Incredible hypocrisy about the FRC's own statements

In the wake of Wednesday’s tragic shooting of a security guard at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, right wing radio hosts Janet Mefferd and Peter LaBarbera have found someone to blame other than the shooter: people who quoted what the FRC’s staff, campaigns, and official publications have actually said.

Mefferd: I was reading through for example what the Human Rights Campaign had posted the day before the shooting and they had a whole list there that was very inflammatory about the Family Research Council, ‘they want to export homosexuals from the US’ and ‘they equate homosexuals with pedophiles’ and all this stuff. I thought: if you were somewhat of an unstable person and you read this sort of stuff and you were in line with what they believe I think it could drive somebody to violence. So we’re back to the question of, to what degree should there be public pressure on some of these gay rights organizations to tone it down?

Tone it down? These quotations are not something that LGBT groups have made up out of whole cloth. The FRC and its representatives really said these things. Peter Spring, senior fellow of the FRC, did say “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States, because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society.” Sprigg did say ” I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.” And Tony Perkins, president of FRC, did say “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”

How exactly are we supposed to tone down their own words? If they’re really going to argue that mere exposure to their own words is sufficient to inspire violence (a notion they strangely find unthinkable when others point out that their ongoing campaign of homophobia and transphobia might be in part responsible for anti-LGBT hatred and violence, LGBT youth suicide, family rejection and homelessness), then how can they hold others accountable for simply quoting what they said, but not themselves for actually saying it? Why are they saying any of this in the first place if they don’t want anyone to know they said it, and believe that people are literally going to shoot them upon hearing what they’ve said?

It’s like they started with victim-blaming and ended up blaming everyone but themselves. When they say something, they are responsible for nothing; when we just quote what they said, we are responsible for everything. This makes no sense whatsoever. If you really don’t want anyone to notice that you said gay people are pedophiles who should be “exported” and criminalized, then there’s an easy way to avoid this: don’t say it in the first place.

Incredible hypocrisy about the FRC's own statements

16 thoughts on “Incredible hypocrisy about the FRC's own statements

  1. 1

    Good points. From the first time I heard the FRC come out and blame the gay rights groups, all I could do was shake my head in amazement (but not disbelief). At least the big names in the gay rights movement came out and condemned the shooting. When was the last time NOM, or FRC condemned the actions of the bullies, murderers, and other a-holes in their midst? Oh, that’s right… they wouldn’t, because they actually DO condone those actions. :/ And they wonder why we get so indignant… How can anyone cause so much harm and distress, then get away with playing the innocent victim?

  2. 2

    How does that shit work exactly?
    Are we supposed to believe that their inflammatory statements against gays could be expected to provoke a violent reaction towards the FRC in a hearer who’s gay or pro-gay, but that they couldn’t be expected to provoke a violent reaction towards gays in a hearer who’s anti-gay?

  3. 5

    When the news of the failed rampage first came out, I imagined little involuntary prayers rising from various groups:

    Oh please, let him not be a –
    … pro-choicer
    … gay
    … atheist
    … etc.

    My own prayer, that the gundude turn out to be a fundie outraged that FRC was not extreme enough, went (as usual) unanswered.

      1. Let’s just bide our time until he makes death threats again. Sure, he’s breaking his probation, but if he goes as far as he did before, there could be a new court hearing and he might get the help he needs.

  4. 7

    Let me say first that I am a supporter of LBGT rights in every way and I view this attack with as much disgust and astonishment as I would any such attack. And I agree that it is hypocritical of them to blame ANYONE but the shooter.

    Having said all that, how is it not hypocritical for people here to blame anyone but the shooter when the he happens to be some ultra-conservative nut? Specifically discussions on this forum about the whackjob in the Sikh temple, and some of the early discussions about the colorado and AZ guys. It seems that whenever the shooter is somewhere on our own side of the political aisle we want to point out that it is just a single whacko, but when he happens to have opposing views he is the product of that entire political theory; the conservatives are every bit as guilty of this as liberals. (sorry for the pidgeonholing, couldnt think of any other way to put that)someone tell me how I am wrong here? What am I missing?

    1. 7.1

      For some reason society in general tends to categorize one persons views, comments, and/or actions to the groups they have affiliated themselves with or what group society assumes they are affiliated with. It gives a bad name to the groups on both sides and most people fail to look at the groups intended motives and instead concentrate on the actions of one person.

      Calling a organization out or exposing it for it’s views or the public speakers of the organization comments is about the only civil way to fight against the claims of an organization. Zinnia does a good job of that but her audience isn’t big enough to get mainstream public awareness and I try to pass her content along by sharing it on my facebook site. Educating the masses is the front of this war on both sides as well as the political arena which on our side is a defense of constitutional law.

      Shooting people isn’t going to solve anything but I can see with the comments made by this organization how it can lead to violent acts. I’m just glad that nobody was killed. Education, exposing the facts, and defending the law stated by the constitution is the best way to fight against organizations that promote bigotry and hatred even though they deny such motives. The fact is that most of these types of organizations are religious based and therefore cannot have any effect on the law according to the constitution. The problem is that these organizations are putting people in powerful positions that would be willing to ignore the constitution and others civil rights to push their religious organizations agenda.

  5. 8

    . It seems that whenever the shooter is somewhere on our own side of the political aisle we want to point out that it is just a single whacko,

    That’s what you’re missing. “Our own side”, by and large, *doesn’t* call for opponents to be starved or slaughtered or put in camps or raped in prisons, *because* such inflammatory rhetoric is harmful and dehumanizing, and entitled violent types seize upon it. Progressives certainly don’t try and make policy out of hateful rhetoric. That’s called the “both sides are just as bad” fallacy and if you’re actually arguing in good faith, you can see how it’s hypocritical to blame both sides for something only one side DOES.

  6. 9

    Via Shakes, the SPLC has responded:

    As the SPLC made clear at the time and in hundreds of subsequent statements and press interviews, we criticize the FRC for claiming, in Perkins’ words, that pedophilia is “a homosexual problem” — an utter falsehood, as every relevant scientific authority has stated. An FRC official has said he wanted to “export homosexuals from the United States.” The same official advocated the criminalizing of homosexuality.

    Perkins and his allies, seeing an opportunity to score points, are using the attack on their offices to pose a false equivalency between the SPLC’s criticisms of the FRC and the FRC’s criticisms of LGBT people. The FRC routinely pushes out demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse — claims that are provably false. It should stop the demonization and affirm the dignity of all people.

    1. 9.1

      It would be nice if they would stop demonizing homosexuals or LGBT people in general. They don’t realize that there are many people who live a mostly heterosexual lifestyle who fit into the LGBT group. Would they seriously want to tear apart my family just to get me out of the US because I happen to be attracted to more than the opposite sex?

      I just don’t understand why the religious are so concerned with other peoples personal lives, especially their sexual lives. They wouldn’t like it if people were saying all kinds of false things about them and condemning them for something that goes against their beliefs, would they?

      It seems they can’t understand the concept that in a free country, just because you belief one thing doesn’t mean that it can be made that everybody must believe or follow what you believe.

      Something is going to peak and when it does there will be bloodshed along with massive fleeing of this country to countries that are more free than the freedom boasting United States.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *