Gov't wants to censor Christianity and dictate...
what you can believe. Please contact your representatives about this bill. What happened to the so called "seperation of church and state"...which is a misnomer to begin with.[:(!]
June 14, 2007
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality
Message to pastors and other Christians: Just keep your mouth shut
Dear Larry,
If pastors and other Christians don't aggressively oppose a bill now in Congress, in the near future they will be subject to huge fines and prison terms if they say anything negative about homosexuality.
The proposed law would make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or I Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday School class. If churches and individuals want to keep the government from telling them what they can and cannot preach and teach about homosexuality, they better get involved now!
House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105 would make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a "hate crime" punishable by law. This dangerous legislation would take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion. Consider what has already happened:
A California lawsuit which is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" a "hate speech" crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs!
CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was fired because he publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.
For the Alliance Defense Fund's summary of this bill, click here.
Take Action
We are looking for one million Americans willing to take a stand and not allow a small group of homosexual activists to take away our freedoms. Can we count on you? Click on the link below to sign our Petition to Congress in Defense of Religious Freedom.
Please forward this to others, especially your pastor, and ask them to get involved in protecting our freedoms of speech and religion. This threat to our religious freedoms is real!
Sign the Petition to Congress Today
If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
June 14, 2007
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality
Message to pastors and other Christians: Just keep your mouth shut
Dear Larry,
If pastors and other Christians don't aggressively oppose a bill now in Congress, in the near future they will be subject to huge fines and prison terms if they say anything negative about homosexuality.
The proposed law would make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or I Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday School class. If churches and individuals want to keep the government from telling them what they can and cannot preach and teach about homosexuality, they better get involved now!
House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105 would make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a "hate crime" punishable by law. This dangerous legislation would take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion. Consider what has already happened:
A California lawsuit which is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" a "hate speech" crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs!
CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was fired because he publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.
For the Alliance Defense Fund's summary of this bill, click here.
Take Action
We are looking for one million Americans willing to take a stand and not allow a small group of homosexual activists to take away our freedoms. Can we count on you? Click on the link below to sign our Petition to Congress in Defense of Religious Freedom.
Please forward this to others, especially your pastor, and ask them to get involved in protecting our freedoms of speech and religion. This threat to our religious freedoms is real!
Sign the Petition to Congress Today
If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
0
-
This is what a google search turned up on it. here is the link.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
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.0 -
ECC- only muslims have the right of "hate speech" dont ya know[B)][;)] 0 -
At the bottom of the epistle you received is the answer to any questions you may have about it.
"If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved."
That statement alone makes the rest of the letter extremely suspect to me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsavo303
ECC- only muslims have the right of "hate speech" dont ya know[B)][;)]
You forgot Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.0 -
Why do we need a new piece of federal "HATE CRIME" legsilation every four years. Seriously. I thought we already had this kind of silly laws. There are already laws on the books, but yet we need more?
I guess a couple of Senators want to say "I introduced a powerful piece of hate crime legislation." No Senator wants to hear in a campaign "My opponent voted against "hate crime" legislation."
It's also not like it is illegal to willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person.
9-11 was that a hate crime or just a random act of violence?0 -
I've read the link Fatboy posted and didn't see anything about pulpits. I think this is just a typical tactic, used by those who traffic in fear, to separate you from your money.
This is why I don't go to church anymore.
Had to edit. Apologies to Hobby and Fatboy0 -
quote:9-11 was that a hate crime or just a random act of violence?
Well...in today's political climate, 9/11 WAS a hate crime perpetuated by Americans who designed the WTC not to cushion the impact when the airplanes hit and therefore killed the muslim hijackers. How dare we do something so terrible!
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ABOVE WAS POSTED WITH TONGUE FIRMLY IN CHEEK!!0 -
this is interesting. sounds like freedom of religion and freedom of speech would be trumped by Political Correctness. suposedly you can believe, practice and talk about things that are offensive to others, but you can't tell anybody what those beliefs are because you might offend them?? you wouldn't be allowed to act on your beliefs (your religion) or live your life according to them?? that one guy did and he got fired, they really liked that, huh.
and it's one thing to "make it illegal" to not tell anybody else what you want, but definitely a step too far to "make it illegal" to not talk about such things amongst groups of possibly like-minded people. "The proposed law would make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or I Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday School class." that's about the worst violation ofthe right to free speech I can think of. that's ridiculous.
and it's a double edged sword. if it's illegal to, de facto, be against homosexuality, the same logic should make it illegal to be for homosexuality. hence, the right to free speech: both sides of the argument can say what they want, so nobody gets oppressed.
the freedom of religion: anybody can worship/practice/believe whatever they want, so nobody gets oppressed.
right?
that shows how the PC people are, in fact, oppresive.0 -
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
A website that promotes hate.
Again, I think it is already a federal crime.0 -
All we need in this country is more laws, no matter what the subject. However, I think someone failed to do their reading. Neither proposal has anything to do with restricting speach by religious leaders or anyone else. They are about violent hate crimes.
Of course we already have sixteen zillion laws on the books that do the same thing, when enforced.0 -
Federal law
Current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity (see 1969 law, infra). Legislation is currently pending that would add gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability to this list, as well as remove the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity (see attempted expansion, infra). The DOJ/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics (see Hate Crime Satistics Act, infra and Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act, infra).
Federal prosecution of hate crimes
1969 law
18 USC 245 (b)(2), enacted in 1969, permits federal prosecution of people who "by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been" attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school. Penalties for hate crimes involving firearms are prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can bring life terms or the death penalty.[1]
Appellant courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law,[2] and the Supreme Court has declined to review those decisions.[3] Courts have also held that the law provides for criminal sanctions only, and does not create a cause of action for civil liability.[4]
Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act (1994)
The Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. 944 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.[5]
Attempted expansion of 1969 law
Main article: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
On May 3, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA), HR 1592, which would expand existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which would drop the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity. Similar legislation is expected to pass in the Senate, but President Bush has indicated he may veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.[6] This would be President Bush's third veto.
The LLEHCPA has been introduced in substantially similar form in each Congress since the 105th Congress in 1999, but has never made it into law. The 2007 bill expands on the earlier versions (originally called the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act) by including transgender provisions and making it explicit that the law should not be interpreted to restrict people's freedom of speech or association.[7]
Data collection statutes
Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990)
Main article: Hate Crime Statistics Act
The Hate Crime Statistics Act, 28 USC 534, requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed because of the victim's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The bill was signed into law in 1990 by George H. W. Bush, and was the first federal statute to "recognize and name gay, lesbian and bisexual people."[8] Since 1992, the Department of Justice and the FBI have jointly published an annual report on hate crime statistics.[9]
In 1994 Congress expanded the scope to include crimes based on disability, and in 1996 Congress permanently reauthorized the Act.
Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997
The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii), requires campus security authorities to collect and report data on hate crimes committed on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.
State laws
45 states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are AR, GA, IN, SC, and WY). Each of these statutes covers bias on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity; 32 of them cover sexual orientation; 32 cover disability; 28 cover gender; 13 cover age; 11 cover transgender/gender-identity; 5 cover political affiliation.[10]
31 states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action, in addition to the criminal penalty, for similar acts.[10]
27 states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics; 16 of these cover sexual orientation.[10]
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) the Supreme Court unanimously held that state penalty-enhancement laws for hate crimes were constitutional and did not violate First Amendment rights to freedom of thought and expression.
Prevalence of hate crimes
The DOJ and the FBI have kept statistics on hate crimes since 1992 in accordance with the Hate Crime Statistics Act. According to these reports, of the over 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, 55% were motivated by racial bias, 17% by religious bias, 14% sexual orientation bias, 14% ethnicity bias, and 1% disability bias.[11]
For example, in 2004,[12] there were 7,649 criminal hate crime incidents, out of 1,367,009 violent crimes.[13] In perspective, in 2003 there were 4,500 accidental workplace fatalities and 13,900 fatalities due to accidental poisoning.[14]
Hate crime laws debate
Main article: Hate crime#Justifications for hate crime laws
Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."[15]
Some people object to penalty-enhancement and federal prosecution laws because they believe they offer preferred protection to certain individuals over others.[16] There is less opposition to data collection statutes.0 -
quote:Originally posted by oldgunner
All we need in this country is more laws, no matter what the subject. However, I think someone failed to do their reading. Neither proposal has anything to do with restricting speach by religious leaders or anyone else. They are about violent hate crimes.
Of course we already have sixteen zillion laws on the books that do the same thing, when enforced.
I agree. Adding "hate" to a crime hasn't done a damn thing to reduce crime.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
At the bottom of the epistle you received is the answer to any questions you may have about it.
"If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved."
That statement alone makes the rest of the letter extremely suspect to me.
Next thing you know the NRA will be asking for donations. Or worse yet, charging a membership fee!0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
At the bottom of the epistle you received is the answer to any questions you may have about it.
"If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved."
That statement alone makes the rest of the letter extremely suspect to me.
Next thing you know the NRA will be asking for donations. Or worse yet, charging a membership fee!
Why, they'd never...
Wait a minute...
Gotta wipe the rose color offa my glasses.
There.
Hoo boy.0 -
There are two threads on this in politics.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.1105:
As noted above in this thread, these two bills only deal with violent crimes.
You Chicken Littles should at least read the bill before believing everything you are told to believe.
I believe they both violate the double jeopardy protection of the 5th Amendment, but they address nothing in the 1st.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There are two threads on this in politics.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.1105:
As noted above in this thread, these two bills only deal with violent crimes.
You Chicken Littles should at least read the bill before believing everything you are told to believe.
I believe they both violate the double jeopardy protection of the 5th Amendment, but they address nothing in the 1st.
Thanks Don.0 -
I read both of the bills and it appears to me, a non-lawyer, to be an unconstitutional expansion of an unconstitutional law, but who knows what it will mean when the lawyers start playing with it in court.
Hate crime laws are a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and I think a good argument could be made that they also violate the First Amendment, but they might as well be constitutional since the Supreme Court says they are constitutional.
In my opinion all criminal law should be based on criminal behavior, and not motivation (thought) behind the criminal behavior.
Criminal behavior can be clearly defined and recognized. It can be proved in court with witnesses and physical evidence. Punishing people for what they were thinking when they committed a crime is not only double jeopardy (Fifth Amendment) and possibly an infringement of free speech (First Amendment), it just plain doesn't seem to be the "American Way".
If a person murders another person, that person should face the death penalty for the murder. What that person was thinking when they committed the murder should be irrelevant except as evidence (motive) that the murder was committed.0 -
Hate crimes are a bunch of liberal crap. They mean to punish someone based on their thoughts.
The law should simply punish someone based on their actions.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
18 comments