Rotating Header Image

Sally Kern's Hate Speech

Mar 11th, 2008
by Drew Tatusko.

http://www.oliverborrow.co.uk/images/indoor_photos/burnimg-cross.jpgI found a transcript of Sally Kern's speech defaming homosexuality here.  This is a follow-up to my previous post here.  This is a test to see if the content of the speech is hate speech if we play with the subject referent. What I have done is remove any references to "gays", "homosexuals", "homosexuality" and the like and replaced them with words like "African Americans", "race", and so forth.  How is this not hate speech and what argument can anyone give that her speech should not be publicly condemned in Oklahoma?

============================== 

The African American agenda is destroying this nation. 'Kay? It's just a fact. Not everybody's lifestyle is equal, just like not all religions are equal. Y'know? The very fact that I'm talking to you like this here today puts me in jeopardy. Okay? Uh…. And I'm not anti-, I'm not a racist, but according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle. It has deadly consequences for those people involved in it, they have more suicides, uh, and they're more discouraged, there's more illness, they're have–lifespans are shorter. Y'know? It's, it's not a race that is good for this nation! As a matter of fact, studies show that no society that has totally embraced African Americans has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country.

-I honestly think it's the biggest threat even–that our nation has, even more so than terrorism. Or Islam, which I think is a big threat. 'Kay? 'Cause what's happening now, they're going after, uh, in, in schools. Two year-olds! You know why they're trying to get early childhood education? They want to get our young children into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them! I taught school for close to twenty years, and we're not teaching facts and knowledge anymore folks, we're teaching indoctrination. Okay? And they're going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the African American race is the acceptable race. Y'know, African Americans are infiltrating city councils. Did you know–Eureka Springs, anybody been there, the Passion play? 'Kay, have you heard that the city council of Eureka Springs is now controlled by African Americans? 'Kay. There are some others, uh… Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Tacoma Park, Maryland; Kensington, Maryland; in Vermont, Oregon, West Palm Beach, Florida, and a lot of other places in Florida. What's happening, and they are winning elections.

One of the things I did with in our legislature, I tried to enter [unrecognizable--abusive?] bill last year, that would notify parents, uh… schools had to let parents know what clubs their students were involved in. And the reason I did that bill, primarily, was this: we have the African American/White Alliance coming into our schools. Kids are getting involved in these groups, their lives are being ruined, their parents don't know about it! So I introduced a bill that said, you have to notify all clubs and things. And one of my colleagues said, "Well, you know we don't have a race problem in my county. So that's why I'm voting against that bill." Well you know what? To me that is so dumb. If you've got… cancer or something in your little toe, do you say, "Well, I’m just gonna forget about it, 'cause the rest of you is fine"? It spreads! Okay? And this, this stuff is deadly and it's spreading and it will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.

==========================================

You decide. 

Related posts:

  1. matthew shepard remembered, again
  2. why proposition 8 is harmful
  3. it's not indoctrination but the magic is sucking you dry

Posted in: LGBT, Politics.

←
→
  • Even if it is a choice there is no legal reason why one should not be able to marry the partner of one's choosing. That should be legally irrelevant and that is the primary issue here.
  • Alan
    RE: The problem is that homosexuality is still seen as a choice.

    Hate mongers bring up "choice" because it helps them to distinguish themselves from racists.

    So what if it is a choice? That alone does not mean that it is wrong. Let alone so wrong as to be subject to this sort of abuse!

    The fact is, this woman is a hater, and her supporters are haters. Anyone who cannot see this is morally blind.
  • This is a great thought experiment. To me, the issue of opposing behavior versus a people is almost never successfully achieved by anyone. We do consider criminals to be inferior people. We do see child molesters as more than their behavior (as people to fear, condemn and reject).

    So when people make the argument that they see homosexuality as creating unhealthy lifestyles or that homosexuals are somehow dangerous in our public life (government, schools), we are vilifying the people. We really can't in any way separate the behavior from the people.

    So the truth is, those who are supportive of gay rights are asking those who believe the sexual activity of gays is wrong to ignore that perspective in favor of acceptance. And while I used to think that that was a violation of sacred rights to differ in beliefs, I no longer do.

    We've overcome racial prejudice and re-evaluated our understanding of the Bible to support the conscious shift in our country's law codes. I believe the same needs to happen for gays. And I believe it must happen soon.

