Hate Crimes Bills and Churches (bible, punishments, Biblical, God)

[urbanlemur]

H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 are hate crimes bills under consideration by the federal government to punish actions motivated by prejudice based on race, color, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any kind. You can read the text of these bills here:

GovTrack: H.R. 1592: Text of Legislation

GovTrack: S. 1105: Text of Legislation

My question is: will passage of these bills adversely affect our churches? According to the text, if a church leader is caught speaking from the pulpit against sinful practices and offends someone, the church leader could be subject to fines and/or imprisonment for derogatory comments considered to be a hate crime. What are your thoughts?

[mams1559]

My thought usually was any crime is a "hate" crime. I don' think you have much love for someone you're going to mug, kill, rape, assault, etc. Example, attacking someone is a crime and all attackers should be treated the same - harshly. Should motivation play a part in sentencing? I don't think so. It's wrong no matter what the excuse or motivation. Singling out specific groups does more IMO to promote division. All people deserve equal protection under the law and these categories shouldn't be needed. All people are equal.

I think it's the beginning of censorship of our beliefs. It's already happened in Canada. A pastor was in trouble with authorities because he preached against homosexual behavior. We'll have the same thing happen in this country.

Any person's right to say someone's behavior is wrong (molester, alcoholic, whatever) should not be deemed "discriminatory" or "hate speech" in and of itself. But in this political climate, it's turning out like that. Religious freedom to teach what the Bible says should not be restricted. If any speech directly calls for violence or mis-treatment of anyone, it's wrong, no matter what group it's aimed at. But pointing any behavior out as wrong or against God doesn't call for mis-treatment, but to help those overcome that behavior, no matter what it is.

Yes, there are extremes in everything and I'm not saying "everything goes". But concievably I could be arrested or my pastor could be arrested for teaching what we believe are biblical truths. It's a slippery slope and we're going to end up on the bottom.

[jabogitlu]

Originally Posted by urbanlemur

My question is: will passage of these bills adversely affect our churches? According to the text, if a church leader is caught speaking from the pulpit against sinful practices and offends someone, the church leader could be subject to fines and/or imprisonment for derogatory comments considered to be a hate crime. What are your thoughts?

What text did you read???

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts 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--

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The Senate Bill even states:

Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by mams1559

Should motivation play a part in sentencing? I don't think so. It's wrong no matter what the excuse or motivation. Singling out specific groups does more IMO to promote division.

Uh, isn't that exactly the definition of a hate crime?? The term means that somebody has been victimized based on their race/gender/etc., regardless of how it's treated under the law. No matter what it's called during sentencing, a HATE CRIME has still occurred - so in my opinion, the only way to discourage this behavior is to threaten higher sentences. Otherwise, it sends the message that it's okay to commit a crime based only on intolerance. This has nothing to do with the victims, and everything to do with the criminals.

Btw, I do think it needs to be clear that hate was the motivation... it shouldn't be labeled "hate crime" simply because of who the victim was. A man being beaten senselessly for no reason, while the attackers yell anti-gay or racist slurs, is likely hate-motivated. A Black man being shot while his car is stolen in a bad neighborhood? Probably just a random act of violence. Know what I mean?

[Pathwalker]

Originally Posted by urbanlemur

My question is: will passage of these bills adversely affect our churches? According to the text, if a church leader is caught speaking from the pulpit against sinful practices and offends someone, the church leader could be subject to fines and/or imprisonment for derogatory comments considered to be a hate crime. What are your thoughts?

You know, I've read about this all before, and I've read the wording of the proposed bill several times. And I STILL don't see anything that states what you say it states. There is nothing in the wording that says anything about people exercising their right to free speech, and nothing that states a pastor could get in trouble for preaching against what the church considers to be sinful practices. And since we all know this is about homosexuality, I honestly don't think there would be such an uproar over this if the term "sexual orientation" wasn't mentioned in the text.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by WCRob

You know, I've read about this all before, and I've read the wording of the proposed bill several times. And I STILL don't see anything that states what you say it states. There is nothing in the wording that says anything about people exercising their right to free speech, and nothing that states a pastor could get in trouble for preaching against what the church considers to be sinful practices. And since we all know this is about homosexuality, I honestly don't think there would be such an uproar over this if the term "sexual orientation" wasn't mentioned in the text.

Yes, I agree... and this isn't about hate SPEECH, it's about violent crimes based on hate.

[gizmo980]

And I quote:

"`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--"

Do any of you think these crimes DON'T deserve harsh punishments? What if it were a Christian being violently attacked based on their religious beliefs? I also don't see anything about "free speech" in the articles, so all of those arguments are a moot point...

[urbanlemur]

In Sec. 2 toward the top of the page, it states under number 3, the term local , which is used throughout the bill, means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

What I heard this means is that even a pastor can be held liable if they speak about the sins listed in Scripture.

[hamiltonpl]

Originally Posted by urbanlemur

In Sec. 2 toward the top of the page, it states under number 3, the term local , which is used throughout the bill, means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

What I heard this means is that even a pastor can be held liable if they speak about the sins listed in Scripture.

You heard wrong. The name for a COUNTY in Louisiana is a "PARISH." It's certainly not referring to a church organization. That's why the sentence continues to say "or other general purpose subdivision of a STATE." Obviously, this sentence is referring to political subdivisions of the state. It definitely doesn't say "subdivision of a church." No law can force a church to do something or refrain from doing something. That would be excessive entanglement with religion, and is prohibited by the Constitution. Who told you this outright lie about the law?

Plus, the bill does not affect speech rights. It cannot affect your speech. That would plainly be against the First Amendment to the Constitution. Unless your pastor is killing people, you have nothing to fear. And if your pastor is killing people, well, I'd start church shoppin'.

You need to stop listening to whomever told you that the law prohibited pastors from speaking about sins. That person is a liar.

[hamiltonpl]

Originally Posted by urbanlemur

My question is: will passage of these bills adversely affect our churches? According to the text, if a church leader is caught speaking from the pulpit against sinful practices and offends someone, the church leader could be subject to fines and/or imprisonment for derogatory comments considered to be a hate crime. What are your thoughts?

Yes, I would also like to know what text you are referring to. The scenario you have presented is completely forbidden by the United States Constitution's First Amendment. No one can be imprisoned, or fined for their speech alone.