NOTE FROM PAM: The MSM puts Family Research Council honcho Tony Perkins on the air to represent the "family values" agenda, but seem to ignore his outlandish racist affiliations documented in this diary, including ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, declared a hate group by the SPLC, and the KKK. More background, via Media Matters:
The Boston Herald reported in an October 16, 2006, article, "In 2001, [Perkins] gave a speech at a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, which the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] considers a hate group."
Indeed, a Fall 2004 article in the SPLC's Intelligence Report asserted that Perkins "spoke to the Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001," during his tenure as a Louisiana state legislator. The SPLC characterizes the CCC as a "white nationalist" organization, and has reported that the group is "the reincarnation of the racist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s." The CCC declares in itsstatement of principles:
We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.
When confronted with this information, an FRC tool said Perkins has "cannot remember" g>" speaking to the group, but Perkins himself told the Vancouver Sunthat he "could not recall what he said to the group and that he said he had been unfamiliar with the CCC's history at the time."
The family values organization head has also sidled up to former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. While campaign manager for Louis E. (Woody) Jenkins's campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1996, forked over $82,500 to buy Duke's mailing list. Yes, Perkins wanted make sure to reach the white supremacist voting base.
Bricar1632's diary:
It's said that 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' So I can't help but wonder what Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, must think knowing that this picture exists of him in the newsletter for the Council of Conservative Citizens, a well-known white supremacist group. It seems he was a guest speaker at the time, which he's done twice, once in 1997 and another time in 2001.
He could probably claim he had no knowledge of the groups interests, but he would be hard pressed to resort to this lame excuse.
In 1998, nearly three years before Perkins spoke to the CCC a second time, both Sen. Trent Lott and Rep. Bob Barr received widespread national media attention (and outrage) for speaking in front of the CCC—and both politicians used the “I-didn’t-know-their-politics” copout. The national tumult over Lott and Barr that year even prompted US Rep. Thomas Wexler to sponsor a House Resolution condemning the racism of the CCC.
Then there's the nasty detail of the white flag behind him at the podium, the one with the southern cross in one corner.
More below the fold.
I'm sure for most of us it's clear that this flag would have something to do with white supremacy and surely Perkins did as well since he's standing right next to it, but here's a bit of history on the flag from a post at QueerToday.com entitled, Tremont Temple and the Racists, which I quoted above.
This particular flag was the second official flag of the Confederacy, adopted in 1863, and was explicitly designed to represent white supremacy. William Thompson, editor of the Savannah Morning News, and the one who proposed the design of the flag, said: "Our idea is simply to combine the present battle-flag with a pure white standard sheet; our Southern Cross, blue on a red field, to take the place on the white flag that is occupied by the blue union in the old -United States flag, or the St. George's cross in the British flag. As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause."
The above leaves little doubt as to the meaning of the flag or to Perkins having no knowledge of the principles of the group he was speaking to. It's no wonder that as he and the Family Research Council collaborate with African American communities and churches for their anti-gay work, that they ignore the inequality and social injustices that those communities face.s face.
It's a very sad commentary about both our communities and how we're being used to benefit those more fortunate than ourselves.
Here is the sourcing for the images:
Citizens Informer 28. Summer 1997, p. 7; Citizens Informer 32. March-April 2001, p. 13. Very special thanks to Edward Sebesta of the Southern Poverty Law Center for taking time out of his busy schedule and digging through his files of Citizens Informer.
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Stephanie Block, founder of the Catholic Media Coalition, took it upon herself to call me out in an attempt to answer my refutations of religious right distortions regarding ENDA.
I'll give her props for the attempt. But she tends to get vague and dance around what was actually said in my piece.
And she made some very bad assumptions. She said the following:
The five “lies” McEwen has gleaned from religious right materials are that this legislation will permit transgendered males to use women’s restrooms. . .
I want to highlight that first claim of hers because I never said that. I said the following:
Distortion - ENDA (H.R. 2981 - H.R. 3017 - S. 1584) has been changed from the "gay-only" version the House passed in 2007 to include language banning job discrimination based on "gender identity" as well as sexual orientation - complete with special protections for the transgendered. It would mean your child's teacher, if he were a male but "felt" like a female, could go into the women's bathroom.
TRUTH - According to the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, over 100 localities (cities and counties) in the United States have trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws. There has never been a problem of a man "claiming to feel like a female" invading women's bathrooms. The claim is a non-issue created to scare people and distract from the true purpose of ENDA.
Not only does she not try to refute what I actually said, but she makes a nasty determination of the issue when she later terms it as "Last but not least: the transvestite male in the woman’s bathroom," thereby displaying a certain ignorance of the transgender community and covertly channeling the religious right claim of "men invading women's restrooms."
In one point, she says that I inaccurately said something was a lie/distortion:
Of these five “lies,” McEwen confirms two, arguing that federal law already protects workers from discrimination of any sort, even when stemming from an employer’s religious beliefs, and as “[n]ot all families are heterosexually-oriented… A national policy regarding families and marriage should embrace this change.” So fears that ENDA would redefine marriage and family seem pretty much on target. A person hasn’t “lied” or distorted the situation just because there are other peoher people with opposing viewpoints.
Oh if it were that simple.
This is what was actually said:
Distortion - ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.
TRUTH - If "national policy supporting marriage and family" is changed, then it is a good thing. Not all families are heterosexually-oriented. Also, several states already offer lgbts either the right to marry or enter domestic partnerships. A national policy regarding families and marriage should embrace this change.
The sentence which I called a distortion is an exact phrase from American Family Association's talking points against ENDA. And it is a distortion because it reduces the lgbt orientation to that of sexual behavior. And this is an inaccurate assumption. Also, my point was that whatever "national policy regarding marriage and family" happens to be, it is already changing via domestic partnerships and lgbt marriages.
ENDA wouldn't lead a changing of a "national policy regarding marriage and family" because the change is already taking place.
Block also says the following:
McEwen argues that ENDA says nothing about sexual behavior and therefore concerns about special protection for gays and lesbians are specious (my word, not his). And furthermore, he says, no one is singled out for “special” protection – the law simply clarifies that sexual orientation and gender identity are no basis for employment discrimination, any more than race or creed are under existing law.
One can appreciate the argument. A person who is behaving appropriately – who dresses according to the workplace code, who speaks professionally, who doesn’t harass other workers, and who does a good job – shouldn’t have to worry about dismissal for “perceived” orientations or being “exposed.” In a professional atmosphere, the nasty divorce, drinking problems, and any host of other unethical aspects of one’s colleagues can be and are overlooked so long as they remain reasonably private.
On the other hand, there are no laws (of which I’m aware) making it unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to hire or to fire any individual because of actual or perceived alcoholism. If there were, one would want it to clarify the law’s limits – that it protected a worker’s drinking only so far as professionalism and job-related performance standards were maintained. Without that clarification, one can understand that an employer might worry that the discrimination card is played when the issue is actually about fulfilling employment needs.
Is she inaccurately calling sexual orientation a behavior just as the AFA did or is she making the claim that if someone was fired for being an alcoholic, they can claim sexual orientation discrimination? She forgets that someone could make that claim regarding the other job protection categories (i.e. race, religion, etc.)
Either way, her argument here makes no sense. I actually said:
Distortion - ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior - homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" that would not be extended tonded to other employees in the workplace.
TRUTH - ENDA says nothing about sexual behavior. Potential employees are already federally protected in cases of race, religion, gender, and national origin. Heterosexuals would be protected under ENDA along with lgbts because adding sexual orientation does not single out gays and lesbians any more than gender singles out solely women or men.
Then she talks about the tax-exemption status of churches and invokes the controversy involving the New Jersey church pavilion:
When a gay couple wished to have a commitment ceremony in the wedding hall, the Association refused to accommodate them. This is very different from the employment situations contemplated by ENDA. ….It should also be noted that, although the Association initially lost its tax exemption, the State of New Jersey reinstated the Association's exemption from property tax for the beach and the rest of the boardwalk, but stated that it could not continue to exempt the pavilion as it was not truly open to the public.” [“Are We Ready? Arguments against ENDA (Part II),” The Bilerico Project, 9-13-09]
One appreciates that this is just one lawyer’s take, but here’s what we’re left with if Dr. Weiss’ logic is indicative of where this legislation is headed: tax-exempt religious bodies must follow the non-discrimination laws that apply to taxed bodies. Or, in other words, a religious body that claims an anti-discrimination exemption for itself will be stripped of its tax-exemption.
Block freely admits that this controversy had nothing to do with ENDA but then she tries to connect the two. In her attempt, she omits the fact that the pavilion was church property but not a part of the church. She also omits that the church knew full well the requirements that allowed the pavilion to receive tax breaks and agreed to them. A better argument is here.
That is a long way off from a "religious body that claims an anti-discrimination exemption."
Geez. You think that if someone was trying to refute my work, they would have the decency to focus on what I actually said instead of strawman paraphrasing.
I'm not one for hypothetical arguments or tangents. I try to deal with what's in front of me. It makes things simple and honest.
If some of these folks who fear ENDA would do the same thing, they would see that they have nothing to fear.
Update: fixed my transcription error of writing Iman, when it should have been Imam.
~~Autumn~~
As a disabled, Persian Gulf War Veteran, who served for 20 years in the U.S. Navy, and who is transgender -- as a new media reporter for Pam's House Blend who covered the Angie Zapata Hate Crime Murder Trial -- this is a painful House Floor speecr speech to watch.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) states that the Matthew Shepard Act holds soldiers' well being hostage. Then, the congressman later in his speech is so interested in protecting the free speech of faith leaders that he minimizes the bill's focus on the victims of hate crime homicides. It's a value system that seems completely upside down.
Excerpts:...I see a real distinction in holding our soldiers' very well being hostage to this the sociological attack on what used to be the morals of America.
...Now, there are those who say that this will not effect religious speech, but when we have debated this bill, and people have looked at it carefully, you see that this circumstance can arise. A preacher preaching from the Bible, a rabbi preaching from the Torah, an Imam teaching from the Koran says, in his opinion ,homosexuality is wrong. Some nut hears 'em, goes out commits commits an act of violence, and when arrested says "Well I was induced to do this by the preacher, or the Imam, or the rabbi."
Well under 18 USC 2a, it says that anyone who induces another to commit a crime is just as guilty of the crime as the one who commited it. That's where the preacher, the Imam, the rabbi could be arrested...arresting and detaining has a chilling effect -- there's no two ways about it...
I don't say this phrase often, but I'm saying it now: I'm appalled. I'm literally appalled by this speech given on the Congressional House Floor. What a painful speech this was to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment