"PASTOR ARRESTED FOR PREACHING"

Conservative Truth ^ | 7/28/02 | Tom Barrett

[AmericanCompatriot]

I love reading Tom's columns. Always insightful, always well documented, and always "RIGHT ON THE MONEY". Beware your local thought police. Keep thoe arms hidden away.

[oyez]

‘The Bible says it is a sin for a man to lie with a man!’

I fail to see anything hateful in that. It is an instruction that has been given out for eons. What I hate is the statistics that shows the distruction caused by AIDS. If this instructions were followed AIDSs would be a rare condition or maybe even non existant.

[Dimensio]

Every physical ATTACK is a hate crime; you don’t hit someone on the head with a brick to demonstrate love.

This begs for a sarcastic comment regarding BDSM, but instead I'll focus on one of the major faults I find with arguments against hate crime legislation.

A hate crime is an accusation of a specific act. Under US law, an accusation of a hate crime would have to be proven -- that is, it would need to be demonstrated that the crime was motivated by race/religion/sexual orientation/etc just as much as it would need to be demonstrated that the crime existed in the first place. Further, the legal wording of hate crime statutes do not set aside specific minorities -- it isn't just "blacks" or "homosexuals" who are protected, the law applies based on "race" or "sexual orientation", meaning that a white man could accuse a black man of a hate crime or a heterosexual could accuse a homsoexual of a sexual orientation biased hate crim.

Of course, I know better than to believe that prosecutors will ever bother to charge a black man with a race-based hate crime, and I don't see fault in pointing out specific examples where obvious crimes of that nature have occured. I also oppose hate crimes on principle, but I at least try to get the facts right before spouting off on them.

[yendu bwam]

Dimensio, what you say is true. But the danger of misdirected punishment is extreme, in my opinion. The examples in this article are right on target. A man hurts someone and calls him a 'homo'. He will be hit with hate crime law, even though the that may well have had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the crime. This marks an insidious descent into a world with thought police. And beside, it's truly absurd in the minds of most to have smaller punishment for heinous acts, as long as juries think they can discern that the criminal in the case was thinking OK thoughts.

[newgeezer]

Direct link to source.

[Piquaboy]

So much for free speech and telling the truth.

[Wondervixen]

In the event this ever did happen, I think the congregation that did not get to its feet and lock the doors to prevent this sort of "kidnapping" of its theological leader should be taken to task.

Four PC Guestappo agents vs. 500 Believers in God's word? I wouldn't want to be in the four agent's shoes!

[newgeezer]

"Then why are politicians falling over each other to endorse "Hate Crimes“ laws?"

Because emotions and feelings have become the main thrust of politics in this nation. That's why.

[atc]

Ping...since you are often criticizing other countries about religious freedoms, surely you see the irony in this.

[Orual]

Do you know the name of the Church he preached in and its location in New York City?

[Servant of the Nine]

This says "Could Happen" not "Did Happen"

What Complete Complete Crap

The First Amendment trumps any "Hate Crime Law" and anyone with at least a third grade education knows it. This is either complete stupidity or grotesque scare tactics

So9

[sweetliberty]

Whatever happened to the right of freedom of association? Personally, I do not wish to associate with homosexuals. I don't hate them, but I do hate what they do and do not wish to see it displayed at every turn. And let's just say for the sake of discussion that I did hate them. Am I to believe that emotions are now being legislated and that I no longer have the right to hate something or someone?

Bringing that argument a little close to where most of us live, the fact is that there are people who hate other people because of their race. At the risk of sounding insensitive, I say "so what?" As long as they do not commit a crime against the object of their hatred, do they not have the right to hate? I am not suggesting that hate is a good or healthy thing mind you, but simply that they have the right to feel the way they do whatever the reason.

And where do you draw the line. I hate the Clintons. Am I a criminal? I hate liberalism (although not all liberals). I say that makes me smart, not a criminal. I hate terrorism. Terrorism springs from Islam and is bred in the mideast. And while I am always willing to be convinced that there are exceptions, and I'm sure there are, that hatred doubtless shows in the way I look at them when I see them on the street. I could use other examples, but the point is, at the rate our freedoms are being taken away, soon we will be little more than caged animals working our entire lives to add to the government coffers. I for one, will not go down quietly. That is not the life I want for my child and grandchild.

[Guillermo]

Your head is in the sand.

[Orual]

Thanks, I read it too quickly. It is a stupid premise.

[Ignatz]

"A hate crime is an accusation of a specific act"

I beg to differ, Dimensio. A hate crime accusation is an accusation of a specific thought. That's where the danger lies in hate crime legislation: an idividual's thoughts are no longer his/her private territory. Futhermore, the accused has to prove that He or She was not thinking the forbidden thought. How does one prove such a thing?

[Boonie Rat]

"NEW YORK CITY: The Rev. Joseph Jenkins was arrested today as he preached to his congregation of 500. As he said, ‘The Bible says it is a sin for a man to lie with a man!’ four federal undercover agents rose from their seats in the crowded church and handcuffed the pastor.

Most likely the "church" is a 501c3 corporation. The creator of a corporation is the state. A creation must obey it's creator, therefore all 501c3 churches must obey their "god" which is the state. The 501c3 "god" (state) says don't preach against homosexualism, the "creation" (church) must obey or face the consequences, (arrest of the preacher, loss of 501c3 tax "exemption", etc).

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[Dimensio]

Well, technically it's an act committed with a specific motive (out of a defined set). It's arguably thoughtcrime, but it requires action, not merely thought.

[BibChr]

Charitably assuming that the misunderstanding some of you seem to have is a sincere misunderstanding, let me put it another way. This has helped clarify the matter for some who had approached it as you seem to.

1. Two people commit the SAME EXACT CRIME
2. ONE ONLY of the acts is judged to be a "hate crime"
3. The person who committed the "hate crime" is punished more severely than the person who in committing an identical act committed a garden-variety, unmodified crime
4. Therefore, to the degree the "hate criminal" is punished more severely, he is being punished for what he thought

If your misunderstanding is sincere, that should clear it up. If we can punish people for what they think — and "hate-crime" supporters necessarily say we can — then the premise of this article is perfectly valid.

Dan

[Orual]

My objection is that the example given at the beginning of the article is absolutely ridiculous. That would never happen and will never happen. What follows that opening therefore loses all credibility.

[Dimensio]

I am not misunderstanding anything. In the case of a hate crime, the person is being punished both for their action and their motive for the action. Without the action, there is no crime and there are no charges, thus the thought alone isn't going to put someone in jail.

I'm not saying that I like it, but I do at least try to understand it before criticizing it.