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.

**SilverMK2**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**cadbren**

SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

**Ouze**

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.

Bryan Fisher, of course, is with the AFA. http://www.afa.net/detail.aspx?id=2147486648

cadbren wrote:
They are also not a gay hate group.

This was a law that punished homosexuality with death.

They also claimed that homosexuality was the driving force behind, seriously, the Nazis and Hitler.

http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147494882

If you don't see that as gay hate, then you have a definition of hate so far outside the norm I don't believe we can have a productive conversation.

**reds8n**

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

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.

And he's not an extremist ?!

**whitedragon**

cadbren wrote:

Frankly there has been a lot of lies posted in this thread about the AFA.

Are you Bryan Fischer? Be honest.

**generalgrog**

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

**Kanluwen**

generalgrog wrote:
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.

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?

**generalgrog**

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

**Kanluwen**

You need to stop thinking in terms of "liberals" and start understanding "rational".

**reds8n**

generalgrog wrote:

I'm not trying to defend Fischer,

Yes, you are.

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.

Oh and the USA Constituition too.

**generalgrog**

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

**reds8n**

.. * 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.

**Kilkrazy**

Christians are of course absolutely free to believe that homosexuality is a sin and they should not do it.

That isn't the same as trying to stop other people from doing it.

**cadbren**

Ouze wrote:
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.

Bryan Fisher, of course, is with the AFA. http://www.afa.net/detail.aspx?id=2147486648

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.

**Kilkrazy**

It isn't illegal to oppose homosexuality.

**dogma**

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

Nor is the stated purpose of SPLC to make it so.

**Kilkrazy**

Nor could they if they wanted to, since they are not the government.

In fact I don't think the government could do it either, due to 1st Amendment.

**Ouze**

But remember, the AFA is not a hate group! As long as you consciously avoid reading all evidence that it is, you too can be confident.

**generalgrog**

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

Not yet.

GG

**Peregrine**

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?

**generalgrog**

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

**Jihadin**

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"

**Ouze**

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.

**Jihadin**

I had one blow up during a EO briefing/class.

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?"

**Peregrine**

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**

In the UK you can preach against homosexuality in your church, but not in the market place if someone finds it offensive.

To be fair to generalgrog, it was illegal to be homosexual 40 years ago, and that changed.

**SilverMK2**

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.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

**Seaward**

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.

**SilverMK2**

Seaward wrote:
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...