Distorting the Bible For Politics
Jonathan Rowe on Oct 4th 2008
Is it ever okay to do this? I’ll leave it up to you to decide. Did America’s Founders do this? I assert, yes. Ted Kennedy did something very similar to what America’s Founders and the theologians they followed did. Kennedy spoke on behalf of the Senate Floor and argued in favor of hate crimes laws that protect sexual orientation at the Federal level and invoked Leviticus. He (obviously) quoted only parts of Leviticus and ignored other parts.
Leviticus 25:10 features prominently near the top of the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto the inhabitants thereof.”
America’s Whig Founders obviously didn’t quote Leviticus in favor of sexual orientation rights like Senator Kennedy, but they did blatantly rip parts of it out of context, distorted its meaning to support their Whig-republican agenda. The Founders meant “political liberty” as it related to republican self government. And Leviticus 25:10, indeed every time the Bible mentions “liberty,” refers to spiritual liberty, freedom from sin or sin’s consequences, and not political liberty which was a wholly a-biblical concept. As Tory minister Jonathan Boucher put it, “The word liberty, as meaning civil liberty, does not, I believe, occur in all the Scriptures.” From a strict orthodox biblical perspective on this specific issue Boucher and the Tories were right, America’s Whig Founders were wrong.
America’s Founders and some of the pro-republican ministers (the most notable of whom weren’t orthodox Christians, like Jonathan Mayhew) quoted parts of the Bible that CLEARLY relate to spiritual liberty (or freedom from sin) in favor of the wholly a-biblical notion of political liberty. And indeed, perhaps, America’s Founders and the theologians they followed like Mayhew felt free to use unorthodox, cafeteria like hermeneutics (like Ted Kennedy) because they themselves were not orthodox Christians who believed the Bible the infallible Word of God but theological unitarians who believed the Bible partially inspired.
But the bottom line is the traditional orthodox biblical meaning of “proclaim liberty throughout the land” has nothing to do with what America’s Founders were trying to accomplish from 1776-1800, anymore than Leviticus has anything to do with Ted Kennedy’s invocation of it in favor of federal hate crimes legislation that protects sexual orientation.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
I don’t think much of “Hate Crime” legislation… I feel that it unnecessarily adds the burden of proving motive to the Prosecution’s load. If someone commits a crime, what difference does it make why they did it?
That being said, at least Teddy was trying to extend protection to those who are most often vilified. I prefer this kind of distortion to those who distort “Thou shall not kill” to say it protects fetuses, yet find it doesn’t apply when they want to kill doctors who provide abortions.
Someone’s religious delusions do not give them the right to force me to live as they wish, nor the right to kill me, or even threaten me, if I don’t. And that applies to Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other of the many religions Man has claimed to be the “One, true, Holy revelation” from God, or Gods.
Look at the troubles religion has caused: The persecution of Christians in Ancient Rome, The Crusades, The Hundred Year’s War, The Thirty years War, the Holocaust, The “troubles” in No. Ireland, not to mention Sharia law.
If Teddy Kennedy wants to pick a bible verse to make his position stronger, let him, as long as he’s not trying to tell others how to think, believe, or worship.
Jeff, I’m not sure I agree with you on hate-crimes legislation.
We let so many factors influence the sentences we hand out in court–for example, if you kill someone, you might get anything from the death penalty to just a few years in prison, based on the circumstances of the death.
If it’s within the power of the justice system to alter sentences based on all sorts of reasons, why should being harsh on those whose motives were particularly despicable not be allowed?
I have mixed feelings about hate crime laws, but the best argument I can see for them is that when, for instance, the Klan lynches a black man, it isn’t just a murder, it’s also an implicit death threat against every black person–and every white supporter of black civil rights–in the community. What typically get defined as hate crimes are, and are intended by the perpetrator to be, acts of terrorism. I can see my way to an enhancement for that.
As an addendum to my previous post–While I absolutely support hate crimes laws in theory, I’m a bit concerned about them in practice, especially as they apply to racially motivated crimes.
