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
*******
On the bright side, he might never need a job, as the assistant state attorney was obviously biased against Lee by outside influences;
Tom Carroll, first assistant state’s attorney for McHenry County, declined to comment on the essay.
He said in the light of recent events, particularly the Virginia Tech shooting last week where Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students before killing himself, and the 1999 Columbine tragedy, the statements made in the essay were inappropriate.
“Ten years ago, maybe a statement wouldn’t raise as much comment or concern,” Carroll said, “but you have to factor in the world and the fact that these tragedies had happened.”
I have a feeling that the fact this 4.2 gpa student was just 3 weeks from going to Marines bootcamp had a lot to do with the decision to poison this kid's future with an arrest, rather than call his parents.
I don't know what the Marines enlistment rules are regarding this, but at the least, he won't be able to be at bootcamp when sceduled.
I understand better now. Thx again for taking the time to explain the details to me. It’s always a pleasure reading your posts, SJackson.
Is Federalism a completely lost cause or what? The constitution doesn’t give the feds the authority to deal with locak crimes, only those with interstate or international implications. Such laws are unconstitutional on their face.
This bill was proposed by Conyers. What has Giuliani to do with it?
Isn't that what was said about McCain/Feingold?
>>I’m sorry - I read the details of the bill, and I don’t see where this bill threatens freedom of speech or religious view. The bill outlines the penalties of committing physical violence with intent to harm or kill against someone for the reason of race, gender, religion, etc. It doesn’t police anyone’s thoughts or speech.<<
I think that concern comes from the part where the Feds help enforce state hate crime laws that can include saying something that makes the person feel uncomfortable.
(((I hate homosexuality, not the homosexual. BIG difference there.)))
My much beloved brother was a gay rights activist. He knew I loved him deeply, and he loved me back. But he knew I hated his homosexuality. He understood love the homosexual, not the homosexuality because of that.
I hate any protected class or hate crime laws. I believe quite firmly that the penalty for a crime should not be based on anything except the deed itself (presumably, if we are talking about penalty, guilt has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Not the victim, the perpetrator, or the motive. The deed is what matters. Otherwise, what you are saying in the law is that it is worse to attack (for example) some people than others. All in all, "hate crime" legislation sounds a lot like Animal Farm: we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
On closer reading I believe you have a point - although they do use the word threat which opens the door to speech.
Please tell me when the 1st Amendment has ever stopped a Democrat Congress or the courts from making and enforcing laws that violate the 1st Amendment.
Not only has the amendment's establishment clause been deliberately and falsely misinterpreted as a "wall of separation" between religion and government, God-hating liberals are demanding the very thing the free exercise clause was specifically designed to prevent. Namely, that Congress enact laws to prohibit the free exercise of religion. If a Christian, either clergy or laity, can't freely express his or her bible based belief that homosexual behavior is a sin and a blot on moral society, then he or she is being denied the right to freely exercise his or her religion.
The exact same reasoning was used regarding McCain-Fiengold campaign speech limits bill. It passed. It was signed into law. And... the Supreme Court upheld it. A right to life group is now arguing in front of the Supreme Court because they ran a TV ad against Fiengold's filibuster too close to an election. Exactly what the 1st Amendment protects.
Isn’t this just about violent crimes? Or am I missing something in the text of the bill? I understand the concerns people have, and I have them too. Funny thing is, if “hate speech” were criminalized, AND laws were applied fairly and consistently, people like Alec Baldwin and Rosie O’Donnell would be guilty. Aren’t there already “hate crimes” laws on the books? If not literally, they are there at least in the form of federal laws relating to civil rights. The Rodney King case is what I’m thinking of.
AH- I found the definition in the US Code of “violence:”
PART I—CRIMES
CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 16. Crime of violence defined
The term ``crime of violence’’ means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or property of
another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature,
involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person
or property of another may be used in the course of committing the
offense.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/uscmain.html
The sponsors list is the whose-who of the Looney Left in Congress.
Nappy Nappy Nappy
HO Ho Ho
And the followup question: DO you work directly or indirectly for a Presidential candidate Man50D?
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem...
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
Baloney.
bookmark
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.