Rob Robinson
In recent months there has been much discussion over the new Hate Crimes bill that has passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate. What are the true ramifications of this bill, will it make it possible for a pastor preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit to be guilty of a hate crime?
In an article from the Washington Post they seem to indicate that there are protections built into the new bill that would allow religious leaders to have free speech in regards to preaching against homosexuality. I personally believe that once this door is opened to allow such hate crime legislation, that it is only a matter of time before a modified version will make teaching what the Bible says about the sin of Homosexuality, a punishable crime under the law.
If you will study the history of the erosion of American rights, you will discover that every right that is taken away from the American people began by laws that initially did not take away the right, but opened the door for a form of the rights to be limited. Within a short period of time after the initial bill, stronger laws are written that erodes the original freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.
Traditionally, hate crime legislation has been used to subdue religious free speech. Most of the current legislation for the hate crime bill comes from the homosexual movement whereby in their advancement of homosexuality and marriage by same sex individuals, they also want to make it a crime to criticize or condemn this lifestyle. This bill would call for stiffer penalties against someone who hurts or defames a homosexual as appose to just a regular person. In essence it gives special standing to someone who has chosen this alternative life style.
A pastor standing at his pulpit teaching out of the Book of Romans chapter one where the lifestyle of homosexuality is condemned, could be charged with a crime or be subject to intimidation just for teaching what the Bible says. If you have a Biblical world view and you simply speak what the Bible says concerning homosexuality, you would be in violation of the new hate crimes bill.
Legislation has been introduce that would exclude pastors from this bill when they are teaching from the pulpit, what the Bible says concerning homosexuality. In committee after committee, this legislation was voted down for the express reason that this was the main purpose of the hate crimes bill to protect the lifestyle of the homosexual from pastors teaching what the Bible says. Do not be fooled, no matter what language you see in these opposing opinions that says that the hate crimes bill will not include pastors speech, this is in fact not true and is really the main purpose for the Bill.
The following Video from United States Senators and From David Barton of Wallbuildiers sums up whole issue:
Hating the Hate Crimes Bill
By David Waters
A hate crimes bill has passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate as early as this week. Conservative Christian leaders such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Donald Wildmon hate it.
In June, 60 religious conservatives signed a letter asking senators to filibuster the hate-crimes bill for fear it would “criminalize preaching the Gospel and put preachers in the cross-hairs.” Christian Right groups have been sounding the alarm ever since. “Hate Crimes Bill Threatens Free Speech,” warns the Christian Broadcasting Network. “Pastors could be prosecuted for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality,” intones Focus on the Family.
Even some conservative legislators agree: In an April speech on the floor of the House, Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said he feared the legislation “could have a chilling effect on the religious expression and religious freedom of millions of Americans.”
Do they have a point? Not really. As we saw and heard during the last election cycle (think Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee), existing hate-crime laws for acts “committed on the basis of the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin” haven’t kept pastors or anyone else from expressing their biblical views. Why would that change when “sexual orientation” is added to the list?
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act seeks to expand federal hate-crime statutes to include protections for homosexuals. Conservative Christian opponents claim the legislation would (1) make it a crime to denounce homosexuality from the pulpit, and (2) give legal protection to pedophiles.
But as Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, told God in Government blogger Jacqueline L. Salmon: “I don’t think this legislation would in any way infringe on the freedom of people to state their views about homosexuality.”
First, the hate crimes bill clearly doesn’t allow prosecution to begin until an actual crime — a violent act — has been committed. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that bias or discrimination can only be considered when directly connected to a criminal act.
Second, the House version clearly states that “Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.”
Third, the Senate version includes two even more specific speech protections:
(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.
(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
Finally, while the bill does not define “sexual orientation,” the plain meaning — which judges rely on — of “sexual orientation” does not include incest or pedophilia. The American Psychiatric Association, for example, explicitly states that sexual orientation “refers to erotic attraction to males, females or both.” It does not include any of the paraphilias such as pedophilia.”
No doubt some conservative Christian opposition to the hate crimes bill is based on opposition to homosexuality, which they don’t see as discrimination. “The homosexual activists’ mantra is no longer tolerance — it’s embrace and promote,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst atFocus on the Family Action. “Anything less will be silenced. Christians must speak up.”
As we saw and heard during the last election cycle (think Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee), existing hate-crime laws for acts “committed on the basis of the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin” haven’t kept pastors or anyone else from expressing their views. Why would that change when “sexual orientation” is added to the list?
Not all Christian leaders are opposed to the legislation. TheHuman Rights Campaign has a long list of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and other religious organizations that support the new hate crimes bill.
“God’s love calls us to stand up against hate in our society,” said Thomas Hart, director of the Episcopal Church’s Office of Government Relations. “When that hate manifests itself in violent action, particularly against groups of people, we should do all we can to stop it.”
