Thread: SPLC Biased in Labeling Family Research Council a 'Hate Group,' Academic Study Argues

Christian Post
By Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter
March 5, 2014|7:50 am

Michael Weinstein, founder of MRFF, claimed that Christians will be responsible for ushering in "a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, naturalistic militarism and superstitious theocracy." And Weinstein has written books claiming that Christians are willing to use mass murder to bring about their goals.

Southern Poverty Law Center Biased in Labeling Family Research Council a 'Hate Group,' Academic Study Argues

The Southern Poverty Law Center's "Hatewatch" fails to use objective criteria in determining which organizations should be labeled a "hate group," George Yancey, professor of sociology at the University of North Texas, finds in a new study, "Watching the Watchers: The Neglect of Academic Analysis of Progressive Groups," published in the January issue of the journal Academic Questions.

SPLC's list dubiously lists Family Research Council as a hate group while ignoring anti-Christian groups that use similar rhetoric, which demonstrates that the list is more about mobilizing liberals than providing an objective source for hate groups, Yancey argues. SPLC has escaped critical analysis of its work in academia because of a liberal bias among academicians, the study additionally claims.

SPLC's Hatewatch has become the definitive guide among some scholars, authors and media organizations to what is, or is not, a "hate group." Conservatives have long criticized the list for labeling social conservative organizations, such as Family Research Council, as hate groups.

FRC's appearance on the list gained national attention in 2012 when a gunman, Floyd Corkins, entered FRC headquarters with the intent of killing everyone there. FRC's building manager, Leo Johnson, subdued Corkins and was shot in the process. Corkins targeted FRC after finding the group on Hatewatch. SPLC has continued to label FRC a hate group even after the shooting.

All the groups listed on Hatewatch, with the exception of black separatists, Yancey notes, are either political or religious conservatives. Yancey believes this is because SPLC is a liberal organization and it is using subjective criteria to choose which groups belong on the list.

"The subjective nature of the criteria for determining a hate group provides a conceptual structure more vulnerable to social bias than an objective criteria applying to groups across a wide political, cultural, and religious spectrum," he wrote.

According to SPLC, a hate group has "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

Using this standard, Yancey says, there should be some liberal and anti-Christian groups on the list as well. To illustrate, Yancey compares the Military Religious Freedom Foundation to FRC.

According to SPLC, Yancey explains, FRC is a hate group because it intentionally makes hateful and untrue statements about the LGBT community, which can lead to violence even though FRC does not engage in violent actions. (Yancey noted the irony that while SPLC does not cite any examples of FRC-inspired violence, SPLC's Hatewatch actually did incite violence in the case of Floyd Corkins.) To support this contention, SPLC notes that FRC reports on studies showing that the child molestation rate is higher among gays and same-sex parenting harms children, and quotes FRC President Tony Perkins saying that LGBT activists seek to "persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."

If this is the standard for labeling an organization a hate group, Yancey says, then the anti-Christian MRFF should also be on the list.

In a Huffington Post blog, Michael Weinstein, founder of MRFF, claimed that Christians will be responsible for ushering in "a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, naturalistic militarism and superstitious theocracy." And Weinstein has written books claiming that Christians are willing to use mass murder to bring about their goals.

"In these few comments Weinstein has violated some of the same norms SPLC used to designate FRC as a hate group. Weinstein is promoting a myth of Christian violence not substantiated by previous research and has attributed motives to conservative Christians that he cannot document," Yancey contends.

Yancey does not argue that MRFF should be on Hatewatch, or that FRC should be off Hatewatch. Rather, he argues that if Hatewatch is to be an objective source for labeling hate groups, both groups should either be on the list or off the list.

One possible explanation for why SPLC does not include anti-Christian groups on Hatewatch, Yancey speculates, is that Hatewatch is a tool for mobilizing liberals, rather than an objective source of hate groups.

"As our society became more politically partisan, SPLC cemented its position as speaking for those with progressive political and social attitudes. Rather than developing into an objective clearinghouse for the identification of hatred – no matter where the source of that hatred may develop – SPLC has become a useful organization for progressives to legitimate their battle against conservatives. Since conservative Christians are categorized as opponents there is little, if any, incentive for SPLC to recognize hateful expressions against Christians, because doing so actually works against the social vested interest of the group," he wrote.

Yancey's analysis of SPLC, though, is in service of a larger point. There is not enough critical analysis of liberal groups in academia, he argues, because too many in academia share the viewpoint of liberal groups.

"This is a critique of the social biases within academia that preclude critical analysis of progressive social groups," Yancey wrote. "Such neglect serves academics with progressive, secular perspectives by allowing progressive, secular social groups to make claims of truth and objectivity. Such claims enhance the social power of these progressives. But this neglect damages any real scientific attempt to assess social and political factors in our society. Scrutiny directed at conservative and religious groups – and they should be scrutinized – while progressive organizations are given a pass creates a distorted understanding of reality. In doing this, social science scholars replace an objective examination of our society with a biased approach serving progressive social and political interests."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/so...argues-115612/

by Austin Ruse 10 Mar 2014
breitbart



An academic study has accused the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of having an anti-Christian bias in its reporting on hate groups in America.

