Snopes gets it wrong on hate crimes

[Bicycleman]

The American Family Association is taking Snopes, the noted urban legend debunking resource, to task for its conclusion about the "hate crimes" legislation pending in the U.S. Senate.

The AFA, which stands for traditional family values, issued an "Action Alert" to its constituents recently, warning them of the potential that the pending legislation could lead to a censorship of biblical perspectives on homosexuality.

Snopes then labeled the alert "false," denying that there was any possibility any portion of the law could be applied to thought or speech.

(Story continues below)

"The text of the bill [S.1105 and H.R. 1592] specifically addresses 'willfully caus[ing] bodily injury to any person' (as well as attempts to cause bodily injury to any person) because of 'actual or perceived … gender sexual orientation [or] gender identity,'" Snopes concluded. "The bill does not 'criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality,' nor would it make 'calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit a 'hate crime'.' The bill has nothing to do with the issue of speech…"

The AFA, founded by Donald Wildmon, however, did not let the conclusion remain unchallenged.

"American Family Association became concerned about the imminent threat to free speech during the Judiciary Committee hearings about H.R. 1592," the organization responded.

So during hearings, a sponsor of the proposal was asked: "If a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit the act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?"

The answer was "No."

I once mentioned that Snopes had a political axe to grind, and wasn't always right. Of course, the left didn't agree. Let the readers be the judge, here.

[The Big Bog]

I'm afraid I don't understand what 'axe' is being 'ground'. :shrug:

[patrickt]

https://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/signpetition.asp?id=1680
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/hatecrime.asp

Here are two links, one for the AFA "action alert" and one for the Snopes comment.

My first thought was that the AFA "action alert" included no links for their assertions. They clearly expect people to take their word at face value. I don't.

In reading the text for the proposed legislation I don't see anything that would make calling homosexuality a sin a punishable offense.

Since the minister has not committed the necessary assault or whatever then he would have to be charged with conspiracy and that wouldn't fly either.

While I am opposed for a variety of reasons to hate crime legislation I would side with Snopes on this one.

[JD3]

Agreed Patrickt.

[towski]

I once mentioned that Snopes had a political axe to grind, and wasn't always right. Of course, the left didn't agree. Let the readers be the judge, here.

I noticed you didn't provide a link with your article, so I went ahead and googled the entire first paragraph.

I was stunned to find it was an article by World Net Daily.

No axe to grind there, alright.

[Chappy]

http://www.afa.net/snopesiswrong.asp

AFA's response to snopes.com.

This is one of those “truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness)” things, yes?

[Ethos]

It must be truly difficult to assume all positions contrary to one's own are based on illegitimate political considerations.

Ethos

[Bicycleman]

I thought I posted that link but was interrupted by work, heaven forbid.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56600

This is a reputable website, whether you guys agree or not.

[towski]

I thought I posted that link but was interrupted by work, heaven forbid.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56600

This is a reputable website, whether you guys agree or not.

No it isn't. If I'm going to take crap when I post from thinkprogress, you are certainly going to take it when you post from WND.

I've read exciting articles posted here from WND, such as the story that soy milk is turning our children gay. WND claims to be "fiercely independent", but it's nothing more than the mouthpiece of Joseph Farah. Most of their "stories" are little more than republished press releases.

WND has claimed such things as 9/11 occuring because "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America", that Flight 93 was shot down by the military, and published an editorial advocating a whites only immigration policy.

[Ethos]

I thought I posted that link but was interrupted by work, heaven forbid.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56600

This is a reputable website, whether you guys agree or not.

The websites reputation is irrelevant. There is nothing in the text of the bill that would allow for prosecution of the type the AFA is claiming. Anyone who attempted to do so would be operating outside of the law as it is written.

Snopes is correct in that the AFA's premise is faulty. They are drawing an opinionated conclusion that does not reflect the actual bill or its application.

Ethos

[Atticus]

The bottom line is that the bill CAN'T criminalize speech because the Constitution forbids such a thing. The minister can't encourage an illegal act (e.g., "gay people are an abomination to God and it is up to US to blot them out!"), but stating a position on homosexuality is protected speech. Even if someone left this basic fact unstated in a Senate hearing, the effect is the same. In fact, it's so basic that it is the unstated-but-universally-understood premise in the hearing discussion, I suspect.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. ;)

[burntgorilla]

Bman, did you even read the text yourself or just read the article and copied it here without checking it out?

[Bicycleman]

Bman, did you even read the text yourself or just read the article and copied it here without checking it out?

Did you even read what I said below the article? It said, what do you readers think? It was only put out for conversation purposes. What do you think? I too, noticed that the title didn't seem to link to the article. It was a come on. Worldnetdaily does that. This whole article is for all to dice and discuss. Unfortunately, work constraints have limited my participation.

[Bicycleman]

The bottom line is that the bill CAN'T criminalize speech because the Constitution forbids such a thing. The minister can't encourage an illegal act (e.g., "gay people are an abomination to God and it is up to US to blot them out!"), but stating a position on homosexuality is protected speech. Even if someone left this basic fact unstated in a Senate hearing, the effect is the same. In fact, it's so basic that it is the unstated-but-universally-understood premise in the hearing discussion, I suspect.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. ;)

I agree, but if lawmakers can come out with hate legislation to protect a certain few over and beyond the rest of us, then legislation can come out to void the US Constitution. To use an example, if a lawyer will take a case to court in behalf of a fat guy accusing McDonald's of making him fat, you know someone will also take the preacher to court. The preacher may win, but he still is burdened with the financial burden of having to hire an expensive lawyer to defend his case, not to mention the mental anguish he must go through.

[Ethos]

I agree, but if lawmakers can come out with hate legislation to protect a certain few over and beyond the rest of us, then legislation can come out to void the US Constitution. To use an example, if a lawyer will take a case to court in behalf of a fat guy accusing McDonald's of making him fat, you know someone will also take the preacher to court. The preacher may win, but he still is burdened with the financial burden of having to hire an expensive lawyer to defend his case, not to mention the mental anguish he must go through.

Any defense attorney worth their license will counter-sue for court costs.

As far as mental anguish is concerned, I am far more worried about the psychological damage that is imposed upon homosexuals who are made to feel subhuman by said preacher.

Ethos

[patrickt]

You're mixing criminal law with civil law. Civil court has nothing to do with violations of the law and has everything to do with causing harm to another.

In general, I'm opposed to legislation that enhance a sentence because of an alleged motive. I do not object to legislation that increases sentences for attacking unusually vulnerable people such as the handicapped and elderly.

[towski]

Dear Abby,

Have you noticed the "what-ifs" and slippery slopes the social regressives seem to resort to anytime the discussion turns to homosexuality? Why is that?

Sincerely,

Not that there's anything wrong with that

[burntgorilla]

Did you even read what I said below the article? It said, what do you readers think? It was only put out for conversation purposes. What do you think? I too, noticed that the title didn't seem to link to the article. It was a come on. Worldnetdaily does that. This whole article is for all to dice and discuss. Unfortunately, work constraints have limited my participation.

Well, my interpretation of it was that you were giving this as an example of how snopes.com has "an ax to grind". Yet it would seem that they were right.

[Bicycleman]

Any defense attorney worth their license will counter-sue for court costs.

As far as mental anguish is concerned, I am far more worried about the psychological damage that is imposed upon homosexuals who are made to feel subhuman by said preacher.

Ethos

Ever heard of "repent and sin no more?"

[Atticus]

Ever heard of "repent and sin no more?"Yes, perhaps you should do that. ;)

[Ethos]

Ever heard of "repent and sin no more?"

Irrelevant. If someone claimed you were an abomination in the eyes of god and you were going to Hell on a weekly basis, you would feel mental anguish regardless of the options available for redemption.

Ethos

[Bicycleman]

Yes, perhaps you should do that. ;)

Yes, we should, including homosexuals, who seem to think that what they do is normal. What denomination did you say you were from?

[Bicycleman]

Irrelevant. If someone claimed you were an abomination in the eyes of god and you were going to Hell on a weekly basis, you would feel mental anguish regardless of the options available for redemption.

Ethos

In order to feel mental anguish, one must recognize that he is a sinner. Unfortunately, he doesn't recognize it and nor feel mental anguish because to him, his aberrant lifestyle is normal.

Now, if you feel mental anguish, you can do something about it. In your above sentence, I note it interesting that you capitalize hell, but write God in lower case. Do you find hell more significant than God?

[NetxMan]

Please don't get Ethos started on Religion.......

Anyway....

God forbid certain acts are considered unmoral or wrong. If a preacher speaks out against child molesters and maybe there happens to be a few in the audience are we then to feel bad about the mental anguish it causes them?

Oh no we don't want anyone to feel.... Uncomfortable.... Love the liberals with their double standards when it comes to feel good issues. You guys can freaking slay God, Christ, Christanity, and organized religion. Who cares about their feelings, but when it comes to Homosexuals we wouldn't want to hurt theirs....

[Ethos]

In order to feel mental anguish, one must recognize that he is a sinner. Unfortunately, he doesn't recognize it and nor feel mental anguish because to him, his aberrant lifestyle is normal.

This is incorrect, however also irrelevant. Hypothetically speaking, if a preacher were to tell you (personally) that you are going to Hell, for whatever reason, you would feel bad about it. If you felt the preacher was correct, you might feel even worse, despite whatever steps you might take to avoid such a judgement. The point here is that "fire and brimstone" characterizations directed at individuals are psychologically harmful to those people.

Ethos

[FilmFestGuy]

In order to feel mental anguish, one must recognize that he is a sinner. Unfortunately, he doesn't recognize it and nor feel mental anguish because to him, his aberrant lifestyle is normal.

Now, if you feel mental anguish, you can do something about it. In your above sentence, I note it interesting that you capitalize hell, but write God in lower case. Do you find hell more significant than God?

The AFA is a scam. They care nothing for actual families and serve only the propulgate right-wing propoganda in pseudo-Christian clothing.

I feel sorry for anyone, anywhere who gives them any legitimacy - or worse - who is duped into giving them money.

Why do you care so freakin' much about homosexuality? What happened to you that you are so obsessed with it as a topic. So the heck what people do. If people go to hell, they go to hell.

I'm much more concerned about Evangelical dominionists, like the AFA and their ilk, who are trying to turn this nation into a Christian theocracy by shredding our Constitution and filling it with ridiculous bigotry based on their falsely held interpretations of the Bible.

[Atticus]

What denomination did you say you were from?Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (http://www.disciples.org/) But why does that matter? My denomination doesn't tell me what to think on this (or pretty much any other) issue.

I'm pretty sure hate crimes are a sin.

[Ethos]

Please don't get Ethos started on Religion.......

Anyway....

God forbid certain acts are considered unmoral or wrong. If a preacher speaks out against child molesters and maybe there happens to be a few in the audience are we then to feel bad about the mental anguish it causes them?

Oh no we don't want anyone to feel.... Uncomfortable.... Love the liberals with their double standards when it comes to feel good issues. You guys can freaking slay God, Christ, Christanity, and organized religion. Who cares about their feelings, but when it comes to Homosexuals we wouldn't want to hurt theirs....

I believe this topic is getting somewhat out of hand. My comment on mental anguish was in response to the hypothetical preacher who might be prosecuted, and the resulting "mental anguish", for violating the law this thread is based on. In response I only intend to add that said hypothetical preacher does not have a concern for the individuals who suffer "mental anguish" as a result of his sermon.

Who is in the audience - child molester, liberal, or otherwise - is irrelevant to that point.

Ethos

[FilmFestGuy]

Please don't get Ethos started on Religion.......

Anyway....

God forbid certain acts are considered unmoral or wrong. If a preacher speaks out against child molesters and maybe there happens to be a few in the audience are we then to feel bad about the mental anguish it causes them?

Oh no we don't want anyone to feel.... Uncomfortable.... Love the liberals with their double standards when it comes to feel good issues. You guys can freaking slay God, Christ, Christanity, and organized religion. Who cares about their feelings, but when it comes to Homosexuals we wouldn't want to hurt theirs....

Gotta call you on this one.

No one said you can't hurt gay people's feelings. The law pertains to not being able to physically hurt them.

What the AFA is doing is LYING.

If a minister said to his congregation today - without hate crimes legislation - that "You, my congregation, should kill homosexuals, because that's the only way to cure them," he could be arrested. There's precedent of that with regards to Christian Identity (the faux church of the white supremacist movement). If he says "homosexuality is a sin" - he can say it all he wants. You'll note that Fred Phelps has never been arrested and he's protested in states that have hate crimes leglislation. If anyone was going to be arrested for it, it would have been him.

Thus, the AFA is patently lying - as they frequently do - to prey upon the fears of Evangelicals that the gays are coming to turn their kids into sissies.

You can pray however you like and you can preach whatever you like. No one is trying to change your religion.

What I'm personally sick and tired of are Evangelicals who complain about "lifestyles being shoved down their throats" while they run around and shove their beliefs down everyone's throats and insist that it becomes law.

[JD3]

What I'm personally sick and tired of are Evangelicals who complain about "lifestyles being shoved down their throats" while they run around and shove their beliefs down everyone's throats and insist that it becomes law.

At least on this issue I have to agree with you.

[steveksux]

Why do you care so freakin' much about homosexuality? What happened to you that you are so obsessed with it as a topic.Its bike seats, and the reduced blood flow to the "nether regions"... ;) :D Or maybe he caught someone eyeing his package, when that somebody was actually staring at the lycra shorts... ironically enough probably nervously wondering about the likelihood of a guy in lycra shorts being gay...

Bound to make anyone nervous, right? :lol:

Bman, you know we tease each other like this right? No hard feelings... :angel: :flowers: But you are wrong on this one...

Snopes appears right. WND appears often wrong. Besides, if anyone's into axe grinding, AFA has a serious axe to grind on this issue, not Snopes. Really, who's going to be more biased about homosexual issues? An organization devoted to promoting evangelical christian values including anti-homosexual diatribes and fearmongering.... or an organization that doesn't care about homosexuality one way or another...


Randy

[USA-1]

I once mentioned that Snopes had a political axe to grind, and wasn't always right. Of course, the left didn't agree. Let the readers be the judge, here.

Whenever they are wrong, prove it to them and they will make a correction. They seek the truth. Snopes on the left? That's a stretch. I think you are a bit paranoid.

[Bicycleman]

Yeah, I know, Randy. That's great coming from a former cyclist, huh? So somebody eyed your package, and you switched to skating away, huh?

Read what I responded to BurntGorilla. The whole article was put up for discussion. Looks like the piranha saw my name by the thread and jumped in for the feast again. I'm just going to have to stop throwing chum in the water.

Now, if you are calling me wrong about homosexuality, I wish I was, but it's a sin in God's eyes, and if that offends homosexuals. sorry. They need to change their lifestyle if they want to feel better about themselves.

[Bicycleman]

Whenever they are wrong, prove it to them and they will make a correction. They seek the truth. Snopes on the left? That's a stretch. I think you are a bit paranoid.

I used to think you were on the right and stood for America, mom, and apple pie, just because of your moniker. Now, it appears you lean the other way.

[Sgt Schultz]

Yeah, I know, Randy. That's great coming from a former cyclist, huh? So somebody eyed your package, and you switched to skating away, huh?

Read what I responded to BurntGorilla. The whole article was put up for discussion. Looks like the piranha saw my name by the thread and jumped in for the feast again. I'm just going to have to stop throwing chum in the water.

Now, if you are calling me wrong about homosexuality, I wish I was, but it's a sin in God's eyes, and if that offends homosexuals. sorry. They need to change their lifestyle if they want to feel better about themselves.

It seems some Christians want homosexuals to change their lifestyles so those very Christians will feel better about themselves.

[USA-1]

I used to think you were on the right and stood for America, mom, and apple pie, just because of your moniker. Now, it appears you lean the other way.

Snopes? I have used it several times to find out if something is true or not. It does not appear to be political at all. You disagree with one of their findings? All you have to do is debunk it and they will make a correction. Their credibility depends on being right about things.


http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/bushbook.asp

[steveksux]

:lol: Yeah, I know, Randy. That's great coming from a former cyclist, huh? So somebody eyed your package, and you switched to skating away, huh? Hell, they get a better look at the goods WITHOUT the bike seat in the way... I went from the frying pan into the fire! ;)

I just threw that in for joke value, never been a cyclist... when I rode my bike a lot, it was cause I didn't have a drivers license yet, and I rode in cut off denims on a 40 pound Schwinn Varsity 10 spd.... lol.

Read what I responded to BurntGorilla. The whole article was put up for discussion.I'll doublecheck more thoroughly later... gotta go get dinner.


Now, if you are calling me wrong about homosexuality, I wish I was, but it's a sin in God's eyes, and if that offends homosexuals. sorry. I don't care one way or another, its your religion, you're free to follow it or not... They (and you) are entitled to believe its wrong as much as I'm entitled to believe it's not...

They need to change their lifestyle if they want to feel better about themselves.They feel fine about themselves. They're here and queer. They're loud and proud. They're just tired of people like those in your congregation whipping up the nutcases into a gay-loathing frenzy which results in gay bashing incidents. Similar to how abortion docs were leery of getting assassinated there for a while... It only takes a few nutjobs to twist what you guys are saying about being an abomination into a plan to do something about said abomination. I'm not saying you guys are responsible for the nutjobs actions. But your hands are not totally clean either, God hates adulterers, theives and whatnot too. The strange (dare I say unhealthy) obsession where the gay thing, where it gets inordinate attention and virulence in the sermons when its really just another sin like all the others. Treat it as such and nobody would have a problem with any of it.

But in reality, the congregation is busy adultering, and taking the Lords name in vain, and plenty of the other sins, so it's better to save the hellfire and brimstone for those "other" people and the "other" sins. Don't want to bash the flock over the head too bad while your fleecing them... ;) (exagerrating for humor value here...). They are the customers, after all. You get more mileage out of bashing the outsiders about the sins your flock isn't breaking on a regular basis.

Randy

[JD3]

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (http://www.disciples.org/) But why does that matter? My denomination doesn't tell me what to think on this (or pretty much any other) issue.

I'm pretty sure hate crimes are a sin.

MY best friend is a member of Disciples of Christ. Just thought that was interesting. ;)

[FilmFestGuy]

They're just tired of people like those in your congregation whipping up the nutcases into a gay-loathing frenzy which results in gay bashing incidents. Similar to how abortion docs were leery of getting assassinated there for a while... It only takes a few nutjobs to twist what you guys are saying about being an abomination into a plan to do something about said abomination. I'm not saying you guys are responsible for the nutjobs actions. But your hands are not totally clean either, God hates adulterers, theives and whatnot too. The strange (dare I say unhealthy) obsession where the gay thing, where it gets inordinate attention and virulence in the sermons when its really just another sin like all the others. Treat it as such and nobody would have a problem with any of it.

But in reality, the congregation is busy adultering, and taking the Lords name in vain, and plenty of the other sins, so it's better to save the hellfire and brimstone for those "other" people and the "other" sins. Don't want to bash the flock over the head too bad while your fleecing them... ;) (exagerrating for humor value here...). They are the customers, after all. You get more mileage out of bashing the outsiders about the sins your flock isn't breaking on a regular basis.

Randy

:clap: Brilliantly summed up.

[burntgorilla]

Read what I responded to BurntGorilla. The whole article was put up for discussion. Looks like the piranha saw my name by the thread and jumped in for the feast again. I'm just going to have to stop throwing chum in the water.

As I pointed out in another post (which you ignored), it does not seem as if you were putting it up for discussion. What you were letting the "readers" decide was whether or not snopes.com has a political axe to grind, giving the article as evidence that it does. That certainly is the most obvious interpretation to me.

[FilmFestGuy]

I used to think you were on the right and stood for America, mom, and apple pie, just because of your moniker. Now, it appears you lean the other way.

Rubbish. I love my country, love my mom, and occasionally eat apple pie. To suggest that because I think gays should be afforded equal rights somehow makes me - or anyone else - less an American is patently offensive.

[Essendon]

I've read exciting articles posted here from WND, such as the story that soy milk is turning our children gay.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter:

[towski]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter:

I couldn't make it up if I wanted to.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327

[burntgorilla]

I couldn't make it up if I wanted to.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327

Thank you for the link, this website is hilarious! Favourited. I particularly liked this one:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56642

this movie has some dialogue that sounds like it comes out of Stuart Smalley's Daily Affirmations on "Saturday Night Live." Namely, when professor Dumbledore sits Harry down and tells him, "You are not a bad person. Every person has light and darkness. You have a choice."

Imagine saying this to Cho Seung-Hui after he had his killing spree at Virginia Tech this spring. Or Adolf Hitler.

Contrary to Dumbledore's idiotic aphorisms, there are bad people.

The Wall Street Journal blamed the narcissism of our age on poor Mister Rogers, who was one of the leading proponents of the no-one-is-bad mentality. I liked Mister Rogers, and I think they may be taking him out of context. But, all this psychological mumbo jumbo about how "you are really a good person" has caused a whole generation to be spoiled beyond comprehension.

Aside from the stupid bits about witchcraft, I found the bolded bits the best. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jesus was one of the leading proponents of the no-one-is-bad mentality. In fact, I thought it was one of the central tenants of the Christian faith - the possibility of forgiveness and redemption. Yet here we have a guy telling is that some people are just plain bad and denies that people have a choice. Seeming to realise his error, he adds in a wee bit about God and Jesus at the end. Complete rubbish.

[steveksux]

Thank you for the link, this website is hilarious! Favourited. I particularly liked this one:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56642



Aside from the stupid bits about witchcraft, I found the bolded bits the best. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jesus was one of the leading proponents of the no-one-is-bad mentality. In fact, I thought it was one of the central tenants of the Christian faith - the possibility of forgiveness and redemption. Yet here we have a guy telling is that some people are just plain bad and denies that people have a choice. Seeming to realise his error, he adds in a wee bit about God and Jesus at the end. Complete rubbish.

Jesus was just another filthy Christian-bashing, Bush Hating liberal anyway.

Being omnicient, he was able to hate Bush even 2000 years before Bush was born.

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

As the heading for this thread is erroneous, could it be changed to reflect reality?

[burntgorilla]

We'd have to change half the thread titles on the forum if we did that.