Dispatches from the Creation Wars

I'm guessing Fuckos On Family will be less interested in making a follow-up if Mr. Tebow winds up going late in the draft.

Posted by: democommie | February 8, 2010 9:44 AM

Apparently the Powers That Be on the Internet (PTBoI) have decided that this guy's idiocy should only be shared amongst his fellow Americans, clearly because us 'foreigners' would criticise such a advertisement, (as opposed to 'real Americans' who would not).
This does not bode well for such an ad. - Dingo.

Posted by: DingoJack | February 8, 2010 9:58 AM

people around me immediately turned away from the TV and started talking about that previous ad when they saw a white backdrop with a woman talking patronizingly at them

Yeah, it was shocking how non-attention-getting they managed to make the ad. At the SB party I was at, a number of people (including myself) were waiting with baited breath to see the Tebow ad, mostly to see whether or not our righteous anger was justified :D Much to our chagrin, the ad was so unremarkable that we all missed it. "Oh, I think that was the abortion ad! Oh, it's over..."

Posted by: James Sweet | February 8, 2010 10:57 AM

I am not a FotF fan. But they sure outfoxed their detractors--using them provide the hype for their ad. It is not FotF that looks dumb for running a boring and somewhat cheesy add--it's FotF's opposition that looks like a bunch of chicken-little dimwits for screaming so loudly about an ad that was so non-controversial that without all their help I'm not sure anyone would have even recognized its message.

In short, they got a lot of anti-abortion publicity without being in-your-face. They outplayed their opposition--or rather they played their opposition to perfection.

Looking bad in comparison to FotF is not easy. But in this case it happened.

Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 11:30 AM

While I think heddle is way over the top in his description, I think there is an element of truth to his characterization in #8. If those of us who oppose FotF and their anti-choice message had just kept our mouths shut, all that would have happened would be that most people didn't even notice the stupid ad, and the small percentage of people who did would have just said, "Woah, what the hell was that? That was kinda fucked up." In retrospect, we did FotF a favor by loudly opposing the ad.

@Sadie Morrison: I realized you used plenty of qualifiers like "generally" and "judging by...that I've encountered", but I just want to volunteer myself as an example of a male American football fan (and white, and heterosexual, too!) who is unapologetically liberal, and although it's hard to offer evidence, I don't think of myself as leaning towards "a culture of male hegemony." So we're out there!

I think you have somewhat of a point, but I think the correlation has more to do with the fact that you basically described the (lack of) values of middle America. And for a number of reasons, football is enormously popular in middle America, while people in coastal/urban areas have more diverse interests (not like football is small business there, either, but it's not woven into the very fabric of life like it is in some places).

Posted by: James Sweet | February 8, 2010 11:56 AM

When did the Tebow ad run? I started watching the game a mere minute or two into the game and recorded it from there. I thought I caught all the commercials from there but never encountered it.

I thought it was a great game, that it was a weak year for ads in general, and while I'm a Who fan, I think it's time to rethink Superbowl entertainment when it comes to entertainers who made their mark 30 - 45 years ago, though the entertainment at the Grammies is the best rebuttal I can imagine of my argument here.

The grossest thing I saw during the whole Superbowl was Townsend's belly hanging out. The strangest thing I saw was the Colts kicker praising God for I assume the kickers' belief that God caused him to miss that field goal (I don't find praising or blaming God logical in any sense; especially for something one does out of free will, like kick the damn ball).

Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 12:15 PM

Michael Heath -- during the pregame show. It wasn't even on during the game.

Posted by: Chuck | February 8, 2010 12:57 PM

Michael Heath,

I believe it was in the first commercial break after the game started.

In the dumb and dumber category, NOW's Terry O'Neill stated:

I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.

This is presumably in reference to the simulation of Tebow tackling his mother.

If ever there was a time to shut-up instead of digging a deeper hole of teh Stupid--this would be the time.

Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 1:02 PM

Not to thread-jack, but Bacopa @ 17, no, it's actually a completely shit message. The ad attempted to seem pro-enviroment but actually was co-opting conservative histrionics about enviromentalism.

Posted by: Kyorosuke | February 8, 2010 2:14 PM

Sadie Morrison

It may well be gratuitous, and it certainly wasn't funny--not because it was offensive but because it simply wasn't humorous. But it was not a "celebration of violence against women." To use such hyperbole is, well, stupid. To use it after making so much noise over such an innocuous commercial is doubly stupid. To argue that CBS should be ashamed is triply stupid.

O'Neill had a chance to cut her losses--instead she doubled down and lost big.

Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 2:35 PM

I agree that NOW's ad, which I don't think ran anywhere locally or nationally, was absurd. More to the point, Planned Parenthood Federation of America responded very differently. When asked what PPFA thought of the ad, PPFA said

"Planned Parenthood respects the right of every woman to make important medical decisions for herself. Mrs. Tebow weighed medical and moral considerations and decided what was right for her. She made her choice in private, and without government interference. That's exactly what we want every woman to be able to do."

What wasn't included in the ad, and couldn't have been given the time constraints, was that in the Philippines at the time (and maybe even now) abortion was illegal, although given the advice of Mrs. Tebow's doctors, that illegality may have rarely been prosecuted, especially if one were an American.

So in the eyes of many, the ad emphasized the opposite of what FOF probably intended, that each woman should make her own decision about a pregnancy considering what's best for her and her family without government interference, the very opposite of FOF's position.

Posted by: Keanus | February 8, 2010 3:11 PM

democommie,

If CBS refused to run other ads for organizations with political agendas then they should be ashamed for their refusal. With the only caveat being that the ads were not tasteless. For example, had FotF tried to run an ad with pictures of aborted fetuses, or a video of a botched abortion, then CBS should have and no doubt would have refused.

What are the ads that CBS refused to run?

Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 3:40 PM

Collin @ 21 states:

It seems to me that the best possible response to the FOTF ad, even before anyone knew what was in it, was to thank FOTF for agreeing that women should have various options/choices when it came to childbirth. And that, hopefully, Mrs. Tebow made the best choice for herself and her family and that other women should have the same right to make the same, personal choices.

Collin makes an important point where once again the media fails us. Sarah Palin continually makes 'choose life' statements from a personal perspective, i.e., that she weighed her options, as did her daughter, and they both chose to not get abortions. However, the press* fails to ask the obvious follow-up, "Ms. Palin, it appears you are celebrating that you had a choice. Do you advocate denying that choice to other pregnant females? Do you advocate for laws prohibiting others the very choice you and and your daughter were not denied due to the Constitution prohibiting government power from prohibiting you the exercise of your individual rights in your's and your daughter's particular cases?"

*I realize that the press no longer has access to Ms. Palin. However they did have limited exposure multiple times when this came up. In addition Babrara Walters did have access recently during Ms. Palin's book promotion. This topic came up just as I framed it and Ms. Walters acted just like Sean Hannity would and lapped up her answer (IIRC).

Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 3:46 PM

I won't weigh in on whether the Green Police ad was refreshing satire or conservative histrionics. But did anyone notice the police anteater inspecting one of the cars stopped at the checkpoint?

I thought that was hilariously random! Nobody who sticks a anteater in their commercial for no apparent reason at all can be all bad.

Posted by: qetzal | February 8, 2010 4:40 PM

I hate all the hype and discussion about Super Bowl commercials. They all sucked, every last one of them, which I can say without hesitation despite having changed the channel every time a commercial came on.

Posted by: peter | February 8, 2010 5:03 PM

Michael Heath stated:

"However, the press* fails to ask the obvious follow-up, "Ms. Palin, it appears you are celebrating that you had a choice. Do you advocate denying that choice to other pregnant females? Do you advocate for laws prohibiting others the very choice you and and your daughter were not denied due to the Constitution prohibiting government power from prohibiting you the exercise of your individual rights in your's and your daughter's particular cases?""

I am probably pro-life(been evaluating where I stand the last few years and have aired that out on here before and do not want to repeat myself) but there is a lot of correctness in at the very least asking why the question is not asked. It is a fair one. It stopped and made me think. This is coming from someone who would probably disagree with you on the whole issue which strengthen's your point. Well put.

