Charter Member of the Sub-Media

November 24, 2004

Jumping to Conclusions for Socio-Political Gain « GWOM »

Read the whole story. Then explain to me why, exactly, the anti-gay group is suspected.

They may turn out to be the perpetrators, and if so, should be punished. But an equally strong case could be made for the perpatrators being the Rainbow Sash coalition, or a frame-job, or even confused, idiotic vandals.

A whole lot of innuendo seems to be thrown around on no evidence at all except the assumptions of specific interviewees.

Posted by Nathan at 06:08 PM | Comments (3)

Wasn't it religious folks who suggested that the anti-gay group was to blame? Maybe I read the article wrong.

Posted by: susie at November 25, 2004 05:03 PM

Everyone but the police are "religious folks", including the members of the Rainbow Sash Alliance.

The leader of the anti-gay religious group Ushers of the Eucharist said "I don't know who did it...Nobody wants to see church property damaged in the name of an exorcism."

But the rector of the church, who had to be at least in agreement with letting avowed homosexuals take communion, said, "Regardless of why they did it, it was a very disruptive act." The context implied he was accusing a specific group.

And one paragraph specifically accused the anti-gay groups with this: "Schnell said police have no leads, but several religious people familiar with the case said it is probably the work of fringe Catholics who advocate using sacramentals, or holy objects, to cleanse places where gays take communion."
Which religious people? The rector? The leader of the Rainbow Sash Alliance? On the basis of NO factual evidence, these unnamed religious people have smeared private citizens, and the reporter was more than happy to help them do it.
1) Someone vandalized a cathedral
2) this cathedral allows homosexuals to take communion freely
3) the vandalization shares some characteristics with an exorcism

There is nothing that points to any of the assumptions made by the reporter, but I guess you don't need facts if you need to advance gay rights. You have to make sure that disapproving of Catholic priests rewriting the Bible is clearly identified as homophobia and hate, you know.

Posted by: Nathan at November 25, 2004 07:06 PM

Why isn't it possible that the religious folks stand in support of neither gay rights nor vandalism, but suspect it was the anti-gay group for other reasons? Maybe they don't think gays should be able to take communion, but also think that the particular people in the anti-gay group are exactly the sort of obnoxious people who would engage in such a disruptive act, instead of pursuing their agenda by lawful means.

All I'm saying is that we don't know enough about these "religious folks" to really say one way or the other, and that I think you're being a bit paranoid, even though I think I understand why. I can see why it may appear like bias superficially, and that there is reflexive bias against religious folks, but it's not clear to me that that's what's operating in this situation.

Posted by: susie at November 25, 2004 09:50 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?