And all this comes from the recent hate crimes legislation passed by Congress. It has spawned a new wave of irrationality from the religious right, fearing it's an assault on freedom of religion.
My views on this were well summed up by Nance Greggs on Democratic Underground:
A rightwing acquaintance recently sent an email with a link to the following, “Christians on high alert over hate crimes passage”, adding the query “Is this one more nail in the coffin of Christianity?”
Well, the answer is yes and no, depending on what kind of “Christian” one is these days.
The first line of the linked article – “A hate crimes bill sent to President Obama for his signature raised a red flag for Christians” – sadly, and oh-so-ironically, speaks for itself.
For those of us raised as Christians back in the day, it would seem that enacting laws that prosecute and punish the propagation of hate towards one’s fellow citizens, hopefully reducing same in consideration of the consequences thereof, would be right in keeping with Christian values and the promotion of increased civility and understanding among us.
But that was, as I’ve said, back in the day – before the new, improved, narrow-minded, homo-hating, sword-wielding, the-end-justifies-the-means Jesus hit the shelves, currently being marketed at a pulpit in your area (action accessories, e.g. “Jesus hates Faggots” placards, home addresses of abortion providers, etc., sold separately).
“On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes bill that Christian leaders have warned for years could greatly infringe on the rights of those who speak to loudly about their religious views. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel agrees with most observers that President Obama will sign the measure -- adding that the president desires to "throw a bone to homosexual activists because they have been breathing down his neck...and this is a way to hold them off."
Ah, yes – the “homosexual activists”, those nasty immoral people who Jesus railed against continually. One need only look to the New Testament to read quote after quote by the Prince of Peace himself to know that – oh, that’s right. He was completely silent on the topic. I guess he had more important things on his mind. There’s also the fact that Jesus’ dad left any mention of “thou shalt not” out of the Ten Big Ones when it came to homosexuality – and bein’ God and all, one would imagine he could have gone with Eleven Commandments if he’d been of a mind to. (Hey, it’s not like He couldn’t foresee a problem, if He thought one existed).
As for the statement that Mr. Barber “agrees with most observers” – who are said “observers”, and what are their names? Inquiring minds really DO want to know these days.
“Barber views the legislation as something akin to a muzzle. ‘Unfortunately, it places Christians – people of faith, people who have traditional values relative to sexual immorality – in an untenable position,’ says the attorney.
Yes, the position IS untenable – if you’re taking the position that spewing hate is part and parcel of Christianity, and shouldn’t be “muzzled”. That would appear to be, on its face, as untenable as it gets.
If modern-day followers of the New Improved Jesus see anti-hate-crime legislation as being somehow anti-Christian, one has to ask exactly what it is they are seeking to “protect” as their God-given right (pun definitely intended) to say, do and promote as part of “free speech” or “freedom of religion”.
It would seem that speaking to “traditional Christian values” would include the oldies-but-goodies – like being thy brother’s keeper, tending to the sick and homeless in His name, treating the least among us as we ourselves would hope to be treated – and wouldn’t be subject to, by any stretch of the imagination, being “muzzled” by government fiat.
But this, of course, is the underlying problem. The current crop of hypocrites behind the New Improved Jesus movement know that what they seek to be exempt from prosecution for is becoming more and more blatantly a matter of hatred disguised as moral rectitude; what is being sought to be “protected” is not the right to speak freely, but the right to hide behind religion while spewing intolerance against those who refuse to conform to the New Fangled Christianity being espoused by those who want to hold on to their prejudices and still be recognized as part of the flock.
“Barber explains that Liberty Counsel intends to challenge the constitutionality of the hate crimes legislation.”
Well, you do that, Mr. Barber. I wouldn’t want to think you and your ilk are wasting time challenging the constitutionality of torture, or the involvement the past administration in war crimes, or the moral reprehensibility of withholding medical care from those who can’t afford it – things that the Old Time Jesus would, no doubt, have had something to say about were he still here.
Apparently Mr. Barber thinks that the lefties, the progressives, the Democrats, are too wacky to know the difference between the freedom to publicly acknowledge one’s religious beliefs and hate speech – which is pretty rich considering the out-and-out wackiness of the “religious right” we, as a nation, have had to endure for far too long.
I have no doubt that if the speech and/or actions Mr. Barber fears will fall squarely under the grounds of a hate crime under the new legislation included loving one's neighbor as one's self, he'd have a legitimate argument. But it doesn't, and he doesn't, and there you have it, plain and simple.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for spewing hatred and intolerance in the Lord’s name – for they shall inherit the Earth.”
I don’t actually recall that as being one of the Beatitudes – but it’s a whole new world under the New Improved Jesus.
I just wish the Old Jesus was still in vogue. He was someone worth meeting, getting to know - too bad Mr. Barber never had the pleasure.
Posts
