Fundamentalist Christian Monsters

Posted by Post Scripts   @   30 April 2013 12 comments

by Jack

“Queasy with the bright and promising lights of the cultural realities of the present day, those evil, fundamentalist Christian talibanic creatures and their spiritual heirs have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as “family values” and “religious liberty.” These overtly bigoted bandits coagulate their stenchful substances in organizations such as the American Family Association (AFA), the ultra-fundamentalist Family Research Council (FRC), and the Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty (CARL). The basis of their ruinous unity is the bane of human existence and progress: horrific hatred and blinding bigotry. However, when the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and others correctly characterize them as “hate groups,” they all too predictably raise a deafening hue and disingenuously bellow mournfully like the world class cowards they are.”  Mikey Weinstein – posted at Truthout.org

Pretty strong words that seem out of place and better suited to a real hate group.  I could see it if the targets of his anger were beheading opponents, rolling hand grenades under bunks of sleeping servicemen, shooting up soldiers in a welcome home celebration or blowing up little kids in Boston.  We can only hope that someone with such twisted feelings about Christians represents a marginal fringe, but this guy actually has some traction.  His name is well known in Washington and he’s recruiting some fairly highly profile  people to sign on to his campaign, like former Ambassador Joe Wilson that was involved investigating the Iraqi nuclear program.

I left the military in 2009, granted it was only reserve service at the Guard Headquarters in Sacramento, but I never saw the kind of bigotry or duress Weinstein writes about.   When things are amiss in the ranks, it’s the top NCO’s who are first to know and I was the 1st Sergeant, the go to guy for all enlisted.  I just never saw any problems re Christians and Chaplains.  We had religious ceremonies on Saturday and Sunday, but they were purely voluntary and there were no extremist groups recruiting or pressuring anyone to join them.  Never saw that at any military base either…so, I just don’t understand Weinstein’s attack, unless it’s coming from an old hidden agenda that stems from the cold war days.

I think this hate rhetoric is a sign of times and it is a reflection of how emboldened our left-wing has become.  They’ve made significant gains controlling the direction of this nation and they are ratcheting up their hate speech where it will do the most to destroy our traditional values.   Attacking real enemies, like Muslim terrorists, serves no good purpose in their world, it’s a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  This is why you never hear them raise their angry voice against those killing us, here, in the Mideast and hot spots around the world.  They don’t like these extremists, but they are serving a useful purpose by weakening the old guard with their traditional Christian values so the new left, Godless, movement can take over.

Weinstein is just another liberal fool in pursuit of a communist utopia and he’ll use any means to achieve his ends.  This is why I posted a portion of his article, you need to be aware of people like him.  Because even if you consider him a crackpot, he’s still dangerous and he’s reaching the fertile minds of our young, selling them his ugly brand of BS.

 

 

Filed in Uncategorized 12 comments

12 Comments

Comments
Apr 30, 2013
11:13 am
#1 Chris :

He needs to take it down about a dozen notches. If he were in my class, I’d remind Weinstein that the purpose of persuasive writing is to…actually persuade people, even if they might not already agree with you. This kind of writing may work as red meat for the more extreme members of one’s group, kind of like what Bill Mahr and Rush Limbaugh do, but it’s a total turn-off to moderates and people who lean in the other direction. It’s a turn-off to me, and I probably have a lot of point of agreement with Weinstein. But his tone is completely uncivil and counter-productive.

That said, the groups he names are just as uncivil, and the Souther Poverty Law Center is right to name them as hate groups.

Some quotes from the FRC:

“The videos are titled ‘It Gets Better.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. …It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.”
— Tony Perkins, FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

“We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men.”
— Peter Sprigg, “Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views.” 2011.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
— Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

“[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
— Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in “Desecrating Corpus Christi,” 1999

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
—1999 FRC publication, “Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia,” Robert Knight and Frank York

It really doesn’t get any lower than falsely accusing your opposition of being pedophiles.

