Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

If We Don’t Call it “Hate,” What Shall We Call It?

Rob Tisinai

August 17th, 2012

One of the best lessons I ever got in professionalism came from a boss who said, Don’t just bring me a problem. Bring a solution, too. Great advice. Suggesting a solution — even if it’s unworkable, a mere starting point for discussion — shows you’ve thought seriously about the problem, and you’re not just an alarmist hack or concern troll.

That advice comes to mind now that some pundits, both conservative and liberal, want the SPLC to drop its “hate group” terminology. Go ahead and make that case, but if you want to us to take you seriously, you have to answer this: What term should we use?

I agree no one should be accused of hate merely for opposing same-sex marriage. Fortunately, neither I nor the SPLC has ever called labeled anyone a hate group on those meager grounds. For instance, here’s why SPLC named the Family Research Council a hate group:

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Also at that link, you’ll find a damning list of quotes from FRC leadership, especially the blood libel that gays are after your kids.

More generally, the hate groups identified by the SPLC are guilty of one or more of the following:

  • Distorting scientific research to demonize gays, even over the researchers’ objections. (FRC has done this)
  • Calling for the criminalization of homosexuality.  (FRC has done this)
  • Accusing gay men of recruiting children and being more likely to molest them than straights.  (FRC has done this)
  • Advocating the death penalty for gays.
  • Holding gays responsible for Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

If we are not to call these groups hate groups, then what are we to call them?

That’s not a rhetorical question. These organizations fall in the same genre. Their work belongs in the same oeuvre. They are a collection of groups who employ aggressive dishonesty in open pursuit of an overriding goal: denying basic civil liberties to LGBT folk. What shall we call that genre?

Christian? No, their fundamental strategy of bearing false witness disqualifies them; so does their violation of Christ’s dictum to love your neighbor; besides, too many Christians abhor these groups.

Anti-gay? No, that doesn’t go far enough.

How about Groups that distort scientific research to demonize gays, callforthecrimininalizationofhomosexuality-accusegaymenofrecruitingchildren-andbeingmorelikelytomolestthemthanstraights-advocatethedeathpenaltyforgays-andholdgaysresponsibleforNaziGermanyandtheHolocaust?

That’s unwieldy.

But we do need a term. It’s not enough to call out these transgressions one by one. They are not isolated misdeeds. They represent a pattern of behavior, and we need a name for that pattern.

If you don’t want that term to be “hate,” then what do you prefer? I’m open to suggestion. Just show me you’re serious by doing more than bemoaning a problem. Tell me your solution.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Michael Collier
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

This part floored me and expresses the frustration I have been feeling when dealing with some people: “Christian? No, their fundamental strategy of bearing false witness disqualifies them; so does their violation of Christ’s dictum to love your neighbor” That was awesome!

Diane
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

If we follow the FRC logic and blame the SPLC for labeling them a “hate group’, thereby causing the shooting, should we blame sarah palin for putting bull’s eyes on Democratic Congressmen up for reelection?
You remember, Gabby Gifford was horribly hurt and 6 people died?

Bulls eye, hate group.
Violence and death resulted.

Randy Potts
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

I struggled yesterday to come up with a different term because it’s true that the word “hate” is used so ubiquitously by both sides that it hardly has any resonance left. Those seven steps the FBI uses to denote the difference between violent rhetoric and violent action are instructive — “hate” is the only term we have that encompasses the first five steps. The other two fit neatly into terms like “criminal.”

Regan DuCasse
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

The dictum, a variation on the Golden Rule, is treating another as you’d be treated.
There doesn’t have to be love involved, or like.
That dictum is essentially universal because one’s decision and in what direction to act, would first be UNSELFISH, and next, empathetic.
And from this, the more ethical and moral decisions will flow.
That is essential also, to the founding principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and equality.

What we are CONSTANTLY being confronted with, is every excuse in the book to make an exception where gay people are concerned. To use the Constitution as an exception to wholesale discrimination.
In fact, anti gay zeal already violates several sections of it.
And contradicts a few more.

We are confronted with Christians who say that their rationale is that homosexuality is strictly a behavior, and they argue, a changeable one, therefore not subject to Constitutional protections.
As they hold on to protecting their religious (completely chosen, unenforced and changeable) behavior by way of Constitution, like pit bulls.

We are confronted with a low tolerance for challenge, and debate…but a HIGH one, for abusing gay citizens, and literal belief in divine right to do so.

What to call it indeed. There are many things that accurately define it.
Perhaps one word, never will.
It’s difficult even to remind them of that dictum of treatment, and it’s interpretation. Especially with regard to not arguing or deciding out of hand, that gay people choose to be gay and deserve harsh treatment when they don’t change.
Of course, not caring at all, that it’s impossible and dismissing the coercive environment that forces the issue.

If there is a divine right to lie, to defame, to ignore the infliction of pain and injustice, and to DEFEND it with divine, and not human accountability, well…I don’t know where that is either or the word for it.

Impossible.
Maybe.

But I’m at a point where there are no more words I want to strain my brain with.
Some people, have no idea how difficult it is now, to remain polite and restrained. Something they don’t see either.
It shouldn’t have to take a punch to help them understand ‘how it feels’.
Actions, are going to have to speak louder than that word.
And what the hell will those actions have to be?

Ryan
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

I’m cool with hate group.

Michael
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Un-American?

Jim Hlavac
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

The word, I think, is “delusional.” It’s not “hate” in that one can truly only “hate” that which exists. You can’t “hate” your own fantasy, and the “homosexuality” that FRC, et al, rail against, simply doesn’t exist. It certainly is not connected to gay Americans. The FRC is delusional in thinking that gay folks who run hair salons and curio shops, or car mechanics, or lawyers, or a hundred other professions, are a “threat” to society, and the nation. They are “delusional” in saying we are “Anti-family” as we seem to talk to our families all the time. They are “delusional” to claim there’s an overlap with pedophilia and gayness when 98% of all molesters are hetero men going after girls. Just like it’s “delusional” to blame gays on the teenage unwed mother problem. Why, it’s delusion to claim that gays are caused by absent or weak fathers, for if it were remotely true, there’d be no teenage unwed mother problem at all — for some 50% of boys grow up without a father now; they’d all be gay if the theory were true.

Nor do I think they are “Phobic.” After all, Patton was not “Germanophobic,” he merely wanted to remove the German gov’t from earth. Nor was Sherman “Confederophobic” but had every intention of systematically destroying the South.

No, phobia and hate won’t do — it’s time for “delusional groups.” or even “Psychotic groups.” I can’t even call them “anti-gay” anymore — they want us gone, simply gone, they don’t care how. It’s the “NO GAYS! Movement,” after all.

palerobber
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

if someone were to shoot up a KKK rally, would be no longer be able to refer to the KKK as a hate group?

Ben In Oakland
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

How about:

anti-gay hate groups?

anti gay bigotry groups?

inflamed hemorrhoids?

SharonB
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

I don’t understand all the hand-wringing and navel-gazing. While we parce the nuance, the hate groups are out there lying and casting the same libel and working to eradicate glbt identity. they want to eliminate us. we haven’t done anything wrong. why are we brow beating ourselves?

Jim Burroway
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

I am extremely reluctant to use the word “hate.” I find that it is typically used so often that it loses its power, which is a travesty because hate itself is so incredibly powerful. And so whenever I’m tempted to use the word hate, I always stop to think about it and ask myself whether there’s another word that I can use that would be more appropriate.

But hate really does exist. It’s not like talking about Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny or Romney’s tax returns, mythological things that don’t actually exist in real life. Hate really does exist. The greatest evidence of that can be found in our cemeteries. Other examples can be found in our homeless youth who have been kicked out by their parents, and in those who carry injuries and scars because someone believed the kinds of demonstrable lies that groups like Family Research Council have put out there into the air that we all breath.

Hate exists, and it sometimes has to be named. That an organization exhibits hateful behavior and is, in turn, a victim of hate, only ironic, but nothing more. It doesn’t wipe the slate clean. FRC does not exonerate itself now that it is the victim of very same kind of violence that we have experienced. It can only exonerate itself by turning over a new leaf and recognizing its own contribution to the climate that we all have been suffering through. FRC yesterday made it clear that they absolutely will not do that, but will continue on the same as always.

No. Sometimes the word really is hate.

Steve
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

You also fall for the No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, these people are very much Christians, no matter whether you like it or not. If so-called liberal Christians don’t like that they should speak up in public. Which hardly ever happens of course.

Priya Lynn
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Rob said “I agree no one should be accused of hate merely for opposing same-sex marriage”.

I on the other hand have no doubt that most, if not all people who oppose same sex marriage do so out of hate and I will not quit labelling such an action as hateful.

As to the phrase “hate-group”, that carries a whole other set of connotations and I’d say an organization that merely opposes same sex marriage isn’t a hate-group, only one that exists primarily to encourage hatred and oppression of another group through lies, distortions, cherry picking research, etc. is a hate-group. The term “hate-group” accurately describes the FRC and there is no reason we should be trying to find an alternative to it.

Rob Tisinai
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Actually, Steve, I haven’t fallen for that fallacy. My point in rejecting the term “Christian” isn’t that NO Christian holds these beliefs — it’s that NOT ALL Christians hold these beliefs, making the term “Christian” overbroad and thus inappropriate.

Hunter
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

I’m perfectly fine with “hate group.” It has a specific meaning and a respectable history.

And if the hate groups have gotten their feelings hurt by being so designated, I’m afraid my sympathy is lukewarm. If they really don’t like it, they can always change.

Soren456
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

“Hate group” is too broadly used, but it is fine with me when it is appropriate.

I think it’s appropriate when the group it describes engages in demonizing a part of the populace, or recklessly and deliberately spreads known falsehoods about a group. The result is the seeding and growth of hate.

It’s my understanding that demonizing and spreading falsehoods are among the main criteria for SPLC’s “hate group” designation.

Bruce Garrett
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

“Hatemongers” works for me. Perhaps some of them don’t actually hate gay people. Perhaps the venomous rhetoric they dispense is assumed by them to be merely a political strategy. But they’re dealing in hate. They do what they do, to inflame passions, short circuit sympathy, incite the mob. Hate may not be their motive, but hate is their product.

TampaZeke
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Steve, I would challenge you to produce the teaching of the historical CHRIST that FRC is following. In spite of how many hateful people call themselves “Christian” and in spite of how many people do hateful things in the name of Christianity, it’s only the CHRIST, through his words, actions and teachings, who defines what is truly Christian. If a person or organization acts in a way explicitly contrary to those words, actions and teachings it isn’t a No True Scotsman fallacy to point out that they are un-Christian.

Your No True Scotsman fallacy doesn’t really apply here. It would in fact apply to the Pope attacking nuns for not being Christian enough because they are too focused on poor people, oppressed people and the disadvantaged.

Palmer
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

How about we call them Shirvell groups? Conveys hate, obsession and lunacy all in one handy, little word?

Jonathan
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

They are a hate group. The biggest problem is that the media picks up their press releases and refers to them as a “Christian” group (no scare quotes). That’s the problem, and the solution is for the press to refer to them as “political-Christian”, or “Christianist”, or “Christian nationalist.” That’s the solution.

Jonathan
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Sometimes if you need a new work, you just have to pick one and make it stick.

If they don’t like the “hate group” label let’s call them each a “Perkins group.”

I’m only half-kidding.

Jonathan
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Regarding “political Christian”, one could argue that liberal Christian denominations like the UCC are “political.” They are, but it’s a little “p” for people’s representation. The Christianists are big “P” political because they are the power elite, and they are implementing a political agenda to seize more power. See the latest Missouri constitutional amendment.

“Political Christian” may be better, but I prefer “christianist”.

Jonathan
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Jonathan, Perkins Pancake House doesn’t need the bad publicity.

Rowan Bristol
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Obviously there has to be something worse than hate out there. Apparantly, i’m the baseline for hate speech on BTB and i don’t come close to these guys. I think we should go with robert’s suggestion and call them an anger group, so the word hate never falls from our lips.

Sammy
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

We already have an answer to this question when asked of these groups. They prefer to be called pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-values. They live in the delusion that what they do is good for society and all of its members. There is no compromise to be made. Hate groups they are and so they should be addressed.

Another Jonathan
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Oops, I didn’t notice the other Jonathan posting right before me (the Perkins group thing). I did not post 4 times, I promise. Sorry for any confusion.

David C.
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Pathological abhorrence or malicious abhorrence of gay people is most often born of ignorant prejudice, superstition, and myth.

Most antigay groups claim to be taking their stand in the name of some religion. Much of religion suffers from the inability to embrace sex as something wonderful and worthy of celebrating. I believe that fact alone more than anything contributes to a pathological abhorrence of sex and sexuality.

Most antigay groups seek to modulate public policy and curtail the freedoms of gay people. Like much of what we see in politics, the political organs of antigay organizations promulgate lie- and distortion-laden propaganda to support their position. The result is malicious abhorrence messaging designed to distort, vilify, demonize, and otherwise demean gay people and their families, and political activity such as lobbying and donating to campaigns with the intent to deny them otherwise constitutionally guaranteed rights legislatively.

For instance, the FRC and FotF are maliciously abhorrent.

Some organizations, such as the RCC’s Magisterium, are probably both pathologically and maliciously antigay.

Sometimes, one word does not fit all contexts where different shades of meaning are intended. Perhaps we should consider the fact that there are varieties of hate with some being pathological and some being malicious and all being simply repugnant and mostly born of ignorance and superstition.

Richard Rush
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

While I’m okay with “hate group,” I’m wondering if we could use a national panel of psychiatrists to evaluate some key people, and/or groups, to determine if they are insane, and then issue public statement of their findings. Individuals, such as Scott Lively, could then be officially labeled “sickos,” for example, whereas groups, such as FRC might be labeled “sicko groups.” I’ve often thought that we are relentlessly persecuted by people that are simply mentally ill.

One trait that all these groups seem to have in common is that they are misoneistic (they hate or fear change or innovation). So, they could be “misoneistic groups.”

Another common trait is that these people/groups are all compulsive busybodies. But “busybody group” just doesn’t come close to capturing the full spectrum of who they are.

Mark F.
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

I suppose one thing to remember is that the attitude and opinions of groups like Focus On The Family were the norm until not so long ago. The historical stories I read here on this site are often quite horrifying. These people are just holdovers from our very own “dark ages.”

Steve
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

They follow the Nicene creed, which makes them Christians. Actually agreeing with Jesus’s alleged teachings was never a requirement to be a Christian. The religion turned into metaphysical bullshit very quickly. Never mind that those teachings aren’t as nice as people claim. He demanded that people accept a human sacrifice or be tortured forever in a fiery place. I can think of little that is more immoral.

Gregory Peterson
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

I call organizations such as the FRC “Suit and tie hate groups.”

“I agree no one should be accused of hate merely for opposing same-sex marriage.”

At this very late date, I’m not sure that I would agree. I mean, at what point did opposition to “mixed race marriages” become hate? However, there is “hate” and then there is “HATE.”

Keppler
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

Sometimes the shoe fits. In the case of FRC, as has been said before, their “hate” designation has nothing to do with their opposition to marriage equality. It has to do with vilification and lies. They ARE a hate group. Let’s not mince words.

Senator Blutarsky
August 17th, 2012 | LINK

The left has really lowered the bar on what constitutes hate and bigotry. Back in the day, you had to actually, you know, hate people, and maybe even oppress them for good measure. Now all you need to do is fail to offer your full-throated support for gay marriage and you’re the moral equivalent of Bull Connor (which party did he belong to again?).

http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/bigotry-just-aint-what-it-used-to-be.html

Eric in Oakland
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

There are just as many (or more) hate groups who target minorities based on religion, race, or national origin. In regard to these most people understand what is meant by a hate group. Most people also understand why these organizations deserve the designation. We would therefor never allow the KKK or Neo Nazis to control the discussion or reframe the terminology as the public is allowing the anti gay groups to do.

The problem isn’t that we need a new word. The problem is that we are holding the anti gay hate groups to a different standard from what the anti Jewish hate groups or anti black hate groups are being held. Our opponents often claim that we are trying to redefine marriage, while they are frequently the ones attempting to redefine words.

Priya Lynn
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

Blutarsky, FRC is a hate group because its main actions are telling lies to demonize gays and oppress them. If all FRC did was fail to offerfull-throated support for gay marriage we’d be thrilled to death.

Patrick Hogan
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

I tend to agree with Rob (and others) that opposition to allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, in and of itself, is not necessarily hateful. The problem stems from religion: many people who oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry do so from reasons that they think — without having critically examined them while possessing the body of evidence to which many of us here have access — they are opposing our marriages for good and righteous reasons. They’re wrong, but they’re not hateful — many are as well-intentioned (though not so well informed) as we are.

When they want to deny all recognition of our relationships (opposed even to the unacceptable and unequal offering of civil unions or domestic partnerships), or when they call for our relationships to be criminalized, they are much more unambiguous in their hatred; however, even that can be born of ignorance rather than hate.

With FRC, though…they’ve made their position unambiguously hateful against LGBT people.

Ryan
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

Senator Blutarsky, your Straw Man is very tired. If you’re going to comment on a post, you should at least read it first

Hunter
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

Blutarsky is posting the same comment all over the place. Ignore — definitely a troll.

Steve, re: “human sacrifice” — No telling if the crucifixion is historical fact, but it doesn’t really matter: Jesus is an avatar of the Sacrificed God, who shows up in pretty much every Indo-European mythology and, from the looks of things, in Semitic mythologies as well — Siva, Dionysus, Cernunnos, Baldur, Tammuz, Adonis: they’re all gods who were killed and then resurrected. In most cases the god is willing and is sacrificed for the good of the people, so I don’t think we can call it “immoral.” (A few, like Dionysus and Baldur, are kind of iffy on that score, but there’s no way to tell how much the story’s been altered.)

