Take a Bite out of Hate

I note this week a friend is running for office in a county that's just passed strong anti-immigrant legislation. Originally from El Salvador, she's been in the US for decades. She's risen from custodial work to professional advocacy. A few years ago I witnessed an inspirational rally she organized on Capitol Hill to raise awareness and funds to fight breast cancer. Why did she decide to run? When this accomplished American citizen, by choice rather than birth, drove around the town where she's lived for years, without incident, with her daughter by her side, other drivers, frenzied imbeciles stirred up either by the anti-immigrant legislation debate, the sight of her Latina appearance, her quaint Kerry for President bumper stickers, or the combination of all three, shouted curses and insults.

I note another story this week in the New York Post where a swastika was painted on the door of a Jewish professor at Columbia University which may have been a result of his opposition to the visit on campus by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In contrast, I read a letter from a lawyer who works at the Rutherford Institute, as well as an article by its founder, John Whitehead, who both argue against the passage of hate crimes legislation by citing the rights of religious people "to take positions and to express them in politics or anywhere else."

The Institute argues, for example, in the case of Matthew Shepherd, that since the murderers are in jail as a result of laws against killing already on the books, there's no need for hate crimes legislation. As I've surfed cable channels recently, I've watched several televangelists exhort their number one priority at this time is halting the passage of hate crimes legislation.

I'll grant murder is a heinous crime despite the reason and there are severe penalties already on the books for this extreme form of violence. Let's return, however, to the crime of the swastika on the door. In that case, do you think it sufficient to charge the perpetrator with vandalism alone? Would that not miss the point of the crime and deleterious example of its prosecution and punishment?

Back in the county where my friend is running for election, there's been a concurrent hate crime that may or may not be related in these ferentic days of politician-driven anger. A noose was tied to a tree in the yard of an African-American family. If the perpetrator is caught and tried, what charge other than a hate crime, could there be? Indeed, perhaps the local police may also have pondered whether there's a penalty for the crime since they've chosen to dismiss the deed as a teenage prank.

Examining the Rutherford article further, I came across, "Despite some differences in theology, the Framers generally agreed that just laws were God-given, absolute and revealed to human beings through Scripture (such as the Ten Commandments), nature and conscience." Further on, he writes, in comparison, "Secularists generally claim human happiness as the sole measure by which to make moral, and thus religious, judgments."

Let's deal with the sly secularist slur first. A quick look-up in the first two dictionaries I reached provided these definitions for secularism: (1) one who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans; (2) affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical, lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.

Happiness in itself isn't mentioned, let alone, in the not so subtle selfish way Whitehead portrays. It's as if he doesn't recognize humanitarian ethics at all outside of a religious context; therefore if hate crimes legislation, a secular and ethical matter, contrasts with what he discerns as a superior religious mandate, it follows in his logic and advocacy that some violations of civil and human rights are acceptable, protected and incorporated within the freedoms guaranteed to the majority unless otherwise defined in another way as a strictly criminal violation. Hate crimes, defined by self-appointed Constitutional protectionists like Whitehead are not only victimless crimes, despite the emotional toil taken by the Jewish professor and African-American family, they're perpetratorless crimes too, since no offense has been committed; only the non-physical First Amendment came truly under assault.

Concerning the Framers, most historians describe them as Deists rather than religious absolutists. In general, according to Wikipedia, "Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience, in contrast to theism which relies on revelation in sacred scriptures or the testimony of other people. Deists typically tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe."

I've wondered from time to time, if I might be one. Deists are defined negatively and positively. The four constructive elements are: (1) God exists and created the Universe; (2) God wants human beings to behave morally; (3) Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife; (4) In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior. So far, so good, I could be a Deist, just like Jefferson, Franklin and Washington.

The four negative elements are: (1) Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God; (2) Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries;" (3) Rejection of the Genesis account of creation and the doctrine of original sin, along with all similar beliefs; (4) Rejection of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religious beliefs. Uh Oh. As far as negative elements 1, 2, 3 and 4: No, no, no and no. I reckon I'm not a Deist, after all.

So, what am I? Hard to describe, really. If I had a dollar for everyone that's called me "unique," in the past month, I'd be a wealthy man. When that friend who's running for office told me she intended to hold a solidarity press conference with other minority candidates, I asked, "what about minority group's x, y and z?" She said, "who are you, Noah?" Might that mean I'm an-Ark-ist?

I'm more concerned about civil and human rights for minorities than the unrestricted rights of a majority unconcerned about the consequences of their speech and actions. I love to intellectually engage Scripture and commentaries of every translation and discernment, imagine who might have wrote it, and why; what it meant in its original context, and what ancient and modern interpretators claim it means today. I don't envision a small God carrying a clipboard of rules, like a referee; I locate a divine God of immanence in my heart, the grandeur of nature, and, especially, within the scope of the reason and intelligence with which I've been blessed that allows me to contemplate truth, beauty and a just world. I pray; most prayers have been answered by a God Who listens and responds. I'm at my very best in church, amongst people, who through their example, elevate my behavior so that I understand consequences for good and bad behavior, and make more good conduct choices than bad as a result. I know it's the vilest of sins to create a hell on earth for anyone, like my friend the candidate, the Jewish professor, and that African-American family, despite any other intentions, and that the attainment and enshrinement of dignity, human rights and justice, for all, here and now, is the way of faith, redemption and salvation for humanity. Rather than religious absolutism, I believe this is what the Framers had in mind for the position of an exclusive religion within a pluralistic republic: after all, they were Episcopalians.

Why is it so 'unique,' to believe these things? As written in the materials I've read in preparation to teach the upcoming Sunday school class on the Prophets, it's much easier to describe evil, as they did, then to prophecize what God's Kingdom on earth might resemble. Indeed, that's the most elusive concept of all. I'm all for hate crimes legislation. It's a matter of responsibility over rights; a choice necessary in order to supersede the unchecked rights of a majority inaccurately portrayed as the threatened entity rather than the actual victim.