\n\tThe mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on the morning of June 12, 2016—the largest such massacre in U.S. history and the worst terror
\n\tattack on U.S. soil since September 11—has unleashed a host of controversies relative to terrorism, immigration, hatred (whether taught or spoken)—and, by
\n\timplication, religious liberty. What follows will confine its focus to the latter two issues.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tIt is likely fair to say that had the slaughter in Orlando occurred in any number of other settings—a shopping mall, a popular beach, a house of worship, a
\n\tschool, a workplace, or a different sort of nightclub—discussions of the tragedy and what should be done about it would nearly all gravitate toward issues
\n\tof national security, the jihadist threat, Muslim immigrants, and gun control. But because the terror in Orlando was directed against a group, which, like
\n\tMuslims, holds respective victim and pariah status on opposite sides of America\u2019s great divide, the resulting national conversation has risen—and
\n\tinflamed—other questions than simply those noted above.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tSome in the wake of Orlando have opened a new attack on religious fundamentalism—be it Christian, Muslim, or Jewish—because of the stand religion takes \n\tOn the other end of the spectrum, certain ones have criticized many in the gay community for thinking \u201cthat Muslims, like gays, are an official victim \n\tOther voices, less shrill perhaps, ascribe general blame for the horror, reminding us \u201cthis is the type of killing that could happen anywhere in America. \n\tBut the broad-brush attack on \u201chatred\u201d inspired by the Orlando shootings—especially as it relates to religious expression—is the primary focus of the \n\tIn 1991 an article titled \u201cThought Crimes\u201d appeared in The New Republic<\/em>, written by one Jonathan Rauch.12<\/sup> Describing himself at one point <\/sup><\/p>\n \n\tBut it was Rauch\u2019s criticism of hate crimes laws in the above-mentioned New Republic<\/em> article that vaulted him to national attention as an author on \n\tThough acknowledging the rationale behind hate crimes laws, stating at one point that \u201cthrowing a swastika-emblazoned rock through a synagogue window is \n\t\u201cShould prejudice, which often leads to injustice, be punished? Should hate, which often leads to violence, be a crime? More and more well-meaning \n\tHe goes on to explain why, with a simple eloquence often missing in contemporary discussions:\n\t<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cHate-crimes activists argue that bias-motivated crime deserves special handling because it is especially harmful to society. But they have a hard time \n\tLauding the efforts of certain groups to eliminate prejudice, Rauch nevertheless cautions:\n\t<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cBut different groups will have different ideas of what constitutes \u2018prejudice.\u2019 (Is secular humanism \u2018prejudice\u2019 against Christians? Is Afrocentrism \n\tHe then writes: \u201cPersonally, being both Jewish and gay, I do not expect everybody to like me. I expect some people to hate me. I fully intend to hate those \n\tAnd finally: \u201cAs on campus, so in the courtroom: the best protection for minorities is not prejudice police but public criticism—genuine intellectual \n\tBeing a devout religionist myself, I\u2019m sure Mr. Rauch and I hold varying opinions on many subjects. But the points he makes regarding efforts to \n\tFirst, like the attempt to eliminate prejudice, efforts to marginalize or even outlaw \u201chate speech\u201d are an attempt at the impossible. All who hold strong \n\tWe think of those who reject the construct held by many conservative Christians regarding homosexual practice—the need to love the sinner while hating the \n\tBut this too, whether we like it or not, is part of free dialogue in a free society. As Rauch has rightly noted, violence and vandalism are not allowed, \n\tI submit this applies as much to what some will call \u201chate speech\u201d as to any other kind.\n\t<\/p>\n \n\t Civil Concord, Vigorous Disagreement<\/strong>\n\t<\/p>\n \n\tThe Orlando tragedy sends the strongest signal yet to America\u2019s warring factions that neither physical nor civil force is the rightful means for settling \n\tIn sum, civil concord and vigorous disagreement need not be mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are essential bedfellows in a political culture that holds The mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on the morning of June 12, 2016—the largest such massacre in U.S. history and the worst terror attack on U.S. soil since September 11—has unleashed a host of controversies relative to terrorism, immigration, hatred (whether taught or spoken)—and, by implication, religious liberty. What follows will<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[315],"tags":[147],"class_list":["post-6385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-november-december-2016","tag-november-december-2016"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6385","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\tHate Under Fire<\/strong>\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tregarding the immorality of homosexual practice.1<\/sup> One article has noted that according to the FBI, more than 20 percent of the 5,479 hate crimes
\n\treported in the U.S. in 2015 were committed against LGBT persons.2<\/sup> The article reminds us that \u201cthose crimes happened in a country where most of
\n\tthe homophobia is justified by citing Christianity, not Islam. But wave the Bible or wave the Koran, the common theme here is using religion as cover for
\n\tvile bigotry.\u201d3<\/sup> A California congressman, a bit less bombastic, insisted that \u201cit\u2019s not about one religion who did this to LGBT people in
\n\tOrland. It\u2019s about a hatred toward LGBT people, and that hatred can come from a variety of places.\u201d4<\/sup>\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tgroup, and thus their natural allies.\u201d5<\/sup> One such author reminds his readers of the many brutal punishments prescribed by Islamic law for
\n\thomosexuals—from stoning and throwing them off a high place to dropping a building on them6<\/sup>—and insists that Muslims moving to Western countries
\n\tmost likely retain these views.7<\/sup> The author cites a report from the Netherlands indicating the erosion of tolerance for gays in that country
\n\tbecause of the growth of Islam in such cities as Amsterdam,8<\/sup> and cites similar reports from Norway and Great Britain indicating widespread
\n\tsupport among Muslims in those lands for the harsh penalties prescribed by their faith tradition for homosexual conduct.9<\/sup> (We note with
\n\tinterest, however, a 2015 Pew study showing 45 percent of American Muslims believing that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared to 36
\n\tpercent of Mormons and evangelical Christians.)
\n\t
\n\t\t10<\/sup><\/p>\n
\n\tThe shooter could be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Catholic, Hindu, or atheist, motivated by intolerance, religious zealotry, mental disorder, or simply blind
\n\trage.\u201d11<\/sup> I think of certain ones in my own religious community who, following the David Koresh\/Branch Davidian episode in Waco, Texas, in 1993,
\n\tattacked what they considered \u201cfundamentalist\u201d approaches to the Bible in general and its apocalyptic passages in particular as presumably bearing
\n\tresponsibility for the tragedy that took place. Such persons seemed not to remember that the principal drawing cards for Jim Jones\u2019s Peoples Temple—with
\n\twhich comparisons to the Waco incident were often made—were such causes as civil rights, world peace, and social justice in general. Do such ideologies
\n\tmerit condemnation merely because a madman hijacks them for his own purposes?\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tpresent essay, and to this we now turn.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tCriminalizing Opinions<\/strong>\n\t<\/p>\n
\nas an \u201cunrepentantly atheistic Jewish homosexual,\u201d13<\/sup> Rauch currently works as a contributing editor for National Journal<\/em> andThe Atlantic<\/em>, and is vice president of the Independent Gay Forum.14<\/sup> He is the author of a number of books,15<\/sup> including\tGay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America<\/em>.16<\/sup> Conservative author Peter Wehner has called Rauch \u201cthe
\n\tmost formidable and persuasive voice for same-sex marriage.\u201d
\n\t
\n\t\t17<\/sup><\/p>\n
\n\tgay-related issues.18<\/sup> Though written some years ago, the article is most insightful and merits thoughtful attention in today\u2019s polarized,
\n\tincendiary climate. Significant portions will be cited below.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tnot the same as throwing any old rock through any old window,\u201d19<\/sup> Rauch poses two questions which address the basis of these laws—and then gives
\n\this answer:\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tAmericans are now saying yes to both questions. It\u2019s the wrong answer.\u201d20<\/sup>\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\texplaining why this is so. Why is it more terrorizing or socially destabilizing to stab someone because he\u2019s Jewish, for instance, than to stab someone for
\n\this sneakers? The former signals that Jews are in danger; the latter signals that everyone is in danger. . . . Necessarily, if you say that assault
\n\tmotivated by bias is especially objectionable, you also say that assault not motivated by bias is less objectionable. Tying the fight against violence to
\n\tother political agendas clutters and compromises what needs to be a clarion message: violence is intolerable, period.\u201d21<\/sup>\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tprejudice against whites?) That is why eliminating prejudice is exactly what \u2018the country\u2019—meaning its governmental authorities—must not<\/em> resolve to
\n\tdo. Not only is wiping out hate and bias impossible in principle, in practice \u2018eliminating prejudice\u2019—through force of law means eliminating all but one
\n\tprejudice—that of whoever is most politically powerful.\u201d22<\/sup>\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tpeople back. I will criticize and excoriate them. But I will not hurt them, and I insist that they not hurt me. I want unequivocal, no-buts protection from
\n\tviolence and vandalism. But that\u2019s enough. I do not want policemen and judges inspecting opinions.\u201d
\n\t
\n\t\t23<\/sup><\/p>\n
\n\tpluralism, in which bigots, too, have their say.\u201d
\n\t
\n\t\t24<\/sup><\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cHate Speech\u201d and Religious Expression<\/strong>\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tcriminalize hatred are spot-on and, in my view, unassailable.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tconvictions harbor hatred, regardless of the issue. Advocates of social injustice naturally despise what they consider to be injustice. Opponents of racial
\n\tsegregation, the Ku Klux Klan, and other expressions of ethnic hostility despise racism. Attacks on economic inequality and the exploitation of the poor
\n\tby the rich likewise involve hatred of certain ideologies and the practices they encourage. Hate speech, in other words, is ubiquitous in the interplay of
\n\tideas in a free country. And as Rauch says, to outlaw or forbid the airing of one form of hatred inevitably means embracing another—specifically that form
\n\tof hatred held by whoever at the moment is making the rules.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tsin. When pressed, few if any—Christian or non-Christian, devout or irreligious—will dispute the broad outlines of this construct. Who among us, after all,
\n\tdoesn\u2019t hate certain actions committed by persons we truly love—boyfriends, girlfriends, spouses, and children? Honest Christians, of course, are
\n\tconstrained to face the sad fact that too many who speak of loving the sinner while hating the sin tend to remember enthusiastically to do the one while
\n\tgiving notable neglect to the other. But for the purposes of the present discussion, the quarrel too many have with this construct is not with its basic
\n\ttruthfulness, but is rather rooted in their resistance to tolerating anyone who describes a cherished feeling or practice of theirs as wrong.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tperiod. But the unfettered exchange of ideas—religious and otherwise—is quite another matter. And as Hendrik Hertzberg wrote many years ago regarding a
\n\tdifferent but related subject: \u201cThe First Amendment contains no requirement that the speech it protects be harmless. On the contrary, speech that somebody
\n\tthinks is harmful is the only kind that needs protecting.\u201d
\n\t
\n\t\t25<\/sup><\/p>\n
\n\tdifferences of religion and consensual morality. Nor can either side rightfully nurture the notion of a right not to be offended. Offense is part of the
\n\tprice of true liberty. And this applies both to the injunctions of conservative religion against homosexual practice and to those wishing to engage in
\n\tthese and similar consensual practices without legal curtailment. Those who resent and despise the belief that homosexual practice is sinful are not
\n\trequired in a free country to sit and listen to such discourses. And religious communities and their institutions who cherish orthodox teachings on
\n\tsexuality cannot in a free country be forced to tailor their public statements, policies, and hiring practices toward accommodation of theoretical and
\n\tlifestyle choices contrary to their faith.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tliberty supreme. Neither violence nor vandalism need stem from strong convictions. The respective realms of persuasion and coercion, like church and state,
\n\tmust be kept strictly separate. If this proves in the end to be the ultimate lesson of Orlando, perhaps the blood spilled that awful night will not have
\n\tbeen shed in vain.\n\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"