Donald Trump sends 'hate group' to a UN conference on women's rights

[tulc]

SPLC doesn't decide what groups are or aren't respectable anymore. Get used to it.

So we've been told.
tulc(wonders who does get to...hopes it's not President Putin)

 

[FundyJohn]

Perhaps it's because it isn't really "anti-Christian" it's simply not the same as what you think/believe?
tulc(just a thought)

I've used an old quote of a former pastor many times: It's not Scripture I disagree with, it's your idea of what Scripture means that I take issue with. Additionally isn't it funny how many of the same people who complain about same sex marriage seem to give lip service to the separation of Church and State?

 

[Bible2+]

pat34lee said in post #8:

Nobody except the hardcore left cares, because they think any group who doesn't wholeheartedly support special rights for deviants is a hate group.

Good point.

Also, it's sometimes asked: "Could Christians be persecuted in our future simply for asserting from the Bible itself that homosexual acts are sinful?"

The answer would be: Yes, for such an assertion could become an illegal act of "hate speech", punishable by fines and imprisonment.

A move toward this point could have even started. For example, not long ago the New York Times (98% of its readers say they never pray) held a forum for evangelicals, the point of which was to basically accuse evangelicals of causing the Orlando, Pulse-nightclub shooting against homosexuals, because of the evangelical teaching against homosexuality, which it's said puts homosexuals "in danger". Of course, that Orlando shooting was done by a Muslim, not a Christian. But in the twisted, Satanic world of political correctness, no evil can ever be ascribed to Islam (even though Islam, even in its moderate forms, opposes homosexuality no less than evangelical Christianity), whereas any evil whatsoever can be ascribed to evangelical Christianity.

Also, political correctness loves to paint any evangelical teaching against homosexuality as "homophobic" or "hateful", as if evangelical Christians are actually fearful (phobic) of homosexuals, or actually hate them, when in fact evangelical Christianity simply states (from the Bible itself) that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27). It would be like pedophiles saying Christians (or even New York Times readers) are "pedophobic" or "hateful" for being against pedophilia, which pedophiles prefer to call "man-boy love". Or it would be like people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals saying Christians are "beastiphobic" or "hateful" for being against inappropriate behavior with animals, which people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals prefer to call "inter-species love".

So, along with the acceptance of homosexuality, don't be surprised if the world (in the name of "love") eventually begins to also accept pedophilia and inappropriate behavior with animals, so long as (in the world's words) "the child or animal involved in each case is okay with the activity, showing no signs of distress, but instead consent, and even pleasure".

And then pedophiles and people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals will walk around with "Love wins" signs at anti-Christian rallies.

 

[Bible2+]

Orthodoxjay1 said in post #10:

So let me fall back into party line, no comrade Moutainbob, the uniparty says Adam, and Steve, not Adam & Eve, Gay marriage is in Scripture, and Holy Tradition, all hail the party of Dean, Kerry, McGovern, Dukakis, Carter, Humphrey, and Obama

That brought to mind a question that's sometimes asked: "Since it's wrong for Christians to be against miscegenation, isn't it also wrong for them to be against same-sex marriage?"

The answer is: No, for while the Bible isn't against miscegenation (Numbers 12), it is against homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27). So when the U.S. government, for example, struck down anti-miscegenation state laws in the southern U.S., it wasn't going against Biblical Christianity. But if the government ever forces Christians to support same-sex marriages, it will be going against the Bible. And so it will become anti-Christian, helping to prepare the way for the future Antichrist and his Satanic, one-world religion (Revelation 13:4-18).

One part of the Antichrist's (Gnostic) religion will be to forbid marriages outright (1 Timothy 4:3). And legalizing same-sex marriage is just the first step toward this goal. For the next step will be to legalize polygamy, that is, to allow whatever number of people, whether males or females, in any combination, to enter into "group marriages" (for example, consisting of three women, or three men, or six women and four men, etc.). Then the next step will be to declare the whole idea of marriage as "obsolete". Indeed, it will even be declared to be "evil", from the Gnostic (that is, the Antichrist) point of view (cf. 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7), which sees the whole idea of a physical existence, especially one forming new people into physical bodies (that is, forming offspring through marriages) as an abomination.

This isn't to say all people who support same-sex marriage are Satanic Gnostics. Instead, some of them could simply (yet still mistakenly) think God supports homosexuality, just as, for example, many U.S. Southerners of old simply (yet still mistakenly) thought God supports racism.

 

[tulc]

(snip)

(snip)

That's all interesting, but none of it actually addresses the OP. If you'd like to discuss those perhaps you should start a thread or two about them?
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

 

[Angel Wings 1288]

So we've been told.
tulc(wonders who does get to...hopes it's not President Putin)

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s blather is supported by the liberal media, but they aren’t a credible organization. In fact, it’s hard to say what is worse: the outrageousness of the SPLC labeling anyone an “extremist” who disagrees with their radical, hard-left agenda, or the credulity of the leftist media in treating them as if they were a neutral, legitimate source.