Some quotes from the AFA:

“Homosexuality is a poor and dangerous choice, and has been proven to lead to a litany of health hazards to not only the individuals but also society as a whole.”
–AFA Action Alert, July 20, 2012

“Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”
– Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010

“As with smoking, homosexual behavior’s ‘second hand’ effects threaten public health….Thus, individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population.”
– Gary Glenn, president of Michigan chapter of AFA, 2001

“[T]he homosexual lifestyle is characterized by anonymous sexual encounters and celebration of sexual obsession and perversion unparalleled in any other social group.”
– Richard Howe, “Homosexuality in America,” AFA publication, 1994

No, I actually think falsely accusing your opponents of being responsible for the rise of Hitler might be worse. Let’s call it a tie.

I don’t think Weinstein is correct that CARL is listed as a hate group by the SPLC, and I don’t know enough about them to comment.

My point is, characterizing your opponents as monsters isn’t very helpful. I don’t think the SPLC does this; their standards for what constitutes a “hate group” are pretty high, and you can’t get on there simply by a principled opposition to gay marriage, as some conservatives have claimed. You have to have a record of spreading lies about gay people or other minorities. The SPLC is a rational voice and they explain their positions calmly and civilly. Weinstein could learn a thing or two from them.

Apr 30, 2013
12:07 pm
#2 Tina :

The following is excerpted from an article based on the Floyd Corkins case. Mr Corkins is the man who was arrested for attempted mass murder when he targeted Christian groups that were listed by the SPLC as hate groups with locations of their offices marked on a map posted at their web site. Matt Barber-TownHall:

I no longer believe the SPLC has a sense of goodwill. In fact, based on FBI evidence and the group’s own actions (and inaction), I and many others are left with no other inference but this: The SPLC – a left-wing extremist fundraising behemoth – may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence.
Just days ago, Corkins pled guilty to a number of charges, including domestic terrorism. FBI evidence revealed that he was both motivated by and utilized the SPLC’s “anti-gay hate map” to target and locate his intended Christian mass murder victims.
Further evidence reveals that the “hate map” – more accurately labeled “hit map” – even provided the exact location of FRC and other Christian groups found on Corkins’ hit-list with little red dots to helpfully pinpoint their precise locations.
Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches (which he brought with him) in victims’ faces.” Prosecutors said that he planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue his reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with his belongings while an investigation of Corkins’ computer revealed that he identified his targets on the SPLC website. The other groups were also maliciously listed by the SPLC as “hate groups.”
Motive to kill? Fomented. Who to kill? Provided. Where to kill? Pinpointed, with easy access to driving directions. The only thing the SPLC did not do was purchase Corkins’ gun and drive him to the crime scene.

Let’s not pretend that the SPLC is just a benign law firm lacking an agenda.

Spreading “opinion” is not a crime and does not merit listing or targeting of this nature. That our government has engaged in this absurdity is unconscionable.

If these religious organizations are considered hate groups then in my estimation the SPLC is also a hate group. Now instead of having a clear understanding of what constitutes danger (terrorists) and what constitutes people who merely think and express a different opinion is blurred.

Apr 30, 2013
12:33 pm
#3 Post Scripts :

America is the ultimate free speech podium and it works for us because a majority of citizens are able to use it intelligently. However, hate speech doesn’t belong on the big podium, we’re better than that.

Chris makes the reasonable point that this hate-monger is entitle to his opinion, however rude and disruptive it may be, but reasoned vioces need to drown him out. If there are points to be made from his side, then let responsible dialog set the tone. Chris cited his issues respectfully without calling anyone monsters…that’s the way we do it…differing opinions respectfully submitted.

Weinstein is counterproductive to the good of country because he is so over-the-top hostile. We need him as much as we need road-rage.

Apr 30, 2013
1:10 pm
#4 Pie Guevara :

Interesting… When was the last time “Fundamentalist Christian Monsters” flew a plane into building, bombed the Boston Marathon, or executed a baby — “It wasn’t fully developed. It didn’t have eyes or a mouth but it was like screeching, making this noise. It was weird. It sounded like a little alien.”

Those goddamn Christian monsters.

I have had enough of this lunacy. Hope you enjoy this —

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Ssw3DDcmc

Apr 30, 2013
1:35 pm
#5 Chris :

Thanks, Jack.

