Several dozen U.S. Army active duty and reserve troops were told last week that the American Family Association, a well-respected Christian ministry, should be classified as a domestic hate group because the group advocates for traditional family values.
The briefing was held at Camp Shelby in Mississippi and listed the AFA alongside domestic hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.
A soldier who attended the briefing contacted me and sent me a photograph of a slide show presentation that listed AFA as a domestic hate group. Under the AFA headline is a photograph of Westboro Baptist Church preacher Fred Phelps holding a sign reading “No special law for f***.”
American Family Association has absolutely no affiliation with the controversial church group known for picketing the funerals of American servicemembers.
It looks like the Obama administration is separating the military from the American people.
“I had to show Americans what our soldiers are now being taught,” said the soldier who asked not to be identified. “I couldn’t just let this one pass.”
The soldier said a chaplain interrupted the briefing and challenged the instructor’s assertion that AFA is a hate group.
“The instructor said AFA could be considered a hate group because they don’t like gays,” the soldier told me. “The slide was talking about how AFA refers to gays as sinners and heathens and derogatory terms.”
The soldier, who is an evangelical Christian, said the chaplain defended the Christian ministry.
“He kept asking the instructor, ‘Are you sure about that, son? Are you sure about that?’” he said, recalling the back and forth.
Later in the briefing, the soldiers were reportedly told that they could face punishment for participating in organizations that are considered hate groups.
That considered, the soldier contacted me because he is a financial contributor to the AFA ministry.
“I donate to AFA as often as I can,” he said. “Am I going to be punished? I listen to American Family Radio all day. If they hear it on my radio, will I be faced with a Uniformed Code of Military Justice charge?”
The soldier said he was “completely taken back by this blatant attack not only on the AFA but Christians and our beliefs.”
It’s not the first time the Army has accused conservative Christian groups of being domestic hate groups.
Earlier this year, I exposed Army briefings that classified evangelical Christians and Catholics as examples of religious extremism.
Another briefing told officers to pay close attention to troops who supported groups like AFA and the Family Research Council.
One officer said the two Christian ministries did not “share our Army Values.”
“When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem,” the officer wrote in an email to his subordinates.
At the time the military assured me those briefings were isolated incidents and did not reflect official Army policy.
If that’s true, how do they explain what happened at Camp Shelby?
I contacted the Pentagon for an answer but they referred me to Army public affairs. And so far – they haven’t returned my calls.
And their claim that the classifications are “isolated” is not washing with AFA.
“The American Family Association has received numerous accounts of military installations as well as law enforcement agencies using a list compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which wrongfully identifies and defames AFA,” reads a statement they sent me.
Bryan Fischer hosts a talk show on American Family Radio. He called the Army’s allegations “libelous, slanderous and blatantly false.”
“This mischaracterization of AFA is reprehensible and inexcusable,” he told me. “We have many military members who are a part of the AFA network who know these accusations are a tissue of lies.”
Fischer said their views on gay marriage and homosexuality are not hate – it’s simply a disagreement.
“If our military wasn’t headed by a commander-in-chief who is hostile to Christian faith, these allegations would be laughed off every military base in the world,” he said.
Hiram Sasser, of the Liberty Institute, told me the Army’s briefing is a smear.
He recalled what President Obama said last year when Muslim extremists attacked our diplomatic outpost in Libya.
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths,” President Obama said. “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
Sasser said he wished the president and the Army would treat the American Family Association with the same deference and respect they show those who mean to harm us.
“Why must the Army under this administration continue to attack Americans of faith and smear them?” Sasser wondered.
I fear the answer to that question.
Because it appears the Obama administration is separating the military from the American people – and planting seeds of doubt about Christians and some of our nation’s most prominent Christian ministries.
The instructor screwed the pooch. I really hope the instructor is new to EO.
Think the instructor bolo the delivery of the subject matter at hand. Me myself and I would have clarified a bit more on "Hate" group and Extremists. Just to avoid later on of "portraying" the Bible as "Hate" material.
edit
Isn't Southern Poverty Law Center extremely liberal?
Jihadin wrote: I've a lot of respect for them. Unlike the Westboro faction
By the way, the AFA has been listed as a "hate group" since 2010 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
This is just being cursory right now, I'm sure I can find more about the whole thing.
I hope you're not legitimizing SPLC here...
Sorry, do you have anything to suggest that SPLC is not legitimate?
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was once a good civil rights organization that sued racists and violent extremists.
Nowadays? It's demonizes anyone who conflicts with it's knee-jerk liberal politics, and despite this... it is still regularly cited by the media as a “nonpartisan” watchdog. Couldn't be farther than the truth.
Jihadin wrote: I've a lot of respect for them. Unlike the Westboro faction
By the way, the AFA has been listed as a "hate group" since 2010 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
This is just being cursory right now, I'm sure I can find more about the whole thing.
I hope you're not legitimizing SPLC here...
Sorry, do you have anything to suggest that SPLC is not legitimate?
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was once a good civil rights organization that sued racists and violent extremists.
Nowadays? It's demonizes anyone who conflicts with it's knee-jerk liberal politics, and despite this... it is still regularly cited by the media as a “nonpartisan” watchdog. Couldn't be farther than the truth.
You do know what "nonpartisan" means right?
And really, I find your emphasis on "violent extremists" to be amusing. Did you ever stop to think that the reasoning behind going after "violent extremists" is because the cases are high profile and easy to get done?
This is an organisation that literally blames the Holocaust on gays. According to them, only gays would lower themselves to these acts of genocide. Damn right they're a hate group.
AlexHolker wrote: This is an organisation that literally blames the Holocaust on gays. According to them, only gays would lower themselves to these acts of genocide. Damn right they're a hate group.
Also the organization that called Elena Kegan a lesbian unfit to serve on the Supreme Court and claimed that Homosexual sex is as bad for you as drugs. I'm Christian and I think they're a hate group. The only people who wouldn't are people who haven't been paying attention to any of the crap they spew out. Hell I'd call them the PETA of Christian organizations. They do nothing but unhelpful things with all the money they're given that are really counter productive and yet people keep giving them money.
And really, I find your emphasis on "violent extremists" to be amusing. Did you ever stop to think that the reasoning behind going after "violent extremists" is because the cases are high profile and easy to get done?
I just think that SPLC is a hate group as well.
They may be other things... but, they ain't "nonpartisan".
Jihadin wrote: I've a lot of respect for them. Unlike the Westboro faction
Bryan Fischer is a lying, deceitful little gak, who peddles his lies in order to spread hatred.
Fischer said God could have stopped the Conneticut school massacre, but didn't because God won't go where he's not wanted (so Fischer's God is so petulant he'll let children be killed...)
He's also a great old racist; "Hispanics … don’t vote Democrat because of immigration. … It has to do with the fact that they are socialists by nature. They come from Mexico, which is a socialist country. They want big government intervention, they want big government goodies."
This is a direct quote from Fischer, through his twitter account;
“New pill stops HIV virus. But won’t stop AIDS since caused by extensive inhalant drug use, not HIV.” So in addition to worshiping a really cruel, hateful God, and being an old fashioned racist, Bryan Fischer is also an AIDS denier.
I've got pages more of this stuff if you want it. There is an immense amount of blog work done on the Patheos network discussing Fischer's hateful little place in the Christian far right.
Now, it might be that you just didn't know about Fischer and the kind of work he does as the leader of issue discussion for the organisation, but there it is. Fischer is hateful bigot, and he's been given a platform by the American Family Association because they are a hateful, bigoted organisation, and exactly the kind of fringe Christian organisation that people, including soldiers, need to be made aware of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I hope you're not legitimizing SPLC here...
They do good work. The only reason the right wing likes to make out that they're at all contraversial is that SPLC will often speak out about the hate speach that goes on in groups like AFA.
whembly wrote: I hope you're not legitimizing SPLC here...
They do good work. The only reason the right wing likes to make out that they're at all contraversial is that SPLC will often speak out about the hate speach that goes on in groups like AFA.
I don't know anything about AFA... but, I object to the idea that SPLC is "legitimate".
Um... they tried to push Jared Loughner as right winger in shooting Rep. Gifford.
Floyd Corkins admitted he was radicalized by SPLC's hate map when attempting mass murder at a FRC.
They smeared Swain as an “apologist for white supremacists” because Swain did a review of a film which contained controversial racial comments by the filmmaker's film. I remember her because of her epic retort:
One of the most troubling facets of life today is the powerful movement by left-leaning organizations and governmental officials to engage in character assassination, by labeling anyone who disagrees with their liberal utopian vision for society as unworthy of participating in the conversation about our nation’s future. A quick look at global history reveals the dangers of following such a short-sighted approach.
Today, conservatives and Christians (of which I am both) are targeted by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center that regularly seek to discredit us.
They exaggerate KKK and Neo-Nazi activties... they perpetuate that actual hate crime is on the rise in the US.
The have abject hatred over the Tea Party and Traditional Marriage groups.
So... no... they are not "non-partisan".
In fact, I'd put them right up there with the Westboro crew.
Perhaps consider changing the headline here to "Army defines the AFA as a Domestic hate group" would be better, as currently it seems to be implying Christians in general are considered the hate group, which is misleading.
Meanwhile, yep, AFA is a hate group. They hate homosexuals.
That's their director of issues. Homosexuals were slaughtered in the Holocaust I might add, and the law in Uganda was going to introduce the death penalty until international pressure helped water it down.
Keep bringing up the SPLC, but the article is about the US Army categorizing this asinine group as a hate group, and the US Military isn't some liberal think tank, and is, as far as I know, a legitimate organization.
And let's not forget that the Uganda law in question is the one which gives the death penalty for homosexuality. It's kind of hard to be more of a hate group than that.
Ahtman wrote: Keep bringing up the SPLC, but the article is about the US Army categorizing this asinine group as a hate group, and the US Military isn't some liberal think tank, and is, as far as I know, a legitimate organization.
I just challenged Kan on this:
By the way, the AFA has been listed as a "hate group" since 2010 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Moving on...
Meh... still wouldn't label them as a "hate group".
Leaving the title alone since that's the title on the article.
My professional opinion is the Instructor screwed the pooch on the training session. So any Christian groups pretty much a Hate group for being vocal about their teaching from the Bible. Its getting quite easy now to start labeling any groups as a Hate group. They consider Tea Party as a Hate group.
Because we can't (thankfully) officially censure a group for being donkey-caves. But we can for Hate. And in this case, the group in question is a hate group. It's fairly cut and dried, and I suspect if you actually try and write down why you think they are not a hate group, you would see it too.
The word "nonpartisan", in this context, specifically denotes a group that is not affiliated with a particular political party. Simply sharing common positions is not the same thing as affiliation.
The word "nonpartisan", in this context, specifically denotes a group that is not affiliated with a particular political party. Simply sharing common positions is not the same thing as affiliation.
I got that... that's why I'm laughing... you're right.
EDIT: Kevin Smith has the right idea how to handle these folks...
Ahtman wrote: Keep bringing up the SPLC, but the article is about the US Army categorizing this asinine group as a hate group, and the US Military isn't some liberal think tank, and is, as far as I know, a legitimate organization.
I just challenged Kan on this:
By the way, the AFA has been listed as a "hate group" since 2010 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Moving on...
Meh... still wouldn't label them as a "hate group".
*shrug*
I've got a great idea: why don't you list your own personal criteria for what does or does not constitute a hate group, and then we'll see who fits the bill. It'll be a fun exercise.
I've got a great idea: why don't you list your own personal criteria for what does or does not constitute a hate group, and then we'll see who fits the bill. It'll be a fun exercise.
You know me man... I don't like labeling things...
It's like when you had an apoplexy when I refused to buy into "hearing-privilege" society (from that weird privilege tangent post a while back).
Can we keep it simple? They're donkey-caves. Pure and simple.
Legally recognize the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a hate group.
The NRA's policies and actions pose a threat to U.S. citizens. They promote and contribute to the violation of the fundamental human rights of "freedom from fear" and "right to life" (the right to life is the essential right that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being). They pose a "clear and present danger*" with regard to the 1st Amendment.
*a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged; "no one has a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety."
*a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged; "no one has a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety."
Petition attempt to label NRA well a past attempt
I have an aneurysm every time somebody tries to use the crowded theater analogy as an example of why gun control (specifically the banning of certain firearms) doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. It's a very popular and insanely idiotic anti-gun argument. Banning a type of firearm is like banning the word fire from ever being spoken, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment. All the crowded theater argument means is that you can't go around firing your gun in a crowded theater without a good reason just as you can't go around yelling "fire!" without a good reason.
sebster wrote: They do good work. The only reason the right wing likes to make out that they're at all contraversial is that SPLC will often speak out about the hate speach that goes on in groups like AFA.
They've got definite bias and run with it on occasion.
whembly wrote: Um... they tried to push Jared Loughner as right winger in shooting Rep. Gifford.
And depite the efforts of the right wing to push him on to the left, an actual view of his politics shows a lot of fringe right wing theory in his beliefs - rejection of paper money, grammar as US govt mind control, reading list including We the Living and Mein Kampf, and a connection to American Renaissance.
Just because they don't follow your right wing sources, doesn't actually make them shills for the left.
Floyd Corkins admitted he was radicalized by SPLC's hate map when attempting mass murder at a FRC.
And? Does Catcher in the Rye make you a serial killer?
They smeared Swain as an “apologist for white supremacists” because Swain did a review of a film which contained controversial racial comments by the filmmaker's film. I remember her because of her epic retort:
One of the most troubling facets of life today is the powerful movement by left-leaning organizations and governmental officials to engage in character assassination, by labeling anyone who disagrees with their liberal utopian vision for society as unworthy of participating in the conversation about our nation’s future. A quick look at global history reveals the dangers of following such a short-sighted approach.
Today, conservatives and Christians (of which I am both) are targeted by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center that regularly seek to discredit us.
Epic retort? That's the boilerplate 'they're nazis trying to shout us down and if that happens nazis' that people always give when called on their nonsense. And the film she claimed to love was, you know, pretty fething out there.
So... no... they are not "non-partisan".
Of course they're not partisan... they're a group that dedicates significant resources to exposing and encouraging conversation on hate groups. Nothing about that is non-partisan. My comment is that they are only contraversial if you think that the groups they expose aren't really hate groups... which of course is a 'contraversial' thing for tribalist christians and movement conservatives, and other people that like to band together and fuss about how they're being picked on... even if it means they have to pretend that groups like AFA are anything but a bunch of hatefilled bigots.
In fact, I'd put them right up there with the Westboro crew.
I know you're kind of joking, but really...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: My professional opinion is the Instructor screwed the pooch on the training session. So any Christian groups pretty much a Hate group for being vocal about their teaching from the Bible. Its getting quite easy now to start labeling any groups as a Hate group. They consider Tea Party as a Hate group.
No. Groups that preach hate are hate groups. Did you read the quotes I gave from Bryan Fischer? Because it's pretty fething clear he's a hateful little bigot, and uses his place in the AFA to preach his bigotry? What the feth else are people supposed to do but call that exactly what it is?
All the rest, about other Christians being called hate groups, is just made up nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: They've got definite bias and run with it on occasion.
Yeah, there's scope to say they are slightly more aggressive against some groups and slightly more quiet than they ought to be with others, and that tendency runs along political lines, but that's a far cry from calling them partisan, and dismissing their classification of groups like the AFA.
I mean, we want to talk about blindspots, we can talk about all the Christian groups that have ignored the hateful nonsense spewed by the AFA for years. And we can talk about people in this thread who were either unaware of that hate, or accepting of it.
*a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged; "no one has a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety."
Petition attempt to label NRA well a past attempt
I have an aneurysm every time somebody tries to use the crowded theater analogy as an example of why gun control (specifically the banning of certain firearms) doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. It's a very popular and insanely idiotic anti-gun argument. Banning a type of firearm is like banning the word fire from ever being spoken, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment. All the crowded theater argument means is that you can't go around firing your gun in a crowded theater without a good reason just as you can't go around yelling "fire!" without a good reason.
But I digress...
The point of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy is that it creates a situation with a fairly predictable outcome--such as a panic where people can (and do) get injured.
The whole point of the comparison is to point out that when you have someone with a gun--more often than not, they find a reason to use it. Look at Zimmerman.
Kanluwen wrote: The whole point of the comparison is to point out that when you have someone with a gun--more often than not, they find a reason to use it.
You're going to wind up editing it when you realize that, gosh, most gun owners don't in fact end up shooting at someone, and that while there were more ludicrous phrases to use than "more often than not," none spring readily to mind, so why not just save yourself the time and us the debate and just go ahead and do it now?
Kanluwen wrote: The whole point of the comparison is to point out that when you have someone with a gun--more often than not, they find a reason to use it.
You're going to wind up editing it when you realize that, gosh, most gun owners don't in fact end up shooting at someone, and that while there were more ludicrous phrases to use than "more often than not," none spring readily to mind, so why not just save yourself the time and us the debate and just go ahead and do it now?
I'm fine with not editing it. "Use" is a vague enough term in and of itself. It could be used to describe someone who brandishes their gun to frighten a potential mugger off or someone who actually shoots during a home invasion or any number of situations.
But I stand by using Zimmerman as an example of what can happen.
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm fine with not editing it. "Use" is a vague enough term in and of itself. It could be used to describe someone who brandishes their gun to frighten a potential mugger off or someone who actually shoots during a home invasion or any number of situations.
So you think more often than not gun owners have round reason to use their gun in such a manner? Really?
The majority of gun owners have done something of the sort you described?
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.
I'd love to hear the definition that you believe qualifies them.
I'm sure you could find some examples of the NRA saying hateful things from time to time, but I doubt you'd manage to really build a good argument to call the NRA a hate group. If fear mongering is enough to be called a hate group pretty much every group is a hate group.
LordofHats wrote: I'm sure you could find some examples of the NRA saying hateful things from time to time, but I doubt you'd manage to really build a good argument to call the NRA a hate group. If fear mongering is enough to be called a hate group pretty much every group is a hate group.
Under Janet Reno(I don't have anything more current at hand.I'm utilizing a textbook titled "Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations" published in 2007.), the FBI compiled this list of characteristics of organized hate groups:
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
This definition was established by the FBI for use by law enforcement in regards to "hate crimes":
A criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm fine with not editing it. "Use" is a vague enough term in and of itself. It could be used to describe someone who brandishes their gun to frighten a potential mugger off or someone who actually shoots during a home invasion or any number of situations.
So you think more often than not gun owners have round reason to use their gun in such a manner? Really?
The majority of gun owners have done something of the sort you described?
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.
I'd love to hear the definition that you believe qualifies them.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm fine with not editing it. "Use" is a vague enough term in and of itself. It could be used to describe someone who brandishes their gun to frighten a potential mugger off or someone who actually shoots during a home invasion or any number of situations.
So you think more often than not gun owners have round reason to use their gun in such a manner? Really?
The majority of gun owners have done something of the sort you described?
Maybe not the majority, but considering how many people continually post nonsense here on Dakka about how "anyone who breaks into my house is leaving in a bodybag" or things similar to that, I'm comfortable with my statement.
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.
I'd love to hear the definition that you believe qualifies them.
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Baring #7 a lot of non-hate groups would fit those criteria.
Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.
Seaward wrote: So you think more often than not gun owners have round reason to use their gun in such a manner? Really?
Let me try to re-state that in a more reasonable form:
1) If you're buying a gun you probably have a reason for it (like buying most things). If you buy a hunting rifle you probably intend to shoot an appropriate animal in the near future. If you have a concealed handgun permit you probably expect a non-trivial chance of having to use that gun in self defense. If you don't foresee any realistic situation where you will ever use a gun then you probably aren't going to own one.
2) There's a fine line between protecting the right to self defense and exaggerating the threat of the "big scary black guy" or "UN black helicopters" to justify preparing for self defense. Pro-gun organizations arguably end up on the wrong side of that line and create a perception that the chances of needing to act in self defense are much higher than they really are.
Now, I'm not going to argue that this represents a majority of gun owners, but there's a very real problem here. When you have groups encouraging this very distorted view of self defense you get cases like Zimmerman, where someone is dangerously eager to see a situation that requires them to shoot in self defense. Or, if you give them a badge you get situations like the guy who was shot for knocking on the door to ask for help because everyone jumped to the "scary black guy = criminal = OMG SHOOT HIM BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL" interpretation.
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe not the majority, but considering how many people continually post nonsense here on Dakka about how "anyone who breaks into my house is leaving in a bodybag" or things similar to that, I'm comfortable with my statement.
That's amazing.
Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.
So what race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion are they hating on?
Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.
So what race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion are they hating on?
That's the definition of a hate crime, not a characteristic of a hate group.
One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US.
Peregrine wrote: Let me try to re-state that in a more reasonable form:
1) If you're buying a gun you probably have a reason for it (like buying most things). If you buy a hunting rifle you probably intend to shoot an appropriate animal in the near future. If you have a concealed handgun permit you probably expect a non-trivial chance of having to use that gun in self defense. If you don't foresee any realistic situation where you will ever use a gun then you probably aren't going to own one.
I agree with everything except the "non-trivial" portion. We have fire extinguishers in the house despite the fact that we know our chances of lighting the place on fire are pretty low.
2) There's a fine line between protecting the right to self defense and exaggerating the threat of the "big scary black guy" or "UN black helicopters" to justify preparing for self defense. Pro-gun organizations arguably end up on the wrong side of that line and create a perception that the chances of needing to act in self defense are much higher than they really are.
We're speaking of the NRA in particular here, and I have to say, as someone who occasionally throws money at the NRA-ILA (the actual legislative action arm) whenever the Democrats start another nutty push on gun control, and who consequently receives a lot of email from them, I've yet to receive anything remotely of the sort. They generally tell you what pending or proposed legislation's going on across the country, how it could affect gun rights, and ask for money. That's pretty much it.
Now, I'm not going to argue that this represents a majority of gun owners, but there's a very real problem here. When you have groups encouraging this very distorted view of self defense you get cases like Zimmerman, where someone is dangerously eager to see a situation that requires them to shoot in self defense. Or, if you give them a badge you get situations like the guy who was shot for knocking on the door to ask for help because everyone jumped to the "scary black guy = criminal = OMG SHOOT HIM BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL" interpretation.
We'd end up arguing Zimmerman for the umpteenth time if I respond to this, so I'll let it go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: That's the definition of a hate crime, not a characteristic of a hate group.
Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.
Honestly. That's more of an argument that the criteria is shoddy than that the NRA is a hate group.
501st Legion;
1) Check
2) Oh hell yes. Check.
3) No. But we can just ignore that one.
4) Well they seem savvy enough from their website.
5) Maybe.
6) They seem pretty Middle America but lets face it, Middle America is the generic America.
7) They want to purge the Jedi.
501st Legion is a hate group. The guys who march for tolerance, help the Salvation Army during Christmas, run local charities all year long, and attend conventions like the nerds they are.
LordofHats wrote: I'm sure you could find some examples of the NRA saying hateful things from time to time, but I doubt you'd manage to really build a good argument to call the NRA a hate group. If fear mongering is enough to be called a hate group pretty much every group is a hate group.
Only if we ignore the insensity, extent and nature of the fear mongering. Which is subjective sure, but it needs to be done, because a group who's entire reason for being is to tell people that black people are plotting a war to take control of the USA, and to plan to stop that from happening, is very different from, I don't know, someone claiming that Obamacare has death panels.
Both are fear mongering, but only the former is a hate group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Baring #7 a lot of non-hate groups would fit those criteria.
That's why you don't exclude that one. It's weird its down the bottom rather than #1, and it should be "this one is really important, and all these other ones are important but not all are needed". But that'd be Janet Reno for you. She was just really bad at her job, wasn't she?
sebster wrote: Only if we ignore the insensity, extent and nature of the fear mongering. Which is subjective sure, but it needs to be done, because a group who's entire reason for being is to tell people that black people are plotting a war to take control of the USA, and to plan to stop that from happening, is very different from, I don't know, someone claiming that Obamacare has death panels.
That's kind of what I'm getting at. Fear mongering in itself is just par for the course in political activism and means little beyond mixing it with something like a (un)healthy dose of racism. The NRA certainly does a lot of fear mongering, and I'm sure some members also happen to believe in the coming race war (come on there's gotta be some overlap there somewhere) but I just don't see how the NRA's shenanigans can raise to the level of being a hate group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: But that'd be Janet Reno for you. She was just really bad at her job, wasn't she?
Judging from that list I'd assume so but I'm also not ruling out that the FBI has a more nuanced application of that list, hopefully one employing common sense.
And I honestly, no-joke find this fascinating. You see stuff like that in comments on liberal sites - "the NRA's a hate/terrorist/whatever group" - but I've never actually sat and listened to someone work it out for me before. I'm dying to hear what Kan thinks they're advocating hate against.
If a group hates people...then it seems to me it'd be fair to label them a hate group. If you don't like groups being labelled at all...well, that's your own thing, but other people do, and if it is a reasonable label then it might as well be applied. I don't think the NRA is inherently hateful but the AFA seems to fit the bill quite nicely.
Zimmerman's Law; If there is an internet discussion about guns, the NRA, race, or neighborhood watches, the chances that the case of George Zimmerman will be mentioned slowly approach 1.
Seaward wrote: I agree with everything except the "non-trivial" portion. We have fire extinguishers in the house despite the fact that we know our chances of lighting the place on fire are pretty low.
Actually it's the exact opposite. Fires are common. Here's an estimate of almost 400,000 fires that the fire department responded tolink. And with about 120 million homes in the US that's about a 0.33% chance of having a fire. Over a 20 year period you have a 6.5% chance of having a fire, and that's certainly enough to justify owning a fire extinguisher. And of course that's only counting fires that are serious enough to get the fire department called out. If you count minor fires that get put out without ever getting reported then a fire extinguisher looks like a pretty sensible choice.
Compare that with estimates of 1.5-2.5 million incidents of using a gun in self defense. Obviously that probably depends heavily on where you are, how much time you spend working late at night, etc, but again we're talking about an expectation that you may have to use that gun you're carrying. People aren't getting concealed handgun permits because they're afraid of something as rare as dying from getting struck by lightning.
We're speaking of the NRA in particular here, and I have to say, as someone who occasionally throws money at the NRA-ILA (the actual legislative action arm) whenever the Democrats start another nutty push on gun control, and who consequently receives a lot of email from them, I've yet to receive anything remotely of the sort. They generally tell you what pending or proposed legislation's going on across the country, how it could affect gun rights, and ask for money. That's pretty much it.
I don't follow the issue closely enough to know which statements are coming from the NRA vs. other organizations/independent bloggers/etc, so I'll have to give you that one. But taken in a broader sense the argument that a pro-gun organization can or should be labeled a hate group isn't entirely unreasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I'm dying to hear what Kan thinks they're advocating hate against.
Again, I don't know specifically which pro-gun organization is responsible, but you could argue that they're advocating hate because of things like stereotyping the person you might have to shoot in self defense as the "big scary black guy" and creating a perception that black men are dangerous and you should be afraid of them (and of course ready to shoot them if you feel threatened). It's not always openly stated racism, but it doesn't have to be when everyone you're talking to knows what you mean. And if you want to look at the "black helicopter" types they advocate hate by building the idea that liberals are "the enemy" who are about to start Nazi-level oppression, and that you need to be prepared to kill them before that happens.
LordofHats wrote: That's kind of what I'm getting at. Fear mongering in itself is just par for the course in political activism and means little beyond mixing it with something like a (un)healthy dose of racism. The NRA certainly does a lot of fear mongering, and I'm sure some members also happen to believe in the coming race war (come on there's gotta be some overlap there somewhere) but I just don't see how the NRA's shenanigans can raise to the level of being a hate group.
Yeah, definitely agree. Wasn't trying to suggest the NRA is a hate group, quite the opposite - that despite some fear mongering, if we think about it in terms of nature and extent instead just as a yes/no binary state, it becomes clear that the NRA really doesn't meet the criteria.
I should have used the NRA as my not a hate group example above, it would have made my point much clearer... don't know why I didn't do that.
Judging from that list I'd assume so but I'm also not ruling out that the FBI has a more nuanced application of that list, hopefully one employing common sense.
Yeah, for sure. Just the set up of that list seemed so wrong headed, it reminded me of all the other silliness Reno got up to, so...
Looks like the AFA is behind One Million Moms, too (who were thrown off facebook iirc). Man there are a lot of people in these groups who absolutely cannot stop thinking about gay sex, all the time.
Peregrine wrote: Compare that with estimates of 1.5-2.5 million incidents of using a gun in self defense.
That'd only be useful if we compared it to, say, the amount of fires put out by personally-owned fire extinguishers. What you'd need to compare it with would be the total number of potentially deadly assaults.
I don't follow the issue closely enough to know which statements are coming from the NRA vs. other organizations/independent bloggers/etc, so I'll have to give you that one. But taken in a broader sense the argument that a pro-gun organization can or should be labeled a hate group isn't entirely unreasonable.
Again, I don't know specifically which pro-gun organization is responsible, but you could argue that they're advocating hate because of things like stereotyping the person you might have to shoot in self defense as the "big scary black guy" and creating a perception that black men are dangerous and you should be afraid of them (and of course ready to shoot them if you feel threatened).
Can you point to any evidence of this at all? Any advertising, any flyer, any e-mail chain that's come to public knowledge, anything? This feels a lot like you're saying, "I assume this is what goes on there," which is actually kind of ironic, but not particularly helpful. Where do you believe it is the NRA talks about big scary black guys? Meetings? Magazines?
I'm getting the sense you think it's fairly obvious Kanluwen meant the NRA was clearly a hate group due to being racist. I'd still like to hear from him, but I'd find it awfully odd for a racist hate group to allow black people to join.
Ahtman wrote: Keep bringing up the SPLC, but the article is about the US Army categorizing this asinine group as a hate group, and the US Military isn't some liberal think tank, and is, as far as I know, a legitimate organization.
Have you considered the possibility the US Army is actually just a wildly liberal organization in general, perhaps heavily influence by the homosexual agenda (much like how the AFA claims homosexuals were the driving force behind the Nazis)?
Seaward wrote: That'd only be useful if we compared it to, say, the amount of fires put out by personally-owned fire extinguishers. What you'd need to compare it with would be the total number of potentially deadly assaults.
That wasn't the point. The point there was that both home fires and incidents justifying the use of a gun in self defense are not exactly "struck by lightning" rarity events. People aren't buying a gun or fire extinguisher like they buy a lottery ticket, they're doing it because they think there's a non-trivial chance that they'll need to use those purchases.
Can you point to any evidence of this at all? Any advertising, any flyer, any e-mail chain that's come to public knowledge, anything? This feels a lot like you're saying, "I assume this is what goes on there," which is actually kind of ironic, but not particularly helpful. Where do you believe it is the NRA talks about big scary black guys? Meetings? Magazines?
Sorry, it's been too long. Back when I used to be more interested in guns the thing that drove me away from those forums/blogs/etc was the level of fear of scary black men/liberals/etc and a disturbing hopefulness that they'd get a chance to self defense those people to death. Which is something that has the potential to become more than just talk when it influences how the gun owner in question evaluates the level of threat in a situation and decides whether or not to use that gun.
And, again, I'll concede that Kanluwen's use of the NRA as a specific example of the origin of those ideas may not be accurate, but I'm sure you can find an appropriate pro-gun group to make the broader point about hate groups true.
Funny, huh? 5 billion here, 4 billion here, eventually you're talking about real money. But, lets get back to talking about the important stuff.
That was a beautiful drive-by, right down to the Daily Beast source. They're who I always turn to for procurement news. gak, I bet they hate the F-35, and that's as sure a sign as any that a rag knows what it's talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, it's been too long. Back when I used to be more interested in guns the thing that drove me away from those forums/blogs/etc was the level of fear of scary black men/liberals/etc and a disturbing hopefulness that they'd get a chance to self defense those people to death. Which is something that has the potential to become more than just talk when it influences how the gun owner in question evaluates the level of threat in a situation and decides whether or not to use that gun.
I'm afraid I don't buy it. I've been shooting since I was 13, much of it done in the South, and I've been lurking various gun forums on and off since I started getting serious about getting good at it. Antipathy towards liberals is obvious and a no-brainer, but I believe you're taking that and extrapolating it out to racism, which I think is remarkably unfair and disingenuous. While I've no doubt that someone has said something racist on a gun board before, suggesting that's all we need for hate group classification means that 4chan - not to mention Dakka itself - is also a hate group.
And, again, I'll concede that Kanluwen's use of the NRA as a specific example of the origin of those ideas may not be accurate, but I'm sure you can find an appropriate pro-gun group to make the broader point about hate groups true.
So it's down to me to prove y'all's thesis, eh?
