It's interesting that the FRC incident is causing a fair amount of introspection in the gay blogosphere. In the "Christian" blogosphere, not so much. Here are some of today's commentaries.
First, a very good post from Pam Spaulding on FRC's statement (which boils down to "It's all somebody else's fault") and SPLC's response -- because, of course, Tony Perkins blamed SPLC.
Sadly, Family Research Council’s honcho Tony Perkins took to the media today in an attempt to discredit the Southern Poverty Law Center’s accurate assessment of FRC as a hate group, charging that the organization gave shooter Floyd Corkins a license to shoot the security guard at its building in DC.
Isn't it sort of fascinating that the right insists that everyone else take responsibility for their rhetoric? Does anyone remember the rending of garments and the "mea culpas" from Perkins, or Bryan Fischer, or Peter LaBarbera, or Brian Brown, or any of them over the rash of teen suicides because of bullying over the past year or two? I thought not.
Digby, as usual, is very much on point on this one.
I left a rather lengthy comment on that one, which will serve as my commentary on that post.
A thoughtful commentary from Timothy Kincaid on words and consequences, although I think he's perhaps shouldering too much of the blame.
I know that most people who read here would never ever see anything that might cause them to think that violence towards Perkins, or any of our adversaries, is in anyway encouraged or acceptable. Most people know that “it goes without saying” that such a response would condemned without exception.
But for some people, it doesn’t go without saying. For some people, it has to be said. Some people have to be told that we will not see them as heroes if they take – or even threaten – the life of someone else.
Do I say it enough?
I left a comment there to the effect that we need to divorce the words from the people. Tony Perkins, in and of himself, is nothing. It's his words that are damaging and hateful, and that is what we need to respond to. In his case, it's easy -- just start hauling out facts. He has no answer for that, except to change the subject. Don't let him.
Shifting focus to NOM, for a moment -- you'll remember that Brian Brown was first out of the gate with accusations that the shooting was the fault of SPLC, "the left," and "the vast homosexual conspiracy" -- Joe Jervis has reposted Rob Tisinai's summary of some of NOM's "civilized" discourse. I like Joe's comment, though:
Regarding the first item, I was there in the Bronx that day last year when NOM's invited speaker declared that gay people should be put to death, first in Spanish, then in English via the onstage translator. When I heard the translation, I whipped my head around to see Brian Brown smiling and rocking his heels as he nodded in approval.
Jervis has another one, this time from conspiracy theorist Dana Loesch. This time, we're at war with religion, which is a concept that I find ludicrous in the extreme. It's really nothing more than pandering on Loesch's part, in a particularly cheap manner. (For my own part, I'm admittedly not terribly observant, but I am very devout -- I can honestly say that my religious beliefs form the basis of my behavior. I'm just not a "Christian" -- or even a Christian.)
At any rate, that's enough to give you the drift: Perkins is projecting like crazy because he sees a way to capitalize on an unfortunate incident, and like his comrades in the anti-gay industry, is demanding that someone else take responsibility for the climate he has created. It's his usual tactic -- blame somebody else. But he does get the quote of the day on this one:
Asked by reporters why he thought the shooter was motivated by his distate for the group rather than mental incapacity, Perkins quipped, “How many unhinged individuals walk around with 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches?”
I would think the answer to that one would be obvious.