How Low Can They Go?
Posted by
KTK
The Christian right-wing group in Ohio that spearheaded the anti-gay referendum on the 2004 ballot is now using the law to defend domestic battery against unmarried women. That’s not an exaggeration or some unintended side-effect. They filed an amicus brief on behalf of a batterer, arguing that it’s legal to commit battery if you’re not married, because their hate bill prohibits any legal protections - including against criminal assault - for unmarried couples.
In an ugly development that has so far received little national attention, Citizens for Community Values (CCV) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Ohio Supreme Court in support of a man accused of assaulting his girlfriend, with whom he resides. The man is being prosecuted under Ohio’s domestic violence law, which makes it a crime for someone to cause physical harm to a person who is “a spouse, a person living as a spouse, or a former spouse of the offender.”
CCV was the primary group urging adoption of Ohio’s 2004 anti-gay constitutional amendment. At the time, legal scholars warned that the amendment could have far reaching implications for all unmarried couples—gay or not—including the possibility that domestic violence legislation could be overturned.
Now, Citizens for Community Values is trying to do just that. Their brief contends that the domestic violence law creates and recognizes a “legal status” for “marriage-mimicking relationships” that is prohibited by the new constitutional amendment, and that the man therefore cannot be prosecuted under that law for attacking his girlfriend.
Note that this was predicted in advance. I can only hope that most voters who supported the hate bill assumed that nobody would actually behave in this way. The culture-war Christians exceeded expectations (perhaps; they’ve merely lived up to mine).
This is the kind of thing, much too frequent and increasingly so in recent years, that tells us what these people are really about. Their greatest advantage so far is that it’s hard to actually believe they really mean what they say - that it’s OK to beat your girlfriend because gays are icky; that you’re required to bear a rapist’s child because women are of less value than zygotes; that you’re required to spend years slowly dying in pain because they don’t approve your choice of treatment. But as they become bolder they increasingly prove they really do mean it - that there’s no limit to what they’ll do or who they’ll hurt to service their own hateful impulses.
The first lesson we need to learn is that they are just what they seem.
Relevant Adjectives: crazy, vicious, bigoted, ugly, misogynist, reactionary, paranoid, deceptive, subversive, theocratic, oppressive, fascist, addle-pated, pin-headed, violence-loving, thuggish, dangerous. [season to taste]
How low can you go? Your attempt to somehow accuse these people of condoning violence and battery falls short (as usual). As stated in your post, the problem is with the man being prosecuted under the wrong law.
Any man who strikes a woman is the lowest kind of human debris. His hide should be tanned and hung on the wall. There are laws in all 50 states that make it a crime to beat up another human being. Use those laws to send him to prison where he may suffer the same fate that he inflicted on a woman.
Comment 9/7/2006
From the Brief: “Because CCV’s purpose in this filing lies exclusively in advocating that the text of the Marriage Amendment be respected, and to resist the diminishing suggestions found in the lower courts’ written decisions, it takes no position on the allegations lodged against Defendant in this case. CCV deplores and condemns as abhorrent the acts of assault which occur between those who share what should be sanctuary: the home. CCV believes the law should contain stiff penalties for those who perpetrate assaults on individuals with whom they reside, and CCV looks forward to the state legislature’s remedial efforts extending the application of the domestic violence law to all those now covered under its terms, as well as other similarly situated vulnerable persons, and all in a manner which conforms to the Ohio Constitution.”
KTK: “The Christian right-wing group in Ohio that spearheaded the anti-gay referendum on the 2004 ballot is now using the law to defend domestic battery against unmarried women. That’s not an exaggeration or some unintended side-effect.”
Comment 9/7/2006
Ted
They can claim that they are appalled all they want, but they are arguing that a law that would punish this man is wrong because it violates the constitutional amendment. Which means that they are mor eintereste din punishing gays and non-married people than they are in protecting battered spouses. if they wer enot, then they would have either
a) Changed their amendment when this side affect was pointe dout
b) pushed AT THE SAME TIME a chnage in the law.
I cna find no record that they did either. Nor can I find any example of their organization advocating for the change in the law even now. Therefor, I don’t thin it unreasonable to consider their protestations now nothing more than insincere protestations to cover the implicatiosn of their actions.
