Where's the wall?

[pat]

What would you think if a private religious event came to your city, and your city council passed a resolution commending the organizers for bringing the event to town? And applauding what they stood for?

I don't know about you, but I would be appalled. A local government body has no business taking positions on matters of religion.

Do you agree?

Then you should be equally appalled at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Last week, they passed a resolution condemning as an "act of provocation" Battle Cry for a Generation, an evangelical youth event held in ATT Park last weekend.

Yes, it was anti-choice.

Yes, it opposes same-sex marriage.

It doesn't matter. This was a private religious event. Those are religious positions. The Board of Supervisors has no more business condemning the evangelicals than the city council of Houston would have condemning a national meeting of Dignity.

If we progressives believe in the wall that separates church and state, then we damn well better act like it. Tom Ammiano is free to protest all he likes on his own recognizance, but when he speaks in his public capacity as an elected official to condemn people's religious beliefs he crosses a very dangerous line.

Comments

[dangerpudding.livejournal.com]

If there was a religious cult that promoted racism, sexism, slavery, rape and murder at a private religious event, would it be nobody's business to condemn them?

Those things are all illegal, private property or no. So, it would be someone's business to stop them.

If the Nazi party re-defined itselof as a religion worshiping the divine fuhrer would their views on jews expressed at private religious events be protected from criticism?

If all they're doing is expressing it at private religious events? They aren't protected from criticism by private citizens, but free speech means that the government has no right to say anything.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I don't live in the US, so am not sure how laws on incitement work, but in the UK we do have laws against 'incitement to racial hatred' which the hypothetical nazi religion would be guilty of here.

Surely its not right for someone to say 'all xs are evil, they deserve to die, should be rounded up and shot or expelled', where x is a hated racial group? This kind of speech threatens society at a deep level, and even more so if its done in the name of a religion.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Nazis can -- and have -- engaged in exactly the sort of speech you're talking about. It is protected by the First Amendment. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on how you view the world, I guess. Restrictions on incitement are restricted to where the speech creates "a clear and present danger," which general statement such as "all xs should be rounded up and shot or expelled" would not create. (Actually, speech of the "All xs...." type is not uncommon in America today, in conservative talk radio circles: just replace "x" with either "Democrat" or "liberal.")

Nazis march... other people counterprotest. The only role that the government -- i.e., the police -- play is to prevent violence from breaking out.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I'd say that people who are inciting violence - kill all liberals, kill all democrats, kill all moslems, kill all gays, that kind of thing - are inciting violence no matter whether they are sitting behind the shield of religion. I'd be surprised if there are no 'incitement' crimes in the US that cover this, but I guess its possible. Calls for expulsion, re-education, imprisonment etc. for those same hated groups are a tougher call. I draw my own line at calls for violence, but others may, and do, differ.

Its worth noting two recent cases here in the UK... Several individuals waving placards calling for bombings and killings during a demonstration against the cartoons of Mohammed were later arrested for incitement to violence, and Abu Hamza, a notorious extremist cleric, was tried and found guilty for, among other things, incitement to violence based on the content of several speeches given in mosques and on written and video material he was distributing. A similar prosecution of racist members of the British National Party, for incitement to racial hatred, was not successful.

I think the history of Europe, where racial and religious hatreds have killed millions over centuries, means we take this kind of thing somewhat more seriously than the US, but the US is not immune from this kind of problem as I think we're beginning to see.

[dangerpudding.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's right for that to be said about any group (or person, actually), but the issue at hand is what role the government can and should play in that. I may be a bit extreme, but I don't think that they should have one until specific or actual violence is threatened. If this hypothetical nazi religion starts hoarding ammo and explosives, or planning hostilities, official actions can be taken.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

The problem is that incitement to hatred along these lines gives a license to individual loons to take violent action themselves. You don't need to be organising things centrally to have an effect.

A good example of this is the individual who mounted a (thankfully brief!) bombing campaign against gay bars in London some years ago.

Incitement to hatred does have an effect, even if you can't draw a chain of command from one person's speech to another's violence.

If someone who goes to an anti-gay religious meeting a week later beats up a gay couple, how responsible is the speaker at the meeting?