It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Training evangelical pastors to be politicians

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Because infiltration is dishonest by its very nature. If someone lies about their lifestyle to get into a position of power in order to influence it that is dishonest. How do you guys not see the connection? Gryphon66 you say people have not been in the closet for 40 years. That is intellectually dishonest. People say infiltrating the media is different than infiltrating the government but that is dishonest. The media primed the pump and was used to sway public opinion. You guys already know this though. I don't want a theocracy just like I don't like the idea of closet congressmen/judges/senators who have been blackmailed into changing legislation and the country.

ETA: Earlier this year when Alabama judges tried to block gay marriage a lesbian politician started claiming she was going to start outing other gay politicians.
edit on 11-7-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

I'm intellectually dishonest? Says the Santa who misrepresents what I said???

Let me refresh your memory...


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NihilistSanta

What in the world are you talking about with "closeted homosexuals"? Activists haven't been "closeted" in 40 years.


Notice the highlighted word. [Emphasis mine, btw]

Activists, the people working for equity and equal rights for LGBT folks, by the very nature of what they were doing were not "in the closet." You know this was what I said, and you're trying to warp what I said to fit your ridiculous argument.

Dishonest indeed and nothing "intellectual" about it.

Okay, we'll play it your way.

Your assertion is that closeted homosexuals infiltrated "the government" and effected our advances in equal rights.

You list "closet congressman/judges/senators" that accomplished this.

Who are they? What specific laws/court cases did this horde of gay spies affect?

What massive conspiracy of "closet homosexuals" used the media (what media?) to sway public opinion?

So, it's not possible, in your ... mind ... that public opinion has changed over time? That unjust laws and practices were replaced over time because people have realized that sexual orientation is no reason to discriminate against American citizens?

What lesbian politician? How did you know she was Lesbian if she's a closeted infiltrator? I guess the Federal court orders issued had no effect on the situation? Nope, one woman, single-handedly cowed the State of Alabama into accepting gay marriage.

Right.

Also, your numbers don't add up ... according to most folks who believe as you do, we're no more than 1-2% of the population. Your complicated theory requires national coordination between your imagined covert group of gay spies, "infiltrating" judgeships and the US Congress, State Houses, etc. And all coordinating their efforts over the last 40 years flawlessly, while simultaneously forcing their media lackeys to do their bidding?

Okay.

Your theory is ludicrous from beginning to end.

You don't favor a theocracy? Yet you claim not to see any difference between your fabricated, ridiculous assertion that gays have secretly taken over State and Federal governments for the last half-century ... and the extremist Christians who are working to get elected and transform the US into "Christian Nation," trample the Constitution, and establish "God's Law" as our system of Government?

I don't believe you. Your position is either woefully ignorant or overtly dishonest. Period.

edit on 10Sat, 11 Jul 2015 10:29:55 -050015p102015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Patricia Todd the first openly gay Alabama politician is who I was speaking of.

Alabama's first openly gay lawmaker threatens to 'out' officials having extramarital affairs


"This (is) a time where you find out who are accepting, loving people. To say I am disappointed in Speaker Hubbard comment's and Attorney General Strange choice to appeal the decision is an understatement. I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about 'family values' when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have. I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet OUT," Todd stated in her Facebook post over the weekend.



The headline makes it seem she is talking about extra marital affairs but her language is pretty clear.

I don't care about numbers. There are incidents of infiltrators in the govt from the past. See the entire anti-masonic movement that sprung up after the revolution. You try to pretend that individuals with an agenda somehow have to have nationwide coordination with some clandestine group.


ETA: Also yes it is entirely possible that public opinion has changed due to Hollywood homosexuals and news agency's over representing homosexuals and showing acceptance. You yourself state the very low percentage of homosexuals in this country.


edit on 11-7-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Right. Again, even though your source doesn't agree with your claim, one woman scared the entire Alabama legislature into compliance with Federal court order.

Even though she didn't say a word about closeted homosexuals, but merely used the phrase "call someone out" ...

The Anti-Masonic group now is it? Okay.

So we are completely in the realm of dark, shadowy figures moving in the background ...

Why not just claim that "the Illuminati did it" and have done?

You'd actually have a slightly better claim in that sense, since there's a slight possibility that they actually exist ...

As opposed to your cadre of gay and Lesbian operatives ...

No further commentary on the actual thread topic? I think we've explored the smoke screen of homosexual espionage fully.

So, you're just fine the Dominionists trying to transform America into a Christian Theocracy?

Fair enough ... just say so.


edit on 10Sat, 11 Jul 2015 10:49:03 -050015p102015766 by Gryphon66 because: spelling



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Britannica - Anti-Masonic Movement

I have clearly stated I am not in favor of a theocracy. In another thread on theocracy I even jested about how a theocracy is usually socialist and how the left should be in favor of it.
edit on 11-7-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy behind the fact people are outraged that a group of people would choose to run for office to affect change in the country. When that is how democracy works. Because they represent a different view of how things should be done from yourself or I is no reason to ignore the fact that other groups have and continue to do the very same thing.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Right. ISIS is socialist? The Taliban was socialist? You do know that socialist doesn't mean "anything I don't like" right?

You did type that you're not in favor of a theocracy, and yet, you find nothing wrong with the Dominionist and similar movements whose stated political goals are transforming the US into a Theocracy.

First you want to illogically compare them to imaginary gay spies, and now you're trying to side step into "the left" and "socialism" since that didn't provide enough smoke for you ...

Why don't we talk about Dominionism unless of course you just don't want to?

... or wait ... are you a Dominionist? Is that why you don't want to actually address the topic?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy behind the fact people are outraged that a group of people would choose to run for office to affect change in the country. When that is how democracy works. Because they represent a different view of how things should be done from yourself or I is no reason to ignore the fact that other groups have and continue to do the very same thing.



To effect change in the country? You mean to transform it into a Christian Theocracy run by their take on God's Law?

Let's be specific and drop the white-washing.

We're not talking about Christians having a place and voice in government.

We're not talking about people who "merely have a different position than you and I"

We're talking about people who fundamentally want to change the United States to be run as a Christian (and only their unique brand of extremist evangelical Christianity) government, with God's Law REPLACING human law.

That's not just "a difference of opinion" ...

From the OP:



"Somebody's values are going to reign supreme" in the United States, Lane told National Public Radio. "We want people with our values to represent our values and interests in the public square, be elected to office, and represent our issues."


Their words, not mine. So, let's do away with a representative democracy that allows (at least in theory) all the different voices of We the People to be heard.

Someone is going to REIGN supreme.

Their words, not mine.
edit on 11Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:14:44 -050015p112015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:16:31 -050015p112015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why is that so different than the progressive elements who want to "redefine" the Constitution and Bill of Rights?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why is that so different than the progressive elements who want to "redefine" the Constitution and Bill of Rights?


Let's have a specific example of what you're talking about.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Free speech, religious freedoms, gun rights, state rights, individual rights. . . . . .

Where do you want to start?

A theocracy could never exist unless the Constitution was eliminated, and if that happened, we'd have bigger worries than a bunch of religious nutters.

What I see worse,, is the incremental redefining of rights versus privileges.

The basic laws that founded the US were to limit government. Period.

Not to enable government.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Start wherever you wish ... with specific examples.

The Constitution designs and creates a form of government. The Bill of Rights does what it claims: establishes our rights.

The rest of your post is vague. I think we're both familiar with each others general beliefs.

Let's drill down to specific cases, people, efforts, etc., and see if these are comparable to what the Doministist's stated goals are.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Knock yourself out.

Describe how the evil religious folks will overthrow the government and Constitution and get away with it.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I know very well what socialism is. Have you actually researched any theocracies and their economic policies? The knee jerk reaction to defend anything labeled socialist makes you a bit blind to the facts. I am not supporting dominionist in any way I just find it laughable that you feign outrage about their actions but fail to see the parallels to progressive movements.

The fact that you think we could be a theocracy is pretty telling though.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Nope. You made the claim. The OP quotes plenty of evidence, I quoted the OP.

You are the one who wanted to discuss the evil progressives who also want to reshape the government in similar fashion to the STATED goals of the Dominonists and other similar groups.

So ... discuss it. I only want to deal with facts and specifics, rather than your normal vague sweeping gestures at something you offer no evidence for.

Or, we can drop it, since you seem to have forgotten your ammunition.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I know very well what socialism is. Have you actually researched any theocracies and their economic policies? The knee jerk reaction to defend anything labeled socialist makes you a bit blind to the facts. I am not supporting dominionist in any way I just find it laughable that you feign outrage about their actions but fail to see the parallels to progressive movements.

The fact that you think we could be a theocracy is pretty telling though.


More distraction from the topic.

I didn't defend socialism. You misused the term. As opposed to the pejorative wingers always try to use it as, socialism is broad and has little to nothing to do with "the welfare state" and nothing at all to do with Theocratic Governments.

If you're so knowledgeable, why don't you give a real-world example of a socialistic theocracy ... and we can go from there.

You didn't establish any "parallels to progressive movements" you merely tried to theorize a vast gay espionage scheme, then you tried to gesture loosely to "the left" and "socialism" to get yourself out of it.

Let's not start talking about what we find "laughable" okay?

The stated goals of Dominionism are clear.
edit on 11Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:47:34 -050015p112015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

lolz

You're cute today. Have another cup of snark, it'll be a long afternoon.

In the 12 months after the Columbine shootings, 800 gun bills were proposed. Yeah, no progressive element is trying to actually redefine the Bill of Rights.

Denial ain't just a river.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

lolz

You're cute today. Have another cup of snark, it'll be a long afternoon.

In the 12 months after the Columbine shootings, 800 gun bills were proposed. Yeah, no progressive element is trying to actually redefine the Bill of Rights.

Denial ain't just a river.


I think you're cute too, Beezer. I'm fresh out of snark, can I borrow some of yours? Or is it too much trouble to go to your warehouse.

Which of the 800 gun bills tried to repeal the 2nd then?

Another vague gesture ... be specific.

And, really, you chose that paltry effort over "Queen of Denial?"

You're slipping.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

beez, if the Dominionists get in, you'll still get to have guns. But you'll also have to go to their church, millions of homosexuals will no doubt lose the ground they've struggled to gain, and Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, "nones", hell, even Catholics, will have to switch or be PROsecuted. They want control of:

Government
Business
Arts & Entertainment
Media
Family
Schools....

I always forget the 7th mountain.....Oh yeah - RELIGION



If the progressives get in, you'll still have guns. And kids won't be taught Creationism. And gays will have the same rights they have today. And Muslims can be Muslims, etc.


Anyhoo - VOTE FOR BERNIE!!


edit on 7/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I know very well what socialism is. Have you actually researched any theocracies and their economic policies? The knee jerk reaction to defend anything labeled socialist makes you a bit blind to the facts. I am not supporting dominionist in any way I just find it laughable that you feign outrage about their actions but fail to see the parallels to progressive movements.

The fact that you think we could be a theocracy is pretty telling though.


More distraction from the topic.

I didn't defend socialism. You misused the term. As opposed to the pejorative wingers always try to use it as, socialism is broad and has little to nothing to do with "the welfare state" and nothing at all to do with Theocratic Governments.

If you're so knowledgeable, why don't you give a real-world example of a socialistic theocracy ... and we can go from there.

You didn't establish any "parallels to progressive movements" you merely tried to theorize a vast gay espionage scheme, then you tried to gesture loosely to "the left" and "socialism" to get yourself out of it.

Let's not start talking about what we find "laughable" okay?

The stated goals of Dominionism are clear.


Ever hear of Iran? That is just one example.

You are pretty dismissive of the parallels I was speaking of. You feel that people with a certain religious conviction can band together to affect change but that homosexuals are somehow incapable of this? You deny the fact that homosexuals had to operate in secret for fear of reprisal? How is that not dishonest to their constituents. I am not being politically biased here either there have been Republican reps that were later found out to be homosexuals. It is not limited to one party it is just that the goals happen to align more with the left than that of religious conservatives.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join