Day: January 12, 2011

Sarah Palin issued a statement which responds to critics who assigned various degrees of responsibility to her for the shootings in Arizona. Here is her video:

The full statement is here. I want to focus on these words:

If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game.  Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol.  In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.

It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder.  Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase “blood-libel” in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.

I agree with the ADL on this matter. Rep. Giffords is Jewish and it is insensitive at best for evangelical Palin to use a term which is offensive to Jews in this situation. Not only is it insensitive, the use of the term obscures the expressions of sympathy and the accurate aspects of her analysis. 

Another consequence is that the judgment by which she judges will now be used to judge her rhetoric. For instance, Sarah Palin and the far right have invoked the term “death panels” as a way of accusing supporters of the health care bill of favoring the deaths of older people in order to cut costs. This would be a kind of blood libel, wouldn’t it? Accusing someone of creating a means to bring death to old people via legislation is a serious allegation and one that is simply false. In light of the currently toxic public square, evangelicals and social conservatives should just speak in plain and descriptive language rather than invent defamatory terms to describe ideological opponents.

Earlier today, anti-gay group MassResistance posted a link to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and then misled their readers about what is in it. In a message to supporters, MassResistance said this about the Ugandan bill:

* The proposed Ugandan law that has liberals here in America so incensed proposed harsh punishments for those who knowingly expose people to AIDS and adults who seduce children or people with mental disabilities into homosexual sex acts. It’s not far out of line with most people’s sensibilities. But nevertheless, Lively did not propose the law; he simply told Ugandans his observations of the homosexual agenda.

Guess I’m a liberal.

I wonder if many of their readers will click through and read the bill. If they do, they will find that, in addition to the behaviors noted by MassResistance, people engaging in consensual adult homosexuality would receive the death penalty if they were repeat offenders or had HIV (even if unknown to them). They would also find this section of the bill:

2. The offence of homosexuality.

(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-

(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

(e) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

Apparently MassResistance does not view life in prison for two consenting adults intimately touching each other to be a harsh penalty. In addition, MassResistance does not tell readers that the bill would criminalize free speech and freedom of assembly, and would provide criminal penalties for failure to turn in gay people to the authorities.

MassResistance also tells readers that the Pink Swastika is well researched.   Well, I would say it differently. It seems to me that Lively and Abrams had to work very hard to read some of their sources and overlook the material which disconfirmed what they believed. Their selective citations were meticulous in some cases (see this one for example). For more on the book, see this page.

MassResistance refers readers to the WorldNetDaily tribute to the Pink Swastika but fails to tell their supporters that references to the Pink Swastika were removed from websites hosted by Campus Crusade for Christ, Exodus International, and the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. WorldNetDaily also told their readers that the only people who dislike the book are gays. I suspect CCC, Exodus and NARTH will be surprised to learn that they are liberal gay organizations?

MassResistance also wants you to believe Scott Lively got a raw deal from the Boston Globe. Given the couple of things I have pointed out, you should check it out for yourself.