"... [Matt] Barber noted that the security guard was described by Washington, D.C., authorities as a hero.
“Heroes don’t work for hate groups,” he said. “Shame on the SPLC, the fruits of your propaganda are coming to fruition and you have blood on your hands.”
WND contacted the SPLC and asked specifically about the group’s labeling of Christian organizations as “hate groups.” A spokeswoman said she could not comment and no one was available to comment."
62 Comments
"A spokeswoman said she could not comment and no one was available to comment."
>> Too busy preparing for the lawsuits, I suppose.
I hope they bankrupt this hate-disseminating propaganda machine.
Since when is our creators Truth about Marriage, hate? What is these extremist organizations hope to accomplish through hate rhetoric? Incite more violence? Isn't it a crime to shout fire in a crowded movie theatre when there is no hate, I mean fire?
MJones, the SPLC did not name FRC a hate group based on its position on marriage. The SPLC has never named ANY group a hate group based on its position on marriage.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is feeding you misinformation.
tam, a big part of NOM's mission is to disseminate misinformation.
@tam
I'm not sure about that. I think that some groups may have been named as hateful for (among other things) advocating the banning of interracial marriage.
@tam #3:
So you agree, then, that opposition to same sex marriage is not hate, and is not bigotry?
Thanks Lefty, I should hsve been more specific: no group was named a hate group for its stance on same sex marriage.
And Rick, I do agree that opposition to same sex marriage is not necessarily an indicator of hate. That's an overly broad generalization bourne out of the fact that so many opponents of marriage equality DO spew hate. But "many" is not "all."
tam:
Great.
Thanks.
Can you identify a pro-marriage group that does not spew hate?
Rick: can you identify a pro-marriage group?
Maybe the Southern Poverty Law Center needs to add one more hate group, the SPLC, under the category "anti-every group on the SPLC's blacklists."
The SPLC could put that they themselves incite violence against these groups.
They could quote their own lie about FRC's supposedly false statement: “gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
That's a lite about the FRC, PM? I right that was pretty well documented. I'd love to know your source.
Stupid auto complete on my phone. Apologies.
Tam:
Certainly.
Here would be a reasonable sampling:
NOM
FRC
Alliance Defense Fund
Catholic Church
American Family Association
Agudath Israel of America
African Methodist Episcopal Church
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago
Chick-fil-A
Concerned Women for America
MassResistance
ProtectMarriage.com
Thomas More Law Center
There are many others of course.
Would you please tell me whether any of these organizations do not spew hate?
Thanks.
My answer is tied up in moderation, tam.
Let me see if I can slip this through:
Thomas More Law Center
Catholic Church
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
FRC
Focus on the Family
Do any of these groups not spew hate?
Thanks.
If I understand the gist of PreerveMarriage's point, tam, it is that the statement:
"gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement"
is in fact true, not false, and therefore forms no grounds upon which to accuse the individual who made the statement with "hate".
If that is PM's point, I certainly agree with it.
Do you?
Hard to say, Rick. It's practically impossible to mail down what someone HASN'T said (perhaps they have said it and I just haven't heard it). I don't know about about LDS, and I don't know about Thomas More. The rest have all spewed hate.
For the record, by my standards, anyone who says gays as a group are under Satan's power, or fulfilling Satan's plans, or are trying to recruit children, or are a threat to civilization, or hate America, or on the same moral plane as pedophiles, are spewing hate, as are those who call for the criminalization of homosexuals or homosexual acts.
If you mean gays want to keep gay kids from killing themselves or thinking themselves worthless or getting beaten up by other kids -- well, surely we all want to get that through to kids.
However, if you mean the gay "movement" wants access to kids for sexual exploitation, then no, I disagree and consider that an example of spewing hate.
Well, Tam, I thank you for the clarity of your responses.
It does make the lines of engagement clear.
You consider Catholicism, and Sacred Scripture, and all those who believe it, to be hate spewers.
Fair enough.
We consider you to be anti-Christian, and we shall have to determine through political and legal means whether our First Amendment rights are to be sacrificed so that your side can employ six-gender- switching "role playing" fantasy indoctrination techniques on our children.
Nope.
No chance of an accommodation here.
Thanks again for the clarity.
@Tam,
Stop bastardizing the English language. If you truly believed sexual depravity was acceptable then you should have no problem what-so-ever with calling a spade a spade. You really need to know that the sympathy ship sailed the day everybody found out those civil unions were nothing more than a Trojan horse.
Go sell crazy somewhere else because we are not buying any today.
Judging by comments by Rick and Preserve re: children then it is clear that someone must go on highlighting the lies of the NOM, FRC etc. Patently, gays do not want access to children and to even post a message here in those terms invites others to conclude that all gay people are pedophiles.
I say well done to SPLC and others for their vigilance in monitoring this kind of bare face lie.
Well, Rick, many Christians I know would you consider anti-Christian, so there's plenty of that to go around.
Is this a private fight or can anyone get involved?
Certainly gay activists want to get into schools to indoctrinate children as to the ways of gender confusion against the wishes of parents:
http://www.nomblog.com/26781/
The so-called "Safe Schools" programs being forced into US schools are very similar in scope.
There are several such examples right here on the good old NOM blog, so it's a losing argument to claim that gay activists do not want access to our children.
@Paul #18:
What lies? It is a documented fact that homosexualist indoctrination in six-gender role- playing fantasies has been imposed by legal force in Canada.
Now either have the courage of your convictions and defend this child abuse, or stop lying.
@Tam#17
It is irrelevant, of course, whether such or so a person chooses to reject Scripture and Catholic teaching.
The fact remains:
There is what the Church teaches.
There is what the Scriptures say.
By your admirably clear words, we see that you consider what the Church teaches, and what the Scriptures say, to constitute spewing of hate.
Again, I thank you for making the lines of demarcation in this struggle clear.
Rick, I'll accept the label anti-Christian on the day you prove that anti-gay views like yours represent all Christians and all of Christianity.
Which, of course, you will never do.
@Tam,
Faith is immutable under our constitution; whereas the depravity you pimp is not.
Yes, you have erected an impenetrable barrier there, tam, which fact I had reported to you oh, along about post #17 above.
We have had a terrorist pull out a gun, point it at an unarmed man, and shout, while pulling the trigger, "I don;t like your politics".
In the face of this I am assured that the Catholic Church is a hate group.
This is not going to end well.
Yes, you have erected an impenetrable barrier there, tam, which fact I had reported to you oh, along about post #17 above.
A man equipped for and determined upon mass murder entered FRC.
He pulled a gun on an unarmed man, and shouted "I don't like your politics", while pulling the trigger.
In the face of this I am assured that the Catholic Church is a hate group.
This is not going to end well.
Comments in moderation again.
I will simply say, tam, that you have erected an impenetrable defense, as I had already discerned and reported several posts back.
Paul McMichael wrote,
>
> Patently, gays do not want access to children and to even post a message here in those terms invites others to conclude that all gay people are pedophiles.<
The SPLC does not allege that when the FRC stated, "gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement," that the FRC meant that this goal was to achieve another goal -- of raping the children.
Since, in quoting the FRC, the SPLC is basically providing an argument for including the FRC in its hate groups list -- I would think the SPLC would have mentioned that.
All of the SPLC's quotes on the FRC are taken out of context.
tam wrote,
>
> Rick, I'll accept the label anti-Christian on the day you prove that anti-gay views like yours<
What anti-gay views?
The homosexualist hate group SPLC considers it a hate crime for a parent to resist laws that have already resulted, in SS"M"-approved Canada, in compulsory indoctrination of children- without parental consent (or even knowledge!)-in six-gender role playing fantasy games.
The SPLC and its supporters have made it very clear:
In the face of a terrorist attack on FRC, they will defend the hate speech of the hate group SPLC.
So be it.
Good to know.
Rick, your 10:03pm post is an actual lie. I see no point in continuing a conversation with someone who places so little value in truth.
Since you do not bother to identify the lie, tam, I sympathize with your decision to exit stage left.
Thanks for a helpful exchange.
See you in November, Rick.
Indeed, Scott.
Indeed.
America is made weaker by its sins day by day. What if Islam takes over America? Do you think it is impossible? Look at the influence Islam is gaining in Europe bit by bit! If and when it does in America, Uganda will be here. Wake up now or you will be hunted down. Think Sharial law!! In other words think Judgment. America is a nation blessed by God. Now it has become an eyesore, an “Obamination” before God.
God created human being in a family of one man and one woman. You! Who sit on the high places in Washington is destroying what God has made by your devious tactics and selfish words. God will surely visit your iniquities. You! Who have made this nation an Obamination, God will not spare.
Freedom without boundaries is like an ocean without shores, it will drown everything. Freedom without responsibility is real slavery. Slaves of sin, slaves of unnatural lust both the doers and the supporters of SS (whatever it is). God is not deaf and blind, make no mistake, the blessing God gave to America is about to be taken away and given to some other nations. Look around how many countries are getting ahead of America. Judgment Day is close at hand! So, repent while there is still time-repent!!! 8/17/2012
Your tactic of "accuse and run" actually subverts the truth.
It deprives the accused of the basic right to cross examine you to see if the accusation is true or false.
Indeed, if you accusers would stay long enough to defend your accusations, you could find you made a false accusation!
The "accuse and run" tactic allows you to repeatedly make false accusations and never face the truth you are doing that.
The moral is don't accuse unless you are willing to take the stand and face cross examination.
Its hate-and-run when you accuse-and-run.
Okay, bman. Rick's statement in that post about what the SPLC considers a hate crime is a falsehood. I'm well-versed in the SPLC's work and have never found anything like that. If you and Rick can find anything to the contrary -- if you care to substantiate these allegations against the SPLC instead of just offering them up without proof -- I'd love to see it.
In the Southern Poverty Law Center's response to something the Family Research Center's President said, the SPLC wrote, "The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people."
But the SPLC knows or should know about California's SB 48, Harvey Milk Day, etc. -- schoolchildren indoctrination laws purchased by the homosexual special rights lobby.
Yet in making its argument for including the FRC on its list of hate groups, the SPLC quoted Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, as having stated (in 1999) that “Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
The SPLC is obviously implying that this statement is untrue. (Indeed, it it were true, it wouldn't make sense to include it as an example of the FRC's "hate".)
Since it *is* true, isn't the SPLC doing the same thing it accuses the FRC of doing, knowingly spreading false and denigrating propaganda about FRC people?
And if this makes the FRC a hate group, what does it make the SPLC?
If you had challenged Rick's SPLC statement as false and said you wanted him to prove it, without first saying he lied or was unconcerned for truth, then Rick would have been obligated to go first with providing evidence.
However, since you called Rick a liar unconcerned about truth, you have the burden to issue your evidence for that first.
Good post PM.
A gay columnist virtually agreed with the FRC on that point recently, as well. As follows:
That same gay columnist also said he hoped to have sex with some of those children once they got older.
Anyway, if the FRC is called a hate group for saying gays want access to kids, the SPLC needs to remove FRC from their list or put that gay activist on their list as well.
Tam:
Here are my words-
"The homosexualist hate group SPLC considers it a hate crime for a parent to resist laws that have already resulted, in SS"M"-approved Canada, in compulsory indoctrination of children- without parental consent (or even knowledge!)-in six-gender role playing fantasy games."
Please indicate any evidence you might have that the homosexualist hate group SPLC does *not* consider it a hate crime to advocate against same sex marriage laws.
Tick tock.
So.
Tam- certainly among the more seemingly reasonable of the pro-SSM contributors here, shows up with a remarkable statement, on which is often advanced by the defenders of the homosexualist hate group SPLC:
"I do agree that opposition to same sex marriage is not necessarily an indicator of hate."
She is right about that.
But she can't think of a single organization that fits her own criteria above.
Not one.
This is an example of the profound disconnect between word and deed, between statement and belief, which is so characteristic of the SSM advocate.
Logic is not the strong suit of the SSM advocate because the position itself is drastically illogical, and cannot stand up to logical examination.
And so, in the end, it comes down to word games and bellicose assertions of bigotry and hate.
Make no mistake, neither Tam nor SPLC means it when they say:
""I do agree that opposition to same sex marriage is not necessarily an indicator of hate."
The assertion does not match up to the reality.
It is simply a nice way to PR the disastrous faslehoods which underlie the homosexualist view of marriage, and the homosexualist view of marriage supporters.
We do the SSM advocate a favor in defeating SSM.
We lighten the burden of cognitive dissidence such folks must bear, even more now in the wake of the terrorist shooting at FRC.
It becomes more clear if we keep in mind that when SPLC says FRC is a "hate group", this is not a description.
It is, rather, a directive.
The SPLC's "Anti-Gay" (hate group type) Web page begins, "Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians has been a central theme of Christian Right organizing and fundraising."
Is opposition to "marriage equality," "opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians"?
If so, does that mean that commitment to a definition of marriage, that has existed for millennia, is "hate"?
We have to treat different things equally now, rather than differently, or it's "hate"?
Can the law make an opposite sex couple equal to a homosexual pairing? I can think of at least one difference.
While the sophisticated spin of the SSM movement has certainly brought it a whole lot further down the highway than I ever would have believed possible.......
It's those last ten yards that count.
They haven't made it yet.
And, just for the record, they aren;t going to.
The SSM tide turned on Chick Fil A Wednesday.
The SSM spin lost its magic when a terrorist pulled a gun on an unarmed man, shouted "I don't like your politics", and pulled the trigger.
The SPLC stands revealed as a gender left propaganda appendage.
When it applies the term "hate group" to groups like FRC, this is not a description.
It is, rather, a directive.
While the sophisticated spin of the SSM movement has certainly brought it a whole lot further down the highway than I ever would have believed possible.......
It's those last ten yards that count.
They haven't made it yet.
And, just for the record, they aren;t going to.
The SSM tide turned on Chick Fil A Wednesday.
So.
Tam- certainly among the more seemingly reasonable of the pro-SSM contributors here- shows up with a remarkable statement, one which is often advanced by the defenders of the homosexualist hate group SPLC:
"I do agree that opposition to same sex marriage is not necessarily an indicator of hate."
She is right about that.
But she can't think of a single organization that fits her own criteria above.
Not one.
This is an example of the profound disconnect between word and deed, between statement and belief, which is so characteristic of the SSM advocate.
Logic is not the strong suit of the SSM advocate because the position itself is drastically illogical, and cannot stand up to logical examination.
And so, in the end, it comes down to word games and bellicose assertions of bigotry and hate.
Make no mistake, neither Tam nor SPLC means it when they say:
""I do agree that opposition to same sex marriage is not necessarily an indicator of hate."
The assertion does not match up to the reality.
It is simply a nice way to PR the disastrous faslehoods which underlie the homosexualist view of marriage, and the homosexualist view of marriage supporters.
We do the SSM advocate a favor in defeating SSM.
We lighten the burden of cognitive dissonance such folks must bear, even more so now, in the wake of the terrorist shooting at FRC.
Keep in mind that when SPLC says FRC is a "hate group", this is not a description.
It is, rather, a directive.
I went to Chick-fil-A last Wednesday. I love their beverages. Their fresh squeezed lemonade and peach shakes are awesome!
I filled out two comment cards. (I bought food twice.) On the first I wrote that the National Organization for Marriage had told us to go. On the other, I wrote that -- as long as they kept supporting marriage -- I'd keep eating there.
My wife stopped by Chick-fil-A today in order to honor our commitment; she informed me that she had to wait fifteen minutes to get through the drive-thru, their parking-lot was full, and the surrounding restaurants had no more than two vehicles in their respective drive through.
If this pace keeps up through November 6th, the (D)’s lose sway, and the changing of the guard leaves the talking heads speechless we can count on seeing quite the show in boardrooms across this nation in response to shareholder outrage.
@ Rick DeLano
As per bman's request:
I believe your statement is false. Can you please prove this statement?
You now have to answer to me.
Certainly, Spunky.
http://74.63.51.110/corner/314168/what-southern-poverty-law-center-said-about-frc-maggie-gallagher
Relevant excerpt:
"SPLC’s research director Heidi Beirich told Talking Points Memo on November 24, 2010, that there was no difference between Family Research Council and the Ku Klux Klan:
I asked her if a Republican choosing to address the FRC [Values Voter Summit] convention next year would be making the same choice as one who addressed an Aryan Nation rally.
“Yeah,” she told me. “What we’re saying is these [anti-gay] groups perpetrate hate — just like those [racist] organizations do.”
The SPLC can see no difference between Family Research Council and a group that lynched black people in order to keep them from voting."
You are answered.
Your answer is in the moderation queue, Spunky.
Let me see if I can sneak a shorter one through:
SPLC’s research director Heidi Beirich stated, in response to a question from Maggie Gallagher:
"I asked her if a Republican choosing to address the FRC [Values Voter Summit] convention next year would be making the same choice as one who addressed an Aryan Nation rally.
“Yeah,” she told me. “What we’re saying is these [anti-gay] groups perpetrate hate — just like those [racist] organizations do.”
You are answered, Spunky.
Now let's see if this gets through......
Tam:
Fair is fair.
Your turn.
See #42 above.
@ Rick DeLano
I am completely confused as to how your statement answers my question. In fact, I don't see how your comment relates to my question at all. There is no mention of hate-crimes, parenting or parental consent, or Canada.
Maybe I need to wait for the filter to accept your longer response.
Spunky:
No, I think it will not assist you top wait.
I am sorry that you do not comprehend my answer, but there is little more to be said in such a case.
You are answered.
Spunky:
No, I think it will not assist you to wait.
I am sorry that you do not comprehend my answer, but there is little more to be said in such a case.
You are answered.
Spunky:
No idea what's up with the moderation tonight, but I am quite sure the original post will not assist you.
I am sorry that you are confused, but there is really nothing to be said in such a case.
You are answered.
Randy (50),
Iowa only needs one more Republican legislator, I believe -- and New Hampshire only needs to elect a Republican governor -- to restore the true definition of marriage in those states.
Yes, if we can win this November, including defeating Obama, the tide will be well and truly turned.
Thank you, bman (42).
Fascinating admission.
I bookmarked it.
Rick DeLano wrote,
>
> Yes, if we can win this November, including defeating Obama, the tide will be well and truly turned.<
What? You want to "to put control of the U.S. government in the right hands, meaning those who reject gay rights"?
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay
Is same-sex "marriage" a right? Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose. They don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. Oh, wait, now I'm just being "sophisticated".
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners
Rick, I think the votes in Maine, Washington, Minnesota and Maryland may be more important. A Supreme Court justice may not retire before SCOTUS takes up 'gay marriage.'
Also, another Republican legislator in Iowa, and a Republican Governor in New Hampshire, might do more to help us "beat back the increasingly confident gay rights movement" -- or, at least, the marriage re-definition movement.