Let's flip the script on this a little bit. If I was trying to convince you that, say, atheist groups were hate groups, and all I could come up with to back that up was, "Well, I've been on some of the forums, and I get that impression," how credibly would you treat that assertion? The NRA has way more stuff on record than most secularist societies, and thus way, way more to point to and go, "See? Le voila. Proof!" but we can't seem to do that with any of it.
Which might suggest we're barking up the wrong tree, and single-issue advocacy groups that focus exclusively on gun rights can only be defined as hate groups if you don't agree with them and are simply looking to slander.
I know it causes some of us physical pain not to discuss gun control in every single thread but could we take the NRA stuff elsewhere? I'd like to see the defenders of this hate group explain why they are defending a hate group.
Da Boss wrote: I know it causes some of us physical pain not to discuss gun control in every single thread but could we take the NRA stuff elsewhere? I'd like to see the defenders of this hate group explain why they are defending a hate group.
I don't think it is that they are defending a hate group so much as they have trouble believing there could be such a thing as a Christian hate group. Intellectually I think they know that there are many different manifestations of Christianity, but whenever they hear that a Christian group is added to a list the "us vs them" mentality kicks in and suddenly it is a homogenous group; it is an emotional response, not a measured, thoughtful one.
Seaward wrote: If I was trying to convince you that, say, atheist groups were hate groups
But I never said the equivalent of that. It's obviously absurd to argue that all pro-gun groups are hate groups. All I'm saying is that it isn't necessary unreasonable to classify a pro-gun group as a hate group just because the supposed issue it is advocating isn't explicitly aimed at hating a particular group.
Now, if you wanted to argue that some atheist groups are hate groups I'd agree with you. There are self-declared atheists and atheist groups that cross the line into hate speech (including against their fellow atheists), and how to handle them is a subject of a lot of debate within the atheist community as a whole.
Peregrine wrote: But I never said the equivalent of that. It's obviously absurd to argue that all pro-gun groups are hate groups. All I'm saying is that it isn't necessary unreasonable to classify a pro-gun group as a hate group just because the supposed issue it is advocating isn't explicitly aimed at hating a particular group.
No, that's not unreasonable.
What is unreasonable is asserting it without proving it. If you're going to call something a hate group, you need have more than just personal dislike of the group's goals or a "feeling" to back it up.
d-usa wrote: Didn't we just have this same thread a month of so ago?
Sort of. Last time it was a specific Catholic group being added to a hate group list, which of course had the thread title of "Catholicism listed as hate group", or some nonsense like that. It is strange, we only get these threads when Christian organizations are labeled as hate groups, but not all the other types (Muslim, White Power, Black Power, ect).
Seaward wrote: What is unreasonable is asserting it without proving it. If you're going to call something a hate group, you need have more than just personal dislike of the group's goals or a "feeling" to back it up.
I didn't assert that a particular pro-gun group is a hate group. And I certainly didn't assert that all pro-gun groups are hate groups. All I was trying to do is extract a more reasonable argument from Kanluwen's exaggerated nonsense about "most gun owners": that pro-gun arguments can cross the line into hate speech even though they don't explicitly say "kill all the black people", and an organized group making those arguments could be classified as a hate group even though they aren't as obvious as the KKK. It's an objection to an excessively narrow definition of "hate group", not an assertion that any specific group is one.
Jihadin wrote: Think the instructor bolo the delivery of the subject matter at hand. Me myself and I would have clarified a bit more on "Hate" group and Extremists. Just to avoid later on of "portraying" the Bible as "Hate" material.
edit
Isn't Southern Poverty Law Center extremely liberal?
Yes indeedy. Like PETA, they started off good but expanded into just being their own little fringe group. Anyone who's conservative is pretty much a domestic terrorist in their eyes.
d-usa wrote: Didn't we just have this same thread a month of so ago?
Sort of. Last time it was a specific Catholic group being added to a hate group list, which of course had the thread title of "Catholicism listed as hate group", or some nonsense like that. It is strange, we only get these threads when Christian organizations are labeled as hate groups, but not all the other types (Muslim, White Power, Black Power, ect).
Well Central Dachshund Rescue is clearly a hate group. In addition to being radically exclusionary (they never rescue badgers...ever!), they actively solicit support for and advocate for, anticat canine activists. If thats not a hate group I don't know what is. Their members hate squirrels too, and have been known to try to eat chickens that get into the yard.
Honestly. That's more of an argument that the criteria is shoddy than that the NRA is a hate group.
501st Legion;
1) Check
2) Oh hell yes. Check.
3) No. But we can just ignore that one.
4) Well they seem savvy enough from their website.
5) Maybe.
6) They seem pretty Middle America but lets face it, Middle America is the generic America.
7) They want to purge the Jedi.
501st Legion is a hate group. The guys who march for tolerance, help the Salvation Army during Christmas, run local charities all year long, and attend conventions like the nerds they are.
Seaward wrote: Of course, the anti-gun Brady Campaign meets a lot of those same criteria, too.
Its like those really loose criteria for what defines a cult, most of the jobs I've had tick a substantial number of those criteria
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: the FBI compiled this list of characteristics of organized hate groups:
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
1) Possibly applicable to the NRA
2) NRA does not give a demographic breakdown of members by age
3) Very vague criteria, and works on the assumption that owning a firearm is a fringe belief not mainstream
4) Sounds like every group that ever existed, so again very vague
5) Not really applicable
6) What hate is the NRA cloaking and marketing?
7) If they do then they have managed to keep it remarkably well hidden
So in short only the vaguest possible criteria can fit the NRA, but then again these can also be applied to many other groups too. What should be the most telling criteria for a hate group (actual hate) falls short by a significant margin when you attempt to relate it to the NRA.
1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally. mmm. International bank 2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30. Yep, international bank still meets 3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image. Yep, international bank again. 4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric. Its like I’m stuttering… 5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads). Yep, Internaitonal bank 6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate. Well that’s kind of subjective isn’t it? Must be the competition 7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races. There can be only one uber international bank!!!!
(feel free to substitute WalMart, McDonalds, Facebook, or the Red Cross)
Yeah, that FBI list is equal parts bigotry and cold reading. Anyone who would claim that appearing to be a member of mainstream society or having mainstream concerns is a warning sign is an idiot or a con artist.
I think we can all agree it was remarkably, if not impressively, misguided to try and assert the NRA is a hate group.
It does perhaps inadvertently bring up an interesting point, though, in that shouldn't we have some sort of solid definition for such a thing that we can all use? I'm not saying we should, necessarily - I generally don't agree with the whole "hate crime" thing, and I tend to fall into the camp that says as long as you're not committing crimes, you can freely associate with like-minded people and spout whatever vile stuff you want.
However, if the bulk of society's going to buy into this stuff, shouldn't it at least know what it's talking about? Right now we seem to be using the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it!" approach.
Frazzled wrote: (feel free to substitute WalMart, McDonalds, or the Red Cross)
Or college sports teams like football, or how about PETA?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I think we can all agree it was remarkably, if not impressively, misguided to try and assert the NRA is a hate group.
I don't know, I mean Kan really managed to prove that it was a group. Its just that the whole hate thing was noticeably absent
Seaward wrote: It does perhaps inadvertently bring up an interesting point, though, in that shouldn't we have some sort of solid definition for such a thing that we can all use? I'm not saying we should, necessarily - I generally don't agree with the whole "hate crime" thing, and I tend to fall into the camp that says as long as you're not committing crimes, you can freely associate with like-minded people and spout whatever vile stuff you want.
However, if the bulk of society's going to buy into this stuff, shouldn't it at least know what it's talking about? Right now we seem to be using the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it!" approach.
I think this is one instance that lay people have taken a definition and tried to test it's elasticity by trying to apply it to groups that they do not agree with. I'm sure that the FBI has some further direction on the definitions, and their own jurisprudence on what is applicable, but without this it just becomes a meaningless tool for attacking those who do not agree with you.
sebster wrote: But that'd be Janet Reno for you. She was just really bad at her job, wasn't she?
Judging from that list I'd assume so but I'm also not ruling out that the FBI has a more nuanced application of that list, hopefully one employing common sense.
Well of course it has a 'more nuanced application'. That list is used after you've actually looked at a group from the beginning, looked at their ties to other organizations, looked at their overall membership and other factors.
You don't simply look at the group in a vacuum. If you do that, then as you illustrated anything can be considered a 'hate group'. Also bear in mind that the categories and definition that I listed came about in the wake of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing when the FBI started looking very hard at militia groups that made a point of being in the public eye. There is also as I mentioned a bit of consideration to the overlap between members of one umbrella organization which espouses certain views and then a more 'violent' organization which has no direct ties.
Seaward wrote: I think we can all agree it was remarkably, if not impressively, misguided to try and assert the NRA is a hate group.
It does perhaps inadvertently bring up an interesting point, though, in that shouldn't we have some sort of solid definition for such a thing that we can all use? I'm not saying we should, necessarily - I generally don't agree with the whole "hate crime" thing, and I tend to fall into the camp that says as long as you're not committing crimes, you can freely associate with like-minded people and spout whatever vile stuff you want.
However, if the bulk of society's going to buy into this stuff, shouldn't it at least know what it's talking about? Right now we seem to be using the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it!" approach.
I agree.
All the general organisational stuff can be applied to Tesco's Club Card Club, the Boy Scouts and my local rowing club.
The problem with classifying "hate" groups is classifying "hate". Perhaps we might look at the definitions used in European and US law to define hate crimes.
Even so, the EU and US law systems have formed "points of view" about Hate that are solid enough in law that many arrests and successful prosecutions have been done with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't know this particular so-called "Christian Hate Group" from Adam. I have no familiarity with their behaviour, so I form no view as to whether they might be classified as a hate group. However there are reasonably well understood and agreed criteria by which hate groups can be classified.
Kilkrazy wrote: Even so, the EU and US law systems have formed "points of view" about Hate that are solid enough in law that many arrests and successful prosecutions have been done with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't know this particular so-called "Christian Hate Group" from Adam. I have no familiarity with their behaviour, so I form no view as to whether they might be classified as a hate group. However there are reasonably well understood and agreed criteria by which hate groups can be classified.
How many hate crimes have been successfully prosecuted in the US again? What is the underpinning? Typically that that person beloinged to a protected class and was harmed because of they were being a member of that class.
You being a lawyer I am sure you can look up that sort of information fairly easily.
If you find the US model to be inadequate, though, the EU is also available as a source of jurisprudential thinking about "hate".
The obvious reason to set up protected classes is to defend against "hate" crimes. I assume that when the law that defined them was created, it mentioned the reasons why it was done.
Right. We don't have the "you said something mean, so you're going to jail" sort of hate laws over here, thank Yog-Sothoth. We seem to use "hate crime" legislation as sentencing enhancements, mostly.
And the protected class aspect is very, very important. Your Star Trek club can literally hate my Star Wars club, but do we crack down on that? No, because Star Wars fans aren't a protected class. We make a judgment and say, "We'll protect this, but not that."
Anyway. I'm getting too much into why I hate this sort of legislation in the first place.
I have done a quick google search (on my phone), but can not find any definitive list of organizations the Army considers or classifies as hate groups. Now, the first fhree pages were nothing but people screaming about the OP, so maybe i didnt dig deep enough. However, I did see several accusations that the Army basically simply copies the list from the SPLC which I find somewhat questionable since, as noted, they tend to be pretty quick to label conservatives as hateful.
Taking the info with a giant grain of salt, because of sources but still troubling
Seaward wrote: Right. We don't have the "you said something mean, so you're going to jail" sort of hate laws over here, thank Yog-Sothoth. We seem to use "hate crime" legislation as sentencing enhancements, mostly.
And the protected class aspect is very, very important. Your Star Trek club can literally hate my Star Wars club, but do we crack down on that? No, because Star Wars fans aren't a protected class. We make a judgment and say, "We'll protect this, but not that."
Anyway. I'm getting too much into why I hate this sort of legislation in the first place.
I really have little to add to this thread, but what you just said pretty much sums up my view on the matter 100%. Take that exalt, you earned it.
Seaward wrote: Right. We don't have the "you said something mean, so you're going to jail" sort of hate laws over here, thank Yog-Sothoth. We seem to use "hate crime" legislation as sentencing enhancements, mostly.
And the protected class aspect is very, very important. Your Star Trek club can literally hate my Star Wars club, but do we crack down on that? No, because Star Wars fans aren't a protected class. We make a judgment and say, "We'll protect this, but not that."
Anyway. I'm getting too much into why I hate this sort of legislation in the first place.
You argued that we need a solid definition for "hate", "hate groups" and so on, which I agree with. I offered sources for such. Now you say you aren't interested.
Kilkrazy wrote: You argued that we need a solid definition for "hate", "hate groups" and so on, which I agree with. I offered sources for such. Now you say you aren't interested.
I argued that if some people are going to insist on crusading against "hate groups," then they should at least find some common ground on what they're talking about, or at least that was my intent. I'm "working" right now, so I might not have devoted as much care to phrasing it as I should have.
I'm pretty fine with not having a common definition, because I use the Stewart test. I know it when I see it. I'm also fine leaving it alone if it's not infringing on life, liberty, or property values.
Classification does not necessarily mean prosecution.
By the requirements for a group to be defined as a "domestic hate group", the christian ministry has shown it meets those criteria.
Don't like it?
Either: get the classification changed (because you deserve special treatment)
Or: make changes so that classification no longer applies to said group, from within said group.
Kilkrazy wrote: You argued that we need a solid definition for "hate", "hate groups" and so on, which I agree with. I offered sources for such. Now you say you aren't interested.
I argued that if some people are going to insist on crusading against "hate groups," then they should at least find some common ground on what they're talking about, or at least that was my intent. I'm "working" right now, so I might not have devoted as much care to phrasing it as I should have.
I'm pretty fine with not having a common definition, because I use the Stewart test. I know it when I see it. I'm also fine leaving it alone if it's not infringing on life, liberty, or property values.
The body of philosophy and law developed on the topic provides some common ground.
The "Stewart test" of course does not operate in a moral vacuum. Everyone's thinking will have been affected by external influences. As an individual we can only obey the dictates of our consciences, however that isn't good enough for officialdom. Society wants all policemen to follow the same, agreed code.
Allod wrote: Could anybody educate me on the relevance of the US Army classifying someone as a "hate group"? Does this have any tangible consequences?
The military doesn't want, nor does it have any need for, bigots of any stripe, for several reasons up to and including dissension in the ranks, bad for morale, general mental instability, and not wanting to train domestic terrorists. There is a problem, even if they are something of a minority, within the military that thinks they are the military of Christ and that America is God's country. Being religious is fine, but when it starts to change from being faithful to exclusionary of other Christians as well as other non-Christian soldiers it becomes a problem. A couple years ago there was a problem at the Air Force Academy in which only a certain church was being allowed onto campus to mister and part of their ministry was to harass non-Christian and non-Evangelical Christians cadets, and even had some of the faculty involved. It doesn't take a genius to understand why even a small amount of this is bad, and thus they do try to prevent incidents. Obliviously it can be difficult at times as the line between non-harmful expressions of faith and ones that cross the line can be a bit vague.
Article on Air Force Academy this is just a tip of the ice berg. What is interesting is if you look at the comments section it seems to vascilate between anti-semitism and saying they people aren't "real" Christians.
I like to think the Navy doesn't really have problems like that. For one, our chaplains are all fething insane. For another, it's pretty tough to preach morality seriously when you're talking to a ship full of dudes whose overriding goal after three months is to get ashore and nail anything that moves.
Allod wrote: Could anybody educate me on the relevance of the US Army classifying someone as a "hate group"? Does this have any tangible consequences?
The military doesn't want, nor does it have any need for, bigots of any stripe, for several reasons up to and including dissension in the ranks, bad for morale, general mental instability, and not wanting to train domestic terrorists. There is a problem, even if they are something of a minority, within the military that thinks they are the military of Christ and that America is God's country. Being religious is fine, but when it starts to change from being faithful to exclusionary of other Christians as well as other non-Christian soldiers it becomes a problem. A couple years ago there was a problem at the Air Force Academy in which only a certain church was being allowed onto campus to mister and part of their ministry was to harass non-Christian and non-Evangelical Christians cadets, and even had some of the faculty involved. It doesn't take a genius to understand why even a small amount of this is bad, and thus they do try to prevent incidents. Obliviously it can be difficult at times as the line between non-harmful expressions of faith and ones that cross the line can be a bit vague.
Article on Air Force Academy this is just a tip of the ice berg. What is interesting is if you look at the comments section it seems to vascilate between anti-semitism and saying they people aren't "real" Christians.
If they want to kick out people who think America is God's country they're going to lose about a third of their people.
After all, I've lived a lifetime of Buesch and Coors commercials. Are you telling me beer is wrong?
Frazzled wrote: If they want to kick out people who think America is God's country they're going to lose about a third of their people.
Contextualize it through the prism of extremist or hate group thinking, and not just a general concept, since that is what we are discussing.
Houston we have a problem:
"O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness.
America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.
O beautiful for glorious tale
Of liberating strife,
When valiantly for man's avail
Men lavish precious life.
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev'ry gain divine.
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea."
Because it's the biggest, as well as the one related to the topic at hand?
Related to the topic? The AFA is Catholic? That's probably the real news here.
In fact, I think the biggest news is that Catholicism is apparently a religion, as opposed to a denomination of Christianity...
Come on, you know exactly what Dreadclaw meant, otherwise you'd have made this point in your first reply.
If someone's saying that there's one religion that's been singled out, and the person he's quoting is talking about the Catholic Church, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which religion he feels is being singled out. I thus commented that it's relevant to the organisation being discussed. You then incorrectly assumed that I'd said that the AFA is Catholic, which isn't the case.
So you're wrong about the biggest, and how does one Christian denomination make the Catholic comparison a related topic? Especially when Senden brought out events from centuries ago?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If someone's saying that there's one religion that's been singled out, and the person he's quoting is talking about the Catholic Church, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which religion he feels is being singled out. I thus commented that it's relevant to the organisation being discussed. You then incorrectly assumed that I'd said that the AFA is Catholic, which isn't the case.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist either to figure out that the comparison with the Catholic Church was a mighty stretch, especially when the examples given are from centuries ago when the Catholic Church wielded political power that it no longer possesses.
I am assuming that Dreadclaw meant "Why single out the Catholic Church?", as the comment he referred to used that term and not "Christianity".
Either way it's hard to say what the Inquisition has to do with the topic at hand as the Catholic Church isn't involved and I wouldn't blame some evangelical nutjobs for the prosecution of the Cathars, either.
It could reasonably be assumed that he meant "the biggest religion in the place we are talking about", in which case the Catholic church is the largest single grouping (about 5 times larger than the next largest single religious group).
SilverMK2 wrote: It could reasonably be assumed that he meant "the biggest religion in the place we are talking about", in which case the Catholic church is the largest single grouping (about 5 times larger than the next largest single religious group).
Is it reasonable to ignore the rest of the post?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So you're wrong about the biggest, and how does one Christian denomination make the Catholic comparison a related topic? Especially when Senden brought out events from centuries ago?
. . .
It doesn't take a rocket scientist either to figure out that the comparison with the Catholic Church was a mighty stretch, especially when the examples given are from centuries ago when the Catholic Church wielded political power that it no longer possesses.
It could reasonably be assumed that he meant "the biggest religion in the place we are talking about", in which case the Catholic church is the largest single grouping (about 5 times larger than the next largest single religious group).
I was not commenting about anything in the post as I had nothing to say about it, nor do I really care one way or the other. I was simply pointing out that it is reasonable to assume that he was talking about the religious make up of the USA.
Kind of like when people complain "why do you always pick on the Christians?!?!", handily ignoring that most people here (or on any English speaking board) will come from countries with a Christian background and it will be the religion they have the most daily contact with and the most knowledge about.
Again - the rest of your post I was not addressing, so yes, I would say it is entirely reasonable for me to ignore it.
It could reasonably be assumed that he meant "the biggest religion in the place we are talking about", in which case the Catholic church is the largest single grouping (about 5 times larger than the next largest single religious group).
The Catholic Church is the largest single religious group. Taken as a whole I am sure there are more protestants than Catholics. However, Protestants are spread over a number of different groups.
SilverMK2 wrote: I was not commenting about anything in the post as I had nothing to say about it, nor do I really care one way or the other. I was simply pointing out that it is reasonable to assume that he was talking about the religious make up of the USA.
Kind of like when people complain "why do you always pick on the Christians?!?!", handily ignoring that most people here (or on any English speaking board) will come from countries with a Christian background and it will be the religion they have the most daily contact with and the most knowledge about.
Again - the rest of your post I was not addressing, so yes, I would say it is entirely reasonable for me to ignore it.
So you had nothing to say, don't care one way or another, but you still felt the need to make inferences about another person's argument? Good to know Your point then, as minimal as it was, is still wrong. Protestant denominations are more prevalent than Catholicism in the US.
But if you still feel the need to split hairs I'll just point out (again) that the incidents being dredged up for the "OMG Catholics are a hate group" are centuries old, and speak of a time when the Church was very different.
LordofHats wrote: There are more Catholics than all Protestants combined world wide. The Catholic Church and Islam as a whole account for 40% of the world's population.
Not disputing that. But the arguments so far as to why Catholics were mentioned was;
1) They are the most numerous (no qualification as to whether it is global or not) - Islam has more followers
2) It is the most numerous religion in the US - Protestantism in all its flavours is more numerous
Even if we are the points being raised as to why Catholics are a hate group are centuries old
So you're wrong about the biggest, and how does one Christian denomination make the Catholic comparison a related topic? Especially when Senden brought out events from centuries ago?]/quote]
If you mean the Catholic denomination it might be a good idea to say that, as opposed to "religion", since that would imply you're talking about Christianity as a whole.
Allod wrote: I am assuming that Dreadclaw meant "Why single out the Catholic Church?", as the comment he referred to used that term and not "Christianity".
And I assumed he was talking about religion in general, as he mentioned it. Ambiguous post is ambiguous.
Order by followers - the Catholic church is the largest single group, as I have now said for the 3rd time.
But if you still feel the need to split hairs
If you still feel the need to invest far more into this than is required I am sure I can come up with a suitable reply...
I'll just point out (again) that the incidents being dredged up for the "OMG Catholics are a hate group" are centuries old, and speak of a time when the Church was very different.
...Indeed.
Happy now?
Edit: Corrected number of times I have said that the Catholic church is the single largest religious group in the US - it somehow seemed like I had said it more times!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you mean the Catholic denomination it might be a good idea to say that, as opposed to "religion", since that would imply you're talking about Christianity as a whole.
Yes, because clearly saying Catholic meant that I was talking about Christianity..... The fact that I went out of my way to distinguish between the Catholic religion and Protestant religions could have in no way provided any context for you to realise that your assumption was actually erroneous
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And I assumed he was talking about religion in general, as he mentioned it. Ambiguous post is ambiguous.
Given that fact that I mentioned the Catholic faith, and provided links that covered just the Catholic faith, and that I distinguished the Catholic faith from other Christian religions might give you just the tiniest clue what I meant. It was only ambiguous if you managed to mis-read the actual post and the links contained therein
Order by followers - the Catholic church is the largest single group, as I have now said for the 3rd time.
It is almost like you're going out of your way to misread what I've been saying..... So in case you missed it (which might be difficult to claim as you quoted it above...)
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Protestant denominations are more prevalent than Catholicism in the US
SilverMK2 wrote: If you still feel the need to invest far more into this than is required I am sure I can come up with a suitable reply...
If you feel the need to continue to split hairs and miss the point that is being made (even after you quote it) then I'm sure your reply will be a work of literary magnificence
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It is almost like you're going out of your way to misread what I've been saying..... So in case you missed it (which might be difficult to claim as you quoted it above...)
No, I understand exactly what you said - you seem to misunderstand what I have been saying. There is a difference between the Catholic Church and Catholicism, just as there is a difference between, say, Southern Baptist Convention and Protestantism. One is a group contained within the other. There are, as you seem to continue to insist in telling me despite me having agreed with you that it is the case, more Protestants than Catholics in the USA, however (and now I shall switch to capitals, bolded and italic'd just for emphasis and underlining for especially important words in case you continue to not understand the distinction), THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE LARGEST SINGLE GROUP IN THE USA.
Good thing you specified you were talking about Catholics there when you said "religion"...
Catholicism is a religion, it is also a Christian denomination.
But the fact that I asked why the Catholic faith was being singled out was clearly ambiguous, right? I mean its not like I kept talking about the Catholic faith and providing links is it?? Or as if I tried to distinguish between Catholicism and other Christian faiths, right???
Dreadclaw69 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
"Church membership in 2011 was 1.214 billion (17.5% of the world population)"
. . .So you're wrong about the biggest, and how does one Christian denomination make the Catholic comparison a related topic? Especially when Senden brought out events from centuries ago?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It doesn't take a rocket scientist either to figure out that the comparison with the Catholic Church was a mighty stretch, especially when the examples given are from centuries ago when the Catholic Church wielded political power that it no longer possesses.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Protestant denominations are more prevalent than Catholicism in the US.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Not disputing that. But the arguments so far as to why Catholics were mentioned was;
1) They are the most numerous (no qualification as to whether it is global or not) - Islam has more followers
2) It is the most numerous religion in the US - Protestantism in all its flavours is more numerous
In your case I'm starting to think that the problem lies at your end, and is located somewhere between the chair and the screen
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: No, I understand exactly what you said - you seem to misunderstand what I have been saying. There is a difference between the Catholic Church and Catholicism, just as there is a difference between, say, Southern Baptist Convention and Protestantism. One is a group contained within the other. There are, as you seem to continue to insist in telling me despite me having agreed with you that it is the case, more Protestants than Catholics in the USA, however (and now I shall switch to capitals, bolded and italic'd just for emphasis and underlining for especially important words in case you continue to not understand the distinction), THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE LARGEST SINGLE GROUP IN THE USA.
And thank you for pointing out the obvious, in spite of the fact that I have not disgreed with that point.
You said that you agreed with the point I was making. I haven't said that you're wrong. Yet you keep feeling the need to tell me that I'm taking all flavours of Catholicism and comparing it to all flavours of Protestantism when I already said that was what I was doing to begin with
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You said that you agreed with the point I was making. I haven't said that you're wrong. Yet you keep feeling the need to tell me that I'm taking all flavours of Catholicism and comparing it to all flavours of Protestantism when I already said that was what I was doing to begin with
I don't recall telling you that. You, from my understanding, seemed to keep on insisting that I was telling you that catholics made up the majority of christians in the USA - I have been attempting to explain that is not in fact what I have been saying.
I'm not sure where the confusion has come from, but apparently it is there!
Because it's the biggest, as well as the one related to the topic at hand?
before any of the posts you just linked, but I suppose I should've just been prescient, right?
You mean that post after where I specifically asked about the Catholic religion? The post that didn't ask about Christians, but that was in reply to a specific point about Catholics? That post?? You don't need to be prescient, just be able to read what is said and not just what you want to read
As (not) amusing and pedantic as this semantics debate has been, can we get back to the original topic? Being a 12 year veteran of the US Army, I can honestly say I've never seen a brief that listed the AFA as a hate group - maybe it's a new decision. Looks to me like someone or some installation equal opportunity office put together a brief and pulled data from the SPLC which is not a government institution.
EDIT: because misspelling pedantic is just asking for it.
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't recall telling you that. You, from my understanding, seemed to keep on insisting that I was telling you that catholics made up the majority of christians in the USA - I have been attempting to explain that is not in fact what I have been saying.
I'm not sure where the confusion has come from, but apparently it is there!
You've been saying that they are the single largest Christian denomination, I have been saying that there are still more Protestants (as a whole) than Catholics. Would you say that is correct?
Because it's the biggest, as well as the one related to the topic at hand?
before any of the posts you just linked, but I suppose I should've just been prescient, right?
You mean that post after where I specifically asked about the Catholic religion? The post that didn't ask about Christians, but that was in reply to a specific point about Catholics? That post?? You don't need to be prescient, just be able to read what is said and not just what you want to read
You said religion, not the Catholic denomination. You can claim that Catholicism is a separate religion all you want, but you'd be wrong. I'm starting to think that you could do with reading your own posts.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You've been saying that they are the single largest Christian denomination, I have been saying that there are still more Protestants (as a whole) than Catholics. Would you say that is correct?
I think that, given our recent clarifications, more or less sums things up. Yes.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You said religion, not the Catholic denomination. You can claim that Catholicism is a separate religion all you want, but you'd be wrong. I'm starting to think that you could do with reading your own posts.
So by saying Catholic religion you mistook that for Christianity? Again, the fault lies with you, not I.
Catholicism is a religious faith, the fact that it is also a Christian denomination is not mutually exclusive to this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]
Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology
the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: I think that, given our recent clarifications, more or less sums things up. Yes.
So we're just sort of talking past each other here, each of us making our own points that are both correct.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You said religion, not the Catholic denomination. You can claim that Catholicism is a separate religion all you want, but you'd be wrong. I'm starting to think that you could do with reading your own posts.
So by saying Catholic religion you mistook that for Christianity? Again, the fault lies with you, not I.
Catholicism is a religious faith, the fact that it is also a Christian denomination is not mutually exclusive to this fact.
Wikipedia wrote:A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity.
So, normally you'd be right, but there's a specific word for a sub-religion of Christianity, which is why referring to Christianity as a religion proper is ambiguous and confusing.
I'm tracking with you Scruffy. As a former EOA I go with announcing the main line of hate groups. Like KKK, Black Panthers, certain Islamic groups, Neo Nazi's and what not. I do not pull a list from a "questionable" source and go with approve DoD subject matter. Its not my job, same as the instructor, to start classifying organizations as Hate groups. Go with the material in hand and leave that sort of decisions to those higher up on the food chain. Then again I be real damn leery on calling any Christian group based off the Bible a hate group.
Jihadin wrote: Then again I be real damn leery on calling any Christian group based off the Bible a hate group.
This jibes really nicely with what Ahtman said earlier.
Ahtman wrote: I don't think it is that they are defending a hate group so much as they have trouble believing there could be such a thing as a Christian hate group. Intellectually I think they know that there are many different manifestations of Christianity, but whenever they hear that a Christian group is added to a list the "us vs them" mentality kicks in and suddenly it is a homogenous group; it is an emotional response, not a measured, thoughtful one.
Jihadin wrote: Then again I be real damn leery on calling any Christian group based off the Bible a hate group.
This jibes really nicely with what Ahtman said earlier.
Ahtman wrote: I don't think it is that they are defending a hate group so much as they have trouble believing there could be such a thing as a Christian hate group. Intellectually I think they know that there are many different manifestations of Christianity, but whenever they hear that a Christian group is added to a list the "us vs them" mentality kicks in and suddenly it is a homogenous group; it is an emotional response, not a measured, thoughtful one.
Pretty much. I can't see any difference between a group which chooses to read and take to heart (and include in their policies etc) all the violent, hateful parts of the bible and a group which chooses to read and take to heart all the violent, hateful parts of other religious/political/social works. They are a hate group, no matter what book they are basing their work on. It's ridiculous to say that the because they are based on Christianity and the bible that they are somehow exempt from this.
Seaward wrote: Still waiting on those criteria for defining a hate group someone implied they had earlier in the thread.
I'm fairly sure the whole hatred of homosexuality (i.e hating a group of people) defines the group as a hate group.
And since it is (now) perfectly legal for gay Americans to serve in the armed forces while not having to either lie about being gay or hide it, it is probably best not to put in people that don't consider our gay countrymen people, and are ok with laws that call for the execution of gays just for being gay. If we replaced their hate speech for homosexuals with African Americans I don't think there would be this confusion. If they said their hatred of blacks was based on biblical teachings (and there are those who do say that) I don't think they would have trouble seeing them as perverting the religion to some odd end either that is beyond the pale.
Seaward wrote: Sounds like you guys should have a very easy time coming up with some clear, concise criteria, then.
Why should we define it? We don't set military policy, so the one that matters in this case is theirs, and if you want to know what it is look it up. If anything it seems like you are obliquely trying to make the argument that there aren't hate groups, which is far more interesting.
Sorry if posted already, I'm not digging through 6 pages
It had not been, and you didn't really miss anything.
Meanwhile, the president of the well-respected Christian ministry says his organization may file a defamation lawsuit against the military.
Best of luck with that.
Also, many lol's at "well-respected".
“Here you have a Christian ministry trying to do good work and you have the Department of Defense going around smearing your name and trying to turn people against you – spreading false statements about you,” Sasser told me. “It’s just awful what’s going on.”
