A Petition to Congress in Defense of Religious Freedom

[snopes]

Be one of one million Americans willing to take a stand in defense of two of our most precious freedoms — freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Here’s why:


o A California lawsuit which is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words “natural family,” “marriage” and “union of a man and a woman” a “hate speech” crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

o CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, was fired because of his publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.

o A bill now before Congress (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105) would criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a “hate crime” punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison. This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion.

https://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/...on.asp?id=1680

[Canuckistan]

CNN reported no such thing. Here's a recent story, presumably the one they're talking about. It says nothing along the lines of what they say it does.

This story from today also says nothing along the lines of what the AFA is saying.

For a Christian orgainzation, the AFA sure does love its lies.

[Pseudo_Croat]

Again, why should we even give a rat's hiney that venting hatred or negativity towards the LGBT crowd is going to become a crime? If anything , I think it will help shut the mouths of some of the holier-than-thous out there that are the real folks who are screwing up American sociey.

[/rant off]

- Pseudo_Croat

[keokuk]

The California case is so obscure that I could only find the actual ruling posted at a conservative website. (Warning: 100 page PDF.) I'm surprised that they posted it, because it completely contradicts everything that they're trying to complain, which is probably the reason that they don't give the name of the case in the AFA press prelease.

Long story short: It has nothing to do with "hate speech" or making anything a crime. The issue in this case is that some people started putting up pro-family (read:anti-gay) literature in an office on public bulletin boards. A lesbian employee complained, and management took down the postings. The people who posted the original literature sued, claiming that their free speech was being violated. The Ninth Circuit ruled that an employer has the authority to take down such postings if he or she believes that it will lead to a negative work environment. The legal issue has nothing to do with making certain words illegal in a work environment. Rather, it is an issue of the rights of management over the workplace. There is absolutely nothing involving making it a crime, so their whole description is either horribly misguided or a blatant lie.


Re: General Pace. I can't speak for CNN, but the Washington Post reported that his appointment was not renewed because Secretary Gates did not believe that he could be confirmed. This is overwhelmingly because of the current state of the war and the fact that he's one of the only "old guards" of the war left, after the departure of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. In the immediate coverage of his firing, there was a passing reference to his comments on gays in the military:

But congressional staffers said there was concern from both parties that Pace's confirmation hearing could evoke bitter debate about Iraq war policy. Some said Pace's recent comments to reporters at the Chicago Tribune about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in which he said homosexuality was immoral, would also be a distracting issue.

That was the 18th paragraph of the article, and was the only reference to his comments on homosexuality. In the press release, the AFA claims that it was reported that he was fired because of those comments, when in reality the report only said that they "would also be a distracting issue."


Re: The Hate Crime Legislation. The language of the text here specifically and unambiguously says that a violent act has to take place. So when the AFA says that it would be a crime to "[call] the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit," it's a blatant lie. Unless of course, the pastor does so while concurrently attacking a homosexual physically.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by keokuk

So when the AFA says that it would be a crime to "[call] the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit," it's a blatant lie. Unless of course, the pastor does so while concurrently attacking a homosexual physically.

Well, that would take Bible thumping to a whole new level!

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by Pseudo_Croat

Again, why should we even give a rat's hiney that venting hatred or negativity towards the LGBT crowd is going to become a crime? If anything , I think it will help shut the mouths of some of the holier-than-thous out there that are the real folks who are screwing up American sociey.

[/rant off]

- Pseudo_Croat

I understand the sentiment, but I think this is one of the times where the over used slippery-slope argument is actually valid. I certainly would give a rat's hiney if venting hatred or negativity toward any crowd (or group, religion, political party, etc.) was criminalized.

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by snopes

o A bill now before Congress (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105) would criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a “hate crime” punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison. This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion.

As has been said already, H.R. 1592/S. 1105 does absolutely no such thing. I wrote one of my angrier blog entries on the subject. I was so mad because the fundies are tossing this around so much they've lost sight of the fact that it's a complete and total lie. The bill has nothing whatsoever to do with speech, or any of the other straw-boogiemen they insist it does.

Originally Posted by snopes

...A California lawsuit which is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words “natural family,” “marriage” and “union of a man and a woman” a “hate speech” crime in government workplaces...
...A bill now before Congress (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105) would criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a “hate crime” punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison....

You know, part of me wants this to be true. Why? Because then people would have a real reason to get upset. Then they would stop seeing "threats" around every corner.

They would have a real one.....

[snopes]

I've worked up a preliminary page about this issue at http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/hatecrime.asp

Feel free to offer suggestions or corrections.

- snopes

I have nothing really to add to this discussion other than to remind you that not all Christians think and believe such hateful and hurtful things toward homosexuals. If you want proof, I support an organization called Soulforce. It is a mostly student lead group of people usually in their 20's or so who go around the United States and speak and reach out to Christian colleges and Universities that have been known in the past to deny or dismiss students and/or faculty on the basis of sexuality. This is not biblical in any way. We as Christians are commanded to love and accept others as they are and to not judge someone based solely on their orientation.

If you want to know more about Soulforce and the work that they are doing I encourage you to visit their website and support them either financially or prayerfully.

http://www.soulforce.org (oh, and before you jump to any conclusions about me, I am a straight female who graduated from a private Christian university which held the policy against homosexuality that I had mentioned earlier. During the time that I was there, I helped form the Peace and Justice Committee, and helped found our first College Democrats group as well as I participated and spoke during a debate about homosexuality)

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by snopes

I've worked up a preliminary page about this issue at http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/hatecrime.asp

Feel free to offer suggestions or corrections.

- snopes

Typo in the source:


<A HREF="https://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/signpetition.asp?id=1680" TARGET=afa>Action Alert<A>

"<A>" should be "</A>"

Nick

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Amigone201

As has been said already, H.R. 1592/S. 1105 does absolutely no such thing. The bill has nothing whatsoever to do with speech, or any of the other straw-boogiemen they insist it does.

Apparently they were confused by this section of the bill:

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

- snopes

[barbrainey]

I read the same message on AFA website http://www.afa.net. It does sound very alarmist. Fortunately, it's not true. However, I don't think AFA deliberately printed lies to deceive anyone. It's more likely that they passsed on information that they assumed was true because they trusted their source.

I recall one incident in 1988 where the AFA was misinformed about a "Mighty Mouse" cartoon show. There was a scene where Mighty Mouse inhaled some powdered up tomato stuff to renew his strength or someone like that. But someone informed the AFA that Might Mouse was doing cocaine!

However, I can't imagine where AFa got that mixed up info about the hate crime bill. Although I've heard that it is being referred to as the Hate Crimes Enforcement and Prevention Act--or something of the sort. Some other groups may have assumed that the prevention aspect would try to silence any speech that might trigger violence toward homosexuals. This attitude was presented at the time of the Matthew Shepard murder back in October, 1998. Also, there was that case of the Swedish pastor, Ake Green, a couple of years ago. This is probably what cause the misinformation on the AFA news release about the Hate Crimes bill.

B. A. Rainey

[Chloe]

In that case, judging by the contents of my inbox, the AFA must be tremendously gullible.

ETA: They also say "Abstinence education programs have been shown to effectively reduce the risks of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases," and that letting gay people marry each other is an "assault on marriage." Whoopsie!

[snopes]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

I read the same message on AFA website. It does sound very alarmist. Fortunately, it's not true. However, I don't think AFA deliberately printed lies to deceive anyone. It's more likely that they passsed on information that they assumed was true because they trusted their source.

Then it's truly amazing how often they're "misled" into disseminating grossly distorted information provided by "trusted" sources in a way that perfectly promotes their agenda. Perhaps they should get better sources.

Or, in other words, what Chloe said.

- snopes

[RealityChuck]

There is a tendency for people to believe rumors if the rumors reinforce their own worldview. The AFA is just human, in this respect. They hear something and don't bother checking out to see if it's true, because their emotional reaction is to become outraged instead of logical.

In other words, you'd never see them checking things out here at Snopes. And even if they did check it out, they'd believe the rumor, since it fits in with their worldview.

[Chloe]

If that's in fact the AFA's problem, you could just email them the snopes page with the corrections, and they'll immediately desist from disseminating misinformation, won't they? Perhaps with an email to their subscribers saying "Ooops, we were wrong."

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Chloe

If that's in fact the AFA's problem, you could just email them the snopes page with the corrections, and they'll immediately desist from disseminating misinformation, won't they? Perhaps with an email to their subscribers saying "Ooops, we were wrong."

I wonder what their reaction would be?

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

I wonder what their reaction would be?

I cannot imagine that no one has corrected them, yet I have no email erratum in my inbox as yet.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

There is a tendency for people to believe rumors if the rumors reinforce their own worldview. The AFA is just human, in this respect. They hear something and don't bother checking out to see if it's true, because their emotional reaction is to become outraged instead of logical.

In other words, you'd never see them checking things out here at Snopes. And even if they did check it out, they'd believe the rumor, since it fits in with their worldview.

I think you're being far too generous and underestimating them. They aren't dumb, but the AFA would lie through it's pearly teeth in order to whip up their masses.

Actually, I don't even know that they would consider it lying. It's a reasonable end to reach their goal.....