Tina, if you believe that the SPLC’s “hate map” is inciting violence, do you also agree with many liberals that Sarah Palin’s “target list” of districts with Democrats she was committed to defeating does the same?

Because I don’t believe either of those judgments are fair. On this site, I defended Palin from accusations that the target list was an incitement to violence. I said that many liberals overreacted and went too far in their condemnation of Palin, especially when they tried to link her to the shooting of Gabby Giffords.

But I don’t see how you can excuse one, and not the other. Both of them provide a list of political opponents, and both provide a map of where you can find these people. What is the difference?

The SPLC does not advocate violence against anyone.

“Spreading “opinion” is not a crime and does not merit listing or targeting of this nature.”

No one said it was a “crime.” The SPLC is not advocating that they should be barred from the right to free speech. They are doing the same thing Jack does in this article: calling certain people “hateful” for things they have said. Is that out of the bounds of reasonable discourse?

Did you read the quotes I provided from the groups in question, Tina, in which they falsely claim that gays are more likely to be pedophiles, are a danger to children, and were responsible for the Holocaust? Do you really find it unreasonable to label such words as “hate?” Why?

You’ve accused me of being “hateful” and “bigoted” toward conservatives for expressing far more mild criticism than anything the SPLC has quoted. I’ve never compared conservatives to pedophiles or blamed you for the Holocaust. Is criticism only “hateful” if conservatives are the target?

“If these religious organizations are considered hate groups then in my estimation the SPLC is also a hate group.”

What has the SPLC said or done that equates to the quotes they’ve provided? You’re not addressing the merit of their arguments against these groups at all. Why are you intentionally avoiding the expressed words of the groups listed by the SPLC?

“Now instead of having a clear understanding of what constitutes danger (terrorists) and what constitutes people who merely think and express a different opinion is blurred.”

How? The SPLC doesn’t equate all hate groups with terrorists or groups that pose a danger. In fact, it explicitly says on their hate map page, “Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.” They seem to be taking precautions against exactly what you’re concerned about. What more do you want?

Apr 30, 2013
1:46 pm
#6 Chris :

For the record, here is the SPLC’s hate map.

And here is Sarah Palin’s target map.

If anything, one could argue that Palin’s is more prone to a violent interpretation, since it uses crosshairs. But I think it’s clear that they are metaphorical, and anyone who would take it as a literal incitement to violence is responsible for his own crimes. But I can’t see why Palin’s is OK, but the SPLC’s is not.

Apr 30, 2013
3:21 pm
#7 Tina :

Chris: ” if you believe that the SPLC’s “hate map” is inciting violence, do you also agree with many liberals that Sarah Palin’s “target list” of districts with Democrats she was committed to defeating does the same?

No. Political people have used the word target to designate seats that they hope to win for decades by politically defeating the opposition party in that district. Both major parties have used this word extensively.

At the time, the charge against Palin was made within an hour of the event…a ridiculous charge since the accuser not only had zero evidence or reason to associate Palin with the killings but because he had used the same word “target” with an actual target in his own political webpage discourse.

The SPLC has specifically placed the organizations in question on a target list that include terrorists organizations like the KKK and white supremacists that advocate violence or that financially support violent acts. As a group trained in the law, and therefore the use of the language, the SPLC should know better!

The only explanation is that this organization is a radical left group and has no qualms about possibly inciting violent acts and acts that are designed to smear and defame. Call it zero tolerance…at some point what they are saying is that the people they don’t like don’t have the right to express their views. Defeat by intimidation is a radical political position and one the left loves to use. Once again, a group that is defined by the law should know better.

“The SPLC does not advocate violence against anyone.”

I don’t think they are necessarily guilty of inciting violence but I think they are guilty of being incredibly stupid by putting these groups on a list making them on par with people that would fly planes into buildings or plan lynchings.

Corkins told the FBI that he used the SPLC map in researching his targets.

If the PLC were on the opposite side how do you think they would argue the case? I think they would argue that the list and map influenced the killer and that makes the group morally, if not legally, culpable. Equating these Christian groups with the KKK is just a very stupid and radical position.

“They are doing the same thing Jack does in this article: calling certain people “hateful” for things they have said.”

No! They called them dangerous terrorists. It’s not the same at all.

“Why are you intentionally avoiding the expressed words of the groups listed by the SPLC?”

I don’t think it’s a good idea to defend or condemn the words of others taken out of context. I think if people have a problem with something someone says they should take it up with that person. My position is that the SPLC, people trained in the law, had no reason to label these groups as terror organizations and frankly, because of their legal position, I think they would be seen as an authority in a position to influence toward radical action.

” In fact, it explicitly says on their hate map page, “Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.”

And then it makes a list that includes groups known for violent behavior right along with Christian and Jewish groups. The sentence is a legal jargon, a disclaimer…after all they are lawyers! They know how to cover their butts.

Like I said, they should know better. But they are a radical left group and the purpose is much deeper than the activism visible on the surface.

Apr 30, 2013
4:33 pm
#8 Peggy :

Is this a free speech, political or religious issue? Or, is it just another case of being silenced for speaking out against the current president?

Prominent Black Pastor Disinvited From Speaking at College Over ‘Untimely’ Criticisms of Obama:

The prominent black pastor penned an opinion column on April 14 for the Philadelphia Tribune titled, ”A President for Everyone, Except Black People,” in which he criticized Obama for failing to appoint members of the black community to cabinet positions in his administration, and for his failure to address issues of poverty in the community.

“In 1947, Dr. King warned that, ‘If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. Be careful, ‘brethren!’ Be careful, teachers!’ We are potentially witnessing the realization of King’s greatest fears.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/30/prominent-black-pastor-disinvited-from-speaking-at-college-after-criticizing-obama/

May 1, 2013
8:11 am
#9 Chris :

I wrote: “They are doing the same thing Jack does in this article: calling certain people “hateful” for things they have said.”

Tina wrote: “No! They called them dangerous terrorists. It’s not the same at all.”

I’m sorry, Tina, but you’re simply making this up out of whole cloth. The SPLC has never called any of the groups we are discussing in this conversation “dangerous terrorists.” Your previous objection was to the “hate group” label. You now seem to be changing the argument.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to defend or condemn the words of others taken out of context. I think if people have a problem with something someone says they should take it up with that person.”

So you’re saying that Jack shouldn’t have written this article on this blog. He should have instead just written an e-mail or a comment to Mike Weinstein, personally, and left it at that. After all, the quote he cites is just as “out of context” as the quotes from the AFA and the FRC provided by the Southern Policy Law Center. Which is to say, neither are out of context; both Jack and the SPLC give us enough of the quotes that we can make a judgment over whether or not the statements are hateful, and provide citations so that we can look into the issue further. If there’s important context missing, you have to actually show what that is; asserting that something is “out of context” isn’t enough to make it so.

You have no problem citing quotes from left-wingers and declaring them hateful on this blog. I doubt you e-mail Obama or Eric Holder every time they say something you believe is “hateful,” so that you can take it up with them personally. You air your grievances publically, as is your right. They are public figures, and you believe the public should be informed about controversial statements they’ve made and positions they hold. I agree with you!

But I don’t agree with your double standard, which seems to holds that conservative public figures and organizations should never be held accountable for their controversial statements, and that any issue with said statements should be taken up with them personally, and not subject to public scrutiny.

I had no problem criticizing Mike Weinstein’s nasty rant, even though he’s a public figure fighting on behalf of an issue I care about. Just because he’s on my political “side” does not make him above criticism. I didn’t assert, without evidence, that he was taken out of context. I didn’t suggest that Jack is making him a target of violence. I just…admitted that what he was saying was terrible. Yet you can’t look at statements equating gays with pedophiles and Nazis, and be able to say the same? It’s really not that hard.

“My position is that the SPLC, people trained in the law, had no reason to label these groups as terror organizations”

Then it’s a good thing they didn’t do that.

May 1, 2013
8:25 am
#10 Chris :

“No. Political people have used the word target to designate seats that they hope to win for decades by politically defeating the opposition party in that district. Both major parties have used this word extensively.”

And both parties have used the word “hate group” extensively as well. The word has been around for generations to describe groups that devote significant time to defaming minority groups with lies and propoganda. As the SPLC has documented, the AFA and the FRC do exactly that. You haven’t shown that the “hate group” label is inappropriate, nor have you shown how the SPLC’s hate map is any more an incitement to violence that Sarah Palin’s target map.

“Call it zero tolerance…at some point what they are saying is that the people they don’t like don’t have the right to express their views.”

No, that’s not what they’re saying at all.

“Defeat by intimidation is a radical political position and one the left loves to use.”

Tina, do you believe that equating gays with pedophiles and Nazis is an attempt to “defeat by intimidation?” Why or why not?

I’ve seen this familiar refrain among conservatives, where calling someone hateful or bigoted is viewed as an attempt to shut down discourse, to intimidate…but actually *expressing* hateful and bigoted views against a minority group is shrugged off. That doesn’t make sense to me.

“Equating these Christian groups with the KKK is just a very stupid and radical position.”

But…why? You’ve asserted a lot in this discussion, but you haven’t done much to support your arguments. Why is it wrong to equate the FRC with the KKK? Because the FRC claims to be Christian? So does the KKK, so that can’t be it.

“And then it makes a list that includes groups known for violent behavior right along with Christian and Jewish groups.”

Is your argument that because the groups claim to be Christian and Jewish, they can’t be hate groups? Read up on the Jewish Defense League, Tina–they’ve committed several terrorists attacks both here and abroad. It would help if, instead of assuming the SPLC is wrong to label “Christian” or “Jewish” groups as hate groups, you actually looked into their reasoning for doing so first.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/jewish-defense-league#.UYEzHLVQFic

May 1, 2013
11:04 am
#11 Tina :

Chris: “I’m sorry, Tina, but you’re simply making this up out of whole cloth. The SPLC has never called any of the groups we are discussing in this conversation “dangerous terrorists.”

You’re right; they merely labeled them hate groups. that was an error. However, the KKK and skinhead organizations are listed as terror groups and so, by association, the implication is that the Christian groups in question advocate or would likely engage in violent acts or terrorism just as the KKK would and did.

“So you’re saying that Jack shouldn’t have written this article on this blog. He should have instead just written an e-mail or a comment to Mike Weinstein…”

He could have but, no. You quoted the opinions of individuals. We are discussing whether groups should be listed along with the KKK…at least I am…and I think that was Jack’s point. If you have a problem with those individuals you should discuss it with them rather than asking me to explain or defend them. As far as I know the groups in question do not have a policy that should land them in the same category as a group that has historically been associated with violent acts as a means of expressing their views.

“You have no problem citing quotes from left-wingers and declaring them hateful on this blog.”

I don’t have a problem declaring left-wingers’ positions as dangerous to the republic, as outrageous or mean. It’s my opinion about what they have said or what they are doing. I don’t recall using the word hate specifically and I wouldn’t go so far as to create a list that associates left wing groups like Media Matters with the KKK, the uni-bomber, the Weather Underground, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other left wing extremist group that has engaged in violence.

“But I don’t agree with your double standard, which seems to holds that conservative public figures and organizations should never be held accountable for their controversial statements…”

But we aren’t talking about holding them accountable. We are talking about the SPLC insinuating that these groups are capable of violence against others, singling them out to nbe watched as if they would. This is a radical political move in my opinion that smacks of the old Alinsky method (rule 12) to defeat those who disagree with you by publicly smearing them or their reputations rather than by engaging in debate on the issue.

“I just…admitted that what he was saying was terrible. Yet you can’t look at statements equating gays with pedophiles and Nazis, and be able to say the same?”

The science isn’t settled on the pedophile charge. I don’t want to go there because all we would be arguing is opinion and the guy is entitled to his concerns on the issue. The Nazi charge is over the top but has become quite common on both sides…I can let it roll off my back. I prefer, in general, to discuss issues and generally do my best to avoid personal attacks. When I say Obama is ruining the country it’s an indictment on his policy not his person. The issue here for me is that the SPLC, a legal organization, has erred in placing these Christian groups on a list with other groups that have engaged in violence. I believe they have done so knowing that the association will be made, that it will incite hatred, and to intimidate in order to silence. If the SPLC’s position is so valid and popular why do they feel the need to silence the opinions of others?

“And both parties have used the word “hate group” extensively as well.”

The word hate has been used by both sides. But I don’t know of a conservative group that has formed a list of progressive groups that include, for instance, the Human Rights Campaign or Planned Parenthood and the KKK. Planned Parenthood is, as a matter of consideration alone, a much easier group to label as associated with violence, at least in the minds of some people, as is the FRC. Yet still I know of no official making them a hate group similar to the likes of the KKK. Are you aware of such a conservative list?

“…do you believe that equating gays with pedophiles and Nazis is an attempt to “defeat by intimidation?” Why or why not?

I think people have the right to say just about anything. That isn’t the same as putting a group on an official list with known terrorist organization like the KKK.

I would not make statements generally equating gay’s with pedophilia and I wouldn’t call them Nazi’s. I would discuss the studies that link gay activity and pedophilia just as I would discuss the dangers associated with illicit sex as being dangerous or affairs outside of marriage being ultimately harmful to children. As the Christian groups have pointed out, professional opinions differ on the subject of pedophilia. Don’t bother arguing, I KNOW the gay community does think the issue is settled. They also think gay is an identity. I think it’s an activity. The argument finds it’s roots in this difference of opinion.

“Why is it wrong to equate the FRC with the KKK? ”

Hello! The KKK lynched people, burned their homes. DUH.

“…instead of assuming the SPLC is wrong to label “Christian” or “Jewish” groups as hate groups, you actually looked into their reasoning for doing so first.”

And instead of assuming the groups listed deserve to be on the list just because the SPLC put them there you should investigate to see if they ever engaged in or advocated violent acts.

If you think they deserve to be on the list fine. I do think you should offer more than a few people’s expressed opinions as evidence for these groups being associated with groups like the KKK that have murdered people and engaged in terror.

What is the point of creating a “hate” list in the first place? What does it buy this legal organization? Hate is a subjective term. Terror and murder are definitive and worthy of prosecution…but hate? Please. the SPLC has a purly political purpose in making this list and posting it on the website. If they are going to post it they can’t assume they won’t be criticized for doing so…nor can you.

May 7, 2013
7:26 pm
#12 Tina :

My how things change…

Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator does some follow up work on the origins of the Family Research Center (or Council).

Please follow the link above to learn about the money angle.

The item that is pertinent to our discussions is posted below and is bound to raise a few eyebrows:

According to the SPLC itself, the Family Research Center originated at the 1980 White House Conference on Families. And just what did that Conference – sponsored by no less than President Jimnmy Carter, the man whose national finance director was Morris Dees, the founder of the SPLC – have to say on the issue of marriage?
It said this:
WHEREAS, The family has been clearly defined in God’s Word and accepted by the Jewish and Christian society of America for over two hundred years, and
WHEREAS, Traditional Judeo-Christian family values are being threatened, and
WHEREAS, American families need to have affirmation by the Christian community, and
WHEREAS, The first of the three national conferences held in Baltimore reportedly made some positive recommendations such as support for aid to combat alcohol and drug abuse and yet supported abortion, homosexual rights, and a general undermining of the biblical concept of the family, and
WHEREAS, The recommendations from the White House Conference on the Family will likely be received by Congress and the President as the sentiment of the American people, and thus enacted into law,
Be it therefore RESOLVED, That the biblical definition of the family be affirmed as the only adequate definition of the family.
The irony, of course, is that the FRC has exactly this position – and is being castigated as a “hate group.” Which, apparently, means Morris Dees of the SPLC was responsible for raising money for a hate group leader named Jimmy Carter. Not to mention helping Carter become president.

They always say the truth is stranger than fiction!

Leave a Comment

Previous Post
«
Next Post
»
G-scale designed by Make Your Own Website In conjunction with Web Hosting   |   Watch Movies Online   |   Computer Repair