This was the topic of one of the emails I received yesterday. Here's what it said:
Hate crimes bill - a threat to biblical teaching by Jim Brown
A Christian pastor and political activist warns that unless enough Americans "stir up a major stink" about the newly introduced federal hate crimes legislation, the measure is likely to pass in the first 100 days of the 111th Congress.
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., of the High Impact Leadership Coalition was among a group of black pastors who, two years ago, took out a full-page ad in USA Today titled "Don't Muzzle Our Pulpits." The ad, which was widely received, argued that the hate crimes bill before Congress threatened the free-speech rights of pastors.
Jackson believes such legislation elevates the homosexual community to a protected class.
"It puts their claim that they're discriminated against into a real civil rights argument," Jackson contends. "And ultimately in every place around the world where this kind of legislation has been passed, we find that people have taken out lawsuits against preachers for preaching what the Bible says about sexuality and morality. And it is grounds for a kind of harassment that, I believe, will bring a cooling of our biblically-based messages."
Jackson says under an Obama administration there is a danger the legislation will pass and stick, so he's issued a challenge to Christians. "Now is not the time to be silent," he says. "Now is the time to lift our voice."
It's interesting to note what has happened in other countries dealing with these issues.
For instance:
Under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages of 1,500 Canadian dollars to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.
Why? Because the man took out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.
In Sweden, a pastor was arrested at his church after he began reading Bible verses condemning homosexuality.
Personally, I think all crime against humankind is wrong. My grandmother was mugged when I was a teen. She was dragged and hurt badly, was bruised and hospitalized. To me, her mugging was no different than other muggings that day, whether the victims were black or hispanic or gay.
But our country and other countries now differentiate between the mugging of my grandmother and the mugging of a young gay man. Okay. I'm sure that won't change.
However, if it's possible that Chistians are going to be taken to task because they quote Bible verses, then I'll have to speak up. God's word cannot be subject to man's censure. And Christians must not be kept from reading and quoting God's word.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 34
I am against hate, whether it comes from the Klan, the Ghetto, or the pulpit.
calling hate "god's word" makes it none the less hate.
As to the mugging that is a crime, but was your grandmother also beaten because she was a woman? or old? or just because they wanted the money? it becomes a hate crime when the person is selected because of skin color, race, religion, etc.
Without these laws, the Muslims can teach hate against Christians, Jews can teach hate against Muslims, and Christans can teach hate against whomever they want.
I have not read the bill in question. I do not know whether I would support it or not. But I do know that stirring up anger and hatred against any group or category of our nations citizens should be condemned by all groups, especially Christian groups if they are anything like I was taught in my childhood in the Church.
Hate is from the devil, it has nothing to do with God. God is love.
He chose to stone no one. Nuff said.
I do not condone Hate of any kind.
But Reading from the Bible is not a hate crime.
As a Christian I won't be silent either.
I don't answer to the State...I answer to a higher authority.
These hate crime bills are just a means to force the gay agenda on people and to silence opposing views. It's tolerance...than acceptance...than adopt one.
That's how I see the cases you cite. Perhaps you have some different interpretation.
What's interesting is that people didn't really think that Rev. Wright was preaching a message of hate, which he clearly was. And there are preachers all over America preaching that same message and no one cares. Why? Because they're preaching against the rich white man, and somehow everyone has come to hate the rich white man...so that's okay.
I've only been in one church where the pastor felt that he was lead by the Holy Spirit to preach about the fact that God intended man and woman to marry, and that was way back in the early 90s. He preached with love, not with venom.
I've listened to more of MLK's speeches than the one sound bite from "I have a dream" and I don't hear any message about going out and harming people or about rioting, and yet that was the response that many had. He was not to blame for that, and, in fact, he said that violence was not the way.
Every time we allow the government to make changes that affect the other guy and not really us, every time they take away any rights, we're giving them the key to take away more and more.
I'm 56 and have been in church since I was born and have never heard a preacher speak words of hate.
Just to clarify... if homosexuality is against your religious word, then it should be preached about. The line should be drawn at telling the congregation how to vote!
Thanks for sharing.
The preacher has to tell people when they are not living in accordance with God's dictates. God is love and God is justice. You want a lovey dovey religion go worship Hari Krishna. if someone is in danger of perdition the loving thing to do is to let the person know...not tell them that it's all good. You know just so you don't hurt their' feelings.
If you tell an adulterer that what he is doing is sinful in God's eyes...than you are hating...you have to tell him that it's all good.
"Jackson believes such legislation elevates the homosexual community to a protected class."
Protected from whom??
This is a good article on the subject
"It does not have any bearing on speech."
Well, in a manner of speaking it doesn't, but it may very well have bearing on future laws that have direct bearing on speech. And even now, it is a crime to "incite" violent acts, no doubt, and that is why Charles Manson is in prison. He did not himself attack anyone, but spoke to others, encouraging them to do that. So, under this present law, a person could be found guilty of a "hate crime" which they "participated in", through speech alone.
But the problem I see in this whole path regarding "hate crimes", is that it establishes a legal justification for passing "hate speech" laws. It establishes the validity of people "reading into" the actions of accused folks, something human beings simply have no way of actually perceiving. It establishes the "governments right" to designate things as "hateful", and therefor opens the door to stuff like laws prohibiting various things based on the governments view that they are hateful. The government has no business telling citizens what they can or cannot hate, or love, or dislike, or find appealing, or funny, or anything at all along such lines.
Neither does the majority of citizens. They have the right to make laws, not dictate what we may legally think or feel. This is Orwellian stuff, not a sensible course to head down in a free society, in my opinion.