IN THEORY:

The House recently approved legislation that would expand the federal hate crime law to include attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Some critics say the bill would stifle religious expression because they worry clergy that preached against homosexuality, for example, might later be prosecuted if someone was inspired by the preaching to commit a hate crime. Do you think this type of legislation would have a negative effect on religious expression?

Expanding our present hate crime law would further secure safety for all Americans. Violence against any group is a civil rights issue as it threatens the liberties of all groups, whether they are in the majority or minority. Even though such a law would enlarge the debate on the limits of incendiary speech and, in particular, that of religious leaders, the law is necessary to underscore our commitment to protect all our citizens.

What are the consequences of naming others as sinners — the “unsaved” if you will? And, what is the dark side of acting as a fervent protector of the faith? We can study religious history to see the brutality that can be fomented by crusades to save others. It is common sense that those in positions of religious authority should, like all good healers, “first do no harm.”

In this case, the harm of redundancy cannot overshadow the good such a law would do to ensure that every American has the right to be safe from violence. If such a law also makes ministers more aware of their responsibility when speaking from the pulpit, that can only be a good thing.

REV. CAROL AGUILAR

Zen Center of Orange County, Costa Mesa

I can’t imagine intentionally preaching a message that inspires someone to commit a hateful crime. It would be inconsistent with the message of the Gospel. Jesus was most concerned about reaching people living at the edge of society who violated religious laws. I don’t think a true follower of Jesus could inspire hatred and violence, whether that be against a homosexual or abortion clinic or someone of another race, or anyone else. That being said, I know people have used religion and tried to manipulate people in just that way. I question their motives and the reality of their faith.

This is a nonissue in California, where it is already the state law. Making it a federal law will not affect us any more than state law has.

RIC OLSEN

Lead Paster, The Beacon, Anaheim

Identifying a practice, condition or choice as immoral does not equate to advocating aggression against those who live by them. No one seeks to make it impossible for interpreters of God’s word to draw conclusions and teach them to their flock. But what we should want is to criminalize hate that finds its expression in violent assault.

No one would advocate prosecuting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for recently declaring, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

A listener who feels justified in transforming a preacher’s verbal judgments about homosexuality into physical brutality against homosexuals will have acted on his own. It is beyond imagining that a minister, expressing his denomination’s view of abortion as sin, will be tried along with those who seized upon his words and firebombed a clinic that provides that service.

That clergy need to take out “malpreaching” insurance prior to discussing Leviticus 18:22 is a straw man. Who can seriously anticipate identifying the Bible as hate literature or incarcerating a religious leader for quoting Scripture?

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm, Newport Beach

This is good legislation, and it’s way overdue. America is founded on principles that protect all of our citizens. Laws that favor some over others must be corrected. Those who speak hate and would encourage crimes against others cannot be called clergy. I think this legislation will have a positive effect on religious expression.

PASTOR JIM TURRELL

Center for Spiritual Discovery, Costa Mesa