    So yes, I do think this speech represents hate.
  • Skemono STOP THE HATE SPEECH

    as far as i'm concerned, nobody is acting like a bigot more than you. you parade yourself as open-minded but in all actuality, your type of hateful, closed-minded fundamentalism is the scariest thing i can imagine. check yourself!!! kind of odd that Drew's last words are "you decide" and then you come on here bashing the first person who disagrees with your ideology. as far as i can see, you're not willing to let me or anyone who disagrees with you "decide". again, check yourself!!!

    Drew,
    I do find it kind of odd that in this post about hate speech and silencing it, you keep skemono's comments posted. just saying.
  • I'll have to think about an example that fits this analogically to see where it goes. But I like your line of thinking Bryan which is why I posed this as a "test".

    Looking at things like racism, oppression, etc. there is evidence to support the notion, for example that they are destructive to the social order - a social order that seeks to support and protect the rights of its citizens. So homosexuality is not really the same kind of thing. Yet Kern equates it with those kinds of instances.

    It's not the literal language as much as the assumptions and the kind of language that paints homosexuals as those who will destroy our society. There is simply no basis for these assertions. Her assertions that homosexuality ruins children and so forth. Why? Why does she make these unfounded assertions that can only lead to the segregation of a people group from the wider populace? Where is the evidence that indoctrination is happening?

    I think another good arena here is the evolution versus creationism debate. The same language of the destruction of society and indoctrination is used there as well. These kinds of generalizations which lead to probable ends of segregation and the pronouncement that one life is of lesser value than another on these grounds is the problem here.
  • Drew,

    You said, "it is clearly not Christian according to the demeanor that Paul beseeched the communities of his day with which to conduct themselves."

    But if she were speaking against something that we all saw as clearly wrong, like racisim, oppression, etc. would it then be Christian? Does what makes the speech so wrong and unchristian the lying and untruth; the meanness? I mean where does the definition of Christian come from? Does it just mean being nice?

    James (in the Bible) has some pretty harsh, even hateful word to say towards the rich people that oppress the poor. Paul has some pretty harsh words to say to the Judaizers causing trouble in Galatia. Jesus has some pretty harsh words to say toward the pharisees who load up burdens on the people but do not lift a finger to help them. Don't even get me started on the prophets : )

    In that context we all see it as ok and even appropriate given the thing being denounced (at least I do). How would you convince someone that this is different if they do in fact see homosexual practices (not orientation) as wrong and even potentially harmful for their others (or even their country)?

    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you I'm just asking out of interest and for the sake of discussion. I am sympathetic to much of what you are saying it's just if I were to adopt your position I would want to make sure I had a solid answer for potential objections or questions that might come my way.

    As far as your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs that is probably a discussion for another time.

    BTW you know what might be helpful Drew? If you were to rewrite that speech (but from that particular side's point of view) taking out everything that you see as hateful and untruthful and either rewording it or replacing it. It would be helpful to see what is a proper was of speaking out against something that you truly disagree with and even see as potentially harmful, that would not be considered as hate speech. I know you probably don't have the time for that kind of thing but I know I would find it valuable. : )

    Blessings,
    Bryan L
  • Bryan,

    Clearly we can disagree. But the language that Kern uses is loaded with lies, untruth, and is equating a group of people with "deadly stuff". She went beyond just disagreement here. Even if not hate speech, I do agree the line is finely drawn here - I exaggerate to promote discussion even in my teaching - it is clearly not Christian according to the demeanor that Paul beseeched the communities of his day with which to conduct themselves. The foundation of her perspective here is her faith. Therefore, her message is inappropriate on two distinct levels.

    If we lose the socially normative distinction between the homosexual and heterosexual relationship, then there are clearly actions in both that some might be predisposed to that are not therefore automatically justified. I think the focus on it is too heavily leaning on sexual intercourse. I am predisposed to be attracted to women. Does that mean that I am going to have sex with them whenever I feel like it? Does that mean that I should treat my wife that way as well? No. Sex is not why I partnered with my wife. There are reasons beyond that. But sex is a part of it nonetheless.

    So why must a gay couple be abstinent if a heterosexual couple is allowed to have sex? This is the question that biblical scholars on both sides of the fence argue back and forth. It is not as clear cut as we would like it to be, and it is not that prevalent of an issue as much as idolatry for one.

    But biblical issue aside, I am calling Kern's responsibility as a legislator to task. I am fine with disagreeing and yes still loving my fellow Christian brothers and sisters about this and I am optimistic we can work through it for the strength of the church. The responsibility of the state is a different issue here and that is what I am taking to task.
  • I guess the point is when we find something we disagree with and think is wrong, is it ok to speak against it? You brought up homosexuality and many people will agree that it is not a choice to be homosexual that same people are just born that way. But they will disagree whether people have a choice as to whether they act on their desires and wants.

