Washington, DC (TLS). Without allowing real debate or amendments to guard free speech and expression, House Democrats passed the so-called 'hate crimes bill' that is actually a license for government to act as the thought police.
Under the ethically-challenged guidance of Rep. John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, this bill will essentially make it a hate crime for a minister of the Christian gospel to describe homosexual behavior as a sin, even if it is read straight from the pages of the Holy Bible.
Republicans attempted to amend the bill to grant exemptions to religious organizations which by their very nature are charged with the responsibility to speak sometimes uncomfortable truths that fly in the face of the opinions of the masses.
I am sure Conyers, for example, would not have agreed that the fact that slave owners considered the preaching against slavery by America's ministers constituted hate crimes against slave owners and Southerners. These courageous men often took a stance on the issues of the day that were very unpopular.
What right does the U.S. Government have to tell a minister of a congregation that he cannot speak the truth from the Bible as he interprets it?
The Nazis silenced their opposition in Germany by attacking churches and religious bodies. They did this by first determining what form of speech was allowed. And then, since they had already confiscated the citizens' guns, there was no real resistance when the jackbooted thugs came knocking on their doors to haul them off to camps for merely speaking forbidden words.
President Bush has said he will veto this bill, as well he should. And Congress should promptly uphold that veto. This is a bill that attacks freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The idea that preachers will not be able to preach against homosexuality is ridiculous. I challenge you to post the section of HR1592 that would prohibit such behavior.
There is nothing in the bill that grants any exceptions to ministers, churches, or religions.
Ever since the beginning of the so-called 'hate crimes' movement, which is nothing more than making certain minority groups protected classes, 'hate speech' is considered a key component of a hate crime.
It is not hard to connect the dots here.
Martyn
First of all, you did not respond to my comment: show me in the text of HR1592 where hate speech becomes a crime.
Second, why should ministers require special exceptions? Isn't the first amendment enough for all of us?
Tom,
You sound like a pretty smart guy, so don't act so puzzled about this. You know full well that bills of this nature are viewed with a certain context.
This bill must be viewed through the lens of the groups that supported it, the lawmakers that pushed it, and the common interpretations that similar laws have received in the courts.
In today's climate, with the 'pc' speech and thought police on the prowl at every hand, this bill will most assuredly be used to frighten people into silence.
Isn't that the main objective anyway?
We already have laws that protect these groups, along with every other citizen in America. Personal crime always involves hate at one level or another. We don't need yet another law.
The objective of this bill is to silence detractors of homosexuality and the like, just as other laws have done in places like Canada and Great Britain. The end result is the muzzling of free speech due to fear.
If citizens fear prosecution in the courts as a result of giving their opinions on homosexuality, for example, the result is the muzzling of free speech.
And that is precisely what this bill intends to do.
Martyn
In terms of "PC" speech, there is plenty of that to go around, but that does nothing for your claim that this bill is intended to stifle speech.
As I said, we have the First Amendment to protect speech that any of us make -- ministers or atheists.
There is NOTHING in this bill that addresses speech. This is solely about additional penalties for crimes that are determined to be motivated by hate.
Personally, I don't think we should have ANY hate crimes laws -- violent crime is crime enough, there is no need to punish thought.
That said, we do consider motive in dishing out punishments -- a murder committed in rage by a father whose daughter was raped and murdered, for example, would be (and SHOULD be) punished differently than that original rape and murder.
If we are going to have additional penalties for crimes motivated by hate, I think they should be extended equally to all groups who are most targeted for hate. There has never really been an epidemic of crimes directed against white men because they are white men. But we have a long history of violence against black people and gay people. Crimes motivated by racial hatred are currently protected by federal hate crimes laws -- why aren't crimes motivated by hate against gay people?
Tom,
At least we can agree that we don't need so-called 'hate crimes' legislation at all, for any group. A crime of violence is exactly that--a crime of violence, and there are already severe penalties for it.
I suppose our point of disagreement centers on what to do about the fact that we already have hate crimes bills that single out certain minority groups for extra protection.
I maintain that adding more groups to the 'hate crimes' roster is an odd way to go about correcting a legislative phenomenon that should not be in the first place.
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that since other groups already have extra protection, then why not include gays in that mix.
While I understand the logic of your point of view, I simply disagree with the manner in which you wish to go about addressing the entire 'hate crimes' phenomenon.
For example, if I detest gun control laws, to my way of thinking I do not fix the problem by supporting more gun control laws that correct imbalances. I work to totally obliterate gun control, period.
Two different approaches to a problem, eh?
Martyn
My main point is that it's quite a reach to say that this bill was intended to stifle speech -- and that even if one conceded that WAS its intent, why the First Amendment won't trump that intent.
Well, I simply don't have much confidence that certain members of Congress and certain members of the Courts truly have respect for either the First or Second amendments.
And in Great Britain and Canada, with all of their freedoms, even speaking the word against homosexuals has been enough to land ministers and other citizens in legal hot water.
I simply think the bill is a terrible idea.
I will let you have the last word, if you wish.
Martyn
No, I'll let you have the last wor...d'oh!
OK, now that I've screwed that up, I'll go ahead and say a few things.
I can understand a lack of trust in Congress and the Courts. We all have those on different issues. Fortunately for the Congress, we have the power to vote them out. For the Courts, trust will have to do.
In terms of ministers in Britain and Canada being silenced, those are, first of all, obviously not operating under the US Constitution.
I'd also like to hear of specific instances of infringement of free speech rights. I have a hard time imagining a minister being denied the right to preach his religious views of homosexuality from the pulpit in either of those countries. Perhaps if they were out in public, or spewing especially vile comments, I don't know. I'm not familiar with the free speech rights in Britain and Canada.
I DO know that in this country Fred Phelps is allowed to go out in public and scream "God Hates Fags" at military funerals without being prosecuted for hate speech, and I see nothing in this legislation that would prevent that in the future.
Now, YOU may have the last word if you wish.
Ok, Tom. Thanks for 'allowing me' the final word. But no thanks. I gave that to you.
By the way, you are welcome to opine here any time. It was fun to spar with ya.
Martyn
Post a Comment