news-record.com

"Hate," "racism" and "bigotry" are the tactical nuclear weapons of the English language. They should be used with precision and deployed only when absolutely necessary. The modern liberal, however, uses these and other emotionally charged terms ("nativist," "homophobe") inaccurately and excessively, as blunt objects to pound the heads and shoulders of those wary of radical ideas.

It is much easier, of course, to demonize one's opponent, to simply brand him as a racist or a bigot, than it is to advance an argument based on logic and evidence. But mere opposition to a left-wing idea does not qualify as "hate speech." And the overuse of such powerful terms renders them meaningless.

Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. often characterizes as "hate" any form of opposition to his progressive vision of society. On Feb. 16, he wrote that the U.S. is "an increasingly anti-gay 'nation,' to judge from all the mean-spirited amendments and legislation that have made scapegoats and boogie men of them in recent years." Surely, many readers wonder what is "mean-spirited" about defending traditional marriage. We wonder, too, why the term "nation" is enclosed in sneering quotation marks.

In the same column, Pitts claims that "Politicians and alleged religious leaders have routinely invited us to hate gay people and call it morality." It strikes me us unlikely that such invitations are issued "routinely" because I have never heard them.

Mr. Pitts returned to the "hate" theme March 25. He informed us that, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, "There are now 926 hate groups in this country." We dare not question the figure because the SPLC, Pitts writes, is a "leading authority on the business of hate." Indeed, as demonstrated by the SPLC, "hate" is a big business.

The organization's multimillion-dollar headquarters in Montgomery, Ala., is known to locals as "the Poverty Palace." The SPLC's assets exceed $150 million, but in a recent year, it reportedly spent 89 percent of its income on fundraising and administration. Its director, Morris Dees, pays himself a salary in excess of $280,000. Fortunately, authentic hate is not necessary to provide lavish facilities and salaries; the carefully crafted illusion of "hate" serves the purpose.

Pitts writes of the SPLC's alleged 926 "hate groups": "I imagine the SPLC findings land like cold water in the faces of those who took Barack Obama's ascension to the presidency as proof that the nation was finally cured of the sickness of hate."

Some of us disagree with Pitts' premise: that the U.S. was sick with hate prior to Election Day. Many readers are also rightly skeptical of any claims made by the SPLC, an organization that thrives on fear-mongering, gross hyperbole and outright lies.

Heidi Beirich, writing at the SPLC's Web site (splc.org), condemns as "nativist extremist groups" a couple of organizations in Raleigh -- Americans for Legal Immigration and the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition. In truth, the SPLC smears every organization that disapproves of mass immigration and open borders.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) in Washington, for instance, is one of the most respected think tanks in the country. Its representatives have testified before Congress nearly 100 times since 1995. But, according to the SPLC, CIS is a dangerous hotbed of "nativist extremists."

At least two writers at CIS, Mark Krikorian and Steven Camarota, have also written for a site called vdare.com, which is, according to the SPLC, a "white nationalist hate Web site." Is it rational to believe, as the SPLC suggests, that Congress has, on nearly 100 occasions, solicited testimony from a "hate group"?

According to an Elon University poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of North Carolinians would support an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting gay marriage. Would Mr. Pitts, the SPLC and their liberal allies argue that 43 percent of North Carolinians "hate" gays and lesbians, that 43 percent of North Carolinians are "homophobes"?

In the liberal mind, support for traditional marriage is the equivalent of "hate." Ask the majority of voters in California, who passed Proposition 8 (a ban on gay marriage) in November. According to The Washington Times (which is probably listed as a "hate group" by the SPLC), Californians who gave money to support Proposition 8 have been "subjected to threats and intimidation." Fred Karger, orchestrator of the smear campaign, boasts of his tactics to The Washington Times.

Ironically, Karger's organization, which is publishing the names, addresses and phone numbers of Prop 8 supporters, is called &ellipses; wait for it &ellipses; Californians Against Hate.

Charles Davenport Jr. (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist who appears alternate Sundays in the News & Record.