Sunday, October 25, 2009

United Church of Christ: Stifle “Hate Speech”

UCC supposedly stands for “United Church of Christ,” but the old jibe is that it really stands for “Unitarians Considering Christ.” A very liberal denomination, its ruling elites (and to a considerable extent, the members who haven’t yet left) use Christian rhetoric, but they won’t assert anything that rankles the secular politically correct sensibility -- opposing abortion or gay marriage, for example.

But they do oppose “hate speech.”

And their definition of “hate speech” is terribly vague and broad. For example:
Hate speech takes various forms, from words inciting violence, to those creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups. Hate speech has one common outcome: it creates an environment of hate and prejudice that legitimizes violence against its targets.

The presence of hate speech so widely in media creates a climate that makes it impossible to have reasonable policy discussions on issues like immigration reform, and cultivates a climate that condones violence against targeted groups.

Categories of hate speech:
  • False Facts consist of incorrect, exaggerated, or de-contextualized facts.
  • Flawed Argumentation is rooted in hidden assumptions, guilt by association, and appeal to fear.
  • Divisive Language creates and/or encourages an “us vs. them” mentality. Hard times often incite blaming “others” as the source of trouble. Catholics, Jews, and African Americans have been routinely targets as scapegoats for those wishing to further their own agendas.
  • Dehumanizing Metaphors evoke messages relating to warfare, heroism, disease, and biblical characters.
Of course, what are “false facts” is often a matter of opinion. And so is the proper “context.” The last thing governent should do is decide that “facts” are allowed to be broadcast.

And of course, “divisive language” aimed at conservative Christians, or white males, or the military, or insurance companies is apparently fine.

The statement makes it entirely clear that it’s only “vulnerable groups” that get protection.

The statement is addressed to the Federal Communications Commission.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration released a report in 1993 on The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes. Members of the So We Might See Coalition are encouraging them to update this report.

The National Hispanic Media Coalition has filed a Petition for Inquiry in the Matter of Hate Speech in the Media at the Federal Communications Commission. Members of the So We Might See Coalition support this petition.
Then we get a really Orwellian formulation:
The First Amendment does protect even the most vile speech. The government, however, can play a role in compiling statistics and adopting rules that will help members of the public form their own opinions and hold broadcasters and other media outlets accountable for purveying this speech.
So, they are against censorship but in favor of “holding accountable” broadcast outlets that allow “hate speech.”

This is what happens when a Christian denomination gets taken over by a secular clerical elite. While people in the pews drift away, they engage in a series of moralistic crusades.

Labels: , , , , ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure the Episcopagans will follow suite.

11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, what are “false facts” is often a matter of opinion. And so is the proper “context.” The last thing government should do is decide that “facts” are allowed to be broadcast.


The groups are not asking the government to decide which facts are being broadcast, they are asking for data collection. The two are very distinct.

In any event, by definition facts are not opinions...they are verifiable, one way or the other, by looking at the objective reality.

12:07 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

they are asking for data collection

You mean for no purpose at all?

They want to "hold accountable" media outlets that they say are broadcasting "hate speech."

That strongly and clearly implies censorship.

facts are not opinions...they are verifiable

But people disagree over what the "facts" are. When government gets in the business of determining what the "true facts" are, the First Amendment is dead.

Much political argument is over what the "facts" are. How many jobs did the Obama stimulus supposedly save? Even the mainstream media are saying that it's fewer than the White House claims. That's a matter of "fact," but people should not be forced to accept the "facts" that government puts out.

And that applies to illegal immigration and it applies to Islam.

The UCC is a bunch of would-be censors, like so many (and I sometimes think a majority) of liberals these days.

1:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home