Monday, March 2, 2009

My First Letter to the SPLC

Letter #1

Law Office of Scott Douglas Lively
PO Box 891023, Temecula, CA 92589

November 1, 2007

Attorney Morris Dees
Southern Poverty Law Center
400 Washington AvenueMontgomery, AL 36104

Dear Mr. Dees,

I have long held a favorable opinion of your organization for its work against racism and violent extremist groups. We differ on issues related to sexual morality because my opinions conform to the long-standing conclusions of Christianity, based on the Bible. Nevertheless, I respect your right to disagree, and to advocate your opinions, as you do so eloquently and so zealously.

When a respected organization such as yours ventures into the business of evaluating the behavior and motives of others (called “judging“ when Christians do it), the organization bears a special responsibility to be accurate and fair-minded. An erroneous representation of a person or a group as “hateful” can destroy a reputation and cause great harm. Indeed, given the current extreme Left/Right polarization of our society, identifying someone as “hateful,” in the manner in which your organization uses the term, exposes that person to potential violence at the hands of people who perceive themselves, or other members of their group, as potential victims of his or her “hate.” Such people, relying on your characterization, may feel justified in striking preemptively against the “hater.“

I believe this is similar to the logic that you use in suggesting that public disapproval of homosexuality leads to violence against homosexuals. However, Christian disapproval, if it is legitimately rooted in the teachings of Jesus, forbids violence and in fact requires Christians to “love their enemies.” This is a doctrine I cite continually, though I have never seen the corollary on the Left.

I was more than a little dismayed, therefore, when I found myself the subject of your recent reporting in association with Watchmen on the Walls, for which I am a consultant and founding member. The following was published by a leading local newspaper in the Seattle media market prior to our recent WOW conference.

[Watchmen on the Walls] is building a reputation for being an "unbelievably virulent anti-gay organization," said Mark Potok, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Ala. The center is known for promoting tolerance, tracking hate groups and fighting legal battles against white supremacists, including the Klan and Aryan Nations.

This led me to a search of your own website, where I found myself mentioned in several articles, primarily in connection with my book The Pink Swastika. I also found an outrageously irresponsible and inflammatory article by Casey Sanchez linking Watchmen on the Walls to the murder of Satender Singh in Sacramento, without the least shred of evidence to support the association except that the alleged perpetrator is Russian, as is the founder of Watchmen on the Walls. I believe you once called that type of rhetoric racism.

Another article by Sanchez, posted on October 19th, 2007, accused me of stating that “gays orchestrated the Holocaust.” I refer you to your own website where previously your writer Bob Moser quoted my Orthodox Jewish co-author and I accurately as stating “we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust.” I respectfully request a retraction of that falsehood.

I‘d also like the opportunity to correspond with whomever in your organization reviewed my book and concluded it’s assertions were baseless. I’d be interested to know how your researcher evaluated the specific facts I cited from my nearly 200 mainstream and “gay” sources. Perhaps this person, or anyone you care to designate, would also consent to debate these assertions publicly with Kevin Abrams and me.

The same Sanchez article also featured an excerpt from my recent speech in Novosibirsk, Siberia in which several local men cheered during my recounting of how the death of Singh was used by the Sacramento media to tarnish all Russians. These men did not represent the spirit of the conference, nor the beliefs and goals of the Watchmen on the Walls. The meeting was open to the public and in Russia there are, unfortunately, some people who do hate homosexuals.

Most disappointing, however, especially given your stated mission to promote tolerance, was that your article failed to mention that I spent most of the remainder of my speech articulating the genuine Christian approach to homosexuality as one of compassion for self-identified homosexual people even while we oppose their lifestyle and political goals. I believe that my speech helped change the attitude of those men who had previously held only hatred for homosexuals, and allowed them to see homosexuals as people who need and deserve the love of Jesus, just as much as they do. This is, after all, what my religion teaches: love, not hate. The article therefore casts me in a false light and damages your claim to be an arbiter of civil rights conflicts.

This brings me to the issue of “hate.” I found it very surprising that on your website, which is dominated by the theme of hatred, I couldn’t find a definition of the term, as you use it, anywhere. This is especially odd, since I know you are a law center, and clear definition of terms is indispensable in the practice of law. If I am mistaken, please advise me where I can find this information on your site, because I do not want make the same mistake toward you that you have made toward me.

I will not impugn your motives, but I know that others on the Left refuse to define hatred because that would establish a standard by which they, and the organizations that share their views, could be measured. For example, if one uses the dictionary.com definition “intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility,” then much of the content of your own website, as it relates to groups on your list could reasonably to be considered “hate.“ I don’t have a problem with that. Frankly, I hate what most of those groups do also. I hate racism, extremism that leads to violence, and irrational bigotry as much as I disapprove of homosexuality. But I don‘t hate racists, bigots or homosexuals: they all need and deserve the love of Jesus just as much as I do.

I urge you to take leadership on this question and clearly set forth the definitions and criteria that you believe we should all use to judge these matters. Frankly, I don’t know how you can offer to teach law enforcement about “hate” groups without such objective standards. Perhaps they are included in your teaching materials not accessible on the website. If so, please extend me the courtesy of sending me a copy of the relevant passages or telling me where I can find them.

Your website has one additional deficiency in that it does not include any references whatsoever to hate-based attacks on Christians. I searched “attacks against Christians,” “against Christians,“ “Christian victim,” “victim was a Christian,” “church-burnings,” and a number of other intuitive phrases. I didn’t find a single item in which a Christian was identified as a victims of hate or discrimination. However, these search terms pulled up numerous items in which hate-groups and individual perpetrators were identified as Christian. Surely you are not ignorant of the many hate-motivated incidents in recent years in which Christians were the targets?

Once again, if I’m wrong, and this information is published on your website, please direct me to it. Assuming I’m right, however, this begs the question “why is it omitted?”.

I decline to draw any conclusions here, and give you the benefit of the doubt that the concerns I’ve raised are simple errors and/or oversights on the part of your staff. However, I would hope that, as a leading, indeed legendary, figure in the field of civil rights, you would take immediate action to correct these mistakes.

This is not a demand letter and I have no desire or intention to file suit against you. I am relying on your reputation as a man of integrity to set these matters straight simply because its the right thing to do.

I agree with you that there are some hate-filled people who operate under the name “Christian.” This does nearly as much damage to the community of genuine Christians as it does to the victims of these misguided men and women. I urge you reach out to leaders of my community to find common ground against racism and violence, so that you do not make the mistake, even unintentionally, of painting all Bible-believing Christians as hateful bigots. We will probably not agree on matters of sexual morality, but surely there is room for civil dialogue even on these issues. I stand ready to cooperate with you personally toward this goal if you are willing.

Finally, I ask you to take a second look at Watchmen on the Walls. You will find that it is as racially and culturally diverse as any organization in America, and does not advocate or condone violence. Yes, it is strongly against homosexuality, but that alone shouldn’t qualify anyone as “hateful.”

I am sending for your perusal a copy of the “Watchmen on the Walls Statement of Beliefs and Goals,” and a copy of WOW’s first public document, the “Riga Declaration on Religious Freedom, Family Values and Human Rights.” I am also sending a copy of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, and my recent essay “Is Hating ‘Haters’ Hateful.” I ask you to give each of these a fair reading before commenting upon them.

Hoping to reach a place of mutual respect, I am

Most Sincerely,
Scott Douglas Lively, J.D., Th.D.

1 comment:

  1. 2009年4月5日 星期日
    論證



    [組成]
    [涉及]
    因此,任何論證就包含有論題、論據和論證三個[組成部分]或[要素]




    演繹的直接論證
    歸納的直接論證
    類比的直接論證


    間接
    反證法
    淘汰法






    (一)反駁論題
    1.直接反駁法
    2.間接反駁法
    (1)另立相反論題反駁法
    相互排斥(矛盾 反對)
    (2)歸謬法
    (二)反駁論據
    (三)反駁論證方式





    第四節 論證中[必須遵循]的邏輯思維[規律]
    [try&error]
    一、同一律以及論辯中違反同一律而發生的邏輯錯誤 
    (一)同一律的基本內容
    A=A(或「A->A」)
    (二)論辯中違反同一律的典型錯誤
    1.「偷換概念」
    內涵 外延 熱力學 密度 比容 倒數關係
    混淆概念
    2.轉移論題
    偷換論題
    中心
    天馬行空 東拉西扯,節外生枝 「論題不清」是「轉移論題」一種極端情形。
    辯護 看不慣 跟著做
    這裡,本來確立的論題是「真理有階級性」,而在引用論據進行論證時,卻把它變成了「認識、利用和接受真理都有階級性」。這一論證,撇開其內容的正確或錯誤不說,僅從邏輯上看,他預先確立的論題和實際證明的論題就不是同一回事,這就犯「轉移論題」的錯誤。
    已構成 完全可能
    二、矛盾律以及論辯中違反矛盾律而發生的邏輯錯誤 
    (一)矛盾律的基本內容
    ~(A^~A)
    (二)論辯中違反矛盾律的典型錯誤
    自相矛盾
    三、排中律以及論辯中違反排中律而發生的邏輯錯誤 
    (一)排中律的基本內容
    AV~A
    (二)論辯中違反排中律的典型錯誤
    模稜兩可
    模稜以持兩端
    騎牆居中、似是而非,在相互否定的兩種思想面前,既否定這種,又否定那種,貌似有所斷定,實則是在兩種思想游移不定、含糊其辭。這就是說,其思維特徵直接表現出來的卻是「模稜兩不可。」
    觀點含糊、模稜兩可
    一種情形
    基本粒子是又間斷又連續,若斷若續、非斷非續,續中有斷、斷(段?!)中有續(序?@!);可能愈分愈小,也可能愈分愈大。
    玄 論證者在這裡就既未肯定「A」這樣的觀點,也未肯定「~A」這樣的觀點;似乎是這樣的觀點,又似乎不是這樣的觀點。表面看來,表達的觀點全面、論證,實則讓人不明究竟。
    另一種情形
    論證中對某個問題的態度,「是」也否定,「非」也否定,讓人無法確認論證者的觀點和態度究竟是什麼;或者,在對待別人關於某個問題的態度上,你這樣做他要指責,不這樣做他也指責,讓人動輒得咎、無所適從。




    四、充足理由律以及論辯中違反充足理由律而發生的邏輯錯誤 
    (一)充足理由律的基本內容
    B^(B->A)->A
    (二)論辯中違反充足充足理由律的典型錯誤
    1.「理由虛假」
    論據虛假
    顛倒黑白、無中生有 捏造事實 而且就是這種錯誤的極端情形
    維生素B17 Vit?!VITMIN
    2.「預期理由」
    想當然 估算的生活費用
    3.「循環論證」
    冒充
    4.「推不出來」
    不能推出
    一種情形 無關論證
    態度 意見
    我是中國人,何必學外文
    亂列理由
    盜竊糧食 抗美援朝被俘 訓練班正式學員
    錯誤的極端情形
    三、充足理由律以及論辯中違反充足理由律而發生的邏輯錯誤 
    (一)充足理由律的基本內容
    B^(B->A)->A
    (二)論辯中違反充足充足理由律的典型錯誤
    1.「理由虛假」
    論據虛假
    顛倒黑白、無中生有 捏造事實 而且就是這種錯誤的極端情形
    維生素B17 Vit?!VITMIN
    2.「預期理由」
    想當然 估算的生活費用
    3.「循環論證」
    冒充
    4.「推不出來」
    不能推出
    一種情形 無關論證
    態度 意見
    我是中國人,何必學外文
    亂列理由
    盜竊糧食 抗美援朝被俘 訓練班正式學員
    錯誤的極端情形


    楞嚴經
    陰魔
    第五節 法庭辯論中常見的非形式謬誤
    fallacy謬誤 fallacia 悖謬 詭辯 虛妄 荒誕 橘去掉木部改言部詭
    貌似正確、似是而非 以任意的方式,憑藉虛假的根據,或者將一個真的道理否定、動搖了,或者將一個虛假的道理說得非常動聽,好像真的一樣
    二、法庭論辯中的[非形式謬誤]
    (一)故意利用語詞歧義的謬誤
    還 偷換概念
    (二)任意解釋、曲解法律條款的謬誤
    以事實為根據,以法律為準繩
    犯 「任意解釋」「曲解法律條款」
    「解釋的錯誤」
    很年輕
    (三)顛倒黑白、強詞奪理的謬誤
    想占便宜
    主觀責任和客觀條件是兩個不同的問題,絕不能把「責任」和「條件」混為一談;更不能顛倒、用後者去代替前者。
    (四)訴諸情感的謬誤
    (五)以人為據、人身攻擊的謬誤



    自己定義的能力 仿句 例子判例 排比法作文李思翰陳建宏化學CCH
    尹衍樑
    出生:1950年
    現職:潤泰集團總裁
    學歷:臺灣大學商學碩士 政治大學企管博士
    家庭:已婚,育有1子1女
    興趣:開跑車、飛機、遊艇、騎重型機車等
    總裁不用的9種人
    1.太過俊美的人
    2.強烈宗教信仰的人
    3.黑道背景的人
    4.大官子女
    5.富裕家庭子女
    6.藝術性格的人
    7.心理殘疾的人
    8.工作換太多的人
    9.自認學歷高的人


    所知障
    張貼者: 垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 位於 上午 8:35











    2009年4月5日 星期日
    我說阿 膠囊 悉怛多缽怛囉 阿門 陳鴻偉獨生子我
    法律邏輯學 雍琦◎著 楊智傑(http//tw.myblog.yahoo.com/yangjames2000/)◎校訂
    出版者-五南圖書出版股份有限公司
    ISBN 978-957-11-5295-0
    性質命題
    複合命題
    規範命題
    演繹推理
    歸納推理
    類比推理
    偵查假說
    論證
    張貼者: 垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 位於 上午 4:44
    9 意見:

    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...
    此文章已被作者刪除。
    2009年4月5日 上午 5:38
    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...
    此文章已被作者刪除。
    2009年4月5日 上午 5:58
    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...

    性質命題

    「關係項」 「關係」
    「等於」 「大於」 「相鄰」 「夥同」 「同窗」 「批評」
    基本類型
    (一)全稱命題與特稱命題
    (二)肯定命題與否定命題
    SAP
    SEP
    SIP
    SOP
    反對關係 下反對關係
    差等關係 矛盾關係
    隱含命題








    複合命題

    基本形式
    一、聯言命題
    在自然語言中,表示聯言命題的[連接詞]多種多樣。如「不但......而且......」,「既......又......」,「雖然......但是......」,「......並且......」等
    二、選言命題
    析取
    三、假言命題
    表達假言命題的[連接詞]有:「如果......,那麼......」、「只有......才......」、「當且僅當......,才......」,以及「只要......,就......」、「若......,就......」,等等



    等值式
    若僅從複合命題各肢命題之間的關係來看,除前面所講的「合取」、「析取」、「蘊涵」(含「逆蘊涵」)等關係外,還有一種「等值」關係,符號表示為「<->」
    2009年4月5日 上午 6:05
    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...

    規範命題


    所謂模擬命題,就是一切[包含]有「可能」、「必然」、「必須」、「禁止」等這類模擬態的命題。
    狹義 [包含]有「可能」、「必然」
    廣義 [包含]有「必須」、「允許」、「禁止」
    (一)必然命題□
    表達必然命題的模態詞,除「必然」外,還有「一定」、「必定」、「必將」、「總是」之類的語詞。
    (二)或然命題◇


    法律規範 「行為模式(假定 處理)」 「法律後果(制裁)」
    (一)「允許」型規範命題的模態詞,通常用「允許」、「可以」、「可」、「有權」、「有......的權利」等一類語詞表示。
    (二)「必須」型規範命題,亦稱為義務性規範命題或命令性、強制性規範命題,也就是包含有「必須」、「應當」一類模態詞的命題。
    「必須」型規範命題,除了包含有「必須」、「應當」這類模態詞命題以外,還有包含「有義務」、「有......的義務」、「有......的責任」這類語詞的命題。
    除「允許」型和「必須」型兩種基本的規範命題類型之外,還有「禁止」型規範命題,亦即包含有「禁止」、「嚴禁」、「不得」、「不准」、「不許」之類語詞的命題。由於「禁止」與「必須」可以互推(如前所述,「禁止C」=「必須非C」)
    「允許P」Permission
    「必須O」Obligation 「禁止F」Forbid 「A行為規定」規範命題的邏輯變項
    2009年4月5日 上午 6:33
    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...

    演繹推理

    S小項M中項P大項
    假言推理基本形式
    充分條件
    必要條件
    v ^ ->


    二難推理
    就是以兩個充分條件假言命題和一個選言命題(或聯言命題)做前提而構成的演繹推理。
    二難 釋放 不釋放 權衡


    R-法律規定
    F-確認的案件事實
    ___________________
    D-裁判結論


    T->R(具備T構成要件者適用R法律效果)
    S=T(待決案件事實符合T構成要件)
    ___________________
    S->R(該待決案件事實適用R法律效果)
    2009年4月5日 上午 7:01
    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...

    歸納推理

    一、完全歸納推理
    (一)窮舉歸納推理
    (S1、S2、S3...Sn是S類的全部個體對象)
    __________________________________
    所以,所有S都具有P屬性
    (二)分類歸納推理
    (S1、S2、S3...Sn是S類的全部對象的所有可能情況)
    __________________________________
    所以,S類(或S對象整體)都具有P屬性。











    不完全歸納推理
    ERRor
    推理過程中「輕率概括」,必然導致結論「以偏概全」
    所謂「懶散概括」,亦稱「懶散歸納」,其錯誤情形與「輕率概括」又恰好相反。「信念」


    因果
    場合 相關因素 被研究現象
    _______________________
    一、契合法
    二、差異法
    相關因素 被研究對象 有無大小高低正反
    [三、契合差異並用法]
    [四、共變法]
    [五、剩餘法]
    2009年4月5日 上午 7:16
    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...

    類比推理

    類比法律推理
    (一)類推適用
    (二)判例適用



    比對推理 識同別異
    2009年4月5日 上午 7:21
    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...

    假說與[偵查假說]

    望聞問切



    [程序] 假說的[建立][過程]是一個比較複雜的思維過程,大致可分為[假說的提出、假說的推演、假說的驗證三個階段]
    不過,由於偵查假說是一種[作業]假說,假說的推演和驗證常常結合在一起進行。



    (H ->e)^H->e


    H->e
    e
    _______
    ∴H(?)


    H->e
    ~e
    _________
    ∴ ~H
    2009年4月5日 上午 7:29
    垃圾桶:縮短網址.銀行.更新.流量(登入? 文章?) 提到...
    此文章已被作者刪除。
    2009年4月5日 上午 7:29 悉怛多缽怛囉阿門證據時效

    ReplyDelete