House Soon to Vote on “Thought Crimes” Bill
- May 1, 2007 - 17
The House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on a bill that would pave the way to policing Christians’ thoughts and religious speech on their biblical views about homosexuality, as well as establishing a new protected class of Americans.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) would establish a new federal offense for so-called “hate crimes” and add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes, as well as mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses for crimes motivated by “the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.”
In essence, it would codify into federal law that certain types of people—homosexuals and transgenders, for example—deserve greater protection under the law than others.
If you are concerned that “thought crimes” legislation would violate equal protections under the law and could lead to criminalizing Christians’ thoughts and speech against homosexuality, please contact your congressman and tell him to vote “No” on H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
This poses a direct threat to religious freedom and religious speech. We have already seen nations like Sweden, Australia, and Canada use their hate crimes laws to criminalize religious speech. Swedish law enforcement, for example, used the recently added “sexual orientation” category under the country’s hate crimes law to jail Pastor Ake Green for 30 days for preaching from Bible passages on homosexuality in his church pulpit.
Similar misapplications of state hate crimes laws have already crept into the United States. In October 2004, 11 Christians who gathered peacefully at a homosexual rally in Philadelphia and called homosexual behavior sinful were jailed overnight and faced with multiple charges. No violent crime was necessary for law enforcement officials to interpret their speech as “hateful” and criminal under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law. While the charges were finally dropped several months later, the courts might not rule as favorably under a federal “thought crimes” law.
To put this in even clearer terms, under H.R. 1592, a pastor who preaches against homosexuality could be charged with inciting a hate crime if one of his church members commits a crime against a homosexual person.
The threat to Christians’ religious freedom is not farfetched. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee gave further indication that Christians’ thoughts and speech could be targeted when they rejected an amendment that would have protected religious freedom from prosecution under the bill.
Clearly, “thought crimes” legislation is unnecessary and dangerous to all Americans, especially those in the nation’s faith communities. The truth is that all violent crimes are hate crimes. And all violent crimes are already prosecuted to the full extent of the law in every state. Violent crimes should be punished by the action itself, not the thought behind the action, as H.R. 1592 would require.
If you are concerned that “thought crimes” legislation would violate equal protections under the law and could lead to criminalizing Christians’ thoughts and speech against homosexuality, please contact your congressman and tell him to vote “No” on H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
You can call your congressman by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. The operator will then connect you to the congressman’s office of your choice. If you do not know who your congressman is, or if you would prefer to use e-mail, just click here, enter your zip code in the space provided, and e-mail him the suggested letter or one entirely your own.
Thank you for taking a few minutes out of your busy schedule to voice your concerns on this harmful “thought crimes” legislation.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Legislation, National, Religious Liberty
17 comments (post your own) feed
1 On May 1st, 2007, at 4:36pm, Bryan wrote:
Dr. Land,
While I have a great deal of respect for you (and I usually agree with you), I find your position on this act troubling. Have you actually read the act? It in no way interferes with the freedom of the church. The slippery slope argument you suggest is a pure logical fallacy. This bill gives local government more help from the federal government in the event that a hate crime is committed. No one, not Christians, not Muslims, not homosexuals, not heterosexuals should be injured or killed because someone else disapproves of them. This bill will not effect you, Dr. Land, unless you’ve made plans to go physically injure someone because they’re gay. I’m trying my best to understand your position, but so far I’ve not had any luck. If you read the proposal instead of just jumping on the hype bandwagon, I’m sure you’ll reconsider.
God bless,
Bryan
2 On May 2nd, 2007, at 9:37am, John Williams wrote:
HR 1592 is in every way the product of the underlying moral civil war our country is in. The constitution being founded on the principle of a moral people governing themselves has been negated in part if not in its sum and relegated to the court. Unfortunately, congress is the antecedent to the type of language the court will hear to determine the victor. Yes, on the surface most of the bills look harmless and helpful, until the intent of those with valor arguments make these laws into something they are not. Thus we look at this bill with skepticism knowing the courts mind. It is unfortunate that the two-party system has broken down into a moral representation at best and a relative faction at worst. Wouldn’t it be nice to see the elected officials view proposed laws that come before them on the sterile indications of the constitution and not allow the cultural swirl to dictate the mind of reason that has separated itself from the constitutional mandate. Thanks.. John
3 On May 2nd, 2007, at 10:08am, John wrote:
I read Dr. Land’s opinion and Bryan’s response with interest. I think Bryan misunderstood. Many Federal, state and local laws already confirm that no one should be injured or killed, period, regardless of the assailant’s motivation. Jeremiah 17:9-10 tells us that God can search the heart of man, but otherwise, it’s pretty hard to understand why people do what they do. To write into law a separate penalty based on the attacker’s motivation is indeed a slippery slope. Furthermore, it is a long logical leap to believe that assaulting a young homosexual man is in any way worse than attacking an old heterosexual man, whatever the underlying reason for the attack. I agree with Dr. Land: in our country we must remain free to believe what we want and we must remain committed to punish violent crime (acts, not thoughts.) To do otherwise is to crack the very foundation of what makes America great.
4 On May 2nd, 2007, at 2:13pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Thanks!! I always like using handy links to write my own message and tell my true feelings to my elected officials, which is to support this bill to the upmost.
5 On May 2nd, 2007, at 3:21pm, Jonathan wrote:
This is an outrage! I will contact my congressman. NO human government has the right to govern my thoughts and moral judgments. How could our government practically enforce such a law in the first place? Signing a law like this would certainly be a blow against anyone who stands up for traditional values. AND not to mention also a blow against our very own constitution. The homosexual activists would love for HR 1592 to pass so they could be legally justified in their morally unjust cries against traditional values and absolute truth. I will contact my congressman and pray for our nation as this vote will take place.
6 On May 3rd, 2007, at 5:10am, steve wrote:
Isn’t it astounding that a Christian organisation such as the SBC should want to oppose something as Christ like as hate crime legislation - well, Christ like in terms of how the SBC often describe their loving Saviour.
Reading this article I can’t help but get the feeling that the only reason the SBC is opposed to the legislation is because they’d have to think twice before criticizing homosexuals for being what they are. Well so be it. Attacking people because of their race, sexual preference or religion etc surely is something even Christians would want to see eliminated.
The argument that the law would create a ‘new protected class’ is specious. The law does not provide special privileges for certain members of society it simply takes into account the motive of the perpetrator. No different to discerning between a crime of passion and cold blooded murder.
7 On May 3rd, 2007, at 5:32am, Dan Valdes wrote:
“NO human government has the right to govern my thoughts and moral judgments. How could our government practically enforce such a law in the first place?”
well exactly Jonathan. If you were to just reflect upon it for a minute you would see the absurdity of Mr. Land’s argument. You may recall this is the USA and not China or North Korea. We have more than the freedom of thought but of actual expression. Don’t worry - the bill has nothing to do with your religious liberty. Mr. Land postures from a position of waning power and influence. That accounts for his illogical thesis.
Dan Valdes
Queer Christian Advocate.
8 On May 3rd, 2007, at 7:42am, Dan Valdes wrote:
And another thought that is worth noting in all this, if you really believe that the hate crimes bill is ungodly and should fail, then write earnestly about it on its own merits. Why do you need additional hyperbole and fear? We are all adults and have the discernment to decide germane issues and draw reasoned and thoughtful conclusions. The language of fear in Mr. Land’s editorial implies his audience is not wise enough to side with him without ratcheting it up a notch to the level of propaganda.
9 On May 3rd, 2007, at 12:41pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Here is the result of the just completed House vote on the Hate Crimes Act, HR 1592:
Democratic: Yes: 208 No: 14
Republican: Yes: 25 No: 166
Total: Yes: 237 No: 180
10 On May 3rd, 2007, at 3:02pm, Sulyn Wilkins wrote:
We appreciate your comments as they relate to your own thoughts on a given issue. Thank you - Staff
11 On May 3rd, 2007, at 3:29pm, dan valdes wrote:
Mr. Land states: “The truth is that all violent crimes are hate crimes. And all violent crimes are already prosecuted to the full extent of the law in every state. Violent crimes should be punished by the action itself, not the thought behind the action, as H.R. 1592 would require.”
That is not true at all. There are crimes of passion; that is not considered a hate crime. There is premeditated murder, manslaughter 1 and 2, negligent homicide, vehicular homicide. Each prosecuted on an as-evident or as-prosecutable basis.
A hate crime is distinguished from each of these by bias and bigotry being the primary motivating factor in the violent act. Lynching and cross burnings are clearly hate motivated crimes. Fits of rage or jealousy that end in violence are not so clearly hate crimes. They might more aptly be called “lovers crimes” or domestic violence. Crimes of property and theft resulting in injury are more often crimes of opportunity. People know the difference.
12 On May 4th, 2007, at 5:54am, Dan Valdes wrote:
“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 free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution,”
HR 1592
So whatever the Baptists are worried about, it’s clearly NOT freedom of thought or expression.
13 On May 5th, 2007, at 10:50pm, mj wrote:
If a person commits an assault, there are laws in place to punish them for that crime (as of coarse there should be be.) If we then add additional punishment because the crime is deemed a hate crime, upon what is that additional punishment based - the motivation, or thoughts of the perpetrator. Is that what a free society does, punish a person for their thoughts?
In addition to that, do we really believe that somehow this will lessen specific hate crimes? Adding some more punishment to the punishment that the person would be receiving for assault or murder, if the threat of the punishment for assault or murder didn’t dissuade them, won’t deter them. And it comes with the high cost of becoming a society that punishes people because of what they think.
At the risk of being cynical, I would ask, who will this benefit from this other than politicians...it won’t be the potential victims that this legislation is meant to address, nor will it be the nation as a whole that benefits.
14 On May 6th, 2007, at 11:55pm, Pauline T wrote:
While not all crimes may be fueled by hatred, they bear the same results. Perhaps there are certain people we would rather not be associated with. Is that hate? No! We have a right to judge what the Bible defines as sin, it doesn’t mean we hate that person. Let’s be fair and legislate all hatred? That ought to really tie up the courts! We cannot make people love, you can squelch them to death, suppress their right to say what they think, but you cannot change the hearts of people by laws that restrict their freedom of speech. Only God changes hearts. Where is it a hate crime to hate Christians? The higher calling of God gives mankind the right to preach against sin. We are admonished to love. Laws do not tend to change people, only supress them and cause them to hate the more. I hear hatred from homosexuals against Christians, will this law relieve Christians from hatred?
15 On May 7th, 2007, at 11:24am, John Mark wrote:
Steve,
Man, you were up at at around 5 am to post, okay its not really that early. Anyway,
“Isn’t it astounding that a Christian organisation such as the SBC should want to oppose something as Christ like as hate crime legislation - well, Christ like in terms of how the SBC often describe their loving Saviour.”,
I thought you believed him to be a myth? If someone, to you, is a myth why use their name like an adjective? If you want to talk about hate crimes, why do you care because your point here on this site, as you say is to “attack the Christian faith.”. It seems like you have a hate issue going on here. carry on
16 On May 8th, 2007, at 1:22pm, steve wrote:
John Mark, (where’s Matthew Luke?) my intent in invoking the name of YOUR so called saviour was to highlight the hypocrisy of the SBC’s homophobic position on this issue. Obviously I was too subtle for you.
To your comment “It seems like you have a hate issue going on here”: I don’t hate Christians. Many of my family and friends are Christians and I love them dearly. How do you draw the conclusion that because I am critical of religious beliefs, all religious beliefs not just Christianity, that I must hate their adherents? This attitude of ‘if you hate my religion you must hate me’ is an indication of a very immature mind.
17 On Jun 5th, 2007, at 8:33pm, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
The simple idea here is not about “Hate Crime Legislation” to say the least, but rather the open pit that this specific bill creates or has the ability to create by going after someone that says “homosexuality is wrong” and what someone else decides to do, based on that statement. Whether it’s holding a legal protest or to the extremes of violence. The bill leaves an innocent person in jeopardy by what that other individual perceives as just action relating to the comment. Christians in no way encourage nor endorse violence in any form, as that will be the deciding factor of God himself.
To be even more general, the bill shouldn’t, and it does, leave a loose thread that is detrimental on American society under what could violate the Free speech Amendment, even if you take religion out of the equation.