A Liberal Religious Perspective on Hate Crime Legislation
.
We don’t like to think about hate crimes. They are a disappointing reminder of parts of our history we would just as soon forget.
While the story about the white judge who denied an interracial couple a marriage license is slightly distressing, most of the comments about the New Orleans justice of the peace, have been along the lines of “Hey, our country has moved past that.” The justice said he wouldn’t marry the couple because he didn’t think interracial kids were a good idea.
Governor Bobby Jindal said “Disciplinary action should be taken immediately - inc
luding the revoking of his license.” The couple did get married, but now have a sad story to tell.
Much more inconvenient and terrifying is getting shot for your religion.
Two men were shot in the legs on their way in to the Adat Yeshurun Sephardic Congregation in Los Angeles the other day, and the gun man neither spoke to the victims nor took anything from them. Police are investigating the shooting as a possible hate crime.
Imagine you’re in church or a synagogue, about to begin services, and two fellow congregants bleeding at their legs make their way into the sanctuary. I’m sure people must have been terrified.
In a way, a hate crime is a crime of terror. That’s why so many people on the religious left, including me, are encouraged by President Obama’s recent signing of the Hate Crime Prevention Act two days ago.
“President Barack Obama, hugs Dennis Shepard, center, as his wife Judy Shepard, left, watches after Obama spoke at an event commemorating the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crime Prevention Act in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2009. Dennis and Judy Shepard are the parents of Matthew Shepard, who in 1998, was tortured and left to die on a fence post outside Laramie, Wyo. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)”
Most Americans won’t put up with hate crimes based on religion or race, and we shouldn’t. But we should include in the category of hate crimes people selected to be terrorized because of their disability or sexual orientation. It’s a step forward in “affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every person” (A Unitarian Universalist Principle).
Some on the far religious right, are unhappy about the bill’s passage. The “Traditional Values Coalition” reported on their blog yesterday “that President Obama signed the ‘hate Christians’ bill at a ceremony at the White House yesterday afternoon.”
And they offer up this example: “A pastor’s sermon could be considered ‘hate speech’ under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on ’sexual orientation.’”
Well, I hope so. As a preacher, I thoroughly appreciate the 1st Amendment (and the rest of them too). But it is important to be held responsible for our actions.
If as a preacher, I preach hate and condemnation, and try and whip my crowd into a frenzy for the purpose of targeting another group, then yes, please hold me accountable for my acts.
Tim Townsend, religion writer for the Post-Dispatch, has a story about the backlash from the religious right toward the Hate Crime Prevention Act.
Working for a more fair, just world, one that respects differences is important. Our country has come through two centuries of slavery and segregation, and still a white Justice of the Peace wants to prevent a interracial couple from getting married.
Preachers will preach Truth as they see it, and the ones I know have committed their life to what they believe is true and right. History shows legislation will not change that.
But history also shows, as Rev. Martin King put it, that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
Daniel, I understand your perspective, and I respect it. I also come from a religious traditions that teaches that the Pulpit is free. That the person in the pulpit is responsible ONLY to God for the message that is given. This places a burden on the preacher, to be sure. It demands that the preacher be careful with what he or she says in that place. The freedom of the pulpit is what made it possible for Abolition to be preached across the country, even in places where such preaching split congregations down the middle.
The problem I have here would be in interpreting the term “incitement to criminal acts” as it would apply to a Minister in the pulpit. I would hope that courts would find that there is a difference between preaching that homosexual behavior is fundamentally sinful….and preaching that the world needs to be rid of homosexuals. In my view, one would be acceptable, and the other would not. One is a statement of theological principle and biblical interpretation. The other is a suggestion that those who take action against homosexuals is doing God’s work.
Ultimately, however, isn’t one of the basics of our Judicial system that each person is to be solely responsible for one’s criminal actions? That we assume that each person has the capability of making rational moral decisions?
Yet another freedom stripped away-they have removed the blinfold from Lady Justice.
Bingo, hs. Well stated.
I would only add that thoughts, feelings, emotions, prejudices and motivations should NEVER be punishable by the law. When intent is paired with opportunity and followed by action, then you have a crime. But you punish the action, not the intent. Whether you brutalize someone because you want his or her wallet or because you don’t like his or her accent or skin color, it should be irrelevant. The act of brutalizing is the crime.
You stated you “would hope” the courts will exercise caution in punishing “hate crimes.” I “hope” so to, but rather than put my trust in a system that so tramples justice in the name of political expedience, I’ll just keep my fingers crossed that someday, the highest court in the land will strike down “hate” crimes. They are clearly unconstitutional, and I can say that because the Constitution does not “belong” to nine political appointees, it belongs to us.
Hey Joe, we finally agree on something
I hadn’t really thought of “hate crimes” law as seeing certain types of crime as terrorist acts. That is a different perspective that I’m going to need to mull over a bit.
I do agree on the perspective, however, that we’ve created too many nuances in criminal legislation, frequently in response to various kinds of judicial insanity. For example, rumor has it that in some parts of the country it is still considered a legitimate legal defense to argue, “he needed killin’”.
Assault, Murder, Rape, are all wrong. It shouldn’t matter who the perp is, and who the victim is. Unfortunately, in the real world, it frequently seems that it doesn’t work that way.
I suppose my response to the Conservative ministers who are afraid that they will be arrested for preaching against homosexuality….if you truly believe you are preaching and teaching what God is commanding you to teach and preach….preach on brother!. History is full of preachers who have faced death for preaching what was on their hearts. The chance of becoming one of them should give you something to celebrate, not be afraid of.
Dear Rev. O’Connell, Thank you for speaking up about this positive legislation.
I am all too familiar with the acts of hatred leveled on those whose sexual orientation is considered - not acceptable.
Now our courts will deal with these acts of hatred as - not acceptable.
The Rev. M.L. King’s arc is most assuredly bending toward justice.
Some of the comments so far are most compelling, and yet I have a good deal of difficulty understanding them.
My religious traditions hold that the a religious leader is responsible to both G-d and the people that they are leading.
How can it but be any other way?
The word Rabbi means - teacher.
You are responsible to both G-d and to the ’student’.
If you teach hatred, and your student acts on that, then are you not just as responsible, for those actions?
Therefore you are as responsible to G-d, as to to those you are ministering to.
Under our judicial system, one can easily be held accountable for the actions of another.
When you entice another to action, you can be held as responsible.
Not everyone is capable of making a correct moral decision.
Those who have been programed by continuous preachings of intolerance, whether by a religious leaders, parents,cults, etc. may or may not be capable of making moral decisions.
To have this legislation, now on the books, most assuredly does Not strip away any freedom.
How can there be ‘freedom’ for such acts?
Indeed, to suggest that we are less free, is to suggest, that there is a ‘positive’ in such actions/words.
And - That is simply unacceptable in any society.
Judaism is over 5,000 years old and Christianity over 2,000 - so how can the enactment of these laws, now, be politically expedient?
There is no doubt that the father of Matthew Shepard, does not find such laws - politically expedient.
Those of us with a sense of morality do not say - so soon.
We say - finally!
The only ‘ministers / leaders’ decrying these laws are those who do not deserve to be called , one with G-d.
For you cannot be one with the Lord, and hold such contempt, for his children.
The Unitarian Church is a beacon of sanity, in a world that is in much need of such loving stability.
I have attended the one in my neighborhood and have always found the minister and the congregation to be welcoming and hospitable.
What a beautiful tradition of continuing caring.
Thank you Rev. O’Connell.
*As an aside - The constitution does indeed belong to the nine political appointees on the bench.
The court has been lagging behind the times - for quite a long time.
Many of us have expressed the idea that one is not voting for a president,as much as for a Supreme Court nominee.
He that gets to appoint the most Supremes, gets to map out the future, in his political vision.
These laws will never be found to be unconstitutional, for the reason, that America, will never retreat back to a country where such hatred is not punishable, to the fullest extent.
Hate speech is an act of leadership. Leaders are to be held accountable by their supporters, and their community. We can see the outcomes in history when we appease these leaders both in government and crime.
I have no difficulty connecting the dots in a public conversation. I am uncomfortable prosectuing anything more than illegal acts. Yet will include inciting other’s to commit them as such an act. If a crime boss orders a crime to be committed then that person is complicite in it. Oblique references in language can be exposed by specific behaviors and outcomes. Limiting our ability to stop a crime boss, for example, with the tax code seems silly, when we have direct evidence of them ordering their members to commit crimes.
If a community sees that a conversation has become a specific campaign with a predictable pattern of behavior with actual outcomes they may choose to intervene.
If my community’s prosecutor determines a reasonable cause exists for such a realization then bring on the case and a jury will decide.
Cynthia, Allow me to expand on my statement that the “Pulpit is Free”. What this means, in practice, is two things: No one can tell the person in the pulpit what to say. What is said there is between the person saying it and God. Second, an invitation to fill the pulpit comes from the Minister, no one else.
This is in contrast to the practice in some faith communities where a Bishop has the power to require the local priest to teach and preach only what the Bishop approves.
This understanding, as I said, places a lot of responsibility on the person in the pulpit. They have to be clear about what they’re trying to teach, AND they have to be darned sure it’s not going to be taken the wrong way. Which, I think, speaks to this concern. As far as I’m concerned, if a Minister DOES say something that inspires a parishioner to carry out an act of violence or terror…then that Minister should have to answer both to the civil authority AND to God.
By the way, I do see the connection between hate crime and terror. Maybe instead of calling it hate crime legislation, it should be called domestic terror legislation.
I so enjoy reading the comments by - Another.
The civility and calmness, in a sea of razor-edged blogs, is always welcoming.
And -thank you- to hs.
Semantics, is a difficult animal to ride.
We each bring our subjective opinions to a word/phrase, and therein lies the dilema.
Domestic Terror - as terminology, works for me.
I think that you are so correct, because that is exactly what is being conducted, when a religious leader invokes followers to do harm.
Hopefully, this legislation, under any name, will reign in, some vigilante lawlessness.
It is hard for me to ever understand, where this ugliness comes from,
perhaps some are ‘called’ to the pulpit through the love of self-serving Power.
***************************************
Again, it is so interesting and rewarding to read your comments - nice way to start the morning …
I believe the hate crime legislation is fraught with opportunity for abuse as well as levels of unfairness. Even a crime of passion between a man and a woman incorporates hatred.
Not only does traditional Christianity teach a particular view of homosexuality from Scripture, but so does Islam from the Quran. Teaching homosexual acts are sin from a biblical perspective should not be considered hate or inciting hate, because fornication, adultery, greed, slander, and other acts and attitudes are also taught to be sin.
It is difficult to determine what is in the heart or mind of another. Too often we cannot account or determine our own motives in various actions. Basic Christianity teaches that only God knows what is in the heart of an individual; and if I am not wrong, I believe the principles comes through in the Torah as well. It was the prophet Jeremiah who said “. . . the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked . . .” The modern interpretation of the Torah may express the same idea in different words.
Nonetheless, a deed is easily or readily perceived to be dreadful, malicious, harmful, or fatal. Judgment of deeds are less susceptible to be based on misinterpretation although a wrong party can be judged the culprit.
Just some additional thoughts for the topic.
Someone sent me the following download of a video regarding what is happening in the United Kingdom: http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=9425
I’m not sure I agree with all, but there is some thought-provoking comments made.