October 15, 2013

US Army defines Christian family ministry as 'domestic hate group'


The ministry in question is the American Family Association. They are being targeted because they promote biblical values not in league with the trend towards promoting same sex marriage. I had pointed out in 2011 how bestiality is now legal in the US Army. It was officially legalized along with sodomy when the US Senate repealed laws against these practices.
This present harsh position by the US Army is similar to a quote that had been previously offered by the US government DHS office that was later challenged by lawyer Jay Sekulow:
“Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” The following text outlines how "traditional family values" are considered a serious threat to US servicemen.

"Several dozen U.S. Army active duty and reserve troops were told last week that the American Family Association, a well-respected Christian ministry, should be classified as a domestic hate group because the group advocates for traditional family values.

The briefing was held at Camp Shelby in Mississippi and listed the AFA alongside domestic hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam."

See more at this Fox link..

9 comments:

  1. Well, I'd consider this:

    "Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews."

    A blatant falsehood, and, considering its subject matter, hate speech -- from a senior official of the AFA.

    I know of no gay leader who has called for the criminalizing of Christianity. However, senior members of the AFA frequently call for the criminalization of homosexuality.

    Todd Starnes is also an unreliable source, as you'll see if you look here, for example:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2013/10/17/poster-boy-for-anti-gay-campaign-against-military-religious-freedom-really-could-be-court-martialed-for-this/

    Would you consider a group that argued that communion should be outlawed, and that those who practiced it were deviants intent on destroying American society a hate group? If so, then you have no reason to complain when the AFA is called one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Mohn,

    1. According to the stated beliefs of most homosexuals, people are born as homosexuals, it's not a matter of choice, and they cannot change.

    2. If this is true, then homosexuality forms one of the deepest aspects of a person's identity.

    3. According to recent research in The Guardian, "Hitler was gay - and killed to hide it"

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/07/books.booksnews

    4. According to "The Pink Swastika" quoted at another source, "...the story opens as the new Nazi party is founded in the smoky din of the Bratwurstglockl, “a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks and bully-boys....a gay bar,” favored by Hitler’s closest comrade, Captain Ernst Rohm. Almost every biography of Hitler reports that Rohm was a flagrant homosexual and the only man Hitler called by the familiar “du.”

    http://www.whale.to/b/rohm_h.html

    5. If points 1 to 4 are true, then it can be stated that homosexuality was a common denominator in the formation of the personnel of the Nazi party at it's highest levels of leadership.

    6. It can be observed that military and organizational decisions often stem from the beliefs, philosophies and practices of the leadership. Gerhard Rossbach, an early leader of the Storm Troopers, was a homosexual (Waite, 1969:209). http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Gerhard-Rossbach/84902069

    7. So far, three upper echelon Nazi leaders have been confirmed as homosexuals. While correlation does not necessitate causation, there are quotes that actually confirm causation:

    "The principle function of this army-like organization," writes historian Thomas Fuchs, "was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals" (Fuchs:48f)."

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html

    Another author, Louis Snyder, wrote about the issue as well:
    "What was needed, Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals" (Snyder:55).

    http://www.whale.to/b/abrams_b.html

    Both correlation and causation have been identified by multiple research sources. Therefore, there's no "blatant falsehood" by AFA sources at all here. You could offer that the AFA was not careful in vetting research sources. But you should probably go through each source to support your opinion that all his sources are flawed.

    Do demonstrate that The Guardian, The Pink Swastika, Thomas Fuchsn and Louis Snyder are in error on these points and your can lay blame at the source, not the AFA.

    I would not equate The Guardian with "The National Inquirer." And, seeing that Fuchs is considered a well-respected author with 10 books under his belt, it does not seem as though he is a fly-by night charlatan.

    http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/23589.Thomas_Fuchs

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. According to the stated beliefs of most homosexuals, people are born as homosexuals, it's not a matter of choice, and they cannot change.

    Which, BTW, makes discriminating against them on the grounds of their nature, if you believe it, even *more* vile than discriminating against people on the grounds of religion, something they are capable of changing.

    3. According to recent research in The Guardian, "Hitler was gay - and killed to hide it"

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/07/books.booksnews


    Actually, this is according to a 12-year-old book review, not "recent research in the Guardian".

    Also, how you are so blind as to fail to see that this argues that *repressing* homosexuality, and making it illegal, makes for dangerous results, rather than anything else, is impressive.

    4. According to "The Pink Swastika" quoted at another source,

    Scott Lively as a historical reference is less credible than David Barton, and that's saying something.

    5. If points 1 to 4 are true, then it can be stated that homosexuality was a common denominator in the formation of the personnel of the Nazi party at it's highest levels of leadership.

    By the same argument, so was Christianity; we have ample evidence that many high-ranking Nazis declared themselves Christians.

    7. So far, three upper echelon Nazi leaders have been confirmed as homosexuals. While correlation does not necessitate causation, there are quotes that actually confirm causation:

    "The principle function of this army-like organization," writes historian Thomas Fuchs, "was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals" (Fuchs:48f)."


    And yet this was a party that threw homosexuals into concentration camps. Why is one piece of evidence so convincing, the other so ignored?

    "What was needed, Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals" (Snyder:55).

    Both correlation and causation have been identified by multiple research sources. Therefore, there's no "blatant falsehood" by AFA sources at all here.

    Actually, you'll find your "multiple research sources" are linking back to the same small web of people/works; you've been sucked in by a Big Lie.

    I notice you're willing to accept single citations as sources of proof, but when the vast majority of historians disagree with these assertions, you're not willing to accept that as support for the contrary side.

    Scott Lively is not a reputable, trustworthy, or valid source.
    (Continued)

    ReplyDelete
  4. You could offer that the AFA was not careful in vetting research sources. But you should probably go through each source to support your opinion that all his sources are flawed.

    Here are two places to start:
    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/holy-war/making-myths
    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/06/17/anti-gay-conspiracy-theories-debunked-by-christian-professor/

    (I especially refer you to the second, since you seem to give more credibility to Christians than non-Christians, from what I can tell.)

    Do demonstrate that The Guardian

    who published a book review, not original research.

    The Pink Swastika

    See above.

    Thomas Fuchsn and Louis Snyder

    Who presented known facts -- there were homosexuals in the upper ranks of the Nazi Party. For that matter, there have been homosexuals in high places of power in the Republican Party -- does that mean Republican behaviors are homosexual ones?

    are in error on these points and your can lay blame at the source, not the AFA.

    The AFA has chosen which sources to believe; it has supported people involved with them. It is involved.

    If an organization employed, as its director of policy, someone who said that "There were many Christians among high-ranking Nazis, so Christianity caused Naziism, so Christians should not be allowed to serve in the military or practice their religion." I think it would be fair to argue that was an anti-Christian hate group. That is the parallel here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Moh, I have very limited time at the moment to answer all your points. I would like to answer them in due time. Meanwhile, you might want to consider one of your central arguments:

    "By the same argument, so was Christianity; we have ample evidence that many high-ranking Nazis declared themselves Christians."

    - So far, no gay gene, all we have to go on with homosexuality is "self-identification"

    With Christian identification there are at least three characteristics. Hitler and his henchmen have failed two of the qualifying characteristics defined in scripture. Therefore, we have no reason to assume their confessions of Christianity are true and valid:

    True Christians, True Scotsmen and Venn Diagrams

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/true-christians-true-scotsmen-and-venn.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. I went and read your post.

    Do you want me to argue the specifics here or there?

    Hitler and his henchmen *may* have failed two of *your* characteristics -- there's ample evidence of Christian faith in the Nazi party in general, after all.

    However, this is *irrelevant* to the question of whether you'd say a group supporting someone saying that would be a hate group.

    If you don't think so, then you can legitimately claim the AFA isn't one. If you do think so, then, by parallel (because the AFA's argument is no better supported) the AFA is a hate group.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moh, if you want to discuss the signs of true Christianity, as differentiated by the kind of "Christianity" Hitler claimed to embrace, then that Venn diagram post is probably a better place to discuss this subject.

      Unlike Christianity, which has a specific text to refer to, homosexuality today is based on "self-identification."

      Delete
    2. Moh, if you want to discuss the signs of true Christianity, as differentiated by the kind of "Christianity" Hitler claimed to embrace, then that Venn diagram post is probably a better place to discuss this subject.

      All right. Are you going to discuss the rest of what I said, then?

      Your bit about "self-identification" doesn't really address any of it.

      Delete
    3. Rick, are you going to answer my points here, or do you stop once you've moved on to another post?

      Delete

You are welcome to post comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse. I reserve the right to ignore any comments that are abusive, off-topic, or patently false. I don't have time to waste feeding the trolls.