Christians, the FRC and the SPLC hate list

Rainbow flag flapping in the wind with blue sk...
Image via Wikipedia

Ultimately, this is a real problem for American Christianity. One should be able to trust Christian groups to provide accurate information and nuanced analysis. However, on issues relating to sexual orientation, I cannot trust them. For me, this lack of trust spills over to other domains as well, creating a significant problem with credibility. I hope my fellow believers will not defend these claims simply because those making them are Christians.

There are many negative consequences which derive from the myths, overgeneralizations and stereotypes. For instance, I know of a handful of situations where men were kept from their grandchildren or children by other family members because they disclosed same-sex attraction. Even though the men involved had no attraction for children, their families feared them because they experienced homosexual attractions. I know of more than one man who had to defend his right to have custody of his children because he divulged his homosexual attractions to a Christian leader. The families and Christian leaders were driven to fear because of rhetoric from one or more of the groups now on the SPLC list.

What should Christians do about the SPLC hate list? — Warren Throckmorton.

Read the entire article.

Recently, the SPLC has branded the Family Research Council a hate-group, not for their views on homosexuality, but for their messages so delivered. This might not be a dividing line for many, but the SPLC is claiming that the FRC is purposely distorting facts on homosexuality. The author of the above post is correct – it behooves us as Christians to hold each other to a higher standard when we are making any sort of claims.

Now, I have my own issues with the SPLC and their use of ‘hate group’, so don’t get me wrong in thinking that I would automatically support them. I do, however, feel that the labeling of the FRC as such to be a good thing, for several reasons.

What sayeth ye?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Post By Joel Watts (10,046 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

11 thoughts on Christians, the FRC and the SPLC hate list

  1. I think one of the issues is that the lumping together by the SPLC of these groups along with the KKK. The KKK obviously advocates direct violence against minorities. But, as far as I know, none of these Christian groups advocates direct or indirect violence against anyone. They are essentially saying these groups may cause someone unknown to act out in a violent way. That is just silly.

    • Doug, I think that the amount of misinformation which some in the FRC put out amounts as an indirect attack on gays because some of this information leads to direct attacks.

  2. Quote: “I do, however, feel that the labeling of the FRC as such to be a good thing, for several reasons.”
    What are your reasons?

    • Here’s a reason: To point out the fact that these people (FRC, AFA, AFTAH, NARTH, ACP, etc.) are not practicing what they preach–to love even the least of these as they love Jeebus.

  3. Most of the violence gays will experience comes from other gays and many will die from the STDs they got from their ‘lovers’. At least my naturalistic world view says this is the reason for the high rates of STDs and the high mortality.

    It is well known that gays have the highest rates of STD infection, exceeding protitutes. Of course if you argue that LGBT behavior isn’t aberrant, then the naturalistic explanation for the rates is ruled out. Thus, the SPLC and other LGBT advocates must believe that STDs are inflicted directly upon people due to God’s wrath?

    • http://www.cdc.gov/std/

      The problem with with your view, Looney is the facts. Racial and ethnic Minorities have a greater risk of STD’s. Is that God’s wrath? Is that naturalism? Is it aberrant to be a racial or ethnic minority?

      Further, it seems that women are seeing the major increase. Is it aberrant to be a woman? (I mean, if you aren’t a dead Greek philosopher, that is?)

    • Looney–

      Your comments have touched a nerve, so I apologize in advance (to the other readers) if my response to you is harsh.

      “Most of the violence gays will experience comes from other gays…” From which of your crevasses of ignorance did you yank this bogus non-stat?

      And kudos on your use of the FRC’s patented passive aggressive apostrophes. What, we don’t even merit full-on quotation marks? Dang, this second-class citizenship is eroding my right to equal punctuation!

      You say “It is well known that gays have the highest rates of STD infection, exceeding prostitutes.” Says whom? This is propaganda in its purest form. Just because über closet-case Tony Perkins says it, doesn’t make it true… Sorry if I rocked your ‘naturalistic world view’ with that revelation. (Look! I can improperly use apostrophes too!)

      You’re aware that there are TONS of species in nature who reproduce asexually, right? That’s naturalistic. There are also homosexual species of animals…I don’t want to shatter your tiny mind by discussing parthenogenesis, but suffice it to point out that this is a natural process… How’s your world view now? Things aren’t nearly as cut and dried as Tony’s cronies would have the world believe.

      Did you know that heterosexual people get STDs too? And that they’ve been giving these gifts that keep on giving for æons. So, God hates everybody?

      What a jerk.

      • “From which of your crevasses of ignorance did you yank this bogus non-stat? ”

        The morgue. How about:

        http://www.sfgate.com/aidsat25/

        We all suffer from our sins, as well as the sins of others. The real question is whether the FRC members will care more for a complete stranger dying of AIDS than the SPLD members. My bet is on the FRC members.

        • Robert was asking about your claim regarding violence against gays. Nothing in the link you cited supports your claim in that regard (nor do I believe you can justify your claim about it).

          And the question at hand is whether the SPLC is justified in putting FRC on hits hate-groups list. However, I suspect you are wrong about your assumptions of SPLC vs. FRC members.

  4. The notion that you have to advocate direct violence against a minority in order to be a “hate group” is a bit too limiting. In fact under that definition the KKK isn’t a hate group either (they do not advocate direct violence against minorities, although, they have in the past).

    The SPLC give the reasons why it included FRC and other anti-gay groups on its list of hate groups. Basically, because of they knowingly (and repeatedly) distort the facts about sexual orientation in order to vilify gays.

    Further Doug, I would suggest you actually read the SPLC list and reasons why the groups are on it (here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners). At least one christian group (Chalcedon Foundation) made the list because it had advocated the death penalty for gays. I would say that constitutes advocating violence against gays.

    • Thanks for being a voice of reason, Ken.

      Tony’s whining about being featured on this list is so pathetic, mostly because he’s hiding the criteria by which the FRC was judged.

      Here’s a snippet from the narrative about why the FRC was included on the SPLC’s list:

      [blockquote]Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

      “That’s the least of it. In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “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,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” FRC offered no evidence for these remarkable assertions, and has never publicly retracted the allegations. (The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”)[/blockquote]

      So…gays want to lower the age of consent? Really? I wonder who has advocated this disgusting concept. Ooops, it’s Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association! How INTERESTING.

      Here’s more on the sainted mega-Christian Tony Perkins:

      Perkins has his own unusual history. In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican State Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins of Louisiana, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain David Duke. The campaign was fined $3,000 (reduced from $82,500) after Perkins and Jenkins filed false disclosure forms in a bid to hide the link to Duke. Five years later, on May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation. In 1999, after Republican House Speaker Trent Lott was embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to the group, GOP chairman Jim Nicholson urged Republicans to quit the CCC because of its “racist views.” That statement and the nationally publicized Lott controversy came two years before Perkins’ 2001 speech.

      What a shining example of modern Christian love. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside just thinking about it. No, wait, that’s the feeling of being held in one of the prisons that FRC leader Peter Sprigg advocates:

      “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied.

Leave a Reply, Please!