Are you against the moral values group?  It is not logically correct to use all inclusive statements like making the connection that all Christian Fundamentalist fall in line with what the Family Review Council says or does.

I could make the following statement since Rwanda and Uganda are both Catholic majority:  Roman Catholics hate homosexuals.  I could go a step further and say that Uganda, Rwanda, and Haiti (all three have mixed other religions in with Catholism) are not christians and that Catholics are not Christians.  Is that fair? Note that I may not be using the word 'all' in those statements yet it is implied.

The sentences pertaining to the three countries I do some what agree with that but not on an all inclusive statement level.

Another note is that both Rwanda and Uganda have a growing Islamic population.  For Rwanda, due to the genocide it is hard to tell how much it has grown.

You failed to mention that the whole Arab Peninsula have laws against homosexuals and these laws are death.  What they will say is that followers of Islam don't have this 'problem' and it is due to other religions or Western influence.

Since we do live in a quasi-democracy there will be completing groups pushing what they want.  There are things that have been pushed onto me that I flat out disagree with.  Since when is it wrong for me to push back and counter?

Let me make things clear, I don't have a problem if someone is gay.  I do feel that homosexuality is wrong.  My homosexual friends that I hang out with (and this is a fair amount) know my stance and feelings about it.  I would rather hang out with my homosexual friends than some of my christians friends due to that the fact that most of my homosexual friends are real and open.

For marriage, I don't feel that true followers of the Bible (this the Tanack and the New Testament) and homosexuality are NOT compatible (as well as Islam and that is another post for another time. Trust me I've had debts about that and yes I've read the Qu'ran and all the Hadiths multiple times.). Homosexual should be allowed to get equal benefits as married couple.  I am against churches doing gay marriages.  You'll be hard pressed to find a Mosque ever doing one.

The reason I feel about homosexual is due to what I believe as well as if you look at history specifically the histories of Roman Empire, Greek Empire, and the Babylonian Empire you'll see that these empires collasped not because of some external source but due to internal source.  All three countries were falling into the pit of everything is acceptable and major moral decay was going on.

How granular do you really want to be?  I mean the FRC and AFA are amongst the 2 biggest 'public' faces of the American Christian fundamentalist movement. 

Catholics aren't Christians?  Do share. 

And nobody is denying this.  

Which is fine.  Really.  For ever Church that stands on their "we're protecting the 'sanctity of marriage'" there will be a church who does interpret these relationships to be compatible with their faith. 

Talibanesque for voicing an opinion?  Again I fail to see the equivalency between speaking your mind and blowing up people.  Thankfully in this country, as in no other, people are free to speak their minds, regardless of the content of them.  But speaking is not putting words into actions (and even the alleged christian right here is not calling for any action).

The most troublesome aspect of the Obama regime is the fact that what was frowned upon previously is now being legislated and criminalized.  And that is speech.  Today they do not like what you do not like, how can you be so sure it will be that way tomorrow?

Logically speaking, a part does not represent the whole.  An example of this is an arm.  My arm does not represent me. Just because those are christian fundamentalist organizations and maybe in the forefront of the christan fundamentalist movement does not mean that they represent all christian fundamentalist  (fundamentalism just means get back to the roots/fundamentals of the movement). Francis Schaeffer, was one of the founders of the christian fundamentalist movement, if he was alive he may not agree with everything they do currently nor would an individual who ascribes themself as a fundamentalist may not agree with what all christian fundamentalist espouse.  Now, what you can say is that they might represent most christian fundamentalist.

Just like you asking me to share my thoughts on why catholics are not christians.  My statement was purposely an all statement and it is logically flawed because of this.  Now there are all statements that are logically correct.

One of the reasons why I put catholics are not christians was to show you that absolute statements tend to be logically flawed. You seem to be an educated individual, if I am not explaining absolute statements well enough please go to the web and go to a logic site and it'll give you a much clearer definition if I am not being clear.

When the spirit of the opinion represents something that is philosophically aligned with something that the Taliban would agree with, it could be classified as Talibanesque.  Again:  I'm pointing out that similar motives. 

Must as it falls upon the moderate elements of Islam to call out their extremist elements, I think it does fall upon moderates within Christianity to do some house cleaning and call out the extremist/out of touch elements within them. 

That being said: 

Seems a bit semantic again TPP.  Do I really need to differentiate that there are probably some Christian fundamentalists that don't align themselves with the values of FRC? 

Yes, because you were using all covering inclusive statements.  It took you all the way to this point to finally get you admit that there might be a small percentage of fundamental christians that don't agree with Family Research Council. 

It has nothing to do with semantics.  Its logic.  Logic is necessary in order that information can be exchanged and inaccurate will be disregarded.  If it was just semantics you could have just said what you said here about 5 weeks ago.

House Cleaning?  Docs, point is that most christian fundamentalist are not violent but on the flip side there appears to be a correlation betwewen most Islamic fundamentalist and violence.

Similar Motives?  In the first place, you are hardly a svengali and so you can only impute motives.  You do not know. And similarity?  I would say that all motives fall into 2 categories regardless of the perpetrator.  To do good, or to do evil.  So you have just condemned every person that wants to do good.  Notice I did not say do good, but wants to.  I have no doubt that in their own perverted way, the Taliban wants to do good, just as Obama does, Mr. Right Christian, and Pelosi.  That they fail is a whole different matter, but you only addressed motives, which are intents, not actions or consequences.

You are partially correct.  However it is not the right to do house cleaning, as that would be cleansing.  It is the obligation to confront the evil, denounce the evil and repudiate the evil.  But cleaning?  you would have to set up a Spanish Inquisition to eradicate everyone who professed a belief that went against your arbitrary standards for that belief.  Hardly a noble cause.

I'm not sure I understand the problem. 

Both are religious extremists.  Both are from Abraham religions.  Both hate gay folks. 

I know, I know, the FRC doesn't come out and say "we hate homos", but their actions indicate otherwise. 

I don't think anybody is advocating a 'cleansing'.  But I think positioning themselves so that their loudest, most incompatible w/ society wings so that there is a clear definition of who they are is in their best interest. 

No, most of the Christian right love gay folks, they just hate the acts.  As a former RC, you should know that as that is the teaching of the RCC.  To say they "hate gats" is to say that doctors hate sick people, or priest hate sinners.  In both cases false.  They hate the affliction, not the person.

And for the most parts they do.  It is the MSM that then drags them back into the fold as fully unquestioned members.  It was not only the left that dumped on Pat Robertson when he did his "god's punishment" schtick, but the right as well.  but denying them the right to speak their minds and vote their conscious is against everything core to America.

The right does marginalize its extreme wing, the left gives it a seat of power at the conventions.  You can continue your crusade against the right, as you appear to see it as a greater threat.  But the greater threat are those closest to the power centers, and that is clearly the wingnuts on the left.

Saying for the sake of argument that they both actually do hate gays, do they both kill people over it?  I'm sorry, but saying "I don't like something," and committing murder over it are two vastly different things. Your comparison only works if you believe that motives matter more than actions, which is a philosophy that I patently reject. What you think has no bearing on reality. What you do, does.

Excellent point!  It was what I was trying to say.