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
*******
>>how can you support the homosexual and not his mission...
hmmm, sounds familiar.... like we support the troops, but not the mission...
hmmmm
teeman<<
He didn’t say he supported, he said he didn’t hate the sinner only the sin. Lots of Christians aspire to that.
If this isn't enough to get complacent Christians off their butts nothing will.
Could a state make a state makes “hate crime” a felony and includes speech based charges, I suppose, though none have attempted it. I'd suggest in that case the state law would be a far bigger problem than any potential federal involvement. IMO this should be opposed as an unecessary expansion of federal government into the realm of the states. Since it addresses violent crime, opposing it as anti-Christian is open to misinterpritation.
Had CAIR opposed the legislation, and Frontpagemagazine come out with a scathing editorial focusing on the evil of religiously motivated violent crime, you'd see support on this site.
“Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement? ...
...finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes”.”
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Probably start by expunging certain parts of the Bible.
>>Could a state make a state makes “hate crime” a felony and includes speech based charges, I suppose, though none have attempted it.<<
Criminalizing speech as a hate crime has already happened on a state level.
California Penal Code section 422.6 offers a wider interpretation of hate crime, defining it as “No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics.”[1]
“The bill was proposed by Conyers. Why are you blaming Giuliani?”
Get used to it. The purists within the party will be sure to destroy any chance of beating the democrats in 08 by destroying their own party.
Recall what they did for us in November.
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
OK, that wipes out the double jepordy clause...
Get used to it. The purists within the party will be sure to destroy any chance of beating the democrats in 08 by destroying their own party.
Recall what they did for us in November.-—”
It’s relevant because Rudy would sign the bill - he is one of the most fervent Hate Crimes legislation supporters in the nation. Look at how hard he pushed them as Mayor of NYC.
As far as purity - if Rudy is “winning,” then I’d rather lose. Considering I and many Freepers would support any other candidate - if only reluctantly - that’s hardly purity. it’s the Rudophiles who seeks a purist party - devoid of issues they don’t care about, with no exceptions.
...finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes”.”
****
There it is right there. Same with parents teaching their children the Bible - another foot in the door to control the home also big time.
The law only applies to people who are attackers, who do or try to attack or kill someone else.
If they use racial epithets or the like that indicate their intent, or in some other way indicate a racial motive, then this proposed law would kick in with additional mandatory penalties.
Like those guys who carjacked the two kids, killed the man, kidnapped, raped, tortured, and killed the woman- if they had said “those crackers deserved it” then this law would chime in.
This law applies to felony acts of violence against a person where the motive can be attributed to prejudice. There is no intent to monitor thought.
The hilarious part is the lengthy justification under the Commerce Clause- the feds have no jurisdiction otherwise. They have no power to interfere with the states, and no right to step into this area.
A stupid statist feelgood law that would be used by the MSM far more often than by the courts.
“... if Rudy is “winning,” then I’d rather lose.”
Exactly my point. Great ..just great.
Just out of curiosity and fairness...did Guliani write this bill or is he a sponsor? I understand peoples noncomfort level with his prior support for gay rights, but he has nothing to do with this. I really dont think its fair to call people out when they have nothing to do with a particular piece of legislation.
Bingo. You wouldn't believe how simple that is to accomplish. Some of the new translations have already started that trend. We don't want to offend women by labeling God as "He". If the reference to homosexuality is sanitized by referring to it as sexual immorality or some beneign term such as that, then in a generation or two the Bible will have nothing to say about the subject. Easy.
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.