A Hate Church Makes a Case for Free Speech

HowardBThiname said:

Now, this is an interesting post, because you immediately assumed that the group's beliefs were hateful, although they claim they are not. When religious tenets are labeled as hateful, even if the group seeks to do no harm, it opens the door to all religions being deemed hateful in some way.

Click to expand...

MrWonka said:

No. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to say what you want whenever you want without consequences. I mean the freedom to say what you want whenever you want without consequences from the government. The SPLC is a private entity not a government one, and even if it were name calling does not pass the muster. Donald Trump calling for boycots of people that don't support him comes far closer to abrigging freedom of speach than anything the SPLC is doing.

Click to expand...

Forcing is the opperative word. In this case you're forcing the woman to say something about herself against her will. If someone else decided to just call her a hussy however that would be protected speech under the first amendment.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

The IUIC has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC but they reject the designation because they are harming no one. The question is whether the designation of "hate" is an infringement on their free speech. Is it an infringement on anyone's free speech? Is the SPLC oppressing free speech by handing down these labels?

Their belief is that blacks and Native Americans are among the descendants of the original 12 Tribes of Israel and that at the second coming of Christ (who was black), they will one day rule and white people will be their slaves.

As with the KKK and neo-nazis, the IUIC has every right to spread the word of what they feel is correct. It's only when they cross the line into harming someone that they fall afoul of the law.



I-Team: Las Vegas church labeled a hate group - Story | KLAS-TV

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

It makes no difference to me if you want to let me "off easy" or not. I have no desire to defend or support anything to satisfy you, because, simply put, I find your level of discourse to be shallow and off-base. No offense, but my time is limited and I won't waste it responding to your trolling. So far, both of your posts on this thread have been questionable. Feel free to keep posting, but don't expect any response from me.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

if that's what you were thinking, why not focus on that. There's a large difference between attempting to forcefully silence speech via actual threats of violence, or via direct action clearly meant to silence (in terms of your "shout-down" comment) and a group using their own ability to speech to share their opinion regarding another group.

One is a DIRECT attempt at either forcefully, or threaten to forcefully, silence or directly hamper ones ability to speak; the other is, at best, a very indirect means.

There's a massive difference between the SLPC calling a group a "hate group" and an entity like ANTIFA threatening riots if someone speaks on a campus.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

I know this is an old thread, but I just saw it when it was resurrected today.

Personally I have a problem with the the whole concept of 'hate speech', 'hate crimes', 'hate groups' etc. because it is such an arbitrary thing. What a person professes, what a person believes, was intended to be free speech no matter how wrong, stupid, ignorant, or abhorrent it is seen by society as a whole. The judgment itself is so arbitrary and so often based on fuzzy notions of political correctness that there is great danger of unjustly applying labels or penalties. The First Amendment was intended to restrict the federal government only but is also used as a guide for what policy and the public attitude should rightly be. What is in a person's heart or mind whether or not expressed is that person's sacred right and should not be infringed. Motive, when evident, can be used to justify investigation of whether a person is or is not guilty of a crime, but motive in itself is not a crime.

It is what people DO that society can rightfully judge. In a free society, we are not obligated to agree with or appreciate or respect what another person says he/she thinks or believes, but in a free society we are obligated to allow that person his/her opinion/beliefs and his/her right to express them so long as he/she is not physically or economically damaging others.

I have nothing in common with the so-called church mentioned in the OP and strongly disagree with every single point the OP says they believe and express. But they are absolutely right that they have every right to believe and express it however stupid or 'hateful' it might be just as does the Westboro Baptists that I see as pure scum or those churches that preach everybody into hell except for themselves.

It is the activities intended to harm others that we should condemn and not what the group itself believes. It is hateful to try to get people fired because they are gay and it is hateful to try to get people fired or otherwise harm them physically or financially because they believe homosexuality is wrong and/or support traditional marriage. It is hateful to create chaos, destroy property, injure people, threaten people because it is believed black people are inferior or 'uppity' or any other stupid thing somebody might think about black people and it is hateful to create chaos, destroy property, injure people, threaten people because it is believed white people are privileged or racist or any other stupid thing somebody might think about white people. It is hateful, wrong, and unacceptable to picket, protest, and disrupt funerals for the military or gay people or anybody else and it is hateful, wrong, and unacceptable to burn out somebody who is even rightfully perceived as hateful.

