people should not be made slaves. Anyone who thinks they should, due to some kind of unproved justification (the Bible, innate superiority of whites, or other) has espoused a crazy ideology.
Obviously they themselves will not see it as crazy, and they will see everyone who opposes them as crazy.
Still not a hate group, nor necessarily a group to watch. All sorts of people believe all sorts of crazy gak. A massive economic collapse leading to the movie Mad Max IRL is way more likely then say.... angels showing up, and what was the number? 50% of Americans or more believe in those. I also find your slavery comparison in poor taste, poorly made and over all inaccurate. Just because a minority espouses a view point does not make that view point insane. A minority of this country originally thought Blacks were actual human beings. A minority of this country originally thought homosexuals should have the same access to basic civil rights like legal marriage.
Back on topic, per the FBI the following is the definition for a hate group.
"primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."
(Sauce, wiki, which go it from here: "Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines", Uniform Crime Reporting: Summary Reporting System: National Incident-Based Reporting System, U.S. Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Revised October 1999.)
So not sure what Kan's posting, maybe the definition or identifying guidelines for a white supremacist group?
cadbren wrote: Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.
Clearly you do not understand logic.
The list specifies a physical type - white. That automatically excludes any group that isn't substantially white. What is substantial anyway? Is it a percentage of the group like 30% white or is it a number, ie more than 10 young white males and you go from being a radical group to a hate group?
It specifies male and while gangs and other potentially dangerous groups are typically male dominated, not always.
It specifies an age range. I was under the impression that a lot of the groups in question were made up of older people.
As for the others:
Number 6 is suggestive as it is ascribing a motive to what otherwise might be genuine community building.
Number 7 follows up on number 2 by narrowing the issue to one of race. This suggests that the whole list was drawn up to specifically target groups of white racists rather than all "hate" groups. The list is racist in presentation and scope.
Oh come on. Informing a government agency about someone doesn't mean you're accusing them of being criminals. "Hey, there's this group that you should be aware of" is not accusing them of being criminals.
Sebster, it should be obvious that to inform law enforcement agencies of the activities of groups the SPLC is monitoring is to suggest that criminal activities are taking place.
Law enforcement is not interested if they are being made aware that a group member likes pistachio ice cream, or drives a blue car, or has two kids; they are only interested in potential crime threats or evidence of crimes.
You came in to this having no idea how the SPLC actually worked, and went off on some weird idea about how the SPLC's list of hate groups meant there was government action. You were wrong, and are now just contriving whatever you can to get away from that basic fact.
Just stop it.
I studied the SPLC website before posting anything about them.
There was government action, right up until superiors in the US military overturned such action. It is delusional to now claim otherwise.
By getting people in authority to 'recognise and deal with hate crimes' means to get them to define hate according to the standards of the SPLC, not the US government.
They're not hypnotists, "you are getting sleepy, when you open your eyes you will believe entirely in the definition of hate groups as defined by the SPLC and that their classification of all hate groups is true and unquestionable..."
The SPLC tells people about their definition and the groups they believe meet that definition... and people are free to agree or disagree. What happens is discussion and awareness. That's how conversation works.
The SPLC is a dogmatised lobby group run by lawyers, not a volunteer tutorial group, such groups can be very persuasive for reasons other than merit of argument.
What you're trying to do is invent some ridiculous idea that simply the act of saying a thing is so pervasive that it is, in your own words 'dangerous', and that's a thing that's so fething stupid that it's been quite remarkable to witness how you've ended up there.
You call it ridiculous as a tool to avoid actually dealing with the evidence provided. I looked at the evidence on the SPLC website , found the SPLC's case against the AFA to be unfair, based on the logical evidence as to what quantifies Hate Crime according to accountable accredited law enforcement organisations like the FBI. Thus coming to the conclusion that the AFA cannot be fairly classified as a Hate Group. This position I might add that has been vindicated by the Pentagon for reasons of their own.
Nevertheless you have still been clutching at straws to hold onto the discredited ideology that you can justifiably call out the AFA as a hate group, thus another reason exampled from this very thread as to why the SPLC's self appointed role as divisor of organisations into Hate Groups or not is dangerous.
My comments are not 'fething stupid', they are logical; and I would be grateful if you didn't lower yourself by resorting to foul language, if you cant logically provide a counter argument say nothing rather than swear at me.
Once again... there are lots of groups opposed to homosexuality or any movement towards more rights for homosexuals that the SPLC doesn't list. What sets the AFA apart is their constant stream of lies about homosexuals, and the extremely minimal amount of time they spend on anything other than homosexuality (other than abortion).
A quick look at the AFA webpage reveals that they are involved in legal lobbying for other issues also, there is a major focus on anti-pornography, family values and the rights of persecuted Christians worldwide. Now it is possible, in fact likely that the media in the US focuses on reporting their opinions on homosexuality, however this is far from the only thing they advocate about.
Also its unfair for you to call AFa comments a 'constant stream of lies', if the AFA people you quote believe what they say they aren't lying and you have provided no evidence that they do not.
The SPLC is concerned with the speach used by groups like AFA, and they use their own free speech to raise awareness about that.
Had the SPLC remained content to debate or critique comments by the AFA they would be countering free speech with free speech. However instead they try to set a standard definition of the AFA based on spurious values that unfairly labels them and leaves them open to discrimination from any organisation or individual hoodwinked into following the SPLC's definition.
This directly resulted at least one case of discrimination against the AFA, briefly by official US Army personnel until the damage was countered by a policy clarification by more senior staff.
I highlighted the mission statement, but linked the entire webpage. Stop clutching at straws.
The KKK could have a website that's nothing but fun learning games for kids aged 7-10... and linking to it in the face of the public statements by their members and leadership would be the most inane drivel.
The KKK are known to be a de facto hate group because of the race crimes they commit, as a result their website could contain anything, we have historical proof elsewhere.
There is no excuse to say anything remotely comperable about the AFA, at least from evidence the SPLC has provided.
It is unreasonable and unfair to suggest that the AFA's own website should be dismissed as evidence about their activities on the expedient that the SPLC has labeled them.
And, well, we've got a thread full of horrible statements made by the leadership of the AFA, and you still think it's okay to link to their webpage and say 'but none of the contraversial stuff is on here, so they must be fine'.
You must be pretending to be naive, because you cannot possibly to so stupid as to believe that people don't jump on a frenzy when a group is categorised as an actionable ostracisable group.
Of course that can happen, if people attempt to use demogoguery and other methods. It hasn't happened in cases involving the SPLC because that isn't their method, but that reality doesn't seem to phase you one bit.
Except it has happened, the Pentagon had to sort it out, and that is the reality.
This is the main difference between the AFA and SPLC in this, the AFA doesnt like what they consider a rise of homosexuality, and it is their right to do so under free speech, but have not called on homosexuals as actionable for discrimination or hatred. The SPLC doesn't like the rhetoric of the AFA, which is acceptable equally under free speech, but then have called for them to be discriminated against because of what they believe in.
They haven't called for them to be discriminated against. That is lunacy you made up in your head. "Hey, people should look at what these people are saying" isn't a call for discrimination.
The SPLC listed the AFA as a Hate Group alongside such groups as the KKK and neo-Nazis. That is one huge big label, especially as no weighting was given to the groupings, so it is strongly implied that there is a moral similarity between the AFA and Nazis.. Categorising the AFA as a Hate Group, especially as clumsily as this is extremely damaging, distressing to members and encourages discrimination.
Its not lunacy made up in my head, its a logical conclusion based on observation of the facts.
This goes back to the irrefutable point that if you are going to have public groups ostracized or discriminated against the criteria for doing so must be done by accredited accountable public figures.
It's not irrefutable. It's fething insane. I mean, you are saying that private groups are not to be allowed to use their own free speach to criticise other groups for their own speach.
Totally fething bonkers.
Again try not to swear, it hurts what little argument you attempt to provide.
I am not saying the private groups cannot critique each other. A fair use of free speech would be for the SPLC to counter comments by the AFA, and 'expose' them.
However this is not their goal they are instead trying to foster an artificial re-categorization of the AFA that will formally label them as undesirable and encourage discrimination against them. The SPLC can make such comments under the first amendment, but by encouraging discrimination they are doing so as Hate Speech. What irony.
Getting put on a list that has resulted directly in:
- US military officials discriminating against the AFA.
Once, and immediately after the Pentagon immediately said 'don't do that'. And this is a great big problem that you think means a private organisation should no longer be able to speak freely about other private organisations.
At least you admit the discrimination occurred, and that it was as a result of the SPLC information, that's a start.
Once is enough. The AFA and soldiers linked to the AFA were lucky thast the Pentagon acted quickly to stop the discrimination from being proliferated further, and we don't know for how long the errant teaching was used before it was challenged.
The SPLC has the First Amendment right to continue to call the AFA a Hate Group, but if they do logical and fair minded people can and should consider the SPLC's judgement to be tainted. In fact they prove themselves no better than other organisations that encourage discrimination against third parties, and thus worse than the AFA, who haven't.
- Media calling them hate groups without further explanation.
So because a private organisation called another private organisation a hate group, then a third private organisation also called them a hate group. Holy gak, scandal!
Yes it is serious, because it involves the media and people can be influenced heavily by the media. For a media article to denounce the AFA as a Hate Group is a dangerous development because of the discrimination against AFA members that might result and because of the distress it might cause to AFA members or their families that are exposed to the article.
The media has a civic responsibility to be careful about what it releases.
For most including myself it was my first media exposure to the AFA.
I mean, here you are trying to defend an organisation that prior to this thread you knew nothing about. You don't know how they operate, or the kind of statements they regularly issue. You just wanted to defend them and attack the SPLC because 'christian'.
I did some research on the AFA and SPLC before posting about them on this thread, and wanted to defend the AFA because 'justice'.
My first post on this thread was directed at you:
One of the biggest problems a society finds over hate speech is that once someone or some group is accused of hate speech, rightly or wrongly its becomes acceptable to use hate speech against them. All too often the rights of the accused are trampled over in the expedience of a little schadenfreude. Frankly its more damaging than the original movement being targeted, in fact most hate agendas stem from an assumption of hate and the consequent belief that one doesn't have to keep to any moral standards in opposing it.
At least in the US there is protection, protection in theory also exists in the UK, but it is quickly diminishing, people are accused of being extremeists and extremism is sanctioned against them.
You yourself have fallen into this trap here.
I posted because of the reasons above. It was not because of Christianity per se, but because I can see how societal labeling is divisive, distressing and dangerous and do not like for peoples to be labeled without good cause.
I follow a Christian blogger (and the greater network of Christian bloggers he is part of) who regularly dismantle and attack statements made by the AFA. I wasn't aware they were listed as a hate group by the SPLC before this thread, but I knew they were an extremely hateful organisation.
And that, I think, is a massive part of the problem. Lots of people, and you especially, came in to this with little knowledge, but a strong opinion.
Laughable ignorant hypocrisy from you there sebster. You started this thread with a rant about Fischers theology that was very skewed because it pleased you more to assume Fischer believed in an evil petulant God.
Are you are seriously dumb enough to believe that just because there is a published 'List' of undesirable organisations then the list must therefore be valid and developed with 'care and accuracy'? If so you would have made an excellent NKVD officer, or a henchman for one of Sulla' pogroms.
That's nothing to do with what I stated, and is just hopelessly lazy nonsense on your part. I have not, at any point, said that the list must include only hate groups simply because it was claimed to be completed with care and accuracy.
No sebster, its as far comment on what you wrote, and I quoted your properly, you overlooked that somehow. So here it is again:
It's an action that only has meaning as long as that list has meaning.... which requires that that list holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled.
You were still accepting the SPLC's definitions flatly, even when refuted as unsound by Pentagon sources. And was shown to be not accompanied by any evidence that would be considered a hate crime by accountable, accredited law enforcement organisations in the US.
I have said that, in my experience, the organisations listed on the SPLC list have been shown to all be deserving of their place, and if that wasn't true then I'm sure someone should be able to pick out an organisation that shouldn't be on there.
I was able to pick out one organisation that shouldn't be on the list, the AFA. More importantly the Pentagon officials came to a similar conclusion according to their own criteria.
In response, you've said you aren't aware of any organisation that shouldn't be on there and aren't going to attempt to find any, but you're just sure there must be some that shouldn't be.
Rubbish. The AFA shouldn't be on there, for the reasons state several times above. I did say I wasn't interested in looking for any more, because there was not point doing so because one example was enough to question the judgement of the SPLC. Also I did not in any way imply I was sure there would be others, only that as the SPLC Hate Group list was demonsteably unsound and thus it should be reviewed comprehensively in case there are other groups unfairly labeled, a significant difference.
As the SPLC doesnt distinguish on its lists between groups that hang people in trees because they are black and those who don't like that homosexuality is now far more outwardly profiled than it used to be.
Actually, they distinguish between different types of hate groups, and for each group they state the behaviour that caused them to put the group on their list. Stop making up nonsense.
I am not making up nonsense, you are. The AFA is not a different type of hate group, its not a hate group as it doesn't promote or encourage hate crime.
The SPLC should have distinguished between groups that encourage haste crime and groups that the SPLC doesnt like what they say. Had they dont so they would have retained their credibility
By they way have you pointed out which groups should or should not be there, because you have been quite content to call them all unequivocably as "extremist hate mongers" just for being on the list.
Umm, my position is that all of the groups listed meet the SPLC criteria. And did you note how I went and got multiple hateful things stated by Bryan Fischer, to establish why that group is on the list?
I did indeed note. One quote was a religous comment that could be explained as something other than hate speech. The rest of the comments were non relgious and did not match up with known AFA policy. Fischers anti-Hispanic racist comments are regrettable, but they are not AFA comments, they are Fischers comments. There is no evidence to suggest the AFA has a racist anti-Hispanic policy. Also there is no evidence of a AFA policy on AIDS denial, they are purely Fischers comments.
The only AFA related message you quoted was on the Connecticut school massacre and the regret that corporate prayer was removed, Fischers comments on the subject were innocent and can be folowed theologically.
Which is kind of sad because of what a little research turns up.
Except, of course, that its been very little research, and that effort took multiple requests from me before anyone bothered at all. And even then consisted of someone mentioning an organisation that they kind of like, without any effort to contradict why the SPLC listed them, and your effort of linking to the AFA main page...
Enough research was done. FBI definitions of hate crime were provided on the thread. The SPLC 'evidence' on their own website was compared to it, and found wanting.
Links to the Pentagon rebuttal was provided earlier, and I linked to the AFA website and provided opportunity for people reading the thrdad to quote nad link any evidence of hate speech that could find. None was found.
...and a really weird effort to rationalise one of the multiple bits of hate speach by Fischer.
So if you want to call that enough evidence... well it's probably a good indication of why your position on this issue has been so ridiculous.
And there you go. You started with a rant about 'Fischer worshipping an evil petulant God', which says far more about your extremist views than Fischers.
A clear and fair attempt was made to walk through the relevant theology with you, which is as old as the Old Testament and understood by Jews and Christians like for millenia.
Fischer's comments on this occassion were shown to not be hate speech when looked at in the theological milieu he professes to believe in, thus making his comments internally fair and consistent. However your dismissive rejection of this without explanation, both then and when I made a second attempt to explain the theology highlights you own lack of objectivity.
Frankly there is no point in trying to debate that issue any further with you, if an internally consistent plain theological approach is written off as a 'really wierd effort to rationalise' then it is only because your mind is closed to anything that challenges your desire to hate religion.
You are in no position to talk about Hate Speech in anyone else.
Sebster, if an official in the US army acts on this own authority while in uniform doing the job he was asked to do he is still representing the US Army in an official capacity. The fact that he was quickly corrected which is the higher ups establishing their position, that was the system of seniority and control working.
You are choosing to forget that the officer concerned was a supervisory instructor, authorised to teach in the fields concerned and those he taught were in effect under his orders, because funnily enough enough, soldiers are expected to do what they are taught to do in training, not just take it as someone elses opinion.
I'm not choosing to forget it, I simply understand that a system exists even when a person acts outside that system, but is quickly corrected by higher ups. If a teacher gives a lesson on history and uses some alternate textboook she found that tells a story that differs from the official curriculum... and this is identified and corrected... the education system still works. We wouldn't have a big freak out and insist that it is 'dangerous' for alternate textbooks to exist.
This should be fething obvious.
The system worked properly when the SPLC's input into it was formally discredited and removed from the equation.
The trainer did not act outside the system, he was an appointed trainer working in the system acting on his appointed task, he however imported spurious SPLC teaching material from outside the system, and it appears that an Army Chaplain performed his duties by helping challenge and oppose the incorrect teaching, followed up by input from more senior staff.
sebster wrote: So you're not going to defend them, but you are going to criticise another group for attacking them.
Yes. I'm not going to defend them as an organization that I'd want to belong to, but I will defend them from attacks of being a hate group, which they clearly are not.
d-usa wrote: It's the scale that the government uses.
Allegedly.
They just call it the Kanluwen Scale to sound hip.
No. Because not all of the criteria need be met - including the part about "hate" - for Kanluwen to declare an organization a hate group.
As long as you can tick one of those seven boxes, you can be declared a hate group using the Kanluwen Scale. It's really quite progressive.
Declaring that gay people should be thrown in prison (or possibly just executed) = legitimate free speech.
Calling an organization saying that gay people should be thrown in prison a hate group = dangerous abuse.
Claiming that your spiteful bully of a "god" lets children be massacred as punishment for banning mandatory prayer in schools = sensible traditional theology.
Pointing out the sheer absurdity and evil of this belief = dangerous extremism.
cadbren wrote: Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.
Clearly you do not understand logic.
No, he's right. If this is what the FBI uses to help figure out if an action was caused by a "hate group" then it is. There are plenty of examples of groups that fit the profile of a hate group, and aren't white. The New Black Panthers probably being the most obvious.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure I believe that the list that Kanluwen brought up is an FBI thing. If my 12 years in the FedGov has taught me anything, labeling anything a specific color is a fast way to make bad things happen.
No, he's wrong, and so are you.
Anti-government militia members are mostly white men =/= white men are mostly anti-government militia members.
Anti-government militias are identified by their being militias that are anti-government, not by their racial make-up. It happens that their racial make-up is predominantly white, and a number of them are also racist (Aryan Nation, etc.)
cadbren wrote: Who decides that latter part though? You can believe in crazy radical stuff and not be dangerous except to another ideology. The crazy radical stuff is also subjective, it depends on where you stand with your own ideologies.
You as an individual get to decide that for yourself. Possibly if you're really interested you could create a not-for-profit organisation of your own, and can issue press releases about what groups you think are hate groups. In turn other private individuals can look in to your work and decide how much, if at all, your research and findings should sway their own opinion.
Those two descriptions are only splitting hairs because the audience is only allowed to choose between believing a group is nuts and believing a group is evil. How about the group in question has a different set of beliefs that do not affect people outside the group and don't pose a threat to those outside the group.
Wait, what? How are you concluding that?
The logic I'm seeing here is that anti-abortion activists threaten to kill doctors etc so they're classified as haters. A moderate group like the AFA also oppose abortion so they must be haters too.
Mary hates apples. John hates apples. John is Mary. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
But none of that is true because there are lots of groups that argue against abortion and gay rights who aren't classified hate groups. The difference is in how you do it. If you just want to say 'we oppose the acceptance of homosexuality and believe Christian faith requires the rejection of gay marriage' and stuff like that then you're not a hate group. But if you tell lies and peddle false science, it's a different matter. That's why the AFA has been called a hate group.
