Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will the Hate Crimes Bill lead to American Fascism?
Crosswalk ^ | May 14, 2007 | Mike Pohlman

Posted on 05/15/2007 8:01:53 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

On Thursday, May 3, the House of Representatives voted 237 to 180 to dramatically expand the federal hate crime law to include violence against a person because of his or her actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. With the passage of H.R. 1592, and the likely passage of a similar Senate bill within weeks, Americans are facing the hate crime legislation that would effectively regulate speech, tampering with the bedrock liberties in our democracy of free speech and religious liberty.

In the aftermath of the House vote several arguments have been advanced opposing hate crime legislation. Some, like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) protest on constitutional grounds, arguing that H.R. 1592 is contrary to the 14th Amendment, providing unequal protection under the law. Others oppose the bill because it elevates sexual orientation to the same status as race or gender. Still others argue from a federalist perspective that all hate crime legislation should be left to the discretion of the states.

While each of these arguments has merit, the paramount threat of H.R. 1592 and similar legislation is the undermining of freedom of speech and religious liberty. It is not a stretch to see the day when the articulation of religious beliefs is subject to prosecution as a hate crime (or an accessory to a hate crime).

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Glen Lavy argues that hate crime laws are “an effort to enforce the orthodoxy of political correctness and to curtail freedom of speech.” Remember, there is not a single violent act that hate-speech legislation advocates have in view that is not a crime already. What distinguishes this area of law is the involvement of the federal government and the effort to judge the thoughts or motives, not just the behavior, of an “offender.” Lavy points out that, “There is a 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.” What he sees in hate crime legislation is the specter of the federal government policing not merely the action of violent crime, but the emotion of the perpetrator and a government definition of “hate.”

Chuck Colson sees the chilling effect on speech as the motive behind proponents when he argues that, “the intent of the law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.” Writing in the Washington Post, the Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Maryland is clear about his ultimate fear: “This law can be applied in a way that can keep the church from preaching the Gospel.”

In recent years the publishing industry has been pumping out book after book warning of an encroaching “theocracy” in America—the steady advance of the religious right and their efforts to inundate government at all levels. From American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips to Randall Palmer’s Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America the stated or implicit goal is the same: warn America about conservative evangelicals’ covert mission to abolish the separation of Church and State and establish a Christian theocracy.

Perhaps the most militant of these prophets of an encroaching theocracy is Chris Hedges, author of American Fascist: The Christian Right and the War on America. In his book Hedges labors to position those who oppose hate crime legislation as despots who “keep their followers locked” in a “closed information system”—a trait typical of fascist groups:

Passivity in the face of the rise of the Christian Right threatens the democratic state. And the movement has targeted the last remaining obstacles to its systems of indoctrination, mounting a fierce campaign to defeat hate crimes legislation, fearing the courts could apply it to them as they spew hate talk over the radio, television and Internet. Despotic movements harness the power of modern communications to keep their followers locked in closed systems. If this long, steady poisoning of civil discourse within these closed information systems is not challenged, if this movement continues to teach neighbor to hate neighbor, if its followers remain convinced that cataclysmic violence offers a solution to their own ills and the ills of the world, civil society in America will collapse.

Hedges goes on to warn that “religious utopians” are “slowly dismantling democratic institutions to establish a religious tyranny, the springboard to an American fascism.” There is an irony here that should not be missed on newcomers to the hate crimes debate: It is the sympathizers of expanded hate crime legislation who ostensibly fear these “closed information systems” and prize free speech who are quite comfortable passing laws that will attempt to discern motives and scrutinize speech in ways that will fundamentally alter the exercise of First Amendment freedoms in our country. It is a Democrat-controlled Congress and key institutions of the left like Human Rights Campaign and the ACLU who are pushing through legislation that would dramatically expand the power of the federal government to police speech. Inevitably, early scrutiny would go to the feared “religious utopians”—in their pulpits and through their media outlets across the country.

Thankfully, this president has indicated a willingness to veto hate crime legislation that comes across his desk. But with George W. Bush’s days in office winding down, genuine First Amendment advocates should be prepared for the battles over hate crime legislation yet ahead. With the primary opposition coming from those with concerns based on freedom of speech and religious liberty, it seems fair to ask: Who is it, really, that is willing to tamper with the First Amendment and use the federal government to advance its agenda in a manner that could, legitimately, be feared as a “springboard to an American fascism”?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antichristian; democrats; freespeech; hatecrimes; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; hr1592; religion; theocracy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
Call your Senators today to voice your opposition to this unconstitutional proposed new law: 202-225-3121
1 posted on 05/15/2007 8:02:00 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Thanks for this thread.

This is the value of FR.


2 posted on 05/15/2007 8:03:02 AM PDT by Jake The Goose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake The Goose

You are welcome. We must stand up and be counted. The dhimmicrats think that the “peasants” are sheep, but they will find that we are wolves, instead.


3 posted on 05/15/2007 8:04:40 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Nancy Pelosi: The Babbling Bolshevik Babushka from the City by the Bay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Hopefully this time Mr. Bush will not non-chalantly presume that the Supreme Court will rule this bill unconstitutional and will veto it outright.

His last experience with the CFR bill should have clued him innever to trust the Lawyers at the Supreme Court, and remember no matter how high the pedastal the SC sits on they are basically lawyers.

As are the most of the political geniouses sitting on the Hill that pass this kind of crap. We all know the Democrats there are pandering to their homosexual constituency with this garbage, Hopefully the straight constituents will make them eat this when election time comes round again.If there are any straights left in the Democrat party.


4 posted on 05/15/2007 8:08:56 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (I will forgive Jane Fonda, when the Jews forgive Hitler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

For later read.

A guy I work with is rather liberal, and has said he expects “the Religious Right” to ban books any day now.

I shocked him once, when I asked that he look at who was the one calling for censorship.


5 posted on 05/15/2007 8:09:03 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Been there, done that. P. Murray all for it, (Baird voted for it), haven’t heard back from Cantwell yet. Sob! :o(


6 posted on 05/15/2007 8:10:06 AM PDT by Paperdoll ( Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake The Goose

We used to punish behavior, not opinion or emotion. The only thoughts that were relevant were intent thoughtlessness in performing an act.

Now, a punch in the nose is a crime, punishable more severely if you harbor a certain opinion about the victim. If you merely hate the guy because he’s a jerk, you are punished less than if you hate the guy because he is in a certain protected class of people.

The difference in the [punishment is attributable only to the thought. Therefore, we now punish thought.

We are on a slippery slope. Next will be an ever expanding list of protected classes. Will anti-global warming people be next? Wal-Mart shoppers? The uninsured? Conservatives? Liberals?

Then will be an expanding list of behaviors that give rise to criminal charges. Avoiding people on the street? Failing to say “Hello?” Failing to agree publically that some idea is the only way to think?


7 posted on 05/15/2007 8:15:45 AM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
dramatically expand the federal hate crime law to include violence against a person because of his or her actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity

So now we're going for whether someone thought (or didn't think) that someone was a sodomite or crossdresser?

So if someone assaulted ol' Rudi on the campaign trail, they'd get the death penalty if they did so because he is a crossdresser but not because he is a flaming liberal?

One would hope Prez Bush would veto (and not rely on the Court and sign it like McStain-Feingold). And one would hope, if it comes to it, the Court's conservative jurists could get at least one other justice (likely either Kennedy or Ginsberg, flip a coin) to join them in striking it down.
8 posted on 05/15/2007 8:16:23 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Why are they talking about the threat of the Christian right in this article. If anything, this is the threat of the left’s mind police.


9 posted on 05/15/2007 8:16:26 AM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The dhimmicrats think that the “peasants” are sheep, but they will find that we are wolves, instead.

Much like their view of Jesus.

10 posted on 05/15/2007 8:17:18 AM PDT by polymuser (There is one war and one enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
In recent years the publishing industry has been pumping out book after book warning of an encroaching “theocracy” in America—the steady advance of the religious right and their efforts to inundate government at all levels.

IMO, it's actually Christians attempting to recover America's lost Christian heart.

11 posted on 05/15/2007 8:19:45 AM PDT by polymuser (There is one war and one enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake The Goose
Will the Hate Crimes Bill lead to American Liberal Fascism?

Much better headline.

12 posted on 05/15/2007 8:22:39 AM PDT by chaos_5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: polymuser

The academic elite have considered the rabble totalitarian fascists for almost a century now. The entire impetus has been targeted towards “tradition” and what they consider to be an intolerant, religious and “authoritarian” patriarchy.


13 posted on 05/15/2007 8:23:10 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: 2ndDivisionVet

These supposed liberals keep finding novel ways to censor other people’s speech. Freedom of speech is still operative. It doesn’t mean freedom of some people’s speech, it means the freedom of all people, regardless of their views. If we can tolerate Nazis and Communists, certainly we can tolerate people who don’t like homosexuality.


15 posted on 05/15/2007 8:30:14 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Our first responsibility is to keep the power of the Presidency out of the hands of the Clintons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

...and dubya will sign it.


16 posted on 05/15/2007 8:32:15 AM PDT by Ikemeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA
“Call your Senators today” Who Bayh and RINO Lugar...LOL

We have Feinstein and Boxer. Not to be too cynical, but its a complete waste of time calling them. Boxer's office is usually rude on the phone with some smug liberal college kid talking.

17 posted on 05/15/2007 8:40:19 AM PDT by part deux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Writing in the Washington Post, the Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Maryland is clear about his ultimate fear: “This law can be applied in a way that can keep the church from preaching the Gospel.”

There is nothing in the four Gospels about homosexuality. There is reference in Acts to fornication and to homosexuality Paul's epistles, primarily because the Gentiles showing up at Synagogues to hear about Jesus were in danger of being ejected for defiling the assembly due to their sexual behavior.

18 posted on 05/15/2007 8:54:51 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
because of his or her actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity

Does the bill actually use the word "gender"? Correct grammar would use the word "sex".

19 posted on 05/15/2007 9:27:45 AM PDT by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SengirV

Where have you been? (IMHO, this is projectionism at it’s worst.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America (Hardcover)
by Chris Hedges (Author)

The quotes below are not from Hedges’ book, but most certainly reflect it’s ideas.

“What luck for the Rulers that the people do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

“Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” - Mussolini

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis


20 posted on 05/15/2007 10:10:32 AM PDT by griswold3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson