First they came for the Homophobes and then the Islamophobes...

By Matt Davis

First they came for the homophobes, but I did not speak out, because I was not a homophobe.

America often seems out of step with the rest of the planet. We support free speech, defend the rights of citizens against their governments, and hold elections to set policy. However, these values, so pivotal to the creation of the free world, seem to be under attack.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the State of California declared that barring homosexual unions was unconstitutional. In so doing, the Court lifted a ban on gay marriage which was enacted by the California legislature in 2000. With a single ruling, the seven member court overturned the will of millions, rewriting legislation aimed at protecting the sanctity of marriage.

For the conservative and morally conservative people living in California (and I am assured there are many) this decision was nothing less than a kick in the teeth. The Court knew the will of the people. The State Legislature, the elected representatives of the people of California, had declared firmly that their constituents did not want policy to be dictated from San Francisco or Los Angeles. The majority of people in California recognized that marriage is an institution consisting of one man and one woman before God.

In one decision, millions of voices were silenced.

Then they came for the Islamophobes, but I did not speak out, because I was not an Islamophobe.

If the decision to overturn the will of the people is not a strong enough indicator of just how indefensible the notions of freedom and choice have become, the British are coming with another example of how the thoughts of the majority are silenced.

According to an article in the Daily Mail, Her Majesty’s Government has decided to re-label all terrorist acts performed by Muslims as “anti-Islamic activity.” This new terminology is supposed to reflect the view that Islam is not a violent or inherently aggressive religion. The British claim that using terms like “Islamic terrorist” or “war on terror” only help our enemies by casting them as soldiers for their religion, a role which Al-Qaeda can then exploit for recruitment.

But who is more likely to hear the phrase “anti-Islamic activity”? Is it the terrorists hiding in caves throughout Afghanistan? Or could it be the 1.5 million Muslim men, women and children living in the United Kingdom? The British Government is very concerned about appeasing this group, which makes up only 3% of their nation’s population, but not at all worried about stopping terrorists. Any government that has to work so hard to make themselves seem friendly to a religion and people which attacked their own capital in the 2006 subway and bus bombings seems to have its priorities confused.

Ending terrorism should come before saving the image of our enemies.

Then they came for the preachers, but I did not speak out, because I was not a preacher.

Brittan appears to be a beacon of freedom, however, compared to America.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill before Congress which would allow the Justice Department to help local law enforcement prosecute those suspected of committing crimes because of a person’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The bill would also see an elevation of hate crimes from local or state crime to a federal offence.

This bill has many ministers and faithful worried about their rights to denounce homosexuality from the pulpit. Their worry is that under the law, if a member or members of their congregation were to commit a hate crime and tell the authorities that their minister told them homosexuality is wrong, that minister could be prosecuted as an accessory to the crime.

And their fears are not without grounds. USA Today mentioned in an article “ Ministers say hate crimes act could muzzle them”:

“In 2005, Philadelphia police arrested 11 members of the evangelical group Repent America after a confrontation at the city's Outfest gay pride festival. Charges, including ethnic intimidation under Pennsylvania's hate crimes law, were eventually dropped.

In 1998, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution criticizing area media outlets and religious groups for running ads that urged gays and lesbians to turn away from homosexual behavior. The resolution stated that a "marked increase in anti-gay violence" had coincided with "defamatory and erroneous campaigns" against gays and lesbians.”

Clearly, the American legal system does not want to hear the Christian perspective on homosexuality any more than the British want to hear about Islamic terrorists. The beliefs of Christians everywhere are always on trial, and always we must press on. When freedom of speech is attacked by the very people in place to defend it, the time has come to be more vocal than ever.