Thought Crimes Legislation Nears Vote in Senate
- Jul 17, 2007 - 11
Legislation that would provide special protections for homosexuals and transgenders and could ultimately lead law enforcement authorities to prosecute Christians for expressing their biblical views on these unbiblical lifestyles will likely be voted on in the Senate this week.
The Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 has been filed by Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) as an amendment (S. Amdt. 2067) to the Department of Defense authorization bill, which is currently under consideration in the Senate.
Everyone who is concerned about this very dangerous legislation should act immediately to stop it. To view the action alert and find out how to reach your senators by phone or e-mail, please click here.
The so-called “hate crimes,” or better termed “thought crimes,” legislation would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to a list of protected traits such as race, religion, and national origin, as well as require separate federal prosecution, in addition to state prosecution, of crimes assumed to be motivated by bias toward individuals who possess those traits.
A real threat posed by hate crimes legislation is the incrimination of religious speech against homosexuality, which could have a chilling effect on Christians. Currently, law enforcement officials can charge an individual for “inciting” violence against another person. Consequently, under the proposed thought crimes legislation, a pastor, for example, who preaches against homosexuality could be prosecuted if one of his church members later commits a violent crime against a homosexual.
Further, the legislation establishes a hierarchy of people, turning the 14th Amendment, which ensures equal justice under the law, on its head. Someone who inflicts violence on a homosexual individual—regardless of the motivation—should not receive greater punishment than does a person who commits the same violent act against a heterosexual individual. Each victim has equal value as a person created by God. All perpetrators of violent actions against others should be prosecuted to the same extent according to their actions.
Proceedings by several members of the House of Representatives have generated concern that the chief motives of many proponents of thought crimes legislation are to normalize homosexuality in the culture and silence Christians from speaking out against the lifestyle. This was evidenced a few months ago as a majority of the House Judiciary Committee members struck down amendments offered by Republicans to add other types of individuals, such as policemen, members of the military, pregnant women, and senior citizens, to the list of those who could receive special protections.
In May, the House passed a hate crimes bill nearly identical to the Senate version by a vote of 237-180.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission issued an action alert last week calling on concerned individuals to contact their senators and urge them to vote “No” on the hate crimes legislation. Everyone who is concerned about this very dangerous legislation should act immediately to stop it. To view the action alert and find out how to reach your senators by phone or e-mail, please click here.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Church and State, Legislation, Religious Liberty
11 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jul 18th, 2007, at 5:56am, Eli wrote:
I’m sorry to see that the same arguments against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been “resurrected”. Perhaps if we preach love from the pulpit rather than judgment, such laws would not be necessary.
I believe a pastor being prosecuted as you state is a misunderstanding of this law and the chance of it happening is minimal and the chance of a conviction is zero. It is more of a scare tactic than reality.
As perception is reality, to defend or appear to defend a person perpetrating hate crimes against any individual is non-Christian, in my opinion. In addition, any minister who in any way leads his congregants to believe the homosexual is somehow less than human and not worthy of protection does not understand God’s commission.
Jesus condemned no one but the religious leaders who thought themselves above the rest. Do you believe Rabbi Jesus, who preached of love and understanding the Christian unity, would condone not giving special protection to those who need it?
2 On Jul 19th, 2007, at 8:58pm, Willis B. wrote:
Matthew Shepards killers received life without parole. Laws exist to punish those who commit violent acts against human beings (except the unborn). So those who practice alternative lifestyle deserve more protection than than children or the infirm. Review your states accessory before the fact law. It makes anyone liable who may or may not (that is the question) have influenced someone to do something. It has been used against hate groups, video game manufacturers, tobacco companies, and even bartenders. State hate crimes have prosecuted Atlantans for protesting public nudity, Pennsylvanians for preaching, California social worker for using the term “Natural family”, Canadian pastor for using Romans chapter 1 in a sermon, Germany children removed from their homes. You haven’t read Heinlein or Orwell have you?
3 On Jul 20th, 2007, at 12:44pm, eric wrote:
Nothing like having the members of a group which receives protection under the hate crimes act arguing against the inclusion of others! Eli has it right regarding preaching love from the pulpit, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the SBC to adopt that [or any other] position of social justice.
4 On Jul 20th, 2007, at 3:59pm, Eli wrote:
Willis B.
Thank you for responding to my entry into the blog. I pray everything we say will be out of love and respect for each other and the God we serve. Please allow me to respond to your insights in multiple postings (your words are in parenthesis):
The concept of hate crime legislation is to further distinguish the same crime based on motivation. Currently states have laws concerning the taking of another’s life yet the consequences vary based on extenuating circumstances. We know these situations as being murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, recklessness, etc. The “hate crime” label is another classification to be used by law enforcement when warranted. It further distinguished the criminal act; it does not add more protection.
5 On Jul 21st, 2007, at 12:23pm, Eli wrote:
Continued…
How is it more protection? Again, the arguments must stand alone. Children and the infirmed have the same protection; however, if I harm a child or the infirmed, it is not usually based on what they are (as most hate crimes are distinguished by the race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim). If I were to follow your logic to its logical conclusion, we should repeal the Civil Right Act of 1964.
“Review your states accessory before the fact law. It makes anyone liable who may or may not (that is the question) have influenced someone to do something. It has been used against hate groups, video game manufacturers, tobacco companies, and even bartenders.”
Is it your argument that these individuals have no responsibility for their actions which, by the way, are usually civil and not criminal?
6 On Jul 22nd, 2007, at 3:24pm, Eli wrote:
Continued…
Could you please supply me with some authoritative reference material for these actions? It is not that I doubt what you say; I just believe some of these actions may be taken out of context.
I have read both, quite extensively. And guess what, they wrote science fiction…not prophecy. If you believe there is some sort of connection between hate crime legislation and these science fiction writings of these two fine authors, may I suggest a more fact-based book, the Bible. In there you will find the truth about just about everything, from hate and love, justice and social responsibility, and what our future actually holds!
God bless you.
7 On Jul 23rd, 2007, at 11:33am, Greg Z wrote:
Speech is protected by the 1st amendment. This is hate crime legislation, your thoughts and speech are already protected. The only way a pastor will be prosecuted under this law is if he commits a criminal act. This is why the KKK can legally preach hate against blacks and Jews, both protected by hate crime legislation. Check Brandenburg v. Ohio, speech can only be prosecuted if it creates imminent lawless action. So your pastor is soundly protected by the constitution.
And you may argue, gays choose to be gay, blacks don’t chose to be black. Well evidence mounts to show sexuality is not choice. But legally that doesn’t matter. Religion is protected by hate crime legislation and religion is a choice, so it doesn’t matter if sexuality is choice or not.
8 On Jul 23rd, 2007, at 11:41am, Greg Z wrote:
This legislation also seeks to add gender and disability to the hate crime list. Is that so bad? And the term is sexual orientation so gays and straights are equally protected. Furthermore, hate crimes against gays are the 3rd largest category of hate crime. Something needs to be done. If not this, then what?
You can chose to think and say what you want to think and say about gays. That is your right. But, likewise, gays should be protected from being attacked and killed for being gay. Hate crimes are terrorism against a class of people. A person killed for being gay sends a message of fear to the whole group.
Just because you don’t support homosexuality doesn’t mean you need to leave gays open to violence. Protect them because they are human life, not because they are gay. You can even hate homosexuals but that doesn’t mean you need to oppose this legislation.
Your rights are already protected. Ask a constitutional scholar. There is no thought crime anywhere.
9 On Jul 26th, 2007, at 3:09pm, Rob Chambers wrote:
Greg, I agree with you that killing acts of physical violence is abhorrent just because someone is gay. I did want to know that since you said that someone “can choose to think and say what [they] want to think and say about gays. That is [their] right. But, likewise, gays should be protected from being attacked and killed for being gay.”
How do you define attacked for being gay?
In conversation, would you consider someone telling a gay person that homosexuality is a sin a form of attack?
10 On Jul 30th, 2007, at 11:51am, eric wrote:
“In conversation, would you consider someone telling a gay person that homosexuality is a sin a form of attack?”
We aren’t talking about conversation. Disrupting gatherings with a bullhorn is no more acceptable from the ‘Christian’ community than it is from anyone else. Would you accept that others should be able to disrupt YOUR services with their message of THEIR religion?
Yet another red herring to distract from the blatantly discriminatory position of the SBC.
11 On Jul 30th, 2007, at 1:24pm, Eli wrote:
Rob Chambers,
For my two cents, a discussion is fine, a verbal attack is not.
Yelling “You are queer, you are a sinner, you deserve to die and burn in hell” is a lot different than “In my opinion, homosexual sex is a sin”.