Family Research Council Labeled Hate Group

[Soulsearcher]

I won't comment on the cherry-picked quotes, because they are out of context. Family Research Council has not been about jailing gays, or criminalizing sodomy. It has opposed gay marriage, and probably gay adoptions of heterosexual children (though I'm not even sure of that).

As for the going after kids line, that usually refers more to public school indoctrination that there are no moral issues surrounding gay and lesbian practice. The controversy over "Sally Has Two Mommies" has been around for decades. It's those types of efforts that lead to the "They're after our kids" rhetoric.

One more area that gets traditional marriage activists in trouble is the "what's next?" line. Gay marriage today...what's next? The answer to that usually leads to the false accusation that traditionalists are equating SSA with some truly abberrant stuff.

So again I say...do we really want to wipe all nuance out between the KKK and the Family Research Council? If so, some members of this board might fear that their church is indeed next on the hit list.

Most of my comments have broadly been focused on the 18 groups listed in the OP. I don't consider the FRC as bad as some of them, but it seems to constantly work with these groups. As the LDS love saying "avoid the appearance of evil" I will ask if you've read through the profiles of all 18 groups or listened to some of the lectures some of thee guys give. I don't feel bad comparing some of them to the KKK in the least cause they scare the crap out of me.

for example......

Edited November 25, 2010 by Soulsearcher
beware of language in the comments section of the video

[GeneC]

Starting with the Elder Packer talk it was actually clarified to state that he wasn't saying they can't be born gay, just that they don't have to be slaves to that desire, again not saying they can be cured, just that they can control The church as a whole has taken quit a large step back im promising a cure and focusing on control, but that's been debated way too much on this site many times. Second please find the current quotes from the church that state that a) all gays are pedophiles. b) gays are out to steal your kids. c) gays should face execution for either engaging in homosexual activity or for some of the groups just being gay. we'll go with those for starters.

The issue here isn't the stance against gay's or gay marriage, it's the words used. It's the tactic and language used. The church has focused only on the biblical and religious and yes that's 100% protected, these groups haven't. They have resorted to things that have no basis in current theology( i find very few who still support a religious foundation for executing gays) or even current fact. Most have been called out or denounced because of their tactics or studies because they've either been dis proven or made up out of thin air.

The difference is the church doesn't set out to strike at gays, it takes a stand and doesn't go after anyone. these groups actively go on the attack. They actively go outside their group to spread lies and try to rally people using those lies. I'd like to think the Church has a much higher moral code.

First of all I'll take your word for it that a man with a Masters, and Doctorate of Education clumsily misstated (in all places of course in General Conference) his words.

Second of all I cannot and will not debate with you on argument that I have never stated or eluded to.

My statement "There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church." Nothing more nothing less. My statement still stands. the LC and the LDS Church are NEITHER racists nor hate groups. So go grow contention elsewhere please!!

[Soulsearcher]

First of all I'll take your word for it that a man with a Masters, and Doctorate of Education clumsily misstated (in all places of course in General Conference) his words.

Second of all I cannot and will not debate with you on argument that I have never stated or eluded to.

My statement "There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church." Nothing more nothing less. My statement still stands. the LC and the LDS Church are NEITHER racists nor hate groups. So go grow contention elsewhere please!!

I'm not growing contention. The things that the leaders of these groups are saying are in a much different spirit than what the church has said. Yes the goals are similar, but the approach is vastly different between the church and these groups. It's the spirit in which a person or groups acts that is telling. these groups act with a malicious spirit in many ways, some worse than others. The church does not act with such a spirit and as such stand higher than any of these groups.

As for the Elder packer talk, which was edited and then a statement put out a few days later clearing things up, as said it was debated at length on this site among other places and so far most people seem to be saying what i said, and that included the vast majority of members who i have talked to.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's the thing though, these groups aren't just saying they disagree with Gay marriage because god doesn't want it. The list of things they stand for goes well beyond that.

Well, for example, some of them (I presume) advocate overturning Lawrence and allowing states to criminalize sodomy again.

Like Justice Thomas, I find such laws "uncommonly silly". But it does worry me me that the SPLC has decreed that an idea that was mainstream less than a decade ago is "hate" today.

And frankly, it does make me wonder where they want to take us in the next ten years.

[Edit]: incidentally: If the SPLC is merely out to label all rank demagoguery for what it is--has it ever taken on any of the secular humanist groups who perpetuate the "religion has no positive social consequences" or "religious people are deluded" tales? Or is satire, ad hominem, and intentionally provocative behavior only "hateful" when it comes from the right? [Not being rhetorical here; I genuinely don't know much about SPLC's past practices.]

Edited November 25, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

Well, for example, some of them (I presume) advocate overturning Lawrence and allowing states to criminalize sodomy again.

Like Justice Thomas, I find such laws "uncommonly silly". But it does worry me me that the SPLC has decreed that an idea that was mainstream less than a decade ago is "hate" today.

And frankly, it does make me wonder where they want to take us in the next ten years.

That's one of them. Some are still on the Death to Gays' path. Then there are the Gay's really deserve AIDS band wagon. Plus as stated earlier we are responsible for the Nazis and were behind the holocaust. My favorite being i spent so much time working with kids is " he's gay, of course he's a pedophile" which a majority of the groups on this list teach as a proven unquestionable fact. You can be worried about 10 years, but i am honestly tired right now of every day being called a pedophile or being blamed for every problem the world has. Think it's an over statement? Try telling people you were a male nanny when you apply for a job. Guess what kind of comments i get daily, and being it was quite a long job if i leave it off my resume i have a pretty wide gap that always gets asked about.

Also as for your edit, you know me I'm all about fair all the way around,i want all sides playing by the same rules. I would like to see anti religious groups that use the same tactics hit with the same label. Don't know if they will but i want it to be fair.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Wingnut]

So go grow contention elsewhere please!!

Soulsearcher has an extensive history on this site, and very very rarely has he ever initiated contention.

[GeneC]

Soulsearcher has an extensive history on this site, and very very rarely has he ever initiated contention.

Arguing a point that wasn't even introduced, ad nauseum, is in my opinion being contentious.

[Soulsearcher]

Arguing a point that wasn't even introduced, ad nauseum, is in my opinion being contentious.

So you didn't say that the Church and liberty counsel were pretty much the same in how they approach the topic?

odd

could have sworn you posted this.....

t "There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church."

Each of my posts showed that both groups approach the topic in much different spirits, so one group can end up on the list while the other(the church) doesn't. Not sure how that a) doesn't go directly to your statement and b) breeds contention just because you don't like it as a valid argument?

[GeneC]

Originally Posted by ThankGodForRepentence View Post

Arguing a point that wasn't even introduced, ad nauseum, is in my opinion being contentious.

So you didn't say that the Church and liberty counsel were pretty much the same in how they approach the topic?

odd

could have sworn you posted this.....

"There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church."

Each of my posts showed that both groups approach the topic in much different spirits, so one group can end up on the list while the other(the church) doesn't. Not sure how that a) doesn't go directly to your statement and b) breeds contention just because you don't like it as a valid argument? /QUOTE]

No, I didn't post anything about either groups approach, is that supposed to be above somewhere?

QUOTE

"There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church."

UNQUOTE.

NOW Where is the APPROACH Part? Where is the COMPARISON Part?

Where is anything other than saying one is no more a hate group than the other?

[Soulsearcher]

Originally Posted by ThankGodForRepentence View Post

Arguing a point that wasn't even introduced, ad nauseum, is in my opinion being contentious.

So you didn't say that the Church and liberty counsel were pretty much the same in how they approach the topic?

odd

could have sworn you posted this.....

"There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church."

Each of my posts showed that both groups approach the topic in much different spirits, so one group can end up on the list while the other(the church) doesn't. Not sure how that a) doesn't go directly to your statement and b) breeds contention just because you don't like it as a valid argument? /QUOTE]

No, I didn't post anything about either groups approach, is that supposed to be above somewhere?

QUOTE

"There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church."

UNQUOTE.

NOW Where is the APPROACH Part? Where is the COMPARISON Part?

Where is anything other than saying one is no more a hate group than the other?

You stated you saw nothing different between them. That nothing liberty does shows any difference from the church. Which means they can't handle or approach things differently. For you to see no difference they can not vary in any noticeable way. I've pointed out that they do vary in a noticeable way which makes it much easier for one to be seen as a hate group while the other isn't, therefore showing possibly error with your original statement. You compared the two yourself, i was just showing it wasn't a good comparison. Saying one is no different than the other by definition is a comparison.