Posted by: King of Ireland | February 8, 2010 5:23 PM

Ed,

I'm surprised that Pat has penetrated your epidermis so deeply. The attention you've lavished on him probably exceeds by an order of magnitude that granted to him by anyone other than his mother or his sex offender treatment/parole officer.

Leave him as you found him, languishing in the obscurity and squalor of the basement of his long suffering parents.

Posted by: Lance | February 8, 2010 6:19 PM

Heddle-

but they have no reason to be ashamed for accepting the Tebow ad.

Other than the fact that Focus on the family (along with groups such as the Family Research Council), is a politically-active christian hate group.

But yeah, other than that...

Posted by: Rick R | February 8, 2010 6:50 PM

Rick R,

Other than the fact that Focus on the family (along with groups such as the Family Research Council), is a politically-active christian hate group.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Millions of Americas do not view FotF as a hate group. (I don't like them at all--but that's because I don't like para-church organizations in general, and especially political para-church organizations.) In a similar manner, many Americans admire Planned Parenthood, while many view them as aiding and abetting murder. One man's saint is another man's devil. Such is to be expected.

But both Planned Parenthood and FotF, beloved by some and viewed as murderers and a hate group by others, deserve the same considerations when it comes to advertising. And CBS has no reason to be ashamed for selling advertising to either.

This isn't very difficult.

Posted by: heddle | February 8, 2010 7:45 PM

Here in Bizarro World, being pro-life means you want everyone to have the choice, you just want everyone to know you think it's best to have the baby. You'd think there wouldn't be much controversy about abortion here in Bizarro World, what with pro-life and pro-choice being basically the exact same goddamn thing. Seriously folks, if you think someone has the right to make their own personal CHOICE in the matter, then you are pro-CHOICE. Not that hard to figure out (unless you're Palin).

Oh, and seriously, NOW is like the PETA of feminist organizations, i.e. taking a good idea and running with it to crazy town. If anyone needs a reason to believe the tired stereotype of the annoying humorless oversensitive feminist, they need look no further. It was a dumb ad for a dumb cause, but a fake tackling of an old woman in a commercial is not advertising for violence against women, it's called a joke. Is every ad featuring a woman doing laundry offensive too?

Posted by: Rob Monkey | February 8, 2010 7:54 PM

In a similar manner, many Americans admire Planned Parenthood, while many view them as aiding and abetting murder. One man's saint is another man's devil. Such is to be expected.

How postmodern of you.
I suppose that equivalence would work if PP was seeking the force of law to require women to have abortions whether they wanted them or not.
Focus on the Family actively works in the political sphere to influence government policy in order to curtail individual's rights to free access to safe abortion and birth control, and actively seeks to block equal rights for GLBT poeple. They do this by spreading lies and fomenting hatred. The result of their activities actively harms people who want no trek with their "values".

I stand by my definition- Focus on the Family is a hate group.

Get back to me when PP mobilizes an equivalent political assault on those who want nothing to do with their services.

Posted by: Rick R | February 8, 2010 9:37 PM

I don't think there's any doubt that FotF disseminates hate. Whether or not its members and supporters consider it hate is another matter. As Doug Little stated, most hateful people resist the label, but that doesn't make them any less hateful.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 8, 2010 10:10 PM

For fucks sake can't anybody spell PZ's last name correctly, it is Myers... MYERS.

No, no, Im pretty sure its spelled M-I-A-N-E-R-Z. Of course, Im sure you knew that and were misspelling it intentionally in accordance with a tradition that goes back over a decade to when PZ was a regular on TO.

Posted by: Dave | February 8, 2010 10:57 PM

Am I the only one who thought Tim Tebow looked a little gay in the commercial?

Posted by: wrpd | February 9, 2010 1:42 AM

@45

I don't think Heddle's statement about the gay dating ad was 100% opinion. He gives evidence that the ad was not seriously made and I think if there was more evidence (for instance the company admitting that it was just a stunt), we could all agree with Heddle on this matter.

Now Rick R.'s statement that FOTF is a hate group does seem more of what is commonly called opinion. Do you have evidence that they're hateful? You probably do have evidence that would convince yourself and like-minds. However others look at the evidence and would say it points to FOTF's loving beliefs in the sense that they want everyone to go to heaven etc.

Posted by: iblase | February 9, 2010 2:05 AM

RicR,

I doubt you have the ability to step back and see an equivalence, or to look at an argument from another perspective--but I'll try. It is true that FotF seek to change the laws providing access to abortion. But from their point of view abortion is murder. That is an arguable position, as seen from the fact that it has indeed proved difficult to define when life begins in any manner that achieves scientific consensus. Not to mention that almost everyone would agree that abortion at nine months minus one day is wrong (apart from very unusual circumstances) so then the question indeed becomes--well what about -2, then -3, etc. (From a pro abortion side you could work this the other direction, but the conclusion would be the same) The principle is thus established as reasonable--and the question becomes only where the threshold is set between conflicting moral positions:

1) There is, for some, an understandable moral outrage at the government violating civil liberties when it prevents access to abortion.

2) There is also, for some, an understandable moral outage at the government legalizing and funding what they view as murder.

This is especially hard for those--like me--this weird subgroup of Christian libertarians--who can appreciate the moral outrage from both camps. This is, rather obviously, a difficult problem with well-meaning people on both sides. You take the unintellectual route: demonize the opposition. That's your choice.

Doug Little,

So that somehow makes them not a hate group?! WTF Heddle, So the fact that the KKK has supporters doesn't make them a hate group either I guess.

Yeah that's my argument all right. Not a critical mass issue, not the fact that their anti-abortion is based on the arguable position that abortion is murder (as opposed to the unarguable position that blacks, Jews and Catholics are inferior and so deserve to suffer.) That was exactly the argument I made: that if even one person supports a group it is not a hate group. Brilliant of you to see that. And for doing it using the KKK, you have graduated summa cum laude from the democommie school of rhetoric. Congrats, the Harvard Debate Team has extended an invitation.

No my argument is this: Somewhere around half the country agrees with FotF. Therefore CBS is socially obligated, I believe, to take their money for tasteful advertising such as the Tebow commercial. (And obligated to run inoffensive ads from pro Gay marriage groups, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, etc.) And FotF in my opinion is not a hate group any more than NOW or PP, which from the point of view of just as many people who despise FotF policies (if not more) advocates murder is an "Infanticide Group".

Calling FotF a hate group cheapens the term--like calling Democrats socialists or communists, or calling Republicans fascists, or calling Planned Parenthood mass murderers, or likening any crime to the holocaust. There are real hate groups. like the Klan. But FotF, no matter how much you despise their policies and politics, isn't one of them.

Posted by: heddle | February 9, 2010 7:41 AM

Heddle, I wasn't talking about Fotf's stance on abortion. I was talking about their active campaigning against a the rights of a specific group ie gay people. This is exactly like the KKK which makes them a hate group.

Posted by: Doug Little | February 9, 2010 8:48 AM

heddle stated @ 52:

But from their [Focus on the Family] point of view abortion is murder. That is an arguable position, as seen from the fact that it has indeed proved difficult to define when life begins in any manner that achieves scientific consensus.

I don't think the "abortion is murder" position is even remotely arguable when presented as a blanket statement as we see here and how its almost always framed by the right - as a general statement regarding all abortion, with no distinctions being made. Certainly it's a popular talking point, but only a scintilla of scrutiny to that argument immediately begins to cause it to break down. In fact I find the Right's position on this an illuminating example of how fatally defective their critical thinking skills are.

I'm not stating there isn't a case to make regarding some restrictions and even prohibition of abortion rights. I am stating Focus on the Family and others on the Right with access to the media do not promote arguable positions and the arguments they do make are fatally defective. And I make this statement as someone stuck right in the middle of this debate, which seems to be a popular position for many Americans who find both extremes taking untenable positions.

Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 9:08 AM

Michael Heath,

I agree that you cannot make a blanket statement: "Abortion is murder." But on the other hand you cannot make a blanket statement that it is never murder.

That is, the statement "abortion is sometimes murder" and even "abortion is often murder" is arguable--and the contra positions "abortion is never murder" or "abortion is rarely murder" are also arguable.

If you are saying that the qualified statement "Abortion is sometimes (or even often) murder" is unarguable--then you are simply begging the question and declaring your position to be correct because it is correct.

Or I challenge you to prove abortion is never murder without somehow sneaking the conclusion into the argument.

Again, this addresses the weak question of whether the point is arguable, not whether it is correct.

Posted by: heddle | February 9, 2010 9:30 AM

Heddle -
Murder - Unlawfully and with malice aforethought taking the life of a human being, without mitigating circumstances.

a) Legally a foetus is not defined as a human being, therefore an abortion is not taking a human being's life.
b) If abortion is legal, performing an abortion cannot, by definition, be unlawful.
c) Can one hold a malicious attitude to a clump of cells? Would removing an intestinal polyp or a melanoma be equally 'malicious' in that case?
d) A woman can argue that they acted in reasonable self-defence, they were afraid for their lives and so on if the foetus can be shown to threaten their life.

Just a starter - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | February 9, 2010 9:43 AM

heddle - you really misrepresented by comments @ 56 which avoids my points and makes them strawmen.

heddle @ 58:

I agree that you cannot make a blanket statement: "Abortion is murder."

But that is exactly what the Right does and exactly what I pointed out @ 56 where I stated, "I don't think the "abortion is murder" position is even remotely arguable when presented as a blanket statement as we see here [your comment @ 52] and how it's almost always framed by the right - as a general statement regarding all abortion, with no distinctions being made. [emphasis here only] It is also exactly what you said was an arguable position re your comment I blockquoted @ 52, "But from their [Focus on the Family] point of view abortion is murder. That is an arguable position . . .

heddle @ 58:

But on the other hand you cannot make a blanket statement that it is never murder.

I didn't, not even remotely. In fact I concluded @ 56 noting that "both extremes [take] untenable positions.

To reiterate my point, anti-abortion rights advocates on the Right take inarguable positions when they claim "abortion is murder", contra to your claim that it is an arguable position. It is not, not even remotely. I understand you don't take that position, but that is the most popular position by nearly all elected conservative Republicans who describe themselves as "pro-life". In fact it was a factor in causing McCain to lose to Bush in SC's 2000 primary given Bush stood absolute and McCain took a nuanced position. McCain then reverted in the 2008 presidential campaign to the absolutist position to align himself with the conservative base's desire on this position from their leaders (though the base's individual positions are more liberal, which is a bit of a paradox).

I would love to see some nuance from the Right on this debate, but they do not take nuanced positions on this matter, which is my point. I don't think they take nuanced positions because they want to continue to claim that "life begins at conception" without having to respond to exactly what they mean by "life" or respond to all the absurd outcomes that would result by defending such a position (women dying or being maimed from problem pregnancies). This is another frustration I have with the media and I believe a primary reason this debate has made little progress; the lack of media scrutiny to this very untenable position. I think the media also fails to properly scrutinize the position that abortion rights should be absolute right through term, however that position has neither political power or many supporters so its effects on policy or outcomes is far less insidious.

Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 10:07 AM

Heddle -

"Abortion is murder" is rhetoric, not an arguable stance. It doesnt really matter if you try to restrict it to abortion is sometimes murder. Most Pro-Life orgs wish to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but even before Roe, while abortion was often criminalized, it was not criminalized as murder. (In fact, I am unaware of any point in history where it was criminalized as murder.) If we were to criminalize abortion as murder, we would then see most Hospitals prosecuted under RICO laws, we would be locking up women and doctors who attempted an abortion for 25 years each. Merely discussing having an abortion would be considered a class A felony. "Abortion is murder" may be good rhetoric, but as a position, it is an extremely radical one with very little support if the consequences are made clear.

Posted by: Dave | February 9, 2010 10:21 AM

As to the Tebow ad, I have not seen it either. But the accounts of it hardly seem to justify the hysterics it provoked from the pro-choice movement. I doubt it will either inspire an epiphany in the mind of any woman deliberating whether or not to terminate her fetus or even generate a new line of blue and orange WWTMD bracelets. It probably wasted FOTF money. But it was their money to waste.

Posted by: secular square | February 9, 2010 11:37 AM

Now Rick R.'s statement that FOTF is a hate group does seem more of what is commonly called opinion. Do you have evidence that they're hateful? You probably do have evidence that would convince yourself and like-minds. However others look at the evidence and would say it points to FOTF's loving beliefs in the sense that they want everyone to go to heaven etc.

They discriminate against large numbers of people for no rational reasons. They base their policy demands on personal attitudes and biases that they believe match the dictates of an ancient, irrelevant religious text. They seek to ruin lives and tear apart families just to satisfy their patriarchal desires. They can call this "love" to their hearts' content, but in the meantime I'm going to call a spade a spade: FotF is a hateful organization.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 9, 2010 11:51 AM

As to FOTF being a hate group, that is simply an ad hominem attack. First, no one has access to the private, subjective mental states of FOTF associates. So until someone clicks on the ABOUT US tab on their website and reads “We hate homosexuals,” such accusations are groundless other than the statistical probability that a “hater“ might exist among the membership, financial contributors, or readership of FOTF publications. Second, I assume FOTF presents arguments for their case. If so, then those should be engaged. (Unless they consist of one of those "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" pieces.) But unfortunately, the accusation of hate too often serves as the “argument” of first resort these days against those who offer contrary opinions on public policy regarding homosexuality, especially ones based upon religion. This is not to deny that “haters” exist in FOTF or anywhere else. My impression, though from the occasional "water cooler" banter at work is that the people who make obscene or pejorative comments about homosexuals exist in greater numbers among the non-religiouswho just see it as weird. This seems especially true among younger persons. When I taught high school government classes years ago and moderated discussions on political topics, homosexuality and rights sometimes came up. The Christian kids were pretty dispassionate about it. They usually offered up, “the Bible says, blah blah blah.” (Not much in the way of a positive contribution. If it really is God’s word to man, that sort of brings an end to the discussion and my classroom lesson plans). It was the non-religious kids--those heavy metal fans dressed in their denim jackets and black Guns and Roses or Judas Priest t-shirts intent on fucking as many persons of the opposite sex as possible-- who hissed “faggot” under their breath. But I can only imagine their surprise when Rob Halford came out . . .

Posted by: secular square | February 9, 2010 12:06 PM

Regarding hatred of homosexuals, I tend to agree with Sadie. People, especially Christians, can be quite squeamish about owning up to hatred. You have to read between the lines and examine actions to surmise the presence of hate. I see this every day in psychotherapy patients.

Not withstanding the disavowals, the more I see recommendations for hurtful, punitive policies regarding LGBT persons, the more I suspect the presence of hatred.

Posted by: Dr X | February 9, 2010 12:26 PM

First, no one has access to the private, subjective mental states of FOTF associates. So until someone clicks on the ABOUT US tab on their website and reads “We hate homosexuals,” such accusations are groundless other than the statistical probability that a “hater“ might exist among the membership, financial contributors, or readership of FOTF publications. Second, I assume FOTF presents arguments for their case. If so, then those should be engaged.

Are you at all familiar with hate groups? If we take white supremacist organizations as an example, it isn't hard to find examples of those who claim they don't hate other races. Often they couch their philosophical stance in terms of pride in their own race, and the defense of the same. It's pretty rare for a sophisticated, organized racist group to actually come out with a formal announcement on behalf of the entire organization that they hate such-and-such a group.

Furthermore such groups often do offer arguments for their positions. As with FotF, these arguments are generally founded on deep-seated stereotypes regarding minority groups.

Should we therefore not categorize them as hate groups? Does such categorization preclude engaging their arguments on their merits, such as they are? I think not.

Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 12:54 PM

@sadie et. al.-
I do not follow FOTF so I cannot comment on their activities of the years. I do agree with you that actions do partially reveal the contents of one’s mind. But all that one can incontrovertibly prove by following the actions of FOTF is that they supported what they supported and opposed what they opposed. Their policy positions reveal little about their motivation: whether it is hatred, reason, their belief in the bible as propositional truth, or something else. Maybe we differ on assessing the opinions of others. I try to engage opinions on the actual content and not on any speculation on my part about their psychological origins. The problem with reading between the lines is that one can fill in the empty spaces with anything one wants. Anyone can do it. Some Christians claim those of us who oppose prayer in public school or nativity scenes on public property hate Christians and/or Christianity. I can’t say I’ve seen any evidence that establishing a causal connection between FOTF and violence against “the other.” And does likening FOTF to hate groups like the KKK imply that the FBI should infiltrate the FOTF radio studio and publishing division?

Posted by: secular square | February 9, 2010 1:48 PM

heddle "Even though we think Dr. Tiller was committing murder in a moral sense (killing an innocent human) we did not celebrate his own murder."
Excuse me for a second, but Tiller performed late-term abortions for 1) the health of the woman and 2) "defective" fetuses that won't survive (those suffering from any number of genetic abnormalities and/or things like neural tube defects, which results in "no higher functions" but would, in a remarkable act of cruelty for most involved if this is in fact a God-planned/God-controlled universe, potentially continue to live for a while after birth). The first isn't murder, it's medically assisted self defense, and the second is cleaning up the kind of mess that's heartbreaking no matter whether it's done now or later.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 9, 2010 2:11 PM

heddle @ 77:

. . . as Christians we never call for someone's execution.

Sure you don't want to rephrase that? 81% of American conservatives support the death penalty for murder.

I bet I find can find ample examples of conservative Christians also calling for the execution of people without due process, e.g., "kill bin Laden".

Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 2:19 PM

Echoing Michael Heath (#80), the only way you can claim, Heddle, that Christians don't call for people's executions is if you pull the No True Scotsman card. You don't have the authority to claim that the millions of Christians over the centuries who have called for and instigated people's deaths weren't really Christians.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 9, 2010 2:48 PM

When the guy in the commercial said that he steals money from his parents to buy video games, he reminded me of notorious internet manchild Christian Weston Chandler.

Posted by: Insineratehymn | February 9, 2010 3:34 PM

But maybe you are right. Maybe FOTF is a nice hate group that does not commit murder and the KKK is a mean hate group that does.

Is violence a prerequisite of being a hate group? Because if that's your contention it isn't difficult to find white supremacist groups not explicitly linked to violence.

Of course, I meant school sponsored prayer and government sponsored nativity scenes. The point that apparently eluded you was that anyone can attribute hatred to anyone who expresses a contrary view.

I know that, but the point that apparently eluded you is that this doesn't mean that all such attributions are equally valid. We can and should judge their validity based on such things whether the group works for or against equality, and whether they incorporate harmful stereotypes into their arguments.

Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 4:21 PM

@DaveL-
You say, "We can and should judge their validity based on such things whether the group works for or against equality, and whether they incorporate harmful stereotypes into their arguments." That might be true if people actually present arguments like you are doing. But too often the accusation of hatred is not accompanies by any support. They are simply accusations, not arguments.

I agree that violence is not an essential characteristic of hate groups, Dave. It just seems a stretch to draw parallels between FOTF and the KKK and does not contribute significantly to your argument.
But neither is the exploitation of "harmful sterotypes" an essential charateristic of hate groups. I have seen representatives of a white supremacist hate groups on television use FBI crime statistics as justification for their opinions. Hate groups will use fact and fiction to support their views.
The essential characteristic of hate groups is hate. I guess we disagree about how to discern it.
Thank you for your thoughtful exchanges. I have felt a little awkward defending an organization most of whose policies I do not share, but I must go. Because it is my day off, it is my afternoon task to start supper before my wife arrives home. I check for a reply later this evening.

Posted by: secular square | February 9, 2010 5:17 PM

I have seen representatives of a white supremacist hate groups on television use FBI crime statistics as justification for their opinions. Hate groups will use fact and fiction to support their views.

You are assuming one cannot use statistics, even 'official' statistics to promote harmful stereotypes. I've seen those statistics myself and every time they come up I'm struck that nobody ever seems to use them to argue that men (who also have a much higher rate of violent criminality than the rest of the population) are inherently inferior*. The data may be accurate, but their bias is betrayed in the selective way they present it and especially in how they draw conclusions from it.

*If anybody knows of any FBI statistics on violent crime rates for members of white supremacist organizations vs. non-members, send them my way. I'm sure they'd be instructive.

Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 5:30 PM