• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Hate Church Makes a Case for Free Speech

HowardBThiname

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,173
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.

“All of the other nations that came against us… sold us into slavery, that are oppressing us, they're going to be slaves in the kingdom. We're going to put the ruling people in the kingdom under Christ,” he said. “The most high God was never about bringing everybody together. He was always about separation.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which dubs itself as an anti-hate, non-profit organization, identifies IUIC as a Black, separatist, hate group; typically wanting separate institutions, opposing integration and espousing anti-White and anti-Semitic views.

“They're not the real Jews. We are the real Jews,” Gabar said.

He insists IUIC is not a hate group, and violence is never incited.
Click to expand...

I-Team: Las Vegas church labeled a hate group - Story | KLAS-TV
 
Israel was an historical person who had ten sons and two grandsons The descendants from these twelve men, became the twelve tribes of Israel. Judah was one of the sons of Israel whose his descendants are called the Jews. Jews equal 1/12 of Israel, not all of Israel. It is not clear who exactly the other eleven tribes are, since they were scattered all over the world.

Jesus was talking to Israel and not just to the Jews. He was reaching out to the other eleven tribes as well as the Jews. The modern country of Israel does not belong to the Jews, but it belongs to all twelve tribes with the territory of the Jews a substantial area that is centered on Jerusalem.

As far the designation for a hate groups, if hate is in their hearts and motivates their speech and their actions, they are a hate group. This logical definition of a hate group makes CNN and the DNC hate groups. The term hate group was coined by the Democrats to mean anyone who is not with their leftist agenda. The label is a misdirect using language games. It needs to be clarified so we don;t leave the DNC out, based on their actions in the past; slavery, and present.
 
My concern is that by designating individual groups as "hate groups," we're effectively creating an atmosphere that restricts their free speech.

The IUIC has a right to preach what they feel is the truth, even though others may feel threatened or offended. It just so happens that in this specific case, this group feels as though they are the chosen race.

That's not really different from some schools of thought that claim those of today's Jewish descent are really the chosen people.

And, it's not a far removed from the white supremacists who believe the white race is superior.

The question is not so much whether these various groups/churches have the right to free speech -- we know they do -- it's whether being designated a hate group has the effect of infringing on that right.

Is the "hate" label a form of social engineering designed to make society put pressure on specific groups to silence them?

This is an especially interesting case, because not only is this church racist in nature, it's also a religion, so it comes under another protective constitutional classification.
 
HowardBThiname said:
My concern is that by designating individual groups as "hate groups," we're effectively creating an atmosphere that restricts their free speech.

The IUIC has a right to preach what they feel is the truth, even though others may feel threatened or offended. It just so happens that in this specific case, this group feels as though they are the chosen race.

That's not really different from some schools of thought that claim those of today's Jewish descent are really the chosen people.

And, it's not a far removed from the white supremacists who believe the white race is superior.

The question is not so much whether these various groups/churches have the right to free speech -- we know they do -- it's whether being designated a hate group has the effect of infringing on that right.

Is the "hate" label a form of social engineering designed to make society put pressure on specific groups to silence them?

This is an especially interesting case, because not only is this church racist in nature, it's also a religion, so it comes under another protective constitutional classification.
Click to expand...

See my signature for why this isn't so.
 
UIIC, as we all know, has the right to preach. The question is that by designating such a group as a hate church, is their free speech being restricted?

In fact, the answer remains "no". They can preach and advertise all they want, just the same as the Klan, the RC, and any of us.
 
Kobie said:
See my signature for why this isn't so.
Click to expand...

Ya, per usual Kobie's signature has it right, in the world of your sacred first amendment, I can say that the this organization secretly circle jerks to unicorn porn while passing out the sacraments, and that's perfectly fine. Why are you trying to oppress the SPLC's freedom of speech? lol

Sorry, dude, no standards = no standards.
 
Kobie said:
See my signature for why this isn't so.
Click to expand...

Criticism is fine -- it's also a form of free speech.

I'm thinking more of the groups like Antifa that shout-down protesters or use physical violence to stop them from holding free speech rallies. I'm also thinking about the pressure this type of social engineering has had on employers who immediately cringe when they find an employee is part of a "hate" group and fire them.

All those things, minus the violence, are not illegal, but do they infringe on free speech?

This church believes that blacks are superior and that, come judgement day, whites will be their slaves. Why is it "hate" to preach what they believe? Now that they are designated as a hate group, will the church members be fired from their jobs?

Do you see how social engineering can infringe on free speech?
 
That's Odd, because there are people out there who Hate Cops and will now expect your support for their right to Hate Cops and march in protest.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Criticism is fine -- it's also a form of free speech.

I'm thinking more of the groups like Antifa that shout-down protesters or use physical violence to stop them from holding free speech rallies. I'm also thinking about the pressure this type of social engineering has had on employers who immediately cringe when they find an employee is part of a "hate" group and fire them.

All those things, minus the violence, are not illegal, but do they infringe on free speech?

This church believes that blacks are superior and that, come judgement day, whites will be their slaves. Why is it "hate" to preach what they believe? Now that they are designated as a hate group, will the church members be fired from their jobs?

Do you see how social engineering can infringe on free speech?
Click to expand...

When whatever this church is starts marching around the streets like the Nazi's are doing, and have a country wide organization dedicated to impacting life on earth, vs. the afterlife, you'll have an equivalency.

That said, I'll take this on face value. These so-called "Free Speech" rallies are merely the invocation of the 1st amendment as a shield, because they know that what they are saying at these rallies is considered beyond deplorable by most decent people. Their entire reason for existence is to convince folks, and ultimately change the country to reflect, that people who are not white are inferior, and therefore do not have the same claim to America, with it's rights and freedoms, as white people - so take out the middle stuff, and we're talking about a group seeking to restrict or remove the rights and freedoms of others, and they are hiding behind the rights granted them by the 1st amendment to do so.

And that's fine...all on the up and up, I'm sure. They are no dummies. But, as I've said before, while I don't believe in political violence, I would not piss on a Nazi if they were on fire, let alone do a single thing to defend them from the consequences of using their first amendment rights in a way that would inspire this kind of reaction. I might not like Antifa's methodology, but I couldn't care less about bad stuff happening to Nazi's... Interesting times.
 
OlNate said:
When whatever this church is starts marching around the streets like the Nazi's are doing, and have a country wide organization dedicated to impacting life on earth, vs. the afterlife, you'll have an equivalency.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are doing just that, but until the SPLC gave them a "hate" designation, they did so without the stigma they now face.



That said, I'll take this on face value. These so-called "Free Speech" rallies are merely the invocation of the 1st amendment as a shield, because they know that what they are saying at these rallies is considered beyond deplorable by most decent people. Their entire reason for existence is to convince folks, and ultimately change the country to reflect, that people who are not white are inferior, and therefore do not have the same claim to America, with it's rights and freedoms, as white people - so take out the middle stuff, and we're talking about a group seeking to restrict or remove the rights and freedoms of others, and they are hiding behind the rights granted them by the 1st amendment to do so.

And that's fine...all on the up and up, I'm sure. They are no dummies. But, as I've said before, while I don't believe in political violence, I would not piss on a Nazi if they were on fire, let alone do a single thing to defend them from the consequences of using their first amendment rights in a way that would inspire this kind of reaction. I might not like Antifa's methodology, but I couldn't care less about bad stuff happening to Nazi's... Interesting times.[/QUOTE]

Well, this group is identical in ideology to the ones you mention, only the skin color of the "chosen" is different.
 
Cigar said:
That's Odd, because there are people out there who Hate Cops and will now expect your support for their right to Hate Cops and march in protest.
Click to expand...

People have a legal right to hate whomever they so choose. They only cross the line when their hatred morphs into "incitement" to harm others, which is a crime.
 
JamesBY said:
UIIC, as we all know, has the right to preach. The question is that by designating such a group as a hate church, is their free speech being restricted?

In fact, the answer remains "no". They can preach and advertise all they want, just the same as the Klan, the RC, and any of us.
Click to expand...


I agree. However, they've been protesting under the general assumption that they were a minority group just standing up against oppression. Now, they're in the same grouping as the KKK, etc., so instead of being welcomed with open arms as they were at the Trayvon Martin rallies, they now fit into the groups the Boston Mayor told to "get out" and that they are not welcome.

That's a huge shift that is bound to restrict the rights they once enjoyed to free speech without societal opposition.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Actually, they are doing just that, but until the SPLC gave them a "hate" designation, they did so without the stigma they now face.

Well, this group is identical in ideology to the ones you mention, only the skin color of the "chosen" is different.
Click to expand...

Have never heard of this group, and can't watch the video where I'm at, but if their messaging is the same as the Nazis, then **** them too. I will fully support any group to achieve the ability to be who they want to be, right up until those rights infringe upon others' ability to do the same.
 
OlNate said:
Have never heard of this group, and can't watch the video where I'm at, but if their messaging is the same as the Nazis, then **** them too. I will fully support any group to achieve the ability to be who they want to be, right up until those rights infringe upon others' ability to do the same.
Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed that narrow interpretations of a religion are often behind this kind of thing?
 
HowardBThiname said:
Have you ever noticed that narrow interpretations of a religion are often behind this kind of thing?
Click to expand...

I think hate is a powerful lens from behind which to view the world, and can pervert and convert pretty much anything that gets in its way or can be used as a tool. I mean, I think hate can also be understandable sometimes, especially in the marginalized, but it's only ever a destructive force.
 
HowardBThiname said:
My concern is that by designating individual groups as "hate groups," we're effectively creating an atmosphere that restricts their free speech.

The IUIC has a right to preach what they feel is the truth, even though others may feel threatened or offended. It just so happens that in this specific case, this group feels as though they are the chosen race.

That's not really different from some schools of thought that claim those of today's Jewish descent are really the chosen people.

And, it's not a far removed from the white supremacists who believe the white race is superior.

The question is not so much whether these various groups/churches have the right to free speech -- we know they do -- it's whether being designated a hate group has the effect of infringing on that right.

Is the "hate" label a form of social engineering designed to make society put pressure on specific groups to silence them?

This is an especially interesting case, because not only is this church racist in nature, it's also a religion, so it comes under another protective constitutional classification.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples in which the designation of "hate" in conjunction with a specific group, as impeded the group's free speech rights? It seems to me numerous groups rendered as "hate" groups have enjoyed considerable success publicly expressing their message as a result of free speech.
 
NotreDame said:
Do you have any examples in which the designation of "hate" in conjunction with a specific group, as impeded the group's free speech rights? It seems to me numerous groups rendered as "hate" groups have enjoyed considerable success publicly expressing their message as a result of free speech.
Click to expand...

The most recent case I can think of was in Boston when the counter-protesters shouted down the protesters (all of whom have "hate" designations) and the planned speakers could not complete their speeches.

On a more personal note, we've seen employers firing workers for taking part in these protests.
http://www.businessinsider.com/restaurant-fires-man-for-attending-charlottesville-rally-2017-8

An employer certainly has a right to do just that, but it puts pressure on others to remain silent and in the shadows.

That's my point with the new designation of "hate" for the church. Before, the group was seen as standing up for minority rights, but now that they have the label of "hate group," what sort of reception will they receive?
 
HowardBThiname said:
Criticism is fine -- it's also a form of free speech.

I'm thinking more of the groups like Antifa that shout-down protesters or use physical violence to stop them from holding free speech rallies. I'm also thinking about the pressure this type of social engineering has had on employers who immediately cringe when they find an employee is part of a "hate" group and fire them.

All those things, minus the violence, are not illegal, but do they infringe on free speech?

This church believes that blacks are superior and that, come judgement day, whites will be their slaves. Why is it "hate" to preach what they believe? Now that they are designated as a hate group, will the church members be fired from their jobs?

Do you see how social engineering can infringe on free speech?
Click to expand...

I think you exaggerated the extent people pay attention to the label "hate." For instance, you are assuming employers investigate whether some group or assemblage of people have been designated a "hate" group before determined whether to fire an employee for belonging to the group. I'm not convinced this is true.

If the employee belongs to a group espousing beliefs of racial superiority, gender superiority, ethnic/national superiority, I'm doubtful the employer ascertains whether the group or message has the official designation of "hate," before terminating the employee. Employers are, as I believe many of us are, capable of discerning whether some message or group is racially divisive, morally repugnant, hateful, distasteful, and repulsive.

Some employers terminated those employees in attendance at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, not because they belonged to a designated "hate" group, but as a result of their participation in a message the employer deemed repugnant, repulsive, and quite possibly detrimental to their profits and work environment.

I'm not convinced the designation of "hate" is as important as you suggest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
HowardBThiname said:
On a more personal note, we've seen employers firing workers for taking part in these protests.
Restaurant fires man for attending Charlottesville rally - Business Insider

An employer certainly has a right to do just that, but it puts pressure on others to remain silent and in the shadows.

That's my point with the new designation of "hate" for the church. Before, the group was seen as standing up for minority rights, but now that they have the label of "hate group," what sort of reception will they receive?
Click to expand...

The most recent case I can think of was in Boston when the counter-protesters shouted down the protesters (all of whom have "hate" designations) and the planned speakers could not complete their speeches.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing the connection between the Boston example above and the "hate" designation. The counter-protesters did not engage in the conduct on the basis the other group of people were designated as a "hate" group. The counter-protesters were participating in their own rally because they personally determined the message of the other group was racially divisive, repugnant, and repulsive.

Before, the group was seen as standing up for minority rights, but now that they have the label of "hate group," what sort of reception will they receive
Click to expand...

I am not convinced the broader public and society places as much an emphasis on the designation as you suggest. Instead, people are focused on the content of the message as opposed to the label designated to the group. It is the content of the message, as opposed to the label, which is the basis of the objection for broader society and the wider public.
 
The SPLC calling someone a "hate" group does not infringe on their free speech.

But the SPLC calling someone a "hate" group doesn't actually make them one.
 
HowardBThiname said:
My concern is that by designating individual groups as "hate groups," we're effectively creating an atmosphere that restricts their free speech.
Click to expand...
No "atmosphere" can restrict speech, but more importantly the amendment is a restriction on government preventing them from restricting speech. If SPLC were not allowed to label them a hate group, whether merited or not and who is to say what exactly is that standard, then it would be SPLC's right to free speech that would be restricted.
 
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...


We need to continue to remind people that the bill of rights limits the power of government, not the freedom everyone else. People can say what they like without government intervention. It doesn't include anyone other than the government. The first amendment exists to protect controversial speech. Other kinds of speech don't require protection. The SPLC can say what likes, understanding that there could be consequences for what they say. In this case I would say the SPLC is probably correct and that no consequences will come their way. You have one group expressing free speech without government intervention and another group doing the same. That is how it is supposed to be.
 
One thing is for certain. By classifying this group as a hate group, the SPLC has shown that they don't discriminate by political affiliation. They have been accused of only picking on Right Wing hate groups, and not the Left.
 
The SPLC can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned. Who put them in charge of deciding whether a group is hateful? Hate speech is not a crime in the US and shouldn't be a crime anywhere else. If you don't like what they say, don't listen to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom