Who is the Hate Group?

SPLC graphic

Some leftwing activists say I run a hate group. They imply we are no better than the KKK or skin-head groups that want to blow up buildings and kill minorities. They want all Americans to be frightened of us. We should be kept off television and radio and stigmatized in all that we do and say. This is according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. No kidding. My organization is an officially recognized “hate group” just like the Aryan Nation. It just happened. You can look it up.

The Southern Poverty Law Center was established in the 1970s to provide legal assistance to minorities who had been discriminated against by governmental bodies or others. And the case can be made that they did some good work. I guess.

Over the years, because of the exigencies of raising money, they began keeping a list of what they called hate groups, those groups that could endanger blacks, Asians and other minorities. Indeed, some of these groups are real and do call for violence, though it is unclear they actually carry out much of their heated rhetoric. The resultant “hate list” has been a financial bonanza for the Southern Poverty Law Center. It has garnered them hundreds of millions of dollars and a coveted spot as a thoroughly credible source for the mainstream media. What’s more, SPLC has become an important consultant to national and local law enforcement in the identification and targeting of these hate groups. The faces of SPLC founder Morris Dees or his lieutenant Mark Potok have been on hundreds if not thousands of television programs scaring good liberals into parting with their cash.

There must have been a downtick in direct mail because a few years ago Dees and Potok decided they needed a new set of bogeymen. Indeed, they have been charged with exaggerating the number of skin head hate groups. J.M. Berger, writing in Foreign Policy, not a conservative journal, has said if a hate group has five members in one state but are in different cities, the five are counted as separate hate groups. Such shenanigans keep the dollars flowing. This non-profit charity has $250 million in the bank and raises upwards of $40 million each year in direct mail. Indeed, Dees has been honored by a national association of direct mail marketers for his prowess in scaring frightened liberal dollars into his already bulging pockets.

So, when it appeared that the skin-head con was drying up, Dees and Potok cooked up some new hate groups, Christian groups that are critical of the LGBT movement. I hesitate even to use the phrase “LGBT movement” because such phrases can land you on the hate list, though since my group is already on the list, I guess that’s ok. You see, one of the ways to land on the list is to use the phrase “homosexual agenda.” I am not sure what part of that is hateful. After all, there is a gay show on left wing radio called “The Agenda.” There was a highly influential book published in 1989 called “After the Ball” that lays out an agenda for gays which has been very successful. So, it’s a puzzler why “homosexual agenda” is a hate concept.

The other criteria are also puzzling. From the list below, you could rightly assume the Catholic Church would be on the list but Dees and Potok probably know better than that. Espouse any of these “myths” and yours is a hate group.

1. Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

2. Same-sex parenting harms children.

3. People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

4. LGBT people don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

5. Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.

6. Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.

7. Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.

8. Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.

9. No one is born gay.

10. Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.

You do not have to espouse all of these. For instance, you may be atheist or agnostic on Himmler and Goebbels being gay, as I suppose most people are. You only need to espouse a few of these “myths” that SPLC says has been roundly and soundly crushed by “science.” To claim otherwise, to persist in these assertions against the weight of the scientific establishment and SPLC, is prima facie evidence that yours is a dangerous hate group like the Nazi Party and the Aryan Nation.

First, note the rather cartoonish and highly polemical presentation of the arguments. Those academics—left-right-center—whose research shows that children raised in a home with their biological mother and father bound in a life-long marriage perform better in life than those from any other arrangement, would likely not say “same sex parenting harms children.” But, the sociological evidence—large, longitudinal and random—consistently demonstrates that the gold standard for children is being raised by their own mom and dad and that any other arrangement exposes the child to serious challenges in life, often amounting to harm. If you espouse this, yours is a hate group. You are deliberately telling lies in order to defame gays and lesbians.

Do you believe that gayness is not inborn? You are a hater, even though there are no credible studies that show gayness is in the genes. The Catholic Church teaches that the “psychological genesis of homosexuality is largely unknown.” The Church does not say the “genetic genesis” or any other kind of genesis. Granted the Church does not close the door on other origins but the Catechism mentions only “psychological.” Is the Church a hate group? The Church espouses a myth that “science” and the SPLC have debunked.

Have hate crime laws landed preachers in trouble with the law? Look up the Ake Green case, a Swedish preacher prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality. He was convicted under the hate speech laws of Sweden.  He was prosecuted and his prosecution is a warning to all others who may be so motivated to preach Leviticus or St. Paul on homosexuality. Indeed, you and SPLC, should go right now to YouTube and search for “preachers arrested for preaching homosexuality” and you will find dozens of examples where street preachers are preaching on homosexuality and get either hassled by the cops or arrested. How could plain truths be considered hate crimes simply for uttering them?

If you are a person who has experienced unwanted same sex attraction and you have sought counseling and have left the gay way of life and understand yourself to have left homosexuality, you are a hater. Researchers in support of gay rights have concluded that homosexuality is remarkably plastic. The level of homosexual attraction can waft and wane throughout someone’s life, particularly among lesbians. Indeed, this was the conclusion of an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Windsor Case by Dr. Paul McHugh, former long time chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. In that brief he cited a few dozen liberal academics who make that claim. Yet, if you make this claim, you are no better than the KKK or the Aryan Nation.

It’s not like SPLC has not come in for criticism prior to the naming of Christian groups. Harper’s Magazine did a long take out on SPLC and concluded they are little more than hustlers. A new critical analysis by Professor George Yancey of North Texas University concludes that SPLC applies their hate criteria only for groups they disagree with politically yet leave alone liberal groups that use the same kind of “hate speech” that they level at Christian groups. Many other studies also go after SPLC for their methodology, their bias, and their fundraising.

Famously, SPLC placed the Family Research Council on the hate list a few years ago. It resulted in a gunman invading FRC’s lobby—where my wife works—shooting the security guard who subdued the shooter nonetheless. The shooter had a bag of Chick Fil A sandwiches he intended to stuff into the mouths of his murdered victims. How did he choose FRC to invade? From the hate-list provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The gunman became the first person convicted under Washington DC’s domestic terrorism law.

So, what are the crimes of my group? How did we land of the hate-list class of 2014? I wrote to them and asked for their dossier. They sent me a single report on a legal fight going on in Belize where we have been advising Christian groups who want to maintain their laws against sodomy. Powerful international groups have come to Belize, including the International Commission of Jurists, who are insisting that Belize has obligations under existing treaty law to strike down their anti-sodomy laws. SPLC says we support the existing law against sodomy. This is flatly not true and they have offered no proof that we support the existing law. In fact, my group does not take a position on sodomy laws and we never have. What were we doing there? We were helping them understand what international human rights law actually says on sexual orientation and gender identity. SPLC doesn’t even understand the issues yet they have concluded from their lack of understanding that we are a hate group.

In the report they also make other utterly false claims. They say we have “lauded” a man named Scott Lively, an American who has been active in Africa on the LGBT issue. He is being prosecuted under international hate crimes laws for allegedly convincing the Nigerian and Ugandan governments to outlaw homosexual behavior. SPLC has offered not a single bit of proof we have “lauded” Scott Lively.

They also claim that we “decried” a UN study on violence against homosexuals and we have lamented protections of gays against “summary execution and extra-judicial killing.” Both claims are utterly false. What we have done is explain why UN delegates, including the Holy See, have been resistant to such proposals and that has to do with the introduction of “sexual orientation and gender identity” into UN documents, because the introduction of this term in any context, however laudable, introduces a new concept that would be used to advance other issues including gay marriage.

Again, SPLC either does not understand the UN debate or they are being less than honest. It could also be laziness, simply not doing their homework. SPLC insists they repeatedly emailed my office for comment prior to the Belize report being issued. We have no record of these emails and none of my staff received them and so far SPLC has not been able to show any to us though they said they would.

SPLC is writing a further report on us. They have assured me they will let me respond before they publish. This was weeks ago. I have repeatedly emailed them asking for their questions and can show you the emails but I have yet to hear from them.

