Hate Crimes Bill Hearings Begins Amid "Christian" Disapproval

[Ian David]

'Hate Crimes' Bill Hearings Begins Amid Christian Disapproval
By
Doug Huntington
"Christian" Post Reporter
Wed, Apr. 18 2007 09:39 AM ET

Hearings began Tuesday for a bill that would permit federal punishment for individuals that perform “hate crimes” based on characteristics of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The day also prompted numerous complaints from "Christians" who disagree with the federal “hate crimes” bill (HR 1592), arguing that it stifles free speech of religion. They are worried that, in the future, their freedom to express their religious beliefs will be interpreted as being “hateful” and thus open to legal consequences.

"This is the most dangerous bill in America," said Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action – an organization that fights society’s “culture war,” in a statement. "The 'Hate Crimes' bill is better named 'Hate Grandma' or 'Hate Free Speech' bill as it poses a serious threat to the freedom of speech for every American."

The hearing for HR 1592 was held before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and had several "Christians" speak to show their objections to the possible law.

More:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070418/26940_'Hate_Crimes'_Bill_Hearings_Begins_Amid_Christian_Disapproval.htm

[William769]

1. These "Christians" are NOT Christians.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. No sugar in YOUR porridge!

[northernsoul]

6. What is your conclusion based upon?

How do you know that they are not Christians? If they are not Christian, what motivates them to self-identify as Christians?

[William769]

8. My conclusion is based upon being brought up in a loving none hateful Christian family.

Their motivation is the same as onyone elses, SELFSERVING.

[trotsky]

9. So they're not Christians like you.

But they still self-identify as Christians. They believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and believe he brought salvation to mankind.

Admitting they're Christians doesn't make you or your religion bad. Quite the opposite - it means you don't engage in religious bigotry that says only good people can be Christians.

[northernsoul]

13. If their motivation is self-serving,

why do they find it useful to pose as Christians?

[William769]

14. self explanatory.

[northernsoul]

16. not really

What is it about Christianity that attracts these kinds of people? Why is Christianity used to rationalize virtually every bad public policy decision that has been imposed upon our Republic since 2001? If these people are all faking it, and are not "real" Christians - why have they found Christianity to be such a useful tool?

[cain_7777]

10. They can say the same thing about you

[William769]

15. Thay can and do.

[zonmoy]

26. sure they are.

it is just that the christ that they serve as well as the god that he is the son of just happens to be either evil or psychopathic.

[jamesinca]

3. The "christians" don't like this one

Are they afraid that Fred Phelps will be considered a hater? "They are worried that, in the future, their freedom to express their religious beliefs will be interpreted as being “hateful” and thus open to legal consequences."
I guess they do not want to talk about love one another, or faith without deeds is dead, or how you treat the least among you is how you treat God, or the greatest thing is how you treat widows and orphans etc....
Tom DeLay won't be able to say that south Asia was hit by a tsunami because they believe in the wrong god. Fred Phelps won't be able to say God hates fags.
Gandhii got it right when he said - I like your Christ, I don't like your christians they act nothing like your Christ.

[DeSwiss]

4. So....

....the federal “hate crimes” bill stifles religious freedom of speech? And what religious speech would that be stifling exactly? The stuff about love and compassion that I've heard so much about? I know I've seen it in all their brochures, right? And that book they have.

Geez. You know, you don't see a lot of "love and compassion" much these days. And not whole lot of that "judge not lest ye be judged" or the all-time favorite, "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone" stuff either.

Although from what I understand, its supposed to be the whole point of the religion!!! Hmmm.... do you wonder if anybody really practices that relgion anymore? I mean.... how can you tell?

However, I must say that I have to agree with the idea that this is a dangerous bill. But only to people who hate.

:grouphug:

[zbdent]

5. So, if a RW "Christian" gets in my face with his religion and I beat him

to death ...

I just "accidentally killed him in self defense". No hate crime then? But then, the Reichies would scream that I was doing it as a "reverse hate crime" ...

[More Than A Feeling]

7. We already have hate crimes legislation on the books that protects religion.

"Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) introduced H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA). 1 If passed into law, it would update the federal hate crimes act of 1968. That act has applied to only those hate crimes motivated by racism, or hatred of a victim's ethnicity, national origin or religion.(emphasis added)

LLEHCRA would expand hate-crimes coverage to include physically violent crimes in which the perpetrator was motivated by hatred of the victim's sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat12.htm

This is a about bigotry, fearmongering, and hypocrisy, pure and simple. We already have hate crimes legislation that protects religion. We've had it for years, and the world hasn't ended. This is about keeping gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. Nobody has that right, period, but you especially shouldn't have it because you think a supernatural creator entity likes you best.

[54anickel]

17. Thank you Heaven and Earth. Good links there....n/t

[westerebus]

I vote with the Xtians on this one.

Not FOR the Xtians and certainly not for the reasons they expose. Free speech is free speech even when it's hateful and makes your blood boil to hear it. Doesn't matter if it's the KKK bashing Blacks,Xtians bashing Gays,Nazis bashing Jews or Imus bashing the Rutgers Womens basketball team. Hate speech is despicable,loathsome, and beneath contempt. The response to it, protest against it. Oppose it where we find it. Boycott those who support it. Answer their lies and smears with truth and support the victims. Demand accountability.
DO NOT CENSOR speech in this country. Take that for what its' worth. That's not the reason I'm opposed to LLEHCRA. This type of law creates another layer of jeopardy and federal government intrusion better left to the states.
If state prosecutor can't get a conviction on murder because the facts don't support the case; the feds then prosecutes on the grounds that the victim holds a special status among their fellow citizens. If a gay person is murdered,I expect the police to catch the killer. I expect the prosecutor to get the killer convicted. I expect the judge and jury to meet the standard of the law. I expect the killer to be punished.
Laws either protect everyone or they protect no one against violence. Isn't that the point about treating every one equally in the eyes of the law? Shouldn't the punishment match the crime committed against you what ever your status is?
I believe in the dignity that every human being is born with must be treated equally if we are to are to live together. That's my version of "all men are created equal". With or without a creator.

[kiahzero]

19. Um.... what?

Was there a coherent attack on hate crimes laws in there, because I couldn't find it if there was.

[westerebus]

20. Do we need another law?

Sorry about that. I guess trying to distance myself from hate speech got the best of me. More to your point, how does adding another law make any one safer from violence when we can't convict someone with the laws already established?

[kiahzero]

21. It makes a more serious crime carry a more serious punishment.

Hate crimes terrorize communities, so it makes sense to punish the perpetrators more. It may also make someone who wants to go gay-bash less likely to do so.

[westerebus]

22. I don't think so.

Criminals do not care once they set to a course of action. Do you believe a skinhead will consider going to jail for ten years versus two years as a deterrent?

[kiahzero]

23. Some will.

The deterrence is really only secondary; the more important aspect is making the punishment fit the crime.

[westerebus]

24. I'm no legal authority but,

your getting on to some thinning ice. A murder is a murder, there are extenuating conditions which allows the punishment fit the crime. Murder for hire for example. That's life imprisonment in many states.
I think what your looking for is protection for the GLTB community with laws similar to the ones extending protections to the civil rights of people of a specific race, or religion, or ethnic group. In the context of violence against them as a unique form of discrimination to their circumstances in history. For example,the slavery of blacks and what happened to the civil rights workers in the 60's. These are anti klan laws. It wasn't difficult to see the organization behind the violence. It was extremely difficult to convict members of the klan or construct laws to punish that organization for it's crimes. It's not impossible and was over due by generations before the laws were enacted.
Personalized violence has a different perspective. First, it's not organized or systematic like the klan's. Second, the klan targets encompasses a race of people. Third the klan relied on secrecy and a hierarchy of command for support. Fourth, the klan had assets and income. Fifth, it operated with impunity among the community and with the established law enforcement structure. There was purpose to their violence, to instill fear and deny people their civil rights.
What I'm trying to figure out is can you enact laws that protect people beyond those already established ? I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just don't know how you can target a law to individual hatred of the victim beyond what exists currently.

[kiahzero]

25. Murder is murder, but homicide isn't murder.

There are so many gradations of homicide it's a little bit ridiculous. To name a few off the top of my head: manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, felony murder. Intent (or, as it's called within the legal profession, mens rea) is the critical difference between most of these distinctions. The intent to gay-bash, and therefore attack the entire gay community through one or several victims, is distinctly different than, and more severe than, most other forms of the comparable crime.

[westerebus]

18. Duplicate.

[cain_7777]

11. Typical of american xtians

shrouding their hate in free speech

[toddaa]

12. This has nothing to do with free speech

You can hate as many demographic segments of the population you want and say whatever horrible crap you want to spew whenever and wherever. This bill does not change that. Unless these Christians are committing violent criminal acts against the demographic segments that they hate, the can continue to spew the hateful rhetoric they find in the Book of Leviticus.