Est. May 2008

10 July, 2015

Checking the Sell By Date

Ohfercryin'outloud.

For the past three days, at least three – maybe for – folks on my Facebook news feed have posted articles linking to a story from The Christian Post which tells us:
A homosexual man has filed a $70 million lawsuit against Bible publishers Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, alleging that their version of the Bible that refers to homosexuality as a sin violates his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional distress.
Today, I saw the same thing pop up on some of the conservative sites I visit.  In every case, the impression is that this is just another example of the assault on religious liberty – particularly Christian liberty – that the Obergefell decision was predicted to cause.  For instance, one article begins with:
Remember, the gay lobby’s goal is not to be “accepted” and to otherwise be tolerant of everyone else’s views. Its goal is to destroy religious freedom and force everyone to tow their extremist rules. And here we see the next step in that crusade. A gay man in Michigan is now suing several Bible publishers because the book has “anti-gay” passages in it. Yes, folks, the gays now want the Bible either sanitized or banned.
And when you check the comments sections of both the articles and the Facebook postings, that's exactly how people are seeing it.

Problem is, it's wrong.  It's not a result of Obergefell, since the article all and sundry are breathlessly linking to was written, not on July 10, 2015, but on July 10, 2008, seven years ago.

And because whomever the first person was to post this article as an example of current religious-liberty assault didn't bother to read the publication date, and because everybody who subsequently linked to this article as proof of same didn't bother to read the original publication date, and because the vast majority of the people commenting on the articles and the Facebook postings seem to believe the link was published today rather than seven years ago, our Prog-lib opponents – you know, the ones we chide so often for not fact-checking their sources and for falling for obvious parodies –have just been handed a pretty good-sized stick to beat us over the head with: 'Seems the story was just too good to check, eh?  So desperate for this to be current you just went with it and didn't bother to check the publication date, eh?  Har, har, har, you bumpkins, you idiots, har, har, har.  Who's working out of Momma's basement now, eh?'


Check the dates on your sources, folks, or risk looking like fools.

No comments: