New Hate Crime Bill Could Silence Conservative Preachers
WASHINGTON --- A federal hate crimes bill heavily criticized by religious liberty advocates moved a step closer to becoming law today after being approved on a vote of 15-12 by the House Judiciary Committee. The bill, H.R. 1913, will now be considered by the full House of Representatives.
The Judiciary Committee rejected a number of amendments offered by several congressman seeking to protect religious liberty, to protect the unborn, to protect against violence by illegal aliens, and to clarify the bill's meanings of "gender identity” and “sexual orientation." One of the rejected amendments, offered by Congressman Gohmert of Texas, sought to ensure that ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a hate crime simply because they preach from the Bible or other holy book.
Two years ago, when the federal hate crimes bill was first proposed, Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, testified against it before the House Judiciary Committee. Dacus cited a number of problems with the bill, particularly its tendency to chill the free speech of religious ministers. At that time, the bill was prevented from becoming law primarily because President Bush opposed it. Now that President Obama has announced his support for hate crimes legislation, as part of his wide-ranging push for greater gay rights, the bill has been resurrected and is making its initial push through Congress.
PJI President Brad Dacus commented, "The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone. Instead of treating all crime victims equally, it creates a caste system where select groups, such as gays and lesbians, are given greater priority in the criminal justice system. This is not progress; it is political correctness. In other nations and states, the adoption of hate crimes legislation has been the first step toward widespread suppression of speech and ideas critical of homosexuality. We will be closely monitoring HR 1913 as it moves through Congress and speaking out for freedom of speech and thought."
If you are able to
support PJI, please click
here to contribute now or visit www.pji.org/getinvolved.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Free speech is protected in the first amendment. I don't care what religion , the Fed Government has no righ to dictated what can and can't be preached. Remember the "separation of church and state " clause in the constitution that liberals are so keen on bringing up. Well here is a valid reason to bring it up. You cannot stop preaching in church, by Obama's preacher (Rev. Wright) or by mine! It is unconstitutional!
Shorter people and less-than-attractive people tend to make less money than their counterparts. Perhaps hate crime bills should also target anyone who doesn't hire (or makes fun of) short and ugly people since they did not choose to be short and ugly.
The same goes for people who ridicule bald/balding men, the obese, anyone with an annoying laugh, people with bad body odor, men with small penises, kids with braces, and the abnormally large-eared.
It stands to reason that "conservative preachers" could find (and have found) biblical grounds to challenge inter-racial marriage, and marrying members of other faiths. One could also (and have done so) find grounds to justify human slavery, the property status of women and children and genocide by application of biblical teachings.
If this is true, and a "conservative preacher" does preach such, and members of his congregation accept his word as the closest approximation of god 's law and act accordingly, he would be duly criticized.
Charles Manson did not commit violence; he advocated for it and convinced other's to do so. It isn't a far logical leap, therefore, to see that the same principle applies in regards to "conservative preachers" who argue that homosexuality is an abomination and that god punishes such abominations violently (see the misinterpretation of "Sodom and Gomorra") and therefore individual actions to better realize god's word are necessitated.
People have used the bible to further their socio-political agenda, that is not new and can be debated. Those people regardless of what they believe have a right to believe it under the 1st Amendment. The Government has no right has no right to procecute a person for thought. Anti-American Imams preach in this country under the same law , so should Christians who condemn homosexual activity.
Any law that opposes that conflicts with the Constitution.
I guess we need protection for imans that preach from the quoran too. What a straw man argument! If these preachers want to quote the bible against homosexuality , they'll be hard-pressed. The old standbys they use have been disproved as blatant misinterpretations used with obvious intent to deceive ignorant followers to believe that their god has posited an opinion on the subject. The bible does not condemn homosexuality, only inbred, dropout, meth addicted hicks condemn homosexuality.
One thing that IS clear in the text is the greatest of all god's commandments--to love your neigbor as much as you do yourself. Come back when you get that one mastered.
The idea that the Bible does not condemn homosex is a most prevalent fallacy, due to widespread Biblical ignorance. However, in reality there is not ONE argument by pro-homosex polemicists that is not refuted by sound exegesis. Thus pro-homosex arguments effectively require rejecting the Bible as the word of God, and the coherent moral authority it shows itself ton be, and most treat it as Alice in Wonderland, out of which most anything can be pulled.
http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Homosexual_relations_and_the_Bible #Universal.2C_Cultural_and_Ceremonial_laws
http://www.robgagnon.net /