Showing posts with label American Family Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Family Association. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Boy Scouts Will Now Accept Transgender Boys; Religious Right Fumes




Monday brought good news to transgender children across the U.S. The New York Times reports that on January 30th, the Boy Scouts of America announced that it would accept members based on the gender stated on their applications, rather than the sex listed on their birth certificates. The decision comes after the Boy Scouts ended its ban on gay youth in 2013 and its ban on gay leaders in 2015.

LGBTQ equality advocates at the Human Rights Campaign and Scouts for Equality were pleased with the decision. Naturally, transphobic voices from the Religious Right were disgusted.

Writing at Fox News, Todd Starnes claimed that the Boy Scouts caved into "militant social justice warriors" and "sacrificed its last vestige of integrity on the altar of political correctness". Starnes called for churches and parents to abandon the Boy Scouts in favor of Trail Life USA.

Russell Moore, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told the Baptist Press that the decision confirmed his fears of "an organizational reinvention". According to Moore, the Christian church "must be absolutely clear about God's good and beautiful design for men and women, even when our most cherished public institutions fail to do so," lamenting that, "Tragically, the Boy Scouts seem to be continuing their trajectory toward embracing the moral priorities of the Sexual Revolution."

Denny Burk, a professor at Boyce College (affiliated with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) with a history of transphobia, was also unhappy. In a January 30th blog post, he expressed disappointment that the Boy Scouts "succumbed to pressure" and chose to "capitulate" on the issue of transgender scouts. Burk called the decision a "concession to radical gender ideology" that will fail to help children.
"When a child embraces a psychological identity at odds with his bodily identity, this is not healthy or good for that child. And it only adds insult to injury for adults to accommodate this harmful self-impression. But that is what this new policy does.

I can’t help but grieve that the Boy Scouts are going along with this radical redefinition of what it means to be a boy. They are making a big mistake in this, and it will be one that hurts not only their organization but also the very boys they wish to serve."
Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, told the Christian Post that the decision marks "the end of the Boy Scouts of America as we know it." Wildmon predicted a "demise" of the Boy Scouts, accusing their policy of being "incompatible with scripture" and "teaching gender confusion" to children.

As with every other advance made by the LGBTQ community, the Religious Right is horrified that transgender boys can now join the Boy Scouts like normal children. As more people and institutions refuge to stigmatize transgender persons, the Religious Right will grow frustrated and baffled. In the meantime, transgender boys can now enjoy the Boy Scout's camaraderie and learning experiences while being true to themselves.


Sunday, May 1, 2016

Target Bathroom Hysteria Reaches a Fevered Pitch

The recent wave of transphobic bathroom bills, such as House Bill 2 in North Carolina, has prompted a national retailer to institute a transgender-friendly restroom policy. On April 19th, Target posted a press release supporting the federal Equality Act and welcoming transgender visitors to use its restrooms and dressing rooms. "[W]e welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity," the press release stated.

The Religious Right quickly threw a tantrum over Target's decision. The American Family Association (AFA) announced a boycott of Target later that week, demanding that Target should uphold separate restrooms for men and women and a single occupancy unisex restroom for transgender. The AFA's boycott statement shamelessly pandered to their supporters' fear by claiming that Target's bathroom policy "poses a danger to wives and daughters" and is "exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims".

I doubt that the AFA has enough critical mass behind its boycott to weaken Target's bottom line. However, I'm alarmed at how the AFA and other Religious Right figures are demonizing transgender persons as supposed sexual predators. By depicting transgender persons as predatory monsters, the Religious Right dehumanizes the transgender community.

First, according to Right Wing Watch, anti-LGBTQ activist Dave Daubenmire protested Target's restroom policy at a Target store in Heath, Ohio on April 26th. In a video of his protest, a Target employee asked Daubenmire to leave after he stood in the store with a sign that read, "Caution: Men may be in women's restroom!" He insisted that he was merely protecting female shoppers. "There's no warning that a man could walk in that restroom. There's no warning at all," Daubenmire told the employee. "I just feel that I have a moral obligation to warn women. That's what my sign says, that a woman could be in danger in the restroom if a man could come in." In another video, police ask Daubenmire to leave the property.




Christian radio host Rick Wiles was particularly disgusting in his assessment of Target's restroom policy. During the April 25th edition of Trunews, Wiles joked about relieving himself on Target's floor, claiming that the company was soiling America. At the 24:44 mark of the show, he had this to say to Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder. (Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.)
"How about if I just urinate on your floor? How about that, Molly? Because you’re defecating on this nation."
Stay classy, Rick.

At the 13:14 mark, Wiles denounced transgender rights advances as symptoms of "sickness" and "moral depravity" in American society. He urged listeners against being passive while "toilet rights" advance.
"One of the biggest retailers in America, and it is going all-out to promote the LGBT radical militant toilet rights campaign. This is how far we've gone down the path of sickness. The biggest issue politically now in America is toilet rights. How sick can a society become when people are demanding toilet rights? It's an indication of the moral depravity of the United States of America ...

People are going to have to make a decision right now. Are you going to put up with it? Are you just going to sit there and do nothing, twiddle your thumbs and just say, 'oh, it's terrible, it's terrible', or are you going to do something about it? You better do something about it, because they're not going to stop at toilet rights."
At the 18:40 mark, Wiles inflamed his audience's fears with lurid warnings about transgender predators staring at them or worse in Target restrooms.
"Guys, it means a transvestite may be staring at you the next time you're standing at a urinal in a Target restroom. Think about that. Get that uncomfortable feeling. Ladies, it means that if a man decides he feels like being a woman today, he has the right to enter a women's restroom in any Target store. Moms and dads, it means that Target stores management is more concerned about the rights of sexual deviants and perverts than your sons and daughters. Would you allow your ten year old daughter or granddaughter to enter a Target restroom knowing that men could follow her into it?"
Alarmingly, some transphobic figures are using violent language when discussing transgender people in restrooms. Tracy Murphree, a Republican candidate for the Denton County Sheriff seat in Texas, wrote a hateful message about transgender women on his Facebook page, according to the Dallas Observer. "If my little girl is in a public restroom and a man, regardless of how he may identify, goes into that bathroom, he will then identify as John Doe until he wakes up in whatever hospital he may be taken to. Your identity does not trump my little girl’s safety," Murphree reportedly wrote.

Equality Texas, an LGBTQ rights organization, condemned Murphree's transphobic post. When Equality Texas reached out to Murphree, communications with Murphree's office were "abruptly cancelled".

Murphree is not the only person using inflammatory language. Liberty Counsel president Anita Staver (wife of Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver) created controversy when she vowed to bring a gun with her into restrooms. On April 22nd, she posted a Tweet stating, "I'm taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard. #BoycottTarget" If she does so at Target, she will run afoul of Target's ban on firearms in its stores.




The Religious Right is so desperate to undermine LGBTQ equality that it is not only endorsing homophobic and transphobic legislation, but promoting vile myths about LGBTQ persons. This violent, dehumanizing language against transgender persons is dangerous. Will transphobic hate crimes increase in the wake of these vicious statements? Will someone kill a transgender person in a public restroom out of paranoid, unwarranted fear? The Religious Right is playing a dangerous game by pandering to its followers' fear and hatred.



Sunday, September 20, 2015

"Religious Freedom" Will Be the Talk of the Town at the 2015 Values Voters Summit



One of America's premier Religious Right events is the annual Values Voters Summit, a high-profile conference held in Washington D.C. I've observed past Values Voters Summits, and they provide a great opportunity to take the pulse of the Religious Right and watch Republican candidates woo conservative Christian voters. The annual conference is sponsored by Family Research Council Action, American Family Association Action, American Values, and other prominent Religious Right organizations. The 2015 Values Voters Summit will take place on September 25-27 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C.

"Religious liberty" (that is, the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people while hiding behind religion) will be a prominent theme at this year's Values Voters Summit, judging from the schedule. The conference's narrative, it seems, is that homophobes are persecuted people of faith under fire from the sinister LGBTQ community.

For example, a ticketed breakfast event will include a talk entitled "Whatever the Cost: Religious Freedom Under Fire", delivered by the Benham brothers and Kelvin Cochran. Jason and David Benham are Religious Right darlings who lost a lucrative reality show deal with HGTV over David's anti-gay comments, while Kelvin Cochran is Atlanta's former fire chief who was dismissed after distributing an anti-gay book in his workplace.

A ticketed luncheon will feature a talk entitled "American Cannot Wait", which will focus on a florist who refused to furnish flowers for a same-sex wedding.
"Barronelle Stutzman is the florist in Washington state who politely, but firmly, declined to provide flowers for a wedding between two homosexual men. Her refusal to betray her Lord and her biblical beliefs didn’t come without consequences. The Washington state attorney general and the ACLU filed lawsuits against Mrs. Stutzman.  The judge told the state AG and the homosexuals who filed the lawsuits that they could collect damages and attorney’s fees not only from Stutzman’s business – Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts – but from Stutzman personally. If they prevail, this means they can take everything she owns – her business, home, savings … everything. When the AG approached the 70-year old grandmother with a plea deal – pay a $2,000 penalty, a $1 payment for court costs and fees, and agree not to discriminate in the future – Mrs. Stutzman said: “NO!” Rather, she chose to fight for you and me and everyone who values religious freedom."
Another ticketed breakfast will feature Liberty Institute president Kelly Shackelford delivering a talk entitled "Saving Religious Freedom in Our Military...And Beyond". Shackelford's speech will argue that military personnel are being stripped of their religious liberty by "politically correct officials and activists" in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges.
"A war is raging inside our military. The men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom are losing their religious freedom to politically correct officials and activists. If we lose religious liberty in the military, how can it survive elsewhere? Join Liberty Institute president Kelly Shackelford, along with our lawyers and clients, as we discuss current battles and celebrate recent victories for religious freedom in our armed forces, as well as in our schools, churches, ministries, workplaces and throughout our nation. Come hear our clients tell their inspiring real-life stories ... and get equipped to stand for your religious freedom in light of the continuing fallout from the Supreme Court marriage decision."
The Value Voters Summit will fĂȘte several high-profile figures who discriminated against LGBTQ persons, glorifying them as defenders of religious liberty. Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, will receive the Cost of Discipleship Award on the evening of September 25th. Also scheduled to speak at the award ceremony are Aaron and Melissa Klein (bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple) and Casey Davis (another Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples).

"Religious freedom" was a recurring topic on the list of breakout sessions as well. Session titles suggest that conservative Christians have been silenced and legally hounded.
  • The Silencing of Free Speech for Christians in the Media and in Education

  • Are You Ready for the Coming Legal Attack? Is Your Church? Learn How to Be Prepared?

  • The Battlefront in Our Backyards: What Everyday Americans Can Do to Bring Positive Change
The Values Voters Summit is, above all, a political event, and this year's summit will include speeches by multiple Republican candidates. Workshops promoting a persecution narrative alongside political candidate speeches are no accident. I expect the conference's talk of alleged threats to "religious liberty" to energize attendees into voting for right-wing Republican candidates. Illusions of persecution are useful for arousing voters' anger and fear, two emotions that the Religious Right will make good use of as the 2016 election approaches.


Sunday, March 1, 2015

Making a "U-Turn" in Pennsylvania

On March 19th, the Pennsylvania Pastors Network will host U-Turn: A Conversation with Pastors on Society, Culture and Leadership at Lancaster Bible College in Lancaster, PA. "It’s time for a course correction in America," the conference website argues, "and our success hinges on re-embracing the proven roadmap that the Bible provides." According to the event website, the conference has several goals for the day.
  • Identify the Biblical model for triggering a U-turn in a society.
  • Explore the top cultural issues that will confront your church in the next 5 years.
  • Learn how pastors can be empowered to speak on political issues without politicizing their pulpits.
  • Learn how prayer effectively lays the foundation for spiritual renewal in our nation.
Among U-Turn's scheduled speakers are David Barton (founder and president of Wallbuilders and the author of several Religious Right "history" books), George Barna (founder of the Barna Group), Jeff Mateer (general counsel of the Liberty Institute), and Sandy Rios (director of governmental affairs for the American Family Association and host of the Sandy Rios in the Morning radio show). Former governor Mike Huckabee was scheduled to speak at the event, but his name no longer appears on the conference website or promotional materials.