Orlanth wrote: Sebster, it should be obvious that to inform law enforcement agencies of the activities of groups the SPLC is monitoring is to suggest that criminal activities are taking place.
Law enforcement is not interested if they are being made aware that a group member likes pistachio ice cream, or drives a blue car, or has two kids; they are only interested in potential crime threats or evidence of crimes.
That's right. Potential. "You should look in to these guys, they might be up to something" is quite different from "arrest those people, they are criminals".
I studied the SPLC website before posting anything about them.
There was government action, right up until superiors in the US military overturned such action. It is delusional to now claim otherwise.
As long as we squint hard enough to pretend some guy using an unauthorised source for a powerpoint slide is "government action".
The SPLC is a dogmatised lobby group run by lawyers, not a volunteer tutorial group, such groups can be very persuasive for reasons other than merit of argument.
We cannot let these people speak, for they will use their magic lawyer words.
You call it ridiculous as a tool to avoid actually dealing with the evidence provided. I looked at the evidence on the SPLC website , found the SPLC's case against the AFA to be unfair, based on the logical evidence as to what quantifies Hate Crime according to accountable accredited law enforcement organisations like the FBI.
You were claiming that the SPLC were somehow dangerous, despite having no power other than the ability to release press statements available to any citizen. I laughed at this. In defence, you then claim that they are dangerous, because you don't believe the AFA is really a hate group.
That's a fail, because what you actually had to do was explain why the SPLC was dangerous. So far two possible answers have been given, hypnotism and magic lawyer words, and while both were given by me, they remain the only attempt at substantiating exactly what is dangerous about a private organisation issuing a statement of groups they believe to be hate groups.
My comments are not 'fething stupid', they are logical;
Nah, what you're attempted to argue here has been completely ridiculous, and the words I've used to describe it are appropriate. If you don't like those descriptions, post more sensible arguments.
A quick look at the AFA webpage reveals that they are involved in legal lobbying for other issues also, there is a major focus on anti-pornography, family values and the rights of persecuted Christians worldwide. Now it is possible, in fact likely that the media in the US focuses on reporting their opinions on homosexuality, however this is far from the only thing they advocate about.
Once again you're relying on the webpage rather than the actual activities of the organisation.
And I have no idea how the organisation is reported in the major media outlets, but I suspect the answer is 'not at all'. My experience with them has been entirely through Christian bloggers.
Also its unfair for you to call AFa comments a 'constant stream of lies', if the AFA people you quote believe what they say they aren't lying and you have provided no evidence that they do not.
McDonalds believes it when they issue press releases about how they're helping combat obesity, but we don't actually let the ability of one marketing person to delude themselves define what is and isn't a lie.
They claim stuff that is plainly and clearly factually wrong (homosexuals are paedophiles). They interpret scientific findings so wrongly that it's almost comical, and pass on the findings of other studies that are so contrived its incredible. You can go off on a weird rant and insist that has to be called something other than lies if you want, but it is what it is.
Well they ought to be focused on hate crime related speech or publication, if they want to define the groups concerned as Hate Groups.
No, because there's nothing anywhere in the world but inside your head that says hate groups must partake in hate crime.
Had the SPLC remained content to debate or critique comments by the AFA they would be countering free speech with free speech. However instead they try to set a standard definition of the AFA based on spurious values that unfairly labels them and leaves them open to discrimination from any organisation or individual hoodwinked into following the SPLC's definition.
This directly resulted at least one case of discrimination against the AFA, briefly by official US Army personnel until the damage was countered by a policy clarification by more senior staff.
Yes, and in time I hope we can all move past the time that an army officer used a powerpoint slide and was quickly corrected by senior officials. Until then, I only hope we can all be brave.
There is no excuse to say anything remotely comperable about the AFA, at least from evidence the SPLC has provided.
It is unreasonable and unfair to suggest that the AFA's own website should be dismissed as evidence about their activities on the expedient that the SPLC has labeled them.
A website should always be dismissed when direct evidence is available. As a large amount of evidence of comments issued by the AFA which is nothing more than hate speach has been provided...
Except it has happened, the Pentagon had to sort it out, and that is the reality.
And now a powerpoint slide is being defined as demogoguery, and this whole exercise just gets sillier with every post.
The SPLC listed the AFA as a Hate Group alongside such groups as the KKK and neo-Nazis. That is one huge big label, especially as no weighting was given to the groupings, so it is strongly implied that there is a moral similarity between the AFA and Nazis.
"Once again, Joe's Fish Shack and IBM are both companies, therefore they are the same" is totally fething bonkers. People don't think like that.
Again try not to swear, it hurts what little argument you attempt to provide.
Nah, feth that. I'll swear as long as you keep making argument that fething nuts.
At least you admit the discrimination occurred, and that it was as a result of the SPLC information, that's a start.
I admit? It was a powerpoint presentation that was quickly shut down. If that's the biggest problem you can come up with then that's incredible. The Tellytubbies left more suffering in their wake than that.
The SPLC has the First Amendment right to continue to call the AFA a Hate Group, but if they do logical and fair minded people can and should consider the SPLC's judgement to be tainted.
Sure... if logical and fair minded see the actions of the AFA and think the organisation is anything other than a hate group. Which is all I've been saying.
The problem with your grand theory is, of course, that to anyone not desperate to defend any group that calls itself Christian, the bahavious of the AFA can't be seen as anything other than hate.
Laughable ignorant hypocrisy from you there sebster.
Uh huh. I point I was aware of an organisation for a long time before this thread, and you call that ignorant. And so we take another step away from the place where words have meaning, and closer to the world inside Orlanth's head.
No sebster, its as far comment on what you wrote, and I quoted your properly, you overlooked that somehow. So here it is again:
It's an action that only has meaning as long as that list has meaning.... which requires that that list holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled.
Read, reading comprehension fail on your part.
Do you understand what 'as long as' means? It means the first part is only true if the second part is. So, the action of putting the organisation on the list is only meaningful, as long as the list is assembled with care and accuracy. In other words, if the list is incorrect and/or lacking evidence, then it will have little impact. But if it is accurate and well sourced, then the impact it has will be a good thing.
To which you responded with some nonsense about how I would have made a good officer in the NKVD.
You were still accepting the SPLC's definitions flatly, even when refuted as unsound by Pentagon sources.
And now you're just making stuff up. The Pentagon didn't refute the SPLC as unsound. It said 'that's not an army source and doesn't reflect army doctrine'.
It amazes me that you'll spend so much time typing post after post, and have never bothered to get the basic facts of the situation right.
And was shown to be not accompanied by any evidence that would be considered a hate crime by accountable, accredited law enforcement organisations in the US.
And now you're back to just repeating the claim that an organisation can only be a hate group if it commits hate crimes. Sigh.
I was able to pick out one organisation that shouldn't be on the list, the AFA.
Yeah, that'd be an argument if your effort so far hadn't been a link to their website and a steadfast effort to not comment on any of the direct quotes linked to in this thread.
More importantly the Pentagon officials came to a similar conclusion according to their own criteria.
"You reckon Garry Sobers was the greatest cricketer of all time but Wisden said it was, therefore you are wrong and all your opinions on cricket must be rejected."
I am not making up nonsense, you are. The AFA is not a different type of hate group, its not a hate group as it doesn't promote or encourage hate crime.
You're not even following your own quote and my reply any more... You said the AFA wasn't distinguished from groups that hang black people in trees, and I said they were, because the AFA is under one group, Christian extremists, and the KKK and other groups are under white supremacists.
And to that you reply 'they're not a hate group'. That doesn't make sense, if you're going to keep doing this take the time to figure out what is being discussed in each quote block.
The SPLC should have distinguished between groups that encourage haste crime and groups that the SPLC doesnt like what they say. Had they dont so they would have retained their credibility
They state quite plainly exactly why they find the AFA to be a hate group;
"Initially founded as the National Federation for Decency, the American Family Association (AFA) originally focused on what it considered indecent television programming and pornography. The AFA says it promotes "traditional moral values" in media. A large part of that work involves "combating the homosexual agenda" through various means, including publicizing companies that have pro-gay policies and organizing boycotts against them."
I did indeed note. One quote was a religous comment that could be explained as something other than hate speech. The rest of the comments were non relgious and did not match up with known AFA policy. Fischers anti-Hispanic racist comments are regrettable, but they are not AFA comments, they are Fischers comments. There is no evidence to suggest the AFA has a racist anti-Hispanic policy. Also there is no evidence of a AFA policy on AIDS denial, they are purely Fischers comments.
Okay, so as long as statements made by a spokesman through official AFA means don't count, then.
Enough research was done. FBI definitions of hate crime were provided on the thread.
WHich only count if we accept that a group can only be a hate group by committing hate crime.
The SPLC 'evidence' on their own website was compared to it, and found wanting.
Only if we believe that the AFA's website, and not their actions are the important determinant factors.
The system worked properly when the SPLC's input into it was formally discredited and removed from the equation.
Formally discredited? You live in a fantasy world. Stating that it is not an army source and not army doctrine isn't formally discrediting the SPLC. It's saying "we don't use them as a source".
So many, many pages, typed over so long, and you just have no idea about the basics of this. It's incredible.
Sebster, there is no point trying to reason with you further.
The bottom line is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that the AFA has do anything to encourage discriminatory acts against LGBT people, if they cross that line then they cross the line, up until then they are expressing the right to profess an opinion different from you, me anyone else including the SPLC.
What the SPLC are doing is to label the AFA as the equivalent to Nazi or the KKK, without providing evidence of any violent act and proliferating this idea through 'education' of public officials so they also follow this doctrine and discriminate against the AFA through ostracism.
If you cant tell the difference between someone who doesn't like the proliferation of LGBT culture and doesn't like the lack of prayer in schools with a Nazi or KKK member then there is no hope for you. The AFA are for all the evidence gathered against them harmless, they are not the equivalent to Nazis and it is wrong to categorise them as such, especially if that soiled opinion is going to attempted to be fostered onto government agencies.
That's right. Potential. "You should look in to these guys, they might be up to something" is quite different from "arrest those people, they are criminals".
They have been around since 1977 preaching for Biblical moral values peacably. Nothing has changed in that time except that some of their views have become unacceptable to some. Still they preach no violence, no discrimination, no lawbreaking.
There is no more potential than any other peaceful group. If there was a hate agenda it would have shown through their rhetoic by now. Howewver theSPLC and you want them watched like they were a neo-Nazi group with a track record of violence.
If the FBI haven't put them on a watch list yet, let them be.
We cannot let these people speak, for they will use their magic lawyer words.
Its not like that at all, don't put words in my mouth. I said there might be ways to convince people other than weight of argument.
Politically correct training works differently than that. Often and I have witnessed this personally in the UK where this sort of 'training' is more prevalent. You accept the training offered or you fail the training assessment, also if you don't accept the teaching you must have something to hide. Perhaps you don't want to accept your teaching that group x is bad, so are you a bigot too? We don't like to employ bigots.
I don't know if this is what happened, but it is a genuine danger.
In the vase we were exposed to it got serious enough that the Army Chaplain stepped in.
What we do know is that the SPLC has as its core proficiencies 'fighting hate' and 'teaching tolerance'. Political correct 'tolerance' often is anything but, I remember being taught tolerance by government paid lunatic fringe equal opportunities trainers. Part of the doctrines that had to be agreed to lest I fail my 'equal opportunities course was that black people could not be racist because blacks were a poltical minority, likewise females cannot be sexist. You can only be sexist or racist if you are part of the political majority, i.e white or male. Admittedly these were extreme cases, but dogmatised training can get really off key, particularly when the hard left gets involved.
Now I have no evidence that the SPLC is that dogmatic, but they flatly equate the AFA to murderous groups like the KKK, which is so openly preposterous so I have reasons to consider their doctrines suspect, as have the Pentagon.
Only if we believe that the AFA's website, and not their actions are the important determinant factors.
Except that even the SPLC has no comment on their actions, as they take none, not any of any concern to civil rights groups or law enforcement officials.
The AFA makes comments the SPLC doesn't like, they should get over it. If the SPLC wants to continue to watch the AFA in case they encourage discriminatory action fair enough, if they do they can scream and ring alarm bells. Until then leave them alone.
cadbren wrote: Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.
Clearly you do not understand logic.
No, he's right. If this is what the FBI uses to help figure out if an action was caused by a "hate group" then it is. There are plenty of examples of groups that fit the profile of a hate group, and aren't white. The New Black Panthers probably being the most obvious.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure I believe that the list that Kanluwen brought up is an FBI thing. If my 12 years in the FedGov has taught me anything, labeling anything a specific color is a fast way to make bad things happen.
No, he's wrong, and so are you.
Anti-government militia members are mostly white men =/= white men are mostly anti-government militia members.
Anti-government militias are identified by their being militias that are anti-government, not by their racial make-up. It happens that their racial make-up is predominantly white, and a number of them are also racist (Aryan Nation, etc.)
Then the Oathkeepers, being not a militia (even with their order to form "community support cells), and if you actually read their material, not anti-government, still don't qualify.
Aryan Nations is also not considered a militia movement and is properly identified as a terrorist organization in it's three branches (per the FBI). Most large white supremacist organizations in the United States are also not considered militias or part of the militia movement. Aryan Brotherhood and Hammerskin Nation being two of the largest, are properly identified as organized crime endeavors, as well as being actual hate groups. I'd also love to see you prove the bolded portion of your post. Based on the militia guys I talked to in Arizona, it seems to me that men of all races (and women too) like dressing up in camouflage, playing soldiers and buying fun toys like guns and being "part of the team" as a militia member. Which is really what the militias and things like the Appleseed program are about. It's a hobby. Do these people have some strong feelings about how the U.S. government is going wrong? Damn skippy. But that's hardly insane and dangerous, and if just training up military skills make you dangerous it's probably best to start locking up veterans, kids on airsoft teams and WW2 reenactors for the good of society as well.
Hell spit, remember the cop talk in that other thread? The Nuremburg defense came up in detail? Same gak here man, that's the Oathkeeper's goal. To remind and educate the military that if an unlawful order comes up you tell them where they can shove it. They also came out hard for Mr. Snowden who DID do the right thing and is getting hunted for it. As far as problems in this country go, Oathkeepers should be low on our priority list.
Claiming that your spiteful bully of a "god" lets children be massacred as punishment for banning mandatory prayer in schools = sensible traditional theology.
Pointing out the sheer absurdity and evil of this belief = dangerous extremism.
Makes a lot of sense to me...
Except Peregrine as explained earlier God didn't punish the school for banning collective prayer, that wasn't what I was saying, it wasn't what Fischer was saying, it is what you are saying, and demanding that comes from our mouths because its easier to discredit than what was actually said.
Pointing out that you would prefer to twist the words of others to something they are clearly not even after they are rationally explained to you is highlighting your own dangerous extremism.
As for the AFA wants to 'imprison all gays' comment. sadly Fischer did make a statement confirming this, and I do not approve, however he is referring to a change in the law not a unilateral demand to imprison, let alone kill gays. In fact even Fischer makes no comments that gays should be killed legally or extralegally , only Peregrine does, but I suppose if you want to smear someone why not go the whole hog.
Fischer can call for legislators to pass any law he pleases, and that is fair use of free speech. He could quite legally and peacably call for elected representatives to do any manner of things from say kicking out all Buddhists to banning porridge. Has he any chance of getting his way in Congress or State Legislatures, only you can decide that.
It only ever becomes a problem when he advocates for gays to be locked up by extrajudicial means.
On the flipside there are people who want western governments to impose Islamic law, ban religion and do all manner of things that many would find extremely disagreeable, we have to trust to the people to encourage thier elected representatives to say no to all these things. However a Moslem or atheist extremist who asks for this legislation from their elected representatives is in thier right to do so. Their elected representatives have every right to also tell them 'no'.
There is no problem, the AFA doesn't need policing or placing on any Hate list, they are a peaceful group operating entirely within the letter and spirit of the law. They are in no way obliged to seek approval from Peregrines, sebsters or the SPLC for their opinions; and its time you understood that..
Then the Oathkeepers, being not a militia (even with their order to form "community support cells), and if you actually read their material, not anti-government, still don't qualify.
If you read their material they think that the US Federal government wants to have foreign troops stationed in the US to impose martial law on US citizens, round up Americans and put them into detention camps, ban all firearms, and turn cities into concentration camps. They also constantly refer to the 'New World Order'. That is tinfoil hat land, and it certainly falls under anti-goverment rhetoric.
Then the Oathkeepers, being not a militia (even with their order to form "community support cells), and if you actually read their material, not anti-government, still don't qualify.
If you read their material they think that the US Federal government wants to have foreign troops stationed in the US to impose martial law on US citizens, round up Americans and put them into detention camps, ban all firearms, and turn cities into concentration camps. They also constantly refer to the 'New World Order'. That is tinfoil hat land, and it certainly falls under anti-goverment rhetoric.
Careful when you say tin foil hat land. That usually means Snowden then reveals its actually real...
Orlanth wrote: If you cant tell the difference between someone who doesn't like the proliferation of LGBT culture and doesn't like the lack of prayer in schools with a Nazi or KKK member then there is no hope for you.
Yeah, let's just keep ignoring their leader's call for all gay people to be thrown in prison...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Except Peregrine as explained earlier God didn't punish the school for banning collective prayer, that wasn't what I was saying, it wasn't what Fischer was saying, it is what you are saying, and demanding that comes from our mouths because its easier to discredit than what was actually said.
No, that's not it at all. What I said is an accurate explanation. The fact that religious people have managed to put a flimsy pretense of legitimacy or some pretty theological terms on it doesn't change the core issues involved. And your entire argument otherwise was a dismal failure.
As for the AFA wants to 'imprison all gays' comment. sadly Fischer did make a statement confirming this, and I do not approve, however he is referring to a change in the law not a unilateral demand to imprison, let alone kill gays. In fact even Fischer makes no comments that gays should be killed legally or extralegally , only Peregrine does, but I suppose if you want to smear someone why not go the whole hog.
Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that he's approving of a law that DID say "kill them all" until massive international outrage got them to change it to merely throwing them in prison. Given the absence of any comment like "death penalty finally removed, this is how it should be done" it's a pretty safe bet that he wasn't too troubled by the history of the law when he made that statement approving of it.
Also, "but he just wants to make it legal" is a pretty pathetic defense. The Nazis passed laws making their extermination programs completely legal, but that doesn't make them any less horrifyingly evil.
Fischer can call for legislators to pass any law he pleases, and that is fair use of free speech.
Nobody is disputing that. What we have a problem with is your absurd argument that people aren't allowed to use their right to free speech to label something a "hate group" unless they've met your arbitrary rules for when you're allowed to issue labels. Fischer can make his proposals, and the rest of us can call him a hateful bigot. That's how the system works.
On the flipside there are people who want western governments to impose Islamic law, ban religion and do all manner of things that many would find extremely disagreeable, we have to trust to the people to encourage thier elected representatives to say no to all these things.
And what's your point? I'd have no problem with an organization being labeled a hate group if they were arguing for laws banning religion and throwing people in prison if they dare to believe in a god.
There is no problem, the AFA doesn't need policing or placing on any Hate list, they are a peaceful group operating entirely within the letter and spirit of the law. They are in no way obliged to seek approval from Peregrines, sebsters or the SPLC for their opinions; and its time you understood that..
So why exactly is the SPLC obliged to seek your approval before calling s like the AFA a hate group?
s) is allowed to speak without censorship, there is any realistic chance of making it illegal to oppose homosexuality? Or is this just more of the conservative-christian martyrdom thing?
