Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 04/26/2007 1:34:30 AM PDT by Man50D
Edited on 04/26/2007 2:08:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
"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.
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."
*******
H. R. 1592 Sponsors an Full Text
*******
I’m sure our “Christian” President will veto it. No worries........
What they can’t win in the voting booth they force in through the courts.
Why is this motion necessary?
If a crime is committed, a crime has been committed - makes no difference what color the victim or perpetrator is and SHOULDN’T if justice is to be administered colorblindedly.
I do note the provision of Section 2 where the call to eliminate “artifacts” of involuntary servitude may be extended to those whose state’s majority populations wish to fly the CBF.
By your tag line, I presume you are Catholic. Your church has condemned homosexuality and any other sort of sex outside or marriage for a very long time. The end result of "hate crimes" legislation will be the muzzling of Catholic (or any other) clergy or laity who preach against homosexuality or any other perversion.
Thx SJackson. That’s what I thought. I don’t understand the problem. Ok, so If a violent crime is committed because of the mentioned prejudices, then they will book it as a hate crime. During an investigation, they usually look for motive. If it is obvious or there is admission that a violent crime was commited against someone because that person was gay, then it seems like a hate crime to me. Am I missing something? Can you give me some feedback on this. Do you see it this way too?
“Famous last words: They’ll never get McCain-Feingold by the courts!”
I would add the Kelo decision to the list of examples proving that we are not at all safe in our Constitutional rights.
Block Rudy NOW!! bump
BUMP
The headline sets up a fallacy
Depends on the AG, or the AG's deputy prosecutors.
I think that's the most common motive, which is most commonly ignored.
I’m well aware of everything you’ve said. I’m just pointing out that the article is disingenuous regarding the scope of this bill. There’s not much we can do to stop this one, and I think we should keep our powder dry on this and remain vigilant. What comes next on this slope is fairly predictable, but the bill in question contains nothing that would prevent it from becoming law.
I fully expect that the Democrats will one day attempt to declare Catholic teaching as a hate creed. The only thing stopping them is the marketplace. Once the marketplace (corporate America, the media) determines that it’s okay to apply the label and take action as private entities to openly discriminate, Washington will follow. We’re not there yet.
As for Giuliani, he’s the devil in disguise. I’m doing all that I can to discourage my fellow Republicans and Catholics to aviod him like the plague.
Certainly plausible at some point, but not enough to derail this. We would have to dismantle the whole "hate crime" concept, and at this point, when it comes to national security, that would include the rationale for profiling "Wahabbists" and other Islamofascists.
Essentially that's how "hate crime" laws work on a state level, basically they up the penalty based on motivation. Personally I think they're unnecessary in most instances, but motivation is a reasonable component of sentencing since it relates to the liklihood of recidivism.
Two problems with this law.
First, violent crime is a state issue and all states have addressed it. The federal government is overreaching.
Second, the Federal statute defines a second unique crime. If someone breaks a gays nose, and the judge in your state sentences him to 6 months, a federal prosecutor who might feel that's not enough can then charge him in federal court with a second criminal violation for the same act. By definition that decision will be made capriciously.
There's simply no problem here to be addressed on a federal level, the states are handling these things just fine.
Pure political grandstanding, it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, the states already prosecute violent crime. Since it includes religion and race, it elevates everyone to victimhood status. In practice, you're right, it would be used only very selectively in high profile cases where the administration wanted to score political points.
I agree. I’ll add that it will also probably be used to “invent” crimes, like the Rodney King event. That was clearly not a violation of rights, because several others involved with King weren’t hit. Only King was, because he failed to surrender and instead mounted a series of attacks on the police. The prosecution claims were invented for political and policy reasons.
He could be charged today, without this law. The factors would be the specificity of your pastor's incitement and the proximity in time to the crime. In your example, there's nothing going on. You need a situation like your pastor preaching that homosexuals should be beaten for their sins and a nut walks out and beats someone. I'm willing to speculate a case like that will reach the courts in our lifetime, but it will likely involve an Iman not a pastor, and a crusader or Jew, not a gay.
We all said that about McCain/Feingold, as I recall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.