Ian Stuart Donaldson Skrewdriver

Posts Tagged ‘SPLC’

Is the Southern Poverty Law Center falling apart?

Thursday, April 20th, 2017
Is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) now without the stellar services of Senior Fellow and Intelligence (sic) Report editor Mark Potok (pictured at right)? We checked their page online,

On love and hate

Monday, October 12th, 2015
The left accuses us of being “haters.” Of course they mean such an epithet to do us harm by marginalizing us from “normal” society. They also mean to convince us

A personal note

Friday, June 19th, 2015
On my way home from the gym this morning, I started thinking about how the “progressive” left demonizes us with the most wild and vicious rants. Of course, they criticize

Hard right group attacks mixing in school cafeteria

Monday, October 15th, 2012

A decade ago the Southern Poverty Law Center (a Salon content partner) launched “Mix It Up” to get kids to spend time with classmates of different backgrounds. Since chow time is arguably the most segregated part of the day, on October 30, the SPLC encourages students to “move out of their comfort zones and connect with someone new over lunch.” It says that almost 2,500 schools have agreed to “Mix It Up at Lunch.”

You might never have heard of Mix It Up but for the ultra-conservative American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer who sees in it what he seems to see in everything, (Yes!) a stealth gay plot. The New York Times reported:

Although the suggested activities for Mix It Up at Lunch Day do not expressly address gay and lesbian students, the law center itself promotes equal treatment for gays and lesbians and that philosophy then informs the school program, Fischer said.

Anti-bullying legislation is exactly the same,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s just another thinly veiled attempt to promote the homosexual agenda. No one is in favor of anyone getting bullied for any reason, but these anti-bullying policies become a mechanism for punishing Christian students who believe that homosexual behavior is not something that should be normalized.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Homosexual Activist: “Hate Group” Charge Doesn’t Require “Hate”

Thursday, August 30th, 2012

On August 15, a gunman, apparently hostile to our positions on the issue of homosexualityshot one of my colleagues in the lobby of the Family Research Council headquarters. In the wake of this attack, even liberal journalists,  such as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post and James Kirchick (named Journalist of the Year in 2007 by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association), have called on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other homosexual activists to back off on their inflammatory labeling of FRC as an “anti-gay hate group.”

The SPLC refused. Since SPLC has doubled down on the “hate group” charge, FRC recently posted a brief response to some of the key charges made by SPLC in support of this defamatory label. At the end, the piece addressed what would seem to be the key issue with the following question and answer:

Does FRC “hate” homosexuals?

As a Christian organization, we have an obligation to love our neighbor—including our neighbors who experience same-sex attractions. However, we believe sexual acts between persons of the same sex are objectively harmful to those who choose to engage in them and to society at large, in addition to being forbidden by Scripture. Since the essence of love is to desire the best for a person and act to bring that about, we believe the most loving thing we can do is discourage such self-destructive conduct, rather than affirm it. We are happy to debate those who disagree with us regarding the harms of homosexual conduct, but there is no justification for anyone to impugn our motives with false labels such as “hate.”

One homosexual blogger (and regular critic of FRC) did a detailed critique of the FRC Issue Brief. To this final point, he emphasized that the SPLC “hate group” label is not because of our political positions, but because we support those positions by saying things which (they claim) are untrue.

After reiterating this SPLC definition of an “anti-gay hate group,” the writer then says the following:

Now whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant.

Say what?

“[W]hether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant” (emphasis added) to the question of whether we are an “anti-gay hate group”?

I certainly appreciate the (implicit) concession that FRC may not, in fact, actually hate homosexuals at all.

I think this statement—”whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant”—is what lawyers call an “admission against interest.” It shows, quite clearly (albeit perhaps accidentally), that the “hate group” label is not meant to be a description of reality.

That label is, instead, a weapon—merely a tool to be used against certain pro-family groups to cut us out of the public debate on crucial issues.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook