What Do You All Think Of This Hate Crimes Stuff?

[Budge]

Its always interseting how some groups will have more protection then others.

This will turn THOUGHTS INTO CRIME.

And for Catholics who think this wont apply to them if any of you have a conservative priest who preaches agianst homosexuality, he may get marched into jail as well.

[quote]onstitution & Law
See other Constitution & Law Articles

Title: Christians in bull's-eye in new 'hate crimes' plan
Source: WND
URL Source: www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=55392
Published: Apr 26, 2007
Author: Bob Unruh
Post Date: 2007-04-26 01:28:42 by JoeSnuffy
7 Comments

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK Christians in bull's-eye in new 'hate crimes' plan Congress working to create penalties for non-PC views Posted: April 26, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn "thoughts, feelings, and beliefs" into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull's-eye, according to opponents.
[b]"H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech," according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.

"As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics, 'It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'" said Lavy.

The proposal has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137 sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter of days or weeks.

"This is a terrible thing, to criminalize thought or emotion or even speech," Lavy told WND, referring to H.R. 1592, now pending at the committee level in the U.S. House. Democrats there have been turning back amendments that would strip it of its worst provisions, according to an observer.[/b]

Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, said the plan, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act of 2007, is no more than "a surreptitious attempt by some in Congress to strip the nation of religious freedom and the ability to preach the gospel from our church pulpits."

"It will stamp all over our doctrine and practice of our faith," he said. "We believe what the Bible says. If you start there we've got a major problem."

Secondly, it unfairly restricts the expression of fair opinion by Christians, he told WND. "If anything, gays are getting undue deference awarded to them by the courts. That's why we have the same-sex marriage fight and that kind of thing."

Rev. Louis Sheldon, director of the Traditional Values Coalition, which represents 43,000 churches across the nation, told WND that the Democrats sponsoring and supporting the issue "have sold out to the homosexual agenda."

He said churches need to awaken to the dangers of having pastors, lay leaders, or even those sitting in the pews sent to jail for their biblical views. "When they [realize they] could go to jail for preaching the Word of God, they'll be concerned," he told WND.

Sheldon's organization is releasing a poster showing Jesus as a wanted fugitive, for "crimes" under the planned "hate crimes" legislation.

He also is running an e-mail campaign to alert members of Congress about their constituents' concerns.

WND columnist Janet Folger this week warned in a commentary called "Pastors: Act now or prepare for jail," that in New Hampshire, a crime that typically carries a sentence of 3 1/2 years was "enhanced" to 30 years because a robber shouted an anti-homosexual name at his victim.

"Think about it for a minute. If saying a mean anti-homosexual word adds an additional 23-26 ½ years to a sentence, and people live to around 80, that penalty is one-fourth of your life for the words you say. And while this was in addition to a robbery penalty, how much of a jump would it really be to penalize the speech 'infraction' alone? And just what constitutes an 'anti-gay epithet'? Would an 'anti-gay epithet' be to say, 'Homosexuality is a sin,' or 'Homosexuals should repent'? What if you informed someone that 'Homosexuality is harmful to your health'? If I were you, I wouldn't try it in New Hampshire," Folger wrote.

Folger's organization, Faith2Action, has launched a series of ads about Philadelphia grandmothers who were thrown in jail in Pennsylvania under that state's "hate crimes" law – and faced the possibility of 47 years in jail – for testifying in public about their Christian faith.

Those ads can be viewed at StopHateCrimesNow.com.

One, Arlene Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," before she was hauled off by police officers.

The proposal is by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the head of the House Judiciary Committee.

On Sheldon's website, he warned the bottom line is that in a court of law "cross-dressers rights would trump a pastor's right to preach the Bible, if the so-called Hate Crimes bill … passes."

Bishop Jackson cited well-known cases of the application of such a law in other nations: "In Australia, two evangelical pastors were charged with violating the State of Victoria's 'hate crimes' laws last year for criticizing Islam. In Canada, a Catholic city councilor was fined $1,000 for publicly stating that a gay couple's lifestyle was 'not normal and not natural,'" he said.

“As an African American, I have long questioned the attempts of the homosexual community to piggy back on the legislative breakthroughs blacks have achieved in civil rights. This legislation will not just over-protect homosexuals, it will bring the threat of invasive, governmental interference with the doctrines and practice of the Church. As some homosexual activists chant, ‘Stay out of our bedrooms,’ we are here to say, ‘Stay out of our pulpits!’” said Bishop Jackson.

Lavy's white paper, delivered to Congress just a few days ago, pointed out some of the results if the law is adopted. "It provides a federal remedy for a person who is attacked for promoting homosexual relationships, but not for a person who is attacked for encouraging people to stop engaging in homosexual behavior because it is physically and psychologically harmful," he said. "Worse yet, it provides for federal prosecution of a murderer who spews racial epithets at the victim, but not for a cold-blooded killer that is paid to commit the crime."

"There is no justification for this disparate treatment. Violent crimes should be punished regardless of the characteristics of the victim," he said.

"The emotion of hate is an unfortunate reality of the human experience. But it is not a crime unless accompanied by a criminal action – and even then it is the action that is within the police power of the government, not the emotion." he said. "The reality is that 'hate' crime laws are designed to punish people for what they think, feel, or believe."

And even more problematic, he said, is the inclusion of a definition of 'hate crime' from section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. "There is legitimate concern that once Congress makes any 'hate' crime a federal offense, the categories of crime will expand to include speech that causes someone to 'feel' intimidated, just as they have in other places such as Australia, Canada, and Sweden," he said.

Lavy's analysis noted that in New Jersey already it is a "hate crime" to communicate in a manner likely to cause "annoyance or alarm."

"One would not expect a reasonable person to feel threatened or feel fear of harm as the result of an innocuous communication. Nevertheless, the entire faculty at Ohio State University's Mansfield campus apparently agreed that university librarian Scott Savage was guilty of threatening behavior for a simple statement in 2006. His 'threat'? Recommending four books for freshman reading… The four books were "The Marketing of Evil," by [WND Managing Editor] David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or, and It Takes a Family by Sen. Rick Santorum."

The recommendation made three professors feel "unsafe" on campus and the entire faculty voted to file charges of sex discrimination and harassment against Mr. Savage for "anti-gay hate mongering," Lavy wrote. The charges were dismissed later, and Savage now has responded with a lawsuit against several university professors.

But under the proposal, such a recommended list for reading "could be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney General."

Lavy's evaluation also noted that San Francisco already has stated in a resolution that organizations seeking to minister to those engaged in homosexual behavior "were responsible" for homosexual student Matthew Shepard's death in Wyoming, even though his killers have said they did it for drugs and money.

Under such a new law, advertising its "Love Won Out" conferences, addressing homosexuality, would subject Focus on the Family to federal prosecution, he said.

At William Patterson University in Jew Jersey, a student-employee was formally reprimanded for saying he didn't want to receive promotional e-mails advocating for the lesbian lifestyle, because that sent a message of a "threat," Lavy said.

Furthermore, statistics show that during 2004 there were only 774 actual "hate crimes" recorded, five murders, four rape and the rest assaults – all of which can be prosecuted without special federal laws, he said.

Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, has been especially active in warning Christians of the approaching danger.

"Most persons who are concerned about imminent passage of the federal 'anti-hate' bill don't realize that S. 1105 in the Senate and H.R. 1592 in the House are actually amendments to a federal hate law passed in 1969. During the height of the civil rights movement, 'Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 245' stipulated that no one could verbally '…attempt to…intimidate' another person (chiefly black) away from enjoyment of their federally protected right to equal employment, public services, housing, voting rights, jury privileges, etc. If the government finds such verbal 'intimidation' in a state and state officials are not enforcing these guarantees, the federal government can invade states' rights in local law enforcement, upholding Title 18," he said.

Now, in 2007, he said, "the present hate bill grants [special rights] to homosexuals, transvestites, and transsexuals."

The proposal would make it "federally indictable to '…attempt to…intimidate' a homosexual from believing that he (even if he has AIDS or hepatitis) has the right to work in a restaurant, be employed as a police officer or summer camp counselor, or has equal rights to housing and employment anywhere he wishes," he said.

"A pastor, Christian broadcaster or publisher who verbally attempts to 'intimidate' homosexuals by describing homosexuality as an abomination (Lev. 18:22) are thus high-profile targets for indictment under this legislation," he said.

He noted that it also would be illegal for a Christian church to discriminate against an applicant as pastor because of his homosexuality or her lesbianism.

He said the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has been leading the charge for such crime bills for years, and has explained on its website how its campaign already has installed laws at the state level.

Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America, Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, Brad Dacus, of Pacific Justice Institute, and others already have expressed their alarm.

Click for Full Text! (1 image)[/quote]

[Sojourner]

we've discussed this here before ... you and Socrates agree

I don't

do a search

[homeschoolmom]

I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire article. But from what I read, I think the jist is that the thought police are out to get Christians who preach against homosexuality and other sins. It's bad. Beating up homosexuals is terrible and already a crime. Saying that homosexuality is a sin and that the wages of sin is death is not (nor should it be) a crime.

I don't think Catholics and Protestants are divided on that.

[Phoenix Reborn]

America is gonna become another Saudomin and Gamora (sp? with both)...and Iran is gonna make it so...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Phoenix Reborn' post='1256789' date='Apr 26 2007, 10:34 AM']America is gonna become another Saudomin and Gamora (sp? with both)...and Iran is gonna make it so...[/quote]
Sodom and Gomorrah

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1256804' date='Apr 26 2007, 11:44 AM']Sodom and Gomorrah[/quote]
What an insightful remark.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='homeschoolmom']I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire article. But from what I read, I think the jist is that the thought police are out to get Christians who preach against homosexuality and other sins. It's bad. Beating up homosexuals is terrible and already a crime. Saying that homosexuality is a sin and that the wages of sin is death is not (nor should it be) a crime.

I don't think Catholics and Protestants are divided on that.[/quote]Great post, HSM.

Here are some Catholic News Sources on the same topic:
[url="http://www.cfnews.org/TVC-0425.htm"]http://www.cfnews.org/TVC-0425.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200704/CUL20070426b.html"]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070426b.html[/url]

Oh, I think I'm feeling light-headed...I think I'm agreeing with Budge...Somebody call an ambulance.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[homeschoolmom]

[Winchester]

The only thing we have on our side is that the politically correct crowd is typically a bunch of unarmed weenies and those (apart from unarmed weenie judges) who would enforce these laws are armed and quite intolerant of the intolerant tolerance puked up by the unarmed weenies.

[Guest T-Bone]

What he said.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1256763' date='Apr 26 2007, 10:07 AM']Its always interseting how some groups will have more protection then others.

This will turn THOUGHTS INTO CRIME.

And for Catholics who think this wont apply to them if any of you have a conservative priest who preaches agianst homosexuality, he may get marched into jail as well.[/quote]
I actually totally agree with Budge on this!

And I certainly don't think Catholics would be immune.

I am 100% against any form of "hate crimes" legislation, particularly pertaining to homosexuals and "transgendered."

People in Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden have already been prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws for speaking out against homosexual behavior. Those who take the attitude of "that could never happen in America" are quite naive, imo. That is the only logical end of "hate crime" laws.

And killing and beating people up are already crimes. Why should whether the victim is homosexual make a difference in prosecution?


But I think you'll find yourself disappointed, Budge, if you expect lots of Catholics here to be rising up defending "hate crime" legislation.

[jeffpugh]

Yay we're all getting along with Budge! Yeah I'm seeing the western culture take a nose dive in.. um... give it a few years...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1257337' date='Apr 26 2007, 08:07 PM']I actually totally agree with Budge on this!

And I certainly don't think Catholics would be immune.

I am 100% against any form of "hate crimes" legislation, particularly pertaining to homosexuals and "transgendered."

People in Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden have already been prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws for speaking out against homosexual behavior. Those who take the attitude of "that could never happen in America" are quite naive, imo. That is the only logical end of "hate crime" laws.

And killing and beating people up are already crimes. Why should whether the victim is homosexual make a difference in prosecution?
But I think you'll find yourself disappointed, Budge, if you expect lots of Catholics here to be rising up defending "hate crime" legislation.[/quote]
TOTALLY called this one

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1257349' date='Apr 26 2007, 08:28 PM']TOTALLY called this one
[/quote]
Well, I'd be worried if anyone would presume otherwise.