It’s the ritual cannibalism in Christianity that freaks me out.

Donny D.
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

Rob Tisinai wrote,

If you don’t want that term to be “hate,” then what do you prefer?

What “you” are you talking to, Rob? I have NO PROBLEM with the FRC and similar groups being referred to as hate groups.

Who of any note or worth is saying we shouldn’t call any anti-LGBT groups hate groups? Is there anyone who you think has the moral authority to question this designation? Because unless you or others come up with some impressive names, I don’t see why we’re wasting our time reconsidering this.

The reason the FRC and its anti-LGBT allies are decrying SPLC’s hate group label for the worst of the anti-LGBT groups is because this labeling is hurting them politically. Obviously if calling them hate groups hurts them, we need to continue to do it, and ignore or denounce those who would have us stop calling them hate groups.

homer
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

If the word “hate” wasn’t so effective, then FRC wouldn’t be complaining so loudly when they are called a hate group. It is working and they are worried, exactly how it should be. Maybe someday they will reform, but unfortunately there is a lot of money to be made in hating people.

Rob Tisinai
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

I don’t have any problem with it either, Donny. This column is a challenge to those who DO, from Dana Millbank on the left to, well, just about everyone on the right: Anyone who thinks “hate” is not the right word needs to tell us another word to describe such a pattern of egregious misdeeds, and if they don’t then they’re little more than an alarmist hack or concern troll.

Chuck
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

Since the FRC is a group who uses libel and slander to push a political agenda, maybe we can just call them what they are: “Libel and Slander” Groups?

Cyndi Brady
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

I am fine with the words “Hate Group” but I think we ought to add “Lying” or “Liars” into the mix.
They have no problem spreading lies and mistruths about us, and I think that needs to be included in the descriptor.

P.s. Lying is different from “laying” as we might remember from high school English class! Well, so far as I remember…I was absent a lot!

Timothy Kincaid
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

Hunter

Thanks for providing perspective re the sacrificial god connection between various ancient beliefs. I do have a small correction, though.

Ritualistic cannibalism is probably not an accuate term to apply to Christianity broadly. Protestants do not believe in transubstantiation (that the sacrament is literally flesh) and see the Eucharist as symbolic (“do this in memory of me”). It is sacred and holy but I don’t know any Protestants who see it as anything more than symbols used as reminders: bread (body) for physical suffering and wine (blood) for death – the two tragedies of the human condition. (someday someone may look into how the holy spirit addresses the third human ailment: mental suffering).

And while I’m not particularly skilled in Catholic dogma, I’m guessing that it would be more god-eating than ritual cannibalism. Is there a term for that?

But it’s an interesting point to muse and I’m sure that it holds very different importance to different cultures.

Robert
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

Rowan Bristol
August 17th, 2012 | LINK
Obviously there has to be something worse than hate out there. Apparantly, i’m the baseline for hate speech on BTB and i don’t come close to these guys. I think we should go with robert’s suggestion and call them an anger group, so the word hate never falls from our lips.

And yet again, and even on a different blog post, you attack and MISREPRESENT what I say, not in regards to what we label these groups, but in a post on what language we use.

Here are my own words on the label Hate Group:

I watch Perkins, and Brown, and Gallagher and what I see in THEM is HATE. And I have to say I feel my brothers and sisters in the LGBT Community are far too precious and wonderful to be THAT.

It’s sad, because on the actual issue of what FRC and their ilk believe and do we actually agree. I agree that they are a hate group, I agree at that label. I just happen to believe in the one rule. Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. I don’t approve of certain ways of approaching people, and you do. That’s fine. Unfortunately, you seem bent on painting me in a certain light.

Go ahead, attack my family again, call me names again, and tell me once more, please, to go fuck myself.

You create strawman arguments so that you can continue to be abusive without responsibilty for your own words.

Robert
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

I also find it very ironic Rowan, that on a blog post discussing how our foes lie, and mischaracterize the truth about us, you resort to those tactics in addressing me. You have mischaracterized my words and the intent of the conversation I posted on, simply to score points.

So, really, at a basic level, how is that any different than them?

You have consistantly said I implied things I did not, that I actually SAID things I did not and you mischaracterize the ideas I expressed in a blog post that was centered on what type of language we use, not on the actual labels of these groups.

I see YOU have no compunction against using the same tactics as our foes on those in your own community that you disagree with on a blog.

Good on you.

Robert
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

Here, a perfect example of Hatred in Action. My Aunt is Catholic. She goes to Church regularly. She is the Food Bank Manager at her Church. She is Pro Gay marriage and Gay rights. She has spoken out about the Priest issues at her Church. How do we expect to get and keep supporters if we allow people like Rowan to call them rape enablers. If his rhetoric is that of our side, I fear we are doomed. This goes beyond the pale. WE don’t want to be painted with the wide brush for things that are negative about us, but Rowan here is willing to paint EVERY Catholic as a rape enabler, even those who do their best to stop it. By his logic, if you attended Penn State, you are a pedophile enabler. He taints everyone in a Church as evil because of the people he met and who did something wrong. By this standard, we are ALL responsible for the guy who shot the Gaurd at FRC. How could we not be, after all he was one of our volunteers. He was a part of US. By Rowan’s logic, if you have any affiliation with something that a bad person has affiliation with, you are the same. I’m pretty sure that’s what FRC is saying today. Keep it up Rowan, you provide perfect fodder for our enemies.

Rowan Bristol
August 18th, 2012 | LINK
I do. Actively.

Your aunt enables an organization that treats child rape as class privilege. I know. At Loyola academy, where I attended, the president of the school utilized both a safehouse for troubled youth and a pre-fraternity social club as a tool for grooming his sexual exploits. For this, he was allowed to stay at the school from the 60′s until 1990, when the first hints of legal action were to be taken. He then ‘graduated’ from the high school to the university, where he was on the board for disciplining sexual offenders. He was part of the same religious order that would send pedophile members to native outposts in Alaska, so they could abuse people that weren’t white.

Look up Larry Reuter and the Jesuits, if you like. Keep in mind that the money that went to defend Larry and other members came from lay people. The institutional structure that kept him abusing my classmates was managed and paid for by lay people. Every single catholic that contributes to the catholic church ultimately finances and enables this activity, and its legal defense.

This is the truth.

If you believe the truth is hate, we have a difference. We’ve already proven time and again that you’re willing to lie to get your way. And that you’re unwilling to leave when you say you’re done.

I’m a hater, but your aunt enables rapists. Congratulations.

Stephen
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

I think hate group is fine. Perhaps SPLC hate group, because that ties them to other kinds of groups who practice hate against different groups towards the same ends: denying them civil rights and the ability to live their lives in peace.

Steve - Bos
August 18th, 2012 | LINK

I find it stunning that NOM, which has, for $ome rea$on, tried to make the FRC shooting all about itself, is trying to push the fiction that SPLC labels any organization that supports “traditional marriage”. What they omit (because it disproves their claim) is that NOM, arguably the dominant organization fighting against marriage equality (by promoting homophobia and fanning the flames of anti-gay hate), isn’t an SPLC-designated hate group!

Rowan Bristol
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Unlike us, Robert, your aunt has a choice. There are numerous churches she can join. There are numerous places where she can contribute, and spend her money. You treat child rape in the catholic church as a series of isolated incidents done by some priests, but after 2004, that was demonstrably not true.

4% with legitimate actions against them.
10% of seminarians.
And multiple diocese bankrupting themselves to protect the institutional structure that managed them, along with multiple orders falling apart under the same strain.

When you buy stolen goods, you are complicit in the crime. When you pay money at a criminal enterprise, you are complicit in the crime. That’s the law of the land in the united states. If your aunt has paid into this system, she is complicit in a crime. If she remains in an institution where her voice is null and void out of some obligation to a sky fairy, she is complicit. If she feels she cannot do her good acts without the rape-suppporting institutions aid, she is complicit. This is very simple. It isn’t even abut belief. It’s about money and resources, the exact same money and resources that are used to rape children, and protect the privilege.

I’m glad you brought up Penn State. Let’s take a look at the riots in defense of Joe Paterno. Let’s take a look at the slander and threats against the victims of Jerry Sandusky. Let’s take a look at the willingness of the entire institution and its students and alumni to bury the actions under the rug, before, during, and after the investigation. Let’s take a look at the outrage over the NCAA penalty. Outrage of a penalized -football program- in the face of -child rape-. And remind me that those people were not complicit in child rape, and the culture of rape.

Are you telling me none of these things happened? I hurt the cause because I refuse to speak nicely about real harm.

Richard Rush
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Rowan, in a thoroughly black and white world, your view of Robert’s aunt pertaining to the Catholic Church may be rational. But the world we live in is not black and white. Presumably, the Catholic church has been an intimate part of Robert’s aunt’s life from childhood, and I just don’t think it’s reasonable to expect her to dismiss her life-experience, and now see herself as enabling “an organization that treats child rape as class privilege.” And I say that as someone who is essentially an atheist, and has little to zero positive regard for any organized religion.

Robert
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

By Rowans Logic, if you gave money to ANY LGBT Organization, like the LGBT Center that the shooter volunteered at, YOU are complicit and responsible for the shooting. And if you let his statements demonizing every single Catholic for the crimes of their hierarchy then you have NO reasonable excuse to vote Obama/Biden since Joe Biden is a Catholic and is an enabler of rape. How could you possible not see that?

Keep at it Rowan, you have only proven to me that over the last few years many of US, have actually become THEM. And at this point, I see very little differecne except for which side you claim.

Rowan Bristol
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Richard, it’s not only rational, but legal. Robert’s aunt gives money to a diocese, or a religious order within the church. Her charitable work is not only done in their name, but likely receives financial support. Under the RICO act, she’s complicit in the crimes the organization commits. Under current antiterrorism laws, muslim charities have been prosecuted for less of a connection than Robert’s aunt. Her money has financed rape and defense of rape. Her charity has benefitted from the contribution of rapists, and those who collude to cover up rape. It’s the truth, and the law.

She has a choice. There are other religious organizations. Others have chosen not to enable rape, and have left. There is no genetic compulsion to catholicism, just as there is no genetic compulsion to loyalty to Penn State. It does no good to say you speak out against it from within, if nothing changes. And since 2004, when the John Jay report outed the extent of the problem, the rapes and the defense of rape did not decrease. The privilige of rape is actively defended in the courts by the church, bankrupting multiple diocese. All of that money came from laypeople. RICO and antiterrorism law is very clear about the culpability of people who finance organized crime.

There’s no falsehood here. Robert can rant and rave, but this is fact. And somehow presenting these facts is the equivalent of abduction, rape and extortion, and will incite readers of BTB towards murder.

And thank you for your permission, Robert. I shall. Your aunt enables a rapist cult to harm children.

Mark F.
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Rowan,

You miss something here. Strict Catholics see themselves as belonging to the “one true church.” That does not mean they believe the clergy can’t be evil, they just believe the fundamental doctrines of the church are true. The only option they have, within their world view, is to speak out against evil in the church, not become a Protestant.

Mark F.
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Another thing to keep in mind is that Catholics are required to deal with clergy. You are required to go to mass on Sunday, and you are required to go to confession. You can’t avoid the clergy, even if you want to. Protestants have much more laitude to do their own thing, avoid clergy and change churches.

rowan bristol
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

So there is no choice or conscience within the catholic faith. And their money is unwillingly given to orders and the diocese. It’s compulsory. That seems to refute the core tenants of free will within the church.

They are free to choose. We are not.
They are free to give their time, effort and money where they want, and financially, that has gone to protecting the privilege of rape, to the bankruptcy of several diocese.

And the law doesn’t differentiate between those that contribute to the good people in terrorist organizations or the nice people in crime families. The law doesn’t care whether or not you are a good person, just whether or not you are complicit in a crime. Ask the Millers.

Mark F.
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

The Catholic Church does not require financial contributions to be in good standing, so you would be free to withhold money from them and still be a good Catholic. Or you might see if you could designate contributions that wouldn’t go to the bishops or Vatican.

I’m an atheist, but am a former Catholic. I’m just trying to see things from the perspective of a troubled Catholic who still has his faith. Of course, I would personally recommend leaving the church.

I’m afraid your understanding of the law is incorrect. Nobody who contributes to a legal private organization is personally liable for the crimes that other members of that organization might commit. Perhaps you might like to see that changed, but it’s not how things are right now. Of course, moral responsibility is another matter, but the state doesn’t concern itself with that.

Robert
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Not to mention that by your own logic, giving money or having given money to the local LGBT center would have made one complicit in the crimes of the shooter at FRC. Your logic works both ways.

As I said, time and again, I have no problem labeling Hate Speech as such. Rowan Bristool is a spewer of HATE SPEECH.

His logic is also EXACTLY the same as Perkins’ logic in references to holding the entire Gay community responsible for the act of a single individual.

Why is it that Rowan’s logic is fine when used aginst HIS enemies, but not acceptable at all when used against him ?

And, if we vote for Obama Biden, we are responsible for putting a rapist enabler (Biden) in Office, again!!

Robert
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

my apology for misspelling your last name Bristol.

Jane Laplain
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Hate is only half the story. The other half is the Supremacist agenda they advocate. They are straight supremacist groups. They are precisely analogous to white supremacist groups. The only difference is the specific target of their campaign and the fact that they still somehow enjoy a certain level of social acceptability that white supremacist groups no longer do. (Remember? There was a time not 5 decades ago when open White Supremacy was considered common sense and its public expression socially tolerable, if not outright preferable).

They should be categorized as Christian Supremacist Hate Groups, plain and simple.

Rowan Bristol
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Robert. It’s very simple:

I don’t abduct children.
I don’t make money off of the suffering of others.
I don’t rape the people that I’m supposed to counsel or minister to.

I don’t play nice with rapists, kidnappers or extortionists. I don’t play nice with the people who enable those crimes so they can get into heaven. I don’t play nice with apologists who wring their hands when strong language is used, but call the people who enable rape good people.

It’s that simple. You believe that my words are the equivalent to rape, abduction, and extortion. I disagree. You believe that my calling you a waste of the AIDS virus is the equivalent to the torture of a teenager. I disagree.

I will always call Tim Kincaid out on his nonsense, because I believe that he is more harmful to me than my words are to him. My opinion on the Catholic Church is based on facts and evidence. My opinion on those that participate and fund it is based on RICO and antiterrorism law. The families that sent their sons to Loyola Academy paid not only to have Larry Reuter rape their children, but paid for his legal defense, the cover up, and for his placement. They paid for his replacement to smooth things over and maintain the coverup. Every funding of the Jesuits went in part to moving pedophiles to alaska to rape the native population. The money that over the past century that went into the milwaukee diocese went to enable rape. None of this is false. None of this is isolated. And thanks to a recent trial, the bishops that facilitated this action are being brought to justice. But the church is a criminal enterprise. And those who pay into it, and those who take from it, are enabling a criminal enterprise to flourish. It is a rapist cult headed by a man who worked to continue the enablement of rape. Whose bank is in trouble with the European Union for money laundering that goes back to the 70′s.

If saying this is the equivalent of actual rape, extortion, kidnapping, then I don’t understand the metric. If my telling the truth incites a reader to murder, I would like to see how that would be possible. If wondering what the view from your own colon is like is considered hate speech, then truly you are the most delicate of flowers, and I can only hope your medication keeps you from dissolving in the breeze.

Robert
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Rowan you said:

“It’s that simple. You believe that my words are the equivalent to rape, abduction, and extortion. I disagree. You believe that my calling you a waste of the AIDS virus is the equivalent to the torture of a teenager. I disagree.”

And see, this is where we have a problem. I don’t believe ANY of this until the last line. Your statmenst like the “WASTE OF AN AIDS VIRUS” is not any different then the bullying of people that can result in suicide. YOUR words is ALL I have ever spoken about. I have NOT likened you to anything, except to note that when you speak out, you SOUND as hateful as they do. You speak ill of me and lie about what I say because I have a differing view than you, which is no better than Tony Perkins lying about his enemies because he doesn’t like them or their views either.

The ENTIRE conversation on the other post was about LANGUAGE. I don’t see how any intelligent individual could possible try to compare a conversation on LANGUAGE and infer that I believe they are the equivelant of a the things you list.

But at this point, you really seem like a class act. Derogatory statement after derogatory statement in a discussion about derogatory language. No wonder you disagree. You believe in the scorced earth approach. BURN everything and everybody that doesn’t conform to YOUR world view. I have only challenged your LANGUAGE, and this is what you believe I merit. I can only guess at what you sound like to people who don’t share the same basic ideas as you (Which oddly enough on issues we agree, just not language). I’m sure your changing hearts and minds and winning us tons of support.

Rowan Bristol
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

You believe that our opponents are nice people with familes and we should use nice language.

I believe that they are extortionists, rapists, and kidnappers.

I have evidence for all three. I also have evidence for murder and torture.

I don’t see the need to win the hearts and minds of rapists, extortionists, kidnappers, torturers, and murderers.

You do.

You also believe that those that aid and abet such actions are worthy of kind words and pleasant conversation.

I do not.

You believe that by my calling you a reactionary butthurt little bore, that I am no different than the KKK.

I disagree.

Stephen
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Rowan and Robert: get a room.

Jim Burroway
August 19th, 2012 | LINK

Any time a thread degenerates into an argument between two people, it’s time to call a halt. Any further comments on this thread from either Robert or Rowan Bristol which are addressed toward each other OR which do not carry the main topic of this thread further will be removed.

This is a public forum, not a private spat room.

JimInMa
August 20th, 2012 | LINK

People will forever more use the term “hate group” to describe these groups. It would be like putting the genie back in the bottle.
Just like they like to use the term “gay marriage”, which it’s not. It’s just marriage.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.