The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has just released its list of the "top ten incidents of anti-Christian defamation, bigotry and discrimination in the US from last year."  This is yet another laughable attempt to stick the hatred and bigotry labels onto incidents that show no hatred and bigotry in order to claim that we hate Christians just as much as they hate us, and since we can rest assured that the media is going to do absolutely *zero* fact-checking of this list, I'll go ahead and do it myself.  Every one of these list items has a scintillating headline claiming bigotry or discrimination, and I'm going to determine for each one whether they are telling the truth and describing an actual bona fide example of defamation, bigotry, or discrimination, or whether they are lying.

10. The Claim: Pro-life Pastor Reverend Walter Hoye of Oakland, CA was jailed for exercising peaceful, pro-life speech.

The Facts:  Reverend Walter Hoye was willingly, knowingly breaking the law and was doing so in protest of said law.  The city of Oakland, California passed a law prohibiting anyone from coming within 8 feet of someone entering an abortion clinic.  He violated this law specifically to test it, and was subsequently arrested.  I want to make this clear: he was not arrested for exercising his free speech.  He was arrested for breaking a law completely unrelated to free speech.  He made the argument that the law was unconstitutional, which is a question that is still working its way through the courts.  But while it is on the books, you cannot claim that being arrested for breaking a law has anything to do with bigotry or discrimination.

The Verdict: False 

9. The Claim: Rev. Fred Winters was murdered while preaching in his pulpit in Maryville, Illinois.

The Facts: on March 8, 2009, Terry Sedlacek walked into an Illinois church, confronted the pastor, and then shot him.  He then wounded two others with a knife.  It is apparently still unclear as to what his motive is, as not a single reputable article I found in a Google search mentions a determined motive.  It is, however, clear that Terry Sedlacek was apparently suffering from advanced Lyme disease, which can apparently lead to mental instability.

Whatever the reason for the attack, there is no evidence whatsoever that it stemmed from "anti-Christian" anything.  It appears more likely that this is a tragic incident that occurred due to an unstable mind.

The Verdict: False 

8. The Claim: HBO’s program "Curb Your Enthusiasm" aired an episode where the main actor urinates on painting of Jesus. When confronted HBO would not apologize. 

I saw this particular clip when it first aired and I found it somewhat amusing, if maybe a little puerile.  Here's the setup: Larry David has taken a medication that makes him pee.  A lot.  Whenever he goes to the bathroom they set up a water hose to just spray water wherever he's looking.  So one day, when he's visiting his very religious employee's house, he goes to the bathroom to pee, and notices a picture of Jesus on the wall.  His pee is so forceful that a little drop gets on the painting, but because Larry David is such a schmuck, he leaves without cleaning it up.  The employee notices it, and long story short, believes that a miracle has occurred and that her painting of Jesus is crying.

So yes, it's shocking to be sure, and only funny if you have a three-year-old's sense of humor.  (Guilty as charged.)  But is it:

• Defamation?  No.  The only person in the setup who is seen negatively is Larry David himself, because he's so uncaring and socially maladjusted that he wouldn't even wipe off the painting.
• Bigotry?  No.  There is nothing at all being said about Christians or Christianity here.
• Discrimination?  No.  Doesn't even qualify. 

The CADC is upset because HBO didn't apologize.  But I don't think they have anything to apologize for, and neither do they.  I am of the opinion that art should never be apologized for, but I further think that the only people who would be offended by this program are the ones who think that no one should be allowed to say anything negative about Jesus, ever.

(Oh and also, guys?  A little drop bouncing onto a painting is not the same as "urinating on a painting.") 

The Verdict: False 

7. The Claim: The overt homosexual participation in Obama's presidential inaugural events by “Bishop” Vickie Eugene Robinson, the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington D. C., and a homosexual marching band.

This one is patently ridiculous, but I'll take it on anyway.  The problem here is not that they are reporting what actually happened, but rather once again that they are calling it defamation, bigotry, or discrimination.

Where to begin?  I guess I could start with the quote marks around "Bishop."  He is a bishop.  The Episcopal Church consecrated him a bishop.  So apparently these guys don't think much of the Episcopal Church either.  And then using his vaguely feminine sounding first name, which he has never used in a professional context?  The only reason for including it would be to make the uninformed think Gene Robinson cross-dresses.  It's there to make him sound more scary.

So with that cheap attempt at framing aside, let's try and figure out whether including more groups in the inauguration festivities qualifies as defamation, bigotry, or discrimination.  Because do you know who gave the invocation?  Rick Warren.

The bottom line is that inclusion of any group in an event is never defamation or bigotry towards another, and it could only possibly be discrimination if opposing views were specifically targeted for exclusion, which they clearly weren't.

The Verdict: False 

6. The Claim: Police called to East Jessamine Middle School in Lexington, Kentucky to stop 8th graders from praying during their lunch break for a student whose mother was tragically killed.

This is my favorite kind of bullshit partisan claim: the one you can't verify.  They get to say whatever they want, and because it's almost impossible to find any information about this case (try Googling it), you can't say it isn't true!  Seriously, try Googling it.  You actually get more hits talking about this top ten list than about the actual incident.

The best reliable information I've been able to find about this case is this report from KETK in Tyler, Texas, which describes a scenario where the students were praying at lunch and didn't stop when the bell rang.  The students say the officials called the cops, the officials say that the students refused to comply with rules, and the bottom line is that it's a big unverifiable mess.  My personal hunch is that this is a bald-faced lie (some of the rumors are that the students started forming a mob), but I can't count it as a lie, because the bottom line is we just don't know.  And unlike the people at the CADC, I have integrity.  But the next time you get some chain letter describing students who were arrested for praying, just remember how unreliable some of these sources can be.

The Verdict: Unknown

5. The Claim: Pro-life activist Jim Pullion was murdered in front of his granddaughter's high school for showing the truth about abortion.

This is the exact same case as number 9: someone was mentally unstable and we're pretty unclear as to motive.  In this case, the shooter was a man named Harlan Drake, and there is a tiny bit of truth to this one - Drake was apparently upset because the pictures this guy was showing of aborted fetuses was inappropriate for children.

So you know what?  There's a little bit of truthiness to this one.  Someone targeted an anti-abortion activist for showing abortions to children.  It's kind of more bigotry targeted towards anti-abortionists than towards Christians, but you know what?  I'll give them this one.  An activist was murdered by a crazy person because the crazy person hated the activist.  Good show, CADC.

Oh and by the way?  The shooter has been ruled not mentally competent to stand trial.  Technically we shouldn't even be talking about a motive here.  But the bottom line is that this person was motivated to violence by an intense dislike for what the activist was promoting, which could be considered bigotry.

The Verdict: True (Kinda)

4. The Claim: An activist judge ordered a home school mom in New Hampshire to stop home schooling her daughter because the little girl “reflected too strongly” her mother’s Christian faith.

Riiiiiiight.  The good people at the NH Family Law Blog have detailed the case and it's kind of a fascinating one.  Basically, Martin Kurowski and Brenda Voydatch divorced and she got custody of their daughter.  She wanted to homeschool the girl, he did not want her to.  She did it anyway.  It went to court and the court decided that she was not honoring the terms of the divorce settlement.  That is a far cry from promoting suppression of religion in any way shape or form.

The Verdict: False 

3. The Claim: The Federal Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate" that labeled conservative Christians extremists and potential terrorists.

Oh Jesus Tapdancing Christ, not this again. The document is talking about groups like Stormfront and other white supremacist groups.  In fact, in a quick search of the document, all I found was the following sentence:

These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement. 

Christian Identity, for those not in the know, is a loosely affiliated group of white supremacist and white nationalist organizations and has nothing to do with anything most people would consider Christian.

The Verdict: False 

2. The Claim: President Obama's appointment of radical anti-Christians like homosexual activist Kevin Jennings as the "safe school czar;" pro-abortion advocate Kathleen Seblius made Secretary of Human and Health Services, and Chai Feldblum, pro-homosexual and anti-religious liberty judge nominated for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

There's a lot here.  Let's see... Kevin Jennings was raised in a fundamentalist household and lost his faith, so I suppose that could make him an anti-Christian, and he is a homosexual activist, so I guess that's true.  Kathleen Sebelius is indeed pro-choice, so that's true.  And you know what?  It's actually kind of a measure of restraint to call Chai Feldblum "pro-homosexual" since she's pro-gay, pro-lesbian, pro-bi, and pro-just about anything you want to do.  I can't find any reference at all to her being "anti-religious liberty" anywhere, but I think that's fundie-speak for "does not uphold every single thing we believe."

So, there's lots of truth in that statement.  But how do ANY of those appointments represent defamation, bigotry, or discrimination?

The Verdict: False 

1. The Claim: The Federal Hate Crimes Bill that attacks religious liberty and freedom of speech. For the first time in our history ministers are vulnerable to investigation and prosecution for telling the truth about homosexuality.

Such utter bullshit.  Do you know who's held criminally liable for hate crimes?  The ones committing it.  The person who attacks a young gay man just because he's gay gets prosecuted for committing a hate crime.  The pastor who says all gays should die?  He doesn't get prosecuted unless the victim's lawyer can prove culpability in civil court.  There has NEVER been a criminal case where someone "told the truth about homosexuality" and was prosecuted for hate crimes, and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act changes none of it.  Don't believe me?  Read the bill and try to find the part where mere speech is grounds for prosecution.  I'm all ears.  Pay special attention to Sections 4707(a), 4710(1), and 4710(2).

The Verdict: False 

So there you have it.  A bunch of lies, distortions, and half-truths straight out of the standard playbook of the religious right.  It's almost comforting in a way, because it happens all the time.

Updated 01/06/09: I had apparently gotten the name of the group wrong; they are now correctly named as the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.  Also fixed minor grammatical errors and made slight edit to the ending. 

Update 01/06/09 again: BigMKnows alerted me to the fact that KETK is not in Lexington, but in Tyler, Texas.  I did not notice that fact when I was researching, but it makes the case even more interesting because even the town in which the incident supposedly occurred has no record of it.  Surely cops getting called on the kids would get some kind of mention in the local media...