Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
Noxolo Nkosana was viciously attacked and raped in South Africa because she is a lesbian. So why are the Republican party defending African counties which allow this madness? (Picture courtesy of BBC)
According to Think Progress, in a draft of its platform, the Republican party is taking a stand on the point of the persecution of gays on the African continent.
But it's for the countries persecuting gays:
Recently, the Republican National Convention accidentally leaked a draft of the party’s foreign policy platform. The subsection on foreign aid contained a rather peculiar criticism of President Obama’s policy in the area:
The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda. At the same time, faith-based groups — the sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting development — have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda. We will reverse this tragic course, encourage more involvement by the most effective aid organizations, and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.
Think Progress points out the truth of the matter:
. . . while it’s true that the Obama campaign has worked to protect gay rights internationally, foreign aid dollars aren’t going to marriage equality campaigns — U.S. money is being used to finance legal and journalistic efforts to protect LGBT Africans from being murdered or jailed for their sexual orientation, a point the President made clear in an official memo on the topic:
I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world — whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation…Agencies engaged abroad are directed to strengthen existing efforts to effectively combat the criminalization by foreign governments of LGBT status or conduct and to expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct.
Think Progress is also quick to the point out that the claim that the Obama Administration imposing "legalized abortion" is wrong.
However, I am struck by how the Republican party is standing up for the perpetrators of anti-gay persecution. In speaking against the Obama Administration on this, the GOP is giving tacit support the wholesale persecution of gays in African countries such as Uganda, Nigeria, and South Africa. The video below features how lesbians in that country are victims of an awful practice called "corrective rape."
Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not, I think we should all agree that those who call themselves Christians should not lend any support - no matter how large or how small - to this mess.
From the folks in Minnesota attempting to pass that dreadful anti-marriage equality amendment comes the following video which has nothing to do with marriage equality.
According to Kalley Yanta, the woman in the video:
"The overwhelming body of scientific evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that children do best when they are raised by their married mother and father. In fact when their parents are married to each other children are more likely to enjoy better relationships with their parents and greater family stability, they enjoy better physical health and experience fewer mental health and emotional problems."
That's all very well but I have a couple of questions.
1. Did these studies compare same-sex families to heterosexual families? Probably not.
2. How will allowing same-sex couples to marry cause any problems with children being raised by their married parents?
3. What about children who are adopted or in foster care? What about children raised by single parents or grandparents? Or children raised by relatives? Or children already being raised by same-sex couples?
Here, I think, is the problem with these organizations exploiting children to speak against marriage equality. They claim to care about children but leave a bunch out of the equation because these children don't measure up to their "Ozzie and Harriet" fantasy.
The one thing I love about learning gay history is finding out about hidden figures, such as the Dynamic Superiors - one of the first soul groups with an openly gay lead singer:
Joining forces in Washington, DC, in 1963, Tony Washington, George Spann, George Wesley Peterbank Jnr., Michael McCalpin and Maurice Washington had to wait a decade to win a recording contract. Motown Records president Ewart Abner saw them performing at a talent show in Atlanta, Georgia, and signed them to the label in 1974. They were teamed with the Ashford And Simpson writing and production team, and their debut album was a collection of romantic soul ballads that produced two hits, "Shoe Shoe Shine" and "Leave It Alone'. Their second album, Pure Pleasure, added a disco feel to the Superiors" sound, and spawned two further chart entries. In 1977, the group enjoyed some success with a disco rearrangement of the Martha And The Vandellas' hit, "Nowhere To Run", but they subsequently left Motown, and attempts to secure a major label recording contract elsewhere proved unsuccessful.
Two years later they got their big break when they were discovered Motown executive Ewart Abner at a 1972 dj convention in Atlanta and signed to the label. It apparently took Motown management awhile to figure out how to deal with the group, eventually teaming them with the writing and production team of Nikolas Ashford and Valerie Simpson. To Motown's credit the label made no attempt to hide lead singer Tony Washington's openly gay lifestyle – a fact underscored by one quick look at "The Dynamic Superiors" cover art. Not that it mattered … Washington may have worn false eye lashes, rouge, lipstick, and occasionally performed in drag, but he had a killer voice. On tracks like 'Shoe Shine Shine' and 'Star of My Life' he was more than capable of hitting high notes a-la Russell Tompkins Jr.. At the other end of the spectrum Washington's falsetto was nicely offset by tenors Peterbark Jr and Spann.
According to Wikipedia, Washington passed away from AIDS. However, the group is still going strong. Check out their webpage. Past Know Your LGBT History posts:
Focus On The Family Accuses GLSEN Of Promoting ‘Sexual Anarchy’ And ‘Sexual Chaos’ - The religious right is attacking the GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network) again. This time it's Focus on the Family attacking the organization with a phased out book. Almost every time a religious right group attacks GLSEN, the religious right group winds up slinking back with its tail between its legs. The last time, it was the Family Research Council. I guess Focus on the Family wants a turn on the Wheel of Embarrassment.
This morning, I am overwhelmed with religious right lies. Last night, I was contemplating what to write and was struck by the enormity of what I had to choose, so I am going to hit it with briefs: AFA claims that its boycott of Home Depot is working
Yesterday, I got an email from the American Family Association which claimed that its boycott of Home Depot is working. AFA, you remember, is angry that Home Depot supports the gay community and maintains a presence at pride parades.
According to AFA:
AFA was recently contacted by a Home Depot employee who says the boycott of Home Depot is being effective. "We have customers who come into our store and confront our store managers over the HD's support of Gay pride. The AFA is having an effect on HD."
She also shared that many employees disagree with the company's pro-gay-marriage stand. In June, a "Gay Pride Month" poster was put up in her breakroom. "HD is as committed as ever to the changing of laws in favor of same sex marriage.They had absolutely no empathy for those employees who voiced offense with the display. This was mandated by corporate directive. Therefore the display was torn down at least 2 times."
An anonymous employee? Sure. And I am Paris Hilton with a good tan and a stunning personal trainer.
The Family Research Council gets a bit of help that it doesn't need
The Family Research Council got some positive pushback a few days ago against the Southern Poverty Law Center.
An editorial in Investor's Daily Business (IBD) defended FRC from charges that it is a hate group. However, unlike those who have said that the lies FRC says about the gay community isn't enough to label it a hate group, IBD stopped a bit lower:
On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign put on its blog a piece titled, "Paul Ryan Speaking at Hate Group's Annual Conference," referring to the FRC.
It said that the "FRC has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It's a group that has advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality, called for LGBT people to be exported from the U.S., and has pushed dangerous lies trying to link being gay to pedophilia."
The FRC has done none of those things but that didn't stop the Daily Kos from vilifying the FRC for its support of Chick-fil-A . . .
You read this right. According to the IBD, the Family Research Council never advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality:
According to the IBD, the Family Research Council never called for gays to be exported out of the United States:
And according to the IBD, the Family Research Council never pushed dangerous lies trying to link being gay to pedophilia:
"We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."
— Peter Sprigg, "Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views." 2011.
“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
— Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999
“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets' of a new sexual order.”
-1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.
“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
— Timothy Dailey, senior research fellow, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” 2002
“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010
If IBD is making this claim about FRC when the opposite is true, that would mean that the editorial it wrote was shoddy because the author obviously didn't spend enough time on getting the facts rather than pushing a false line that FRC is a victim.
I am just FLOORED by Brian Brown's comments regarding his recent debate with gay activist Dan Savage.
Brown wrote a long-winded rambling piece which did nothing to recap the debate, but rather attempted to paint himself as David after he slew Goliath. Is this callous or what:
One thing is very clear to me after the time we spent together: Dan Savage believes that gay people are "a tiny defenseless minority," as he said during the debate.
He made this claim while defending the public tongue-lashing of Christian students that brought us together. He doesn't seem to realize that his position as a 47 year old adult—one with the power of fame, celebrity and access to not only the White House, but also MTV—requires a new mentality.
With power comes responsibility, including the responsibility to show how you intend to use your newfound power.
A grown man does not accept an invitation to speak to middle- and high-school students and proceed to insult their faith, and to call them names when they show their objection in the only polite way possible, by politely leaving.
Dan has apologized for the latter, but not the former. As I told him face to face: "To have a bunch of high school students and attack their religious beliefs is not appropriate, it doesn't show respect."
He appears unable to process this point of view.
He has become a hero to a lot of gay people not only for the good he's done (like telling gay kids their lives are precious—don't commit suicide!), but in some cases because Dan Savage is willing to insult and demean those with whom he disagrees.
I don't remember Savage demeaning Brown during the debate.
Needless to say Brown goes on like this - i.e.congratulating himself and spotlighting the very few comments declaring him as the victor.
And of course, Brown also omits the most telling moment of the debate when he totally undermined the argument for passing laws against marriage equality. You know the statement he made:
However, try as he might to come off as a winner, I think Brown knows that he laid a giant egg in the debate. Savage came to him with facts and when hit with these facts, Brown at times retreated to the standard talking points:
"We who believe in traditional marriage will be thought of as bigots."
"There is something special and unique about marriage as the joining of the two halves of humanity."
However, check out this passage from Brown's:
Let me pose a question to the Dan Savages of the world. Once gay people were a powerless and defenseless minority. Now, you have organized, protested, and become powerful through the use of democratic freedoms and intellectual debate, a powerful cultural force in our time. What use do you intend to make of your power?
The jury is out, as they say, on just how much power we as a community actually do have. But I am rather fond of what Brown said. Try as he might to pretend that he owns the high road, Brown sounds like he can't help but to respect us.
And it's not the respect that comes from us subjugating ourselves to him or those that believe as he does.
It's respect that from us taking him and others to task for their disrespect of us and our families.
So to answer your question Brian, I think that we intend to garner more of that respect.
Because it's not about making folks like you like us or "tolerate" us.
It's about acquiring the things that belong to us. And these are the things that every human being deserves - respect and the freedom to live our lives by our standards and not by some one else's religious beliefs or fevered imaginations of what we do in bed.
The religious right will go crazy over this one, but who cares what they think. Personal religious beliefs is no excuse for a secular business to discriminate.
A lesbian couple who sued a Vermont inn last year after they were turned away because of their sexual orientation won a settlement today.
The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville acknowledged it had broken the law and agreed to pay $30,000 in fines and damages.
Kate Baker and Ming-Lein Linsley were outraged when they found out Linsley’s mother, who was organizing the reception for the New York couple’s destination wedding in Vermont, was turned away by the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville.
Together with the Vermont Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the couple filed suit against the inn last July. In October, the Vermont Human Rights Commission joined in the lawsuit. The commission is the state body responsible for enforcing human rights laws.
Today, the parties settled the dispute, closing an unpleasant chapter for both the inn and the couple. According to the settlement, the Wildflower Inn was acting in good faith and in compliance with a 2005 decision by the Vermont Human Rights Commission that said that while no public establishment may refuse to serve a customer based on sexual orientation, the inn could advise potential customers of the owners’ Catholic beliefs. Based on that decision, the Wildflower Inn’s stated policy was to ignore all calls and emails from same-sex couples hoping to host a wedding or reception at the inn. If confronted, their policy was to advise the couple that the owners did not believe in same-sex marriage, but would host the reception if they really wanted to.
. . . Dan Barrett, an attorney for ACLU-Vermont, said the settlement asserted that the 2005 decision was no longer valid. “What this settlement makes clear is that you can’t discourage and get away with it. Discouragement or any unequal treatment of LGBT customers is [legally] the same as an outright refusal,” he said.
. . . The Wildflower Inn must now pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the Vermont Human Rights Commission and establish a $20,000 charitable trust for the Linsleys. Some of the money will go towards the legal costs the couple incurred over the past year while the vast majority will go to charities of their choosing.
Why FRC’s New “Religious Hostility” Report Is A Joke - Generally this is a joke because it comes from the Family Research Council, a group not known for being truthful. Equality Matters points out specific reasons.
The Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is giving 'Porno Pete' LaBarbera a run for his money when it comes to perverting marriage equality and the gay community in general as paens of sexual hedonism.
Matt Barber declared that gay activists don't actually want marriage equality but rather are interested in "deconstructing the Judeo-Christian notion of marriage as marriage has always been." In fact, Barber claimed, the institution of marriage has always been about restricting which sorts of relationships are legitimate, which is why "people can't marry children, people can't marry close relatives, people can't marry their favorite pet." Barber then warned that if "we're going to break the institution of marriage and radically redefine it" then "polygamy is inevitable if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land and we can no longer have prohibitions on incestuous marriage.
Who would have thought that from a quick slip of the tongue, Brown undermines the entire argument for passing laws against gay marriage and becomes the gay community's unwitting ally in the cause for marriage equality.
How quick will it be before he and NOM scramble to correct the public image damage of this one?
A week after the defending the Family Research Council from the claim (from the Southern Poverty Law Center) that it is a hate group, he sat down with Michelangelo Signorile to discuss his piece.
In a spirited interview, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank defended his stance that the antigay Family Research Council should not be listed as a “hate group” by the venerated civil rights group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, because they wear suits and “don’t wear white sheets,” and some of their founders and officials are “respected” individuals.
Milbank was invited on my SiriusXM show to discuss the column he wrote last week which has generated much controversy on social media. In the comments section on the Washington Post’s web site and on Twitter and Facebook, many criticized Milbank’s defense of the FRC as a “Washington think tank” which thus shouldn’t be called a hate group, and his calling the Human Rights Campaign and the SPLC “reckless” for terming the FRC a hate group. The controversy reached a point where Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jonathan Diehl sent a tweet out defending Milbank, but that only inflamed the controversy as Dielhl referred to "idiotic' emails he had received on the topic.
Apparently Signorile took Milbank to task big time because the columnist complained later to The Advocate magazine. According to Signorile:
After the interview, Milbank told The Advocate that the interview was “an ambush and unfair,” and made the same comment in a email he sent to another SiriusXM host which he cc’d me. That is patently untrue: Milbank was not asked to come on the show under any false pretenses. He was invited on the show to discuss the controversial column he’d written, and he accepted the invitation.
What do you think? Did Signorile ambush Milbank or is Milbank being too sensitive?
Editor's note - Personally speaking, what I think of Milbank's piece and then his appearance on Signorile's show can't be repeated because I am trying not to "lose my religion."
While I despise the circumstances which led to this discussion (i.e. last week's shooting), I think it is good that we are having a discussion because finally, the ways the Family Research Council demonizes the gay community is seeing some mainstream light.
A lay Catholic in California put together a graphic showing why debating marriage can be "fraught with peril" -- it also underscores how central to society the meaning and definition of marriage is.
First of all, what's wrong with debating marriage? Most importantly, however, the creator of this chart is making many unfair assumptions as to why gays want to get married? He/she makes it seem that gay couples have no idea of commitment or loyalty to each other and that we view marriage as a toy for something like sexual gratification.
It's a huge contradiction to reality. Gays and lesbians wouldn't be fighting so hard for the right to marry if we viewed it as a hedonistic thrill.
And then there is the subject of same-sex families:
The saddest thing about the way some folks attempt to demonize marriage equality is how they deliberately omit any discussions of these families.
It's as if they don't want these families to exist. Or think that these families are so irrelevant that they don't deserve a mention.
As you read in the last post, the Family Research Council did in fact come up with a point by point refutation of the SPLC's charges. The link I received was a bad one.
However, based upon what I read, that bad link would have been just as good as FRC's refutation.
Let's look at what FRC said (along with my corrections):
In November 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing fundraising powerhouse, announced that it considers Family Research Council (FRC) to be an "anti-gay hate group"--lumping us together with neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Ever since, the charge that FRC is a "certified hate group" has been used by the SPLC and other groups--such as the Human Rights Campaign and Campus Pride--in an attempt to discredit FRC's work and cut us out of public policy debates and media coverage over homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." Ironically, the unfounded "hate group" label has deepened hatred toward FRC, which has now resulted in violence--a shooting in the lobby of our headquarters building on August 15, 2012, in which one of our employees was wounded while courageously defending his colleagues.
Instead of being chastened by these events, the SPLC has merely repeated its defamatory accusations against FRC. Here are brief answers to some of the distortions of our positions by the SPLC and those who have embraced the "hate group" charge:
Does FRC claim that "gay people are child molesters?"
FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters. However, it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse. Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually "homosexual;" but scholarly evidence undermines that claim. It also cannot be disputed that there is a sub-culture within the homosexual movement that advocates "intergenerational" sexual relationships. FRC's writings on this topic--unlike the SPLC's--have been carefully documented with references to the original scholarly literature.
FRC distortion - FRC will have you to believe that if a man molest a boy, then the man is automatically gay. This is not necessarily true. Please note that FRC said the following - Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually "homosexual;" but scholarly evidence undermines that claim - but does not provide proof of this. SPLC, on the other hand, does provide proof:
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.
Does FRC want to "criminalize" homosexuality?
FRC has made no effort to reinstate sodomy laws since the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. In a 2010 interview on a different topic, the question of whether we should "outlaw gay behavior" in U.S. civil law was raised not by an FRC spokesman, but by MSNBC's Chris Matthews. The spokesman affirmed that FRC (like three Supreme Court justices) believed Lawrence was wrongly decided; but the interview left some viewers with the mistaken impression that "re-criminalizing" homosexuality is a policy goal for FRC. It is not.
FRC distortion - FRC conveniently omitted the fact that Chris Matthews pointedly asked the FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg does he think that "gay behavior" should be outlawed. Sprigg said yes:
Does FRC support the execution of homosexuals in Uganda ?
This charge was refuted as soon as it appeared in 2010. FRC has publicly opposed the much-publicized bill (never adopted) in Uganda that would have imposed criminal penalties for various offenses related to homosexual conduct, and the death penalty for something known as "aggravated homosexuality." We responded to requests from Congressional offices for advice on the wording of a resolution condemning the Uganda bill--then reported those contacts as "lobbying," as is required by law. FRC did not "lobby" against the resolution; our advice was limited to suggestions for language that would accurately describe the Uganda bill and the state of international law.
FRC distortion - Nothing in the SPLC statement FRC linked to said a word about FRC and the Ugandan bill. However, it is worth noting that FRC did voice support for the bill, claiming that it "upholds moral conduct". The audio of this support was removed from FRC's webpage but was saved by Jeremy Hooper of Good As You.
Does FRC want to kick homosexuals out of the country?
Just days after an interview was posted online in 2008, an FRC spokesman publicly apologized on the FRC website for having used the words "import" and "export" as metaphors for voluntary immigration and emigration by homosexuals. The interview related to legislation which would grant special preference in immigration to foreign nationals who are the homosexual partners of American citizens.
FRC distortion - SPLC has never said that FRC as an organization want to kick gays out of the country. However, the organization has pointed out numerous times that it was a statement made by a member of FRC (i.e. Peter Sprigg).
Does FRC "hate" homosexuals?
As a Christian organization, we have an obligation to love our neighbor--including our neighbors who experience same-sex attractions. However, we believe sexual acts between persons of the same sex are objectively harmful to those who choose to engage in them and to society at large, in addition to being forbidden by Scripture. Since the essence of love is to desire the best for a person and act to bring that about, we believe the most loving thing we can do is discourage such self-destructive conduct, rather than affirm it. We are happy to debate those who disagree with us regarding the harms of homosexual conduct, but there is no justification for anyone to impugn our motives with false labels such as "hate."
FRC distortion - The vast majority of the statement is a distortion. Here is what SPLC has accused FRC of:
The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage . . . The FRC routinely pushes out demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse — claims that are provably false.T\
In addition, SPLC has made a list of these distortions which it has accused FRC - and other groups - of passing along, including:
Same-sex parents harm children.
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parent .
LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.
Now whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is in spite of all of its whining, the organization has YET to answer specific charges as to the claims it has made about the gay community.
Even after promising to do so in 2010, FRC has yet to come up with a detailed response to SPLC's charges. Instead, the organization continues to play hit-and-run with sad pieces which dances around the issue rather than address it.
I was all excited because finally, I thought, the Family Research Council was going to submit its long-awaited refutation of the reasons why the Southern Poverty Law Center dubbed it as a hate group.
The Family Research Council has been promising this "detailed response" ever since SPLC gave them that designation in 2010.
FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg said the following in December 2010:
We will be preparing a more detailed response to (SPLC Chairman and CEO J. Richard) Cohen’s charge that FRC spreads “falsehoods” in our well-documented research, which does show that certain harms are associated with homosexual conduct.
Since that time, FRC has been dancing around the issue, providing hit-and-run statements and claims which not only were not a detail response but also did a lot to prove SPLC's argument that the organization distorts facts and passes propaganda about the gay community.
After reading today's tweet, I was looking forward to finally seeing how FRC would refute SPLC's charges.
I should've known that it was not to be. If you click on the link to the tweet, you will be directed to an empty page on the Family Research Council website which says the following:
We're sorry, but the page you're looking for is no longer available.
If you are not automatically redirected to the homepage after 5 seconds, click here
Damn.
FRC got me all ready to refute its mess and then it pulls the information away. What a tease.
So in spite of its whining about being unfairly targeted by the SPLC, FRC has yet to provide a detailed refutation of SPLC's reasons as to why it is a hate group.
And it's been two years since we have been promised a "detailed response" of these charges.
I have the sneaky suspicion that by the time FRC does provide a detailed refutation to SPLC, "my credit will be good again."
It is extremely telling how religious right groups are exploiting last week's shooting at the Family Research Council in order to either raise money or paint a false image of piety for itself.
According to Think Progress, the National Organization for Marriage used the shooting to fundraise:
We must fight back and condemn violence against anyone. It has no place in civil society.
But we must also fight back against the violent and hateful tactics of intimidation being pursued every day by gay “marriage” thugs and activists. They will do whatever it takes to intimidate Christians and marriage supporters including harassing people at home and work.
The National Organization for Marriage is fighting back to defend marriage from gay activist bullies but I need your immediate contribution of $50, $100, or as much as you can give right now to fight back. [...]
P.S. We’re not going to allow gay activists to get away with attempted murder. And we’re not going to shut up so they can go about the business of redefining marriage. We’re going to fight, and we’re going to win. But we can only do this if you stand with us today. That’s why we need your immediate contribution of $50, $100, or as much as you can give right now to fight back for marriage.
I bet none of the money raised will go to the security guard wounded in the shooting.
Meanwhile, the American Family Association is exploiting the shooting to claim that the Southern Poverty Law Center caused it by supposedly "unfairly" branding the organization as a hate group.
The way Tony Perkins is exploiting last week's shooting at the Family Research Council is getting pathetic.
First he blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center for correctly calling FRC a hate group.
Then he blamed President Obama for supposedly creating an anti-religious climate which allegedly contributed to the shooting.
And now . . . Perkins is claiming that the media "ignored" the shooting.
According to Politico, Perkins made the following comments on Fox News (after all, who else would allow him to spout without challenge):
“It was stunning that most of the coverage, with the exceptions of just a few reports I saw over the weekend, were from Fox,” Tony Perkins said on “Fox and Friends,” noting that he reviewed a study of media coverage on the subject. “The others … ignored it.”
Last Wednesday, Floyd Lee Corkins II of Virginia allegedly walked into the downtown D.C. building, told a security guard there, “I don’t like your politics,” and shot the guard in the arm before being taken into custody.
“I think the reason [for the lack of coverage] is, it doesn’t fit the story line,” Perkins said. “You know, it’s supposed to be conservatives who are angry, who are filled with hate. And that’s not the case.”
It boggles my mind that Perkins actually thinks that he can get away with this claim. Rather than verbally refute it, I think I will use a visual:
You see this picture? The man in the middle is Tony Perkins. All of those people around him are from television and newspapers, i.e. the press, i.e. the MEDIA!
This picture took place the day after the shooting. It was at a PRESS CONFERENCE called by Tony Perkins.
As you can see, the shooting generated a lot of press, from a ridiculous column claiming that FRC isn't a hate group (by folks who should know better) to a very entertaining segment on CNN which left an FRC defender sounding like Porky Pig.
I think that Perkins is a bit sore that not every one in the media allowed him to spout off on a self-pitying monologue like Megyn Kelly did in that monstrous interview.
But to say the media ignored the shooting is a lie that even Perkins can't quantify. But the fact that he had the audacity to push this lie should tell us a lot about Perkins and FRC.
FRC 