Comment 9/7/2006
Also: the article I quoted has it slightly wrong. It’s an appellate case. The guy’s been convicted; he’s trying to have it overturned; they’re helping him.
It’s slightly more complicated; the prosecutors responded to his appeal by “revising the charge” (I don’t understand how that’s allowed, but whatever), so he may not get out of jail even if he wins. But he’s clearly doing this in his own interests; either he’ll get off or get a lighter sentence.
Whatever they put in their brief, their actions speak for themselves: they’re doing all they can to help a convicted batter escape justice by arguing that the state is not allowed to prosecute domestic violence against unmarried women. If they win, they’ll not only get this guy off (to some degree), but make it impossible to bring any unmarried women under the domestic violence law again. The result will likely strip protection from the children of unmarried women, too, since, as the appellate court noted in its decision, the domestic violence law applies to all persons living together as a family, not just to the “spousal equivalent” couple.
There’s no other description for it. That is what they knowingly set out to do.
Comment 9/7/2006
I see this case as akin to pro-abortion causes objecting to someone being charged with a double homicide in the killing of a pregnant woman. Only zealots on the other side interpret their action as condoning murder in general. I am very confident in saying that assault and battery are both punishable crimes in every state in the US. To argue against the constitutionality of a specific law is not to argue in favor of assault and battery.
Kevin, I take your point concerning a lack of effort to address the issue of battered spouses. I will point out that this particular group has a specific agenda that they pursue. I’m not convinced that lack of effort outside their stated purview can be held against them any more than it is held against any other organization.
As for the constitutional argument itself, I have to say comments here sound a bit like those directed against the ACLU. And I am not equating the ACLU and CCV. I believe one organization seeks to protect civil liberties while the other seeks to curtail them, but in neither case do I extrapolate their actions to be an endorsement of violence or crime. In my opinion, to do so is to over-react, and to provide a foothold for the opposition in future debate. Advice I would have given to the CCV as well had I sought to council them before they filed their brief.
Comment 9/7/2006
You are selling a viewpoint here and you are manipulating the facts to sell that viewpoint. This isn’t to say that the story isn’t credible, but your characterization of all conservative Christians based on this story is flawed. I’m going to say that %99 of all conservative Christians I know would be appalled at this story and say that these circumstances don’t represent the Christian religion. If you were going to be fair, consider characterizing the liberal agenda based on people like animal rights extremists. Many people who consider themselves animal-rights activists would be appalled at how extremists behave. They would also say that stories which tarnish the reputation of such people would not represent the agenda of animal-rights activists.
The moral of the story: people who characterize themselves as either liberal or conservative aren’t dangerous because of their ideaological affiliation. Characterizing them as such isolates an important audience from the debate and only spurs on more name calling (take Fred for an example). It’s unproductive, pretentious and elitist.
Comment 9/7/2006
Pretentious? Moi?!
The people I’ve “characterized” are the people who persecute gays and protect wife-beaters, by promoting legislation that on its face persecutes gays and protects wife-beaters, while denying that is their intention, then go to court afterward to protect wife-beaters on the grounds that their legislation persecuting gays requires it. The facts that I’ve “manipulated” are the facts that this group promoted legislation to persecute gays that also protects wife-beaters, while denying that was their intention, then went to court afterward to protect a wife-beater on the grounds that their legislation persecuting gays requires it.
They went to a lot of effort to earn that reputation. I think they’re entitled to it.
“Conservative Christians” are perfectly free to earn other reputations if they choose. All they have to do is: not persecute gays, not treat women’s rights with contempt, and not ruin other people’s lives for no reason other than their own hostile impulses. Those are things that most of us find very easy - in fact, literally effortless. Anyone can do the same. Conservative Christians who aren’t part of this CCV group merely have to decide where their loyalties lie. You’ll forgive me for not holding my breath waiting for them, but their behavior, and their resulting reputations, are entirely in their own hands. As was CCV’s.
Comment 9/7/2006
Hostile impulses… Hmm, nah I’ll let it pass.
Comment 9/7/2006
Yet when the ACLU protects terrorists under their interpretation of the law/constitution/common law, we can’t question their patriotism.
Comment 9/7/2006
I’m sorry, but I don’t know many conservative Christians who fit your description of gay-hating, woman-bashing bigots, and I work in rich white protestant central, conveniently right next to two conservative Christian colleges. There is also quite a strong liberal base and active gay community around the area. All of these contradicting elements harmoniously and pleasantly exist within the context of my coffee shop. So, you’ll excuse me for defending conservative Christians, but if you are going to make audacious claims, it better be reflected in the context of daily life; otherwise, your claims are dubious at best.
Comment 9/7/2006
KTK, you are falsely characterizing this whole story. It is a lie to said that these people are “doing all they can to help a convicted batter escape justice.” Justice is not justice unless it is done according to the proper laws. Any right thinking person, even atheists, deploy violence against women.
Comment 9/7/2006
I’m sorry, but I don’t know many conservative Christians who fit your description of gay-hating, woman-bashing bigots
How about an organization full of them who worked for years to strip away even second-class civil rights for gay couples and then used the same law to argue the state could not prosecute woman-beaters? There’s one in Ohio.
Comment 9/7/2006
“How about an organization full of them who worked for years to strip away even second-class civil rights for gay couples”
Which civil rights do homosexuals not have that normal people have?
Comment 9/7/2006
Fred wrote: “Any right thinking person, even atheists, deploy violence against women.”
Fred, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this is a typographical error. Or do you really advocate deploying violence against women? Also, what was the purpose of including “even atheists” in the statement. Are suggesting that atheists are more prone to violence than other people? Less ethical? Singling out atheists as a group doesn’t seem to make much sense in the context of that statement…
Fred wrote: “Which civil rights do homosexuals not have that normal people have?”
The most obvious, and timely, as I’m sure you realize, is the right to legally recognized marriages, unions, whatever you want to call them. Ok, I’ll bite. The ramifications go beyond just tax benefits afforded to heterosexuals, and include inheritance issues, visitation rights, decision-making rights etc. In instances where the family of a gay person disapproves of the relationship, the ramifications can be quite profound.
Comment 9/7/2006
Last I checked, straight individuals don’t have those rights, either, not when gender is considered.
Don’t laugh, the issue has come up (and been denounced by GLB-friendly groups) in Canada, where a pair of straight men went through the paperwork to get the tax breaks and related issues (from my understanding, the legal papers specifically noted the allowance of ‘adultery’).
Comment 9/7/2006
So (and we have covered this so many freaking times already) the plan is to deny gays the right to marriage and then say they have the same rights as others who are not married? Gattsuru, you come across as a pretty bright individual. You do see how this puts gays in a non-parity position, yes?
Comment 9/7/2006
KTK: Your comment was funny. However, the group in Ohio still doesn’t fairly represent people who would call themselves conservative Christians. I would think that this is a fair statement. I don’t know why you want to argue this point.
Comment 9/7/2006
Dan:
I haven’t said all conservative Christians behave this way. Vast numbers of them, however, do support the political party that has been promoting these anti-gay laws, and it is exclusively conservative Christians who were responsible for making an issue out of it anyway. Without having done any research on the topic, I would bet you could Google the term “evangelical Christian organization” and, within the top 1,000 hits, find at least 500 organizations that officially endorse the anti-gay-marriage amendments and not one that officially opposes them. Prove me wrong, if I am. But I think the onus is on those who identify within this group to demonstrate that they don’t hold the positions most of the group has openly chosen as their public face and their means of seeking public support.
As for CCV specifically, they are what I’ve said they are, and anyone who behaves similarly or endorses that behavior is the same.
Comment 9/8/2006
Kevin T. Keith: Vast numbers of them, however, do support the political party that has been promoting these anti-gay laws, and it is exclusively conservative Christians who were responsible for making an issue out of it anyway.
Fred: Conservative Christians do oppose homosexual marriages. I don’t know of anyone who denies that. However, to characterize it as hate for homosexuals is wrong. We oppose special laws for homosexuals that promote immoral anti-social behavior.
Comment 9/8/2006
Ted: So (and we have covered this so many freaking times already) the plan is to deny gays the right to marriage and then say they have the same rights as others who are not married?
Fred: Homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals to marry anyone of the opposite sex who will agree to marry them.
Comment 9/8/2006
Dan:
You had something to say about “hostility”? I presume you’re implying this post is motivated by hostility. And so it is. Are you not hostile toward the repulsive and gratuitiously vicious behavior of this disgusting organization? Or is using homophobia to legalize domestic violence just one of those embarrassing little faux pas the evangelicals get up to, like snake handling except that it’s other people who get killed? Well, I hate what they do and I hate what they stand for, and if I met them I’d probably hate them personally, and I invite you to do the same. It seems to me the only decent thing.
