The FRC has released some new “precious” videos. I am in awe of the energy consumed daily to produce such venom on the LGBT community. I’m also amazed that these people call themselves “christians.” Judge much? As usual, FRC likes to only show white folks and I found this particular video not only homophobic, but blatantly racist as well. These must be the folks that believe Jesus has blonde hair and blue eyes, with lily white skin. Click here to see the videos on Jeremy’s blog.
Tony Perkins:Flaming Closet Queen
Social Justice For All 
I bet you $100 there’s an impending adultery scandal here…
You would win.
I usually hate commenting on these things because its virtually impossible to have a decent debate on a blog, but I have to say, I completely disagree. You claim the video is “blatantly racist” and make references to typical Aryan traits (blond hair, blue eyes), but not a single person in the video actually represents that demographic. One of them is blatantly not even white (which seriously hurts your argument that they “only” show white folks). Granted they have more whites than other races in this video and probably the organization as a whole, but so does the general US population and when you only have three speakers in the video, its difficult to represent all races equally. Making unrealistic demands and then ranting when they aren’t met seems pretty unfair.
In addition, the “homophobic” label gets thrown around a lot by those who don’t understand the issue. I know nothing about you, so want to avoid making any personal accusations, but from my own experience, calling someone homophobic tends to be a fallback method, designed to simply cut off debate. They resort to name-calling instead. Name-calling stopped being the right move in roughly the 2nd grade.
Your About page understandably requests that any comments be respectful, but it becomes hypocritical when lose sight of your own rule. If you’re going to simply use the blog to attack those you disagree with using words like “venom,” “racist,” and “flaming closet queen,” then be honest and say so. Don’t hide behind some manufactured guise of “respect.”
Steve,
as a regular reader of this blog (and a gay man), I feel compelled to respond to your comment. I see your point about having “a decent debate” on a blog (which begs the question of why you responded to this particular post), so I’ll try to reply to your points in order.
1. Blatantly racist – the three speakers are two obvious caucasians and one vaguely-potentially ethnic person who is pale enough to be safe. They make very clear (if coded) statements about poor and disadvantaged families with strong racial overtones. It’s pretty racist.
2. The “blue eyes, lily white skin” in the original post is a reference to how historically racist christian factions have depicted Jesus, not to the video. Please read more carefully.
3. The video is long enough to use multiple speakers to cover more segments of the population. It should either be truly representative or not make a calculating pretense. The face of American is changing so that even a 2/3 majority white presence is not representative at all.
4. Homophobia is a real word and a specific concept. Please look at this more recent post from The Solipsistic Me for more information. The first video clearly states that same-sex couples are inferior. That is homophobic. The second video uses even stronger language against LGBTQ couples. That is also homophobic. Accurately labelling the speech is not the same as name-calling. Implying that the writer is a second-grader arguably is.
5. “Venom” and “racist” (and “homophobe”) are strong words but they are not inherently disrespectful. In this case they are also accurate descriptions of the language used in the videos.
6. Respect is earned. The FRC videos are attack pieces and do not merit the same kind of respect that the blogmaster requests of dialogue within the blog.
I hope these clarifications are helpful as you revisit the content you have defended or criticized.
PenguinLad (Jan)
First things first…penguins are awesome! Great picture/name.
0. Normally I wouldn’t, and normally I don’t, but for the same reason you responded (even when you acknowledge my point), I thought something had to be said.
1. Their statements obviously target higher rates of broken families amongst the poor community, a social group that statistics show is racially unbalanced (a very sad fact, but that’s coming from governmental statistics, not the FRC). That doesn’t mean they are racist. In fact, they seem to clearly make the point that all broken families are bad, regardless of race.
2. I am not only able to read carefully, I also am able to read between the lines. The author implies the FRC is full of “folks” that see Jesus in their own image. That’s where the belief that Jesus was anything other than Hebrew stems from. People tend to picture Jesus as similar to themselves, not to Aryans (unless of course, they themselves are Aryan). So the implication is there.
3. It’s less than 2 min…I guess we disagree on how short a video needs to be for three to be an acceptable amount. Besides, not to get too technical here, but you’re right. 2/3 is not representative. In fact, some of the most recent Census Bureau data says that 74.5% of the US population is white. So 2/3 is less than the general population.
4. “Phobia” is defined as an illogical/inexplicable fear. Adding “homo” makes it a fear of homosexuals and the FRC is obviously not scared. If you want to include prejudice in that definition, then you might have a little traction, but as far as prejudice goes, claiming one type of family is best and quoting random data about belonging/rejection can hardly be called that. Merely expressing an opinion you personally dislike does not make them hateful or fearful. Labeling someone as such every time you feel personally slighted is human nature, but it’s pretty naive.
5. “Flaming closet queen” You missed that one. I can see how you might disagree with the videos’ content, but I don’t see these videos as venomous, especially the first one. In fact, it’s very tame. The second one is stronger, but when you break it down, he basically says he’d rather have people around with which he agrees than those with which he disagrees. Not exactly an uncommon or radical concept, unless of course it’s applied to you. Then it suddenly becomes “venomous.”
6. You don’t garner respect if you aren’t respectful in the first place. This could be labeled an attack blog and thus, by your definition, doesn’t merit that respect.
Argh. You did it. You drew me into another post! this is why i don’t usually do this. I can’t stop…anyway, hope this clarifies my points.
I just re-read my post and realized I probably needed a slight clarification. I do not agree with the claim in the second video and the idea that an entire group of people should be forcibly removed from the nation is utterly ridiculous and wrong. However, I think he merely used a poor (very poor) choice of words to make his point.
Sprigg did issue this apology after that video first came out over 2 years ago. The first quote might still anger you, but its a very nice apology and clarifies that it does “not reflect the standards” of the FRC.
“In response to a question regarding bi-national same-sex couples who are separated by an international border, I used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God. I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.” -Sprigg