The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | House Soon to Vote on “Thought Crimes” Bill | Comments

Comment 1

Tue, 01 May 2007 16:36:24 CST

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

Comment 2

Wed, 02 May 2007 09:37:33 CST

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

Comment 3

Wed, 02 May 2007 10:08:37 CST

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.

Comment 4

Wed, 02 May 2007 14:13:03 CST

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.

Comment 5

Wed, 02 May 2007 15:21:49 CST

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.

Comment 6

Thu, 03 May 2007 05:10:53 CST

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.

Comment 7

Thu, 03 May 2007 05:32:47 CST

“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.

Comment 8

Thu, 03 May 2007 07:42:41 CST

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.

Comment 9

Thu, 03 May 2007 12:41:36 CST

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

Comment 10

Thu, 03 May 2007 15:02:53 CST

We appreciate your comments as they relate to your own thoughts on a given issue. Thank you - Staff

Comment 11

Thu, 03 May 2007 15:29:18 CST

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.

Comment 12

Fri, 04 May 2007 05:54:51 CST

“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.

Comment 13

Sat, 05 May 2007 22:50:16 CST

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.

Comment 14

Sun, 06 May 2007 23:55:48 CST

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?

Comment 15

Mon, 07 May 2007 11:24:01 CST

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

Comment 16

Tue, 08 May 2007 13:22:44 CST

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.

Comment 17

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:33:44 CST

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.