Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly

10/31/2009 :: 11:17:49 AM
Rev. M.A. Hurst Says:

It is well past time for Christians to fully recognise that all people are created in God’s image and precious in His sight and to truly “love one another”. We should remember the wisdom of the German clergyman, Martin Niemoller: “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Jesus himself spoke out against the stoning of the woman taken in adultery. How can Christians of good conscience ignore the many lessons of non-discrimination in Scripture and implicitly if not explicitly condone hate crimes?

11/01/2009 :: 10:17:00 AM
Joshua Says:

This was a pretty irresponsible article because you fail to mention that hate crimes protections for religion have existed since the 1980s.

When a Christian minister preaches against “non-believers” and sometimes Muslims in particular, how many times has that turned into him/her being prosecuted??? I only hear crickets because, as far as I known, it has never happened.

To suggest, as the Right Wing pundits have and you continue to propagate, that ministers/priests/pastors in the pulpit are going to be under some new scrutiny is irresponsible.

It IS irrational to feel like there is “something at stake”. Even at “secular” colleges where speech is controlled, religious speech has the widest berth: it mainly tackles vulgarity, rudeness, and insighting (mob) language.

11/02/2009 :: 11:39:41 AM
Bob M Says:

The interesting thing is how often the interviewee used the word “special”. What is special about telling people they cannot use slurs to justify violence against a group?

It’s called fag-bashing, and it has been allowed too long in this “democracy”. The fact that it took 27 years to pass such an obvious law is shameful.

11/03/2009 :: 02:55:58 PM
darlene kaiser Says:

does this cover monority crime against white.

11/03/2009 :: 05:09:36 PM
Jsmith Says:

No surprise, since this is a liberal website, that so far everyone defended this. It’s noteworthy, but not mentioned, that administration members said this would NOT be used to defend Christians. If we’re going to have a hate crimes bill, let’s make it cover us all, not just the priviledged.

11/03/2009 :: 11:40:44 PM
T Vargo Says:

Rev. Hurst, You do well to point out how we forget the lessons of non-discrimination in scripture but, did you forget the multitude of scripture – God’s own voice to us – that says sodomy is a sin against His holiness. If God himself calls it sin then who dares to call it by any other name. That does not however change His love for the person trapped in the sin – He still loves them and so should we but, not what they do. He excepts us AS WE ARE but also says to us – by My power in you – GO AND SIN NO MORE.

11/04/2009 :: 02:48:48 AM
DGordon Says:

In the interview it says that there is nobody on either side of the House or Senate that intends to see preachers locked in prison. At this point, though, it’s not really up to them, is it? The law has been written and now it’s up to the liberal judges that insist of legislating from the bench to “interpret” the intent of this law.

11/04/2009 :: 11:21:21 PM
Ron Says:

It’s wrong to legislate what people can think. I am opposed to all hate crime laws. If you commit act against someone that violates their rights, then you should be prosecuted. It should make no difference what the reason for the act was. People should have the right to believe and say what they want. Your right to believe what you want should not be used against you if you commit a crime.

11/05/2009 :: 09:55:19 AM
Renita M Says:

Rev. M.A. Hurst why target Christians. They are not the only faith that preaches against man/man women/women relationships. The majority of the faiths teach that it should be man/women. Quit singling out one faith. What a dis-service!

11/05/2009 :: 10:14:49 PM
toshi nobe Says:

I read the Rev. M.A. Hurst’s texts to targeting the American culture. The history of Christ in our culture is bred into our fabric from the beginning of this country. We cannot remove this fact from our education; if one believes in other faiths which is his/her right to do so but when one ignores this fact and abstains from understanding the nature of Judeo-Christian and its impact on the culture without giving a thought, one will be struggling with his personage in this country, meaning that one will not become free. In order to value an American citizenship, the Judeo-Christian values must be studied and understood in relationship to the individual’s life’s journey. Other people with other faiths have the right to speak in the context of our laws and the culture. The culture carries the weight of the ethics and the morals (mannerism) which is mostly based on the Judeo-Christian social fabric. Other faiths that have immigrated into this country since the country was founded may have to assert one’s self to this fact as the most immigrants have learned to speak and adopt the English language for his full sense of becoming a citizen. The assimilation process is not easy, but in order to be most productive as a citizen, one’s effort is needed in understanding and acceptance of our American way of life. Most of us exercise the American essence of the cultural values that have been foundational which that has been inbred into our social fabric. So us Christians do care about how we as people affect the value system of fairness and justice under the law for all. The difference of the faith and culture must be carefully weighed before one can grasp the ideal of so called American freedom which many enjoy in this country. It takes an effort to uncage himself/herself from being an outsider. Or One can be miserable all to self and negatively affecting others. Peace and blessings.

11/06/2009 :: 01:49:37 AM
Bob King Says:

Let us remember something important here. If there is the slightest question whatsoever that a crime was NOT a hate crime, it won’t even be prosecuted as such. There are two legal hurdles here.

First, the actual crime must be proven. This statute is not about rude words and hurt feelings. It is about killings. It is about assaults. It’s about raping people with foreign objects because “they will probably like it.”

It is about specific sorts of hatred leading people to commit crimes of violence against particular people for reasons that are – far too often in human history – excused or mandated by various religions and cults of all sorts and stripes over far too many millennia.

And then, second, the question of motive has to be proven. This is a high bar, and it will not be met without the person who did it doing or saying something that makes it very damned obvious that was in his or her brain. So let’s remember that this legislation will only be used in cases similar to that of Matthew Sheppard. It’s primarily to forestall the use of the victim’s behavior as an excuse that will persuade either judge or jury that they deserve a lesser consequence than someone who committed such a crime for more common reasons.

But yes, in order to determine if a crime of that nature occurred, OR if someone is trying to defend against a charge of that nature, then their friends, their associates and their spiritual mentors are likely to be asked a few pointed questions about how they might have contributed to that mindset.

While this law does not even address the point as to whether third party speech might in any way have a legal consequence – it should be clear to you from many angles that speech does have consequences and there is a moral dimension to it.

If your faith tells you that you should be defending speech that says that sort of act is excusable in any sense at all, than I really don’t have a problem with you feeling uncomfortable. You should feel uncomfortable. The uncomfortable feeling you are trying to put off is a “come to Jesus moment,” and maybe, just maybe, your church door ain’t gonna keep Him out all that much longer.

Scripture does not provide any absolute inarguable condemnation of homosexuality. It’s a matter of interpretation over which people of faith are genuinely divided.

But what is NOT open to interpretation is that bearing false witness is prohibited to people of the book. That is because when you say evil about people as if it were the truth, otherwise good people may think it a good thing to take your evil words to excuse, or even mandate evil deeds.

And that is why “hate crimes” need to be mandated.

When institutions of faith start excusing immoral behavior in order to further particular social agendas, ethical people must write civilized moral standards into law. Civilized, ethical and yes, Godly standards.

Because it’s needful. Once again.

Call it the Second Reformation. Or you might consider the double-meaning of “Enlightenment” within the context of Zen teaching.