It should hardly be surprising that I would oppose such godless and tyrannical legislation.

[Budge]

Im glad you all agree with me.

But do you all realize the Vatican SUPPORTS HATE CRIME LAWS [even with the fact it could be used against them concievably?]

[url="http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23515"]http://www.catholic.org/international/inte...ry.php?id=23515[/url]

Try and me tell the below wouldnt entail SOME CURTAILMENT OF SPEECH.

It would be illegal to cricitize ANY RELIGION.

Remember there are those who are offended [like the Islamics who got so upset at your Pope] very easily.

Do you all want the UN controlling speech? The hate crime law pushers love the UN usually here in America.

[quote]Anti-religious fanaticism threatens believers, Vatican tells U.N. council
3/23/2007

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
GENEVA, Switzerland (Catholic Online) – Anti-religious fanaticism threatens religion and believers with insult, discrimination, persecution and injury that stands in contradiction to the promise of freedom hailed by democratic societies, said a Vatican representative to a United Nations body here.

Advertisement

In a March 22 address to the fourth special session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, head of the Vatican permanent observer mission of the Holy See to the U.N. and other international organizations here, called the international body to protect the “freedom of religion, of ex-pression, of conscience, of worship in private and in public and respect of religious convictions for believers of all faiths and for non-believers alike” within the context of other human rights.

“Abuse of rights of believers, even outright violence against them, state restrictions, undue impositions and persecution, public insult to religious feelings, unfortunately persist and call for remedy,” he said.

{That one would make it illegal to "offend" anyone about their religion}

Democracies must beware of the drive to “set aside the respect of concrete religions” in the interest of granting the “rights of religious freedom and freedom of expression,” he said.

“One cannot consider the ridicule of the sacred as a right of freedom,” the archbishop said.
[b]He urged that the council, which reviews human rights of all 191 U.N. member states, take up the issue of developing “mechanisms or instruments” that would “defend the message of religious communities from manipulation and would avoid a disrespectful presentation of their members.”[/b]


The Vatican, he said, sees evidence of “anti-religious fanaticism that denigrates religion or, generally, the faithful of a religion by attributing them responsibility of violent actions done today or in the past by some members of that religion.”
[b]
The nuncio said that “legitimate criticism” of actions by some religious followers must not become license to “insult or unjust defamation nor into offensive mockery of its revered persons, practices, rites or symbols.”

Religious offense, especially when directed to a minority within a society, is a form of coercion against believers that makes the profession and public practice of religion more difficult, he added.
[/b]
Archbishop Tomasi said that Holy See has watched the emergence on the world stage of “an apparent dilemma between respect due to religions and the right to religious freedom as if they were incompatible and mutually exclusive,” adding that those values are “complementary” and must co-exist.

The respect for and dignity of the human person “implies respect of his freedom in religious matters to profess, practice and publicly manifest one’s religion without being mocked, injured, discriminated against,” he said.

“Respect of the rights and dignity of others should mark the limit of any right, even that of the free expression and manifestation of one’s opinions, religious ones included,” Archbishop Tomasi said.

Acknowledging the tragic results of “pseudo-religious fanaticism,” the archbishop stressed that religion with science are among the social factors that “have more contributed to progress of humanity through the promotion of cultural, artistic, social and humanitarian values.”

“Any religion that preaches or condones violence, intolerance and hatred renders itself unworthy of the name,” he added.

“The religious dimension of the human person, his attitude before transcendence and the consequent ethical demands,” he said, “is a basic reference point of personal and social behavior.”

“Religions can offer, and, in fact, do offer, a solid foundation for the defense of the values of personal and social justice, for respect of others and of nature,” the nuncio said.

He said that it is not enough for religious tolerance to exist if it is not rooted in the right of religious freedom of each citizen, the “fundamental human right inherent in every human person.”

“A really democratic state values religious freedom as a fundamental element of the common good, worthy of respect and protection, and creates the conditions that allow its citizens to live and act freely,” Archbishop Tomasi stressed.

“A comprehensive approach that sees respect of religion rooted in the freedom that every human person is entitled to enjoy in a balance of rights with others and with society appears as the reasonable way forward,” he said.[/quote]

Edited April 27, 2007 by Budge