Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Redefines “Hatred” to Push Their Ideological` Agenda

The Southern Policy and Law Center (SPLC staff) is a group of people who believe they are in a position to judge groups of people as motivated by ‘hatred’. They often do this for ideological or political reasons, not for sound moral reasons. The folks at SPLC staff are a group of moral relativists who embrace an ideology which causes them to contradict themselves and their stated principles. In other words, they not only don’t practice what they preach, they actively contradict their own principles, make serious judgment errors and promote wrongness.

This is the tragic and damaging result of their ideology, their relativistic moral framework and the wrong judgments made from that ideology and framework. Essentially, the SPLC staff has redefined “hatred” from its normal and correct meaning, to something else which justifies their primary purpose which includes condemning those who hold traditional and objective moral views. While they do properly identify some people and groups which have immoral views and behavior consistent with actual hatred, they also target some groups of people who in no reasonable way should be considered people who ‘hate’ others.

Here is the SPLC staff’s definition for “hate groups” right off their website:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as an organization or collection of individuals that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. An organization does not need to have engaged in criminal conduct or have followed their speech with actual unlawful action to be labeled a hate group. We do not list individuals as hate groups, only organizations.

The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity – prejudices that strike at the heart of our democratic values and fracture society along its most fragile fault lines.”

SPLC staff’s ideology and relativistic morality lead them to judge the following groups, for example, as “hate groups”:

• American College of Pediatrics
• James Kennedy Ministries
• Florida Family Association
• Legal Immigrants for America
• Liberty Counsel

I suggest the reader look into these organizations to validate the fact that they DO NOT promote hatred as the major English dictionaries define hatred. We will properly define hatred a bit later in the article. First, let’s look at the fundamental error that SPLC staff – and all moral relativists – make.

Please consider this statement, “It is morally wrong to say some views are morally wrong.”

That is a self-defeating statement, meaning it contradicts itself. For in stating that, they are making the judgment that some moral beliefs or views are wrong, thus contradicting themselves! The only thing revealed through contradictions is error and falsehood.

So, SPLC staff says, ‘x group is wrong because their beliefs or views are wrong‘. In this, they contradict themselves. They are judging other people as wrong, while they state that it is wrong to judge other people as wrong!

Now, SPLC staff seeks to avoid the obvious contradiction of “It is morally wrong to say some moral beliefs or practices are morally wrong.” by modifying that statement to say, “It is hateful to believe some moral beliefs or practices are wrong“. But isn’t “hate” a type of wrong? It is a specific wrong but it clearly belongs in the category of ‘wrong’. Said another way, “hatred” is a specific wrong under the higher category of wrongness. So, equivocating over the terms “wrong” or “hate” is just that – meaningless equivocation. It is committing the fallacy of distinction without a difference, which in this case means that SPLC tries to argue that hatred does not mean “wrong”. It is like arguing that apple does not mean “fruit”. While it is true that the word apple does not mean precisely the same thing as fruit, it is, none-the-less a “fruit”. The same applies to hate and wrong – hatred is wrong or is a wrong.

Moral relativists believe that there are no universal moral rules or standards that human beings are bound by.  In contrast, Moral objectivists believe there are universal moral standards that apply to ALL people.

Relativists believe that ‘freedom’ is found by rejecting universal, objective moral rules or standards – they want to be able to behave in any way they want and they often attack those who disagree with their moral viewpoint. Moral relativists attacks against others with different moral views often comes in the form of an accusation of ‘hate’. 

So, let’s take a closer look at the false position’s SPLC staff takes in their “hate group” statement.

Perhaps the best place to start is SPLC staff staff’s redefinition of the term “hate”. Here are the dictionary definitions of the term “hate”:

Cambridge, “to strongly dislike someone or something”.

Oxford, “Feel intense dislike for”.

Merriam-Webster, Noun, “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury”; Verb, “to feel extreme enmity toward : to regard with active hostility“.

