John Aravosis on hate speech

John points out the ludicrous argument that FRC claims that the SPLC is to blame for the shooting because the SPLC exposed FRC's hate speech. That is, it isn't their own hate speech that is the problem, but someone pointing out that it's hateful. From America Blog, FRC's own speech brought this upon them:

The Family Research Council, and more generally the anti-gay right, can't have it both ways. Either words can incite violence or they can't. Falsely labeling someone a bad person can either provoke violence, or it can't. The FRC would have us believe that our admonitions incite violence but theirs couldn't.

But if words can incite violence, then it's fair to examine all the words of all the parties to the dispute, not just the words of one side.

And if you examine what the Family Research Council, and really the entire religious right, has said - lied - about gay and trans people for the past two decades, not only is what the they've said far worse than what any of their critics have said in response, but their language is so hateful, so damning, so incendiary on its face (and false, which only makes it all the more incendiary), that I believe it's difficult not to consider the possibility that the religious right might share some of the blame for recklessly inciting the violence that finally, and sadly, unfolded this past week.

Why FRC is NOT the same as the pro-equality side

From Jeremy Hooper, at Good As You:

If we had an organization on our side that was saying the sort of things about evangelical Christians that FRC says about LGBT people, then that would be a different story. And I would add that I would be the first to condemn such a group! But the fact of that matter is that we don't.have.that.kind.of.group. Human Rights Campaign is not printing brochures that begin by comparing Christian marriages to man-on-horse (complete with horse photo). GLAAD is not launching websites referring to gender-different marriages as "fake" and saying those marriages "destroy lives." PFLAG is not inviting someone like Bryan Fischer to speak at its annual conference. FRC does all of that and more than I could ever put in words! 

Look, I HATE having this conversation. My instinct yesterday afternoon was to react with nothing but full-throated support for FRC and its staff and to articulate the concerns that many of us who work in politics feel. These heartfelt concerns should be completely detached from the debate, no matter the things I mentioned above. 

But when groups like NOM work overtime politicizing this, I'm not going to play pretend. If HRC were on the receiving end of yesterday's heinous act, the facts pertaining to HRC's decades of work would remain the exact same today as they were yesterday. Same goes with FRC. And while perspective is needed and nothing compares to the brutality that is gun violence, the facts surrounding the Family's Research Councils' nineteen year mission are rhetorically brutal. We LGBT people are undoubtedly less free an less equal because of them. That is their mission. That is not ours.

Jeremy is right.  THis is   a false equivalence and  isn't helpful. The pro-LGBT groups aren't  calling for conservative Christians to be imprisoned, have their relationships torn apart, their children kidnapped.  We're not saying that they engage in bestiality or abuse children.  We don't say that the state should prevent them from practicing their faith, and we don't say the state should make them live under the tenets of OUR faith (and despite what they say,  many of us DO go to church...).   As the saying goes, one of these things is not like the other....

The FRC shooting (2): on hate speech and calls to violence

Following up on yesterday's post:  The Family Research Council is complaining that the fact the Southern Poverty Law Center calls it out for "hate speech" is a "license to kill". The SPLC responds that this is "outrageous".

For more than 40 years, the SPLC has battled against political extremism and political violence. We have argued consistently that violence is no answer to problems in a democratic society, and we have strongly criticized all those who endorse such violence, whether on the political left or the political right.

But this afternoon, FRC President Tony Perkins attacked the SPLC, saying it had encouraged and enabled the attack by labeling the FRC a “hate group.” ....

Perkins’ accusation is outrageous. 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 and its allies on the religious right are saying, in effect, that offering legitimate and fact-based criticism in a democratic society is tantamount to suggesting that the objects of criticism should be the targets of criminal violence.

The Washington Monthly reminds us that "criticism is not persecution".

This is a group that wants to use the coercive power of the state to....tell churches and other religious organizations whose relationships they may honor. It also engages regularly in slurs of anyone who doesn’t agree with its agenda as secularist Christ-haters.....

Those determined to frustrate the Christian Right’s desire for total secular political power are neither Romans nor Communists nor Nazis, and it is far past time for smug powerful men like Tony Perkins to climb down from that cross and stop pretending they bear any resemblance to the actual Christian Martyrs who suffered and died—and still suffer and die—for their faith.

The Family Research Council is not a religion. It is a professional political advocacy group with an anti-gay agenda.  It does not represent Christians.  Plenty of Christians support gay rights, and plenty of gay people are Christian.

Here are some examples of what FRC folks say, that got it that SPLC designation. Now, if you don't see a problem with the quotes, under each one I've changed it to describe a different minority group. I don't think we'd consider the sorts of comments that they make about gay people to be acceptable to the mainstream if targeted towards other people. Would we?

Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the Roman Catholics. 

“[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
Jews embody a deep-seated hatred against true religion. 

“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of black men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”

The FRC has the right to say what it wants.  But it does NOT have the right to do so without legitimate criticism.  And legitimate criticism is not a call to violence.

Finally, if you want to look at explicit calls to violence, perhaps NOM (the National Organization [against] Marriage [Equality]) should explain some of these events, duly noted by Rob Tisinai at Box Turtle Bulletin.  Here's some examples.

When Reverend Ariel Torres Ortega stood on your stage as your guest at your rally and proclaimed that gays are “worthy to death,” NOM was there. But you didn’t condemn it at the event, on your website, or on your blog..... 

When Fox News asked NOM founder Maggie Gallagher about a pageant contestant who said gays “shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them,” Maggie was there, not to condemn the call for violence, but to praise “her courage in coming forward.”

As Rob says,

The shooting at FRC was deplorable. Violence has no place in this debate. We can look at this shooting, as well as the people who are killed every year just for being gay, and agree on that. You certainly say you agree. So please, live up your own press release: stop supporting the very thing you claim to condemn.

The FRC shooting

By now you know that a disturbed man shot a guard at the Family Research Council in Washington DC. (Thankfully, the guard will be fine). News suggests that the shooter was opposed to the FRC's anti-gay policies.

Brian Brown of the National Organization (against) Marriage (Equality) immediately complained that this is because FRC is called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because FRC opposes marriage equality. in fact, he suggested that the obviously shooter was carrying out a political agenda.

No, Brian. It is you with the political agenda. The FRC is called a hate group because it tells lies and demonizes LGBT people.

The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Thanks to the GLAD Accountability Project, you can see exactly what people like FRC spokesmen Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg say about LGBT people.In fact, Sprigg thinks that gay behavior should be criminalized. And you can read more quotes from the FRC at the SPLC site.

Aside: you can also read posts here at my other blog (one, two, three) about the language of violence employed by so-called "Christians" against LGBT people.  And don't get me started on their claim that gay people are anti-Christian.  The right doesn't own the term "Christian" and there are plenty of gay Christians out there.

Meanwhile what about the shooter? He is no more representative of the gay community than the man who shot up the Sikh temple is representative of the Christian community, or the man who killed people at the Batman movie is representative of Neuroscience PhD students.

Although some conservative groups accuse the pro-gay blogosphere of "celebrating" this, the response was not that at all. In fact, 41 pro-gay groups immediately released a statement condemning the violence and sending their prayers and best wishes to the FRC and the victim for healing.

Funny, the conservatives ignore that, instead preferring to demonize the gay community further.

What is the conservative response to disturbed acts of anti-gay violence? In fact, 2011 saw a record high rate of murders motivated by anti gay bias. And what did this conservative pseudo-"Christian" groups have to say about that? what did they say about Bible-verse shouting street preacher  at Grand Rapids GayDay, who threatened to rape a woman attending?

::Crickets::

As Zack Ford writes at ThinkProgress,

Violence is not the answer to solving any conflict and nothing justifies the actions taken Wednesday by Floyd Corkins. But any attempt to use the shooting to justify reinforcing the inequality LGBT people experience everyday is intolerance at its most basic.

Update:  Excellent commentary from Pam's House Blend :

The fact is that the political discourse in this country is at rock bottom — dehumanizing people so that it is easier for those who are filled with rage to act out violently. We see it with the numerous rage-filled hate crimes against LGBTs all the time, race-based preposterous acts claiming to be religious freedom, and comments from public figures like Joe the Plumber’s recent guidance on immigration reform to “Put A Damn Fence On The Border Going To Mexico And Start Shooting.”