Donald E. Wildmon, of the American Family Association, recently sent out an email headed “A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality.”
He writes
If pastors and other Christians don’t aggressively oppose a bill now in Congress, in the near future they will be subject to huge fines and prison terms if they say anything negative about homosexuality.
The proposed law would make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or I Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday School class. If churches and individuals want to keep the government from telling them what they can and cannot preach and teach about homosexuality, they better get involved now!
House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105 would make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a “hate crime” punishable by law. This dangerous legislation would take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion.
Maybe I’m missing some legal language that implies this, but here’s how the actual bill on the government’s Web site defines the crime:
. . . willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person . . . (6.A).
In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. (6.D)
I’m no lawyer (and please correct me if I’m wrong), but I don’t see language that supports Wildmon’s claims? It seems that the “crime” is one that “willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device.” And that mere “expression” and “associations” with hate groups are specifically protected from prosecution unless one uses language to incite “bodily injury. . . . ”
Like I said, I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see the threat.
And if there is no threat, then this is—at best—uninformed and—at worst—irresponsible as all those “Madalyn Murray O’Hare petitioning the FCC to remove all religious broadcasting from airwaves” urban legends that clog our “in” boxes.
Loading ...
June 15, 2007 at 09:17
Thank you for standing up for the truth. All you have to do is spend some time with victims of hate crime and you will realize how important this bill really is. You can visit us at http://www.hatecrimesbill.org.
June 15, 2007 at 17:10
The United States legal system has laws against injuring people or property. I have been following this issue for some months and it seems that legislators are trying to manipulate the emotions of voters with the Hate Crimes issue. Unprovoked violence done to others is hateful – and illegal already. While I don’t think that this particular piece of legislation will end free speech in the pulpit – it echoes a pattern seen in Canada and several European countries which started with very similar initial legislation.Proverbs 16:25 “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Not trying to be offensive but often things that sound logical and even compassionate don’t necessarily have the ultimate outcome desired by very well intentioned people.
June 15, 2007 at 17:32
You may question the response of Rev. Wildmon, but when someone of the stature of Prof. Rob Gagnon speaks up, it’s worth listening (http://www.robgagnon.net/HateCrimesBill.htm).
Regardless, I believe Christians like all right thinking people should see through the nonsense that sits at the heart of the whole concept of a “hate” crime. All “hate” crimes succeed in doing is confer a bizarre state patronage through law, as if the murder of a member of a favoured group is objectively worse than the murder of someone from “middle America”.
Speaking from a country where Homosexuals have have been pandered to through legislation, proponents orthodox Biblical Christianity has been relegated to a second class citizenry and regularly face harassment from LGBT activists by means of police complaints, I encourage America not to fall prey to this threat to its citizens’ liberty.
June 15, 2007 at 18:15
If I have a question about a person’s statement, I consider his reputation. Don Wildmon’s integrity has been such that attacks against him have been dismissed.
What he says may be true. Even without pending legislation, speaking from the Bible against sodomy has been considered illegal, hate speech and cause for dismissal from jobs.
I have read—from reliable sources—of people presecuted for so-called “hate speech” in other countries.
June 15, 2007 at 21:56
What I don’t get is why homosexuality is the main topic of condemnation when adultery is a far more problematic. I don’t advocate either one being condemned, but I think that this isolation of homosexuality is a hate crime in this context because the condemnation is out of proportion. Its clear how much pain and damage adultery does and yet there is almost a virtual silence about it in the public discourse. Maybe because the finger might get pointed at those in the church. Maybe those in the church are trying to deflect attention from their own guilt through some pretty ugly self-righteousness.
I wish Christianity would clean up its own house and leave other people who committed themselves to the same standards alone.
June 16, 2007 at 06:59
Hi Chester,
A person’s reputation and his or her truthfulness are sometimes two different things. A person with a good reputation still needs to check his or her facts. And it appears to me that Wildmon has not checked his “facts.”
You’re right though, that countries such as Canada are attempting to make speaking against homosexuality a crime. Here’s a column I wrote in 2003 about such legislation and examples of individuals already being prosecuted for alleged “hate.”
June 16, 2007 at 07:43
Whether or not hate crimes laws are a bad idea, and whether or not Don Wildmon is a wonderful human being, what Wildmon says in the paragraphs quoted above is simply false.
Nothing in either bill substantiates Wildmon’s false claim, which is that these specific bills would outlaw preaching on Romans 1. As far as I can tell, there is only one way that even might be true: if the preacher personally went out and tried to beat up a homosexual after the sermon.
June 16, 2007 at 08:54
It seems to me that all of you are missing the point! The bill is not about hate crimes it’s about sensorship! Limiting what a church can teach from the pulpit or Sunday school. The government is making laws limiting religious freedom! To me that is the government making itself a religion!
June 16, 2007 at 09:46
I agree with James and Scholaster above—whatever one thinks of the bill in question, Wildmon’s statement is blatant exaggeration. If Wildmon believes that this bill will lead, in the future, to unjust restrictions on Christians’ freedoms, then he should be arguing that—not claiming that Christians will start getting thrown in jail just for discussing a Bible passage.
Christians in politics should be setting the absolute highest standard of honesty and truth in the way they communicate. When we use borderline-dishonest hyperbole like Wildmon in this case, we fail to set that standard, and we undermine any good intentions we had.
June 16, 2007 at 10:13
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your comment, but the bill is not about “limiting what a church can teach from the pulpit or Sunday school.” According to paragraph 7d, you can belong to a hate group, condemn anyone or anything you like and still not be prosecuted—until you cross the line and advocate violence against someone or a group. The Bible itself “censors” that kind of action.
June 16, 2007 at 10:15
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your comment, but the bill is not about “limiting what a church can teach from the pulpit or Sunday school.” According to paragraph 7d, you can belong to a hate group, condemn anyone or anything you like and still not be prosecuted—until you cross the line and advocate violence against someone or a group. The Bible itself “censors” that kind of action.
June 16, 2007 at 16:28
I have to concur James’ reading of the Bill. Despite Gagnon’s assertion in his letter that the amendment can be used against a minister that “preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong” and such preaching leads to act of violence, the burden of evidence is still on the prosecution to prove. But if a preacher were to say God hates infidels and therefore it is justified to kill one, then I’d see how this amendment can be applied.
I thoroughly agree with Andy that as Christians, we should operate on a higher standard of conduct. Unfortunately, the use of hyperboles to justify certain actions are getting very common, even among Christian circles.
There are legitimate concerns and issues that hate-crime law does bring about. But to create a hysterical reaction against it is just counter productive and that clearly would miss the point.
June 16, 2007 at 18:15
I think that it could happen. The Hate Crimes Bill could be a gateway for it to happen. If it passes, what else could be next? There are already enough laws on the books that are not enforced. This is like with illegal immigration, which I am against.
June 17, 2007 at 18:03
I wonder though, if a preach preaches that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1) and then that makes someone angry and they go out and hurt someone who is homosexual, does that make the preacher guilty? Who decides that? I think that’s what some people are concerned about.
Thanks for your blog.
June 18, 2007 at 00:31
This bill (although worded differently from others submitted before Congress recently) attempts to make homosexuals a protected class. There are enough existing laws that adequately cover any violent crime or other actions committed against homosexuals or any other group. The law is about controlling truth, freedom of speech and most importantly freedom of thought. The actual percentage of so called “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals is so small that it doesn’t even warrant notice or action (according to FBI and other state and federal crime statisitics). There is a definite agenda here and it isn’t correcting an injustice. The 14th Ammendment defines equal protection under the law and this kind of legislation places homosexuals above this standard of equality, thereby violating that Ammendment. Other countries have passed such laws and now persecute Christians for preaching God’s truth about the sin of homosexuality. And yes, I agree with another post, adultery is as bad and should be as important an issue as sodomy. Christians should defend the moral standard and truth about sin as God sees it and not as man sees it, and not to judge or condemn the sinner. Acceptance of truth is necessary to repentance and the key to eventual redemption and salvation.
June 18, 2007 at 10:42
please consider watching the video at http://www.afa.net censoring the church and you will see why this bill does what wildmon says. you see it gives a judge license afterwards to do what he is saying. The bill is too vague on the description leaving broad interpretation for a judge to discern they would they would like.
June 19, 2007 at 01:49
Yes, I agree there is nothing in the bill that specifically mentions the inclusion of adverse speech towards homosexuality, however, you can bet liberals will find a way to use it to fight against biblical language preached from the pulpit. The left is notorious for twisting phrases, i.e., “the separation of church and state”, which they claim is in the Constitution!
June 19, 2007 at 07:42
Murder is already a hate crime!We don’t need more laws, and these can lead to laws which will eventually beused against Christians. Special laws for “special people” such as death penalty for police officers or federal employees, even though well intentioned and seem right at face value, are the very reason we had a Revolutionary war, We are all created equal and serve no king but Jesus.
June 19, 2007 at 12:56
If you go to http://www.thomas.gov you can look up the bill for yourselves. Just type in the bill number. You can see who introduced the bill, the sponsors, and any proposed amendments. I do have a background in law and political science and I cannot see anything that would suggest that this bill is aimed at restricting free speech. The thing I see in this text that is perhaps more frightening is that some language attempts to tie gender identity and sexual orientation to race. Perhaps this is a stepping stone to labeling homosexuals a race. Rep. Barney Frank is a main sponsor of this bill (an openly gay Congressman & a socialist). While I do not agree with the assertion that this bill is attempting to restrict freedom of speech—I do believe it is unnecessary . The Federal govt. has already passed a hate crimes act and most state govts have strict laws against hate crimes. This bill proposes to give grants to states to enforce the already existing laws. That means more needless government spending. Still the most frightening thing I see is the attempt to tie homosexuality to race.
June 19, 2007 at 13:51
Don Wildmon is a demagogue, and his material facts about this legislation are not correct.
However, the pattern of progressive paganism in matters such as these is one of incrementalism. They rarely go for the enchilada, but usually succeed via death by a thousand paper cuts. This bill is a pathway into others very much like what exist in Canadan and pockets of Europe. And this bill is an open invitation for a like-minded activist judge to “intrepret” anything he or she wants into it.
This bill opens up avenues for test-tube lawsuits designed by the activists to push it to most logical conclusion, and their actual goal. While they make you think they’re just about warm fuzzies and equality, sucking in many of us who are gullible and suceptible to such emotion-based drivel, what they’re really about is the reimagining of society.
That’s why they also push movements like “Faith in America”, which is nothing more than anti-Biblical propoganda masquerading as tolerance. These folks understand that by increasingly legitimizing homosexuality in case law and legislation, they are reworking society. For instance, the institution of marriage touches on almost 50% of American case law. It has purview in probate, civil, and criminal court, as well as estate and tax law. Not to mention all kinds of certifications for things such as various forms of counseling.
If you legally allow homosexuals to marry, or any variation such as civil unions, what you will essentially do is reimagine decades of American case-law overnight. They know that, which is why they push their agenda little by little. This is a crusade for them. They live a lifestyle that is exceedingly debased, self-loathing, tragic, and medically harmful, so they desire the very legal recognition of their sin as a form of rationalization. Think Romans 1.
On the other hand, I also agree with the gentleman who made mention of adultery. Homosexuality’s biggest victim is often just the person and or partners enticed by its perversion. However, adultery’s victims can even include future generations caught in the web of its often resulting family dysfunction and disintregation.
The church in America lacks the moral authority to address the homosexual issue because too many of its own members are shacking up, fooling around, and getting divorced at the same rate as the pagans. The homosexuals sadly have a point when they say why can’t we have a crack at marriage after what you people have done to it?
Further proof that the church has not lost the culture, only that the culture is mirroring what it sees from the church.
June 19, 2007 at 22:14
It all goes back to the old frog in a pan of boiling water illustration.
June 20, 2007 at 02:43
Murder is already a hate crime!...Special laws for “special people”...We are all created equal...
I used to think like this until God convicted me otherwise and showed me that such thinking came from a place of privilege. I was blinded into thinking we were all equal and that equality meant we all had the exact same experiences, opportunities, and challenges. I had not been able to see how a violent crime against an individual that was clearly motivated by that individual’s membership in a particular group puts THE ENTIRE GROUP in fear for their lives, causes them to have to take extra precautions, and violates their basic humanity. Hate crimes legislation simply differs from other crime legislation in that it acknowledges the huge ongoing effects on a community that occur when a group characteristic is used to motivate or justify violence. The fact that it is generally white, middle-class, straight individuals who worry that these laws leave them out is telling. First, it shows how much we take our own experiences and consider them the norm for all humanity. Second, it displays self-centeredness. Third, it shows how little we read before we rant. If somebody comes to hurt you while screaming that they are doing so because you are a white, middle-class, straight person, hate crimes legislation can be used in your case. Read the legislation, not just the critiques of it! And it will be good that they can be used in your case, because it was not just a crime against you. It would affect many other white, middle-class, straight people who would then have to fear that same violence. Since white, middle-class, straight people don’t generally live in fear for their lives being placed in jeopardy because of their class, race, and orientation, however, it is hard to think about the purpose behind these laws if that is your life position. Privilege, by its nature, blinds us and leads us to sin against our neighbors who don’t share our privileged perspectives.
June 20, 2007 at 15:38
Sorry but absolutely no where in the scriptures does the Lord indicate that any soul/person is worth more than any person. It would be scripturally incorrect that a Christian point of view would lead us to create laws that separate people by any of the other labels which are thrown around. Disparaging anyone is demeaning a creation of the Creator. However, being afraid won’t go away if there is a law giving different punishment criteria for a “hate crime”. Hating anyone is wrong – injuring, killing, taking someone’s freedom – all crimes that are definitely covered in the American legal system. Let’s try to keep this about the original post idea – yes there is hyperbole in the arguments on BOTH sides of this discussion. Exaggeration is not productive unless you are telling fishing stories!
June 20, 2007 at 16:57
no where in the scriptures does the Lord indicate that any soul/person is worth more than any person
These laws also do not say that, and I hope readers will not go away thinking they do. A white person is protected by these laws as much as a black person is protected by these laws. A Christian is protected just as much as a Jew. A straight person is protected just as much as a gay person. When those of us who are white, Christian, or whatever read these laws and become concerned that they are valuing others above us, perhaps it is because we consider ourselves the norm, so anything about race, sexual orientation, or whatever must be only referring to “them”... the “others”... not us!
Besides, even if hate crimes legislation were protecting only certain groups (which they aren’t!!) as Christians, are we really supposed to be so concerned about our own protections that we would deny another protections until we get the same treatment? Was Jesus so concerned about himself that he would deny compassionate care and protection to another? Or did he lay down his life for those others?
June 21, 2007 at 23:49
Although not an attorney, I do have some paralegal background and worked for a federal court as well as have some legislative acquaintances in my state legislature. I tend to feel that we need to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL about establishing so called “hate crimes” legislation and about setting up special classes of people who are protected by these. What the law needs to do is APPLY EQUALLY to everyone. I would imagine that someday, someone prosecuted under hate crimes laws might appeals and get them overturned since they create a special class of people who are, as Orwell might have said, “more equal than others”, so to speak. For example, if someone punches me in the nose, they just get proscuted under a standard assault and battery charge, probably fined $50 and court costs and warned not to do it again or they’ll be out another $50 and may later have to spend a little time in jail. However, if someone in a protected class of people gets punched in the nose, it becomes a major federal case and the one doing the punching gets a major butt kicking so to speak. Sorry, that does NOT work for me. It also gives those persons in a protected class a LOT more power than the rest of us “lesser citizens”. Now, understand, we SHOULD try to discourage EVERYONE from being violent, encourge everyone to seek nonviolent means of solving problems, however, punishment for attacking someone needs to be the SAME for any attacker of ANY person. By the way, one poster mentioned heterosexual adultery and, YES, when someone is in a marriage, they SHOULD be faithful to their spouse or they need to get a divorce and keep being faithful until the divorce is final and, likewise, nobody should ever interefere with anyone else’s marriage (and this should apply, for example, to both so called “gay marriages” in Massachusetts as well as heterosexual marriage in Massachusetts and in any other state). Also, we need to have laws which make spreading a curable sexually transmitted disease a severe misdemeanor and spreading an incurable sexually transmitted disease a FELONY. Futher, the most important thing in our nation should be care of our children, whether or not the parents are married, and child abuse, child neglect, etc. should be MAJOR CRIMES for which one gets one’s butt kicked good and hard and forced to take care of the children and not abuse them OR ELSE!! Folks, in all these things, if our nation continues on its current path, we are GOING TO FALL and the nation or nations which take our place (and some other government or governments WILL arise if that happens) could and probably WOULD be a LOT more restrictive, much less free, than our current nation. With freedom comes responsibilities and the necessity for vigilence as well if we wish to maintain that freedom.
June 22, 2007 at 02:55
Perhaps a good ole fashioned persecution is just what the Doctor ordered! Strange to see Christians so concerned with making sure that they can preach the Word of God and not have to face any persecution. A far cry from “The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.”(Ac 5:41)
This type of enthusiasm concerning political legislation about moral issues is a great way to deceive oneself into thinking that this is an affirmation to the tenacity of one’s faith.
The truth is: That one’s faith will be revealed by his/her willingness and commitment to the ideal in the face of possibly having to suffer something by holding fast to it.
To avoid the revelation of the truth of one’s so called “faith” is what I believe to be the motivating factor behind such false piety. It’s not so much an unwavering commitment to testify to the Truth, as it is a fear of losing one’s “rights”. That is: The right to persue one’s own interests without having to prove faithful in the time of testing.
June 25, 2007 at 15:14
I believe we should repeal all hate crime laws. Hate crimes necessarily involve violence, such as nurder, arson, battery, mayhem… without any hate crime laws on the books, the killers of Matthew Sheppard received life sentences without parole eligibility. People who use race, creed, color, nationality as an EXCUSE for their crimes tend to think it is OK because “they were a ____.” Society should ignore that excuse, sending the message, no, we are treating this as the common crime it is, you are no different than any other murderer, rapist, etc.
It is true that Canada has taken legal measures which essentially muzzle free speech on topics such as homosexuality, in the name of ending “hateful speech.” However, Canada does not have our First Amendment. In this nation, Congress is denied power to “infringe the free exercise” of religion. The Mormon church excluded non-whites until 1978, and no civil rights law could change that. Churches can freely teach that homosexuality is a sin, they just can’t advocate bashing homosexuals with clubs.
Which brings us to a truth American culture has not faced: every form of discrimination is different. Racial discrimination was wrong because skin color has NO impact on ability, intelligence, or anything else. It is all about dermal response to solar radiation. Period. Religious discrimination has no place in civil status, or in commerce, because we either live together or we re-fight the Thirty Years War. But describing an act as sinful is a matter of free exercise and free speech—much as I am happy to get along with neighbors who cohabit with someone of their own gender.