STFU. Please. You make real Christians and other religious people look bad.
Opponents of a new federal hate crime law say the legislation could turn ministers into criminals.
“Our
point is that pastors and others are not prosecuted as criminals for
speaking out against homosexual behavior and the political agenda that
promotes it,” said Gary Glenn, a Midland resident and president of the
American Family Association of Michigan.
“It’s all about free speech,” Glenn said.
Glenn
and three mid-Michigan ministers filed a civil rights suit challenging
the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that President
Barack Obama signed in October.
The act makes it a federal offense to assault someone because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
Let me say up front that I completely oppose “hate crimes” legislation in any form. I think prosecuting someone on the basis of what they were thinking when they committed a crime borders entirely too much on “thought crime.” Orwell would be proud.
Additionally, creating a special protected class of victims certainly makes me cringe when I think of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which provides that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I don’t know about you all; I’m certainly not a lawyer, but equal protection under the law certainly implies to me that creating a special class of victims is a big no-no.
That said, however, I’m sick and tired of frothing fundamentalist fruitcakes trying to create a whole new class of potential victims in themselves!
Ouellette
said the ministers are concerned that the law has the potential to
allow the government to prosecute ministers for the content of their
sermons.
“We
believe that the law will be used to stifle free speech and keep people
from quoting scripture as it is written,” Ouellette said.
In other words, “WAAAAAH! We’re skeered that we won’t be allowed to vomit forth venom toward fags, queers, queens, trannies and other freaks whom our God hates with a passion of a thousand burning suns with impunity!”
The Reverend Oullette is a moron. The proposed law specifically protects the right to religious expression (no matter how hateful or odious), so these assholes, along with their Fred Phelps cohorts are safe to spew any kind of hate they want, as long as it’s not accompanied by them beating the shit out of some guy because he happens to be a little more limp-wristed than they are comfortable with.
(4) FREE EXPRESSION.—Nothing in this division shall be
construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s
expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely
upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or
espousing such beliefs.(5) FIRST AMENDMENT.—Nothing in this division, or an
amendment made by this division, shall be construed to
diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.(6) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.—Nothing in this division
shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected
speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of
whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief),
including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment
to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful
picketing or demonstration. The Constitution of the United
States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting
of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act
of violence.
In other words, ejaculate all the hate you want. Just as long as you’re not spewing it while killing off some effeminate looking boys, you’re safe to be an asshole.
Our Constitution protects your right to be one.
And ferfuckssake, stop screeching about being oh-so-persecuted! If the right of Fred Phelps’ and his band of trolls to be complete and total assholes at the funerals of our fallen heroes is protected, so is your right to screech about the eeeeevils of buttseks in your church. No one is going to come drag you off because your sex life revolves around creating oodles of brainwashed offspring to carry on your twisted message.
If you’re going to oppose this law, do it because it’s morally repugnant to prosecute someone based on what they were thinking during the commission of a crime. Do it because it’s unethical to create a law that makes the murder of one protected minority more odious than the murder of another, unprotected human being. Do it because murder, assault, rape, etc. are hideous crimes, and they’re equally hideous when perpetrated against a white redneck or a black, gay, tranny.
Opposing the law because you think it will limit your right to vomit forth invective against those you perceive your twisted deity hates, when it’s specifically protected, makes you a douchebag.
Period.
Feb 08, 2010 @ 17:52:54
Not sure if I’m a “frother”, but I gotta point out that it’s not so much that anyone can be SUCCESSFULLY prosecuted for violating the “hate-crimes” statute by preaching a sermon based on certain bible passages, but that one may have to DEFEND oneself against such civil or criminal prosecution. Our neighbors to the north have had a couple of cases in the past decade or so, where individual Christians, espousing their biblical views on this topic, WERE found either civilly or criminally liable under the hate-crimes statutes. Granted, they usually were absolved of any responsibility in the end, AFTER a lengthy legal process. So they had to shell out $$$ because they believe in a plain reading of certain bible passages.So to lump those who have a healthy suspicion of just HOW this new law might be misused, regardless of it’s inherent religious exemption “protections”, with the likes of Fred Phelps is kinda harsh. Just because somebody believes that God meant what he said about certain aspects of human behavior, doesn’t mean that he’s a bigoted hate-monger.
Feb 08, 2010 @ 19:23:06
Based on the text of the bill, that particular fear of having to defend oneself against criminal prosecution is a moot point. It would be thrown out of court. Read the text. Religious sermons and attendance to said sermons are specifically exempt. We are not Canada. Nor are we any other PC worshipping state. Filing a lawsuit, which, by the way, enriches no one but the lawyers and wastes legal resources, against a law that specifically exempts the very basis of the lawsuit is monumentally stupid. I’m completely opposed to this law. It’s morally and ethically repugnant. It also strikes me as unconstitutional. These people have absolutely no basis to claim what they’re claiming. Their paranoia will cost money and time.Additionally, I make a distinction between normal religious folks and those who lose their shit and claim victimhood where there is none. They’re just as bad. They can preach whatever the goddamn world they want. It is their right. Anyone can believe what they want about gays. That’s none of my business.
Feb 08, 2010 @ 20:32:54
I’m a christian. There I said it. But, sometimes, people who I truly believe are also christians, should just not say anything. Discretion, so as to not turn a hungry heart away. Like Pat Robertson’s comments about Haiti. Utterly poor timing. This new hate crimes legislation is full of potentially sticky details. I touched on “incitement” in my post today. As it pertains to sharia law. Sometimes I just can’t keep my mouth closed, and perhaps I might be guilty of a little “incitement” myself at times.
Feb 08, 2010 @ 20:41:47
I see nothing wrong with Christians. People believe what they believe, and more power to them if it gives them solace and support. I also don’t believe that Christians, or anyone for that matter, need to keep quiet if they see wrongs.This, however, strikes me as nothing but an attempt by some to claim victimhood where there is none, in a preemptive attempt to ensure that they can abuse others with impunity.
Feb 09, 2010 @ 18:48:24
Okay I read it, and here’s the sicky part…” Nor shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by this division, be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion (regardless ofwhether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief),speech, expression, or association, UNLESS the Government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to—(A) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence;or(B) INCITE an imminent act of physical violence against another.”Now, how big of a stretch do you have to make to imagine a leftist federal judge finding that this exclusion doesn’t apply to a sermon on one of the “clobber” verses that are so controversial? Either because the judge finds some COMPELLING governmental interest, or that the scriptural verse itself OBVIOUSLY is intended to incite iminent violence against someone?” C’mon…be real…within 6 months, SOME judge SOMEWHERE will rule in this vein. So while you may be right, that some of these Christians are setting up their victim creds, there is legitimate anxiety over this in the evangelical Christian community. ESPESCIALLY given the current politically-correct anti-Christian campaign. Another problem is that you continue to denigrate people who belive that God said what he said about certain behaviors. To someone who believes that the Bible says what it means and means what it says, there is NO theological difference between committing a homosexual act, heterosexual fornication (sex outside of marriage), murder, rape or any other sin. IT IS ALL DISOBEYING GOD. I’m not saying that murder and rape aren’t more harmful to life and humanity than ANY type of proscribed sexual activity. BUT from the standpoint of disobeying a Holy God, there are no misdemeanors ….it’s all a capital offense. So if I beleive this, and see it as a “wrong”, should I not speak out about it? And shouldn’t I also NOT have to worry if some activist judge will decide that I’m a hate-monger for expressing what I consider biblical truth? THAT is the fear, in a nut-shell.ps….not sure if you mentioned this and I missed it..but isn’t it ESPECIALLY odious that the Congresscritters tacked it onto THIS particular bill? DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS?!? WTF doe THAT have to do with “hate” crimes?So
Feb 09, 2010 @ 19:14:54
That simply means that the government needs to prove that said sermons led directly to intended violence, as in “Thou must go out and kill homos for God.” But as an aside, yeah… Defense appropriations? WTF? I’m slowly beginning to realize just how much bullshit is tacked on to defense appropriations, and it’s disturbing.
Feb 09, 2010 @ 20:49:43
Nicki, you know damn well all power will be abused. I shouldn’t need to say more.
Feb 09, 2010 @ 20:57:25
Of course power will be abused, but that’s hardly the point! Every law has the potential for abuse. But they don’t oppose it because it’s a shitty law.These people are claiming victimhood where there is none. Period. And they’re doing it for what I consider a nasty fucking reason – to ensure that they can continue making themselves into victims and claiming how the Bible is being criminalized.
Feb 09, 2010 @ 21:39:27
What if the sermon included this verse:”If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” Levicticus 20:13. Now suppose further that some defective carbon unit heard said sermon, took that verse literally and fancied himself God’s own avenging angel. After smiting various and sundry members of the GLBT community, he (or she) is caught, and tried. In the course of the trial, said defective carbon unit (aka God’s Avenger)declares that it was God Himself, through the sermon of Pastor X mentioned above, that told him to kill the gays. Ms. Politically Ambitious Prosecuting Attourney (or DA .. whatevah..) sees an opportunity to score big with the political correctness crowd (not to mention the ever-sought-after Wiccan voting block) and put Christianity on trial. All of the sudden, Pastor X, who is theoretically protected from such crap, finds himself named as a co-defendant under the “hate crimes” law. Think any judge anywhere might buy into that line of reasoning…maybe agree that the government has met the burden of proof that Pastor X’s sermon led directly to the Defective Carbon Unit’s murderous rampage? Or perhaps that the Bible itself, since it contains that OBVIOUSLY incendiary passage, is “hate speech”, and therefore not protected by the 1st Ammendment? Too implausible? Maybe….but then again….people never would’ve believed that Madelyn Murray Ohair and Micheal Nedow would EVER get a judge to see things their way, once upon a long ago!Oh and my suggestion is to have a bill that bans ANY ammendment to any bill unless it can be clearly and logically linked to the stated purpose of that bill.
Feb 09, 2010 @ 22:31:31
Guys, come on! ANY law can be abused in that manner. It doesn’t mean that it’s an attack on the Bible. But these people take EVERYTHING as an attack on their beliefs. There has to be room for disagreement here, so that the religious types can have their beliefs without abusing mentally, emotionally or physically those whom their Bible claims are sinful while the gays and whoever else can walk down the street without people spewing shit like they should be put to death because they’re gay.Enough already!
Feb 11, 2010 @ 00:23:58
We’ll see, won’t we?