Frazzled wrote: Yes indeedy. Like PETA, they started off good but expanded into just being their own little fringe group. Anyone who's conservative is pretty much a domestic terrorist in their eyes.
This is just total and complete bs.
The latest list of hate groups breaks down as follows; 186 separate Ku Klux Klan groups 196 neo-Nazi groups 111 White nationalist groups 98 White power skinhead groups 39 Christian Identity groups 93 neo-Confederate groups 113 black separatist groups
Out of 1,007 hate groups, 855 are groups that no-one would think are contraversial (skinheads, KKK, neo-confederates etc). Of the remaining 152 groups, 113 of them could, if assigned to any political wing, be assigned to the left. That leaves us with 39 Christian groups... and apparently that's evidence of an anti-conservative bias.
And of those Christian groups, no-one.... not one fething person in this thread has attempted any kind of defence. No effort at all to explain why the AFA isn't a straight up hate group. Instead they've just vaguely asserted that the SPLC is all left wing and stuff, so people should just ignore their classification... and whatever you do don't ever actually read up on the groups or find out what they actually argue for. That would involve learning, and perhaps finding out that these groups really do preach hate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: It does perhaps inadvertently bring up an interesting point, though, in that shouldn't we have some sort of solid definition for such a thing that we can all use
Funnily enough the SPLC has exactly that very thing; "have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."
I'm not saying we should, necessarily - I generally don't agree with the whole "hate crime" thing, and I tend to fall into the camp that says as long as you're not committing crimes, you can freely associate with like-minded people and spout whatever vile stuff you want.
Sure, and it's worth pointing out that one can be agreement with the identification of various groups as hate groups, to encourage awareness about the the hate that group is preaching, without actually being in favour of legal action against them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: However, I did see several accusations that the Army basically simply copies the list from the SPLC which I find somewhat questionable since, as noted, they tend to be pretty quick to label conservatives as hateful.
Except, of course, that suggestion that the SPLC labels conservatives too quickly is pretty much a great big lie, told to protect very specific hate groups from being properly identified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Then again I be real damn leery on calling any Christian group based off the Bible a hate group.
See, there's the problem. You see Christian, make a bunch of assumptions about the group, and give them a hell of a lot more leeway than you would some other group. Christian groups can be hateful as well, a few of them including the AFA make it their business to tell lies about other groups in society.
You don't get a pass on that because you claim you follow the bible.
Sebster. A EoA and a EO do not label any groups as a Hate group or a Extremist group. We do not make the decision to clarify any organizations as either. The instructor screwed up by using subject material that's not approved and back by the US Military and making it part of a quarterly training. There is no official list that I know of stating what organizations the US Military consider Hate or Extremists (domestic). We give the criteria that signify what is possible Hate or Extremist group.
Jihadin wrote: Sebster. A EoA and a EO do not label any groups as a Hate group or a Extremist group. We do not make the decision to clarify any organizations as either. The instructor screwed up by using subject material that's not approved and back by the US Military and making it part of a quarterly training. There is no official list that I know of stating what organizations the US Military consider Hate or Extremists (domestic). We give the criteria that signify what is possible Hate or Extremist group.
Yeah, that's cool. Note I didn't comment at all on what you should do as an EoA. It makes sense that acting on one's own initiative to go outside official channels and form a list of extremist groups based on a non-government list is a really bad idea.
I was just commenting on your claim that seeing that it was a Christian group would give you pause before you considered it a hate group. It shouldn't - whether there are religious justifications for their extremism or not shouldn't matter, all that should matter is whether the group spreads hate about others.
Because all current Christians have persecuted other people? Or out of some misguided need to see folks you disagree with persecuted?
Just curious as to your reasoning.
I'm thinking B.
I must have misunderstood him, or maybe I just hope that people are more reasonable than they appear in writing. I thought that, by "christers", he meant the kind of christian who hates gays/blacks/whatever with the burning passion that seb' posts showed that the guy holds. Not Christians in general. But I could have been off, maybe he'll clarify.
Frazzled wrote: Christer is a derogatory term for Christian, usually said by coffeehouse idiots who never worked a day in their lives but believe the world owes them.
I know it is a negative term, I was just saying that I'm hoping he means more the latter (in my post), which while I don't agree with him (yeah they should get in trouble, but it's not nice to take joy in someone else's suffering), is a lot more understandable than the former (again, of my post). I guess I'm just hoping for him to mean the best rather than the worst of the options available.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So, normally you'd be right, but there's a specific word for a sub-religion of Christianity, which is why referring to Christianity as a religion proper is ambiguous and confusing.
If you misread Catholic as Christian, with all the evidence showing that I was specifically referring to Catholics, then the fault still lies with you.
Frazzled wrote: Yes indeedy. Like PETA, they started off good but expanded into just being their own little fringe group. Anyone who's conservative is pretty much a domestic terrorist in their eyes.
This is just total and complete bs.
The latest list of hate groups breaks down as follows;
186 separate Ku Klux Klan groups
196 neo-Nazi groups
111 White nationalist groups
98 White power skinhead groups
39 Christian Identity groups
93 neo-Confederate groups
113 black separatist groups
Out of 1,007 hate groups, 855 are groups that no-one would think are contraversial (skinheads, KKK, neo-confederates etc). Of the remaining 152 groups, 113 of them could, if assigned to any political wing, be assigned to the left. That leaves us with 39 Christian groups... and apparently that's evidence of an anti-conservative bias.
And of those Christian groups, no-one.... not one fething person in this thread has attempted any kind of defence. No effort at all to explain why the AFA isn't a straight up hate group. Instead they've just vaguely asserted that the SPLC is all left wing and stuff, so people should just ignore their classification... and whatever you do don't ever actually read up on the groups or find out what they actually argue for. That would involve learning, and perhaps finding out that these groups really do preach hate.
Is that the US Army's list of hate groups? If so then what does that have to do with Frazz said about the SPLC being less than accommodating towards right leaning groups? I'm trying to see the connection you're making.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So, normally you'd be right, but there's a specific word for a sub-religion of Christianity, which is why referring to Christianity as a religion proper is ambiguous and confusing.
If you misread Catholic as Christian, with all the evidence showing that I was specifically referring to Catholics, then the fault still lies with you.
There was no evidence when I made my post. You had made one post that didn't even mention Catholicism (although the post that you responded to did), so when you said religion I assumed that you meant religion and not a denomination, the same way that I'd assume you meant fruit in general as opposed to an orange if you used the word "fruit". It's not that you're incorrect, it's that saying religion when you mean a denomination is confusing, the same way that saying Third World when referring to Sweden is confusing but not incorrect.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There was no evidence when I made my post. You had made one post that didn't even mention Catholicism (although the post that you responded to did), so when you said religion I assumed that you meant religion and not a denomination, the same way that I'd assume you meant fruit in general as opposed to an orange if you used the word "fruit". It's not that you're incorrect, it's that saying religion when you mean a denomination is confusing, the same way that saying Third World when referring to Sweden is confusing but not incorrect.
I made one post in response to the singling out of Catholicism. That should have provided ample enough context for you, but even if that was not sufficient then everything after should have been more than clear, as shown above. Instead after clarification and all evidence to the contrary you continued to argue, and still do, even when shown that you are wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Yes indeedy. Like PETA, they started off good but expanded into just being their own little fringe group. Anyone who's conservative is pretty much a domestic terrorist in their eyes.
This is just total and complete bs.
The latest list of hate groups breaks down as follows;
186 separate Ku Klux Klan groups
196 neo-Nazi groups
111 White nationalist groups
98 White power skinhead groups
39 Christian Identity groups
93 neo-Confederate groups
113 black separatist groups
Out of 1,007 hate groups, 855 are groups that no-one would think are contraversial (skinheads, KKK, neo-confederates etc). Of the remaining 152 groups, 113 of them could, if assigned to any political wing, be assigned to the left. That leaves us with 39 Christian groups... and apparently that's evidence of an anti-conservative bias.
And of those Christian groups, no-one.... not one fething person in this thread has attempted any kind of defence. No effort at all to explain why the AFA isn't a straight up hate group. Instead they've just vaguely asserted that the SPLC is all left wing and stuff, so people should just ignore their classification... and whatever you do don't ever actually read up on the groups or find out what they actually argue for. That would involve learning, and perhaps finding out that these groups really do preach hate.
First the list is incomplete. any rational list would also include rabid Zionist organisations, including the ADL but your list doesnt include a single one. No Islamic groups either although the US does have an Islamic fringe, and its as vocal as ones in Europe.
Secondly the list doesn't appear to give weighting, from the evidence your present as to level of culpability, and there is a temptation to label them all as no better than Nazis, which probably isnt fair, especially when other categories of hate group are clearly absent.
no-one.... not one fething person in this thread has attempted any kind of defence.
I will take that challenge.
One of the biggest problems a society finds over haste speech is that once someone or some group is accused of hate speech, rightly or wrongly its becomes acceptable to use hate speech against them. All too often the rights of the accused are trampled over in the expedience of a little schadenfreude. Frankly its more damaging than the original movement being targeted, in fact most hate agendas stem from an assumption of hate and the consequent belief that one doesn't have to keep to any moral standards in opposing it.
At least in the US there is protection, protection in theory also exists inthe UK, but it is quickly diminishing, people are accused of being exteremeists and extremism is sanctioned against them.
Jihadin wrote: I've a lot of respect for them. Unlike the Westboro faction
Bryan Fischer is a lying, deceitful little gak, who peddles his lies in order to spread hatred.
Fischer said God could have stopped the Conneticut school massacre, but didn't because God won't go where he's not wanted (so Fischer's God is so petulant he'll let children be killed...)
He's also a great old racist; "Hispanics … don’t vote Democrat because of immigration. … It has to do with the fact that they are socialists by nature. They come from Mexico, which is a socialist country. They want big government intervention, they want big government goodies."
This is a direct quote from Fischer, through his twitter account;
“New pill stops HIV virus. But won’t stop AIDS since caused by extensive inhalant drug use, not HIV.” So in addition to worshiping a really cruel, hateful God, and being an old fashioned racist, Bryan Fischer is also an AIDS denier.
I've got pages more of this stuff if you want it. There is an immense amount of blog work done on the Patheos network discussing Fischer's hateful little place in the Christian far right.
Now, it might be that you just didn't know about Fischer and the kind of work he does as the leader of issue discussion for the organisation, but there it is. Fischer is hateful bigot, and he's been given a platform by the American Family Association because they are a hateful, bigoted organisation, and exactly the kind of fringe Christian organisation that people, including soldiers, need to be made aware of.
America likes to grow people like him, and a natural counterpoint of others who hate God so much they will do anything to take a shot. Shouldnt they be considered hate mongers too, shouldn't you? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Most, nearly all of the above are political comments with no actual or implied connection to religion. I don't know how close Fischer is to the AFA and don't really need to know, it would be interesting if the above comments were made on church time through church media and if that media was AFA controlled.
However lets look at the one relevant portion, which I highlighted in bold. I don't know the context of what was said, but from the context you give and the weighting of the words its quite a reasonable comment which has been twisted unfairly.
You dont have to believe in intercession but if you want to make comment on it then you ought to understand the theology of it, rather than take off on a rant based on a very skewed opinion of the subject.
"Fischer said God could have stopped the Conneticut school massacre " - theologically speaking yes, God can stop any atrocity.
"but didn't because God won't go where he's not wanted " - Fischer might have a point there, he might not. I don't know about prayer ministry in Connecticut. However he implies that there was no faith to be found there. Thats a hard point to make, and is unscriptural because we are warned not to assume on other relationships with God, wheras Fischer appears to be doing just that, claiming their faith was deficient. Despite this the theologicak conclusion regarding an assumed lack of intercession is a fair one.
"(so Fischer's God is so petulant he'll let children be killed...)" - If you want to draw a conclusion draw on one based on theological evidence. You have two options - a non belief in prayer which makes Fischers comments void from your paradigm. Or taking prayer at its value, hypothetical or real, in which case one needs to make comments based on understanding the theology of prayer.
The theology of intercessory prayer. God is kind and cares about the worlds suffering. however God is also just and cannot dispense justice unless judgement is dispensed fairly. Thus God is self restricting about what he can do:
- He can show mercy, to groups or individuals, and it is said that 'his mercy triumphs over his judgement', those shown mercy have sins forgiven, but its a one way process, God can forgive unilaterally but cannot condemn unlaterally as that would not be fair, whereas mercy need not be fairly distributed as its a gift.
- He can show justice, but that has to be done fairly, to do so unilaterally means everyone must be judged equally or the justice would be unfair, this is a literal everyone. God can effectively do this only once and is referred to as the apocalypse/judgement day/second coming etc.
- God can judge people groups in isolation, such as whole cities but always by offering mercy first, with substantial time to repent, normally this is who generations and thus doesnt cover isolated events. An example hence the story of Jonah being sent to Ninevah.
- The only other exception is to respond to prayer, that is to work miracles where invited to do so. In this being wanted is important. Even Jesus had his powers shut down in Capernaum because of a lack of faith in the general area.
So a theologian could argue that an event could have been stopped by God but God did not because of lack of intercession. This does not in any way imply a "God is so petulant he'll let children be killed" and "worshiping a really cruel, hateful God". The mentality of God as explained by the correct theological teaching shows God to embody patience, mercy, and justice with a deep concern for people. To say otherwise is to deny the teachings of Christianity as applied to the quote you commented on. This doesnt prevent Fischer from having a skewed theology himself but there is no excuse to claim he has here, at least with regards to God's policy on prayer.
Now I am not expecting you to believe in prayer, but you have no excuse to make assumptions based on what you don't even believe in while completely ignoring the thinking behind it in order to present a skewed and frankly ignorant view of the subject. That is hate speech.
I am concerned that the US is growing a large number of donkey-cave preachers that do Christianity no good. But don't use them to hit at God.
It's taken as understood by practically everyone that the Westboro Baptists don't speak for any God the Christian community represents, and only a few desperate fanatics try to use them as examples to discredit Christianity itself.
Likewise I dont know Fischer or what he stands, perhaps you are right and he stands for hate speech, for but there is no excuse to twist words based on a theology you haven't bothered to try to understand, in order to come to the negative conclusions you prefer.
Sebster, I do not believe you to be an intentional bigot and want to break the cycle here. Your an atheist, I have no choice but to be OK with that, but please be more dispassionate about these sorts of arguments, if you hate God, keep it to yourself don't add it as an ingredient in arguments about religious groups because you cant look at them fairly when you do, and thus subject your victims to discrimination. This on a much larger scale is what is happening in the West with religious groups, Christian and otherwise and I suspect other groups also.
Orlanth wrote: I don't know how close Fischer is to the AFA and don't really need to know, it would be interesting if the above comments were made on church time through church media and if that media was AFA controlled.
I think it is important to know something like that though, because it should influence whether you judge those statements to be the ramblings of a random individual, or to be representatitve of an organisation's stance. I fail to see the relevance if the speeches are made on church time through church media though (I don't get what church time is, do you mean during the service itself?), unless the AFA is actually a church... (wikipedia-ing now). Ok, they don't seem to be a church, focusing mainly on "activism efforts, including boycotts, buycotts, action alert emails, publications on the AFA's web sites or in the AFA Journal, broadcasts on American Family Radio, and lobbying". So since it isn't a church, and it wasn't the catholic church/christians in general being labeled a hate group, I don't see how that would be relevant?
I know its just wikipedia, but assuming no one has edited it since the beginning of this discussion
"Bryan Jonathan Fischer is the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association (AFA). He hosts the talk radio program Focal Point on American Family Radio and posts on the AFA-run blog Instant Analysis (formerly Rightly Concerned)."
So it sounds like he's very closely linked to them, and makes those comments through AFA funded and controlled media.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There was no evidence when I made my post. You had made one post that didn't even mention Catholicism (although the post that you responded to did), so when you said religion I assumed that you meant religion and not a denomination, the same way that I'd assume you meant fruit in general as opposed to an orange if you used the word "fruit". It's not that you're incorrect, it's that saying religion when you mean a denomination is confusing, the same way that saying Third World when referring to Sweden is confusing but not incorrect.
I made one post in response to the singling out of Catholicism. That should have provided ample enough context for you, but even if that was not sufficient then everything after should have been more than clear, as shown above. Instead after clarification and all evidence to the contrary you continued to argue, and still do, even when shown that you are wrong.
Right, you're not even reading my posts now. I've said that it's clear enough once you started posting additional posts, but that the original one (you know, the one I responded to without the gift of prescience) referred to singling out a religion, as opposed to a denomination. When the post you're accusing of singling out a religion mentions Catholicism I went ahead and assumed that the religion you were referring to in that post was Christianity because that's the religion mentioned, seeing as Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Your clarifying posts have nothing to do with my argument, what I'm arguing is that using the word "religion" when you were in fact referring to a denomination is sloppy and causes misunderstandings such as this.
However lets look at the one relevant portion, which I highlighted in bold. I don't know the context of what was said, but from the context you give and the weighting of the words its quite a reasonable comment which has been twisted unfairly.
You dont have to believe in intercession but if you want to make comment on it then you ought to understand the theology of it, rather than take off on a rant based on a very skewed opinion of the subject.
From wikipedia,
On April 16, 2007, following the Virginia Tech Massacre, the AFA released a video titled The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools, in which God tells a student that students were killed in schools because God isn't allowed in schools anymore. The video claims that the shootings at Virginia Tech and Columbine, among others, are in part the result of: decreased discipline in schools; no prayer in schools; sex out of wedlock; rampant violence in TV, movies, and music; or abortions.
So in relations to this particular issue, it isn't just Fischer but the AFA in general.
Because I don't really think you can, and wanted to see.
We don't set military policy, so the one that matters in this case is theirs, and if you want to know what it is look it up.
They don't have one.
If anything it seems like you are obliquely trying to make the argument that there aren't hate groups, which is far more interesting.
No, more the argument that most people appear to have an extremely flexible definition that will encompass anything they choose to have it encompass. You may not have been here when Kanluwen was trying to tell us how the NRA's a hate group. It's not an uncommon approach.
Kanluwen wrote: That's the definition of a hate crime, not a characteristic of a hate group.
One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Right, you're not even reading my posts now. I've said that it's clear enough once you started posting additional posts, but that the original one (you know, the one I responded to without the gift of prescience) referred to singling out a religion, as opposed to a denomination. When the post you're accusing of singling out a religion mentions Catholicism I went ahead and assumed that the religion you were referring to in that post was Christianity because that's the religion mentioned, seeing as Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Your clarifying posts have nothing to do with my argument, what I'm arguing is that using the word "religion" when you were in fact referring to a denomination is sloppy and causes misunderstandings such as this.
The only person having difficulty reading is your good self. And it started when I asked why Catholicism was being singled out and you misread it as Christianity. That was your fault. You made an incorrect assumption, I later provided clarification, and at that point in spite of my best efforts to be more than abundantly clear you continued to persist in your incorrect assumption rather than actually look at what was being said. A fact that has been pointed out several times that you do not seem to want to acknowledge, much less understand.
But if you want to keep trying to make a big deal out of the original post that caused your confusion let me make it clear for you;
- I asked about Catholics
- You misread it as Christians
- You made the error, not I.
A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), hate groups' "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."[1] The Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) definition of a "hate group" includes those having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.[2]
Honestly it took me 5 seconds on google to find that information, if you need more search for yourself. I'm not going to spoon feed you guys like the news networks.
Kanluwen wrote: That's the definition of a hate crime, not a characteristic of a hate group.
One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US.
Fairly obviously, a hate group is an organisation that promotes views liable to incite hate crimes.
I hardly think a group that hates blancmange, or being sent to bed early with a cold, would pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the country.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Right, you're not even reading my posts now. I've said that it's clear enough once you started posting additional posts, but that the original one (you know, the one I responded to without the gift of prescience) referred to singling out a religion, as opposed to a denomination. When the post you're accusing of singling out a religion mentions Catholicism I went ahead and assumed that the religion you were referring to in that post was Christianity because that's the religion mentioned, seeing as Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Your clarifying posts have nothing to do with my argument, what I'm arguing is that using the word "religion" when you were in fact referring to a denomination is sloppy and causes misunderstandings such as this.
The only person having difficulty reading is your good self. And it started when I asked why Catholicism was being singled out and you misread it as Christianity. That was your fault. You made an incorrect assumption, I later provided clarification, and at that point in spite of my best efforts to be more than abundantly clear you continued to persist in your incorrect assumption rather than actually look at what was being said. A fact that has been pointed out several times that you do not seem to want to acknowledge, much less understand.
But if you want to keep trying to make a big deal out of the original post that caused your confusion let me make it clear for you;
- I asked about Catholics
- You misread it as Christians
- You made the error, not I.
I'm done replying to you in relation to this.
You still aren't reading what I'm saying. Yes, I misunderstood your intention and thought you meant Christianity when you said religion (which I admitted in my previous post, bolded above). What I'm arguing is that using the word "religion" when referring to a denomination of a religion is a mistake, as it easily leads to misunderstandings such as the one I made. You're arguing against something that I've already admitted to having screwed up. I just don't feel it's reasonable to put the entire blame at my hands when you're using one word where there ought to have been another word.
You asked about religion when you in fact meant denomination, I called you out on it and you proceeded to pretend that's what you'd said all along and that I had made an unreasonable error. At least we can agree that we're done here.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think a group that hates blancmange, or being sent to bed early with a cold, would pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the country.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think a group that hates blancmange, or being sent to bed early with a cold, would pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the country.
What about a group that hates anti-gun activists?
I would call that fair play.
I think the idea beind the hate label is that the group with the label hates(discriminate, whatever) a group of people not for their actions but for something that is a part of who they are, like homosexuality, skin color, and to a lesser extent someone's religion.
Does that work as a definition for hate group? Is everyone pleased with that? If not, please correct it. And saying you shouldn't define hate isn't correcting it.
They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."
Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.
LordofHats wrote: They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."
Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.
Okay, so violence is hardly a requirement of hate.
I'm obliged to go back to my earlier example: a group that organizes around hatred against anti-gun activists. No violence. Hate group?
It is a part of the FBI's duty to investigate groups that may threaten the social fabric, well-being of the people and nation as a whole. That includes groups making threats of violence, and groups producing inflammatory rhetoric.
LordofHats wrote: They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."
Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.
You're thinking of the Family Research Center. The AFA had nothing to do with that.
Does the definition of a hate group matter? I think so, unless you simply intend to apply the moniker to whatever you like (see: The NRA is a hate group).
It is a part of the FBI's duty to investigate groups that may threaten the social fabric, well-being of the people and nation as a whole. That includes groups making threats of violence, and groups producing inflammatory rhetoric.
So the FBI has to investigate both political parties and members of the White House for using inflammatry rhetoric? Thats quite a standard you have there.
LordofHats wrote: They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."
Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.
You're thinking of the Family Research Center. The AFA had nothing to do with that.
It is a part of the FBI's duty to investigate groups that may threaten the social fabric, well-being of the people and nation as a whole. That includes groups making threats of violence, and groups producing inflammatory rhetoric.
So the FBI has to investigate both political parties and members of the White House for using inflammatry rhetoric? Thats quite a standard you have there.
He's importing a very European view to the FBI's mandate. Fortunately, it's not particularly true.
It is a part of the FBI's duty to investigate groups that may threaten the social fabric, well-being of the people and nation as a whole. That includes groups making threats of violence, and groups producing inflammatory rhetoric.
So the FBI has to investigate both political parties and members of the White House for using inflammatry rhetoric? Thats quite a standard you have there.
You mean describing political opponents as "terrorists" may not be acceptable?
Frazzled wrote: Christer is a derogatory term for Christian, usually said by coffeehouse idiots who never worked a day in their lives but believe the world owes them.
In my experience old men who like to argue on the internet display an equivalent degree of entitlement.
....without providing any evidence of such. Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.
If the AFA disapproves of homosexuality strongly, even with spurious arguments but does not promote discrimination or hate crimes against them then it isn't really a hate group. It's a group with strong opinions the SPLC doesnt like.
Orlanth wrote: ....without providing any evidence of such. Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.
I don't think our politicians are really in that business, though. We have hate crime laws, but as said, they're mostly just sentencing enhancements - extra years tacked on, that kind of thing. We don't have any specific laws that I'm aware of - and I could be wrong - outlawing white supremacist or black separatist or whatever groups unless they're explicitly formed around illegal activity (organized crime, basically), and simply expressing hatred isn't a crime here.
One of the biggest problems a society finds over haste speech is that once someone or some group is accused of hate speech, rightly or wrongly its becomes acceptable to use hate speech against them. All too often the rights of the accused are trampled over in the expedience of a little schadenfreude. Frankly its more damaging than the original movement being targeted, in fact most hate agendas stem from an assumption of hate and the consequent belief that one doesn't have to keep to any moral standards in opposing it.
While schadenfreude certainly comes into play, the entire purpose of singling out an organization as worthy of derogation is to sanction that derogation. In some cases that sanction will be legitimate, and in others it will not be, but the purpose of the action is, very explicitly, to argue that what group X is doing happens to be intolerable.
Frazzled wrote: Christer is a derogatory term for Christian, usually said by coffeehouse idiots who never worked a day in their lives but believe the world owes them.
In my experience old men who like to argue on the internet display an equivalent degree of entitlement.
Reducing yourself to snarky insults is beneath you Dogma.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the AFA disapproves of homosexuality strongly, even with spurious arguments but does not promote discrimination or hate crimes against them then it isn't really a hate group. It's a group with strong opinions the SPLC doesnt like.
Orlanth wrote: Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.
In that scenario one runs the risk of introducing legal consequences to the act of hate speech. As it stands, groups like the SPLC have no real power to cause harm to groups like the AFA. In essence, both are merely acting within the "marketplace of ideas".
Orlanth wrote: Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.
In that scenario one runs the risk of introducing legal consequences to the act of hate speech. As it stands, groups like the SPLC have no real power to cause harm to groups like the AFA. In essence, both are merely acting within the "marketplace of ideas".
One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.
LordofHats wrote: They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."
Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.
Okay, so violence is hardly a requirement of hate.
I'm obliged to go back to my earlier example: a group that organizes around hatred against anti-gun activists. No violence. Hate group?
I'd argue no, because you aren't born as an anti-anti-gun activist, it's an active choice, whereas being homosexual isn't.
LordofHats wrote: They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."
Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.
Okay, so violence is hardly a requirement of hate.
I'm obliged to go back to my earlier example: a group that organizes around hatred against anti-gun activists. No violence. Hate group?
I'd argue no, because you aren't born as an anti-anti-gun activist, it's an active choice, whereas being homosexual isn't.
Orlanth wrote: Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.
In that scenario one runs the risk of introducing legal consequences to the act of hate speech. As it stands, groups like the SPLC have no real power to cause harm to groups like the AFA. In essence, both are merely acting within the "marketplace of ideas".
One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.
Besides I am looking at this from a UK perspective, and have seen over here that the labeling of a group by an activist group directly leads to sanctioned harm. I don't know if this hold true in the US, the US does protect free speech better than the UK now does, though it wasn't long ago that we had free speech also.
bottom line is that groups labeled hate groups often have a rough time, and the groups doing the labeling are hate groups themselves, only sanctioned ones.
One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.
It is quite difficult to prove defamation in the US. So, at the very least, it seems US law agrees with the notion that nongovernmental agencies have no real power to harm by way of speech.
bottom line is that groups labeled hate groups often have a rough time, and the groups doing the labeling are hate groups themselves, only sanctioned ones.
Sanctioned by certain people, and not by others. Its a competition, hence the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor.
One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.
It is quite difficult to prove defamation in the US. So, at the very least, it seems US law agrees with the notion that nongovernmental agencies have no real power to harm by way of speech.
We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.
A friend posted this link, and article
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=15400 With this comment:
In this world of political correctness, I fear that things like this will happen more and more. As we become more and more political we lose sight of common sense and the American way. Perhaps one day, even by serving your country in the armed forces will be seen as being in a "hate group." Freedom of Speech has become closer to "you have freedom of speech, as long as you agree with the government."
Here's my response and by extension my response to any one defending the AFA.
homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews."
– Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010
"Homosexuality is not only harmful to homosexuals themselves, but also to children and to society."
– Stephen Bennett, AFA writer, 2004
"As with smoking, homosexual behavior's ‘second hand' effects threaten public health….Thus, individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population."
– Gary Glenn, president of Michigan chapter of AFA, 2001
"[T]he homosexual lifestyle is characterized by anonymous sexual encounters and celebration of sexual obsession and perversion unparalleled in any other social group."
– Richard Howe, "Homosexuality in America," AFA publication, 1994
If you want to side with a "religion" that says gak like that about other human beings... be my guest. These are the kind of nutbars who do actively discriminate and incite hatred of people who are just that. People. The guise of religion and a call for horse gak "values" does not make them any more legitimate. Racists during the Civil Rights movement made the same damn speeches, word for word, except the subjects were desegregation, and voting. The revived Klan was a religious organization before it was anything else, their other primary target outside of Blacks? Catholics, Jews. Any one who didn't agree with their point of view.
Should the AFA be silenced? No they should not. They can spew whatever poisonous bile they want to. It's a free society, but we as a society can and should judge them by their words and deeds. That's what's happening here. Don't want to be called a snake? Don't lay down with them and slither.
I also wouldn't link a website that thinks the U.S. was ever anything more then a nation with Christians in it as opposed to a Christian state for anything. The Founding Fathers were mostly deists, and many argued quite strongly for a secular state. To further that evidence our treaty that ended the Barbary wars explicitly states that the United States of America is not a Christian nation. When did we start getting high on Jesus? The same time and place the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and most of the "traditional values" people whine about came from. The 1950s and the red scare, and they were goddamn bs then too.
I cannot tell you how glad I am we don't live in a theocratic state aligned with ANY religion. Historically theocratic nations without fail end poorly for everyone involved. Just like at Saudi Arabia with its religious police and the mass persecution they (being any one in the goddamn kingdom of Saud) face there, muslim or no. One of their princes had the balls to go on international television and say that driving a car is extremely bad for a woman's mental and reproductive health. gak dude you've studied the sand box, you know what goes on over there.
That's the same type of bs these fethers from the AFA spew, and frankly? They can get fethed.
Welcome to America, please keep your hands, arms, legs, moral values and religious beliefs to yourself at all times.
One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.
It is quite difficult to prove defamation in the US. So, at the very least, it seems US law agrees with the notion that nongovernmental agencies have no real power to harm by way of speech.
Anyway, defence by speech aiming at a public figure. If that doesn't stick (and I can't see how it wouldn't); defence by fair comment on a subject of public interest.
We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.
Selectively editing an audio recording is not the same thing as attaching a label to a group. One involves the deliberate manipulation of direct evidence, the other is mere characterization based upon direct evidence.
We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.
Again, defence by qualified priviledge.
Yeah, I highly doubt Zimmerman will win the suit.
Short of an e-mail or a memo stating "Yeah, guys, let's paint this dude as a total asshat", I can't see how he'd win. I can't even see how he (or his lawyer) think he'll win.
So, is the SPLC pretty much, to use a popular Bush era term, the "decider" on who is and is not a hate group? The AFA I think qualifies as one, but I squirm somewhat at the thought of a single agency having such power. Being labeled a hate group has pretty severe repercussions in this day and age.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: So, is the SPLC pretty much, to use a popular Bush era term, the "decider" on who is and is not a hate group? The AFA I think qualifies as one, but I squirm somewhat at the thought of a single agency having such power. Being labeled a hate group has pretty severe repercussions in this day and age.
''The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. '' (their website).
Being labelled by them as a hate group shouldn't have any legal repercussion, that is, you won't be put on a governmental watchlist by virtue of that alone. I guess you can think of them as a social policy group/lobby?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: It seems it did have repercussions for some soldiers though.
Well, yeah, but as a result of advocacy, not lobbying leading to government action.
Basically, one military may or may not have refered to them in order to justify putting the AFA in the hate groups. The legal responsability for his statement remains his, and possibly (but probably not) that of the military.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: So, is the SPLC pretty much, to use a popular Bush era term, the "decider" on who is and is not a hate group? The AFA I think qualifies as one, but I squirm somewhat at the thought of a single agency having such power. Being labeled a hate group has pretty severe repercussions in this day and age.
''The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. '' (their website).
Being labelled by them as a hate group shouldn't have any legal repercussion, that is, you won't be put on a governmental watchlist by virtue of that alone. I guess you can think of them as a social policy group/lobby?
Uh... some contend that the Southern Poverty Law Center fights poverty and racism in America, many contend that it is engaged in shameless profiteering at the expense of those it is purportedly trying to protect.
The hate 'groups' the SPLC relentlessly raises money to fight are often farcical because, like sex and fear, hate sells.
But that's not the issue... there are many "charities" that operate in such manner.
