Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

cadbren wrote:
Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups.
It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.
Looking at a lot of their interpretations of who is a hate group I'd have to say that the SPLC are a hate group themselves.
They use the internet, publications, speeches etc to fearmonger about various groups who in themselves actually pose no threat to others.
A large part of those they consider hate groups are groups that have spoken out against homosexual marriage and adoption - ie expressing an opinion, something you're supposed to be able to do in a free society.

What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group? That question has not been answered adequately yet. They oppose various pro-homosexual laws and are similarly opposed to granting more, but that is hardly reason to consider them a threat to wider society.

cadbren wins the thread.........

This case is an example of PC gone awry, where opinions in a free society, have become classified as hate. I don't know if this type of thing will remain a fad. I pray that people wake up and come to the realization that this type of stuff is a modern day "nazi" style brainwash.

And by the way.it's well known that high ranking Nazis were homosexuals. They persecuted a certain classification of homosexual, basically the efeminant homosexuals were not well liked by the "manly" homosexuals who were running certain aspects of the nazi system.

GG

 sebster wrote:

You, like others before you, have confused the SPLC releasing a report with censorship. It's a ridiculous leap to make, and made simply because you dislike criticism of 'your team', and so want to shut down such criticism, while knowing full well you can't actually defend organisations like the AFA and FRC.

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?

 sebster wrote:

There was one. Killed in the Night of Long Knives, and so attempting to use that to describe the Nazi leadership as a whole is extremely silly. Meanwhile large numbers of homosexuals were rounded up and sent to camps, and for simply being, or believed to be homosexual, with no test undertaken for how effeminate they might have been.

Your statement above is the most ridiculous nonsense. fething absurd revisionism, and to be perfectly honest it says a lot about you that you'd ever give such nonsense the time of day.

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.


text deleted.

Reds8n

Talk about a broad brush...

That list is a perfect example of such. You have evangelical Christianity and Al queda on the same list? Wow.

GG

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Sorry to say this fraz, but it isnt...

So what do you consider "an extreme fringe" of Christianity?

GG

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Sorry to say this fraz, but it isnt...

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.

GG

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-gop-s-favorite-hate-monger-how-the-republican-party-came-to-embrace-bryan-fischer#racism

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.

GG

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.

GG

 reds8n wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:



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... :-)

GG

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't illegal to oppose homosexuality.

Not yet.

GG

 Peregrine wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't illegal to oppose homosexuality.

Not yet.

GG

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.

See this article.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56336

------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


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.

GG

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.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Negro-W-E-B-Du-Bois/dp/1602068143


It's just semantics dude...chill

GG

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

GG

 Kanluwen wrote:


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.

They used to be a reputable organization.

GG

 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

 Imposter101 wrote:


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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fMwOzVIYbg

GG

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The proper term is "The Hitler"

NICE!!!

GG

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely there are plenty of paedophiles who attack girls.

.

.....That's the thing about paedophilia - it's a disconnect from normal sexual behaviour.

Wow there is something quite ironic about the quote above. Maybe you guys can figure it out.

GG

 sebster wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Wow there is something quite ironic about the quote above. Maybe you guys can figure it out.

GG

There's no irony. There are consistent patterns of sexual behaviour that persist whether you're attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex. The portion of the homosexuals that are in to older partners, younger partners, fatter partners, butch partnes, weird gak with leather and whips etc... is the same as the portions within the straight community. And people who are bi tend to look for similar sexual relations whether it is straight or homosexual sex (a bi person who is attracted to redheads in straight sexual relations will most likely look for the same thing in their homosexual relations).

But then with paedophilia that gets thrown out the window.

.

You forgot the part about how most, if not all, the above you just typed is from stuff you have read...most likely on the internet. No proof has been presented by you. You talk all the time about how people that disagree with you are reading biased info, and taking for face value what they read because it advances their world view......

Well, I think you are doing the exact thing you are so vehemently opposed to.

Edited by AgeOfEgos


GG