Fear Mongers Busted

The hysteria hit all new heights with this ad:



As usual the chain mails of doom has gone into overdrive attempting to scare the bejesus out of anyone who is worried flaming nazis are going to start burning their Bibles. Factcheck.org answers some of the questions floating around about a bill that some fear mongers have claimed will silence churches and protect child preying pedophiles (in case it isn't obvious, the bill does neither):

We've received a number of questions about the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 that passed in the House on April 29 by a vote of 249 to 175, and its companion bill awaiting committee action in the Senate. Most of them focus on the impact of the bill as alleged by groups like the Traditional Values Coalition on its Web site and the American Family Association on its site and in e-mail alerts warning supporters about what's in store if the bill becomes law.

The queries mainly concern two claims made by these groups and others: that the bill would force priests and other religious figures to muzzle themselves rather than repeat or discuss any sections of the Bible that may be critical of homosexuality, and that the bill would extend special legal protection to pedophilia, incest and certain other behaviors that are either illegal or widely considered abnormal.

Several members of Congress have repeated similar assertions. In an April 29 speech on the floor of the House, Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said he feared the legislation "could have a chilling effect on the religious expression and religious freedom of millions of Americans." Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, at an April 28 press conference, said, "When you look at sexual orientation and you examine the diagnostic statistics manual that sets out all of the medical and psychological conditions and the different names, there are about 30 different types of sexual orientations, and they can include exhibitionism and voyeurism or things that are so offensive such as pedophilia," all of which, Gohmert said, could be covered under the bill.

In reality, there's nothing in the bill that says pastors must zip their lips rather than denounce homosexuality, nor does it cover pedophiles, voyeurs, exhibitionists and dozens of other behaviors.

The full article is worth the read and factcheck.org is a good site to keep in your RSS blog feeds if you're into that sort of thing, or worth the occasional peak if you prefer.

Probably the most widespread part of the rumors floating around lately about the "log cabin illuminati" is to codify any criticism of homosexuality as a hate crime. Yet the bills the rumors point to don't repeal the first amendment and current hate crime laws that would be amended don't cover any such criticism. In fact, as the factcheck.org article points out, one of the bills in contention specifically states it doesn't apply to criticism:

Just to make sure nobody's words are suppressed, however, the bill addresses the issue directly with two "Rules of Construction" to make things crystal clear to anyone trying to interpret the legislation:

S. 909, introduced April 28, 2009: (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Of course, as the language above notes, the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech in every circumstance. This might be a good time to recall Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States. Free speech, while a core American value, doesn't mean one can "falsely shout fire in a theater" and thereby cause a stampede, Holmes wrote. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger."

The upshot here: Speaking disapprovingly of homosexuals from the pulpit would be one thing; encouraging one's congregation to form a lynching posse Saturday at 4 p.m. at the water tower is quite another.

For groups that complain endlessly when media outlets distort an issue, they certainly seem to have few qualms about making crap up to scare every gullible yahoo out there into believing some really heinous nonsense.


-- UPDATE 10:47 AM --

The ad above makes some other claims as well, but I started to think this blog may seem incomplete without addressing some of the other accusations. Wikipedia has an entry about this organization with sources on the claims made for anyone interested:

According to the Human Rights Campaign, "actors make disproven claims about marriage for lesbian and gay couples" in the 2M4M advertising campaign.^[18]

The actors in the video mention the following cases:

1. A California doctor who is forced to choose between her religious faith and her work
2. A member of a New Jersey church group which is punished by the state for opposing same-sex marriage
3. A Massachusetts parent who is unable to prevent the state from teaching her children that same-sex marriage is appropriate

The first actor refers to the Benitez case in California.^[18] In this decision, the California Supreme Court found that a doctor at a fertility clinic could not violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief.^[19]

The second actor refers to the Ocean Grove, NJ civil union controversy, in which the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association refused to allow a lesbian couple to use its oceanside pavilion for a civil union ceremony. The court ruled that the group could not receive a tax exemption for the pavilion under the state's Green Acres Program, which is intended to encourage availability of property for public use. The group's beachfront property other than the pavilion itself retained the tax exemption.^[20]

The third actor refers to the Lexington, MA Parker case, in which parents sued because their children were provided classroom materials that depicted same-sex marriages, including King and King, a picture book about a prince who marries another prince.^[21] Judge Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court found against them, stating in his decision that schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens",^[22] and federal courts did not overturn the decision on appeal.^[21]

While the first two are fairly obvious in how they spun the issue, the third may require slightly more explanation. The lawsuit actually claimed that the book, by discussing same sex marriage at all, constituted sex education, though the book has no sexual elements at all. Their argument made about as much sense as saying that discussing opposite-sex marriage constituted sex education... or that the story of the princess who kissed the frog was not only sex education but bestial sex education!

The argument in the ad strays from the case to depict a far broader argument that was not made (not made, most likely because pretending like gay marriage doesn't exist in a state where it does makes little sense at all).