Sometimes you read something and have to do a double take. One of those shake-your-head, cartoon-sound-effect "Huh??" moments.
That's what happened when I read the Liberty Council's Mat Staver's quote in the Florida Baptist Witness. The article was discussing the Obama transition website and its inclusion of LGBT rights. The gist of the article was "be afraid, be very afraid" of the evil Obama coming to take away your religious freedom by promoting the "homosexual agenda."
Not surprising, right? Pretty standard reading from the far-right. But then I got to this little gem from Staver:
Social conservatives and religious organizations, Staver said, could learn much from studying the case of Bob Jones University, which lost its tax-exempt status during the 1970s because it prohibited interracial dating and marriage...
Wow. More after the jump...
Staver's heavy dose of racism came as the article was talking about ENDA, which obviously Staver and his ilk are against:
Staver said the case nonetheless could be used in the future against churches and religious organizations viewed as discriminating on the basis of "sexual orientation," particularly if "sexual orientation" is placed alongside race as a protected class in federal law. The goal of homosexual activists, Staver said, is to transform society so much that it views opponents of "gay marriage" in the same light it views racists.
So you back-up case about how opposing equal rights is the right thing to do is to reference the "good old days" when interracial marriage was illegal and racists could be as racist as they wanted to be?
That's some moral high ground there, Staver.
The rest of the article goes on to attack Obama's stated support of repealing DOMA, DADT, and restrictive adoption policies. I wonder what race baiting, bigoted references Staver is working up to support those positions...
So way to go, Liberty Council's Mat Staver- nothing like a some racism mixed with your morning dose of homophobia. Thanks for explicitly saying what we all knew of you were thinking.
At least Staver seems to believe in some kind of equality- he is bigoted against everyone.
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
6 Comments
« December Harvard Business Review Features "When Steve Becomes Stephanie" | Home | Diego Sanchez Named As Senior Advisor To Barney Frank »
WE should look at what was done to take away Jones University's tax-x status, so that we can try to have the tax-x status taken away from churches that do push an anti-human rights political agenda. What worked in the 1970s might very well still work today. Nice of this clown to hand us a great idea!
I'd love to see churches prohibited from speaking of politics from the pulpit, for fear that they'd lose their 501c status.
It's been my position for some time now that religious-based hatred of GLBT people/rights is often racism coming out of the closet, at least where mostly-white religious denominations (mostly $50s and $100s) are concerned. This proves me at least partly right.
Polar | December 17, 2008 3:52 PM
Reply to this comment
You know, I remember how Bob Jones has been held up for ridicule for it's inter-racial dating policy. I remember George W. Bush speaking at the school too and how perfectly fine conservatives are with the school's history and continued racial intolerance.
Bil Browning | December 17, 2008 11:22 PM
Reply to this comment
Personally, I think that there should be no tax exempt status for churches, how is that consistent with the establishment clause in the first amendment. Churches are sitting on a gold mine of taxable assets which could help cities, states and even the feds with their tight budgets. If all those fundies are really so damn patriotic they should be more than willing to pay their fair share.
I'll be waiting for real tax fairness to kick in, but I am not going to hold my breath.
diddlygrl | December 18, 2008 2:56 AM
Reply to this comment
This isn't surprising. Contrary to the myth they push, the Religious Right really found its political bearings as a result of government actions against Bob Jones University in the late 70's. They considered integration, throughout the 50's and the 60's, to be a violation of religious freedom, and rallied around BJU because they needed to protect what they saw as their God-given right to segregation. But since segregation was losing its cache, they started pursuing abortion as a strategy.
But really, the movement is based on BJU's tax fight. Here's a good article on the subject.
http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=455943&articleId=667609&func=5&channel=News
Alex Blaze | December 18, 2008 3:48 PM
Reply to this comment
People need to learn how to reason logically. It is obvious to anyone who has any sense of legal precendence what Mat Staver is talking about with the extension of the prior decision to future cases. He isn't condoning racism; he is pointing to the fact that people try to draw parallels from those cases to current positions of churches not to cater to the GLBT community.
AL | February 2, 2009 11:07 PM
Reply to this comment
Let's have honest dialogue. While Mr. Staver's comments may or may not have been innapropriate, all of you who are bashing religion are as biggoted as those whom you claim to be such. You know that many churches, especially considering decreasing parish membership, particularly in the Catholic Church, may not be able to survive if they would lose their tax exempt status. Lets get it right, you are anti-religion, more specifically anti-Christian. Although you prefer coercion to succeed in the de-Christianization of the United States, and prefer the pure statist approach, which tends to circumscribe freedom, you are no better than those whom you condemn.
RS | August 20, 2009 9:07 PM
Reply to this comment