Accusers show their own bigotry
Toolbox
Published: May 19, 2007
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.
Intolerant: 1: unable or unwilling to endure. 2: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters.
Slander: to harm the reputation of by libel or slander.
In Bill Lofy's shrill and distorted response to "The O'Reilly Factor"'s impromptu interview of Bill Lippert, he accuses both of his targets — Bill O'Reilly and local conservative radio host Paul Beaudry — of hate, intolerance, slander and bigotry without a shred of evidence ("O'Reilly's bigotry has no place in Vermont," commentary, May 17). Ironically, his own statements are a perfect template for all four repugnant behaviors. Alas, he is not alone.
Lofy's accusations are loaded with highly charged terms like "gay-bashing," "anti-gay vitriol," "hateful and threatening rhetoric," "anti-gay agenda," and "homophobia," even labeling Beaudry's show a "veritable hate-fest," yet Lofy offers no verifiable quote to substantiate his claims (this is slander). Lofy hypocritically accuses O'Reilly and Beaudry of "hate" speech, yet closes his attack with demands that O'Reilly "take Paul Beaudry and his gay-bashing bigots with you" (this is hate and intolerance). Pretty strong stuff from one who identifies himself as a "communications consultant" for the "leadership of the Vermont House and Senate."
Why the intolerant protest of O'Reilly and Beaudry? Simply put, they dare to ask questions and state facts the left simply cannot tolerate. The typical response? Bigotry, plain and simple.
Such deliberate twisting of the terms of debate has been prominent since civil unions were first publicly discussed. Rather than engage in civil, truthful dialogue with the majority who disapprove of homosexual behavior, homosexual advocates eagerly resorted to character assassination, employing terms and tactics identical to Mr. Lofy's. Such tactics intentionally silence rational debate and obliterate real freedom of speech: It is easier to dismiss someone as "hateful" than to listen to their reasoned arguments.
Lofy and Lippert wallow in the fact that Lippert has received ugly hate mail, and shamelessly characterize all of their opposition by the reprehensible behavior of a few truly hateful people — behavior which Lofy actually suggests O'Reilly invites. This behavior is hardly limited to those opposed to special homosexual rights. At the height of the civil unions debate, our organization was the object of a targeted attack by pro-homosexual militants. Examples include being repeatedly targeted by a man with a high-powered rifle, phone calls from people claiming that they were "coming to f—-ing kill" us, and feces and used condoms mailed to us with a note saying "I hope you die of AIDS." One of our female employees so feared for her life that she kept a can of Mace ready at all times. These acts necessitated police protection from people who eagerly labeled us as "intolerant bigots."
Emulating Lofy and Lippert by characterizing all pro-homosexual advocates by such behavior would be immoral and irresponsible. Honest criticism of O'Reilly's tactics and Beaudry's statements are fair game, but such yellow journalism is beneath the standards of even the Rutland Herald. Shame on Mr. Lofy for such underhanded tactics, and shame on the Rutland Herald for being a willing partner to such unsubstantiated slander. One must wonder how the Vermont Democratic leadership feels justified in retaining the services of a "communications consultant" so inclined to real hate speech.
STEVE CABLE
(President,
Center for American
Cultural Renewal)
Rutland
14