Is there a right to preach hate?
The question of the right to practice and to speak out about one’s religious and/or ethical beliefs seems like a very simple one to address. Yet, if speaking out instigates hate and endorses violence or has the appearance of endorsing violence then a society or community begins to question the line between individual rights and the rights of the community as a whole. In the United States, we have many laws which limit our individual freedom when said freedom infringes on the rights of some in the community to live without fear of violence.
Historically, in the United States, violence based on race, sexual orientation, gender and even nationality has been not only tolerated but codified into law or accepted practice. The supreme ruling of 2003 in the case of Lawrence Versus Texas struck down anti-sodomy laws and, yet as recently as 2013 individuals in the United States were jailed for so-called crimes against nature. There is a long history of lynching’s and using Jim Crow laws in the States to oppress people of color.
Many people commonly accepted a test which came to be known as the thumb rule test which allowed husbands to beat their wives and children with a stick no bigger than one’s thumb. The myth is that this was a law but I can find no evidence that it was. On the other hand, as late as the 1980s, when I would attempt to find spiritual counseling for a woman being physically abused, I and the wife were often told that if she was a better wife the beatings would stop. There were many laws which restricted the right of women to own land, vote, get degrees, or otherwise function independent of a husband. It was also easy for a husband to incarcerate a woman in a mental institution if she wanted a divorce. The history of medical treatment of women is rife with such terms as hysteria.
Often religions “doctrine” and references to “the word of God, Allah, or a deity called by some other name have been used to justify the mistreatment and even death of those who some people or organizations decide displeases the god of one’s understanding.
The mistreatment of those who have an often uncontrollable urge to have sex with a minor child is codified and leads to not only prison time but inclusion on the sexual offenders list and subsequent mistreatment by communities, neighbors and others.
I have sat in many courtrooms where the judge has lectured a person on their reprehensible behavior and told them that they are undeserving of any mercy or compassion.
In short, there can be no doubt that the public condemnation or hateful speech against an individual or a group of individuals can and is used to incite violence against such individuals or groups.
Yet, we are loathed, for good reason, to make more laws which restrict the freedom of speech. The rights of the individual except when it infringes on the rights of others has a long history in the United states. Sadly, this right has often been applied to the chosen ones and used by that chosen ones to shame and attempt to emotionally destroy others. Words which begin with the letters C, N, F and others can be as sharp and as lethal as a finely-honed blade.
I was thinking of this history when reading a new article about the treatment of the gospel singer Kim Burrell. She may have lost a job and been disinvited by some talk show hosts because of her preaching against the perversion of homosexuality. The January 5, 2017 Huffington Post reported:
“Burrell, who appeared on tracks with Pharrell, Frank Ocean and others, made waves on New Year’s Eve when video surfaced of the singer delivering a sermon that spewed homophobic rhetoric and called gays and lesbians “perverted.”
“That perverted homosexual spirit, and the spirit of delusion and confusion, it has deceived many men and women. You as a man, you open your mouth and take a man’s penis in your face ― you are perverted,” Burrell can be heard in the above video saying. “You are a woman and will shake your face in another woman’s breast, you are perverted.”
Foxnews.com reported:
“Gospel singer Kim Burrell was given the boot from her radio show "Bridging the Gap" days after giving a sermon about her anti-homosexuality stance at her Houston, Texas church.
Texas Southern University's KTSU-FM did not give any reason for axing the program, but many have said the timing of the firing with Burrell's controversial sermon must be more than a coincidence.
"While Burrell's comments about the nature of homosexuality distorted Christian teaching and unfairly maligned LGBT persons, her view that homosexual activity is a sin is well within parts of the Christian tradition," Executive Director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good Christopher Hale told FOX411. "In general, people's private religious beliefs and practices shouldn't affect their ability for employment in the public sphere."
One can argue that such pubic preaching often fuels hate which leads to violence. The question is whether, as Cristopher Hale, suggested “ a person’s private religious beliefs and practices shouldn’t affect their ability for employment in the public sphere.”
As a gay man I am well aware of the emotional damage which such public, hateful pronouncements can inflict on individuals which then affect those associated with that individual. As a therapist I am well aware of the power of language, especially that language which originates from a person of authority.
There may be a difference from a person who uses sexist locker room talk in private or even in the locker room (I am still likely to let the person know that I am offended.) and when the same language is uttered to a national or international audience which will includes those who will stone a woman to death in the name of the God of their understanding.
A short time after reading about the activity of Ms. Burrell I began to think about inviting her to my home for dinner. I would be happy to do that. I would be delighted to debate with her my understanding of the original Old Testament prohibitions against the ‘wasting of seeds” by a man having sex with another man. I would also be happy to respectfully listen to her opinion. I have no need to convert her to my way of thinking or to convince her to change what I assume to be her sexual orientation. I would happily defend her right to her religious beliefs and to be judged as worthy of love and respect. I am not convinced that she has the moral right to use her public pulpit to encourage judgment which she must know will lead to hate which she must know will lead to violence.
I do not believe I have the right to say anything negative about Ms. Burrell. How could I? I do not know this woman. I have no facts to judge her (or anyone else) as more or less deserving of love and respect. I do have the right to say that I have different opinion. I do not believe that I have the right to say that she is a bad person who God is mad at and whose behavior deserves to be punished.
Neither do I have the right to vocally or otherwise disrespect the President of the United States or the homeless man who is walking around with all their worldly possessions in a shopping cart. I have no right to apply the term criminal to all illegal immigrants.
There are moral/ethical rights and legal rights. I am not in favor of more laws which result in more fines or more people incarcerated or shuffled about in the judicial system.
I do have a responsibility to speak to the fear underlying hatred; to comfort those who are fearful beneath the shield of hate. I do have a responsibility to see the mirror, look into that mirror and offer compassion.
My friend Becky was picking up her new eye glasses the other day. A woman came in and did not have the nearly $200.00 to get her glasses which were ready for her use. Becky paid for the glasses. She did not ask why the woman did not have the money, for her to give an accounting of her spiritual habits or to otherwise determine if she was worthy of this gift (or the right of decent sight). She began with an assumption that this woman was deserving and that she, Becky, was blessed to give this gift without herself becoming homeless or having to do without her new glasses.
Becky knew nothing of the private beliefs of the woman who needed help. She knew nothing of her nationality, education, sexual orientation, or spending habits.
I know nothing about Ms. Burrell who knows knowing about the struggles of the homosexual who knows nothing about me who knows nothing about…
I believe I have no ethical or moral right to utter words of hate. I do have an ethical and moral responsibility to speak words of compassion, to offer opinions and to listen to opinions of others.
The goal is not to self-righteously tolerate Ms. Burrell. The goal is to love her while modeling that we can disagree without inciting hatred and potential violence.
Post Script: I must confess I love a good spiritual and might ask Ms. Burrell to “sing for her supper.”
Written January 21 2017
The question of the right to practice and to speak out about one’s religious and/or ethical beliefs seems like a very simple one to address. Yet, if speaking out instigates hate and endorses violence or has the appearance of endorsing violence then a society or community begins to question the line between individual rights and the rights of the community as a whole. In the United States, we have many laws which limit our individual freedom when said freedom infringes on the rights of some in the community to live without fear of violence.
Historically, in the United States, violence based on race, sexual orientation, gender and even nationality has been not only tolerated but codified into law or accepted practice. The supreme ruling of 2003 in the case of Lawrence Versus Texas struck down anti-sodomy laws and, yet as recently as 2013 individuals in the United States were jailed for so-called crimes against nature. There is a long history of lynching’s and using Jim Crow laws in the States to oppress people of color.
Many people commonly accepted a test which came to be known as the thumb rule test which allowed husbands to beat their wives and children with a stick no bigger than one’s thumb. The myth is that this was a law but I can find no evidence that it was. On the other hand, as late as the 1980s, when I would attempt to find spiritual counseling for a woman being physically abused, I and the wife were often told that if she was a better wife the beatings would stop. There were many laws which restricted the right of women to own land, vote, get degrees, or otherwise function independent of a husband. It was also easy for a husband to incarcerate a woman in a mental institution if she wanted a divorce. The history of medical treatment of women is rife with such terms as hysteria.
Often religions “doctrine” and references to “the word of God, Allah, or a deity called by some other name have been used to justify the mistreatment and even death of those who some people or organizations decide displeases the god of one’s understanding.
The mistreatment of those who have an often uncontrollable urge to have sex with a minor child is codified and leads to not only prison time but inclusion on the sexual offenders list and subsequent mistreatment by communities, neighbors and others.
I have sat in many courtrooms where the judge has lectured a person on their reprehensible behavior and told them that they are undeserving of any mercy or compassion.
In short, there can be no doubt that the public condemnation or hateful speech against an individual or a group of individuals can and is used to incite violence against such individuals or groups.
Yet, we are loathed, for good reason, to make more laws which restrict the freedom of speech. The rights of the individual except when it infringes on the rights of others has a long history in the United states. Sadly, this right has often been applied to the chosen ones and used by that chosen ones to shame and attempt to emotionally destroy others. Words which begin with the letters C, N, F and others can be as sharp and as lethal as a finely-honed blade.
I was thinking of this history when reading a new article about the treatment of the gospel singer Kim Burrell. She may have lost a job and been disinvited by some talk show hosts because of her preaching against the perversion of homosexuality. The January 5, 2017 Huffington Post reported:
“Burrell, who appeared on tracks with Pharrell, Frank Ocean and others, made waves on New Year’s Eve when video surfaced of the singer delivering a sermon that spewed homophobic rhetoric and called gays and lesbians “perverted.”
“That perverted homosexual spirit, and the spirit of delusion and confusion, it has deceived many men and women. You as a man, you open your mouth and take a man’s penis in your face ― you are perverted,” Burrell can be heard in the above video saying. “You are a woman and will shake your face in another woman’s breast, you are perverted.”
Foxnews.com reported:
“Gospel singer Kim Burrell was given the boot from her radio show "Bridging the Gap" days after giving a sermon about her anti-homosexuality stance at her Houston, Texas church.
Texas Southern University's KTSU-FM did not give any reason for axing the program, but many have said the timing of the firing with Burrell's controversial sermon must be more than a coincidence.
"While Burrell's comments about the nature of homosexuality distorted Christian teaching and unfairly maligned LGBT persons, her view that homosexual activity is a sin is well within parts of the Christian tradition," Executive Director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good Christopher Hale told FOX411. "In general, people's private religious beliefs and practices shouldn't affect their ability for employment in the public sphere."
One can argue that such pubic preaching often fuels hate which leads to violence. The question is whether, as Cristopher Hale, suggested “ a person’s private religious beliefs and practices shouldn’t affect their ability for employment in the public sphere.”
As a gay man I am well aware of the emotional damage which such public, hateful pronouncements can inflict on individuals which then affect those associated with that individual. As a therapist I am well aware of the power of language, especially that language which originates from a person of authority.
There may be a difference from a person who uses sexist locker room talk in private or even in the locker room (I am still likely to let the person know that I am offended.) and when the same language is uttered to a national or international audience which will includes those who will stone a woman to death in the name of the God of their understanding.
A short time after reading about the activity of Ms. Burrell I began to think about inviting her to my home for dinner. I would be happy to do that. I would be delighted to debate with her my understanding of the original Old Testament prohibitions against the ‘wasting of seeds” by a man having sex with another man. I would also be happy to respectfully listen to her opinion. I have no need to convert her to my way of thinking or to convince her to change what I assume to be her sexual orientation. I would happily defend her right to her religious beliefs and to be judged as worthy of love and respect. I am not convinced that she has the moral right to use her public pulpit to encourage judgment which she must know will lead to hate which she must know will lead to violence.
I do not believe I have the right to say anything negative about Ms. Burrell. How could I? I do not know this woman. I have no facts to judge her (or anyone else) as more or less deserving of love and respect. I do have the right to say that I have different opinion. I do not believe that I have the right to say that she is a bad person who God is mad at and whose behavior deserves to be punished.
Neither do I have the right to vocally or otherwise disrespect the President of the United States or the homeless man who is walking around with all their worldly possessions in a shopping cart. I have no right to apply the term criminal to all illegal immigrants.
There are moral/ethical rights and legal rights. I am not in favor of more laws which result in more fines or more people incarcerated or shuffled about in the judicial system.
I do have a responsibility to speak to the fear underlying hatred; to comfort those who are fearful beneath the shield of hate. I do have a responsibility to see the mirror, look into that mirror and offer compassion.
My friend Becky was picking up her new eye glasses the other day. A woman came in and did not have the nearly $200.00 to get her glasses which were ready for her use. Becky paid for the glasses. She did not ask why the woman did not have the money, for her to give an accounting of her spiritual habits or to otherwise determine if she was worthy of this gift (or the right of decent sight). She began with an assumption that this woman was deserving and that she, Becky, was blessed to give this gift without herself becoming homeless or having to do without her new glasses.
Becky knew nothing of the private beliefs of the woman who needed help. She knew nothing of her nationality, education, sexual orientation, or spending habits.
I know nothing about Ms. Burrell who knows knowing about the struggles of the homosexual who knows nothing about me who knows nothing about…
I believe I have no ethical or moral right to utter words of hate. I do have an ethical and moral responsibility to speak words of compassion, to offer opinions and to listen to opinions of others.
The goal is not to self-righteously tolerate Ms. Burrell. The goal is to love her while modeling that we can disagree without inciting hatred and potential violence.
Post Script: I must confess I love a good spiritual and might ask Ms. Burrell to “sing for her supper.”
Written January 21 2017
RSS Feed