Study: Southern Poverty Law Center Ignores Liberal Hate

Austin Ruse, Breitbart, March 10, 2014

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.

{snip}

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.

{snip}

{snip} The [hate] 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.

Academic Defense of FRC

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Alexandra1973

    To the $PLC, if you don’t buy into liberal propaganda, you’re a hater.

    • BaronBaal

      Bingo!

  • 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

    And that’s where we stop reading this article and conclude that the underlying study is not worth reading. It’s basically nothing more than aracial conservative Christians complaining that the SPLC is now picking on them. When in reality, anyone with any lick of common sense in that community would wonder: “If they’re lying about us now, then it should stand to reason that they were lying about the “anti-gov or racist groups” in the past.”

  • JohnEngelman

    I am old enough to remember when liberals were supposed to be in favor of free expression. Was it really that long ago?

    • That must have been before about 1975.

      • JohnEngelman

        I first realized something was wrong following the October 1971 issue of Atlantic, which ran an article by Harvard Professor Richard Herrnstein entitled IQ.

        The Students for a Democratic Society called a convention at Harvard to plan ways to harass Professor Herrnstein, and if possible to get him fired.

        SDS was to the left of liberalism. Nevertheless, until then I thought restrictions on intellectual freedom came from the right with loyalty oaths, black lists, witch hunts of Communist influence, Joe McCarthy, and so on.

        • BaronBaal

          Anything goes just so long as your beloved “Chosen Ones” are at the top of the totem pole, huh?

      • BaronBaal

        They never were for true “free expression”, only their special brand of “free expression” which was anti-establishment, free sex, pro-gay, anti-war, and pro illegal drug use.

        • JohnEngelman

          And pro blasphemy.

        • I’m very much in favor of responsible sex. It’s a lot of fun. I think what gays do is a bit weird, but I don’t hate them. In fact, since I eat out my wife during foreplay, what I do isn’t very much different than what a lesbian does.

          I’m very much against war after having been to one. I was so scared of their artillery that I always urinated and defecated in my pants. Tanks aren’t really a big problem; get a RPG into the side of one and it’s done. The shot the bejeezus out of us with artillery rockets. No ranging shots: they’d waste the whole area, and fragments from detonations on the trees went everywhere.

          As for illegal drugs, one of my friends got into methamphetamines and stole from me, so I don’t think that stuff is any good, but I voted in favor of marijuana legalization here in Colorado.

          I suspect “free expression” means we get to do that here, unless one really annoys the moderators the way Mr. Spartacus did.

    • Truthseeker

      They’re not “liberals” anymore, they’re “progressives.” The classical definition of “liberal,” which meant supporting free speech and individual liberty has nothing to do with them. Now they’re a bunch of wannabe revolutionaries intoxicated by their own sense of righteousness.

  • David Ashton

    A classic study of promoting “liberal” followers and excluding others was the Boas “school” in anthropology – I was interested to see that the Jewish-PC anti-“racist” academic journal “Patterns of Prejudice” itself actually ran an article some time ago documenting the “conspiracy” in this case. More such studies are needed.

    • JohnEngelman

      Jews have no reason to fear scientific inquiries into genetically caused racial differences in intelligence.

      • Einsatzgrenadier

        But Jewish liberals do. They have a vested interest in maintaining the “race doesn’t exist” status quo because they do not want the Holocau$t to ever happen again. Jewish liberals thrive in diverse societies because they feel that diversity protects them from harm.

      • BaronBaal

        They have every reason to fear it because if there is a genetic basis for intelligence (which there is) then that is synonymous with there being genetic differences among the different ethnic and racial groups. A Jew’s worst- and I do mean worst, nightmare is for a “Jew gene” to be discovered that is totally unique to Jews because Jews are utterly terrified that if they ever lose power and ant–Semitism on a grand scale arises again (it WILL arise again) they can and will be hunted down and tested…and then put down…

  • JSS

    Michael Weinstein..How surprising.

  • Frank_DeScushin

    “Study: Southern Poverty Law Center Ignores Liberal Hate”

    Arguably the least shocking headline ever.

  • LovelyNordicHeidi

    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.
    ———————————————
    Telling the truth is hate speech nowadays. How convenient.

    • Diana Moon Glampers

      Hate facts!

      • LovelyNordicHeidi

        I’ll remember that one for the next time!

  • Ironically, it’s easy to see that the SPLC will use this scholarly piece to help them raise even more money: “Right-wing extremist academic attacks us; send money now.”

  • MekongDelta69

    “Once considered the ‘gold standard’ in reporting on violent anti-government or racist groups in America…”

    The only gold standard the $PLC loves, is all the money Morris Sleaze and Mark Puke-Up raise, which is given to them by all the leftist foundations and individual lunatics.

  • WR_the_realist

    My understanding is that the Catholic Church itself opposes homosexual marriage, not just a few fringe elements within it. So by Michael Potok’s own criteria the entire Catholic Church should be listed as a right wing hate group. Islam also opposes homosexual marriage, and not the more extreme jihadist elements within Islam. So there’s another really big hate group. I suspect that the only reason the $PLC doesn’t put those two religions on their list of hate groups is that it would show just how absurd the $PLC has become. There would be about 2.5 billion members of those two “hate groups” alone.

    • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

      A hate group is a hate group, no matter how many belong to it.

      • WR_the_realist

        Yes, and no matter how many members the $PLC has it’s still a hate group.

        As for homosexual marriage, I see this as an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. I don’t think one is a “hater” for taking one side or the other of the issue.

        • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

          I agree about SPLC being a hate group. As for homosexual marriage, you can disagree with it without wanting to ban it. It’s the desire to deny gays the right that crosses the line. It would be like atheists wanting to ban churches would cross the line. You can be an atheist and disagree with the supernatural claims made by religion without wanting it banned for others so why can’t one do the same thing towards gays and treat them with simple fairness? I think one becomes a hater when they attempt to control others based upon their own ideology. If you simply disagree with gay marriage I would not call that being a hater, that’s just clinging to an old hereditary prejudice, but if you work to discriminate and deny gays the right to marry then you would be a hater in my book.

          • Tom_in_Miami

            Except that there is a third party who may be damaged by the homosexual marriage: the inevitable children they adopt of conceive via the “baster” method of insemination. Just a thought.

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            The odds are no more greater than the risk of damage by hetero parents.

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            So what do you propose we do about all the children of heteros that suffer abuse, ban straight marriage?

          • Brian

            I don’t think being gay is a choice or sin, and they shouldn’t be harassed, beaten or imprisoned. But marriage? What is marriage for? Why does it exist?

            Is it also ‘simple fairness’ that blind people should be granted driver’s licenses, since their blindness is neither a choice nor a sin?

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            Marriage has many purposes and they differ for people.
            If you don’t already understand the practical reasons of why the blind shouldn’t drive then there is no point in me telling you. There is no practical reason to prohibit gay marriage.

          • Brian

            If you don’t already understand the practical reasons of why the blind shouldn’t drive then there is no point in me telling you.
            ===

            a·nal·o·gy
            əˈnaləjē/
            noun
            noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies
            1.
            a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            Poor analogy.

          • I suspect officially-recognized, stable, long-term relationships for them would probably improve public health. Promiscuous “swingers” spread disease. There are also the issues of shared property like a home, inheritance, medical insurance coverage, medical decisions and the like.

            Finally, with nauseating TV programs like “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”, gay marriage can’t possibly trivialize the institution of marriage any more than some heterosexuals have already done.

          • WR_the_realist

            The main argument against homosexual marriage is based on skepticism that children should raised by two lesbian mothers or two gay fathers. A right to marriage entails a right to adoption. Nobody I know cares if a homosexual couple simply decides to live together.

    • Sick of it

      I wish they would…then members of said “hate groups” might just put an end to the SPLC.

    • Tom_in_Miami

      I’d like to see them disrespect the Muslims. Within about ten minutes they would have a throng of jihadists setting fire to their (the SPLC’s) cars and houses.

  • Sick of it

    People named Weinstein are always given a pass.

    • BaronBaal

      That’s because people like Weinstein are the masterminds of this whole thing. They want to destroy Western civilization, Christianity, and all white people so that they can rule the world.

  • LHathaway

    So if accusing others of wrongdoing is ‘promoting hate’. Isn’t that the very purpose of his group? I’m not so sure his group is about money, but about promoting hate. Of course hate of those we should hate, I suppose. Even with a billion dollar funded homeland security, we still need SPLC on the job?

  • MBlanc46

    It’s excellent to hear that people are finally going afters these vermin.

  • Drew

    The social decay that outfits like SPLC feed upon is reflected in many features of “our”
    society. A key problem of great relevance is one that has threaded its way into much
    of law enforcement and into the criminal docket of most local legal venues. The aim
    of investigation gets to be reaching a level of information that justifies (“justifies”) filing
    of charges. I personally have seen investigations reasonably suspected of being
    nurtured by organizations resembling ( whether or not the specific embodiment of)
    SPLC. The evasion (“cookie cutting” ) of facts gets to be egregious. Exculpatory
    evidence need not be provided upon demand by the defense attorney if , in fact, it is
    not gathered at all. Want to get “the rest of the story” in the light of day? Well, mortgage
    your home to get the money to hire an able defense lawyer who, in time, can get it all
    into evidence. Then, the implication can be fostered that you “got off” by having a slick
    attorney. A way that might get around this, unconventional though it be, is just for
    those targeted by SPLC actions to gather evidence properly on their own (sworn statements, documents, etc.) and submit them to the prosecutor. The right of pro se representation is respected (very very reluctantly ) in most venues and if one stands firm (but politely ) in the insistence of pro se representation and is capable to do so—it can be a winning game vis a vis contrived evidence gathering. It is also respected in divorce actions. A divorce action can be a very good way for someone subject to abusive legal actions to file, pro se, a wealth of documents and sworn statements into evidence.

  • seapeaMP

    I hope this study doesn’t hurt the SPLC’s effort to stop $$$Hate$$$.

  • DelmarJackson

    We should copy the SPLC. The SPLC is the most successful direct mail non profit fund raising organization in America. I read their two founders have millions of dollars in the Cayman Islands. They have the lowest rating of any group for actually using their funds for their stated purpose by organizations that rate non profits.
    Here is the important point, I read that the SPLC gets most of its money from scaring wealthy elderly jews that any day now the klan is going to be in their front yard. Of course the number of rabid klan members in America could probably fit inside the parking lot of a 7-11. if the SPLC can make millions by scaring people about a non threat, an imaginary scenario, our side, faced with deliberate ethnic cleansing and dispossession of our country from massive unending immigration engineered by open border globalists, should be able to raise 10 times the money the SPLC has, and put that money to good use creating an immigration moratorium.
    . And yet, we are disorganized and penniless for the most part.
    We should hate the SPLC, but we should also be learning from it.

  • jackryanvb

    We have to learn fundraising like the SPLC.

  • jackryanvb

    I hate the Southern Poverty Law Center 🙂

  • Charles Martel

    Why doesn’t someone on the right start a hate watch group? The top list of agitators for violence against the white poor and Christians can be the SPLC.

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    Probably about the same amount of “hate” that women suffered before they finally won the right to vote.
    A majority’s opinion neither proves nor disproves any argument.

    • Malgus

      Neither does moral relativism..

    • WR_the_realist

      Arguments against women voting were not based on “hating” women. Most men didn’t hate their own wives and daughters. They were based on a traditional view that women should be concerned with children and the home, while men should be leaders of their families and communities. We can see this view as being narrow and out dated without calling its adherents haters.

  • Brian

    Once considered the “gold standard” in reporting on violent
    anti-government or racist groups in America…

    The [hate] 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.
    ====

    And circle gets the square. The only ‘gold standard’ that has ever mattered to SPLC is adding to their dragon’s hoard. They’ve never been anything more than a whitewashed sepulchre.

  • Hunter Morrow

    Weinstein not on a hate list. Wonder why?

    Semitic Pimp Lawyer Conjob would never go against another jew.
    Go look at the leadership of that place. Bunch of jews. Real southern, huh?

  • antioli

    Find out who the donors are

  • antioli

    the SPLC is a tool of the donors

  • nignogger

    Remember, the SPLC is a extreme jewish hate group. They target white, Christian organizations and individuals. many of the staffers at this hate group are manned by jew homos. Again, their main targets are white Christians.

    • The $PLC people are clearly evil, but I am uncertain about the Jewish nature of the $PLC. If Jews were really out to get us, they would simply want us to convert.

      • Kungfoochimp

        Maybe you should look at the names of the people who run it? Or you could just remain ignorant.

  • Svigor

    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.

    FFS. The one Jew in the US military has to make it into a crusade against White Christians.

  • 8DX

    This would be a good point to make but it seems the choice of examples was very poor so as to almost completely break the comparison. The presented homophobic opinions are *demonstrably* false (LGBTQ groups don’t advocate legally forcing pastors to do anything, HIV/AIDS is a health issue, not a sexual orientation issue, orientation is not a choice, LGBTQ parents do just as well as other parents). On the other hand, the quote from the MRFF can actually be substantiated with the pronouncements of particular Christian individuals or groups (denial of church-state separation, Christian militia groups, proselytisation efforts in the military), although of course to generalise this to all (or even a majority of) Christians would in fact be fear-mongering.