The Point: Who’s the Hate Group?

I spent last week with a hate group. How ‘bout you? For the Colson Center, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

Last week, ABC and NBC copied and pasted a label from the Southern Poverty Law Center and ran it as a headline on their website. “Jeff Sessions Addresses anti-LGBT Hate Group.” The group they were referring to wasn’t the Klan or doesn’t have any history of violence.  It was the Alliance Defending Freedom, a premier legal organization defending religious liberty. In fact, ADF just won their seventh case in seven years at the Supreme Court!

Look, it doesn’t surprise me at all that the SPLC, a group that has far strayed from its roots, adopted a wholesale liberal agenda, and incited violence against conservative organizations, would call ADF “a hate group.” That just demonstrates how much of an extremist organization they really are.

But for the major media outlets like ABC and NBC to use that terminology for a respected legal organization, even if they did put the words in scare quotes, is simply slander. And they should apologize.

Resources

ABC Citing “Hate Group” Label as Fact is Not Only False, But Irresponsible
  • Sarah Kramer | Alliance Defending Freedom | July 14, 2017

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Phoenix1977

    “And they should apologize.”
    And why exactly should they apologize? ABC and NBC, just like all other media, can simply say it’s their policy to adopt the designations given by the SPLC. And that would be the end of it.
    If you read the different statements and opinions on the ADF website it’s not strange to see why the SPLC calls the ADF a hate group. For example, the statements after the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges don’t read as a professional point of view from a lawyer but more like an open declaration of war against the LGBT community. Read for yourself: https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/supreme-court–americans-cannot-affirm-marriage-as-one-man–one-woman

  • Steve

    “The Supreme Court has stripped all Americans of our freedom to debate and decide marriage policy through the democratic process,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, director of the ADF Center for Marriage and Family. “The freedom to democratically address the most pressing social issues of the day is the heart of liberty. The court took that freedom from the people and overrode the considered judgment of tens of millions of Americans who recently reaffirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The court cast aside the understanding of marriage’s nature and purpose that diverse cultures and faiths across the globe have embraced for millennia.”

    “Americans who understand the good of marriage still have great opportunities to communicate and model how the unique union of one man and one woman benefits society,” Campbell explained. “Although the ongoing debate about marriage now enters a new phase, it is far from over. ADF will continue to advocate the truth about marriage and redouble its efforts to ensure that those who believe in the long-recognized definition of marriage will be free to hold, express, and live out their beliefs.”
    These are the two quotes from the ADF lawyer from Phoenix’s link below. Tell me how this is a “declaration of war against the LGBT community”. Being against gay marriage is not being against LGBT people. People wish to play the victim and try to equate those two things.
    How is “freedom to democratically address the most pressing social issues of the day”, “understanding of marriage’s nature and purpose that diverse cultures and faiths across the globe have embraced for millennia”, “opportunities to communicate and model how the unique union of one man and one woman benefits society” and “advocate the truth about marriage..be free to hold, express and live out their beliefs” a declaration of war? These comments sound more like someone advocating for what they believe to be true. Just because they disagree with you Phoenix does not mean they are a hate group anymore than your disagreeing with me makes your speech hate speech. I respect your right to disagree and as soon as we silence each other’s right to express their opinion we will be going down a dark path.
    Each side in this debate is passionate and unwavering. Neither side should suppress the other’s right to speak by defining the speech as hate. The next thing you know people will be jailed for their speech. And you never know when your speech could be that which is considered wrong.
    Solzhenitsyn wrote about how initially the political opponents to Lenin and Stalin were jailed and killed. Eventually it was Communist Party members on the outs within the Communist Party. Those people thought they were “safe” but no one was under the totalitarianism of repression of speech.

    • Phoenix1977

      Take a look at the second quote carefully. Campbell basically says he will never allow LGBTs to have their equal rights.

      • Steve

        No, it says that those who believe in the long-recognized definition of marriage will be free to hold, express, and live out their beliefs.

        It does not say that LGBT’s will not have equal rights.

        You are extrapolating that your rights will somehow be affected by that. You are playing the victim.

        What exactly do you want? Equal rights or everyone to say they accept everything that you stand for or do?

        You may be able to legislate certain things but you cannot legislate belief.

        Again, I need you to answer the questions:

        1. Should more than two people be able to marry?

        2. Should a person be able to marry a minor?

        3. Should a person be able to marry an animal or an object?

        These are things that some people believe should be part of marriage.

        What is your definition of marriage?

        If you have one then you are probably excluding someone or something from it.
        Because to define, you:

        state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of:

        give the meaning of · put into words

        make up or establish the character of:

        mark out the boundary or limits of:

        If you don’t have a definition of marriage then it doesn’t have any nature, scope or meaning.
        So what is it? Define it and exclude some or make it meaningless by not defining it.

        • Phoenix1977

          Actually, ADF, together with other organisations like FRC and NOM, battled hard (and lost) to keep anti-sodomy laws alive before the Supreme Court ruled against those in Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003. So it stands to reason, should the ADF succeed in their goal to battle marriage equality, it will not stop there and it will try to push back LGBT rights. Like I said before, Christian freedom and LGBT rights are almost mutually exclusive. They cannot exist next to each other because the one automatically means the limitation of the other.

          “What exactly do you want? Equal rights or everyone to say they accept everything that you stand for or do?”
          I want people to obey the law, the whole law and nothing but the law or be punished if they don’t.

          “Again, I need you to answer the questions:
          1. Should more than two people be able to marry?
          2. Should a person be able to marry a minor?
          3. Should a person be able to marry an animal or an object?”
          1. Yes, if they are consenting adults they can marry an entire village for all I care. They don’t hurt me, you or anyone else by doing so.
          2. No, minors cannot consent and therefor cannot get married.
          3. Animals or objects cannot consent and therefor … you catch my drift.
          It all comes down to consent, nothing more.

          “What is your definition of marriage?”
          I don’t have nor need one. The law has a definition for marriage. That’s good enough for me.

          “If you don’t have a definition of marriage then it doesn’t have any nature, scope or meaning. ”
          No law or legal contract (and that’s what a marriage is) has a nature, and it’s scope and meaning are what we want it to be.

          • Steve

            In a society there is often limitation of rights. It is not my right to just come into your home without your permission even though I have the right to move about as I wish. Similarly, it would not be the right of a Christian baker to refuse to sell a gay customer a cake. The difference here is that the gay customer is trying to force someone to be involved in a ceremony that they fundamentally disagree with. I hope you can see how that is not the same.
            You seem to put a lot of faith in the “law.” Yes, in a society we need to obey the laws. However, the laws are not imposed from outside, they are made by we the people. Organizations like ADF and ACLU play a crucial role on opposite sides of the spectrum to argue for their differing positions. Without that dialogue there is no freedom.
            You still seem to want to force people to agree with your lifestyle. Many don’t and that will not change.
            Who’s to say that LGBT rights are more or less important than Christians’ rights.
            You are falling victim to the increasing need for people to place people into groups. Parceling up into groups with antagonism between groups is how the totalitarian governments of the 20th century were able to pursue their goals–and that turned out to be murderous. I think we need to focus more on the individual. Not every LGBT person is the same nor are all Christians.

          • Steve

            So, marriage is a union of some sort between or among as many consenting people as they desire? If they have children with one of the male partners inseminating one of the female partners do those two parents have more parental rights or duties for that child? What does the child learn about his/her parents? What if there is divorce within the marital group? What happens to the children? Do they stay with the remaining “partners” or do they go with one of their biological “parents”?
            Society has already significantly suffered with the degradation of the family. Numerous studies have shown this. How will further degradation of the family such as in that above example help?
            Don’t we have a responsibility to the children of such polyamorous unions?You see, Phoenix, when you make it all about your rights and neglect to think about responsibilities, other peoples’ lives are affected.
            You are essentially saying that anyone can do whatever they want so long as they consent…except for Christians. They must follow what everyone else wants.
            What about Muslims? They are not in favor of gay marriage either. I don’t seem to remember the SJWs going after them. Why not?

          • Phoenix1977

            “Society has already significantly suffered with the degradation of the family. Numerous studies have shown this. How will further degradation of the family such”
            Those studies are not considered trustworthy because of the potential bias they include. All hose studies have been done by, paid for by or are published by conservative groups. And they have an interest in the issue so we’ll never know if there are other studies showing the opposite outcome.

            “How will further degradation of the family such as in that above example help?”
            Like I said in the other comment, you can’t be sure that will happen. And even if it could happen, that’s no reason in impair people’s rights. If marriage is all about children every couples not having kids should be considered not married. And every marriage should be disbanded as soon as the wife reaches menopauze sonce she won’t be able to have kids anymore after that whil the husband still can conceive children with a younger woman.

