Blood on the hands of both sides in culture wars

Thank you, Family Research Council, for now conceding what conservative groups have been loath to acknowledge in recent years: the … Continued

Thank you, Family Research Council, for now conceding what conservative groups have been loath to acknowledge in recent years: the truth that incendiary rhetoric indeed does contribute to a climate conducive to politically motivated violence.

Never has the moment seemed more opportune to forge consensus around an overdue new rule in the culture wars. Starting now, can we all please watch our words?

Most likely, you’re aware of the incident that ignited this renewed debate about rhetoric and violence. On Aug. 15, a volunteer from a Washington, D.C., community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people walked into the headquarters of the Family Research Council, an influential conservative Christian organization, with a gun, a box of ammunition and a burning grudge against the group and its anti-gay politics and rhetoric, authorities said. The suspect, according to court documents, shot a security guard in the arm before he was subdued by that same guard and taken into custody.

Thank goodness no one was killed and that the security guard acted so heroically to prevent the incident from getting far worse. The group’s fiercest opponents in the ongoing national arguments — organizations representing ardent secularists and gay-rights advocates — were quick to condemn the shooting, and rightly so. Conservatives have likewise been clear, for the most part, in their denunciations of violence committed against liberal figures over the years.

Here’s where the plot gets thicker.

Since the shooting, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has been implicating the “reckless rhetoric” that gay-rights groups have been leveling against his organization in recent years, especially the charge that FRC is a hate group. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a widely respected civil rights group, made waves in 2010 when it issued a new list of gay-rights opponents that the center deemed “hate groups” — a list that includes FRC.

Perkins contends that the man charged in the shooting, Floyd Lee Corkins, “was given a license by … the Southern Poverty Law Center who … labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and we stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.”

Perkins’ charge is irritating for misstating the reason for FRC’s inclusion on the hate-group list. As the Southern Poverty Law Center stressed when it released the list and in the days after the recent shooting, spreading false propaganda about LGBT people is the reason for the hate-group label, not FRC’s stand against gay marriage or its defense of traditionalist views on families and faith. If you doubt the truth of that, consider the fact that the SPLC has notably left Focus on the Family off its hate-group list and credited the Colorado-based evangelical organization for moderating its tone even while continuing its strong stand for traditional marriage and Christianity.

Yet there’s something promising about Perkins’ statement: his overdue acknowledgment, unintended though it might be, of the role of rhetoric in political violence. This is something many conservative groups like his have disclaimed in the aftermath of shootings against liberal targets in recent years, from abortion provider George Tiller (fatal) to ex-congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (not fatal but career-ending).

In a revealing episode in 2009, when many liberals were implicating right-wing rhetoric in Tiller’s murder, Perkins rejected any relationship between language and violence. The FRC chief rushed to the defense of Fox News television host Bill O’Reilly, who was being widely accused of stoking the shooter’s rage by referring to Tiller as “Tiller the Baby Killer” and likening late-term abortions to the sinister practices of the Nazis.

O’Reilly, Perkins said at the time, was an “easy target for the liberal media who tried to pin some of the blame on O’Reilly, saying he incited the violence by decrying these unnecessary procedures on his show. “Despite the unfair allegations, O’Reilly spoke the truth, bringing new light to a gruesome procedure. On behalf of … millions of values voters, we want to express our gratitude to a culture warrior who uses his national platform to promote life.”

Given his statements since the FRC shooting, we can only assume that Perkins has now seen the light.

Is it fair and responsible to label FRC a hate group? Whichever side of the debate you take, realize the distinction the SPLC is making between the organizations on its anti-gay hate-groups list — groups shown to repeatedly scapegoat and slander homosexuals with malicious misinformation — and groups like Focus on the Family that have gotten out of the demonization game, and are nowhere to be found on the hate list.

Not all FRC critics, alas, are equally careful. Some gay-advocacy groups and secular-progressive culture warriors have been fast and loose with that “hate” label, indiscriminately attaching it to any traditionalist who has the temerity to voice the opinion that gay marriage is a bad idea. I disagree with that position, but I reject the notion that holding to it automatically constitutes hate.

Enough with pinning “hate group” on all conservative Christian organizations. Enough with likening abortion providers to Nazis and death merchants. Enough with campaign rhetoric such as Vice President Biden’s warning to an audience with a large black presence that the Republicans are bent on putting “y’all back in chains.” This “reckless rhetoric,” to use Perkins’ term, is not the cause of violence, but it certainly throws fuel on the fire.

Both sides in the culture war now have blood on their hands, and blood on their doorsteps. Take it from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council — hostile rhetoric does bear a share of the blame.

It’s time to check ourselves and start taking better care of the words we use for our political opponents.

(Tom Krattenmaker is a Portland, Oregon-based writer specializing in religion in public life and member of USA Today’s board of contributors. He is the author of the forthcoming book “The Evangelicals You Don’t Know.”)

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Religion News Service LLC.

  • WmarkW

    Thank you for a balanced piece.

    It’s true that conservatives use more violent metaphors than liberals do (“Kill them all, God will know which are his” or “Defend freedom, spay a liberal.’) But liberal’s rhetoric is full of accusations that their opponents are simply stupid. Believing that immigration causes unemployment cannot be called “ignorant,” nor is the belief that our debt is unsustainable and that programs like Medicare need to be cut.

  • SimonTemplar

    There is a lot of ugliness in current speech (including Twitter-like forums). Even Hollywood celebrities are participating (Ellen Barkin and Samuel L Jackson). I think labels like “hate” are more a means of trying to silence debate and dissent on a given topic. I think of it as a form of McCarthyism. Slap labels on people in order to categorize them and in order to marginalize them. The timid will retreat to avoid being labeled. But unless a person has a mental disorder which prohibits them understanding the laws of the land and what is and is not acceptable civilized behavior, most adults have the reasoning capacity to think for themselves and not be goaded into violence by some idiot with a loud mouth and a bullhorn.

Read More Articles

shutterstock_186364295
This God’s For You: Jesus and the Good News of Beer

How Jesus partied with a purpose.

egg.jpg
Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.

shutterstock_186566975
Hey Bart Ehrman, I’m Obsessed with Jesus, Too — But You’ve Got Him All Wrong

Why the debate over Jesus’ divinity matters.

SONY DSC
Dear Evangelicals, Please Reconsider Your Fight Against Gay Rights

A journalist and longtime observer of American religious culture offers some advice to his evangelical friends.

shutterstock_186090179
How Passover Makes the Impossible Possible

When we place ourselves within the story, we can imagine new realities.

shutterstock_186795503
The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

shutterstock_185995553
How to Debate Christians: Five Ways to Behave and Ten Questions to Answer

Advice for atheists taking on Christian critics.

HIFR
Heaven Hits the Big Screen

How “Heaven is for Real” went from being an unsellable idea to a bestselling book and the inspiration for a Hollywood movie.

This Passover, We’re Standing at an Unparted Red Sea

We need to ask ourselves: What will be the future of the State of Israel — and what will it require of us?

pews
Just As I Am

My childhood conversion to Christianity was only the first of many.

shutterstock_127731035 (1)
Are Single People the Lepers of Today’s Church?

In an age of rising singlehood, many churches are still focused on being family ministry centers.

2337221655_c1671d2e5e_b
Mysterious Tremors

People like me who have mystical experiences may be encountering some unknown Other. What can we learn about what that Other is?

bible
Five Bible Verses You Need to Stop Misusing

That verse you keep quoting? It may not mean what you think it means.

csl_wall_paper
What C.S. Lewis’ Marriage Can Tell Us About the Gay Marriage Controversy

Why “welcome and wanted” is a biblical response to gay and lesbian couples in evangelical churches.