Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 16, 2007
Harry R. Jackson, Jr. :: Townhall.com Columnist
Freedom Held Hostage
by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Last week I was surprised by an underhanded attack on our nation’s freedom. This attack did not occur on foreign soil or in the Middle East. The attack did not occur as a result of terrorists, radicals, or extremists. This attack against freedom was covered on C-SPAN and occurred on the floor of the Senate, in front of thousands of Americans. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are being compromised in the name of misguided compassion.

The S.1105 Hate Crimes Bill (often referred to as the Matthew Shepard Act) was introduced in the Senate last Wednesday as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill which involves funding for the war in Iraq. What do hate crimes have to do with the war in Iraq? Absolutely nothing!

This move was politics at its worst. The hate crimes legislation never went through the subcommittee for discussion or mark-up, senators were not allowed to discuss the merit of the Hate Crimes Bill on its own merit, and the normal process of legislation was circumvented. Senator Ted Kennedy has led the effort to pass this bill despite the opposition of millions of Americans. In personal meetings my staff and I have had with members of the judicial committee of the Senate, they all have admitted getting a great number of calls from outraged citizens who see the hate crimes bill as bad legislation.

So how can the majority party justify changing the rules on this legislation? The process we are describing is bill bundling. This technique has been used by both parties in the past, but it represents political cynicism and public manipulation at its worst. Here’s how it works. When the majority party wants to pass an unpopular bill that could not stand up to intense debate, they couple that bill with something the opposition wants badly. Therefore, in most cases the minority party swallows its pride and lets the bad bill pass.

Everyone knows that President Bush has been slavishly attempting to get budget authorization for the war in Iraq. Kennedy and his cohorts are dangling a tremendously tempting carrot before the President. He has to decide on two issues: 1.) Will he set a date for withdrawal of the troops from Iraq? and 2.) Will he break his promise to veto the hate crimes legislation?

This is a time when everyone who believes in freedom needs to support the president. We also need to pray that he will not blink in this high tech form of political brinkmanship.

By a major stroke of providence, the High Impact Leadership Coalition, which I lead, placed a national, full-page ad in USATODAY the same day the bill was brought to the floor of the Senate. The ad was entitled, “DON’T MUZZLE OUR PULPITS!” Thirty-six nationally known, black ministers who serve thousands of parishioners from all over the U.S. took a stand for both the Constitution and the Bible by signing their names to the ad. The copy of the ad reads as follows:

Christian clergymen and people of faith are making a stand today for religious liberty. We oppose S.1105, the so-called “hate crimes” bill. Similar laws at the state level and in other countries have already been used to muzzle the church. Labeling politically incorrect views as “hate” will have a chilling effect on the free speech and religious liberty of our churches and of our members.

Let’s be clear: Violent crimes should always be punished, no matter the victim– but thoughts and opinions should never be. Laws punishing violent crime already exist in all 50 states. So, what then will define “hate?” Simply, preaching biblical morality and sexual behavior, opposition to homosexuality. Such laws will ultimately establish, as a matter of legal principle, that any opposition to homosexual or other unbiblical behavior is inherently a form of “hate,” a direct threat to every American citizen’s freedom of conscience.

This legislation is constitutionally suspect, unnecessary, unfair, and ultimately un-American. We are African Americans, though we represent thousands of Christian leaders of all races. We understand more clearly than most the dangers of racially motivated violence. But we also recognize the threat to religious liberty from labeling biblical teaching as “hate.” The black community needs a free black pulpit. Indeed, ALL Americans need free pulpits.

We urge the Senate to avoid putting America on a road toward forfeiting our most basic freedoms – our freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the freedom to exercise religion.

WHAT CAN YOU DO? We urge all concerned citizens to call their Senators (202-224-3121) and call the President (202-456-1111) to express concern regarding S.1105.

We stand in unison against S.1105.

Let’s Keep Hope Alive!

After reading this article, I hope you will pass it on to your friends and take action. America needs you!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Be the first to read Harry Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Hate is bad
If someone calls an african american a n**gar before slitting his throat or a black man uses a derogatory term for whites before shooting a white man to death, we must recognize that extra component of the crime. We absolutely cannot have violent criminals going around using politically incorrect or defamatory language while committing their crimes. It is right and just that someone who murders their neighbor is less reprehensible than someone who uses a racist term.

Your argument that we cannot trust the government to only apply this law the way it is intended is not very nice. The anti-smoking zealots were perfectly satisfied with banning smoking on airplanes. It's not like they continue to force the issue so that people cannot even choose to smoke in their own homes in some areas. You are being too strict. I mean, whats the harm is restricting the first amendment for a good cause. I say, as long as the cause is good and just according to anyone at all, then restrict away.

Josef Stalin
please send campaign contributions to me in care of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign fund.

Hate Crimes Legislation
The real reason that "Christians" of a certain ilk don't like this bill is because they hate homosexuals. Just look at Rev Fred Phelps and his hate-filled ugly brood. They are purveyors of hate and everyone in Topeka knows that his followers actively attack gays and lesbians with violent acts.

Don't try to sugarcoat you anti-gay bias bu saying it undermines religious freedom. I'm a Methodist and we welcome gays.
Regard
Rick

Rick
Please don't misrepresent things.
Phelps is a weirdo and his "church" is indeed his "brood". All of the members are family or spouses of family.

The "hate crimes" legislation assumes to know what the perp was thinking. As I have said before, the points of why the perp killed, assaulted is already addressed under aggravating factors in the punishment phase.

Methodist, huh. Where is your open mind.

Rick, are you trying to bring down
the Methodist Church?

Oh, by the way Rick. Everyone, but a moron or one that has a stone for a brain, knows that the Topeka church, has no ties with 99.99999% of the churches in this country. They are rejected and condemmed by all.

Rick, why don't you send away for a mail order master's and doctorate degree. Both can be secured, for around $799. It would not however make you smart. While you're at it Rick, go ahead and get your divinity degree and preachers license. Won't make you a believer, or a child of God.

But it does enable fools like you, to go on believing that which is propagated by our liberal media.

The only Hate I feel is..
for the rotten politicians that are trying to slip this bill through. Never mind that all sane Americans know that this is an attack on the First amendment! "We The People" no longer mean anything to these S.O.B's until it's voting time. Perhaps at that time we can vote them all out!

One problem with "hate crimes"
What is worse, assaulting someone out of hate, or assaulting someone to get that person's wallet? "Hate crimes" assume the former - but is that really the case?

Ironically, the case for which the bill is named wasn't a hate crime.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2331_0_2_0_C/

Hate is stupid but not illegal
Someone who hates another person forfeits his ability to reason. The passion of hate blinds the hater from seeing any possible good in the other person. Hatred is stupid because it limits the hater more than the target. However, hatred is a human emotion which should never be the subject of legislation. Government can't eliminate hatred anymore than it could eliminate love. Members of free societies have the right to love or hate. God gave man free will to make choices. The purview of government must be limited to man's actions, not his emotions nor his thoughts or words. Having said all this, for a pastor to speak against homosexuality, isn't necessarily an example of hate. Indeed, it may be reasoned speech without the hint of hatred. It would be better to see legislation limiting the actions of foolish politicians, such as Ted Kennedy, who attempt to legislate from their own positions of hatred.

Quote applies here too
This quote from the movie 1776 does apply to this trick by congress

"John Adams: I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress!"

free speech and the emotion of hate
The real reason that "Christians" of a certain ilk don't like this bill is because they hate homosexuals. ~ Rick

certain christians may hate the sin of homosexuality, but they do not hate the soul which practices that sin; I'm not familar with this Fred Phelps, but I would venture to guess that he does not call for the deaths of the practitioners of homosexual acts, and if he does, then he is a false prophet and christian teacher and should be labeled such.

the circumstances of any murder are well presented during the course of a jury trial and it is that jury, as the representatives of the greater society, who are to determine a just verdict. should "hate" have been a motivator of the murderer, that will way upon the verdict and the sentence accordingly.

there must be equality under our laws; no one group is due "special" considerations, period.

as for codifying determinants of FREE SPEECH; it is unconstitutional, and has been rpoven to be over and over by the Federal courts in cases upholding the rights of organizations such as Neo-Nazis, KKK, Black Panthers, Black Muslims, and others to spew whatever they desire in the public arena; it is the actions upon the words which constitute crimes, and those actions are well handled within the scope of our current judicial system.

this "hate crimes" legislation is nothing more than another useless and unwise piece of work out of the Congress motivated by political pandering and nothing else. for Kennedy it represents yet another nail he would like to place in the coffin of this nation which he hates and blames for the murder of his brothers and has pathologically pursued a lifetime campaign of tearing down everything the Founders attempted to put in place for the continued protection of this nation.

A question for our friends
Lets roll back the clock to about 1959 and assume that the hate crimes statute had been on the books at the dawn of the civil rights era. Would the hate crimes law been used against the KKK or against the Southern Christian Leadership conference? Would we have been better off if Martin Luther King was doing time for a hate crime after publishing the Letter from A Birmingham Jail as he certainly could have been doing. I think the term is incitement to riot. Mr Jackson clearly sees this.

Someone explain to me again how Hugh Heffner can publish Playboy, or Larry Flint Hustler and be covered by the 1st Amendment and a preacher who preaches from the Bible isn't.


This is why...
This type of bill bundling is exactly why we need a line item veto for the President. We should never be in a position to have laws passed by our "representatives" that have not had to stand up to debate and scrutiny, and are slipped through on the tails of other legislation.

Charlie
The "Rev" Phelps is the "pastor" of a "baptist" church in Topeka Kansas whose claim to "fame" has been picketing the funerals of soldiers, claiming their deaths were because of the homosexual acceptance in the US. He is a bitter, old man that distorts Scripture to justify his views.

ten commandments or homosexual plague
This so called Rev. Phelps came to my home town demanding that his anti homosexual plague be placed beside a Ten Commandments plague. The plague had been in a public park since the 1950's.
The good reverend that he is he threatened to sue the city if the Ten Commandment plague was not removed.

The mayor and city council tucked tail and the plague is now on church property where even fewer people can see it.

Borghe

I have read the draft of this legislation and there is too much possibility of unintended consequences here.

The point with Shepard is that his murders were found guilty and sentenced

"His two assailants, Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, were convicted of the crime and imprisoned. Henderson is currently serving two consecutive life sentences and McKinney is serving the same but without the possibility of parole."

Only thing more severe would have been death penalty and I though all liberals were against that.


Unlike Japan, China, et al
America is not a homogenous society. We may be The Great Melting Pot but we are still, somewhat,broken into loose ethnic divisions. We tend to trust those like us though Americans try very hard, in general, to go along to get along. You know it and I know it. A black guy will stop to help you push your car to the side of the road just as I will help him. And give him a ride to the gas station and bring him/ her back with 2 gallons of gas. It happens every day somewhere. The hatists[there must be a better word] are a distinct minority. And they are black and white- are not worthy of breathing the same air as we do. But we must not legislate thought. Or morality. In this we must fail. The Golden Rule is still the best one----------Treat a person as you would wish to be treated. Problem solved.

Suppression of the gospel…

If God is dead and the Bible is irrelevant as the radical left believes then why do they want to suppress Biblical morality?

They say that religion poisons everything. What this means is that they love their sin, and they do not want it exposed by the light of Scripture. Nor do they want a preacher armed with his Bible calling men to repent of their sin and come to Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin.

The Bible calls this the good news of grace. The left calls it hate speech. Now we know the meaning of that saying…

‘Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness…’ [Isaiah 5:20]


Paraphrasing Will Rodgers:
“Let’s say you are Disingenuous and let’s say you are a Liberal. But I’m repeating myself.”

The Line-Item Veto is LONG OVERDUE!

Proving a hate crime
A hate crime adds a component to the criminal intent part of a criminal statute. That means it makes it HARDER to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent of the assaulter was hate for the victim that resulted in aggravated battery, etc. Otherwise the prosecutor just proves the elements of aggravated battery (a severe beating). Why make it harder to prove, and give the defense an issue upon which to raise reasonable doubt? If one juror thinks there is reasonable doubt about the REASON he assaulted the victim, which is not required now, then the perp walks. All of this hate crime mess is overkill and counterproductive.
I teach criminal law at the university level. The first thing students are introduced to is the concept that we don't have thought police in this country: people are punished by the crimnal justice system for BAD ACTS, not BAD THOUGHTS. In a conspiracy case, you can think and plan about your perfect crime as much as you like, but you cannot be prosecuted for it until you take an OVERT ACT to complete the crime. This is how the CJ system separates thought crimes from actual crimes. You are free to be as stupid as you like and hate anyone you like, free nation, but you cannot act on your hate without consequences. It's hard enough to prove criminal intent by circumstantial evidence without adding an additional element to the crime. This is political correctness run amok, displaying no understanding of the way the criminal justice system works.

Another thought
Reading the comments on the Nifong article by Mike Adams, I was struck by how many people were incensed by women making false accusations of rape. How about false accusations of name calling in order to charge a hate crime? I predict we will suddenly see an increase of the number of white men being accused of calling a black person the N-word. In my experience, the only time I hear the N-word is coming from blacks. The perjorative words are prejudicial and tend to inflame the jury to think on an emotional level not an objective, rational examination of the evidence. This is just more proof that liberals want everything to be judged on their FEELINGS, instead of on those pesky FACTS.

Borghe is serious?
I thought the original "it's a hate crime" claim about Shepard's murder was discredited ages ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard#ABC.27s_.2220.2F20.22_report_and_a_third_story

If someone wants to name a hate crimes law after someone, at least pick someone who's murder was unquestionably a hate crime - someone like James Byrd or Nick Berg.

Killing Shepard out of hate is just as bad as killing him to steal his stuff. (Actually, murders of indifference scare me more.)

The government
is trying to remove all of our freedoms a little at a time. The "Fairness Doctrine" the "Hate Crimes Bill. Trying to sneak things through so it can't be fought. I don't care who they are. Republican or Democrat. They have lived in their ivory towers too long, and want total power. Now they want to be the thought police.

The "Hate Crimes is just that, "thought police".

Murder is murder no matter who it is. Attacking physically, anyone, is a crime .All of the things they say are "hate crimes" are crimes already, except for one thing..Thought.

dems
Is there no end to the obnoxious things democrats can come up with all under the title of other stuff? They are like mischievous gremlins working in the dark. I keep reading articles on how we shouldn't allow ourselves to be polarized because the fight between the republicans and the democrats is not good for the country. But the dems are so odiously disgusting. Did you hear that their earmarks amount to 25 billion $'s? As I heard it reported, the head of Iraq said "why should our government meet your goals which are symbolic and not practical and it is 130 degrees F outside when the democrats have not met their stated goals?"
And congress wants to put US on a diet and penalize us while their leaders Kennedy and Murtha and Gore are advertisements for BLOAT.
Craven, corrupt, and cowardly are the dems.


hate crimes
Why is it that whenever this is discussed M.Shepards name is brought up but the 12 year old child from Kansas that was raped repeatedly and tortured is never mentioned?I forgot that crime was committed by gays so it doesn't count.

Murder
is murder, and dead is dead no matter who or what you are. More evidence that Congress is too stupid to solve real problems. They just create new ones so it looks like they are acutally accomplishing something.

another PAC priviledge?
As I understand this bill, it seems to provide some sort of protection to a certain group of people who think they are owed something. I would appreciate an explaination of how this bill came to be, and just what is fully involved in it. Is this just another way we are forced to condone a particular lifestyle, or is it actually a bill that will represent true security and applicable across the board?

I read daily the hate spewed by the anti-Christs, all the names and all the 'observations' they make regarding anyone who differs with their point of view. A good example is right here within this comment section. Will these same people be held to the standards of this bill? Or are they exersizing thier freedom of speech?

Much more the case, I read and remember many more instances about a disgruntled ex-employee/lover/wife/husband/whatever, who has threatened another person or company, had 'restraining orders(?)' placed on them, yet still are allowed to be free to carry out thier threats. Will it apply as well to them (the real reason we should have a bill like this) as well?

And to what extent will this bill be carried out? Will it be limited to physical public venues, or again applied equally across the board? TV, Internet, Local grocers... etc. If it targets a single audience, for a single purpose, then it is a 'priviledge bill' that is as unconstitutional as any bill restricting freedom of speech.

I personnally don't like to see Jesus characterised in chocolate, or (as the Divinci Code alludes) a philanderer, yet it is of no consequence and by my faith I know the true Lawgiver will judge each accordingly. Nor do I like to see flag burnings or some of the hard core and sadistic porn displayed in public and justified as art (is it a hate crime to say as much?). But as such is the so called freedom of expression so broadly described and defended as freedom of speech.

Where will these priviledge bills end? Will these PAC groups continue until they see every book burned that doesn't agree with thier form of thought? Or every thing they consider unhealthy banned or taxed to the limit? Who is it who decides these things anyway?

Statistics class 101, says that any stat/poll or opinion can be skewered or interpreted to provide the outcome beneficial to the group that sponsored it. Do you really think 4 out of 5 dentists prefer Crest over Colgate? Not if you ask Colgate! And how can Ford be the number #1 truck seller in America, when GMC is, or Toyota? And what's built Ford tough anyway (That's a lousy thing to say about yourself, when the common joke is that Ford means 'found on road dead')? I digress.

Much like most of the bills introduced by Congress in the last 100 years, they are shallow, ineffective and not very intellegent. If ever passed, we do have the constitutional obligation to review and repeal or amend every seven years, so why do we allow them to waste their time and our tax dollars? In these days of supercomputers, is this really the best they can do? And if so, what made them (or you who elected them) think they were fit for congress? Do we understand what is being done? To justify our me-me attitudes, we elect somebody based on our passions of the day. This is quite irresponsible, and not very helpful even for our own personal gains. Would we really hire Reid or Pelosi for our own personal companies, especially if we had a proprietary and secretive R&D project? Shouldn't be be worried about them telling our competion, especially if they thought it was beneficial (to them) to tell them?

And just how many in Congress do you think would actually pass a security check of even the most minor military level? Our reponsibilities as an electorate are no different than as a human resources employee, not hiring a PC typecast such as so many are in congress, but the most qualified
person who will actually pass those HR tests and checks and be able to represent our intentions both politically and uniformally.

The bills we have seen from the last 50 years of US government don't reflect that at all. We allow these so called politicians (defined: used car salesmen)((oops! is that a 'hate crime'? sorry used car salesmen!)) to inflame our emotions, stir up and cloud over the real issues of the day, and in the end, the only ones who have really benefitted are the politians, who have pocketed our money and given us more taxes! Those on the left and right get poorly developed laws, all which get repealed or patched with poorly developed amendments, and none of us are in any better position that when we first started. We say "oh well" and blame this or that, or some body here or there, and fall into the same old promises in another 2 or 4 years.

We call ourselves an intellegent society. Athiests who think they are so much smarter than Theists, who think they are more righteous, gays who think they are so much more tolerant than non-gays, who think this who think that who think this or that...

To amend the famous Rodney King statment "Why can't we all get along?" I say, "We'd BETTER all get along." If we don't, we will irreparably break the foundation that this country was built on, the Constitution. Then the only people who will get what they want are the anarchists. Not you, not me, and no one will be safe then. Let's hire the people most capable of doing the jobs we hired them for.

Remember, for each law we see passed, we are creating a new market for the lawyer industry, not for you, or me. For each job contract a government bill creates, we create atleast 3 for laywers. One to apply for the contract, one to approve the contract and one to administer the contract. By then the budget for the job contract is almost used, by those three lawyers, and not for who the bill is intended for. Each time we elect based on certain agendas, we benefit lawyers, because lawyers are mainly who we elect, incorrectly thinking they know the law, but rather those who know best how to skirt it, and break it without getting caught(?). This group of people are certified liars, based on their own ABA oaths, to "defend each person as if they were innocent, regardless of the facts."

So, regardless of the facts, and by whose pocketbook is the biggest, our elected officials on retainer work for those PACs who have paid the most, doing the least they can to get a not-guilty plea. So tell me, who really is the guilty party in this bill?

Intelligent, isn't it?
PS. if you are poking and grumbling about the word, it was a missed typo... huh, probably more, too...

borghe, "rand"y
Thanks Randy for providing additional data about "unintended consequences".

Borghe,
If you read instead of repeating talking points , you would understand, that prosecution under this new legislation could be harder, or a community, say Salt Lake city could view anti_Mormon comments as hate speech and is some one beat up a Mormon it would be a hate crime.

As a said in the first place, there is a provision already in the CJ system for aggravating factors during the punishment phase,

and you ducked the information about the sentences for the 2 killers of Shepard. Do you believe in the death penalty?

borghe
The young boy that the two HOMOS sodomized &
killed is not here to defend himself either.
That happened near the same time.
And people like you defend them to high heaven.
And i have no use for any politically B---ards.

All
Freedom of speech must be protected by everyone.
That & other freedoms is the only thing that
allowed this country to become great
The erosion of freedoms will bring this country
down quicker than terrorists.
IT IS TIME TO GO BACK TO OUR ROOTS---or fall

DEMAND DEBATE!
Sure hate is bad and I believe God will judge us as we judge others ("Judge not that ye be not judged..."). but who believes that the congress or our civil judges have the ability to read minds?

There have been many crimes prosecuted under the present hate crime laws and many more that were not, simply because the victims didn't fall within the certain "preferred groups" that the champions of hate crimes legislation intend to protect. Packrat mentioned hate crimes involving Mormons in Salt Lake City. Actually, a Mormon church building was burned down in the Salt Lake City area just a few months ago by a couple of young arsonists. It was NOT prosecuted as a hate crime. If it had been a_______ church (you fill in the blank), would that have been the case?

The Constitution of the U.S. was intended to guarantee EQUAL rights under the law and EQUAL treatment by the courts, not preferred treatment for any particular group.

Until such time as the congress or the courts find that they can read minds, they would do well to prosecute the crimes already on the books and leave "THOUGHT CRIMES" to heaven.

pandm
You got that right!!

Borghe
Would you please quote from the statute you keep mentioning that has been on the books since 1969.

We do NOT need any restrictions on speech unless it causes measurable harm ie. slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater etc. What other restrictions are you talking about that the mean christians don't want to include you in. It seems to me that gays simply want a weapon to use against churches in order to prevent speech they don't want to hear because it hurts their feelings. Even supposing for one minute, that the current state of affairs was so dangerous for gays that some form of 'special circumstance was warranted, because preachers were inciting people to commit violent acts against gays, I would not support this legislation. I do not hate gay people. There are ample laws on the books to protect individuals against bodily harm or property damage whether they are gay or have four heads and six legs. As soon as the gay lobby got a special law to wield against those it hates, what victim group is next? We can make it a special federal crime to use the word muslim and terrorist in the same sentence. Your logic thus far amounts to nothing more than "you guys hate us, thats why".

No useful purpose
Hate crime legislation serves no useful purpose.

An assault is an asault and a murder a murder regardless of what the purpetrator thought about the victim. Does anyone really believe that such laws cause the villain to stop and ponder their act?

Hate crime legislation makes as much sense as placing a thumb on an electric chair in order to make the death penalty tougher.


....
I'd like to continue that last thought if I may.

The true hate is from the gay lobby. They want to muzzle any speech against that lifestyle regardless of the intentions of the critics. The critics, as a rule, do not hate them but, rather think they are committing a sin and through love, wish to change their minds. If you hate this, I am sorry for you but, passing this law to muzzle your critics is not the answer. You can try to change everyone's mind that the gay lifestyle is better and try to convert people like churches do through your own speech but, stop trying to use force. It is self-defeating.

Not just the general public
is brain washed by the libral media hype to support this bill...the basic church is so into the Religious robotic programs they have no concept of impacting the congregation or the community. The primary goals are finance oriented and not Kingdom agenda. The same community mentalty has infected the church to react the same way. So when it comes time to act, public policy is more realistic to the believer even when it does threaten his or her faith.

Jefferson's thoughts on "Hate Crime"
In his oft quoted letter re the First Ammendment, Thomas Jefferson wrote...

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions..."

"The legitimate powers of government REACH ACTIONS ONLY, AND NOT OPINIONS."

Laws against murder are for the act of murder; the opinions, the motivations, of the murderer are irrelevant. Murder is a horrible crime whatever the motive.


It's not so much
hate crimes laws are bad per se, it's the fact that they're absolutely ridiculous!

Ron Paul number one with Military!

Ron Paul, received over 50% of the money donated to republicans by employees of the US military. WHY???

Military support for the republican candidates (in dollars) (Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly)

RON PAUL: $23,465 (52.53%)
McCain: 15,825 (35.4%) - plus $1,600 from Marines?
Romney: 3,551 (7.9%)
Giuliani: 2,320 (5.2%
Hunter: 1,000 (2.2%)
All others: 1,171 (2.6%)

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/2008-election/bush-neo-con-surge-the-surge-myopia-leads-to-pro-ron-paul-surge-from-military#more-2132

Absolutely
Hate crimes classification is always wrong.

Such statutes are designed to massage the vengefulness and hate and bitterness of certain interest groups. Hate crime laws wouldn't have worsened the sentences of Byrd's or Shepard's assailants. Their only difference would have been in feeding the self-righteous satisfaction of special interests that seek to politicize such cases.

Problem is, some crimes will be falsely identified as hate crimes, and some hate crimes will fail to be identified as such. Sometimes cases are obvious, as with Nick Berg and James Byrd whose assailants openly expressed their motives. But a lot of the time you need a often can't be accomplished without a Vulcan mind meld to identify hate.

There are lots of people who jump the gun to presume prejudice where prejudice is not proven - sometimes to tinfoil hat proportions as at Crown Heights. Fair-minded people tend to not seek hate crime prosecution, so such cases will be skewed toward injustice.

Rick..
You and your church are going against God if you allow Gays to openly be gay in your orginization. The Bible and according to Gods word states that Homosexuality is an abomanation to God. So anyone involved in it and supporting it is dismissin Gods word. I have a problem with this too as my Dad is a recovering Gay man in church now who does not support this kind of behavior. And since America was founded on many principals, one of those being free speach my dad, who is an ex-gay has the right to say that he doesnt like that happening amoung churches or in society and thats his right.

As far as Methodists go, my best friend's Dad was a Methodists preacher, and I learned to never trust Methodists. Why you ask? We'll he smoked, he drank, he watched porno movies and just wasn't a nice man. Maybe I'm biased cause of my experiance but if you respond in hate to me in any way you will be guilty of breaking this new susposed law as well as I would be accused of because I told of my experiance. Where doest it stop? When did political correctness become the cornerstone of this nation instead of free speach?

Do any of you stop and think this is how Hitler started his reign? The bald lesbian always said, "Stop the insanity!" She was right, but now I'll be called a semantic because I use the word Lesbian...Maybe next the word Freedom or Conststution will be hate words..I see it comming.

1984
Somewhere George Orwell is smiling.

Borghe
You obviously are gay and don't know what is going on. Matthew Sheppard was tied to an object and died of exposure and not at the hands of the accused. Their actions led to his death, so they are guilty, but you act as if they killed him out of hand. You obviously know nothing about the case and just want to protect gay rights, which should be, but not at the cost of the 1st Amemdent rights given us by our forefathers. Do your research first before you state biggoted lies as you just have. They didn't kill him physically by their hands but through their criminal negligance of leaving him exposed to the elements after their assault crime. His beating by them did not kill him. Mother Earth did.

Harry R. Jackson
Carry the Light so that all may see. Do not hide it under the bed where it will be of no use.

Stormy
Remember the well have no need of a physician.

Soooorrry!! one more
For those of you that don't know, it is Bishop Harry R. Jackson at The Truth in Black and White.

Borghe
Obviously you are a dimwhit. Gays and Lesbians along with Illegal aliens have more rights in this country now than do White or Black's...Soon to be minorities. Read up you idiot. You make no sense or any valid points in your comments. What will you say when soon Whites will be the minorities to Blacs and Hispanice(Illegals)? Will you say we have no right to speak? Thats what your saying now and this countyr will be gone to invaders soon so who cares about gays or anyone elses rights right now when were in the middle of a battle to keep this country free? Were all worried about all of us who want to keeep this country free and the rights of the legal citizens protected. Your advocating removal of those rights and in light of the NAU and SPP your rights and this law will be ineffectual in the long run and unforcable when were all an American Union. Focus on the real issues idiot. I dont care if your gay or a Muslim if in this country your againts the NAU and the open borders compact. I will welcome you as a brother now or after if you help keep this country stay a free Soverign nation that it is. Thats all most of us care about. I dont care who your Fking period...thats your business!!!!!

It's a Puzzlement
My daily paper teaches me of many changes in our American society. For example, I do not recall a previous time when so many parents deliberately drowned or smothered their children. Or so many disgruntled employees returned to work to kill the boss---and other people. Or so many drivers assaulted and killed other drivers who had "dissed" them. Or so many boyfriends of mama stomped a baby to death for crying. Or so many job applicants falsified their resumes. Or so many legislators took payola from business. Or so many high school students committed massacre upon on their classmates and teachers.

Clearly, our moral standards are falling. So I shouldn't be surprised that there is a serious attempt to stop the passage of a law to prevent hate speech. The converse must be "hate speech is good"?

excuse me, eddred
You write:

"Now I pray to God that you presented it to your Congregations in a fair and balanced matter."

I mean really, EXCUSE ME, but when is it a church's obligation to present anything in a "fair and balanced [manner}?"

The church has no such obligation. "Fair and balanced" is a slogan in the realm of news reporting, NOT THE CHURCH -- whose mission is to make disciples for Christ and to teach and preach the law and gospel.

The law exposes sin (all sin, not just homosexuality) and provides the remedy for the consequences of that sin, the gospel of free grace through Jesus Christ.

If the hate crimes legislation becomes law, it is as sure as night follows day that sooner rather than later the government will attempt to silence the church's preaching of the law, whether that be by jailing pastors or removing tax-exempt status of churches.

But make no mistake, God's people will continue to preach the law and the gospel because that is the one ORDER the government can give that God's people will NEVER obey. We will obey God and not man/government in this one area most particularly.

If we are jailed, that is little compared to being eaten by lions as was done in ancient Rome.

If our tax-exempt status is removed, that will not kill off the church, but only weed out the tares among the wheat. If we have to meet secretly in homes, as has been done in many countries around the world, notably China and the USSR, then we will risk our lives and meet in homes.

We will not be silenced.




Darcy
Well said and very true.

Hate crime Bill-- Where was it when---?
my question is where were all this hate crime bill when the blacks of this country was being lynched and beaten. It seems apparent to me that this issue wasn't of any importance then, but it is now, WHY? I believe because it involves a group which desires to change the way we govern this country, gay rights! I have no problem with peoples right to choose, but to punish people because they think a lifestyle is against what they believe, well they have that right! This is America, right!

GREEG
You are right. But since this country has become so set on Political correctness its more important for the government to try to enforce the rights of the few while ignoring the rights of the majority to guarentee votes and continue egg shell stepping by everyone else.

The Gays and the special interest groups and Politician dont want you to know that Matthew Sheppard(who this bill is behind)was a meth addict robbed by two of his friends for drug money(on of those friends was bi-sexual) and they left him chained up where exposure to the elements killed him. This wasn't a Hate crime it was a drug crime. But they dont want you to know that so they can, in his name, have a maryter in the gay rights cause. Thats all this is about. Its about gay rights and not wanting to let people have a say in any arena of free speach that there living in sin.

Research done in European countries now show that something in the brain stops developing in the mide of a person, while their body continues to develope to what sex they will be which in the end is against there actual sex. There was a controversial Newsweek back in the late 80's that did research on 100 dead known Homosexuals. Of those 100, 85 had underdevolped glands that controlled sexual functions while 15 had normal growth. There assesment was that 85% of gays were gay not by choice but per a predilicition inheriantly born into them. And that 15% were gay by choice. The gays went crazy and said that was not true. Why? Cause no one wants to be told that their the way they are cause their not totally normal from a development stance. They want to believe they are that was because they chose to be.

Anyway more research has been done now in Europe which proves this. They had a documenmtary on HBO that exposed this whole issue. But no one ever points that out they just want to protect the rights of a few and silence the teachers and the Preachers that teach what God's law states. Go figure.

Hate Crime Bill
We must be intolerant and punish people who commit violent crimes against any persons. Why do we need a bill to legislate this right of every human being?
It is obviously one group of people trying to get preferential treatment and at the same time it will put every Christian in jeopardy of punishment for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and traning in rightousness from the scriptures.
Unfortunately, most Americans & Christians are unaware of what is happening right here in America, Canada, Sweden,and Australia.
If this passes, and I am praying it will not, we are going to find ourselves continuing down the slippery slope of moral decline but just at a faster rate.

Hate speech crimes?
Egads! The civilized world would never enact such a thing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Laws_against_hate_speech
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.