If the leader is racist, shouldn't we be suspicious of his organization. (America, mission)

[Faint]

I was just reading about the latest attack of the Family Research Council (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/hot....ap/index.html) In this a bunch of uppity conservatives want to eliminate porn from hotel rooms.

I've heard of this group and similar nitpicking cases before. They disgust me. So then I looked up some more info about their high-and-mighty "righteous" leader/president Tony Perkins.

I found this:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has linked the Family Research Council to racism through the activities of its president Tony Perkins.[2]. In the April 26, 2005 issue of The Nation magazine journalist Max Blumenthal wrote that Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has longstanding ties to racist organizations, including a deal with white supremacist David Duke to share his mailing list. "Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke."[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_...and_criticism)

What do you think...does this seem like the F.R.C. has another agenda other than their religious one? Does the fact that Perkins' ties to racist group cast the whole organization into suspicion? If you liked what the F.R.C. was doing before, does this make you think twice about it?

[evearael]

Originally Posted by Faint

If the leader is racist, shouldn't we be suspicious of his organization.

Yes. Tony Perkins' activities are inexcusable. I cannot respect an organization that would let him keep his position despite these actions. However, I wouldn't expect all of the FRC's supporters to be aware of his activities, thus I wouldn't presume they feel the same as he...

[Booko]

The fish rots from the head down.

'Nuff said.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Faint

I was just reading about the latest attack of the Family Research Council (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/hot....ap/index.html) In this a bunch of uppity conservatives want to eliminate porn from hotel rooms.

I've heard of this group and similar nitpicking cases before. They disgust me. So then I looked up some more info about their high-and-mighty "righteous" leader/president Tony Perkins.

I found this:

What do you think...does this seem like the F.R.C. has another agenda other than their religious one? Does the fact that Perkins' ties to racist group cast the whole organization into suspicion? If you liked what the F.R.C. was doing before, does this make you think twice about it?

I didn't like what they were doing in the first place so it's hard to say. It does kinda make one wonder, when they talk about "family values," what they mean by that.

And not to give you any more ammo against religion, but what makes you think that a racist agenda cannot be a religious agenda? There have been many racist religious views throughout the years.

I will say one thing, in response to you title question, that could be taken as a defense of them:
Right is right. If the "wrong" person says it, it is still right.
Now, I am NOT saying that it's right to ban porn from hotels (as long as there are safeguards for kids, I'm generally a libertarian when it comes to such things). But if I had thought that they were right about that, then the fact that the leader is a racist would not make me think they were less right about the porn.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by lilithu

I didn't like what they were doing in the first place so it's hard to say. It does kinda make one wonder, when they talk about "family values," what they mean by that.

And not to give you any more ammo against religion, but what makes you think that a racist agenda cannot be a religious agenda? There have been many racist religious views throughout the years.

I will say one thing, in response to you title question, that could be taken as a defense of them:
Right is right. If the "wrong" person says it, it is still right.
Now, I am NOT saying that it's right to ban porn from hotels (as long as there are safeguards for kids, I'm generally a libertarian when it comes to such things). But if I had thought that they were right about that, then the fact that the leader is a racist would not make me think they were less right about the porn.

I feel the same exact way.