More Pastors ‘Parish’ the Thought of Hate Crimes
Another Looney Leftist who should be ashamed of himself!
In Tennessee, Rep. Steve Cohen (D) is finding out the hard way that pastors aren’t buying the liberal line on H.R. 1592, the federal “hate crimes” bill. A growing number of ministers are sensing that the wave of support for applying “hate crimes” to sexual orientation spells trouble for religious leaders and their ability to speak freely from the pulpit. Although Cohen is doing his best to reassure Tennessee’s churches that they’ll be unaffected, the state’s faithful are challenging his vote in favor of the bill. Together with a powerful alliance of black and white pastors, congregations have ignited a firestorm across the Volunteer State that has resulted in a massive letter-writing and phone campaign. Cohen said his office fielded about 400 calls on the issue after local Memphis churches distributed thousands of fliers about where the bill could lead. Yesterday, the congressman proved the churches’ effectiveness by unleashing his anger on the House floor, accusing “right-wing, evangelical” groups of “misleading pastors.” His accusation missed the mark; it is Cohen and his liberal leadership that are misleading the American public. Both have said that the bill, which is still pending in the Senate, would not trample on Americans’ First Amendment rights. Pastors like Chester Berryhill know better, saying that he and his colleagues understand that the purpose of the bill is to silence moral opposition. “If you get up in a pulpit now, and if you say homosexuality is a sin, you have ‘attacked homosexuality.’ …We want absolutely no restrictions on what a preacher can preach…” We’re encouraged that these Tennessee pastors have taken such a principled stand and reached a level of engagement that FRC is working to help all states imitate. For more information on how your congregation can get involved, log on to http://www.frc.org and order our new DVD on the drive for sweeping “thought crimes” laws, “Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians.”
Additional Resources
Pastors Attack Cohen on Bill
The Fairness Doctrine? So called Hate crimes legislation? What will these Commies think of next? If they can control an entire group of people from what they say maybe you’re Speech is next!
Our First Amendment is NOT there to protect Speech we esteem. It’s there to protect Speech we don’t esteem. Rep. Cohen is sponsoring dangerous Anti-American Legislation and made this a political issue rather than protecting our American Constitution. Shame on him!
Tell Rep. Cohen what you think of his Anti-American and very political bill!
Read the text of the bill. You can find it here. Please point out exactly which section has anything to do with “speech”. There isn’t any. A “hate crime” is something that is already a crime (generally involving violence of some kind) wherein the violent act is motivated by hatred.
Or, are you saying that violent crimes should be considered “speech” if those crimes are motivated by hatred, and are, therefore, protected by the First Amendment? If so, that’s a very novel argument.
And, one really does have to wonder whether these religious leaders would be making such a fuss if Congress simply removed the phrase “sexual orientation” from the bill. How telling that would be…
1st Argument: This legislation violates the Free Speech clause of the 1st Amdt by criminalizing thought and motive in and of itself rather than the action which is already a crime. HB1592 creates an
unconstitutional, but de facto privileged protected class entitled to greater protection under law than other victims of the same kind of crime. It would classify any statement such as “homosexuality is a sin” as a hate crime because it would be considered “discriminatory” against this so called “protected class” and therefore Freedom of Speech is abridged. And if there was a gay guy in the audience he will claim being threatened and intimidated and there goes the accusation and Freedom of Speech goes out the window because it “creates a climate of hostility, blah, blah, blah,” since the protected class has more rights than the speaker does.
2nd Argument: Provides unequal protection to different classes of victims thereby violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amdt.
3rd Argument: This law allows the feds to creep into local jurisdictions they have no business being in thereby violating the 10th Amdt.
One obvious conclusion: Anytime there is a law granting special protection to certain groups of people anyone that is not a member of that special group is denied equal protection and justice under the law.
Here are some more thoughts: (until someone feels intimidated by them, files a federal hate crimes complaint, and then the Thought Police come and arrest me.)
Thought Crime (‘Hate Crime’) Laws: Unnecessary and a Threat to Free Speech
1. Penalizing Thoughts Instead of Actions. So-called “hate crime” legislation would have a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings.
• Currently proposed federal “hate crime” legislation would only authorize direct federal prosecution of those who cause or attempt to cause “bodily injury.” However, such acts are already crimes, regularly prosecuted and punished under state or local laws. The offender’s politically incorrect thoughts or opinions alone would make such crimes a federal offense.
• The proposed bill would allow federal authorities to assist in state or local prosecution of any “crime of violence,” which is interpreted more broadly and includes even offenses where no physical force is used, but there is merely a “risk that physical force . . . may be used.”
• The Hate Crimes Reporting Act of 1990 mandated that the statistics collected by the FBI define “hate crimes” more broadly still, to include even acts of “intimidation” (which can be as simple as name-calling). Approximately half the “hate crimes” in the FBI statistics are in this category. Once the principle of punishing thoughts as well as actions is established, it will be a simple matter to broaden definitions until thoughts and speech alone trigger prosecution.
• “Intimidation” has already been broadly interpreted to include the public criticism of homosexuality, as in the case of 11 Christian protesters charged under a Pennsylvania “ethnic intimidation” law on Oct. 10, 2004. The defendants were charged for peacefully protesting at a “gay pride” rally and faced imprisonment and huge fines before their case was dismissed.
• Michael McGough, senior editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, writes “The best argument against ‘enhanced penalty’ laws is the constitutional one. In the United States, we are taught, you can be sent to prison for what you do but not for what you think. Not only that, if government picks and chooses which crimes are the most serious based on the motivation behind them or the ethnic background of the victim, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment, isn’t it?” (“There’s little to like about hate-crime laws,” Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2007).
2. Federal Intrusion into State & Local Law Enforcement. Currently proposed “Hate Crime” legislation empowers the federal government to intervene and prosecute alleged “hate crimes” anywhere in the country, thus usurping the prerogative of state and local law enforcement. Federal hate crimes bureaucrats can intervene and claim jurisdiction in localities which lack “hate crime” laws, or where those laws are judged not to be zealously enforced.
3. Sexual Orientation “Hate Crimes” – A Manufactured Crisis. According to FBI data (Crime in the United States, 2004, and Hate Crime Statistics, 2004), anti-homosexual “hate crimes” account for a miniscule fraction of total crimes in the United States:
• Of the 16,137 murders that occurred in 2004, one (.006 percent) was classified as a “bias motivation” because of the sexual orientation of the victim.
• None of the 94,635 forcible rapes that occurred in 2004 (0 percent) were reported as being a result of bias motivation because of the victim’s sexual orientation.
• Of the 854,911 aggravated assaults in 2004, 181 (.02 percent) were classified as bias motivation because of the victim’s sexual orientation.
4. Most Alleged “Hate Crimes” are Not Serious Violent Crimes.
• Intimidation: One-half (50.1 percent) of all bias-motivated offenses against persons involved the crime of intimidation, defined as the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without using a weapon or subjecting the individual to actual physical attack.
• Simple assault: Another 31 percent of bias-motivated offenses involved simple assault, which is a physical attack not involving the use of a weapon, and where the victim does not suffer obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury.
Does the rare incidence of violent “hate crimes” justify the creation through legislation of an entire new class of crime?
5. The Myth that ‘Hate Crimes’ Are Not Being Prosecuted. Proponents of “hate crime” legislation have not substantiated the assertion that state and local authorities are failing to prosecute such crimes. Ironically, in the most high profile case for hate crimes legislation, the murder of Matthew Shepard, the killers were convicted and sentenced to double life sentences without parole. Only the pleas of Shepard’s parents persuaded the judge to spare Henderson and McKinney the death penalty.
Timothy J. Dailey is Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies, at the Family Research Council.
But, you still haven’t quoted the text of the law that does what you claim the law does. Until you do that, arguments 1 through N for any value of N fail. Do I need to explain why?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:7:./temp/~c110PlCUKr::
Section 3 — “. . . including violent crimes MOTIVATED BY BIAS.”
Section 5 — “A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.”
Group Rights!
Section 6 — “(B) MEMBERS of targeted GROUPS are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.”
This law would open the door for the Feds to pour money into the local jurisdictions who are supposedly fighting violent hate crimes against a person and those in the Group that share the traits of the so called victim.
In other words Group Rights! Under the new post modern way of legislating we are no longer Individuals equally protected under the law, but protected if you are a member of a specially protected class. Let’s not forget the violations mentioned early re: Amdts 1, 10, and 14.
It’s asinine that they are invoking the Interstate Commerce Clause of the 14th Amdt making the statement that “groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services,” because an individual might be assaulted by some criminal? This is wild hyperbole and paranoid fantasy which they have to reach that far to justify Fed. involvement which is really the issue here.
The further irony is at the same time they are invoking the ICC they are completely neglecting the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amdt.
I don’t know how much further explanation you need on this issue. This is such a blatant violation of equal protection of the law for INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS. If you can’t see this there is nothing more I can say to make this clear for you! Also, if you can’t see this it’s because it requires an open mind to understand this logic.
Groups do not have rights, but if this law passes it furthers expands the rights of a protected Group against others not members of that group.
Have you ever heard of a love crime?
First of all, the text you’ve quoted isn’t from H.R. 1592. It’s from the Senate version of the bill. It would have been good of you to mention that.
Secondly, the two quotes you’ve given are from Sec.2, paragraphs 3 and 5. The proper citation is S.1105, Sec. 2(3) and S.1105, Sec.2(5). Proper citations help to facilitate, discussion, and I would ask that you be sure to use proper citations in the future.
Third, section 2 is the “Findings” section of the bill, and has no force of law. It’s the equivalent of obiter dicta in a judicial decision.
Even with all that, why would you choose to emhasize the words “motivated by hate,” and not the words “violent crimes”? Indeed, why not quote the entire paragraph:
As the full text of that paragraph makes clear, the law does not create a new category of crime. It merely augments punishment and allocation of resources in the prevention and enforcement of laws against already existing–namely violent–crimes. The only possible way to turn this into an issue involving speech is to argue that violent crimes motivated by hate constitute speech.
So, your first premise is false. The law does not make hatred itself a crime. The law only places special emphasis on violent crimes that are motivated by hatred. You remain free to hate whomever you choose to hate for whatever reason you choose to hate them. You do, however, face particular penalties should you choose to express that hatred using violence.
Which, by the way, is precisely the answer to your last question. The reason we don’t have “love crimes” is because people tend to not express love using violence.
Having undercut the entire basis of your argument, it shouldn’t be necessary for me to address your statements about equal protection, but I will do so anyway. There are two flaws in your claim.
The first flaw is that this bill grants no specific rights to people in any specific group. By that standard alone, the equal protection clause doesn’t even apply.
The second flaw is in your misinterpretation of the meaning of the equal protection clause. If we were required to accept your interpretation of the equal protection clause, then a number of present laws would have to be declared unconstitutional. A prime example would be the current tax laws, which differentiate between individuals based on levels of income.
Moreover, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held in several landmark cases, the government can, indeed, discriminate, even on the basis of race, if the government can show that such discrimination is required to pursue a legitimate government interest. You can find these cases by searching for the phrase “strict scrutiny” in relation to the equal protection clause of the XIVth Amendment.
In that sense, one way to read Section 2 of the Senate version of the bill is that it establishes a legitimate government interest for applying special funding and punishments intended to reduce the incidents of violent crimes motivated by bias and hatred.
Other than the flawed premises, your logic is impeccable. On the other hand, given freedom to make any assumptions one wishes regardless of reality, one can reach whatever conclusion one wants to reach. Because of the flawed premises, then, your argument is completely and wholly uncompelling.