[GeneC]

You stated you saw nothing different between them. That nothing liberty does shows any difference from the church. Which means they can't handle or approach things differently. For you to see no difference they can not vary in any noticeable way. I've pointed out that they do vary in a noticeable way which makes it much easier for one to be seen as a hate group while the other isn't, therefore showing possibly error with your original statement. You compared the two yourself, i was just showing it wasn't a good comparison. Saying one is no different than the other by definition is a comparison.

No I did not. I repeat I stated that I don't believe either are hate groups.

No I did not. I repeat I stated that I don't believe either are hate groups.

Where is the Quote that I said that I saw nothing different between them.

That nothing liberty does shows any difference from the church??????????

[Soulsearcher]

No I did not. I repeat I stated that I don't believe either are hate groups.

No I did not. I repeat I stated that I don't believe either are hate groups.

Where is the Quote that I said that I saw nothing different between them.

That nothing liberty does shows any difference from the church??????????

so your original statement was

"There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church."

So you've in the same sentence brought liberty and the church together. With in the context of the statement you've used the term "any more" to draw a relation to the two different organizations. Comparing them, saying because of their actions you don't see "a" as different than "b". Then someone comes along and points out what "a" is doing( spreading lies, telling half truths, questionable quotes by leaders, ect ect) things "b" isn't doing. Now the things "a" is doing has landed it on a list of people that are classified as hate groups. Being "b" isn't doing the things that "a" is doing, "b" has now become different in action and in theory a different type of organization from "a". so in essence someone has said

"There is actions that now show possibly that "Liberty Council" is a hate group against homosexuals where as much different actions show that the LDS Church is not."

It's possible you didn't mean to compare the two organizations and that's where your frustration is coming from, if so it's understandable, but from the original statement it very much appears the intent was to try and clear one organization by likening it to the other, which really is where the mess started being the two are drastically different, one being a political lobby more than a religious organization and therefore not able to be any where near the same footing in reality.

[Dravin]

It's possible you didn't mean to compare the two organizations and that's where your frustration is coming from, if so it's understandable, but from the original statement it very much appears the intent was to try and clear one organization by likening it to the other, which really is where the mess started being the two are drastically different, one being a political lobby more than a religious organization and therefore not able to be any where near the same footing in reality.

I think his comparison was limited to "both not hate organizations" and he's not saying that comparison extends to their approaches. Kinda like how both my Dad and my Mom are "Lastname" but why they qualify for that status isn't the same.

[Soulsearcher]

I think his comparison was limited to "both not hate organizations" and he's not saying that comparison extends to their approaches. Kinda like how both my Dad and my Mom are "Lastname" but why they qualify for that status isn't the same.

Which i can understand, but it opened to door also to show why one can be and one can't be. It was a comparison. The intent of the original statement might have been exactly as Dravin said. That being said it opens the door to point out exactly why i disagree and the vast differences between both groups and their actions. Might not have been what you intended, but it did open a very wide door to show why i don't feel the statement is correct.

[prisonchaplain]

Soul, you invited me to examine each of the 15 groups the SPLC targeted, and offered that you did see the Family Research Council as being the most moderate (i.e. least offensive). Then you suggested that FRC may be suffering from the company it keeps.

I would offer that this whole political correctness, with this "guilt by association" line is leftist McArthyism. First, they associate by lobbying for the same causes. Sure, they may occasionally pat each other on the back publically, because they pursue similar political causes. BUT if that's enough to condemn the moderates, then there's no hope. Indeed, my LDS friends here have much to be concerned about, if they can be held responsible, as can their church, because extremists may favor some of the same causes.

This is a dangerous and ugly tact the SPLC is taking. Some in the GLTB community understand this full well. According to an article from the OP, they do indeed view the traditional marriage defenders are equivalent to supporters of Jim Crow and those who opposed interracial marriage. And, what they mean by that, is that society should no longer even tolerate our views in decent public discussion.

I will concede that Christian folk can sometimes be and sound ugly when we wax eloquent about the immorality of others. But quite frankly, this particular effort strikes me as worse than some of the paranoid-sounding concerns that Jerry Falwell fretted about 30 years ago.

[Soulsearcher]

Soul, you invited me to examine each of the 15 groups the SPLC targeted, and offered that you did see the Family Research Council as being the most moderate (i.e. least offensive). Then you suggested that FRC may be suffering from the company it keeps.

