Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

The Pink Swastika inspires hate crime act



Really. Read it for yourself...




"A Christian school in Illinois reported its glass entry door being smashed by bricks with hateful messages on them early Saturday morning.

The vandalism, recorded by Christian Liberty Academy’s security cameras, came on the eve of a banquet being hosted by the academy, a school run by the Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights. The event, planned by Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was designed to discuss the homosexual activist agenda, and to honor pro-family activist and author of The Pink Swastika, Dr. Scott Lively.

AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera, Church of Christian Liberty Pastor Calvin Lindstrom and the Chicago Independent Media Center received an email from the perpetrators of the attack a few hours after the incident. The email reads, “If this event is not shut down, and the homophobic day trainings do not end, the Christian Liberty Academy will continue to be under constant attack."

...The bricks thrown at the school’s entry door had hateful messages written on them, such as “Shut down Lively” and “Quit the homophobic s---!” Other notes threatened both the school and the church with more violence if they continued to host "homophobic" guests."



Here is the link for the entire, cited article.



Exactly where are to free-thinking, open-minded and allegedly 'inclusive' champions of free speech on this matter? For those of you who are not familiar, The Pink Swastika was a book I examined here and offered up for discussion on my blog and is one off the most viewed pages here of all time at Trees For Lunch. (Click here for the link to The Pink Swastika Part II)



Basically, The Pink Swastika posits that the leadership and membership of the NSDAP skewed highly disproportionate in the percentage of it's homosexual (butch, as opposed to femme) membership.

Lest you dismiss such a charge like this out of hand, this assertion is supported by no less than Walter C. Langer, psychoanalyst for the OSS, (which was the indirect forerunner to today's CIA) and author William L. Shirer, whose impeccable and exhaustive work on the subject of Nazi Germany The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is the standard to which all other works on the topic are measured and judged.


Rather than attempting to disprove anything contained in the book by Lively utilizing facts, it seems much more important for the Pink Hand (or if you prefer, Gay Inc.) to silence rational discussion through, (dare I say it?) Nazi tactics of intimidation. If anything, this only lends further credence to Lively's propositions as the Gay Gestapo cannot tolerate any dissent from the Happy=Gay, pre-approved party line. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no criticism of the gay lifestyle is allowed whatsoever in the Liberal New World Order.








16 comments:

GentleSkeptic said...

I liked this article at the same site even better.

Stormbringer said...

I heard an interview about this on "Crosstalk" (VCY America). They had sound clips of unbridled hate from homosexuals; the ones that accuse Christians of being hateful. Hypocrisy and projection in action!

JD Curtis said...

GS, I thought you were going to reference this article which has MUCH more to do with soft fascism than the one you actually linked.

"Gay rights activists plan to protest at a New Jersey board of education meeting on Tuesday after a school teacher described homosexuality as a sin on her Facebook account. Though supporters of the teacher, Viki Knox, say her First Amendment rights should be protected, her opponents are calling on the school board to take away her job.

According to the Facebook page for Garden State Equality, an organization dedicated to supporting gay rights, the protest is being organized to tell the school board in Union Township that “it is wrong for a teacher to spew anti-LGBT hatred on Facebook in her official capacity as a teacher.”"

GentleSkeptic said...

Of course, then there's this.

Just goes to show you that there's bad behavior all around, and that it should always be condemned.

Mercifully, no-one was hurt or killed in any of these incidents.

Speedy G said...

Zizek wants his followers to become "self-selectively uniformed". Tolerance is a value for Christians, not progressives. It's no longer "useful" to modern progressives.

JD Curtis said...

What happened at the GBLT center you linked to was bigotry writ large.

Are the intimidation tactics that are occuring at Christian Liberty Academy also to be considered bigotry GS?

JD Curtis said...

"In response to critics who assert that claims made in The Pink Swastika are "baseless," or represent "wild speculation" we will provide extra documentation for certain key facts that will highlight the reliability of our sources."

Link

JD Curtis said...

Brick assault on Christian church not 'hate crime'
Police: 'Strictly by the state statute, it really doesn't fit the criteria'

GentleSkeptic said...

Are the intimidation tactics that are occuring at Christian Liberty Academy also to be considered bigotry GS?

In my view, no.

You won't read this (or find a link to it) at WND, but:

Hernandez said the incident is not being treated as a hate crime because Lively was apparently targeted for his views, not for any of the characteristics cited in the Illinois hate crime law, such as race, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. link

Christians still enjoy majority status in this country, and you don't get protected status for your views on homosexuality. Anti-gay is not the same as Christian. There are plenty of gay-friendly Christians. Those that are not repeatedly flex their (anti-gay) political will with relish. (31 states!)

The messages on the thrown bricks did not read "Jesus freaks burn" and "die"; they advocated stopping Lively's bigotry and quitting the "homophobic shit". Not a targeted anti-Christian message; a targeted anti-homophobic-view message, directed against self-selected representatives of a politically powerful majority.

Unseemly and illegal, yes. Bigotry, no.

No-one should throw bricks through windows or otherwise damage property to communicate their message. It's pure intimidation. Intimidation, however, is not automatically bigotry. Sometimes it is a response to bigotry. Personally, I'm relieved to see that the event went on as planned. The best possible thing for the so-called "gay agenda" is for Scott Lively to keep talking.

PLB had this to say, I noticed: "A lot of Christians cower in fear before the power and influence of the homosexual lobby."

JD, have you ever cowered in fear before the power and influence of the homosexual lobby? Do you personally know anyone who has cowered in fear before the power and influence of the homosexual lobby? I, for one, have never seen a Christian cower in fear before said influence, but I've certainly seen a lot of righteous posturing and very effective political organization. Hardly a fearful and disempowered minority. I mean, really. Come on. "31 states" is hardly cowering in fear. Fearful, maybe: cowering, no.

What happened at the GBLT center you linked to was bigotry writ large.

I'm curious why you would say this. What about it makes it so obviously bigoted?
………

BTW: Gotta love the idea of a "banquet intended to expose the homosexual activist agenda." What a festive theme for a banquet! One assumes there were no hot dogs or sausages served.

JD Curtis said...

GS, I clearly implied that if the act committed at the GBLT center was perpetrated by people diametrically opposed to the gay agenda, then that would fit the textbook definition of bigotry.

I did not ask if a police sargeant could dance around the definition of a hate crime to see if a statute is applicable in a particular instance.

So utilizing a standard, dictionary definition, how could the acts committed at Christian Liberty Academy possibly not be considered bigotry?

GentleSkeptic said...

So, just to be clear; in your view, it is not the intimidation or implied violence or threats; it is simple stubborn opposition to full civil equality for gay people that defines anti-gay bigotry?

The definition you linked to says nothing about violence, and I just want to make sure I understand you.

JD Curtis said...

Just to be clear here, the textbook definition I provided is "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion" and you did not seem to disagree with it.

If the GBLT center was vandalized by people opposed to the homosexual agenda or homosexuality in general (as opposed to an inside job to garner pity, I'm not saying that is the case, I'm just trying to be specific here), then the act of vandalizing the center would then fall under the definition of 'bigotry' because such an act constitutes 'utter intolerance'. Wouldn't you agree?

GentleSkeptic said...

But homosexuality is not a creed, a belief, or an opinion. What is the specific belief or opinion that the vandals are expressing intolerance of? Is it civil equality?

Is it the vandalism that makes it bigotry? In other words, if an individual strongly agreed in principle with the vandals (no civil equality for gay people), but never vandalized anything, would that person still be a bigot?

If a person demonstrated their "utter intolerance" of a "belief" in gay civil equality (or "homosexuality in general") by voting or repeatedly blogging against SSM, rather than through vandalization, would that person still be a bigot? Or is that still this side of "utter intolerance"? Is it the violence and property damage that renders it "utterly" intolerant?

FWIW, I think the Dictionary.com definition is a little broad and unclear. Merriam-Webster (somewhat authoritative, yes?) says:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

And their first example usage is:

He was labeled a bigot after making some offensive comments.

Nothing qualifying about "utter" intolerance, more clear about prejudice against group identity and membership as opposed to broad "belief", and no vandalism required to earn the label. Does this jibe with you?

Again: just trying to understand where YOU see the line separating bigotry from non-bigotry.

JD Curtis said...

But homosexuality is not a creed, a belief, or an opinion. What is the specific belief or opinion that the vandals are expressing intolerance of?

Is there any question that the GBLT center in this example was a resource for the GBLT community? Wouldn't members of the GBLT community hold the belief or opinion that such a center is an asset to the GBLT community?

If a person demonstrated their "utter intolerance" of a "belief" in gay civil equality (or "homosexuality in general") by voting or repeatedly blogging against SSM, rather than through vandalization, would that person still be a bigot? Or is that still this side of "utter intolerance"?

I would like you to tell me your opinion. If someone was opposed to same sex marriage, voted against it but did not engage in intimidation tactics or violations of the criminal code, is that person a bigot? I'm leaning toward the negative on this one but I welcome your opinion. It seems that such a person would be more accurately described as having a difference of opinion with those who support same sex marriage rather than a bigot.

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Sure, let's use Merriam-Webster.

Nothing qualifying about "utter" intolerance, more clear about prejudice against group identity and membership as opposed to broad "belief", and no vandalism required to earn the label. Does this jibe with you?

In the earlier definition, it was 'utter intolerance' and in the Merriam-Webster definition, the criteria is 'obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions'.

Whether the motivation for vandalizing a GBLT center is because the perpetrators are 'utterly intolerant' or because they are 'obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions', wouldn't such vandalism then qualify as bigotry?

GentleSkeptic said...

Wouldn't members of the GBLT community hold the belief or opinion that such a center is an asset to the GBLT community?

So, when the vandals spray-painted the words "FAGS BURN/DIE," they were really just being "utterly intolerant" of the "belief or opinion" that "the GLBT center is an asset to the GLBT community?"

Really?

If I'm "utterly intolerant" of the "idea" of someone killing me, am I a bigot toward my would-be murderer? Under this loose definition, is there any idea such that opposition to it doesn't count as bigotry? Either everyone's a bigot or no-one is, eh?

If someone was opposed to same sex marriage, voted against it but did not engage in intimidation tactics or violations of the criminal code, is that person a bigot?

This is what I'm asking YOU. Is bigotry inherently linked to violence and intimidation? It seems to me not. Bigotry often precedes violence and intimidation, but bigotry can be very quiet as well. Quiet as a voting booth or blog post. A "difference of opinion" is an easy euphemism for "one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance."

Sure, let's use Merriam-Webster.

OK, then: He was labeled a bigot after making some offensive comments.

Seems like Merriam-Webster has it right.

Whether the motivation for vandalizing a GBLT center is because the perpetrators are 'utterly intolerant' or because they are 'obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions', wouldn't such vandalism then qualify as bigotry?

No, such vandalism qualifies as vandalism, the motivation qualifies as bigotry.

The vandalism at Christian Liberty Academy also qualifies as vandalism, but the motivation is a response to bigotry. By aligning yourself with the target of a response to bigotry—in other words, by aligning yourself with a perceived bigot—and by elevating that perceived bigot's thesis as Truth and Light bravely held forth in a hostile environment, you reinforce the perception that you, also, are a bigot.

Just in case you wonder why folks think you're a bigot.

GentleSkeptic said...

Pink Swastika, indeed:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed. —Adolph Hitler, 1922