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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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...

Good idea. You can start acting on them when they try to do so extrajudicially.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

I provided the theology, all I got was denial. You haven't even attempted to say why I was 'wrong' you just assumed so. This is because you cant refute my argument, you dont know how, so you laugh and hope no one notices you haven't a clue what you are saying.

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.

That not true, Fischer proposes a law to criminalise homosexuality, but made no comment or attempt to impose capital punishment. Not also a confirmation that he seeks to propagate his opinions entirely through legitimate lobbying.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/fischer-there-is-no-kill-the-gays-bill-in-uganda-doesnt-exist/politics/2012/11/29/54885#.Umr7DL3D7Ss

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.

The Nazis were operating completely outside of any democracy by the time this happend, Hitler governed by decree and suspended the German parliament in IIRC 1934.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Because the classification of hate group used lacks credibility, it lumps in the AFA with the Nazis and KKK who take action against people groups they hate, the AFA peacefully lobbies.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

That would also be unfair, I would oppose such people but not lump them in with the KKK or Nazis.

 Peregrine wrote:

So why exactly is the SPLC obliged to seek your approval before calling s like the AFA a hate group?

The SPLC doesn't need my approval, but they need to be honest. The SPLC touts itself as an impartial organisation fit to be the source of formal definition of hate groups. However they are far from neutral and their standards for calculating which groups are hate groups are spurious.

Also they ought to include some weighting between violent hate groups and groups with opinions they do not like. Until they can prove that the AFA commits actos of hate or encourages others to do the same they should be left alone. This is important as if groups like the AFA can be successfully equated to the Nazis or KKK on their opinions alone how long will it be because other more moderate groups with opinions the SPLC or other far left organisations get labeled.

For the record, in fact I stated this on my first post on this thread many many pages ago, I dont like the AFA very much, and dont like what I read about Fischer at all, frankly I dont want to defend him, but in all truth he is doing nothing wrong, he has some very offensive opinions, but he is entitled to have those without fear of discrimination because there is no evidence that he actually discriminates against anyone himself.

Things are different in the UK, groups are called hate groups on far flimsier evidence than US law enforcment authorities use, and violent anti-hate group groups appear who are frequentlty far more violent than the people they oppose. You don't want to go down the same route as the UK, it will do you no good.

 Orlanth wrote:
[q

That not true, Fischer proposes a law to criminalise homosexuality, but made no comment or attempt to impose capital punishment. Not also a confirmation that he seeks to propagate his opinions entirely through legitimate lobbying.

This right here. This is hate. They don't need to call for the death of homosexuals everywhere to qualify as a hate group. The fact that they are grouping together to oppress a minority. That's why the AFA are a hating group of haters, all together in their Hate Group.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

I think the rest of your post was unnecessary, but I agree with the above.

 Orlanth wrote:

Good idea. You can start acting on them when they try to do so extrajudicially.

That is true of the state, but it isn't true of any non-state organization; which is absolved of such concerns.

Though I agree that the SPLC would be best served if it were to establish some sort of "hate scale" by which it ranked hate groups.

 Orlanth wrote:
Good idea. You can start acting on them when they try to do so extrajudicially.

So throwing all gay people in prison is ok as long as you do it within the normal legal process?

I provided the theology, all I got was denial. You haven't even attempted to say why I was 'wrong' you just assumed so. This is because you cant refute my argument, you dont know how, so you laugh and hope no one notices you haven't a clue what you are saying.

Did you somehow miss the explanations of why you're wrong? I don't really need to go back and repeat all of them just so you can have them with a "Peregrine" title next to the argument, do I?

That not true, Fischer proposes a law to criminalise homosexuality, but made no comment or attempt to impose capital punishment.

Again, you're ignoring the context of the law he was approving of.

Not also a confirmation that he seeks to propagate his opinions entirely through legitimate lobbying.

And the SPLC seeks to propagate its opinions entirely through legitimate lobbying.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/fischer-there-is-no-kill-the-gays-bill-in-uganda-doesnt-exist/politics/2012/11/29/54885#.Umr7DL3D7Ss

Did you even read that article?

Fischer is correct that the BBC has published that a Ugandan politician says the death penalty has been removed from the Kill The Gays bill, known in Uganda officially as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but the fact is that the death penalty has not been removed from the Kill The Gays bill.

So now Fischer is approving of the bill with the death penalty, whether because he agrees with it or because he doesn't bother checking his facts.

The Nazis were operating completely outside of any democracy by the time this happend, Hitler governed by decree and suspended the German parliament in IIRC 1934.

Oh, ok, so any government that isn't a democracy is no longer legitimate?

Because the classification of hate group used lacks credibility, it lumps in the AFA with the Nazis and KKK who take action against people groups they hate, the AFA peacefully lobbies.

And your point is? You're free to argue that the SPLC's list isn't a very good one. You're free to argue that another group is a more credible source on the subject of hate groups. But I don't see how you can go from that to arguing that the SPLC shouldn't be allowed to say what they're saying.

Also they ought to include some weighting between violent hate groups and groups with opinions they do not like. Until they can prove that the AFA commits actos of hate or encourages others to do the same they should be left alone. This is important as if groups like the AFA can be successfully equated to the Nazis or KKK on their opinions alone how long will it be because other more moderate groups with opinions the SPLC or other far left organisations get labeled.

So if this is how you want a list to work then why don't you make your own list of hate groups and follow that policy? It seems like your entire argument consists of "I don't like how the SPLC does it", which is far short of justifying your bizarre claim that the SPLC is a bunch of dangerous extremists who are abusing the right to free speech.

For the record, in fact I stated this on my first post on this thread many many pages ago, I dont like the AFA very much, and dont like what I read about Fischer at all, frankly I dont want to defend him, but in all truth he is doing nothing wrong, he has some very offensive opinions, but he is entitled to have those without fear of discrimination because there is no evidence that he actually discriminates against anyone himself.

So are you saying that private citizens have no right to refuse to approve of or associate with people who say things they don't like? Because that would be hilariously ironic given the AFA's involvement in promoting boycotts of "pro-gay" businesses.

Things are different in the UK, groups are called hate groups on far flimsier evidence than US law enforcment authorities use, and violent anti-hate group groups appear who are frequentlty far more violent than the people they oppose. You don't want to go down the same route as the UK, it will do you no good.

You do realize that the SPLC is not a government organization, right? When even the KKK is permitted to speak freely without government interference I don't think you have anything close to a credible argument that this slippery slope is anything but a paranoid fantasy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Good idea. You can start acting on them when they try to do so extrajudicially.

So throwing all gay people in prison is ok as long as you do it within the normal legal process?

You can throw any group of people in prison if you do so in the normal legal process. There is nothing to be worried about here unless you think Fischer has any chance of getting his proposed bill passed.

 Peregrine wrote:

I provided the theology, all I got was denial. You haven't even attempted to say why I was 'wrong' you just assumed so. This is because you cant refute my argument, you dont know how, so you laugh and hope no one notices you haven't a clue what you are saying.

Did you somehow miss the explanations of why you're wrong? I don't really need to go back and repeat all of them just so you can have them with a "Peregrine" title next to the argument, do I?

You didn't present an arguement, you stated a false premise of what prayer is and how it works from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in it and assumed it was the thinking of someone who does. In doing so you flatly refused to look at how a believer would see the theology of prayer and as Fischer professes to be a believer if you want to see his motives that is how the concept should be viewed. The 'God is a gentleman who only goes where invited' is very common in intercession theology and it flatly doesnt mean what you like to assume it does..

 Peregrine wrote:

That not true, Fischer proposes a law to criminalise homosexuality, but made no comment or attempt to impose capital punishment.

Again, you're ignoring the context of the law he was approving of.

For a start we have Fischers own claims he does not call for a death penalty for gays face up on the video in the link. If you are going to try and condemn someone on what they say then at least listen to what they say. If you are going to erase his comments that he doesn't support the death penalty, why not also ignore everything else he says and go about your business.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not also a confirmation that he seeks to propagate his opinions entirely through legitimate lobbying.

And the SPLC seeks to propagate its opinions entirely through legitimate lobbying.

Which means it is open to critique, you cant have it both ways.
Fact remains it is reprehensible that a group conducting only lobbying should be categorised alongside murderers simply because you don't like their opinion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Did you even read that article?
.

Indeed. Read through carefully, we have two seperate quotes from 'Fischer, one text one as a video saying he doesnt support a deasrth penalty and an admission from thre article (and echoed on another article that Fischer was unaware there was a death penalty clause in the Ugandan law. Fischer celebrated Uganda criminalising homosexuality not knowing that homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda.

I can see why you desperately want to be able to claim Fischer calls for the death penalty against gays, it would make your job easier. The real point to understand is that you are being completely unobjective, insisting we take the direct opposite of what someone says to condemn him, while quoting him at other times. This lack of onjectivity means you are a completely unjust and unsound critic.

 Peregrine wrote:

So now Fischer is approving of the bill with the death penalty, whether because he agrees with it or because he doesn't bother checking his facts..

Not at all. If you check his supporting statement of the Ugandan bill he assumed Uganda previously had no ban on homosexuality. At no point is there any excuse to say that he supports killing gays.

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh, ok, so any government that isn't a democracy is no longer legitimate?

Not every government but every totalitarian government. If there is no mandate there is no legitimacy, we might still treat with illegitimate regimes as it suits us or if they have backers we cant oppose, but that is because the nation is considered legitimate, not the government.

 Peregrine wrote:

And your point is? You're free to argue that the SPLC's list isn't a very good one. You're free to argue that another group is a more credible source on the subject of hate groups. But I don't see how you can go from that to arguing that the SPLC shouldn't be allowed to say what they're saying.

The Hate list is propogated as an 'official list' insufficient emphasis is placed to show this is just the private opinion of a partisan organisation.
The SPLC masquerades as something it is not and that gives the list a veneer of legitimacy which is not sufficiently illuminated. So a large proportion of media groups covering the issue label the AFA as a de facto hate group rather than a Hate Group as defined by the SPLC.

It is also wrong to fail to distinguish between the AFA and Nazis or KKK.

More importantly labeling a group a hate group opens that group up to discrimination. People feel they have the right to discriminate against labeled hate groups. Also it fails to distinguish between members, almost all the accusations are leveled at a tiny handful of people, and most at one man, who is not their leader.
Perhaps you have forgotten that the AFA is an large organisation. Some 400 employees, paid and unpaid and 180,000 subscribed members (Source: Wikipedia). We have no evident whatsoever that these people are involved in hatespeech hate crimes of any kind. The AFA has a large profile with regards to 'family values'.

Now converse if you join the KKK its plain as day what they stand for from the bottom up, violent white supremacy. There is no indication the AFA is remotely similar, that the membership are active homophobes or anything else, as from their own face value their emphasis is not on imprisoning homosexuals, Fischer's is, or more likely this is the only part of Fischers work that meets mainstream press attention.

I see no excuse to condemn the entire organisation and everyone in it as a 'Hate Group', there is no evidence of hate in its core membership, its mission statement is as follows:

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.

It is fair to suggest that the vast majority of the membership wont do anything more than what is declared face up above. Yet not only are they all collectively labeled but they are labeled alongside Nazis and KKK. This is totally unacceptable.

 Peregrine wrote:

So if this is how you want a list to work then why don't you make your own list of hate groups and follow that policy? It seems like your entire argument consists of "I don't like how the SPLC does it", which is far short of justifying your bizarre claim that the SPLC is a bunch of dangerous extremists who are abusing the right to free speech.

That wouldnt help, I have been suggesting all along that a criteria for categorising Hate Groups should come from accredited, accountable public institutions, not private political pressure groups.

 Peregrine wrote:

So are you saying that private citizens have no right to refuse to approve of or associate with people who say things they don't like? Because that would be hilariously ironic given the AFA's involvement in promoting boycotts of "pro-gay" businesses.

Private citizens can but it should be clearly emphasised as a private opinion and it should not collectively label an entire group.

 Peregrine wrote:

You do realize that the SPLC is not a government organization, right?

This might explain why for several posts I have been asking for labeling of hate groups to be left to the government not the SPLC. Work it out.

 Peregrine wrote:

When even the KKK is permitted to speak freely without government interference I don't think you have anything close to a credible argument that this slippery slope is anything but a paranoid fantasy.

Not a paranoid fantasy, a clear fact. We have similar groups in the UK, but over here the bs has progressed further than in the US. Groups like Hope not Hate have moved from identifying 'Hate Groups' to actively protesting them, these protests frequently get ugly. In a recent protest against the EDL, Hope not Hate threw all the punches, and yet it was the EDL members who were arrested, because their very presence was considered 'provocative' by the police. This means that eventually even existing is a provocation.
You see what a group becomes stcukl witgh the label of 'Hate Group' its considered fair game to discriminate against them and to use Hate against them. This is counter-productive at the best of times and a travesty when dealing with individuals who are not haters. Once a group is listed as a Hate Group, there is a tendency to sanction hatred and discrimination against them. I would not like to guess how long it is until current or former AFA members get turned down for jobs, (and it wont be given as an excuse why they didn't pass selection if the employer is smart) because they are confirmed 'hate group members'. Or get roughed up in the street while cops drag their heels. Nazis arent popular in case you havnet realised, lavbeling someone as equivalent to a Nazi runs the risk of them getting the same treatment, why, because they signed up to an organisation in order to support traditional family values.

In all this Fischer this and Fischer that its too easy for some to forget the label isn't against him per say but the entire AFA, regardless of the merit of the claims.
Just recently according the AFAS website AFA members successfully lobbied for the release of an Iranian pastor from prison who was jailed for being Christian. This is what the AFA do, its likely all of what sdome of them do, yet now because of some dogmatised turkeys in Alabama they areall de facto 'haters'.

I oppose such labels because they do immense harm, they are necessary to warn about groups that are likely to harm people, and those practicing sedition. But to label an entire organisation simply because you find their rhetoric offensive is not right. The SPLC is a professional organisation and counts on that to give weight to its findings, thus it should also have some responsibility.

If someone was black and the KKK was nearby it would be fair to be informed, this might cause problems for local KKK but that is a small price because public safety comes first.
If someone was Jewish and the neo-Nazis were nearby it would be fair to be informed, this might cause problems for local Nazis but that is a small price because public safety comes first.
If someone was gay and and the AFA were nearby it would not be fair to out local members, as there is no evidence that the AFA are a threat to the safety of gays.

A sense or proportion is sorely needed, the AFA are harmless they have been around since 1977 and have no track history of hate crimes. Why stigmatise 180,000 people with the same label as those who do. That just isn't ethical practice.

 Orlanth wrote:
You can throw any group of people in prison if you do so in the normal legal process. There is nothing to be worried about here unless you think Fischer has any chance of getting his proposed bill passed.

So it's ok to throw all black people in prison as long as you pass a law through the normal legal process to do it?

And whether or not a group's agenda has any hope of happening has nothing to do with whether they're a hate group or not. The KKK has no chance of getting their demands, but that doesn't make them any less of a hate group.

You didn't present an arguement, you stated a false premise of what prayer is and how it works from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in it and assumed it was the thinking of someone who does. In doing so you flatly refused to look at how a believer would see the theology of prayer and as Fischer professes to be a believer if you want to see his motives that is how the concept should be viewed. The 'God is a gentleman who only goes where invited' is very common in intercession theology and it flatly doesnt mean what you like to assume it does..

And again you get it completely wrong. There's no law banning prayer (or god) in schools, there are laws banning school sponsored/endorsed prayer. You're allowed to pray all you want in schools, you just have to do it as an individual without any special privileges. And of course the idea that "god only goes where he's invited" is absurd when you (presumably) have people praying desperately and begging for him to come help. Your argument makes god the worst kind of TFG rules lawyer and has him sitting up on his imaginary throne saying "nope, you haven't submitted the correct paperwork for that request" while children are being murdered.

Also, let's not forget that Fischer's statement was a blatant attempt to say "look what you did you godless s". This wasn't a subtle theological discussion, it was one more in a long tradition of blaming non-Christians (or the wrong kind of Christians) for bringing god's wrath down upon themselves.

Which means it is open to critique, you cant have it both ways.
Fact remains it is reprehensible that a group conducting only lobbying should be categorised alongside murderers simply because you don't like their opinion.

Of course it is open to critique. You're the one saying that the SPLC has crossed some arbitrary line about what is acceptable use of the right to free speech. I am perfectly happy to have people critique the SPLC's choices.

And again you ignore the fact that there are many anti-gay groups that are not on the SPLC's list. The AFA is on there for reasons that go beyond "we don't like their opinion".

The Hate list is propogated as an 'official list' insufficient emphasis is placed to show this is just the private opinion of a partisan organisation.

Err, what? Where exactly does the SPLC say "this is an official list of hate groups", whatever the concept of "official list" could even mean in this context? You're completely imagining this supposed "officialness" that goes beyond what every group advocating a position does.

More importantly labeling a group a hate group opens that group up to discrimination. People feel they have the right to discriminate against labeled hate groups. Also it fails to distinguish between members, almost all the accusations are leveled at a tiny handful of people, and most at one man, who is not their leader.

Which, again, is hilariously ironic when you're talking about "discrimination" against a group that advocates boycotts against "pro-gay" businesses.

This might explain why for several posts I have been asking for labeling of hate groups to be left to the government not the SPLC. Work it out.

Yet you continue to talk about the SPLC as if their list has government authority behind it rather than just being one group's opinion.

Not a paranoid fantasy, a clear fact. We have similar groups in the UK, but over here the bs has progressed further than in the US. Groups like Hope not Hate have moved from identifying 'Hate Groups' to actively protesting them, these protests frequently get ugly. In a recent protest against the EDL, Hope not Hate threw all the punches, and yet it was the EDL members who were arrested, because their very presence was considered 'provocative' by the police. This means that eventually even existing is a provocation.

Again, the KKK is allowed to speak freely in the US, which makes it laughably insane to think that any group less offensive than the KKK is in danger of losing their right to speak within the foreseeable future. The fact that the UK has more restrictive laws about free speech does not mean that the US will inevitably follow in some paranoid slippery slope fantasy.

In all this Fischer this and Fischer that its too easy for some to forget the label isn't against him per say but the entire AFA, regardless of the merit of the claims.

If the AFA don't like the label then they should fire Fischer, publicly reject his repulsive ideology, and stop doing things like calling for boycotts of "pro-gay" businesses. If the AFA is happy to keep him as a representative of the organization then they get to deal with being associated with him.

If someone was gay and and the AFA were nearby it would not be fair to out local members, as there is no evidence that the AFA are a threat to the safety of gays.

So, where exactly is the SPLC posting the names and personal information of AFA members? Or is this another paranoid fantasy?

 Peregrine wrote:

So it's ok to throw all black people in prison as long as you pass a law through the normal legal process to do it?

That is needlessly hyperbolic.

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

So it's ok to throw all black people in prison as long as you pass a law through the normal legal process to do it?

That is needlessly hyperbolic.

Perhaps you missed the statement I was responding to there:

You can throw any group of people in prison if you do so in the normal legal process.

Given that explicit approval of throwing all gay people in prison as long as you pass a law saying it's ok to do it I think it's pretty safe to say that's a fair comparison.

 Peregrine wrote:

Perhaps you missed the statement I was responding to there:

You can throw any group of people in prison if you do so in the normal legal process.

Given that explicit approval of throwing all gay people in prison as long as you pass a law saying it's ok to do it I think it's pretty safe to say that's a fair comparison.

There was no explicit approval, only the recognition that any group can be thrown in prison by legal means; should those means exist.

 dogma wrote:
There was no explicit approval, only the recognition that any group can be thrown in prison by legal means; should those means exist.

Only if you think we're talking about "can" in a "possible for this to happen" sense instead of discussing whether those actions would be morally justified.

(Which would be a pretty obvious mistake given that my previous post explicitly asked if it would be ok to do it, not if it would be possible to do it.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You can throw any group of people in prison if you do so in the normal legal process. There is nothing to be worried about here unless you think Fischer has any chance of getting his proposed bill passed.

So it's ok to throw all black people in prison as long as you pass a law through the normal legal process to do it?

And whether or not a group's agenda has any hope of happening has nothing to do with whether they're a hate group or not. The KKK has no chance of getting their demands, but that doesn't make them any less of a hate group.

Dogma explained this one quite adequately, thankyou.

The KKK are completely different. The AFA do not lynch gays or celebrate acts of violence against them.

 Peregrine wrote:

And again you get it completely wrong. There's no law banning prayer (or god) in schools, there are laws banning school sponsored/endorsed prayer.

Which is the point I made several times. .

 Peregrine wrote:

You're allowed to pray all you want in schools, you just have to do it as an individual without any special privileges. And of course the idea that "god only goes where he's invited" is absurd when you (presumably) have people praying desperately and begging for him to come help.

Actually, again this was covered, several times. You completely miss the point again, Fischer argues the difference is because collective/corporate intercessory prayer is removed, hence that phrase I use, again.

 Peregrine wrote:

Your argument makes god the worst kind of TFG rules lawyer and has him sitting up on his imaginary throne saying "nope, you haven't submitted the correct paperwork for that request" while children are being murdered.

As a result you come to this skewed conclusion again.
God still can respond to individual prayer, the theology and Fischers statements do not exclude that. We know this because it involves the standard theology on intercessory prayer, explained several times already on this thread. Do I have to go over it again? Or should I just accept that you will twist my words and claim I am saying something I am not because that is what you prefer to read.

Why don't you just admit you havent a clue what you are talking about.

 Peregrine wrote:

Also, let's not forget that Fischer's statement was a blatant attempt to say "look what you did you godless s". This wasn't a subtle theological discussion, it was one more in a long tradition of blaming non-Christians (or the wrong kind of Christians) for bringing god's wrath down upon themselves.

IIRC this was also covered earlier.
You twisted this too, the school shootings were not 'God's Wrath', that's the sort of gak the Westboro lot would say, even Fischer doesn't go that far. But its interesting that you insist on assuming he does, again its easier to label and accuse if you twist tghe words into something they are not. I suppose you might as well go the rest of the way and insist Fischer was calling on God to execute them, it would tie in all your fantasies together.
Unlike Fred Phelps, Bryan Fischer's theology is actually fairly stable from what I have seen on it; it's his attitude that need to change.

A lack of prayer cover is more akin to not wearing your seatbelt in a car, or not buying insurance for your home, collectively. Individuals can still pray, but corporate protection is considered stronger and covers a wider area. The lack of prayerful preparation leaves one wide open to harm if disaster occurs, it does not summon the disaster.

 Peregrine wrote:

And again you ignore the fact that there are many anti-gay groups that are not on the SPLC's list. The AFA is on there for reasons that go beyond "we don't like their opinion".

The SPLC defend their statements against the AFA by saying that they categorise the AFA as a Hate Group because of the type of opinion they hold, aka ''stating falsehoods". The problem with that is that the AFA might choose to believe that information widely regarded as true is the lie.
This all stems from the comments or literally one or two people, most notably Fischer, and are not core doctrines of the AFA, just statements he made.

Fischer is ultimately entitled to believe that for example the Nazis were secretly gay, and if he actually believes it he is deluded, not lying. It would mandatory involve assigning the weight of evidence to the contrary as 'conspiracy'. This is all tin-foil nonsense but it's basically harmless.

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, what? Where exactly does the SPLC say "this is an official list of hate groups", whatever the concept of "official list" could even mean in this context? You're completely imagining this supposed "officialness" that goes beyond what every group advocating a position does.

The list is given 'professional' weight, as if it were a carefully assembled impartial process monitored by wise and just professionals who are experts in their field.
However the list is actually very arbitrary, as the choice of method for categorising the AFA entails.

 Peregrine wrote:

Which, again, is hilariously ironic when you're talking about "discrimination" against a group that advocates boycotts against "pro-gay" businesses.

I don't like that any more than you do. But a boycott is politicized consumer choice, boycotts are common because they cant easily be stopped and can be applied to almost any good or service. In the UK we sometimes hear calls to boycott French goods when the French place pressure on the UK, and they do the same to us. This is not considered 'racism' of itself.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yet you continue to talk about the SPLC as if their list has government authority behind it rather than just being one group's opinion.

I consistently said the complete opposite. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 Peregrine wrote:

Again, the KKK is allowed to speak freely in the US, which makes it laughably insane to think that any group less offensive than the KKK is in danger of losing their right to speak within the foreseeable future. The fact that the UK has more restrictive laws about free speech does not mean that the US will inevitably follow in some paranoid slippery slope fantasy.

First what is happening over here is no fantasy. Also both the EDL and KKK can speak, but as 'confirmed' hate group cases both are shadowed by large crowds of counter-protestors while they do. In the case of the KKK this is for good reason, the EDL less so, and the AFA not at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

If the AFA don't like the label then they should fire Fischer, publicly reject his repulsive ideology, and stop doing things like calling for boycotts of "pro-gay" businesses. If the AFA is happy to keep him as a representative of the organization then they get to deal with being associated with him.

They have no obligation to do so. Fischer is not talking about declared AFA objectives. The AFA is there to reintroduce traditional Christian values, not specifically to boycott pro-gay businesses. It is up to the SPLC to correctly target criticism rather than to force the AFA to expel members.
It is likely that a large number of AFA members agree with Fischer on his issues, but with no statements, no slogans, no actions, there is absolutely nothing remotely fairly actionable about quiet agreement with a doctrine you find offensive.

Again it comes down to the point that the SPLC goes too far, it doesn't categorise actionable Hate the same was as law enforcement does, and it envelops literally hundreds and thousands of people (AFA members) in a hate catchment on very spurious grounds.

 Peregrine wrote:

So, where exactly is the SPLC posting the names and personal information of AFA members? Or is this another paranoid fantasy?

I haven't implied that the SPLC do, with the AFA or anoy other group. These are the consequences that can occur when a groups label begins to stick and groups act on that.
The SPLC need do nothing more than agitate for the label, and my position is that the label itself is stigmatising, and unfairly so. At no point did I claim the SPLC will be holding the hands of everyone who discriminates against AFA members, just explaining what might happen next.

If the AFA is successfully stigmatised as equivalent of Nazis and KKK, which is the SPLC's effective goal, then people will out and expose them on their own, which is in essence a witch hunt.
I dont suppose you will have any problems believing that exposed KKK members have problems getting on in the general community, no one cares because the KKK deserve that, to jojn the KKK is to join an organisation where the members are expected to partake of or cover for acts of gross discrimination and possibly even crimes against non-whites.
However there is no evidence that the AFA members do anyhthing criminal at all, or are expected to take part in any genuine hate activity and yet they are lumped in alongside them. This is the problem you aren't getting, the SPLC list almost exclusively deals with violent extremist groups, mostly extreme right, but with some violent black power groups also. The AFA are not even remotely in that category, and unlike real hate groups there is no evidence provided that the vast majority have any hate agenda at all.

There has already been a shooting by an LGBT activist (working alone) of AFA members at a church. I found it earlier during one of my researches.

And this is just the start, Chandler says. He has identified more than 40 groups that he wants card companies to stop doing business with . "The next step is to expand that to the anti-gay, Islamophobic, xenophobic organizations that we identify," Chandler says.

One of the groups on Chandler's list of targets is the Family Research Council, because of its opposition to same sex marriage and gay rights.

Chandler is a political scientist at Hunter College according to his bio. His rhetoric is identical to that of the SPLC. This goes beyond defending the existing law when you get into persecution territory. The SPLC list was used to persecute the AFA. As mentioned above, the decision to regard them as anathema to military values was overturned once the military did its own assessment instead of relying on the SPLC.
Chandler would be keen for such lists to be used to prevent organisations like the AFA from conducting business using modern methods such as credit cards.
I note that Chandler, like the SPLC, makes extensive use of right wing and conservative groups in his examples of who is a hate group and makes no mention of groups such as anti-christian groups.
Again, any group that is opposed to gay rights is considered a hate group.

Chandler argues that this isn't a free speech issue. He says companies like MasterCard have the right to decide who they do business with

Would that right be extended to a Christian business that didn't want to serve homosexuals?
People like Chandler and Dees would be lining up to represent the aggrieved LGBT community.

It is clear that people like Chandler and groups like the SPLC use their own personal ideology as a basis for declaring who is a hate group rather than any scientific method. If your group is conservative and opposes homosexual adoption and marriage rights then you get marked down as a hate group. If you oppose illegal immigration then you get marked down as a hate group and suddenly you're seen as being as bad as some neo-nazi group.
If persecution is going to arise from these sorts of lists then a lot more attention needs to be paid to the motivations of those producing them. As can be seen in the case of the AFA, the US military did not agree with the assessment of the SPLC, suggesting that the method the SPLC uses for classifying a hate group is too loose and open to partisan interpretation.

 Orlanth wrote:
Dogma explained this one quite adequately thankyou.

The KKK are completely different. The AFA do not lynch gays or celebrate acts of violence against them. .

No, Dogma just misread the conversation and objected to something based on that mistake. And you just dodged the question.

Actually, again this was covered, several times. You completely miss the point again, Fischer argues the difference is because collective/corporate intercessory prayer is removed, hence that phrase I use, again.

Which is a stupid argument. If god refuses to intervene in a massacre because the prayers for him to do so are not sanctioned (or made mandatory) by the school then god is a petty tyrant who doesn't deserve worship. Fischer is probably one of those religious zealots who would refuse to give food to a starving person unless they convert to the "right" religion first, and his god is no better.

God still can respond to individual prayer, the theology and Fischers statements do not exclude that. We know this because it involves the standard theology on intercessory prayer , explained several times already on this thread. Do I have to go over it again? Or should I just accept that you will twist my words and claim I am saying something I am not because that is what you prefer to read.

So if god can still respond then why is Fischer saying that god refused to respond?

Why don't you just admit you havent a clue what you are talking about.

No, you're just inventing an endless series of absurd arguments when there's a much simpler explanation available: Fischer is just continuing the tradition of blaming disasters on non-Christians (or the wrong kind of Christians) calling down god's wrath upon a sinful society.

A lack of prayer cover is more akin to not wearing your seatbelt in a car, or not buying insurance for your home, collectively. Individuals can still pray, but corporate protection The lack of prayerful preparation leaves one wide open to harm if disaster occurs, it does not summon the disaster.

And if god is willing to stand and watch as children are murdered because the school let its insurance policy expire then god is either a rules-lawyering sociopath or a sadistic monster. Take your pick.

I dont like thast any more than you do. But a boycott is politicized consumer choice, boycotts are common because they cant easily be stopped and can be applied to almost anyt good or service. In the UK we sometimes hear calls to boycott French goods when the French place pressure on the UK, and they do the same to us. This is not considered 'racism'.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. What does racism have to do with anything? I'm talking about the double standard where the SPLC encouraging people to avoid the AFA is wrong, but the AFA is free to encourage people to avoid "pro-gay" groups and businesses. Complaining about how someone might see the SPLC list and treat the AFA badly because of it is just insane when the AFA is constantly declaring boycotts for ideological reasons.

First what is happening over here is no fantasy.

No, but it's a paranoid fantasy to think that it will happen in the US. Again, the KKK is free to speak here without government interference, and that's a group that virtually everyone agrees is a bunch of repulsive s. Any claim that the AFA will be censored by the government in the foreseeable future isn't just wrong, it's utterly delusional.

Also both the EDL and KKK can speak, but as 'confirmed' hate group cases both are shadowed by large crowds of counter-protestors while they do. In the case of the KKK this is for good reason, the EDL less so, and the AFA not at all.

And what exactly is the problem with counter-protestors? Isn't that exactly the point of having a right to free speech?

They have no obligation to do so. Fischer is not talking about declared AFA objectives. The AFA is there to reintroduce traditional Christian values, not specifically to boycott pro-gay businesses. It is up to the SPLC to correctly target criticism rather than to force the AFA to expel members.

They have no obligation to fire Fischer, but the SPLC has no obligation to separate Fischer's comments from the AFA as a whole.

It is likely that a large number of AFA members agree with Fischer on his issues, but with no statements, no slogans, no actions, there is absolutely nothing remotely fairly actionable about quiet agreement with a doctrine you find offensive.

Again, you seem to think there's some kind of "action" involved here beyond saying "the AFA are a bunch of s".

I haven't implied that the SPLC do, with the AFA or anoy other group.

You just did when you posted a scenario where an gay person is near the AFA and the local AFA members are all outed. That's a paranoid fantasy when nobody is posting personal information on individual AFA members (other than their public leadership, at least).

If the AFA is successfully stigmatised as equivalent of Nazis and KKK, which is the SPLC's effective goal, then people will out and expose them on their own, which is in essence a witch hunt.

You know what? If the AFA is successfully stigmatized like that then maybe it's because they deserve it. If they can't convince enough people that they aren't a hate group then maybe the simple truth is that most people think they're a hate group and they should re-evaluate their ideology.

There has already been a shooting by an LGBT activist (working alone) of AFA members at a church. I found it earlier during one of my researches.

Yeah, come back when you have a list that even remotely compares to the number of victims of anti-gay violence. One isolated incident which may or may not have anything to do with the SPLC list (the AFA does a pretty good job of making people angry without any help) is hardly compelling evidence of a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
Would that right be extended to a Christian business that didn't want to serve homosexuals?

Given the AFA's history of organizing boycotts against "pro-gay" businesses I don't think they have any room to complain when someone proposes a boycott against them.

If your group is conservative and opposes homosexual adoption and marriage rights then you get marked down as a hate group.

Which is obvious nonsense because there are plenty of groups opposed to gay marriage that aren't on the hate group list. Seriously, enough with the martyrdom.

 Peregrine wrote:

Actually, again this was covered, several times. You completely miss the point again, Fischer argues the difference is because collective/corporate intercessory prayer is removed, hence that phrase I use, again.

Which is a stupid argument. If god refuses to intervene in a massacre because the prayers for him to do so are not sanctioned (or made mandatory) by the school then god is a petty tyrant who doesn't deserve worship. Fischer is probably one of those religious zealots who would refuse to give food to a starving person unless they convert to the "right" religion first, and his god is no better.

And we are done. Again you have completely misread the concept of intercessory prayer, this has to be deliberate.

There is actually no point trying to argue with you further because you will twist the words to something they are not and insist they come out of my mouth, or his.

I didn't bother reading the rest, no point really. You cant add water to a cup with no bottom.

 Orlanth wrote:
And we are done. Again you have completely misread the concept of intercessory prayer, this has to be deliberate.

You seem to miss the difference between "not reading" and "not buying the flimsy justification for why the sadistic monster isn't a sadistic monster".

To review:

If god refuses to intervene in a situation where the right thing to do as an omnipotent being (stop the shooter from massacring children, say, by making his gun jam on the first shot) is so blindingly obvious that even a small child can figure it out, all because the proper rules for what prayers are required to get that intervention haven't been followed, then god is a rules-lawyering sociopath.

If god refuses to intervene as punishment for not allowing proper worship then god is a sadistic monster.

Either way, no matter how much you nitpick about the proper definition of this specific kind of prayer or try to dress it up in fancy theological terms, god is an evil who doesn't deserve to be worshiped. And if Fischer thinks god's actions were right or justified then Fischer is also an evil .

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
And we are done. Again you have completely misread the concept of intercessory prayer, this has to be deliberate.

You seem to miss the difference between "not reading" and "not buying the flimsy justification for why the sadistic monster isn't a sadistic monster".

To review:

If god refuses to intervene in a situation where the right thing to do as an omnipotent being (stop the shooter from massacring children, say, by making his gun jam on the first shot) is so blindingly obvious that even a small child can figure it out, all because the proper rules for what prayers are required to get that intervention haven't been followed, then god is a rules-lawyering sociopath.

If god refuses to intervene as punishment for not allowing proper worship then god is a sadistic monster.

Either way, no matter how much you nitpick about the proper definition of this specific kind of prayer or try to dress it up in fancy theological terms, god is an evil who doesn't deserve to be worshiped. And if Fischer thinks god's actions were right or justified then Fischer is also an evil .

Ok, ok, Ill bite.


You seem to miss the difference between "not reading" and "not buying the flimsy justification for why the sadistic monster isn't a sadistic monster".

A perfectly good theological explanation using standard theology of intercessory prayer was listed. The concept of God not going where he isn't invited is standard theology.

If god refuses to intervene in a situation

Your first error, corporate intercessory prayer is not about intervention or non intervention its about long term or large scale prevention.
One gathers to pray to provide a prayer shield.
The concept is that you pray for Gods peace corporately over a site, and it has more power if this is done officially and less power if it isn't endorsed by the authorities of the region.
This is why it was considered more important for Kings to pray than for commoners, if the earthly authority and the heavenly authority match up God has the excuse to provide a great blessing. If the earthly authority is opposed then God provides limited blessing because to some extent he wasnt wanted.

Now all this refers to is such concepts as placing a blessing of peace over the location concerned, in this case the school, which will be stronger if doing so is endorsed by earthly authority. All that is standard prayer theology.

The blessing of peace might be sufficient that people considering acts of evil reconsider them and no shooting takes place at all.

Secondly to that Fischer doesnt attempt to claim their was no intervention, if people prayed during the attack for God to help them out then God might do so. It is standard theology to beleive that god can intervene anywhere at any time. But that is intervention not preventation.


all because the proper rules for what prayers are required to get that intervention haven't been followed,

Only intercessory corporate prayer was not permitted, this removes the overall prayer cover, it makes no statement about individuals ability to call on God for help.

Besides try to look at this sensibly. A gunman is hardly going to stop gun in hand at the school so that a formal authorised prayer session can be gathered to stop him. Fischer by talking about formal school prayer in relation to the shooting can only be talking about prior preventative prayer, and that is visible even from the point of view of someone who has no theological training.


then god is a rules-lawyering sociopath.

The preferred opinion you come back to regardless of theological evidence to the contrary. As you aren't a believer or a theologian why not accept the point of view of one whom is as to how believers and the theologically trained think. Remember this is about Fischer's spiritual opinions, they fit in with the standard pattern for all that he has said and that is explainable, whether you spiritually believe the same theology as a Christian is irrelevant, the above is standard Christian theology regarding prayer, it follows a logical chain as described above. To say otherwise is to rewrite the Bible to fit your own twisted theology and claim that others are following your rewrite rather than the established teachings. Give it up.

Now you have the opportunity to believe in a petulant God who only answers prayers for intervention if the local authorities follow strict requirements for intervention, because you have freedom or religion; and if you make comments on those lines then your own religious beliefs can be judged accordingly. However it is clear enough that Fischer does not.


If god refuses to intervene as punishment for not allowing proper worship then god is a sadistic monster.

No indication at all in Fischers comments that God was punishing the school for its lack of prayers, in fact Fischer was talking about what a gentleman God is waiting invite, not how callous and demanding.

Westboro Baptists believe in the sort of gak you are claiming above and the differences show.


Either way, no matter how much you nitpick about the proper definition of this specific kind of prayer

There are very clear theological differences between:
1. A perpared corporate prayer time for intercession to pray for peace over an area (preventative)
2. A call for divine intercession at a time of immeidate crisis (reactive).

Fischer argues point 1. was interrupted.
You are insisting he is saying point 2. was prevented.

And the differnece between prevention and cure is not nitpicking. Would you accuse your doctor or 'nitpicking' it you ask for treatment for malaria and he asks whether you need an anti-malaria shot or treatment for the disease.

or try to dress it up in fancy theological terms,

Standard theological terms. Intercession is as old as Moses (the first examples of intercession were in Genesis) and understood as part of standard theology, it's not fancy stuff at all. Pretty much every practicing Christian or Jew with any level of theological training is taught this.
It is rejected only by quasi-Christian cults like Westboro Baptists.

god is an evil who doesn't deserve to be worshiped. And if Fischer thinks god's actions were right or justified then Fischer is also an evil

Your preferred conclusion as you hate God. A choice that survives all evidence presented to the contrary time and again.
I didn't post a single word if this for your benefit Peregrine, because you will still ignore all that was written here and come back to this conclusion, because its all you want to know. I replied here for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread who might be mistaken in thinking you had a point to make. After all if you continue to come back to this point and laugh off arguments to the contrary some might think that you were onto something because you would have given up otherwise. Possibly unaware that you have a track record of saying gak like this at every opportunity you can because any shot at God, justified or not, is an opportunity not to be squandered.

If people are praying for their lives, how is God not wanted there? The fact that schools no longer force non-believers to pray falsely doesn't mean God is not wanted or welcome, if anything it'd mean less people pretending to pray while not giving a gak, which surely is a good thing?

Walrus, thanks for your input. Lets answer your questions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If people are praying for their lives, how is God not wanted there?

These are two quite separate parts, direct intercessory prayer and prayer cover. The prayer cover is difficult to establish because the earthly authorities with power over the school do not condone it.
One can still pray, and perhaps some the people there did and perhaps that had an effect.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The fact that schools no longer force non-believers to pray falsely doesn't mean God is not wanted or welcome, if anything it'd mean less people pretending to pray while not giving a gak, which surely is a good thing?

You are right in that empty prayers are worthless, but if the earthly authorities are aligned with the heavenly and some have enough faith it matters less about the rest, a prayer cover over the entire area is possible. This again comes back to Genesis and how many righteous people does it need for God to spare an entire town, the answer is a tiny minority.

Part of this controversial comment by Fischer was that (paraphrased) 'back when there was corporate prayer you didn't need guns, the schools were peaceful'.

This is perfectly acceptable religious opinion and it implies that Fischer believes that there would likely be enough believers to have prayer cover. I very much doubt he believes that everyone in those days believed, it wouldn't be as much of a factor, and yes the prayers of the few protect everyone and have preventative value, hence no reported mass shootings in schools at the time.
Its perfectly OK for you not to believe a word of that Walrus, the question is what Fischer appears to believe from his statements, and in this case it ties in with standard Bible teaching, without any hate implied or included.

The KKK don't lynch gays or celebrate acts of violence against them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The KKK don't lynch gays or celebrate acts of violence against them.

I'm fairly sure the KKK (an extremist Christian group) do celebrate and condone acts of violence against Homosexuals.

 Orlanth wrote:

Part of this controversial comment by Fischer was that (paraphrased) 'back when there was corporate prayer you didn't need guns, the schools were peaceful'.

It's also absolute BS, as violence in schools was just as prevalent in those days as it is today. Prior to 2007 and Virginia Tech, the deadliest school shooting was in 1966, a time where school prayer was still instituted. Worse than both was a school bombing in 1927. There is NO correlation between violence and the lack of prayer in schools.

 Peregrine wrote:



And what exactly is the problem with counter-protestors? Isn't that exactly the point of having a right to free speech?

When the sole purpose of the counter-protestors is to deny the group they're protesting against the right to free speech then there is a huge problem with counter protestors of the kind being discussed. The counter-protestors in question don't actually counter-protest, they appear soley to prevent another group from protesting through acts of violence and intimidation - they're street thugs in other words.

You know what? If the AFA is successfully stigmatized like that then maybe it's because they deserve it. If they can't convince enough people that they aren't a hate group then maybe the simple truth is that most people think they're a hate group and they should re-evaluate their ideology.

The US military doesn't regard them as a hate group, plenty of people on this website don't regard them as a hate group. I don't know why you're pretending that they're a marginal group full of haters when they obviously represent a large segment of society and would also have the support of non-christians who are opposed to the kinds of rights that homosexuals have recently been given.

Given the AFA's history of organizing boycotts against "pro-gay" businesses I don't think they have any room to complain when someone proposes a boycott against them.

There's a difference between organizing a boycott and initiating legal action against someone which is what the SPLC do such as their response to the bar in Shannon mentioned in an earlier post.
In regards a credit card company boycotting the FRC (not the AFA), the point here is not that the FRC haven't left themselves open to such censure, but that ideologically motivated persons can label a group a hate group and that an organisation such as a credit card company or government organisation would act on that list as written which is what initially happened in the case of the AFA.
Maybe it would be better if all anti-discriminatory laws were dropped. Modern life makes it easy to network and organise protest actions, let the market decide what it wants and doesn't. Of cource that means that landlords will be able to say no to people of certain backgrounds and businesses will be able to favour one group over another - such as Infosys (an Indian company) where 90% of its workforce in the USA were from India and countries neighbouring it.

Which is obvious nonsense because there are plenty of groups opposed to gay marriage that aren't on the hate group list.

Such as?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The KKK don't lynch gays or celebrate acts of violence against them.

I'm fairly sure the KKK (an extremist Christian group) do celebrate and condone acts of violence against Homosexuals.

The KKK are extremists but when was the last time they actually did anything like lynch someone? The international press picks all this type of stuff up and I don't recall anything of note.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The KKK don't lynch gays or celebrate acts of violence against them.

Ok, Kilkrazy. I see where this comes from and I should been more clear. Sorry about that.

I was highlighting a critical difference between the KKK and the AFA. The AFA have anti-gay sentiments, amongst many other doctrines, many of them completely benign; the KKK have anti-black sentiments, act on those and stand for not a lot else.

The KKK lynch their opponents (blacks) and celebrate act's of violence against them.
The AFA dont lynch their opponents (gays) or celebrate acts of violence against them.

Consequently it is not fair to consider the two groups similar or categorise them together.

Whether or not the KKK have an anti-gay agenda is not something relevant to the comment. They may or may not do so, I don't know and thus didn't knowingly comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Part of this controversial comment by Fischer was that (paraphrased) 'back when there was corporate prayer you didn't need guns, the schools were peaceful'.

It's also absolute BS, as violence in schools was just as prevalent in those days as it is today. Prior to 2007 and Virginia Tech, the deadliest school shooting was in 1966, a time where school prayer was still instituted. Worse than both was a school bombing in 1927. There is NO correlation between violence and the lack of prayer in schools.

As stated in the comment to Walrus you and he, and anyone else is free to completely disagree with this theology if you desire. It doesn't effect the validity of the comment.
It matters less within the context what you believe, or whether the theology is factually truie from the perspective of a non-believer, what matters is what the theology is and thus what Fischer was saying.

By showing the inner workings of Christian theological thought regarding prayer and how they dovetail in with Fischer's comments relating to the shooting, you can see that on this instance Fischer was talking some passably good theology and it would be unfair to assume it is hate speech simply because of the source of the comments.

Frankly I wouldn't expect most theologians or ministers to make that sort of comment after a school shooting, I don't know of anyone that crass. Fischer is certainly off key in so many ways, but I cant actually fault his theology in this case, or condone attempts to label it as an example of hate speech, I just cant support his choice to make that stand at that time.

 Orlanth wrote:
The concept of God not going where he isn't invited is standard theology.

It is almost certain that god was invited into that school. If you think that shots are fired in a school and nobody starts praying for help then I don't really know what to say to you.

