Home » Blogs »

March 15, 2012 Print

Who’s Using the ‘Hate’ Language?

by Candi Cushman

I found it fascinating to read the announcement yesterday that I had been included in a list of 36 dangerous radicals who should be banned from national television and print outlets. That’s definitely a first.

But rather than feeling the shame it was intended to create, I guess I’m feeling rather honored to be included alongside the likes of Focus on the Family President Jim Daly; Prison Fellowship’s Chuck Colson and the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler. All of whom are compassionate, biblically minded leaders who unabashedly proclaim the redemptive truth that we’ve all fallen short of God’s plan for humanity and that we are all equally in need of a Savior.

This blacklist was created by a group called GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. But after this action, I think it’s fair to say they appear to only be against certain types of “defamation.”

They’ve issued a blanket accusation against all of the leaders, researchers and spokespeople on their list, claiming “They represent nothing but extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.”  

GLAAD is calling its public enemy list the “Commentator Accountability Project”—meaning, when anyone on the bad list appears on television, radio or in print, GLAAD wants individuals to fill out an online report. Then GLAAD will use that information to pressure media outlets to exclude those individuals. In press releases and interviews, the organization says it aims to warn the media about the “extreme anti-LGBT rhetoric” of the spokespeople and the fact that they “aren’t experts.”

“Hate is not an expert opinion,” said GLAAD spokesperson Herndon Graddick. 

Yes, I agree.  “Hate” is wrong. So let’s talk about “hate,” “extreme rhetoric” and “animus.”  I submit for your review just a few of the comments we’ve received from those who disagree with our stance on marriage and sexuality. Normally, we wouldn’t subject our audience to this sort of language, and please consider this a warning, but I think it’s necessary to expose the irony here.

  • “You *expletive* tyrannical theocRAT heterosupremacist gay bashers. Take your gay-bashing, kill-the-Jews Bible, stick it down your Jesus koolaid drinking throat and choke on it.”
  • “YOUR *expletive* BIBLE IS ALL …HEARSAY”
  • “the bulk of bullying comes from what kids learn in Church about hating others…”
  • “You are murderers… You are evil, murderous sons and daughters of *expletive*”
  •  “Expect retribution on a biblical scale”

It’s worth noting that the first three comments listed were posted to the Day of Dialogue® Facebook page—which, keep in mind, has an audience comprised mostly of students, ages 13-17. What exactly was the purpose of those comments? To intimidate teens from sharing about Jesus with their friends? It’s also interesting to note that the only comments that ever mentioned “hate” on that student-oriented page appear to have come from adult, gay activists.

The others comments listed above are just a sampling of emails sent to the TrueTolerance.org site. The irony of sending insults and threats to a “true tolerance” outlet seems not to have occurred to the senders. That fact continues to astound me: That some of the most vitriolic messages we receive come from people claiming to protest  discrimination and bullying. Are they really so blind to their own double standard?

Often, these comments will blitz our sites after a homosexual activist group has posted an inflammatory call to action akin to what GLAAD issued yesterday. So I am concerned that the actions of GLAAD and other groups—endorsing a public effort to silence faith-based viewpoints and marginalizing individuals for daring to affirm a Biblical point of view—are also emboldening the people sending these kinds of vitriolic messages.

It begs the question: Is GLAAD also publicly opposed to “defamation” against individuals who simply want to express a Biblical viewpoint in a loving and respectful manner? Because that’s exactly the goal of thousands of students who participate in the Day of Dialogue—and who were the target of hateful messages listed above.

In fact, I invite our readers to review the DayofDialogue.com Web site for themselves. They will see no reference to “hate,” but can find several statements like these: “A Biblical perspective teaches us that every person was created in the image of God and has innate dignity and worth, no matter how they identify. That’s why we treat all people, even those with whom we might disagree, with kindness and compassion. And that’s why Christian students in particular should be the first to stand up for those around them being hurt or harmed. “

I’m also struck by the audacity of GLAAD’s statement that its goal is to educate media outlets that commentators who boldly express a Biblical worldview “do not accurately represent the ‘other side’ of those issues.”

Are they are claiming that they not only have the authority to determine which viewpoints are legitimate, but also to dictate that to national media outlets? I can only imagine the outcry if a group put together a list of homosexual activists who they deemed unworthy of media interviews. It would be immediate–and deafening. 

And indeed, such an action would be extremely wrong and shouldn’t happen–because it would represent an un-American form of blacklisting that is an affront to the principles we hold dear, including free speech, freedom of the press, open dialogue and the belief that all persons are created equal regardless of their viewpoint, religious affiliation or identity.

 So more than revealing anything about the spokespeople it’s targeting, GLAAD’s “project” reveals the intolerant mindset driving it: The belief that only one perspective—that which is completely aligned with homosexual activist groups—is legitimate, and that all others should be censored and eradicated from the public realm.

 



Print



Comments are closed.

NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by CitizenLink is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.