It could soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality!

AFA.net ^ | 9-7-04

[truthandlife]

There is a “hate crimes” bill that has already passed the U.S. Senate. The House will soon vote on the bill. If the bill passes, the ultimate result could be that it is a federal crime to publicly criticize the homosexual lifestyle. It is urgent that you contact your Representative today to oppose this dangerous “hate crimes” amendment that could lay the groundwork for persecution of Christians.

Can’t happen, you say. In Canada, one cannot publicly criticize homosexuality. Because of a “hate crimes” law that includes sexual orientation, even the quoting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality can be illegal.

Because of “hate crimes” legislation in Sweden a pastor was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he said homosexuality is wrong.

The Kennedy-Smith “hate crimes” bill will give protected status to the homosexual lifestyle.

Laws in civilized nations have always been designed to punish conduct, not thought. But wrong thoughts are the sole aim of Kennedy-Smith. The Kennedy-Smith bill does nothing to aid in fighting crime.

The Kennedy-Smith amendment – The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act – recently passed the Senate and the House will be voting to accept the Senate language any day now.

To contact your Representative through the capitol switchboard, dial 202-224-3121. For the direct number to your Representative, click here. It is important you call today! Ask him or her to oppose The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act or any other federal “hate crimes” bill.

[Mr. Mojo]

And the Bible as "hate literature" would be soon to follow.

[ohioconservative]

And the Bible as "hate literature" would be soon to follow.

Yeah, the Constitution is "hate literature" as well (/sarcasm).

[truthandlife]

Bible verses regarded
as hate literature
Court rules Scripture exposed homosexuals to ridicule
Posted: February 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080

Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court.

The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province's human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.


Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper

A columnist noted in the Edmonton Journal last week that the Dec. 11 ruling generated virtually no news stories and "not a single editorial."

Imagine "the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Quran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book's more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper," wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta, daily.

[TheCrusader]

"And the Bible as "hate literature" would be soon to follow."

It's already banned from public schools and other places.

[lowbridge]

Who in the Senate voted for it?

[SunkenCiv]

We need to defeat this bill; we also need a Constitutional amendment establishing term limits for members of both houses of Congress -- with no "grandfather" clause -- to get that silver-spoon rich drunk out of the Senate and out of the business of telling us how to spend our money and how to live our lives.

George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent

[TheCrusader]

"Imagine "the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Quran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book's more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper," wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta, daily."

I think there would be more hand clapping than hand wringing.

[Mogollon]

'W' will veto the bill if it's passed by congress.

[Protagoras]

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

[Osage Orange]

to get that silver-spoon rich drunk out of the Senate

Which one? There are many to choose from.......

FWIW-

[MineralMan]

This is only partly true. Gordon Smith (OR) tried to attach this as an amendment to other bills three times. Each time, it was removed by the conference committee or by the Senate committee.

I notice that nowhere is the actual language of the amendment quoted or any link to the amendment posted.

This is written as though it is an actual bill. It is not.

Deliberate misleading of people is a wrong thing to do. Why did the AFA not quote the actual text of the amendment?

[SunkenCiv]

ping

[SunkenCiv]

Kennedy of course, one of the bill's authors.

[MineralMan]

I could not find a link to your story on the AFA page you linked to. Can you provide an actual link to this story?

[nosofar]

Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court.

Certain passages of the Dictionary can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context.

[truthandlife]

It passed on a vote of 65-33, with all Democrats and 18 Republicans voting in favor of it. Three Republicans - Robert Bennett of Utah, Ben Campbell of Colorado and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire - voted for the measure, after voting against similar legislation in 2000.

The Senate approved the measure as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill for 2005. The House of Representatives approved a Defense authorization bill in May without the hate-crimes proposal. Negotiations will take place to resolve the differences in the two bills and to present a final report to both houses for approval.

Eighteen Republicans joined with 47 Democrats to support the amendment. Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., sponsored the measure, which is titled the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act.

[horatio]

There is an assertion in the thread that is unproven.

Laws in civilized nations have always been designed to punish conduct, not thought. But wrong thoughts are the sole aim of Kennedy-Smith. The Kennedy-Smith bill does nothing to aid in fighting crime.

I need you to detail exactly where "wrong thoughts" are targeted in the legislation.

And unless you can show an example of a church in the United States being prosecuted for the content of its sermons, I can't take this thread seriously.

Have you any such example? Remember, Canada doesn't count. Sweden doesn't count. Different countries, different civil liberties, different protection of religious freedoms. We're talking about the good old US of A.

I don't like the concept of "hate crimes," but I don't like baseless fearmongering either. And until I see some proof otherwise, that's exactly what this looks like.

[Van Jenerette]

...for issues.

