Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The problem though is that Hate can be a point of view.

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

Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

 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.

 juraigamer wrote:
By the requirements for a group to be defined as a "domestic hate group", the christian ministry has shown it meets those criteria.

What are those criteria?

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

Why only single out one religion?

 Seaward wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
By the requirements for a group to be defined as a "domestic hate group", the christian ministry has shown it meets those criteria.

What are those criteria?

ditto what are the criteria?
This sounds like PC nonsense to me.

Honest question, no sarcasm involved:

Could anybody educate me on the relevance of the US Army classifying someone as a "hate group"? Does this have any tangible consequences?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

Why only single out one religion?

Because it's the biggest, as well as the one related to the topic at hand?

 Allod wrote:
Honest question, no sarcasm involved:

Could anybody educate me on the relevance of the US Army classifying someone as a "hate group"? Does this have any tangible consequences?

I am confused too. Does the Army have "Hatred: Hate Groups"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I am confused too. Does the Army have "Hatred: Hate Groups"

Being associated with such can have considerable, normally incredibly quick consequences as to your career.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

Why only single out one religion?

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.

Seaward wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I am confused too. Does the Army have "Hatred: Hate Groups"

Being associated with such can have considerable, normally incredibly quick consequences as to your career.

Officially or unofficially? If the former, do you know on what grounds?

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

Apropos nothing, I fething love Australia.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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?

Thanks for the link and the info. Just trying to come to grips with what all the hubbub is about.

Don't believe the posts. Its all about maple donuts and a certain "conspiracy of light."

 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.

Maple donuts, the cause of most conflicts on Earth. The scourge of humanity.

 Allod wrote:
Maple donuts, the cause of most conflicts on Earth. The scourge of humanity.

Indeed, and to tie in with the thread, they come from God's Country (TM)*



*Canada


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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."

Suck it Yugoslavia!

 Allod wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

Why only single out one religion?

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...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Allod wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

Why only single out one religion?

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...

Wut?

Isn't that the same argument that the US isn't a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic?