Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- We Joined…Will You, Please?
- This is no Way to Treat Our Elderly People
- Yummy Homemade Holiday Treats
- Shhh..Don’t Tell The Taxpayers
- Does Reid Do This On Purpose? Apparently So
Recent Comments
- Sue on Does Reid Do This On Purpose? Apparently So
- ~J~ on Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Sue on I Haven’t Deserted You
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
From today’s Omega Letter:
Contact your Congressman and ask him or her to vote AGAINST HR 1592.
And Now, the Time Is Here . . .
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2nd Timothy 4:3-4)
This morning’s Worldnetdaily headline story concerning a proposed Congressional bill piqued my interest enough to do a little independent digging into the background. I wish I hadn’t. (Sigh. Ignorance truly IS bliss.)
The bill in question is HR 1592, sponsored by Representative John Conyers of Michigan. As soon as I read who sponsored it, the hair on the back of my neck stood up.
Conyers has been a member of the House for something approaching 42 years. That long in an ivory tower is enough to give anybody delusions of grandeur. In Conyers’ case, it’s more a case of total disconnect.
Conyers came to Congress from Detroit at the height of the civil rights movement. Those of us mature enough to remember the Detroit race riots in the Sixties have some perspective on the conditions under which Conyers’ ascended to power.
Conyers came to Congress in 1964, as race relations had reached critical mass. The 1967 Detroit Race Riot was among the most destructive in US history, eclipsed only by the 1992 Rodney King Riots in Los Angeles.
There was a lot of hate and injustice in those days, particularly against blacks, but evidently, being in Congress is like being stuck in a time warp. Conyers spent his whole 42-odd years in Congress still fighting conditions as they existed in the 1960’s.
But 2007 is not 1967. Most of America got over it. Conyers never did.
H.R. 1592’s ’short title’ is the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.” Hate crimes legislation was necessary in 1967. The 1967 riots burned down large parts of the city, destroying more than 400 buildings. More than 2500 stores were looted.
Police made more than 7,000 arrests. Snipers shot at firefighters while they tried to fight the fires. Forty-three people died, another 467 were injured, and the dollar damage ranged from $40 to $80 million (in 1967 dollars).
Conyers attempted to calm things down personally, climbing atop the hood of a car to plead with the rioters to go home. Instead, he was pelted with rocks and bottles. One activist shouted, “Why are you defending the establishment? You are as bad as they are.”
That incident turned Conyers into an anti-hate crusader, which was a good thing, back in 1967. But Conyers (and ultimately, America) became a victim of his own successes. As existing anti-hate legislation gave way to improved race relations, Conyers was forced to find new victims of ‘hate’.
His bill expands a ‘hate crime’ to include; “prejudice, based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation gender identity or disability.”
Perpetrators of ‘hate crimes’ under the bill can be jailed for anywhere from ten years to life, depending on the victim.
As you have probably noticed, H.R. 1592 extends hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation and gender identity and includes the words “perceived or actual.”
I am all in favor of protecting people from victimization, including gays and cross dressers. But under the provisions of this particular piece of legislation, it is possible that today’s column would be a criminal offense.
Why? Because of the words, ‘perceived or actual’.
Assessment:
H.R. 1592 would extend special minority protections to homosexuals and cross-dressers equal to the protections afforded racial minorities and foreigners. Here’s where I run the risk of being visited by the Thought Police.
People don’t choose their race. They don’t choose their national origin. But to say that homosexuality and cross-dressing is a choice rather than an involuntary condition inherited by one’s parents might be “perceived” as “homophobic” by a homosexual or transvestite.
Homophobia, if words are to have any meaning, is an ‘unreasonable fear of homosexuals’. I never understood the word ‘homophobia’ until I read HR 1592. If it passes, I will be very, very afraid of homosexuals.
Only that fear won’t be ‘unreasonable’. One need only denounce me as having said something offensive to put me in jail for ten years.
Heck, I offend people all the time. (I fled Canada for the US after it adopted similar hate-speech legislation.) There is an old saying to the effect that ‘the truth hurts’. And, like all ‘old sayings’ it became an ‘old saying’ because it is true.
So, if the truth hurts, under HR 1592, telling the truth can be a crime punishable by at least ten years in jail, if the person offended is a member of one of America’s protected classes.
Suppose I were to write, (as I have many times) that the Koran is the inspiration behind Osama bin-Laden’s al-Qaeda network and was the direct inspiration for the murders of three thousand innocents on September 11, 2001?
What if that is “perceived” by Muslims as ‘hateful’ either to their religion or national origin?
HR 1592 also expands the bill to include those acting under the ‘color of law’. (That should make things pretty interesting for members of the Border Patrol.)
Under HR 1592, any speech that is critical of Islam, homosexuals, transvestites, aliens, (legal or illegal) would be criminalized.
NC Representative Bob Etheridge (a Democrat!!!) wrote at Congress.org that this bill; “begins to lay the legal framework whereby Bible-believing Pastors, business owners and individuals can be persecuted and prosecuted.”
That includes, he writes, “Any remarks about homosexuality, such as reading Bible passages, preaching on these passages, telling a person they can come out of the homosexual lifestyle, etc. will be deemed critical remarks and will be ruled to be outside the bounds of First Amendment protections for pastors, business-owners and individuals.”
And not just pastors, business owners and individuals. Rep Etheridge explains:
“This also includes parents who refuse, for moral and religious reasons, to agree or teach their children that homosexuality, transgender, cross-dressing etc is normal and desirable.”
HR 1592, he writes, elevates homosexuality and transvestitism to the status of race under federal law.
The law will require the federal government to fund, “anti-Christian curriculum for children K-12, through the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to promote homosexuality and cross-dressing as normal behaviors.”
(I’m quoting Representative Etheridge directly. Did I mention that Representative Etheridge was a DEMOCRAT?)
It is worth remembering that, during the Roman persecution of Christianity during the first centuries of the Church Age, Christians weren’t put to death for embracing a different God. The Romans had a pantheon of gods — another god, more or less, didn’t make much difference.
What ticked off the Romans was that Christians claimed that Jesus Christ is the ONLY God, and that only followers of Jesus Christ would get into heaven. If only Christians could be saved, then, by extension, worshippers of Ceasar or Jupiter would be eternally damned.
To the Romans, that was ‘hate speech’, punishable by death.
HR 1592 doesn’t go quite as far as ancient Rome’s anti-hate-speech laws. In ancient Rome, preaching Bible truths meant death.
In kinder, gentler, enlightened America, the worst they can give you is life.
Contact your Congressman and ask him or her to vote AGAINST HR 1592.
Written by ~J~
bileduct Says:
May 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pmVisit bileduct
The article you are quoting is comically disingenuous and smacks of partisan belligerence for two reasons:
1) “perceived or actual” - This guy needs to read the bill. This is CLEARLY written in the context of the motivation of the perpetrator, not what an ordinary person would “perceive” to be a crime. Eg. if the perpetrator of the crime commits a violent crime on another person based on the PERPETRATOR’S BELIEF that the victim is, say, gay, disabled, or Belgian, then that crime will also be subject to Hate Crimes legislation.
2) It is CLEARLY stated within the bill that the legislation applies to VIOLENT CRIMES. Claims such as the following:
“I am all in favor of protecting people from victimization, including gays and cross dressers. But under the provisions of this particular piece of legislation, it is possible that today’s column would be a criminal offense.”
and
“Under HR 1592, any speech that is critical of Islam, homosexuals, transvestites, aliens, (legal or illegal) would be criminalized.”
are irresponsibly false as they do not pertain to the commission of a violent crimes.
This guy did not even read the bill.
~J~ Says:
May 6th, 2007 at 12:54 amVisit ~J~
bileduct, first of all, welcome back!
Secondly, the full text of the bill as changed can be read here for those who have not read it.
I admit I have not read the entire bill, but the following underlined passage is what disturbs me:
How does anyone know what I perceive? Can they get into my head and examine my thinking?
bileduct, I respectfully submit to you that I am a born-again Christian who happens to believe, make that know, that if God said something is wrong a million years ago He still means it’s wrong today, regardless of what society accepts as normal.
He destroyed two cities due to homosexuality running rampant.
Under this bill it would be not far-fetched to say if I spoke out against homosexuality because I believe the act to be a sin and because I believe I am commanded to say so (I don’t normally talk about one’s sexuality, BTW) I could go to jail for between ten years and life because it is hate-speech and is therefore a crime.
My minister and Sunday School teacher could go to jail for preaching what is taught in the Bible.
I value my freedom as an American too much to allow the thought police to be given power. If we allow this bill to become law I can see it being used to set precedents we can’t even imagine right now. Don’t believe me? Legalizing abortion 30 some years ago led to partial birth abortions. And all based on the right to privacy. Sorry, but if I’ve become pregnant and am not married I think I gave up my privacy when I engaged in behavior that caused the pregnancy. Not all pregnancies occur in someone’s bedroom. We, as Americans, have an unbelievable way of stretching the laws to suit our purposes and judges more than willing to go along with it.
If I kill someone of a different race or religion or even sexual orientation, how do I know the race (unless it’s obvious) and even more, how do I know the sexual orientation or religion of someone I have killed to rob him of money?
The money is still green, has no sexual preferences and no religion. My only goal is to steal that money to use for whatever evil purposes I have in mind.
If that person turns out to be a different race, religion, or of a different sexual orientation from me, it can be said I killed him or her based on my perception of what they are rather than based on the fact I am a criminal and wanted to rob that person and committed a murder while committing the robbery.
Or even take out the murder. Does a criminal consider all these things when stealing from another? No. His main goal is to get the money and get out of there as fast as possible.
Take out the word “perceived” and I might not be against it as much as I am now. No one can read my mind and what jurors “perceive” to be my motive is not proof enough to send me to jail.
If I am guilty of the crime, how much more can I be punished for it simply because someone “perceived” I had a prejudice of some sort?
bileduct Says:
May 6th, 2007 at 3:32 amVisit bileduct
First of all, allow me to say this: I agree with you that the bill should not be supported, but not for the same reasons as you. More on that later.
Secondly, thank you for the welcome, and I appreciate your ability to discuss the subject in a rational manner. This is a rarity on political commentary sites no matter which direction they lean.
However, I would like to take issue with your interpretation of the word “perceived.” I’ll give you two scenarios to present the difference between how both you and I interpret this text in the context of a violent crime:
a) Your interpretation
Johnny loses it and bashes Doug in the street for no apparent reason. Doug is gay. Doug reports Johnny to the police and says that he believes the incident would not have occurred if he wasn’t gay. Johnny is charged with a violent crime that is now subject to Federal hate crimes legislation.
b) My interpretation
Johnny hates gays. Johnny tells his friends that he’s going bash homo’s at the local gay club on Friday night. Richard works at the local gay club but is not gay himself. As he closes the club at the end of the evening, Richard is approached by Johnny in the alley whilst taking out trash and is beaten to an inch of his life with a hammer. Johnny mistakingly believed Richard is gay. Johnny is charged with a violent crime that is now subject to Federal hate crimes legislation.
I firmly believe that my interpretation is correct, in that the wording applies purely to the reasoning behind the criminal act and not any threat as perceived by the complainant or other third party.
“Under this bill it would be not far-fetched to say if I spoke out against homosexuality because I believe the act to be a sin and because I believe I am commanded to say so (I don’t normally talk about one’s sexuality, BTW) I could go to jail for between ten years and life because it is hate-speech and is therefore a crime.”
This legislation concerns violent crimes which typically fall into the categories of murder/manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault and robbery. Hate speech is not a violent crime. The bill would apply if you rounded off your protestations of homosexuals with a few lynchings at the end of the day. In that case I agree with you that you’d be seeing some jailtime, but I do believe your scenario is actually is a little far-fetched.
I don’t support the bill (not that it matters considering my geographical location) simply for the reason that this bill is selective in it’s implied protection of American citizens. For example. the legislation would be enacted in instances of violent hate crimes against homosexuals… but what about violent rapes or robberies in instances where children or the eldery have been pre-determined to be easy targets? And there’s dozens more where that one came from.
~J~ Says:
May 6th, 2007 at 4:09 amVisit ~J~
I see your point, bileduct, but my point is the American people of different special interest groups are prone to take any law and have it tested in the courts, and if the courts agree with them, then my scenario rather than yours could and probably would be the law of the land.
If they “perceived” I hated any one of the groups listed and I committed a crime against one of them I could go to jail for between ten years and life if found guilty.
The word “perceived” is the operable one in my opinion.
In your scenario Johnny has already expressed his hate for gays so there would be no perception of his intentions as his intentions would be fairly clear for a jury to decide.
And you’re right. What about abuse of the elderly, victims of child abuse, child rape or any other rape for that matter, etc.?
This is bad legislation and if passed some wacky group will have it tested in the court system as soon as they get the chance to expand the meaning and intent of the bill.