I would offer that this whole political correctness, with this "guilt by association" line is leftist McArthyism. First, they associate by lobbying for the same causes. Sure, they may occasionally pat each other on the back publically, because they pursue similar political causes. BUT if that's enough to condemn the moderates, then there's no hope. Indeed, my LDS friends here have much to be concerned about, if they can be held responsible, as can their church, because extremists may favor some of the same causes.

This is a dangerous and ugly tact the SPLC is taking. Some in the GLTB community understand this full well. According to an article from the OP, they do indeed view the traditional marriage defenders are equivalent to supporters of Jim Crow and those who opposed interracial marriage. And, what they mean by that, is that society should no longer even tolerate our views in decent public discussion.

I will concede that Christian folk can sometimes be and sound ugly when we wax eloquent about the immorality of others. But quite frankly, this particular effort strikes me as worse than some of the paranoid-sounding concerns that Jerry Falwell fretted about 30 years ago.

And i fully understand the concern.

Yet the video clip i shared was the leader of one of these groups sharing what he told an official government as an expert on homosexuals. That government then passed a law that asks for the death penalty for homosexuals. And prison terms for those who don't report homosexuals. These people claiming they are experts and know all there is to know and proclaim that anything that goes against them is wrong is scary. Many of these groups claim there can be no biological factors, claim they know for a fact we are all predators, and know for a fact we seek to destroy the world.

I have no problem with them stating their religious reasoning and fighting for their causes, but do you really see nothing to worry about with them preaching falsehoods as fact and gods truth? I know how homosexual behavior is viewed by mainstream Christians, but many of these groups have even been denounced by the mainstream. If you stand beside someone who constantly called for the deaths of any class of people and kept patting them on the back and applauding them knowing what they say while standing right beside you, at some point it's going to become clear to some that you support that way of thinking. Churches can and have denounced some of these groups without it costing them the bigger battles. Now few of these groups seem to be for death of people(some seem to be) but any extreme behavior fits. If you stand beside them as they say it long enough and applaud them, what are people supposed to think? When you share conferences and such and keep inviting them to say these things publicly, eventually either you are seen as apathetic or supportive.

Also there are those in the religious right who have used the same tactics with homosexuals. Who they associate with, ties to groups the right doesn't like weakens us and degrades us just by association. The fact we have less desirable has many times been used as the standard rather than the minority in our culture. Many of the groups in question are using the exact same tactics themselves. Judging us by the criminals and fanatics rather than the mainstream.

Should some of the groups be reassessed, from what i read and looked into yes. Could some of these groups ditch the "facts" and stick with real facts and still fight for their goals, yes. I'm not saying that SPLC is 100% spot on with each group, but yes some of them do deserve the title because they aren't just stating the standard stances, they've crossed lines.

[HoosierGuy]

Focus on the Family and the man that runs it turns me off too. They reek of arrogant conservativeness. Conservative family values are OK and fine, but when you mix family values with big business, often corrupt business, the whole thing smells disgusting.

[GaySaint]

The FRC has been involved in a lot of interesting political campaigns lately dealing with the Uganda "kill the gays" bill. Specifically, the FRC paid $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda’s plan to execute homosexuals (I have a link to to the copies of the official lobbying report if anyone would like it posted, but it leads to a "gay friendly" blogger's website, so I don't want to post it without permission... Maybe I'll PM it to people who would like to see the report, or try to find another source)

Doing a google search for Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, or worse, Peter Sprigg (who either wants gays sent out of the country or their lives criminalized, depending on the interview) will turn up the reasons I would personally consider FRC worthy of the "Hate group" label - and I think you all know I don't use those types of terms lightly... ever.

I would be inclined to say, however, that anyone who supports the Uganda bill in its current iteration, which calls for the death of homosexuals, indeed deserves the label of "hate."

[HoosierGuy]

The FRC has been involved in a lot of interesting political campaigns lately dealing with the Uganda "kill the gays" bill. Specifically, the FRC paid $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda’s plan to execute homosexuals (I have a link to to the copies of the official lobbying report if anyone would like it posted, but it leads to a "gay friendly" blogger's website, so I don't want to post it without permission... Maybe I'll PM it to people who would like to see the report, or try to find another source)

Doing a google search for Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, or worse, Peter Sprigg (who either wants gays sent out of the country or their lives criminalized, depending on the interview) will turn up the reasons I would personally consider FRC worthy of the "Hate group" label - and I think you all know I don't use those types of terms lightly... ever.

I would be inclined to say, however, that anyone who supports the Uganda bill in its current iteration, which calls for the death of homosexuals, indeed deserves the label of "hate."

Well said. Reminds me of Ralph Reed (another of those high and mighty "I'm a good Christian Conservative" man) who fought against covering the Northern Mariana Islands

with U.S. Federal wage and worker safety laws and promoted shipping in Chinese workers to the islands. Reed used the "These Chinese will be exposed to Jesus if you let them on the islands" routine. What was going on though was that these female Chinese workers in the Mariana's were forced to have abortions and the women and young girls were forced into prostitution. Prisonchaplain mentioned over using words like NAZI. These kind of people are not Nazis, but they are just as bad in their own way.

[Just_A_Guy]

Specifically, the FRC paid $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda’s plan to execute homosexuals

I see the report online at Scribd here. However, it shows that the $25,000 was divided on lobbying for that legislation, lobbying against an attempt to repeal DOMA, another measure on gays in the military, a DC definition-of-marriage bill, two measures related to internet gambling, a judge confirmation, keeping abortion out of Obamacare, two measures dealing with stem cell research, a measure limiting judicial jurisdiction over DOMA, and an anti-employment-discrimination measure.

Regarding the Uganda resolution, FRC has responded as follows [quoting from the CBS website]:

"FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution," the group said. "FRC's efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill."

"FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct," the group adds.

FRC may be telling the truth, or may not, regarding its objectives vis a vis the Uganda resolution. But to say that they spent $25,000 just to kill the bill, is patently incorrect.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[cynthia_ann]

Now this is actually quite difficult. I can find research results from seemingly perfectly reputable sources that go both ways. Research says gays are more likely to molest children. They are also not any more likely than a heterosexual couple to molest children. They are far more likely to be sexually promiscuous. They are also not more likely than a straight couple. See what I mean? I had to do a lot of research on this for a college class and I have to say, the researching on the companies who did the research took more time than anything! I could quote 10 different studies that go from one extreme to the other and everything in between.

[Soulsearcher]

Now this is actually quite difficult. I can find research results from seemingly perfectly reputable sources that go both ways. Research says gays are more likely to molest children. They are also not any more likely than a heterosexual couple to molest children. They are far more likely to be sexually promiscuous. They are also not more likely than a straight couple. See what I mean? I had to do a lot of research on this for a college class and I have to say, the researching on the companies who did the research took more time than anything! I could quote 10 different studies that go from one extreme to the other and everything in between.

The problem being is that most of the sources these groups have been using have been tossed out by any accredited association in the country. Most of the research has been gone through and shown glaring error or altered facts. If you can't find anyone certified to stand behind your work, then it might be a sign that your work needs to be done over.( that comment is directed at the people doing the studies not you :))

Edited November 27, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[prisonchaplain]

Should some of the groups be reassessed, from what i read and looked into yes. Could some of these groups ditch the "facts" and stick with real facts and still fight for their goals, yes. I'm not saying that SPLC is 100% spot on with each group, but yes some of them do deserve the title because they aren't just stating the standard stances, they've crossed lines.

I guess we can all agree that lies condemn the liar and hurt his/her cause. We might further urge our compatriots in the culture wars to askew inflammatory rhetoric, and the type of broad accusations that paint a whole lot of folk with tar and feather, that should be reserved for a few. Finally, nobody should be afraid of just sticking with the facts and the truth. After all, those confident in their position, and just a bit patient, should expect to win--even if it takes a generation or two.

[prisonchaplain]

Focus on the Family and the man that runs it turns me off too. They reek of arrogant conservativeness. Conservative family values are OK and fine, but when you mix family values with big business, often corrupt business, the whole thing smells disgusting.

HG, you are being a little too direct with your insinuations about Focus being a corrupt big business. Any evidence? Any stories of leaders living large? Or is this just a big and conservative = bad kinda slam???

[prisonchaplain]

I would be inclined to say, however, that anyone who supports the Uganda bill in its current iteration, which calls for the death of homosexuals, indeed deserves the label of "hate."

If FRC is supporting the Uganda bill with finance, I would like to see that. I would also be inclined to reconsider my previous comments. Many many Christian leaders of general conservative bent, urged Ugandan Christians to pull back from that bill.