Calling 'em...

...when/like you see 'em.

***********
Here's (sic) two good examples on the legal blogs of needing to call bullshit, regarding religion and characterizations:

First, Althouse tells us, "Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted for the "Public Expression of Religion Act," which prevents the recovery of attorneys' fees in lawsuits based on the Establishment Clause:

Supporters say the bill, if passed and signed into law, would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from "abusing the system" when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion. Opponents say it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.

The committee's vote was split down party lines, with all 12 Republicans present supporting the bill and Democrats opposing it....

"[T]he ability to recover attorneys' fees in civil-rights and constitutional cases, including establishment-clause cases, is necessary to help protect the religious freedom of all Americans and to keep religion government-free," the [ACLU] statement said, noting the fees in such suits often total "tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars."

"Few citizens can afford to [pay such fees]," it continued. "But more importantly, citizens should not be required to do so where the court finds that the government has violated their rights and engaged in unconstitutional behavior."

Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), the bill's chief House sponsor, said the act was necessary to prevent such groups from intimidating governments into agreeing to out-of-court settlements.

"It is outrageous that public officials have been threatened with the prospect of financial ruin merely because they wish to defend their constitutional rights in a court of law," he said in a statement. "This is a big victory for Americans who care about our rich religious heritage in this country."

Those are some sharply drawn party lines. I'm definitely with the ACLU on this one. "Americans who care about our rich religious heritage in this country" -- that really grates. Taking a strong position in favor of separating religion and state doesn't mean you don't "care about our rich religious heritage in this country." I mean, could Hostettler get any more conservative buzz words into his sentence? Victory, Americans, rich, religious, heritage, country."

*******

Good job. She seen (sic) the pitch; she knocked it right back. (The last unindented graph is Althouse.) Contrast this post on Volokh (the last unindented graph is Volokh):

Evangelical Christian Stephen Green] faces a court appearance today charged with using 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour' after his attempt to distribute the leaflets at the weekend 'Mardi Gras' event in Cardiff.

A spokesman for the police said the campaigner had not behaved in a violent or aggressive manner, but that officers arrested him because 'the leaflet contained Biblical quotes about homosexuality'....

The anti-gay campaigners were first asked by police to leave the site of the [Mardi Gras event] following 'complaints from the public', and complied with the request. However, they were approached again by police when they began handing out leaflets at the entrance to the park where the Mardi Gras was staged.

Mr Green refused to stop distributing leaflets and was arrested, and then questioned for four hours at a police station. He was charged after refusing a caution.

The leaflets were headed Same-Sex Love - Same-Sex Sex: What does the Bible Say?, and included a series of quotations from the 1611 King James Bible, a text usually regarded as one of the foundation stones of the English language.

Aimed at demonstrating Biblical disapproval of homosexual sex, they included from the Old Testament Leviticus 18.22, 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination'.

The leaflets also quoted Romans 1:25-27 from the New Testament, to the effect that homosexuals are given to 'vile affections'.

The handbills urged homosexuals to 'turn from your sins and you will be saved'.

The charge against Mr Green is that he used 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby', contrary to the Public Order Act 1986....

Colin Hart of the Christian Institute think tank said: 'This was a very gentle leaflet. There was no use of words like "perversion". I have to wonder if churches, bishops and archbishops are now vulnerable to arrest for their views on homosexuality....'

There may well be more to the case than the article reports, of course; if readers know more, I'd much appreciate their pointing it out. I should note that I'm puzzled by Mr. Hart's distinction between "perversion" and "vile"/"abomination," but I agree that it's hard to draw a principled line between Mr. Green's leaflets and broadcasts, newspaper articles, and other anti-homosexuality items that may "insult[]," "alarm," or "distress" some readers. It does look like publicly teaching traditional Christianity might indeed be a crime in England."
*********

Now he had a fair argument going there, but that last line grates on me and apparently others as well. Teaching anti-homosexuality is not "teaching traditional Christianity". Like we currently urge Muslims to speak up, as others have noted, when their faith is ill defined by fundamentalists, so should "traditional Christians" better expand on the core teachings of their faith. Volokh swung hard -- points for taking a big cut -- but in that artlessly written last sentence, unfortunately he whiffed bigtime.