Because, for starters, evil is complex. For example, the definition you cited in the article is the first half of the first paragraph of a 6000+ word article discussing evil in the Catholic Context. And, in my opinion, the definition does not make sense as provided (truncated & out of context).

Evil is an exceptionally complex thing. Take evil actions for example. Evil Actions are seemingly easy to define. One working definition could be an Evil Action is one undertaken with the knowledge that the action will bring direct harm to another individual. Murder is an evil action. The Pinto scandal was an evil action. But even Evil Actions are more complex than first glance would lead one to assume. Take the old train shoving ethical puzzle for example: http://news.yahoo.com/kill-one-person-save-five-research-classic-debate-090500884.html

Further, how do you define harm? What is the threshold of harm that must be crossed in order for an action to become evil?

Evil People are even harder to pin down. For the life of me I cannot come up with a good working definition. Even if we limit the class of “Evil People” to “the people who commit evil acts”, which actors can be considered Evil People? Is the accountant who made the terrible (but to him, abstract) cost-benefit analysis an evil person? Is the executive who signed off on the analysis an evil person? Does it make a difference if he’s just incompetent and signs everything that’s placed before him? Or is he an Evil Person, regardless?

In the case of the above I think the Thomas More folks are not well informed and the institutions which should keep them well informed consistently fail them by placing greater emphasis on conforming to their beliefs then on telling them the truth: http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/07/the-evangelical-blackout-of-research-on-sexual-orientation/

The hazards of yellow journalism in the internet age, I suppose. But not evidence of willful lying.

Finally their very actions in filing the complaint indicate the problems which arise when you start defining people as evil. I have to imagine they conceive of themselves as well meaning folks who think of “Gay People” as Evil People. In viewing gay people as evil people the opposition shuts down any hope of empathy. Why? Because they view us as evil: so why learn about us or try to see things from our perspective? If they abandon the news-sources that conform to their worldview in seeking other objective opinions then haven’t they abetted evil? Aren’t mainstream news organizations evil for not telling the “truth” about homosexuality? World Net Daily does, why can’t the New York Times? Oh, because the Times is “Evil”; or has been betrayed by “Evil” or is co-opted by “Evil”. So it makes perfect sense to an echo-chambered-evangelical(Catholic) that gay people are inherently ashamed of existing because they are inherently Evil. The calculation goes: they know in their subconscious soul that they are evil pawns of Satan so they… fill in the offensive blanks yourself.

So lets not stoop to their level and shut out any meaningful attempts to understand their actions. If we just label them as Evil; then we think we understand their motivation. They’re motivated by Evil or hatred or pure rank animus. But they’re not. They’re motivated by fear (I’m going to expand on this underlying motivation on my blog; to launch shortly) and derivatives of the same.

Which brings me to the: Why? as in Why Write & Post this article? There is no way these clowns are going to convince any court to take their side. As Theo rightly points out, their legal strategies boarder on incompetence. Why bring this up at this juncture(other than to try to convince people to your ideological position that “evil exists” and is easily identifiable)? If these folks are evil who else is? Who isn’t? And Why Does It Matter?

If you convince us that we’re dealing with evil people; what good does that do for our cause?

And why is it important to point out people in the opposition that you believe to be evil?

Can’t support a “Tyler’s Army” t-shirt. A plain purple t-shirt (or dress shirt) is fine.

Publicizing the events ex post facto (Facebook) was a poor choice, probably, if only because no one can agree what exactly happened that day in the classroom.

Teachers taking a day off to show non-curriculum videos is a bad idea.

People designing programs of this kind might do well to understand that religious kids need a kind of help, too. For instance, rather than a ‘suspension’, it might have been better to send them to a classroom with other ‘religious exception’ kids and let them talk out their feelings, with someone who is trained to lead that kind of discussion. (Most of these kids learn the hate from their parents, and a summary approach to disabusing them of it is not helpful.)

People of goodwill solve these problems. Most of these first amendment cases are colossal wastes of time and money.

I think we’ve all noted in all the NOISE about religious conviction driving such attitudes, NOWHERE in any of it are they as strenuous and committed in this simple teaching: To treat others as they’d want to be treated.

That is from where the most moral and ethical of decisions and actions flow. THAT is why is such a profound directive of Christ himself.
We might forgive the occasional failure of being able to think through that directive first, and with full consciousness.

But in this particular subject there is ample and profound opportunity to wonder, to question, to engage that directive when someone gay is crying out in PAIN over the actions such Christians have taken.

But all we get are excuses, blaming their target, denials and obfuscation in which to hide or shield their motives and their result.

I don’t think I’ve seen MORE moral cowardice and intellectual and outright dishonesty than that which comes from people using their religious belief to commit injustice. And all without LISTENING, not EVER, to those they hurt. Nor to ASK after the needs of their gay brother and to see if being TRUE to the test of the pebble in the shoe, might actually do more good than harm.

They don’t like being called bigots.
Well, cowards, liars, control freaks, victim card players bearing false compassion are good names too.

I love that, Lynn. In other words there’s all manner of just discrimination against gays, in fact one can discriminate against gays anyway one wants as long as one defines that discrimination as just.

Not to me. I don’t know where you get that from. There is evil and I do what I can to end it.

Erin, thanks for sharing your story with us. I’m sorry it took you so long (as it did many of us) for you to accept yourself.

No that was NOT too long. It was beautiful.

Jay,

Thanks for the spelling correction.

I did think about Trevor’s concern, but as the piece focuses primarily on TMLC, and presents the kids cumulatively, I think it avoids creating ‘heroes’ and – I hope – does not contribute to a copycat effect.