Once considered the “gold standard” in reporting on violent anti-government or racist groups in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s reputation has begun to wither as it has started targeting conservative Christian groups including the Family Research Council (FRC) for what SPLC claims is anti-gay animus.

SPLC says FRC gins up hatred and possible violence against gays because it has reported certain ideas that are taboo to SPLC: that hate-crimes laws will be used to stifle preachers; that because of HIV-AIDS and other diseases gays may not live as long as others; that gay parenting is not as good for children as more traditional parenting; that same-sex attraction is not inborn; and that gays can stop being homosexual. Believing or espousing any of these ideas makes you eligible for the SPLC hate list. [Full disclosure: the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, of which I am president, was just placed on SPLC’s hate list for espousing some of these ideas.]

Professor George Yancey of the University of North Texas says he is not arguing one way or the other about FRC’s inclusion on the list but merely demonstrating SPLC’s outrage is subjective, selective, and never reckons progressive groups guilty of the same things of which it accuses conservative ones.

Yancey looks at the work of a left-wing group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), started by Michael Weinstein after he said he experienced discrimination at the hands of Christians in the military.

Weinstein published a story in the Huffington Post titled “Fundamentalist Christian Monsters: Papa’s Got a Brand New Bag” in which he accused Christians of wanting to start “a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, naturalistic militarism and superstitious theocracy.” This is not the only place where Weinstein said Christians want to foment mass murder. He said it also in his book No Snowflake in an Avalanche. He also blamed the Fort Hood shootings on how Christians mistreated the shooter and “linked the actions of Christians to Hitler and Stalin.”

Yancey says in these few places Weinstein and his group have violated the criteria established by SPLC to identify hate groups, “promoting a myth of Christian violence not substantiated by previous research and [attributing] motives to conservative Christians that he cannot document.”

Yet Weinstein and his group are not on the "Hatewatch" list. Yancey points to the Hatewatch tag line for the reason – “Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right.” To SPLC, there can be no hate on the left, only on the right.

Yancey, an African-American, specialized for years in the subject of race but began looking at anti-Christian bias in academia some years ago. He says, “The subject of political scientific bias is not yet settled, but evidence of the existence of this bias continues to emerge” and that “the overrepresentation of political and religious progressives can alter the type of scientific research produced.”

Yancey points out that after 40 years of its existence, hardly any academic papers have been done on SPLC, yet in only a few shorts years many books and papers have emerged from the academy looking at the Tea Party. He says his is one of the first scholarly examinations ever done of SPLC and its methods.

“The listing of possible hate group activities is quite broad, and how activities are interpreted as hateful can be subjective," he writes. "Whether certain beliefs malign an entire class of people can be a matter of interpretation. Such subjective criteria make it easy for an evaluator of potential hate groups to be lenient when evaluating groups that arouse his or her sympathy but stricter when evaluating groups toward which he or she is hostile.”

For instance, SPLC dinged Family Research Council for supporting the notion that the best parenting situation for a child is with his own biological mother and father and that anything less, including same-sex parenting, can be detrimental to the child. To SPLC this is a hateful idea and one they say science demonstrates is false. Yancey points to recent research by Professor Mark Regnerus from the University of Texas which shows that “same-sex parenting may be connected to social dysfunctions in children,” all to show that the social science question is hardly as closed as SPLC says.

SPLC also accused FRC of peddling deliberately false information about the higher incidence of child molestation by gay men. FRC cites two peer-reviewed studies to back up the claim. SPLC prefers a counter statement by the American Psychological Association and a meta-analysis by Gregory Herek, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, both of which say there is no higher incidence of child abuse among gays.

When pressed by journalist Charlotte Allen of the Weekly Standard that the science on molestation was clearly not as settled as SPLC insists, Mark Potok of SPLC didn’t even try to argue the science. He sent an email doubling down: “The FRC and some of the other anti-LGBT groups portray gay people as sick, evil, perverted, incestuous and a danger to the nation.”

However, that is one thing you discover when you read SPLC’s dossiers on Christian groups it doesn't like. The reports read very much like direct mail pieces, the kind that get liberals to dig deep into their pockets to fill groups' like SPLC already bulging coffers.

In fact, Yancey concludes the reason SPLC cannot or will not change its criteria or at least begin including left-wing groups on its hate lists is that it cannot go against its progressive donors who are sending in such sizable sums – $38.5 million a year, with $256 million in assets feeding $300,000+ salaries.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...s-Liberal-Hate

In fact, Yancey concludes the reason SPLC cannot or will not change its criteria or at least begin including left-wing groups on its hate lists is that it cannot go against its progressive donors who are sending in such sizable sums – $38.5 million a year, with $256 million in assets feeding $300,000+ salaries.

There is a word for people that will do anything and take any position for money.

Not too long ago, the SPLC labelled someone a rascist. When asked what were its criteria for making that judgement, the center replied that its criteria were "confidential." Gotta luv that
*************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade