It's time to call fundamentalist groups what they are: Hate Groups

[Hugabear]

AFAIC, any group that espouses hateful views on a regular basis is a hate group. Doesn't matter if it's a religious group clinging to badly outdated interpretations of the Bible or any other religious text. These religious leaders have brainwashed millions into believing that gays and other minority groups are subhuman, that their mere existence is a sin. By trying these views to their religious beliefs, they make it easier for politicians and other groups to discriminate. Some of their more unstable followers use these "beliefs" as justification for violent attacks and even murder. After all, in their eyes they're just carrying out God's will.

So yes, the folks over at Duck Dynasty and anyone else who agrees with their hateful views is part of a hate group. The only difference between them and the KKK is they don't wear white hoods.

[cantbeserious]

1. It Is Also Time To Start Prosecuting These Groups For Hate Crimes Wherever Statutes Are In Force

eom

[philosslayer]

5. I agree, and free speech shouldn't be a protection against hate speech.

There should be prohibitions against hate speech just like there is a prohibition against yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. I really don't see the difference.

[Gore1FL]

6. Neither of those examples are examples of free speech.

Free speech involves redressing the government.

[philosslayer]

7. You missed my point.

Hate crime legislation should include hate speech.

[Blanket Statements]

10. Who will define what speech is hateful?

I'm sure Sarah Palin has different ideas than you do when it comes to speech that is hateful

[Blanket Statements]

8. Yeaaaahhh. Good luck with that dream

Who will be the arbiters of the speech that is permissible

[hack89]

9. Do you think a repuke president and congress will define hate speech the same as you do?

That's a double edged sword you are swinging there. Ready for anti-blasphemy laws?

[philosslayer]

12. Let's face it.... they're dying out

In a few years they will be as relevant as the Whigs. They face a demographic wave that will overcome. Now is the time to strike with a progressive agenda that includes hate speech restrictions. If not now, when?

[Hugabear]

13. Any speech that attacks others on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc

Same way we define hate crimes.

Political speech would still be protected. You could call Obama an SOB, that's protected. Calling him a n**ger or some other racial slur wouldn't. Saying that homosexuals are going to hell and comparing them to bestiality would be hate speech.

[philosslayer]

17. I agree

A year in prison lets say. That would put Mr. Robertson in his place.

[Raine1967]

14. You gotta be careful...

your definition of hate speech might not be the same hate speech as the elected officials.

There's a really bad history of government defining hate speech.

East Germany might be a good example.

[Electric Monk]

2. Who said it: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or Usama Bin Laden?

http://funnystrange.com/quiz/

[idwiyo]

3. k&r

[rdharma]

4. They don't wear white hoods? Well....... maybe sometimes they do........

[lunasun]

11. +1

[undeterred]

15. AND TAKE AWAY THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS!!!

[Hugabear]

16. +1

Would be a good start

[Zorra]

18. + another

[FarCenter]

19. So the Amish, Mennonites and Hasidim are Hate Groups.

[Hugabear]

20. If the shoe fits

Do these groups believe that homosexuality is a sin, that gay people are doomed to hell? Do they treat gays equally?

Hate is hate, regardless of the source