|
The Senate passed a "hate crimes" measure Friday with a vote of 60-39 that would
expand federal "hate
crime laws to include crimes motivated by gender or 'sexual
orientation'". 1
The provision was passed by piggybacking it onto an important
defense spending bill - a common legislative tactic used to
pass controversial measures. Senator
Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) attempted to justify the hate crimes
amendment by suggesting that the military is rife with
hatred-motivated violence against people because of their gender or
sexual orientation:
'As
I have said in the past, the military is not immune to the scourge
of hate crimes in our country. In 1992, Navy seaman Allen
Schindler was brutally murdered by his shipmate Terry Helvey in
Okinawa, Japan,' Smith said.
2
Pro-family organization
Concerned
Women for America (CWA) "noted that Smith neglected to add that
Helvey was convicted of his crime and now is serving a life sentence
in prison", implying that current laws appear to be
adequate. 3
Senator Ted Kennedy, also a
proponent of hate crimes legislation,
cited a more current case and asserted
there is a desperate need for such legislation to be passed. "We
cannot let another day, really hours, go by without this
legislation," said Senator Kennedy, as quoted by CWA.
4 If
there is such a huge problem with hate crimes against homosexuals in
the military, one might ask Senator Kennedy why today's liberal,
pro-homosexual media is not reporting on it.
Thankfully,
it is likely that President Bush
will veto the defense bill because of the hate crimes legislation,
but it is deeply concerning that such legislation got through
the Senate to begin with. The laws already on the books provide
severe penalties for violent crimes against any group of
people, not
just homosexuals, so why would additional laws be
needed? And why are homosexuals a favored group? The truth is that there is more here than meets the eye, and Christians
really need to be paying attention.
Janet Folger of
Faith2Action, a
Christian activist and commentator, cites the case of John Guimond
to illustrate the consequences of hate crimes laws, which
unfortunately have been
passed in several states already. Guimond was recently convicted in
New Hampshire of robbery, a class-B felony that normally carries a
sentence of “three and a half to seven years in state prison along
with a $4,000 fine.” 5
However, Guimond
could spend
up to 30 years in prison.
Why? Folger explains:
In New Hampshire, a crime that
typically carries a sentence of 3 1/2 years was 'enhanced' to 30
years because a robber shouted an anti-homosexual name at his
victim. 6
Wow, did you get that? Guimond could
spend another 26 1/2 years in prison because he uttered an
anti-gay epithet during the crime. Apparently his
words were evidence of a far more serious crime than robbery,
one that justifies a nearly tenfold increase in his
sentence: bigotry against homosexuals. This ought to get the
attention of anybody that vocally opposes the homosexual agenda,
particularly if that opposition is from the pulpit.
Despite the ominous rhetoric about rampant hate crimes from Senators Smith and
Kennedy, the truth is that hate crime laws are not really about
fighting violence. Folger reveals the real agenda:
[Hate crimes legislation] isn't about hate. It
isn't about ‘crimes’ (there are already stiff penalties against
crimes); it's about
speech.
7
Hate crimes legislation is essentially a step toward making certain
kinds of speech - namely criticism of homosexuality - a prosecutable
offense. Remember that Guimond was prosecuted not only for his violence, but for
what he said during his crime. It is a very short leap from hate
crime laws to hate speech laws, which criminalize people
based solely on what they say. Check out what is happening in many
previously free countries around the world:
-
In 2004, a Canadian Christian
businessman was fined $4500.00 for publishing Bible verses in an
ad in his local newspaper that condemned the gay lifestyle.
Apparently, the ad violated Canadian hate speech laws.
8
-
Also in 2004, a Canadian teacher was
suspended from his job without pay for writing an anti-gay letter
to a local newspaper. According to Family Research Council, the
college was "‘disturbed’ by his statements that homosexual
relationships are unstable, homosexuality poses health risks, and
that many religions consider homosexuality to be immoral.”
9
-
Swedish pastor Ake Green was
sentenced to a month in prison in 2004 for violating Sweden’s
hate-speech laws. The court determined he was “guilty
of having
offended homosexuals
in a sermon.”
10 (emphasis
mine)
-
In Canada, a Catholic city councilor
was fined $1,000 for publicly stating that a gay couple's
lifestyle was 'not normal and not natural’”.
11
Once the door to
prosecuting hate crimes is opened, it is just a short leap to
prosecuting so-called "hate speech" on its own. You might not
believe this could ever happen in America, but it is already
happening in Pennsylvania. That state recently added "sexual
orientation" to its hate speech laws and expanded “the definition of
‘harassment’ to include ‘harassment by communication’ – which means
one could be
convicted based upon their spoken words alone.”
12
Fearful pastors in Pennsylvania are taking out liability insurance
in the event they are sued for opposing homosexuality from their
pulpits. This could be a reality nationwide if liberal legislators
in Congress get their way.
Folks, if you've ever believed
that the liberal left is the protector of personal freedom, think
again. It isn't conservatives who are pushing legislation like this
that restricts freedom of speech and religious expression. Respected
constitutional scholar and early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
describes some characteristics of a tyrannical government that
restricts freedom of speech in his famous work Commentaries on
the Constitution:
It is notorious, that, even to this
day, in some foreign countries it is a crime to speak upon any
subject, religious, philosophical, or political, what is contrary
to the received opinions of the government, or the institutions of
the country, however laudable may be the design, and however
virtuous may be the motive.
13
Radical liberals absolutely intend it
to be among the
"received opinions" of our government that criticism of
homosexuality be absolutely off-limits in the public discourse. This is
not the hallmark of a free society, but of a tyrannical one.
No truly free society would penalize a person for what he says
unless it is blatantly slanderous, libelous, or subversive to the
government. Simply criticizing and expressing an honest, contrary
opinion about issue related to homosexuality meets none of these
criteria.
Considering that
pro-homosexual activists continue to ram homosexual "marriage" down
the collective throats of our society and strive to take away
our right to criticize and oppose it, one has to wonder why
Christians largely continue to remain silent. We are being
led silently and passively to the slaughter of our free society and
we don't even seem to care. Folks, Christians are American citizens too!
We have the right to contend for our views and we cannot possibly
expect to remain free if we are not willing to stand for our
freedoms. If we passively let other people legislate away our
freedoms, we will get what is coming: tyranny. If pastors
want to continue to be able to preach against evil from the pulpit
without fear of legal consequences, they need to speak up and
motivate Christians to stand against this. If Christian citizens
don't want to live in a society where they cannot oppose their
children being taught that homosexual sex is normal and healthy,
they need to wake up and stand against it. The longer we Christians choose to sit out the
culture war, the more we will lose our right to even fight it in.
Christians need to wake up and take a stand for their God-given
constitutional rights if they want to preserve them for their
children and grandchildren.
|
