Gay Patriot Header Image

HRC to Blame for Anti-Mormon Hate Crime in California?

Recall how just a few days ago when some nut stabbed a Muslim cabbie in New York, the media were quick to highlight this hate crime while left-of-center pundits claimed conservatives and Republicans were responsible for the dastardly deed.  If a right-wing Republican didn’t do it, they at least created an environment which made such a heinous action possible.  The long-anticipated wave of anti-Muslim hate crimes was about to emerge.  

Well, it turns out that the “reportedly drunk perpetrator worked/volunteered for a liberal interfaith film company and there is zero evidence that he is a Fox News fan, Glenn Beck listener, Republican voter, or conservative blog reader.”  

And fortunately, the cabbie survived.

Now, another man who has not been so lucky will surely not get the attention the media (and at least one politician) showered on Ahmed Sharif (said cabbie).  Some nut walked into the office of Clay Sanner, a Bishop (lay church official) at a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Visalia California, chatted with, then murdered the Mormon.

If the MSM treated this crime as they did the one in New York, it would lead the news while pundits would be pointing fingers at gay activists, perhaps blaming the Human Rights Campaign or “Equality California”.  Recall, the anti-Mormon rhetoric following the passage of Prop. 8 in 2008, even resulting in a film exploring a vast and sinister LDS conspiracy against gays.

And some gay activists have been just as hateful (if not more so) in their nasty invective against Mormons as a handful of opponents of the “Ground Zero Mosque” have been against radical Islamists.

If there was a rush to blame conservatives in NYC, shouldn’t there be a corresponding rush to blame gay activists in California, the locus after all of the hatred against opponents of same-sex marriage?  But, as Sonicfrog, who alerted me to the story, reports, “the identity of the shooter has not been released, and no motive revealed.

Until we know more about this late creep (he has since died), we shouldn’t speculate as to his motives.  Neither HRC nor EqCA is responsible for the crime.  But, if left-of-center pundits treated Mormons as they do Muslims, they’d be looking to those who “created the climate of hate” against this faith.

UPDATE:  Glenn Reynolds blames “the Anti-Mormon Hyteria aimed at Glenn Beck.



  1. If there is no evidence HRC is responsible then this is a irresponsible headline. Simply because someone may have gone off half-cocked on the NYC cabbie incident doesn’t make this right. Didn’t your mother ever teach you the one about two wrongs? Think, for God’s sake.

    Comment by BenD — August 30, 2010 @ 2:00 am - August 30, 2010

  2. I guess, BenD, you simply don’t understand the rhetorical purpose of the headline. Look at the categories in which I placed this post. Not one of them relates to gay issues.

    I use the title to show just how absurd are the left-of-center pundits who rush to blame Republicans for (what turned out to be) the actions of a unbalanced leftist.

    Oh and by the way, I included language in the post making very clear that the title was only a rhetorical device. Of course, I don’t think HRC is responsible. Nor EqCA. (I said as much in the post.) By by the standards used in covering the NYC incident, pundits should be blaming HRC.

    I do take it you’ve taken Juan Cole to task for blaming the RNC for the attack on the NYC cabbie. After all, there is no evidence the RNC was behind that attack.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 30, 2010 @ 2:08 am - August 30, 2010

  3. Dan

    Funny you should mention this.

    A former high school classmate of mine who is Mormon posted the story this afternoon as her Facebook status update.

    For a breif moment, it did cross my mind that it could be some kind of “hate” crime – a gay activist going after a Mormon. After the absolute hate and disgust of the gay left towards Mormons during the Prop 8 debacle, it would not surprise me.

    Something that still sticks in my mind was after Judge Walker’s ruling on Prop 8, a friend of mine’s response was to post “F*** THE MORMONS!!!!!!!!!!” (except he didn’t use asterisks)

    Comment by Chris H — August 30, 2010 @ 3:05 am - August 30, 2010

  4. At least you put a question mark after the headline. But someone will interpret that to mean there is a basis for the question. Which, as you admit, there isn’t. IMHO this isn’t a great way to make your point about the rush to judgment, which is a fair question. But you’re just engaging in exactly what you criticize. And if it’s supposed to be funny … sorry.

    Comment by BenD — August 30, 2010 @ 3:07 am - August 30, 2010

  5. Dan, BenD is full of it. You reported the story and simply illustrated the type of irrational, opportunistic smears the Left engages in every time there is an act of violence in the Western Hemisphere. You also made it more than clear that you were not, in fact, blaming the HRC for the crime, nor believe that the organization should be blamed.

    If BenD thinks that your post constitutes “engaging in exactly what you criticize,” then he clearly has no knowledge or background concerning the practice of the Left that you’re criticizing.

    Comment by Sean A — August 30, 2010 @ 5:00 am - August 30, 2010

  6. Nit pick: The LDS Church has no professional clergy; all officials in the church are “lay church officials.”

    Comment by V the K — August 30, 2010 @ 5:59 am - August 30, 2010

  7. If there is no evidence HRC is responsible then this is a irresponsible headline. Simply because someone may have gone off half-cocked on the NYC cabbie incident doesn’t make this right.

    But, since you’re not yelling and screaming and whining about how the people who went off half-cocked on the NYC cabbie incident are irresponsible, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t have a problem with that.

    So what you’re whining about here, BenD, is that Dan is no longer willing to engage in asymmetric warfare. Why should he care about you waving the rulebook and whining when it’s clear that you don’t enforce those rules equally or fairly?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2010 @ 11:53 am - August 30, 2010

  8. Also, let’s remember exactly what HRC, NGLTF, and the rest of the gay and lesbian community did in the Jacob Robida case.

    Again, BenD, got anything to say about that? Going to finger-wag and lecture them and say that NGLTF, HRC, and the gay and lesbian community were irresponsible and wrong?

    Or are you just upset that the tactics of the gay left are being used against them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2010 @ 12:01 pm - August 30, 2010

  9. More developing. The killer has been identified, Kenneth Ward, and lives 180 miles away in Modesto. Why drive all the way down to Visalia to randomly kill a Mormon when Modesto has a sizable Mormon community? I’m thinking there’s more here than a simple random murder.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 30, 2010 @ 12:24 pm - August 30, 2010

  10. North Dallas Thirty – so I actually did say the cabbie conspiracy folks were half-cocked and conceded there was a legitimate point above, and that my beef was with the means of delivering the message, not the underlying point. I don’t understand why you want to turn me into some cardboard cutout or straw man. And *the left does it to me* won’t work with me.

    Comment by BenD — August 30, 2010 @ 1:49 pm - August 30, 2010

  11. MSNBC still doesn’t have it, but they Are featuring a video expose of a priest who knocked up a teenage girl.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 30, 2010 @ 3:14 pm - August 30, 2010

  12. Thanks for an excellent post.

    The doctrine of avoiding to “create an atmosphere conducive to crimes” (whether hate crimes or otherwise) is a powerful one. It is used heavily in any normal society, in order to do its best to make sure that criminality is isolated socially not encouraged; that is, to discourage speech that encourages crime. Without this, there would be no normal law and order, just a police state, and an ineffective one at that.

    At the same time, there has to be — and in a normal, moderate society, always is — a lot of restraint on the use of this method, since it has a chilling effect on free speech. A properly chilling effect, but one that good people will not want to abuse.

    However, in abnormal societies, the doctrine of socially suppressing support for hate and crime is something that is habitually inverted and abused, or used dishonestly, to favor and protect major hate forces and criminal forces. This is done by the simple means of imputing hatred to the opponents of the major hate-and-crime forces.

    It seems that this abuse is the inevitable outcome when doctrines gain sway that obstruct a society from exercising its normal social pressures against pro-criminal speech. Either there is ordinary societal exclusion of anti-social hate and crime, or else there is exclusion of ordinary society.

    Today Islamic extremist forces are engaged in mass crime, based on massive ideologies of hate and purification/expurgation. The attempt to exclude and isolate the purveyors of those doctrines is a crucial, and hard, labor. It requires both NOT equating moderate Muslims with radicals, and NOT giving license to apologetics for the radicalism, or to social milieus conducive to radicalization or supportive of spreading ideological foundations for it — no matter whether these are milieus are religious (resentful, anti-Western Islamism) or ideological (resentful, anti-Western leftism). Any normal Western society would have plenty of ways of exercising social pressure to effective marginalize such discourse and milieus that promote it.

    Yet license for such discourse is being given, on the ground that these persons and circles must be presumed moderate until proven otherwise; and, it sometimes seems, not just proven by the norms of normal society, but convicted in court of nothing less than specific complicity with criminal plans hatched by al-Qaeda.

    This amounts in practice to giving a license to spreading rather than constricting the moral and social support milieu for terrorism.

    It is hardly any secret that the reason for this — the reason why society cannot marginalize Islamist extremism — is because the central nervous system for inclusion and marginalization, the mass media, is itself heavily influenced by and involved in leftwing anti-Western ideological resentment.

    The media are, thereby, producing an atmosphere conducive to violence. Major violence, violence that puts society at risk. They are running interference for it, to exclude normal societal exclusion of it. They are supporting the expansion of support milieus for it, as long as at least some slight distance is kept from the actual explicit promotion of violence.

    In addition to viewer observation of this phenomenon, one could deduce it probabilistically as a consequence of what is found in all the surveys of journalists from the major media: a large imbalance of views in favor of the left end of liberalism and on farther out the spectrum, where the regnant normative code is one of animosity to the West.

    Viewer observation is further confirmed by what can only be called defectors from the major media, such as Mr. Goldberg, formerly of the New York Times and now with no chance of publishing there. He has attested that in the highest media circles, there is the same social-prejudice pattern that one can observe in any lowly left-leaning circle of intellectuals any of us at times happen to find ourselves in; namely, the enforcement of the prevalent left-liberal mindset not primarily by ideological argument but socially, prejudicially, before it can ever get to the point of reasoned discussion: by habitual expressions of contempt of conservatives and of ordinary non-leftist Americans, among other things smearing them as stupid, crude, mean-spirited; all this done in a completely unsubstantiated, and therefore itself crude, stupid, and mean-spirited way. There is also the regular imputation, to Republican and conservative opponents of liberal-left agenda items, of selfish interest, corruption by money, and political motivation — anything except sincere conviction. Sincere, concerned motivation is meanwhile invariably credited to the left; not only its politicians, whom a normal person might think as corrupt and politically motivated as anyone else, but severe criticism of whom is treated in the media as socially crude, unfair, beneath the belt, but also the activists who come out to demonstrations to break the law “non-violently” and serve as cover for the violent groups they know are going to be there, e.g. at every anti-G8 hate-and-violence demonstrations, where the cover groups nevertheless can be sure of enjoying the benefits of getting credited by the media with sincere idealism, and not only that, but sincere love of peace. There is, finally, the habitual imputation of racism, nativism, arrogance, imperialism — in short, all the defamatory “isms” of political correctness — to almost anyone who expresses non-left-oriented views on race relations issues, immigration, and international questions.

    Elite social prejudice is in full force here. It is displacing the more normal, and normally more limited and restrained, societal prejudice against things perceived as dangerous to society. The same is done, more explicitly, in the speech codes for political correctness.

    It seems the natural other side of the coin in this matter, when the media and some other elite institutions proceed with abusively deploying against normal society the accusation that it is producing an atmosphere conducive to hate and violence. Abusively, because unsubstantiated, and based primarily on those same social-circle prejudices we have identified above against non-leftists and ordinary Americans. It is part of a larger picture of an ideological elite that, in its resentments against society, really is producing an atmosphere conducive to hate and violence.

    Comment by a good conservative Jew-Westerner — August 30, 2010 @ 3:46 pm - August 30, 2010

  13. A Mormon shot the dude. You owe HRC and apology.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — August 30, 2010 @ 10:21 pm - August 30, 2010

  14. LOL….so Auntie Dogma, as I pointed out above, the screaming gay left never has to apologize. Why should anyone else?

    Now spin for us and explain why HRC, NGLTF, and others can lie and smear with impunity.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2010 @ 11:35 pm - August 30, 2010

  15. LOL….so Auntie Dogma, as I pointed out above, the screaming gay left never has to apologize. Why should anyone else?

    Uhm, because we’re supposed to be better than they are????

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 31, 2010 @ 1:16 am - August 31, 2010

  16. A Mormon shot the dude. You owe HRC and apology.

    Let’s see. He was excommunicated in 1988, got back in and then resigned his membership six years ago. Seems to me you owe Dan an apology.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 31, 2010 @ 2:07 am - August 31, 2010

  17. Auntie, please read the post before commenting and also read my comment #2 wherein I explain the purpose of the post to those who did not see the question mark in the title nor read the post through to see wherein I made clear I did not believe HRC responsible.

    Please understand the rhetorical nature of the title (again, as per, comment #2). Please also note the categories under which I filed this post–all referred to media bias and left-wing prejudices, none to gay organizations.

    I was making a point about the rush to judgment in the shooting of the NYC cabbie.

    Now, that I’ve explained the post to you, will you please apologize for falsely assuming I was accusing HRC? Or do you need me to walk you through the post point-by-point so you can see how I was using an absurd suggestion (indicated by the rhetorical question of the title) to show just how absurd your ideological confrères were in rushing to blame conservatives for the murder of the NYC cabbie.

    That, you falsely assumed I was holding HRC responsible suggests you believe that it’s ludicrous to blame them for this (and I agree). But HRC has more times to anti-Mormon hate speech than the RNC does to anti-Islamic hate speech and yet a liberal intellectual blamed that institution for the NYC attack.

    Now, do you get my point?

    (Why is it that when dealing with critics like “Auntie”, we have to explain things as to a child? Reminds me of a scene in Galaxy Quest.)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 31, 2010 @ 2:34 am - August 31, 2010

  18. […] I offered a similar “reminder” when I posted earlier this week on the murder of the Mormon bishop in California.  They blame every crime against a member of an approved American victim group on conservatives, […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Al Gore Responsible for Discovery Channel Hostage Crisis? — September 2, 2010 @ 2:13 am - September 2, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.