Is the American Family Association a hate group because they disagree with homosexuality?
Muslims pretty much all agree with Christians in this issue yet no Muslim group would ever be labeled a hate group only because they disagree with homosexuality. It is hard enough to get our government to label them a hate group when they say certain groups shouldn't have the right to exist and they actually kill thousands of people and seek ways to kill more and more.
The evidence presented is laughably thin. An anonymous report sent in by one source, and a photo which in no way identifies the kind of brief being presented. That's it.
The journalist contacted the Pentagon but one would think it better simply to contact the base where this allegedly occurred. He did not execute due diligence in his reporting.
Finally, under the current policies regarding homosexuality and homosexual unions, it would in fact be against military values to demonstrate the kind of disagreement with those policies as the AFA espouses. The military is there to execute those policies, and public disagreement with them would undermine confidence in a given service member's willingness to execute. If one is not creating the command climate that is supportive of all our service members, then there is going to be dysfunction that could be easily avoided. If an NCO, SNCO, or officer indicates to his subordinates with his behavior or language that it is okay to discriminate against or express negativity towards a colleague, that is unprofessional and will negatively impact readiness and cohesion.
In the military, one must leave behind beliefs that are not in line with military values, no matter how dearly or how long held.
To build on what Vy said, because I'm not in the mood to agree with him; the ways military briefs are built, presented, and distributed are laughable. I would bet a months pay this briefing didn't come from the command, much less the administration, and most likely reflects the ignorance of a dumbass 19 year old kid who can't distinguish between "hate speech" and simple disagreement.
I'm changing my hypothesis on what happened based after further thought and based on what Will and Milo posted. From the article Will posted:
“It was produced by a soldier conducting a briefing which included info acquired from an Internet search,” Wright said. “Info was not pulled from official Army sources, nor was it approved by senior Army leaders, senior equal opportunity counselors or judge-advocate personnel.”
So here's what I think happened; said soldier was using an old brief and realized that slide hadn't been updated since ~1997, went to the SPLC site, and pulled the updated list unchanged and dropped it into the brief. The Army doesn't track that kind of stuff, and nobody goes through EO reps or JAG to produce these briefings. Said soldier most likely has no idea what he's talking about and that's why he couldn't speak intelligently to why the group was on the list.
“We’re hearing from too many people across the country who’ve witnessed these training sessions,” he said. “We know this is going on in the Army and the Air Force.”
And here's why; no one creates brand new briefings when it's time to give one of this nature. They find an old one and MAYBE update it with new info. Most likely they simply put their own service seal, company logo, and name of briefer on the slides. It usually goes like this, "Hey dude, I gotta give this brief and I don't know what to say", "Hold on I got one on the sharedrive I'll email it to you". And then the magic begins. The only time a brand new briefing is ever produced is in the school setting, or when it actually comes down from some command tasked with creating a new policy.
They will call Christians haters and not Muslims for the same reason they mock Jesus left and right but hardly think about mocking Mohamed. They're not afraid that Christians are going to retaliate the way they believe Muslims will.
The reason that whoever does this sort of thing (in or out of the military), does it, is clear enough. Classifying someone as a hate group invites others to hate them. If you hate someone, you say that he is full of hate. Saying "these people are so full of love I can't stand it" doesn't have the same effect.
Of course, in this case, if it's real, it may also have the legal effect of reducing contributions to these groups by those fearful of persecution. We already know the administration is happy to use government agencies to reduce support for groups it dislikes and punish those that dissent from its goals.
It is not tolerance to tolerate intolerance.
And that's how it works. Put out your ad advocating religious hatred, but be sure and label the religious group you hate "intolerant." Deny the job opportunity to someone on the basis of ethnicity or politics, but tell yourself that members of group X are intolerant, and you're not about to tolerate that sort of thing. It works! Label someone you hate "intolerant," and you no longer need be embarrassed at hating him. It's his fault then.
Pentagon says: didn't come from the top. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/15/pentagon-admits-christian...
The whole concept of "hate groups" is little more than Liberal meth.
- Since when does the Army define which groups are hate groups? I thought that elitist privilege belonged solely to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Yet nobody has ever been able to tell me how the the SPLC makes their decisions.
And just so you know, there is a Muslim group that is defined as a hate group by the SPLC. Its the Nation of Islam. It is the largest Muslim organization in the US.
"there is a Muslim group that is defined as a hate group by the SPLC"
I never said no Muslim groups were on the list. I said it is hard to believe a Muslim group would be put on the list simply because they disagree with homosexuality. A group like the AFA is considered a hate group because of it's beliefs. A Muslim group which funnels money to terrorist groups so they can kill more people is not considered a hate group. The bar is set pretty low to label a Christian group is hateful as apposed to a Muslim group.
I agree with you about the silliness of labeling hate groups. Labeling something as a hate crime is even dumber.
The standard for 'hate crime' is still very high, resulting in few convictions for hate crimes. Demonstrating racial motivation in a crime is very difficult to prove in court.
What is the point of labeling a murder a hate crime.
Do loved one grieve less when it is labeled a hate crime?
Does the criminal all of a sudden become repentant and apologetic when it is labeled a hate crime?
Seems to me that the reason to be able to label something a hate crime is so that liberal locations that seek to remove all consequences are able to say that what this guy did was not simply wrong but super duper wrong. Then go about their normal routine of trying to find some way to let the guy out on parole or find some technicality to get him released.
The hate crime issue was brought up in the Bush Gore presidential debates. I think Bush responded well:
"They're going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty and -- it's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death."