Should human rights
clash with religious right?

Speaking of Religion
The Rev. Dr. Tim Griffin

On May 3, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to add sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability to the categories protected under the federal hate crimes law. Currently violent acts against someone because of race, national origin, skin color and religious conviction may be investigated and prosecuted in federal court as hate crimes.
The force of this legislation is to enable federal investigators and prosecutors to assist local authorities in ensuring that justice is done in such instances. The president has promised to veto this legislation. Why?
In this instance, the president is following his political base — the religious right. The official reason for the president’s threatened veto is that there has been "no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement." Another justification cited for opposition to the bill is that it would undermine equality by protecting certain classes of people.
Both arguments are specious. The very fact that the legislation covers a large range of violent criminal behavior is precisely why the federal government should assist local law enforcement in prosecuting these crimes. In addition, this legislation is needed precisely because homosexuals, women and the disabled are not treated equally in this country, and they are victims of hate crimes.
If, as a nation, all people lived up to the ideals that define who we are as a people, we would need no laws. But sadly, the reality is otherwise. There are people who hate others just because they are different. And as long as that is true, we should act to protect those people.
The official reasons for the threatened veto notwithstanding, the real reason behind the president’s opposition is the hatred and divisiveness of the religious right and their lobbying efforts.
For example, the founder of "Focus on the Family" has asserted that the true intent of the bill is "to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality."
But, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The real reason for seeking to protect homosexuals is that on average 25 hate crimes are committed daily and one in six of these crimes is committed against a homosexual. No hate crime legislation — neither the legislation being proposed nor the legislation that has been on the books for 40 years now — concerns speech or thoughts.
As a Christian, the more troubling question for me is why one who professes to follow the teachings of Jesus would oppose legislation designed to protect people — particularly marginalized people — from violent crimes. Can it be that some have forgotten that Jesus was among the marginalized and that he was violently tortured and murdered for what he said and did and for who he was?
Put another way, can it be that those who advocate so forcefully for "traditional values" have forgotten that Jesus was tortured and executed, in part at least, because the values he expressed were not "traditional" enough.
Furthermore, as a Christian I find it troubling that the religious right uses images of Jesus to disseminate inaccurate propaganda.
For example, a "WANTED" poster displays an image purported to be Jesus. According to the poster, Jesus is "wanted for violation of the proposed Hate Crimes Law in his teachings and in his book, the Bible." And he is "Wanted for revealing the truth about homosexuality in the Bible and encouraging his followers not to offend God by committing such behavior."
This is offensive on a number of levels, not the least of which being that it is false: First, because speech and teachings are not condemned by the legislation; and more importantly, second, because there is no record in the Gospels (or anywhere else) that Jesus said anything about homosexuality.
Indeed, Jesus defended and associated with many who acted contrary to teachings found "in the Bible," particularly if the Bible is read selectively, out of context and with an eye to justifying one’s particular object of hatred. (Consider, for example, that Jesus healed on the Sabbath and that he touched and was touched by those who were ritually unclean; just to name two instances.)
These are difficult questions for Christians, but they are questions that we must face. For my part, I believe that Jesus stands with victims, regardless of why they are victimized, and for this reason, I want to stand with victims as well because doing so allows me to stand with Jesus.
Where do you stand? ••