Would it be unconstitutional for the government to criminalize the Biblical doctrine against homosexuality?

Question

There's a lot of talk about at least one bill that was recently shut down (though bills like that never stay down) that though there may have been some good ideas contained therein, was also loaded with instances that would make Bible believing Christians liable to criminal charges for having sermons preached, using the Biblical doctrine(s) against abhorrent sexual practices, including homosexuality. It would also basically criminalize parents who teach their children that sexual activity is right only for a married couple - one man and one woman.

The Constitution of the United States of America protects the Church from the government's interferrance into matters of religion and morality. So how is it that some government officials think it's okay to dismantle this great and treasured article and right of the citizens of the USA?

To everyone who thinks this is not a real issue, the bill is HR 1592 - the "hatecrimes" bill. Look it up for yourself.

Answer 1

You are correct. The first ammendment to the Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That sounds like not only "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, but also "abriding the freedom of speech". This Democrat controlled Congress needs to be less contemptuous of our Constitutional rights before they become the Formerly Democrat controlled Congress. I'm pleased to see that this awful bill, H.R. 1592 (if we are talking about the same one) isn't being supported as widely as it's sponsor, John Conyers (D. MI) had hoped, although it HAS PASSED in the House of Representatives.

For the atheists...it could also be interpreted as a "hate crime" for atheists to do the same to the theists.

Answer 2

It would CERTAINLY be unconstitutional to ban Christian speech.

However, there is such a thing as 'hate speech'. People throw that term around a lot these days, often to mean anything they don't like, but the term has a specific meaning. And I think the govt. is within its rights to ban hate speech.

What if someone really truly believed that Catholics were evil and the Roman Catholic Church must be stopped at any cost? What if someone really believed the Bible told him that black people were less intelligent than white people and should be kept out of schools and jobs?

These are extreme examples, of course, but I see things approaching this all the time. What about Fred Phelps showing up at gay funerals to heckle, in a bus with a big banner on the side that says 'Thank God for AIDS!' (I think that's legal too, but that kind of thing gives Christians a bad name, don't you think?)

Answer 3

What you are arguing is human rights.

Much of the world now rightly recongnises the rights of people who happen to be born gay. The church does not.

Society also seeks to honour the rights of those who make a choice to follow a religion.

One set of rights cannot be allowed to trump another, and it appears always to be the case that the religious seek to trump the rights of other groups they do not like on the basis that it is taught in the bible.

Two centuries ago this was the reasoning used to deny basic rights to black slaves which the bible "proved" were lesser beings.

This is morally and socially abhorrent behaviour, and should rightly be criminalised.

Excercising religion should be seen as a great privilege with great responsibilities, one of which must be to respect the rights of others. Christians do not wish to do this, and society has a right to protect itself against this evil.

In a sense this is the primary issue behind the current tension between the West and Islamic countries.

If Christians cannot behave in a manner that rational people have come to accept as conforming to basic human decency - and your views prove that they cannot - then they should not expect to earn respect or for society to honour their rights.

Answer 4

They can't legislate anything having to do with the bible in a way that will hold up in court. Even if something like that passes, tons of people would challenge it in the supreme court. Some think they can slip in stuff that will 'help' the country even when it stands against the constitution and sometimes those bills pass.

Answer 5

The bill you speak of would not have criminalized the hate speech of Christianity that is disguised as doctrine/dogma. It would have provided increased protections to homosexuals from hate crimes. It had the POTENTIAL to LEAD TO Biblical hate speech being banned as well.

Is this unconstitiutional?? Well, screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded concert hall is illegal as well - doesnt that infringe of my freedom of speech? Yes it does - but what is at stake is more important - the lives of the people I put in danger when I scream "FIRE!"

How many lives are put in danger when a pastor preaches to his flock that homosexuality shouldnt be tolerated?? You may think none, but the truth is, there are unstable people who use God as an excuse to exact revenge or kill others that they deem to be "sinners" (abortion clinics are just one example). Hammer in the notion that homosexuality is perverted and disgusting and responsible for the downfall of American society and you WILL have a small percentage of the population who will beleive this annd worst still - react upon it.

Shouldnt the civil rights of homosexuals be protected from that?

Answer 6

Yes, It would be unconstitutional. I am a big opponent of "hate speech" laws - the motivation for the crime should be immaterial, only the execution of the crime should be considered. Preachers have a constitutional right to preach against homosexuality, even though I personally find such speech repugnant.

However is a particular speech in incited violence, the preacher should be held criminally responsible for it as should the people who executed the violent acts.
.

Answer 7

The will, and can do attitude of our Government is able to administer what ever they will, dependant upon what politicians we elect. If you don't like the Bible thumping Christians then don't vote for one. The question of making a Christian believe in something, other than he believes in or he is a criminal, is absurd. What would be the point of being an American. Teaching our children not to be sexually promiscuous is just plain smart, with all the STD's out there. Especially the deadly ones. The Bible has always stood against sexual perversions, whether it be homosexuality or just plain adultery. To God it is all the same. Yes it would be unconstitutional for the Government to try make what anybody believes a crime unless it is already a crime. If you don't believe in God then at least look at what the sexually promiscuous life style renders. Not allot of good comes out of that B.S.

Answer 8

it would be unconstitutional to criminalize the doctrine against homosexuality, as it would be dictating religious beliefs.

It would also be unconstitutional to criminalize any organization from holding any beliefs.

There is a difference between belief and acting on that belief. I could see a way that a law could be drawn that prevents discrimination against homosexuals that would effect religions who follow that biblical doctrine, but the law is secular in nature.

However any attempt to speculate at what is unconstitutional cannot be complete without adding the famous qoute by justice Robert Jackson:

"We are not final because we are infallible, but infallible because we are final"

Answer 9

there is a separation from what the bible teaches and the government control. It would be unconstitutional to go into a church and tell them what they can and can't believe. They are not hate groups but they are against the idea of homosexuality, they are not going out killing people or discriminating against anyone

Answer 10

I don't believe that was ever really in a proposed bill.
Sorry.


Edit: Looked it up. Again, sorry, the wording just isn't there. There is a possibility that if a crime were comitted because of something a minister or priest said to his congregation, then he *possibly* (though not clear) could be prosecuted as inciting to such violence under this bill.
That's a long, long, long way from the Orwellian nightmare you are describing.