Dana Milbank Gets it Right Over at WaPo

It’s not often I find myself agreeing with editorialists in the Washington Post, but this is one of those occasions:

I disagree with the Family Research Council’s views on gays and lesbians. But it’s absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church. The center says the FRC “often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science.” Exhibit A in its dossier is a quote by an FRC official from 1999 (!) saying that “gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”

Offensive, certainly. But in the same category as the KKK?

As I said, I’m not a fan of FRC’s political agenda, but putting them into the same category as the KKK is not only wrong, because it suggests beliefs held by millions of mainstream Americans are “hate,” but because it also cheapens the horror of exactly what the KKK stands and stood for. Given some of the hateful and false rhetoric about gun owners that is accepted and promoted by groups like Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, pretty clearly they would qualify as a hate group under SPLC’s standard.

10 thoughts on “Dana Milbank Gets it Right Over at WaPo”

  1. I’d suggest that in Milbank’s case, it’s because he chose to look no farther than what he wanted to hear — “family” blah-blah-blah — and than believed what he wanted to — just like he does with firearms issues.

    That is totally consistent behavior for liberals, but I hope, never for us.


    Tony Perkins In 2010 Said Uganda’s ‘Kill The Gays’ Bill ‘Upholds Moral Conduct’
    by David Badash on August 17, 2012 in Bigotry Watch,Civil Rights,News,Politics

    “Tony Perkins In 2010 Said Uganda’s ‘Kill The Gays’ Bill ‘Upholds Moral Conduct’”

    ‘Family Research Council‘s president Tony Perkins in 2010 claimed that Uganda’s infamous “Kill The Gays” bill merely was an effort “to uphold moral conduct that protects others.” The Ugandan Kill The Gays bill in fact allows for the lifetime imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality, allows for the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” and allows for the criminalization of same-sex marriage, punishable by jail time, and even calls for the forcible extradition of Ugandans who violate the law.’

    (see URL for more)

    Even Nazis can (and could, and did) justify hate as upholding the moral fiber of their society. Everyone else is justified in calling hate by its right name, regardless of the pragmatic excuses offered for it.

      1. Same source:

        “Asked of the organization had indeed lobbied to kill the resolution, FRC provided Hotsheet with a statement calling claims that they had lobbied against the resolution inaccurate.

        “The Tony Perkins-led FRC said it did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it – rather to change the language it contained and ‘to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.'”

        So basically it comes down to, they had no problems with the Ugandan “Kill-the-Gays” bill, only with the portion of a congressional resolution condemning it, that would have implied that homosexuality was a human right.

        The way I see it, we either do what we do with gun-grabbers, and hold them to what they say — and what exactly did FRC’s Tony Perkins say? — or we accept that hand-waving apologia that they “never meant exactly that” means they’re really OK people, and don’t deserve close inspection.

        Even the KKK isn’t outlawed as an organization, nor should it be; it’s just that we all know we don’t want to stand beside it or apologize for it. In that way the FRC is exactly like the KKK, to me. I am not inclined to parse the KKK’s words and argue for them just because they occasionally use language that renders their hate ambiguous. For one thing, I could be mistaken for apologizing for them.

        1. I don’t know what you are talking about. He said they don’t support killing gays.

  2. “Given some of the hateful and false rhetoric about gun owners that is accepted and promoted by groups like Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, pretty clearly they would qualify as a hate group under SPLC’s standard.”

    Not under the SPLC’s standard, for the “standard” that applies here is “we disagree with them.” Left violence gets a pass; they agree with that.

  3. One thing I noticed is that the most outrageous quotes plucked from Stormfront’s website, used as evidence of “hate”, come from people who have very few posts over there. It makes you wonder how many of them are actually SPLC people posing as white nationalists.

    For example, in their Sikh temple shooting thread, you will find that most of the posts were opposed to violence and nobody was supportive of the shooter – except for a single poster, who had only a single post in his post count, which of course was cut and pasted right into SPLC’s website and presented as a “typical” Stormfront post. SPLC makes no mention of the hundreds of posts expressing sympathy for the victims, of course. Go over to Stormfront and read the thread for yourself. Don’t worry, there is no need to feel “dirty” just for reading it over.

    Tactics like this leave no doubt in my mind that the same thing has happened to defame CAIR and other muslim public relations groups. The SPLC is no better than Glen Beck in this regard.

    Disclaimer: I am not exactly a white nationalist. But I did take in interest in learning their point of view directly from them, rather than relying on the crude caricatures presented by “anti-hate” and “eracism” groups. It’s a good rule to follow in general, and I wish more people were open minded enough to do the same.

  4. Cherry picking.

    When I hear or read the word “offensive”, I immediately roll my eyes and that party’s credibility rating drops to negative with me.

    We all have the right to be offended by anything – however none of us should presume that something will offend others. To do so would be arrogant.


    Acceptable – “I am offended by that group’s beliefs”
    B.S. liberal speak – “That group’s beliefs are offensive”


    “I oppose a woman’s right to choose”
    “I oppose a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy”

    Language is subtle, but absolutely can influence our world view.
    MSM content will make you crazy, take care.

  5. My Problem with the SPLC is that refuse to acknowledge that their Time has Past. Are there White Hate Groups? Yes. Are there Black Hate Groups. Yes. Are there “Fill in the Blank” Hate Groups? Yes there are. Do they have the Political Power to Enslave, Entrap and Deny “X” Minorities their Constitutional Rights? No. Do they have enough Power to send out the Cops and the National Guard to Prevent Peaceful Protest? No. Like the “Temperance Movement,” their days are Gone. Why?

    Because if such Hatred and Racism were still in Control, Barack Hussein Obama could NEVER have been Elected.

    So, these people need to close up Shop. But Hey! How could their Cash flow keep coming then?

  6. In addition to downplaying the effects and actions of the KKK, it also downplays the effects and actions of far more extreme anti-gay groups. The Family Research Council is ultimately a lobbying group, and as vile as what they sometimes advocate can be, comparing them to a group known for lynch mobs and burning crosses and actually-really-directly killing people makes it hard to provide serious criticisms of people that do more than just lobby.

  7. Anybody who believes anything coming out of mike potok’s personal cash-cow(the splc) probably believes that the pos occupying the white house loves this country.

Comments are closed.