Fox's Henneberg repeats right-wing myth that hate crimes bill could gag ministers
SUMMARY: Molly Henneberg uncritically reported the false claim made by religious groups that the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would allow individuals or groups to "be prosecuted for their religious beliefs."
During the April 29 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, correspondent Molly Henneberg reported that religious groups are concerned that under the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, "they may be prosecuted for their religious beliefs if they believe that homosexuality is a sin, that it could gag ministers who preach that, or even if a church may not want to marry a gay couple. There is concern that they could face lawsuits as well." However, the assertion that the legislation would allow individuals or groups to "be prosecuted for their religious beliefs" is false: Section 8 of the bill states that "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the Constitution," and the First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (emphasis added). Indeed, the House Judiciary Committee's report on the legislation states that the purpose of Section 8 of the bill is "to lay to rest concerns raised in the 110th Congress mark-up of the legislation, and repeated since then, that religious speech or expression by clergy could form the basis of a prosecution. ... Nothing in this legislation would prohibit the constitutionally protected expression of one's religious beliefs."
Moreover, Henneberg did not mention that supporters of the bill dispute the assertion that the legislation "could gag ministers who preach that [homosexuality is a sin], or even if a church may not want to marry a gay couple." For example, the House Judiciary Committee report states:
The bill has been crafted in a fashion that fully protects first amendment and other constitutional rights. The bill is designed only to punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts -- even violent thoughts. The legislation does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse, or expressions of hatred toward any group, even if such statements are hateful. Moreover, nothing in this legislation prohibits the lawful expression of one's deeply held religious or personal beliefs. The bill only covers violent actions that result in death or bodily injury committed because the victim has one of the specified actual or perceived characteristics.
By contrast, later in the show, during a segment with Rep. Steve King (R-IA), co-host Bill Hemmer noted supporters' views on the issue: "[T]he other side is saying the law is only meant to help gay people from being targeted because of their sexuality. They also insist there's nothing in this law that will stymie the free expression of any religion." Hemmer later asked King: "[D]o you honestly think in America that a minister is going to be thrown in jail for up to 10 years for something he or she says from the pulpit?" King responded: "I didn't honestly think that the Supreme Court of the state of Iowa would impose same-sex marriage on an entire state and directly against a specific law. So, today I would say, probably not. Ten years from now, absolutely it's conceivable, if we just look back on the recent history of the political correctness argument that's seeking to impose itself into law in the United States."
From the April 29 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
HEMMER: Out of Washington today, the House today debating a bill that is causing concern in churches across the country. A bill would extend hate crime protections to gays and lesbians. The critics -- they call it the "minister gag bill," fearing it could be used to silence pastors who preach that homosexuality is a sin. Now, Molly Henneberg is watching this for us live on the Hill. And Molly, I guess, at first off, is it going to pass, the bill?
HENNEBERG: Hi, Bill. Yes, it is expected to pass the House today. A similar bill passed the House two years ago and then failed in the Senate. But they are bringing it up again today, and it's expected to pass, especially now that more -- that Democrats have more of a lead, more numbers, in the House today. It is expected to pass. The real battle will be in the Senate. But today it will come to a floor vote at some point this afternoon. It will be interesting to see how moderate Democrats vote on it, Bill, but it is expected to pass the House.
HEMMER: And it's not without controversy, too. The opponents say what about it, Molly?
HENNEBERG: Well, they have a couple of objections, Bill. First of all, they say there are already laws on the books to punish violent offenders. And they say all these offenders should be punished equally. This law would add even up to 10 years in prison on an offender's sentence if he -- if the crime is committed against a gay or transgendered person. And opponents say, hey, everyone should be punished the same, get the same sentence for a violent crime.
There are also, as you were saying, religious groups that object to it. Their concern that they may be prosecuted for their religious beliefs if they believe that homosexuality is a sin, that it could gag ministers who preach that, or even if a church may not want to marry a gay couple. There is concern that they could face lawsuits as well.
HEMMER: And Molly, thank you for that. As you say, it's expected to pass the House today. We're going to talk with a member of the House who is against this coming up at the top of the hour. Molly Henneberg on the Hill, thanks.
[...]
HEMMER: In the meantime, we talked about this -- Molly Henneberg 30 minutes ago. The hate crimes bill expected to hit the House floor today. Supporters of that legislation say it will protect gay and lesbians from discrimination. The language, however, has some others worried that this bill could end up stifling religious liberties. Representative Steve King is a Republican from Iowa, a member of the Hosue Judiciary Committee, and an outspoken critic on the hate crimes legislation. Sir, good morning to you from Capitol Hill.
KING: Good morning.
HEMMER: There are those who call this a gag bill for ministers. Can you explain that? Why?
KING: It's a gag bill for ministers because of the intimidation effect that flows from this language. And there's definitions in the bill that reference other sections of the code such as violent crime as defined as having an element of an act against a person or property. So, for -- just imagine, if you have a pastor that preaches out against homosexuality, directly from the Old or New Testament, and someone goes out and paints graffiti on the garage of their neighbor who may be homosexual, that can be linked as having an element of a violent act against the property of the garage, and that could bring the pastor into this. And they could be punished with the enhanced penalty, up to 10 years in a federal penitnentary.
HEMMER: So you -- you use the word intimidation, that's how you describe it? The intimidation against ministers when they preach from the pulpit against homosexuality?
KING: It will be absolutely an intimidation factor. They already have the IRS that intimidates our pastors, and this would be the hate crimes or the thought crimes legislation, as I've described it, that would certainly intimidate pastors and members of the regular public, whatever their walk of life. This is about enforcing the speech of political correctness and then thought correctness on the people in America, and the pastors are the leaders of our thought.
HEMMER: Now, the other side is saying the law is only meant to help gay people from being targeted because of their sexuality. They also insist there's nothing in this law that will stymie the free expression of any religion. Now, I know you firmly oppose that, but, frankly, the other side's got the votes on this, don't they?
KING: They absolutely have the votes. They shot down every attempt we made to put some tighter definitions in the bill. There's language in the bill that uses the word gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Those three words can mean about anything. Part of it is what's in a person's head; part of it is what's in the perpetrator's head; part of it is what's in the victim's head; and part of it is the physiology of the individual. And each of those definitions -- and so they're very, very broad --
HEMMER: But do you honestly -- do you honestly think in America that a minister is going to be thrown in jail for up to 10 years for something he or she says from the pulpit?
KING: I didn't honestly think that the Supreme Court of the state of Iowa would impose same-sex marriage on an entire state and directly against a specific law. So, today I would say, probably not. Ten years from now, absolutely it's conceivable, if we just look back on the recent history of the political correctness argument that's seeking to impose itself into law in the United States. Yes sir, Bill.
HEMMER: But do you -- do you believe that gays do need protection because their sexuality in any sense?
KING: I believe that everyone deserves protection and any crime against an individual is just that: A crime against an individual. And when we cross the line and punish people for perpetrating an act of violence or inciting an act of violence based upon what's in their head rather than the overt act itself, we've actually reached George Orwell's 1984 prediction, Bill.
It may make the racist ministers gag, but the rest of them? Not even if Michelle Bachmann were to say something stupid like "swine flu only happened when democratic presidents were in charge".
Wow. I didn't realize that. Seems the liberal media has once again let me down. I was led to believe that they were merely ALLOWING gay marriage.
So will the Iowa Supreme Court be choosing my gay partner, or will the state still leave that up to the individual? How long do I have to make my choice? Will sex be mandated? Who will clean the bathrooms?
This really complicates things...
"And directly against a specific law", too. As if passed laws trump a Constitution.
I like the "impose" line too. It takes a twisted mind to take a liberty as an imposition against people that have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Maybe it's simply the Ted Haggards of this country are having a difficult time confronting their inner demons (like a law is gonna make it easier for them to break!)
I think it's more the Ted Haggards of this country are having a difficult time dealing with reality. He feels much more comfortable living in a world of his own making - where nature, physics, and the law are created in his own image.
Anything that conflicts with that image suggests that he may not be correct in his assessment of "life", and that's unacceptable.
I saw a pretty good documentary on Haggard's life post-mea culpa (I think it was on Sundance). He came across to me as a sympathetic character mainly because his church won't allow him back into the pulpit so he's practically homeless and selling insurance door-to-door.
Yes, it's best to phrase someone's liberation in terms of hindering your own liberty to continue to discriminate. That's what burns them most of all, that gay people won't be the second class citizens the Right thinks gay people deserve to be.
