Brian Tashman's blog

Family Research Council vice president Rob Schwarzwalder yesterday called for a boycott of Starbucks and warned that the company may be endangering the country’s economic health by supporting marriage equality in Washington. “By supporting a movement that would further vitiate the already weakened family unit,” Schwarzwalder writes, “[Starbucks CEO Howard] Schultz is tacitly but actively advocating the continued erosion of the institution – the two-parent, heterosexual, traditional and complementary family unit – without which no economy or society generally can thrive.”

It’s difficult to see how ensuring that gays and lesbians have the right to marry would “vitiate the already weakened family unit” and consequently damage the economy, as studies show that marriage equality is actually a boon to the economy. Researchers have also found the legalizing same-sex marriage does not impact the divorce rate of married opposite-sex couples. But according to Schwarzwalder, marriage equality has “dangerous implications for individuals, families, and culture.”

My home state of Washington has produced some of America’s leading corporations and entrepreneurs: Microsoft and Bill Gates; the Nordstrom, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser families and their eponymously named companies; the Eddie Bauer sporting goods empire; and the nearly omnipresent Starbucks (almost 11,000 stores worldwide). Starbucks emerged in the 1970s at Seattle’s Pike Place Market. One of my sisters bought me a bag of cocoa powder from this location more than three decades ago; if I still had it, it likely would fetch a nice collector’s price.

For many years, I’ve enjoyed going to Starbucks, becoming acquainted with any number of “baristas” and drinking enough of its variously flavored beverages that “grande” characterizes my waistline as much as the size of a given drink. Even when traveling in the Middle East, the taste of a frappuccino has been a welcome reminder that one can go home again. And I’ve always been glad to go into a place that, in some ways, still reminds me of home (there’s a reason Starbucks’ interiors usually are muted; it’s a Pacific Northwest thing).

With Microsoft and several other major firms, Starbucks last month endorsed the effort of some of the Evergreen State’s leading politicians to enact homosexual “marriage.” Although this initiative passed in the state legislature and was signed into law by departing Gov. Christine Gregoire, it likely will be on the state ballot in November.

What is a bit maddening, given Starbucks’ strident advocacy for the redefinition of marriage, is CEO Howard Schultz’s claim that he is non-political. As he said just a few days ago, ”I have no interest in public office … I have only one interest, and that is I want the country to be on the right track.”

…

To Schultz’s credit, he authored a pledge, now signed by a fairly large group of CEOs, in which they promise, “I join my fellow concerned Americans in pledging to withhold any further campaign contributions to elected members of Congress and the President until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.”

This is admirable, and no doubt motivated by a patriotic desire to see the U.S. once again become the engine of economic growth that, for so many decades, it has been. Yet the key to a strong economy is a strong family – a family composed of a father, a mother, and children. The hard data prove it. By supporting a movement that would further vitiate the already weakened family unit, Schultz is tacitly but actively advocating the continued erosion of the institution – the two-parent, heterosexual, traditional and complementary family unit – without which no economy or society generally can thrive.

Additionally, Schultz’s decrying of divisiveness rings a bit hollow when he plunges his company feet-first into the culture wars. The effort to redefine marriage to include same-sex partners is a radical social innovation, one fraught with dangerous implications for individuals, families, and culture. Claiming to be post-political and then allowing one’s chief corporate spokesperson to say that same-sex “marriage” is “is core to who we are and what we value as a company” are assertions that don’t quite add up.

Public schools have long faced attacks from Religious Right activists who deem them ungodly institutions and conservative politicians who seek to defund and privatize them, and this week Truth in Action Ministries, formerly Coral Ridge Ministries, released the film The Dumbing Down of America on the “sinister” agenda of the public education system. We’ve selected highlights from the film which includes Religious Right figures such as radio talk show host Janet Parshall, Liberty Counsel chairman Mathew Staver, The Myth of Separation Between Church and State author Dee Wampler, Philomath Foundation president Katherine Dang and Center for Academic Freedom (a division of the Alliance Defense Fund) legal counsel Greg Baylor.

The film warns that public schools are based on what Parshall called a “Hitlerian idea” and are led by atheist, communist teachers who Wampler says seek “the eradication of Christianity.” Staver warned that public schools have created a “society that is ripe for chaos and disorder” and Wampler went as so far to blame public education for “everything bad that is happening in our country today.” Of course, no Religious Right film can go long without criticizing gays and lesbians, as Parshall and Baylor criticized positive representations of LGBT community in education.

Watch:

The Media Research Center is once again attacking the show Glee for its portrayal of gay and bisexual characters. The MRC’s Paul Wilson, writing for the organization’s Culture and Media Institute, appears to consider any depiction of the show’s characters that doesn’t kowtow to the MRC’s anti-gay sensibilities to somehow be an attack on Christianity and the Bible, accusing Glee of leading a “campaign against traditional sexual morality” and “mocking the Bible.” He lamented that in the last episode of Glee the “gay lifestyle was pushed on viewers” and said the show is fully committed to “pushing homosexual propaganda on its viewers”:

The TV musical “Glee” has a long history of pushing the envelope on sexual matters and promoting the homosexual lifestyle. The Valentine’s Day episode of Glee, titled “Heart,” marked a new low in Glee’s campaign against traditional sexual morality, by mocking the Bible.

A lesbian student, Santana asked a group of Christians called the “God Squad” to sing for her girlfriend as part of a “singing telegram” performance. The idea didn’t sit well with a new homeschooled student, who conveniently fit all the stereotypes liberals have of homeschoolers (the unsocialized, barefoot son of a Bible salesman who listens to talk radio but doesn’t own a TV). His reluctance sparked a conversation among the so-called “God Squad” about the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.

The students of the “God Squad” claimed to respect his decision – and then mocked the Bible’s relevance on homosexuality.

…

The episode was full of “Glee’s” usual instances where the gay lifestyle was pushed on viewers, featuring lesbian kissing in the hallways and a student coming out that he was gay. Lesbian cheerleader Santana complained: “All I want to be able to do is kiss my girlfriend, but I guess no one can see that, because there’s such an insane double standard at this school.”

In a singularly ironic way, she’s right. There is an insane double standard at that school – in favor of the homosexual lifestyle.

By mocking the Bible, “Glee” has gone further down the rabbit hole in pushing homosexual propaganda on its viewers.

American Family Association founder and Newt Gingrich Faith Leaders Coalition co-chair Don Wildmon yesterday on AFA Today warned voters not to support President Obama for reelection because if he wins a second term “then we’re gone” as “his hands will be free to come after religious people.” Wildmon also told listeners not to shop at JC Penney because their new spokesperson, Ellen DeGeneres, “has a perversion.” The AFA’s women’s group OneMillionMoms is leading a campaign to pressure JC Penney to fire DeGeneres because she is openly gay.

Watch:

Early last year American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer posted a column arguing that a "sensible and sane immigration policy" would model "ancient Israel" and require every immigrant to "convert to Christianity." Muslim immigrants in particular would be required to "drop his Islam and his Qur’an at Ellis Island." But in what has becoming a frequent occurrence, Fischer later deleted both of the sentences, among other sentences, and altered the article to make it a tad less inflammatory.

But today on Focal Point, Fischer repeated his claim that Muslims should "convert to Christianity" in order to become American citizens, saying that immigrants must "got to embrace your God, they've got to embrace your faith."

Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton joined John Rabe of Truth in Action Ministries on Truth that Transforms yesterday to discuss same-sex parenting. The two claimed that supporters of marriage equality are “unscientific” when it comes to family stability and have “completely ignored” evidence showing that same-sex parenting harms children.

Rabe: Glenn, it’s always very interesting to me because we Christians are portrayed as being often anti-science and anti-progress and so forth yet when you talk about the issue of marriage and family it’s interesting how the other side very quickly becomes the sentimentalists in the group, suddenly all the empirical data, all the scientific stuff, is completely ignored and you hear statements about ‘people who just love each other should be able to marry and define that for themselves.’ From an empirical perspective there’s not even any argument about how beneficial a traditional man-woman marriage and family is as opposed to other models, is there?

Stanton: You said it exactly right. It’s remarkable how those folks on the other side being the ‘reasonable ones,’ the ones who unlike us don’t believe in sentimentality and myth and things like that, they become very, very unscientific.

The claim that there is no “empirical data” or “scientific stuff” confirming the idea that same-sex parents can raise healthy and well-balanced children is false. In fact, it is anti-gay activists who are ignoring the research about same-sex parenting.

The American Psychological Association’s review of mainstream scientific literature has debunked claims that children of same-sex couples would have more mental and emotional problems. In addition, studies consistently find that children raised by same-sex parents are just as well-adjusted those raised in households with opposite-sex parents.

A University of Amsterdam study [pdf] on the “quality of life (QoL) of adolescents in planned lesbian families” found that their quality of life is no different from their peers:

In conclusion, the reported QoL for adolescent offspring in planned lesbian families is similar to that reported by the matched adolescents in heterosexual-parent families. This finding supports earlier evidence that adolescents reared by lesbian mothers from birth do not manifest more adjustment difficulties (e.g., depression, anxiety, and disruptive behaviors) than those reared by heterosexual parents.

Researchers from the University of Virginia similarly found that “adolescents with same-sex parents did not differ significantly from a matched group of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents”:

The results of the present study, which is the first based on a large national sample of adolescents living with same-sex couples, revealed that on nearly all of a large array of variables related to school and personal adjustment, adolescents with same-sex parents did not differ significantly from a matched group of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents. Regardless of family type, adolescents were more likely to show favorable adjustment when they perceived more caring from adults and when parents described close relationships with them. Thus, as has been reported in studies of children with lesbian mothers (e.g., Chan et al., 1998), it was the qualities of adolescent – parent relationships rather than the structural features of families (e.g., same- vs. opposite-sex parents) that were significantly associated with adolescent adjustment (Golombok, 1999; Patterson, 2000).

A Stanford University sociologist also sees no major differences among children in terms of educational achievement:

To the extent that normal progress through primary school is a useful and valid measure of child development, the results confirm that children of same-sex couples appear to have no inherent developmental disadvantage. Heterosexual married couples are the most economically prosperous, the most likely to be white, and the most legally advantaged type of parents; their children have the lowest rates of grade retention. Parental [Socio-Economic Status] accounts for more than one-half of the relatively small gap in grade retention between children of heterosexual married couples and children of same-sex couples. When one controls for parental SES and characteristics of the students, children of same-sex couples cannot be distinguished with statistical certainty from children of heterosexual married couples.

But groups like Focus on the Family and Truth in Action Ministries try to damage to the health and welfare of families led by same-sex parents with their consistent promotion of anti-gay laws and social stigmas.

One of the most sad and telling claims of so-called ‘faith healers’ from Benny Hinn to Todd Bentley is that the reason people are not healed at their healing conferences or through their television ministries is not because the faith healer wasn’t able to cure the ailment or sickness but because of the lack of faith of the person (and often the inadequate size of their financial gifts) who sought the healing. If only the person had genuine faith, so it goes, then the healing would’ve worked, so don’t blame the healer!

Today on the 700 Club, we saw an example of that when a viewer called in wondering why it is that when he prayed with Pat Robertson during his show for a healing of his knee pain the pain came back the next day. Robertson responded that people can “give up” his healings because “you don’t believe that it’s real” and never claimed the healing, “this is mine.” He also maintained that the return of the pain “may be Satanic and the things come back on you, they come back and you need to rebuke it and command it to leave you, permanently.”

Watch:

Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who today is testifying at Rep. Darrell Issa’s male and conservative dominated hearing on whether the “Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience,” earlier appeared on James Dobson’s program Family Talk to claim that “aggressive secularity” is “becoming the established ‘religion’ in our country today.”

After discussing the contraception mandate, Lori went on to claim that gay rights measures are attempts to “force us out of foster care and adoption.” To be clear, no group has been ‘forced out’ of such services, some church-affiliated organizations did not receive taxpayer dollars for such services because they insisted on using taxpayer money while discriminating against gay and lesbian taxpayers. Lori went on to lament that public schools are denigrating Christianity while affirming homosexuality:

Lori: When in a state they’re proposing a same-sex marriage law, they always say to religious people ‘you don’t have to solemnize these marriages so we’re protecting your freedom,’ but they want to force us out of foster care and adoption, they want to force us to provide benefits for same-sex couples. The other thing we should not miss is that when we send our kids off to public schools and a lot of places its being drilled into them that the sexual mores taught by the churches are bad, repressive, that same-sex marriage is OK, that homosexuality is all right. Of course if you look at a Western Civ. course the role of Christianity is always portrayed in a negative light, as an impediment to progress. As I say, there is an established religion, it’s really an un-religion, an aggressive secularity, that’s a system of belief and that’s becoming the established ‘religion’ in our country today.

Dobson also angrily claimed that the Obama administration is trying to use the term “freedom to worship” to replace the freedom of religion:

Dobson: You know that brings tears to my eyes, literally, just the importance of this issue. We’re dealing with things here that can’t be compromised, it’s the freedom of everybody to express their beliefs and not only in private. What bothered me is the Obama administration this last year and Hillary Clinton and others began talking about the ‘freedom to worship.’ No! It’s the freedom of religion!

As we have pointed out over and over again, both Presidents Obama and Bush have used the phrase “freedom to worship,” and President Obama has far more frequently employed the phrase “freedom of religion.”

But if Dobson wants to claim that the mere use of the phrase “freedom to worship” is a sign that Obama seeks to weaken the freedom of religion, then Dobson must not only believe that Bush too wanted to undermine the freedom of religion, but that he himself opposes the freedom of religion. Why? Because Dobson earlier this year claimed “freedom to worship” was a central freedom in the U.S.:

Remember, according to Dobson’s own absurd rule the use of such a phrase is an attack on the freedom of religion, so maybe Dobson should reconsider saying that anyone who speaks about the freedom of worship must therefore want to curtail the freedom of religion.

In January of 2010 televangelist Pat Robertson notoriously blamed the deadly earthquake in Haiti on the country’s supposed “pact to the Devil.”

While Robertson’s remarks sparked outrage, the televangelist refused to back down and even found support from Rev. Joe Ellison of the Virginia Pastors Coalition, who claimed Robertson spoke the “truth” and the practice of voodoo among Haitians was responsible for the earthquake:

Today, the Washington Post reports that Ellison has been paid close to $25,000 in consulting fees from George Allen’s campaign to return to the U.S. Senate. Ironically, the delegate Ellison was introducing in the video where he endorsed Robertson’s remarks, Bob Marshall, is now running against Allen in the GOP primary:

Former governor and senator George Allen (R) is amending his campaign disclosure forms filed with the Federal Elections Commission to indicate that Richmond minister Joseph Ellison has been added to the payroll of his U.S. Senate campaign for clergy outreach.

Allen’s campaign originally wrote that it hired Ellison as a “fundraising consultant’’ but spokesman Bill Riggs said that was a “mistake” and as soon as staff learned about it they began working to fix it.

Ellison was paid $22,500 last year, according to the documents. He also received nearly $2,000 for mileage reimbursement, meals and lodging.

…

“Twenty five thousand dollars is a huge chunk of campaign cash, and George Allen needs to explain exactly what that money paid for,’’ said Matt Thornton, spokesman for American Bridge 21st Century. “But with his long history of not answering even the most basic questions like who his consulting clients are, Virginians shouldn’t hold their breath waiting.”

Ellison has appeared with other Republicans, including Gov. Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and has been a long time supporter of Allen’s when he ran for governor and senator. He attended Allen’s 2006 victory party and organized a group of local black ministers to meet with Allen.

Since Allen is trying to repair the damage from his ‘macaca’ outburst in 2006, paying a pastor who believes that Haitians suffered as a result of divine punishment may not be the best way to start his 2012 campaign.

When one wonders why polls show that the number of Americans who don’t believe President Obama is a Christian is actually rising, consider the harsh rhetoric of Religious Right leaders like American Family Association head Tim Wildmon and Rick Scarborough of Vision America. On Today’s Issues, Wildmon and Scarborough told listeners that President Obama is not a Christian and that there are “no fruits of [Christian faith] in his public policy positions.” In fact, the Religious Right leaders argued that he is “anti-Christian”:

Wildmon: I’m just somewhat stunned by the secular, anti-Christian, anti-life attitude and statements and policies of President Obama, it’s just one thing after another. He claims to be a Christian, I see no fruits of that in his public policy positions, you claim to be a Christian yet you’re for murdering unborn babies in the womb. How do you put that together?

Scarborough: At some point finally you have to look at the man’s life and determine whether to believe the rhetoric or not.

…

Scarborough: You have to conclude, something is wrong, something is missing, the rhetoric doesn’t match the life.

Wildmon: I think there’s an anti-Christian, overt anti-Christian hostility.