When Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala, a priest of the Vishnu Temple in Parma, Ohio, gave a Hindu Prayer to Congress, FRC was incensed. In a rare show of sincerity, FRC's Culture Watch argued that

"[W]hile it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage. (..) Our Founders expected that Christianity - and no other religion - would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

The article then predicted doom for the American people when they relegated the "One True God" to "merely one among countless other deities in the pantheon of theologies" and denounced Hinduism as "pagan".

So much for all the B.S. of " Judeo-Christian" values and "religious freedom". Radical-right Christians don't want religious freedom for anyone but themselves, and a leading religious right lobbying group has finally admitted to it.

This little episode happened in September 2000 and it turned out to be a major PR disaster for FRC. FRC quickly removed the statement from its website, and Chuck Donovan issued the following "clarification":

"It is the position of the Family Research Council that governments must respect freedom of conscience for all people in religious matters. . . . We affirm the truth of Christianity, but it is not our position that America's Constitution forbids representatives of religions other than Christianity from praying before Congress. We recognize that decisions on this matter are the prerogative of each house of Congress."

• Religious Right Group's Attack On Hindu Prayer In Congress 'reeks Of Religious Bigotry,' Says AU
• Baptist Leader Praises Hindu's Prayer in Congress
• Invocation Intolerance: Hindu Priest's Prayer Before U.S. House Sparks Outbreak Of Bigotry At Family Research Council

The Family Research Council: A non-partisan research organization?

"The Family Research Council is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization operating under the provision of Section 501C-3 of the Internal Revenue Code. "   FRC website, mission statement

"Family Research Council plans to attend the Republican National Convention which will be held July 31-August 3 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. FRC will vigorously defend families, faith and freedom by working to ensure that the Republican Party’s platform remains a strong pro-family document. In the city where the Declaration of Independence was signed, it is important for FRC to send a clear signal to the Republican Party that documents do matter."   FRC website, news, July 2000

best of FRC: The most pernicious lies, distortions and misrepresentations (a work in progress)

FRC: "The Supreme Court ruled this week that government schools should censor student speech that has a religious viewpoint." (FRC website, June 2000)

Fact: The Supreme Court ruled that public schools cannot assist majority faith students in prosetylizing others. The court did not censor protestant fundamentalist students at Santa Fe, it only made clear that those students do not have special rights and cannot get special treatment from the school.

Janet Parshall's Hypocrisy

"After he objected on moral grounds to serving around-the-clock shifts in the intimate confines of a nuclear missile launch center with a woman, the Air Force’s Lieutenant Ryan Berry, a devout Catholic who’s married, saw his request for a religious accommodation denied, and he received a career-killing evaluation report. Lieutenant Berry now has very little chance to be selected for promotion to captain this August, which means that his career will end in the year 2002.(...) The Clinton administration’s push to integrate men and women in the military has led to punishing an officer with integrity, Lieutenant Ryan Berry. Authorities in the Air Force should begin a campaign for “Saving Lieutenant Ryan.” "      (July 26, 1999 radio commentary)

"The purpose of the military is to protect and defend America. Any behavior that interferes with that goal should not be tolerated. These new rules are an attack on what’s best for America’s defense."       (August 17, 1999 commentary on gays in the military)

Janet Parshall's amazing insights

"People seem to know, for example, that the heinous murder of homosexual Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard was just as horrific as the murder of an 8-year-old Wyoming girl, Christian Lamb. That’s simply common sense. "       (July 29, 1999 radio commentary)

When I read that statement, I was amazed at Janet Parshall's ability to say that two murders, both of which she did not witness, were equally horrific. Since I had never heard of Christin Lamb, I did some research on the internet and found a series of newspaper articles on the case. Here they are: 08/08/98, 08/09/98, 08/10/98, 10/13/98.

Apparently, the authorities did not divulge the details of the crime (such as findings from the autopsy report) to the public. So how does Janet Parshall know that the murder of Christin Lamb was equally horrific as the murder of Matthew Shephard - who was brutally beaten, pistol-whipped, and then left to die in the cold Wyoming night, bleeding, with his skull cracked open and tied to a fence like a scarecrow?

There are a few observations we can make, however. It is probably safe to assume that

• Christin Lamb's funeral was not picketed by Religious extremists holding "Christin burns in hell" signs
• Christin's murderer had not received permission to hate 8-year-old girls from a series of aggressive ad campaigns and ballot initiatives claiming that 8-year-old girls are responsible for America's "moral decay"
• no one would infer that heterosexual married men are child molesters, just because Christin's murderer, James E. Peterson was married and heterosexual
• Peterson's defense lawyers will not try the "heterosexual panic defense".

Henderson got his two consecutive life terms without parole because of the extreme viciousness of the crime and the judge's perception that Henderson was completely without genuine remorse, not because of some special status confered on him by a hate crime law. Maybe Peterson got "only" one life term because he faked his remorse more succesfully? Whatever the reason for the difference in sentencing, it is not due to any hate crime law, as the FRC argument deceptively suggests.

The "research" of the Family Research Council

FRC recently commissioned a study that supposedly shows that "the American people aren’t buying the story that people who engage in homosexual behaviors deserve the same special legal protections as true minorities,” and that “The ‘gay’ party line that homosexuals have suffered injustices similar to those that Dr. Martin Luther King fought against is a groundless comparison.” It is instructive to look at the actual questions of that poll. (FRC source in blue)

1. Do you think that homosexuals have suffered the same kind of legal injustice, such as not being able to vote, not being able to get an education, earn a living, or having to sit in the back of a bus, that black people did prior to the 1964 civil rights act?

• 15% Yes, Homosexuals Have Suffered the Same as Blacks
• 80% No, Homosexuals Have Not Suffered the Same as Blacks
• 5% Don’t Know/Refused

But in other ways, gays and lesbians are also in a worse situation than black people. Their relationships are not acknowledged by society, they are legally banned from marrying, they are frequently challenged to "change" by a hostile environment that is ignorant of the fact that they can't, and often, they are not even supported by their own families. Even in South Carolina in the 1950s, black children still had black parents and a black church that accepted them for what they were. How many gay teenagers can claim a similar thing? And how many black people have ever been de-humanized by aggressive "ex-black" ads featuring ex-blacks such as Michael Jackson?

The bottom line is: just because one minority suffers differently than another does not mean it suffers less or more. No one claims that gays and lesbians are suffering in the same way that blacks did. What matters is that behind the discrimination, there is always the same, timeless equation: different = inferior. That equation needed to be challenged back then, and it needs to be challenged today.

2. In a hypothetical scenario, two friends are murdered. One was a homosexual, the other a heterosexual. I am going to read you three different opinions about these murders and would like you to tell me which is most like your own.

• 98% Both murders are equally serious and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law
• 1% The murder of the heterosexual is a more serious crime
• **The murder of the homosexual is a more serious crime
• 1% Don’t know/Refused

It is not, and has never been, the objective of hate crime legislation to make the murder of a homosexual a more serious crime than the murder of a heterosexual, as this question suggests. No one is proposing such an outrage, and to suggest differently is a lie, plain and simple.

Hate crime legislation targets crimes that are motivated by indiscriminate hatred against a whole class of people and thus victimize not just an individual, but a whole community. Someone who attacks one hundred people deserves more punishment than someone who attacks a single person.

Hate crime laws that cover "sexual orientation" do not confer a special status on anyone, because every man and every woman has a sexual orientation, even Gary Bauer.

3. And, which of the following statements most closely represents your own point of view?

• 92% Criminals should be punished for their actions alone and all victims should receive equal protection from the law
• 6% Criminals should be punished for their thoughts and some victims should receive more protection from the law
• 2% Don’t Know/Refused

This is just a variation on the previous question. Once again, the question is supposed to tackle the issue of hate crime legislation, but it is so slanted that the overwhelming majority could only give the response that the question was designed to elicict, and from which FRC concludes that Americans are against hate crime legislation. However, in demanding that criminals be punished for their actions alone, FRC is overlooking a crucial point: that intentions do play a role in the criminal justice system, and always did. Courts punish murderers differently, depending on whether the murder was premeditated or not. Is FRC suggesting that accidental manslaughter be punished in the same way as premeditated, cold-blooded murder?

4. A scientific magazine recently repudiated its own study showing that homosexuality may be genetic. Meanwhile, a new ad campaign features men and women who have left homosexuality. On the issue, do you personally…

• 41% Believe that homosexuals are born that way
• 45% Believe that homosexuals are not born that way and can change
• 14% Don’t Know/Refused

It deserves to be noted that there is a fourth opinion that FRC failed to include: that homosexuals are not born that way and still can't change. And there is also a fifth possibility: that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. And that final possibility is the only one that is consistent with all the evidence.

Dan Quale, by the way, thinks that homosexuality is a "lifestyle-orientation".

It also deserves to be noted that the nature/nurture question is irrelevant to the issue of civil rights. Religious beliefs enjoy civil rights protection, even though they are not genetic in origin, but learned behaviour. Christians can choose to leave the Christian lifestyle, and many do. But that does not make religious beliefs less worthy of protection.

5. Studies show that homosexuals account for more than half the cases of the most serious sexually-transmitted diseases in the United States, including AIDS and Hepatitis B. Do you think that homosexual sex…

• 21% Is as safe as heterosexual sex
• 70% Carries more risk than heterosexual sex
• 9% Don’t know/Refused

In reality, there is no causal relation at all between STDs and gay sex. The causal relationship is between STDs and unsafe sex. And unsafe sex is practiced by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. That gay men constitute the largest group of HIV/AIDS cases in the developed world is what statisticians call a mere correlation. For example, streets being wet correlates with people carrying umbrellas. But that does not mean that carrying an umbrella causes rain.

Being a gay man does not predispose you to contract HIV. It is unsafe sex with infected partners that gets you infected with HIV, regardless of your sexual orientation.

It deserves to be noted here that the term "homosexual" is gender-neutral and refers to both homosexual men and women. It is a fact that homosexual women, also known as lesbians, bear a significantly lower risk of contracting HIV than heterosexual women.. curiously, FRC never mentions that fact. That fact directly contradicts the "gay=health risk" argument of the religious right. So here's another good question for presidential candidate Gary Bauer:

If male homosexuality should be discouraged because it allegedly carries a health risk, should not female homosexuality be encouraged for exactly the same reason?

6. As you may know, homosexuals are pressing to adopt children. Which of the following statements best reflects your point of view on this issue:

• 70% Children are best in mother and father based families
• 27% It makes no difference whatsoever whether children are raised by mother and father families or by homosexual families
• ** Children are best in homosexual families
• 2% Don’t know/Refused

20 years of studies by social researchers comparing the children of gay parents with the offspring of heterosexuals have failed to discover any significant negative difference between the two.

In 1992, American researcher Charlotte Patterson analyzed the findings of 12 studies that had assessed more than 300 children of gay or lesbian parents, often comparing them with the children of divorced heterosexual women. They found that adult children of gay people were no more likely to be gay than were the children of heterosexual parents.

They did not differ from ``normal" children in terms of gender identity (how good they felt about being male or female) or gender role behavior (lesbians' children played just as often with ``feminine" toys such as dolls, and as adults were just as likely as others to choose jobs that fitted with conventional sex roles).

The studies found no differences in terms of intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems and development of moral judgment.

The significant differences they did find were nothing you could base a discriminatory law upon. One study reported that lesbians' children saw themselves as more lovable and were rated by others as more affectionate and more protective towards younger children.

Another reported that lesbian mothers were more concerned than heterosexual mothers that their children have good relationships with adult men; a third, that children of lesbians saw more of their fathers than the children of heterosexual divorced women.

No evidence here of ideological brainwashing against heterosexuality. Maybe that's because gay parents know how painful and destructive it is to be pressured to deny your true self. Maybe they don't want that for their own children, gay or straight.

from a 8/2/99 gfn article

In summary, three out of the six questions of the poll are leading questions, offering irrelevant or factually inaccurate information to manipulate responses.

Two questions supposedly show that the American public is against hate crime legislation, where in fact they just show that the overwhelming majority of the American people believes in equal rights for gays and lesbians, a point that was totally lost on FRC.

The last question seems fair on the surface, but the fact that the two preceding question unfairly associate homosexuality with disease ("homosexuality is changeable" is just a nicer way of saying that gays are mentally sick) casts the results into doubt.

Furthermore, since neither the sample size nor the margin of error are given, the poll cannot even technically be considered scientific. It is, as Janet Parshall would say, "junk science".