Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 13 of 17     «   Prev   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   Next   »
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #181 
A new level of derangement - an article suggesting that waiters should tamper with the food of Trump officials:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/boston-globe-writer-urges-waiters-to-tamper-with-republican-officials-food

This is on top of the garbage spouted out by people like Ilhan Omar...
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #182 
The Family Research Council and American Family Association, both falsely accused of being "hate groups" by the SPLC, have taken out an ad in newspapers:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/pro-family-groups-warn-big-tech-media-not-to-prop-up-the-splc-hate-for-cash-machine/
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #183 
Both of these are indeed hate groups, who systematically and knowingly lie about gay people with the intent to do them harm. And they have succeeded in harming a great many innocents through the climate of hatred they labour to create. Decent people should abhor and reject these vile organisations and their religion-fuelled bigotry.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #184 
I know little specifically about these groups, and have no desire to get into the ins and outs of their actions and views, but what is the justification for the claim they intentionally want to harm anyone?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #185 
If I were to publicly and repeatedly broadcast lies about you and what a terrible person you were and how all your rights should be taken away and you shouldn't really be allowed to exist, I expect you would form a reasonable conclusion that I intended to do you harm. Especially after it had been pointed out to me, over and over, that my accusations were entirely baseless and false, with compelling and undeniable evidence that they were, and I just carried right on making them.

Well, that is the exact position between these two groups and gay people. In fact, it is the exact position with all the organisations the SPLC lists as homophobic hate groups. I have looked into each and every one and satisfied myself that they are slanderers and liars and that religiously-motivated malice is the only possible explanation for their actions. If they were to act in the same way towards any other minority they would be pariahs, but since it's gay people they hate and attack they can keep a cloak of respectability, it seems. I applaud the SPLC for listing them in the way it has, and it should continue to do just that.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #186 
They argue gays shouldn't be allowed to exist and should have no rights? That's interesting. It certainly isn't the normal social conservative and traditional Christian position on these issues, nor is even the claim that gays are terrible people.

I suppose much of it, then, depends on whether they are deliberately lying,* rather than being involved in the usual back and forth on controversial issues. Although, actually, even then, that they want to harm people isn't a necessary conclusion, if they do committ deception. It could easily be a matter more of a callous disregard, given the very religious and ethical principles they approach the matter with.

*They could be. I know little about them or what precisely they argue, though I know enough about these issues to know it is rarely the case that social conservatives have been so utterly refuted by social liberals, even though the latter like to think they're obviously correct.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #187 
Going by Peter's standards, Christians, Jews and others would be seen as "hateful". The Dalai Lama, Falun Gong, etc would all be in the same category.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #188 
Don't be ridiculous, David. It could not truthfully be said that the Dalai Lama, Falun Gong, Christians in general or Jews in general advocate persecution of gay people. Why then would I even have mentioned any of these in the context? Oh, hang on, I didn't, it was you that introduced them out of nowhere. My condemnation was solely of certain organisations, purportedly Christian, that do indeed advocate such persecution.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #189 
My point is that all of the above advocate the same views regarding sexuality that organisations such as the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association and others defamed all advocate.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #190 
No they don't. Falun Gong, for example, teach it is true that only heterosexual intercourse within marriage is lawful. But they also teach that tolerance and compassion are primary virtues, and permit openly gay people to participate. The comparison with the three in no way defamed organisations you list could not be more stark. Similarly, it is not at all true that most Christians sympathise with those three or other organisations like them. Since Christ himself never once even alluded to the topic that so obsesses those organisations accurately labelled as hate groups, why would they?

Nor do most Jews. As for the Dalai Lama, he has in the past been accused of homophobic remarks and attitudes. However, he clarified that he was speaking only of historical Buddhist teachings, themselves of strictly limited applicability, and that he himself has no negative feelings towards gay people. Which was good enough for me, though apparently not you, as you would rather pretend that he actually does have the attitudes mistakenly ascribed to him.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #191 
I'd interested to know how persecution is being defined here.

The traditional Christian position on homosexual acts is undoubtedly that they're immoral, though there are certainly Christians who care little for the unanimous teachings of the Scripture, Fathers, and Church and think that their own interpretation of the most general Christian precepts, rooted in the contemporary zeitgeist, suffices to overthrow all such authorities and specific doctrines. So, claims that Christ taught love and compassion are used to overthrow all established teaching, whatever their roots in the Scriptures or Fathers or Church tradition, that limit expression of affection or, sometimes, even desire, without really grappling with these teachings and the authorities they are based on. It's assumed without much argument that God/Christ take a modern sentimentalist left-liberal approach - if it feels good do it, more or less, as long as everyone involved is willing - which clearly is not the traditional Christian approach to such issues, nor Christ's or Saint Paul's.

Rabbinic Judaism is as clear on this, and in unison with traditional Christianity, unless you are referring to secular and Reformed Jews. Reformed Judaism, including conservative variants, is not Rabbinic Judaism at all. It's like ultra-liberal Protestantism. Only Orthodox Judaism is Judaism in the traditional sense.

Buddhism is a little more complicated, having a somewhat different approach to morality and right living. There isn't the same emphasis on guilt, sin, and repentence as the Abrahamic faiths. Sexual immorality, for example, is seen less as something to atone for and feel guilt about, as much as it is a matter of realising it is holding back one's spiritual development (of course, the differences narrow a little if we make sure not to caricature either approach). But my understanding is that Buddhism has more or less always had broadly the same views on homosexual acts and sexual morality in general as Christianity and Judaism.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #192 
The SPLC's "anti-immigrant", "anti-Islam" and "anti-government movement" categories are equally if not more problematic, as they all aim at stifling public debate by calling opponents "haters". Hence good people like Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ryan Mauro and Brigitte Gabriel have all been slandered, along with Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Then you have people like Jerry Boykin, Tom DeWeese, Cliff Kincaid et al.

Furthermore, the SPLC definition of "Islamophobic" is to smear those who attack radicalism and suggest the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist movements are working to undermine the West - even though there is an abundance of evidence out there to suggest that it is the case, and even though the same concern is held by millions of orthodox Muslims.

In other words, the SPLC's entire slander machine is vile and mendacious, and a danger to freedom of expression, diversity of opinion and the safety of people who hold those views.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #193 
It gets even better - CAIR turns on the SPLC:
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7896/ipt-exclusive-cair-billoo-blasts-splc-over-black

CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front group blacklisted by the UAE as a subversive and dangerous organisation. In recent times CAIR has allied itself with the SPLC but we are now seeing the coalition unravel.

Why? Because of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. The SPLC considers Farrakhan to be an extremist, yet they don't go on about him they way they do their other main targets. However that's enough for some CAIR people to be triggered.

Most Muslims don't even consider the Nation of Islam to be truly Islamic. Yet this doesn't seem to matter to Islamists like CAIR and the Iranian regime (which has hosted Farrakhan several times), because their anti-Western and anti-American agenda is more important.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #194 
A bombshell thread on Twitter: the link between Antifa and journalists
https://twitter.com/EoinLenihan/status/1128729619417505792
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #195 
An article on the above thread exposing the evident collaboration between Antifa and journalists:

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/05/17/journos-prominent-news-publications-found-working-relationships-antifa/

Keep in mind these are journalists working for the Guardian, Huffington Post and similar news outlets. Surely even left-leaning ones would know better than to legitimise the violent and anti-freedom tactics of Antifa?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.