The Pennsylvania Pastors Network website had much to say about the relationship between religion and government when announcing U-Turn. "Today’s society works hard to separate faith and government, but the Pennsylvania Pastors Network ... believes exactly the opposite should be true," the website states.
"PPN believes that those in the pulpit are "Ministers of God," called by Him to preach the Word and speak truth in the public square. Likewise, those elected to office are not just "politicians" but occupy an equally ordained position as "Ministers of God," with the clear job description of servants of God and God’s servants to the people ... The powerful one-day "U-Turn" conference is open to pastors, leaders and laypeople and is specifically designed to answer questions about society, culture and leadership, with a focus on how cultural trends can be strategically impacted with the truths of God’s Word."

American Pastors Network president Sam Rohrer told OneNewsNow that "the pulpits of America have been silent for far too long" and that "Christian people have felt that being involved in matters of culture can be left to somebody else". Because of this alleged Christian apathy, "evil is advancing in this land", a situation that the U-Turn conference hopes to address.

U-Turn seems intended to encourage conservative religious leaders to talk about political and social issues from the pulpit. This puzzles me, since American religious leaders have been anything but quiet on these issues. Conservative pastors and priests have never been timid about discussing abortion, same-sex marriage, or legislation from the pulpit. As initiatives such as Pulpit Freedom Sunday demonstrate, some members of the clergy have no qualms about endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, in violation of IRS policy. In light of America's extremely vocal conservative clergy, Rohrer's assertions about passive, quiet churches ring hollow. Perhaps his words are another example of Religious Right victim-rhetoric, which depicts the Christian Right as a silenced, shoved-aside victim that must assert itself now that "evil is advancing in this land".

I expect that U-Turn will encourage religious leaders to continue speaking out from the pulpit on political and social issues. What remains to be seen, however, is where church-state separation and IRS policy will fit into U-Turn's conversation. I plan to attend U-Turn, and I'm eager to learn what speakers will have to say.


Tuesday, February 24, 2015

The American Family Association Debuts Its Ridiculous "Bigotry Map"



When the American Family Association stripped Bryan Fischer of his titles last month, I wondered if the organization planned to soften its right-wing stance. Not by a long shot!

This week, the right-wing American Family Association debuted its "Bigotry Map", intended to expose "anti-Christian bigotry in America". The map, reminiscent of the Southern Poverty Law Center's map of active U.S. hate groups, pinpoints LGBTQ, atheist, and humanist groups in the U.S. that allegedly practice anti-Christian bigotry.
"The American Family Association has identified groups and organizations that openly display bigotry toward the Christian faith.

These groups are deeply intolerant towards the Christian religion. Their objectives are to silence Christians and to remove all public displays of Christian heritage and faith in America."
The AFA's propaganda is beyond ridiculous. For example, it describes LGBTQ groups on the map as advocating for the "legalization and promotion of same-sex marriage and viciously attacks Christians who exercise their First Amendment right to voice support for God’s plan for marriage as between one man and one woman." For some reason, the AARP appears on the map as an LGBTQ group.

The map describes atheist and humanist groups with equally vitriolic language. Alleged "anti-Christian" groups, such as chapters of the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, are smeared as allegedly engaging in "the  complete eradication of the Christian faith from society, government and private commerce." AFA accuses such groups of "fil[ing] lawsuits and use intimidation to silence any reference to Christianity from the public square."

The AFA reserved special ire for GLSEN, Human Rights Campaign, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. For example, the map describes GLSEN as a sinister group that "infiltrates public schools with pro-homosexual indoctrination tactics, confusing many young people and misleading them into making dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle choices that will negatively affect their entire lives." Human Rights Campaign allegedly bullies corporations until they "embrace sexual perversion", while the Southern Poverty Law Center "falsely disseminates this information to liberal news media."

The map appears to be poorly researched, as several LGBTQ and church-state separation groups are missing. I was disappointed when I discovered that LGBTQ and humanist groups in my region were absent from the map. To boot, Human Rights Campaign claims that the map shows several offices that do not exist.

AFA's "Bigotry Map" is absurd for several reasons. First, none of these groups are persecuting Christians. None of the listed groups seek to harm or deny rights to Christians in any way. Contrary to Religious Right whining, upholding the rights of LGBTQ people, atheists, and humanists does not impinge on Christians in any way.

Second, the map demonizes civil rights groups that defend vulnerable populations. The Southern Poverty Law Center is steadfast in its condemnation of racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and violent extremist groups. Human Rights Campaign and GLSEN have spoken out against the actual oppression of LGBTQ people. Freedom From Religious Foundation respects church-state separation, a founding principle of the U.S. None of these groups resemble the AFA's hateful caricatures.

Let's be frank. None of this is about Christian "persecution". The "Bigotry Map" is another example of the Religious Right raging at anyone who questions its agenda, denies special privileges to right-wing Christians, or speaks out against intolerance. The outrageous reversals and victim rhetoric of the map are indicative of the Religious Right's persecution complex, but they do not reflect reality.


To read additional commentary, visit the following links.

Human Rights Campaign: American Family Association’s “Bigotry Map” Misses the Mark, Big Time

Friendly Atheist: American Family Association Creates “Bigotry Map” Featuring Dozens of Atheist, Humanist, and Pro-LGBT-Rights Groups

Right Wing Watch: The AFA Strikes Back With Its Own Anti-Christian 'Bigotry Map'

Good As You: The AFA's 'Anti-Christian Bigotry Map' Is the Most Unintentionally Hilarious Thing You'll See Today



Sunday, February 15, 2015

Commentary Tidbits

The Immanent Frame: Keeping sex sexy: American evangelicalism and the problem of sexuality

People for the American Way: Religious Liberty: Shield or Sword?

Pew Research Center: On Darwin Day, 5 facts about the evolution debate

Slate: Trouble in Creationist Paradise

On Faith: Hey Biblical Literalists, Stop Disparaging Darwin

Slaktivist: American Family Association ‘repudiates’ what it’s been saying for years (and what it’s still saying)

Religion News Service: Christian schools scapegoat LGBT youth and it’s time it stops

Think Progress: San Francisco’s New Version Of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

The Independent: Meet Stephen Green, the right-wing Christian Voice leader who went on a homophobic tirade against Stephen Fry and Benedict Cumberbatch


"Fifty Shades of Grey" and Religious Right Hypocrisy

The release of the Fifty Shade of Grey film, based on the erotic novel by E.L. James, has generated controversy and protests over the film's BDSM content and its depiction of an unhealthy relationship. Twitter hashtag campaigns such as #50ShadesIsAbuse and #50dollarsNot50Shades urge movie-goers to donate money to domestic violence shelters instead of seeing the film. Anti-violence activists have called for a boycott of the film, arguing that Fifty Shades of Grey glorifies domestic violence.  For example, Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlewaite argues that eroticized violence such as that depicted in Fifty Shades of Grey is symptomatic of a larger social pathology.
"Eroticized violence in fiction, whether in films or novels, is treacherous because it promotes the idea that women desire to be treated violently. Violence against women then becomes part of the very construction of the nature of love and desire in societies, orchestrating the eroticizing of bodily pain itself and deadening the impulses to compassion and empathy."
I'm pleased that the film is encouraging public discussion about domestic violence. We need to call out the entertainment industry when it sugar-coats unhealthy relationships. We need to ask the hard questions about BDSM. We need to ask ourselves how societal forces shape our sexuality, and what healthy, consensual sexuality looks like.

However, conservative religious leaders have condemned the film as well, using its release as an opportunity to speak out against gender-based violence. Given the Religious Right's poor track record on violence against women, I found these commentary pieces highly ironic.

First, in a February 9th press release, the American Family Association accused the film of glamorizing abuse. AFA president Tim Wildmon observed that the main character's relationship features many red flags for abuse. (Hat tip to Progressive Secular Humanist.)
"...the film glorifies abusive relationships and glamorizes abusive tendencies such as stalking, bondage sex, intimidation and isolation. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control’s standards of emotional abuse and sexual violence include nearly every one of the interactions between the two main characters. Both movie theaters and moviegoers can stand up to this kind of disgusting content that’s touted as ‘entertainment’ and choose not to show or pay to see the film."
Lisa Anderson, Director of Young Adults for Focus on the Family, slammed the film for denigrating women. "Enough with the exploitation, enough with the degradation of women, I mean here we are in outcry in all other times to say women should be honored and respected and treated as equals," she told KOAA 5.

Catholic leaders have warned against watching the film as well. In a February 10th Facebook post, Cincinnati Archbishop Dennis Schnurr called the film "a direct assault on Christian marriage". (Hat tip to the Cincinnati Enquirer.)
"The movie, Fifty Shades of Grey, is scheduled to debut in theaters across America on February 13, 2015. The story line is presented as a romance; however, the underlying theme is that bondage, dominance, and sadomasochism are normal and pleasurable. In the story line, a young Miss Steele is urged to sign a contract becoming a sex slave and agreeing to an abusive and degrading relationship. This movie is in direct contrast to the Christian message of God’s design for self-giving and self-sacrificing love, marriage and sexual intimacy. The movie is a direct assault on Christian marriage and on the moral and spiritual strength of God’s people. We need to inform our people about the destructive message of this movie and to highlight the beauty of God’s design for loving relationships between a husband and wife in the bond of marriage."
In a February 4th statement, Buffalo Bishop Richard J. Malone, chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, did not mince words. Malone called the film "a graphic portrayal of a young woman agreeing to be abused and degraded in a sexual relationship." The film serves as an opportunity to remind believers about the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality, he wrote. (Hat tip to Religion News Service.)

"This is an opportunity for us to remind the faithful of the beauty of the Church’s teaching on the gift of sexual intimacy in marriage, the great dignity of women, and the moral reprehensibility of all domestic violence and sexual exploitation."
I want to take these condemnations of violence against women seriously, but I can't. I've seen too many examples of Religious Right apathy and callousness toward victims to believe that they're changing their tune now.

Where was the Religious Right's outrage when its most prominent members were attacking the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)?

Where was the Religious Right's outrage when proponents of complementarianism repeatedly covered their rear ends during high-profile domestic abuse scandals, instead of asking hard questions about the relationship between sexist gender roles and violence against women?

Where was the Religious Right's outrage when churches and commentators demonstrated insensitive attitudes toward domestic violence victims?

Where was the Religious Right's outrage when several Christian Patriarchy proponents were accused of mistreating women and girls?

Where was the Religious Right's outrage when one of its most celebrated academic institutions was accused of failing rape victims?

Where was the Religious Right's outrage when its members, especially anti-abortion activists, made grossly insensitive statements about sexual assault, time and time again?

If the Religious Right truly cared about violence against women, it would jettison its misogynist attitudes, treat victims with respect, and support policies that aid victims. It would promote a vision of equality and justice. Until the Religious Right takes those steps, I cannot take its current statements seriously. Condemning one film isn't enough.



To read additional commentary, visit the following links. Trigger warning!

Melinda Tankard Reist: Sadistic abuse is not romantic

Huffington Post: What We Learn From Beauty and the Beast, Twilight, and Fifty Shades of Grey

Medium: Fifty Shades of Grey Unmasked

Salon: “50 Shades” of coercive sex: The movie is even worse than the book



Sunday, February 8, 2015

Demonstrators Condemn the Response Louisiana and AFA



On January 24th, the Response Louisiana rally took place in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. While Religious Right speakers spoke inside LSU's Pete Maravich Assembly Center, LSU students and faculty took part in a protest entitled "Organize, Reflect, Act: A Day of Action for Justice in Louisiana". The rally and march were sponsored by multiple progressive organizations, including Equality Louisiana, Louisiana Progress, Louisiana NOW, and the National Council for Jewish Women. Demonstrators condemned the American Family Association, a key sponsor of the Response Louisiana, for its homophobia and intolerance.

Chris Barrett, an LSU English professor, blasted the American Family Association and stressed that it did not reflect the values of the university. At the 2:22 mark of the video above, Barrett described how she reached out to LSU's present.
"I wrote to the president of the university in December and I said, please intervene! The hate group, the American Family Association, is coming to the PMAC. Please do something because we don't want the world to think wrongfully for one minute that the AFA and its hate and its intolerance in any way represents the best of LSU ... We at LSU are committed to learning about the rich and difficult and complex nature of the world. We are not narrowed to the AFA's slit of bias and intolerance."




Sporting a rainbow stole, Reverend Nathan Ryan of the Unitarian Church of Baton Rouge spoke to an attentive crowd at the demonstration. "You deserve to have love; you deserve to be treated with respect and with dignity," he told demonstrators, rejecting the homophobia and intolerance of Response Louisiana's sponsors. Ryan recognized that many Response Louisiana need help freeing themselves from their unhealthy spirituality.
"They can't do it because they're too burdened by the need to judge and the need to hold up a fractured scripture. Not that scripture is fractured, but that they have allowed the scripture to become so concrete and so tangible that God cannot fit within their scriptures. But God is that which is love, that which pulls you towards justice and towards kindness and towards compassion, and that means toward every single person here."
Ryan's prayer was that Response Louisiana attendees "can let go of hatred, that they can let go of a narrow minded God." When a heckler shouted, "There's more hatred out here than in there!", Ryan also hoped that Response Louisiana attendees could let go of their need to shout others down. The crowd burst into laughter and applause.




Baton Rouge poet Donney Rose read his poem "Confessions of a Reformed Homophobe, Part I", which must be heard to truly be appreciated. Rose lamented religious homophobia and hypocrisy, blasting the closet as a "graveyard for rainbows" in which "accessorized skeletons" hang.

Predictably, Religious Right observers defended the Response Louisiana and blasted the demonstrators. The January 26th edition of Sandy Rios in the Morning featured Christian apologetics speaker Alex McFarland, who condemned the anti-Response protest. In an audio segment captured by Right Wing Watch, McFarland criticized the rally as an affront to patriotism.
"I care about America, Sandy. I care about young people being taught to be good citizens, and even if someone doesn't ever become a born-again Christian, we still need to affirm citizenship and really patriotism. And this type of thing--it's somewhat understandable that an 18 year-old could bite the hook of something like this, but for grown-ups to encourage it, and for the administration of LSU to have their faculty just speaking derision of the governor, this undermines America. I mean, this is borderline treasonous."
Jennifer LeClair, a supporter of the Response Louisiana, was baffled that anyone would be opposed to Gov. Jindal's prayer rally. In a January 28th commentary piece at Charisma News, LeClaire accused "the religion-less" of being threatened by Christian prayer. The reasons behind resistance to the Response Louisiana escaped her.
"Although disappointing, it's not surprising that Jindal received heaps of criticism for his decision to host a Christian prayer rally. Protestors gathered outside the assembly center to voice their opposition. One protestor told CBN, "He shouldn't be doing it on a state campus. If they want to do that, go somewhere else."

[...]

I could go on an on and some of the backlash is much worse than that—for calling people to come together and pray in the name of Jesus. I'm all for free speech and freedom of religion, but it seems some other religions—or the religion-less, secular humanists and atheists—are threatened by Christians who pray in the name of Jesus. That always surprises me, given they don't believe there's any God listening or answering anyway. Atheists should be glad Jindal is praying. I pray that God will encounter the hearts of atheists in an unprecedented way this year."
Religious Right figures frequently criticize political leaders and promote a vision of America that is incompatible with the Constitution. However, when critics call them out on their rhetoric, they suddenly care about "patriotism" and "free speech". If Religious Right voices truly care about "citizenship", they must recognize that free speech and criticism of political leaders is vital to democracy. If Religious Right voices want to make inflammatory statements, they must also be prepared to take criticism for those statements. The sponsors of the Response Louisiana have certainly earned that criticism, and I applaud the January 24th demonstrators for vocalizing it.


Wednesday, December 17, 2014

The Response Louisiana Comes Under Fire

As discussed in a prior post, the Response Louisiana will take place in Baton Rouge in January 24th. The gathering will take place at the Pete Maravich Assembly Center on the Louisiana State University campus, a decision that has drawn fire from opponents of the rally.

A project called Organizing Against Hate Groups is speaking out against the figures hosting and attending the Response Louisiana, reports the New Orleans Times-Picayune. According to their Facebook page, Organizing Against Hate Groups will hold a demonstration outside of the Peter Maravich Assembly Center on January 24th, followed by workshops on social justice and grassroots organizing.

The project counts several regional LGBTQ and women's rights groups among its sponsors, including Feminists in Action, Qroma, the Louisiana LGBTQ Business List, and NOW Shreveport. A statement by Organizing Against Hate Groups criticized Jindal for breaking bread with homophobes and anti-choice activists.
"On January 24th. Governor Jindal plans to take his first steps in running for the presidency by hosting a prayer rally on the LSU main campus in Baton Rouge.

Unfortunately, he has again chosen to ally himself with the radical Christian right, and by this I mean the right-wing of Christians. The people who want to re-criminalize homosexuality and applaud the actions of the Ugandan government which is trying to make homosexuality punishable by death. These are the same people who blame natural disasters on unwed mothers, abortion, and marriage equality.

These are the same people who are fanatical about abortion laws but think that helping poor people when they need help is destroying our country. These are the same people claiming persecution in the US yet support countries like Uganda attempting to make homosexuality punishable by death.

We are protesting this event not because it is a Christian event, we are protesting because this is our campus, and we do not accept their message of hate and exclusion.

We are also hosting break out sessions to help train people on how to be better community organizers in their areas of interest ranging from effective use of social media to engaging in civil disobedience, and more.

These individuals claim to be part of a moral majority, but we know that there is no morality in their words. There is no morality in hate.

LSU has a saying “Love Purple, Live Gold.”

It is our responsibility to Live Gold by taking a stand and saying no more, so come join us on January 24th at 9am."

Louisiana State University Students are also petitioning LSU's administrators, urging them not to host the Response Louisiana on campus. A Change.org petition entitled "Ban the American Family Association from rallying on campus at LSU" condemns the American Family Association, one of the sponsors of the rally, as an anti-gay hate group. Inflammatory statements by AFA representatives run contrary to LSU's code of conduct, the petition argues.
"In LSU's own code of conduct it outlines a "commitment to community" that expects that students will:

"hold myself and others to the highest standards of...personal, and social integrity"

"practice justice, equality, and compassion in human relations"

"respect the dignity of all persons and accept individual differences"

If students are held to these standards of basic decency, why do the same rules not apply to visitors to LSU's campus? As a member of the LSU student community, it saddens and offends me that our administration would welcome to campus a recognized hate group whose vile rhetoric targets gay and transgendered people, Muslims, immigrants, and other marginalized groups. Such action undermines the safe, tolerant, respectful atmosphere that LSU seeks to provide for its diverse community. Please help me in petitioning the administration to reconsider letting an unabashedly bigoted group rally on our campus. LSU is better than that."
Another Change.org petition reminds LSU administrators of its commitment to equality, alarmed that "the university has agreed to allow Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to host an on-campus, politically-motivated prayer rally in January which distributes materials blaming recent tornadoes and hurricanes on LGBT people." The petition also urges LSU not to host the Response Louisiana, an event that would fly in the face of LSU's non-discrimination policies.

Not everyone in Louisiana is excited about the Response Louisiana's upcoming "revolution of righteousness". As rally organizers champion a right-wing vision for America, opponents continue to remind them that their vision is flawed.


Wednesday, December 10, 2014

More Right-Wing Voices Respond to Torture Report



As discussed in an earlier post,  the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence just released its Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program, a report on the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against detainees. Right-wing commentators continue to deride the report, defending detainee mistreatment as justified by law and ignoring the moral implications of torture.

Some figures dismissed the report even before its release. According to a December 8th article in the New York Times, former vice president Dick Cheney admitted that he had not read the Senate committee report, but that his support of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program remained solid. "What I keep hearing out there is they portray this as a rogue operation and the agency was way out of bounds and then they lied about it," he told the New York Times. "I think that’s all a bunch of hooey. The program was authorized. The agency did not want to proceed without authorization, and it was also reviewed legally by the Justice Department before they undertook the program." Cheney called the report's claim that the CIA misled the White House "a crock", insisting that the CIA "ought to be decorated, not criticized."

Even after the report's release, some right-wing figures defended CIA brutality. In an interview with CNN today, former Congressman Joe Walsh (R-Illinois) defended CIA torture as a necessary tool in the fight against extremism. He pointed out that extremist groups do not honor the Geneva Convention, which apparently gives the U.S. license to ignore the Geneva Convention in his eyes. (Hat tip to Raw Story.)
"Everybody is all abuzz that we had to do some pretty tough things to fight an evil enemy. I'm glad they put the report out. I'm glad, though, because I I don't think we should be ashamed of what we put out. Again, we're fighting an evil enemy. There are times when we need to get our hands dirty when we fight than enemy ... I don't have a problem with what's released. I think we can never ever forget who we're dealing with. I mean, we're dealing with ISIS, Al-Qaeda. They don't abide by the Geneva Convention. They can't even spell the Geneva Convention. This is a different kind of war."
When Carol Costello confronted him about the disturbing treatment of detainees detailed in the report, he defended such inhumane treatment as a valid way to defeat "animals".
COSTELLO: Is an American hero someone who is instructed by our government to conduct rectal force-feedings on a prisoner, or chain someone naked to a concrete floor until he dies, or nearly drown them two to three times a day? Is that the definition of an American hero?

WALSH: It may, Carol, be part of the job description. Our men and women, and again, the CIA, they've been on the ground--

COSTELLO: Really!?

WALSH: Absolutely. Look, we forget as Americans who we're dealing with. Got to be frank. We're dealing with animals. We're dealing with groups of people who behead, blow up, exterminate people--

COSTELLO: So we too should be animals?

WALSH: The way you defeat an animal, Carol, often times, is to act like one.
The American Family Association's Sandy Rios commented on the CIA's "so-called torture" during the December 9th edition of Sandy Rios in the Morning. Rios was disgusted at the release of the report, not at the mistreatment of detainees described therein. (Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.)
"People are speculating, why in the world now? Why now release this? You're going to hear further in this report that CIA agents who were working during that time are going to be in great danger, plus countries abroad that have cooperated with us where we sent some of the prisoners and interrogated them, we're revealing all of it, just laying it all bare today, today, just has to be done today! In the midst of the fact that we still have hostages held by ISIS, we have men and women fighting overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we must, because we have this high moral ground, 'societal and constitutional values' says Diane Feinstein ... When I see the Islamists beheading, cruelly torturing and beheading Americans, I’m not too concerned about waterboarding them. Really, I'm not ... That’s not like we beheaded them to see what it felt like."
During the December 9th edition of Focal Point, American Family Association's Bryan Fischer insisted that "there was nothing illegal about the interrogation techniques that were used by CIA operatives." He insisted that mistreatment of detainees "worked", arguing that "waterboarding is not torture". Are you sure about that, Bryan?

"Do not forget that these detainees have no constitutional rights, because they're not American citizens; they have absolutely no constitutional rights that they can claim, and they have no Geneva Convention rights," Fischer stated. The fact that human beings have fundamental human rights, regardless of nationality or protection under documents, escapes him. Fischer's defense of detainee mistreatment smacks of legalism, in which disturbing behavior is acceptable as long as it conforms to regulations. (Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.)

I keep hearing common refrains in these commentaries. Oh, the bad guys did it too. Oh, the rules said it was okay. Don't you understand that these are not solid arguments for torture? Even as children we learn than two wrongs don't make a right, that an opponent's unethical actions do not justify our unethical actions. To boot, appeals to authority do not erase the moral stain of torture. Torture is immoral, whether or not it is permitted by the regulations of a particular setting.

I'm sick of right-wing voices who see moral decay everywhere except where it festers. If your value system doesn't compel you to reject torture, your value system is broken.



Thursday, November 27, 2014

Voices from the Right Respond to Ferguson



On August 9th, Michael Brown, a young African American man, was shot to death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, during an altercation in Ferguson, MO. As outrage over Brown's death mounted, Ferguson would become the focal point of a heated national discussion about race and police violence. The harsh response by local law enforcement to Ferguson demonstrators, including the arrest of journalists and the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and LRAD, was condemned by human rights organizations

On the evening of November 24th, St. Louis County prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch announced that a grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson. Local demonstrators protested the decision by blocking Interstate 44 and intersections in nearby Clayton, while other protests took place in cities across the U.S.. Despite pleas for peace by President Obama and Ferguson clergy, riots broke out in Ferguson, with images of looters and burning buildings dominating the news. Many Ferguson business owners found their businesses vandalized or destroyed the next day.

Observers from across the political spectrum have offered commentary on the grand jury's decision and the Ferguson riots, and the Religious Right is no exception. While some figures from the right have called for unity, others have used recent events to criticize the left and the media.

First, two voices from the Southern Baptist Convention have called for unity and justice following the grand jury decision. In a commentary piece entitled "Ferguson and the Path to Peace" SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Russell Moore laments that racial tensions still plague America. "The tension [in Ferguson] ought to remind us, as the church, that we are living in a time in which racial division is hardly behind us," he wrote. Moore calls for racial unity and recognition of all people as part of the Body of Christ.
"So what should we do? In the public arena, we ought to recognize that it is empirically true that African-American men are more likely, by virtually every measure, to be arrested, sentenced, executed, or murdered than their white peers. We cannot shrug that off with apathy. Working toward justice in this arena will mean consciences that are sensitive to the problem. But how can we get there when white people do not face the same experiences as do black people?

The answer for the Body of Christ starts with a robust doctrine of the church lived out in local congregations under the lordship of Christ. The reason white and black Americans often view things so differently is because white and black Americans often live and move in different places, with different cultural lenses. In the church, however, we belong to one another. We are part of one Body."
Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminar, acknowledged the existence of flawed systems in America and promoted a message of racial justice. In a transcript of a November 25th podcast, Mohler praised President Obama for urging restraint and calm following the grand jury announcement. Mohler seemed to take African American complaints of institutional racism seriously, urging Christians to demand accountability and justice from fallible institutions.
"...There are many people who are saying the system is broken. Well in one sense, Christians understand that every system is only as good as the human beings fragile frail and sometimes downright faulty involved in the process. There is no perfect system, not humanly speaking, because human beings are involved in it. And this means that some of the accusations and concerns coming from the African-American community have to be taken very seriously. Christians should be at the forefront of demanding that these concerns be thoroughly vetted, heard, and considered, because after all we do know that as important as these systems are, every system indeed breaks down at the very fallibility of human beings. It is no insult to the system, it is no insult to the society, to make very clear that we have to watch continually that we’re living up to our ideals – including the ideal of equal standing, equal justice, before the law."
Mohler also expressed disapproval of the Ferguson riots, writing that "the kind of reform, the kind of improvement in justice that is needed in our society cannot be brought about by flaunting that form of justice with the kind of injustice that was seen on the streets."
"The rule of law cannot be improved, nor corrected – much less reformed – by lawlessness. And the subversion of the rule of law on the streets of Missouri last night is a refutation of the claim that this is being done in the name of justice."
However, other Religious Right voices were quick to criticize Michael Brown, the left, and the media following the grand jury announcement. For example, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer spoke approvingly of the grand jury's decision. In the November 25th edition of Focal Point, Fischer discussed the grand jury decision not to indict Wilson, speculating that Michael Brown was under demonic influence during his encounter with Wilson. (Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.)
"I think that at this point there was a demonic presence that was operating inside Michael Brown's body, activating him, energizing him, driving him forward in this homicidal rage. So when he says he looked like a demon, I think that's because he was looking into the eyes of a demon that was driving Michael Brown to do what he did."
Fischer described Brown's death as a "tragedy" and a "heartbreak" because of his "wasted potential", but added that he saw Brown as responsible for his own demise.
"Who is to blame here? Who's fault is this that this young life has been snuffed out? I think you look at the evidence, you have to say, well, I think we're going to have to expect Michael Brown to take full responsibility for his own death."
American Family Association news director Fred Jackson also weighed in on the grand jury decision. During the November 25th edition of Sandy Rios in the Morning, Jackson expressed disapproval of the Ferguson riots and denied that Wilson's actions were motivated by Brown's race. Jackson spoke several times about absolute truth and moral responsibility, arguing that truth is "under attack today" with regard to the public response to the Brown case. (Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.)
"Absolute truth is defined by scripture, the Bible, God’s word. That’s how it’s defined, and when you violate that, there are consequences. Now you may get away with it for a while, for a period, but God says there will be consequences ... When you do not have a dad figure around, there is not someone there in authority to demonstrate there are consequences to violating the rules. If you don’t have that presence in the family, you’re going to have problems."
In a November 25th commentary piece at the National Review, Dennis Prager called for "moral clarity" regarding racial tensions in the U.S.
"For decades now, we have been told that there is a black–white divide regarding how members of each race perceive racial matters in America. The problem with this belief that is that it renders moral judgment — of white police, of black crime and black incarceration rates, of white judges and jurors, and of black riots and protests — impossible ... Many blacks see racism almost everywhere — especially in arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates, and in white police interactions with blacks. On the other hand, whites (specifically, whites who are not on the left) think that white racism has largely been conquered, and therefore blacks’ disproportionately high arrest and conviction rates are the result of black behavior – particularly the high out-of-wedlock birth rate that has deprived the great majority of black children of fathers – not white racism."
Prager criticizes those who fail to condemn the Ferguson riots, as well as those who look at the Brown case through a racial lens. He calls current race attitudes "damaging", arguing that such attitudes ignore "objective truth and moral truth". Prager blasts liberals for supposedly treating truth and morality as subjective, writing that, "For every black and every white unwilling to condemn the protests over Michael Brown’s killing that took place before any relevant facts came out, their half-hearted condemnation of the riots notwithstanding, truth doesn’t matter."

In a November 24th column at Red State, Erick Erickson points to the Ferguson unrest and writes that "This is what happens when everything becomes political," adding that "Michael Brown’s death should not be political." He complains that many Americans cannot have honest conversations about the Brown case because of "too many agendas" at work. Many factions (especially the media) want to inflame tensions, Erickson argues, making it unlikely that issues surrounding race and the Brown case will be resolved any time soon.
"The sad truth is that too many young black men have been, for so long, told they are victims that they’ve started acting as if they are not responsible for their actions and that society is out to get them.

And you know what?

In a lot of cases, it is true. Society is out to get them. Instead of judging them individually, police and others judge young black men collectively. In a group? Probably up to no good, whether it is true or not.

Conservatives have a tendency to say young black men need to rise so far about the stereotyped behavior they cannot be blamed. Liberals say that is unfair. And the truth is that in some cases they could rise as close to the standard of Jesus as possible and some policeman somewhere still might pull them over.

If only we could all rely on our better angels. But I am a pessimist on this issue. Too many people on both sides have too much of an incentive to keep tensions going. It is a TV ratings bonanza for cable news and reality shows. Too many profit off it."
Erickson accepted the grand jury's decision not to indict Wilson. "The facts and witnesses show that Michael Brown was a thief. The facts and witnesses show Officer Wilson was doing his job," he wrote.





To watch key videos related to the grand jury decision, visit the following links.


CNN: Ferguson grand jury announcement

C-SPAN: President Obama on Ferguson Grand Jury Decision

Vice: Highlights from Live Coverage in Ferguson, Missouri

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Jindal and RNC Urged to Reject the Values Voters Summit

The 2014 Values Voters Summit, an annual gathering of right-wing political figures and commentators, will kick off tomorrow in Washington D.C. (More here.) Sponsored by the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, and other right-wing groups, the event has given anti-gay speakers a high-profile platform. Several religious leaders and progressive organizations have taken note, and are calling for political leaders to distance themselves from the summit.

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, a group of religious leaders urged Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal to cancel his appearance at the Values Voters Summit. In an open letter posted at Faithful America, 13 Christian leaders from Louisiana reminded Jindal that the summit sponsors have a long history of anti-LGBTQ activism.
"Your deep personal commitment to Christian faith, and especially to the teachings of the Catholic Church, should preclude your involvement with FRC, which has been formally designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, because of FRC's repeated "use of known falsehoods to attack and demonize members of the LGBT community." ... the Family Research Council's leaders have a decades-long track record of making false and inflammatory comments about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."
Other voices are calling for leaders to reject the Values Voters Summit. On September 24th, representatives from 7 organizations, including People for the American Way, the Southern Poverty Law Center, GLAAD, and Human Rights Campaign, published an open letter to the Republican National Committee. The letter urged committee chairman Reince Priebus to sever ties with the organizations sponsoring the Values Voters Summit. "These groups engage in repeated, groundless demonization of LGBT people — portraying them as sick, vile, incestuous, violent, perverted, and a danger to the nation," the letter asserted.
"The Family Research Council, the summit’s host, is vigorously opposed to extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Its president, Tony Perkins, has repeatedly claimed that pedophilia is a "homosexual problem." He has called the "It Gets Better" campaign — designed to give LGBT students hope for a better tomorrow — “disgusting” and a "concerted effort" to "recruit" children into the gay "lifestyle." He has condemned the National Republican Congressional Committee for supporting three openly gay candidates.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, a summit sponsor, has said the U.S. needs to "be more like Russia," which enacted a law criminalizing the distribution of LGBT "propaganda." He also has said, "Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine, and six million dead Jews."

Similarly, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, another summit sponsor, has compared those who do not denounce same-sex marriage to those who remained silent during the Holocaust. Marriage equality, he has said, is the "beginning of the end of Western civilization.""
The letter argued that extremism should not be endorsed by elected officials, and that the GOP is obliged to condemn anti-LGBTQ bigotry as it has condemned racism.

As the public grows more supportive of LGBTQ equality, homophobic rhetoric at the Values Voters Summit will increasingly come under fire. When the event launches tomorrow, LGBTQ equality supporters will be watching.

Monday, September 22, 2014

When People You Respect Break Bread with the Far Right



For the most part, it's easy to condemn the Religious Right when it engages in disturbing activism, such as attacks on LGBTQ equality and reproductive rights. What do you do, however, when the Religious Right collaborates with people you respect on important issues?

The Coalition to End Sexual Exploitation is one such collaboration that leaves me with mixed feelings. According to its website, the coalition was created to address pornography, help victims of sexual exploitation, and allow activists to network and share resources.

I believe that we as a society need to have public conversations about unethical practices in adult entertainment, the harms of depicting violence against women in porn, and the consequences of commodifying sexuality. We need to have public conversations about what healthy, egalitarian sexuality looks like, and how we can promote an enlightened sexual ethic for all people. In that sense, I respect efforts to foster that public conversation and aid those who have been ill-treated by the adult entertainment industry. However, when organizations with dubious reputations join that effort, I find myself wondering what their motives are.

The website for the Coalition to End Sexual Exploitation has a list of member organizations, which includes both feminist groups and right-wing groups. The feminist organization Stop Porn Culture was among its members. Unfortunately, so were countless Religious Right Organizations, including  C-FAM, American Family Association, Family Research Council, Family Watch International, Illinois Family Institute, and Concerned Women for America. I was alarmed to see a feminist organization listed among so many right-wing groups. What's an organization like you doing with a crowd like this? I thought.

In May 2014, the Coalition to End Sexual Exploitation took part in an anti-pornography conference in Tysons Corner, VA. Hosted by Morality in Media and PornHarms, the conference featured well-known anti-violence and anti-pornography activists. Gail Dines, president of Stop Porn Culture and author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, delivered workshops entitled "Sex, Identity, and Intimacy in a Porn Culture" and "Winning the Argument: Messaging to Young Adults". Cordelia Anderson and Sharon Cooper, board members of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, participated in a panel discussion on "Pornography and the Colonization of Childhood".

I was pleased that Dines, Anderson, and Cooper were among the speakers, since they have worked hard to confront violence against women and children. Unfortunately, alongside these advocates were activists with less savory backgrounds. Among them was Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International and one of several anti-gay activists profiled in the Human Rights Campaign report Export of Hate. Slater was scheduled to deliver a workshop entitled "Exposing and Halting the International Sexual Rights Agenda: There is Something Everyone Can Do". Laila Mickelwait, manager of policy and public affairs at Exodus Cry (an anti-trafficking ministry), took part in a panel discussion entitled "Inside Porn: What Is the Real Truth?" Exodus Cry is a department of the International House of Prayer, a New Apostolic Reformation ministry with a history of anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice, and patriarchal rhetoric.

Moreover, the conference was co-sponsored by right-wing groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, and Family Watch International. The Family Research Council was one of several organizations that provided scholarships for attendees.

When I saw advocates I respect on the conference program alongside Religious Right voices, my heart sank. I oppose trafficking, exploitation and adult entertainment that dehumanizes its participants, but I do not trust the Religious Right to tackle those problems without ulterior motives. Can organizations with long histories of anti-LGBTQ and patriarchal messaging be trusted to promote an inclusive vision of healthy, egalitarian sexuality? I don't think they can.

I struggle to understand why otherwise enlightened activists are breaking bread with Religious Right groups. Is it because these issues are so important that they can't afford to be picky about allies? Is it because they seek to promote anti-trafficking, anti-violence discourses wherever they can, even in right-wing quarters? Is it because left-leaning organizations are reluctant to engage in anti-pornography efforts, compelling anti-porn activists to seek allies elsewhere? I don't know.

I worry that alliances with right-wing organizations could come back to haunt these well-meaning activists. The world is becoming increasingly aware of the Religious Right's activities at home and abroad, and well-meaning organizations that collaborate with the Religious Right may be criticized for those collaborations later. Furthermore, if the Religious Right dominates the public conversation on adult entertainment and sexuality, they could shape the conversation in unpleasant ways. I could imagine that conversation veering away from how to create a healthy, egalitarian vision of sexuality, and veering toward a heteronormative, patriarchal vision. In our efforts to tackle social problems, we must be discerning about who we embrace as allies.