Randy
The real problem with this Hate Crimes Bill is not that it gags ministers, which I don't know whether it does or not. However, the bigger problem is that it is discriminatory: if someone commits a violent crime against a member of one group of people, they'll face a bigger penalty than if they commit a crime against a member of another group of people. That is against our most basic Constitutional principles.
No, you've misrepresented what the law would do. If a mugger robs a person simply for their money the penalty doesn't change regardless of who they rob. Similarly, if an assault takes place simply out of anger (a road rage incident, for example) it wouldn't matter who the victim is, but penalty would be the same. The difference comes in when the crime takes place BECAUSE of the cited characteristics of the victim.
It's fair to debate whether the WHY should matter, but it's either ignorant or dishonest to claim that it's the WHO that matters.
Exactly so. I am a pretty far lefty. I dont support hate crimes legislation specifically because it seems to me to criminalize thought. The ACTION should be punished and the reason the action was taken should not enhance the crime. I understand WHY they want to do this and am sympathetic to the rationale but I can not support it. Saying it boils down to who you commit the crime against however is simply dishonest.
So we should not put people in prison for life without parole if they kill a policeman?
Actually, I do not think who the crime is committed against should matter. I understand that this is probably a minority view in this country and understand that intelligent, thoughtful people stand on the other side of this argument. But, personally, I want a system that punishes the actions of the individual - and not change the severity of the actions based on whom the crime is committed against or whatever their reasons were.
Thank goodness - I am pretty far right and I completely agree with you. This legislation would in essence make it more punishable to commit a crime against one group of people than it would another group. It is discriminatory. I assume that a hate crime would be investigated more rigorously than a "regular" crime since murder, for instance, is investigated more rigorously than a purse-snatching. Therefore, certain groups would necessarily be moved ahead of others, which is about as unAmerican as it gets. This would in no way be helpful in healing any racial or other divides in this country. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, everyone. It's really quite beautiful in its simplicity. Furthermore, we are entering dangerous territory when we start trying to prove what people's motivations might have been. Thought crimes would be soon to follow.
By the way guys, I think that one big problem that I have with liberalism is that it tends to put everybody in groups rather than acknowledging that every individual has a wide variety of attributes, unique to only them. I think when we get too far into that mindset, we end up seriously considering legislation like this travesty, that can only serve to exacerbate some of the divides that we need to put behind us.
I think you should keep in mind that it is easy for people to say we are all the same when they are the well off. To pretend like those growing up as a minority in this country have the same access and paths in life to choose from as, say, the son of George H.W. Bush is naivete at its worst.
I agree with your post and explanation of the law. However, I do not agree with hate crime laws. If a crime against one's property or liberty is committed, than let's prosecute the crime. I see no reason to prosecute the thought.
I completely understand that we should be fighting against intolerance and bigotry through education. But, I just do not think the laws should be taking into consideration the person's thought (or supposed thoughts) when the crime is committed.
Which one? Can you cite it, please?
Some of the Republican testimony was truly over-the-top. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) started yelling that criminals would be "acquited" by the legislation if they committed "random" attacks. It was one of the most insane comments I have ever heard.
A few minutes later when he was arguing to amend the bill with special protections for veterans, he claimed to have been a Vietnam veteran who was spit on when returning from the war. Dear God I hope someone looks into that because I have a very strong suspicion that he was flat out lying.
he is a flat out liar!
looked his name up and he did serve in the Army. as a JAG in Ft Benning. from 1978-1982!
sources: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000552
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Gohmert
i sense..........a worst person in the world for trying to claim he was a vietnam veteran.
You'd really think that they could stay out of Fantasyland when speaking on the record from the floor of the House. Such an absurdly easy thing to fact check. What an incredibly stupid lie!
I'm thinking hard...going back in time...yes, it's coming back to me now...
I'm recalling how ardently Fox News defended Jeremiah Wright's freedom of speech in the pulpit a few short months ago... Not?
See... IF this were true, it would be a GREAT TIME for the opposition to trot out a well-reasoned "seperation of church and state for the protection of both" argument. Of course... it's NOT true. Plus these guys want the funny-mentalist evangelical "church" to take over. So it allor nothing. EIther they rule as holy kings, or they're under relentless attack. Rule of law and laws of physics be damned. (But peacful coexistence within a free and democratic society, where people are actually PROTECTED from religious persectution? NEVER!!!)
Christians (I am one) believe that homosexual behavior is sin. Not only is it an affront to a holy God, it is harmful to individuals and to society. In the case of homosexuality, AIDS has greatly diminished the life expectancy of 'gay' men, and has a direct cost to society in the loss of their creativity and talent because of their untimely deaths.
I believe that all sin deserves the wrath of God, and that were it not for the death of Jesus (God incarnate), I would likewise face God's wrath (Hell). But God is a gracious God, Who has provided for the forgiveness of our sins if we repent (change our minds about) our sins and trust in Jesus' death on the cross for sinners. God raised Jesus from the dead to 'certify' that our sins are forgiven. I call on everyone, homosexual or heterosexual (and all stripes in between) to repent and trust Christ as their Lord and savior - to be saved from this 'crooked and perverse generation' as Paul describes it.
There is nothing 'hateful' in that speech. But there is no denying that a part of the imeptus for the 'hate crimes' legislation is to silence that kind of speech.
SOME Christians believe that. You are free to believe what you want. You do NOT however speak for all Christians.
There is nothing 'hateful' in that speech. But there is no denying that a part of the imeptus for the 'hate crimes' legislation is to silence that kind of speech.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Of COURSE it can be denied. In fact the claim is ludicrous. This is an enhancement to crimes of VIOLENCE it helps law enforcement agencies to investigate to see if it is a hatecrime but it DOES NOT CRIMINALIZE ANY SPEECH AT ALL, much less from the pulpit. Do you EVER understand the threads you post on?
I don't claim to speak for all Christians, or even for those whom I would agree are Christians. I speak as a Christian. The Bible (the source book for Christian faith and practice) unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior whenever it is addressed.
The 'hate speech laws in Canada have been used against people speaking from a religious viewpoint. One individual was found guilty (later reversed by a higher court) of hate speech for an newspaper ad that quoted Bible verses that speak to homosexuality. As I understand the ad, the Bible verses were the focus of the ad.
Such actions, even if reversed later, tend to chill the conversation. Just out of curiosity, Solon, why do you think such legislation would be helpful to anyone?
Another question, Solon, if I may. According to your Christian beliefs, why did Jesus die on the cross?
yes and the bible also says that slavery is ok and stoning people for offenses is ok.....even though thats murder
Sorry J, but but was Bible believing Christians who ended slavery as an institution in western civilization. It was Bible believing Christians who reformed the penal system in England (and thus in the US). It was Bible believing Christians that instituted orphanages and hospitals and created the university system. Public education was started by Bible believing Christians because of the Wesleyan revival in England.
The slavery that the Bible (OT) limits (not endorses) was probably closer to what we would call 'Indentured servants.'
a fair point. but.....couple things. this is why you should never EVER, debate a historian who can easily prove you wrong. (you want sources ask for them and ill give them)
1. slavery was ended in our country by abraham lincoln, who freeley admitted that he did not belong to any religion only believed in God and one or two principles for at least two different religions and also openly denounced the doctrine of all religions. really religious eh?
2. look up something called the auburn prision system. where flogging was common. this is the system in use at the time of the early 19th century. now i know you state the prision system in britain.....but there wasn't much difference between the two. also solitary confinement. and strict silence......yeah what more can be said about that than the fact that some men went insane for having no human contact. your precious bible beliving people thought that this would get them to change. oh and yeah they were treated the same no matter what their crime was. even if they stole a stick of gum. subjecting a person to beatings and flagellation is the right way to go. right on.
3. orphanges were started because rich people got sick of seeing beggars come to them on the street and wanted them out of the way. by the way.....i find it interesting that many of these orphan children very often ended up in factories and coal mines......hmmmm, where they would never be allowed to work today thanks to child labor laws. im sure you find that sort of protection distasteful too.
4. hospitals i can agree with you on to a point. given one of the first hospitals in history was started by a group of catholic monks who later became a military order called the Poor Knights of St. John of the Hospital. aka the Knights Hospitaller.
5. universities were not started for the good of the general public. in fact the first universities such as Bolonga, Paris, Oxford. were started soley as a training academy for clergymen. and many of these guys were the children of wealthy nobles. real altruisim there.
6. i can't agree with you about public education. you had most schools privatly run and funded. you also had the "seperate but equal" schools for whites and schools for blacks. and where in the bible is THIS condoned? im hoping you find such blatent racisim distasteful.
7. and the finale, this idea of yours of indentured servitude. the idea of indentured service was that a person would live with a master, and this master would feed, clothe and shelter the apprentice, and would teach his craft at the same time. the servent would not receive any pay during this period and after the period of service was over, average time was seven years, the apprentice would become a journeyman and could work on his own. no where in the bible is this desribed for slavery. you are flat out lying. slavery was slavery, they were bound to their masters for life. could be beaten on the whim of the master. this idea of yours that you wouold call it indetured servitude is nonsense.
word of advice. choose your words more carefully before you attempt to debate me. being a historian and teacher. i will make you look stupid every time.
When Lincoln said he was not a member of a religion, he meant that he was not a member of a Christian sect, ie. Baptist, Episcopalian, etc. (Incidentally, that's what the framers of the constitution meant when they wrote ('Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;') But Sandberg posits that Lincoln became a Christian at Gettysburg as he walked among the graves, though I think he converted before that. Certainly he learned to read reading the Bible.
Who do you suppose were the first to agitate for child labor laws? Bible believing Christians from the Wesleyan revival. Sociology was started out of the Second Grteat Awakening.
You confirmed yourself that the university system was started by Christian influence. This is much more easily visible in the American Colonies. All of the Ivy League schools were started as Christian training institutions. Their purpose was evangeliostic and religious. It is historically indisputable that public education in the Americas was started by Christians. George Whitefield started a school for negroes in Pennsylvania, probably the first of its kind. Whitefield was not very popular among slaveholders because of his stands for the dignity of blacks, but was beloved by the black populace of the Americas. Surely you are familiar with Whitefield?
I think the first orphanage in Europe was started by a pietist by the name of Franke. George Mueller of Bristol, Scotland (a minister) is the most famous founder of an orphange in The British Isles. They were not rich, and their motives were evangelistic and humanitarian.
As far as indentured servitude, have you ever heard of the 'year of Jubliee?'
I think it's hilarious that you get to decide what Lincoln meant and when he meant it. But, the Bible you have to believe literally.
Yes there is denying it. Because it's not true.
How do you know what will be true of this law's use in the future? You don't. Many people, some not in any way religious fanatics, think that the law will be used for the suppression of religious speech, and that at the very least, it will 'chill' religious speech.
If collegiate PC codes are any indication, the law will be used to supress religious speech.
As noted in another blog, there are 30 states which currently have hate crimes provisions on the books. The number of these states which have brought charges against Fred Phelps is 0. Mr Phelps proudly proclaims his views which, although coming from a similar inspiration, are a ton more nasty and arguably violence-provoking. It doesn't help that he states these opinions at the funerals of homosexuals and other such inciteful (what the hell word am I looking for here?) locations.
The impetus of this bill has nothing to do with speech, it has to do with actual, personal violence. People who are being intentionally victimized because of their gender or sexual orientation.
An additional point to consider re: the silencing of opinions. This is not a new bill, but rather a change to an existing bill that covers hate crimes relating to race, nationality, and religion. How much hateful speech has been prosecuted under this bill? How many people are allowed to freely disseminate their racist or anti-semitic or otherwise disgusting speech?
Take comfort in the fact that you can not only hold your own opinions (which I don't agree with, but that's another matter), but you can share them with anybody you want, as long as you don't stab them right before or after you say it.
Have fun! (but don't stab anybody)
Phelps' actions are despicable, no doubt. In thinking about this overnight, it seems to me that 'hate speech' legislation is merely an expression of those no longer believing in free speech. Whatever happened to the "I disagree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it." committment in the US?
Are we so afraid of the Phelps's and the Wrights of our society that we must muzzle them? I don't like the rhetoric and hate that Wright spewed, but I don't see any advantage to making his speech a crime.
he without sin cast the first stone.
so where did you throw your rock at?
I don't throw rocks, my friend. I offer those who are trapped in a lifestyle that denies their basic idenity and makes them mere 'sex machines' redemption and a fresh start. I offer that redemption on the authority of Jesus, who came 'not to be served, but to give His life a ransom for many.'
i noticed you didn't respond to the first part, so that means you have not sinned? well if your coming out here preaching having not sinned and having the right to tell us how to be moral.....i find that just a lot hypocritical.
I don't throw rocks because I am a sinner.
"sex machines"? What do married Christian women have to do with this argument?
You do not speak for all Christians. Catholics do not believe that you are saved by faith alone. Faith must be joined with good works for a Catholic to be saved. You can believe whatever you want in this country, just do not pretend to speak for all Christians.
AIDS has also diminished the life expectancy of blacks in this country. So, you should be careful with your generalizations. I absolutely deny that the hate crime bill is attempting to silence anyone. Please show where in the bill it restricts free speech. It is attempting to change punishment for crimes, not make up new crimes. I would suggest you re-read the law. And you may want to re-read all of the writings of Paul as well.
Steven Pinker in his book "The Blank Slate" states that "gay men are likely to have a smaller third interstitial nucleus in the anterior hypothalamus, a nucleus known to have a rold in sex differences". So you do not have a sin if a person is wired the way they are. You need to keep your religion to yourself because the blaming a person for a sin is not your place in life I believe that is God's if you so believe. To harbor illthoughts of a person because of their sex life is paying way too much attention to something that is not your concern.
Steven Pinker in his book "The Blank Slate" states that "gay men are likely to have a smaller third interstitial nucleus in the anterior hypothalamus, a nucleus known to have a rold in sex differences". So you do not have a sin if a person is wired the way they are. You need to keep your religion to yourself because the blaming a person for a sin is not your place in life I believe that is God's if you so believe. To harbor illthoughts of a person because of their sex life is paying way too much attention to something that is not your concern.
Homosexual behavior is sin, not according to me, but according to the Bible, the book that informs my religious beliefs. I really don't care if homosexual men are "wired differently" than hetero men. It's not the 'wiring' that is sin - it is the behavior. Hetero men are 'wired' in such a way as to make them, by nature, capable of adultery. Adultery is sin, regardless of the 'wiring.' Homosexual acts are sin, regardless of the 'wiring.'
I don't need to "keep my religion to myself." I have a duty before God to speak out for good and against evil. And it's my constitutional right to do so. But that response is exactly my point. 'Hate speech' legislation is designed to try and silence people from criticizing homosexual behavior.
I also don't harbor any 'illthoughts' (sic) about people because of their sexual activities. To tell a person that their sinful behavior is indicative of their need for repentance and faith in God is kindness, not 'hate.'
Sexual sin is a matter of public concern. The cost of pre-marital, extramarital and homosexual sin and its consequences in our society is staggering. And that cost is spread among all of us, not just the people who are engaging in the illicit sex. So, it is a matter of public concern and policy.
you have a constitutional right to practice your own religion. not try and ram down our throats.
you have a right to speak your mind. but then we don't have to listen to you.
just because you speak does not makeyou right. and if you think it does.
well allow me to remind you again of a line from the bible.
he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
i highly doubt you yourself are without sin and should immediatly silence yourself.
The statement that you believe the Bible literally and it informs all of your beliefs says it all for me. I have read the Bible, most of it more than once. It is a wonderful book full of things that, today, would be considered quite criminal or insane.
So when Jesus affirms the Bible in the most reverential terms and says that it is authoritative down to its 'jots and tittles,' is He propagating insanity and criminality?
Just what would be criminal or insane about living your life according to the 10 Commandments? What would be criminal or insane about living your life according to the Sermon on the mount?
Obviously there's much more contained in the Bible besides the 10 commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.
Where did Jesus say this? Oh, in the Bible? I think you're missing the entire point of my post. Also, perhaps of the Bible.
"But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you."
Not really sure how taking a specific day off each week makes you closer to God but to each his own. My question would be how about the punishments for disobeying the commandments? Are you OK with executing those that do not keep "the Sabbath" holy as the Bible tells you so? There are many, many more. This is but one small example.
Let's also be clear that the Bible itself is not exactly certain who wrote the Ten Commandments.
There's a pretty obvious difference between adultery and homosexuality. You have multiple alternatives to adultery. You can go unmarried, you can be faithful to your spouse. There's no sacrifice there. If someone is "wired" to be attracted to the same sex, then what are the options? Either you're true to who you are, or you live a repressed lie of a life.
You're perfectly free to believe in a god that creates people who either have to sin or live without happiness if you like. I consider that to be psychotic, personally.
Sin is sin, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. There's an old saying, "Do good, and you'll feel good. Do wrong, and you'll feel wrong." I have a friend who is a health care professional, and he tells me that every homosexual he treats suffers from depression. There's a simple explanation for that - homosexual behavior is wrong. It is contrary to nature, and it is contrary to God's law. Because it is wrong, it causes depression.
A heterosexual who remains unmarried should remain celibate. That is not a 'repressed lie of a life.' One of the lies of our age is that we are defined by our sexuality. We are sexual creatures, to be sure, but we are much more than just rutting animals. Sexual behavior outside of marriage (defined Biblically) leads to misery. Over the centuries, untold millions of people have lived joyous, fulfilled lives within the structure of God's law. God doesn't create people to have either sin or live without happiness. Just the opposite is true, those who would live outside God's rule and care are the unhappy ones.
It's just as likely that having people shout "sinner!" at you would make you a little depressed. Incidentally, if homosexuality is contrary to nature, why are there gay penguins?
So are you arguing for gay marriage, then? You say you don't care if people are "wired" to be gay, while nobody should have sex outside of marriage. If God didn't create them with the idea of them being repressed, then what's the plan? What do you recommend until gay people are allowed to be married everywhere?
Marriage is God's invention, not man's. Marriage as defined in the Bible is the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual behavior is man's perversion of the God given gift of sexuality (so are adultery and fornication and beastiality, etc.). Not engaging in sinful behavior is not repression, it is liberation. Celibacy is God's will for all unmarried people.
It is classic 'Denial' to blame depression on others. That's what drunks and addicts do. Many a Christian meets with far greater rejection than gays in America (many die for their faith every year, especially in Islamic countries). But most of them are not depressed, they count it joy to die for Christ.
It matters not if there are differences in the brains of hetero and homo. the behavior is sin. (Besides, the science is suspect: Is the difference statistically significant? Which came first, the behavior or the difference? And most importantly, how big was the sample?)
As to 'gay' penguins, maybe it would be good for you to think about that one for awhile. Penguins are animals. They don't think. The movie might lead you to ascribe sexual motives to their actions, but they are instinctual and their behavior is about survival. Or do gay guys sit on eggs?
The assumption you are arguing for is that if homosexuality can be shown to occur in animals, it is 'natural.' But infanticide is much more common in animals than same-sex mating. Does that mean it is natural or desirable among humans? Humans are not mere animals. We are not some ape rutting in the jungle. We are moral, intellectual, spiritual beings who bear the image of God. Homosexual behavior rejects that, and that is an eternal and human tragedy.
"Marriage is God's invention, not man's."
Really? So there wasn't any form of marriage in countries that didn't believe in a Christian God? It's a legal institution.
"Marriage as defined in the Bible is the union of one man and one woman."
Who cares? The Bible is not any basis for public policy. You can believe it if you like, but there's no objective basis by which to subject the general population to it. The Bible also says that man will rule over woman, does that mean that a woman has no rights if her husband doesn't give them to her? Is that how our system works?
"Homosexual behavior is man's perversion of the God given gift of sexuality (so are adultery and fornication and beastiality, etc.). Not engaging in sinful behavior is not repression, it is liberation. Celibacy is God's will for all unmarried people."
But if people are "wired" to be gay, then that is the gift of sexuality that they were given. You're not making any sense. You say it doesn't matter if people are naturally gay or not, but in this case you're saying that gay people are given a gift that is sinful to use, ever. Obviously whether it's natural or chosen behavior makes a hell of a big difference there.
"It is classic 'Denial' to blame depression on others. That's what drunks and addicts do."
Were the slaves invested in "denial"? I'm willing to bet most of them weren't all that chipper much of the time.
"Many a Christian meets with far greater rejection than gays in America (many die for their faith every year, especially in Islamic countries). But most of them are not depressed, they count it joy to die for Christ."
Their joy in dying for Christ doesn't mean that gay people should be persecuted.
"It matters not if there are differences in the brains of hetero and homo. the behavior is sin. (Besides, the science is suspect: Is the difference statistically significant? Which came first, the behavior or the difference? And most importantly, how big was the sample?)"
The behavior has been around since Biblical times, obviously. Funny how people can get killed for having sex with men instead of women and yet they kept doing it. Why didn't they just become straight?
"As to 'gay' penguins, maybe it would be good for you to think about that one for awhile. Penguins are animals. They don't think. The movie might lead you to ascribe sexual motives to their actions, but they are instinctual and their behavior is about survival. Or do gay guys sit on eggs?"
The fact that they are animals and don't think is exactly the point. If they don't think, they don't make conscious choices. They act in how they feel is a natural way. And it's more than sitting on eggs. It's about actual sexual activity.
"The assumption you are arguing for is that if homosexuality can be shown to occur in animals, it is 'natural.' But infanticide is much more common in animals than same-sex mating. Does that mean it is natural or desirable among humans?"
We don't need to commit infanticide. We don't have a litter of offspring at once, Nadya Suleman notwithstanding. Our sense of morals dictates that once a baby is born it is protected. That isn't a religious matter, it's conceived in a secular sense anyway. So obviously killing someone's child is much different from people engaging in consentual sex, since there's no violation of anyone's rights involved with the latter.
"Humans are not mere animals. We are not some ape rutting in the jungle. We are moral, intellectual, spiritual beings who bear the image of God. Homosexual behavior rejects that, and that is an eternal and human tragedy."
We have higher brain function. That doesn't mean that our sexual impulses are different from the impulses of other animals. We have an instinctual need to mate just like anything else, and this idea that we're somehow above that is pure fantasy.
Do you think God is not involved in other cutures than the west? Think about it! If there is a God, He is the 'Father' from whom every family on earth derives its name. That is why heterosexual marriage is a near universal in human society.
We don't need to commit infanticide. We don't need recreational sex, either. We have an instinctual need to mate... you are wrong - we have an instinctual drive perhaps, but we can survive as individuals without mating. Sexual behavior starts in the mind. Besides, procreation is not recreational sex - but that is what homosexual behavior is. Humans do make conscious choices. We are moral beings.
Your ideas about humanity and existence are pitifully reductionistic and simplistic. We are not primarily sexual, we are primarily spiritual. Homosexual behavior has been potential since the inception of sin in the human race.
So what exactly is your point with God inventing marriage, again? People who don't believe in your god were married before Jesus was even born. Is the wheel the invention of God as well? Heterosexual marriage is near universal because the vast majority of people are heterosexual, and it's difficult for small minorities to gain rights.
"Need" doesn't mean you'll die without doing it. Where did I suggest that humans don't make conscious choices? The point is that it's natural behavior. Whether we have the capacity to reason or not, we are still born a certain way.
"Homosexual behavior has been potential since the inception of sin in the human race"
That line doesn't even make sense.
Anyway, your view is that it doesn't matter if people are born gay or not. God made them that way so they could live in celibacy, while others are able to have sexual relationships. Breaking that celibacy means sin. And if they don't like it, then it's their fault for not subscribing to your views. They should just buck up and be good soldiers for the Lord. They should revel in their lifelong lack of sexual pleasure, because they're doing it for holy purposes.
If you had any concept of how anyone thought outside of your personal religious views, you might begin to figure out just how crazy that is.
Marriage is certainly not defined as one man and one woman in the Bible. Once again, if you are going to live by the Bible, please read it.
In Genesis two, God instituted marriage. He created the woman Eve, and brought her to Adam (the first marriage). An explanation to the event states: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." In Matthew 19, when Jesus was asked to comment on one of the 'questions of the day' (Can a man divorce his wife for any reason at all?) Jesus 'said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.' That is a reference back to Gen. 3. The definitive pattern of marriage (established in the OT Law, and confirmed by Jesus Christ) in the Bible is: one man and one woman.
Actually in most of the Bible, adultery only applies to women. Men are allowed to have multiple wives or sex with women who are not their wives.
That's a good point. I was giving the Bible too much credit.
Since 1968, there has been a federal Hate Crimes law that penalizes crimes against people based on their religion or race. This was in response to church bombings and lynchings that were still common in the 1960s. But the same people complaining that the bill would muzzle preachers (it clearly does not, and explicitly states that fact in the language) have themselves been protected by hate crimes laws for 40 years!