A recent article caught my attention:
NJ rules against church group in gay rights issue
My first thought as a social conservative was “Well, here we go. So much for freedom of religion.” Fortunately, I live in NJ, so the decision was on local talk radio. That was where I heard the actual facts of the case, the most important one being that the church group requested federal green space funds to help preserve their oceanfront pavilion. The town informed the church that the funds were only available for public spaces, not for private ones. The church group argued that the pavilion was public space for enjoyment of all. They subsequently received the funds.
Now they want to say that the space is private and they have the right to rent to who they want. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You sold your soul for some green space funds and now you are in the uncomfortable position of having to follow the law regarding public spaces. You just lost my support.
One sentence added to the above report could have explained the funds issue, or at least implicated that there was more at issue than religious freedom. Instead, the author ignored what was the main point of the complaint (according to the lawyer for the gay couple). The result is an article that makes it look as though gays are pushing themselves on churches and that the government is helping them. And while those things may be happening in some places, it doesn’t seem to be the case here. But that seems to be the point of journalism these days – leave out facts if they may lead readers to a different conclusion then your own. Someone needs to explain to the AP that that’s called “opinion”.
Fact, Opinion and Annoyance 