I am trying to decide if groups such as Atheist Agenda are hate groups or

[pegleg]

are genuinely concerned with establishing and defending atheists' rights. If they are for the latter then they do need encouragement. But if their purpose is to degrade religion and religious believers, then indeed their purpose is bigotry and no different from any other hate group. In that case they do not stand for free thought as they claim, and their intent is to foster intolerance and narrow minded bigotry.

[varkam]

1. I think that, to an extent...

the two go hand-in-hand, or at least it is perceived to be as such. In other words, I think that for some people, atheists defending their rights and promoting free-thought will be seen by many as degradation of religion and, hence, bigotry.

Oh, and

[demosincebirth]

2. I agree.

[Eric J in MN]

3. One can speak out against religion without hating people...

...who are religious.

[pegleg]

5. Absolutely. Expressing an opinion is perfectly respectable and

in fact, the cornerstone of a free society. Actions, on the other hand, define intent and purpose.

[RethugAssKicker]

4. What have they done to give you the idea they may

be a hate group?

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. It harkens back to the days when atheists herded religious people

to the town square and burned them alive for heresy.

[Flarney]

11. Awesome. n/t

[pegleg]

25. Religious people were killed and imprisoned by the thousands in Mao's China,

under Stalin in Russia, and under Pol Pot in Cambodia. In these places free thinkers and religious adherents were by no means tolerated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Because they stood in opposition of the state religion - Communism.

Don't let anybody tell you that Maoist China and Soviet Russia were atheist societies - they had their state religion which brooked no opposition. And they used the same methods of social control that the Catholic church did in the inquisition.

So their 'higher power' was the state instead of a big sky ghost. Big whoop.

Your own statement "In these places free thinkers...were buy no means tolerated" gives the lie to the idea that they were atheist societies.

[pegleg]

31. They claimed to be atheist societies and were considered such.

And I don't think communism is a religion. That is certainly not to say that all individuals were atheists. But to admit any religious belief was often not tolerated and punished.

[Warpy]

38. Not any more than being a warlord

or any sort of a bourgeois landowner or merchant.

What people miss in all this is that it wasn't so much a religious persecution, although religious persecution was part of it, but a persecution of anyone who clung to old forms of thinking and acting. It was a persecution of a past that hadn't worked for many years except for the few.

Communism sought to replace everything in a society from the ground up and the worst of the Leninists wanted to do it all within a generation. That's the reason for all the disastrous 5 year plans and for the Cultural Revolution. They were replacing everything, or at least trying to.

The only good thing about Communism is that it seems to have been a stepping stone (at its best) from a feudal society controlled by oligarchs to a modern mixed economy of regulated capitalism ameliorated by socialism.

[pegleg]

44. So then, it is not just in the name religion that unimaginable numbers

of people were killed and imprisoned or exiled?

[Warpy]

48. Certainly no more than were under the name "bourgeois."

I will never understand the Christian need for victimhood.

[pegleg]

50. Murder and oppression under any name is still murder and oppression.

That's the lesson of history.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. Didn't hear a word I said. nt

[HamdenRice]

45. Which is pretty close to what happened under the Khmer Rouge nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. Damn it, you got me

I was about to write a scathing post about how it was religious fanatics who burned people for heresy, then I thought to check who wrote the comment.

Nice one.

[Warpy]

7. If we don't all clap our hands,

Tinkerbell will die!

Nothing threatens a religion like lack of consensus. Religious people tend to take it very personally, even when it isn't.

[SidneyCarton]

57. It depends.

Your unbelief does not necessarily harm my ability to believe. So long as this organization seeks to allow atheists the same rights of expression and discourse as theists, I have no issue. I would oppose this group if they sought to suppress belief, just as I oppose the actions of faith-based groups that lobby for the suppression of unbelief.

[pegleg]

12. I'm very serious in asking the question and not trying to create a storm.

It is not a loaded question. There have been several incidents in the news lately about atheists being subjected to forced prayer or subjected to social humiliation. At the same time, we hear stories of desecration of religious symbols, articles, or religious sights. Both situations display intolerance, at the very least, and should be condemned.

This is the clip from wikipedia about Atheist Agenda:

"The Atheist Agenda is an organization founded in 2005 by a group of atheist and agnostic students and teachers from the University of Texas at San Antonio. The group is dedicated to the philosophy of free thought, as well as promoting aggressive activism against theology and theological institutions, encouraging non-believers to take pride in their history and community, and providing to them the same fellowship that those of a religious background share."

[charlie]

13. Porn for Bibles

shocked and awed a few around here. Most rolled their eyes and grumped about juvenile idiots, but a small bunch were offended down to their cores.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

8. Of Course It's Not A Hate Group

Pointing out the fallacious thinking that religious people have is often seen as "degrading" religion and religious beliefs. It all comes down to that ridiculous special protection that religious beliefs have in society. You know, you mustn't "pick on" someone's religion... even if all you're trying to do is point out to them that they are suffering from a delusion. Really, what's the difference between instructing someone that the sun does not revolve around the earth or telling them that Jesus is a fictional character? In both cases, you're trying to educate them. This special reverence we're supposed to have for archaic superstitions is what keeps us stuck in the dark ages and prevents real progress from occurring.

I suppose you'll tell me I'm "hateful" now too?

[pegleg]

14. Do you realize that in Canada you could could be prosecuted for hate speech? nt

[charlie]

16. Not true

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46//20080723/...

[pegleg]

33. There seems to be a fine line here and much to be left to a judge's discretion.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...

[charlie]

41. It appears so

Harding's pamphlet was entitled "Are all the Muslims living in Canada today TERRORISTS?" and made the case in inflammatory terms -- "devouring wolves", "threat to our children", and so on. A decision that it was public incitement of hatred as defined in the Canadian Code isn't a stretch.

Now, perhaps you can explain how ComtesseDeSpair's post can be regarded under the law as similar promotion of hatred.

[trotsky]

54. Woohoo! WorldNutDaily!

Always a fine source, trusted by DUers everywhere.

[sharp_stick]

9. What have they done that gives you the idea they may

be a hate group? I've never seen anything overtly hateful from them. Most of the atheists that I know are just happy to be left alone.

[Flarney]

10. I am intolerant of wild, unprovable claims...does that make me a bigot?

I think religion is ridiculous. Sometime I mock religion and the silly (and terrible) things religion does. I generally do this privately so long as the person isn't bothering anyone else, but even still, I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with bigotry or hate. Believing in free thought doesn't mean you have to respect whatever wild fantasy someone indulges.

How does believing that Jesus is literally the son of god deserve any more respect than believing that there's a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Because there's the same amount of evidence (zero) for both ideas.

It's always a fun conversation...

Edited to say I'm not familiar with the specific group you mentioned, "Atheist Agenda," though the name does sound nefarious (kind of like the evil "gay agenda" )

[pegleg]

15. Obviously, you don't favor "free thought"as you say you do. Because

freedom of thought includes the freedom to investigate, deduce, and conclude for oneself whether or not religious claims are genuine.

[varkam]

17. I don't think that the poster said anything about...

curtailing anyone's freedom to investigate, deduce, or conclude for oneself whether or not religious claims are genuine. Indeed, the poster's opinion that religious claims are unprovable would fall under such a rubric - would it not?

[pegleg]

21. It would depend on what constitutes the standard of proof.

[varkam]

30. Why would a personal opinion depend upon the standard of proof? eom

[Flarney]

39. Where did I even imply that I oppose the "freedom to investigate, deduce, and conclude" etc.?

I didn't say that at all. You have every right to believe what you want. You don't, however, have the right not to be offended. You cheapen the meaning of the word "bigot" when you use it to describe people who do not respect other people's beliefs.

I would never impose on anyone's freedom to believe or think anything. I simply reserve the right to give my honest opinion about those beliefs based solely on the merits (as I judge them) of those beliefs.

[Evoman]

43. Who's stopping you from your free thinking?

We're just telling you, using our freedom of thought, that your conclusions are silly.

Although I'll say this....very few religious people investigate or deduce anything. That's why most of em just believe what their parents and society do. I mean...if you're doin' deducin' and vesitgatin' and come to the conclusion that snakes can talk and crackers ACTUALLY turn into flesh. Well...I think you probably need to learn to do better investigating and deducing.

Or course, that's just my opinion.

[maxsolomon]

18. there's a direct analogy to gay rights groups

they fight for equal rights & freedom to be who they are, and they're accused of trying to "force" their lifestyles on others, debasing marriage, "grooming" youth to become gay, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

when 90% of americans publically profess belief in angels, this post makes you look like a concern troll.

[CrispyQ]

19. From n2doc's toons thread just this week:

[cosmik debris]

20. To me, free thought means you can believe what you want

and I can believe that your ideas are bat-shit crazy.

And I have the right to say so.

If that degrades religion and religious believers, That's not my problem.

[pegleg]

22. Agreed. And if i say that you are batshit crazy in saying that there can't be

something 'out there' more than the eye can see or that the human mind can comprehend, that's my business too.

[cosmik debris]

24. No, not really.

You missed the obvious distinction.

There is a HUGE difference between saying that YOUR IDEAS OR BELIEFS are bat-shit crazy and saying that YOU are bat-shit crazy.

I sorry you missed that, but that was your bat-shit crazy idea, not mine.

[pegleg]

26. You are right. I stand corrected.

[cosmik debris]

27. And you still have to face the fact that I never said that.

So don't stereotype atheists with your straw men.

[pegleg]

29. I'm beginning to think I was right.

[cosmik debris]

32. Yes, I understand

Stereotypes make it so much easier to hate those with whom you disagree.

That's what you are after isn't it? A good rationalization for hating atheists?

That seems to be the trend with your posts.

[pegleg]

35. You are the one jumping to conclusions, not me. And no, I don't hate atheists

To the contrary, I think that they have been maligned and discriminated against. But I see alot of the same thing going on against religious people.

[cosmik debris]

36. Coulda fooled me. n/t

[pegleg]

37. All this cosmik debris floating around in my head gives me a headache.

[cosmik debris]

40. Mission Accomplished! n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Yeah. That poor, beat down 85% majority, which makes all the laws

and decides who is nuts and who is sane.

[Flarney]

42. Atheism is the absence of belief, not the belief in the absence (of a higher power) ...

...which seems like a small distinction but it's not at all. The former does not require faith, which is a hallmark of religion. I just wanted to preempt any "atheism as a religion" nonsense. Atheism is commonly misrepresented as the absolute certainty that there is no god, which of course is unknowable.

[SidneyCarton]

58. I'll second that.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to think, believe and say what you want, and get called an idiot for it. Those are the ropes. It might offend me to have my faith maligned, mocked or lampooned by others, but suppressing their rights to do so, merely exposes my inability to deal with criticism. The Founding Fathers were not crazy, allowing suppression of freedom of speech is a dangerous precident, that leads swiftly to bondage.

[heidler1]

23. IMO Atheists have almost no agenda except for fear of foolish decisions made by the religious.

Atheist's tend to check up on the facts, which show that a higher percent of the Christians in the US voted for Bush in the 2000 and the 2004 Presidential election than his opponent. To say the very least this casts doubt on the gullibility of Christians. There is every reason to believe that this will hold true for the 2008 election, thus favoring McCain. This truth flies in the face of the Repub. push for removing safety nets for the needy in spite of the Christian pretense of giving.

The secular voters were not so easily fooled by Bush.

There other examples, but this one is the worst.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103

[pegleg]

34. Atheist Agenda is an official name for a certain group of atheists. nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

51. Which means they have a website or some other source for people to check, right?

Please, provide some cites.

[pegleg]

52. Here's a couple

http://www.theindependentutsa.com/home/index.cfm?event=...

And here they're listed as a religious group:

http://www.utsa.edu/sa/SO/student_orgs.cfm?Show=ByCateg...

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. They would seem to be not much of anything, at the moment

They're on the 'student organization' list for Spring 2008, but the website that points to isn't working (it gives a 'Drupal not set up/database down' error page), and the internet archive for it shows no change since March 2007.

Still, there's been no sign in any information given about them yet of 'hate'. Even if the standard of proof isn't 'beyond all reasonable doubt', in this case I think "innocent until at least some evidence is produced" must apply.

[trotsky]

53. I'm trying to decide if threads such as this are flamebait or

are genuinely concerned with fostering discussion. If they are for the latter then they do need encouragement. But if their purpose is to degrade atheism and atheists then indeed their purpose is bigotry and no different than any other flamebait thread. In that case they do not stand for discussion as they claim, and their intent is to foster intolerance and narrow minded bigotry.

[cosmik debris]

55. He didn't bring up Mao until the 25th post.

That's a really patient way to foster discussion.

[Jim__]

56. You're proposing a false dilemma.

According to wikipedia:

The Atheist Agenda is an organization founded in 2005 by a group of atheist and agnostic students and teachers from the University of Texas at San Antonio<1>. The group is dedicated to the philosophy of free thought, as well as promoting aggressive activism against theology and theological institutions, encouraging non-believers to take pride in their history and community, and providing to them the same fellowship that those of a religious background share<2>.

Promoting aggressive activism against theology and theological institutions is more than establishing and defending atheists rights; but it doesn't make them a hate group.

[TZ]

59. Such dangerous thoughts!

Cause you know there is just so many of us! Oh yeah and saying negative things about religion should just STOP because you know religion has never ever done anything bad to anybody..

To those idiots who keep inssiting that atheists zealots are as dangerous as fundies..I ask how much real world power do atheists have..umm none..people getting fired from their jobs..Oh and its illegal to hold office if you are an atheist.

Lets see..how many politicians say that atheists shouldn't be citizens? Joe Liebermann thinks freedom of relgion doesn't mean freedom from religion.
And yeah, there are gonna be angry nasty people who say bad things about religion. BUT HOW THE HELL IS THAT GONNA DO ANYTHING..unless you beleive there is some big evil athiest conspiracy to destroy all religion. Its succeeding swimmingly! So much that every presidential candidate fell all over themselves proving how religious they were.

Just another teh atheists are evil flamebait piece IMHO.

[Az]

60. What is it called when believers refer to nonbelief as evil?

Is that a hate group? Just curious.

[pegleg]

61. If a believer calls a nonbeliever's nonbelief evil, it's called

arrogance, being intolerant, or bigoted.

[Az]

62. The problem

There are belief systems and reactions to belief systems which see various positions as inherently evil. They truly do believe that evil (whatever that may mean to them) does result from particular beliefs (or lack thereof). So the problem is how do we integrate such groups into our society which seems to embrace diversity and acceptance of all beliefs. As is the classic problem with tolerance it becomes self contradictory in the face of intolerance. That is the tolerant are intolerant of intolerance. Its a classic post modern issue.

[pegleg]

63. This world will never be perfect let's face it. But that doesn't mean

that we can't start the process of tolerance. It begins with every person. The tools are already in place if we choose to use them. It'll take time though.

http://www.museumoftolerance.com/site/c.juLVJ8MRKtH/b.1...

[trotsky]

64. A good step toward tolerance...

is not labeling something a "hate group" simply because they have a different opinion than you.

[Jim__]

67. Karl Popper on tolerating the intolerant.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

as cited in wikiquote

[cosmik debris]

69. That's pretty good.

It is certainly better than the example I was going to propose. (tolerating Nazis is the wrong thing to do--it's a good example until someone invokes Godwin's law.)

[varkam]

76. Thanks for that quote, Jim.

[cosmik debris]

65. You still haven't explained why you think they might be a hate group

Unless your explanation is in that clip from Wikipedia about "aggressive activism against theology".

If that is the standard, all evangelical Christians are members of a hate group.

Especially Mormons. Look at how aggressive they are against the beliefs of those with whom they disagree.

I suspect that you have no facts so you use innuendo as a substitute.

If you have facts, please present them. If not, don't be such a dick.

[charlie]

68. Been waiting too

He's been asked, but won't say. Which is ridiculous.

And what's with the "groups such as" stuff? Which groups?

And why the sudden concern with a small, ineffective, mostly defunct student club in San Antonio, Texas? It makes me think of the furor over a no-name nobody like Ward Churchill. Wingers needed a specimen of Leftie treason so they could blast liberals, and Ward was the pitiful best they could come up with.

[cosmik debris]

70. Maybe he just wanted to talk about Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. n/t

[charlie]

71. Tibet

You forgot Tibet. A user search shows Tibet is #1 on the hit parade, followed by Stalin, then Mao, then Pol Pot.

[cosmik debris]

72. Where ever there is injustice...

There will be someone blaming it on the atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

81. Like I said before, atheists get angry and steal crackers, christians get angry and, well, you know

[trotsky]

73. Sure, TODAY they may be a "small, ineffective, mostly defunct student club in San Antonio, Texas"...

but tomorrow they'll be rounding up good Christians everywhere and marching them into death camps! Unless we confront their extreme hate and bigotry RIGHT NOW!!!1!

[charlie]

74. Well, grab your popgun

and meet me at the Waffle House on I-10. I've got lawn chairs, binoculars, a bag of Cheetos, and some Dr Pepper. We'll beat their perfidy with vigilance.

Step lightly infidels, the Eyes of Texas are upon you!

[cosmik debris]

75. You Impostor! You Poser! You Interloper!

There are NO Waffle Houses in San Antonio.

If you were a real Texan, You'd know that.

[charlie]

77. Hold your tongue, Hill Country git

The only Waffle House I ever set foot in was on I-90 south of San Marcos. I may be a west Texas rube, but I'm not in the habit of mistaking Whataburgers for Waffle Houses. So knock it off, me and Trotsky are in the middle of an IMPORTANT MISSION. If you want in, bring some cigars and facepaint.

[cosmik debris]

79. I-90 runs from Seattle to Chicago

It never got south of San Marcos in its life.

Maybe you spent too long in the I-20 town of Peyote?

[charlie]

83. Erm...

I-35, of course College years at Southwest Texas State. No peyote, but insane quantities of pretty much everything else. Does it show?

[cosmik debris]

84. Were you familiar with the urban legend

about closing all the Waffle Houses in San Antonio?

I think it had something to do with a murder and a haunting, but it was bogus, there are many Waffle House in San Antonio. Too Many.

[charlie]

86. No, I hadn't heard that one

But the only reason I was in the Waffle House was because my first roommate had a psychotic break. He was getting progressively weirder and one day called me from there with some sort of emergency, I had to come NOW. I found him hunkered down at a table babbling some cloak and dagger stuff about spies and kidnappings. After a few weeks of that kind of thing, his parents came and had him committed to a psych ward in Austin. I was real glad to be done with the twerp, when he was lucid he was an obnoxious, preening rich brat.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Are we still going to need the Cheez Whiz?

If not I'm going to send it to the hazardous waste facility before somebody gets hurt, that stuff is toxic.

[charlie]

80. No, no, bring it!

If I don't lubricate my pork rinds with Cheez Whiz, I cough up bacon-flavored sawdust for the rest of the day. Besides, I need my minimum daily requirement of calcium. And celluloid polymers. And nitrous oxide. And FDA Yellow #5.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Okay, but be careful charlie.

It also stains the sheets...erm, or so I've heard.


mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...nitrous oxide...

[charlie]

85. Sheets?

That's the trouble with Everything's Allowed morality. Too many perversions to keep track of. How can an atheist keep up?

[beam me up scottie]

87. Did you check the list compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center ?

Of course, after all of the religious ones were done staking their claims, there probably wasn't much room left in Texas:

Texas Hate Groups Map

American Thule Society Neo-Nazi TX

League of the South Neo-Confederate TX

League of the South Neo-Confederate TX

League of the South Neo-Confederate TX

White Revolution Neo-Nazi TX

Bayou Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Amarillo TX

Aryan Covenant Church/ACC Services Christian Identity Anderson TX

League of the South Neo-Confederate Austin TX

League of the South Neo-Confederate Austin TX

Power of Prophecy General Hate Austin TX

Aryan Nations Neo-Nazi Bellmead TX

National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Blue Ridge TX

National Socialist Movement - NSM Neo-Nazi Buffalo Gap TX

Traditional Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Carlsbad TX

White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Cleveland TX

Eagle Publications Holocaust Denial Corpus Christi TX

United White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Corpus Christi TX

Confederate Hammerskins Racist Skinhead Dallas TX

Lonestar Patriots Racist Skinhead Dallas TX

Nation of Islam Black Separatist Dallas TX

National Alliance Neo-Nazi Dallas TX

New Black Panther Party Black Separatist Dallas TX

United White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Dallas TX

Imperial Klans of America Ku Klux Klan Desoto TX

Bayou Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan El Paso TX

Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints General Hate Eldorado TX

European-American Unity and Rights Organization White Nationalist Fort Worth TX

Iron Circle Motorcycle Club General Hate Fort Worth TX

Nation of Islam Black Separatist Fort Worth TX

Aryan Nations Neo-Nazi Houston TX

Confederate Hammerskins Racist Skinhead Houston TX

Gospel Broadcasting Association Christian Identity Houston TX

Imperial Klans of America Ku Klux Klan Houston TX

Lone Star State Skinheads Racist Skinhead Houston TX

Nation of Islam Black Separatist Houston TX

National Alliance Neo-Nazi Houston TX

National Socialist Movement - NSM Neo-Nazi Houston TX

New Black Panther Party Black Separatist Houston TX

United White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Houston TX

American National Socialist Workers' Party Neo-Nazi Ingram TX

League of the South Neo-Confederate Iredell TX

European-American Unity and Rights Organization White Nationalist Irving TX

Aryan Wear White Nationalist Keller TX

Brotherhood of Klans Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Lake Jackson TX

Imperial Klans of America Ku Klux Klan Lefors TX

Border Guardians Anti-Immigrant Livingston TX

United White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Longview TX

National Socialist Movement - NSM Neo-Nazi Lubbock TX

Bayou Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Lufkin TX

United White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Marshall TX

Bayou Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Midlothian TX

Bayou Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan Palestine TX

Christian Guard Christian Identity Pasadena TX

Old Guard Records Racist Music Plano TX

Blood and Honour Racist Skinhead Richardson TX

National Socialist Movement - NSM Neo-Nazi Richardson TX

Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan San Angelo TX

League of the South Neo-Confederate San Angelo TX

Traditional Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Ku Klux Klan San Angelo TX

Nation of Islam Black Separatist San Antonio TX

TX Knights of the Invisible Empire Inc. Ku Klux Klan San Antonio TX

Desastrious Records Racist Music Springtown TX

Nation of Islam Black Separatist Texarkana TX

Tony Alamo Christian Ministries General Hate Texarkana TX

League of the South Neo-Confederate Tyler TX

National Socialist Movement - NSM Neo-Nazi Waskom TX

Independent Skins Racist Skinhead Wichita Falls TX

I don't think the theists in the above listed groups have anything to worry about.

Begin countdown for the NTCF 3 . 2 . 1...

[pegleg]

88. Well I'm sure glad they aren't on that list , but ya never know - sometimes

these groups morph into something else. About the wierd christian white supremacist group, "Christian Identity"

"In recent years, deep doctrinal disputes, the lack of a central church structure, and a shift among white supremacists towards agnosticism and racist variations of neo-Paganism have weakened the Identity movement and reduced the number of its adherents."

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=4

Ya just never know.

[beam me up scottie]

89. From Wikipedia:

Ideology

One of the most distinguishing beliefs held by Identity Christians is the belief that modern Jews are not the Biblical "House of Israel". Identity Christians hold that modern Jews are not even the Biblical "house of Judah", but rather claim they are Edomites, descendants of Esau, that mixed with the House of Judah in Babylonian captivity, or are Khazars that adopted Judaism in 838 A.D. to avoid warring with Christian Europe, or the emerging power of Islam in the Middle East.<6> This is known as the single-seedline version of Christian Identity. Other Identity Christians, known as dual-seedliners, believe that Jews were a result of Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden having sexual intercourse.<7> Some Identity Christians believe that a version of Christianity must have existed before Roman Christianity entered Europe. Proponents of this theology cite the existence of Celtic Christianity and its struggles with Roman Christianity as evidence, arguing that Celtic Christianity must have been a reflection of the native beliefs of many European tribes. On a related note, many Christian Identity churches display animosity towards the Roman Catholic Church, referring to it as the Whore of Babylon.

Opposition and support

Most Americans are unaware that the Christian Identity Movement even exists. Despite its anonymity, however, Christian Identity has influenced many white supremacist and extreme anti-government movements, inspiring and instigating criminal behavior ranging from hate crimes to acts of terrorism. Many Neo-Nazis reject Christian Identity because they see Christianity as a religion based on the Hebrew Bible and since they reject all things seen as influenced by Jews, they reject Christianity. They believe that modern Jews and the Biblical Israelites are related genealogically. Some modern neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members and White Power groups have an emphasis on belief in God and their version of Christianity. Whether neo-Nazi and Fascist movements promote Christianity or a form of neo-Paganism depends on the beliefs and ideology of the specific leadership of the organisations or movements, and as a general rule is never strictly one way or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

The members of Christian Identity did not "morph" into their present form via paganism, their belief in the christian god as well as their hatred and bigotry led them there.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

90. Locking

This is flamebait.

Thank you
SemiCharmedQuark