Tony Perkins and his wingnut ilk at the Family Research Council hate group really like having it both ways. They want to be able to discriminate and hate — which is their right — but they expect the government to subsidize them while they’re doing it. That’s why this claim in one of Tony’s fundraising e-mails is gross:
Minneapolis based mega-retailer, Target Corp. has announced that throughout the month of June (which President Obama has officially declared “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month”) it will be selling “gay pride” t-shirts with 100 percent of the proceeds to benefit the Family Equality Council, a national pro-homosexual organization bent on eliminating faith-based adoption agencies and redefining marriage throughout the nation.
The Family Equality Council’s clear objective is to pass legislation on the local and national level that would effectively shut down Christian based adoption agencies. We have seen this happen in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.
Zack Ford at Think Progress points out just how much the FRC is lying here:
[T]he entire premise of the email is a lie. What happened in Massachusetts, Illinois, and DC with adoption agencies was voluntary. Religious organizations are completely entitled to discriminate in regards to which couples they allow to adopt. When marriage equality and civil unions become law, the state commits to investing in same-sex families. The agencies that shut down — mostly those run by Catholic Charities — did so completely voluntarily when they refused to stop discriminating when faced with the threat of losing taxpayer subsidies. Faith-based adoption agencies eliminate themselves when they disqualify themselves for public funding.
Tony Perkins, if he is even capable of distinguishing between the truth and a lie, probably sees this as a sort of “white lie,” as, again, he believes that fundamentalist Christians have more of a claim to this country than the other 75% of the population. They think they should be given carte blanche to steamroll the rest of the country with their ignorant, disproven, backwoods “values.”
Think Progress, if you click over, also has a screen shot of the fundraising e-mail, which includes bulls-eye imagery. Classy, FRC. Every day you all prove just how correct the SPLC was when they deemed you a hate group.
The underlying assumption is that ALL “faith based adoption agencies” indulge in antigay discrimination. But of course, homophobes do NOT have a monopoly on Christianity or any other religeous faith.
So many lies. It is disgusting to hear over and over the RC bishops whining and crying about “having to close their adoption and foster care agencies” because the states, which fund them, will not allow them to continue taking money so they can discriminate. They are so far away from the message of their founder, that I wonder how they can still claim, with straight faces, that they are Christians.
For once, Respondent has a point. The term Fundamentalist has become nothing more than an excuse, used for nothing more than a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It is time for those groups that term excuses to own up to their unsightly elements and correct them.
As for the first part, attempting to sugarcoat a lie doesn’t make it any less of a lie.
Lying for the Lord is still lying.
The child raping Catholic Church has no business doing anything with children anyways
Where are you drawing circular dogma and any sort of similary to Christians (I refuse to use ‘fundamentalists’ for previously stated reasons), especially since we retaliate against their complete fabrications with actual facts? Intellectual dishonesty and laziness under the guise of maintaining neutrality hardly fools anyone, and is seriously bad form.
That’s some pretty high falutin’ B.S. to say nothing S. Respondent. Jeez, are you full of yourself.
One is almost tempted to root for you, Survey Respondent, because you’re just trying so gosh darned hard to sound intelligent. Unfortunately it’s not working, and you only sound like a passive-aggressive jackass. Even if one granted your ridiculous point about having to comply with non-discrimination policies somehow being equivalent to being eliminated, not all faith based agencies choose to engage in discrimination in the first place. As discrimination against gay people is not an intrinsic characterstic to being a faith based agency, promoting antidiscrimination laws is obviously not a means of forcing all faith based agencies to shut down as Perkins claimed. Furthermore, of course, the blog didn’t claim that all Catholics and Evangelicals are fundamentalists, it said that Tony Perkins believes fundamentalists have an inherent right to dominate the country. Which is, of course, true.
You’re not pursuing justice and peace Survey Respondent, at least not here. You’re pursuing the feeling of smug self-satisfaction by positioning yourself as being somehow above the fray so you can tut-tut both sides as being equivalent. Which, of course, they aren’t. The desire to discrininate is not equivalent to the desire for freedom and equality. Pretending they are does not make you look smart, quite the opposite.
“Or as I a said–’the elimination of some agencies as they currently function.’”
Which is a ludicrously hyperbolic way to describe having to change a policy. I note you dodged the larger point that not all faith based agencies choose to engage in discrimination and as such these laws are obviously not meant to eliminate them.
“It only jumps from referencing Catholic Charities to Fundamentalists as if they were related;”
No, it describes Tony Perkins. It helps to actually read the things you’re trying to respond to.
“and identifies 25% of the nation as Fundamentalists, which is only possible if one lumps many folk into that camp that are not”
and makes liberal use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
“And “Yes” Tony Perkins wants to dominate the country in the same way that every citizen, lobbyist, journalist, commentator, blog owner and politician want to dominate the country by advancing a point of view.”
No, every citizen does not want to eliminate the rights of others. That is false equivalence. If you spent less time trying to sound intelligent and more time educating yourself, you might not make these obvious mistakes.
And to back up Boo’s last point, undeserved privilege and a sense of superiority due to that undeserved privilege are not rights, no matter how you try to spin it, Respondent.
Way to go Boo! You nailed that blowhard.
““Some” was the part of the ‘ludicrously hyperbolic’ description addressing your larger point.”
Except that Perkins didn’t say some. Which makes his statement a lie on two counts- that all agencies are being targeted, and that having to change one policy eliminates them, which is ludicrous hyperbole even if you qualify it with “as they function.”
““They think they should be given carte blanche to steamroll the rest of the country with their ignorant, disproven, backwoods “values.” Blog post referncing Fundamentalists (not Tony Perkins)”
Wow, you aren’t even trying here. You’re actually claiming this is not a post about Tony Perkins and the FRC? And that it doesn’t reference Tony Perkins when it did exactly that in the sentence right before the one you quoted? Okay, maybe I should have been more clear myself; it helps to read the *entire* thing before you try to criticize it.
“Fundamentalists are a very distinguishable group of Christians. Very small.”
The first claim is true, the second, sadly, is not. And if you’re seriously going to try to claim that Tony Perkins and FRC (you know, the subjects of the blog post) are not fundamentalist, well, good luck with that.
“The equivalence claimed was on all parties taking action to advance a point of view–to practice politics. In a very equivalent way, TWO and FRC seek to control the terms of dialogue around homosexuality–including the defining of eac other. And of course both argue, “But the difference is that we’re right.””
So in your mind Tony Perkins and the FRC would deny being and speaking for fundamentalists? What color is the sun on the planet where you live?
“Is there anything about pursuing justice and peace that seems burdensome to you?”
One little problem–that’s not the position of somebody trying to find peace between the opposing forces here. That’s our position. Peace is what Perkins and his ilk want to obliterate, and it’s why we fight.
There is nothing worse than somebody who won’t shut up but isn’t actually saying anything.