Bill C-250, a motion by MP Svend Robinson, is what has created this battleground. It proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would protect sexual orientation from being targeted by hate propaganda -- which could be construed, according to this bill, as including religious texts. What the effects of this law will be has preachers across the land fearing that they could go from pulpit to court, and even jail, if they continue to publicly read and preach biblical passages on homosexuality. Constituents in the thousands have complained to their MPs over Bill C-250. Clearly, the matter is of enormous concern to defenders of religious freedom. 

The uproar is proof that a third and final reading in the House of this proposed law is woefully premature and potentially disastrous.

For more than 10 years, Mr. Robinson has been gathering anecdotal evidence to show that Canada needs a way to prohibit people from saying hateful things against gays. No one in church leadership or laity should have a problem with that. After all, we are the people whose highest law is love.

But here's the threat: Bill C-250 says that moral views, motivated by religious text, can be equated with hatred. Thus, if church teaching refers to homosexuality as brokenness, or sin (as in, missing the ideal), it could be charged as being hate propaganda. 

If you disagree over the morality of homosexuality, are you spreading hate? I don't think so. This topic may be one of the most emotionally charged in Canada right now, but disagreeing is not tantamount to feeling hatred. 

Consider anti-smoking ads: They target a behaviour, not the person actually smoking. So it is when religious teachings tackle homosexuality: They do so because they regard it as a moral issue, not because they are denouncing a person. 

On the other hand, Bill C-250 is, potentially, an assault on the principle of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion -- because if enacted, it puts a chill of fear on anyone publicly teaching sexuality in the church. 

Dealing with controversial passages is not a matter of isolating centuries-old text and saying, "Gosh, that could spread hatred." Rather, when looking at sacred denouncements of homosexuality, it is a matter of understanding the complexity of theology, how moral guidelines are explained and lived by, and what is the public record of those who live by and proclaim such moral views. All biblical moral positions must be taught in a context which is the antithesis of hatred. It cannot be hate. If it is, it's not biblical. 

But Christian faith is complex and mysterious, which is why Bill C-250 has generated such fear in religious ranks.

Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim religious families already know that when they teach their children about their faith's spiritual guidelines as they apply to human sexuality they are being politically incorrect in some Canadians' eyes. But can teaching these sacred texts and traditional values now be interpreted as generating hate?

I am well aware that there are hate-mongers out there, but it's a rare problem. One Kansas preacher, Fred Phelps, famous for homophobic tirades, tried to visit Canada in 1999, but was dissuaded from coming at the request of Canada's most conservative Christian leaders, who have also strongly denounced hate-filled misrepresentations of homosexuality and banned them from circulation in faith communities. 

But Bill C-250 is a gross overreaction to sacred text that has for centuries existed peacefully in this land.

Court cases over religiously informed views and moral convictions on homosexuality have already racked up millions of dollars in legal fees. Parliamentarians can try to assure voters that religious freedom is not under threat in Canada, but the evidence is to the contrary. In the past 10 years, it has become routine for public ministries to support legal departments, yet there is no evidence that they have done anything to generate hatred toward homosexuals. They are simply trying to live according to their faiths -- surely the core of religious freedom in our land.

So what conclusion should we reach about the troublesome C-250? I say it must be stopped in its tracks and amended. Mr. Robinson filibustered his motion past the justice committee last spring, and so Bill C-250 missed scrutiny from those whose job it is to study the implications of such laws. 

I'd like to see Mr. Robinson retreat to a position he stated in a letter he circulated last June. Then, he said he would not oppose a carefully worded amendment to Bill C-250 to protect religious freedom. That might be hard for the MP who in 1999 attempted to remove "the supremacy of God" from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would, however, advance his efforts to minimize hatred, and offer a model of tolerance and respect for the role of religion in our land. 

Religion does not drive politics. Rather, it shapes character, and character informs our values and decisions. Few of us expected to have to fight for our right to teach the Bible. This is a battle over what tolerance, freedom and love are all about. For those who try to live by the Bible, each day defines our progress. Bill C-250 would be a backward step.