US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'

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.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

1. Sunni muslims
Wiki: total population 87% sunni of 1.4bn muslims: 1.2bn at 2010

Ok, but I previously noted that the original document only referenced Sunni Muslims presently residing in Iraq. So, that's about 10 million people.

Frazzled wrote:

2. Catholics worldwide:
wiki: 1.2bn at 2011

The document also only noted Catholics presently residing in the US, so less than 76 million.

That's hardly ~33% of the global population.

**-Shrike-**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

1. Sunni muslims
Wiki: total population 87% sunni of 1.4bn muslims: 1.2bn at 2010

Ok, but I previously noted that the original document only referenced Sunni Muslims presently residing in Iraq. So, that's about 10 million people.

Frazzled wrote:

2. Catholics worldwide:
wiki: 1.2bn at 2011

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.

**Frazzled**

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?

**-Shrike-**

Frazzled wrote:
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?

Hey! I'm only a quarter Irish!

**dogma**

-Shrike- wrote:

Care to explain what the difference is between a Catholic living in the US and one living in England?

They go to different churches, which may or may not have different views regarding Catholic doctrine and the associated politics.

-Shrike- wrote:

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.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:

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.

**Kovnik Obama**

cadbren wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
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.

**cadbren**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

**-Shrike-**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
cadbren wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
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?

**Kovnik Obama**

cadbren wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

-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?

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!

**Orlanth**

Peregrine wrote:
[

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.

**Kovnik Obama**

Orlanth wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
[

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.

**cadbren**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

**Kovnik Obama**

cadbren wrote:

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.

**feeder**

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.

**Orlanth**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

**Kovnik Obama**

Orlanth wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

reds8n wrote:

Please tell me that image is a horribly late April Fools stunt

reds8n wrote:
Not sure, and the story is a few months old so data is scattered.

Looks like the whole show can be seen online

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ExtremismPresentation.pdf

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

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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

**Dreadclaw69**

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

**Ouze**

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.

**xole**

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?

**SilverMK2**

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.

**pgmason**

@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!

**Ouze**

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.

**Frazzled**

-Shrike- wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
cadbren wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
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?

Our food doesn't suck.

**SilverMK2**

-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?

All the guns

**master of ordinance**

motyak wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
CptJake wrote:
master of ordinance wrote:
Christers being persecuted? Sounds like sweet, sweet, Karmic justice to me.

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.

**motyak**

master of ordinance wrote:
motyak wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
CptJake wrote:
master of ordinance wrote:
Christers being persecuted? Sounds like sweet, sweet, Karmic justice to me.

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.