So why do we care? In certain leftist circles, like the media, they still have credibility. The hate group label will stay with my group for as long as we live. Whenever we appear in the Huffington Post, I know—who cares about the Huffington Post—it will be reported that we are on the SPLC hate list. It is a black mark, a stigma that is meant to permanently isolate the group, set them apart from polite society, always make them respond defensively about why they are not a hate group.

What will we do? We will continue to do our work advising governments on questions of international law, continue advising the UN on genuine human rights. I have turned the SPLC dossier over to a few left wing journalists who know me and my group. Any objective reading of the report can only conclude we are far from a hate group and the SPLC criteria for hate group status is so thoroughly biased and unevenly applied as to be useless.

SPLC was on pretty safe ground when they went after the Aryan Nation. Going after Christian groups, I suspect they have bitten off even more than their $250 million bank account can chew, not that we intend on challenging them legally. Groups like mine and others on the hate list have reservoirs of good will among law makers, journalists, religious leaders and many others. We are not like the Aryan Nation in any way, especially in that we have hundreds of thousands of defenders, even on the left.

And the really good news is that it was discovered on Tuesday of this week that the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to have severed ties with SPLC and no longer links to the SPLC website and hate map.  They had been close partners with the FBI for years and as they have come after Christian groups, concerns had been raised about civil liberty issues in that a leftist political group was targeting its political enemies with the FBI.

Lieutenant General William Boykin (Ret.), along with 14 other conservative and Christian leaders, send a letter to the head of the Justice Department and the Director of the FBI demanding that the relationship end. It appears the FBI listened.

The credibility of SPLC hangs by a thread. Snip. Snip. Snip.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • Steven Jonathan

    The SPLC is a hate group!

    The world is perfectly poised at the moment to be directed by calculated pathos undergirded by subservient reason and unhindered by ethics. Those people at the SPLC would be ashamed of themselves if our psychologists hadn’t convinced them that shame and guilt are white patriarchal constructs meant to control the oppressed.
    It is a stroke of genius to lump good souls in with truly hateful groups, who could have thought of such an effective and devious plan? If one is a loving Christian and striving to imitate Christ, then to end up on the hate list of such morally and intellectually bankrupt ilk as the SPLC then that is a badge of honor in heaven.

  • Vinnie

    “Poverty” certainly suits the group. Poverty in prudence and judgement.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    I see nothing but hate from the SPLC. I don’t think they’ve ever done any good at all.

  • Don

    You need only turn on MSNBC and listen for a few hours and you will hear pretty much nothing but hate directed at people who hold opinions contrary to the Left.

    • uncle max

      Listen for a few HOURS? Shirley you jest.

      My max is 47.8 seconds.

      • Shaggy McRuff

        I’m sorry– who is Shirley?

        • uncle max

          The reference is to a movie 30 years ago called ‘Airplane’ which was quite hilarious and throughout the movie when one character used the word ‘surely’ the other character would say “Don’t call me Shirley.”

          Thanks for asking.

  • LarryCicero

    “And their senseless minds were darkened”- makes me wonder if they are more prone to mental illness or if it is mental illness. (Sorry if you are offended.)

  • Art Deco

    The SPLC was exposed a dozen years ago (in Harper’ !) as a skeezy direct mail mill. That reporters or government officials would use this money racket as an authoritative source is indicative of pig ignorance or malice in those loci.

  • FrankW

    The SPLC’s approach can be summed up as: “If you disagree with our stance, you are a hater, a bigot, a (fill in the blank)”. In other words, let’s demonize our opponents for the purpose of shutting off debate on this issue because we know our position can’t stand the light of reason.

    The most irritating part about this is that an adult would expect a more substantive argument from other adults. Instead what we see from SPLC and others is the childish approach many parents have seen from their five year old children. If you tell them they can’t eat gummy bears for supper, and have to each their vegetables instead, they throw a tantrum, and claim that you hate them. The approach of the SPLC displays no greater level of thought and maturity than that of the five year old.

    • uncle max

      Your first paragraph pretty much sums up the modus operandi for all groups of their ilk – vilify your opponents by accusing them of doing precisely what YOU are doing.

  • robert chacon

    Interesting. I noticed your group was also listed as one of the groups being “watched” by “People for the American Way” on their “Right Wing Watch” website. You must be doing something right!

  • mitch64

    I wouldn’t say a “hate group.” First you have to have some power to be a hate group, able to make some change, and your really just preaching to the choir (few though they may be.) While you do give off your basic unsubstantiated opinions, (the list above) that doesn’t make you a hate group, just closed minded and ignorant. Once again, the only people who believe you are people who already believe your narrative. Its funny though, the Southern Poverty Law Center is the same way, preaching to the choir while the general population doesn’t even realize they exist, just like your group.

    • Art Deco

      Mitch, those of us who’ve been for some time contending with specimens of the gay lobby in fora like this find it most amusing the notion that they are knowledgeable about anything other than kinky sexual practices or given much to equable discourse or the empirical study of social phenomena.

      Still, if it makes you feel better to bandy about phrases like ‘close-minded and ignorant’, be my guest. You want to sound like an ambulatory cliche, who am I to judge?

      • mitch64

        And you keep posting on these “foras,” with the first line of attack of calling anyone who disagrees a “lobby,” and bring up “kinky sexual practices.” (I’m thinkin’… that you’re thinkin’…. way too much about that) Please do keep that up as your helping that “lobby,” each time you post something like that. Young people are turned off and people who love a gay friend or relative laugh you off and don’t listen. Like I said, the same people agreeing with each other and no new converts. And where are these empirical studies you speak of???

        • Guest

          The truth will only be received to the degree one is open to receiving the truth. If one is immersed in hedonism, relativism, and shallow thinking one has no interest in truth.

          One only wants to fulfill their every wish and if they are called on their vice then they yell “hate” and “close-minded”. That is typical of the immoral left. They judge by false standards and seek majority opinion regardless of the truth of the matter. IOW, they want what they want. Period.

          • mitch64

            And isn’t that what the far right trying to do now.. use the far left’s victim mode to try to meet their ends…( “the only group that it is okay to hate in our culture..”etc.) Only its too little, too late, and too obvious, so its unsuccessful. Pitifully unsuccessful. So, don’t bash the far left for being successful at something you are trying to (badly) imitate.

            • Guest

              No, not at all. Catholics want to preach the Truth. They are not small-minded politicians that view reality through a political lens.

              It is the secular and relativistic folks who demand all bow to their new ideology of evil. It is they who want all to affirm their every choice as “freedom” even as they force tyranny on society.

              They mis-define words and mis-define truth to attempt to establish a type of dictatorship that not only silences opposition but would invert culture.

              Catholics do not look to popular opinion as their standard.

        • Guest

          I’m a Millennial (new revert), and I’m not turned off by it at all. It’s the truth. Thank God His Church continues to maintain reason and truth. The SPLC, along with the ACLU, are the biggest hate groups in America today. Keep up the good work, Mr. Ruse.

    • CptTrll

      I am sure Austin thinks the SPLC should be taken out and shot, too.

      • mitch64

        Well it would be the only damage he could do to anyone…nothing else he does seems to be working.

        • FW Ken

          He must be having some effect, to garner attention from the SPLC and People for the American Way.

          • mitch64

            Are you kidding, to borrow a phrase about third rate celebs, they would attend the opening of a grocery store to get attention.

            • FW Ken

              Well that made no sense whatsoever.

  • Glenn M. Ricketts

    I think it’s been this way for a long time, at least since the moment in the French Revolution when the Jacobins denounced anyone who disagreed with them as “enemies of the people.” More recent, very familiar renditions include being branded a “racist” of one doesn’t support race-based set asides, a “sexist” if you think that there isn’t a “war on women,” or a “warmonger” if, during the ’80s, you balked at unilateral disarmament.
    While I’ve come to expect such commentary from our left-wing brethren, it’s the gullible and credulous liberal who gives them legitimacy by doing reflexive backwards summersaults in response.

    • Art Deco

      The reflexive backwards somersaults was what was done thirty-five years ago. There was at that time a distinction between the Democratic legislative caucuses and conventional opinion journalism on the one hand and gauche sectaries on the other. What impresses you about our own time is the degree to which the distinction between the soft left and the hard left has evaporated. The empiricism of someone like Harold Pollack or Glenn Loury renders them fairly civilized voices, but that’s the primary qualification. It is inconceivable that someone as pathological as Amanda Marcotte would have had an outlet anywhere 30 years ago except in some radFem magazine with 500 subscribers.

      George McGovern is dead and Nat Hentoff is real old and we are all the poorer for it.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        Thanks, Art Deco, I think that’s certainly accurate, although I’d probably still classify the mainstream media and academy as “liberal” – mutatis, mutandis – with the radicals now holding endowed chairs and senior administrative posts. I think this quote from a now-obscure book from 1971 by political scientist Theodore Lowi sums it up:

        “Liberals in the university have no problem handling demands that originate from their right. This helps explain why outside threats are no longer so menacing. Conservative forces inside academia are also dealt with firmly. If a delegation of students were to call on a social science department chairman to demand a better presentation of Christianity, they would be sent away with a firm lecture on the evils of interfering with who teaches what. This is not to say that every conservative demand is rejected outright. Conservatives are dealt with rationally, and with restraint.

        Demands that issue from the left, however, are an entirely different matter. The liberal, after years of identifying with the left, quite frankly cannot distinguish a good demand from a bad one. He is ready to abandon organized knowledge itself if that seems to be the only manner of proving that no one can outlib him, for the voices of the left remove his bearings. The liberal in academia faces right with forthrightness and honesty. He faces left with hypocrisy.”

        It was a little paperback, “The Politics of Disorder,” which Lowi wrote in the aftermath of student disruptions at the University of Chicago, where he taught at the time. It succinctly describes why things went wrong at then, and stands up well 43 years later.

        • Art Deco

          Except that the student left is a collection of identity groups and (in contradistinction with what was the case 40 years ago) an extension of certain components of the student affairs apparat and the provost’s office. They actually put the left on salary with titles like “LGBTQ co-ordinator” or “dean of diversity”. Student agitation is largely bogus.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Right. As I noted, the senior administrators and endowed professorships are often held by the radicals of yore. Student identity groups often can latch on to the various “studies” programs – women’s, gay, etc. – which are bases of activism. There are a few conservative activists, but they actually get much rougher handling than did their counterparts of 40 years ago. Witness, for example, the incident last week at UC Santa Barbara, in which pro-life students were assaulted by a feminist faculty member.

            • Art Deco

              The people you are referring to are passing into retirement and bar a few stragglers will be out to grass in six or seven years.

              You recall my contemporaries (1958 to 1970 cohorts) tended as undergraduates to be Republicans. If anything, college administration is today more antagonistic to red America than it was thirty years ago. The intake pipe only drew from those of my contemporaries who had an adversarial disposition toward the vernacular culture. Those contemporaries were quite atypical back in the day and sometimes figures of fun.

              The faculty member who attacked that student is a manifest patronage hire (look at her publication record). However much they ooh and ahh about the emperor’s clothes, the faculty who know her are either patronage hires themselves or know perfectly well she’s incompetent by ordinary performance standards. These people have the run of the place at Trinity College of Duke University. At the liberal arts faculty I know best, the patronage hires are seldom people with manifest personality problems and they have to meet certain performance standards or they get shuffled out.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                But I’m also struck by how far left even mainstream hires are these days – they all repeat the same race/gender /class mantra and actually regard Howard Zinn as a serious historian. And I’m referring to new Ph. Ds just out of school. The senior radicals may be retiring, but there is a new cohort coming up who actually seem unable to distinguish between Harvey Mansfield, Jr. and Rush Limbaugh. At least the older guys had actually been exposed to alternate views to some extent, although they are largely responsible for purging them from the academy. The newer ones can’t imagine that anyone ever thought such things.

                • Art Deco

                  People as disparate as KC Johnson and Clayton Cramer have been making the case that the study and teaching of American history is badly corrupted. The state of the culture is such that I recently say Dr. Johnson referred to as a ‘right-wing whack job.” on a blog devoted mostly to Harvard inside baseball. The real KC Johnson is a mainline Democrat (and confirmed bachelor) who endorses some of the Democratic Party’s burlesque causes and made his bones as a historian of the Great Society. He is also, however, a conventional political historian, and cannot see how the study of history benefits from refusal to hire and retain conventional political historians or military historians.

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    Which is probably why he was almost run out of Brooklyn College, I’d say.

                    • Art Deco

                      What got you was Brooklyn College faculty who were complaining that hiring standards would be compromised after superordinate figures intervened at CUNY to see to it he was granted tenure (after serious procedural violations by his enemies on the faculty). Johnson has been a prolific scholar and that’s not the norm at Brooklyn College; one of his most vociferous critics on the faculty had been hired in 1974 and published nothing in the intervening years.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      I’d say it was a witches’ brew of envy and ideology – exactly which one to weigh more I’m not sure.

                • Art Deco

                  Have a look at the bibliographies in Zinn’s books. It will not take long. He did not make use of proper footnotes or endnotes. At the end of every volume is a ‘bibliographic essay’ where he tells you what he’s been reading lately.

                  Over the period running from 1952 until his death, the man actually composed about three (or four?) original works of history requiring the use of primary or quasi-primary sources. One of these was his dissertation (turned into a university press book) and the other two were minor labor histories (one of which was written with collaborators). His dissertation was a biography of Fiorello LaGuardia. I’ve known historians whose skill sets were an order of magnitude greater than Howard Zinn’s who got run out of academia. Zinn had no manifest foreign language skills and the salient archives he used were within commuting distance and would not have used scripts or idioms foreign to him. Everything else the man wrote was like an extended version of an essay or article for The Nation or The New York Review of Books.

                  The thing is, the man was a Communist Party hack who took on the protective coloration of the old American Labor Party and was actually employed on the ALP staff. That he was employed from 1958 to 199? at an aspirant research university is testament to George Will’s thesis that academe was ruined by the soft academic job market of the three decades after the war and a counter-example to the notion that Commies were unwelcome in academe.

                  • Art Deco

                    I’m sorry, I was not being concise there. A while back I saw a column by Paul Krugman dismissing John Kenneth Galbraith as a hack. You wade through Galbraith’s published work over a period of more than five decades and you realize he was essentially a magazine journalist and op-ed writer. It’s difficult in the MEGO list of citations to find any scholarly contributions of any kind.

                    Krugman could admit this. Any newly-minted academic historian worth his salt should be able to see that Howard Zinn was on his best day a minor rank-and-file historian and mostly an opinion journalist. The employment situation in academe being what it is, in a non-distorted market a Howard Zinn of our age should have a very difficult time landing a position in any tertiary institution. That you’re interviewing people who think he’s the bee’s knee’s says something very bad about standards in the departments where they were trained.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Yes very, very bad. And worse still, since many students now get their history lessons from Zinn at the high school level, since their teachers have been sold on him through their ed school experience. My own high school teachers, by contrast and far back in the day, warned us to beware of DAR-style history, since the real story was always more complicated. But incoming students are untroubled by complexity – they simply know that American history is one long catalog of horrors, genocide, exploitation, oppression and tyranny. It’s a very interesting challenge to try and teach them something different.

                  • Hugh Lunn

                    I often witnessed performance artist Zinn as he agitated for a Faculty Union at BU, during the height of the John Silber-Howard Zinn War. Zinn was often the entertainment as I traveeled the Comm Ave trolley line as a BC undergrad in the early eighties. I never imagined decades later that this Comintern reject would be lauded as a prized American “historian”!

  • cestusdei

    The only group in our culture that it is okay to hate are the orthodox Christians, especially Catholics.

  • SMC_BC

    WARNING! Don’t come to Canada because the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Saskatchewan vs Whatcott case where Bill Whatcott preached against homosexual acts, ruled that the TRUTH IS NO DEFENCE! You can read an overview by columnist Brian Lilley here: http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/contributor-columns/column-lilley-truth-is-no-defence/

    • Art Deco

      The insult added to these injuries is that the Big Consciences (e.g. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) pays this sort of judicial harrassment no mind at all.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      “The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred,”

      This is not new law, but is borrowed from the law of leasing-making and sedition, where the only question is whether the speech is likely to promote disaffection with government, or hatred between different classes of the lieges. Indeed, it was a common maxim in such cases that “the greater the truth, the greater the libel,” for true allegations were at least as likely to promote disaffection as false ones.

