Messengers to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention held in Louisville, Kentucky just passed a resolution on sexuality. Here are a few snippets from the resolution courtesy of the Baptist Press blog:
The resolution on biblical sexuality and public policy details the Bible’s teaching on sexuality, including homosexuality, and opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, hate crimes legislation, and the overturning of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. It reads, in part:
– ENDA “would create a specially protected class for homosexuality and other unbiblical lifestyles for employment purposes, preventing many ministries, religiously-based businesses, and employers from honoring their personal religious beliefs in their hiring practices …
– Hate crimes legislation “would create a special federally-protected class for homosexuality and other unbiblical lifestyles, providing greater protections for crimes committed against them than against many other groups, and criminalizing religious belief and speech about homosexuality and other unbiblical lifestyles …
– Overturning Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would result “in free speech restrictions, the deterioration of unit cohesion, a weakening of military readiness, forced sensitivity training, and a mass exodus of many fine active service personnel …”
I don’t think anyone should be surprised by this resolution. It seems rather consistent with the positions already taken by the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and previous resolutions.
I’m not going to debate here the claims that ENDA and overturning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would limit religious liberty and put restrictions on religious speech. I do want to point out that the committee or individual that penned this resolution was deliberately dishonest when writing that:
Hate crimes legislation “would…[criminalize] religious belief…about homosexuality and other unbiblical lifestyles.”
This is a lie. How can BELIEF be criminalized? Belief is not criminalized in the United States. Belief can not be criminalized in Iran. It can not be criminalized in Saudi Arabia. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out at least a time or two, BELIEF is and has always been ABSOLUTE.
Religious speech is not absolute. Religious action is not absolute in any country. The use of Pot in church is generally a no-no. There are limits to religious action/speech. Jefferson made that point as well.
But the conscience is free. Government might restrict a person in some instances to act on their beliefs. But the conscience is free. The soul is free. We all have soul freedom. Some aren’t exactly responsible with their freedom. But we have the freedom of belief, nonetheless and this freedom is absolute.
Apparently the committee or individual that penned this resolution does not understand this rather simple point. And apparently Southern Baptist messengers were not bright enough today to figure out that religious belief is always and forever absolute.
But then again, Southern Baptists have in recent years struggled with the notion of freedom. I guess when a denomination no longer values freedom and the sacredness of the individual conscience before God, perhaps we shouldn’t expect that denomination to understand such a simple concept.
Unbelievable! The SBC wants individuals to be able to discriminate in hiring. I hate to tell them, but it is already illegal to discriminate, if discrimination can be proven. If a homosexual person can prove that he/she was discriminated against because of their sexual preference, I think it would hold up in court now. As to don’t ask, don’t tell, there are “many fine persons” having to leave the military now because they are admittedly gay. Sounds mostly political. The SBC should be more concerned about losing its tax-exempt status.
The SBC passes far too many resolutions on far too many things. Everyone, including the ERLC, wants the entire SBC to endorse their boycotts and social agenda. Making pronouncements on (inherently controversial) public policy issues is not the proper role for a denomination of free churches.
It just wouldn’t be summer without non-fact-based SBC resolutions. ‘Tis the season!
Actually, unfortunately, it’s not illegal to discriminate in hiring or firing based on sexual orientation in 30 states in the US. Because, according to the HRC, LGBTQ citizens can be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation without any legal recourse in 30 states. So, the SBC’s resolution is not very surprising in this regard. It’s particularly upsetting because it should be Christians leading the way in standing for justice and, as the SBC has illustrated, most Christians are simply adhering to this country’s status quo discrimination of LGBTQ persons. I suppose I find their resolution regarding hate crimes most deplorable. A hate crime is exactly that, a HATE crime, no matter who the crime is against. Hate cannot and should not be tolerated. Period. To condone a hate crime against any person or group of people is one of the heinous and unChristian things I have ever heard of.
Regarding ENDA, I guess the question is: What does the SBC mean by “many ministries, religiously-based businesses” ? What types of organizations would fall under that rather broad umbrella? Obviously private religious institutions must retain the right to hire and fire based on their stated belief system. This would include the right to not hire gays and lesbians. Religious organizations currently have that right. I don’t believe that right is by any means in jeopardy. But, for instance, a Christian who owns small business does not have the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians. I’m pretty confident that the SBC wants all Christians to retain the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians in almost all circumstances. That’s obviously not acceptable.
As I stated in the post, Hate Crimes legislation CAN NOT criminalize BELIEF. The notion that religious speech will be criminalized here in America has already been debunked by NUMEROUS constitutional scholars on the RIGHT side of the aisle. The SBC is peddling a bunch of junk here.
In the SBC’s defense, their opposition to Hate Crime Legislation is not a defense of Hate Crimes. Except maybe for the handful of Wiley Drake-type kooks out there, Southern Baptists as a whole like other faith groups would condemn any type of violent crime. Personally, I have mixed feelings about hate crime legislation. Gays in particular have been disproportionately victimized and so society might need such legislation. But it sure does seem a little like unequal treatment under the law. Under hate crimes legislation, perpetrators of two identical crimes would receive different sentences assume one of the perpetrators was motivated by hate towards a protected class of people such as gays and lesbians. In some instances, it may be clear that the crime indeed would qualify as a hate crime. In other instances, it might not be that clear and the jury would have to try to determine what that person did or did not believe and thus function in a thought police capacity. So, I’m not exactly fully on board with Hate Crime legislation. Although, the SBC goes out of its way to be against any legislation that would protect gays and lesbians.
On Hate Crimes Legislation, I’m sympathetic to gay activist/columnist Andrew Sullivan who recently wrote:
“The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that – and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time…The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings…Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It’s very, very powerful as a money-making tool – which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn’t passed.”
Dumping Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA seem like more important priorities than passing federal hate crimes legislation.
The problem, as I see it, with hate crime legislation is making the “motive” part of the crime. “Determining” the motive presents a problem. Evidence for that is always going to be circumstantial – unless the accused confesses, and then you would have to believe the confession.
Why should wanton killing because of hate carry a different penalty than a wanton killing in a robbery? The crime is the violent act and the appropriate focus for the law.
bigdaddy, you are either naive or ignorant if you don’t think that lawsuits will be brought against churches, Christian schools, Christian/Catholic adoption agencies (actually, this is why Catholic League Charities in Massachussets shuttered their doors) and other faith based charitable operations.
How can a belief be outlawed in a society that is built upon the concept of the free exercise of speech, you ask? Criminalize politically incorrect speech, however it is defined by the current power structures. This my friend, is not the rule of law, which our entire legal structure and Constitution is based upon – this is the rule of man, which selectively punishes certain beliefs and types of speech, based upon a select group’s notions and whims. Your ham fisted interpretation of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson is downright appalling. There is no justification whatsoever in any of those documents, nor in Thomas Jefferson’s writings, that would justify the criminalization of speech or to restrict the ability of organizations to exercise moral judgments with regard to hiring practices.
Hate Crime legislation is intended to intimidate and silence speech. It is incredibly chilling for me to read your comments and the comments of your compadres here. This is frighteningly Orwellian.
Derek,
Unless you have a JD behind your name or PhD in Political Science or Legal History, I’m rather confident that I know more than you when it comes to church-state law. That may sound just a tad arrogant but I’m most certainly not ignorant nor naive in this particular field.
Sure, there will be lawsuits against churches, Christian schools and adoption agencies. There have always been such lawsuits. Many are frivolous. You offer some specifics and we can talk about how such a case will be decided. My contention is that yes there will be controversies between increased gay rights and the religious liberty of anti-gay conservatives. But, politicians at the state and federal levels can strike a balance and help avoid such controversies through religious exemptions. Again, you don’t offer any specifics so it’s hard to work with your statement. But no the sky is not falling. Pastors won’t be imprisoned for calling homosexuality a sin. That ain’t gonna happen.
And no, I don’t believe Muslims are taking over the United States either. Much of the hysteria comes from right-wing kooks on talk radio and not from respected conservative legal scholars.
If you believe that BELIEF can be criminalized, you’re ignorant. BELIEF can’t be criminalized.
You really have no idea how I interpret the Constitution. I don’t think I offered much of an analysis of the United States Constitution in my post. I was merely quoting from an 1878 Supreme Court case – Reynolds v. United States – which quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson which asserted that “the legitimate powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.” Thus there is a distinction between religious belief and religious conduct. The former is absolute. The latter is not. Now, I don’t know if you’re disputing that assertion or what?
Hate Crime Legislation is intended to punish those who are motivated by hate to commit heinous crimes. Don’t assault anyone and I’m sure you’ll be okay. I’m not sure you even read my stance on HC.
BDW,
If you’re going to split hairs, of course you’re right that “beliefs” can’t be controlled. I’m very familiar with hair splitting other people’s words, as I have a 3 and 5 year old who do this every day (“But dad, you said not to “hit” – I KICKED him”). This is no way to have an adult conversation. We’re not implying that we need to wear tin foil hats to prevent the government from listening to our thoughts. But you already knew that. So let me try to break it down for you in terms that a phd can’t twist into a straw man argument: beliefs are not shared or spread by telepathy – they are shared via speech, whether by printed word or audible speech. The suppression of speech and the free exercise of consciense is what is being threatened here. Practically speaking, this is the lever with which all authoritarian or oppressive governments control the free exchange of ideas and beliefs.
I am responding to your overall readiness to accomodate the erosion of an individual’s right to apply their convictions and beliefs. What I find appalling is that you are willing to accept a sliver of protection (to free speech) for clergy, while allowing for its restriction to the overwhelming majority of the population. Exemptions for clergy and religious organizations are easily removed with later legislation (especially with a “living constitution” model). Are those on my side of this debate supposed to ignore a slippery slope when we see it? Or to accept restrictions on the exercise of conscience and speech for a segment of society when the Bill of Rights extends these protections to all?
You cannot tell me with a straight face that this legislation will only be applied to Matthew Shepherd situations (motive played a huge factor in his murderers’ sentencing – no hate crimes were necessary, btw). I’d sooner buy a time share from you sight unseen than to accept your carte blanche assurance (that hate crime legislation will only be applied to prosecute “heinous crimes”).
I agree with Chuck Colson’s assessment, as described this in a brief article, which I’ll link to since this is a comment thread: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6440.
I have no idea why you said this: And no, I don’t believe Muslims are taking over the United States either. Where did I imply that Muslims are taking over this country? Where did I say anything at all about Islam or Muslims?
But let’s get to the root of all of this. At the end of the day, all of this is being driven by a cultural agenda that is only partly about homosexuality. It is about the social deconstruction of gender as a concept that has any practical application or meaning beyond human anatomy (which of course is alterable, thanks to modern science). Christian organizations are going to be so intimidated by the fear of lawsuit that they will have to accept this abolishment of gender. The only gender definitions that they will be allowed to accept at face value are those definitions that are imposed by any particular individual that wishes to impose them. Many of us don’t want our children to grow up in this kind of culture, because we can see how corrosive it is and how it represents a defiance against God and what it means to be created in God’s image. But I digress – in your paradigm, I guess this is what we call progress.
I have both a Ph.D. and a J.D. cum laude from a top 40 law school. A component of most criminal offenses is something called the mens rea — the mental state of intent. In some instances that requirement can be replaced by negligent or willful disregard. But that is only one component of what has to be proved, and the more important component is the crinimal behavior.
We have a very broad freedom of speech, with limitations for public safety (not shouting fire in a theater when there is none, for example), slander, and inciting to riot.
Hate crime legislation is only an enhancement of punishment for crimes that are already crimes but which are committed with a view toward intimidation of an identifiable class or group of people. I would like to see religion added to the hate crimes list of protected classes or groups, because religious organizations and people are often targeted because of their identifiable practices.
Hate crimes legislation does not make belief or thought a crime, nor speech that is not already covered.
Those who support extending protections or rights to minority groups are also those who most voceriferously advocate for freedom of speech, including religious speech. Even though I think he is a fool and full of hate, I would defend Rush Limbaugh’s right to spew it, and my right to listen to something else.
There is no move to remove gender as a fact of life. No group uni-sex restrooms, for example.
The sky is not falling.
R.E. Cooper –
Glad to see you acknowledge what has long been asserted by many legal experts: “Hate crime legislation is only an enhancement of punishment for crimes that are already crimes”. You’re making the same point I made about Matthew Shepherd’s murder, where the cruel motives involved were taken into account and resulted in double life sentences.
You may have a Ph.D., but it doesn’t look like you’re up to speed on the important work being done at the Transgender Law Center, (http://transgenderlawcenter.org/safe_bathrooms.html) and the Human Rights Campaign in their joint effort to address discrimination in bathrooms, “the single most common public place where the gender binary is strictly enforced”. Make sure you read their 48 page legal guide to “Peeing in Peace”. No joke.
I really don’t think we’re going to one unisex restroom anytime soon. However, I did do my business in a number of WC’s (restrooms) in Rome just a couple of weeks ago where a woman was in the adjacent stall doing her business.
Weird? Maybe. But frankly, I was more bothered by the 1 Euro that I had just paid to use a public restroom than knowing that someone of the opposite gender was in the room.
I have a JD and I read both recent court decisions and legislation (both attempted and passed).
I don’t share BDW’s confidence about things that are not going to happen. Many of them already have happened.
Okay, SBC opposition to the repeal of DOMA or to same sex marriages is understandable. I don’t agree, but I get their p.o.v. But opposition to ENDA, opposition to the repeal of DADT and opposition to hate crimes legislation is just hateful. It is discrimination for the sake of discrimination–reminding us that the SBC began as a denomination defending slavery and supported segregation years after it was effectively over.
UGH. I can’t wait till they get out of Louisville.
Aaron, I find the claim that only attorneys and those with Ph.D.s in political science have the creds to disagree with you on church/state matters to be very arrogant.
My Ph.D. is in theological ethics, but I would never claim that no one without one could legitimately disagree with my conclusions in theological ethics.
John Yoo, author of the torture memos, is an attorney and a law professor. Do I have to be an attorney to disagree with his legal reasoning?
On church-state issues, I am an informed layperson. But I know experts with the required degrees teaching at Liberty and Regent universities would disagree with you far more often than I do–would their opinions carry more weight? Should they?
I support the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Bill. It COULD cause problems in liberty of conscience, but it needn’t do so–and concern for those matters does not need to override the good that can be done by preventing hate crimes.
You cite Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan is a gay activist and a very intelligent man, but he is a CONSERVATIVE on most issues. I prefer the analysis of Harvard Law prof. Lawrence Tribe. Or am I allowed to even have an opinion because I only have an M.A. in poli–sci, no law degree and an M.Div. and Ph.D. in theological ethics?
Michael,
My comment was a sharp response to Derek in reference to his comments about Jefferson and the criminalization of beliefs (not HCL). Derek is like so many other fundamentalists who drop by this blog and act like a damn know-it-all on church-state issues and then has the gall to act like the owner of this blog is uninformed and out to lunch on constitutional interpretation and church-state philosophy.
I’ve interacted with dozens and dozens of Southern Baptists online in the past few years. I’ve not met many that are sensible when it comes to church-state issues. They think the sky is falling and pastors will soon be imprisoned for preaching against homosexuality. And I’ve not met many, any? SBC bloggers who have taken the time to read serious books by serious scholars, not even serious conservative scholars, on these issues. I get the feeling that the SBCers who penned this sexuality resolution and pushed it through the committee haven’t taken the time to read and educate themselves either. Listening to Talk Radio doesn’t count.
So, no I REALLY don’t think one needs to be a Political Scientist or Lawyer to have an informed opinion here. That’s silly.
Though I do get a little tired of the disrespect from fundys like Derek.
K Gray,
I do agree with you that there have been and will continue to be conflicts between religious liberty and gay rights.
But, I’m not aware of any serious scholar – conservative or liberal – who believes that pastors will be fined and/or imprisoned for preaching against homosexuality. That won’t happen. No pastor will be force to perform a same-sex ceremony. It won’t happen. Religious speech will not be criminalized. These “sky is falling” scenarios are believed by many many many Southern Baptists.
Yes, there’s going to be many many more conflicts surrounding discrimination law and religious liberty. We’ve talked about that before. Largely, I believe that can be solved through religious exemptions especially in the case of adoption agencies.
BDW –
I guess anyone who is alarmed about overreaching by our courts and judges and by this administration is a “fundy”. BDW, I don’t like bringing this up a second time, but it was you charged me with making a comment about “muslims taking over America”, which was completely out of left field, it was unwarranted and it left an incorrect impression that I made a disparaging comment about Islam and/or Muslims. Who now was painting with a broad brush, using red herrings to make a point? I did not make any comment of the kind about Islam/muslims and I would appreciate an apology.
I’ll say this for the second or third time now – even if no pastors get jailed, the intent and practical impact of this legislation is not to jail people who speak out about homosexuality – it is to force a series of changes that will practically speaking, force churches, ministries and Christian schools to adopt a set of practices that conflict with their historical positions and views on gender and sexual practices. I also referenced an important and illustrative scenario that has already played out in Massachussets (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/).
Folks on both the left and the right will tend to focus on extreme abuses (such as pastors being jailed for speaking out against homosexuality). You can sit here and pillory those who have concerns about their rights to speech and conscience being abused – but I’ll wager good money that if the shoe was on the other foot, you’d be outraged at the chilling effect this kind of legislation would have on your right to speech, who you could or couldn’t hire, etc. That is why I am disturbed and even angry that you have such a dismissive and mocking tone, and that you would so willingly agree to these infingements on our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
O.K., Aaron, I see where you’re coming from–as the saying goes. No minister will be imprisoned or fined for preaching against homosexuality. If any overreaching cop or court tried, the ACLU would take the case (even though rightwingers hate them) and the BJC and AU would file Friend of the Court briefs on this anti-gay minister’s behalf.
Hate crimes legislation doesn’t criminalize thought or speech–or well-written laws don’t and the other kind are thrown out by the court.
Derek has ably addressed my point.
BDW, religious exemptions range from broadly protective to the narrowest possible (pastors). What a huge difference. And as you know the NH legislature voted for an extremely narrow one.
This is developing quickly in many states and arenas – tax, benefits, public schools, housing (Yeshiva U. medical school), corporations, institutions, private businesses (e.g., eHarmony), parachurch organizations and services (e.g., weddings, counseling, adoption and family services). You may like the results and you may not.
In prior comment, weddings = wedding facilities (an outdoor facility owned by Methodist church); also wedding photography by a non-church photography business.