Comment

Comment by Reason Being on August 21, 2012 at 12:16pm

Jay--I am using the same standard as outlined by the SPLC--the FRC spreads misinformation--they purposefully lie in an attempt to discriminate against and to withhold what I consider a basic human right from a group of people (homosexuals). 

I would certainly not consider all groups that hold different political opinions than I as hate groups.

Comment by jay H on August 19, 2012 at 4:26pm

"believe whatever they want, but cannot force those views on my government or I will speak up against that. I do not call them hate groups. I do not call the FRC a hate group because it is religious, but rather because of what they say."

So what is the reason you define hate? Because they are trying to manipulate government policy that will affect you? The Democratic party, the Republican Party, the Sierra club and countless others do that. All sorts of political pressure groups try to push their worldview on us and deserve to be challenged. That in itself does not qualify for the word hate.

[Please understand, I don't know that FRC is NOT a hate group, only that the quotes you gave in the article formed a pretty watered down version of the word 'hate']

Comment by Reason Being on August 18, 2012 at 5:12pm

Lillie---great point. "and" becomes a key word.

James--will check it out.  Thanks for leaving one, and thank you for the kind words regarding my blog.

Comment by James M. Martin on August 18, 2012 at 9:58am

Please see my comment at the site of your excellent blog.

Comment by Lillie on August 18, 2012 at 8:48am

I find the "and" word very useful in dealing with black and white thinking.  You can be more than one thing at the same time.  The FRC is certainly entitled to free speech and they are a hate group.

Comment by Reason Being on August 18, 2012 at 8:33am

Jay---I am not saying that we should censor them.  I am saying that based on the speech and policies they advocate, we have the right to call them a hate group.  Their sole purpose for existence is to discriminate against one group of people.

That is not the same as my views towards religion.  Religions can exist all they want, believe whatever they want, but cannot force those views on my government or I will speak up against that.  I do not call them hate groups.  I do not call the FRC a hate group because it is religious, but rather because of what they say.  They could be secular and I would still label them a hate group.

Comment by jay H on August 18, 2012 at 8:27am

I see a parallel between the FRC idiots who are blaming the SPLC and the idiots who blamed the shooting of Rep Giffords on the 'target marks' on a Republican website. I guess people are sometimes more alike than they realize.

Years ago I used to support SPLC but I tired of them (a few years ago). They DO overuse the 'hate' moniker, and seem obsessed with peoples' speech and opinions. There seemed to be almost nothing ok with them that wasn't completely bland and edgeless. Even the stuff you quoted in your article, while hostile, does not qualify as a 'hate group' (any more than we should be considered a 'hate group' for our opinions, no matter how hostile, of religion). No where in those quotes did FRC advocate violence or criminal activity. FRC can say nasty things about Muslims, gays, atheists... that's free speech damnit. And free speech is a hell of a lot more important than correct speech.

The fact that they have a history of (mis) using lawsuits, I suspect that they would willingly twist the law for censorship if they could get away with it.

Comment by jeff.lowder on August 18, 2012 at 12:01am

I posted a blog entry about this myself and then shortly thereafter discovered your post.