Connect with us

Is This Really Just ‘Mainstream Christian Advocacy’?

Published

on

Following the shooting of a security guard at the anti-gay Family Research Council, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called it “reckless“ for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to say the FRC is a “hate group.” He further suggested that calling the FRC “hateful” is an example of “inflammatory labels” and “hurling accusations that can stir up the crazies,” and questioned why the SPLC considers the FRC a “hate group” alongside the KKK and Aryan Nations. Throughout the piece, Milbank describes the FRC as “a mainstream conservative think tank,” “a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions,” “a mainstream Christian advocacy group,” and “driven by deeply held religious beliefs.”

But Milbank’s appraisal of the FRC as something other than hateful is only possible because of his complete refusal to examine the actual substance of the organization’s infamous “conservative Christian positions.” For anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the group’s so-called “mainstream Christian advocacy,” the claim that they aren’t hateful is so plainly ridiculous that the very word “hate” is meaningless if it doesn’t include the FRC.

An accusation of hatefulness certainly isn’t something to be thrown around lightly – it has to be earned. The SPLC does not consider organizations to be hate groups merely because they have strong political or religious views, but because they repeatedly make false and defamatory claims about LGBT people. And the FRC has been working overtime since its inception to do just that. They’ve made no effort to hide their extraordinary attacks on the LGBT community; for anyone who cares enough to look, all of this is a matter of public record.

The FRC is pervasively opposed to the recognition and acceptance of transgender people. In one edition of their “Washington Update,” they criticize the rules of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for providing undocumented transgender detainees with continued access to hormone therapy rather than forcibly de-transitioning them. As they see it, trans people as a group are not even entitled to receive their own prescribed medications. Contrary to the recommendations of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which recognize gender transition treatments as beneficial and medically necessary, the FRC considers this “exacerbating a mental health crisis like cross-dressing.”

Testifying before the Maryland State Senate, FRC senior policy fellow Peter Sprigg – whose medical qualifications include being a professional actor and an ordained Baptist minister — again claimed that trans people should only receive “mental health treatments to help them become comfortable with their biological sex.” He further added that they transition “to fulfill their sexual desires,” which he describes as “transvestic fetishism.” In a policy document on gender identity nondiscrimination ordinances, which Sprigg labels “bathroom bills,” he argues against trans people being allowed to present as their identified gender, calling them “often highly unconvincing and therefore disturbing to witnesses.” To Dana Milbank, this is just “mainstream Christian advocacy,” which apparently includes denying health care and legal protections to entire classes of people and calling them sexual fetishists who are ugly.

The FRC and its staff have also used distorted and debunked studies to claim that LGBT people are unfit parents and are more likely to molest children. FRC president Tony Perkins describes pedophilia as “a homosexual problem,” and senior fellow Timothy Dailey has claimed that “disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.” An FRC pamphlet from 1999 stated: “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.”

They’ve recently cited Mark Regnerus‘ widely criticized study, which included hardly any examples of long-term same-sex parenting and was found to be severely flawed in an audit by the journal that published it, to claim that children of gay parents were more likely to be sexually abused, and “fare worse on most outcomes.” The study’s author admitted that it was not representative of stable families with same-sex parents, and the journal Social Science Research believes the paper’s methodological flaws should have disqualified it from publication. The FRC called it a “gold standard” of research. Is misrepresenting the competence of same-sex parents and the welfare of their children just one of those “deeply held religious beliefs”?

Of course, the FRC isn’t content with merely opposing the recognition of our families and depicting us as sexual predators – they’ve repeatedly challenged the very legality of our consenting, adult relationships. In 2010, Peter Sprigg appeared on Hardball and stated, “I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.”

The FRC was also found to have spent $25,000 lobbying Congress against approving a resolution condemning Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which would institute the death penalty for anyone who had gay sex more than once. Their explanation was that while they don’t support the Uganda bill, they only wanted to remove “sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.” It’s not that they want us dead or anything – they just don’t think we have the right to do what heterosexuals do every day without facing “criminal sanctions,” like death.

And these aren’t just exceptions to an otherwise respectable record. At the FRC, such extreme stances are the rule. Whether they’re calling to “export homosexuals from the United States,” asking public health organizations to tell people to quit being gay as if it were a cigarette habit, recommending that teenagers be discouraged from identifying as LGBT in order to reduce teen suicide, comparing gay marriage to a man marrying a horse, describing efforts against anti-gay bullying as “telling school children that it’s okay to be immoral,” or comparing gay pride events to “adultery pride” and “drunkenness pride,” the FRC has made a name for itself. And that name is hate – proud, shameless, unapologetic hate.

What does Dana Milbank have to say about this?

Offensive, certainly. But in the same category as the KKK?

I have to wonder: if the KKK restricted itself to calling people of color child abusers and immoral sexual deviants with pedophiles for prophets, and demanded that they be denied health care and subject to “criminal sanctions,” would Milbank similarly object to calling them a hate group? Or would it be obvious that these are unambiguously hateful beliefs?

In asking us not to call this hateful, we’re expected to accept people wanting us demonized, detained, deported and dead as a normal part of American political and religious life. We’re the ones being told we must tolerate this as a simple difference of opinion – after all, it’s just “mainstream Christian advocacy.” To call them hateful is “reckless” and “inflammatory” of us; to be that hateful is mainstream and conservative of them.

There’s a remarkable irony in Milbank’s attempt to gloss over the particulars of the FRC’s beliefs by simply saying they’re “Christian.” He accuses us of calling Christian and conservative beliefs hateful, and yet he’s the one claiming that this unbelievable hostility toward our lives is just another element of Christianity and conservatism. Which is really worse: calling out hate groups for truly hateful behavior, or saying that mainstream American religion involves hating every aspect of our existence?

Not all deeply held Christian beliefs are hateful, and not all conservatism is hateful. But hate is still hate regardless of its religious or political origins. If these are your deeply held religious beliefs, then your deeply held religious beliefs are hateful. If these are your conservative Christian positions, then your conservative Christian positions are hateful. And if the FRC can’t be called hateful, then what can?

 

Zinnia Jones is an atheist activist, writer, and video blogger focusing on LGBTQ rights and religious belief. Originally from Chicago, she’s currently living in Florida with her partner Heather and their two children.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘My Family in Danger’: Democratic Congressman Reveals Chilling Details of ‘Potential Plot’

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz Friday evening revealed the chilling details of an apparent potential assassination plot he says has endangered his life and his family. The Florida Democrat says police arrested a suspect who is a former felon, had body armor, a rifle, an antisemitic manifesto, with “only my name on the ‘target’ list.”

“The day before the election, I was notified by the Margate Police Department, located in my Congressional District, about a potential plot on my life,” Congresman Moskwitz said in a statement. “The individual in question was arrested not far from my home; he is a former felon who was in possession of a rifle, a suppressor, and body armor. Found with him was a manifesto that, among other things, included antisemitic rhetoric and only my name on the ‘target’ list. There are many other details that I will not disclose as I do not want to interfere with an ongoing investigation. I want to thank local law enforcement, the US Marshalls, the FBI, the US Capitol Police, and the US Attorney’s office.”

READ MORE: ‘Chief Shareholder in the Presidency’: Musk on Trump-Zelenskyy Mar-a-Lago Call Fuels Fears

“As someone who was appointed to the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump, I understand the failures and importance of fixing the protection of our current and future Commander- In-Chief and Vice President.”

Rep. Moskowitz adds that, “At the same time, I am deeply worried about Congressional member security and the significant lack thereof when we are in the district. Regardless of our political affiliations or differences, we all have families we want to keep safe.”

In a post on social media, Moskowitz added, “Serving my constituents is a great honor, but it has put my family in danger.”

READ MORE: ‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

Continue Reading

News

‘Chief Shareholder in the Presidency’: Musk on Trump-Zelenskyy Mar-a-Lago Call Fuels Fears

Published

on

Elon Musk joined Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, when the billionaire and President-elect were at Mar-a-Lago. The move is raising concerns about Musk’s potential role in the upcoming Republican administration, given his status as a federal contractor with access to U.S. defense secrets and relationships with foreign adversaries, including Russia, and its illegal war against Ukraine, as well as his personal socio-political statements about America.

Axios, in an exclusive on Friday, reported Musk’s presence on Trump’s call with President Zelenskyy, details of which “underscore how influential Musk could be in the second Trump administration,” and offer “uncertainty over how exactly Trump will approach Ukraine.”

“Trump’s public messages throughout the election campaign — promising a quick resolution to the war, declining to say which side he wanted to win and criticizing the massive aid packages flowing from Washington — raised alarm bells in Kyiv and throughout Europe,” Axios added, and claimed, “Trump has yet to speak with Vladimir Putin since the election.”

Axios also reported that Musk “joined Trump’s call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.”

READ MORE: ‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

Last month a bombshell Wall Street Journal exclusive revealed Musk has “been in regular contact” and has had “secret conversations” with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, “since late 2022.”

Musk has also “forged deep business ties with U.S. military and intelligence agencies, giving him unique visibility into some of America’s most sensitive space programs,” The Journal reported. “SpaceX, which operates the Starlink service, won a $1.8 billion classified contract in 2021 and is the primary rocket launcher for the Pentagon and NASA. Musk has a security clearance that allows him access to certain classified information.”

Calling Musk “a linchpin of U.S. space efforts,” The Journal noted that “Putin asked the billionaire to avoid activating his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.”

During his presidential campaign, Trump claimed if elected, he would end Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine even before being sworn in to office.

READ MORE: ‘Inexperienced, Loyalist Clowns’: National Security Expert Slams Possible Trump CIA Picks

“Donald Trump has failed to meet one of his highest-profile pre-election promises—when the war in Ukraine will end,” reports The Daily Beast on Friday. “’I would fix that within 24 hours. And, if I win, before I get into the office, I will have that war settled. A hundred percent sure,’ Trump said on Hannity in 2023. It’s been over 48 hours since Trump won the presidential election, and there’s no end in sight for the conflict. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Trump actually does not have a specific plan to get Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian president Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, and is fielding competing ideas from advisers and allies.”

The Daily Beast’s Julia Davis posted this video of Trump:

Meanwhile, news of Musk being at Mar-a-Lago and intimately involved in conversations and possibly negotiations with Trump, Zelenskyy, and possibly even Putin or other world leaders, is drawing great concern.

On Wednesday, Kai Trump, daughter of Donald Trump Jr., posted this photo, leading The New Republic to ask, “Why the hell is Elon Musk in the first Trump family photo after the election?”

“The billionaire tech CEO spent election night with Trump, showing that he is now a part of the president-elect’s inner circle,” TNR added. “The photo perhaps is a look at who will be the public faces of the next first family.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired Naval War College professor who has a PhD in government from Georgetown University commented on Musk being in the call to Zelenskyy: “This is dangerous and stupid, but it’s what America voted for. They must have doubled over laughing in Moscow hearing about this.”

The New Yorker’s award-winning investigative journalist Jane Mayer, responding to Musk’s presence on the call to Zelenskyy, asked: “Barred by the Constitution from being president because he was born abroad, will Musk be the shadow president?”

And Susan Glasser, also of The New Yorker, added: “Wow. A preview of what happens when the world’s richest man is also chief shareholder in the US presidency.”

Similarly, Al Jazeera’s Gabriel Elizondo wrote: “Musk buying Twitter and then going all in with Trump was a bet that is paying off as it looks like he will be majority shareholder in the US Presidency the next 4 years.”

Professor of public policy Robert Reich, a former U.S. Secretary of Labor remarked, “Shocking, but not surprising. Musk put more than $130M of his own money into this election, and he’ll expect to get his money’s worth. I think he’ll be calling a lot of the shots in the Musk-Trump administration.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Someone’s Got to Run the Deportation Camps’: Prison Stocks Soar as Trump Agenda Unfolds

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

Published

on

Although his inauguration is still months away, Donald Trump, just days after winning back the White House, has already started calling for investigations aimed at safeguarding his personal financial interests.

Trump is the majority shareholder in DJT, the Trump Media & Technology Group that holds his Truth Social social media company. His stake is reportedly valued around $4 billion.

“Donald Trump has made clear that upon his return to office, he intends to sic the authorities under his control on his political enemies and critics. He’s getting started with Truth Social speculators,” Rolling Stone reports.

READ MORE: ‘Inexperienced, Loyalist Clowns’: National Security Expert Slams Possible Trump CIA Picks

“The president-elect’s revenge fantasy agenda is getting an early start with a probe into those speculating about Truth Social,” Rolling Stone noted. “Inauguration Day is still months away, but the newly minted president-elect is wasting no time adding to his list of targets – starting with people speculating that he may sell Truth Social.

DJT stock “soared Friday after President-elect Donald Trump reaffirmed he has no plans to sell off his stake in the Truth Social operator, and called on authorities to investigate whoever suggested otherwise,” CNBC reports. “Trump’s announcement, posted on Truth Social, was his first personally written statement since his stunning victory against Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in Tuesday’s presidential election.”

If Trump were to sell shares from his DJT holdings, that “would likely further depress the price of Trump Media’s shares,” NPR reported in September.

In his call for an investigation, Trump on Friday wrote: “There are fake, untrue, and probably illegal rumors and/or statements made by, perhaps, market manipulators or short sellers, that I am interested in selling shares of Truth. THOSE RUMORS OR STATEMENTS ARE FALSE. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF SELLING! I hereby request that the people who have set off these fake rumors or statements, and who may have done so in the past, be immediately investigated by the appropriate authorities. Truth is an important part of our historic win, and I deeply believe in it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The federal government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, CREW, Friday warned: “As a publicly traded company, Truth Social offers even more ways for foreign governments, special interests and wealthy donors to personally enrich Trump as they endeavor to curry favor with him and his administration.”

READ MORE: ‘Someone’s Got to Run the Deportation Camps’: Prison Stocks Soar as Trump Agenda Unfolds

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.