This week's question from the Washington Post's "On Faith" online section:
The Fort Hood shootings have raised questions again about how the military should handle the personal religious beliefs of its soldiers, whether they are evangelical Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and so on. What is the proper role of religion -- and personal religious belief -- in the U.S. armed forces? Should a particular religious affiliation disqualify someone from active military service? How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?
As long as death and dying are part of the military, there will likely be a need for religious expression among the troops. What form that religious expression takes is a matter of personal choice, and indeed, personal freedom. It's one of the rights afforded all citizens under the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
If the US military cannot protect the rights of its own soldiers, how can it claim to be protecting mine? Acts of intolerance by any soldier towards another human being, based on differences such as religious beliefs, race, gender, ethnicity, etc., violates the very freedoms that the military is charged with protecting.
The US military has a responsibility to protect the rights and freedoms of all US citizens. Those rights include the freedom to worship, or not, the god of one's own choosing. One would presume this also extends to those actively serving in the military.
The military does address religious needs. It provides chaplains, places to worship, and even religious supplies where needed. When the troops are isolated from public options for worship, a demonstrated effort is made to have worship services for the troops. To that accord, it would seem on the surface that the US military has made great efforts to provide for the religious needs of its troops.
Except for one thing: Protecting the religious freedom of the men and women serving in our armed forces requires more than just hiring military chaplains and providing a tent for soldiers to worship in while deployed. It requires, also, that those who purport to be on the battlefields, risking their lives to protect MY freedom, will, at the very least respect those same freedoms for one another.
It is too early to begin to know "why" the suspect of the Ft. Hood shootings did what he did. Reports coming out now indicate that religion may have played a role in the shootings, but not in the way some would think. Family members told reporters at CNN that the suspect had become increasingly frustrated by disrespect shown to him, which he perceived to be due to his religious beliefs. He was reported "taunted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."
In my daughter's school, "taunting" would be called "bullying", and there are consequences for those who do it. Those consequences protect the students. There should be consequences in the military, too.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Confronting the Religious Racism Within
The shooting incident this past week at Ft. Hood, Texas, has reawakened an awareness of what I must call "religious racism" in America. The reaction-- very human reaction-- of many to learning that the suspect is a Muslim, reinforces a fear that has been present since 9-11.
My heart has been so heavy since learning of the shooting incident at Ft. Hood, TX. I am going to conceded that I am still working out how to address the issue of religion, but one thing I knew going into the pulpit this past Sunday was that it must be addressed. In fact, God was almost screaming at me to do so.
So, here are a few thoughts that I included in today's message.
First of all, I have heard and read a number of troubling comments since this happened- comments that have linked all people of the Muslim faith into one big pile of muck. This is not a new development. Ever since 9-11, anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim has been distrusted, maligned and sometimes abused-- because we have decided, I guess, that all terrorists look alike, and that all Muslims are terrorists.
This simply isn't true. It's no more true than the fact that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist makes all Catholics terrorists.
When we do this-- when we categorize any group of people as if we can know exactly who they are or what they are like based on what others with the same skin color or ethnic background or religious beliefs have done, we tread into dangerous territory.
If this were a valid way of looking at people, I wouldn't trust many of my congregants-- most of whom were born and raised in rural Indiana. That's because I have learned that, following WWI, rural Indiana was a center for a pretty strong segment of the Ku Klux Klan.
If this were a valid way of judging people, then my congregation shouldn't trust ME. Have you ever heard the word, "welch"? It means to cheat someone out of a gambling debt. In Southern Ohio, where my parents were born and raised, the word means to cheat anyone. If you back out of a debt or a deal, you are a "welcher". The word originates from a slang word for someone of Welsh ancestry. I am more than half Welsh. So, even if you trust me, perhaps you shouldn't gamble with me!
And most of us have heard enough of the scandals that rocked the catholic Church to know you can't trust a male pastor, right? Hopefully there is enough trust between us to know this is ridiculous.
There seems to be news coming out that religion did indeed play a role in the shootings, but perhaps not in the way that we would think. CNN is reporting that the suspect had been frustrated for a long time by how others-- both civilians and military personnel had treated him with disrespect, which he perceived as being because he is a Muslim. In mid-August, he found that his car had a religious bumper sticker that said "Allah is love" ripped from it and the car was "keyed"- scratching the paint. Imagine for a moment if a bumper sticker saying "Jesus Loves Me" was ripped from your car and it was keyed.
It's not an excuse to go ballistic, at least not in my mind. But then I don't know what it is like to be constantly watched, mistrusted, ridiculed or abused for being a Christian. I do not condone what this troubled man did. As a pastor, and as a person of faith, I cannot condone racism either.
My faith tells me that God IS love, and that Jesus loves, not just me, but all people. The God who knit me in my mother's womb, also knit those of different faiths and those of no faith whatsoever. Surely Jesus' Great Commandment did not include hating my neighbor, nor will we ever lead someone to know Christ through violence, prejudice or hatred.
I would like to say that I do not have a racist or prejudiced bone in my body... but the truth is I am human. It is within me to fear what is different. It is within me to judge negatively those whose beliefs are not my beliefs. I am challenged every day to face that truth inside myself.
Only then I can stand before God and ask for both forgiveness and the courage to grow in understanding as God would have me do.
Maybe then I can see Christ in the face of my brothers and sisters... including those whom I perceive to be my enemy.
Jesus had something to say about that, too. "You have heard it said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you... and if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what are you doing that is any more than the others? Do not even pagans do that? be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-44, 47-48)
Perfect? I am not there yet, but O, God, I want to be.
My heart has been so heavy since learning of the shooting incident at Ft. Hood, TX. I am going to conceded that I am still working out how to address the issue of religion, but one thing I knew going into the pulpit this past Sunday was that it must be addressed. In fact, God was almost screaming at me to do so.
So, here are a few thoughts that I included in today's message.
First of all, I have heard and read a number of troubling comments since this happened- comments that have linked all people of the Muslim faith into one big pile of muck. This is not a new development. Ever since 9-11, anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim has been distrusted, maligned and sometimes abused-- because we have decided, I guess, that all terrorists look alike, and that all Muslims are terrorists.
This simply isn't true. It's no more true than the fact that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist makes all Catholics terrorists.
When we do this-- when we categorize any group of people as if we can know exactly who they are or what they are like based on what others with the same skin color or ethnic background or religious beliefs have done, we tread into dangerous territory.
If this were a valid way of looking at people, I wouldn't trust many of my congregants-- most of whom were born and raised in rural Indiana. That's because I have learned that, following WWI, rural Indiana was a center for a pretty strong segment of the Ku Klux Klan.
If this were a valid way of judging people, then my congregation shouldn't trust ME. Have you ever heard the word, "welch"? It means to cheat someone out of a gambling debt. In Southern Ohio, where my parents were born and raised, the word means to cheat anyone. If you back out of a debt or a deal, you are a "welcher". The word originates from a slang word for someone of Welsh ancestry. I am more than half Welsh. So, even if you trust me, perhaps you shouldn't gamble with me!
And most of us have heard enough of the scandals that rocked the catholic Church to know you can't trust a male pastor, right? Hopefully there is enough trust between us to know this is ridiculous.
There seems to be news coming out that religion did indeed play a role in the shootings, but perhaps not in the way that we would think. CNN is reporting that the suspect had been frustrated for a long time by how others-- both civilians and military personnel had treated him with disrespect, which he perceived as being because he is a Muslim. In mid-August, he found that his car had a religious bumper sticker that said "Allah is love" ripped from it and the car was "keyed"- scratching the paint. Imagine for a moment if a bumper sticker saying "Jesus Loves Me" was ripped from your car and it was keyed.
