RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/04/2014

Just when you think the Family Research Council can't get more deceptive...

by Jeremy Hooper

Check out this completely deceptive nonsense. In its writeup on the Firefox story, the Family Research Council (in words attributed to president Tony Perkins and "the aid of FRC senior writers) writes the following about the Mozilla situation, quoting progressive writer Michelle Goldberg to make a point:

With [Brendan] Eich, the pendulum has swung so far that activists may actually be alienating the base it claims to represent. "Call it left-wing anti-liberalism," writes the far-Left's Michelle Goldberg, "...At such times, old-fashioned liberal values like free speech and robust, open debate seem like tainted adjuncts of an oppressive system, and it's still possible for radicals to believe that the ideas suppressed as hateful won't be their own." [SOURCE: FRC]

Only problem? Goldberg's column doesn't have ONE THING TO DO with the Mozilla situation. Her piece is all about the #CancelColbert and related examples that pertain to progressives limiting expression in a way that Goldberg (and myself, on most of her points) sees as misguided, overcorrection, oversensitive, or some combination thereof. Her piece has nothing to do with political donations to a campaign that actually stripped people of civil rights, a company's right to decide what fits in their corporate culture, or a CEO's right to step down if he has become a distraction. She doesn't make one mention of Mozilla, and from what I can tell, hasn't mentioned it at all.

But does FRC even so much as make a note that they are applying her thoughts to a wholly unrelated situation? Of course not! They have a point to make and they want to make it look like they have support base that far exceeds their usual chorus. The answer: anti-intellectual appropriation a writer's thoughts.

Not that anything this reliably false-wtiness-bearing organization does should ever surprise me.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails