Family Research Council Guard Shot in Washington, D.C. August 15, 2012

Family Research Council Guard Shot in Washington, D.C.

At the headquarters of the anti-gay Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., a security guard was shot in the arm Wednesday morning by a man posing as an intern.

According to media reports of the incident, the shooter walked into the lobby of the building and was confronted by the guard. He opened fire on the guard, who tackled him to the ground, disarmed him, and waited for police.

The shooter, suspected to be 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins II, was taken into custody. Corkins had been volunteering at a local LGBT center for the past six months and made a negative comment about the Family Research Council before the shooting, according to HuffPoFox News also claims:

Sources told Fox News that after guard took away his gun, the suspect said, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

Outlets have also reported that the shooter may have been carrying a bag from Chick-fil-A and/or Chick-fil-A promotional materials, which, at this point, could mean anything or nothing — though for what it’s worth, FRC’s Tony Perkins has been a staunch supporter of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy. 

The Family Research Council works actively against LGBT rights and has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group, but LGBT groups like GLAAD, HRC, PFLAG, The Trevor Project, GLSEN, Family Equality Council, Freedom to Marry, and many others have released a joint statement denouncing the incident. While the SPLC was also quick to release a statement condemning violence and questioning the shooter’s motives, this will undoubtedly launch another round of heated debates about whether either side of the gay rights movement can or should be considered “hateful.” For example:

“Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end,” Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement.

In case it isn’t already obvious: extremists don’t represent the majority. The Family Research Council’s stances do not reflect every Christian’s views on homosexuality, just as this incident doesn’t reflect how the rest of us feel about the Family Research Council.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Randomfactor

    It would also be the ONLY sign that labeling hatred as “hateful” should end.

  • Evileyemonster

    Not all shooters are atheist either. But Atheists did step up to help a church that was vandalized with atheist graffiti. This is thew perfect opportunity for the LBGT community to step forward and support the guard somehow. It only can help the cause.

  • Baby_Raptor

    When they stop acting like hate groups they’ll stop being called hate groups. 

  • Margaret Whitestone

    Deplorable.  Violence is simply unacceptable, even against a hate-group

  • Jake

    In case it isn’t already obvious: extremists don’t represent the majority.

    Except when it comes to religion, of course. At least, that is what a lot of “skeptics” like to claim. Especially with the “moderate enablers” argument.

  • Dale

    “Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end,” Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement.

    That may happen someday Brian, when the FRC stops donating money to African countries to support the execution of innocent people who just so happen to be gay. Or is that just supporting “traditional marriage?”

  • onamission5

    I hope the guard is okay, and the shooter gets the help he needs, too.

  • This attack wasn’t motivated nor garnered from ‘faith’. That is the difference. As an antitheist I argue that religion or any ‘belief’ in any god worthy of worship can lead to ‘faith’ based attacks on humanity. 
    That isn’t what happened here.

  • Jake

     Any belief/idea/ideal/politics/morals/ethics/etc. can lead to someone attacking others based upon it. Faith is not special in this regard. And trying to single it out is nothing more than extreme bias, at the very least, and irrational hatred at the worst.

  • TCC

    You said precisely what I wanted to say. Violence is not the appropriate response to bigotry.

  • Philbert

    “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”
    Newsflash douchebag, when you shoot someone they tend to take it personally. Lucky for him the guard had such restraint.

  • Tainda

    Extremists of any belief/idea/ideal/politics/moral/ethics/etc. need to be locked up for good.

    The difference between us and them is that we denounce ours while christians applaud most of theirs (bombing abortion clinics anyone?)

  • In the last few months I’ve seen lots of people citing an SPLC listing as a hate groups as it is some kind trump card.  I’ve seen it done so often that it sounds like a concerted effort, although it is probably just groupthink.

    They’re a joke.  They have no consistently applied, objective criteria for what constitutes a hate group.  They have a quarter billion in the bank, yet they are still paying kids to hustle donations for them on the street.  They are so desperate to inflate the number of hate groups in order to scare people into donating they’ve resorted to naming an unmoderated Internet forum a hate group.

  • MargueriteF

    Violence is not the answer. Period. I’m glad no one was killed.

    “Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end.”

    If you don’t want to be labeled “hateful,” then not calling yourself “pro-marriage” when you mean “anti-gay marriage” might be a good place to start. It’s silly to complain about the other side’s rhetoric when yours is just as inflammatory, and rather less accurate.

  • Jake

     That difference only exists if you have selective hearing and/or memory.

  • There are a lot of things that make “faith” in general, and religion specifically, more problematic than most other ideologies.  The first and most obvious is the emphasis on “faith”, which means treating belief without evidence as a virtue.  There are other ideologies that have used this trick, like the Marxist and Maoist communist belief in a political destiny, but almost all religion still churns out gullibility as their main product.  That is why belief in political ideologies that rely on unquestioning faith to move forward is often compared to religious fervor.  People wouldn’t use the words “an almost religious fervor” if religion hadn’t already set the bar.  What “can happen” in non-religiopus movements is all too often part and parcel of religious movements.

    Yes, any ideology can become violent.  But to argue that faith and religion don’t encourage unhealthy mental attitudes that often (not always!) allow behavior that would otherwise be seen as ridiculous is just….ridiculous.  Sometimes it’s handling snakes, sometimes it’s killing infidels.  It’s not always violent, but “irrational” is part of the set-up from the beginning. 

  • Gunstargreen

    I don’t know what upsets me more, the shooting or the fact people are already trying to use it to give themselves protection from being called bigots.

  • Ugh, how awful. Family Research Council is a terrible group, but violence is never the answer to hate speech. And really, the shooter’s actions make no sense when you consider that he attacked a security guard, one who was most likely employed by an outside company that has nothing to do with the FRC’s leadership. That’s like shooting the teller at Chick-fil-A because of the actions of the owner. Deplorable and nonsensical behavior.

  • Pseudonym

    The vast majority of Christians condemn bombing abortion clinics (something which, I might add, appears to be a US-centric phenomenon). Of course, the vast majority of Christians don’t have their own cable TV shows.

  • Gary

     You know it’s a misnomer when the name fits the opposing group as well.

  • Pseudonym

    The first and most obvious is the emphasis on “faith”, which means treating belief without evidence as a virtue.

    That’s not what “faith” means to most religious people, never mind most Christians. It’s not what it’s meant for pretty much all of the history of Christian thought.

    However, that is what it means to some influential fundamentalists who gain money and power from convincing people that this is the case, as well as those who promote these minority opinions as being mainstream, whether willingly or unwittingly. And yes, I am including Sam Harris in the latter camp.

  • Pseudonym

    That’s brilliant. Hemant, I realise you’re in book-editing mode at the moment, but are you up for helping organise things?

  • So, liberal, pro-gay anti-religionists finally have a violent posterboy for the media to flog. 

    Oh, that’s just wonderful.  Thanks, asshole.

    I don’t want to sound callous or assholish, but I’ve spent the last 25 years or so observing the way the so-called “liberal” media treats these things….and that was mostly before Fox News and the peanut gallery of conservative bloggers joined the chorus. 
    In all those years, I have never once heard the phrase “Christian terrorist” on a major news source or commentary show.  I have also rarely if ever heard of “right-wing terrorism” in America…even though most of our terrorists and ideological murderers have been right-wingers, christians, or both.

    So, without sounding callous or assholish, I would like to open up the betting pools on media responses. 

    People who blow up abortion clinics are never called “christian terrorists”, and their church connections are usually played down by the mainstream and right-wing media…so, how much are we going to hear about this guy’s involvement with an LGBT group?  I wonder which wingnut news site or  christian “family” group will be the first to denounce this “gay terrorism”…or will it be “left-wing gay terrorism”?

    Pro-choicers and abortion doctors are never seen as victims of christian ideology, but only as victims of a “lone nut”….so how fast and how often will the “christian persecution” card be played?  Will this guy be portrayed as a”lone nut”, or as the secret desire of all liberals and gays?

    Christian groups often put out statements denouncing violence done by christians, but almost always with an undertone of blaming the victim, expressing vexation at how these “troubled times” and “divisive issues” turn good people into murderers….so, will pro-gay groups be allowed to do the same, to essentially say, “Well, if you’d quit terrorizing gays, these things wouldn’t happen”?   Shit, can you even imagine the media fallout if anyone said such a thing? 
    And will this guy be protrayed as a “normal” pro-gay activist, or will his associates get the benefit of the doubt that christians get in cartfulls?

    Christian groups rarely get called out on their actual teachings, the “contents” of their religion,  even when those teachings directly precipitate violence….but I wonder how much scrutiny the imaginary “gay agenda” is going to get this week?

    Those are my first-look questions about the upcoming media shitstorm.  If anyone with quicker math skills feel like calculating some odds, we could make a real go of this!  My prediction is that the mainstream or “liberal” media will be pretty fair and balanced, as they are to a fault with religious terrorists.  But Wingnutdaily, Fox, and all the conservative christian bloggers and non-profits are going to go completely apeshit with this, probably for months, and some will even try to tie it to this year’s elections.  I would bet my non-existent soul on it. I really am sincere in my questions though, not trying to be a jerk.  All that said, I do denounce this asshat’s actions, and will take this opportunity to say that I do not advocate killing or harming christians or conservatives, even the ones who openly support violence against gays, liberals, and atheists.  Secularists and pro-equality supporters are beating them with words and non-violent actions…we don’t need to copy the tactics of zealots. 

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    This is deplorable.

    I can also see FRC, NOM and other anti-gay groups use this as proof that they are truly the victims and the HRC and SPLC are just evil bullies who caused this. I don’t support the shooter, but FRC will blame all LGBT groups. Funny thing is as right-wing groups they usually claim after a shooting that the shooter is solely responsible for the shooting and no influences can be blamed. 

  • I love the idea, but I’m not in a position to organize it. If another group does, I’ll be glad to post something

  • TiltedHorizon

    Horrific. Absolutely reprehensible. The moment one decides to use violence as an means of enforcing one’s will over another they cross the boarder into terrorism.

    Kudos to the Guard, clearly a hero, for subduing this individual before he was able to achieve whatever bloody outcome he was hoping for. 

  • Rwlawoffice

    This violent act is a hate crime and should be classified as such.

  • Aaron Scoggin

    Ugh. More free ammo for FOX news.

    Here comes the spin…..

  • Coyotenose

     The atheist and LGBT movements aren’t prone to violent rhetoric. Christian groups are, and they collect many, many millions of dollars from the so-called non-extremists for doing so. Try again.

  • Rwlawoffice

    I agree. They have become a joke.

  • Coyotenose

     But oddly, they don’t spend a lot of energy condemning their leadership who encourage such violence by rhetoric about “war”, “murder”, “immorality” and such, and cover it up as “God’s Will” so that their followers don’t have to feel responsible for their own opinions and actions.

  • Coyotenose

     The Christian sin regarding evil done in their religion’s name is more their silence than their approval. The slimy ones wouldn’t have a hundredth the power they do if the moderate majority would stop going along to get along.

  • Coyotenose

     I’m sorry, don’t you claim to be a LAWYER? Are you unfamiliar with how much is wrong with claiming to know a person’s motivations in a case you know nothing about, or with just demanding specific charges with narrow definitions based on that same ignorance on your part?

    Oh my bad, I forgot. You’re a neocon, so you think you’re psychic. And you’re “Rwlawoffice”, so you make up things all the time.  Ample evidence of that online.

  • Coyotenose

     Ugh. I was going to reply to this, but then saw that you’ve claimed that male privilege doesn’t exist while invoking the word “skeptic”, and claimed that feminists have no arguments while yourself quoting a joke you apparently remember very well that portrays women as money-grubbing whores.

    Not worth my time.

  • Patterrssonn

    What a fantastic asshole, shooting the guard, well shooting anyone really, but especially some guy who’s just in the way. Hopefully he has a good health care plan

  • I can’t count the times someone has told me “that’s not what faith means”….yet they can never tell me what it DOES mean.  So I have to go on evidence.

    When you say:”That’s not what “faith” means to most religious people, never mind most Christians. It’s not what it’s meant for pretty much all of the history of Christian thought.”
    …I say bullshit.  Every last one of the main supernatural beliefs of christians is based on “faith” of my definition, and so are many of the non-supernatural ideals.  Supernatural examples: the belief in god, jesus, angles, demons, any afterlife, heaven, hell, existence of souls, original sin, need for a savior, prophets, or any form of biblical literalism.   Not-necessarily-supernatural but still faith as gullibility: holy books, clergy, sacraments, personal relationships with myths, sex taboos, language taboos, belief in non-human justice, destiny, pre-ordained purpose in life, or simply the act of relying on faith in any real-world,  meaningful way.  Maybe for you, it’s just a basket of good feelings that you think you need “faith” to access…if so, good for you.

    I have heard “faith” used to cover everything from being able to get out of bed in the morning, to “knowing”something is true with no evidence or against evidence, to being willing to kill or die for a belief.   The only fully common thread is that it is not based on reason or facts, but emotions, and using one’s emotions for certainty in place of reason or tolerating doubt.  The holy books that describe faith have often used violent examples and called them praiseworthy.  Many people have grown beyond this, but I don’t think that minority of zealots is as small and poorly regarded as you seem to.  How do they get so rich and influential if nobody agrees with them?

  • Rwlawoffice

    Nothing made up. According to the reports the shooter said his motive was to shoot up frc because of their views. Thus it is a biased base act and meets the definition of a hate crime

  • Lucilius

    Yeah, and the last half-dozen times a nut case shot an abortion doctor, opened fire in a Sikh temple, burned a mosque, and made death threats to Obama – you acknowledged from the very first report of their beliefs that those were all right-wing hate crimes, didn’t you?

  • I’m sure your wish will be granted, by just about everyone. 
    Funny that that’s the only concern you have worth speaking up about, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

    Personally I deplore violence for any reason except for self-defense or defense of others.
    I am also an opponent of people who label every disagreeable opinion as “hate speech”, and I am wary about “hate crimes” legislation.  Not that the ideas are necessarily inaccurate, but that the concept can be misused as it relies less on actions and more on motivations and personal thoughts and feelings, and complex social relationships.   

    But if the facts are accurate, this does seem to fit the bill.  It was a hate crime.

    I wouldn’t normally ask any other questions, but I have seen your comments here several times.  When I read them, I am often reminded of Matthew 7:3-5 for some strange reason.  So I will ask them. 

    Do you recognize the many hate crimes that have been perpetrated against gays, or by christians in general?    
       Are you as quick to properly label them?

    Are you willing to admit that the situations that have helped bring them about are still not equal?  That there is far more violent rhetoric spewed from anti-gay christians than from anti-christian gays?  That there have been far more incidents with the roles  more or less reversed?  That gays are in fact often physically threatened, whereas christians mostly only suffer from a perceived loss of cultural dominance?     

    Honestly curious. 

  • Interesting.  The SPLC may have issues, but I can only assume that you think calling FRC a hate group is not accurate.  I’m sure that not everything they do is inspired solely by hate. 
    But the first thing that pops into my head, just recent memory here,  is that when Uganda was considering jailing and killing gays, and congress was considering sending a toothless, ceremonial “not cool” letter, the only thing the FRC did with their ample donations was lobby to change wording that to them, made it sound like homoexuality was regarded as a human right by more people than really think so.  Their only concern was to make it clear that not everybody thinks that gays are ok. 
    I’m not saying they were factually wrong- not everybody or all countries recognize gays’ right to exist.  Maybe they were concerned about people in the future construing the words of the letter as precedence, evidence of official US government approval of homosexuality.   It could be that their intentions were honorable, and they were only concerned with factual accuracy in minor documents.
    But even if I believe their reasoning, I would still have to think….a group of people in Uganda wants to kill the gays in their country…our government may issue a weak protest….and the only thing that this christian group is willing to do is spend $25,000 to make it clear that not everyone thinks it’s such a bad idea.
    You may not call that hate if you enjoy hiding behind weasel words, but I am sure as shit not feeling the love. 

  • TCC

    [citations needed]

  • Pseudonym

    Who is “they” in this context? All Christians, or just those whose leaders engage in the “war”/”murder” rhetoric?

    As I don’t live in the US, I don’t know many Christians who fall into the latter category.

  • Pseudonym

    Really? Nobody has ever told you?

    Then allow me: “faith” means “trust” or “loyalty”.

    That is what the word has always meant, since it entered the English language 800-odd years ago. It’s what the Greek word in the New Testament which we translate “faith” means. It’s what the Latin word used in the Vulgate translation means. It’s what you mean when you talk about a “faithful” relationship or acting “in good faith”.

    I can dig out the linguistic evidence if you want, or you can look it up for yourself. But that’s what it means.

  • The “moderate enablers” argument could be used on any segment of society or social movement.  The difference is, when it comes to christianity and the US, or islam in the Middle East, there is plenty of everyday evidence to make the argument accurate.

    I always hear people say they don’t support bigoted views, yet they still regard homosexuality as a sin and a shame, or a sickness, or somehow unfortunate. 
    Somehow less deserving of acceptance.  I know christians who give generously to church-led causes, and never research where the money goes, or who donate knowingly, but won’t admit it in public.

    These “fringe” groups don’t just come out of nowhere.  Whether you like it or not, they are supported by up to millions of christian people in the US.  I’m sure they are still a minority, but the majority of christians simply won’t stand up to them.  You complain about atheists blaming moderates…so, how many times have you stood up to christian bigots?  I see you have plenty of time to berate atheists for lumping all christians together with the extremists….have you done anything  that would distinguish you from them?    

  • It’s funny, it’s almost like I’ve heard more moderate christians complaining about being unfairly lumped in with christians who are bigots and extemists, than I’ve heard moderate christians standing up to christian bigots and extremists. 


  • Wait…I do believe in angles….but I’d hate to be the first person who got religion from his own typo…

  • Nice.  I was going to bring up the difference between “faith” and “trust”as they are commonly used.  I thought that would be pedantic and unnecessary…but I’ve been wrong before.
    All I can say is- in my experience of the common usage of those words, anyone who places their ultimate trust in any form of the supernatural doesn’t really know what it’s like to trust anything. If I may adopt some current christian phraseology: It’s not a belief, it’s a relationship…between people and things that actually exist. 


  • Good luck with that. He’ll dodge and mumble and obfuscate, but never actually answer…

  • Donalbain

     According to reports? Well, thats all we need. After all, there is NEVER any mistake made in the first reporting of events on the news. Top lawyering there!

  • AxeGrrl

    Perfectly said.  Really, you nailed it.  I am so weary of FRC supporters defending their actions by claiming they’re not ‘hateful’, that they don’t do things to actively support the mistreatment of gay people……and your post here reveals such defenses to be the bullshit they are.

  • AxeGrrl


    Let’s see if you’re right about the media and what descriptors they’re going to use…….needless to say, I hope you’re wrong, but I have a feeling that you’re bang on.

    Great post (the whole thing)

  • Rwlawoffice

    Actually if a Christian walked into GLAD headquarters and shot up a guard because he didnt agree with their views I would label it a hate crime. There have been hate crimes perpetrated against gays which is despicable. As far as violent rhetoric against gays there is plenty of that too which is equally horrible.

    The rhetoric from the gay camp is rising in its vitriol . Insisting on dehumanizing people who disagree with you by calling them bigots and hate groups is fodder for the extreme factions just as that type of language is fom relgious people. Lately some Christians have been physically threatened such as the priest praying a rosary at a chick file a. Property has been vandalized. Church services have been mobbed and threatened s thy walked into church.

    That is what happens when people on both sides feel that they can say and do what they want to achieve their goal.

  • The Other Weirdo

     I’ve been trying to say this for decades, only I’ve never been to find such perfect words to express it.

  • Chris Kilroy

    You’re dead on. I’ve already seen the comments coming from people online and even in news articles talking about how it is dangerous to be a Christian and to stand for “traditional, family values.” The persecution complex is only going to be increased by the crazed actions of this one asshole. 

  • TheAmazingAgnostic

    There is a lot to unpack with this post of yours……..

    First, the organization that you mentioned is called “GLADD,” not “GLAD.” I admire the intellectual honesty in your admission that there is anti-gay rhetoric and that there have been anti-gay hate crimes. 

    However, the next part of your piece is simply wrong. There is no “rising vitriol” in the community of LGBT advocates. Calling somebody a bigot is not the same thing as calling someone a f**; labeling organizations as hate groups is not equal to stating that gays shouldn’t have a place in society. 

    Finally, your piece about Christians being “threatened” sounds like a victimhood complex of sorts. Since when did going to eat junk food at Chick-Fil-A become a sacrament? (I am not condoning the “threats” made to the priest, nor did I even support the Chick-Fil-A boycott, but just chew over the statement that I just made.) Since when did it become unsafe to go to church here in America? (I certainly wasn’t aware of this problem.) 

    I understand the point that you are trying to make. In this country, we have a long history of people “standing up” for what they believe in. Unfortunately, when taken to the extreme, this mindset can cause people to believe that they must take a stand on everything, even on the most trivial of issues. This mindset also causes some individuals to be obsessive and angry when they find that somebody else’s views do not line up with their own. Finally, this mindset can result in violent behavior. The key to avoiding this vicious cycle is empathizing with your rivals and your ideological foes. For example, while I might think that a person like you is wrong about many issues, I still acknowledge we have similar motivations and concerns; in other words, I can strongly disagree with you without hating you.

    We should all embrace our common humanity and reject violence as an option against those that we disagree with.

  • Piet

    The rhetoric from the gay camp is rising in its vitriol . Insisting on
    dehumanizing people who disagree with you by calling them bigots and
    hate groups is fodder for the extreme factions just as that type of
    language is fom relgious people.
    That is what happens when people on both sides feel that they can say and do what they want to achieve their goal.

     Of course disagreement is no reason to call someone a bigot.
    If your goal however is to actively prevent equality, than you are a bigot. Not that these bigots deserve to be mistreated.
    Now if these christian bigots would only stop their own actions, and just resort to praying, we might actually see progress in the US of A.

  • amycas

     Are you talking about in a previous comment??

  • Rwlawoffice

      Disagreeing is ok, but if Christians act on their disagreement we become bigots.  While, those that we disagree with can act all they want because they think they are on the side of equality and they aren’t bigots. Got to love the doublespeak.

  • amycas

    If all Christians did was say they think homosexuality was immoral and would therefore not participate, then there wouldn’t be a problem (still possibly bigotry, but I wouldn’t care much). They’re not doing that though. They are actively fighting to deny the rights of lgbt people. That’s not just acting on your beliefs, that’s forcing others to also act on your belief.

  • Rwlawoffice

     Sorry about misnaming GLADD.  As for the priest, I did not say eating at chick fil a was a sacrament. What he was doing was saying the rosary and praying at the restaurant when he was threatened.

    As for the churches being harassed, here is the link to those stories:

  • Piet Puk

    While, those that we disagree with can act all they want because they think they are on the side of equality and they aren’t bigots. 

    I did not say that.

  • Thank you for the reasonable response.  I’m glad you can see that there is real damage being done. 

    It’s hard for me to draw a solid line on “hate speech”…I’ve always felt that the term was too loaded.  Lots of people speak hatefully about lots of things, sometimes with good reasons.  I can say, though, that I have  never seen the words and actions of anti-gay christians and pro-gay activists as equal in hate or equally warranted.  I have never seen even lone voices dehumanize christians in any way comparable to the rather loud chorus of christians, who openly declare that homosexuality can destroy nations. 

    I am of the opinion that far-right authoritarianism and reactionary religious ideologies are completely capable, in the right circumstances,  of destroying a civilization.  Yet, by my own definition of civilization, I cannot encourage denying them basic rights, or treating them as criminals, or sending them to re-education camps, or telling other citizens that they must be shunned and destroyed for our own good.
    I am bound by my own morality to live and let live unless the time comes to stand up to open violence.  This is my own personal, godless morality that I have worked to improve, with no holy inspiration to help.  As soon as highly conservative christians can achieve this level of morality, we can all rest easy.

    Until then, this situation is not likely to improve.  I will not even try to justify violence against christians who promote violence against gays, but there is a lot of blood on their hands.  Calling someone who promotes second-class citizenship at best, and extermination at worst, a bigot, is not at all out of line and unreasonable.  You seem to be  claiming that calling a christian who does these things a bigot is comparable to donating time and money to the suppression and (worst case) even extermination of gays.  There are no two “equal sides” here.  There are people fighting for their right to exist, and people opposing that right to exist.  If real persecution of christians ever becomes a real threat in this country, you may just learn that there is a huge difference between those two positions. 

    I appreciate your honesty, but your morality is fucked in the head.    

  • Guest

     How exactly does one “trust” that they are saved by Christ if they *don’t* “believe without evidence” that Jesus is 1) an actual historical figure 2) the son of God 3) God himself 4) capable of saving people from sin 5) actually rose from the dead, and that 6) people need saving from “sin” to begin with? (And so on…)

    One of the few biblical characters who asked for evidence has been berated.  Jesus stated that those who believe without seeing are more blessed than those who have seen, etc.

    Jesus regularly complained that his disciples questioned his ability, his divinity, etc. Thing is, you can say this is because they “didn’t trust him”, but would YOU trust someone who said they were God without evidence? Trust requires just as much evidence as belief, as anything.

    There’s not a huge difference there between the two. Both require evidence of some kind in the real world. Yet in religion, we are expected to accept this message with child-like gullibility (and Jesus even harped on about that in more than one of the gospel accounts).

  • Rwlawoffice

     I find it interesting that you say that gay people are “fighting for the right to exist”. Last I checked there was no move in this country or in the Christian churches to eliminate homosexuals nor make homosexuality illegal.  (One out of line pastor calling for people to be put in camps doesn’t make this the position of the entire Christian community).

    What we do however is say that homosexual acts are immoral and we do not agree with them.  We also say that it is not in the best interest of society to redefine marriage to fit the desires of the gay community. You of course disagree with that and you can fight for the laws to change. Just as I have the right to fight for the laws to remain as they are. The difference is in recognizing your position I will not say that you are full of hate nor will I say you are a bigot. I will say we disagree.  On the other hand, the homosexual community says that anyone who does not agree with them and acknowledge that their morality on this subject is equal to all other’s views is acting out of hate and being bigoted. I am reminded of when my children were little when I didn’t agree with giving them something they want they accused me of hating them.  Don’t misunderstand, I am not calling those that are on the opposite of this issue children nor am I minimizing what they want. I am saying that their reaction to disagreement is childish and in some cases destructive.

    As for you not hearing of the vitriol directed towards those that oppose homosexual marriage, I imagine you haven’t because it is not covered by the mainstream media very often. But it exists and it is very common.  Her is an example of some of the homosexual hate speech:

  • Guest

    I saw the post and thought, “Hey, good to see people making sure this sort of thing is roundly condemned.”  Sadly, I openned the comments, and found the usual collection of ‘atheists – can we be more stupid and evil than Nazis?  You bet!’  The usual swill: atheists and lgbts never do bad things, atheism is the unbelief, you can’t blame it for things (though atheism seems to get credit when atheists do good things), maybe it is right to kill since hate is evil and this is a hate group that opposes people’s rights and all…  I would say horrible to read, but having visited atheist and leftists sites over the last year, it’s all to predictable.  Kudos for Ms. Beredjick for at least saying this is bad and there should be no attempt to validate it.  For those saying ‘why can’t moderate religious types condemn the radicals?’, why don’t the moderates here jump on some of those trying to weasel out of the ‘this is wrong and can’t be condoned’ take of the post.

  • What both interests and disgusts me, is your absolutely incredible inability to put yourself in anyone else’s shoes.

    I believe that your disgusting, idiotic slave religion and death cult, is in fact a net evil in the world that far outweighs what good it does.  Christians do more harm to more people and more societies on a daily basis, than gays have done to anyone in all of human history.  That is simply a fact.  
    Yet I, and most other people in the world these days,  choose not to try to suppress or destroy your freedom, way of life, or beliefs.    You just compared the reaction to not being allowed to marry or adopt children to the reaction  of spoiled kids not getting a treat.(and then tried to back up and say it was only the  reaction you were comparing, as if that made any more sense).  But no, there’s no bigotry in your views, not at all! 

     How would you feel, how would you characterize it, if instead there were millions of people fighting tooth and nail, spending millions upon millions of  dollars, lobbying a very sympathetic congress, evangelizing to other nations, that it was of vital importance that christians not be allowed to marry or adopt children, or raise children in christian households? What if the country was only 10% christian, and you were viewed by millions of people as subhuman, depraved, and dangerous to society?  What if Americans were helping encourage the jailing and killing of christians in other countries?  What if all this was seen as moral and right by many millions of people? 

    You would call it hate, bigotry, oppression, and murder.  And you would be absolutely right. 

    And that is what you support, whether you can get past your dishonesty and admit it or not.  By simply not calling out groups like the FRC as the bigots they are, and moreso, by publicly claiming that their actions are not bigotry, you are revealing that you don’t think social shunning for no real crime, or lesser rights by law for purely religious reasons, qualify as bigotry.  Groups that you say are not bigoted, look approvingly at jailing and killing gays in other countries even if you claim not to do the same.  As a consequence of your own beliefs, you are quite fairly lumped in with them.

    You allow your ignorant, fear-based, hate-filled concepts of sin to literally rob the humanity from millions of people.  You allow your self-righteous religious conceits to take precedence over other people’s freedom, freedom that doesn’t affect you one little bit except in your privilege to rule over others’ lives with your disgusting  bigotry. 

    The real questions, from a secular, freedom-oriented point of view:  How could it possibly affect you if gays could marry and adopt?  How could you possibly think it is your right to decide the paths of their lives, when it cannot possibly affect you? Why do you think you should have this power in a free country with full religious freedom?  There is no rational morality or fact-based reason that can defend that position….only pure bigotry, ignorance, and animalistic fear.   Can you even defend it at all, with anything other than your irrelevant religious beliefs?

    I still do not think violence is the answer for scoial change, but you should be shunned and shamed by all honest people.  You deserve it.  You have earned our scorn.  The world will be better off when you and your ilk either grow up or die off.  It’s happening either way, so I hope you enjoy your growing social irrelevance and being both the shame and the laughingstock of civilized humanity.


  • SwedishSJ

    It always astounds me when someone tries to claim that people who don’t support “homosexual marriage” are being oppressed.  I’m sorry, my friend, but the only real oppression that comes out of this issue is the LGBT individuals and families that suffer from the effects of anti-LGBT activism.  

  • SwedishSJ

    It’s the erosion of Christian privilege, long unquestioned in this country, that the far-right anti-“homosexual marriage” activists equate with oppression, which frankly sickens me.  You can’t process that your religion should not be able to kick LGBT individuals and families around.

  • Piet Puk

    Wow, these are almost all very very mild and from questionable sources. 
    Conservapedia, really?

    And the rosary guy, where is that story?

  • Pseudonym

    This is also a response to the Guest below.

    The question that both you and the Guest are asking, as I understand it, is what “trust” or “loyalty” (i.e. “faith”) means when there is no evidence for that in which you place your trust. That’s a damn good question, and I don’t have a good answer.

    I, for example, trust that the political world will sort out a rational, effective response to climate change before it’s too late. I have this trust despite a distinct lack of evidence of any such response being forthcoming (and arguably some evidence that it won’t happen). I constantly wonder how I can rationally hold this trust. In that case, I guess it’s because the alternative is unthinkable.

    If you’re human and not a complete cynic, you’re probably in a similar situation on some topic or other. Perhaps this very one, in fact.

    But as interesting as that question is, it has little to do with the definition of “faith”. Evidence, or otherwise, is not relevant to that.

    Thankfully, there’s a perfectly serviceable and unambiguous term to describe faith without evidence, namely, “blind faith”.

error: Content is protected !!