First Circuit Denies Scott Lively's Petition To Dismiss Crimes Against Humanity Suit

Christian terrorists are not the only purveyors of hate and violence.  There are others who use religion to convince others to engage in acts of discrimination and anti-gay violence.  Most of these hate merchants - James Dobson, Rick Warren, Tony Perkins, and Brian Brown are but a few - hide under the banner of "family values" and "bible believing Christians."   Among the worse, however, is Scott Lively who, while delusional by most standards, has exported anti-gay hate and animus on a level matched by few especially to ignorant populations in Africa.  Indeed, Lively's action caused him to be charged with crimes against humanity.  Today, Lively's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking the dismissal of such charges - the lower court refused to dismiss the charges - was denied.   This means that Lively will have to stand trial and one can only hope that his foul deeds will result in a conviction.   A piece in the Washington Post looked at Lively's foul activities.  Here are excerpts:

Scott Lively is an obsessively anti-gay American evangelical minister. He is, according to National Journal, “perhaps the most extreme” of a network of U.S. evangelicals who, having failed in their crusade against all things gay at home, travel abroad to connect with anti-gay activists and arm them with arguments that, for example, homosexuals will seduce their children, corrupt all of society, and eventually take over the country. You don’t need to take my word for it; read Lively’s manifesto here. It’s a 2007 missive to Russians suggesting they “criminalize the public advocacy of homosexuality,” i.e., use state power to force gay people into the closet. This is something Russia actually did last year (rather indirectly, but quite effectively).

Lively has traveled to Russia to explain the gay menace. He also been involved in similar efforts in Latvia. (You can read about that and much more in National Journal’s commendable article.) And he has been active for years in Uganda, a place where persecution of gays has taken a turn for the worse — partly, it seems fair to suppose, thanks to his efforts. 

Perhaps it’s easier to understand why this is not an easy free-speech case if I change “homosexual” to “Jew.” Suppose I travel to a country where a vulnerable Jewish community faces a hostile and volatile majority; I connect with anti-semitic demagogues, some of whom are politically influential; I equip them with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other anti-semitic propaganda; I warn them that an international Jewish cabal will prey on their children and take over their country; I and advise them to forcibly repress Judaism. If I do all of that, what am I doing? Something more morally and legally complicated than merely exercising my First Amendment rights in the marketplace of ideas, that’s for sure.

If Lively wins, he’s a right-wing hero; if he loses, he’s a martyr. Either way, this case has potential to spread his fame far and wide and inspire imitators. He might succeed in commandeering the Supreme Court as his stage. All pretty enticing for a nut case from the fever swamps. Now, here’s what should be happening. Christians — especially evangelicals, and above all evangelicals who oppose gay marriage but insist they are not anti-gay (you know who you are!) — should be publicly repudiating what Lively is doing. . . . They should treat Lively the way white blood cells treat a bacillus, walling him off before he discredits evangelicals more broadly — as surely he will.