One of the most peculiar events at baseball games, either in MLB or any other minor league organization is "Faith Days" when religious organizations received discounted tickets and the baseball teams get a full stadium of fans.
One Group that is no longer welcome for the Atlanta Braves: Focus on the Family (which, the way, shouldn't there organization be renamed to focus on the family, if and only if, your family is conservative, religious, and anti-homosexual, or focus to remake families conservative, religious, and anti-homosexual.
According to CNNSI, though the Atlanta Braves did not provide a reason as to why Focus on the Family will no longer be included, sources state: FoF received the boot for its belief, "that homosexuality is a social problem comparable to alcoholism, gambling, or depression. In addition, the Braves "may have been troubled that Focus on the Family was promoting its Web site www.troubledwith.com, in which the group gives its suggestions for dealing with myriad problems."
The action by the Braves raises a few first amendment issues:
(1) To what extent should a group be punished for its views? (legal or social?)
(2) Is the rhetoric of FoF hate speech, especially since its views do not even accept the humanity of a homosexual (it is only a choice, a disease, not geneitc.)
(3) If anti-homosexual religious rhetoric is hate speech or constitutes "fighting words", should it receive the protection of religious freedom under the first amendment?
(4) Is it discrimination to excluded Focus on the Family even though other religious groups will be there?
Personally, while I do not believe in the views of FoF, I respect their right under the first amendment to try and persuade people their view is correct. For me, I follow the line of thinking in Whitney v. California: the cure for bad speech is more speech.
In the Braves' case, is blocking that speech a form of "refusing to debate" or "we think you possess bad ideas and, unless you change your ideas, you are not welcome?" How much social coercion can you apply to try and alter the minds of a person or ?
group? Since the game will be in Atlanta's stadium, do the Braves need to offer a full "marketplace of ideas." Since this is a private and not public place, fans may not have pure first amendment rights.
Another development, though it may be a little far-fetched right now: can you punish religious speakers for expressing the ideas that sodomites and adulterers should be "stoned" or received the daeth penalty? This seems as if it would be an establishment issue whereby religious law would supercede civil law and, therefore, it would be against the first amendment. However, I know of a few students in Texas who posses these views.
Should religious organizations lose their non-profit status when expressing these views or other political views?
There are many works to consult, like John Locke's Letters Concerning Toleration, Micahel Sandel's Democracy's Discontent, and Marci A. Hamilton's God vs. the Gavel (these are three right by my desk).
Any thoughts?
3 comments:
While there is always some element of the public sphere in professional sports. At the beginning and end of the day, the Atlanta Braves are a private business and are thus free of first amendment constraints. This gets stickier if the stadium is publicly financed and owned, which I am 99% sure it is not.
Do I support the right of FoF to speak/protest/whatever in public venues? Absolutely.
But, I also support the Altanta Braves's right to tell them to jump in a lake.
southpaw,
Congrats on the graduation.
Great post, solon. Some rejoinders:
Southpaw writes, "the Atlanta Braves are a private business and are thus free of first amendment constraints."
That's exactly it. There is no abridgment of rights here. Wal-Mart won't sell a lot of the music Harrogate loves, and Harrogate would like to suggest that Wal-Mart take the extremely long pole out of its ass; but then if Wal-Mart likes the pole, then it has the right to keep it there. And it gives Harrogate yet another reason to avoid Wal-Mart anyways.
"Is the rhetoric of FoF hate speech"
Yes, unequivocally so. Let the "stone heretics to death" crowd speak their minds, but laugh at them and fight to prevent them from gaining real power. But while Harrogate longs for the day when the Dobsons and the Fred Phelps people are laughed out of the public discourse altogether, he isn't holding his breath. Bigotry still has huge audience in Uhmerrikah's populace, national ethos, and government.
Finally, Harrogate emphasizes that there is little as absurd in Uhmerrikah's current discourse than the "refusing to debate" refrain so often invoked by the Right. It is as though Uhmerrikah needs to have the Scopes trials all over again. Harrogate does indeed "refuse to debate" those who would deride homosexuals, or those people who believe in Science, or even those people who don't think Dinosaurs are gone because they got the wrong Ark schedule, etc.
Such people as Dobson and Santorum and Phelps are destined to be ridiculed and despised by the thoughtful: there can be no "exchange of ideas" with a drooling fool.
Post a Comment