      In 1809, Leigh Hunt was convicted of seditious libel for calling the Prince Regent fat – “That this Exciter of Desire—this Adonis in loveliness, was a corpulent man of fifty!”

      • Art Deco

        [rolls eyes and drums fingers].

  • Alex_Linder

    Queers controlled the Nazi party? It would be closer to accurate to say queers control the catholic cult. The lie that top Nazis were queers was created by the communist jews who are blood and ideological jew-brethren of the ones at SPLC now denouncing you. You repeat Pink Swastika smears because you have no integrity. Or, rather, because you have catholic integrity.

    • Art Deco

      Sorry, Ernst Roehm was a homosexual. This was explicit and publicly known at the time. He was not a marginal figure. He was the chief of the SA and second only to Hitler himself. (Hitler’s domestic history was such that it is a reasonable inference that he was abnormal in that respect as well).

      Ruse’s reference is to a book by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively published in 1995 which has had SPLC’s knickers in a twist for some time. The thesis of the book is that a particular homosexual subtype was prevalent in the Nazi elite and that pederasty was integral to their worldview; they were also hostile to competing subtypes in the homosexual population and the abuse of homosexuals by the Nazi regime was a sort of gay-on-gay violence. Neither author is a professional historian and they tend to set up daisy-chains of association (this person belonged to this club which had this other member which belonged to this club &c). Sifting through and locating the useful portions of their work is likely something that could not be done in today’s academe, the culture being what it is.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        Yes, I’d say that the tendency was especially pronounced within the SA. Despite later claims that Hitler persecuted gays on the same level as he did Jews, his actual motives in purging Roehm and others in the SA derived from his fear of their extreme revolutionary orientation, which scared the mainstream of the German army. I can’t see where he had a problem with them otherwise.

        • Art Deco

          IIRC, the homosexuals sent to concentration camps numbered in the five digits. Ugly, but a couple of orders of magnitude less severe than the abuse of the Jews (or of the generic Polish population). SPLC and others have been hot and bothered about Abrams / Lively using the term ‘victim plunder’ to describe gay discourse about the early 20th c. history of continental Europe.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Right, but my question is whether this would have happened had the SA episode not loomed so prominently in Hitler’s mind.

      • Alex_Linder

        You anonymous tool, they took their “data” from lies created and circulated by the jew-communists the Nazis cashiered – and flushed to America. Even E. Michael Jones, who is intermittently honest, won’t use their “data.”

        • TheAbaum

    • Art Deco

      Don’t feed the troll! “Alex Linder” is a raving Jew hater. See his history.

    • Arriero

      Another pseudo-calvinist? Oh God, they’re endless. Thankfully this Pope very well knows who they are. «Roma traditoribus non praemiat».

      Truth is that Stalin was toughest with homosexuals than Hitler, who was a frustrated painter, phony WWI hero and resented soul. Old communism always deemed homosexuality as a very bad product of «the bourgeois society». That’s why homosexuality was banned and punished in the majority of communist regimes.

      You already share something with the communist jews. And maybe something too with the radical (irrational) islamists, who have always been radical (irrational) leftists, ergo bad-socialists, as was the Hitler’s nazional-socialist party. Thomas Muntzer, the protestant, was the first communist; and Luther, the protestant, was tough on jews, like you and like the anti-Catholic but fearful of bombing the Vatican Hitler.

  • Maggie Sullivan

    The SPLC that supports the crushing of children’s skulls and the stopping of babies hearts in the womb calling Mr. Ruse and his associates a hate group?

  • Alex_Linder

    Nazis put queers in work camps; catholics put them in charge of parishes.

  • Alex_Linder

    The catholic cult has never done a darn thing against homosexuals/pedophiles other than employ them and cover for them.

  • Kowalewski

    Someone that appears to be an authority stands in front of a class and lies over and over again about an issue for close to three hours. Using certain propaganda techniques, this individual makes the lie very appealing. As the three hour block comes to a close, most (if not all) begin to believe the lie.

    However, within the last 30 seconds, someone stands up; calls out the lie, reveals the truth about the issue……and there is something about the truth that will embed itself within the heart of everyone in the class. A few may accept it immediately, for others, they may hate the truth they heard, and they may hate you for revealing it, but a seed was planted…..and eventually it will take root.

    With this issue, our opponent appears very overwhelming, but to me, this is the glimmer of hope we have- we must tirelessly work to get our 30 seconds with the American people and make it count. Thank you Mr. Ruse for your courage in a very difficult fight.

  • Pingback: SPLC and ADL Gets the Boot from FBI - Page 2 - Shooting Sports Forum

  • Jack Shick
  • Giauz Ragnarock

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/03/19/could-austin-ruses-violent-rhetoric-endanger-c-fams-status-with-the-un/

    Defend yourself and the group you are a part of. There’s a lot more than lobbying for discriminatory anti-LGBT legislation that got peoples’ concern. Defend and correct yourself and your group.

  • fredx2

    The SPLC left the tracks a long time ago. It is a nut group now.

    • Art Deco

      No, a collection of mercenaries. You contribute to them if you would like to add to Mrs. Morris Dees’ bodacious collection of knick-knacks.

  • Mark N Starla Traina

    SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER “EXPOSED” as an ULTR-LEFT-WING-HATE-GROUP
    03-28-2014

    Examine the EVIDENCE in these three CLIPS!

    1)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-rVcl_XLdM

    2)
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/02/Emails-Expose-Southern-Policy-Law-Center-s-Collaboration-With-DOJ

    3)
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/who-is-the-hate-group

    naawp

    fatuous1

    (504) 231-3056

    MARK TRAINA

    FatuousCra@aol.com

    http://www.marktraina.webs.com

    CANNIDATE for LOUISIANA GOVERNOR 2016

    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of WHITE PEOPLE

  • http://www.vivificat.org/ Teófilo de Jesús

    I was followed one Twitter by a user called “I follow hate” because I openly supported – and continue to support – the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Its operator asked me “Why do you hate?” and his “proof” was the SPLC report listing NOM. I replied with “Why do you lie?” which stumped them, but for only a moment.

    They are a real hate group, plain and simple.

  • Shaggy McRuff

    Wonder what would happen if we just stopped talking about everything hateful, deviant, and perverse, and instead just did what we are told to do in Philipians 4:8. One could make an argument that anyone who attempts to divert our attention away from the things of P4:8 is doing the devil’s bidding.

  • hombre111

    Without reciprocal paranoia, how could our nation survive?

    • Art Deco

      You’re not making minimal sense.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      What exactly is paranoid, father? Responding to name-calling?

      • hombre111

        Each side thinks the other side is out to get them…and they may be right. But the right wing thrives much more on paranoia then the left. Maybe this is a weakness of the left, because the right plays hard ball with gusto.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          That’s very general, and eludes a response thereby. Which “right” and “left” are you referring to, Father? As far as I can see, there’s just about zero of anything that one could term “right wing” in the Hollywood or the academy. And with the exception of Fox News, the mainstream media are tediously left-liberal at very handsome compensation. Perhaps the “left” isn’t paranoid because they’re largely ascendant in these institutions? There is indeed a paranoid “right,” but it seems to reside in the mountains of Idaho.

        • Art Deco

          That’s a complete non sequitur. The SPLC is a worthless money racket; pointed that out is not ‘paranoid’. As for who thrives on what, this knucklehead is not an example of the ‘right’. And he has a tenured position at New York University to boot.

          http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Again-Real-Electoral-Reform/dp/B003IWYJC2/ref=la_B001IU4XLI_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396352696&sr=1-2

        • dove1

          Really! Wonder what planet you come from!

          • hombre111

            The planet where you explore a number of sites exploring different sides of the spectrum. Usually, liberals cannot manage to see the world in the same black and white as conservatives, and so they have less self-righteous energy. The blogs show this, over and over again. For instance, you will never find the venom over at Commonweal that you find at Crisis, both magazines claiming to offer an intellectual discussion of crucial issues.

            • dove1

              I meant on the right playing hardball….like the liberals…. See also the French Revolution. Seems to me that liberals are pretty much – our way or death to you! Hombre, your spectrum is a tad slanted, poor hombre. More of a prism, there buddy. Commonweal, like the demonic-rat party is a wide path…Palatable, and sweet tasting going down….enjoy the stroll while looking through the prism. God’s law of gravity is still in play so look down every now and again…lest the wide path lead you off a cliff. Gravity is pretty much black and white.

              • hombre111

                If you are fond of capitalism, thank a liberal. If you believe in democracy, thank a liberal. If you cherish your woman’s right to vote, thank a liberal. If you believe blacks should no longer be subjugated, you are thinking like a liberal. If you think in a world of opportunity for your daughter, you are thinking liberal thoughts. All these are liberal ideas. The conservatives of those days opposed them with all their might and main. Conservatives today where I live are racist to the core. Conservatives are suspicious of women who can chart their own future.

                • Art Deco

                  Inneresting.

                  You pick eight or nine political practices you fancy, slap a label on them. Then you slap a label on the contrary positions. Then you attribute category A to the contemporary Democratic Party and category B to the contemporary Republican Party (even though, for example, the corporate body known as the Republican Party was never an advocate of absolute monarchy; come to think of it, neither were the united empire loyalists).

                  • hombre111

                    I did not use the word Democrat or Republican. I was referring to the mindset of the liberal, and its results, as opposed to the mindset of a conservative, and its results.

                    • Art Deco

                      No. I used them. Democratic and Republican are corporate entities which encompass people with sets of policy preferences. I used them to pin you to a set of boundary conditions which you cannot manipulate. It would not be necessary with someone who was honest, but I am conversing with you.

                • dove1

                  Read up, me hombre! It was the GOP that gave us those things….not the Demonic-rat party. They were busy hunting down their boys, burning crosses and so forth. You are an uninformed bigot. A kool aid drinker! Sad, really. You just aren’t smart enough to get it, I’m afraid. Do you have any formal education at all?

                  • hombre111

                    Sigh. Conservatism is a mindset. Oh, Lord Jesus, I understand your distress with the unbending conservatives of your day, who feared your Kingdom. I repent. I have offered Dove my last pearl.

                    • dove1

                      Glad you see the light! Those were not the conservatives of the day. Jesus was the conservative….He wanted the same things He wanted when He led them out of Egypt. It was the “leaders” of the Jews who went astray. He wanted them to recognize Hima nd to love Him! No, they passed laws that no man could follow – some 600+ of them – kinda like the ACA! Sound familiar? Thank you for your last pearl. I will treasure it until we meet in Heaven! Happy Easter! Over and out!

                    • Art Deco

                      No, it’s an appellation you make use of to describe things which do not strike you’re fancy and to stigmatize your opposition. It’s an opportunistic taxonomy, not a valid one which illuminates and intellectual genealogy and clusters of ideas.

                • droolbritannia

                  You’re absolutely WRONG about race in the US. ALL decisions from freeing the slaves to various civil rights for Black Americans came from the Republican party. The Democrats didn’t get on the ‘racial equality’ bandwagon until the 1960s. That’s when the South went Republican – because it had been betrayed by the Democrats on the matter of equal rights for blacks.

                  You say you are a Catholic priest. What you are is a political liberal who seems to feel imprisoned by his priesthood (if you are a priest, and not lying about that). You can’t see how bitter and sad you come across to others. Too bad.

                  • hombre111

                    Dove, you are right in part but the story is complicated. It is one of the interesting ironies of American history that the Democrats and the Repubs switched places on some issues. From the time they were the Whigs, the Republicans sided with big business, a central bank, and opposed immigration, and that has not changed. In the 1830′s, the Democrats stood with small and large farmers, states’ rights, including banks chartered by the state, and favored immigration. When the Republicans under Lincoln ended slavery, the Democrats in the South formed a solid block for generations.

                    As the immigrants began to arrive in huge numbers, they were doing business a favor because they provided cheap labor, and so Repubs welcomed them in. But when immigrants like the Irish began to organize unions, etc., Repubs organized violent resistance. The usually Catholic immigrants like the Irish, Italians, and Germans were supported by city Democrats and –forgotten by conservatives– by the Catholic Church. When I was a child, people remembered priest heroes who were called “labor priests.”

                    And so, in the cities to the north, the Democrats in the middle of the cruel practices of industrialization (child labor, for instance), the democrats began to side with the workers against capital. So, now you had the emergence of two Democrat parties: The Democrats from the industrialized North, with a growing understanding of social justice, and the Democrats from the rural South, who found new ways to brutalize their black population. It is interesting that labor unions also tended to be against blacks, because they did not want black people taking their jobs. Because of this and the Democrat stand on the environment, many of these blue collar workers would become Reagan Democrats.

                    Anyway, this was sort of the way it was before the great split, when the Republicans played the race card and welcomed the southern Democrats (known as Dixiecrats) into the Republican party.

                • droolbritannia

                  Now we all know the god hombre 111 prays to…

                  For the corruption of our children’s minds through sexualization in our public schools, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For the destruction of marriage through no-fault divorce, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy and after birth, in the guise of equality for women, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For the destruction of women in the core of their being through coerced abortion as the ONLY choice in a crisis pregnancy, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  To save us from the burden of caring for the elderly, through euthanasia in the guise of ‘compassion’, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For the elimination of prayer in the public schools and the ten commandments from our courthouses, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For the equation of ‘marriage’ with ‘sodomy,’ we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For the words of the Scriptures to be recognized as hate speech, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For no-fault divorce and the destruction of the family, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For the elimination of personal charity through government reliance on welfare, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For the legalization of marijuana, so that we may numb our consciences, dull our wits, and waste our talents, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  For the elevation of every kind of bestial sexual license as the meaning of freedom and love, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  That all Catholics will recognize liberal politicians as their only hope for good in the world, we pray to the liberals.
                  Liberals, hear our prayer.

                  ***

                  Clearly, Hombre 111′s lord and savior is the liberals, since he thanks them for every good gift and scorns the gifts of God and the imitation of Christ (e.g., the beautiful gift of true manhood lived in priestly celibacy, revealed in another post).

                  Read your history beyond the narrow and parochial limits of the history of the US, and learn that it was with the coming of CHRISTIANITY into the Roman Empire that slavery waned in the western hemisphere.

                  Read history and see that it was because of the equality of men and women in Christianity that women flocked to Christianity in the earliest days (it was only with the Renaissance rediscovery of Roman and Greek law that Christian cultures re-adopted the notion of women as chattel and slavery as acceptable). That’s why so many of the earliest Christian martyrs were women who embraced Christianity and resisted their status as chattel under Roman law (and were murdered for it).

                  Women in the Catholic Middle Ages had the right to vote (see Regine Pernoud, “Those Terrible Middle Ages!”) and the right to certain trades that belonged only to women (Chaucer’s Wife of Bath is an example). Women were Abbesses of both convents of nuns and of abbots in the Christian Middle Ages. Women ran great estates while their husbands were away on Crusades.

                  American liberals did not invent the equality of men and women – God did, and the Church taught it and Christian civilization before the Reformation lived it. (It is only the Protestant wedding service that requires a woman to ‘obey’ her husband – not used in the Catholic marriage vows.)

                  Read history and see that it was a Dominican priest (Francisco de Vitoria, born 1483) who wrote the first legal argument defending the humanity of non-European peoples during Europeans’ exploration of the New World. He’s considered ‘the father of international law.’

                  If you think blacks should no longer be subjugated, thank St Paul, who urged the freeing of a slave as a brother Christian, and who explicitly taught that racism, sexism and slavery were eliminated by the light of Christ’s teaching (Galatians 3:28).

                  If you’ve ever been to a hospital and received medical treatment – thank the Catholic Church for inventing the idea of hospitals.

                  If you’ve been to university, thank the Catholic Church for inventing the idea of the university as we know it.

                  If you’ve benefitted from an organized charity, thank Catholicism for institutionalizing Christian charity.

                  Catholic churchmen have been theorizing about economic justice since at least the 1300s (Jean Buridan, 1300-1358; Nicolas Oresme, 1325-1382; Martin de Azpilcueta, 1493-1586; Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, 1468-1534; Franciscan friar Pierre de Jean Olivi, 1248-1298; Jesuit Juan de Lugo, 1538-1660).

                  The American revolutionaries wrote that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain rights (they acknowledged GOD as the source of equality and rights – not themselves as Hombre 111 does). They did not invent those notions; they recognized them as ‘self-evident’ because they were looking around a Christianized culture. Such rights would not have been self-evident to the average Muslim or Japanese war-lord or Indian untouchable of the same time. And where did the Founding Fathers get their liberal views? From the Christian culture bequeathed to them by the Catholic Church. That was their cultural context.

                  It’s a pity that a man who claims he’s a Catholic priest has set up liberal politicians in America as the creators of every good and the saviors of us all. There is a whole big world out there beyond the United States and before US history, and it’s a world that was transformed from pagan barbarism to Christian civilization by the Catholic Church. Much of what you give credit for could only have happened in the context of a Christian worldview created by Catholicism (where all those supposed ‘liberal’ achievements in the Muslim world or India or China?).

                  If you are indeed a Catholic (still less a Catholic priest) you should be ashamed of your ignorance and ingratitude.

                  I won’t thank ‘liberals’ for anything you have mentioned. I thank my God for the gift of the Catholic Church throughout history. God alone is the source of all good. How very sad that a self-proclaimed Catholic priest sets up creatures as the source of his blessings instead of the Creator.

                  • hombre111

                    One of the first rules of fallacy: Set up a straw man and knock it flat.
                    Then quote an apologetics book (I would have appreciated your source) that has combed through history to uproot any small stone that might make its point. I just wrote a long rebuttal, but I have said it all before and am wearied by confessions, Saturday Mass with a Palm Sunday service, and the thought of two Masses tomorrow.

            • droolbritannia

              If you think liberals don’t have self-righteous energy, tune into Prairie Home Companion sometime and listen to the bile that Garrison Keillor passes off as ‘humor.’ The man is a multi-millionaire (a ‘one-percenter’) who amazingly enough gets applause from his knee-jerk liberal audience when he attacks conservatives for being rich fat-cats. He lives in an enormous home (he sold a 1.6 million dollar house with 5+ bedrooms to move into one with 4,000 square feet more space) that only houses three people, yet manages to pass himself off as an environmentally sensitive liberal while slagging conservatives as Humvee-driving hogs; he conceived his daughter through the use of masturbation and pornography (IVF), but claims to be a champion of women and a to be feminist (while oddly calling men ‘Mr So-and-So’ and women only by their names – no honorific; a black female singer on his show addresses him as ‘Sir’ while he calls her by her first-name). He’s a thorough-going hypocrite, but accuses conservatives of hypocrisy through bitter, nasty, spite-filled ‘jests’ at every opportunity. When conservatives are in power, he’s full of cheap-shots and insults; when liberals are in power, he wonders, ‘why can’t we all just be civil’ (which means, ‘Why can’t conservatives just shut up and go away instead of asking hard questions?’)

              If you don’t see self-righteous energy on the left, it’s because you aren’t looking or because the left has become complacent in their monopoly of the media and their control of the dialogue in the US with slogans like ‘war on women’ and ‘hater’ to silence all opposition or reasoned debate.

              • hombre111

                Actually, Keillor pales in comparison to the week-long rant of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. etc. etc.. But I confess it. Hearing Prairie Home Companion is sweet music to my ears. It is subtle. It is gentle. It doesn’t rant. It is funny. I like the music. I like the skits. Point me to a conservative crank show that does the same thing, and you will have a new listener.

  • Tony

    John Buchan, then Governor General of Canada, a world-traveler and an adventure novelist, wrote in one of his wartime novels — I think it was Greenmantle — that it was well known that the Nazis had, in certain circles, bred a cult of masculinity, celebrated by male-male relations; cf. the Horst Wessel song.
    As for Austin’s list above: All but number 5 are pretty easy to demonstrate. Take number 1, for example. Almost all child molesters are men. Since that is so, and given that only about 2 percent of the male population is homosexual, one might expect that only about 2 percent of molested children would be boys. Even if you add in the so-called bisexuals, that would still keep the percentage in the low single digits. But that, of course, is not true at all. (And if it were true, too, gay travel agencies would not be doing a hopping business sending men to Thailand, for boy prostitutes.)

    Now, let us suppose that one third of all molested children are boys. It’s more than that, but let us suppose it is only one in three. That means, effectively, that 96 heterosexual men are abusing a total of 2 girls, while 4 homosexual or bisexual men are abusing a total of 1 boy. If we put the two rates together, it means that homosexual or bisexual men abuse boys at TWELVE times the rate at which heterosexual men abuse girls. There is simply no way to get around the mathematics of it. And it “fits” with the etiology of the syndrome, and with historical and cultural precedents.
    The statistic becomes much worse if we filter out incest, which is really another matter altogether. A father who is worried about the safety of his children is not interested in a number that includes incest, since he isn’t committing any of that! He wants to know what the relative odds are, that a given homosexual or bisexual man will abuse his son, compared with the odds that a given heterosexual man will abuse his daughter.
    I’d have thought that the clerical scandal would have put this question to rest once and for all. I would wager a thousand bucks that there’s not a single homosexual man in this country who does not know at least one male who has had sex with a teenage boy (and who knows it for a fact). But it is not politically correct to say so.

  • Pingback: What Can The Saints Teach Us About Lent? - BigPulpit.com

  • Tyler

    The SPLC’s response may have had something to do with Austin Ruse’s recent comments on an American Family Radio show, where he opined that “the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities … should all be taken out and shot.” This was followed by a bit of a rant, some of it on Twitter, about “the left” being “really dumb” and “pajama boys” who “get their panties in a twist.” Personally, I wouldn’t dignify any of this with the term “hate”, but the call was enough that American Family Radio posted: “Mr. Ruse, the fill-in host on AFR Talk that made those comments is no longer on the air with us and will not be filling in on AFR in the future. AFR condemns such comments, no matter who makes them.” If AFR condemned the comments, I am not surprised that SPLC would be concerned too.

  • Tyler

    “And the really good news is that it was discovered on Tuesday of this week that the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to have severed ties with SPLC and no longer links to the SPLC website and hate map. ”

    This is not, in fact, accurate. The FBI continues to list the SPLC as a partner in the fight against hate crimes. This is from the FBI website:

    The FBI’s position on scrubbing its resource page was further clarified as follows:
    “While we appreciate the tremendous support we receive from a variety of organizations, we have elected not to identify those groups on the civil rights page.”

    I hope this clears things up.

    • Tyler

      Here is the comment from the FBI website, which I inadvertently failed to paste in the second paragraph above:

      “Public Outreach: The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. The groups include such organizations as the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Disability Rights Network.”

      • Augustus

        Gee, for a minute there, it looked like the FBI had regained some semblance of respectability, objectivity, and professionalism. Turns out they’re just as mired in political correctness as we had feared. Tyler has taught us an important lesson: Just when you think there might be at least one Federal agency left that has not become completely and thoroughly corrupted, prepare to have all remaining hope dashed.

        • Guest

          You may believe anything you want as long as your overlords tell it is ok. Talk about tyranny.

          • dove1

            You can’t handle the truth! But it will reveal itself to you and you will not escape!

  • uncle max

    Good piece but incomplete – good first sentence, but he should have said 2 more things

    1) The tactics of accusing him of running a hate group are right out of the Saul Alinsky play book.

    2) His accusers are idiots.

    • Guest

      Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

      • dove1

        You know Truth?

  • Tony

    To settle item Number 2 above, it helps to take sexual relations out of the question altogether. I knew a kid who was brought up by two women, all through his youth. They loved him, but he suffered mightily from not having a father, especially because he was pretty aggressive, and yet not confident enough in himself to join groups like the Little League. He came through it all, but not unscathed. He led a lonely existence, full of resentment — he did not enjoy lacking what all the other kids around him had. The two women were, moreover, devoted to him and to one another. There was ZERO chance, ZERO, that the women would “break up.” They were his mother and grandmother.
    I cannot believe that it is all right for children to suffer for the sexual predilections and the vow-breaking of their parents. No boy or girl will EVER say, “I am glad that I don’t have a father,” or “I’m glad that I don’t have a mother.” They will, under pressure from within and from without, say — though even under pressure, boys are not likely to say it — that they are not distressed that they DON’T have a mother or a father, as the case may be. The issue is really not that difficult. We think it is a tragedy if a boy’s father suffers a heart attack when he is very small, and he ends up being raised by his mother and a maiden aunt, or by his mother and grandmother. But at least both of those women ARE his relatives, and they aren’t doing something bizarre, and they haven’t set about depriving him of a father, and they are highly unlikely to split — far less likely than any two homosexuals living together would be. In other words, in some very important ways, the situation we consider tragic is still far to be preferred before the one under controversy.

    • Art Deco

      You mean men have some function other than pet, ATM machine, or household employee? H8ter!

      Just to qualify what you say: some youngsters have rather poor personal chemistry with their mothers, their fathers, or both. There can be trade-offs involved in having them all in the same domestic abode. Seen that up close and personal.

  • John Citizen

    Actually, considering the “views” your organization espouses are simply untrue and/or dismissed the vast majority of research, you probably ARE a hate group if you continue spewing them. That said, you could also just be a moron.

    1. Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.
    – This would be laughable if it wasn’t so vile. American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”
    2. Same-sex parenting harms children.
    – No, it doesn’t. http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
    3. People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.
    – Once again, simply not true. I mean, I suppose you get points for regurgitating the conventional wisdom . . . from the 1950s. The most cutting-edge research is pretty complex to a lay person (especially a stupid lay person) but it basically boils do the regulation of various genes. A concept called “epigenetics.” But, the bottom line is people are “born that way.” http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality
    4. LGBT people don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.
    – WTF? Actually, considering gay men and lesbians in the United States are statistically better educated, healthier, and holding better-paying jobs than the general population the opposite is likely true. Of course, what could have skewed the numbers was the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. But because society has abandoned your combination of religious literalism, fear-mongering, and repression of science&research, HIV/AIDS no longer poses the threat it once did to otherwise healthy young men.
    5. Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.
    – The interesting thing about history is that, unlike genetics, you don’t have to have a PhD to know what is true or not or take away key lessons from history. So, while an average high school student would be at a loss to explain microbiology, he knows this simply is completely false. Just as the vast majority of us–from PhDs to C-students in high school–know that Holocaust denial is a lie, we also know that this myth is also untrue. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men from across Europe were murdered for being gay (or suspected of being gay). If Ernst Rohm (assassinated 8 years before the “Final Solution” was agreed upon) was a closeted gay, so f****** what?
    6. Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.
    – I am at a loss for words. Ironic that your organization and similar ones speak their minds daily and no men in black have come knocking at their doors. Considering hate crime laws (which are crafted at the state level) do not prevent pastors from making racist statements, its hard to understand how they would prevent pastors from making homophobic statements (assuming most hate crime laws are amended to include gays/lesbians, which most currently do not).
    7. Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.
    – We can dismiss this one off hand, right? Since its already history. And if you’re dumb enough to believe the “jury is still out” on the US military, ask the Israelis. They seem to be doing just fine.
    8. Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.
    – Rather than debunk in detail another loaded statement, I’ll just say this: OF COURSE people will have mental health issues and abuse alcohol and drugs as a self-medication when people like you are constantly telling them they are deformed, perverse, sinful, should be criminalized, and can only exist in free society if they live a lie and never have a healthy, consensual sexual relationship with an adult they love.

    9. No one is born gay.
    – See #3. Lay people misuse the term “genetic” just as we do “theory.” There is likely no “gay gene.” Which is to say homosexuality is not like having blue eyes. Great. That means absolutely nothing if we are arguing this point. People are in fact born gay, just as people are born straight. Genetic scientists, MDs, and mental health professionals do not understand exactly why EITHER sexual orientation exists. That it is not as simple as having blond hair does not logically mean homosexuality is either the result of abuse or some perverse desire.
    10. Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.
    – Nope. Again, the actual experts in the field (in this case, the psychological and psychiatric communities) categorically reject this dribble.

    • Guest

      Are all “gays” credulous and propagandists or just one’s who comment here?

      • Art Deco

        Yep.

      • John Citizen

        Not that it matters in the slightest, but I’m not gay. Sorry to disappoint. Considering over half the population now supports gay marriage, you should start getting to use the fact that most of the pro-equality comments you encountering will be coming from the 90% of us who are not gay.
        Oh, and in this case it would be “ones” not “one’s.”

        • Art Deco

          The outer boundary of the homosexual share would be about 3% of the general population, the core about half that.

        • dove1

          No, you’re not gay at all….you are very unhappy and judgmental. I will pray for you….BTW – Happy Easter…

        • Guest

          Thanks for your amateurish critique. I guess using your logic truth is determined by numbers.

    • Art Deco

      Actually, considering the “views” your organization espouses are simply untrue and/or dismissed the vast majority of research,

      Some years ago, I was in a discussion of this nature and was asked about a study which supposedly demonstrated these points. It turned out to be a literature review in Pediatrics that the decidedly motivated author had admitted later she had slapped together in less than an hour. Shuffling through the bibliography of studies she cited there (IIRC) about a half-dozen which made some effort at controlled study and only one with interesting results if it had been your purpose to demonstrate the author’s thesis.

      It took quite a bit of repetition and explanation to my interlocutor to explain that the study in question was a literature review and not an original piece of research and that it’s validity could not be demonstrated or refuted by another study. (Although you could do another annotated literature review as a critique).

      A great deal of air in these discussions.

    • Objectivetruth

      You’re your own own little hate group, aren’t ya now? You hate those that oppose your views.

      • Art Deco

        If you look at his Disqus history, he’s a standard issue bourgeois liberal bigot.

        • John Citizen

          That’s only a little creepy.

          You guys have quite the Orwellian way with words. I don’t hate anybody. And, by definition, I am certainly not a “bigot.”

          If you do not support the opinions of Mr. Ruse, more power to you. By beef is not with you or “Objectivetruth,” no matter what insults you spew my way.

          But the 10 statements Mr Ruse listed are all scientifically false and many of them also cruel, vilifying, mean-spirited, and deceitful. By pointing this out and refuting them, I am in no way shape or form engaging in conduct that is “hateful” or “bigoted.”

          Because I don’t snoop around your internet history, I have no idea if on other issues you espouse the traditional Catholic teaching on capital punishment or care for the poor. I have no idea what you think of the instant reply or the open field fly rule, either. I’d love it if we agree, but I’m very much “tolerant” of your positions regardless.

          And, if you put together a well-reasoned argument in favor of any issue, I dare say I would not only tolerate your position, I’d respect it.

          But the 10 points listed Mr. Ruse do not constitute a well-reasoned argument by any stretch of the imagination. They DO, however, offend & harm millions of Americans and people the world over. Even more so historically, they have been part of a mind-set that literally resulted in the unnecessary deaths of untold numbers. They represent, simply put, a very cruel & wicked agenda.

          If you or anyone else wants to place a great deal of emphasis on Leviticus 18 & 20, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re motivated, not by hate, but by religious belief. I’m not Catholic, so I don’t claim to understand why other Mosaic laws are no longer applicable yet this one is. But I will still assume that for whatever reason you make that distinction, it is not out of hatred.

          Or perhaps you really like poly-wool blend sweaters and lobster. I know I do.

          • Art Deco

            And, by definition, I am certainly not a “bigot.”

            It does not occur to you that that has a functional meaning. People live work and talk within particular subcultures and can scarcely imagine an argument conducted on different premises or with a different strata of values. See Robert Bork’s critique of John Paul Stevens. My most proximate example is a hospital psychologist. He bothers people who agree with him.

            And yes you do qualify. Enjoy life in the bubble.

          • Art Deco

            But the 10 statements Mr Ruse listed are all scientifically false and many of them also cruel,

            No, and no.

          • Art Deco

            Because I don’t snoop around your internet history, I have no idea if on
            other issues you espouse the traditional Catholic teaching on capital
            punishment or care for the poor.

            I will save you the trouble. The ‘traditional Catholic teaching’ sees the capital sentence as justified in particular circumstances. I do not dissent from that teaching. I have never met a Catholic Objectivist or Social Darwinist, so I do not know why you would be contemplating people who advocate putting the poor out on ice floes.

          • Art Deco

            While we are at it, the ‘snooping’ involves clicking on that hot link which calls up your Disqus history. Takes a matter of seconds.

          • Art Deco

            But the 10 points listed Mr. Ruse do not constitute a well-reasoned
            argument by any stretch of the imagination. They DO, however, offend
            & harm millions of Americans and people the world over.

            If your non-bigoted self were not suffering reading comprehension deficits, you might have noticed he was presenting them as propositions to be argued and examples of this properly argued. He was not presenting an argument himself, which would require 10 separate posts on each topic.

            And, no, “John CItizen”, no one is ‘harmed’ by Austin Ruse offering an argument of which you disapprove (unless your own emotional bouleversements count as harm and that being the case I suggest you get over it).

          • Guest

            You want to learn the differences among the civil law, moral law, and ceremonial law in the Old Testament before making erroneous implications.

          • Objectivetruth

            The problem is you’ve decided to attack Catholicism on a Catholic website and you really haven’t the foggiest what the Catholic teaching is on the subject. You did not come in open minded and inquired openly “I do not know or understand Catholic. Before I post my thoughts, someone explain it to me so I know where you are coming from.”

            All of Austin’s ten points are the train wreck that occurs and snowballs when Catholic teaching on homosexuality (scripture, Tradition, natural law) are ignored.

          • dove1

            No hate there, eh? Wonder why you are reading a Catholic site? Looking for things to hate? Looking to be offended? Just asking! Looking to learn, to love, to repent? What motivates you? Love?

          • Objectivetruth

            You’re late to the party.

            You’re ten counter claims have been refuted as false on previous articles on Crisis over the last 3 years. Check Crisis Magazines archives and you will be up to speed. You’re trotting out arguments that have already be repeatedly proven incorrect.

    • dove1

      Kinda ‘vested’ there, eh? Won’t work out too well, I’m afraid.

    • Conniption Fitz

      Sir, you are obviously not up on the latest statistics from the CDC, etc. on the incidence of disease, depression, addiction, mental health disorders, cancer, violence, injuries, GI infections, crime, and suicides – early death among persons practicing homo/bi sexuality which exceed the incidence among persons practicing hetero-sexual promiscuity.

      Just a cursory scan of the evidence in medicine, research, police and CDC statistics will contradict your comment above.

      As usual, Scripture, Science and Statistics stand in witness against the myth of homo/bi sexuality as healthy alternative lifestyles.

  • dove1

    Mama says, “When you point your finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you!”

  • Mark N Starla Traina

    The SPLC has been providing cover for BLACK SAVAGES in PUBLIC SCHOOLS throughout AMERICA for over 40-years!
    1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HTg45g85WP0
    2) http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=91408
    Hey Mark POTOK, do you think that all the “KNOCKOUT WHITEYERS”, “POLAR BEAR HUNTERS” and “CRACKA SMACKAS” HATE WHITE PEOPLE?
    In 2013, over 34,000 WHITE WOMEN were RAPED by BLACK MEN. Interestingly only 8-BLACK WOMEN were RAPED by WHITE MEN!
    BLACK THUGS KILL nearly 40 of U.S. each and every day and SERIOUSLY INJURE another 1,800 of U.S. in our HOMES, our SCHOOLS, our PARKS and our BUSINESSES!
    Now for the REST of the STORY:
    WARNING this BLOG contains nothing POLITICALLY CORRECT – So LIBERALS BEWARE!
    I was the DISCIPLINE FACILATOR in the JEFFERSON PARISH PUBLIC SYSTEM for years and years it was me who DECIDED who went to the ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS – BLACK SAVAGES SIGNIFICANTLY – DISPROPORTUNATELY were the ones that I sent off to ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS! Primarily because BLACK SAVAGES SIGNIFICANTLY – DISPROPORTUNATELY were the ones PERPATRATING the VIOLENT CRIMES on CAMPUSES!
    FACT: In 2012, according to the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE – BLACKS were 63-times more likely to perpetrate a VIOLENT CRIME against a WHITE PERSON than VICE-VERSA – so why would the RATE be any different within AMERICA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM! Actually the RATE of CRIMES being perpetrated by BLACK STUDENTS on WHITE STUDENTS was much higher than 63 to 1.
    I fought with ZIONNISTS over at the SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER on a daily basis. Those LILY WHITE LYING LIBERAL BASSTURDS did everything possible to keep me from calling “A SPADE A SPADE” and doing what I needed to do to keep all of the STUDENTS SAFE in JEFFERSON PARISH.
    SPLC STUDENT ADVOCATES and ATTORNEYS THREATENED to SUE me PERSONALLY on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS if I didn’t COMPLY with their LILY WHITE LYING LIBERAL POLITICALLY CORRECT ZIONNIST DEMANDS! They often DEMANDED that SCHOOLS IGNOR VIOLENT and extremely inappropriate BLACK STUDENT BEHAVIORS.
    REGULAR TEACHERS, many of whom had over 30-STUDENTS in their CLASSROOM, were actually being INSTRUCTED to CONSTANTLY MONITOR and REWARD UNRULY TEACHERS were being FORCED to ALLOCATE all of their teaching time on UNRULY STUDNETS is in FACT, a VIOLATION of other WELL-BEHAVED and MOTIVATED STUDENT’S CIVIL RIGHT to a FREE, FAIR and SAFE PUBLIC EDUCATION.
    Needless to say the SPLC and I ENJOYED a very CONTENTIOUS RELATIONSHIP, as for BACK UP from other SCHOOL SYSTEM EMPLOYEES – well there just wasn’t ANY, NONE, ZILCH!
    As a SCHOOL SYSTEM EMPLOYEE, sadly, I often I could tell whether or not CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS were REPRESENTING the STUDENTS, TEACHERS or SCHOOL PRINCIPALS of the JEFFERSON PARISH PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM or the ZIONNISTS BASSTURDS over at the SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW SYSTEM.
    The SPLC was constantly HARRASSING the JPPSS by DEFENDING the ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS of DANGEROUS and UNRULY BLACK STUDENTS – many of whom were CONVICTED VIOLENT FELONS!
    The SPLC DEMANDED that these VILOENT BLACK STUDENTS remain on REGULAR SCHOOL CAMPUSES – no matter what kinds of VIOLENT and DANGEROUS BEHAVIORS they were EXHIBITING.
    SCHOOLS in the JPPSS were being made UNSAFE by all of the ZIONNIST BULLIES over at the SOUTHERN POVERTY SCHOOL SYSTEM.
    QUESTION: How many other PUBLIC SCHOOLS SYSTEMS were being BULLIED by the ZIONNIST SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW SINNER back then?
    MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION: How many PUBLIC SCHOOLS SYSTEMS are being BULLIED by the ZIONNIST SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER right NOW, TODAY, at this very MOMENT?
    Sadly, my GUESS is “TOO MANY TO COUNT”!
    1) http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/08/24/obama-executive-order-promotes-race-based-school-discipline

    FACT: The SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER should SUE me if my ALLEGATIONS are UNTRUE.
    fatuous1
    MARK TRAINA
    FatuousCra@aol.com
    http://www.marktraina.webs.com
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of WHITE PEOPLE
    AUTHOR of “THE REALIST” Educational Facts Essential to Parents and Educators

    • Objectivetruth

      Now THIS is what hate looks like!

MENU