CDZ Christian Hate Groups

[JoeMoma]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

 

[Coyote]

Whenever you bring up the hatred many Christians have for people who are different, no one ever addresses the words they (religious) use and the actions they take. Boycotting Target because they are empathetic citizens is one example. Americans cannot be free to be themselves, they must adhere to the Christian's worldview. The point here is religions, all religions, often create an environment of hate that spills out into society.

Opponents of an open, free society often think criticizing the messenger or the source is all that is required, they engage in same labeling as if this labeling alone meant something. (See above replies) The story of the SPLC is a fascinating one, the founder a hard core segregationist eventually saw the light. Check it out sometime.

I was watching 'Mississippi Burning' recently and it captures well the racial hatred and the actions that kept it in place for so long. I think in a way it is the reason the South is still a rather backward place, but that said, slowly racism changed, in many ways it only hide under the covers, but lynching and burning Churches stopped. The LGBT community will have this same hatred aimed at it from religion. So when you label whole people, lets try to be consistent.

"Evangelical hate speech is really a perversion of empathy. I was guilty of doing it for twenty-five years. I’m ashamed and sorry that I did and regret that my parents and other church leaders taught and instructed me to speak that way. I wish I could go back and apologize to all the people to whom I directed hate speech." See more at: Evangelical Hate Speech: in the Name of Love

"The first hate emails I received were horrible. They did not just attack what I wrote — which was usually about spirituality more than religion — but were also vicious ad hominem attacks. I can’t tell you how many people wrote in to say that I was a whore and a slut and so much worse that I can’t even write it here. And these all came from Christians. I was going to hell. I had made a pact with the devil. Jesus and God hated me. One man wrote that he hoped I would get in a car accident, that the gas tank would explode and I would be burned alive. He was a God-fearing Christian, and he ascertained that I obviously was not one."

When it Comes to Hateful Internet Speech, Christians Are the Worst - OnFaith

Mississippi Burning. You do know that the movie was about the early 1960's right? Over half century ago. Maybe you're watching too many movies, and Hollywood does lean waaaay left, and does ignore little items like Black on White violence. Still, I'll be careful of those Christians from now on, probably got the center of their bibles hollowed out to hide their guns.

Black on white violence is over-rated and in most cases, is an attempt to claim reverse racism. The demographics of this country. Blacks are only 13% of the population, other non-whites make up 17%. Chances are most crime is going to be on whites due to simple demographics.

The reality of crime statistics is that most serious crimes are committed on those that are the same race as the perpetrator. That has some interesting implications for race in general but it also destroys the claims one one race's impact on another through crime as you pointed out.

I'm not sure about that. The victims of crime are most likely to be people in the criminals neighborhood and many neighborhoods - particularly in impoverished areas are still largely self-segregated. Most crime is not racially motivated.

 

[Coyote]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

I think it requires a bit more than that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

 

[Picaro]

A “white” homicide victim is over twice as likely to be killed by a black than a black homicide victim is to be killed by a “white.” Sixteen percent of “white” victims in homicide incidents involving a single victim and single offender were killed by blacks, compared with only 7 percent of black victims who are killed by “whites.” Given the fact that blacks are less than 13 percent of the national population, their homicide rate against whites and Hispanics combined is vastly disproportionate to their share of the population. There were 431 black killers of “whites,” compared to 193 “white” killers of blacks. Undoubtedly a large percentage of interracial killings involve gang killings among black and Hispanic gangs; the number of non-Hispanic whites who kill blacks is undoubtedly far lower than 193. (The number of non-Hispanic whites killed by blacks is also presumably lower than 431.)

Blacks are also disproportionately represented among cop killers. In 2013, blacks made up 42 percent of all cop killers whose race was known.

Read more at: New Data: It's Still about Black-on-Black Crime

A recent news release from NYC states 92% of violent crime in that city is committed by blacks, mostly males. You can easily find that story yourselves.

2013 story follows:

Yet they are no statistical anomaly. While most violent crime is indeed intrarracial, 26.7 percent of homicides where the victim is a stranger are interracial. And in 2008, the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was seven times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000), according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

Accounting for population differences, whites are simply far more likely to be victims of interracial crime than blacks. That, of course, didn’t stop Jesse Jackson from telling the Los Angeles Times at the height of the Zimmerman frenzy that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.”

The data, once again, suggest something quite different.

In the mid-1990s, the Center for Equal Opportunity analyzed 55,512 felony cases filed in state courts for the 75 largest counties, representing 37 percent of the U.S. population. The weighted data, taken from the BJS, revealed that juries actually acquit blacks at a higher rate than whites for 12 of the 14 types of crime studied — including murder, rape, robbery and assault. The only category that had a higher conviction rate for African-Americans was felony traffic offenses.

Black-on-white crime in America

For the latest stats, see the FBI's data page. 2015 is the first year hispanics were not lumped in with Caucasians for stats purposes, which aids accurate reporting of data, for once.

 

[JoeMoma]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

I think it requires a bit morethan that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

Deny same rights -- like being against same sex marriage or being against men that identify as women using women's restrooms and locker rooms.
How far away is saying "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God" is from saying "Kill the fags"? I suspect speaking out about the sinfulness of homosexuality gets many christian groups labeled as Hate Groups.

 

[jasonnfree]

Whenever you bring up the hatred many Christians have for people who are different, no one ever addresses the words they (religious) use and the actions they take. Boycotting Target because they are empathetic citizens is one example. Americans cannot be free to be themselves, they must adhere to the Christian's worldview. The point here is religions, all religions, often create an environment of hate that spills out into society.

Opponents of an open, free society often think criticizing the messenger or the source is all that is required, they engage in same labeling as if this labeling alone meant something. (See above replies) The story of the SPLC is a fascinating one, the founder a hard core segregationist eventually saw the light. Check it out sometime.

I was watching 'Mississippi Burning' recently and it captures well the racial hatred and the actions that kept it in place for so long. I think in a way it is the reason the South is still a rather backward place, but that said, slowly racism changed, in many ways it only hide under the covers, but lynching and burning Churches stopped. The LGBT community will have this same hatred aimed at it from religion. So when you label whole people, lets try to be consistent.

"Evangelical hate speech is really a perversion of empathy. I was guilty of doing it for twenty-five years. I’m ashamed and sorry that I did and regret that my parents and other church leaders taught and instructed me to speak that way. I wish I could go back and apologize to all the people to whom I directed hate speech." See more at: Evangelical Hate Speech: in the Name of Love

"The first hate emails I received were horrible. They did not just attack what I wrote — which was usually about spirituality more than religion — but were also vicious ad hominem attacks. I can’t tell you how many people wrote in to say that I was a whore and a slut and so much worse that I can’t even write it here. And these all came from Christians. I was going to hell. I had made a pact with the devil. Jesus and God hated me. One man wrote that he hoped I would get in a car accident, that the gas tank would explode and I would be burned alive. He was a God-fearing Christian, and he ascertained that I obviously was not one."

When it Comes to Hateful Internet Speech, Christians Are the Worst - OnFaith

Mississippi Burning. You do know that the movie was about the early 1960's right? Over half century ago. Maybe you're watching too many movies, and Hollywood does lean waaaay left, and does ignore little items like Black on White violence. Still, I'll be careful of those Christians from now on, probably got the center of their bibles hollowed out to hide their guns.

Black on white violence is over-rated and in most cases, is an attempt to claim reverse racism. The demographics of this country. Blacks are only 13% of the population, other non-whites make up 17%. Chances are most crime is going to be on whites due to simple demographics.

Sounds like you've made my point for me on the crime thing, if factoring in population percentages.

 

[FA_Q2]

Whenever you bring up the hatred many Christians have for people who are different, no one ever addresses the words they (religious) use and the actions they take. Boycotting Target because they are empathetic citizens is one example. Americans cannot be free to be themselves, they must adhere to the Christian's worldview. The point here is religions, all religions, often create an environment of hate that spills out into society.

Opponents of an open, free society often think criticizing the messenger or the source is all that is required, they engage in same labeling as if this labeling alone meant something. (See above replies) The story of the SPLC is a fascinating one, the founder a hard core segregationist eventually saw the light. Check it out sometime.

I was watching 'Mississippi Burning' recently and it captures well the racial hatred and the actions that kept it in place for so long. I think in a way it is the reason the South is still a rather backward place, but that said, slowly racism changed, in many ways it only hide under the covers, but lynching and burning Churches stopped. The LGBT community will have this same hatred aimed at it from religion. So when you label whole people, lets try to be consistent.

"Evangelical hate speech is really a perversion of empathy. I was guilty of doing it for twenty-five years. I’m ashamed and sorry that I did and regret that my parents and other church leaders taught and instructed me to speak that way. I wish I could go back and apologize to all the people to whom I directed hate speech." See more at: Evangelical Hate Speech: in the Name of Love

"The first hate emails I received were horrible. They did not just attack what I wrote — which was usually about spirituality more than religion — but were also vicious ad hominem attacks. I can’t tell you how many people wrote in to say that I was a whore and a slut and so much worse that I can’t even write it here. And these all came from Christians. I was going to hell. I had made a pact with the devil. Jesus and God hated me. One man wrote that he hoped I would get in a car accident, that the gas tank would explode and I would be burned alive. He was a God-fearing Christian, and he ascertained that I obviously was not one."

When it Comes to Hateful Internet Speech, Christians Are the Worst - OnFaith

Mississippi Burning. You do know that the movie was about the early 1960's right? Over half century ago. Maybe you're watching too many movies, and Hollywood does lean waaaay left, and does ignore little items like Black on White violence. Still, I'll be careful of those Christians from now on, probably got the center of their bibles hollowed out to hide their guns.

Black on white violence is over-rated and in most cases, is an attempt to claim reverse racism. The demographics of this country. Blacks are only 13% of the population, other non-whites make up 17%. Chances are most crime is going to be on whites due to simple demographics.

The reality of crime statistics is that most serious crimes are committed on those that are the same race as the perpetrator. That has some interesting implications for race in general but it also destroys the claims one one race's impact on another through crime as you pointed out.

I'm not sure about that. The victims of crime are most likely to be people in the criminals neighborhood and many neighborhoods - particularly in impoverished areas are still largely self-segregated. Most crime is not racially motivated.

Never implied that the crimes in question were racially motivated. That does not matter to my statements.

 

[RandallFlagg]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

BIngo!

 

[RandallFlagg]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

I think it requires a bit morethan that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

Deny same rights -- like being against same sex marriage or being against men that identify as women using women's restrooms and locker rooms.
How far away is saying "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God" is from saying "Kill the fags"? I suspect speaking out about the sinfulness of homosexuality gets many christian groups labeled as Hate Groups.

Again - BINGO!

 

[Coyote]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

I think it requires a bit morethan that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

Deny same rights -- like being against same sex marriage or being against men that identify as women using women's restrooms and locker rooms.
How far away is saying "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God" is from saying "Kill the fags"? I suspect speaking out about the sinfulness of homosexuality gets many christian groups labeled as Hate Groups.

More like calling for discrimination of homosexuals in housing, jobs, adoption, calling for criminalization of homosexuality. Spreading hate through deliberate disinformation, such as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or indirectly encouraging violence. For example, look at Gary DeMar, founder of the Christian non-profit "American Vision". He's calling for a more theocratic governance for the US and the death penalty for practicing "sodomites". Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg likewise called for criminalizing homosexuality. The Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron - called for criminalizing homosexuallity in America and claimed he was just fine with Uganda's proposed bill to execute homosexuals.

 

[jasonnfree]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

I think it requires a bit morethan that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

Deny same rights -- like being against same sex marriage or being against men that identify as women using women's restrooms and locker rooms.
How far away is saying "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God" is from saying "Kill the fags"? I suspect speaking out about the sinfulness of homosexuality gets many christian groups labeled as Hate Groups.

More like calling for discrimination of homosexuals in housing, jobs, adoption, calling for criminalization of homosexuality. Spreading hate through deliberate disinformation, such as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or indirectly encouraging violence. For example, look at Gary DeMar, founder of the Christian non-profit "American Vision". He's calling for a more theocratic governance for the US and the death penalty for practicing "sodomites". Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg likewise called for criminalizing homosexuality. The Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron - called for criminalizing homosexuallity in America and claimed he was just fine with Uganda's proposed bill to execute homosexuals.

If you don't like the christians' attitudes about homosexuality, then you probably won't like to live in America under a hillary presidency, since she intends to roll out the welcome mat for muslim refugees in far greater numbers than obama even. You might even have get one of those nasty noisy guns to defend yourself.

 

[Coyote]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

I think it requires a bit morethan that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

Deny same rights -- like being against same sex marriage or being against men that identify as women using women's restrooms and locker rooms.
How far away is saying "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God" is from saying "Kill the fags"? I suspect speaking out about the sinfulness of homosexuality gets many christian groups labeled as Hate Groups.

More like calling for discrimination of homosexuals in housing, jobs, adoption, calling for criminalization of homosexuality. Spreading hate through deliberate disinformation, such as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or indirectly encouraging violence. For example, look at Gary DeMar, founder of the Christian non-profit "American Vision". He's calling for a more theocratic governance for the US and the death penalty for practicing "sodomites". Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg likewise called for criminalizing homosexuality. The Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron - called for criminalizing homosexuallity in America and claimed he was just fine with Uganda's proposed bill to execute homosexuals.

If you don't like the christians' attitudes about homosexuality, then you probably won't like to live in America under a hillary presidency, since she intends to roll out the welcome mat for muslim refugees in far greater numbers than obama even. You might even have get one of those nasty noisy guns to defend yourself.

No she doesn't, numbers will still be quite small, refugees will still require the same lengthy vetting and anyone entering this country will have to obey our laws. That's the part you guys keep skipping. Vetting may not be 100% perfect - but it's worked well over all so far.

 

[jasonnfree]

All a christian group needs to do to be considered a hate group is to speak out in favor of traditional family values that would be almost universally accepted 50 years ago.

I think it requires a bit morethan that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

Deny same rights -- like being against same sex marriage or being against men that identify as women using women's restrooms and locker rooms.
How far away is saying "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God" is from saying "Kill the fags"? I suspect speaking out about the sinfulness of homosexuality gets many christian groups labeled as Hate Groups.

More like calling for discrimination of homosexuals in housing, jobs, adoption, calling for criminalization of homosexuality. Spreading hate through deliberate disinformation, such as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or indirectly encouraging violence. For example, look at Gary DeMar, founder of the Christian non-profit "American Vision". He's calling for a more theocratic governance for the US and the death penalty for practicing "sodomites". Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg likewise called for criminalizing homosexuality. The Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron - called for criminalizing homosexuallity in America and claimed he was just fine with Uganda's proposed bill to execute homosexuals.

If you don't like the christians' attitudes about homosexuality, then you probably won't like to live in America under a hillary presidency, since she intends to roll out the welcome mat for muslim refugees in far greater numbers than obama even. You might even have get one of those nasty noisy guns to defend yourself.

No she doesn't, numbers will still be quite small, refugees will still require the same lengthy vetting and anyone entering this country will have to obey our laws. That's the part you guys keep skipping. Vetting may not be 100% perfect - but it's worked well over all so far.

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument. What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

 

[Picaro]

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument. What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

A study in Florida some years back a U of Florida study showed immigrants there cost the state some $2,400 per capita over what they brought into the state, and it didn't distinguish between legal and illegals. Texas used to have a great program of health clinics and a decent privately funded safety net; that went bankrupt decades ago, crushed under the flood of illegal aliens, and the clinics closed by the dozens. The school systems have been so dumbed down in many neighborhoods they can hardly be considered educating anybody, they're just day care centers and places to hand out free meals to kids.

 

[Kristian]

Terrorism are against hard rock styles.

And hard rock is second best for me.

Alcoholic and Food first and third.

 

[jasonnfree]

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument. What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

A study in Florida some years back a U of Florida study showed immigrants there cost the state some $2,400 per capita over what they brought into the state, and it didn't distinguish between legal and illegals. Texas used to have a great program of health clinics and a decent privately funded safety net; that went bankrupt decades ago, crushed under the flood of illegal aliens, and the clinics closed by the dozens. The school systems have been so dumbed down in many neighborhoods they can hardly be considered educating anybody, they're just day care centers and places to hand out free meals to kids.

Agreed, but common sense doesn't prevail with the open border/hillaryobama crowd, so, we remain racists and bigots.

 

[Coyote]

I think it requires a bit morethan that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

Deny same rights -- like being against same sex marriage or being against men that identify as women using women's restrooms and locker rooms.
How far away is saying "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God" is from saying "Kill the fags"? I suspect speaking out about the sinfulness of homosexuality gets many christian groups labeled as Hate Groups.

More like calling for discrimination of homosexuals in housing, jobs, adoption, calling for criminalization of homosexuality. Spreading hate through deliberate disinformation, such as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or indirectly encouraging violence. For example, look at Gary DeMar, founder of the Christian non-profit "American Vision". He's calling for a more theocratic governance for the US and the death penalty for practicing "sodomites". Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg likewise called for criminalizing homosexuality. The Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron - called for criminalizing homosexuallity in America and claimed he was just fine with Uganda's proposed bill to execute homosexuals.

If you don't like the christians' attitudes about homosexuality, then you probably won't like to live in America under a hillary presidency, since she intends to roll out the welcome mat for muslim refugees in far greater numbers than obama even. You might even have get one of those nasty noisy guns to defend yourself.

No she doesn't, numbers will still be quite small, refugees will still require the same lengthy vetting and anyone entering this country will have to obey our laws. That's the part you guys keep skipping. Vetting may not be 100% perfect - but it's worked well over all so far.

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument.

Neither of us are involved in the process, but given that it's worked well so far, I have no problem with it. The only way to have 100% guarantee is to have a police state...is that what you want? Refugees are given a medical examination before they enter the country.

What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values. So what? They became Americans.

Studies have shown family size is dependent more on prosperity and education levels then on culture and by the next generation, even the first, family sizes are no different than those of native born Americans.

I don't believe this is a zero-sum problem - that if we help one group, the other group loses support. We should and must help veterans and homeless, and we should and must help refugees. We can do both. Many refugees are also sponsored by groups such as churches etc. who likewise work to end homelessness and help veterans. For them, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Picaro]

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

Yes, and you've provided examples, like the following:

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values.

We also had implemented policies to regulate and control who got in, supported assimilation goals, and at various points banned immigration for years as well. We also deported many. It isn't 1720 any more.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

Yes, and you've provided examples, like the following:

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values.

We also had implemented policies to regulate and control who got in, supported assimilation goals, and at various points banned immigration for years as well. We also deported many. It isn't 1720 any more.

You mean like the Chinese Exclusion act and other xenophobic measures? I don't consider that to be a particularly proud moment in our history. That doesn't mean however I believe in utterly unregulated immigration either.

 

[Picaro]

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

Yes, and you've provided examples, like the following:

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values.

We also had implemented policies to regulate and control who got in, supported assimilation goals, and at various points banned immigration for years as well. We also deported many. It isn't 1720 any more.

You mean like the Chinese Exclusion act and other xenophobic measures? I don't consider that to be a particularly proud moment in our history. That doesn't mean however I believe in utterly unregulated immigration either.

Doesn't matter whether you personally feel proud about it. We also heavily restricted immigration from 1920 to 1965, which allowed the assimilation of the millions who poured in from the 1880's to 1910. Yes, it takes that long for assimilation to take hold. We are under zero moral obligation to take anybody in, nor allow any immigrant to remain, either. We take in far, far more than our 'fair share'; the pro-refugee bleeding hearts need to start sniveling about all those other countries out there to start taking them in. there are plenty of Muslim countries Muslim 'refugees' can go. They aren't' our problem.