You’ll note that what I’m hostile to is their abuse of other people’s lives and liberties. What they’re hostile to is . . . other people’s lives and liberties. I think that’s a difference that matters.
You’re right that there is a parallel between the behavior of CCV and the ACLU - they both use the courts to promote the establishment of their values and principles within a constitutional-law framework. That’s what the courts are for, and it’s appropriate to do so. (It’s less appropriate to do so while whining about “activist judges” and “unelected legislators”, but we’ll leave that for another day.) You’ll note I haven’t criticized them for the act of filing a brief in a lawsuit. I’ve criticized them for the brief they filed.
What’s wrong about CCV, and right about the ACLU, in both cases is their values and goals, not the fact that they use the law to promote them. The CCV whipped up a political controversy intended to impose their religious beliefs on the entire population, and to bar a minority group from enjoying or ever even aspiring to basic civil rights; they then went to great lengths to bolster that position by using the same law to block legal prosecution of domestic violence against women who had dared to live in what they so quaintly call “sin”. They did this in spite of warnings about the consequences; they went out of their way to do it, and again to ensure that the predicted secondary consequences would be as bad as possible. They make the world a worse place by what they do, and they do so deliberately; they’re shitty human beings with shitty values. The ACLU works to ensure that every member of society will have the civil and human rights guaranteed by law. The ACLU was instrumental in establishing basic legal rights that everyone can call on today. They make the world a better place by what they do, and have been doing so for decades at great effort, sometimes in danger; they’re good people with good values (which is putting it much too mildly).
The contrast is clear enough simply in what the organizations do. It’s true that the ACLU sometimes gets people out of jail “on a technicality” - the technicality is a little thing called the Constitution, and it’s a damned good thing to have. A conviction invalidated on Constitutional grounds is a conviction that violated Constitutional rights; it’s a conviction that should never have been obtained in the first place, because we don’t want, and can’t have, and the Constitution prohibits (or used to), a society in which the government can plant spy devices in your home with no restraints and no oversight, or beat a confession out of you, or question you for days on end without legal representation and no idea what your legal rights are, or refuse you a parade or demonstration permit because they don’t like your ideas, or arrest you for belonging to an organization whose ideas they don’t like. No one should go to jail under those circumstances - even if they’ve committed a crime. The government can’t be allowed to treat anyone in those ways, and the only way to prevent it is to make sure that everyone is protected from it. The ACLU helps make sure of that. The CCV, by contrast, actually modified their state constitution to prohibit legal rights and protection of rights for some citizens in distinction to others - a legal travesty that shames a nation that would allow it. Worse, they then used that lousy law for the totally unrelated purpose of punishing women who lived with a man outside of marriage, seeking to overturn a just conviction, not because a constitutional right had been violated but because they wanted to remove the basic constitutional right of protection under the criminal code from people they disapprove of. There was no question in this case that the guy had been righteously convicted, or that the law under which he was convicted was constitutional; they argued that because their hate law prohibits “legal status” for family relationships they don’t like, that means that it’s OK to commit crimes against people in such relationships. It’s not just vicious, it’s asinine, and it’s an attempt to use the law to restrict the legal and constitutional protections of vulnerable persons, not enlarge and protect them. And that’s what makes the CCV and the ACLU so far opposite in intention, action, and results: the ACLU protects everyone’s rights by barring legal sanctions that should never be permitted; the CCV is seeking to limit some people’s rights by barring legal protections that should be universal. The contrast between the two groups couldn’t be starker.
One is right and one is wrong and you have to decide where you will throw your support.
Comment 9/8/2006
Jan: “Fred, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this is a typographical error. Or do you really advocate deploying violence against women? Also, what was the purpose of including “even atheists” in the statement. Are suggesting that atheists are more prone to violence than other people? Less ethical? Singling out atheists as a group doesn’t seem to make much sense in the context of that statement…”
Fred: Of course it was a typo. As for mentioning atheists, it was in the context that KTK, an atheist, posts a blog that accuses Christians of wanting a wife beater to go free. Christians, atheists, Buddhist, etc. should all agree that beating women is wrong.
Comment 9/8/2006
KTK: Agreeable. I had nothing to say about hostility, that was Ted. My biggest complaint was you misrepresenting the article to push stereotypes on a broader group of people without considering the implications. I think that my assessment is fair.
Comment 9/8/2006
that was Ted
Oops - of course. My apologies to you both.
But as for “misrepresentation”, take the Google challenge! I’ll bet you a $25 Amazon gift certificate that I’m right (i.e., that within the first 1,000 Google hits on “evangelical Christian organization”, there will be at least 500 organizations identifying themselves as such that officially support anti-gay-marriage laws, and not one that opposes them [offer good to Dan only; expires 9/15/2006; Google-bombed sites not counted; contents may have settled in shipment]).
UPDATE: Uh-oh. Not looking good.
The sixth hit on that search string is a newspaper article on “Evangelicals Concerned” - a gay evangelical group. I’m tempted to argue that the Web site it’s on is not actually that of the group itself, and I can’t find their actual Web site in the search results, but I didn’t define “within the first 1,000 hits” carefully enough, so I suppose it is “within” them. (There are also lots of hits on sites that are directories of hundreds of organization links, so this “1,000 hits” is getting to be pretty large, but again that’s my fault.) BUT . . .
I actually wrote this update to concede the bet and offer you the gift certificate, but just to make sure, I went to the EC Web site. They don’t oppose anti-gay-marriage laws! (To avoid divisiveness, they are officially neutral on all “political” issues - apparently including ones that only affect gays.) They also offer membership to all Christians, gay or not, but not all gays (Christians only). And this is the open, welcoming, “progressive” evangelical group.
I haven’t had a chance to count up all the hits, but casual browsing on that search result certainly makes my point: evangelicals as a group are fairly characterized as opposing gay marriage, and what’s more, many of them have actively worked to make it illegal (even gay evangelicals can’t bring themselves to support it!). That’s despicable behavior, and it is behavior that is characteristic of evangelical organizations.
Comment 9/8/2006
KTK: I didn’t throroughly read through your response before I responded. So, do you hate muslims because they are also theocratic, totalitarian, and oppressive to women and gays?
Comment 9/8/2006
do you hate muslims because they are also theocratic, totalitarian, and oppressive to women and gays?
Not because they’re Muslims. And I don’t hate Muslims, or even conservative Muslims, as a group because many Muslim religious organizations endorse policies of that kind.
But do I hate those policies and the people or groups who do endorse them? Certainly. It’s hateful behavior, from hateful people. It would be a mistake not to respond as it deserves.
Comment 9/8/2006
KTK: But do I hate those policies and the people or groups who do endorse them?
Fred: Just because you hate those with whom you disagree doesn’t mean that Christians hate homosexuals.
Comment 9/8/2006
Fred wrote: “Of course it was a typo.”
Hey, easy Fred! I don’t read minds! Your posts are generally so full of vitriol it could follow you engage in violent behavior.
Fred wrote: “We oppose special laws for homosexuals that promote immoral anti-social behavior.”
Allowing people to marry the person of their choosing does not create a special status, but merely extends those rights to all people. To suggest that laws that encourage marriage somehow promote immoral anti-social behavior is bizarre beyond belief.
The last of the state’s anti-miscegenation marriage laws was overturned only in 2000; in our lifetime there were states that prohibited marriage between the races, generally on “moral” grounds. I don’t know if you object to marriage between races on “moral” grounds, nor is it important. What is important is that most Americans view those laws as a repugnant example of a racist past, even though they had acceptance among many people at the time. Our marriage laws evolved to become more inclusive; most people see this as a moral and good development. It also offers a good precedent for the current controversy of gay marriage.
Comment 9/8/2006
KTK: Alright, if you can justify putting a modifier on muslims, then why are you so unwilling to put that same modifier on conservative christians? You did claim that hating them personally is the only decent thing to do.
I also am not disagreeing with you on the point that conservative evangelical christians support anti-gay legislation. They obviously do; however, that doesn’t translate into a hateful attitude toward persons. That is where my disagreement with you is.
Comment 9/8/2006
This should come as absolutely no surprise.
And what is more, anyone who thinks Jesusistanis would object to a MARRIED man beating his wife hasn’t done much research into the Jesusistan philosophy towards women in general.
Women are property. Simple as that. You are correct in that they really are exactly what they seem to be, but you must add-AND MORE.
Comment 9/8/2006
Janutz: To suggest that laws that encourage marriage somehow promote immoral anti-social behavior is bizarre beyond belief.
Fred: What is bizarre beyond belief is that you make such a stupid statement. You are an idiot. Quit making up things.
Comment 9/8/2006
FollyRoger: And what is more, anyone who thinks Jesusistanis
Fred: What is a Jesusistani?
Comment 9/8/2006
Fred wrote: “What is bizarre beyond belief is that you make such a stupid statement.”
Actually, Fred, I didn’t make the suggestion…you did.
Hey guy, do you think you can post without your usual ad hominem invectives? You undermine your own credibility, it contributes nothing of value to the thread, and frankly, it’s not very “Christian” of you.
Comment 9/8/2006
Honestly, no. Unless you think two cohabitting straight individuals of the same gender should be able to fill out paperwork and easily end up the various aspects of marriage, which I don’t, then this isn’t a parity issue.
There are individual areas where private policy needs to be changed. In all of these situations, however, it’s either a problem for unmarried cohabiting straight individuals or in direct violation of anti-discrimination laws that either exist or would be hard-pressed to stand against politically (this covers the hospital, for example).
We don’t need to redefine sections of the English language just to sate the id of every individual with a kink on the street.
Comment 9/8/2006
Janutz: Actually, Fred, I didn’t make the suggestion…you did.
Hey guy, do you think you can post without your usual ad hominem invectives?
Fred: Actually I made no such suggestion. Why do you lie about things that can so easily be refuted? As for invective, have you read your posts lately? Physician heal thyself.
Comment 9/8/2006
Gattsuru wrote: “Unless you think two cohabitting straight individuals of the same gender should be able to fill out paperwork…”
You’re, of course, being facetious. I don’t think roommate situations, which is what you seem to suggest, would be comparable. Roommates don’t see themselves as couples, they may have little or no interaction with one another, and the arrangement is almost always seen as temporary. I’ve never heard of roommates with joint bank accounts, for example, or other arrangements couples may consider.
“We don’t need to redefine sections of the English language just to sate the id of every individual with a kink on the street.”
No one’s suggesting we do. The anti-miscegenation laws are instructive here. At one time, marriage was legally defined as an union between couples of the same race. The law, and concept of marriage, evolved to be more inclusive.
Comment 9/8/2006
Gattsuru, Far as I know, no same sex marriage application requires a video tspe documenting sexual activity. In fact, far as I know, no same sex marriage application even requires the applicants to state that they are gay. If two straight people want to live together and support each other, and are willing to commit to that arrangement by getting married, then I really don’t have a problem with it. The reason they might choose to do so would involve estate taxes, insurance benefits, etc. Many people get married at an age where having children is not an option, and I really don’t think sexual activity should be a requirement of any government regulation, so sure, let the straights get married. (Disclaimer - I have not thought this one through carefully, and am not doubt ending any chance of a late-life political career
)
Comment 9/8/2006
KTK, I guess we could say you hate the sin and the sinner.
Comment 9/8/2006
Fred: We oppose special laws for homosexuals that promote immoral anti-social behavior.
Excuse me? What makes homosexuality immoral and anti-social? Your BELIEFS? That’s not good enough. If you’re going to deny a segment of the population rights based on the above, you need to offer proof, especially when there’s too much science pointing to homosexuality being an innate and non-psychotic trait. How would you like to have your rights taken away because some moron believed you were immoral?
Comment 9/9/2006
“Your BELIEFS?”
So, we should go by your beliefs? That’s not good enough.
Comment 9/9/2006
If the issue is Christo-fascists,I can sum it up in this one posting ;
“[Christian fundamentalists must] take dominion over the US…[abolish democracy] which is actually heresy…[establish a theocratic republic] under biblical law…True to the letter of Old Testament law, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, astrologers, [and for such offenses as] abortion, heresy, apostasy…will be executed.”
-Rousas John Rushdoony, President, Chalcedon Foundation, in Christianity Today, Democracy as Heresy.
“…we will see the beginning of massive killing of abortionists and their staffs. In time the killing, in protection of the innocent, will begin to spill over into the killing of the police and military who attempt to protect them…members of Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortion/choice organizations will be sought and terminated as vermin are terminated.”
-Father David Trosch, Director, Life Enterprises Unlimited,
Letter to Members of Congress.
“What should we do? We should do what thousands of people across this nation are doing. We should be forming militias…There are plans of resistance being made…Churches can form militia days and teach their men how to fight…This Christmas, I want you to do the most loving thing…buy each of your children an SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition…”
-Reverend Matthew Trewhella, Director, Missionaries to the
Preborn, addressing the Wisconsin Convention of the US Taxpayers Party.
‘’Young men of faith{My brothers through the grace of our Lord and saviour Yah’shua Messiah} I stand before you{as the voice of one crying out in the wilderness}that you may hear the battle-cry {Which is sounded this day} From the Lord your God.
You {who are shepherds} are to form localized militia in order that you may protect your flocks.You are called to be executors of Biblical law upon this nation{seeing as the state repudiates it’s own responsibility to do so}.Young men of faith….Strong,wise and self-controlled…Merciful whenever possible, ferocious when not ! You are to form death squads ! {you must}… Seek out local drug dealers,seek out local Pimps,abortionists and all corruptors of youth {all dens of iniquity} and execute ! execute ! execute !…..Drag their bodies through the streets and raise your right hand to the sky,proclaiming the Laws and statutes given to us by the king of heaven and {to the glory of} his only begotten son'’.
- Pastor Josiah Abraham II,addressing Christian Identity{Youth of the true Israelites} Rally in Belfast 2005 shortly before being deported.
It’s extreme and unpleasant at times, but these links give a valuable insight into the mind set of fanatics.
Strategic Executive Assassination (SEA):
The Army of God Will Soon Start Assassinating America’s New Nobility
www.Armyofgod.com
www.christiangallery.com
The above contains an assassination list with names such as David Letterman and Tiger Woods…NICE O_o
Comment 9/9/2006
“So, we should go by your beliefs? That’s not good enough.” From Fred.
I guess you didn’t read my response cloesly enough. I said science is revealing more and more (not less and less) that homosexuality is innate and is not a mental illness. It has nothing to do with my beliefs, and I’m not the one advocating denying these tax-paying, law abiding citiezens their rights.
Comment 9/9/2006
Homosexuality is a desease in exactly the same vain as the AIDS it
desseminates…Let’s not pretend otherwise !
www.godhatesfags.com
www.thesignsofthetimes.net
See for yourself .
Comment 9/9/2006
“the same vain” …the guy really preempts any response with his display of ig’nunce.
Comment 9/10/2006
See what for myself, that you’re an idiot? I don’t need a link for that.
Comment 9/10/2006
Ted,
Tis the sickly scent of the sodomite that I perceive emitting from you… and I do believe that’s K Y Jelly on your Jeans ! Did you read about the the attempted ‘Gay Pride’ march in Riga this summer ? ^_^
www.godhatesfags.com
Comment 9/10/2006
Maybe it’s the skin-tight PVC and itchy handlebar moustache that makes Ted such a cranky lil princess ?
Comment 9/10/2006
Marchant2: “I guess you didn’t read my response cloesly enough. I said science is revealing more and more (not less and less) that homosexuality is innate and is not a mental illness.”
Fred: No, I read your post closely enough. You said that the scientists you believe in said homosexual acts are natural for some people. That is not proof of anything.
Comment 9/11/2006
Luke, no need to resort to playground ad hominems to demonstrate your level of sophistication. Your difficulty with a common homophone in your now-defunct homophobic post has already established this clearly.
Comment 9/11/2006
Fred, Just show me proof that what you say about homosexuals being anti-social and immoral is correct. Why should I listen to you and not the scientists? That’s really all I was asking from the beginning. So far you’ve offered squat.
Comment 9/11/2006
Merchant2: Just show me proof that what you say about homosexuals being anti-social and immoral is correct. Why should I listen to you and not the scientists?
Fred: How do you prove immorality? It is wrong to say that there is scientific proof that homosexuals have to commit homosexual acts because of innate genetic factors. Your opinion that there is “too much proof” is your opinion. It is not a scientific fact.
Comment 9/12/2006
Fred:
It is not a scientific fact.
Neither, according to you, is evolution, global warming, or any other widely-accepted scientific truth you find politically inconvenient.
Comment 9/12/2006
tg: Why do you lie so much? I’ve never said that global warming isn’t a fact. Even scientist still call evolution a “theory.” I don’t base my beliefs on politics.
Comment 9/12/2006
Fred wrote: “How do you prove immorality?”
Fine, then I guess you can’t prove that homosexuality is “immoral.”
In any case, it’s immaterial to the argument. Recognition of gay unions would extend to gay people rights that others take for granted, it’s what democracy is about.
Homosexuality is “immoral”, but torture and coersion is justified? Sheesh, what a tipsy-topsy world we live in.
Comment 9/12/2006
Fred:
Even scientist still call evolution a “theory.”
They also call it a “fact.” The fact is it happened and continues to happen. The theory concerns how it happened and how it works. They do the same thing for gravity, by the way.
And it’s good to see you acknowledge that global warming is a real, human-exacerbated problem.
Comment 9/12/2006
“And it’s good to see you acknowledge that global warming is a real, human-exacerbated problem.”
Fred: Why do you continue to lie about what I say? I have never acknowledged that global warming is a real, human-exacerbated problem. You have a serious problem with lying. You need some spiritual help.
Comment 9/13/2006
Janutz: torture and coersion is justified?
Fred: Who said it was?
Comment 9/13/2006
Fred wrote: “Who said it was?”
Some liar in “The Results of Coercive Methods” thread. He has a serious problem with lying. He needs some spiritual help.
Comment 9/13/2006
Prove it. Quote him. You are a liar.
Comment 9/13/2006
“Humiliating a terrorist to prevent the cries of fatherless and motherless children is a fair exchange.”
As our own intelligence as has admitted, such coercive techniques do not work. The quality of information elicited is not good, is not reliable. Such bogus information does not prevent terrorist attacks, does not make us safer, does not prevent the cries of fatherless and motherless children. There is ample room to improve our ability to thwart potential terrorist attacks…increasing safeguards at our ports, increasing security at nuclear reactors, greater protection of our drinking water supply. Ridiculous color-coded alert systems (are we on chartreuse alert or puce alert? I keep forgetting) and ineffective interrogation techniques may play well on the PR circuit, but achieve nothing in terms of increasing public safety.
Preventing the cries of fatherless and motherless children? You’re a liar. You’re in need of help, spiritually, psychologically and morally. Oh, and Fred, knock it off with the ad hominem attacks, and try stick with addressing the arguments in the thread.
Comment 9/13/2006
Was that supposed to be proof I support torture? Good grief. You can do better than that. Humiliation is not the same as torture.
Comment 9/13/2006
Nice try, Fred, read the post. Using coersion during interrogation does not produce quality information, or elicit anything that can prevent terrorist attacks, much less prevent the cries of fatherless and motherless children. Now excuse me, I’d rather read some of the legitimate posts than play “gotcha” with you.
Comment 9/13/2006
“I’d rather read some of the legitimate posts than play “gotcha” with you.”
I don’t blame you for not wanting to play “gotcha” with me since you always are on the losing end. Too bad making up things doesn’t help your game.
Comment 9/13/2006
Fred, you just aren’t a good representative for Conservative Christians… find someone else to rant here in your stead.
Comment 9/13/2006
Weeding my way through the quagmire of insanity otherwise referred to as “biblical objectivity” in my ever-vigilant search for “the truth” (and a good laugh), it’s so easy to see why the wonderfully astute Christian creed of…
“The meek shall inherit the Earth”
…is based on sound historical fact.
You see, when you pick up and open a copy of the Penquin Thesaurus and look up the definition of the word “meek”, you note the following:
lowly
deferential
compliant
submissive
yielding
docile
resigned
acquiescent
long-suffering
forbearing
spiritless
spineless
timid
weak
… that pretty much sums up God-botherers in my book!!!
Steve S
http://www.propertyinspections.co.nz
http://stevesalter.wordpress.com
Comment 11/26/2006
The people I’ve “characterized” are the people who persecute gays and protect wife-beaters, by promoting legislation that on its face persecutes gays and protects wife-beaters, while denying that is their intention, then go to court afterward to protect wife-beaters on the grounds that their legislation persecuting gays requires it.
Protecting a only undescores how twisted and out-dated these ideas are.
Comment 12/18/2006
Protecting a wife beater only undescores how twisted and out-dated right-wing christians can be.
Comment 12/18/2006