I’ll respond by saying two things. First, whether or not what FOTF says is a controversy is largely determined by whether or not it gets media coverage. CNN’s decision to let FOTF air their grievances on the air is a decision to give FOTF more publicity. It’s presented as if it’s “just another perspective” and discussed as if it might possibly be seriously considered. CNN does this all the time with folks on the very far right. True journalism would be to investigate the claims FOTF makes and then report on them, not just give FOTF free airtime.

Secondly, at no point does Cooper hold Cushman’s feet to the fire. You know and I know the power of Byard’s words, but if Cooper shrugs her off every time she speaks, the average audience member might think her unimportant. Both Byard and Wiseman are constantly called upon to respond to FOTF’s allegations, but Cushman is never asked to respond to anything Byard or Wiseman offer. There were no hard-hitting questions for Cushman at all, just lots of free unmitigated airtime.

I wouldn’t have written this post if I didn’t strongly feel that such “politeness” and “open-mindedness” is downright irresponsible.

First off, the opening showed kids who killed themselves from bullying recently but not all were victims of homophobic bullying, so it would not really have made sense to bring the deaths up in discussion as a reason to focus explicitly on homophobic bullying instead of taking on bullying as a generalized thing. It’s not deceptive. It provides background for why the bullying issue is important, why change is needed, and why getting effective anti-bullying practices in place is so crucial. Wiseman and Byard could have easily have brought suicides into discussion if they wanted to and they chose not to.

The segment does not put the FOTF’s view on the pedestal at all. It is presented as a controversial view the agency is voicing while it tries to work against the new legislation. Cooper talks to the FOTF guest first to introduce what the controversy they are causing is. He asks skeptical questions about how the practices they want (i.e. not wanting reasons for bullying discussed) could possibly even be workable at all in schools. He goes back later to grill her about what her REAL problem is to get to the heart of things – if she would actually have a problem with any other characteristics except for sexuality being discussed. She tries to avoid direct answers but eventually folds and admits it’s about sexuality. He IS pushing her and it is to force her to make some admissions and give some specifics. She is deliberately trying to keep things vague and evade him. She sets out trying to sound like she’s doing a big favor for all kids and she’s the one who is pro-equality because she’s for equal treatment. He shows doubt her plan would be any favor to kids (which he later goes to his other guests to for back up) and gets her to admit she only really has a problem with gay so this is not about equal treatment. Without pinning down FOTF’s position there is nothing solid to critique or address. Underneath her is written “Christian Group: ‘anti-bullying efforts promote homosexuality in kids’” which is true about what FOTF has been putting out there and a blow to Cushman’s attempts to obscure and cover up their real ideas and motivations.

There IS scrutiny happening between Cooper’s pointed questions about the feasibility of FOTF’s suggestions and the real reasons for their complaints. Byard and Wiseman provide further scrutiny with the facts and knowledge they contribute.

It is NOT 11 minutes of sensationalism or lacking in critical analysis. 360 has done many reports on the bullying issue (including reports specifically about victims of homophobic bullying) and if a group is now trying to block new bullying legislation that is a legitimate thing for them to cover. Anderson and all of the guests were having a quiet discussion with no ranting and none of the kind of theatrics you get on the many sensationalistic evening cable news shows. After explaining what the FOTF’s views are most of the piece is spent deflating them and rendering them impotent with critical questions and factual contributions.

FOTF HAS been saying GLSEN is promoting a gay agenda, although their spokeswoman didn’t want to come out and admit it on TV. That is just fact and putting it out there helped get rid of Cushman’s attempt to make FOTF seem like a sensible organization and one that is concerned about the gays and just wants everything best for everyone including the gays.

Cooper actually goes to Byard and asks her about the kindergarten allegation – “first, is that what you’re doing?”. She plainly makes a deliberate choice to not discuss that and moves the discussion onto the legislation itself. Byard is direct, well spoken, intelligent, and factual. She is not evasive and vague like Cushman so Cooper accepts her points respectfully and moves on.

There is no reason to “follow up” Byard’s facts when she states them. Byard establishes her point and settles the matter she is talking about very well. What is Cooper supposed to say, “good job with those facts”? Those facts and Wiseman’s talk from experience is destroying FOTF’s argument and Cushman provides no useful response to them in the piece. By providing no counter to their evidence Cushman is conceding ground and her position is losing all credibility to viewers. The piece is establishing what FOTF’s position is (with difficulty since Cushman doesn’t want to actually articulate it) then knocking it down while Cushman repeats the same bland general unconvincing prepared lines and gives nothing of substance.

There is not any reference to respecting religion, only to acknowledging and dealing with the fact some parents do not believe in homosexuality and do not want their children exposed to it. That is not treated by Cooper as deserving more respect than other concerns, just as a factor in the mix. When Cooper asks Byard about how she thinks it should be handled he is reasonably acknowledging that parents feel they have a right to opinions and input about how schools deal with their children and some parents’ reactions are going to be a practical challenge to manage going forward.

There’s nothing wrong about Anderson asking Wiseman what is wrong with FOTF’s suggestions for focusing on the bully. His role as moderator is facilitating discussion and trying to provide the viewer with a clear understanding. FOTF wants to focus on the bully and dealing with the bully. It will not be obvious to most non-experts or the average viewer what the problems with that are, how that plays out in practice, and why it isn’t acceptable.

There is not equal time. This is the FOTF woman versus skeptical Cooper and his anti-evasion tactics, Byard and Wiseman. If they left the FOTF spokesperson out there would be valid grounds for complaint from FOTF that they had not been invited to try to represent or defend their own views. Traditionally it is the practice of journalists to invite the party whose view you are scrutinizing to participate in the piece, although sometimes the party declines or only issues a statement to the news agency. FOTF could also whine that 360 was misrepresenting their position and that this was further proof of the gay agenda conspiracy they’ve been talking about.

I can’t believe you are trying to make an issue of Cooper stumbling over Byard and Wiseman’s names. He stumbles over words frequently. He talks fast and he’s a dyslexic with a bit of a speech impediment.

The new legislation is about bringing in more effective practices to stop bullying and the tragedies it has been producing. Cooper, Byard and Wiseman all focus on that since it is the goal of the legislation and what most parents and kids care about. It also clears away the idea of gay conspiracies and the idea that it’s better to treat everyone the same. Getting sidetracked into gay specific issues or emotional pleas about gay suicide would be playing into FOTF’s hands. This legislation is about helping all kids in the most effective way, FOTF’s ideas would not do that and are not supported by research or practical reality. That is the take away from this 360 piece, and it is a take away that is beneficial to the legislation and to kids seeking to escape homophobic bullying.

This the way Anderson Cooper approaches things. He’s polite, non-dramatic, open minded and likes to look for places where some consensus might be possible. That’s part of who he is as much as his sexuality. There are lots of theatrics, activists, extremists and ranters on other cable news shows if that’s more your cup of tea.

Really appreciated the dialogue about podcasting.

Loved Joe G’s look in from the outside.

Appreciated the feedback aslo =D

Maybe Joe G will start something up again.

Subbed to you guys on iTunes so consider us tuned in fans.

xox

always find your discourse engaging with interesting perspectives. few liberals will admit MSNBC is just as in the pocket as FOX and CNN are and deluding everyone who consumes it. they all exist to do nothing but inflame hatreds. “kneejerk reactions based on some blog somewhere” REALLY well said!

so true about the brain getting in a groove. so important to keep exposing yourself. well, not exposing yourself literally… :)

and if we may tread a bit here….. as political athiests, “from our window\” …it seems that TP are just as nutty about palin, a beauty queen in devastating 5 inch pumps, as the left was about obama, a slick chicago lawyer with a teleprompter. the Christian Right (Fallwells, 700 Club etc) formed in response to Carter and his horrors, and the TP evolved fueled by Obama’s horrors. the Christian Right has lasted for decades. TP may be around just as long. so true what you say about if you don’t wear their brand God then you’re not patriotic. pathetic.

lastly, to get even more controversial… brazilians and italians are some of the most oppressively religious cultures, and the vatican’s influence is sexist beyond words. pope just stated in 1991 or 92 that women have souls!
…but our eyes stay open, Mexican, Arab and Eastern Europeans are veeeeeery religious cultures also, and they will take their religion to the voting booths like everyone else including the Mormons. and Muslim faith is like the Christian Right + Mormons X100.

Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc do not speak for their denominations. They are media spokespeople and political operatives. They co-opt religious language and use religion as a veneer for their messages. Anyone can challenge that and many do quite effectively. You yourself challenge their oppressive assertions and faulty logic. It does not take a Christian to do it.

Perhaps you do not hear the voices of the progressive, affirming people of faith who are out there but they are speaking loudly and regularly. Perhaps it is not loud enough for your liking. It is not from lack of speaking out. The United Church of Christ, Luterans Concerned, More Light Presbyterians, Religious Society of Friends, etc all make themselves heard at their annual conventions, through ad compaigns and much more.

Finally, we have plenty of ways to distinguish various types of Christians. Even in our recent podcasts we spoke of Christian Fundamentalists. Anyone can call someone out who claims to speak as a Christian. “No sir, you speak as a Conservative anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant Christian. You do not speak for all Christians.” It doesn’t take a Christian to hold public spokespeople accountable for their words. We all have that responsibility and opportunity.

Love, Peterson Your Christian* friend– Progressive Liberal Christ-Centered Quaker with a heavy dose of Liberation Theology and a love for Jesus of the Bible.

As for evangelism, my skin crawls at the thought. It is not up to me to tell anyone how or why they should belief. I am willing to answer when asked about my own, but even then I’m never sure what to say.

I do read your blog and respond when so moved. I hope to further and deepen discussion.

For me, the big question is: Do you expect your beliefs to be intellectually respected?

If your answer is yes, you won’t get that from me. I find faith to be self-fulfilling without a leg of its own to stand on (that is its definition). I have yet to hear anyone offer an explanation for why I should respect faith other than “it’s personal.” That’s not good enough for me, because you’re essentially offering me nothing in return. An answer of yes means that you are concerned about maintaining religious privilege, and it tells me that you are going to take offense if your beliefs are in any way challenged. This will be a huge obstacle in having conversations, because it reflects, in my opinion, narrow thinking, stubbornness, and also perhaps selfishness and insecurity.

If you answer no, I think we’re good to go, whether you continue to hold beliefs or not. As long as you recognize that your beliefs are your own (i.e. apply to no one else) and that they don’t actually have standing in reality, they will not faze me. A no tells me that you are flexible in your thinking, that you’re open to learning new things, and perhaps that you even recognize that a lot of hurt can take place when people cling to their beliefs.

I think, in general, a person who wants to understand where an atheist is coming from has to be open to their own beliefs being challenged. You can’t even begin to understand atheism if you are totally uncompromising about what you believe, and for so many, that is the case, regardless of facts, evidence, or logic. If you’re open to new ideas and are willing to think critically about what you already believe, the discourse can be incredibly productive and rewarding.

On the other hand I am a citizen of the United States. I believe that we are free to express our beliefs without fear of retribution or harm. To accomplish this, we need to understand where we are privileged and begin to work toward a world of equity. I have engaged with atheists on several occasions and find that when I do not fit the cookie cutter image that is held I am dismissed. Earlier this summer I posted on an atheist blog that was looking for \”believers\” to respond to a series titled \”God\’s Top 100 Killings.\” I spoke of my belief, and current academic endeavors, that look at the scriptures as written by humans for a socio-political purpose. This did not match with the idea of all Christians believing in the inerrancy of scripture. From my perspective, when I did not admit that I was ignorant to continue worshiping God, I was summarily dismissed. My viewpoint differed, but I was open to discourse. That is what I don\’t understand.

Is there a way for me to befriend and engage with Atheists? I admit my privilege afforded by being a member of a large religion. I also know that being a queer woman takes most of that away. I want to understand. I want to share perspectives. How can this occur? It seems to me both sides could be kinder and more willing to understand. I am seeking dialogue about this.

If individual Christians don’t like what others are doing in the name of their religion it’s up to them to speak out. They need to stop pretending it’s not their place to do so, when they have no compunction about speaking out otherwise. If they remain silent they have no right to play the victim when others call them on it.

It makes me laugh that the WND people champion and promote Lewis — they obviously have never read his more challenging adult works and don’t realize he was squarely for a critical scholarly study of “holy books”! He didn’t believe what they THINK he believed!

Nonetheless, I maintain that I am quite pro-adoption. There are apparently a lot of legal questions I still might need to think about my thoughts on, but it’s clear that people’s attitudes are very much motivated by beliefs about what is “natural” as well as claims about the importance of genetic connection. These, to me, are unfounded claims rooted in insecurity, fear, and distrust. It’s unfortunate that those negative feelings exist, but it seems they are very much the by-product and recurrence of stigma, and not objective rationale for the stigma itself.

The question here is “family.” Genetics do not define a family. Love does. I am sure I have genetic siblings or half-siblings somewhere out in the world, but those people don’t mean anything to me, and I think there is something sad about the idea that people have to find common blood to find a common bond in their lives. That is, itself, the goal of anti-adoption stigma, to propagate unfounded ideas about the importance of biology. (While studies show adoptees having some unique challenges in adolescence, adult adoptees are generally as well-adjusted as other adults. Meanwhile, children raised by same-sex couples face no unique challenges in growing up well-adjusted except for being faced with the anti-gay prejudice of their peers, which often makes them more resilient and open to diversity.) How distressing that, much like religiously-fueled anti-gay beliefs replicate through people who are actually gay, the meme of adoption stigma recruits people who have been adopted.

Unsurprisingly, it is clear that religion also continues to be a destructive force in people’s lives. It is painful to hear of a priest’s ignorant intrusion into a family’s decision-making, and given the immense amount of control religious organizations have over the adoption process, I am sure this is hardly an isolated incident. As always, we must not let religious belief be a shield from critical critique of practices.

At this point, I’m going to close discussion on this post. It seems to be a magnet for trolling, and I’m quite concerned that the extensive, repetitive comments seek to undo the very point of my original post (despite, in fact, confirming it). Should anyone have read this complete thread, particularly any adoptees, adoptive parents, or individuals who have given a child up for adoption, I hope you are not too shaken by the pain and frustration expressed by commenters. I think it’s fair to say that their perspective is not generalizable, but of course mine isn’t either. Either way, this is not a blog about adoption; it’s about LGBT rights, and I have a commitment to support LGBT families. This thread has proven that there are many challenges ahead with adoption, but I don’t want to be any more liable for the spread of stigma than I feel I already have been by allowing (and at times humoring) so many attacks on adoption that seem mostly fueled by personal bias.

I thank you all for your comments. If adoption is an issue you wish to discuss, I am sure you can find many better places to continue the conversation than here on this blog.

Countless adoptees die as children or young adults and their natural parents are never sought out and told the truth.

Countless adoptees are gays and lesbians who want to know the truth of their orgins.

Yes,, yes, YES there are adoptees who do not WANT to know and bla bla bla. Here is why they don’t want to know:

The following is quoted from this blog: http://hubpages.com/hub/Adoption-and-The-Adoptees-Reality —-

“Another argument often claimed by adoptees are those adoptees who don’t feel they’ve been affected by adoption at all and feel as though they are well adjusted and quite content within life as well as their adoption situation. This may be true to a certain extent but the adoptee in this situation lives within a realm of stratospheric consciousness, being what they feel every one wants or expects them to be, also known as the vigilant adoptee.
I agree that every adoptee has not been affected by separation trauma[1] in the same capacity, I feel every adoptee, whether they’ve experienced the recognition[2] or not, has been affected on a unique level of the separation spectrum for a variety of reasons dictated by natural genetics and the chemistry within the adoptive family they are nurtured by.
Regardless of the individual personal belief there are three basic classifications of adoptees: 1) Those who have recognized that adoption has impacted their life; 2) Those adoptees who have not recognized that adoption has impacted their life; 3) Adoptees who feel great inner calamity and turmoil but have no idea what these strong feelings are attributed to.”

Please read and read and read about the psychology of adoption: books by Dr. Betty Jean Lefton (Journey of the Adopted Self), Dr. David Brodzinsky (The Psychology of Adoption, and The Lifelong Journey to Self) , and Nancy Verrier (psychotherapist) (The Primal Wound and Coming Home to Self).

When a baby is taken from its mother at birth, the baby is violently ripped from its mother in an unnatural act. This is a crime against the mother and the baby, let alone the father of child who may not know he is a father. Given the chance, most fathers want to be involved in their children’s.

Complete severance from natural family is a crime against nature and a human rights issue for the child/person being torn from one family and given to another. That child/person undergoes tremendous human suffering because of this lifelong separation.