Given the very charged racial atmosphere that I am given to understand exists in most prisons, a lengthier stay might have the consequence of making the criminal more racist, rather than less, and it’s hard to justify hate crimes in those circumstances.
If the nature and motivation of a crime applied only to sentencing for that crime, AND, if the crime in question had real victims who suffered real damage, then I’d probably be for them.
But hate crimes laws mean I can’t say I disagree with a certain group of people who make it to the government’s approved list. That’s how they’re applied in Canada. They’re used to stifle speech, press, and other basic rights. No one has a right not to be offended. Laws that protect people from being offended turn the old concept of, “I hate what you say, but I’d die for your right to say it,” upside down.
AS, you’ve got a point, but it’s not limited to the hate crimes situation. Prisons tend to make criminals more criminal, whatever their crime of choice may be. There’s a good argument for not putting or keeping people in prison unless you really have to.
JB, I think you’re confusing American hate crime laws, which enhance the sentence for pre-existing crimes based on the motive, with Canadian hate speech laws, which carry penalties for pure speech. There are no American hate speech laws; the Supreme Court has held they violate the First Amendment. American hate crime laws are always enhancements on violent or property crimes, and the jury has to find that the protected status was the motive for the crime.
Alan, I hear what you are saying, but if you deliberately kill someone, then the penalty is usually death, or life in prison without parole… How does a few extra years tacked on help anything? I don’t see how murdering someone for being the “wrong” race differs from murdering someone from the “wrong” gang.
I second tilts-at-windmills on the difference between hate-speech and hate-crime laws. And say what you will about self-interested politicians and apathetic citizens, but I honestly think that our beliefs about free speech are so strong in the US that the latter are never going to turn into the former.
Jeff–you’re right that first-degree murder sentences are long enough that hate-crimes extensions aren’t going to matter that much. But such extensions don’t only apply to first-degree murder, they also apply to many lesser crimes where life in prison isn’t the expected sentence.
Alan, I’ll leave this thread with one last thought (or maybe two). Regardless of the supposed justification, hate crime legislation punishes thought!
If you think that the Govt is so benign as to never make hate speech into a hate “crime” then I fear you have more faith in our fellow Americans than I do. This thread was started by Jonathan commenting on Teddy Kennedy using a quote from Leviticus to justify promoting gay-bashing to a hate crime. I agree that gays should be free to live life as they see fit as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else, but what if the “solution” to the problem is to ban any derogatory reference to gays? Then, hate speech becomes hate crime.
Just look at all the liberties we willy nilly give up because it’s necessary for our “safety”. Back in the 70’s, I arrived at LAX airport 5 min before the flight was scheduled to leave(My driver got lost) I still made my flight. Nowadays it can take several hours to get to the boarding ramp. That’s assuming you don’t get yanked into a back room for a more thorough search.
The “Patriot Act passed with almost no debate, because it was “Needed” for our safety. Think about “Sexual Harassment”, while laudable in that no woman should be forced to have sex to keep or get a job, it has become so all encompassing, that it now allows sanctions for anything the putative “victim” may find offensive. Considering the damage to a career, or a reputation, that an allegation of sexual harassment can cause, it is, de facto if not de jure, a “crime”
Something I just read by former Laramie police chief Dave O’Malley, said in regards to the murder of Matthew Shepard:
full article here
Jonathan, a note on your scriptural reading here. If I understand what you mean by “freedom from sin”, that’s a Christian concept of grace. Lev 25 is talking about the jubilee, an every 50 year event in anceint Israel in which slaves and indentured servants are freed, and land reverts to original owners who had been forced to sell it. That’s the “liberty” being proclaimed in Lev 25:10. If you’re a Jew, or if you’re anyone who’s reading the text straightforwardly, without an extremely high sensitivity for the possibilities of interpreting nearly everything in the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of the New Testament, you could be forgiven for not seeing the connection between Lev 25:10 and “freedom from sin”.