[truthandlife]

Arkansas
	Blanche Lincoln (D)	05/01/2003
	Mark Pryor (D)	05/01/2003
California
	Dianne Feinstein (D)	05/01/2003
	Barbara Boxer (D)	05/01/2003
Connecticut
	Christopher Dodd (D)	05/01/2003
	Joseph Lieberman (D)	05/01/2003
Delaware
	Joseph Biden (D)	05/01/2003
	Thomas Carper (D)	05/01/2003
Florida
	Bob Graham (D)	05/01/2003
	Bill Nelson (D)	05/01/2003
Georgia
	Zell Miller (D)	05/01/2003
Hawaii
	Daniel Inouye (D)	05/01/2003
	Daniel Akaka (D)	05/01/2003
Iowa
	Tom Harkin (D)	05/01/2003
Illinois
	Richard Durbin (D)	05/01/2003
Indiana
	Evan Bayh (D)	05/01/2003
Louisiana
	John Breaux (D)	05/01/2003
	Mary Landrieu (D)	05/01/2003
Massachusetts
	Edward Kennedy (D)	---
	John Kerry (D)	05/01/2003
Maryland
	Paul Sarbanes (D)	05/01/2003
	Barbara Mikulski (D)	05/01/2003
Maine
	Olympia Snowe (R)	05/01/2003
	Susan Collins (R)	05/01/2003
Michigan
	Carl Levin (D)	05/01/2003
	Debbie Stabenow (D)	05/01/2003
Minnesota
	Mark Dayton (D)	05/01/2003
	Norm Coleman (R)	07/09/2003
North Carolina
	John Edwards (D)	05/01/2003
North Dakota
	Byron Dorgan (D)	05/01/2003
Nebraska
	Ben Nelson (D)	05/01/2003
New Jersey
	Frank Lautenberg (D)	05/01/2003
	Jon Corzine (D)	05/01/2003
New Mexico
	Jeff Bingaman (D)	05/01/2003
Nevada
	Harry Reid (D)	05/01/2003
	John Ensign (R)	05/01/2003
New York
	Charles Schumer (D)	05/01/2003
	Hillary Clinton (D)	05/01/2003
Oregon
	Ron Wyden (D)	05/01/2003
	Gordon Smith (R)	05/01/2003
Pennsylvania
	Arlen Specter (R)	05/01/2003
Rhode Island
	Jack Reed (D)	05/01/2003
	Lincoln Chafee (R)	05/01/2003
South Dakota
	Thomas Daschle (D)	05/01/2003
	Tim Johnson (D)	05/01/2003
Vermont
	Patrick Leahy (D)	05/01/2003
	James Jeffords (I)	05/01/2003
Washington
	Patty Murray (D)	05/01/2003
	Maria Cantwell (D)	05/01/2003
West Virginia
	John Rockefeller (D)	05/01/2003

[MineralMan]

You offer a lot of information, but this article is not available at the site you linked to. Can you please provide a valid link to the article so we can all look at it directly?

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

This list should be posted at the entrance of every house of worship across America, even mosques.

[Ciexyz]

bump with no comment

[Rightly Biased]

Our pastor has said that it will soon be illegal for him to preach from the book of Romans I fear he may be right.

[MineralMan]

Here is the pertinent part of the actual amendment being discussed in this thread. Note that the only crimes affected by this are ones which cause bodily injury in specific circumstances. There is nothing here that has anything to do with preaching against homosexuality. This is a very misleading article!

---

``(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR DISABILITY.--

``(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, or disability of any person--

``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

``(I) death results from the offense; or

``(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

``(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

``(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

``(I) across a State line or national border; or

``(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

``(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

``(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

``(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

``(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

``(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

[airborne]

TERM LIMITS - An idea that is way overdue!

[MineralMan]

"Laws in civilized nations have always been designed to punish conduct, not thought. But wrong thoughts are the sole aim of Kennedy-Smith. The Kennedy-Smith bill does nothing to aid in fighting crime.
"

Please see below, where I have posted the actual wording of this amendment. It has nothing at all to do with "wrong thoughts." It only applies to crimes involving bodily injury. This whole article is bogus. Since it did not quote the actual law, it is a bald-faced attempt to misrepresent what the law actually says.

Bearing false witness is one of the ten big no-no's, as far as I know, and this article definitely does that.

[airborne]

"to get that silver-spoon rich drunk out of the Senate"
'Which one? There are many to choose from.......'

All of them. Term limits MAY encourage politician's actually do something worthwhile for the public, whom they are supposed to represent.

[Mean Maryjean]

'W' will veto the bill if it's passed by congress.

Just like campaign finance reform? I love President Bush, I want him to win re-election, but absolutely nothing would surprise me anymore about politics in WDC.

[airborne]

My wonderful Senator Specter! Why am I not surprised? I hope Toomey runs against him again so I can vote against him again.

[OXENinFLA]

It passed in the Senate during the National Defense Authorization Act.

---

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Smith Amdt. No. 3183 )
Vote Number:	114	Vote Date:	June 15, 2004, 04:01 PM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:	S.Amdt. 3183 to S. 2400 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 )
Statement of Purpose:	To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	65
	NAYs	33
	Not Voting	2

[Stellar Dendrite]

bump

[tahiti]

"If the bill passes, the ultimate result could be that it is a federal crime to publicly criticize the homosexual lifestyle."

I can appreciate your concern about the potential "effect" of such a bill, as described above, but their are hugh jurisdictional and constitutional issues that need to be addressed.

Jurisdiction:

Federal laws only have (3) means of jurisdiction within the boundaries of a sovereign state:

Article I, Section 8, Cl 3, "the commerce clause."

Article I, Section 8, Cl 17, on state property purchased by our federal government with the consent of the state.

Article VI, Section 2, federal laws enacted in support of a treaty.

Constitutional:

But even if federal jurisdiction can be clearly established, the laws still cannot violate the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of religion); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[COEXERJ145]

Well Smith has said he expects it to be stripped out of the bill in Conference Committee as the House has voted down similar legislation in the past.

I’ll trust that Delay and Hastert will do the right thing but it can’t hurt to remind them.

[truthandlife]

Would not hurt to call your congressman.

[horatio]

Thank you for injecting a little reason into this debate.

It's more fun to play Chicken Little, I know, but this sort of inane fearmongering is best left to the Left.

[truthandlife]

No we are not overreacting. The idea of a 'hate crime' is completely contrary to the American principles of free speech and equal protection under the law. Any senator who voted for this is setting up our children and grandchildren for persecution as activist courts rule that biblical morality is bigotry. Hate crimes laws aren't about justice; they are about "favoritism and special rights."

As an example, under the amendment, the penalty for mugging a homosexual would be greater than that for mugging someone's grandmother. Under a hate crimes law, someone who mugs your grandmother will not be prosecuted as vigorously as someone who commits the same crime against a homosexual. This says to criminals 'Mug Grandma; It's less risky.'

[truthandlife]

See 38

[Ol' Sparky]

From conservative compassionate socialism to this? How can anyone really pretend we're winning? This is passing through a Republican-controlled senate and congress, the same senate that doesn't have the backbone to fight for conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

The reality is that liberalism is advancing with the help of conservatives that turn a blind eye to all this.

[Gee Wally]

The bill has nothing to do with thoughts, only with actions. It is targetted at CRIMES which are motivated by hate of one of the protected classes.

Motivation is a thought, not an action. Assault, murder, etc. are already crimes. It is the underlying thought that is being criminalized in hate-crime laws.

[BriarBey]

Yeah..well you know what? They are getting in the face of someone they shouldn't get in the face of and that is GOD!!
And HE doesn't lose!! So bring it on idiots and you will fry just like Sodom and Gomorah did, I will bank on it. HE is the SAME yesterday, today and tomorrow. We will be given an opportunity to pick our side.....I believe we are in the separation of sheep and goats phase, who knows how long it will last....I guess till the last person is off the fence, course lukewarm has always been considered a fence setter anyway. Who knows... but things seem to be cranking up.

[scory]

I agree that this article is misleading insofar as the bill as quoted here makes no mention of speech or thought.

That being said I should like to point out that inciting an act can be a crime (such as incitement to riot). Obviously "hate" is a state of mind. A person can be induced or indoctrinated to adopt a state of mind. Any indoctrination or inducement that leads to a state of mind that is deemed to result in a crime could also be deemed a criminal act. I believe this is what has happened in Europe and Canada and it is what is going to happen here if a stand is not taken against "hate crime" laws in general.

[MineralMan]

"As an example, under the amendment, the penalty for mugging a homosexual would be greater than that for mugging someone's grandmother. Under a hate crimes law, someone who mugs your grandmother will not be prosecuted as vigorously as someone who commits the same crime against a homosexual. This says to criminals 'Mug Grandma; It's less risky.'
"

But, you see, the headline of your post says that it could soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality. This amendment to a bill has nothing whatever to do with that at all. It has only to do with violent crimes done specificially because the person meets one of the criteria named in the bill. You can read it yourself, above.

This is the worst kind of fear-mongering. That is why the article didn't quote the bill. Instead it told lies about the bill from the very beginning, starting with the title.

There is nothing in this about preaching at all...only about crimes that cause bodily injury.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness."

If you want to argue against this amendment, at least do so based on what the amendment actually says. Then I will probably agree with you. But this amendment has nothing to do with preaching against homosexuality.

[MineralMan]

"Any indoctrination or inducement that leads to a state of mind that is deemed to result in a crime could also be deemed a criminal act. I believe this is what has happened in Europe and Canada and it is what is going to happen here if a stand is not taken against "hate crime" laws in general.
"

Not in this bill. That would take a whole different bill.

[MineralMan]

"Read the bill before you get freaked out. "

---

That's what I've been saying, too. But no, the writers of this article deliberately did not include a link where readers could read the actual text of the amendment. Instead, they wrote misleading copy that lied about the content of the amendment and attached an ominous-sounding title to the article...a title which had nothing whatever to do with the bill at all.

I've even posted the text, but nobody seems to be reading it. It's easier just to be against it, based on the lies in the original article.

That's just plain wrong.

[Know your rights]

This fear, while understandable, is unjustified.

Makes for effective fundraising, though. Follow the money.