Debate on Criminalizing Religious Thoughts, Speech Draws Near
- Aug 21, 2007 - 6
The halls of the Capitol are quiet because of the month-long congressional recess, and the 2008 presidential contenders are busy parading down the campaign trail, but the relative lull in Washington should not be mistaken as a break from efforts by some to erode your First Amendment liberties.
A number of members of Congress reportedly are working behind the scenes, planning to resume their assault on biblical values when they return in September. Among their front-burner issues is a dangerous hate crimes, or thought crimes, bill that could ultimately have a chilling effect on religious speech against homosexuality.
Senate supporters of hate crimes legislation left town somewhat frustrated in early August, forced to wait for another day to take up their bill to provide special protections to individuals based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) attempted to attach the measure to a Defense authorization bill, but the amendment did not receive a vote as the Defense bill was temporarily pulled by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) after an amendment to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq fell short on a procedural vote.
Undoubtedly, debate on hate crimes legislation will resume soon. The Senate will likely reconsider the Defense authorization bill, and subsequently the thought crimes amendment, in September. It is also possible that the chamber could vote on stand-alone hate crimes legislation, introduced by Sen. Kennedy as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 1105) and backed by 43 cosponsors. The House already passed its version of the bill, H.R. 1592, by a 237-180 vote in May.
Although hate-crimes bill advocates argue that bill’s provisions would apply only to individuals who target and commit violent crimes against specially protected classes of people, such as homosexuals and transgenders, law enforcement officials could conceivably begin policing thoughts and speech that question the homosexual lifestyle. Criminal prosecutions against Christians in other countries for so-called hate crimes—based not on violent actions but thought and speech—lend evidence to that fact. Already in the U.S., Christians have been prosecuted under state hate crimes laws for religious speech against homosexuality, such as 11 Christians in Philadelphia who were jailed and levied multiple charges for peacefully calling upon homosexuals to repent of their behavior during a homosexual rally in October 2004.
As members of Congress spend time in their home districts the next few weeks trying to beat the political heat of Washington, D.C., now is the perfect time to express your concerns on hate crimes legislation (S. 1105). You can find out how to call or visit your senators in their home offices here.
For more information on hate crimes legislation:
- Hate Crimes, the Thought Police, and Religious Freedom
- Reasons to Oppose Hate Crimes Legislation for Homosexuals
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation, Religious Liberty
6 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Aug 21st, 2007, at 5:40pm, Winghunter wrote:
The following article also has several other sources referenced with many factual incidents of this wrongheaded and rights infringing legislation:
Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill
Shameless attempt to push homosexual agenda ... by exploiting soldiers
Write your representatives p-l-e-a-s-e.
2 On Aug 23rd, 2007, at 9:24am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Mr. Carlson says… “law enforcement officials could conceivably begin policing thoughts”
I would welcome you to elaborate upon that Mr. Carlson. How exactly do you imagine that happening? When do thoughts become expressions and how are thoughts actually monitored? By the thought police?
Do you see that at the federal, state, county or municipal level?
What law enforcement agency has the surplus time and money for this expenditure; policing thoughts?
In the post 9/11 age of Al-Qaeda do you really imagine the federal government is going to spend time policing the “thoughts” of Southern Baptist preachers?
3 On Aug 24th, 2007, at 8:32am, dan valdes wrote:
The real story behind the arrests in Philly: Michael Marcavage and his group Repent America were attempting to disrupt a stage performance with a bull horn and the police instructed them to move to an adjacent area. When they refused to follow the instructions of the police, they were arrested. They were not arrested for preaching they were arrested for disrupting a pubic function. Again this website likes to play loose and fancy with the facts when it suits their political purposes.
The SBC seems willing to go to any lengths to marginalize and demonize gay people.
4 On Aug 24th, 2007, at 4:55pm, Nathan Falco wrote:
Is this legislation related to the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that I keep hearing about? As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine would in essence censure public talk radio shows which are “controversial” to the government, as well as make it a federal crime to kill a homosexual or minority person, but only a state crime to kill a white, straight person…
5 On Aug 27th, 2007, at 1:13pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Nathan the fairness doctrine was a in-place policy (from the early 50’s) that became an official policy enacted by the FCC in the 60’s to ensure opposing points of view were afforded equal air time, particularly in the political arena.
It was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC in 1969. I am not certain about what you are talking about. I would have your source check the facts. I smell a rotten egg… Remember it was Howard Stern that continually got in trouble with the FCC not Rush Limbaugh.
6 On Aug 27th, 2007, at 3:26pm, Matt wrote:
RE: Nathan Falco’s Post 4
Hi Nathan. This is not the same legislation. Fairness doctrine is an (old) FCC ‘doctrine’ that was pretty much limited to radio and television broadcasters.
Richard Land (Pres. of ERLC) lays out a brief history of the Fairness Doctrine (and opines) in a recent article titled What’s “fair” about the Fairness Doctrine?.
Dan is partially correct in his recap (circa 1969) but a lot has happened more recently on the subject. Related cases include a couple in 1973, one in 1981, one in 1984. More importantly, the FCC discontinued the application of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
But, again, for the sake of this thread, Hate Crimes legislation and the Fairness Doctrine are, at least at this time, technically separate issues.
P.S. As far as Dan’s reference to Stern and Limbaugh, the Fairness Doctrine never had anything to do with broadcast decency standards which I believe was Stern’s source of contention. Comparing the political bent of one broadcaster to the decency questions surrounding another is equivalent to comparing apples and bananas. It’s not the same debate. Possibly related but not the same.