All crimes are hate crimes. Those predisposed to commit crimes are not going to be deterred just because there is a greater penalty for a 'hate crime.' The law should be devoid of feelings or passion and should be applied evenhandedly according to the crime committed. It is wrong to apply the law unevenly according to race, religion, ethnicity, etc. and it is justified to protest and deal with those who do apply it unevenly. But the protest and action should be directed at those who act wrongly and it should be done lawfully. There is nothing to be gained but more hatred, resentment, injustice, and yes, racial tensions, when the protests in themselves are hateful, disrespectful, illegal.

Until we do away with political correctness and stop singling out special groups for special protections or treatment but demand that all persons regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever are subject to EQUAL protection under the law and EQUAL penalties applied under the law, I think we are only going to keep perpetuating our differences and making things worse.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

I know this is an old thread, but I just saw it when it was resurrected today.

Personally I have a problem with the the whole concept of 'hate speech', 'hate crimes', 'hate groups' etc. because it is such an arbitrary thing. What a person professes, what a person believes, was intended to be free speech no matter how wrong, stupid, ignorant, or abhorrent it is seen by society as a whole. The judgment itself is so arbitrary and so often based on fuzzy notions of political correctness that there is great danger of unjustly applying labels or penalties. The First Amendment was intended to restrict the federal government only but is also used as a guide for what policy and the public attitude should rightly be. What is in a person's heart or mind whether or not expressed is that person's sacred right and should not be infringed. Motive, when evident, can be used to justify investigation of whether a person is or is not guilty of a crime, but motive in itself is not a crime.

It is what people DO that society can rightfully judge. In a free society, we are not obligated to agree with or appreciate or respect what another person says he/she thinks or believes, but in a free society we are obligated to allow that person his/her opinion/beliefs and his/her right to express them so long as he/she is not physically or economically damaging others.

I have nothing in common with the so-called church mentioned in the OP and strongly disagree with every single point the OP says they believe and express. But they are absolutely right that they have every right to believe and express it however stupid or 'hateful' it might be just as does the Westboro Baptists that I see as pure scum or those churches that preach everybody into hell except for themselves.

It is the activities intended to harm others that we should condemn and not what the group itself believes. It is hateful to try to get people fired because they are gay and it is hateful to try to get people fired or otherwise harm them physically or financially because they believe homosexuality is wrong and/or support traditional marriage. It is hateful to create chaos, destroy property, injure people, threaten people because it is believed black people are inferior or 'uppity' or any other stupid thing somebody might think about black people and it is hateful to create chaos, destroy property, injure people, threaten people because it is believed white people are privileged or racist or any other stupid thing somebody might think about white people. It is hateful, wrong, and unacceptable to picket, protest, and disrupt funerals for the military or gay people or anybody else and it is hateful, wrong, and unacceptable to burn out somebody who is even rightfully perceived as hateful.

All crimes are hate crimes. Those predisposed to commit crimes are not going to be deterred just because there is a greater penalty for a 'hate crime.' The law should be devoid of feelings or passion and should be applied evenhandedly according to the crime committed. It is wrong to apply the law unevenly according to race, religion, ethnicity, etc. and it is justified to protest and deal with those who do apply it unevenly. But the protest and action should be directed at those who act wrongly and it should be done lawfully. There is nothing to be gained but more hatred, resentment, injustice, and yes, racial tensions, when the protests in themselves are hateful, disrespectful, illegal.

Until we do away with political correctness and stop singling out special groups for special protections or treatment but demand that all persons regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever are subject to EQUAL protection under the law and EQUAL penalties applied under the law, I think we are only going to keep perpetuating our differences and making things worse.

Click to expand...

polgara said:

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: It has been thought by many that all the divisiveness we are seeing is being orchestrated by those who want our Constitution and Bill of Rights scrapped and thrown into the dustbin, with a One World Government taking its place! Whether this is true or not I don't know, but things are not improving but rather the opposite is happening, from what I read.

Most honest people who believe in the wisdom of the Founders who wrote our Constitution don't need or want others telling them how to live their lives, but when political correctness is being decided by an elite group who have no intention of living under the rules they make for everyone else - and we already see that happening - things are not going to improve for the majority, sad to say! :shock:

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

I know this is an old thread, but I just saw it when it was resurrected today.

Personally I have a problem with the the whole concept of 'hate speech', 'hate crimes', 'hate groups' etc. because it is such an arbitrary thing. What a person professes, what a person believes, was intended to be free speech no matter how wrong, stupid, ignorant, or abhorrent it is seen by society as a whole. The judgment itself is so arbitrary and so often based on fuzzy notions of political correctness that there is great danger of unjustly applying labels or penalties. The First Amendment was intended to restrict the federal government only but is also used as a guide for what policy and the public attitude should rightly be. What is in a person's heart or mind whether or not expressed is that person's sacred right and should not be infringed. Motive, when evident, can be used to justify investigation of whether a person is or is not guilty of a crime, but motive in itself is not a crime.

It is what people DO that society can rightfully judge. In a free society, we are not obligated to agree with or appreciate or respect what another person says he/she thinks or believes, but in a free society we are obligated to allow that person his/her opinion/beliefs and his/her right to express them so long as he/she is not physically or economically damaging others.

I have nothing in common with the so-called church mentioned in the OP and strongly disagree with every single point the OP says they believe and express. But they are absolutely right that they have every right to believe and express it however stupid or 'hateful' it might be just as does the Westboro Baptists that I see as pure scum or those churches that preach everybody into hell except for themselves.

It is the activities intended to harm others that we should condemn and not what the group itself believes. It is hateful to try to get people fired because they are gay and it is hateful to try to get people fired or otherwise harm them physically or financially because they believe homosexuality is wrong and/or support traditional marriage. It is hateful to create chaos, destroy property, injure people, threaten people because it is believed black people are inferior or 'uppity' or any other stupid thing somebody might think about black people and it is hateful to create chaos, destroy property, injure people, threaten people because it is believed white people are privileged or racist or any other stupid thing somebody might think about white people. It is hateful, wrong, and unacceptable to picket, protest, and disrupt funerals for the military or gay people or anybody else and it is hateful, wrong, and unacceptable to burn out somebody who is even rightfully perceived as hateful.

All crimes are hate crimes. Those predisposed to commit crimes are not going to be deterred just because there is a greater penalty for a 'hate crime.' The law should be devoid of feelings or passion and should be applied evenhandedly according to the crime committed. It is wrong to apply the law unevenly according to race, religion, ethnicity, etc. and it is justified to protest and deal with those who do apply it unevenly. But the protest and action should be directed at those who act wrongly and it should be done lawfully. There is nothing to be gained but more hatred, resentment, injustice, and yes, racial tensions, when the protests in themselves are hateful, disrespectful, illegal.

Until we do away with political correctness and stop singling out special groups for special protections or treatment but demand that all persons regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever are subject to EQUAL protection under the law and EQUAL penalties applied under the law, I think we are only going to keep perpetuating our differences and making things worse.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

Excellent post!

I completely agree that the "hate" designation is arbitrary and that we'd all be a lot better off if only actions were judged and not thoughts. You did a great job of showing why the law should focus on the actual crimes committed.

Best post in this thread!

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

I know this is an old thread, but I just saw it when it was resurrected today.

Personally I have a problem with the the whole concept of 'hate speech', 'hate crimes', 'hate groups' etc. because it is such an arbitrary thing. What a person professes, what a person believes, was intended to be free speech no matter how wrong, stupid, ignorant, or abhorrent it is seen by society as a whole. The judgment itself is so arbitrary and so often based on fuzzy notions of political correctness that there is great danger of unjustly applying labels or penalties. The First Amendment was intended to restrict the federal government only but is also used as a guide for what policy and the public attitude should rightly be. What is in a person's heart or mind whether or not expressed is that person's sacred right and should not be infringed. Motive, when evident, can be used to justify investigation of whether a person is or is not guilty of a crime, but motive in itself is not a crime.

It is what people DO that society can rightfully judge. In a free society, we are not obligated to agree with or appreciate or respect what another person says he/she thinks or believes, but in a free society we are obligated to allow that person his/her opinion/beliefs and his/her right to express them so long as he/she is not physically or economically damaging others.

I have nothing in common with the so-called church mentioned in the OP and strongly disagree with every single point the OP says they believe and express. But they are absolutely right that they have every right to believe and express it however stupid or 'hateful' it might be just as does the Westboro Baptists that I see as pure scum or those churches that preach everybody into hell except for themselves.

It is the activities intended to harm others that we should condemn and not what the group itself believes. It is hateful to try to get people fired because they are gay and it is hateful to try to get people fired or otherwise harm them physically or financially because they believe homosexuality is wrong and/or support traditional marriage. It is hateful to create chaos, destroy property, injure people, threaten people because it is believed black people are inferior or 'uppity' or any other stupid thing somebody might think about black people and it is hateful to create chaos, destroy property, injure people, threaten people because it is believed white people are privileged or racist or any other stupid thing somebody might think about white people. It is hateful, wrong, and unacceptable to picket, protest, and disrupt funerals for the military or gay people or anybody else and it is hateful, wrong, and unacceptable to burn out somebody who is even rightfully perceived as hateful.

All crimes are hate crimes. Those predisposed to commit crimes are not going to be deterred just because there is a greater penalty for a 'hate crime.' The law should be devoid of feelings or passion and should be applied evenhandedly according to the crime committed. It is wrong to apply the law unevenly according to race, religion, ethnicity, etc. and it is justified to protest and deal with those who do apply it unevenly. But the protest and action should be directed at those who act wrongly and it should be done lawfully. There is nothing to be gained but more hatred, resentment, injustice, and yes, racial tensions, when the protests in themselves are hateful, disrespectful, illegal.

Until we do away with political correctness and stop singling out special groups for special protections or treatment but demand that all persons regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever are subject to EQUAL protection under the law and EQUAL penalties applied under the law, I think we are only going to keep perpetuating our differences and making things worse.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

So calling the modern Klan a hate group or a Nazi group a hate group is just arbitrary fuzzy political correctness? After all, a lot of them don't do anything other than hold rallies.

Do I agree with every one of the SPLC's designations? No. An individual can say that Islam is in need of reform, and the SPLC will call it hate speech.

Do I think that there is such a thing as a hate group? Yes. Should we call out groups like the Klan, the Black Panthers, and Nazis hate groups? Yes of course, call a spade a spade. Moreover, guess what, if I saw a coworker on TV in some Klan or Nazi rally, I am going to tell my boss about it because I am pretty sure that my company doesn't want some Nazi POS working for them and in any way associated with them. I don't like political correctness, but I do believe in common decency and lately a lot of people want to slander common decency as political correctness.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

You can call it anything you like. And our society has the moral authority to push back against illegal or hateful activity by the Klan just as we do against the Westboro Baptists or Occupy Wallstreet or Black Lives Matter when they are out of line. But as long as they are not violating the rights of others, they have the right to be 100% wrong in their beliefs and opinions as any of us are. Once groups are arbitrarily labeled 'hate groups' we have assumed a moral authority that the Constitution never intended us to have.

i would prefer to have a list of honest to goodness hateful acts:
--littering, trashing and vandalizing, destroying property
--terrorizing people to forbid them from speaking
--obstructing traffic and businesses and encouraging violence
--physically and/or economically damaging people for no other reason than they are a member of a certain group or hold an unpolitically correct point of view
etc.

And then judging the ACTIONS of all people as to whether they are committing a hateful act.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

So when Westboro Baptist pickets a funeral of a fallen soldier or gay or lesbian, and they yell at their parents as they are going into their own kid's funeral that their kid "Is burning in Hell!", that doesn't make them a hate group in your book because they are not physically acting upon those parents? You can't make this stuff up. That is quite the rationalization you have going on.

You have a right to say or write whatever you want. You do not have a right to be free from criticism or societal consequences for it. For example, if you want to post all kinds racist and bigoted nonsense on social media, then fine, your employer also has a right not to employ someone that does that because they don't want to be associated with them in any way.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

You can call it anything you like. And our society has the moral authority to push back against illegal or hateful activity by the Klan just as we do against the Westboro Baptists or Occupy Wallstreet or Black Lives Matter when they are out of line. But as long as they are not violating the rights of others, they have the right to be 100% wrong in their beliefs and opinions as any of us are. Once groups are arbitrarily labeled 'hate groups' we have assumed a moral authority that the Constitution never intended us to have.

i would prefer to have a list of honest to goodness hateful acts:
--littering, trashing and vandalizing, destroying property
--terrorizing people to forbid them from speaking
--obstructing traffic and businesses and encouraging violence
--physically and/or economically damaging people for no other reason than they are a member of a certain group or hold an unpolitically correct point of view
etc.

And then judging the ACTIONS of all people as to whether they are committing a hateful act.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

I loathe and despise what the Westboro Baptist group DOES. What they DO. What they DO is indeed hateful and I have no problem with anybody condemning that 100%. There is absolutely no way I can come up with any scenario in which their behavior should not be condemned as hateful. And i have no problem condemning their BEHAVIOR every time they do something like that.

But can you see the difference between condemning a BEHAVIOR as hateful behavior and condemning a group as a hate group? We can condemn the behavior every single time without quibbling about it. But a list of hate groups wanders into too much gray area based on feelings and political correctness and i oppose that.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

You can call it anything you like. And our society has the moral authority to push back against illegal or hateful activity by the Klan just as we do against the Westboro Baptists or Occupy Wallstreet or Black Lives Matter when they are out of line. But as long as they are not violating the rights of others, they have the right to be 100% wrong in their beliefs and opinions as any of us are. Once groups are arbitrarily labeled 'hate groups' we have assumed a moral authority that the Constitution never intended us to have.

i would prefer to have a list of honest to goodness hateful acts:
--littering, trashing and vandalizing, destroying property
--terrorizing people to forbid them from speaking
--obstructing traffic and businesses and encouraging violence
--physically and/or economically damaging people for no other reason than they are a member of a certain group or hold an unpolitically correct point of view
etc.

And then judging the ACTIONS of all people as to whether they are committing a hateful act.

Click to expand...

NotreDame said:

To the contrary, the people having the “moral authority” to label groups as “hate groups” is reserved to the people.

And the label doesn’t deprive any group so labeled of any free speech rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

What kind of backwards logic is that?

If they pick 59 right leaning groups and 1 left leaning group, you think that's proof they aren't discriminating? Its kind of the opposite.

Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:

When it comes to hate, that's about the correct percentage. I certainly wouldn't be proud enough to tout for Neo-Nazis, Bigots and Conservative Haters.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

So when Westboro Baptist pickets a funeral of a fallen soldier or gay or lesbian, and they yell at their parents as they are going into their own kid's funeral that their kid "Is burning in Hell!", that doesn't make them a hate group in your book because they are not physically acting upon those parents? You can't make this stuff up. That is quite the rationalization you have going on.

You have a right to say or write whatever you want. You do not have a right to be free from criticism or societal consequences for it. For example, if you want to post all kinds racist and bigoted nonsense on social media, then fine, your employer also has a right not to employ someone that does that because they don't want to be associated with them in any way.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

It's more the way in which the "societal consequences" are dealt with that is at issue here.

We all have the right to call out any behavior or talk we see that we don't like. But, when we support a system, albeit in this case a private one (SPLC), that labels a group as being a "hate group" we are buying into that system of "shaming" in an attempt to socially engineer thought.

What AlbqOwl gets that too many others are missing is that words without action are meaningless in a societal sense. That goes for Westboro, the KKK, or the church in the OP -- by labeling them a hate group, the SPLC is creating an atmosphere that is restricting their speech.

Granted the SPLC is not a government entity, and they do not get federal funding, but the FBI does occasionally use their information, so the lines are slightly blurring there.

A couple of months ago, another church filed suit against the SPLC for giving them a "hate" designation because the Church teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and the base their teachings on bible scriptures. You can see that case here:
Southern Poverty Law Center hate group LGBT lawsuit: Coral Ridge Christian ministry sues | The Kansas City Star

Is it hateful for a church to say that homosexuality is wrong? If we, as a society, are to believe that, are we not shaming that church into silence? And, if we do that, are we not guilty of censoring their right to speak to their beliefs?

The SPLC is creating an atmosphere whereby citizens are taking their "ratings" as truth without thinking about the ramifications for free speech.

Consider the case of Floyd Corkins, who, based on SPLC's label of the Family Research Council as a anti-gay hate group, decided to kill as many of them as possible.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?utm_term=.813f207dc2fe

Now, any crazy can pick up a gun, and obviously Corkins was crazy, but the SPLC is wielding great power here, and should our 1st Amendment grant them more freedom of speech than the groups they label receive?

The fact is -- we cannot (as a society) punish thoughts. We can, however, punish deeds.

This, along with hate crime legislation, is social engineering. If I hit you on the head with a stick (no worries, I'm not a violent sort) because of your skin color, and then I hit another person on the head with a stick because of their hairstyle, both of your heads will hurt. But, I will be punished by the law a bit more for hitting your head because it will be designated a hate crime, due to your race. That makes no sense whatsoever.

AlbqOwl nailed it on this one.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

The IUIC has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC but they reject the designation because they are harming no one. The question is whether the designation of "hate" is an infringement on their free speech. Is it an infringement on anyone's free speech? Is the SPLC oppressing free speech by handing down these labels?

Their belief is that blacks and Native Americans are among the descendants of the original 12 Tribes of Israel and that at the second coming of Christ (who was black), they will one day rule and white people will be their slaves.

As with the KKK and neo-nazis, the IUIC has every right to spread the word of what they feel is correct. It's only when they cross the line into harming someone that they fall afoul of the law.



I-Team: Las Vegas church labeled a hate group - Story | KLAS-TV

Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:

Whether they are a hate group or not, the SPLC is just another soros funded alt-left hack organization. They are so bad, the fbi dropped them from a list of sources.

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

Why are you claiming the FBI drop them from a list of source again?

Click to expand...