>>10439240
>>10438881
As a christian, I don't really know what to say about the article, as it presents very little actual reasons for its statements, preferring to simply quote pastors who are also making statements without evidence or observation. It gives no proof, and leaves a big gaping hole by not providing any evidence to counter the stated claims (anti-pedophile, anti-corruption, etc). It reads like a hit piece, and while definitely dangerous, lacks so much that it will only hurt those pre-disposed to believe it anyway.
It doesn't address a single one of the morality claims which the article itself states are made by Q, as though it believes those immoral things to be OK. I believe that's the achilles heal of the article. I don't think anyone needs to address it. It's a whole lot of nothing. Take to twitter if you want to refute it.