Related articles and links |  1 of 3

In the run-up to the contest over the Federal Marriage Amendment last month, few journalists paid much attention to another bill making its way through the Senate. Drawing attention to a spate of violence directed primarily at Muslims, Sen. Ted Kennedy—one of the bill's sponsors—called for severer penalties against those committing crimes for religious reasons. Kennedy noted such crimes included "murders, beatings, arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and assaults." The measure, an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense authorization bill, passed on June 15 with a vote of 65-33.

Conservatives immediately condemned the legislation. The Republican Study Committee noted that the bill would require prosecutors to inquire into "an offender's overall philosophy or biases." The committee states, "The Kennedy bill makes philosophy, politics, biases, and general viewpoints the subject of almost every violent crime." Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America warned that such measures undermined "the principles of free speech and equal protection under law. Any senator who voted for this is setting up our children and grandchildren for persecution as activist courts rule that biblical morality is 'bigotry.'"

Curiously, a similar bill is making its way through the British Parliament under the direction of Home Secretary David Blunkett. The secretary wants to extend current legislation prosecuting crimes incited by racial prejudice to cover religious prejudice as well. To those worried it will restrict free speech, Blunkett argues, "The issue is not whether you have an argument or discussion or whether you are criticizing someone's religion. It's whether you incite hatred on the basis of it."

Let's hope Blunkett is being ingenuous here. If so, Christians have little to fear—and maybe something to gain—from laws protecting people on the basis of religion. After all, what benefits Muslims applies to Christians as well, doesn't it? But Blunkett's distinction between criticism and hatred may, in some cases, be difficult to draw. Does Franklin Graham's calling Islam an evil religion a couple of years ago constitute a hate crime? What examples can we draw on to differentiate peaceful yet genuine critique from criticism that inspires acts of hate?

In 12th-century Europe, the shoe was on the other foot. Islam was a power to be reckoned with, having taken over more than half of the Christian Roman empire only a few centuries before. Muslims ruled not only the relatively remote Middle East and northern Africa but also significant territory on the European continent. Christians tried to resist the military invasion—the most notable success being that of Charles Martel, who stopped the Islamic advance at Tours in 732. Yet Christianity retreated throughout most of the early Middle Ages, as Muslim armies consolidated their gains and threatened the centers of Christian power.

In 1095, however, the balance of power began to shift. European aristocracy responded to Pope Urban II's call to retake Jerusalem for Christendom, and over the next five years, crusaders carved out kingdoms deep in Islamic territory. For the first time, Muslims found themselves on the defensive. The Church's enthusiasm was palpable—one of its leading authorities, the abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, threw his weight behind a new military monastic order called the Knights Templar, and he wrote a handbook defining and praising this new vocation. These knight-monks would go on to play a critical role in the wars fought by crusaders.

next page... |  1 of 3

August (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48