            “What about Muslims? They are not in favor of gay marriage either. I don’t seem to remember the SJWs going after them. Why not?”
            Really? You defend your “right” to discriminate with the fact Muslims aren’t equally targeted?
            Fine, some thing to consider:
            1. The chances of finding a Muslim baker are far smaller in the US than finding a Christian one.
            2. Perhaps the Muslim bakers simply accept the business and don’t care about what the cake is used for? Perhaps they are more interested in simply doing their job and earning an income?
            3. We don’t have to go after Muslims. Any ruling in Christian cases automatically apply to Muslims as well. 2 birds, 1 stone. Acutally, quite a few more birds since same goes for Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism, etc.

          • Steve

            So when multiple studies show what you don’t agree with you claim bias? Not too intellectually honest!
            You don’t think there is a correlation to the plight of African Americans in America when 75% of them are born to single parent homes? Don’t stick your head in the sand and ignore the evidence that you don’t like or does not support your agenda.
            And no, marriage isn’t just about children, but children are innocent offspring of most heterosexual marriages (not all, of course.) We have a duty as society to provide for the next generation. It is not all about us, it is about them too. We are responsible for them.
            With regards to the Muslim question. I am not defending a right to discriminate but the right to practice religion. You are the one who wishes to discriminate against Christians. Why not any other religion? By choosing a particular religion to target, you are discriminating or choosing whom to go after. And no, I am not defending anything by raising the fact that Muslims aren’t targeted (interesting that you admit there is targeting of Christians by the way). I just find it curious that the LGBT activists choose to target those people who are least likely to react violently against them. I am waiting, but not holding my breath, for the LGBT activists to march in Riyad, Saudi Arabia. You think it is bad in America? Think again.
            Again, to you it seems to be all about your “rights” and less about your responsibility. You want to change the definition of marriage and partake in it but have none of the responsibility of begetting the next generation. Multiple studies and the entirety of human history have shown that it takes one man and one woman to conceive a child. I guess you won’t like that one either because it is biased.

  • Steve

    Regardless of what you think the source of the problems of Moroccans is, in this country it has been shown that children of any race raised by a single mom have a much greater chance of encountering myriad problems and less likelihood of moving ahead economically when an adult. They are more likely to end in poverty. I raised the example of the African-American community because their rate of single parenthood is so high.
    It sounds from your comments about children that you do have good insight into yourself with regards to not wanting to raise children. I do question, however, your claim that society does not have a responsibility to the next generation. A vibrant and virtuous younger generation may be quite necessary for you to enjoy your later years. For instance, the maintenance of a thriving economy in your country would keep benefits for the elderly sustainable. Also, people raised well are less likely to commit crimes against seniors. Although I do understand that you seem to be a libertarian to a certain extent, your extreme individualism when it suits you and your insistence that your rights are paramount is some what narcissistic.

    • Phoenix1977

      “Regardless of what you think the source of the problems of Moroccans is, in this country it has been shown that children of any race raised by a single mom have a much greater chance of encountering myriad problems and less likelihood of moving ahead economically when an adult.”
      And of course the United States is so unique in the world that the same problems you encounter MUST have a different cause than elsewhere in the world. God forbid the US is exactly the same as other countries.
      It’s not what I think is the source of the problems. It is what science thinks. And although scientific research did find a link between growing up in a single parents household and a “failure-to-thrive” (a term normally used in pediatrics when an infant lacks physical or emotional growth) it was considered a causal link but more likely a proxy for a different problem, especially since the same problem was found in ethnic groups virtually without single parents households. When digging deeper they found it was a lack of opportunity and future which was showing sings of causality. You will find this in most single parent households as well, for example because of the lack of sufficient finances to advance in the world, but it’s not the lack of a second parent that will cause the problems.

      “I do question, however, your claim that society does not have a responsibility to the next generation. A vibrant and virtuous younger generation may be quite necessary for you to enjoy your later years. For instance, the maintenance of a thriving economy in your country would keep benefits for the elderly sustainable. Also, people raised well are less likely to commit crimes against seniors.”
      And yet society has no responsibility in this. The decision to want (or not want) to have / raise children is purely the responsibility of individuals (or couples, in most cases) and it also makes it purely their responsibility, privilege and obligation. If society would have a responsibility here that would mean society would also have to take that responsibility to the fullest, for example by issuing the need of a parenting license after completion of a mandatory course with a test, like a driver’s test, before people are allowed to have children. Which I actually think is a great idea, looking at the disasters in parenting we see nowadays.

      “your extreme individualism when it suits you and your insistence that your rights are paramount is some what narcissistic.”
      I’m a doctor. A little streak of narcissism comes with the job.