"The Bill that wants to silence the Gospel" An inside look at the "Hate Crime Legislation Law"
by End Time Headlines on Friday, April 22, 2011 at 9:09am
The nation's largest group of Christian media professionals warns that the expanded Hate Crimes bill, which passed the House on May 3, was attached to the 2008 defense authorization bill in the Senate on September 27. Nine Republicans crossed party lines to vote in favor of ending debate on the amendment, including Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, killing any chance the right had of filibustering presents a serious risk of violating free speech rights of religious communicators.
The Matthew Shepard Act would also provide federal resources to local and state law enforcement agencies for investigating and prosecuting hate crime.
The legislation is intended by its sponsors to protect homosexuals and transgendered people from violent hate crimes by expanding a list of federally protected groups to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability.
But the 1,400-member National Religious Broadcasters says Christian broadcasters and even pastors covering culturally unpopular views, such as preaching homosexuality as sin, could face prosecution just for expressing their religious views because their teachings could be blamed for inciting violence.
"...touted as something as designed to crack down on violence and hate-inspired crime, [this bill] ...can be used to prosecute non-violent crimes...""Bottom line is we think that the bill under this language, while it's touted as something as designed to crack down on violence and hate-inspired crime, in fact can be used to prosecute non-violent crimes," NRB senior vice president and general counsel Craig Parshall told The Christian Post. "The bill has a chilling effect on the right of communicators to articulate and preach the full counsel of God."
Parshall said if the hate crimes legislation is made into law, Christian communicators could face prosecution for religious speech through already existing federal incitement and conspiracy laws.
For example, a prosecutor might argue that an attacker was inspired by a sermon against homosexuality and consider religious broadcasters or pastors who gave the message as "causal factors" in a violent crime.
And the extent of the hate crimes legislation goes beyond those who address homosexuality, Parshall argued. Christian communicators who preach on sexual sin in general, such as adultery, and the definition of marriage or teach apologetics that compare other religions to Christianity would also be at risk, he said.
"...the term "bodily injury" could be used to apply to mental trauma or mental or emotional impairment such as intimidation."The Senate version of the hate crimes bill targets alleged perpetrators who attempt to "cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person."
Parshall said the term "bodily injury" could be used to apply to mental trauma or mental or emotional impairment such as intimidation.
The Senate approved the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 68-29 on Oct. 22 after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan.
Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the bill because it hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of "preventing" hate crimes. The bill creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens.
Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act on October 8, 2009. Prior to signing the act into law, Obama spoke briefly of the hate-crimes bill.
"After more than a decade, we've passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," he said. "I promised Judy Shepard when she saw me in the Oval Office that this day would come, and I'm glad that she and her husband, Dennis, could join us for this event. I'm also honored to have the family of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation. I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help make this day possible."
American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned that the new law "creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in nonnormative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American."
Wildmon said the legislation creates possible situations where pastors may be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence.
"It threatens free speech and freedom of religion and is totally unacceptable," he said.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be.
The Alliance Defense Fund blasted the "hate-crimes" bill, calling it "another nail in the coffin of the First Amendment."
"All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in a statement. "This law is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel or believe. ADF will be on the front line to defend those whose free speech or free exercise of religion rights are violated by this unconstitutional law and to ultimately overturn this attack on freedom."
Opponents point to cases in Canada and Sweden, where Christians have faced criminal prosecution for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.
"ADF has clearly seen the evidence of where 'hate crimes' legislation leads when it has been tried around the world: It paves the way for the criminalization of speech that is not deemed 'politically correct,'" Stanley explained. "'Hate crimes' laws fly in the face of the underlying purpose of the First Amendment, which was designed specifically to protect unpopular speech."
Stanley said such crimes are already punishable under existing federal, state and local laws.
"Bills of this sort are designed to forward a political agenda and silence critics, not combat actual crime," he said. "The bottom line is that we do not need a law that creates second-class victims in America and that gives the government the opportunity to ignore the First Amendment."
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, testified before Congress against the hate-crimes bill in 2007.
"It is fundamentally unjust for the government to treat some crime victims more favorably than others, just because they are homosexual or transsexual," Dacus said. "This bill is an unnecessary federal intrusion into state law-enforcement authority, and it is an unwise step toward silencing religious and moral viewpoints."
He said the adoption of hate-crimes legislation has led to widespread suppression of speech deemed politically incorrect. The Pacific Justice Institute noted that in California, hate-crimes laws are commonly invoked as a basis for further laws pushing acceptance of homosexuality in public schools and the workplace. The group also warned that use of "hate speech" terminology is also now being employed by minority religious groups in America to encourage suppression of free speech, as a prominent Hindu group called on Congress and major Internet service providers to shut down websites critical of Hinduism, including websites of Christian mission organizations.
The Pacific Justice Institute pledged to come to defend anyone who is prosecuted under the new hate-crimes law because of their religious expression.
Liberty Counsel litigation counsel Matt Krause told WND, "It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties in general."
He said the law will not deter crime or help the law-enforcement system.
"The only thing it will do is silence and scare Christians and religious organizations," Krause said. "It will penalize thoughts and actions, and it will not stop crime. It should be called the 'thought-crimes' bill."
He continued, "We encourage pastors and church leaders to keep doing what they're doing and preach the gospel. If they run into any barriers, they can contact us because we are ready and willing to defend them in any way we need to.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that this bill is already in full force in Canada, Sweden and other places around the world and is silencing pulpits and shutting the mouths of all ministers of the Gospel who preach anything that would be deemed as a “Hate Crime”.
The Danger of Hate Crimes Legislation
A number of countries, including the U.S. (both at the federal and state level), have enacted hate crimes legislation that increases sentences for perpetrators who have been found guilty of crimes motivated by hatred against a minority deemed to be vulnerable. Such legislation typically covers at least race and religion as protected classes.
Of course, violence against any individual should not be tolerated. Rational people do not disagree on that point. But existing criminal laws intended to curtail violence already take into account the intent of the attacker in determining the appropriate level of punishment.
Hate crimes legislation provides “special protection” for certain classes of individuals, rather than equal protection for everyone. Increased punishments are given to the perpetrators based on what is perceived to be their hateful thoughts and beliefs towards the victim, something very difficult to measure.
In recent years there has been a push to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” as protected classes under hate crimes legislation. These classes are radically different than those based on an inherent characteristic like race. Why should a person receive more protection because of their sexual expression or behavior? Why should heterosexuals receive less protection than homosexuals? Why should a person who attacks a homosexual receive a harsher punishment than a person who attacks, for example, an old lady? It just doesn’t make sense.
Hate crimes legislation is just a small step away from criminalizing speech (without any conduct) that criticizes sexual behavior. There is growing concern that those seeking to add “sexual orientation” or “gender identity and expression” as protected classes under hate crimes legislation are trying to broaden the measures to use them against those who criticize or express a religious belief against the homosexual lifestyle.
Hate Crimes Legislation Around the World
In Sweden “unfavorable speech” about a person’s sexual orientation is itself criminalized. As a result of a 2002 amendment to Sweden’s constitution, the mere public expression of beliefs about homosexuality without any accompanying criminal conduct can be criminally actionable there. Their law offers no exclusions for religiously motivated “hate speech,” and specifically criminalizes “hate speech” in “church sermons.” The Swedish Federation for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights (RFSL) had asked that religiously-motivated speech not be exempt from the legislation.
A Pentecostal pastor in Sweden, Ake Green, was convicted of hate speech against homosexuals during a sermon in his church which focused on biblical teachings that condemn homosexual behavior. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail. The case went to Sweden’s Supreme Court, with the prosecutor asking that the pastor be given a sentence of six months. Fortunately, the Swedish high court cleared Pastor Green of the hate crime charge. But the decision’s reasoning is not very clear and their law still penalizes speech against homosexuality.1 Then there is Hugh Owens who was found guilty of a hate crime in Canada under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code. Owens had placed an ad in the newspaper in response to Homosexual Pride Week that listed four Bible references opposing homosexuality. The ad included a drawing of two stick figures holding hands within a circle with a diagonal bar placed over it. The message was clear: The Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong.
Even though Owens engaged in no criminal conduct, only the speech in the ad, the Canadian Human Rights Board ruled that both Owens and the newspaper “discriminated against three gay men because of their sexual orientation by exposing them to hatred and ridicule and affronted their dignity.”2 Owens and the owners of the newspaper were ordered to pay damages of $1,500 to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.
Even though that decision was reversed on appeal, the door clearly has been opened to characterize preaching against homosexual acts as a hate crime in Canada. Indeed, other provincial human rights commissions in Canada have tried to penalize and prohibit expression opposing homosexuality and only backed down due to public opposition.3 In Canada, being accused of a hate crime is punishment in and of itself whether you are found guilty or not. Defendants are stuck with large legal bills, while those who make the claims against them are not responsible for funding the prosecution which is covered by the human rights tribunal. Even if defendants eventually win their case, they lose financially and sometimes suffer reputation and employment repercussions.
U.S. law has always provided strong protection for free speech and freedom of religion. Nevertheless, Americans must be vigilant in protecting their right to speak out on moral issues.
In 2004, eleven Philadelphia Christians (known as the “Philadelphia 11”) were arrested and jailed for peacefully passing out Christian literature at a gay pride event. Ironically,
1 A summary of the issue is available at,http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm;http://leozak.blogspot.com/2005/12/ake-green-acquitted-of-hate-speech-by.html;http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9549&department=CFI&categoryid=freedom
2 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission 2001-2002 Annual Report, p. 22.
3 See http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2886 (retrieved on October 21, 2008).
prior to their arrest, the Christians were confronted by a militant mob of homosexuals known as the “Pink Angels” who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs in front of them to block their message and access to the event, while others screamed obscenities. The Philadelphia police refused to take any action as the Christians were continuously followed, obstructed, and harassed and the police arrested and jailed the Christians instead.
After spending 21 hours in jail, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office charged them under (1) Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law called “Ethnic Intimidation,” to which “sexual orientation” was added as a victim category; and (2) a host of other felony and misdemeanor charges. Had they been convicted, each of the Philadelphia 11 could have faced up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines. These charges were later dismissed by Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas as being without merit.
The Philadelphia 11 then filed a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia for violations of their civil rights. However their lawsuit was dismissed by the court which determined that the police were justified in their arrests based on their perception that the Philadelphia 11 were “disrupting the event” even though the Christians were not charged for being “disruptive,” and it was the homosexuals at the event that caused the commotion. Michael Marcavage, one of the Philadelphia 11, noted that “The result in this case is another dangerous example of how hostility toward Biblical Christianity is growing in our nation, and ultimately how homosexual extremism will not only silence those who share their faith publicly, but the pulpit itself.”4 In Holland, criticism of “fornicators” and “adulterers” is considered a hate crime; and in France, legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. Additional examples exist, but you get the picture.
“Hate Speech” in the Work Place
Government employees of the city of Oakland, California were threatened with losing their jobs for posting a flier on the employee bulletin board in support of “marriage,” “natural family” and “family values.” They were warned that if they did it again they would be fired.
The employees challenged the warning in court and lost. On appeal the Ninth Circuit Court concluded that the terms “marriage,” “natural family,” and “family values” could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate speech. The judges opined: “Public employers are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their legitimate administrative interests outweigh the employees’ interest in freedom of speech.”5 The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case so the decision stands.
4 See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69881 (retrieved October 18, 2008).
5 Good News Employee Association et. al, v. Joyce M. Hicks, 05-15467 (9th Cir. U.S. Ct. of Appeals 2007).; available at www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/45.pdf.
Other Troublesome Interferences with Religious Speech and Beliefs
It can be political suicide to oppose hate crimes legislation because those who oppose it are made to appear “hateful.” Consider the following examples, all within the last several years, of people being fined or sued for adhering to, promoting or defending their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality:
• Scott Brockie, a printer in Ontario was fined $5,000 in 1999 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. He spent $175,000 fighting the charges. The adjudicator claimed that Brockie was free to express his beliefs in his home or Christian community, but ordered him to provide printing services “to lesbians and gays and to organizations in existence for their benefit.” The parties fought about who would pick up legal costs, and the Court of Appeals decided the printer was on the hook for $40,000 in legal fees.
• The owners of Adoption.com, the largest Internet resource for couples wishing to adopt children, were sued by homosexuals from California (where “sexual orientation” is protected by law) because they refused to post the profiles of homosexual couples seeking children to adopt on their web site. Rather than submit to their legal demands, Adoption.com chose to eliminate the profiles of all California couples. Unfortunately, their biggest source of revenue was from California.
I have enclosed a copy of the bill to be viewable;
Jesus said in Matthew 24 that this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached to the whole world as a witness and then the end shall come. The days are closing in fast and the opportunity is now to preach the entire Gospel of the Kingdom. Do not be silenced by fear and intimidation. Remember the Fear of man is a snare but he who “Fears the Lord shall have refuge”. Proverbs 29:25.
No comments:
Post a Comment