Tremont Temple and the Racists

Brian Rainey and Carlo Baca

Queertoday.com

Acknowledgements: Special thanks to Max Blumenthal and Edward Sebesta of the Southern
Poverty Law Center for their help in researching this paper.

Providing a platform for ultra-right, anti-gay propaganda seems to have become an October
tradition for the predominantly black Tremont Temple Baptist Church.

Last October, Tremont Temple hosted the so-called “Love Won Out” Conference, a conference
where the speakers said they “loved” LGBT people but nonetheless told participants that LGBT
people are so evil and sick that they should be seen as a threat to society, denied legal
recognition of their relationships and, of course, “changed” into heterosexuals.

This year, on Oct. 15, Tremont Temple will be hosting another event with an Orwellian name. A
telecast of the infamous “Liberty” Sunday, whose purpose it is to cast same-sex marriage as a
threat to religious “liberty,” will be put on at Tremont Temple. Tremont Temple’s pastor, the
Rev. Ray Pendleton, is listed as a speaker along with Tony Perkins, President of the Family
Research Council (FRC).

Outrageously, both of these October events, which the historically abolitionist church agreed to
host, have ties to organizations or individuals explicitly connected to racism.

NARTH’s Slavery Apologist

Last year, one of the “Love Won Out” conference’s featured speakers was Joseph Nicolosi,
President of the anti-gay “professional” organization, the National Association for the Research
and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH). Over the past few weeks, NARTH has been fiercely
(and rightly) criticized for posting an extremely racist essay on their website. 1

This essay, written by Dr. Gerard Schönewolf, a member of NARTH’s advisory board, said that
slavery was a good thing because it rescued slaves from their “savage,” “uncivilized,” and
“unindustrialized” lives in Africa. He also attacked the Civil Rights Movement—people who
confronted water hoses so powerful that it could strip the bark off trees, who sat at lunch
counters in the face of white mobs who beat the living tar out of them, who had to deal with
brutal local police chiefs like “Bull” Connor and who for decades suffered through inaction and
obstinacy from the federal government—for using too much “hysteria” and “emotion.” As if this
weren’t outrageous enough, this man also had the gall to accuse Civil Rights leaders of being
equivalent to those who lynched and terrorized black communities in the South!

Schönewolf’s racist tantrum was harshly condemned by the Exgaywatch.com blog, the Southern
Poverty Law Center, “Truth Wins Out,” ex-HRC staffer Wayne Besen’s organization dedicated
to fighting “ex-gay” ministries, the National Black Justice Coalition, a black LGBT organization
and QueerToday.com.

1
The controversy over the essay prompted NARTH’s site-administrators to quietly take it down
and post a disclaimer saying that what is said on NARTH’s site does not reflect the official
position of NARTH—basically saying that they are not responsible for the racism expressed by a
member of its advisory board. To this day, NARTH has offered no explanation, let alone an
apology for Schönewolf’s essay.

Tony Perkins and White Supremacy

When it comes to Tremont Temple’s tango with far-right groups this October, a number of
speakers have ties to racism, starting with the star of the circus himself, Tony Perkins, President
of the FRC. In 1999, Perkins was implicated in a scandal involving his 1996 purchase of an
$82,000 phone list from former KKK Imperial Wizard and notorious white supremacist David
Duke, when he was the campaign manager for then-Louisiana Sen. Woody Jenkins. Perkins then
participated in an attempt to hide the transaction with Duke by funneling the money through a
third party—something the Jenkins campaign was fined for by the Federal Elections
Commission.

According to the Federal Elections Commission’s Conciliation Agreement, which was signed by
ex-Sen. Jenkins himself, “After the 1996 primary election in Louisiana, David Duke contacted
Woody Jenkins and recommended that he use the services of a computerized phone bank system
run by Impact Mail.” 2

Though Duke intiated the transaction between the Jenkins campaign and Impact Mail, both
Perkins and Jenkins claim they had no idea the phone bank was connected with Duke when they
bought it. 3 According to them, they thought they were innocently doing business with Impact
Mail and were oblivious to the fact that Duke, the one who contacted Jenkins about the phone
bank in the first place, had anything to do with it.

This is highly unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, we know that at least one Republican knew
Duke was connected with Impact Mail. As Max Blumenthal, author of the widely cited “Liberty
Sunday Preachers” article in The Nation pointed out on his blog, Louisiana ex-Gov. Mike Foster
bought the same mailing list from Duke for $102,000 in 1995—one year before Perkins bought
it. 4

Foster was later accused of buying the list in order to keep Duke out of the gubernatorial
election. As a result, Foster was investigated by the Louisiana Board of Ethics, who found that
Foster illegally failed to publicly disclose the money spent on Duke’s list:

In 1995, Foster met with all other potential gubernatorial candidates, including David Duke, to
discuss views relative to the campaign. When meeting with Duke, he was informed by Duke that
Duke did not intend to seek the governorship. At that meeting, Duke offered to sell Foster the use
of his computerized list of conservative voters. It was agreed by Duke and Foster that Foster
would pay Duke $100,000 for the one-time use of the list during the 1995 campaign and that if
Foster was elected, he would pay Duke an additional $50,000 for the right to use the list in 1999
should Foster seek reelection. Duke advised Foster that he had arranged for the transfer of the
computerized list to be made through Impact Mail & Printing, Inc. (Impact Mail), a firm in
Metairie, Louisiana. Impact Mail provides bulk mailing services and brokers mailing lists. Duke
was neither an owner of nor an employee of Impact Mail.... 5

2
We really do invite people to read all of the findings of the Louisiana State Board of Ethics
because there are some striking parallels between Foster’s and Jenkins’ dealings with Duke—
namely that both campaigns were reproached for failing to disclose financial transactions with
Duke and both campaigns funneled money through other sources.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Duke was up front about his connections with Impact
Mail when he dealt with Foster, and when Foster bought the list from Duke, he knew exactly
who he was buying the list from. Jenkins and Perkins would have us believe that they were
duped into buying a phone list connected with Duke—even though Duke felt no need to trick
Foster a year earlier.

Believing in Perkins’ innocence would also force us to accept that he would blindly sign an
$82,000 contract for a phone list that he knew very little about. $82,000 is an exorbitant amount
of money for a phone list. It’s so exorbitant that according to the Times-Picayune (New
Orleans), political consultants say that “the price Duke received for use of his voters lists far
exceeds the standard rate for political campaigns.” 6 Most political consultants seem to agree that
normal phone lists—even exclusive ones—go between 7 and 10 cents, with 10 cents being on the
higher end. 7

If someone is going to spend astronomically high sums of money for a phone list, they are going
to want to know why it’s so expensive and justify the investment. 8 The only way someone
would know that the phone list was a good investment is if they had pretty good knowledge
about its effectiveness. And who would be the only person that would have knowledge about the
effectiveness of the list? The former KKK Imperial Wizard himself, David Duke.

Duke’s lists were effective and special precisely because they were associated with Duke.
According to an AP article, Duke “said his lists boast strong fund-raising potential.” Duke
suggested other lists that go for 7 to 10 cents a name “are general mail lists that are used by 100
people.” Conversely, according to Duke, the list the Jenkins campaign received was “very
intensive” and when the Jenkins campaign bought the list, they bought “an exclusive use of the
list; no other candidate, no other person could use it during a specified time period” (emphasis
added). 9 In other words, Duke’s list was so expensive because it was exclusive. The exclusive,
special nature of Duke’s list is even more evidence that Jenkins and Perkins knew Duke was
involved. Why else would they invest a large amount of money in it?

Perkins’ version of the story would have him comfortably signing an $82,000 contract without
having a very good reason to invest that amount of money in a phone list. That would make him
an incompetent campaign manager for dumping so much money on a list without knowing
anything about it. More likely, he did have a good reason to invest so much money—the special
and exclusive nature of David Duke’s phone list.

Perkins protested that “Woody [Jenkins] didn’t even tell me that this was the same company
Duke had used…I would have been totally opposed.” These pleas to ignorance and claims of
revulsion at white supremacists are especially spurious when considered in the context of
Perkins’ other interactions with racists.

3
Were the Duke incident the only instance in which Perkins found himself tied up with a racist,
we could, perhaps, give him the benefit of the doubt. But Perkins also spoke in front of the white
supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) not once, but twice—once in 1997 and
again on May 19, 2001, according to the CCC’s Citizens Informer newsletter. 10 If Perkins had
just spoken in front of this racist group in 1997, he could have, perhaps, gotten away with the
claim that he was not aware of the CCC’s racist views when he spoke for them.

However, since Perkins spoke to the CCC for a second time in 2001, he would be hard pressed to
resort to this lame excuse. In 1998, nearly three years before Perkins spoke to the CCC a second
time, both Sen. Trent Lott and Rep. Bob Barr received widespread national media attention (and
outrage) for speaking in front of the CCC—and both politicians used the “I-didn’t-know-their-
politics” copout. The national tumult over Lott and Barr that year even prompted US Rep.
Thomas Wexler to sponsor a House Resolution condemning the racism of the CCC. 11

Leaving aside the obvious question of why someone would not investigate a group before
speaking in front of them twice, for Perkins to be unaware of the CCC’s views three years after a
scandal erupted because of politicians’ ties to the group, is beyond belief.

Even more disturbingly, a picture of Perkins featured in the Summer 1997 issue of Citizens
Informer shows that he addressed the CCC in front of a humungous flag with an all-white field
and a Southern Cross (the Confederate battle flag) in the corner. This particular flag was the
second official flag of the Confederacy, adopted in 1863, and was explicitly designed to represent
white supremacy. William Thompson, editor of the Savannah Morning News, and the one who
proposed the design of the flag, said:

Our idea is simply to combine the present battle-flag with a pure white standard sheet; our
Southern Cross, blue on a red field, to take the place on the white flag that is occupied by the blue
union in the old -United States flag, or the St. George's cross in the British flag. As a people, we
are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or
colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause. 12

The Confederate Congress was disturbed that a flag with so much white could be easily mistaken
for a flag of surrender, so they suggested adding a blue stripe in the middle. But Thompson was
dissatisfied and said:

If for no other reason they should discard the bars, and every thing that resembles or is suggestive
of the old stripes. While we consider the flag which has by the Senate as a very decided
improvement of the old United States flag we still think the Battle-flag on a pure white field was
appropriate and handsome. Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy,
and, sustained by the brave strong arms of the South, it would soon take rank among ensigns of
the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world [as a] WHITE MAN'S FLAG." 13

After hearing Thompson’s suggestion, the Confederate Congress adopted Thompson’s racist flag
on May 1, 1863. The flag, then, was clearly supposed to represent white supremacy.
Thompson’s flag is not to be confused with the ubiquitous Southern Cross, the Confederate
battle flag, which often appears on the back of cars.

4
First of all, it is absolutely inexcusable that Perkins would ever be comfortable speaking with any
symbol of the Southern slaveocracy as his background. We don’t care what the revisionist
historians and Confederate apologists say, the literature of Civil War period, the statements by
political leaders of the Confederacy, as well as good sociological analysis shows that the war was
actually about slavery. Also, the ties between the Confederate battle flag (not Thompson’s flag)
and white supremacy are well documented, and the Confederate battle flag was undeniably a
symbol of resistance to Civil Rights during the 1950s and 60s.

Secondly, we cannot believe that Perkins would speak in front of a group that displayed a
Confederate flag (incidentally one specifically representing white supremacy) so prominently
and not wonder about the group’s political views. Even if one were delusional enough to believe
that the Confederate battle flag does not represent slavery or resistance to Civil Rights, it is
frequently used by Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other racist groups. For Perkins to speak in front of
a group that used this particular flag, without asking any questions or without being prompted to
further investigate the group is recklessly irresponsible. Or, more probably, he was well aware of
what the CCC’s politics were, but did not care.

Perkins’ three connections with white supremacists raise the question of why he would associate
with these despicable people. Is Perkins a racist? We think it is unlikely that Perkins agrees
with the particular articulation of racism espoused by the Council of Conservative Citizens or
David Duke. We do, however, believe that he spoke in front of the CCC knowing full well their
racist views, and probably bought Duke’s list on purpose. No one just accidentally stumbles into
not one, not two, but three associations with white supremacists.

If you are an ultra-reactionary politician in the Deep South like Tony Perkins and Woody
Jenkins, open racists are a part of your right-wing constituency. While a right-wing politician
may disagree with racists when it comes to their beliefs about race, they by and large share
widespread ideological agreement—including the notion that the Civil Rights Movement went
“too far” and that persistent structural racism against blacks and other people of color does not
exist. It makes political sense for a right-wing politician to make sure that racists come to the
polls for them. Therefore, it is disgusting, yet unsurprising, that a right-wing politician would
show up at a meeting of white supremacists.

A statement at the end of a Times-Picayune article cited above provides good insight into the
thinking of right-wing politicians in the Deep South:

Earlier this year Duke ran for Congress when Bob Livingston resigned. In the May 1 primary,
Duke came in third with 19 percent of the vote. [Ex-Gov.] Foster refused to get involved in the
campaign, drawing criticism from anti-Duke activists who demanded that he repudiate Duke as a
racist. Foster refused, just as he refused to repudiate Duke's support in the 1995 governor's race. 14

An open racist got 20 percent of the vote in his district (and earlier got as high as 32 percent of
the Republican vote in the 1991 gubernatorial race). The white supremacist message obviously
has a large following among Louisiana Republicans. Later, a gubernatorial candidate, Mike
Foster, knew this and refused to distance himself from a white supremacist’s support. This
shows that the right-wing machine in the South is clearly dependent on racism for power—
despite their public denunciations of racism. Perkins and Jenkins are no different. Apparently,

5
Foster, the only one willing to openly embrace Duke, was also the only one willing to be honest
about it.

Charles Pickering, Sr.

The other “Liberty Sunday” speaker with explicit ties to white supremacy is Charles Pickering,
Sr. When Pickering was up for nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, numerous
critics pointed out that in the 1960s, Pickering was extremely hostile to Civil Rights 15 —even
writing a defense of laws opposing interracial marriage as a law student and leaving the
Democratic Party because of its (lackluster) support for Civil Rights. 16 When the KKK was
terrorizing blacks and Civil Rights workers in Mississippi, Pickering with the D.A. and Sheriff of
Laurel, Mississippi issued a public statement, which criticized the KKK’s violence but attacked
Civil Rights activists:

While we believe in continuing our Southern way of life and realize that outside agitators have
cause [sic] much turmoil and racial hatred, let there be no misunderstanding, we oppose such
activities, but law and order must prevail (emphasis added). 17

More recently, Pickering has been largely antagonistic to anti-discrimination claims 18 and even
intervened in a case of a man convicted of cross-burning and terrorizing an interracial couple in
order to arrange a lighter sentence for him.

Of course, Pickering’s supporters have rushed to defend him against the charges. Village Voice
columnist, Nat Hentoff, who defended Pickering’s intervention in the cross-burning case, said:

Two of the three defendants in the cross-burning case agreed to a plea bargain, in which the
Justice Department took part, that put the two men in home detention on a misdemeanor, but
avoided jail time.

On the basis of the evidence, Pickering saw that the third defendant, Swan, who refused a plea
bargain, went to trial. Swan was guilty, but Pickering knew he had not been the ringleader in the
crime; had no previous record; and had not shown in the past the racial bias that, under the federal
hate-crimes statute, would have put him away for the 7-1/2-year sentence that the Justice
Department demanded Pickering impose.

It did not make sense, Pickering reasoned, that the actual ringleader — who had previously shot a
rifle into the window of the interracial couple's home and had a history of fighting with blacks in
school — should get no jail time while Swan would be imprisoned for 7-1/2 years. 19

Pickering’s opponents were not necessarily arguing that his legal reasoning in this case was
totally outrageous, but they did question why this was “the only time in his entire judicial career
he had ever undertaken such an act of intervention.” 20 Considering Pickering’s segregationist
past, it is, indeed, suspicious that the only time Pickering would go out of his way to “intervene”
in a defendant’s case was when the defendant was a racist. Additionally, Pickering’s
“intervention” included unethical, private ex-parte meetings with prosecutors where he
threatened to overturn Swan’s conviction if he was not given a lighter sentence. 21

“And There Was No One Left to Speak for Me…”

6
 The Rev. Ray Pendleton, pastor of Tremont Temple Baptist Church, boasts of his
church’s history as “the first church in New England to proclaim the Emancipation Proclamation
and the first church in Boston to preach the abolitionist message” which “stood against the state
of Massachusetts in helping to house fugitive slaves.” 22 For a pastor of a church with historic
links to abolitionism to embrace groups with people who defend slavery on their staff,
segregationists and people who are comfortable speaking in front of white supremacist groups, is
utterly reckless. It is a betrayal of the history of Tremont Temple and its largely black
parishioners for Rev. Pendleton to appear on the same stage as these people.

Many leaders of predominantly black churches are so blinded by irrational homophobia that they
are willing to deal with far-right politicians to support their own prejudices. But these deals with
the devil will bring a torrent of Faustian consequences on the black community. Over the past
few decades, LGBT people have not been the only targets of the Right’s offensive. They have
also been gunning for affirmative action and, more terrifyingly, they have been working
overtime to promote the idea that institutional racism is nonexistent and that blacks should
simply “get over” the historic legacy of discrimination in America. Rather than stand up to the
Right’s discourse on racism, black churches and predominantly black churches are embracing
the far-Right.

As the racist essay posted by NARTH and Tony Perkins’ interactions with white supremacists
show, the anti-gay Right is a political coalition that includes open racists and people who want to
turn back the clock on Civil Rights. That’s a reality that black churches and church leaders have
to account for when they flirt with the Right.

1
Gerard Schönewolf, “Gay Rights and Political Correctness: A Brief History.” Internet. 5 April, 2005. Southern
Poverty Law Center Website. URL: http://www.splcenter.org/images/dynamic/intel/SchoenwolfEssay.pdf
2
Federal Elections Commission. MUR 4872. Cited in Max Blumenthal, “Tony Perkins: Dealing with the Duke.”
Internet. 18 June, 2005. URL: http://maxblumenthal.blogspot.com/2005/06/tony-perkins-dealing-with-duke-i-
want.html
3
Jenkins denies knowing the list was connected with Duke in “Duke Unsure About His Taxes; He Can’t Recall
Telling IRS about List Income.” Times-Picayune. 28 May, 1999 and in a letter to the editor in the Baton Rouge
Advocate on July 31, 2002. Perkins denies knowledge in “Jenkins Faces Fine for 1996 Campaign; FEC Says He
Tried to Hide Deal” 24 July, 2002. Times-Picayune and “Perkins: From Pulpit to Politics, US Senate Hopeful is
Comfortable with Both.” Times-Picayune. 9 October, 2002. In a press release, the Family Research Council
asserted that the connection between Duke and Impact Mail “was not known to Perkins until 1999.” See “A
Response to False Claims Made by the Nation.” Online. Family Research Council. URL:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH05F09 [12 October, 2006]. This is simply ridiculous. Perkins had to have known
about the connection in 1996 because he covered up the transaction!
4
Blumenthal.
5
Louisiana State Board of Ethics. Opinion 99-360. URL:
http://domino.ethics.state.la.us/campopn.nsf/0/8f58d9e4d672366e86256848006b83df?OpenDocument. Cited by
Blumenthal.
6
“Foster Paid Duke $150,000 for Voter List; Ex-Klansman Takes Fifth in Testimony before Grand Jury.” Times-
Picayune. 21 May, 1999.
7
According to an AP article about the Foster scandal, “Shreveport direct-mail marketer Carl Liberto said he had
never heard of one worth $150,000 - even the most exclusive ones. Some lists go as high as 10 cents per name…”
See Alan Sayer, “Governor, Duke Say Nothing Was Wrong with Supporter List Sale” Associated Press. 20 May,
1999. Note: In the same article, Jenkins says that $82,000 is “not excessive and that he had a more expensive
contract for similar work.” Nonetheless, $.10 per name is on the high-end for phone lists, and Duke’s list, which

7
Perkins bought, was more expensive than that. See also Steve Rita, “Price Was Sky High for List, Experts Say;
Duke Defends Value of Lists.” Times-Picayune. 21 May, 1999.
8
One political consultant said, “The main reason for buying a political mailing list is to get a return on your money,
as well as a possible profit.” See Rita, “Price.”
9
Rita, “Price.”
10
Citizens Informer 28. Summer 1997, p. 7; Citizens Informer 32. March-April 2001, p. 13. Very special thanks to
Edward Sebesta of the Southern Poverty Law Center for taking time out of his busy schedule and digging through
his files of Citizens Informer.
11
U.S. House. 106th Congress, 1st Session. H.RES 35 1999. “Resolution Condemning the Racism Espoused by the
Council of Conservative Citizens.” Internet. Thomas. URL: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.RES.35:.
For extensive discussion about racism and the CCC in the House, see also “Affirming the Congress’ Opposition to
All Forms of Racism and Bigotry” Congressional Record. Internet. March 23, 1999. Thomas. URL:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r106UwLSQZ::
12
George Henry Preble, The Origin and History of the American Flag, 2nd Edition. (Philadelphia: Nicholas Brown,
1917 [1876]): p. 526.
13
Ibid.
14
Sayre, “Governor, Duke.”
15
Ralph Neas, “Ralph Neas Responds to the Wall Street Journal Editorial” Internet. 12 February, 2002. People for
the American Way. URL: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2267.
16
Dan T. Carter (et. al.), “Historians’ Petition Against the Nomination of Charles Pickering.” Internet. 27 October,
2003. History News Network. URL: http://hnn.us/articles/1760.html
17
Ibid.
18
People for the American Way, “Editorial Memorandum: Hearing Strengthens Case Against Judge Charles
Pickering's Confirmation; Testimony Highlights Problems with Nominee's Record as Judge and State Senator,” pp.
3-4. Internet. URL: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_45.pdf.
19
Nat Hentoff, “Justice Denied a Good Judge” Jewish World Review. 22 October, 2003. URL:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff102203.asp
20
Carter, “Historians’ Petition”
21
PFAW, “Editorial Memorandum,” p.5.
22
Ray Pendleton, “A Note from Our Pastor” Online. Tremont Temple Baptist Church. URL:
http://www.tremonttemple.com/Pastor.htm