This video was released almost two weeks ago by Focus on the Family through their political mouthpiece, CitizenLink, so you may have already seen it or read commentary about it. Regardless of where you might stand on hate crimes laws, this kind of glib, heartless characterization seems unwarranted and cruel. It may also signify a certain amount of desperation. When you watch, pay attention to the last few comments.
We’ve heard gross distortions of this legislation apparently designed to scare people with the idea that, if it passes, free speech will be curtailed, pastors will be jailed, and innocent little grandmothers will be arrested for standing on a lonely street corner doing nothing more than offering tracts to passersby. What you will find at the end of this clip is what I believe is actually at the heart of the matter. Focus, et al, simply can’t allow sexual orientation to be codified into federal statutes as real and fixed, even as a byproduct.
After all the time and money they have spent trying to convince us that homosexuality is nothing more than a behavior, and a sinful one at that, it is against their self-interests to allow the obvious to make it into law. So in another example of the ends justifying the means, they use fear and lies to deny another vulnerable group the same protections against violent hate crimes that they themselves enjoy as members of a protected group by virtue of their religion.
Again, no matter where one stands on the need for hate crimes laws in general, who would laugh at such things as this? Unfortunately, the answer came quickly from Exodus VP Randy Thomas. Tell us again about your compassion, Mr. Thomas.
I hope Focus on the Family doesn’t expect to “witness” to the gay people who have seen this video…
I could be wrong, but treating the concerns of a large number of people so carelessly and then wondering why they don’t respond to their “love” strikes me as “kinda dumb”.
So, I guess that they have just given up on their christian duty towards a number of us…
I firmly believe that God is gonna take his due from them in time.
Moby has some fitting lyrics in his song “Run On”:
“Lord God Almighty let me tell the news
my head got wet in midnight dew
great God i been down on my bended knees
talking to a man from galilee
michael spoke and he sound so sweet
i thought i heard the shuffle of angels’ feet
He put one hand upon my head
great God Almighty let me tell you what He said
[bridge:]
go tell that lonesome liar
go tell that midnight rider
tell the gamblin’, ramblin’ backslider
tell them God Almighty gonna cut ’em down
[chorus:]
you might run on for a long time
run on, ducking and dodging
run on, children (?), for a long time
let me tell you God Almighty gonna cut you down
you might throw your rock, hide your head
work in the dark with your fellow men
sure as God made you rich and poor
you’re gonna reap just what you sow”
It is this kind of glib and arrogant trash that comes out of Colorado Springs Focus on the Family that has also poisoned so much of our politics, especially our current administration. I hope that a growing number of Americans will see the stupidity and arrogance of this ad.
Has America lost its ability to judge anything critically anymore? I get so frustrated when people just take stuff like this as the gospel truth.
I feel like dragging this guy Stuart Shepard to Gwen Araujo’s grave in the middle of the night, and see whether he would repeat the same b**l. Then I would ask him, was this girl tortured and killed because of fast food miscommunication or lack of road ethics?
And then I will tell him, homosexuals DO get married and have a families. Asexuals… most do not. Why not pick on the ACTUAL and PERCEIVED sexual orientation without marriages and families instead!
The first part of the video with the road sign was mildly amusing, but in all it’s not difficult to spot the BS. After watching this I’m left with the message that these folks will ignore hate crimes in order to avoid what they really oppose: same-sex marriage. Such hardly seems in keeping with Christianity and their ignoring of similiar laws regarding race, national origin and religion reeks of hypocrisy. If they worked to have ALL such laws overturned and refrained from singling gays out, at least I could respect the consistency in their logic even if I may not agree with them. As it stands, I’m left insulted by their deliberately misleading and narrow-minded rhetoric.
He obviously missed what “actual or perceived” modified. Not the thoughts of the criminal, but the gender/sexual orientation of the victim.
Ironically, this would protect Randy Thomas and others, if they were beaten because someone perceived them as gay (whether they identify that way or not). There was an instance in Chicago several months ago where a straight man was beaten because he was perceived to be gay.
Heck, it would protect them on a religious basis–if they were accidentally perceived to be Christians.
The ending of the video, is astonishing. Interpreting same sex marriages as the end of marriage and family institution? How about doing something about the worldwide divorce rates? Divorces affect children more than having same sex parents!
I am getting to the pont where I don’t even like to tell people that I am a Christian because then people immediately assume I am closed minded. I joke that I don’t know what is worse, outing myself as gay or outing myself as a pastor.
Disgusting. Attention FOF: RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IS PROTECTED UNDER HATE CRIMES LAWS.
If we’re going to protest laws protecting people for their (changeable?) “behavior,” let’s abolish any laws protecting religious freedom. If a Christian is killed for proselytizing (excersizing Christian “behavior”), what’s the point of protecting him if his behavior can be changed? This is the argument FOF makes to homosexuals. I propose that same argument should be made for abolishing hate crimes laws that protect religious freedom.
There is a joke I heard sometime back: 2 reasons why a person is not a Christian –
The person has not met a Christian or
The person has ALREADY MET a Christian
I agree, Benton. I usually substitute that I am a follower of Christ, or a believer.
ck: They are protected as Christians. If someone beat up Stuart Shepherd because the person believes he is a christian, it would be investigated by the Feds as a hate crime.
Bet they neglect to tell anyone they already have “Special rights.”
Correct me if I am wrong. Most of us are commenting about Christian values vs fundies, but the funny thing about the video is, coming from FOTF; nothing said on the video had anything to do with Christianity, without any biblical terminologies or even the slightest mention of God. Had they become so deeply engrossed with earning a political mileage condoning hatred against us, they totally forgot about Christ, and His values?
This video is VILE! And it’s a bald faced LIE! Rev. Harry Jackson over at TownHall forwarded the Kool Aid to several other writers there who share this same sentiment.
The ways they misidentify what happened in Canada and Sweden is even MORE vile.
And the ring of selfishness is loud and clear.
The actual murders of gays and lesbians on the first degree level, far outweigh the conjecture or perceived persecution by the likes of Stuart Shepard.
I think what’s even worse, is they trivialize the motive behind this law with regard to gay people.
And it’s unforgivable that in the interests of their religious duty, they want to fuel the hater’s motives and actions, while at the same time, not be held accountable for it.
Yet, if the situation WERE reversed, we already know who’d cry foul the loudest.
They are already doing it, with no evidence whatsoever there is a vested interest in doing anything to compromise their free speech.
It does show you where THEIR sense of weight is.
To compromise the very life of gay people is ok.
To make the religious accountable for their speech, somehow I don’t think an inconvenience of not expressing yourself has any of the moral weight as brutally losing your life, whether you say anything at all.
Benton,
It could be a lot worse – you could BE outed as a closed-minded gay pastor. (Ted Haggarty comes to mind).
All jokes aside for a minute – I have to admit – I don’t go out of my way to make friends with someone I know is an active “church-going” Christian. I do automatically assume that they wouldn’t approve of me, and might even think I’m a little crazy. Maybe I’ve had too many experiences being harassed by them to want to get close enough to be bitten. A line from a movie I always remembered – “Even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked.” The people who make videos like that – using ugly misdirection and distorted logic – are the same people who would kick dogs… Or gays… Or homeless people. …If only no one would catch them doing it.
You and I actually share something though – disclosing our religion often gives people unpleasant preconceptions about us. I will do my best to correct their misconceptions if someone mentions them. Tell people where you stand and what you believe in – if they bring it up.
I’m straight – and Wiccan. A lot of the same people that attack us also attack gays. The lies they attack us all with are intended to create fear and hatred.
Sorry, too many ideas came to mind after this video, and your comment. And I had a long day with very little sleep last night…
It really makes me sick to see the arrogance portrayed in this little bad produced home video. I do however understand the fear of these anti-gay “Christian ..”Pro-family” organizations. They will be no longer be able spew a constant stream of hate speech towards gays and lesbians. I really hope sexual orientation will be included in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
I am not sure it will prevent that many hate crimes against gay and lesbians. But the signal value alone that we do not tolerate crimes committed against gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation is important.
You know, this broadcast is sad from all sides. There shouldnt have to be laws that protect people from having jobs. People should just be able to have jobs. The wierd thing is that truthfully we all want to be the victem at times.
It is a scary thought for me to face loosing out on a job just because i’m gay. Generally the christians i know say thats not what they mean. I think there should be a call for building more bridges between our two worlds. I realize it hurts a great deal. But were not really talking if both sides are in constant fear of what the other group is doing.
Let me know what you guys think.
Mike G.
I am surprised that at the extremely low quality of this FOTF production. I would think that they could produce something more sophisticated. Then again, maybe they just aren’t that talented in the attack video department.
From the video:
Isn’t “what they were thinking” (as far as intent/motive is concerned) the entire basis behind whether killing someone is manslaughter, negligent homocide, first, second, third degree murder?
In regard to hate crimes and the above examples of killing, is the principle the same when it comes to the need to determine motive/intent, or am I missing something?
And if I’m not missing something, wouldn’t that defeat the ‘a crime is a crime is a crime’ argument?
Emroph:
You are absolutely right about every point you make. To elaborate further: The job of the judge is exactly that – to judge. Lawyers present their arguments during the trial to a jury, and the judge decides – should one lawyer object – whether the argument or question as it stands can be presented to the jury. They also decide what evidence is relevent to a case, what testimony can be thrown out or included, and whether someone’s actions warrant punishment for being in contempt of court. It is not the judge’s concern what a person was thinking when they committed the crime: it is the lawyer’s perogative to present evidence proving it one way or the other – and the judge’s task is to make sure the evidence and testimony is presented fairly. However, whether the judge thinks a crime is a hate crime or not is irrelevent in some states, anyway:
In New Jersey’s case, it is the lawyer’s perogative – not the judge’s – to convince the jury of peers that the crime committed was a hate crime. Now, imagine THIS statement being made by FOTF:
Jurors and lawyers have enough work to do just figuring out who did what to whom, without having to figure out what “who” was thinking when they did “what” to “whom.”
Congratulations, FOTF, you’ve just succeeded in pushing back criminal justice 1,000 years.
If Focus on the Family REALLY believed their own words, or truly understood the issue of hate crimes and motive.
They wouldn’t keep running Mary Stachowitz into the mix over and over again. They couldn’t care less about the criteria regarding hate crimes, the USUAL victims of it and the origins and necessity of such legislation.
The Mary S. case was literally a SINGLE and very unusual case of a gay man murdering a Christian. That was literally a sort of coincidence.
SHE was the one that approached HIM. She had the option of keeping her distance and avoiding him.
Whereas hate crimes are specifically predatory in nature and often of the first degree.
However, the guarantee of justice for a gay person’s victimization has been much harder to attain based on social animus for the victim’s group.
Mary S. has a virtual guarantee of sympathy. As does a victim of any other forms of crime.
Hate crimes victims are typically ALSO (or WERE) hated by society at large, not just their attackers.
Making hate crimes a very serious category to consider.
But considering how flip and how Stuart trivializes the issue, my statement that the likely victims are hated by society at large…rings true.
I heard Bill O’Reilly supporting hate crimes this morning. I had to check my ears … but he was. It wasn’t in the context of sexual orientation – it was a hate crime against muslims – but he chastised conservatives for opposing them.
Odd world we live in
Thanks for the futher elaboration and insight Emily, I appreciate it. A stellar post.
I especially enjoyed your ending liners: