Freedom of Religion Under Fire
by Robert Russo
On May 3rd the major networks reported President Bush's promise to veto the so-called Hate Crime Bill, an amendment to the 1968 statute that outlaws race-related violence and discrimination. The proposed expansion passed by the House has been in the works since 1998 when brutal hate crimes against gays prompted a redefinition of civil rights infraction, those that target sexuality and gender. At first this measure seems as humanitarian and necessary as it should be, except that if it becomes law this means that ministers and other church patrons can be arrested for what they choose to say from the pulpit, and that is a violation of incalculable implications.*
Now I myself attended a local church for a couple of years which had a welcoming atmosphere, relevant lessons and incredible music, until a speaker made an anti-gay comment to which some of the congregation reacted in favor and I have not been back since, partly because I believe hate is not only a crime but a sin, and that a sanctuary is not a platform for cultural vendettas or political statements, even if one believes in a natural order. As much as the content of a sermon should be sacred however, so must the speaker's unlimited rights of free speech. Now that citizens can be sued for defaming big business at civic hearings and county government sued for listening, a fear of liability at the pulpit would be catastrophic, not only to us as a civic nation but as a nation of faith.
There seem to be a lot of "international" or "non-denominational" places of worship cropping up in the Richmond area or existing church administrations delivering a "softer" message that appeals to people with a wider diversity of beliefs (i.e. saying that evil is not something manifest but a product of human imagination). I enjoy non-denominational services for the public but these should not a be a replacement for whatever religious ordance or purity a person needs as the spiritual anchors in their life. These semi-doctrines are sounding more like the "wellness" or "betterment" seminars that take people's money and spread good thoughts without addressing the hindside.
In the works of Victorian writers like Victor Hugo we have the memory of a time when the sanctity of the church was absolute, above that of the law, and yet in recent years cathedrals, mosques and basilicas have become battlegrounds like the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem**, and Iraqi religious leaders acting as generals.*** Is this perversion the only future for respecting holy ground, political adversaries forcing each sanctuary to become a headquarters?
There is a third way. If people want to ban free speech then it obviously still has weight, and the way to fight speech is with speech, not legal trickery. I have often thought that if I were president I would start the first national advertising campaigns and boycotts against hate groups like the KKK, which doesn't violate their constitutional rights in any way because it's just free speech. No president has fully understood his value as an activist or propagandist (which of course could be taken too far, but there is no written taboo saying he can't). People think the law is the solution to all their problems so they don't actually have to work and think. They've been taught that saying what you mean is useless compared to speaking legalese, which makes us a community of cheaters.
Using free speech alone may not be a complete solution in today's world, but it is an honorable one. Likewise churches would be better off standing their ground and refusing to engage in politics or watering down their message, regardless of the risks as Christ himself lived. I applaud the President for heading off such a potentially dangerous development and hope it was not his personal views on gay marriage but a respect for the Bill of Rights that motivated him. For more on the Hate Crime Bill go to http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/hate.crimes.bill/index.html.
*http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hate4may04,1,1283480.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_nativity#2002_Siege
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-sadr
Question of the Week: What puts you more at ease as a member of your religious community, knowing that it is an oasis from all politics and lesser considerations of this world, or knowing it's a forum where anyone's views, political or otherwise, can be voiced in confidence because everything in our lives is a part of our beliefs? Is the peace and tolerance that faith provides enough to overcome these differences? Send your thoughts to henrico@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!