In our little paper, The Columbia Flier, we were recently treated to the fulminations of one Reverend Dr. Simpson (a moderator, I believe, of one of our more intolerant echoes on FIDO; should anyone here follow that one, I would like to receive anything said there about this) on the subject of hate-crime laws:

ES> You can be against hate and hate-crime laws
ES>
ES> The recent beating and murder of a homosexual Wyoming
ES> college student is reprehensible and has shocked the
ES> sensibilities of every decent person. Many immediately
ES> pointed to this tragedy as evidence of the need for
ES> hate-crime legislation to protect homosexuals.
ES>
ES> Millions of men and women in our nation share a conviction
ES> that homosexuality is wrong in God's sight, and while these
ES> people would never condone violence against homosexuals,
ES> they would feel a religious conviction and obligation to
ES> privately and to publicly speak out against that lifestyle.
ES>
ES> There are those that would delight in silencing any
ES> criticism of their lifestyle and would find this hate-crime
ES> legislation the perfect tool for accomplishing their end.
ES> Religious broadcasters in Canada already must expunge any
ES> negative references to homosexuality and abortion due to
ES> Canada's hate-crime laws.
ES>
ES> The laws are already in place to prosecute and convict
ES> those guilty of violence against any human being that makes
ES> it past birth. Hate-crime legislation targeted at protecting
ES> the gay community has the very real potential of becoming a
ES> gag on the collective religious freedom of Jews, Catholics,
ES> Muslims, Protestants and multitudes of other people of
ES> faith.
ES>
ES> Dr. Edward E. Simpson,
ES> Pastor
ES> Harvester Baptist Church,
ES> Columbia

To which I responded in a Letter to the Editor:

What the Reverend Dr. Simpson does or says in the privacy of his own home, in his church, on the street, in letters to a newspaper, or in a hired hall to consenting adults is entirely his own business and protected by the constitution, so long as no laws are broken. Should he express his views about gays through a bullhorn, he disturbs the peace, no matter what those views may be. Should he induce his listeners to take unwanted actions against other persons, he is inciting to riot, no matter whether those unwanted actions are hugs or blows. Should he reprove gays for their behaviors in their own bedrooms, he is guilty of voyeurism (how else might he discover what those people are doing?), however well-meant his reproof.

And that is as it should be: the first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America are all about protecting the individual in his beliefs, in his home, in his community, and in his daily intercourse with other citizens from the intrusion of the government. So long as we do no harm to others, our doings are nobody's business but our own.

In his letter to the Flier ("You can be against hate and hate-crime laws" Oct 22, 1988:10-11), the Reverend Dr. Simpson expresses concern that his right to free speech is endangered by proposed hate-crime legislation, claiming that it "has the very real potential of becoming a gag on the collective religious freedom of Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants and multitudes of other people of faith." The nub of his concern lies in the fact that "Millions of men and women in our nation share a conviction that homosexuality is wrong in God's sight," and--rather than simply avoiding the practice of homosexuality themselves (which would appear to me to be a logical action arising from such a conviction)--wish to speak out against it.

I may have missed something, but I am aware of no language in any proposed hate-crime legislation that would make any change whatsoever in our freedom to express ourselves on any topic: perhaps the Reverend Dr. Simpson can correct my ignorance by citing some specific language to his point from some actual law presently being considered in the U.S.?

All he offers instead is an anecdote from a neighboring country, claiming that "Religious broadcasters in Canada already must expunge any negative references to homosexuality and abortion due to Canada's hate-crime laws." I do not know whether this is the case in Canada or not, but his comparison of private speech to broadcast speech is specious: broadcast speech has always been under regulation in this country, mostly in the matter of bleeping out certain words for fear of offending religious persons. That does not seem ever to have stopped Americans from using those very words in their daily conversations.

Wisely avoiding any mention of the fact that those same millions of religious men and women in our nation ought, on the same grounds, share a conviction that eating shrimp is wrong in God's sight, the Reverend Dr. Simpson assures us that "these people would never condone violence against homosexuals," an assertion I find rather sweeping. Given two populations matched in age, gender, and numbers, one holding the conviction that homosexuality is an abomination, and the other holding the conviction that the sexuality of consenting adults is nobody's business but their own, which is the more likely to produce a subset of individuals who beat up on fags? Which is the more likely to produce a larger subset of individuals who feel that a fag's having been beaten was something that was probably coming to him?

The conviction that a god approves of one's dislikes is a considerable inducement to uncivil behavior: people who suppose they are serving a "higher" law can and do cheerfully commit murder. It is better then that they have their freedom of speech guaranteed by the "lower" law that we all, as citizens, share, so that their "religious conviction and obligation to privately and to publicly speak out against that lifestyle" can be exercised and bloodshed avoided.

Should the Reverend Dr. Simpson present a specific law that would alter the state of our freedom of speech as we presently enjoy it, I shall gladly join him in his battle against the same; meanwhile, he can say what he likes about gays with no hinderance from me, so long as no laws, civil or logical, are broken. I presume he would extend the same civility to me.

Whether the letter will get printed remains to be seen, but you all may trust my vanity to keep you current.

Go Back