It's not an excuse to go ballistic, at least not in my mind. But then I don't know what it is like to be constantly watched, mistrusted, ridiculed or abused for being a Christian. I do not condone what this troubled man did. As a pastor, and as a person of faith, I cannot condone racism either.
My faith tells me that God IS love, and that Jesus loves, not just me, but all people. The God who knit me in my mother's womb, also knit those of different faiths and those of no faith whatsoever. Surely Jesus' Great Commandment did not include hating my neighbor, nor will we ever lead someone to know Christ through violence, prejudice or hatred.
I would like to say that I do not have a racist or prejudiced bone in my body... but the truth is I am human. It is within me to fear what is different. It is within me to judge negatively those whose beliefs are not my beliefs. I am challenged every day to face that truth inside myself.
Only then I can stand before God and ask for both forgiveness and the courage to grow in understanding as God would have me do.
Maybe then I can see Christ in the face of my brothers and sisters... including those whom I perceive to be my enemy.
Jesus had something to say about that, too. "You have heard it said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you... and if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what are you doing that is any more than the others? Do not even pagans do that? be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-44, 47-48)
Perfect? I am not there yet, but O, God, I want to be.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Talking About Options Prolongs the Quality of Life
This week's question at the On Faith page of the Washington Post asks:
Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for "end-of-life" counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision nearly derailed President Obama's health-care initiative. Some Republicans still argue that the provision would ration health care for the elderly. Does end-of-life care prolong life or does it prolong suffering? Should it be a part of health-care reform?
The inclusion of provisions to pay for “end-of-life” counseling should be included in any health care reform packages. Erroneously called “death panels for seniors” by Sarah Palin, these provisions would facilitate conversations about life and death in general. As a Christian faith leader, that seems of supreme importance to me.
“End-of-life counseling” does not necessarily prolong suffering. It will not necessarily prolong life, either. But it can, and usually does, prolong the quality of life when it leads to discussions about life and death. How could it ever be a bad thing to talk with someone about their options for the end of life or harmful for a doctor to have a clear understanding of what a person’s personal wishes are?
“There are worse things than dying.”
This is the conclusion my 86-year-old mother reached during a recent discussion about her wishes for whatever time she has left in life. We had this talk when, following a serious heart attack, her cardiologist was insistent that she could no longer live alone. My mother was equally insistent that she is not ready to leave her community and live with me, four hours away from her friends. His grim-reaper warnings that the “next time could be fatal” fell on deaf ears. “There are worse things than dying”, she told me.
As a person of faith, I believe that she is right. I trust Jesus’ promise that “in my Father’s house are many rooms… I go now to prepare a room for you there.”
Ideally, a person would have a spiritual advisor to talk to- a pastor, priest, rabbi… But not all seniors have that benefit. Nor do all seniors come at death from similar perspectives.
While each person faces death in their own way, and different races and cultures may traditionally deal with these issues in slightly different ways, death does come to each of us.
“To everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die…” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2a)
It has been said that some people live until they die, while others come to the end of their life, only to find they never really lived. To live until you die is to prolong the quality of life. Christian faith teaches us that we don’t have to fear death. My mother is right. “There are worse things than dying.”
It’s a conversation worth having.
Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for "end-of-life" counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision nearly derailed President Obama's health-care initiative. Some Republicans still argue that the provision would ration health care for the elderly. Does end-of-life care prolong life or does it prolong suffering? Should it be a part of health-care reform?
The inclusion of provisions to pay for “end-of-life” counseling should be included in any health care reform packages. Erroneously called “death panels for seniors” by Sarah Palin, these provisions would facilitate conversations about life and death in general. As a Christian faith leader, that seems of supreme importance to me.
“End-of-life counseling” does not necessarily prolong suffering. It will not necessarily prolong life, either. But it can, and usually does, prolong the quality of life when it leads to discussions about life and death. How could it ever be a bad thing to talk with someone about their options for the end of life or harmful for a doctor to have a clear understanding of what a person’s personal wishes are?
“There are worse things than dying.”
This is the conclusion my 86-year-old mother reached during a recent discussion about her wishes for whatever time she has left in life. We had this talk when, following a serious heart attack, her cardiologist was insistent that she could no longer live alone. My mother was equally insistent that she is not ready to leave her community and live with me, four hours away from her friends. His grim-reaper warnings that the “next time could be fatal” fell on deaf ears. “There are worse things than dying”, she told me.
As a person of faith, I believe that she is right. I trust Jesus’ promise that “in my Father’s house are many rooms… I go now to prepare a room for you there.”
Ideally, a person would have a spiritual advisor to talk to- a pastor, priest, rabbi… But not all seniors have that benefit. Nor do all seniors come at death from similar perspectives.
While each person faces death in their own way, and different races and cultures may traditionally deal with these issues in slightly different ways, death does come to each of us.
“To everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die…” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2a)
It has been said that some people live until they die, while others come to the end of their life, only to find they never really lived. To live until you die is to prolong the quality of life. Christian faith teaches us that we don’t have to fear death. My mother is right. “There are worse things than dying.”
It’s a conversation worth having.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Religion Holds No Patent on Good
Religion holds no patent on goodness. Nor does a lack of religious beliefs ensure that someone is evil. The answer is not that simple. People are quite capable of “being good”, or “being bad” with or without “God”. Most people are a little bit of both.
In the hit Broadway musical, “Wicked”, the “good” witch, Glenda, asks: “Are people born wicked, or is wickedness thrust upon them?” The question is posed as all of Oz rejoices at the death of the “wicked” witch, Elphaba. Those who have seen the show or read the book are left with no clear answer to that question, though the show makes it clear that neither witch was entirely either. Both had good qualities and both were capable of wickedness… of evil.
The book of Genesis, starts with an explanation of the origins of life: “In the beginning, God created… and it was good.” Whatever else follows in subsequent verses, the Bible makes that much clear. What God creates is good.
If the question is in relation to “being”, then the answer is easy. Whether a person acknowledges God or not, as Creator, God has already impacted that person’s life for the good. As a person of faith, I believe that each person is born with goodness and worth simply because of the One who created and creates.
If the question is whether people can “be good”, in the sense of behaving themselves, living moral and responsible lives without the benefit of religion as a moral compass, the answer may not be quite as easy. One might assume that “having religion” makes it easier to “be good”, but the scriptures are filled with examples of terribly human people who seek to be faithful to the God of Israel, and who fail terribly, over and over again.
His faith in God, which was real and deep, did not keep King David from making terrible choices with terrible consequences. Was David evil? Surely not, though some of his actions certainly were far from “good”. Human beings have a capacity to be (or behave) both good and evil, depending on the situation and circumstances.
Susan L. Nelson, from the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, in a book review of “Evil and Christian Ethics” by Gordon Graham writes: “The Christian narrative places human history within the larger context of a cosmic battle between good and evil, where we are assured that evil does not have the last word.”
“Having God” might not make it easier to “be good”. However, having God- as revealed in Jesus Christ- allows for grace and mercy when wickedness is thrust upon those who seek to be faithful. Most of all, having faith in Christ gives the ultimate hope that, in the cosmic battle between good and evil, good will prevail. According to Gordon Graham, that is the motivation we need to resist the evil, both within us, and outside of us.
In the hit Broadway musical, “Wicked”, the “good” witch, Glenda, asks: “Are people born wicked, or is wickedness thrust upon them?” The question is posed as all of Oz rejoices at the death of the “wicked” witch, Elphaba. Those who have seen the show or read the book are left with no clear answer to that question, though the show makes it clear that neither witch was entirely either. Both had good qualities and both were capable of wickedness… of evil.
The book of Genesis, starts with an explanation of the origins of life: “In the beginning, God created… and it was good.” Whatever else follows in subsequent verses, the Bible makes that much clear. What God creates is good.
