|Craig Parshall, General Counsel|
March 21, 2012
First it was the Media Matters story earlier this year – the revelation that the liberal, non-profit “watch dog” group had been funded by another liberal foundation specifically to target Christian broadcasters, like Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family, for investigation. Now comes the recent news that a gay rights advocacy organization has developed an aggressive black-listing project, designed to keep Christian commentators off major news networks. Calling the effort the “Commentator Accountability Project,” gay rights group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is calling on major networks to refuse using Christian leaders who oppose homosexual rights as television pundits. GLAAD’s hit-list of persons who they want disqualified from being TV commentators names several NRB members, including Chuck Colson, Dean Mat Staver of the Liberty School of Law, Tim Wildmon of American Family Radio, and Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. They are among the listing of 36 pastors, talk-show hosts, authors, and commentators being distributed by the homosexual advocacy group. GLAAD is accusing those Christian spokespersons who support traditional marriage and Biblical values of perpetrating “hate,” “bias,” and demonstrating “extreme animus” against homosexuals.
To those who attended the Public Policy Debate at the NRB convention in Nashville in February, this news may sound like déjà vu. During the debate, I was joined by Vanderbilt University Professor Carol Swain, as we faced-off with Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok and Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State over the “Anatomy of Hate.” The question on the table was whether followers of Christ and Christian organizations are being unfairly targeted today by critics who use the ill-defined and often deceptive rubric of hate and bias in an attempt to silence the Judeo-Christian viewpoint. The Media Matters and GLAAD campaigns are, sadly, more evidence that the answer to that question must be a resounding, “yes.”