Attorneys - is information a "product"

[andrewlittle]

Much has been said lately about competing 1st Amendment rights when it comes to GLBT issues. Some posters have claimed that groups like Focus on the Family and other anti-GLBT political orgainizations are simply using their right to free speech when they disperse spurious information about those they condemn.

While not addressing speech from a pulpit - or otherwise disseminated from a church - most of the organizations that disperse this information are separate non-profit corporations (I believe) - that is, they are at arms-length from any church or purely religious entity and are in the "businesses" of (i) distributing information to be used by the public authorities in formulating laws of the land, and (ii) distributing information, along with requests for donations, to be used by the general public in formulating their opinions about social issues.

From an brief to the U.S. Supreme Court:http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/briefs/taibrief.shtm
The First Amendment does not preclude the government from prohibiting fraud or prosecuting those who intentionally deceive others for monetary gain. Intentional lies distort, rather than contribute to, the marketplace of ideas, and any value they have is outweighed by society's interest in protecting those harmed by deception. It has therefore been settled, for more than 60 years, that those who extract money through fraudulent misrepresentations are not shielded by the First Amendment-even though their misrepresentations are speech and even if they solicit in the name of charitable causes. See, e.g., Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 164 (1939).

The First Amendment and prohibitions on fraud have coexisted comfortably for more than 200 years not only because fraudulent speech is itself unprotected but because the essential elements of fraud also provide sufficient breathing room for legitimate speech, including charitable solicitation. Most significant, a fundraiser may not be held liable for fraud unless it is proven that he knew or believed that his representations were false or that he acted with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. In the libel context, essentially the same standard has been held to provide sufficient breathing room for protected speech. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964).

Is the provision of information by these groups the equivalent of committing fraud?

Also, is the provision of information, as the primary functions of the groups, and solicitation of donations not the equivalent of advertising. The FTC has distinct rules on "truth in advertising" - http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.shtm

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
Advertisements cannot be unfair.

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if:
it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and
it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.

Is it possible, and, if it is, is it time, to pursue these organizations based on fraud, deceptive fund-raising tactics, and truth in advertising statutes. This WOULD NOT infringe on their rights to free speech, as free speech does not apply to fraud and deceit.

[Simon]

Much has been said lately about competing 1st Amendment rights when it comes to GLBT issues. Some posters have claimed that groups like Focus on the Family and other anti-GLBT political orgainizations are simply using their right to free speech when they disperse spurious information about those they condemn.

While not addressing speech from a pulpit - or otherwise disseminated from a church - most of the organizations that disperse this information are separate non-profit corporations (I believe) - that is, they are at arms-length from any church or purely religious entity and are in the "businesses" of (i) distributing information to be used by the public authorities in formulating laws of the land, and (ii) distributing information, along with requests for donations, to be used by the general public in formulating their opinions about social issues.

From an brief to the U.S. Supreme Court:http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/briefs/taibrief.shtm




Is the provision of information by these groups the equivalent of committing fraud?

Also, is the provision of information, as the primary functions of the groups, and solicitation of donations not the equivalent of advertising. The FTC has distinct rules on "truth in advertising" - http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.shtm



Is it possible, and, if it is, is it time, to pursue these organizations based on fraud, deceptive fund-raising tactics, and truth in advertising statutes. This WOULD NOT infringe on their rights to free speech, as free speech does not apply to fraud and deceit.

Well,

The problem is that it is not always easy to prove who is intentionally deceiving. Focus on the Family has been accused many times of spreading intentional lies with a desire to solicit money by liberals and they have been exonerated many times. On the other hand, Soulforce has been making charges not only against Focus on the Family but also against Christian schools, and these accusations turned out to be unfounded, like here (http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770312038)

All I am saying that this charge on fraud deceptive tactic could be used against Soulforce, giving the evidences, due to the fact that they have also used their non-profit status by asking to collect money to support their cause. BTW, doesn't this case that you listed deals with economic issues, like stealing money from people by financial corporations, instead of politics, unless I'm mistaken?

Also, just recently New Jersey passed a legal civil union law and Oregon domestic partnership law, if Dobson was so powerful in influencing politics, this wouldn't have happened, right? Or maybe, now liberals are as influential and even more than he is?

[antonyh]

Well,

The problem is that it is not always easy to prove who is intentionally deceiving. Focus on the Family has been accused many times of spreading intentional lies with a desire to solicit money by liberals and they have been exonerated many times. On the other hand, Soulforce has been making charges not only against Focus on the Family but also against Christian schools, and these accusations turned out to be unfounded, like here (http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770312038)

All I am saying that this charge on fraud deceptive tactic could be used against Soulforce, giving the evidences, due to the fact that they have also used their non-profit status by asking to collect money to support their cause. BTW, doesn't this case that you listed deals with economic issues, like stealing money from people by financial corporations, instead of politics, unless I'm mistaken?

Also, just recently New Jersey passed a legal civil union law and Oregon domestic partnership law, if Dobson was so powerful in influencing politics, this wouldn't have happened, right? Or maybe, now liberals are as influential and even more than he is?

Simon, you used the video from Central Bible College. I graduated from the school and let me assure you that Soulforce is absolutely accurate in their understanding of Central Bible College's stance on homosexuality. Daniel graduated from Evangel College accross town and also has experience in AG institutions. Here is letter I wrote to the News Leader, the newspaper that hosted the video you linked too:

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070322/OPINIONS03/703220314/1069/OPINIONS

You're going to have to come up with more compelling evidence for your assertions my friend.

That said...I don't believe that sticking these organizations with legal action is the most helpful tactic. As I said on the other thread, we need to call them to the greatness of their faith which is justice and compassion.

[Simon]

That said...I don't believe that sticking these organizations with legal action is the most helpful tactic. As I said on the other thread, we need to call them to the greatness of their faith which is justice and compassion.


Antony,

You'll be surprised but I really like what you are saying, here. I think you are demonstrating genuine wisdom beyond your age. You are like 22-23, right? God bless you, brother.

S.

[andrewlittle]

Focus on the Family has been accused many times of spreading intentional lies with a desire to solicit money by liberals and they have been exonerated many times.

When have they been exonerated?

[Daniel]

The problem is that it is not always easy to prove who is intentionally deceiving. Focus on the Family has been accused many times of spreading intentional lies with a desire to solicit money by liberals and they have been exonerated many times. On the other hand, Soulforce has been making charges not only against Focus on the Family but also against Christian schools, and these accusations turned out to be unfounded, like here (http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770312038)

Simon- The problem here is that when you use the words 'exonerate' and "charges', you do not offer any actual legal cases to support your statement. As such, your argument is rhetorical only. You haven't offered anything stubstantial as to HOW (or where or when for that matter) Focus on the Family has been 'exonerated'- only the assertion, which means nothing.

If I am not mistaken, Andy is talking about legal action, not grandstanding rhetoric. And even if the issue is seen in terms of rhetoric, you haven't made your case.

All I am saying that this charge on fraud deceptive tactic could be used against Soulforce, giving the evidences, due to the fact that they have also used their non-profit status by asking to collect money to support their cause. BTW, doesn't this case that you listed deals with economic issues, like stealing money from people by financial corporations, instead of politics, unless I'm mistaken?

What evidence? A news video? I agree with Anthony. You can do better than that. I went to a school just like the one in the video across town in Springflield. Everything the Riders talk about is true. How do I know it is true? I've heard the stuff said by these people. If you are gay you might as well be the antichrist.

SF is not collecting money to tell people that God doesn't accept them the way they are. Nor is it raising money on the suffering of gay persons.

That is the vast difference between FOF and SF.

Also, just recently New Jersey passed a legal civil union law and Oregon domestic partnership law, if Dobson was so powerful in influencing politics, this wouldn't have happened, right? Or maybe, now liberals are as influential and even more than he is?

Hello! Every hear of marriage?

Civil Union and Domestic Partnership is not marriage (btw- more than 10 pecent of those with civil unions in NJ are being denied their rights). Civil Union is second class status. Organizations like FOF do have a powerful influence. They seek to unsure that gay persons never have the same rights that straight poeple do. That is what they campaign for tirelessly.

There are a host of federal rights (every hear of social security?) that will never be obtained by gay persons if they are stuck with Civil Unions. Again- it is second class status.

Who do you think was behind DOMA and the many anti-gay amendments to State constitutions around the country? FOF is doing everything it can to stop the advancement of gay rights in every state of this country.

The truth is that the flames of anti-gay sentiment are fanned by religious conservatives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. One has only to look the places where gay rights flourish. You will find that religious expression is by-and-large more progressive. Yep. Even in Catholic Spain, where there is a keen understanding of how fascism was furthered by the church.

Religious oppression of gay people is real. You may think you have the right to be oppressive and would probably deny that you are, but your expressed views are in and of themselves oppressive to those like me.

Freedom of Religion is not the same as the having the freedom to oppress a minority. And that is what FOF and places like CBC are laboring to do.

[andrewlittle]

The problem is that it is not always easy to prove who is intentionally deceiving. Focus on the Family has been accused many times of spreading intentional lies with a desire to solicit money by liberals and they have been exonerated many times.
As Daniel said also, cite charges, trial and exoneration. To my knowledge, no charges have been filed.

On the other hand, Soulforce has been making charges not only against Focus on the Family but also against Christian schools, and these accusations turned out to be unfounded, like here (http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770312038)
I specifically stated non-church entities - or did you gloss over that accidently. Focus on the Family, as a primary distributor of false information, are joined by American Family Association and any number of other religiously-motivated, religiously-based, but secularly formed non-profit corporations. The organizers of these corporations made decision to separate them from churches in order to prevent running afoul of IRS regulations on churches. In the process, however, they ceased to be protected by church affiliation. They are not churches, period.

BTW, on what basis was Soulforce's accusations determined to be unfounded? Please give specifics.

All I am saying that this charge on fraud deceptive tactic could be used against Soulforce, giving the evidences, due to the fact that they have also used their non-profit status by asking to collect money to support their cause. BTW, doesn't this case that you listed deals with economic issues, like stealing money from people by financial corporations, instead of politics, unless I'm mistaken?
But SF does it without fraudulence, deceit and dissemination of erroneous information. The case dealt with fraudulent fund-raising - collecting money usng dis-information. The dis-information may be of a different sort, but the cases quoted apply to this situation as well.

Simon, you used the video from Central Bible College. I graduated from the school and let me assure you that Soulforce is absolutely accurate in their understanding of Central Bible College's stance on homosexuality. Daniel graduated from Evangel College accross town and also has experience in AG institutions. Here is letter I wrote to the News Leader, the newspaper that hosted the video you linked too:

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070322/OPINIONS03/703220314/1069/OPINIONS

You're going to have to come up with more compelling evidence for your assertions my friend.

That said...I don't believe that sticking these organizations with legal action is the most helpful tactic. As I said on the other thread, we need to call them to the greatness of their faith which is justice and compassion.
While I agree with you with respect to churches and doctrine, the corporations I talked about are secular non-profits - while they do have distinctly Christian messages, they distanced themselves from churches to avoid violating IRS regulations. That distances also removes from the protective umbrella of church.

Lastly, if these organizations possessed something like a "greatness of faith" to which to be called, I could see you point. But, they knowingly misrepresent secular research, quote opinion as fact, and lie when it is expedient. Where is there any basis to assume they operating from a place that constitutes faith in justice and compassion?

[Simon]

If my memory serves me correctly, about 2 years ago Focus on the Family was investigated for violating their non-profit provisions. They were accused of using their money they got from donations for giving bribes to Republican election campaign. Under the law, any organization which is called non-profit is prohibited from political lobbying, but not for advertising their ideology, whatever it is. Technically Fof was not exonerated because it was never formally indicted, but the investigation was dropped.

Also from legal perspective, nonprofits are allowed to promote any political ideologies and they are exempt from following non-discrimination laws. Hence, it also goes for Boy Scouts of America, where they are allowed to exclude girls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_non-profit_laws

As for the Soulforce charges: in the video, Jarret Lucas has said that the code of conduct of Central Bible Colleges says that gays and lesbians are sick and sinful because of their sexual orientation. Here is the copy from CBC code of conduct:


The Central Bible College 2006-07 student handbook states:

Practices which are known to be morally wrong by Biblical teaching are not acceptable for members of the college community. Included are specific acts such as drunkenness, stealing, the use of slanderous or profane language, all forms of dishonesty including cheating, occult practices, and sexual sins such as premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual behavior.

Prohibitions
Every student is expected to be involved in only those activities or lifestyles that are in keeping with the Standards for Community Life. Participation or involvement with any of the following will result in disciplinary probation or suspension from the college.

Immoral behavior- including adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion and/or any other form of scripturally prohibited sexual behavior.

It says it only prohibits homosexual behavior not homosexual orientation. The pastor of the college, has publicly announced that they allow gay people to say in as long as they don't engage in sexual intercourse. It's not quite the same thing as saying that certain act is wrong, as saying that the person is sick.

Antony: I read several of your quotes and I think that you have brilliant ideas, like the one proposing that it would be better to dialogue in a public spectrum, instead of on a property. I am glad to see that you are a fan of the Marin Foundation, so am I.

[antonyh]

While I agree with you with respect to churches and doctrine, the corporations I talked about are secular non-profits - while they do have distinctly Christian messages, they distanced themselves from churches to avoid violating IRS regulations. That distances also removes from the protective umbrella of church.

Lastly, if these organizations possessed something like a "greatness of faith" to which to be called, I could see you point. But, they knowingly misrepresent secular research, quote opinion as fact, and lie when it is expedient. Where is there any basis to assume they operating from a place that constitutes faith in justice and compassion?

You are right, they don't possess a greatness of faith. The entire approach they are taking toward the Hate Crimes Bill goes against some of the most basic ethical principles in their own faith. It is such a glaring contradiction that it is fairly easy to point out. I think this contradiction is the biggest talking point we have :)

[antonyh]

As for the Soulforce charges: in the video, Jarret Lucas has said that the code of conduct of Central Bible Colleges says that gays and lesbians are sick and sinful because of their sexual orientation. Here is the copy from CBC code of conduct:

It says it only prohibits homosexual behavior not homosexual orientation. The pastor of the college, has publicly announced that they allow gay people to say in as long as they don't engage in sexual intercourse. It's not quite the same thing as saying that certain act is wrong, as saying that the person is sick.

Antony: I read several of your quotes and I think that you have brilliant ideas, like the one proposing that it would be better to dialogue in a public spectrum, instead of on a property. I am glad to see that you are a fan of the Marin Foundation, so am I.

When I first joined Soulforce after they visited Central Bible College, I sided with Simpleman in that debate. My thinking evolved over time as I familiarized myself with nonviolence. I would say that this entry best represents my current thinking on the subject:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=26990&postcount=81

Clearly Central Bible Colleges believes that gays and lesbians are sick and sinful because of their sexual orientation or they would not prohibit acting on that sexual orientation. Let me assure you that Central Bible College at best views the LGBT person as sexually crippled, a sad by product of the fall of man.

[Daniel]

Clearly Central Bible Colleges believes that gays and lesbians are sick and sinful because of their sexual orientation or they would not prohibit acting on that sexual orientation. Let me assure you that Central Bible College at best views the LGBT person as sexually crippled, a sad by product of the fall of man.

You could say the same for their sister college Evangel (why Evangel calls itself a Universty I will never know- seeing that a university traditionally offers post-graduate degrees and is involved in research- two things Evangel- to my knowledge- does not do). I was there for my ten year reunion ('91) and heard the sentiment above spoken to my face. If you were known to be gay - you were out. It didn't matter or not if you 'acted' on it. Being gay was enough to get you the boot.

If CBC wants to now claim that gay people are welcome to attend their school without pressure or animosity towards them, great!

Regarding Focus on the Family. I did my own research on the matter as raised by Andy.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34613

http://www.sptimes.com/News/101001/NorthPinellas/PSTA_faces_fight_over.shtml

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/updates/2004_1019.html

Interestingly, the company that was trying to fend off the advertizements from FOF used the line of argument that they were a private company- and by extension - the bus shelters were private space.

It seems highly ironic to this reader that the same argument which has been flogged on this board by you and Simmpleman regarding private vs public-and how SF is violating the rights of Christian colleges, was the very means by which FOF won it's case.

If they is anything to be learned from this this, it's this:

You can't have it both ways. If FOF can win access to a private institution (and settle out of court btw) to make their case, so can Soulforce.

Now. Aside from the legal aspects, what was not addressed was the truth of the speech involved.

This is what Soulforce is all about. Anti-gay views are based on ignorance.

Here's what one former founder of Focus on the Family had to say:


PRESS CONFERENCE
A statement to the press on August 15, 1997
at the Gay and Lesbian PrideCenter, 125 N. Parkside Drive
Colorado Springs, Colo., Offices of Ground Zero Colorado Springs
A Public Apology and Appeal
by Gil Alexander-Moegerle
Co-Founder of Focus on the Family
(909) 592-6660

Contact: Frank Whitworth or GMoegerle@AOL.COM
Julie Cooper 719-635-6086
Gary Boetchner 719-535-0320

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I have a statement and then I am happy to take questions.

My name is Gil Alexander-Moegerle. I live in Los Angeles with my wife Carolyn and I’m the proud parent of three great young people and the grandfather of a fine little boy. Please ask to see pictures of my grandson when we’re done. I’m the author of the new book James Dobson’s War on America, the first book to critique James Dobson’s character, style and political agenda from an insider’s perspective.

I was one of the co-founders of Focus on the Family. In 1977 seven people signed their names to the legal documents that started Focus on the Family. We were its first Board of Directors. You will find my signature among the seven, along with my former friends Jim and Shirley Dobson, Mike Roberts, Mac McQuiston, Peb Jackson and Bobb Biehl.

One of those seven founders was a ten year veteran in the fields of broadcasting and fund raising and therefore accepted responsibility for managing the day-to-day start-up activities of Focus on the Family. That person was me.

I personally set up the three core operating divisions of Focus on the Family: The Broadcast Division… I was the founding Executive Producer of Focus radio, its on-air co-host, and the person responsible for the program’s initial syndication and distribution. The Publications Division… I was the founding editor of the Focus magazine and oversaw its initial production and circulation. The Mail Processing Division… I established the organization’s first post office box and bank account, oversaw the answering of its first listener letters and the receipting of its first donations, and set up its first computer-based mailing list. I also started… The Film and Video Division… I was responsible for producing the very first Focus on the Family film, “Twice Pardoned,” which was awarded best film of its type in 1987.

Speaking, then, as a co-founder of Focus on the Family, I have come to Colorado Springs to make two statements.

First…
I recently heard the Jewish philosopher Dennis Prager say, “Civility requires that responsible members of the various groups that make up a culture have the courage to apologize to the rest of society for bad people within their group.”

I have come to issue just such an apology for certain actions and attitudes on the part of the Christian Right in general and James Dobson and Focus on the Family in particular:

First, I apologize to the women of America for the sexist attitudes all-too-often displayed by James Dobson and the organization I helped found.

I apologize to African Americans and other ethnic minorities who are concerned by the continuing vestiges of intolerance in the land and by the dangerous role James Dobson, a wealthy, powerful, white, heterosexual male, plays in promoting intolerance.

I apologize to lesbian and gay Americans who are demeaned and dehumanized on a regular basis by the false, irresponsible, and inflammatory rhetoric of James Dobson’s anti-gay radio and print materials.

I apologize to Jewish Americans as well as Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and atheist Americans who are also victims of the dangerous words and divisive political actions of James Dobson, who claims quite falsely that this is a “Christian nation” that should be “ruled” by fundamentalist Christians and their doctrines.

I apologize to the American media, specifically to radio, television and print reporters, who have been ridiculed and demonized by Dobson and his staff and guests.

I am ashamed of my former colleagues for their attacks on you and for their pattern of slamming the doors of reasonable access in your face. And I encourage you to bang those doors down, to investigate, and to report the truth about the threat James Dobson and other religious extremists pose to the American tradition of tolerance, inclusivity and the separation of church and state.

And I apologize to my fellow Christian Americans, many of whom have been misled by a man I once loved and trusted. I hope you will not make the same mistake I made in letting my personal loyalty to an old friend blind me to the unchristian and un-American words and actions of James Dobson and so many of his Focus on the Family guests.

I apologize to any American who has felt the sting of James Dobson and the Christian Right wagging their holier-than-thou fingers in your face, shrieking that because your views differ from theirs, you are ungodly, evil and unworthy of the rights of full citizenship.

Please don’t let these extremists confuse you about the life and teachings of Jesus. He spoke in love. I regret that Jim and Focus have not.

Second…
I have come to Colorado Springs to call on James Dobson to step down as a political activist and return Focus on the Family to its original mission.
When we began Focus, in 1977, the seven founders had only two objectives:

To help Americans raise their children, and
to help us maintain our marriages.

Millions of Americans would say that James Dobson has made a tremendous contribution in those two areas. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding his harmful foray into big-time politics.

I believe Dobson-style politics have been inept, simplistic, exclusionary, divisive and alarmingly sectarian. Mr. Dobson has shown little respect for our pluralistic system, for differing views or for the core skill of statecraft—compromise and consensus building. That is un-American.

James Dobson’s political style has been one of relentlessly demonizing his adversaries. And he has created the impression that the pathway to national moral reform leads through the legislative machinery of Washington. That is unchristian.

I ask Mr. Dobsonto cancel his political radio series “Family News in Focus” and his political magazine “Citizen” to get out of the business of organizing and training grassroots political organizations around the country to break off his powerful alliance with lobbyist Gary Bauer and the Family Research Council to discontinue meeting with politicians in an effort to leverage his influence to shape public policy, and to pledge never again to devote a Focus on the Family radio broadcast to politics.

I call on James Dobson to return to the kinder gentler Focus on the Family we seven founded in 1977; to support America in those noble human endeavors of building strong marriages and raising strong children.

Thank you.

[dewdrop_world]

If my memory serves me correctly, about 2 years ago Focus on the Family was investigated for violating their non-profit provisions. They were accused of using their money they got from donations for giving bribes to Republican election campaign. Under the law, any organization which is called non-profit is prohibited from political lobbying, but not for advertising their ideology, whatever it is. Technically Fof was not exonerated because it was never formally indicted, but the investigation was dropped.

Andrew's comment was not about tax fraud -- it's about the fraud of knowingly publishing false information as if it were scientifically sound.

So this incident says nothing about what Andrew was thinking.

James

[Simon]

Good luck with your endeavors trying to seek legal retribution against Focus on the Family. All I am saying is, be very careful. It could backfire on you, because this is America, and everybody likes to sue everybody for pretty much anything.

Daniel, in your last post, it wasn't me who has said those things that you quoted, it was Antony

[dewdrop_world]

Good luck with your endeavors trying to seek legal retribution against Focus on the Family. All I am saying is, be very careful. It could backfire on you, because this is America, and everybody likes to sue everybody for pretty much anything.
You're right about that - it is a public relations nightmare in the making. That's because we're just a bunch of sicko/immoral/godless homos picking on upstanding, God-fearing Christian patriots. Give me a [insert your own expletive] break.

It doesn't matter that they just happen to tarnish Jesus' name by using it to justify a smear campaign based wholly on lies. They aren't concerned with truth, and neither is their audience. And when people have a lot to lose from seeing the truth, those who bring truth to light are automatically the bad guys.

James

[Daniel]

Daniel, in your last post, it wasn't me who has said those things that you quoted, it was Antony

Thank you for the correction. :) I was originally doing a multiquote and then edited your quote out....those pesky quote signs! I've corrected the matter in my post.

[Dash]

Just a couple thoughts that this thread has brought to my mind:

1) Daniel, you brought up Gil Alexander-Moegerle... Interestingly, in his book, James Dobson's War on America he recounts his attempt to gain legal redress for the wrongs he experienced from James Dobson. In that case, Dobson successfully claimed that since FOF was a "ministry" he was therefore not subject to the civil litigation that Mr. Alexander-Moegerle brought against him. All of the court proceedings for that case are sealed.

2) Based on my readings in Gandhi's philosophy, I'm not sure he himself would have gone the route of litigation. He chose not to press charges or bring complaints at times when he had clear legal justification. His point, as I understand it, was that he did not wish to humiliate or punish those with whom he wished to be reconciled. He did not want them to be "proved wrong," but rather, he wanted their hearts to be changed.

Then again, he was apparently a crappy lawyer.... :lol:

Personally, I think a direct legal attack on these kinds of organizations would motivate their funding base in the very same ways their fear-mongering, anti-gay rhetoric already does. It brings into play the whole equal/opposite reaction that generally serves to divide rather than unite.

I'm not saying that it is outside the realm of reason or right to bring such litigation...just wondering if it would truly bring us what we desire. I want them to see my humanity and the humanity of all those they oppress. I want them to see the flaws in their own system and repent of their violent ways. Creating an environment of trust wherein the anti-gay Christian could see us as friends and not foes, might mean that we do not take them to court.

Nonviolence, as I'm coming to understand it, pretty much involves laying down every weapon we might use against our adversary. It is a conscious determination that though we are in the right...though we have truth on our side, legal justification, and the passion to fight for our cause...we will do none of the harm to our adversary that they would do to us.

That's just how I would see this issue from a "Soulforce" perspective. There's no reason to believe any other gay-rights group would follow the same path that Soulforce is taking.

[sjbouza]

I agree with Dash in that if things went the litigation way it would just fuel there rhetoric. I can just see what they would say about that type of action. You know they would just say that their right to free speech and religion is being challenged by satan and his homosexual minions. You know Dobson would turn it around to his advantage as he always seems to do. He is a very good politician in that sense. He can make a bad into a good for his sake. He will just use it to raise more money to fight the ill of homosexuality and our "agenda".

I dont think the rhetoric will stop until the states begin to recognize same sex couples as equal to hetero couples. Once it begins to go across the nation then it will show the majority of the support going for us. I know it wont stop him and what he says, but I think it will take a little wind out of his sails.

[Simon]

Friends,

I just found out that Focus on the Family has two organizations. One is original Focus on the Family, which is 501 (c) 3, and the other one called Focus Action, which is 501 (c) 4. It is legally separate from Focus on the Family and is run by Tom Minnery. Because they are 501 (c) 4, they are allowed to lobby for any candidates they like, like all other 501 (c) 4's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29%284%29#501.28c.29.284.29

So, you can't legally challenge Focus Action. From what I understand it's a counterpart of NGLTF.

I have a question, which nonprofit status does Soulforce has: is it 501 (c) 3, or 501 (c) 4?

Just curious,

S.

[Daniel]

Nonviolence, as I'm coming to understand it, pretty much involves laying down every weapon we might use against our adversary. It is a conscious determination that though we are in the right...though we have truth on our side, legal justification, and the passion to fight for our cause...we will do none of the harm to our adversary that they would do to us.


I agree with you.

It is highly disturbing to watch those like Dobson & Co. avail themselves of legal means to promote their anti-gay message in instances like the case in Florida referenced above, even if it only means having it placed at 4 bustops. It seems they will stop at nothing.

Some might say we should fight fire with fire. But that is not our way.

Simon- you caution against using legal means against the lifes of Dobson and others. I agree. When it becomes more clear to Americans everywhere that religious conservatives are acting our of fear and ignorance, their actions will cease to have the desired effect. And that day is coming, if not here already.