The issue here is that this instructor, and responsible news media for that matter, need to carefully scrutinize the assertions and accusations made by SPLC. It suggests that the record, motives, and tactics of the organization leveling the charges should not be taken at face value.
How does that constitute proof of malicious intent? They could go with ''we cut it that way because we needed the video to fit into the segment''. Hell, they might even be able to go with ''we cut it that way to make sure it was more sensationnal''.
Anyway, given that there was an immediate outcry against the tape, that NBC issued an apology, and that the complete tape was aired shortly after, there would be a good argument for a defence by no actual injury. Then, even if you could prove malicious intent, it wouldn't matter.
How does that constitute proof of malicious intent? They could go with ''we cut it that way because we needed the video to fit into the segment''. Hell, they might even be able to go with ''we cut it that way to make sure it was more sensationnal''.
Put it in front of a jury. The Plaintiff's attorney will eat your face on that.
How does that constitute proof of malicious intent? They could go with ''we cut it that way because we needed the video to fit into the segment''. Hell, they might even be able to go with ''we cut it that way to make sure it was more sensationnal''.
You don't reorder the conversation, reinjecting words into parts of the audio where they weren't there originally, and say that you were just trying to make it fit.
Put it in front of a jury. The Plaintiff's attorney will eat your face on that.
I doubt it, and I'm not alone, apparently :
imediaethics.com wrote:However, some legal experts point out to iMediaEthics that even with the evidence presented, it will be difficult, as it is in all libel cases, to prove actual malice.
“The case could turn in Zimmerman’s favor if a whistleblower steps forward to corroborate malicious intent that the complaint alleges,” Alan Behr, an intellectual property lawyer at the Philip Nizer firm wrote in a July 18 email. “If there is an email in the files from a producer or reporter that says something to the effect of, “Let’s get this guy — I simply hate him,’ Zimmerman might be on the road to proving actual malice,” he wrote.
Weaver agrees that libel cases have been hard to win.
“The threat of defamation litigation is really low in the U.S. because in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are going to lose,” he said in a July 20 phone interview.
Weaver pointed out that since the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court case, which established libel law under the First Amendment, libel has been extremely hard to prove.
“You would have to see a complete breakdown of journalistic integrity in order to prevail,” he said.
You don't reorder the conversation, reinjecting words into parts of the audio where they weren't there originally, and say that you were just trying to make it fit.
Why not? If I need to cut down a conversation, I might also have to alter it's structure in order to make it coherent. And that still doesn't constitute intent. Someone cut out the phone operator asking ''what race is he'' and kept the answer ''he's black''. That doesn't mean he meant to paint Zimmerman as a racist, but that he thought his statement was somehow relevent.
Mind you, I'm sure the effect on the general populace wasthat they thought that he's racist.
You don't reorder the conversation, reinjecting words into parts of the audio where they weren't there originally, and say that you were just trying to make it fit.
NBC did not reorder the conversation, they omitted part of it. A significant part to be sure, but let us describe their actions fairly.
You don't reorder the conversation, reinjecting words into parts of the audio where they weren't there originally, and say that you were just trying to make it fit.
NBC did not reorder the conversation, they omitted part of it. A significant part to be sure, but let us describe their actions fairly.
We are.
The jury will decide. NBC will get hammered like Frazzled at a Mexican restaurant. And thats why they'll settle.
Dakka Dakka Rule 12: On a long enough timeline, every thread becomes about gun control and/or George Zimmerman, no matter how unrelated the OP was. No exceptions.
Ouze wrote: Dakka Dakka Rule 12: On a long enough timeline, every thread becomes about gun control and/or George Zimmerman, no matter how unrelated the OP was. No exceptions.
I would agree except that this would imply there were only 11 dakka rules before Big Z
Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups.
It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.
Looking at a lot of their interpretations of who is a hate group I'd have to say that the SPLC are a hate group themselves.
They use the internet, publications, speeches etc to fearmonger about various groups who in themselves actually pose no threat to others.
A large part of those they consider hate groups are groups that have spoken out against homosexual marriage and adoption - ie expressing an opinion, something you're supposed to be able to do in a free society.
What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group? That question has not been answered adequately yet. They oppose various pro-homosexual laws and are similarly opposed to granting more, but that is hardly reason to consider them a threat to wider society.
What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group? That question has not been answered adequately yet.
Dude it took me exactly 23 seconds to find the answer to that question.
The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 1,007 active hate groups in the United States in 2012. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2012 are included.
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.
This list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.
Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.
cadbren wrote: Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups.
It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.
Do you understand what a neo-confederate group is? It goes way beyond just "having a different historical interpretation".
A large part of those they consider hate groups are groups that have spoken out against homosexual marriage and adoption - ie expressing an opinion, something you're supposed to be able to do in a free society.
Do you understand the difference between expressing an opinion and saying "you suck" to an entire class of people?
What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group?
You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.
Neo Confederacy. That's a new one on me. I've been EoA for a long time to. Still I cannot label them as a Hate group for class discussions or an example.
Jihadin wrote: Neo Confederacy. That's a new one on me. I've been EoA for a long time to. Still I cannot label them as a Hate group for class discussions or an example.
I don't see why not. The whole idea is little more than white supremacist ideology with a little confederacy worship thrown in to give it some "respectability".
cadbren wrote: Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups.
It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.
Looking at a lot of their interpretations of who is a hate group I'd have to say that the SPLC are a hate group themselves.
They use the internet, publications, speeches etc to fearmonger about various groups who in themselves actually pose no threat to others.
A large part of those they consider hate groups are groups that have spoken out against homosexual marriage and adoption - ie expressing an opinion, something you're supposed to be able to do in a free society.
What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group? That question has not been answered adequately yet. They oppose various pro-homosexual laws and are similarly opposed to granting more, but that is hardly reason to consider them a threat to wider society.
cadbren wins the thread.........
This case is an example of PC gone awry, where opinions in a free society, have become classified as hate. I don't know if this type of thing will remain a fad. I pray that people wake up and come to the realization that this type of stuff is a modern day "nazi" style brainwash.
And by the way.it's well known that high ranking Nazis were homosexuals. They persecuted a certain classification of homosexual, basically the efeminant homosexuals were not well liked by the "manly" homosexuals who were running certain aspects of the nazi system.
generalgrog wrote: This case is an example of PC gone awry, where opinions in a free society, have become classified as hate.
Do you really not understand the difference between "expressing an opinion" and "declaring that gay people should be executed"?
And by the way.it's well known that high ranking Nazis were homosexuals. They persecuted a certain classification of homosexual, basically the efeminant homosexuals were not well liked by the "manly" homosexuals who were running certain aspects of the nazi system.
And by the way, it's well known that high ranking Nazis ate food. They persecuted a certain classification of people who eat food, but THEY ATE FOOD. IF YOU EAT FOOD YOU ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAZIS AND PERSECUTING GOOD CHRISTIAN AMERICANS LIKE ME.
Peregrine wrote: You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.
Thought we established that was a different group.
Peregrine wrote: You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.
Thought we established that was a different group.
Wasn't that comment made by Bryan Fischer? Back through the pages we go, doo doo doo... Yep, maddermax posted a picture of his tweet on page 2 supporting that law. So no, still AFA.
Peregrine wrote: You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.
Thought we established that was a different group.
The statements were quoted from the twitter account of Bryan Fischer, an AFA leader. Even if the specific comments are his personal opinion and were not made in his role with the AFA I don't think you're going to be able to make a credible argument that the AFA has any strong disagreement with him.
motyak wrote: Wasn't that comment made by Bryan Fischer? Back through the pages we go, doo doo doo... Yep, maddermax posted a picture of his tweet on page 2 supporting that law. So no, still AFA.
I read it as him supporting the current version of the law, which I believe removed the death penalty.
That doesn't make it a particularly tolerable statement, of course, but I think we can do a good enough job decrying the beliefs without resorting to factual inaccuracy.
Rainbow Dash wrote: I'd have no issue with church and would go if they just... weren't so hateful.
I'd enjoy it more if it was happy like those Precious Moments figurines
I'm an atheist and find the whole church thing a largely worthless enterprise personally, but I'm pretty convinced they should be able to say whatever the hell they want as long as they're not breaking the law. And, as we're not Europe yet, saying despicable stuff ain't breaking the law.
motyak wrote: Wasn't that comment made by Bryan Fischer? Back through the pages we go, doo doo doo... Yep, maddermax posted a picture of his tweet on page 2 supporting that law. So no, still AFA.
I read it as him supporting the current version of the law, which I believe removed the death penalty.
That doesn't make it a particularly tolerable statement, of course, but I think we can do a good enough job decrying the beliefs without resorting to factual inaccuracy.
I wasn't saying he supported the death penalty. I don't see where I lied. But a law saying that you can't be homosexual is still a horrific law. I mean I'm sure Uganda has some other horrible laws, but that doesn't exempt this from being an awful, awful law.
motyak wrote: I wasn't saying he supported the death penalty. I don't see where I lied. But a law saying that you can't be homosexual is still a horrific law. I mean I'm sure Uganda has some other horrible laws, but that doesn't exempt this from being an awful, awful law.
Nah, I know. I was referencing Peregrine.
Peregrine wrote: You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.
Rainbow Dash wrote: I'd have no issue with church and would go if they just... weren't so hateful.
I'd enjoy it more if it was happy like those Precious Moments figurines
I'm an atheist and find the whole church thing a largely worthless enterprise personally, but I'm pretty convinced they should be able to say whatever the hell they want as long as they're not breaking the law. And, as we're not Europe yet, saying despicable stuff ain't breaking the law.
I invented my own for the heck of it, most I tell it to think its better then any of the existing ones.
Sorry, I was meaning 'oh, never mind then' after the misunderstanding. It wasn't meant to read like 'that was too easy, I got you!' or 'you are too easy to fool' or anything negative like that, just 'no worries', hand wave, done.
Seaward wrote: I read it as him supporting the current version of the law, which I believe removed the death penalty.
That doesn't make it a particularly tolerable statement, of course, but I think we can do a good enough job decrying the beliefs without resorting to factual inaccuracy.
Context is very important. The death penalty part was only removed after massive international outrage, and Fischer didn't exactly make any effort to clarify that he didn't like that part. Instead he just held them up as an example for the US to follow.
Seaward wrote: I'm an atheist and find the whole church thing a largely worthless enterprise personally, but I'm pretty convinced they should be able to say whatever the hell they want as long as they're not breaking the law.
They're allowed to, just like the KKK (a hate group I don't think anyone is going to defend) is allowed to keep talking. The only "punishment" the AFA faces is being labeled a hate group by a non-government organization (hey, free speech!) and potentially having the military treat it as a hate group. But it's already well established that if you join the military you give up some of your normal rights, so I fail to see the problem here.
I can't use neo confederacy as an example as a Hate Group. Yes I can view them and say "IMO I feel they are a possible Hate Group". Its not my place to decide US Military policy on making a "Official decision" on any particular group. I can only give the frame work of what makes a group either a Hate or Extremist group.
KKK, Neo Nazi, Black Panther, or any particular group with a proven Hate theme I can get away with and use them as an example as extreme. The EOA/EO guy that threw AFA or whatever Christian Group that this dilemma snowballed into was lazy and just created power point slides with a list copied from SPLC and stood by it and got challenge by a Chaplain of all things. The instructor is suppose to conduct a class and facilitate it with the typical standard that stays within a given guide line. He/she is not suppose to lose control of his/her class by any means possible. He/she lost credibility in front of his/her peers and seniors by not going off a approve training program.
It is a part of the FBI's duty to investigate groups that may threaten the social fabric, well-being of the people and nation as a whole. That includes groups making threats of violence, and groups producing inflammatory rhetoric.
So the FBI has to investigate both political parties and members of the White House for using inflammatry rhetoric? Thats quite a standard you have there.
Does the definition of a hate group matter? I think so, unless you simply intend to apply the moniker to whatever you like (see: The NRA is a hate group).
If your group issues statements likely to incite hate crime, you are a hate group and get on to the domestic terrorism watch list.
If your group threatens violence, you get on to the domestic terrorism watch list.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Is that the US Army's list of hate groups? If so then what does that have to do with Frazz said about the SPLC being less than accommodating towards right leaning groups? I'm trying to see the connection you're making.
That's the SPLC's list, as of 2012.
Fraz claimed that anyone who leans conservative in his eyes is put on SPLC's list. That would mean there are 113 black seperatist groups who lean conservative, and apparently of all the thousands of Christian groups in the US, only 39 of them lean conservative.
Or perhaps more likely Fraz has no idea what he's talking about.
Jihadin wrote: I can't use neo confederacy as an example as a Hate Group. Yes I can view them and say "IMO I feel they are a possible Hate Group". Its not my place to decide US Military policy on making a "Official decision" on any particular group. I can only give the frame work of what makes a group either a Hate or Extremist group.
Ok, I see what you're saying. I thought you meant "I can't use them as an example" to be a statement about your beliefs about that group, not about what you in your position in the military are allowed to present in an official capacity.
Orlanth wrote: First the list is incomplete. any rational list would also include rabid Zionist organisations, including the ADL but your list doesnt include a single one. No Islamic groups either although the US does have an Islamic fringe, and its as vocal as ones in Europe.
Take that up with the SPLC. I don't know why some of those groups aren't included. All I did with was re-state the summary of their list, and note that it did not take the form fraz claimed at all.
Secondly the list doesn't appear to give weighting, from the evidence your present as to level of culpability, and there is a temptation to label them all as no better than Nazis, which probably isnt fair, especially when other categories of hate group are clearly absent.
That's right, the list doesn't give weighting. However, to conclude from that that all groups are therefore equal would be a real stretch.
"Joe's Fish Shack and Apple Computers are both companies... therefore they must be equal"... totally bonkers. No-one thinks like that.
I will take that challenge.
One of the biggest problems a society finds over haste speech is that once someone or some group is accused of hate speech, rightly or wrongly its becomes acceptable to use hate speech against them. All too often the rights of the accused are trampled over in the expedience of a little schadenfreude. Frankly its more damaging than the original movement being targeted, in fact most hate agendas stem from an assumption of hate and the consequent belief that one doesn't have to keep to any moral standards in opposing it.
At least in the US there is protection, protection in theory also exists inthe UK, but it is quickly diminishing, people are accused of being exteremeists and extremism is sanctioned against them.
You yourself have fallen into this trap here.
So... you're not attempting a defence of either the AFA or the FRC. Instead you're just going to give a speach about how free speach is good. Well on that issue I happen to agree with you, but I recognise one of the most important parts of that is the ability for private organisations to call other private organisation on their bs. Stating that another organisation spreads hate through lies is not censorship, but instead it's an essential part of free speach.
And still nobody is going trying and defend AFA or the FRC. Still people are just talking around it, making noise about how bad it is that groups are accused of spreading hate through lies... but no-one is actually trying to mount a defence that the AFA and FRC don't in fact spread hate through lies.
America likes to grow people like him, and a natural counterpoint of others who hate God so much they will do anything to take a shot. Shouldnt they be considered hate mongers too, shouldn't you? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
If they form an organisation and use it to spread lies that encourage on the hating of minority Christians, then yeah, they should be.
Most, nearly all of the above are political comments with no actual or implied connection to religion. I don't know how close Fischer is to the AFA and don't really need to know, it would be interesting if the above comments were made on church time through church media and if that media was AFA controlled.
He's director of issues. That's basically the second person in the org chart, and arguably the one with the highest profile. And everyone one of those statements was made not just as part of his role in the organisation, but through official AFA channels.
However lets look at the one relevant portion, which I highlighted in bold. I don't know the context of what was said, but from the context you give and the weighting of the words its quite a reasonable comment which has been twisted unfairly.
Here's the video of him saying it, in full. The context makes it worse.
He is saying straight up that God lets it happen because there's no more prayer in school. This really, really isn't defensible, and you're tilting at windmills.
Sebster, I do not believe you to be an intentional bigot and want to break the cycle here. Your an atheist, I have no choice but to be OK with that, but please be more dispassionate about these sorts of arguments, if you hate God, keep it to yourself don't add it as an ingredient in arguments about religious groups because you cant look at them fairly when you do, and thus subject your victims to discrimination.
I may be an atheist but I have no opposition to faith, and have a lot of respect for the good works inspired by and directly undertaken by various churches around the world. I was married in a Catholic church, and in a few weeks my child is being baptised, not only because my wife is religious and I respect that, but because I believe our child should have exposure to faith so that she can one day make up her own mind on the issue.
I simply have a problem with close minded bigots who spread lies, whether they are inside or outside the church. An atheist who uses lies and false science to justify homophobia should be challenged and confronted just the same as a Christian who uses lies and false science.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Because I don't really think you can, and wanted to see.
I gave you a definition... the one from the very group that classified the AFA as they did and sparked this whole storm in a teacup.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: So, is the SPLC pretty much, to use a popular Bush era term, the "decider" on who is and is not a hate group? The AFA I think qualifies as one, but I squirm somewhat at the thought of a single agency having such power. Being labeled a hate group has pretty severe repercussions in this day and age.
Yeah, the SPLC gets to decide who they think is a hate group. But there's no relevance to that, unless other people put trust in the SPLC and their judgements. Basically the SPLC has no power beyond whatever standing they've managed to establish for themselves.
Their power only lasts as long as their list is solid. Which is exactly why certain groups have attempted to sully their reputation after they listed the AFA and FRC...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: It seems it did have repercussions for some soldiers though.
Only because a soldier used it incorrectly, and the Pentagon acted quickly to state it was wrong.
cadbren wrote: Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups. It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.
If the SPLC simply listed every group in America with 'a different historical interpretation of the Civil War' then you'd have a point. But they don't, instead they list simply the 93 groups they identified that hold extreme neo-conservative views, including a positive view of slavery.
Looking at a lot of their interpretations of who is a hate group I'd have to say that the SPLC are a hate group themselves.
Yeah, that's just silly. Stating a group preaches hate and then going in to detail about exactly what they claim is not a hate group. This should be fething obvious.
What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group?
I and other posters have listed dozens of quotes. If you somehow missed those posts, there's a whole internet out there. Go and read. Learn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: This case is an example of PC gone awry, where opinions in a free society, have become classified as hate. I don't know if this type of thing will remain a fad. I pray that people wake up and come to the realization that this type of stuff is a modern day "nazi" style brainwash.
You, like others before you, have confused the SPLC releasing a report with censorship. It's a ridiculous leap to make, and made simply because you dislike criticism of 'your team', and so want to shut down such criticism, while knowing full well you can't actually defend organisations like the AFA and FRC.
And by the way.it's well known that high ranking Nazis were homosexuals. They persecuted a certain classification of homosexual, basically the efeminant homosexuals were not well liked by the "manly" homosexuals who were running certain aspects of the nazi system.
There was one. Killed in the Night of Long Knives, and so attempting to use that to describe the Nazi leadership as a whole is extremely silly. Meanwhile large numbers of homosexuals were rounded up and sent to camps, and for simply being, or believed to be homosexual, with no test undertaken for how effeminate they might have been.
Your statement above is the most ridiculous nonsense. [deleted by moderator]
cadbren wrote: Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups.
It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.
Do you understand what a neo-confederate group is? It goes way beyond just "having a different historical interpretation".
It appears to be a label that the SPLC has given to various Southern Heritage type groups, actual groups self-identifying as such notwithstanding.
I'm not saying that there are not groups that if given the chance would behave in a violent fashion based on perceived losses dating back to the Civil War. What I'm saying is the SPLC has simply lumped in all groups with a patriotic Southern bent as being exteremists.
Perhaps I missed it, but far left groups like the Communist party and ARA, who have a history of violence towards those considered right wing, appear absent from their list of hate groups while groups patrolling the southern border for people crossing illegally are considered hate groups. The SPLC seems to support the subversion of US immigration laws which goes back to the claims made earlier that they're more about defending left wing ideology than they are about equitable representation.
Do you understand the difference between expressing an opinion and saying "you suck" to an entire class of people?
Certain classes of people are going to regard any kind of rejection as a "you suck" message however you dress it so I guess I don't see a real difference when the result is the same. I'm also a firm believer in communities self policing moral issues rather than being told how to live by people from outside. Aside from that I don't regard expressions of disdain, or disgust even, as criteria for calling people a hate group. That is a term which should be reserved for those groups that not only advocate violence but carry it out.
What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group?
You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.
If you're referring to Gary DeMar, as he's the only one I came across who mentioned killing homosexuals (abortion doctors and adulterers too), then he's from American Vision. He had an interview on a radio station owned by AFA in which he highlighted what he thought the bible was saying in that regard. That seems to be the AFA connection to those sentiments rather than being their own.
Kilkrazy wrote: Presumably the FBI has its own list, based on the criteria laid down by law, and it may or may not include groups on the SPLC's list.
There aren't any criteria for hate groups laid down by law.
I would have thought that the Army takes the FBI list, but perhaps it makes its own list based on intelligence sources.
Nope.
I would suggest you take it up with the FBI, as they monitor hate groups and presumably have some criteria for identifying them other than gut feeling.
If the SPLC simply listed every group in America with 'a different historical interpretation of the Civil War' then you'd have a point. But they don't, instead they list simply the 93 groups they identified that hold extreme neo-conservative views, including a positive view of slavery.
They really don't and they admit as much when they say things like 'including support of slavery' meaning that that is not a criteria and that not all groups believe that. They include groups that glorify the Confederacy and it's military which given that the groups involved are descended from the same is hardly atypical. Most people focus on the good aspects of their family/ancestors and friends and tend to forgive the negative, that's hardly cause for being labelled a dangerous hate group with plans of overthrowing the government.
This should be fething obvious.
Does the language filter not apply to OT?
I and other posters have listed dozens of quotes.
Quotes by members of AFA explicitly calling for the death of homosexuals? Haven't seen a single one so far. I've seen people from other groups who've made such comments being called members of AFA when they weren't, but none from the AFA themselves. Speaking out against homosexuality is not tantamount to wanting to kill homosexuals which is what the claim against the AFA here has been. SPLC's claim against them is based entirely on their anti-homosexual rhetoric and nothing more.
Kilkrazy wrote: Presumably the FBI has its own list, based on the criteria laid down by law, and it may or may not include groups on the SPLC's list.
There aren't any criteria for hate groups laid down by law.
I would have thought that the Army takes the FBI list, but perhaps it makes its own list based on intelligence sources.
Nope.
I would suggest you take it up with the FBI, as they monitor hate groups and presumably have some criteria for identifying them other than gut feeling.
The FBI would likely monitor many of those groups the SPLC lists because they advocate separation from or opposition to the federal government, not because of some "hate" motive, that's the SPLC's spin on things. Thinking about it, it might explain why their list is used in the first place. It's a (presummably) regularly updated and convenient list of reactionary groups for federal groups to keep tabs on (or not) depending on their own in-house criteria.
You, like others before you, have confused the SPLC releasing a report with censorship. It's a ridiculous leap to make, and made simply because you dislike criticism of 'your team', and so want to shut down such criticism, while knowing full well you can't actually defend organisations like the AFA and FRC.
Sebster I wasn't talking about splc, I'm talking about the concerning turn of events that the US army, teaching soldiers, who have guns and tanks, that certain Christian beliefs as aspoused by the AFA are hate. Is there a unit of soldiers coming to my church in the future to round me and my family up, because I don't agree with the current fad of enablism in the USA?
There was one. Killed in the Night of Long Knives, and so attempting to use that to describe the Nazi leadership as a whole is extremely silly. Meanwhile large numbers of homosexuals were rounded up and sent to camps, and for simply being, or believed to be homosexual, with no test undertaken for how effeminate they might have been.
Your statement above is the most ridiculous nonsense. fething absurd revisionism, and to be perfectly honest it says a lot about you that you'd ever give such nonsense the time of day.
There was a lot more than Ernst Roehm (i'm assuming that's your "one"). Some people believe Hitler was one, admittedly speculation. Remember Rohm was Hitlers #2 man for a long time. Besides Roehm, there was Reinyard Hienrich, Baldur Von Shirach...and others. The nazis were attempting to revive some of the pagan Hellenistic traditions form ancient Greece, where "manly" homosexuality was considered normal.
cadbren wrote: It appears to be a label that the SPLC has given to various Southern Heritage type groups, actual groups self-identifying as such notwithstanding.
Would you like to provide an example of a legitimate heritage/historical group that SPLC has unfairly judged to be a hate group? Or did you just miss the difference between "here are some neo-confederate hate groups" and "anyone who is patriotic about the south is a hate group"?
Perhaps I missed it, but far left groups like the Communist party and ARA, who have a history of violence towards those considered right wing, appear absent from their list of hate groups while groups patrolling the southern border for people crossing illegally are considered hate groups.
So, what exactly has the communist party in the US done recently? And which groups does it attack based on their inherent qualities
And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".
If you're referring to Gary DeMar, as he's the only one I came across who mentioned killing homosexuals (abortion doctors and adulterers too), then he's from American Vision. He had an interview on a radio station owned by AFA in which he highlighted what he thought the bible was saying in that regard. That seems to be the AFA connection to those sentiments rather than being their own.
And, again, an AFA leader's twitter comments in support of Uganda's "death penalty for homosexuality" law (which was only reduced to severe prison sentences after massive international outrage).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: Sebster I wasn't talking about splc, I'm talking about the concerning turn of events that the US army, teaching soldiers, who have guns and tanks, that certain Christian beliefs as aspoused by the AFA are hate.
Sorry, but when your entire ideology seems to consist of "gay people suck" then yes, you're a hate group.
Is there a unit of soldiers coming to my church in the future to round me and my family up, because I don't agree with the current fad of enablism in the USA?
Oh good, the traditional right-wing christian persecution fantasy. Do you have even the slightest evidence that this is anything other than a paranoid slippery slope argument?
And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".
Supposition on your part. Most ranchers are just tired of coyotes running thousands of people through their prperty and occasionally killing them.
And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".
Supposition on your part. Most ranchers are just tired of coyotes running thousands of people through their prperty and occasionally killing them.
Pretty much. Damage to property down there is astounding, not to mention the danger it often presents to their families.
But hey, it's easier to just call someone racist then look at the real issues.
And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".
Supposition on your part. Most ranchers are just tired of coyotes running thousands of people through their prperty and occasionally killing them.
Has the SPLC actually said that everyone in favor of enforcing immigration laws is a hate group, or just the racists who are openly doing it because they're white supremacist s?
And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".
Supposition on your part. Most ranchers are just tired of coyotes running thousands of people through their prperty and occasionally killing them.
Has the SPLC actually said that everyone in favor of enforcing immigration laws is a hate group, or just the racists who are openly doing it because they're white supremacist s?
You're the one calling border patrol groups racists. Its your burden boyo.
Frazzled wrote: You're the one calling border patrol groups racists. Its your burden boyo.
Sigh. Do you really not understand the difference between "border patrol groups get on the list because they're racists" and "ALL border patrol groups get on the list because they're racists"? Since, last time I checked, SPLC hasn't declared that anyone in favor of enforcing immigration laws is a hate group.
Orlanth wrote: First the list is incomplete. any rational list would also include rabid Zionist organisations, including the ADL but your list doesnt include a single one. No Islamic groups either although the US does have an Islamic fringe, and its as vocal as ones in Europe.
Take that up with the SPLC. I don't know why some of those groups aren't included. All I did with was re-state the summary of their list, and note that it did not take the form fraz claimed at all.
I dont need to take anything up with the SPLC, from the research seen in this thread they are a private unaccountable organisation that allocated the status of 'hate group' according to its own partisan agendas.
Yet they demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions. This is dangerous.
Secondly the list doesn't appear to give weighting, from the evidence your present as to level of culpability, and there is a temptation to label them all as no better than Nazis, which probably isnt fair, especially when other categories of hate group are clearly absent.
That's right, the list doesn't give weighting. However, to conclude from that that all groups are therefore equal would be a real stretch.
However it allows groups like the AFA to be targeted as iof they were extremists. If they merely dislike the AFA it would not be enough to call for the group to be boycotted by public officials and be placed on a list of unwelcome organisations by the military. By the SPLC's own actions they rate the AFA as severely actionable for censuring.
One of the biggest problems a society finds over haste speech is that once someone or some group is accused of hate speech, rightly or wrongly its becomes acceptable to use hate speech against them. All too often the rights of the accused are trampled over in the expedience of a little schadenfreude. Frankly its more damaging than the original movement being targeted, in fact most hate agendas stem from an assumption of hate and the consequent belief that one doesn't have to keep to any moral standards in opposing it.
At least in the US there is protection, protection in theory also exists inthe UK, but it is quickly diminishing, people are accused of being extremeists and extremism is sanctioned against them.
You yourself have fallen into this trap here.
So... you're not attempting a defence of either the AFA or the FRC. Instead you're just going to give a speach about how free speach is good. Well on that issue I happen to agree with you, but I recognise one of the most important parts of that is the ability for private organisations to call other private organisation on their bs. Stating that another organisation spreads hate through lies is not censorship, but instead it's an essential part of free speach.
This isnt about free speech, the SPLC is calling for censure of the AFA by government institutions.
If the SPLC simply called out the AFa and be done with it this thread wouldnt exist. case in point, it didn't until the SPLC used its influece to convince sections if the US military heirarchy to discriminate against the AFA.
SPLC is entitled to its optinions just as the AFA is.
However lets look at the one relevant portion, which I highlighted in bold. I don't know the context of what was said, but from the context you give and the weighting of the words its quite a reasonable comment which has been twisted unfairly.
Here's the video of him saying it, in full. The context makes it worse.
He is saying straight up that God lets it happen because there's no more prayer in school. This really, really isn't defensible, and you're tilting at windmills.
Theologically he has a point, and it is defensible, the indefensible part is the assumption that what he is saying is because Fisher worships 'an evil petulant God'.
Fischer's theological point is well made, by removing prayer you remove the ability to provide prayer based intercession. Its a religious point and he is free to make it, and it isn't hate speech.
You are not obliged to believe in intercessory prayer, but Fischer can say that by removing corporate prayer from schools those who believe in prayer can point out consequences of not doing so.
djones520 wrote: Pretty much. Damage to property down there is astounding, not to mention the danger it often presents to their families.
But hey, it's easier to just call someone racist then look at the real issues.
Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist
Orlanth wrote: Yet they demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions. This is dangerous.
So, proof of this supposed "demand"? Because to the rest of us it looks like one random army guy decided to use their list to give an example of a hate group, on his own initiative, and the army said "nope, don't do that".
Fischer's theological point is well made, by removing prayer you remove the ability to provide prayer based intercession. Its a religious point and he is free to make it, and it isn't hate speech.
Err, lol? It's an absolutely ridiculous argument. A god that only prevents children from being massacred if prayer is legal (and let's not pretend that "no prayer in schools" means that nobody was praying while people were being murdered) is a petty and childish tyrant.
And saying "look what you did by not making the US into a theocracy" might not be hate speech, but it certainly doesn't help his case when you look at his anti-gay remarks. He's clearly a thoroughly nasty person who deserves censure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist
Yeah, let's just keep pretending that when the SPLC list mentions anti-immigration groups they're talking about people who just want the laws to be obeyed and not the white supremacists who are openly racist towards immigrants.
djones520 wrote: Pretty much. Damage to property down there is astounding, not to mention the danger it often presents to their families.
But hey, it's easier to just call someone racist then look at the real issues.
Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist
Yeah, let's just keep pretending that when the SPLC list mentions anti-immigration groups they're talking about people who just want the laws to be obeyed and not the white supremacists who are openly racist towards immigrants.
Did I mention the SPLC? No
Did the post I reply to mention the SPLC? No
Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes
So, who exactly was doing that here?
but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".
Do you understand the difference between equating immigration control and racism and pointing out that a non-trivial number of pro-immigration activists are motivated by racism?
(Hint: it has to do with the difference between "some" and "all".)
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes
So, who exactly was doing that here?
but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".
I wonder.
I was trying so hard not to point out the irony myself First he complains about people misreading his comment, then he misreads mine
Do you understand the difference between equating immigration control and racism and pointing out that a non-trivial number of pro-immigration activists are motivated by racism?
(Hint: it has to do with the difference between "some" and "all".)
You're the one who made the statement that the folks out there are doing it because of racism. Firstly, you provided nothing to back up your claim. Secondly, you worded it to imply all groups, as many of us took it. Now if you wanted to clarify that you were only speaking of groups spcifically mentioned by the SPLC, then that would clear a lot of the issue up.
Edit: And quite frankly... the SPLC's rationale for calling some of those border groups hate groups is flimsy at best. Unless you want to call not wanting to give hand outs to people being in the country illegally a "hate" category, or talking to cooky people also a hate category. In that case, Obama should be careful of the SPLC given some of his past associations.
in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.
