One of the easiest things to point to that the FRC has done recently that I consider evil has to do with opposing equal rights for LGBT folk and furthering political nonsense about what the left is trying to do in that regard - under the rubrick of "research" (references here (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/category/activists-anti-gay/family-research-council) and here (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04D03)).
They also spread lies like "Risk avoidance or abstinence messaging serves as the best primary prevention approach for those who both have and have not been sexually active outside of marriage" (frc site (http://www.frc.org/human-sexuality#abstinence)).
And they clearly support the perspective (http://www.frc.org/op-eds/obamas-dog-didnt-bark) that Obama and others are trying to pull some sort of fast one and hide things in the health care plan that the administration asserts are not in there.
The first two points make them social conservatives, not racists, and it was the latter insinuation that I was calling foul on. And since social conservatism is pretty likely to be a prerequisite for getting elected in JW's district, I doubt he'd try to refute the charge.
As to the last point, it's altogether likely that the FRC spreads poorly-sourced half truths about liberals. However, that's not a justification for using the same tactics in return. Slinging mud around only gets everyone dirty.
I concur with your point about the difference between demonstrated racism and demonstrated social conservatism in the references listed (which doesn't mean there isn't other evidence about racism), but myself, I look at the first two points and the biggest thing I see that it makes them is liars.
They present themselves as a research organization and then they present statements that actually research demonstrates to be false. Believe that abstinence education is morally the way to go all you want, but if you go around pronouncing that it is effective, you are not just deluding yourself and others, you are actively setting up young people to be ignorant and pregnant (as we see in Florida and Texas). Which is morally reprehensible in my book.
As to racism, there are some interesting comments here (http://www.afro-netizen.com/2008/09/race-and-the-re.html) on both the FRC and Perkins, especially regarding some comments Perkins made in 2007 that are quoted in the last few paragraphs. Something like the story of Phineas is a way for religious conservatives to couch a racist message in language that pretends to be about religion and is in fact about race.
By all means, confront the lies and present the research (in general, not necessarily here and now). But if the goal is to actually influence events, as opposed to just having a group gripe among like-minded bloggers, the arguments will have to be targeted toward JW's constituents. Establishing that JW is not a man of his word, or that he irresponsibly shoots his mouth off is more likely to be effective on that audience than showing he's GLBT-hostile.
As to the FRC being racist, these attacks on Perkins are a straw man. Even if he is a bigot, the person is not the organization. IMHO, to show that the organization is racist, one would have to show that it endorsed a racist platform, or intentionally supported a racist cause. And even then, it wouldn't taint the people they'd endorsed unless it could also be established that their endorsement criteria were designed to favor racists.
This may seem like it's setting the bar high, but racism is a serious charge, and I don't think it's a good idea to level it without pretty solid evidence.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
They also spread lies like "Risk avoidance or abstinence messaging serves as the best primary prevention approach for those who both have and have not been sexually active outside of marriage" (frc site (http://www.frc.org/human-sexuality#abstinence)).
And they clearly support the perspective (http://www.frc.org/op-eds/obamas-dog-didnt-bark) that Obama and others are trying to pull some sort of fast one and hide things in the health care plan that the administration asserts are not in there.
no subject
As to the last point, it's altogether likely that the FRC spreads poorly-sourced half truths about liberals. However, that's not a justification for using the same tactics in return. Slinging mud around only gets everyone dirty.
no subject
They present themselves as a research organization and then they present statements that actually research demonstrates to be false. Believe that abstinence education is morally the way to go all you want, but if you go around pronouncing that it is effective, you are not just deluding yourself and others, you are actively setting up young people to be ignorant and pregnant (as we see in Florida and Texas). Which is morally reprehensible in my book.
As to racism, there are some interesting comments here (http://www.afro-netizen.com/2008/09/race-and-the-re.html) on both the FRC and Perkins, especially regarding some comments Perkins made in 2007 that are quoted in the last few paragraphs. Something like the story of Phineas is a way for religious conservatives to couch a racist message in language that pretends to be about religion and is in fact about race.
no subject
As to the FRC being racist, these attacks on Perkins are a straw man. Even if he is a bigot, the person is not the organization. IMHO, to show that the organization is racist, one would have to show that it endorsed a racist platform, or intentionally supported a racist cause. And even then, it wouldn't taint the people they'd endorsed unless it could also be established that their endorsement criteria were designed to favor racists.
This may seem like it's setting the bar high, but racism is a serious charge, and I don't think it's a good idea to level it without pretty solid evidence.
no subject