    I mean I'm sure we can think of all kinds of predispositions that some people are born with that everyone can agree are not good (something like alcoholism maybe)and we wouldn't fault someone for being born with those predispositions. But would we excuse them for acting on them? We might have more understanding as to why they do but do we say it's completely fine for them to do that if we don't agree that it is ok?

    Blessings,
    Bryan L
  • The way I look at hate speech is when it devalues the personhood of the object to whom it is directed. When you are saying that person A is less a whole person than person B due to contingencies that are not under person A's immediate control, it is a problem. It is not so much the tone of the language as the purpose of it. "Handicapped people" would be a better analogy here.

    An ideological affiliation is not a good analogy because that is something that is a choice, even if the person in question did not choose it (an 18 year old raised to believe that black people are evil for instance). We can educate the ignorance out of that person. we cannot educate being gay out of Gay people. Even Exodus Int'l has admitted this to a certain degree.
  • Skemono, the rules on this blog are to be kind and gentle as well. I will leave what you have there, but watch it.

    Michael,

    Nothing was taken out of context, as I explained exactly what the goal of this post was. It is a test of idea. I did not change the context, I changed the referent here. It's a strawman that I think reveals the irrational tendencies of Kern's appeal to the First Amendment.

    The problem is that homosexuality is still seen as a choice. It might be for some, but according to research that has been published, it is not. While there might not be strong evidence for a "gay gene" yet, other evidence is compelling to say that some have a much higher predisposition to being gay and preferring same sex partners.

    This is why, and with a touch of controversy to be sure, I use African Americans. The problem is that we delude ourselves into associated homosexuality with a drug addiction or sadomasochistic sex acts and that is not the case at all. The question is that if it is not as much of a choice as we have been lead to believe, how different is it from being black, white, Hispanic, etc. especially when races have cultures that reinforce specific values and genetic traits? That's why I am asking this important question.
  • What would the speech sound like if it were something we all tend to disagree with? What if you put "Nazis" in there or Radical Fundamentalists or something similar? Would it be considered hate speech then?

    To be clear I do disagree with the speech. But how do you differentiate hate speech from when it is ok and guarded by free speech laws and when it is hateful and harmful to a group of people? After all, I see a lot of what could be considered as hate speech taking place on blogs, even Christian biblioblogs but it's acceptable because everyone agrees it's ok to hate and slander and tear down a particular group of people.

    Blessings,
    Bryan L
  • Thanks for the link!

    I think you have set up a false dichotomy here. You can’t just take someone’s words and replace them with other words like you have done; in doing this, you are totally taking things out of context.
    Oh yes. Just like how Kern's speech was taken out of context itself, like she whined at first? Gimme a break.

    Just as well, there is a clear difference between choosing a homosexual lifestyle and being African American or black by default. There is simply no comparison.
    You're a moron. There is no "homosexual lifestyle". People do not choose to be gay. People do not choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color. The comparison is perfectly valid--you just don't like it because it shows what a flaming bigot you are for agreeing with Kern.

    If you had substituted “white” for gay or african american, it still wouldn’t have worked, even if it was placed on the lips of a black person. I think your dichotomy is false and incredibly misconstrued.
    Yes, you do. And you're completely wrong.

    Furthermore, I am a little troubled by the attempt to do away with free speech–however much you might think her wrong–by labeling it “hate speech”. Just some thoughts.
    Who the fuck has tried to "do away with free speech"? No-one! Kern has every right to vomit forth whatever hatred and obscenities she wants. And we have every right to point out that they are nothing more than hatred and obscenities. Just because it is free speech, it is no less hate speech.
  • After reading your second post, I do agree that James makes some good points and I do agree that gentleness is important. However, I do not agree that lobing your neighbor means condoning something you think they're doing wrong.
  • I think you have set up a false dichotomy here. You can't just take someone's words and replace them with other words like you have done; in doing this, you are totally taking things out of context. Just as well, there is a clear difference between choosing a homosexual lifestyle and being African American or black by default. There is simply no comparison. If you had substituted "white" for gay or african american, it still wouldn't have worked, even if it was placed on the lips of a black person. I think your dichotomy is false and incredibly misconstrued. Furthermore, I am a little troubled by the attempt to do away with free speech--however much you might think her wrong--by labeling it "hate speech". Just some thoughts.
blog comments powered by Disqus