News Could the culture war become civil war?

[pattylou]

Something like this:

Irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved from simpler systems.
Therefore, they must have been created.

LOL. Yeah, and I think that's some torturous logic!

Actually, when I think ID, though, I think Michael Behe, but at least isn't stupid enough to claim that the eye cannot be reduced. I think two of his claims (I can hardly remember at this point) are blood clotting and flagella. The thing is, he actually seems to present a fairly compelling case when you only read his side of it. Fortunately, I was introduced to his work through another man, Kenneth Miller, that makes counterarguments to his claim, giving examples of simplified versions of the systems that Behe claims to be 'irreducibly complex.' (Ironically, Miller does this as part of a book that goes on to use physics to argue for God - I initially read it as part of a presentation I was giving on making counterarguments to these arguments from aspects of physics.) I have to admit that following their debate really increased my knowledge of subcellular evolution, something that does not receive much coverage in biology classes. [.quote]

That's right, the arguments have been debunked. Some components of the flagella evolved initially for other reasons (export pathways, I believe) and so on.

Have you ever read any of Richard Dawkins publications? He does the most wonderful job of debunking all these design claims. The quality of his arguments tends to lag when he moves outside of science (although Dan Dennett does a great job of picking up for him in some of his work), but he has to be the one science writer I most enjoy reading. Either he or E.O. Wilson.

I haven't, but I have heard others enjoy these authors as well. As far as I am concerned, there is no question mark in my mind over these issues, so I have no motivation to read the debunking. If I had to teach ID, I would use the books as a resource, to facilitate my teaching, however. You might also like: Darwin's Watch, by Terry Pratchett. I don't know what genre it is, but I understand it is easy to follow and bears on this debate.

 

[arildno]

Now, the last posts here are really interesting in relation to ID!

As I see it, one of those natural processes ID thinkers ignore is that of pruning, streamlining a clumpy, yet functional system into a sleek "miracle" of nature, by removing elements no longer strictly necessary for the functioning of the system.

For example, if we tentatively assume that multicellular organisms arose out of colonies of unicellular organisms with a shared ancestor, we can quite well imagine that over time (and colony generations), some of the individual cells become preferenced to do some vital task benefiting the whole community, SO THAT THE OTHER CONSTITUENTS NEED NO LONGER PERFORM OR RETAIN THE CAPACITY TO PERFORM A TASK VITAL FOR ITS OWN SURVIVAL, since it gains what it needs in this respect from the other, specialized cells.

While I don't think what I wrote here is either new to either LYN or pattylou (it is, in essence, her own previous argument in my words) or many others here at PF, I thought my comment was relevant anyway..

 

[SOS2008]

At last the weeping and wailing of a vigil comes to an end, the candles snuffed out…now only about 59,146,826 more to go… Looks like this is the new thread for Intelligent Design?

A little exercise in the scientific method…here is a survey on the American Family Association (AFA) web site:

Should students be exposed to different ideas, or should they be shielded from information about intelligent design? Give us your opinion.

* Yes, students should be exposed to the theory of intelligent design in public schools.
No, the theory of evolution is the only theory which should be taught in public schools.

Count the number of ways this survey fails to control variables that may result in biased outcome.

http://www.afa.net/petitions/intelligentdesign/takesurvey.asp

 

[SOS2008]

BTW -- For anyone interested, there is to be an intelligent design discussion on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” tomorrow, August 10, at 9 a.m. EST.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You might also like: Darwin's Watch, by Terry Pratchett. I don't know what genre it is, but I understand it is easy to follow and bears on this debate.

Pratchett is a science fiction author prone to satire and humour.
Ah.. I see though that it apearantly does delve into hard science...
The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen (2005)

 

[Antiphon]

Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a
long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left
is so big on gun control- they need something to level the playing field.

So, you're saying that the idea that people like you (religious) shooting us, murdering us, is a valid concern ("level the playing field")?

That's a serious misread.

No- I'm saying that people on the left can't shoot people on the right
unless they disarm them first, hence the left's obsession with eliminating
the right to keep and bear arms. The playing field of reason is what's
not level for the left. Their main weapon in the culture war is usually
an appeal to one's (com)passions.


Science does not always generate testable hypotheses. The scientific
method relies on disproving a theory by testing it. But the frontiers of
science are often in untestable waters.

Intelligent design (which I do not advocate) is nevetheless appropriate
for the classroom. If one were to discover a piece of machinery on a
deserted island, it would follow that something was once there to create
the machine since it does not follow scientifically that a machine
would appear on its own on an island.

The testable hypothesis in intelligent design is this: is the probablility of
a system coming into existence through random iteration large enough
to suggest that it could have happened in the given time frame?

If I allow one week for an organism to evolve out of a jar of dirt and water,
then intelligent design is the only scientifically acceptable hypothesis
for how this can happen, and it is a completely testable theory.

If I allow 5 billion years, then the probabilities may shift in favor of
evolution. It is still a scientific discussion either way and it DOES belong
in the science classroom.

 

[Smurf]

I'm pretty sure this is wrong.

Example, bacteria can have multiple genetic units (chromosomes and plasmids of varying numbers.) It is very easy, and observable, to either induce the plasmid to incorporate into the chromosome (presumably even easy to make it so it can't get out again) or to alter the number of plasmids that a strain carries.

There is an example of two closely related species (I forget which but they are mammals) where one chromosome in one species (with the centromere in the middle) is clearly two chromosomes (each with a centromere on the end) in the other species.

You should PM moonbear and get her in here to give us all a lecture on the finer details of subcellular biology and evolution.

 

[BobG]

Intelligent design (which I do not advocate) is nevetheless appropriate
for the classroom. If one were to discover a piece of machinery on a
deserted island, it would follow that something was once there to create
the machine since it does not follow scientifically that a machine
would appear on its own on an island.

The testable hypothesis in intelligent design is this: is the probablility of
a system coming into existence through random iteration large enough
to suggest that it could have happened in the given time frame?

If I allow one week for an organism to evolve out of a jar of dirt and water,
then intelligent design is the only scientifically acceptable hypothesis
for how this can happen, and it is a completely testable theory.

If I allow 5 billion years, then the probabilities may shift in favor of
evolution. It is still a scientific discussion either way and it DOES belong
in the science classroom.

The piece of machinery probably wasn't your main point, but it's a really strange analogy. It reminds me of Cargo Cults. The piece of machinery is too complex for any man to have created, so it must come from the Gods. During WWII, quite a few 'useless' islands, occupied only by primitive cultures, suddenly became useful as refueling stops for airplanes. Having an airstrip on the island brought unimagined riches to the island (at least from the natives perspective). After the war, the islands were 'useless' again. Decades later, you could go back to the island and find bamboo control towers, wooden desks with wooden boxes with circles and symbols drawn on them and a coconut microphone tied to the box with a person to dutifully talk to the microphone - they do all the right rituals, only the planes still don't come back.

So much relies on perception. You know the machinery wasn't delivered by the Gods - they don't. There's other things in the world where we don't know the answer. If the capability exists to analyze the piece of machinery, or something else in the world that puzzles us, and to determine how it came about, then there certainly seems to be more benefit to finding out what's really up with the piece of machinery and to adapt to new facts rather than stay fixed in old traditions from a less knowledgeable time.

 

[Archon]

Intelligent design (which I do not advocate) is nevetheless appropriatefor the classroom. If one were to discover a piece of machinery on adeserted island, it would follow that something was once there to create
the machine since it does not follow scientifically that a machine would appear on its own on an island.

Not a machine as we know it. But if you saw a new species of snake on an island, you would not come to the same conclusion, would you? Your analogy is not accurate because to the best of our knowledge, there is no process by which (truly complex) machines could evolve spontaneously from simple materials.

The testable hypothesis in intelligent design is this: is the probablility ofa system coming into existence through random iteration large enoughto suggest that it could have happened in the given time frame?

The entire principle behind a testable hypothesis is that if you test it, and your tests indicate that it is correct, then it must be (at least to a reasonable extent) correct. This is not the case with the "test" you have given. The "probability of a system coming into existence through random iteration" is irrelevant, because if there is no "Intelligent Designer," then no matter how small the probability of this happening, it has happened. That's why we're here to ask these questions. Saying that evolution is impossible because it is unlikely is not a reasonable argument.

If I allow one week for an organism to evolve out of a jar of dirt and water, then intelligent design is the only scientifically acceptable hypothesis for how this can happen, and it is a completely testable theory.

Again, this is not an effective test, because it only provides "evidence" for one side of the argument. If life evolves from the jar, then you can say that Intelligent Design is valid. You could also say that we just don't understand, at the most basic levels, evolution. But if life doesn't evolve from the jar, then you can't say that Intelligent Design is invalid: you can only say that life didn't evolve from the jar.

If I allow 5 billion years, then the probabilities may shift in favor of
evolution. It is still a scientific discussion either way and it DOES belong
in the science classroom.

You've missed a major component of the concept of "testable hypothesis." You can argue all you want that Intelligent Design is testable in theory.Until there is actual evidence pointing toward its truth, however, it is no more testable (in reality) than the belief that you're actually being held by aliens on a planet light years away and everything you see and feel is a simulation they're using to study you.
Evolution, on the other hand, does provide such evidence: it has effectively described much of how life on Earth has developed. Evolution can be tested through observation, has been, and is currently accepted by the scientific community as the best theory on the subject that we have.

 

[Skyhunter]

Hmm...the culture war turns into a civil war...then the libs have seriously geographically and http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf screwed the pooch.

Rev Prez

I really don't believe that someone as aggressive and militant as you could be a reverend.

If the culture war becomes a civil war then I will become a casualty.

I will not compromise my beliefs, nor will I take up arms against fellow humans.

 

[SOS2008]

I really don't believe that someone as aggressive and militant as you could be a reverend.

If the culture war becomes a civil war then I will become a casualty.

I will not compromise my beliefs, nor will I take up arms against fellow humans.

Rev Prez isn't a reverend, but no matter, I believe he's been banned. To which I gave my eulogy:

At last the weeping and wailing of a vigil comes to an end, the candles snuffed out…now only about 59,146,826 more to go…

 

[Astronuc]

I am a conservative and I want students to hear this discussion. You are a liberal and you want students to be shielded from this discussion.

Not quite - liberals want an 'honest' and factual discussion.

SOS2008, I'll bet my bottom dollar that you are drop-dead gorgeous.

Yes, she is!

You'd have to be- because A) no man with a spine would give you the time of day based on the quality of your ideas alone, and B) you're not bitter at all, so there must be at least one man (with a spine) in your life.

What's with the personal attack? SOS happens to be a very fine lady - outspoke and strong-willed perhaps - but nevertheless a very fine lady.

Edit: Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left is so big on gun control- they need something to level the playing field.

No- I'm saying that people on the left can't shoot people on the right
unless they disarm them first, hence the left's obsession with eliminating
the right to keep and bear arms. The playing field of reason is what's
not level for the left. Their main weapon in the culture war is usually
an appeal to one's (com)passions.

Interestingly, I often observe that it is those on the so-called 'right' who mention the use of violence - guns, bombs, nuking cities! I have yet to see someone on the so-called 'left' advocating violence. Certainly SOS or pattylou have not advocated violence.

Incidentally, I have heard more inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda from the 'right' than from the 'left'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What doesn't belong in a science class is the hypothesis that they were created by divine intervention, as that simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

 

[Archon]

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

If no known processes could account for life on earth, then our first assumption would be that some unknown (but still "non-Divine") process accounts for it. The scientific method would only allow us to accept Intelligent Design if we could show that there is absolutely no other possibility. This will (probably) never happen. Showing that there are no possibilities to the best of our knowledge is not enough to satisfy any sort of scientific rigor.

 

[Skyhunter]

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

Darwin never suggested that there was not a creator. It is my understanding that he believed in God and like many scientists has no problem reconciling science and religion.

And what about un-intelligent design?

Take rabbit digestion, for example. As herbivores, rabbits need help from bacteria to break down the cell walls of the plants they eat, so, cleverly enough, they have a large section of intestine where such bacterial fermentation takes place. The catch is, it's at the far end of the small intestine, beyond where efficient absorption of nutrients can happen. A sensible system -- as we see in ruminant animals like cattle and deer -- ferments before the small intestine, maximizing nutrient absorption. Rabbits, having to make do with an unintelligent system, instead eat some of their own feces after one trip through, sending half-digested food back through the small intestine for re-digestion.

complete article
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...2DK21.DTL&hw=intelligent+design&sn=007&sc=394

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This will (probably) never happen. Showing that there are no possibilities to the best of our knowledge is not enough to satisfy any sort of scientific rigor.

This obliquely assumes that the notion of intelligent design is excluded by science. My point was that if, based on the evidence, the proposition of ID is as or more likely than any other explanations, if for some reason this is the case one day, then it is not anti-science to follow that line of reasoning and look for any evidence of ID. Science cannot speak to issues of a God unless we find evidence for one. I agree that the lack of a complete theory of evolution would not be evidence for ID, but if, for example, "unguided evolution" was somehow shown to be statistically impossible, then I think this could be interpreted as evidence for ID.

 

[Archon]

This obliquely assumes that the notion of intelligent design is excluded by science. My point was that if, based on the evidence, the proposition of ID is as or more likely than any other explanations, if for some reason this is the case one day, then it is not anti-science to follow that line of reasoning and look for any evidence of ID. Science cannot speak to issues of a God unless we find evidence for one. I agree that the lack of a complete theory of evolution would not be evidence for ID, but if, for example, "unguided evolution" was somehow shown to be statistically impossible, then I think this could be interpreted as evidence for ID.

Like I said in some previous post, it's entirely possible that the development of life on Earth was "statistically impossible." But this is not evidence of Intelligent Design because regardless of how unlikely this was, it may have happened. We could at some point in the future find evidence that it was virtually impossible for humans to develop without a "creator." But we won't be able to differentiate between intelligent design and our unlikely but still possible spontaneous development. In both cases, the end result is the same and no "traces" are left.

I don't necessarily disagree with Intelligent Design. I just think that there's no way we'll ever know whether it's the real explanation or not. This is why it shouldn't be taught as science: there's no way for us to know with any reasonable degree of certainty whether or not it is a valid theory. It can't be tested in the usual sense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, obviously this is all completely hypothetical, but just for the sake of what-ifs, what if evidence was left by a designer? My basic objection is that science does not assume the lack of designer, rather, most scientists feel that we have a fairly comprehensive model that accounts for life without the need for a designer. Were there evidence to the contrary we could address this question just as any other - through the application of the scientific method. The original comments suggested that science implicity excludes the possibility of an ID, which I think is completely wrong, but I would agree that most scientists feel that it appears to eliminate the need for ID explicitly; based on the evidence.

 

[Archon]

It's not that science excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer. Rather, science (probably) cannot be used to determine whether there is an intelligent designer, so the theory of Intelligent Design is currently outside the realm of science. It's true that if evidence existed that life was created by an intelligent designer, then we could apply the scientific method. But no such evidence has been found yet, and thus, supporting I.D. is an act of faith. Much as supporting evolution would be if we had no evidence to support it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It's not that science excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer. Rather, science (probably) cannot be used to determine whether there is an intelligent designer, so the theory of Intelligent Design is currently outside the realm of science. It's true that if evidence existed that life was created by an intelligent designer, then we could apply the scientific method. But no such evidence has been found yet, and thus, supporting I.D. is an act of faith. Much as supporting evolution would be if we had no evidence to support it.

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

 

[Archon]

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

A geneticist alters life, but does not create it. Anyway, I didn't say anything about intelligent designers except that there is no evidence for them. Specifically, I mean an intelligent designer that created or influenced the creation of life in our universe on a large scale.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

Further evidence against intelligent design. Either that, or your nipples serve some purpose that you don't understand yet.

 

[outsider]

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

LOL! Why don't you design a new man with all the necessities? I'd be willing to donate my brain and let the women do the thinking for me... I'm tired! :zzz:

 

[Smurf]

So.. if men have nipples... does that mean that we have routes in asexual organisms?

hmmm, I guess we must have since originally we should have had to have evolved from bacteria.

Still, it's interesting, in what other species to males have nipples (or any gender with any redundant organs)

 

[outsider]

So.. if men have nipples... does that mean that we have routes in asexual organisms?

hmmm, I guess we must have since originally we should have had to have evolved from bacteria.

Still, it's interesting, in what other species to males have nipples (or any gender with any redundant organs)

I've never found nipples on my dog, nor do steer have udders

 

[Skyhunter]

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?

On a personal note I would like to say that spreading the erogenous zones to parts of the body other than the sex organs is intelligent design.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I've never found nipples on my dog,

Ummm ... You LOOKED!?

Gocha!

 

[outsider]

Ummm ... You LOOKED!?

Gocha!

Yeah you got me! LOL! He's got no nutsack either FYI... poor kid

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8950293/

Christian groups hold ‘Justice Sunday II’
Latest conservative rally takes aim at judicial activism

...“We’ve seen a conservative president get re-elected, the conservative Congressional base expand. The (Supreme) Court is part of a cultural problem,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, the organization responsible for “Justice Sunday II: God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!”

Time to play what's wrong with this picture. The answer below:

Rita Nakashima Brock, founder of Faith Voices for the Common Good, said at the counter gathering that “Justice Sunday II” called for a theocracy instead of democracy.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html

Meanwhile, police have filed a criminal charge against the the man who allegedly expressed his displeasure with Sheehan's protest by driving his pickup truck through rows of crosses bearing the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. Larry Northern, a 59-year-old resident of Waco, Texas, was charged with felony criminal mischief. Police say he ran over 500 crosses and 40 American flags to make his point.

What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

 

[Amp1]

I agree that's not the way to support the troops. We could do better by providing them with what they were promised when they signed on to serve Bu... oops our country.

 

[TRCSF]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html


What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

Yuck. Reminds me of when Ron Kovic got spat on during by a delegate at the Republican National Convention.

 

[alexandra]

Here is the latest from Crawford Texas

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/17/sheehan1/index.html


What a way to support the troops.

I'll bet he supports and amendment to ban flag burning too.

An interesting development:

Vigils to support Sheehan protest

More than 1,000 anti-war vigils are to take place around the United States in support of a bereaved mother protesting outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4160032.stm

 

[SOS2008]

Unfortunately the wacko from Waco typifies many Bush supporters. They are clueless about what real patriotism is, and what freedom and democracy are. When they say support our troops, we know they are really saying support Bush.

 

[TRCSF]

Unfortunately the wacko from Waco typifies many Bush supporters. They are clueless about what real patriotism is, and what freedom and democracy are. When they say support our troops, we know they are really saying support Bush.

Of course. I sure hope that nobody's really surprised this happened. The guy who did this is getting all sorts of support from rightwingers. Rightwing pundits like Limbaugh are jumping up and down on Cindy Sheehan.

 

[SOS2008]

Of course. I sure hope that nobody's really surprised this happened. The guy who did this is getting all sorts of support from rightwingers. Rightwing pundits like Limbaugh are jumping up and down on Cindy Sheehan.

What this shows is that hate rhetoric is linked with right-wing conservatives far more than liberals (per discussions in the thread on Clear Channel), which started with the likes of Limbaugh. That their true colors are being shown for all to see (like those who intervened in the Schiavo incident) is fine with me. I hope they will finally go the way of the KKK and be shunned by all civil Americans.

 

[TRCSF]

I hope they will finally go the way of the KKK and be shunned by all civil Americans.

I sure hope the pendulum keeps swinging that way. It's started to. God knows I'm sick of James Dobson and his hate group getting legitimate air time.

 

[BobG]

I sure hope the pendulum keeps swinging that way. It's started to. God knows I'm sick of James Dobson and his hate group getting legitimate air time.

I really don't care to care to defend James Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization. If they stayed out of politics, I probably wouldn't care one way or the other about them. But your comment does make me curious.

What is the criteria is for being labeled a hate group?

 

[Smurf]

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards one or more groups of people or organizations usually upon spurious grounds and despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others.

 

[BobG]

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards one or more groups of people or organizations usually upon spurious grounds and despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others.

Is Howard Dean leading a anti-Republican hate group? His comments about Republicans is hostile, sometimes even derogatory. Or is there a lack of consensus about whether Republicans are better or worse than any others? Is being Republican a sign of inferior intelligence? (I could have said the same about Mehlman and Democrats - the particular party isn't the point)

I only raise the point because I would normally consider the 'hostility' to mean verbal violence - slurs and suggestions that the world would be better off if a certain group were wiped off the face of the Earth, etc. Basically, a form of violence committed by groups afraid to actually act out the physical violence they'd like to dish out.

It made we wonder what Focus on the Family had done to qualify as a hate group. They're definitely anti-gay - they think homosexuality is a sin and say so quite publicly. They were active in pushing anti-homosexual legislation in several states. And accusing cartoon characters of homosexuality is ... well ... weird. Considering legislative laws can have a bigger effect on a group than isolated incidents of violence, does that qualify them as a hate group?

 

[Smurf]

Well everyone's interpretation is valid, but I would say that yes, yes and yes. There are many hate groups involving themselves in American politics these days.

 

[TRCSF]

I really don't care to care to defend James Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization. If they stayed out of politics, I probably wouldn't care one way or the other about them. But your comment does make me curious.

What is the criteria is for being labeled a hate group?

I assume you're being facetitious when you're labelling the Democratic party as a hate group.

As for criteria of what makes something a hate group, I'll refer you to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you're unfamiliar with their work, they're quite the authority on hate groups.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2005/6-10/news/localnews/antigay.cfm

 

[BobG]

I assume you're being facetitious when you're labelling the Democratic party as a hate group.

As for criteria of what makes something a hate group, I'll refer you to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you're unfamiliar with their work, they're quite the authority on hate groups.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2005/6-10/news/localnews/antigay.cfm

Political parties are banned in some countries, so it's not entirely facetious, but, obviously, political parties aren't considered hate groups in America, in spite of some biting political rhetoric.

Your 'typical' hate group, like the KKK, is pretty easy to classify, as well. The groups that engage in violence, or advocate violent solutions, are clearly hate groups.

The CCC is pretty clearly associated with the KKK, which makes them easy to classify, in spite of the fact that they never resort to violence or any illegal activities, themselves. Likewise, other hate and terrorist groups have had their own front groups.

The groups that target a specific group of people without violence (physical or verbal) - target them strictly though the courts or legislation - are a little harder to classify without a more precise definition. This is the area where a vague term could wind up being applied to a whole range of groups, from Focus to the Family all the way to political parties that pool together to make sure as many people from party win elections over the other party as possible.

By time you get down to political parties, their actions are designed towards a practical purpose - gaining a majority in legislative bodies so that their own legislation is more likely to be passed. To me, that's clearly politics and not hate actions.

It's not entirely clear when you start talking about social issues. Are anti-abortion groups hate groups? How does someone else getting an abortion affect someone who is opposed to abortion? Are atheists that demand all references to religion be removed from public places hate groups? That could be (and often is) perceived as religious persecution.

I think that if you want to prevent folks from doing what they want, you have to prove that behavior hurts you and others like you in some significant way (which is why I wouldn't want to defend Focus on the Family - their headquarters are here and a popular bumper sticker around town is "Focus on Your Own Damn Family"). But, I'm not sure every group that tries to impose their own beliefs on others can be categorized as a hate group without turning the term into an ordinary political insult.

 

[outsider]

Political parties are banned in some countries, so it's not entirely facetious, but, obviously, political parties aren't considered hate groups in America, in spite of some biting political rhetoric.

Your 'typical' hate group, like the KKK, is pretty easy to classify, as well. The groups that engage in violence, or advocate violent solutions, are clearly hate groups.

The CCC is pretty clearly associated with the KKK, which makes them easy to classify, in spite of the fact that they never resort to violence or any illegal activities, themselves. Likewise, other hate and terrorist groups have had their own front groups.

The groups that target a specific group of people without violence (physical or verbal) - target them strictly though the courts or legislation - are a little harder to classify without a more precise definition. This is the area where a vague term could wind up being applied to a whole range of groups, from Focus to the Family all the way to political parties that pool together to make sure as many people from party win elections over the other party as possible.

By time you get down to political parties, their actions are designed towards a practical purpose - gaining a majority in legislative bodies so that their own legislation is more likely to be passed. To me, that's clearly politics and not hate actions.

It's not entirely clear when you start talking about social issues. Are anti-abortion groups hate groups? How does someone else getting an abortion affect someone who is opposed to abortion? Are atheists that demand all references to religion be removed from public places hate groups? That could be (and often is) perceived as religious persecution.

I think that if you want to prevent folks from doing what they want, you have to prove that behavior hurts you and others like you in some significant way (which is why I wouldn't want to defend Focus on the Family - their headquarters are here and a popular bumper sticker around town is "Focus on Your Own Damn Family"). But, I'm not sure every group that tries to impose their own beliefs on others can be categorized as a hate group without turning the term into an ordinary political insult.

If a group of individuals openly have a common agenda to abolish another group, that would be a hate group.

Whether or not Political parties are hate groups is debatable as one would like to believe that one party wants to defeat the other party completely and decisively, while conspiracy theory says that they are just like brothers passing the buck back and forth.

Hate groups exist in political parties... that is for sure. Which way do most KKK's vote?

 

[The Smoking Man]

If a group of individuals openly have a common agenda to abolish another group, that would be a hate group.

Whether or not Political parties are hate groups is debatable as one would like to believe that one party wants to defeat the other party completely and decisively, while conspiracy theory says that they are just like brothers passing the buck back and forth.

Hate groups exist in political parties... that is for sure. Which way do most KKK's vote?

BNP, Sinne Fein, National Front, (Neocon(USA), LDP(Japan)) Factions within legitimate 'Conservative' parties.

Israel is also rife with political parties that would instigate Holocaust in spite of their own history.

Note, I am referring to multi party states ... hence the absence of the CCP in my observation. (For those of you who will accuse me of Bias.)

 

[outsider]

BNP, Sinne Fein, National Front, (Neocon(USA), LDP(Japan)) Factions within legitimate 'Conservative' parties.

Israel is also rife with political parties that would instigate Holocaust in spite of their own history.

Note, I am referring to multi party states ... hence the absence of the CCP in my observation. (For those of you who will accuse me of Bias.)

Rhetorical question on my part... but thanks for the added info... the conservative parties are certainly solid set in ignorance, brotherhood, fear, and conspiracy for sure. Yes, morals too. Morals = Fear.

Tough to break through one's fear and ignorance for sure... but to break the brotherhood can mean death... or worse, the brotherhood conspiring against you and anyone who you befriend.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Rhetorical question on my part... but thanks for the added info... the conservative parties are certainly solid set in ignorance, brotherhood, fear, and conspiracy for sure. Yes, morals too. Morals = Fear.

Tough to break through one's fear and ignorance for sure... but to break the brotherhood can mean death... or worse, the brotherhood conspiring against you and anyone who you befriend.

As an example of how messed up this type of politics are ...

Koizumi just made the privatization of the Post Office a Confidence issue.

When he lost, he dissolved parliament and stated that those representatives who voted against him would not be allowed by the party to stand for election come September.

Is this the purpose of an election?

Don't you vote for a person who represents you and not the Party Line?

This is exactly what the 100 flowers movement did in China.

Invite people to contribute and then round up those who went against policy.

Do you really think that this type of 'extremist politics' under a democracy diverges that much from a fascist state?

 

[outsider]

As an example of how messed up this type of politics are ...

Koizumi just made the privatization of the Post Office a Confidence issue.

When he lost, he dissolved parliament and stated that those representatives who voted against him would not be allowed by the party to stand for election come September.

Is this the purpose of an election?

Don't you vote for a person who represents you and not the Party Line?

This is exactly what the 100 flowers movement did in China.

Invite people to contribute and then round up those who went against policy.

Do you really think that this type of 'extremist politics' under a democracy diverges that much from a fascist state?

It's all about reframing. Changing slightly so that it's "different" but the effects are ultimately the same for sure... as those in power eventually become irresponsible... and buttkissers will rub up to get what they want... smart individuals never take power, but do some good buttkissing and win both ways. I think we all knew that.

 

[outsider]

Yes. I will be away from pf.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ben Sargent's take on http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20050823/cx_bs_uc/bs20050823