Jesus Loves You (But We Hate You)

Today’s e-mail update from the Family Research Council urges Christians to sign a petition against a proposal to amend the federal hate crimes laws to include hate crimes against homosexuals. The FRC has set up a website reflecting a major initiative to oppose what it is calling “thought crimes” laws. The FRC suggests that Christian pastors could be imprisioned under this law for preaching sermons about traditional sexual morality.

I understand some of the FRC’s concerns here, but I have to say that this initiative deeply disturbs me. Before I mention what disturbs me, here are the points with which I agree. There are places in the world, some of them purportedly liberal democracies, in which speech, by itself, can be considered a hate crime. I agree with FRC and other Christian organizations that laws of that sort are abominable and a threat to religious liberty. Religions by definition “discriminate” in the sense that all religions in some way divide the ethical and moral from the unethical and immoral. Christianity is about grace and love, but we affirm that we need grace and love because we are all sinners. Christians don’t, and can’t, hesitate to identify sin for what it is, including in the area of sexual morality (though I would say that there is no reason to single out homosexual practice in this regard in contrast to other issues of sexual morality, and that we could do much better in acting pastorally and missionally towards people who are homosexual). There is no question about the fact that we need to remain vigilant about preserving freedom of religious speech and association.

Having said that, this concern has nothing whatsoever to do with the hate crime law currently being targed by the FRC and other religious right groups. The bill under consideration concerns violent crime. The amendment would increase the penalities for violent crimes motivated by animus against homosexuals. Here is what is covered by this bill: the willfull causing of “bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person,” including “kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see any reference there to preaching a sermon. This bill has nothing whatsover to do with preaching or speaking about traditional morality. There is no realistic likelihood that such protected first amendment activity would ever be criminalized in the United States, and even if it were, the “activist judges” would surely overturn such plainly unconstitutional legislation.

In addition, I’m very disturbed by the effort to paint this legislation as a “thought control” bill. The “thought control” meme has been picked up by various conservative organizations (see, e.g., Concerned Women for America’s webpage on the issue). I think this is extremely misleading. The truth is that it is not at all unusual or for the law to impose different penalties depending on a person’s state of mind. In fact, state of mind is an element of many crimes. Murder, for example, as every first-year law student learns, traditionally is defined as “the intentional killing a human being with malice aforethought.” “Intent” and “malice aforethought” are states of mind. This doesn’t make the prohibition of murder some kind of black helicopter “thought control” law.

I could give hundreds of other examples in which state of mind is relevant either to the elements of a crime or civil claim or to the penalty or damages to be imposed. Indeed, it’s fair to say that both the criminal and civil law routinely address a party’s mental state. To suggest that hate crimes legislation is unique in this regard is false.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think the religious right’s crusade against hate crimes laws, from a missional perspective, is misguided and selfish. What does this communicate to a homosexual person about the love of Jesus? Will this do anything to move any person involved in homosexual behavior to turn towards Jesus and the community of faith, where hope and healing could be found? Is the Christian community speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) here, or are we just demanding our “rights?” I think the FRC might be right in identifying the homosexual activist movement in Western countries as a key area in which the Church will face a post-Christian culture in coming decades. The question is, do we confront that culture with a sort of jihad, or do we take up the way of the cross and face it with sacrificial love?

Appendix: here is the full text of the bill currently being considered by Congress. I think it is abundantly clear that this has nothing to do with so-called “thought crimes” and everything to do with the kind of violence that all followers of Jesus should deplore, whether against homosexuals or anyone else:

HR 254 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 254
To enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 5, 2007
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007′ or `David’s Law’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that–

(1) the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem;

(2) such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive;

(3) existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem;

(4) such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways, including–

(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and

(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment or participating in other commercial activity;

(5) perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence;

(6) instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence;

(7) such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce;

(8) violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery can constitute badges and incidents of slavery;

(9) although many local jurisdictions have attempted to respond to the challenges posed by such violence, the problem is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in scope to warrant Federal intervention to assist such jurisdictions; and

(10) many States have no laws addressing violence based on the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability, of the victim, while other States have laws that provide only limited protection.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act, the term `hate crime’ has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

`(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if–

`(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or

`(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person–

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

`(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or

`(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

`(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.’.

SEC. 5. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

(a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.

(b) Consistency With Other Guidelines- In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall–

(1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other Federal sentencing guidelines; and

(2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense.

SEC. 6. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Make Grants- The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 245 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by this Act).