Oh-oh. The American Family Association is losing it….
The American Family Association, which holds that it supports “traditional values,” has been feuding with the liberal, diversity and civil rights-minded Southern Poverty Law Center, which designated it a “hate group.” In turn, the AFA has called the SPLC some other nasty things. They really don’t like each other.
Not liking an adversary group is hardly unusual, but detesting one so much that it robs you of whatever common sense, rationality and proportion you have is both self-destructive and unprofessional, and a clear sign that the group’s judgment is poisoned by emotion and non-ethical considerations. This is what the American Family Association is demonstrating now.
It is difficult to imagine a school program less sinister than “Mix It Up at Lunch Day.” One of the efforts sponsored by Teaching Tolerance, the October 30 nationwide effort has encouraged schools for eleven years to urge students to sit with kids they don’t normally eat lunch with, giving members of different groups and cliques an opportunity to branch out, and to get to know students who are different from themselves. The phenomenon of high school gradually sorting itself into exclusive groups of various levels of social status was neatly captured in “Mean Girls,” where the school’s lunch table cliques were divided into “freshmen, ROTC guys
preps, J.V. jocks, Asian nerds, Cool Asians, Varsity jocks, Unfriendly black hotties, Girls who eat their feelings, Girls who don’t eat anything, Desperate wannabes, Burnouts, Sexually active band geeks,” and, of course, the dreaded Plastics, the social queens, and the Outcasts. “Mix It Up at Lunch Day,” properly handled, is a splendid idea.
But, you see, it is the inspiration of the dreaded Southern Poverty Law Center, so the AFA has decided that it must be evil. Pointing out that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a “fanatical pro-homosexual group, ” the association is urging parents to block their children’s schools’ efforts to hold “Mix It Up” day, by complaining, protesting and, if necessary, keeping their children home.
The AFA tells parents and the news media:
“The Southern Poverty Law Center is using this project to bully-push its gay agenda, and at the same time, intimidate and silence students who have a Biblical view of homosexuality. It is a thinly veiled attempt to push the homosexual agenda into public schools. Groups like the SPLC are not interested in anti-bulling legislation unless it can be used to bully Christian students who have moral questions about homosexual behavior. This looks innocent on the surface. But it’s like Halloween candy that’s been poisoned. The wrapper is fine. The label is fine. But if it’s been poisoned, it’s not until you ingest it that you realize how toxic it is. That’s what this ‘Mix It Up’ day is like.”
The only feature this rant is missing is a mad, hysterical cackle at the end. Nevertheless, more than 200 schools that planned on participating have seen the “light,” and have cancelled this subversive attempt to get children to realize that people different from them aren’t monsters.
Hate, you see, is dangerous stuff. You can try to spread it to others, but eventually it does most of its damage to you. The American Family Association may not be a hate group in the usual sense of the term (though again, it may be), but it is certainly full of hate itself, and is a cautionary tale of what hate can do. So much does the AFA hate the Southern Poverty Law Center that its hate has driven the group quite literally mad. Learning to reach outside one’s group is a good thing…responsible, fair, respectful and kind, as well as quintessentially American. Thanks to a toxic level of hate (it never takes much), the American Family Association can no longer distinguish between right and wrong.
Pray for them.
_________________________________
Facts: New York Daily News
Graphic: Dangerous creation
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I think you confuse cause and effect.
They haven’t been driven mad out of hatred for the (flawed and biased IMHO) SPLC; the madness causes the hatred. The FRC sees “Gayism” as being a bigger threat to the US, Society, and all that is Good and Holy than anything else. Anything associated with it is irrevocably tainted.
They do have a point. GLBTI people suffer disproportionately from bullying; Right-wing Christian Dominionists are disproportionately represented amongst bullies; so any anti-bullying measure has disproportionate impact on the FRC’s base.
It’s very profitable madness though, revenue of the FRC was just shy of $18 million last year.
Where do you get the factoid that “right-wing dominionist Christians” are disproportionately represented amongst bullies?
I worked with students in several different high schools on both coasts, and I’d be surprised if that held up to any kind of objective analysis. In my experience, if you’re a gay teen (or one of the non-gay weird, ugly, fat, and/or awkward kids who make up the majority of bully victims anyway), the Bible-club crowd is the least of your problems, and more likely than not, an ally.
Are you saying the “the bible crowd” is the same as “right-wing dominionist Christians”? That’s insane.
I have two words for people who harbor a deep personal fear which turns to such an intense, overpowering hate: Reaction Formation
Isaac has it right, Sharon. Christians are the least likely people to exhibit the hate you refer to. You’re a lot more likely to find that among the minions of the Left, to whom “tolerance” is translated as a total capitulation to their agenda and “evil” being those who do not. It’s not hate to make moral objections to those who attempt to promote sexual deviancy to children as normalcy. It would be criminal, in fact, not to.
Of course, the hate that I’M referring to is the hate for the SPLC, not gays. This is pure nutsy-cuckoo paranoia that only comes out of mouth-foaming, red-vision, searing, unreasoning hatred. Whatever the SPLC’s other positions are, the claim that this innocuous program has anything to do with promoting a gay lifestyle is so attenuated and fanciful that it compels psychiatric intervention. I still can’t figure out what the theory is. The fact that the AFA isn’t embarrassed to be making such hysterical claims is itself proof of neural rot.
It’s a shame because they have conducted (or maybe just financed?) at least some good research on families in the past.
I suspect that the AFA is upset that the SPLC (itself pretty biased and partisan) is able to have the kind of clout to advance adorable programs in public schools. It’s like seeing the guy who pantsed you in the hallway at school being voted “nicest in class” by the teachers.
I still think it was a punk move for them to call the AFA a “hate group” but they’re on their way to embracing that label…
It’s a shame because they have conducted (or maybe just financed?) at least some good research on families in the past.
Really? They’re famous for their horribly biased studies.
I suspect that the AFA is upset that the SPLC (itself pretty biased and partisan) is able to have the kind of clout to advance adorable programs in public schools. It’s like seeing the guy who pantsed you in the hallway at school being voted “nicest in class” by the teachers.
You’re buying into the victimization thing. It’s really like seeing the guy that called you a bully while you were pantsing a guy in the hallway being voted “nicest in class”.
I find it rather interesting that you, of all people, are bashing “victimization”. Or is that only because you perceive it in Christians?
Another general attack without evidence.
Just by your own words, TGT.
I rest my case. (If that wasn’t clear, this is another general attack with no specifics or evidence.)
Blatherrrr…
SMP…I don’t disagree with Isaac. The hate that I am referring to is something I rarely see in school age kids. I think it takes time to fester. I do see this type of hate among individuals who call themselves Christians… as well as those who don’t.
Sharon: A lot of people call themselves Christians these days who aren’t. It’s not just Westboro “church”. The defining parameter is a commitment to the Gospels and the values they expouse.
Agreed.
That’s what YOU think christian means, but that’s not what’s generally held and it’s not traditional.
Well, if you just make stuff up, then anything is true.
You should know, Tiggy!
General attack without evidence.
Again, your own words are my guide, TGT.
Jack, are you mixing up the AFA with the FRC, at the end of your post? Egad, do BOTH of them have a hate-fest going with the SPLC?
I never saw Mean Girls, but I saw Revenge of the Nerds, ‘way back. I wish there had been Mix It Up days during my K-12 public school days. I might have benefitted from being at least a less misunderstood misanthrope.
Oh, and you’ve got FRC in the caption of the photo, too, but start off writing about the AFA. Again: one or the other? Or both?
Yup, thanks, I think I finally got it right. I wrote the whole thing using the FRC, even though it was AFA—I always get my Southern Poverty Law Center hate groups mixed up.
Let’s hear it for misanthropy!
You should see Mean Girls. It will remind you how talented and cute Lindsay Lohan once was, and what drugs and terrible parents can do. And the movie is terrific.
And (as I’ve often pointed out) Lindsey Lohan is by no means the worst example of this; merely the most publicized. Never saw “Mean Girls”, though. Little from Hollywood appeals to me these days.
Let’s examine that. Who? You really should see “Mean Girls.” Lohan is still a teen, self-assured, lovely, sexy, nuanced, with great presence in a good cast. She can sing; she shows comic chops. There was no impediment to her moving up the ranks over time and becoming a successful, even legendary actress. Now she is a wreck, her reputation ruined and her talents rotted away. She is still being exploited and misused by her horrible parents. She was destroyed by the party scene, enabling agents, family and media, and a complete lack of impulse control which obviously is a family tradition. Give me a worse case? Yes, she isn’t dead yet, like River Phoenix. But her lack of support and the Hollywood scene wrecked her career faster than in his case.
She’s the worst I can think of. “Mean Girls” is pretty good evidence of what might have been.
I agree fully, Jack. I’m just making the point that she’s hardly unique in this story. Nor is she the most viciously exploited actress during her minorcy. I still give that title to Dakota Fanning. The most that can be said for those ex-Disney kids (Lindsey, Britney, Vanessa, Miley, etc.) is that they weren’t pornified in their teens… much less their “tweens”. But what they all have in common is a flock of adult harpies herding them along into infamy and personal ruin for their own short term profit. And you can still find them flocking to the Roxy in Hollywood to party down, apparently oblivious to the fact that this is exactly where River Phoenix died.
Not unique, yes. Dakota was certainly pimped out at an earlier age, but she still has a career, certainly compared to Lindsay—she hasn’t been in jail, she’s not appearing in Playboy any time soon, and she doesn’t look 20 years older than she is. And she’s not a walking punchline. At least at this stage, Fanning isn’t a slow-moving car-crash.
Do see Means Girls.
Personally- from what I’ve seen- DF likely IS a “slow moving car crash”, in the personal sense. It’s just that her new agents at the Morris Agency have been better at insulating her decline than Osbrink was. She had enough sense to dump Osbrink a month before she came of age. It may have saved her Coogan account! She’s smarter and tougher than Lohan, but still very young to be handling what she does alone. God help her. Still, she’s fared better than I feared she would. The Disney Daughters all seem intent on public self-destruction as fast as possible.
I can’t see SMP liking Mean Girls. Well, maybe he’d like it like my grandfather liked Archie Bunker.
Too bad you inherited nothing of merit from your grandfather.
Seriously?
Archie rules!
You realize the joke was that he was an asshole bigot, right?
But a flamboyant one! You have no sense of humor at all, do you?
Jack, I took your advice and watched Mean Girls. Lindsay Lohan was cute in those days, but then I knew that, from having seen her in Freaky Friday. I don’t claim to judge talent well in actors. I owe it to myself to watch Mean Girls again – maybe several more times. That’s just me with movies in general (just like with much of what I read), but especially with movies about teens. I probably should have watched Mean Girls another time; I watched it on Netflix at home, less than an hour after watching Trouble With the Curve in a theater. (Eclectic??) I was too freshly impressed with Amy Adams’ work with Clint Eastwood to be very impressed with the actors in Mean Girls – although, I thought the dark-haired Plastic (Lacey Chabert as Gretchen) played a rather convincing teen psychotic – brought back some unpleasant memories. High school was a time of influences instrumental to my becoming a misanthrope. Somehow, I have convinced myself that by being a misanthrope, it’s easier to behave ethically.
Rachel McAdam stole the movie.
Jesus would eat lunch with a gay,fat,nerdy,ugly,pick-your-race,awkward girl/boy.
He could and would, Karla. But His purpose would be to turn that unfortunate person away from sin, not to condone it.
Aside from gay,which of the others are sin? Steven,many of us have encountered the snobby,vicious so -called Christians. I man told me he had to get permission from the church for me to attend since I was divorced. That same man demanded sex with me. I couldn’t send my son to a Christian school for the same reason. I could go on but the point is if I had based my views of Christianity solely on these incidents I would not be a Christian today. No,Jesus doesn’t condone anything outside of God’s will but he doesn’t throw people away either.
Oh boy. My comment got lost again! I was just pointing out that neither you or I would have characterized that man as a Christian. Nor does a school that labels itself “Christian” necessarily walk the walk. All too often, they don’t. The term is merely there for marketing purposes. Indeed, Jesus doesn’t “throw people away”. They have to do that to themselves.
I was just pointing out that neither you or I would have characterized that man as a Christian.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
Your favorite! I get to take a dink now. (And a text-book example, too!)
Nah. Strawmen and special pleadings get my goat more.
Yeah, but you LIKE calling “No true Scotsman.” I know I enjoy it when you do.
Interestingly, signature significance is where that fallacy stops. I can say “no ethical person would do that,” and if you said, “what about X? He did it,” I could answer, correctly, “Then by definition, he’s not an ethical person.”
Did Tiggy say “strawman” again? I’m thinking he must be the Ray Bolger of the blogosphere!
Nice attack on the AFA! That’s what you meant it as, right?
“Nice attack on the AFA! That’s what you meant it as, right?”
Me? Yes,and to show how un-Christlike they are being.
Calling a spade a spade does not necessarily make you “unChristlike”, Karla. It wasn’t long ago that one of SPLC’s adherents was narrowly deflected from shooting up their building. When organizations actually DO spew hatred for political gain, they need to be exposed.
The people calling a spade a spade here are the SPLC.
You know that one follower acted badly does not say anything about any given group, yet you use it to attack groups you don’t like. Bad SMP! Bad!
But that’s exactly what liberal vomit groups do every time they see a bad guy connected to a conservative organization or who can be in any way tied to one through distortions of the truth. It’s your established M.O.! With the AFA attack, the link was firm. Those Chick-Fil-A bags and 90 rounds of ammo had a starting point. And you try to deny this with another hackneyed moral relativity argument? Dumb, TGT! Dumb!
But that’s exactly what liberal vomit groups do every time they see a bad guy connected to a conservative organization or who can be in any way tied to one through distortions of the truth. It’s your established M.O.!
General accusation. Again. When did this occur?
With the AFA attack, the link was firm.
You already concluded that the attack on the AFA was bad due to the previous issues. You can’t use it as evidence for them. That’d be circular.
Those Chick-Fil-A bags and 90 rounds of ammo had a starting point.
No idea what you’re talking about here, but it again seems to be a general accusation of badness prior to anything occurring.
And you try to deny this with another hackneyed moral relativity argument? Dumb, TGT! Dumb!
I didn’t make a moral relativity argument. Can you please point out where I did?
When hasn’t that occurred, TGT? Gabrielle Giffords, the Aurora shootings and other recent events too numerous to mention. You know exactly what I mean. The AFA shooter was a regular subscriber the SPLC’s site, as well as being tied to homosexual activist groups… all virulently denouncing AFA as a “hate group”. The rest of your commentary is filler crap, quite frankly.
When hasn’t that occurred, TGT? Gabrielle Giffords, the Aurora shootings and other recent events too numerous to mention.
Where is the spewing of hatred by liberals in the Giffords or Aurora shootings issue? Also, you realize the Giffords shooting was nearly 2 years ago, right?
The AFA shooter was a regular subscriber the SPLC’s site, as well as being tied to homosexual activist groups… all virulently denouncing AFA as a “hate group”.
Again, the actions of one follower do not indict the groups that were followed. If we threw this rule out, Every major group in history would be horrible, and that includes too many Christian groups to count.
The rest of your commentary is filler crap, quite frankly.
Pointing out that your examples aren’t valid is not filler crap. Requesting that you show me which of my statements you think is a specific irrational argument is not filler.
I thought I was being generous in not calling your entire commentary that!
You thought you could respond to some of my points.
I respond to those that make a relevant point, TGT.
More evidence that you aren’t arguing in good faith. Asking for where I did things that you accuse me of doing is considered irrelevant.
I might just ask this of you, TGT. But I don’t. You’re entitled to your opinion based on the information and attitudes that you think are relevant. You also have the right to argue for or against mine. But I have that same right. Nor does the burden of “proof” automatically fall upon me. That’s just a bit arrogant of you, don’t you think?
When you accuse me of bad behavior, the burden is definitely on you to say where the bad behavior was. If I claim that you are ignoring valid points, then the burden of proof would be on me to show a valid point you dropped.
If I say “You’re dropping valid points”. If you didn’t see valid points you had dropped, then you could validly reply “Which points did I drop?” It would then be on me to point out the specific points that were dropped. In this little subthread, you said “The rest of your commentary is filler crap”. One piece of that commentary was my request for where I made a relativistic argument that you accused me of. I don’t see that I made that argument. Can you please point me to it?
“Bad behavior”? Did you roll a drunk on your way home from the Biden Rally?
“Calling a spade a spade does not necessarily make you “unChristlike”, Karla.”
I know,Steven. What I was referring to is people who will not associate with others whom they feel are more sinful or inferior in some way.
I understood, Karla. We always have the “holier than thou” types to deal with. When you’re dealing with elitist secular types, you expect this. When Christians do it, they need to be taken aside by their peers and be reminded of the sin of false pride AND that God, not they, is the center of the universe.
So, you’re going to have a little chat with the AFA for suggesting that it is bad to suggest that people talk across clicks?
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, TGT.
In this scenario, the FA are the “holier than thou” types who want to block the encouragement of association with others who they feel are sinful. They’re Christians, and you’re a Christian, so you, as a peer, should take them aside and remind them of the sin of the false pride.
That first assumes that I find them as you describe.
Are the AFA not trying to block Christians from mingling with the sinners? Isn’t that their state point?
error: state point => stated point
Is it?
Yes, it is. They claim that encouraging an intermix of students is tantamount to bullying Christians. There are no intermediary steps. Intermixing = bullying.
Do they?
I can only assume from your comments that you’re living in a secluded and carefully filtered corner of the world, Tiggy. We already know of your obsessive antagonism to all things Christian, so you can drop that one.
No evidence, just general accusations. Ho hum.
Just the same old empty litany. Yawwwwn.
So, you’re saying that “I can only assume from your comments that you’re living in a secluded and carefully filtered corner of the world, Tiggy.” is evidence and that “We already know of your obsessive antagonism to all things Christian, so you can drop that one.” is not a general accusation?
I guess that says it all. You don’t understand basic logic.
I understand deceit and false logic when I see it, Tiggy. Bulls**t, too.
What was deceit and false logic? Please point out where that occurred.
Moreover, you didn’t respond to my direct calling you out.
I refer you to my previous comment.
Ok, since you supposedly explained what was deceitful and false logic somewhere, can you please me to where you did that? I see only general accusations in this discussion thread.
My, we’re in an agitated mood tonight, aren’t we?
You’re getting seriously tedious, TGT. I’ve made my point well enough. I see no point in indulging you further.
Another example of your refusal to provide evidence. Excellent.
Another example of your attempting to divert the issue with stuff & nonsense. Depressing… but expected.
Asking for evidence is not diversion. It’s a direct frontal assault.
Which was pierced you center and is turning your flanks!
Um…I’m the one asking for evidence here.
Are you still on your “evidence” kick, TGT?!
That you think needing evidence for a position is “kick” says everything.
When the trial opens, I’ll endeavor to satisfy you!
Again, you suggest that evidence is only necessary when proving something in a court of law. More confirmation for my point.
No, for mine. Again, this is an opinion forum. I’m not required to provide you with laboriously gathered “evidence” upon demand for every opinion. I don’t demand this of others or of you. Sometimes your arrogance really gets the better of you.
And again, if you provide an opinion and don’t back it up with evidence, it’s worth exactly zero. You don’t have to provide evidence, but if you refuse, your opinion should properly be treated as complete junk.
In this case you accused me of deceit and false logic. It’s not exactly laborious to point out which part of my logic was false. It takes a quote and a sentence or two about the problem.
Oh, it’s QUOTES you want! Well, I’ve got a bunch of those on hand. Whose do you prefer? I even have one from Noam Chompsky on hand!
Now you’re just being an ass.
Typo: “Which HAS pierced…”. Getting late, I guess!