Skip to comments.The Family Research Council is not a hate group
Posted on 08/18/2012 11:02:45 AM PDT by scottjewell
But the Southern Poverty Law Center would have you believe the conservative Christian council is as dangerous as the KKK. .. [T]he Southern Poverty Law Center should stop listing a mainstream Christian advocacy group alongside neo-Nazis and Klansmen.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The Southern Poverty Law Center IS A HATE GROUP!
The fact remains that a far-left activist organization falsely labeling a conservative Christian activist organization 'a hate group', akin to the KKK, because they oppose 'gay marriage' is despicable and rightly condemned. Too bad this newspaper editorial tries to have it both ways and condemns both organizations almost equally but, to the paper's credit, still puts the onus on the SPLC.
Will wonders never cease?
I agree with all you say, but unfortunately the sanctimonious and self-righteous rainbow agenda will never back down, never admit that there can be any other opinions except their own- and to their thinking, they hold no opinions: The APA has convinced them that they are in possession of the TRUTH.
Just read what one gay advocate has to say about her meeting with the FRC guard and her attempts to get through to Tony Perkins: of course, she says she had “documented research” to back her up. I would like to know your opinion on how one deals with such people, as her name is legion:
He doesn’t go far enough, but he gets points for good effort. :-)
Eventually he'll turn and declare the guy is a "right wing crazy" who really is a threat. In the meantime he'll portray himself as being open minded.
He's not. He's a propagandist, and that's why he's still employed.
Obviously the "news"paper employee accepts Obama's wild charges against Romney as fact.
The real news is that some groups are turning "the doctrine of vicarious liability" around and against the SPLC, et al. -- at last!
20+ years ago the SPLC won a civil law suit against Tom Metzger, his son, and his white supremacist group. The suit was on behalf of a victim of a vicious murder by skinheads; the murdered man was a defenseless black man.
"Using the doctrine of vicarious liability, plaintiffs' attorneys argued that the Metzgers should be found liable for intentionally inciting the skinheads to engage in violent confrontations with minorities. A jury agreed, returning a record $12.5 million verdict against the Metzgers and WAR. Tom Metzger was personally responsible for $5.5 million of that sum."
Where do lefties get their hatred? The SPLC? The MSM? The victims' industry? The Rat Party (formerly the traditional Democratic Party)?.. Where?
I always thought Milbank was a scumbag. Now he's worse than a scumbag by trying to appear decent, but really making a lot of false accusations.
The SPLC may have already put the shooter on the list of right wing haters..
Did you know that the Black Panthers just might be fellow FReepers? Yes.. could be according to the SPLC SPLC Names New Black Panther Malik Zulu Shabazz to Its Radical Right Activist List
Well, a broken clock is right at least twice a day.
Yes, kind of a sleight of hand he was doing: Damage control, while slipping in his bias, under the radar, so to speak.
It’s their tactic. Invert reality, repeat until everyone buys the line, bury any evidence of their own violence.
The comments at the link you posted show the typical “open mindedness” of the left. This one is classic -
“I just caught a Friends comment about supporting Christianity and Chic-Filet. I cut her from my friends list, and her comment bothered me for days. What sustains this exclusionism and bigotry? I guess mainly fear and $$$$$$”.
Clearly this woman is not open to “dialog” with anyone with different views while complaining about their “exclusionism”.
Exactly. Why did she not reach out to the friend and say, “I understand your support of Chick-Fil-A, so am hoping you will understand why I personally cannot support them.” Nope, she cuts her cold. So much for dialog!
Please click the link.
The Republic you save may be your own.
Just read what one gay advocate has to say about her meeting with the FRC guard and her attempts to get through to Tony Perkins: of course, she says she had documented research to back her up. I would like to know your opinion on how one deals with such people, as her name is legion.
She was, no doubt, presenting some 'study' that concluded 'gay' teenagers are bullied and not accepted by their heterosexual peers and that this has a negative impact on their self-esteem, etc. Hardly news.
I would ask her for proof that homosexual behavior is genetic (is is not and has never been proven to be). If she claims that it is, then I would tell her that God must have made 'gay' people in a manner that would make it impossible for them not to sin against Him, which is not plausible.
Of course a teenager 'coming out' as homosexual is going to be ridiculed by some of his male peers who are just entering puberty and acutely aware of their heterosexuality and see his 'gayness' as weird and unnatural. That doesn't excuse physical violence or verbal harassment of any kind, it simply explains why it happens. Despite years of pro-gay propaganda in schools and the mass media, the ultimate insult from one teenage boy to another remains calling your adversary 'gay'. I believe this happens because, with or without a religious upbringing (all of the major faiths - including Islam - condemn homosexual behavior) young people know, inherently, that a male having anal or oral sex with another male is not normal and telling him that it is can't change what he senses to be wrong.
This tiresome woman (and her 'documented research') advising Christians to 'get to know' gay people, inferring that their rejection of homosexual behavior is based on blind prejudice that personal contact can evaporate, is obviously disdainful of religion. I'm sure she believes that really smart, compassionate folks - like her! - can 'fix' Christians that allegedly 'hate' those engaging in homosexual behavior with a bit of condescending advice and 'documented proof'. She may be legion but those of us who oppose the onslaught of sexual perversion in America and the attempts to 'normalize' that behavior while putting traditional sexual morality on the defensive are still the majority. For proof, see how state referendums seeking to make 'same-sex marriage' legal have failed in state after state. We must continue to oppose people such as this woman and her 'documented research' and never forget that God is in control.
Thanks for your astute input:
Yes, wholly agreed in what people like this woman think of their own stance, and how they can with “gentle kindness” persuade the rest of us blind folk that they are “after all human”.
As you state, it is far more complicated that this. And nature will always win out.
Yes, the referendums are the hope:
We have Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington coming up - but now the gays believe they will have a “wave of electoral victories”.
From the Atlantic:
“A Coming Wave of Gay Marriage Electoral Victories?”
“Same-sex marriage has been consistently defeated at the ballot box. With four blue states voting on the issue in November, will 2012 be the year the tide turns?
The electoral process has not been kind to advocates of gay marriage. Again and again, states — 32 in all — have voted against it at the ballot box, even in liberal bastions like California, which passed Proposition 8 in 2008. The latest blow came in May, when North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions by a 22-point margin.
But that could all change in November. Four states have marriage-related ballot initiatives this fall, and gay-rights activists are cautiously optimistic that their side could win most or all of them — a potentially historic turning of the tide.
The pro-gay-marriage side currently leads in the latest polls of the ballot measures in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, though it lags in Minnesota.* Here’s a breakdown of where things stand on the question of whether gay marriage should be legalized in each state:
MAINE (WBUR, June):
Yes: 55 percent
No: 36 percent
MARYLAND (Hart Research Assoicates, August):
Yes: 54 percent
No: 40 percent
MINNESOTA (SurveyUSA, July):
Yes: 37 percent
No: 52 percent*
WASHINGTON (PPP, June):
Yes: 51 percent
No: 42 percent
The Human Rights Campaign, which on Monday announced it is putting $1 million into the four states’ pro-gay-marriage campaigns, believes this will be the year things turn around for same-sex marriage at the polls. “We are poised to turn the tide,” HRC’s Michael Cole-Schwartz told me, though he stopped short of predicting a clean sweep: “That could mean all four states or just some of them; it’s too early to tell.”
But advocates are convinced their long line of shutouts will come to at least a partial end. “While we had, unfortunately, a losing streak, those losses date back to 2004 and 2006,” Cole-Schwartz said. “In 2012, we’re working in an entirely different environment.”
Public opinion has shifted rapidly in favor of gay marriage in recent years; a recent CNN poll found 54 percent of Americans supporting legal recognition of “marriages between gay and lesbian couples,” part of a long-term public opinion trend in that direction. Since President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage in May, there’s evidence the position has gained even more support among Democrats, particularly African-Americans, and the Democratic Party recently announced there will be a pro-gay marriage plank in the platform approved at the convention in Charlotte next month.
Also working in the measures’ favor is the fact that all four are on the ballot in liberal-leaning states unlikely to be contested in the presidential election. The measures differ slightly: In Minnesota, gay-marriage advocates are hoping to beat back another state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; in Maryland and Washington, anti-gay marriage groups are hoping to overturn marriage liberalization laws passed by state legislatures; and in Maine, a referendum to legalize gay marriage would, if passed, supersede a 2009 voter referendum banning it.
Supporters of gay marriage also believe they have gotten more sophisticated with their approach to messaging. New ads in Washington, such as the one above, emphasize the love and commitment of gay couples. Earlier efforts tended to highlight the rights and benefits that come with marriage, like hospital visitation, but research has shown that that’s a less convincing approach. “It doesn’t capture the emotional connections people have with marriage,” Cole-Schwartz said.
It would, however, be premature to declare victory for gay marriage at the ballot box. Efforts to ban same-sex marriage have frequently lagged in public polling only to prevail on election day, noted Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which backs such efforts. Brown said his group has so far given about $600,000 to the state anti-gay marriage efforts and plans to spend more than $1 million. (The Human Rights Campaign’s new $1 million expenditure brings the group’s spending on this year’s initiatives to nearly $5 million.)
“Obviously, these are difficult states,” Brown said in an interview. “But again and again, traditional marriage has won, even in difficult states. The people of this country have not changed their view that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” In California, he noted, nearly every pre-election poll showed Proposition 8 losing, but it won by nearly 5 percentage points. (The initiative banning same-sex marriage has since been ruled unconstitutional and is likely to be examined by the Supreme Court next year.)
“In every single battle, [before] every state vote, we’ve heard this is the one we’re going to lose. It gets a little old,” Brown said. “The only poll that counts is the vote, and we’ve never lost the vote.””
“The Southern Poverty Law Center IS A HATE GROUP!”
What gives SPLC a self proclaimed group representing itself as the policemen of political correctness, the right to pick and choose what Americans and what groups are racist and a threat to the USA and what crimes are hate crimes? Answer: Anything that will provide them an impetus for scare tactics and more money and donations.
They should be sued and muzzled as a threat to freedom of speech. They only represent the politics of their leadership, not the freedom and rights of Americans and the US Constitution.
They are doing the exact same thing that their nemesis Joe McCarthy once did by proclaiming that he had the right to define threats to the USA and guilt by association.