There might be valid legal or even constitutional arguments against laws that penalize people for committing crimes because of their discriminatory views. But shouldn’t people of faith oppose hate in all its forms, whether spoken or acted upon?
Why Republican Leadership Apposes the Hate Crimes Bill
Last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws andmake it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
“All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance,” he said. “The Democrats’ ‘thought crimes’ legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance.”
Based on that statement, CBSNews.com contacted Boehner’s office to find out if the minority leader opposes all hate crimes legislation. The law as it now stands offers protections based on race, color, religion and national origin.
In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner “supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics.”
It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
“He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes,” Smith continued.
Boehner’s position, then, appears to be grounded in the notion that immutable characteristics should be protected under hate crimes laws. And while religion is an immutable characteristic, his office suggests, sexual orientation is not.
Northeastern University professor Jack Levin, who co-authored the first book written about hate crimes, told Hotsheet that “to use immutability as a criterion doesn’t make any sense at all.”
“Especially if he supports the current stand,” Levin continued. “Religion is clearly not ascribed. It’s not built into the organism. People can change it at any time and people do.”
“It sounds to me as though the criticism is focused on the addition of gays and lesbians to the list of protected categories at the federal level,” he said. “That seems to be the problem.”
Rep. Tom Price, who heads the GOP conservative caucus, also complained last week that the expansion of hate crimes legislation amounted to “thought crimes,” and he labeled the bill’s passage — tied to a defense bill — an “absolute disgrace.”
But contacted about his position on hate crimes legislation overall, Price took a different position than Boehner. According to Price communications director Brendan Buck, the congressman opposes all hate crimes protections, including existing ones.
“We believe all hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional and places one class of people above others,” said Buck.
CBSNews.com also reached out to the Republican National Committee for comment, though the RNC did not respond by publication time.
If someone is convicted of a hate crime, they are subject to punishment beyond what they would have otherwise received. The expanded federal law would eliminate requirements that victims of hate crimes be engaged in a certain activity to qualify for protection (such as being a juror). It would also provide grants for the prosecution of hate crimes and allow the federal government to help local authorities in hate crimes investigations.
In his email, Boehner spokesman Smith also offered another reason for Boehner’s opposition to the expanded hate crime legislation.
The bill, he said, “could eventually invite the prosecution of Americans for their thoughts and religious beliefs, basic provinces protected by the First Amendment.”
While changes were made to the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech, critics complained that religious leaders could still be prosecuted under it should their sermons be seen as having incited violence. Smith complained that Democrats added new language to the bill “to permit the government to ‘substantially burden’ a person’s exercise of religion in ‘furtherance of a compelling governmental interest’ if certain conditions are met.”
Constitutional requirements dictate that the laws have to cover every type of person within a group — that is, straights as well as gays, whites as well as blacks, Christians as well as Jews, and so on. Federal Bureau of Investigation hate crimes statistics show that hate crimes were committed against whites, Christians and heterosexuals in 2007, though they were far more likely to be committed against members of minority groups.
Levin, the hate crimes expert at Northeastern, argued that hate crimes legislation doesn’t amount to a takeover by the “thought police” because hate speech remains protected under the first amendment.
He believes that hate crimes legislation can legitimately take intent into account — for example, homophobic slurs shouted by someone committing an assault.
“We’ve always used, in criminal law, what a defendant said in order to determine the severity of the punishment,” Levin said. “This is nothing new. If you by your words indicate that you’ve planned a murder, it will be regarded as first degree.”
UPDATE: Hate Crimes Bill Passes the Senate:
Senate Democrats used a must-pass military spending bill to push through a controversial measure Thursday extending hate-crime protection to gays.
The bill, known as the Matthew Shepard Act, named for the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago, was opposed by conservatives because of language they said targets clergy and others who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds and who might express those beliefs publicly.
“The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the bill was a “dangerous step” toward thought crimes. He asked whether the bill would “serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views.”
But Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said “nothing in this legislation diminishes an American’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble. Let me be clear. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act targets acts, not speech.”
To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.
Hate crimes law enacted after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968 centered on crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin.
The expansion has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims.
Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and the bill would not change current practices where hate crimes are generally investigated and prosecuted by state and local officials.
But it does broaden the narrow range of actions — such as attending school or voting — that can trigger federal involvement and allows the federal government to step in if the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on an alleged hate crime.
The measure also provides federal grants to help state and local governments prosecute hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
“As we learned in the civil rights era, sometimes communities need assistance and resources from the federal government when they have to confront the most emotional and dangerous kinds of crimes,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.
The bill also creates a federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service.
Attorney General Eric Holder said nearly 80,000 hate crime incidents have been reported to the FBI since he first testified before Congress in support of a hate crimes bill 11 years ago. “It has been one of my highest personal priorities to ensure that this legislation finally becomes law,” he said.
The FBI says more than half of reported hate crimes are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias, at around 18 percent, and sexual orientation, at 16 percent.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the measure was “part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
