1 - 10 Next
This is a fair point to make. There are Christian groups all over the world that are subjected to horrendous persecution, especially in the Middle East. This kind of persecution involves being heavily taxed, denied representation in political affairs, and state-sanctioned harassment. And in some cases, it leads to wholesale slaughter, as we saw in Iraq last year. That is true persecution. To put that on the same level as Christian bakers being sued for not providing a cake for a same-sex wedding is asinine.
The KKK still see themselves as Christian. They still identify as Christian and cite passages in the bible to justify their beliefs. Look up the Curse of Ham from the Book of Genesis 9:20-27. It's completely inaccurate by most modern Christian interpretations, but for a time it was every bit as legitimate as the biblical arguments used against homosexuality. I also don't deny that the KKK had political allies. A good number of them were Democrats. That's also historic fact. That doesn't make my point less valid.
The KKK was a Christian group and it still is. That is a historical fact. That group uses Christianity to justify their hatred of other races. The AFA and men like Matt Barber do the same with homosexuals, but I will say they're more decent in that they don't resort to violence on the same level as the KKK. That is an important distinction. But their thought process is very similar. You claim you don't care what homosexuals do. Yet I've seen you post on other comments that you're not in favor of them getting married or having the same rights as heterosexuals. That and you do call them derogatory names like perverts. That's hateful rhetoric right there. So maybe you should read your own comments as well.
The AFA isn't a hate group because they don't agree with me. They're a hate group because they explicitly condemn and marginalize minorities, especially homosexuals. And they use Christianity to do it. It's an outright perversion of Christianity, using it to hate other people when it was intended to bring them together. And I think that's the ultimate tragedy here. Something that was intended to transcend hate is being used to justify it.
Scrow, that doesn't make any sense. Calling someone hateful is an observation, not an emotional condemnation. There's a difference. Hatred involves an emotionally driven condemnation of another person or group. Matt Barber and the AFA have made plenty of condemnations in the past about homosexuals, calling them derogatory words and favoring policies that would harm them. Pointing that out isn't an act of hate. It's just pointing it out.
Bryan Fisher once stated that, "Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews." I think that qualifies as hateful.
I get the sense that you're avoiding the question or trying not to think about it. I don't need you to pray for me. I need you to give me a sense of clarity here. What is hateful about my comments? I point out that the AFA has a history of saying very hateful things about homosexuals. I also say that Matt Barber shares that same ideology. What's so hateful about pointing out the clear and unabashed hatred of others?
What is so hateful about my remarks? The fact you don't agree with them doesn't count as being hateful.
I don't think this is an unfair question to ask. Islam does condemn minorities with the same vitriol as some Christians do. In fact, some of the Christians on TH actually use that same rhetoric. But Islam does take things several steps farther, going so far as to threaten murder to those who dare to leave the faith. That's something that Christianity, even at its most radical, has never done. At the moment, extreme Islam is doing the things that extreme Christians wish they could do. They take their holy book and take it literally. And that holy book, like the bible, says homosexuals, atheists, fornicators, and blasphemers should be murdered. No Christian group has been able to set up a society where they could do that and get away with it in the modern world. But there's one key discrepancy that I think Mr. Giles should keep in mind. Christians are a majority in America. They have significant political power. They have loud voices in the media and they have a great deal of influence on the lawmaking process. This extends to many other Western countries in Europe and South America. Their rhetoric might not be on the level of Islam, but it is more immediate. Muslims in all these countries are minorities with next to no political power or influence. There are very few Muslims in Congress or in major positions of power. When homosexuals, atheists, and women feel under attack by religion or government, it usually comes from someone with Christian credentials. By that logic, it makes sense that these same people would direct most of their criticism to Christianity. It's more immediate. It's closer. It's far more pressing because if some Christians had their way, their rights would be undermined. Muslims don't have that power. Islam is not a major force in this country so it's not a major topic of conversation. That's not to say it isn't a target. Some of the big atheist writers, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have gone out of their way to criticize Islam and they have gotten a lot of hatred for that. But it's still a matter of proximity. So long as extreme Christians keep attacking minorities, they'll keep fighting back. It's that simple.
If Obama is anti-Christian, he's very bad at it. Christianity is still the most dominant religion in the country. It's nearly impossible for a non-Christian to be elected into public office. Some of the richest and most powerful organizations in the country are Christian. One of the major political parties that happens to hold a majority in Congress is dominated by Christians. So why does Matt Barber pretend that Christianity is on the brink of destruction when it's probably the most powerful religious group? Why is it so important that his brand of Christianity is the underdog and the victim? Nobody should be proud of being a victim like this. Now maybe the problem is that Matt Barber's brand of Christianity isn't popular anymore. Society has moved on to the point where we don't use the Old Testament for our morality anymore. We don't feel that it's moral to discriminate against homosexuals, African Americans, Jews, and atheists. We don't think it's moral to subject minorities to horrendous treatment, as Christian groups like the KKK did for decades. The AFA is not the KKK by any stretch, but its ideology is every bit as barbaric. The AFA is listed as a hate group for a good reason. They are not for families. They are for the abject hatred of homosexuals. Every bit of their literature and most of their rhetoric is full of vitriolic hatred towards homosexual men. Curiously, they rarely mention homosexual women. And they adopt this Christian ideology that is completely based on the hatred of one particular minority, as though that was the most important issue Jesus ever spoke about. There's nothing family-friendly about the AFA. They are a hate group that hides behind words like "American" and "Family." Here's something Matt Barber and people like him need to accept. Homosexuals are Americans. There's nothing in the constituion that says they can't be citizens. Homosexuals also have families. They have mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. Some of them even have children of their own, either through adoption or through IVF. Are they not entitled to the same dignity that other Americans enjoy? What are they doing that is disrupting the lives of the Matt Barbers of the world? Sure, they're making it harder for some people to publicly condemn minorities, but there's nothing Christian about that. In fact, that's the very opposite of Christian. Matt Barber knows that on some levels. And if he doesn't care, then he's not a Christian. He's just a hateful man
1 - 10 Next