Video ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Hayes: “Trump’s Allies Have Begun A Smear Campaign Of Baseless And Vicious Innuendo Against The Khan Family”
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes highlighted a targeted smear campaign launched by right-wing media and Donald Trump adviser and confidante Roger Stone against the family of Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004 when protecting his fellow soldiers from a suicide bombing.
Hayes pointed out the “smear campaign of baseless and vicious innuendo against the Khan family” perpetrated by Trump allies and advisers, going so far as calling him a Muslim Brotherhood agent with ties to the Saudi Arabian government attempting to implement Sharia law in the US. From the August 1 edition of MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes:
CHRIS HAYES (HOST): Amid mounting backlash over Trump's comments, his campaign went into damage control mode releasing a statement calling Captain Khan, quote, "A hero to our country" and saying "We should honor all who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe." Went on to say, quote, "While I feel deeply for the loss of his son Mr. Khan who has never met me has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution. Which is false." Trump continued to harangue the Khans on Twitter yesterday. "I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Not me." And again this morning "This story isn't about Mr. Khan who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather radical Islamic terrorism and the U.S. Get smart!" Exclamation point. In the meantime, some of Trump’s allies have begun a smear campaign of baseless and vicious innuendo against the Khan family. Based on zero evidence, Breitbart now claims Khizr Khan has connections to the Saudi Arabian government, the Clinton Foundation, and terrorism, while Roger Stone, a long time Trump advisor and confidante who is unaffiliated with the campaign formally, tweeted that Khan is, quote, “a Muslim Brotherhood agent helping Hillary,” linking to conspiracy theories about Sharia law infiltrating the U.S.
Loading the player reg...
Media figures across the ideological spectrum condemned Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s attacks on Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of an American Muslim soldier who was killed while serving in Iraq in 2004, characterizing Trump’s comments as “repulsive,” and saying they show a “lack of a sense of decency” and “the gauge of his cruelty.”
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
The majority of Christians in America now believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society. But major media outlets routinely depict homophobia as just Christian or religious belief, giving a pass to some of the most extreme anti-LGBT activists and organizations in the country.
For years, media coverage of the fight for LGBT equality has followed a "God vs. gays" narrative that pits LGBT equality against religious -- and specifically Christian -- communities.
But according to recent polling data, 54 percent of all Christians now say that "homosexuality should be accepted by society." The data come from Pew's 2014 Religious Landscape Study, which surveyed more than 35,000 U.S. adults as a follow up to Pew's 2007 study. Now, the majority of major Christian groups, including Catholics, mainline Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and historically black Protestants, believe homosexuality should be accepted by society:
Despite the shifting attitudes of Christians in America, major media outlets continue to accept right-wing framing that conflates homophobia with mainstream Christian or religious beliefs.
In fights over LGBT equality, hate groups with track records of disparaging and demonizing gay people are referred to as Christian organizations by mainstream media. This tendency was on full display during the recent controversy surrounding Kim Davis - the Kentucky clerk who refused to provide wedding licenses to same-sex couples. Media outlets described Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis in her legal battle, as a "Christian" organization with no mention of its hate group status or history of anti-LGBT extremism. Hate group leaders like Family Research Council's Tony Perkins are routinely given airtime to act as the voice of Christian voters.
That conflation is even worse in right-wing media, where even blatantly homophobic remarks are spun into testaments of Christian faith. When Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality, Fox News' Sean Hannity defended his "old-fashioned traditional Christian sentiment." When the Benham brothers, a pair of right wing activists, were criticized for their extreme anti-gay rhetoric, conservative radio host Dana Loesch lamented the "anti-Christian bigotry" at play.
The conflation goes beyond whitewashing bad actors -- it also legitimizes discrimination against LGBT people under the guise of "religious liberty." "Religious freedom" laws like the controversial Indiana law this past March are built around the right wing narrative that serving LGBT people violates Christians' religious beliefs. Anti-LGBT groups have used the media to popularize stories about Christian business owners who are fined for refusing service to gay customers, depicting them as Christian martyrs who've been victimized by non-discrimination laws.
There's no reasonable limit to the kind of animus that anti-LGBT conservatives can justify under the guise of Christian or religious belief. In October 2014, a pediatrician in Michigan cited her religious beliefs after she refused to work with the baby of a same-sex couple. A former Ford Motor employee filed a complaint with the EEOC claiming that his "religious liberty" was violated after he violated the company's anti-harassment policy with a hate-filled response to an article detailing Ford's efforts to be more LGBT-inclusive. A teacher who was fired from a private school for refusing to accept a transgender child appeared on Fox News recently, and Fox host Megyn Kelly said that the teacher's "Christian beliefs ... don't support this."
While it's not the role of the media to question the validity or sincerity of a person's religious beliefs, it is imperative that journalists not blindly follow that self-identification. In the fight against Indiana's "religious freedom" law, religious leaders were some of the most outspoken critics of the anti-LGBT legislation - yet in the media, these religious voices were often drowned out by those of anti-LGBT extremists. Anti-LGBT groups and activists may sincerely identify themselves as Christian, but it's irresponsible and misleading for the media to advertise their views without noting that they increasingly contradict dominant Christian beliefs in America.
Image at top via Flickr user Danny Hammontree using a Creative Commons License.
Undercover At The Religious Right's Anti-LGBT "Future Conference"
One week before the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, a group of the country's most prominent anti-LGBT activists met at the Skyline megachurch in San Diego to discuss what their next steps should be in the fight against LGBT equality.
The meeting was part of the 2015 Future Conference, an event organized by Skyline Pastor Jim Garlow in order to respond to "the thorniest and most challenging issues in the current cultural landscape."
In promotional materials for the gathering, Garlow warned "our nation is in trouble" due to the lack of a "clear proclamation of biblical answers to the messiness of our culture." According to Garlow, pastors can no longer speak out about things like homosexuality because they are considered "political."
The four-day conference, which Media Matters attended undercover, featured presentations covering a range of issues -- from the threat of Islam to "biblical economics" -- but its unifying theme was the alleged rise of Christian persecution across the globe, and especially in the United States as a result of growing acceptance of LGBT people.
The list of over 50 speakers spanned the conservative political landscape and included members of Congress, Fox News contributors, and prominent right-wing activists. Senator James Lankford (R-OK), Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA), and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich submitted video remarks. There was even a presentation from Suzan Johnson Cook, former Obama administration Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.
The conference also featured speeches from some of the most prominent anti-LGBT groups in the country, including several organizations designated as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center: the Family Research Council (FRC), Liberty Counsel, and Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM).
Shielded from the eyes and ears of major media, speakers at the Future Conference expressed the kind of casual homophobia that would otherwise offend mainstream audiences. More importantly, they discussed their plans for dealing with a country seems increasingly determined to protect LGBT people from discrimination.
Speakers at the Future Conference presented many of the same homophobic talking points that have defined the religious right for the past several years. Many disparaged same-sex relationships as destructive and unhealthy. Frank Schubert -- the political strategist behind many of the country's most successful anti-LGBT campaigns -- told his audience that "sexual entanglements" between gay men pose "substantial risk of harm," and called gay sex "inherently unhealthy":
Others decried LGBT activists as being overly-aggressive and totalitarian. "The rainbow flag of tolerance has become the dark flag of tyranny overnight," warned Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. Conservative columnist Star Parker lamented that "homosexuality is now dividing us and bringing hostility into the public square. They're coming out of the closet -- they're forcing the church in." Michael Brown, an anti-LGBT activist known for showing up at gay pride events to badger attendees, declared that the "gay revolution has within itself the seeds of self-destruction."
FRC Vice President for Church Ministries Kenyn Cureton, in a presentation about mobilizing churches to get involved in political battles, described LGBT activists as "pawns of a malevolent master."
Outside the conference's main auditorium, organizations set up displays to hand out promotional materials about their work. FRC's display included copies of its "Debating Homosexuality" booklet, which falsely claims that gay men are more likely to engage in pedophilia than heterosexual men.
The Future Conference's homophobic content was unsurprising given the venue. In 2008, Garlow's Skyline Church was at the epicenter of the religious fight against California's Proposition 8. At the time, Garlow convened a call with 1,000 ministers to discuss tactics for banning same-sex marriage in the state -- tactics that ultimately proved successful in mobilizing religious support for the ballot measure.
Less than a decade later, Garlow and his allies were meeting under very different circumstances.
Same-sex marriage had become legal in a majority of states, including California. Public opinion was firmly in favor of marriage equality, and religious opposition to same-sex marriage was giving way to religious acceptance and support. Most speakers were correctly predicting that Obergefell would result in the Supreme Court legalizing nationwide marriage equality.
That looming reality gave the Future Conference a sense of urgent and sober realism. Beyond making their typical anti-gay remarks, speakers explained how they planned to stop, or at least slow, the push for LGBT equality in America.
One of the recurring themes at the Future Conference, especially in reference to Obergefell, was the suggestion that Christians are not obligated to obey the laws of man if they contradict the laws of God.
In a video message to the conference. Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver compared a Supreme Court decision legalizing marriage equality to Dred Scott, the infamous Supreme Court decision that found African Americans were not American citizens. "Our highest respect for a higher law," Staver said, "requires that we not give respect to an unjust decision." He explicitly suggested that religious adoption agencies should refuse to place children in households headed by same-sex couples, adding that the Supreme Court lacked the power to enforce its decisions.
That sentiment was echoed by several other speakers, including Schubert, who argued that a constitutional convention might be needed to override an "illegitimate" decision on same-sex marriage from the Supreme Court. NOM's Brian Brown touted his organization's "Presidential Marriage Pledge," which -- in addition to calling for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage -- asks presidential candidates to pledge to work to "overturn any Supreme Court decision that illegitimately finds a constitutional 'right' to the redefinition of marriage."
The civil disobedience canard has gained popularity among anti-LGBT activists and even GOP presidential candidates, who have similarly compared Obergefell to Dred Scott and suggested that Americans should simply refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court's authority.
Speakers also touted efforts to undermine and sidestep non-discrimination laws that would prohibit them from discriminating against LGBT people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Steve Riggle, a Houston pastor at the center of the national controversy surrounding Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) earlier this year, decried the city's attempt to extend "special rights" to LGBT people, peddling the myth that sexual predators would exploit the law by pretending to be transgender and sneaking into women's restrooms.
In a session titled "Homosexual Marriage - Obliterating Religious Liberty," Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel Kevin Theriot warned audience members that non-discrimination laws threaten the freedom of churches and businesses to act out their faith. ADF has been at the forefront of representing business owners who refuse service to gay customers, arguing that religious businesses should be exempt from non-discrimination protections. It's also the group behind the national push for state "religious freedom" laws, which would give business owners a legal defense for refusing service to gay customers. He offered audience members copies of ADF's booklet "Protecting Your Ministry," which offers advice on how for-profit businesses and churches can avoid non-discrimination lawsuits.
"Are you willing to do what it takes to prepare yourself for the coming onslaught?" Theriot asked before describing how churches might insulate themselves from discrimination complaints. One tactic, advised Theriot, is to take advantage of the ministerial exemption to non-discrimination laws by broadly defining "ministers" to include employees like IT technicians and food bank workers.
NOM's Brown encouraged attendees to throw their support behind the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which had just been introduced in Congress and would shield businesses and individuals from being denied tax exemptions, grants, licenses, certifications, or grants from the federal government as a result of their opposition to same-sex marriage. FADA has been criticized for creating a national license-to-discriminate against gays and lesbians, but the measure has since quickly gained support among anti-LGBT groups and conservative media outlets.
Beyond a political agenda, speakers at the Future Conference also talked a great deal about influencing public debates about LGBT issues, especially through the media.
Ted Baehr, Chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, touted efforts to inject Christian themes and imagery into mainstream television and film. Shows like "Will & Grace," he argued, had gotten society comfortable with an "illegal, demonic form of marriage." Using Hollywood to expose the public to Christian values is, according to Baehr, a key step in turning the tide in America's culture war.
Other speakers were more concerned with coverage of LGBT issues in news outlets. In a presentation titled "Dealing With Media," conservative author and right-wing activist Jason Mattera suggested that the key to winning public opinion was to invert the dominant media narrative about LGBT equality by decrying LGBT activists as intolerant bullies while painting religious conservatives as the real victims in the culture war.
Leftists are "the most intolerant, bigoted people on the planet. And that is, they want Christianity purged from the public square," Mattera declared. He urged his audience to portray the fight for LGBT equality as intolerant when talking to reporters or appearing on TV: "Why do they hate diversity? Why do they hate tolerance? I'm for a multiplicity of viewpoints. Isn't that what America is about? Why does that person want to compel me to do something I don't want? What is it about fascism that appeals to them?"
That "flip the script" tactic -- essentially calling LGBT activists bullies -- has been widely successful in influencing conservative media coverage of the fight for LGBT equality in recent years. Stories about anti-gay bakers and florists who are fined for refusing service to gay customers have helped motivate the recent wave of "religious freedom" laws and gin up opposition to non-discrimination efforts that protect LGBT people.
Despite the Future Conference's anti-gay rhetoric, a recurring theme was the need to mimic the very tactics used by the LGBT community to win acceptance from American public. Conservative activist Lance Wallnau lauded the LGBT movement for its unified and media-savvy public relations efforts, encouraging his audience to look at the success of the fight for same-sex marriage as a blueprint for how conservatives might take back the culture war.
Near the end of the conference, NOM's Brown warned conference-goers that "the days of comfortable Christianity are over":
BROWN: Things have been good a long time for us. We don't experience the sort of persecution that we're witnessing in the Middle East. We don't fear for our lives in coming together and worshipping. We've felt for a long time that we're a part of dominant culture. And over the course of the last decade or so, maybe a little longer, we've realized that's not the case. Things are starting to change, and that, to put it bluntly, the days of comfortable Christianity are over.
A Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality, Brown argued, would put conservative activists in the same position that anti-abortion activists were in after Roe v. Wade.
That sentiment, echoed by many of the conference's speakers, represents a seismic shift in the way that anti-LGBT groups and activists have oriented their work. Their political agenda, which once prioritized a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, has become largely defensive, focused on staving off the rising tide of LGBT equality.
That agenda is no less dangerous -- threatening even the most basic non-discrimination protections for LGBT people. But it also represents the new reality facing the anti-LGBT right after Obergefell. Having lost the national debate over same-sex marriage, anti-LGBT conservatives are adapting to a political environment that increasingly pits their animus against the force of the state and public opinion. How the religious right chooses to deal with that new reality -- whether with disobedience, resignation, or legal maneuvering -- will set the stage for the next phase of the fight over LGBT equality.
Loading the player reg...
At least one Catholic organization is denouncing Rush Limbaugh's remarks after the radio host chastised Pope Francis for his recent criticisms of global inequalities of wealth.
Pope Francis struck a chord with Catholics and non-Catholics alike when he issued his first apostolic exhortation, "The Joy of the Gospel," a commentary on his "vision of the Church" and his thoughts on the state of modern capitalism and global economic inequality. Among his comments was a specific criticism of "trickle down" economics -- which Francis declared has not been proven to work and reveals a "naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."
On his November 27 radio show, Rush Limbaugh attacked the pope's message, claiming that it was "pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope":
LIMBAUGH: I came across last night -- I mean, it totally befuddled me. If it weren't for capitalism, I don't know where the Catholic Church would be. Now, as I mentioned before, I'm not Catholic. I admire it profoundly, and I've been tempted a number of times to delve deeper into it. But the pope here has now gone beyond Catholicism here, and this is pure political. Now, I want to share with you some of this stuff.
"Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as 'a new tyranny.' He beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a document on Tuesday setting out a platform for his papacy and calling for a renewal of the Catholic Church. In it, Pope Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the 'idolatry of money.' "
I've gotta be very caref-- I have been numerous times to the Vatican. It wouldn't exist without tons of money. But, regardless, what this is -- somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him. This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope. There's no such -- "unfettered capitalism"? That doesn't exist anywhere.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) issued a response on November 27 and began a petition denouncing Limbaugh on December 2. In a statement, the group's representative Christopher Hale indicated that Catholics "of all political stripes are disturbed by Rush Limbaugh's incendiary comments." The full statement read as follows:
"Catholics of all political stripes are disturbed by Rush Limbaugh's incendiary comments this afternoon about Pope Francis. To call the Holy Father a proponent of "pure marxism" is both mean spirited and naive. Francis's critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church's social teaching. His particular criticism of "trickle down economics" strengthens what Church authorities have said for decades: any economic system which deprives the poor of their dignity has no place within a just society.
Contrary to what Mr. Limbaugh suggests, the Catholic Church isn't built on money, but on the firm foundation of Jesus Christ.
We call on Mr. Limbaugh to apologize and retract his remarks. We urge other Church organizations and leaders--both ordained and lay--to also condemn Mr. Limbaugh's comments.
We proudly stand with Pope Francis as he provides prophetic leadership for the Catholic Church and the entire world."
Veteran religion writers are offering harsh criticism of Fox News religion correspondent Lauren Green for making author Reza Aslan's Muslim background the focus of a recent interview about his new book on Jesus. They say that her suggestion that Aslan's faith might preclude his ability to cover the topic fairly was insulting and illogical, and seemed aimed more at playing to her audience's biases than informing them.
"Fox News knows the zeitgeist of its readership and understands what stokes the Fox audience's anger. Fox News is excellent at providing the tinder needed to make that blaze burn," Debra L. Mason, executive director of the Religion Newswriters Association, said in a statement to Media Matters. "I was not surprised so much by the interview because it seemed to fit the Fox formula perfectly. I would have been more surprised to see an interview that recognized what the vast majority of professional religion reporter specialists and the vast majority of scholars of religion believe: that one's personal faith generally has little bearing on the ability to be accurate in the study or reporting of religion."
She later added, "Reza Aslan as the author of a new book on Jesus should be judged on his credentials as a scholar, his experience with the topic, and on the soundness of his research, period."
That view was echoed by several religion writers and authors who reacted negatively to the recent interview in which Green repeatedly questioned why Aslan, as a Muslim, had authored the recently-released book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.
The first question Green asked during the FoxNews.com interview was, "You are a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?" She would repeatedly return to that question throughout the interview, and accused him of having "never disclosed" his faith during appearances on other programs.
When Aslan pointed out he is a "scholar of religions with a PhD in the subject" and studies the topic for a living, Green continued to question his background more than the book.
At one point, Aslan stated, "I'm not sure what my faith happens to do with my 20 years of academic study of the New Testament."
Aslan has a Ph. D. in the sociology of religion, a master's degree in theological studies from Harvard University, and a bachelor's degree in religion from Santa Clara University, as well as a master's of fine arts in fiction. He previously authored books on the history of Islam.
"If the accusation is that you have to be of a particular faith to write about it, I don't see the logic in that," said Abe Levy, a religion writer for the San Antonio Express-News. "Anyone can scrutinize a particular faith if they have studied it, you don't have to be of that particular faith. In my line of work, you want to have a deep respect for a particular religion, even if it is not your own, but you don't have to be of a particular faith to cover it."
Indeed, Green herself, a committed Christian, has repeatedly reported on Islam.