What we're really talking about is god not being invited in the proper way, which makes god a rules-lawyering sociopath.

The concept is that you pray for Gods peace corporately over a site, and it has more power if this is done officially and less power if it isn't endorsed by the authorities of the region.
This is why it was considered more important for Kings to pray than for commoners, if the earthly authority and the heavenly authority match up God has the excuse to provide a great blessing. If the earthly authority is opposed then God provides limited blessing because to some extent he wasnt wanted.

Sorry, but that's an utterly stupid concept. God was in a very simple situation: the shooter was about to start murdering children, and he had the power to cause the gun to misfire and blow up in the shooter's face on the first shot. Even a small child can figure out that the indisputable correct answer in this situation is to stop the massacre. Whether or not the request to stop it had the proper authority behind it or not is irrelevant. If you have the power to act in such an obvious situation and choose not to then you are evil. And if you fall back on the technicalities of whether or not you received a formal request from the proper authority as justification for your inaction then you're a rules-lawyering sociopath.

As you aren't a believer or a theologian why not accept the point of view of one whom is as to how believers and the theologically trained think.

Because that theology is nothing more than a pile of excuses for why it's ok to worship a sadistic monster (or rules-lawyering sociopath, if you prefer). It has about as much relevance to me as Hitler fans talking about how his extermination plans had all the right legal approval and he really loved his pet dog.

Now you have the opportunity to believe in a petulant God who only answers prayers for intervention if the local authorities follow strict requirements for intervention, because you have freedom or religion; and if you make comments on those lines then your own religious beliefs can be judged accordingly. However it is clear enough that Fischer does not.

Sorry, I'm not the one believing in a petulant god, Fischer is. He just dresses the petulant child up in adult clothes and pretends that it's a morally legitimate act. That's all this "sophisticated theology" is, a flimsy attempt to make the sadistic monster look like less of a sadistic monster so he can continue to believe in god without feeling bad about it.

Fischer argues point 1. was interrupted.

And my point is that if god refused to intervene because 1 was interrupted then god is either a rules-lawyering sociopath who cares more about submitting the proper paperwork than whether children are massacred or not, or a sadistic monster who enjoys watching them die.

Would you accuse your doctor or 'nitpicking' it you ask for treatment for malaria and he asks whether you need an anti-malaria shot or treatment for the disease.

No, but I'd accuse someone of nitpicking if they tried to defend the doctor when he refused the treatment because I didn't get my shot when I had the chance.

Your preferred conclusion as you hate God.

It's very difficult to hate something that doesn't exist. I don't hate god any more than I hate any other fictional character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
The AFA dont lynch their opponents (gays) or celebrate acts of violence against them.

No, they just want to throw them in prison through the formal legal system, just like the Nazis had a pretense of legal authority behind their actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Frankly I wouldn't expect most theologians or ministers to make that sort of comment after a school shooting, I don't know of anyone that crass. Fischer is certainly off key in so many ways, but I cant actually fault his theology in this case, or condone attempts to label it as an example of hate speech, I just cant support his choice to make that stand at that time.

And this is the key.

Speculating in isolation about the importance of formal prayer as an insurance policy is bad, but probably not hate speech.

Talking about it in the aftermath of a massacre to score political points, especially in the context of other religious victim-blaming, crosses that line.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sorry, but that's an utterly stupid concept. God was in a very simple situation: the shooter was about to start murdering children, and he had the power to cause the gun to misfire and blow up in the shooter's face on the first shot. Even a small child can figure out that the indisputable correct answer in this situation is to stop the massacre. Whether or not the request to stop it had the proper authority behind it or not is irrelevant. If you have the power to act in such an obvious situation and choose not to then you are evil. And if you fall back on the technicalities of whether or not you received a formal request from the proper authority as justification for your inaction then you're a rules-lawyering sociopath.

You're assuming you know how God thinks. You don't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're assuming you know how God thinks. You don't.

No, I'm assuming that the rules of human morality apply to god, which is an assumption that is justified every time a christian says that god is good. If the rules of human morality do not apply then saying that god is "good" would have no meaning. And if the rules of human morality do apply then how god thinks and justifies his actions is irrelevant, all that matters is the final outcome.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're assuming you know how God thinks. You don't.

No, I'm assuming that the rules of human morality apply to god, which is an assumption that is justified every time a christian says that god is good. If the rules of human morality do not apply then saying that god is "good" would have no meaning. And if the rules of human morality do apply then how god thinks and justifies his actions is irrelevant, all that matters is the final outcome.

For all we know, having children be killed IS the greatest good, because it'll be less bad than something else that would've happened.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're assuming you know how God thinks. You don't.

No, I'm assuming that the rules of human morality apply to god, which is an assumption that is justified every time a christian says that god is good. If the rules of human morality do not apply then saying that god is "good" would have no meaning. And if the rules of human morality do apply then how god thinks and justifies his actions is irrelevant, all that matters is the final outcome.

For all we know, having children be killed IS the greatest good, because it'll be less bad than something else that would've happened.

That might be true but isn't the proper reason.

Yes, God could have used divine intervention to ensure all the kids survived. There are stories of miracles like this, but they don't occur when every bad thing happens, and wont until the final judgement.
Until then we have free will and are supposed to use our free will to not shoot kids.

“So Hitler himself was an active Christian. And some people wonder, didn’t the Germans, didn’t the Nazis, persecute Christians? And it is true they did; they persecuted compassionate Christians. But Hitler recruited around him Christians to make up his stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get atheist soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that Christian soldiers basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after.”

(Purposefully edited for greater effect.)

Somebody tell me that this, just for example, is somehow an argument and not simply slavering atrocity propaganda designed to elicit feelings of hate from half-educated addressees.

If you spout bs like the above, you bring it onto yourself to be called a "hate group". I agree that this should not prompt any reaction from the government until you can be classed as a "criminal organisation", or whatever the technical term happens to be in the US, but it's rather absurd to invoke the right to not be discriminated against by "some people" for discriminating against "other people".

Regarding intercessory prayer: Being a Catholic myself, I find Fischer's "God is a gentleman..." quote to be cynical in nature and spiteful in tonality. The theological argument behind it is of little consequence in this light, because this shouldn't be about what Fischer could have meant, but what he probably did mean.

Hitler was raised Roman Catholic but despised the Religion (not all Religion, or not nearly as much as Judaism) and believed over time that organised Religion would fade away with the progress of society. He was well aware of the large amount of Christian's within Germany and played to that in Mein Kampf, and claimed his acts were done in the name of God in his speeches. In fact, Hitler out-lawed Atheistic or Secularistic groups in 1933, and even converted the German Freethinkers league into a bureau advising the public on church matters.

Again, Hitler's faith can be debated, but in no way was he driven to commit such acts in the name of Atheism, and it's doubtful he did it in the name of Religion ether.