|
Author
|
Topic: Hate-crimes bill would limit basic freedoms
|
Isaiah
Advanced Member
Member # 6699
|
posted
Wow -good points... but a drop in the bucket, to be sure.
Sounds like the bill needs to be clarified, in the least. First, preaching against the act of homosexuality and inciting hate crimes are two very different things. A minister might be charged -"charging" needs little more than a word in many cases, as I understand it...but a fair system could not blame a minister unless he or she instructed another to commit a crime against a third party. This is not to say the system we have is always fair. A slick prosecutor and a judge having a bad day might spell disaster for said minister!
A wise minister who understood both biblical law and human nature might want to stress in said sermon that hate crimes are against God's laws, also -thus leaving no place for Satan(or slick lawyers)!
Differing penalties for the same crime would certainly be unfair.
Pleading a cause is not wrong, but freedom will certainly be taking many hits due to increased warfare and a warped popular definition of freedom.
In the times to come, keeping God's laws will mean not being able to buy or sell, persecution -and even death. Thank God he will soon send his Son to rule -to bring peace and justice, and to be the firstborn of many brethren(Rom 8:29) -Let us also remember that we all sin, and gay people could find as many faults with misters as ministers could with them -and that God's mercy never fails. We should want all to live forever -not hate them for being as imperfect as we are. That said... God's laws must be obeyed if we wish to enter into life.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
Thanks for the post. We really need to fight this bill!
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
AS I SEE IT THOMAS J. SHAHEEN
Hate-crimes bill would limit basic freedoms
Monday, September 10, 2007
Dangerous "hate crimes" legislation passed by the U.S. House of Repre sentatives represents one of the most serious threats yet to at least two of our most fundamental freedoms. The Senate could prove to be the last line of protection against its passage.
Under the proposed law, acts of crime committed against members of certain protected classes -- including those who identify themselves by their "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" -- would warrant harsher penalties than the very same acts committed against other persons. This is likely a violation of our 14th Amendment right of equal protection under the law, a clause that asserts that all people will be treated the same by our legal system.
But hate-crime laws would strip us of a second, even more fundamental set of freedoms -- our First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Similar laws in other countries and in cities within the United States have been used to criminalize expression of religious views against homosexual behavior.
The bill's short title, "The Matthew Shepard Act," comes from the much-publicized and controversial case of Matthew Shepard. The case is controversial precisely because there was -- and still are -- many questions about the exact motives and thoughts of the killers.
Shepard was a homosexual who tragically was beaten and left tied to a fence post to die in 1998. Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney were convicted for his killing and both were charged with hate crimes. However, in a follow-up story by ABC's "20/20," Henderson said that he and McKinney did not kill Shepard because he was gay, but because they thought he was rich. Their attempt to rob him for drug money went terribly wrong when McKinney flew into a crystal-meth-fueled rage and beat Shepard so severely that he died.
Rather than justifying a hate crimes law, the Shepard case emphasizes the serious problems that these laws will create for law enforcement in evidence gathering and for juries that must render a verdict based on evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt. In future cases where a drunk or drug addict kills a homosexual, the prosecution will have to prove to the jury that the crime was committed because of hatred toward a special protected class. The jury will be left trying to read the mind of the defendant to figure out whether or not it was hate-motivated or motivated toward a desperate desire to steal someone's money.
Proponents of the hate crimes bill claim that the law will only be applied to acts of violence, but not to speech. But a closer examination of the bill and particularly the debate over the House version leads many to conclude that speech could be prosecuted as well.
During debate in the House Judiciary Committee, a question was asked as to whether such a law could be used against a minister who preached a sermon saying that homosexuality is a sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, asked, "Would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?"
Rep. Arthur Davis, D-Ala., a supporter of the hate crimes bill, boldly admitted that under this law a minister could be charged, according to Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal advocacy group,
Worse yet, an amendment to provide specific safeguards was rejected. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., failed in an attempt to add an amendment that would have protected freedom of speech and religion for clergy and lay people. The amendment stated, "Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution."
Even though the bill includes racial minorities, a coalition of African-American clergy, the High Impact Leadership Coalition, opposes the bill because they believe it will be used "to muzzle the church" and would have "a chilling effect" on speech and religious liberty.
Proponents of the bill claim that regardless of perceived threats to our constitutional rights, these hate crimes laws are justified anyway. But in fact, federal crime statistics indicate that hate crimes are so rare that there is no need for such an intrusive federal law.
In the end, a hate crimes law will have little impact on reducing crime, but as the clergy pointed out, they may very well have the chilling effect on our freedoms.
THOMAS J. SHAHEEN is vice president for policy for the Pennsylvania Family Institute, based in Harrisburg.
http://www.pennlive.com/columns/patriotnews/asiseeit/index.ssf?/base/columnists/1189202143194110.xml&coll=1
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