Dictionary.com, “to feel extreme enmity toward : to regard with active hostility“

As you can see, the dictionaries are pretty much unified in the way they define hate.

As you can see, “hate” or “hatred” is defined as a very negative, emotionally-rooted viewpoint of a person. In other words, a person who is engaged in “hatred” has an intense dislike for, and active hostility or enmity towards someone or something. It is fair to say that a person who hates another person or persons would have the following feelings towards them:

• Would like to harm the object(s) of their hatred;
• Would like harm to come to the object(s) of their hatred;
• Would like to see the object(s) of their hatred experience suffering or to be disadvantaged;
• Would like to see the object(s) of their hatred fail and be humiliated.

So, is the reader clear on what hatred means? Please read the definitions of hate above again if necessary, so you are clear on what “hatred” really means. Again, the dictionaries are unanimous in saying to “hate” means to strongly dislike; feel intense dislike for; have intense hostility and aversion towards; to feel extreme enmity toward and regard with active hostility.

Enter the SPLC staff and their new definition of “hate”. SPLC staff says that “hatred” includes having, “…beliefs that…malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics”. They continue, “the organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity…”

So, first and foremost, SPLC staff says hatred includes certain “beliefs”. If you look carefully at the definitions of hatred, holding a belief or moral view is NOT what hatred is! Rather and again, hatred is having an emotional state of animosity or active hostility towards someone!

So, for example, I could have a belief that white people are inferior to brown people, but that belief does not mean I personally hate white people. In fact, it could mean I feel sorry for them.

Second, please note that they are not directly accusing a “hate group” of “hatred”, rather of “maligning” and “vilifying”. Here are the definitions of “malign”:

Cambridge: “to say false and unpleasant things about someone, or to criticize someone unfairly”

Merriam-Webster: “to utter injuriously misleading or false reports about : speak evil of”

Oxford: “Speak about (someone) in a spitefully critical manner”

Dictionary.com: “to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame:

Please note that to “malign” someone is NOT to hate them – which means to want to harm them or see them come to harm – rather, it is to speak of them in a negative and false manner. There are many people who say actually bad things about others (like, ‘they are a jerk’) but don’t hate them.

Here are the definitions of “vilify”:

Cambridge: “to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame”

Merriam-Webster: “to utter slanderous and abusive statements against”

Oxford: “Speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner”

Dictionary.com: “to speak ill of; defame; slander.”

Please note that to “vilify” someone is NOT to hate them – which means to want to harm them or see them come to harm – rather, it is to speak of them in a negative and false manner. There are many people who say actually bad things about others (like, ‘they are a selfish person’) but don’t hate them.

So, SPLC staff uses the terms “malign” and “vilify” as synonymous with “hate”, which is false. Hate or hatred is an internal state of a person in regards to their view of someone else – hatred is a noun, not a verb. Malign and vilify are verbs – they speak of the action of saying bad or wrong things about someone. Motivations for maligning or vilifying someone could include greed, avarice, jealousy or hatred. So SPLC staff does a ‘good job’ at obfuscating the issue with these word tricks. One thing is for certain, having a conflicting moral view with another person (for example: It is morally wrong for two men to have sex versus it is not morally wrong for two men to have sex) does NOT equal hatred!

Here is another extremely important truth about this matter – groups cannot hate, only individuals can hate, UNLESS YOU REDEFINE HATRED. Groups can communicate their views on morality through statements officially representing the group, but a group cannot “hate”. For example, if a group issued a statement like, ‘All Asians Ought to be Driven Out of Society’, that could be reasonably be viewed as a statement expressing hatred because the statement expresses the desire to see harm come to that group. However, if a group issues a statement like, ‘We believe that adults pushing transgender ideology on young children is wrong and harmful’, that should NEVER be viewed as expressing hatred. And yet, that is EXACTLY what SPLC staff does.

SPLC staff have redefined “hatred” to mean, to have a moral view that is unacceptable to SPLC staff – which moral view or views do NOT advocate hatred but rather simply state that some behavior or practices are wrong or harmful. For example, if someone says, “I believe pedophilia is morally wrong”, they are not saying they hate pedophiles. Rather, they are saying the act of an adult manipulating and using a child to fulfill their sexual desire is morally wrong.

SPLC staff’s belief in moral relativism and their embracing some leftist ideology means they view ANY criticism of a person’s moral behavior that conflicts with their view on the matter, as ‘hatred’. As we have seen, this is gross error. SPLC staff’s fundamental practice is to use sweeping generalization fallacies to accuse any group or organization who has traditional moral objectivist views as somehow practicing “hatred”.

So, for example, if a Christian minister says, ‘we believe that homosexual marriage is wrong’, the SPLC staff views that as an expression of hatred. Of course it is NOT an expression of hated, rather, it is the expression of a different view of morality and a religious view of marriage in a society. The vast majority of Christian ministers are NOT saying, ‘we would like see harm come to homosexuals’. Rather, they are saying, ‘we don’t believe that homosexual marriage is morally right or it is unhealthy and thus it is harmful both to individuals and to a society’. The vast majority of Christians who hold that view DO NOT have extreme enmity nor active hostility towards the homosexual individual or an LGBT group, and to accuse them of such is a slanderous act.

Or, for example, the American College of Pediatricians states on a page with the title, “Gender Confusion and Transgender Identity” the following:

“Gender Confusion or Gender Dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently, there is a vigorous debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children. This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate, but a review of the current literature suggests that this claim is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology and lacks an evidence base. The following resources are presented to clarify this matter.” (https://acpeds.org/topics/sexuality-issues-of-youth/gender-confusion-and-transgender-identity )

The page presents links to several articles backing up the claims in the above paragraph.

Since this organization’s ideology is at variance with SPLC staff’s ideology, the SPLC staff will slander them as a hate group! To say that the medical professionals and others associated with the American College of Pediatricians “express hatred” against children experiencing gender dysphoria is utterly irrational and in fact, is to malign and vilify a whole group of people – EXACTLY WHAT SPLC STAFF SAYS THEY ARE AGAINST. As stated at the beginning of this article, this is a good example of moral relativist’s beliefs leading them into contradictory and hypocritical behavior.

Conclusions

So, in conclusion, for SPLC staff to label a group of people as a “hate group” by changing the definition of “hate” to mean ‘against our ideology or morality’, is gross error and should be actively rebuked by decent and sound reasoning people.

By listing organizations on their “hate group” list, SPLC staff maligns and vilify those groups and persons who are members of those groups, thus, they are doing exactly what they say they are against. Certainly accusing people of hatred is perhaps the most serious moral judgment that can be leveled at a person or group.

Accusing people of hatred is absolutely to malign and vilify them, especially if the members of those groups do not actually hate other people. So, the key question is, why does the SPLC staff believe there are in a position to malign and vilify people associated with a group when they themselves state that to do so is synonymous with hating the people associated with the group? This is where the contradictory doctrines of moral relativism leaves people – in ruinous confusion, gross hypocrisy and in this case, slandering others.

SPLC staff believes THEY are in the moral position to malign and vilify entire groups of people by calling them “hate groups” based on SPLC staff’s contradictory moral view and erroneous ideology. This seems to be a very bad place to be in one’s approach to life. I would suggest the SPLC staff reflect on this judgment and turn away from their immoral and erroneous beliefs and practices. Use good reasoning and logic to escape the trap they place themselves in.

Instead of making the horribly wrong accusation of ‘hatred’ towards many who don’t hate anyone, SPLC staff’s time and resources would be better spent helping actual victims of actual hatred which would mean doing things like providing legal representation or medical services to people actually harmed by actual acts of hatred.