Just returned from a very productive evangelization project in the Monadnock area.
In the news, Patrick Vaughn, Legal Counsel for the American Family Association, correctly observes that, "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) calls the American Family Association (AFA) a 'hate group' because AFA promotes traditional Biblical views on homosexuality and marriage. SPLC does not have a standard for who they label as a 'hate group.' They apply the label to whomever they want to dehumanize and attack." See here.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has even included Mass Resistance in its list of hate groups because of the organization's opposition to homosexuality, an opposition which is rooted in both Divine Revelation and Natural Law. This is ridiculous on so many different levels. What is particularly ironic, however, is that Mass Resistance doesn't even meet the SPLC's definition of a hate group: "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." (Source: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp).
And what is the definition of "immutable"? The word itself comes from the Latin: in - not and mutabilis - mutable (changeable). The American Heritage Dictionary provides us with an excellent definition: "Not subject or susceptible to change." But can one honestly suggest that homosexuality is immutable? Not according to the hard science:
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
What then has motivated the Southern Poverty Law Center to include Mass Resistance in its listing of hate groups? Is the SPLC driven by politics or science? Tolerance or relativism? Open-mindedness or indiscrimination?
And where is the hate really coming from? See here and here.
The mainstream media would have us believe that the homosexual movement has nothing to do with hate. Tell that to the Catholics, Protestants and Mormons who came under both verbal and physical attack in California after the Prop 8 controversy. Nobody wants to persecute us? That must be why I have received numerous threats and hate mail, not to mention hateful comments at this Blog directed against my person. There is no hatred from the "gay" community? This must be why a homosexual activist called The Mothertown News in Massachusetts to tell them he objected to an article I wrote for that publication - explaining the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality which includes respect for the homosexual person - and that he was going to kill me with his high-powered rifle.
Radical homosexual activists do not view themselves as fanatics. This comes as no surprise. It was the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, a man whose thought so greatly influenced my own, who said that, "Fanaticism is essentially opinion; opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature...whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, his is led...to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make very effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation...fanaticism is, of its very nature, incompatible with any regard for truth; and as truth itself is not really seperable from our regard for it, we need not hesitate to say that the fanatic is the enemy of truth..." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 149-150).
Which is why Catholics faithful to the Church, faithful to the Lord Jesus, must be painted as "loony" and "deranged." We must be made to be seen as being somehow "dangerous." We must be demonized and eventually criminalized. And then we can be disposed of in the gulag or in front of a firing squad.
Showing posts with label SPLC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SPLC. Show all posts
Friday, January 30, 2015
Monday, November 24, 2008
Does the SPLC have to watch a little more carefully?
In my previous post, I challenged those at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to watch the videos posted at Mass Resistance (which clearly show homosexual activists engaging in hate) and to ask themselves who the real hate group is in Massachusetts - and across the country for that matter.
The Southern Poverty Law Center operates a Blog entitled "Hatewatch." That Blog may be found here. In the links section, there is a link to another Blog entitled "Pam's House Blend." That Blog may be found here.
Read some of the hateful, anti-Christian comments which are laced with profanity at Pam's House Blend - here. And ask yourself: is the SPLC really interested in exposing hate? If so, they don't have very far to look. It may be found by visiting the links section at their own Blog.
The Southern Poverty Law Center operates a Blog entitled "Hatewatch." That Blog may be found here. In the links section, there is a link to another Blog entitled "Pam's House Blend." That Blog may be found here.
Read some of the hateful, anti-Christian comments which are laced with profanity at Pam's House Blend - here. And ask yourself: is the SPLC really interested in exposing hate? If so, they don't have very far to look. It may be found by visiting the links section at their own Blog.
Labels:
Blend,
Hate Group,
House,
Mass Resistance,
Pam's,
SPLC,
Watch
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Is moral opposition to homosexuality a hate crime?
The Southern Poverty Law Center has included Mass Resistance in its list of hate groups because of the organization's opposition to homosexuality, an opposition which is rooted in both Divine Revelation and Natural Law. This is ridiculous on so many different levels. What is particularly ironic, however, is that Mass Resistance doesn't even meet the SPLC's definition of a hate group: "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." (Source: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp).
And what is the definition of "immutable"? The word itself comes from the Latin: in - not and mutabilis - mutable. The American Heritage Dictionary provides us with an excellent definition: "Not subject or susceptible to change." But can one honestly suggest that homosexuality is immutable? Not according to the hard science: http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
What then has motivated the Southern Poverty Law Center to include Mass Resistance in its listing of hate groups? Is the SPLC driven by politics or science? Tolerance or relativism? Open-mindedness or indiscrimination?
What do you think?
And what is the definition of "immutable"? The word itself comes from the Latin: in - not and mutabilis - mutable. The American Heritage Dictionary provides us with an excellent definition: "Not subject or susceptible to change." But can one honestly suggest that homosexuality is immutable? Not according to the hard science: http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
What then has motivated the Southern Poverty Law Center to include Mass Resistance in its listing of hate groups? Is the SPLC driven by politics or science? Tolerance or relativism? Open-mindedness or indiscrimination?
What do you think?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
SPLC: Quo Vadis?
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) devotes an entire section at its website to "Teaching about tolerance." But what is tolerance? How do we define it? Dr. Montague Brown, a professor of philosophy at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, provides us with an excellent definition of tolerance. He writes, "Tolerance is the willingness to accept actions we believe to be inappropriate or even wrong because it would be worse to take action against them. Tolerance is community-oriented. Ideally, all bad behavior should cease, but it is unrealistic to think that society could succeed in enforcing this ideal. Tolerance understands this." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 166).
And how would we define relativism? Again, Dr. Montague: "Relativism is the assumption that there is no right or wrong. No action is considered better or worse than any other. If this is so, all actions are equally acceptable. Relativism is profoundly anti-community. If there are no standards of morality to which we should adhere, tolerance is no better than intolerance." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 167).
Does the SPLC possess an adequate understanding of what constitutes tolerance? Such would not appear to be the case. While the SPLC has done much good in the past, exposing hate groups across the United States, recent additions to the organization's list of hate groups has many asking the same question: Quo vadis SPLC?
"...the atheistic systems of modern times are the most frightful examples of passionate religious enthusiasm alienated from its proper identity, and that means a sickness of the human spirit that may be mortal. When the existence of God is denied, freedom is, not enhanced, but deprived of its basis and thus distorted. When the purest and most profound religious traditions are set aside, man is separating himself from his truth; he is living contrary to that truth, and he loses his freedom." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).
"Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism." (Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, No. 46).
Relevant reading: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/04/from-la-salette-journey-archives.html
And how would we define relativism? Again, Dr. Montague: "Relativism is the assumption that there is no right or wrong. No action is considered better or worse than any other. If this is so, all actions are equally acceptable. Relativism is profoundly anti-community. If there are no standards of morality to which we should adhere, tolerance is no better than intolerance." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 167).
Does the SPLC possess an adequate understanding of what constitutes tolerance? Such would not appear to be the case. While the SPLC has done much good in the past, exposing hate groups across the United States, recent additions to the organization's list of hate groups has many asking the same question: Quo vadis SPLC?
"...the atheistic systems of modern times are the most frightful examples of passionate religious enthusiasm alienated from its proper identity, and that means a sickness of the human spirit that may be mortal. When the existence of God is denied, freedom is, not enhanced, but deprived of its basis and thus distorted. When the purest and most profound religious traditions are set aside, man is separating himself from his truth; he is living contrary to that truth, and he loses his freedom." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).
"Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism." (Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, No. 46).
Relevant reading: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/04/from-la-salette-journey-archives.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
