FBI Removes Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defimation League from Hate Crimes Website

Posted by Tina

A month ago fifteen family groups quietly urged Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey to end the FBI’s endorsement of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The families objected to the endorsement following an incident of violence at the Family Research Council (FRC) that was attributed to the SPLC’s listing of the FRC as a “hate group”:

In August 2012, a Washington area man guided by the SPLC’s “hate map” that cited FRC, entered the group’s headquarters and shot a security guard. The guard survived and the shooter, a volunteer with a gay group, pleaded guilty to domestic terrorism.

The FBI has since scrubbed the listings of both the SPLC and the Anti Defimation League as resources from it’s Hate Crimes web page prompting a response from a spokesman for the families:

“We commend the FBI for removing website links to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that not only dispenses erroneous data but has been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court. We hope this means the FBI leadership will avoid any kind of partnership with the SPLC,” Tony Perkins, FRC President, told Secrets.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center’s mission to push anti-Christian propaganda is inconsistent with the mission of both the military and the FBI, which is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States,” he added.

The FBI has not commented on its decision according to reporter Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner.

So what do you think…did the FBI director make a good decision…bad decision?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to FBI Removes Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defimation League from Hate Crimes Website

  1. Chris says:

    I am saddened that the FBI has caved to the pressure of hate groups such as the FRC. It is absurd that an organization that has consistently claimed, against all available evidence, that gays are more likely to molest children to accuse anyone else of pushing “erroneous data.” It is even more absurd for them to claim that the SPLC has been “linked to domestic terrorism.” Yes, the terrorist had gotten information from the SPLC, but the organization does not advocate violence and immediately condemned the attack. Does the FRC, which is also notoriously Islamophobic, blame Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer for the Norway terrorist, who was inspired by their writing? Highly doubtful. The SPLC is not responsible for a sick man’s choice to resort to violence based on the verifiable facts the SPLC published. By that logic, we should never criticize anyone lest we be held responsible for violence against that person.

    The SPLC’s designation of groups like the FRC and the AFA as hate groups is accurate and fair. The FRC has continuously tried to demonize gays and spread lies about them. The AFA has gone as far as to claim that gays are responsible for the Holocaust. To characterize these as mainstream “Christian” or “family” groups is to insult mainstream Christians and families. The SPLC does not push “anti-Christian” propoganda; they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians, as do a growing number of Christians. If Christians allow groups like this to be their spokespeople, the religion will whither and die.

  2. bob says:

    It’s about time! SPLC was a scam to make Morris Dees rich.

  3. Tina says:

    Nothing prevents the SPLC from expressing its opinion but I believe it is irresponsible to list an organization as a “hate group” and provide an address/location for the groups offices just because they have opinions that the SPLC find offensive or erroneous. SPLC’s listing the FRC as a hate group could easily be interpreted as a terror listing, as it apparently was by the unfortunate individual who felt compelled to shoot the security guard at FRC after seeing the listing. The SPLC is not responsible for the man’s actions but the listing is also not responsible…in fact its a bit childish in my opinion. As if differing thoughts and opinions…even kooky thoughts and opinions…were something new and unique that had to be eradicated.

    Also I don’t think anything that Family Research Council has said is any more “hateful” than the many things that some gay groups/individuals have said about FRC or Christians generally. These are matters of opinion and faith. The SPLC is not required to agree with the opinions and beliefs expressed by the FRC, nor is anyone.

    I realize that the gay community thinks it has cornered the market as targets of hate but it is not. Like all victim classes it is, in fact, quite capable of hateful speech.

    I preferred life in America when people were less sensitive to differences. Activism has changed America drastically, and not in a good way.

  4. Chris says:

    Tina: “Nothing prevents the SPLC from expressing its opinion but I believe it is irresponsible to list an organization as a “hate group” and provide an address/location for the groups offices just because they have opinions that the SPLC find offensive or erroneous.”

    Why is it irresponsible? Would it also be irresponsible to list the Ku Klux Klan, or the New Black Panther Party, as hate groups? (The SPLC lists both.) Hatred and bigotry are real problems. I don’t understand why it is wrong to call them out when they are seen. Certainly there are times when these terms are misapplied–I have been very clear here that I find it wrong when liberals accuse all Tea Party members or all opponents of gay marriage of being motivated by “hate”–but I can’t see how it is misapplied to a group that demonizes and spreads falsehoods about gays as a matter of basic practice. When you constantly equate a group of people with pedophiles, I think the term “hate” is very accurate.

    The notion that the SPLC should not identify hatred wherever it pops up seems to me a silencing tactic. Conservative critics of the SPLC are saying that the group should be more politically correct and avoid using terms like hatred and bigotry so as not to offend people who might sympathize with such groups. Other times they flat out lie about the SPLC–I can’t tell you how many conservative-written articles I have read *today* that have claimed the organizations lists the AFA and FRC as hate groups “because they oppose same-sex marriage.” This is a lie; the SPLC is very clear that that is not a sufficient reason for ending up on their list. They only label groups which have an established pattern of spreading fear and propoganda about a group of people. The FRC and AFA certainly qualify under that reasonable criteria.

    As for publishing the addresses of their offices, these are readily available at the official websites of each group, so I can’t see how that is irresponsible. They may provide this information so that people can write to the office to express their disagreement or opposition. If the SPLC were publishing home addresses, that would be a different story, but publishing office addresses of very high-profile organizations is obviously fair game.

    “SPLC’s listing the FRC as a hate group could easily be interpreted as a terror listing,”

    I don’t see how that interpretation could be made by a reasonable person, especially since the site’s Hate Map clearly says “Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.” Hatred and bigotry are not always violent or even criminal, and the SPLC doesn’t claim otherwise.

    “As if differing thoughts and opinions…even kooky thoughts and opinions…were something new and unique that had to be eradicated.”

    Tina, please. We’re talking about “differing thoughts and opinions” in the same way that George Wallace had differing thoughts and opinions. Should his fierce dedication to segregation not have been labeled “hate” by integrationists back in the day? Arguing that victims of hatred and bigotry should not call bigotry for what it is is to take away an important and powerful tool in the fight against oppression.

    “Also I don’t think anything that Family Research Council has said is any more “hateful” than the many things that some gay groups/individuals have said about FRC or Christians generally.”

    Can you give an example?

    “These are matters of opinion and faith.”

    Certainly you’re not claiming that the notion that homosexuals molest children more than their straight counterparts is a “matter of opinion and faith.” This is a matter of right and wrong, fact and fiction. As is the notion that gays are responsible for the Holocaust.

    It is important as a society that we are able to distinguish between opinion and fact.

    “I realize that the gay community thinks it has cornered the market as targets of hate but it is not.”

    This is irrelevant. Whether or not gays have “cornered the market” makes no difference as to the hateful nature of the FRC’s activism and rhetoric.

    “Like all victim classes it is, in fact, quite capable of hateful speech.”

    Of course. No one has claimed otherwise. If you know of a pro-gay group that equates heterosexuality with pedophilia, protests straight people being allowed to join the military or get married, and argues that straight couples should have their children taken away, please let me know and I will alert the SPLC. I am sure they’d be interested in such a group.

    “I preferred life in America when people were less sensitive to differences.”

    (footage not found)

  5. Tina says:

    Chris: “Would it also be irresponsible to list the Ku Klux Klan, or the New Black Panther Party, as hate groups?”

    Really Chris? You’re willing to compare FRC to the KKK? So you see them as folks who would ride under cover of darkness, hiding their identities, terrorizing families, burning crosses on lawns, and hanging individuals from trees?

    But you don’t hate, right? You don’t make erroneous statements about the FRC…right?

    “but I can’t see how it is misapplied to a group that demonizes and spreads falsehoods about gays as a matter of basic practice.”

    Perhaps that’s because you refuse to understand that thinking you are right doesn’t automatically make you right. You hold very different beliefs than these Christians do. They don’t attempt to change your mind through intimidation or force. They do expect to be able to express their views as freely as anyone else.

    “…especially since the site’s Hate Map clearly says “Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.”

    This is a group of lawyers; they wouldn’t need a disclaimer if they thought the message was harmless. they knew exactly what they were doing. Their own brand of hate speech is quite activist but it certainly covers their legal butts! As I wrote earlier…adolescent!

    They only label groups which have an established pattern of spreading fear and propoganda about a group of people. The FRC and AFA certainly qualify under that reasonable criteria.”

    They believe they are spreading truth that will save souls. If the things they say can be refuted what’s the problem? The SPLC has certainly spread misinformation about the FRC based entirely on their misunderstanding as to beliefs and motives.

    This is major disagreement. It only gets sticky when one group decides to teach children in schools what was once considered the duty of parents only and when a union they believe was designed by God is being fundamentally transformed and taught to their children as right when they don’t believe it is.

    The problem with the thinkers at the SPLC is they don’t really understand or respect the opposing point of view and so they label it hatred.

    “We’re talking about “differing thoughts and opinions” in the same way that George Wallace had differing thoughts and opinions”

    Not in my opinion we aren’t! The South was a very religious area of the country. You will find nothing in the Bible that warns of a black race that is less than human or that should be segregated, a common belief at the time. (Darwin certainly played a roll in cementing such idiocy). You will find admonitions in the Bible about engaging in the gay lifestyle. So no, we are not talking about the same types of thoughts and opinions. There was no moral justification for segregation. There is moral justification in the Bible for the defense of marriage as between a man and a woman…and for the sanctity of life…and for the rights of parents to bring their children up as they see fit. Hate has nothing to do with this view; discrimination isn’t the point. In fact the point is doing what is right and standing up for what you believe. the point is being willing to state ones belief even when it is not popular because you are guided to love others enough to be truthful and honest about Gods warnings.

    “Should his fierce dedication to segregation not have been labeled “hate” by integrationists back in the day?”

    It was labeled hate but that doesn’t mean the man was motivated by hate. In fact he denied that he was motivated by hate:

    “During the next four years, many problems will arise in the matter of segregation and civil rights, as a result of judicial decisions. Having served as judge of the third judicial circuit of Alabama, I feel, my friends, that this judicial experience, will be invaluable to me as your governor.… And I want to tell the good people of this state, as a judge of the third judicial circuit, if I didn’t have what it took to treat a man fair, regardless of his color, then I don’t have what it takes to be the governor of your great state.” – 1958

    “I advocate hatred of no man, because hate will only compound the problems facing the South.” – 1958

    “Integration is a matter to be decided by each state. The states must determine if they feel it is of benefit to both races.” – 1964

    “I have never made a derogatory remark about one of God’s children and I never will. If I am elected, I am going to treat all fairly.” – 1967

    “I don’t hate blacks. The day I said ‘segregation forever,’ I never said a thing that would upset a black person unless it was segregation. I never made fun of ‘em about inequality and all that kind of stuff. But my vehemence was against the federal government folks. I didn’t make people get mad against black people. I made ‘em get mad against the courts.” – 1998

    “Arguing that victims of hatred and bigotry should not call bigotry for what it is is to take away an important and powerful tool in the fight against oppression.”

    As I wrote above they are free to express their opinion that the FRC writes things they believe are in error or are hateful but I don’t think comparing the FRC to the KKK or posting a “hate map” to show where to go to act out your own hate is responsible. As you indicated, anyone can find the address of the offices if they are so inclined…there was no reason to post a map of the location and make it easy. They were, in fact, begging for a lawsuit once that maniac did his thing.

    “Certainly you’re not claiming that the notion that homosexuals molest children more than their straight counterparts is a “matter of opinion and faith.”

    Of course it’s opinion. I would need the context of the statement to make a personal judgement about faith. And I agree that it’s important to be able to mdistinguish between fact and fiction…I think that your side has decided its just right about everything as it trues every possible means to silence other opinions. Nobody is saying SPLC can’t express its view that FRC is “hateful”…but please, allow that FRC has a right to its views as well.

    It is also ridiculous to label an entire organization hateful because of a few specific points of contention or a few things that some within the organization have said.

    I invite our readers to take a peek at the FRC Blog to get a sense of the organization’s overall perspective. It’s focus is faith, family, and freedom.

    ” If you know of a pro-gay group that equates heterosexuality with pedophili…”

    Of course the pro-gay point of view would be more along the lines of “defrocked psychologists” etc. and angry mobs attacking Chic-fil-A, but its the same type of hateful rhetoric and opinion. It’s fairly well known that activists within the world of psychology have been working vigorously to fundamentally alter “official” psychological opinion…just as green activist have worked to fudge the facts about global warming or progressive educators have rewritten the history of the Great Depression’s causes and cures.

    Facts and truth are not always easy to nail down, Chris, which is why it makes sense to adopt a live and let live attitude and honor the founding principles of free speech and the Golden Rule. It is also why it is not very bright to post a childish map labeling a rival group as an “official hate group” just because you don’t like everything their members say.

    The FBI made the right decision…just my opinion.

    Too bad there isn’t “footage” Chris…you might actually learn something bout life in America before there was constant activism, neediness and self interest.

  6. Harold says:

    Excellent response Tina.

  7. Harold says:

    Most all of the posts that argue Tina’s or Jacks on opinions or articles on Post Scripts just seem to read like a DNC press release in defense of Liberal positions, as well as an attempt to pass blame or at least create some ill will toward the Conservative based groups.

    I have stopped reading such posters ideological inspired posting and frankly do not miss any content of significance.

    In Tina’s replies, I more than get the jest of the opposing position, which always seems to have the same biting commentary of political self serving importance.

    From the beginning of reading Post Scripts we had some very informative discussions, and still do, but now it seems that responses in opposition to a lot of Conservative core values are consistently replacing personal commentary with just self-absorption, or mostly party propaganda.

    Once we start to extrapolate to a infinite theory and try to press one set of values against another in such a defaming manner, the points of the issue have been lost, and the respondents comments serves no real purpose other than cause agitation.

    Once again there can be no real understanding of issues and how they affect America or the possible growth of insight with an agenda as such.

    My opinion!

  8. Tina says:

    Thank you Harold. I am constantly amazed at the intolerance of those who claim to be tolerant champions of diversity. The only thing I can figure is they don’t value freedom so they think they can can draw the lines of tolerance and diversity however they choose and feel justified in doing so.

  9. bob says:

    Southern poverty, eh? Well, not for Morris Dees.

    Read about what a racket SPLC is in the article from Harpers.

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html

  10. bob says:

    http://harpers.org/blog/2010/03/hate-immigration-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/

    I also agreed to the invitation because, much like CIS, I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” (Which doesn’t mean that some of the groups it criticizes aren’t reprehensible.) In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.

    The SPLC operates on the same basis today. Oh, except its treasury is now up to $175 million or so, bigger than the GNP of some of the world’s smaller nations.

  11. Pie Guevara says:

    Sad that the FBI saw fit to remove the Progressive hate spewing organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    The dropping the others was a proper and just move.

  12. Pie Guevara says:

    Open Question: Since the FBI has seen fit to remove references to the Southern Poverty Law Center on it’s “Hate Crimes” web site, why not remove the Ku Klux Klan?

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/hate_crimes/

  13. Chris says:

    Tina: “Really Chris? You’re willing to compare FRC to the KKK? So you see them as folks who would ride under cover of darkness, hiding their identities, terrorizing families, burning crosses on lawns, and hanging individuals from trees?”

    Tina, are you aware that the KKK doesn’t really do that anymore? They mainly stick to rhetoric these days, not violence. Anyway, I was not making a 1:1 comparison. I was taking issue with your statement that it is “irresponsible to list an organization as a “hate group”.” My implicit question was, where do you draw the line? Obviously you agree with me that there are SOME groups that qualify under that term. You seem to be arguing that a group should not be labeled like that unless they engage in actual violence. I think that is too low of a bar.

    “But you don’t hate, right? You don’t make erroneous statements about the FRC…right?”

    What erroneous statements have I made about the FRC? A comparison you don’t like is not an erroneous statement.

    “Their own brand of hate speech is quite activist but it certainly covers their legal butts!”

    This is ridiculous. You are basically arguing that the only thing that truly counts as hate speech is an accusation of hate speech that you object to. Do you not see how hypocritical it is?

    This is the Tolerance Trap. Telling minorities and their sympathizers that they cannot call out intolerance against them without also being accused of intolerance themselves is a tactic so transparently silly that no intelligent person should fall for it; and yet, it has taken hold of the right so completely that it has become conventional wisdom.

    No, “tolerance” does not mean pretending that a person’s belief that certain people are inherently inferior to others is an equally valid point of view to the opinion that all people are created equal. No, objecting to the FRC’s falsehoods about gays and calling them “hateful” is not morally equivalent to the FRC spreading those lies in the first place. That this extreme moral relativism has found a home in the GOP, who usually condemn moral relativism, is astounding.

    “They believe they are spreading truth that will save souls.”

    OK. So did Fred Phelps. Hell, so did Osama bin Laden. Again, I’m not making a 1:1 comparison. I’m merely pointing out that believing that you’re helping people and doing God’s will is not a magic shield against accusations of bigotry.

    Many of FRC’s charges are proven lies. The Bible has a lot more to say about lying than homosexuality. I have seen one of NorCal Blogs’ own, Chuck Wolk, spread a vicious lie about the APA (claiming that they support pedophilia) and then claim that the lie didn’t matter because the APA supports homosexulity. He believes that it is OK to lie in service of the Lord. The FRC believes the same.

    “If the things they say can be refuted what’s the problem?”

    Well, you seem to have a problem with the people doing the refuting. Why?

    “The SPLC has certainly spread misinformation about the FRC based entirely on their misunderstanding as to beliefs and motives.”

    What misinformation about the FRC has the SPLC spread? Be specific. Labeling them as hateful is not “misinformation.” It is a value judgment/opinion. Give me actual statements of fact that the SPLC has gotten wrong in their assessment of the FRC.

    You are showing your hypocrisy again. You are downplaying the misinformation of the FRC, claiming that they are just giving their opinion, but claim that the SPLC is engaging in misinformation when they give their opinion of the FRC! This is completely inconsistent, and it is obvious you are only doing this because you know the FRC aligns with the right and the SPLC aligns with the left. You don’t know very much about either organization other than that, and you don’t seem to care to. That’s all you need to know to form your opinion. Sad.

    “It only gets sticky when one group decides to teach children in schools what was once considered the duty of parents only and when a union they believe was designed by God is being fundamentally transformed and taught to their children as right when they don’t believe it is.”

    Uh-huh. The mean gays started it and groups like the FRC wouldn’t exist if they would just keep quiet. Got it. No bigotry there!

    “Not in my opinion we aren’t! The South was a very religious area of the country. You will find nothing in the Bible that warns of a black race that is less than human or that should be segregated, a common belief at the time.”

    This is certainly debatable. Research the Curse of Ham. Many interpreted this passage of the Bible as marking the inferiority of the black race. Now, those interpretations have mostly been lost to time. But the passages regarding homosexuality are also open to interpretation.

    “(Darwin certainly played a roll in cementing such idiocy).”

    Not really. Darwin himself opposed slavery and believed blacks and whites should have equal legal rights.

    http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_himself_was_racist

    “You will find admonitions in the Bible about engaging in the gay lifestyle.”

    But Tina, we aren’t just talking about admonitions against “the gay lifestyle.” The SPLC does not label all groups who oppose homosexuality as hate groups. NOM, for instance, is not on their list, despite being the largest anti-gay marriage group in the U.S. We are talking about groups that actively spread lies about gay people. There is a difference, and erasing that difference does your side no favors.

    “It was labeled hate but that doesn’t mean the man was motivated by hate. In fact he denied that he was motivated by hate:”

    Well, doesn’t that tell you something? No one thinks they’re bigoted. If the most infamous segregationist in history didn’t think he was a bigot, then what does that say about bigotry? Maybe it’s something that we can choose not to notice or make excuses for. Maybe it’s something even good, intelligent, moral people can engage in. Maybe it’s larger than any one person. And maybe, instead of taking people’s word that they’re not bigoted, we should allow the targets of bigotry define the term rather than the perpetrators?

    “Of course it’s opinion.”

    No, it is a lie. Homosexuals do not molest children in greater numbers than heterosexuals. That is simply a fact.

    You complain about the quality of education in this country, but one of the problems is that the difference between fact and opinion has been collapsed. The view that all opinions are equal, even the most ridiculous and unfounded, is political correctness gone awry. Again, ironic that the right has adopted this form of political correctness to serve their interests.

    More later.

  14. Chris says:

    Well, apparently the whole premise of this article is misleading; the FBI has not cut ties to the SPLC, they just no longer list them or the ADL on their “resources” page, preferring to list only government sources. They still mention their association with the SPLC on their overview page.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/31/the-fbis-break-up-with-the-splc-may-be-more-public-relations-than-anything-else/

    The SPLC continues to provide accurate information and I am glad the FBI has not cut ties to them.

  15. Tina says:

    Chris: ” apparently the whole premise of this article is misleading…”

    The premiss of the article is that the FBI removed links from the web site. It was never implied that they would avoid all association with them.

    If they are going to consult with SPLC it would behoove them to create a diverse list so as to avoid the appearance of prejudice and bias.

    It is incredible to me that progressives consider a difference in moral opinion automatically constitutes hatred or bigotry in the first place. If they cannot respect this simple difference of opinion they set themselves up to be seen as haters and bigots.

    The FBI has no business helping the SPLC to paste this label on any group. The government of the people means all of the people. The FBI must maintain a neutral position to create trust.

  16. Chris says:

    Tina: “It is incredible to me that progressives consider a difference in moral opinion automatically constitutes hatred or bigotry in the first place.”

    It is incredible to me that you consider continuing the repeat the same falsehoods over and over again, even though both you and the only other person involved in the conversation knows that they are not true, to be in any way appropriate or convincing.

    Again, the SPLC does NOT assert that “a difference in moral opinion automatically constitutes hatred or bigotry.” The SPLC does not label hate groups based solely on opposition to homosexuality. As I have already pointed out, NOM is not on their list, despite being the most prominent anti-gay marriage organization in the country. Disagreement over the morality of homosexuality is not enough to get the SPLC to label a group as hateful.

    I understand that it is useful for you and other conservatives to pretend that this is their criteria. You have a vested interest in protecting extreme groups like the FRC from accusations of bigotry, because their existence shifts the entire conversation to the right. If the FRC is not extremist or hateful or bigoted, then certainly you in the center right can’t be any of those things either. It’s very convenient for you to dismiss any accusations of right-wing bigotry, even among actual right-wing bigots, as simply the intolerance of over-sensitive, politically correct liberals. And that THEIR intolerance is the real problem.

    But “useful” isn’t always the same as “honest.” The SPLC’s criteria for labeling groups as hate groups has been explained to you now multiple times. Continuing to state that the SPLC labels groups this way simply because of “disagreement” over the issue of homosexuality is flagrantly dishonest, and you need to stop doing it.

  17. Chris says:

    Tina: “It is also ridiculous to label an entire organization hateful because of a few specific points of contention or a few things that some within the organization have said.”

    As usual, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. The hatred and lies toward the LGBT community are not a few isolated statements by “some within the organization.” They are widespread and come directly from the heads of the organization.

    “The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”
    – FRC vice president Rob Schwarzwalder, on radio’s “The Janet Mefferd Show,” Feb. 1, 2013.

    “[H]omosexual activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that homosexual men … are … relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions [childhood sexual abuse] than are heterosexual men.”
    – Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at FRC, on why the Boy Scouts should not allow LGBT Scouts or leaders, FRC blog, February 1, 2013.

    “The videos are titled ‘It Gets Better.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. …It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.”
    — Tony Perkins, FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

    “Those who understand the homosexual community—the activists—they’re very aggressive, they’re—everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They’re intolerant, they’re hateful, vile, they’re spiteful. …. To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation.”
    — Tony Perkins, Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

    “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.

    “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

    “[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.”
    — Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military,” 2010

    “A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households.”
    — Timothy Dailey, FRC publication, “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” 2002

    “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

    “[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
    — Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in “Desecrating Corpus Christi,” 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 publication, “Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia,” Robert Knight and Frank York

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

    If you’re interested, the link above explains other reasons why the SPLC has named the FRC a hate group. But I highly doubt you care to hear their side of the story; you clearly took sides on this based on the group’s respective party affiliations, and nothing else.

  18. Chris says:

    Tina, let’s replace all those statements with equivalent comments about Christianity, and then see if you find them hateful:

    “The reality is, Christians have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”

    “Christian activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that Christian men … are … relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions [childhood sexual abuse] than are non-Christian men.”

    “The videos are titled ‘Veggie Tales.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as Christian (or Catholic or some other perversion), life will get better. …It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that Christianity is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.”

    “Those who understand the Christian community—the activists—they’re very aggressive, they’re—everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They’re intolerant, they’re hateful, vile, they’re spiteful. …. To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation.”

    “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from Catholicism, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a Catholic problem.”

    “[W]elcoming open Christianity in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of Christian assault in the military.”

    “A little-reported fact is that Christian relationships are far more violent than are non-Christian households.”

    “Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the Christian movement.”

    “Christianity … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”

    Somehow, I doubt that any organization who said such hateful things about a group you personally identify with would get the benefit of the doubt from you. I don’t think you’d be getting angry with people who rightly called out such hateful rhetoric, or insisting that such comments simply represented a “difference of moral opinion.”

    If Christians were subject to this kind of sustained onslaught of bigotry, Tina, maybe you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss concerns over bigotry as merely the whining of progressive activists.

  19. Tina says:

    Chris I have no desire to get into a tolerance battle with you.

    Labeling the FRC as “extreme” to prove you’re right is just lazy.

    Extreme is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, since the left uses it so often I have taken to incorporating it into my own writing just to flatten out some of the one-sided negative energy. (Harry Reid is particularly plugged in of late over the Koch brothers)

    We were not talking about instances of intolerance. We were not discussing the opinions of people on either side. There are plenty of examples to counter anything you have said. There was an example just this week involving an eight year old political contribution made by one of the founders of Mozilla…perhaps that’s what has your fingers itching for another blog fight about your favorite issue…not interested.

    The FBI should maintain a neutral position. I think they made the right move.

    You might want to do some research before making further statements about Christians not being hated and persecuted:

    In Nigeria scores of Christians have died in Islamist bomb attacks, targeting Christmas prayers. In Iran and Pakistan Christians are on death row, for “apostasy”—quitting Islam—or blasphemy. Dozens of churches in Indonesia have been attacked or shut. Two-thirds of Iraq’s pre-war Christian population have fled. In Egypt and Syria, where secular despots gave Christianity a shield of sorts, political upheaval and Muslim zeal threaten ancient Christian groups. Not all Christianity’s woes are down to Muslims. The faith faces harassment in formally communist China and Vietnam. In India Hindu nationalists want to penalise Christians who make converts. In the Holy Land local churches are caught between Israeli encroachment on their property and Islamist bids to monopolise Palestinian life. Followers of Jesus may yet become a rarity in his homeland.

    See also here, here, here, and here.

    Go see the movie, God Is not Dead and stay for the credits at the end.

    We live in a country that celebrates and supports freedom. It’s a big country and people can organize their lives and establish associations and organizations with others who believe as they do. I would think that would be sufficient for anyone. Activists on the left have, for decades, tried to break apart this simple, live and let live way of life by trying to force conformity. It’s destroying the very foundations of freedom in our society and a whole lot of us are getting mighty tired of it.

  20. Chris says:

    Tina: “Labeling the FRC as “extreme” to prove you’re right is just lazy.”

    No, it’s accurate. The FRC is extreme, as can be proven by their own comments. If you don’t see the comments I cited as extreme, then you must also not see the equivalent comments about Christians as extreme.

    You are refusing to engage with the substance of the SPLC’s critique. Instead you hide behind the ridiculous argument that no one should ever call anyone else extremist or hateful or bigoted. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty: you don’t actually believe the argument you’re making right now, and I know that because you routinely call liberals extremist, hateful and bigoted.

    I’m not going to continue wasting my time trying to refute an argument that you do not even believe in yourself. I just don’t understand why you would waste your own time making such an argument. Do you think I don’t see through that? You should know me better than that by now.

    As for Christian persecution around the world, I was clearly referring to their treatment within the United States. There is simply no major political group in the U.S. which routinely makes the same types of false accusations against Christians that the FRC routinely makes against gays. If you can find one with the same amount of influence as the FRC, I’d love to see it. I’m sure the SPLC would be interested as well.

  21. Tina says:

    Chris I’ve wasted many hours with you on this subject already. In my opinion, you are emotionally tied to the issue and yours is not an objective view. Prejudiced to the point of blindness might be closer to the point.

    Your insults seal the deal.

  22. Chris says:

    Tina: “Prejudiced to the point of blindness might be closer to the point.”

    Yes, you are clearly correct. It is absolutely wrong and immoral and dangerous to ever call anyone prejudiced, unless of course that person is a liberal who is calling a conservative prejudiced, in which case: they are totally prejudiced!

    It is abundantly clear that by your criteria, only liberals can be prejudiced, and that the primary way they express that prejudice is by calling other people prejudiced.

    Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

    What “insults” are you referring to? Are you talking about when I said you were being intellectually dishonest, or when I said that you were making arguments you didn’t actually believe? Because those aren’t insults, they are objective analyses of 1) your inability to engage with the actual criticisms of the FRC and 2) your inability to make a single argument which doesn’t contradict another argument that you have already made.

    It is important in any constructive conversation for both sides to make their points honestly; you do not do this, and that is the reason why you feel your time is wasted, not anything I have done. That you can’t differentiate between insults and honest assessments of the state of our debate only makes things less fruitful.

    If you would spend more time attending to the weaknesses in your circular and transparently thin arguments and less time crafting ways to dodge the point and deflect blame for those weaknesses onto me, our conversations would be a lot more productive.

  23. Tina says:

    Have a nice night, Chris.

  24. Chris says:

    A nice night to you as well, and congratulations on managing to spend yet another entire conversation without actually engaging with the other side’s arguments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *