The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | Debate on Criminalizing Religious Thoughts, Speech Draws Near | Comments http://erlc.com/ This feed provides all comments on "Debate on Criminalizing Religious Thoughts, Speech Draws Near." en web-master@erlc.com ℗ & © 2009 ERLC Comment 1 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment1 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment1 The following article also has several other sources referenced with many factual incidents of this wrongheaded and rights infringing legislation:

Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill
Shameless attempt to push homosexual agenda ... by exploiting soldiers

Write your representatives p-l-e-a-s-e.

]]> Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:40:34 CST Comment 2 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment2 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment2 Mr. Carlson says… “law enforcement officials could conceivably begin policing thoughts”

I would welcome you to elaborate upon that Mr. Carlson.  How exactly do you imagine that happening?  When do thoughts become expressions and how are thoughts actually monitored?  By the thought police?

Do you see that at the federal, state, county or municipal level?

  What law enforcement agency has the surplus time and money for this expenditure; policing thoughts? 

In the post 9/11 age of Al-Qaeda do you really imagine the federal government is going to spend time policing the “thoughts” of Southern Baptist preachers?

]]> Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:24:56 CST Comment 3 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment3 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment3 The real story behind the arrests in Philly:  Michael Marcavage and his group Repent America were attempting to disrupt a stage performance with a bull horn and the police instructed them to move to an adjacent area.  When they refused to follow the instructions of the police, they were arrested.  They were not arrested for preaching they were arrested for disrupting a pubic function.  Again this website likes to play loose and fancy with the facts when it suits their political purposes.


The SBC seems willing to go to any lengths to marginalize and demonize gay people.

]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:32:24 CST Comment 4 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment4 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment4 Is this legislation related to the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that I keep hearing about?  As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine would in essence censure public talk radio shows which are “controversial” to the government, as well as make it a federal crime to kill a homosexual or minority person, but only a state crime to kill a white, straight person…

]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:55:00 CST Comment 5 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment5 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment5 Nathan the fairness doctrine was a in-place policy (from the early 50’s) that became an official policy enacted by the FCC in the 60’s to ensure opposing points of view were afforded equal air time, particularly in the political arena. 

It was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC in 1969.  I am not certain about what you are talking about.  I would have your source check the facts.  I smell a rotten egg… Remember it was Howard Stern that continually got in trouble with the FCC not Rush Limbaugh.

]]> Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:13:15 CST Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:26:52 CST Comment 6 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment6 http://erlc.com/article/debate-on-criminalizing-religious-thoughts-speech-draws-near#comment6 RE: Nathan Falco’s Post 4

Hi Nathan. This is not the same legislation. Fairness doctrine is an (old) FCC ‘doctrine’ that was pretty much limited to radio and television broadcasters. 

Richard Land (Pres. of ERLC) lays out a brief history of the Fairness Doctrine (and opines) in a recent article titled What’s “fair” about the Fairness Doctrine?.

Dan is partially correct in his recap (circa 1969) but a lot has happened more recently on the subject. Related cases include a couple in 1973, one in 1981, one in 1984.  More importantly, the FCC discontinued the application of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

But, again, for the sake of this thread, Hate Crimes legislation and the Fairness Doctrine are, at least at this time, technically separate issues.

P.S. As far as Dan’s reference to Stern and Limbaugh, the Fairness Doctrine never had anything to do with broadcast decency standards which I believe was Stern’s source of contention. Comparing the political bent of one broadcaster to the decency questions surrounding another is equivalent to comparing apples and bananas. It’s not the same debate. Possibly related but not the same.

 

 

]]> Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:26:52 CST