Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 25 February 2007

There is currently an opinion poll regarding an issue related to this article. Please take the time to post your thoughts on the issue in question. Current issue: Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Incorrect statement listed in Controversial remarks

Deleting the "After the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005, the American Family Association's AgapePress published praise for the hurricane's destruction as an instrument of God's mercy, in that it "wiped out much of the rampant sin common to the city." quote. When reading the article, they present two different opinions of people from New Orleans, and don't favor either side like the controversial remark entry suggests.

Jewish upbringing = Crime

I deleted this:

In the March 2005 issue of American Family Association Journal, the American Family Association author Randall Murphree suggested that a Jewish upbringing leads to hatred of Christians, and by extension, a criminal lifestyle.

Because I was unable to substantiate it. If you go the web site and look in the archive, there is no article by or quote from Randlall Murphree regarind Jewish upbringing or hatred of Christians.

I did a google search, and turned up , which quotes from Murphree's article. My read is that someone is INFERRING, from Murphree's description of one Jewish guy, what Murphree thinks of Jews in general. I think the inference is not warranted, at least based on the excerpt that was quoted. So I agree that the deletion, above, is correct. John Broughton 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

American Family Foundation

Ive seen a lot of people online interchanging american family association with american family foundation. Are they one and the same?

No. John Broughton 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) is an interdisciplinary network of academicians, professionals, former group members, and families who study and educate the public about social-psychological influence and control, authoritarianism, and zealotry in cultic groups, alternative movements, and other environments. Founded in 1979 as AFF (American Family Foundation), ICSA took on its current name in late 2004 to better reflect the organization's focus and increasingly international and scholarly dimensions. ICSA, the leading professional organization concerned about cultic groups and psychological manipulation, is known for its professionalism and capacity to respond effectively to families, former and current group members, helping professionals, and scholars.

Controversial statements

I don't see references for some of the statements in the controversial statements section. I think we need references, to ensure accuracy, or some items should be removed. DavidBailey 11:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also cleaned up the wording to be more accurate. ChristopherM 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidBailey 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hate Group?

I know the AFA is extremely controversial, but who has labeled it a "hate group?" That's a pretty strong term. Even the SPL doesn't consider them as such: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=524

Finally, the statement is totally unsourced.

Hate Group? Cont.

I agree with the previous post--it is strong. I changed the introduction in an effort make it more faithful to the group's purpose and actions. I also included a reference to the SPLC, which seems to support much of what I added.

Looks good. If we are going to keep the reference to "some" calling it a hate group, there should be a source for at least one group or pundit that has made the claim.

Hate group?

Many organizations have labeled the AFA as a hate group, but I doubt they have as much of a solid standing as the SPLC or ADL.

People for the American Way have put the AFA on "Right Wing Watch" , however they make no mention of it being a hate group.

Aside from political blogs, a couple organizations that do list the AFA as a hategroup include:

Hatecrime.org which advocates passage of laws that add sexual orientation and gender identity to definition of what a hate crime is and who it is committed against - basically adding stiffer penalties for murdering gay people for being gay.

They also compare the AFA to Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime.

Cybercast News Service published an article detailing how the SPLC is watching the AFA (among other anti-gay groups) and although the SPLC does not refer to the AFA's anti-gay literature, it does describe it as a "vicious personal attack" and a "holy war" and an "anti-gay crusade".

I am not sure if those two organizations have as much standing as the SPLC (although CNS is simply reporting on the SPLC's activities and seems relatively neutral) or ADL.

Other sites that list the AFA as a hate group or refer to them as a hate group are mainly composed of staunch critics of the AFA.

However...

Looking at hate groups such as the Family Research Institute (not to be confused with Family Research Council), Traditional Values Coalition, and American Vision and comparing their attitudes of gay people to that of the AFA, CWA, and Focus on the Family... the biggest difference is what additude the group or group leader (Paul Cameron with FRI and Gary DeMar with American Vision, etc) displays towards homosexuality. Where the AFA and others staunchly oppose any acceptance of gays and any rights for gays, American Vision, FRI and TVC promote criminalization of homosexuality with penalties including the death penalty.

The AFA also makes the claim that they don't hate homosexuals, but believe that their sexual orientation can be cured through faith despite scientific evidence pointing to the fact that sexual orientation is biological.

I hope I made myself sound neutral, despite being a critic of the AFA and other groups. I was the one who added them as a hate group and I apologize. If they are to be deemed as such, leave it to someone else. I'll leave this type of issue alone for now unless the SPLC or ADL has an article declaring the AFA (et al) a hate group - then I'll gladly jump on the opportunity to update Misplaced Pages.

--Joe Capricorn 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If your goal was to sound neutral, you have failed miserably. You quote a number of extremely far left sources and then repeat the highly debatable idea of a biological root of homosexuality as fact.

Still, I think it would be very noteworthy if the SPLC or ADL labeled them a hate group and it should be included in the article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.254.109 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2006

I thought it was pretty balanced. The "highly debatable idea" has some pretty sound scientific backing - perhaps you should read on the subject with an open mind.

Orpheus 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To each their own, but I don't think you can honestly say many of the groups cited are moderate or even, in some cases, mainstream.

It's because I've examined the issue of a biological origin of homosexuality with an open-mind that I've arrived at the conclusion that it's an open question. Several studies have pointed to the posibility of it being the case, but others have all but disproven the notion. At this stage in the research, being dogmatic on either side is just that - dogma.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.43.126 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2006

You're right, it's very much an open question. However, describing it as "highly debatable" implies that the case for is much weaker than it actually is. Ah, English, where the literal meaning and the generally understood meaning can be poles apart. As for the dogma - I think the current article does a good job of pointing out that the AFA does take an extremely dogmatic view of the subject, and shows no sign that they would be willing to change if there was a bit more scientific evidence.

Incidentally, you should sign your posts with four tildes, and it's polite not to remove previous posts (especially other people's) from talk pages. Orpheus 02:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, first you imply the matter is settled, then quickly back peddle to the position of "very much an open question." I stand by my assertion that it is "highly" debatable, particularly in light of recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics.

I can't speak for AFA and nor can you. Who knows if they would or would not change their position if conclusive evidence was produced. Unless you can provide a sourced statement from one of their management to that effect, your idea is purely conjecture and nothing more.

I don't know why you suggest I deleted anyone's post because I didn't. I'm behind a common proxy, so the IP address may come up as the same. This is also the reason I didn't sign my post, because I am not logged in at the moment and I'm behind the aforementioned proxy.