Religious Right Spreads Lies About Hate Crimes Bill

goddamnathiest
goddamnathiest's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Religious Right Spreads Lies About Hate Crimes Bill

FROM : http://www.talk2action.org
     Pastors In Prison?: Religious Right Spreads Lies About Hate Crimes Bill

By Rob Boston Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 12:35:01 PM EST

Legislation that would target hate crimes is expected to start moving in Congress soon. The Religious Right is going bananas.

The legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913), is intended to do a few key things: It would allow the U.S. Justice Department to offer assistance when a crime that results in death or serious injury is committed against any American because of the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

The federal government could even prosecute such cases if local officials were unwilling to do so. This section of the proposed bill reflects statutes from the Civil Rights era that gave the federal government a greater role in battling crimes against African Americans in the Jim Crow South and also allowed the Justice Department to address the denial of voting rights. It's nothing new.

The bill also would also make some federal money available to for law enforcement training. It would help police officers recognize bias-motivated violence and combat it, especially among young people.

The bill penalizes assault and physical violence, not speech. In fact, the legislation makes it clear that free speech is protected. Section 10 states, "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."

Nevertheless, here's what the Family Research Council told pastors in a recent bulletin: "Let's say you preach from Genesis 19 or Romans 1, referencing the homosexual agenda or lifestyle. Your sermon could be heard by an individual who applies it in a way prohibited by a hate crimes law. Not only would the offender be prosecuted under this law, but you could also be prosecuted for conspiracy. Consequently, hate crimes laws would radically impact our freedom of speech as Christians."

Wrong.

As Becky Dansky, federal legislative director for the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, told the Washington Blade, such claims by the Religious Right are "completely inaccurate, unless their priest or reverend or religious leader is physically assaulting someone based on their sexual orientation while they're giving that sermon."

Yet Religious Right leaders keep playing the "your-pastor-will-go-to-jail" card.

"An offended homosexual could accuse a pastor, Sunday School teacher of broadcaster of causing emotional injury simply by expressing the Biblical view that homosexuality is sinful," blares the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association in an e-mail alert.

Over at the Traditional Values Coalition, Andrea Lafferty warns, "Your pastor could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a hate crime if it passes and become law. This so-called `hate crimes' bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute, and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth pastors - you name it - or anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truth found in the Bible."

What is the Religious Right's evidence for these extravagant claims? It doesn't have any.

The FRC is fond of citing the case of Ake Green, a pastor in Sweden who was sentenced to a month in jail in 2004 after he delivered a sermon attacking gays that he later distributed to local newspapers.

There are two things wrong with this: Green's case happened in Sweden. Sweden is not part of the United States. It does not have our First Amendment. Secondly, Green's conviction was later overturned on appeal.

Many members of the clergy are debunking the Religious Right's claims and support the bill (as does the ACLU). Hundreds of religious leaders endorsed the measure in 2007.

"This law," the clergy coalition wrote to senators, "does not criminalize or impede religious expression in any way. Rather, the bill specifically addresses violent acts by those who act on their hate to terrorize entire communities."

The text of H.R. 1913 is online at Thomas.gov. Anyone can go there and read it.

I sure wish the Religious Right would. But I suppose I'm being silly to think that would make a difference. Truth long ago became irrelevant to that gang.
---------------------------------------------------------------

  Now my 2 cents...


      It's the old "FEAR FACTOR" that they just love to play. Look at the upsurge in the purchasing of guns and ammo. Down here in Texas ammo is selling like hot cakes because some yahoo somewhere said Obama was gonna take yur guns away.... Like the NRA would stand for that...

Funny thing is, I've seen these preachers just push peoples buttons and get them all frothing at the mouth and then they go out and do something stupid. In some cases, they've killed people. And when these preachers get questioned about these things happening, they don't defend the person, they start to quickly cover their own asses.

Should be interesting on how this pans out....
What do you think about this?



 

Always make sure there is toilet paper before you sit down...


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
goddamnathiest wrote:What do

goddamnathiest wrote:

What do you think about this?
 

Typical right-wing fearmongering and exploitation of ignorance. It's interesting how they attempt to spin the giving of rights to people they don't like as the taking away of their own rights, even though no such outcome is possible.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Fanas
Posts: 249
Joined: 2008-03-27
User is offlineOffline
Really, those pastors should

Really, those pastors should go to jail. You'd want to attack such legislation only if you intended to commit hate crime. Else I don't see why. It would protect them too, evil atheists would be prosecuted severely for harming Christians. Smiling


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12851
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't like the idea of

I don't like the idea of "hate" crimes. The vast majority of them, if not all of them, are hate crimes regardless of whether the defining factors are met or not. If I kill someone for pissing me off, it is just as bad as killing someone because they are black. The result is identical. The person is dead, and I am responsible for it. Putting me away for extra time just because the victim was black is racist in and of itself. The only result possible from hate legislation is more hate, thanks to promoting the ridiculous idea that people are different on a level that doesn't exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I don't like

Vastet wrote:

I don't like the idea of "hate" crimes.

Is this thread about hate crimes or about 'teh evil right wingers?' Goddamnatheist even worked in guns and the NRA into his rant against the right. I don't think they want thoughtful discussion on hate crimes. They want petty attacks on the right. I don't like hate crime laws either, but I didn't bother responding to a guy who is just wants to bash the right.

But as far as your post goes: you basically wrote down my views on this issue. Hate crime laws reinforce the concept that we are distinct groups and that some groups need special protection under the law. Legally splitting people up into protected and unprotected groups is not going to make people less divisive. There is a sad level of irony to the fact that the people advocating hate crime laws want to take the arbitrary and culturally determined classifications of groups of people and enshrine those classifications in law. I would perfer equality under the law rather than favoritism and special protections.

 

Quote:

Down here in Texas ammo is selling like hot cakes because some yahoo somewhere said Obama was gonna take yur guns away [emphasis of this obvious lie/petty attack on the right mine]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

Obama states that he wants to bring about some gun bans. Not that he could bring about a total ban. Rather he wants a ban on guns that Obama thinks sound scary enough to frighten people into supporting a ban. Gun banners use a fear-based campaing of outright lies to get so-called 'assault weapons' banned. Obama wants to re-ban them since Congress let the old ban expire rather than renew it. Also, Obama supports making a new tax on ammo. That puntative tax will greatly increase the cost of plinking and going to a target range. This is what would really cripple gun owners. Without cheap ammo, guns are too expensive to practice with.

So there is some basis in people's fear that Obama will infringe on gun rights. People only thinks he wants gun bans because Obama says he wants gun bans. I'll take his word that he really wants to re-ban assault weapons and add a puntative tax on ammunition.

Use google.com for one god damned minute before posting clearly wrong things people. These lies are too easy to fact check to slip by unnoticed on a forum.

 

Edit: How could I have forgotten? Obama wants to ban the sale and transfer of ALL semiautomatic firearms. He wants to outlaw buying or selling most firearms in the US. He won't actually do it because he can't get the votes in Congress neccessary. But he has stated that he wants to start the ban. He'll make do with the assault weapons ban though. He can't get that ban on all semi-automatic firearms (like he claimed he wants), so instead he'll go for the second-best option of merely banning some semi-automatic firearms.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15436
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"HATE CRIME" is bad use of

"HATE CRIME" is bad use of law language. It does amount to "THOUGHT CRIME"

Dead is dead, weither you are killing someone for their money, or jelousy or race.

LAWS are already in place that say you cant harm anyone or tell others to harm others.

The advocates of such language do not understand the long term scope of that could back fire on the very people they claim it will  protect.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15436
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Please understand I am not

Please understand I am not defending these guys. I am saying that there is are different aspects of prosicuting a case that are  kept separate in order to maintain equality in law.

"MOTIVE" is not the same issue as "sudden passion" or "pre meditation"

Lets say for example:

In case one, you call my mother a whore. Then right on the spot I stab you because of a kneejerk reaction.

In the other example. You call my mother a whore, but for a month I plot out your murder, even though I had all that time to calm down.

In both cases the motive is the same. But the first is punished less because it was simply "not thinking" whereas the second was "thinking ahead"

Why should the feeling of hate be treated any different than feelings of  revenge or feelings of jealousy or feelings of greed, when someone can kill in the same way as in both these examples?

My point being is that it is dangerous to legislate morality when common law is all we need. It would be nice to think that everyone will like us or say nice things about us, but that will never happen.

Motive is not given special treatment in law language, or it shouldn't be. What determines severity of punishment is the deference  between simply not thinking when you did it, or plotting it out ahead of time.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Weird coincidence. I was

Weird coincidence. I was reading daylightatheism.org and read a similar article on why these thought-crime, oops, I mean "hate crime," laws are so great.

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/hate-crime-laws-and-loving-the-sinner.html

My attempts to reason with the progressives has failed pretty miserably. Oh well, if they love thought-crime so much then at least they will get great by-partisan support on the matter.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Hate crime laws are intended

Hate crime laws are intended to target specific groups that use rhetoric to convince others some people are less-than-human.

 

They are designed to help prevent it from becoming popular.

 

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying, and in the strictest sense it is true that a crime committed is the crime. The difference is, most hate crimes that happen the people felt justified in doing.

 

This is a direct response to that activity in saying it is not condoned, or sanctioned in any way by the courts.

 

 

 

 

For example, the sheer amount of homophobia out there pushed in the hate-buildings known as churches creates a LOT of people that feel homosexuals need to be "purged" from the world, because their god condones it in their holy book and even does it himself supposedly.

 

Being gay myself, I have had to deal with these people on numerous occasions. The police often will turn a blind eye, and so will other people because they feel the reasons, or "thoughts" behind it are justified.

How dare me be an evil of satan trying to ruin their family. I obviously hate the country and want to hit on the unattractive christians to bring others to their hell with me. That makes it okay to target me with violence, because I shouldn't exist anyway.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Retarded Christian

Retarded Christian wrote:

''the truth found in the Bible."

say what?