The SPLC claims to be fighting for the downtrodden and combatting “hate,” which they define as any conservative who disagrees with gay marriage, but they are themselves a hate group that makes a lot of money defaming Christians and conservatives. Did you know they have over $300 million dollars in assets, and their president/CEO makes over $300,000 a year? It’s ironic that such a wealthy organization would call themselves “non-profit” with the word “poverty” in its name.

Don't quote the SPLC as if they were a credible source and expect everyone else to take you seriously.

 

[tulc]

(snip)

You do realize that attacking the source doesn't actually address what's been said, right?
tulc(just thought that also should be pointed out)

 

[Angel Wings 1288]

You do realize that attacking the source doesn't actually address what's been said, right?
tulc(just thought that also should be pointed out)

All I'm saying is that you should quote credible sources if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[tulc]

All I'm saying is that you should quote credible sources if you want to be taken seriously.

The article mentions the SPLC, it also listed why only one of the two groups were considered hate groups and not the other:

The Heritage Foundation does not advocate violence nor are they called a 'hate group'. They are often referred to as right-wing and have published researched reports citing the UN’s “misguided women’s agenda” and how UN conventions on women “undermine family, religion, and sovereignty".

They have also called for deep cuts in Mr Trump’s upcoming proposed federal budget to programmes meant to combat violence against women, according to a statement from OutRight Action International, international human rights advocacy group.

The Heritage Foundation wrote that funding those programmes in their recent “Blueprint to Balance” report on the federal budget as a “misuse of federal resources and a distraction from concerns that are truly the province of the federal government.”

is there anything listed in the article that is actually wrong with what they say the two groups believe? If so you could address those points.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[Angel Wings 1288]

Of course there is something wrong with the article. They're calling a Christian organization a "hate group" just because they're opposed to gay marriage and support traditional values. That is defamation. Even worse, they're using the SPLC as their source.

 

[tulc]

Of course there is something wrong with the article. They're calling a Christian organization a "hate group" just because they're opposed to gay marriage and support traditional values. That is defamation. Even worse, they're using the SPLC as their source.

You do understand that simply saying "they're not a hate group because they're a Christian group!" doesn't actually mean they aren't a hate group, right?
tulc(thought that would be pretty obvious)

 

[Angel Wings 1288]

You do understand that simply saying "they're not a hate group because they're a Christian group!" doesn't actually mean they aren't a hate group, right?
tulc(thought that would be pretty obvious)

You didn't make any arguments explaining why this organization is a "hate group," so your assertion has no value.

 

[tulc]

Well if you were curious what got them on the list you could check here:
Could Austin Ruse's Violent Rhetoric Endanger C-FAM's Status with the UN?

First, Ruse garnered outrage last Wednesday when he stated on the air that the “hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities…should all be taken out and shot.” He was speaking about a female student at Duke University who works as an actress in the inappropriate contentography industry. Ruse blamed Duke’s women’s studies department, claiming that the student “learned this” there.

or here:
The White House Sent A "Hate Group" To A UN Women's Conference

As NBC News notes, perhaps the most simple and obvious expressions of C-FAM's anti-LGBTQ views come from its president, Austin Ruse, also a Breitbart columnist who's voiced a litany of deeply anti-LGBTQ statements through the years. Ruse has insisted that homosexuality should be stigmatized due to the threat it poses to morality and public health, and a brief review of his archives at Breitbart reveal many different articles denigrating various members of the LGBTQ community.

tulc(is going to need some more coffee soon)

 

[Angel Wings 1288]

What's so hateful about saying that homosexuality should be stigmatized?! 1 in 5 homosexuals has HIV, so he is wise to want society not to embrace it.

 

[tulc]

What's so hateful about saying that homosexuality should be stigmatized?! 1 in 5 homosexuals has HIV, so he is wise to want society not to embrace it.

This thread isn't about that so we're not going to discuss it here, you asked why that group was considered a hate group so I posted their reasons.
tulc(He is risen indeed! happy Easter everyone!)

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Trump and Ivanka have done more for women than Hillary and Obama combined.
Just the facts -- as seen from up top the mountain.
Where the air is fresh and clean.
And the women submit to their husbands.
And their husbands love them, "as Christ loves the church."
M-Bob

 

[tulc]

Trump and Ivanka have done more for women than Hillary and Obama combined.
Just the facts -- as seen from up top the mountain.
Where the air is fresh and clean.
And the women submit to their husbands.
And their husbands love them, "as Christ loves the church."
M-Bob

...of which none of the above would appear to describe President Trumps relationship with the First Lady.
tulc(suspects the air up there isn't so much "fresh and clean" as "very thin and lacking in enough oxygen")

 

[Armoured]

...when did having the same rights as every other American become "special rights"?
tulc(finds the whole "special rights" idea completely strange)

Not wanting to be beaten half to death and left chained to a fence to die is totally a special right!

 

[Armoured]

Trump and Ivanka have done more for women than Hillary and Obama combined.

Like what, specifically?