If the question is in relation to “being”, then the answer is easy. Whether a person acknowledges God or not, as Creator, God has already impacted that person’s life for the good. As a person of faith, I believe that each person is born with goodness and worth simply because of the One who created and creates.
If the question is whether people can “be good”, in the sense of behaving themselves, living moral and responsible lives without the benefit of religion as a moral compass, the answer may not be quite as easy. One might assume that “having religion” makes it easier to “be good”, but the scriptures are filled with examples of terribly human people who seek to be faithful to the God of Israel, and who fail terribly, over and over again.
His faith in God, which was real and deep, did not keep King David from making terrible choices with terrible consequences. Was David evil? Surely not, though some of his actions certainly were far from “good”. Human beings have a capacity to be (or behave) both good and evil, depending on the situation and circumstances.
Susan L. Nelson, from the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, in a book review of “Evil and Christian Ethics” by Gordon Graham writes: “The Christian narrative places human history within the larger context of a cosmic battle between good and evil, where we are assured that evil does not have the last word.”
“Having God” might not make it easier to “be good”. However, having God- as revealed in Jesus Christ- allows for grace and mercy when wickedness is thrust upon those who seek to be faithful. Most of all, having faith in Christ gives the ultimate hope that, in the cosmic battle between good and evil, good will prevail. According to Gordon Graham, that is the motivation we need to resist the evil, both within us, and outside of us.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Woe to the One Who Teaches a Child to Lie
What does it mean when a person craves attention to the point that he or she will involve a child in deception? According the teachings of Jesus, (Matthew 18:6-7), it would be better to be drowned in the sea with a millstone around your neck than to lead a child of faith astray. "Woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes."
It was a hoax... a lie. And it was of the magnitude that it tricked the world.
Recently, the entire world watched, with an "eye to the sky", desperate to know what had happened to a young boy who was believed to have been inside his father's weather balloon when it broke loose from where it had been tethered at the family's home. When the balloon was finally grounded, the boy was no where to be found. Rescue workers and volunteers scoured the areas where the balloon's path may have travelled. Every news channel was focused on this little boy's fate.
It was a hoax... a lie.
There was relief when the boy was found in the attic of the family home. By the time I began watching the media frenzy, the possibility had already been raised that perhaps the boy was hiding, fearful of being punished. This was the hope that the world was clinging to. Parents wondered what they would do... feel... if this were their own child. Compassion and empathy surely poured into the prayers that were offered from MY living room.
According to CNN, when questioned on-air by his father about why he hid, the little boy responded, "You guys said we did it for the show." Two days later, the boy's mother admitted that the family had concocted the whole thing as a publicity stunt, to make themselves more marketable for "Reality TV".
CNN reported: "The couple hatched the plan about two weeks before the incident and "instructed their three children to lie to authorities as well as the media regarding this hoax," according to the documents."
It was a hoax... a lie... and the children were encouraged, even coached, to participate in the deception.
The response was interesting to watch. Some laughed it off, as if "boys will be boys" explained it all. (The term "boys" evidently included the father.) Some put the father on what seemed to be a "pedestal" of sorts, admiring the craftiness of the one who suckered the whole world into sitting on the edge of a universal "seat". Past hoaxes and hoaxers were given air time, and a "second chance at fame".
Some pointed fingers of blame towards the media in general, and towards Reality TV shows in particular.
Others almost demonized the parents. Angry, and rightly so, over the amount of money that was spent on rescue workers, the local law enforcement hinted that charges may be filed and fines assessed. Members of the media, doubly "honked off" that they had been fooled, were not very positive in their comments.
A few raised questions as to whether the involvement of the children should be seen as child endangerment. When all is said and done, this seems, to me, to be the only issue that really matters. Yes, the money should be repaid by the family. If laws were broken (and surely they were, though I have no personal knowledge of Colorado law), then charges should be filed against the adults.
Child Protective Services has a moral obligation to investigate the family's parenting skills, and to make recommendations based upon what they discover. The decisions made by these parents seems to go far beyond the mistakes that "every parent" makes. ALL parents make mistakes at one time or another. Despite good intentions, sometimes children are unwittingly placed in a potentially dangerous situation. But these parents chose to propagate a lie... a hoax... a deception that involved their children and the safety of all those who worked to try to "save" the child. Woe to the one who teaches a child to lie!
You might say that it was not just the child who needed to be saved. It is the entire family who needs to be saved from an addiction to fame and glory. My prayers are still offered up with compassion. Though I cannot empathize with whatever motivated them to act on this craving for attention, my faith tells me that there is hope and grace and healing for those who seek it.
That is no hoax. That is no lie. That is the Gospel... the good news of Christ.
It was a hoax... a lie. And it was of the magnitude that it tricked the world.
Recently, the entire world watched, with an "eye to the sky", desperate to know what had happened to a young boy who was believed to have been inside his father's weather balloon when it broke loose from where it had been tethered at the family's home. When the balloon was finally grounded, the boy was no where to be found. Rescue workers and volunteers scoured the areas where the balloon's path may have travelled. Every news channel was focused on this little boy's fate.
It was a hoax... a lie.
There was relief when the boy was found in the attic of the family home. By the time I began watching the media frenzy, the possibility had already been raised that perhaps the boy was hiding, fearful of being punished. This was the hope that the world was clinging to. Parents wondered what they would do... feel... if this were their own child. Compassion and empathy surely poured into the prayers that were offered from MY living room.
According to CNN, when questioned on-air by his father about why he hid, the little boy responded, "You guys said we did it for the show." Two days later, the boy's mother admitted that the family had concocted the whole thing as a publicity stunt, to make themselves more marketable for "Reality TV".
CNN reported: "The couple hatched the plan about two weeks before the incident and "instructed their three children to lie to authorities as well as the media regarding this hoax," according to the documents."
It was a hoax... a lie... and the children were encouraged, even coached, to participate in the deception.
The response was interesting to watch. Some laughed it off, as if "boys will be boys" explained it all. (The term "boys" evidently included the father.) Some put the father on what seemed to be a "pedestal" of sorts, admiring the craftiness of the one who suckered the whole world into sitting on the edge of a universal "seat". Past hoaxes and hoaxers were given air time, and a "second chance at fame".
Some pointed fingers of blame towards the media in general, and towards Reality TV shows in particular.
Others almost demonized the parents. Angry, and rightly so, over the amount of money that was spent on rescue workers, the local law enforcement hinted that charges may be filed and fines assessed. Members of the media, doubly "honked off" that they had been fooled, were not very positive in their comments.
A few raised questions as to whether the involvement of the children should be seen as child endangerment. When all is said and done, this seems, to me, to be the only issue that really matters. Yes, the money should be repaid by the family. If laws were broken (and surely they were, though I have no personal knowledge of Colorado law), then charges should be filed against the adults.
Child Protective Services has a moral obligation to investigate the family's parenting skills, and to make recommendations based upon what they discover. The decisions made by these parents seems to go far beyond the mistakes that "every parent" makes. ALL parents make mistakes at one time or another. Despite good intentions, sometimes children are unwittingly placed in a potentially dangerous situation. But these parents chose to propagate a lie... a hoax... a deception that involved their children and the safety of all those who worked to try to "save" the child. Woe to the one who teaches a child to lie!
You might say that it was not just the child who needed to be saved. It is the entire family who needs to be saved from an addiction to fame and glory. My prayers are still offered up with compassion. Though I cannot empathize with whatever motivated them to act on this craving for attention, my faith tells me that there is hope and grace and healing for those who seek it.
That is no hoax. That is no lie. That is the Gospel... the good news of Christ.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Never a Bad Idea to Outlaw Hate
This week's "On Faith" question at the Washington Post asks: "Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add "sexual orientation" to a list that already includes "race, color, religion or national origin." Is this necessary? Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry and hatred? Isn't a crime a crime?
I fail to see how protecting a community from violence and hatred could ever be a bad idea.
How different things might have been for the first Christians if the ancient Roman Empire had such laws in place! When Peter and the apostles preached in the temple, the angry mobs were “enraged and wanted to kill them”. Only one voice of reason prevailed, and the crowd “simply” had them flogged.
Hate crimes based on religion is listed as the second highest cause on the statistical lists published by the FBI. Any one of us could be a target for anyone who hates. This legislation protects us all, as individuals and as community.
I wish it weren't necessary to add yet another label to the federal hates crimes that already exist. Knowing that it is against the law to perpetuate a crime involving “assault, murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, attack with an explosive device, arson, etc.” towards anyone should be enough. There should be no need to expand the language of the laws that already in place, but evidence is compelling that there is a need.
According to FBI statistics dating back to the early 1990’s, when the term “hate crime” was first factored into reports, the number of such crimes reported by law officials hasn’t changed much. In 1995 and again in 2005, there were approximately 8,000 hate crimes reported. The numbers were only slightly higher in 2000 (approximately 8,400).
While more than half of those crimes were motivated by racial prejudice, crimes against religion and sexual orientation accounted for between 30-35% of the rest. Those numbers do not reflect the incidents that go unreported. About 40% of homosexual adults report being physically attacked because of their perceived sexual orientation.
The language of the current hate crimes legislation evidently is not specific enough. Additional labels are needed if the laws are going to protect those who most need protection.
There is a mis-perception that adding more specific language to the hate crimes bill will limit American’s freedom of speech. This is false. There is a mis-perception that hate crimes only hurt the victims, and this is also false. Hate crimes are perpetuated against communities, not just individuals. As HR 1913, a hate crimes bill passed by the federal House in 2009, states: "Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive."
As long as freedom of speech protects the rights of all Americans to speak their mind, there will be those who abuse others with hateful and hate-filled words. There will be talk-radio hosts who make outrageous claims such as the one I heard a few weeks ago on WLW who said something along the lines of: “The cause of obesity is that we aren’t allowed to bully the fat kids anymore. They don’t know they are fat, because we can’t tell them. So they get fatter.”
There is little protection from name calling or verbal attacks, but there is protection from assault for those who are the most vulnerable. The question is, is it enough? My answer is, not yet.
I fail to see how protecting a community from violence and hatred could ever be a bad idea.
How different things might have been for the first Christians if the ancient Roman Empire had such laws in place! When Peter and the apostles preached in the temple, the angry mobs were “enraged and wanted to kill them”. Only one voice of reason prevailed, and the crowd “simply” had them flogged.
Hate crimes based on religion is listed as the second highest cause on the statistical lists published by the FBI. Any one of us could be a target for anyone who hates. This legislation protects us all, as individuals and as community.
I wish it weren't necessary to add yet another label to the federal hates crimes that already exist. Knowing that it is against the law to perpetuate a crime involving “assault, murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, attack with an explosive device, arson, etc.” towards anyone should be enough. There should be no need to expand the language of the laws that already in place, but evidence is compelling that there is a need.
According to FBI statistics dating back to the early 1990’s, when the term “hate crime” was first factored into reports, the number of such crimes reported by law officials hasn’t changed much. In 1995 and again in 2005, there were approximately 8,000 hate crimes reported. The numbers were only slightly higher in 2000 (approximately 8,400).
While more than half of those crimes were motivated by racial prejudice, crimes against religion and sexual orientation accounted for between 30-35% of the rest. Those numbers do not reflect the incidents that go unreported. About 40% of homosexual adults report being physically attacked because of their perceived sexual orientation.
The language of the current hate crimes legislation evidently is not specific enough. Additional labels are needed if the laws are going to protect those who most need protection.
There is a mis-perception that adding more specific language to the hate crimes bill will limit American’s freedom of speech. This is false. There is a mis-perception that hate crimes only hurt the victims, and this is also false. Hate crimes are perpetuated against communities, not just individuals. As HR 1913, a hate crimes bill passed by the federal House in 2009, states: "Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive."
As long as freedom of speech protects the rights of all Americans to speak their mind, there will be those who abuse others with hateful and hate-filled words. There will be talk-radio hosts who make outrageous claims such as the one I heard a few weeks ago on WLW who said something along the lines of: “The cause of obesity is that we aren’t allowed to bully the fat kids anymore. They don’t know they are fat, because we can’t tell them. So they get fatter.”
There is little protection from name calling or verbal attacks, but there is protection from assault for those who are the most vulnerable. The question is, is it enough? My answer is, not yet.
Open the Eyes of Our Hearts
Blind Bartimaeus might be jumping for joy, had he read the news that the US Senate voted Thursday to pass Hate-Crime legislation that has extended its language to include protection for people who are targets for violent crimes due to their sex or sexual orientation. You see, Bartimaeus knew what it was like to be on the margins of society, crying out to Jesus. And he knew what it was like to have people (especially those who presumed to speak on the authority of Jesus) try to silence him.
This blind beggar refused to be defined by his "disability" or what others expected of him. He refused to be limited by what he "should or shouldn't" do. Bartimaeus refused to be silenced. He cried all the louder, And we are told, right there in the 10th chapter of mark that Jesus heard the cries of this man on the margins and asked him to "Come".
The Church (capital "c") is empowered with and burdened by an authority to "speak for Christ". Too often, there are still those who would silence the voices of those on the margins... those whose cries are easier to ignore.
Those might be the silent cries of abused children and women, who beg for no one to notice.... and pray for someone to notice. Or the shouts from the Sudan, where villages are exterminated in what can only be called what it is: genocide. Or the giggles and cries of children in worship... whose parents have felt shamed by annoyed glares and so finally choose to just stay home.
Those may be the cries of women who long to accept God's call to ministry in denominations that will not allow their voices to be heard.
Or the cries of so many broken-hearted people who simply long for a place to worship God where they will be welcomed without judgment because of who they are, where they are from or what path their lives have taken... immigrants... unwed mothers... gays, lesbians or transgendered persons...
Today, the voices of our congregations should join in giving praise that we are one step closer to "doing the right thing" in protecting those who have been marginalized, silenced and victimized due to some label that can never define them for who they really are: children of God. That is the only label that matters.
Open the eyes of our hearts, Lord, that we might hear and see the cries, and speak the only words you would give us authority to speak on your behalf: "Tell them to come."
This blind beggar refused to be defined by his "disability" or what others expected of him. He refused to be limited by what he "should or shouldn't" do. Bartimaeus refused to be silenced. He cried all the louder, And we are told, right there in the 10th chapter of mark that Jesus heard the cries of this man on the margins and asked him to "Come".
The Church (capital "c") is empowered with and burdened by an authority to "speak for Christ". Too often, there are still those who would silence the voices of those on the margins... those whose cries are easier to ignore.
Those might be the silent cries of abused children and women, who beg for no one to notice.... and pray for someone to notice. Or the shouts from the Sudan, where villages are exterminated in what can only be called what it is: genocide. Or the giggles and cries of children in worship... whose parents have felt shamed by annoyed glares and so finally choose to just stay home.
Those may be the cries of women who long to accept God's call to ministry in denominations that will not allow their voices to be heard.
Or the cries of so many broken-hearted people who simply long for a place to worship God where they will be welcomed without judgment because of who they are, where they are from or what path their lives have taken... immigrants... unwed mothers... gays, lesbians or transgendered persons...
Today, the voices of our congregations should join in giving praise that we are one step closer to "doing the right thing" in protecting those who have been marginalized, silenced and victimized due to some label that can never define them for who they really are: children of God. That is the only label that matters.
Open the eyes of our hearts, Lord, that we might hear and see the cries, and speak the only words you would give us authority to speak on your behalf: "Tell them to come."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)