On May 3, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. The Senate will take up a companion bill, known as the Matthew Shepard Act, when it returns from its summer recess. If enacted, this law would authorize the Justice Department, in certain narrowly defined circumstances, to criminally prosecute an individual who "willfully" causes bodily injury to another person or, "through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive ... attempts to cause bodily injury" to another person, because of that person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
A coalition of conservative African-American pastors has aggressively lobbied against this legislation on the premise that it would make it unlawful for them to preach that homosexuality is a sin. Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., pastor of the Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Virginia, for example, has asserted that the Act would "keep the church from preaching the Gospel."
This objection to the legislation is fanciful. To begin with, there is no doubt of the Act's constitutionality. In 1993, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a virtually identical state law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell. The Court made clear that "a physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment." Moreover, the Court emphasized that the government has a perfectly legitimate interest in punishing "bias-motivated crimes," because such crimes are especially likely to inflict emotional harms on their victims, incite community unrest, and provoke retaliatory violence.
Of course, the Christian pastors do not intend to assault anyone physically. Their claim, rather, is that they could be prosecuted under the law merely for preaching against homosexuality. They fear that such sermonizing might be transmogrified by the law into an "attempt" to incite members of their congregations to lynch gays because of their sexual orientation.
For at least three reasons, this argument is completely unfounded. First, the Matthew Shepard Act would not prohibit "attempts to incite." It would prohibit only the actual infliction of bodily harm and attempts to cause bodily harm. The latter refers to firing a gun and missing, not giving a sermon in church.
Second, it is settled First Amendment law that an individual cannot constitutionally be punished for attempting to incite others to commit crimes unless the speaker expressly incites unlawful conduct and such conduct is likely to occur imminently. The last time the Supreme Court upheld a criminal conviction for incitement was more than half a century ago, in the case of Dennis v. U.S., and that involved incitement to violent overthrow of the government. Unless the pastors intend to expressly incite wild-eyed mobs to beat up gays because of their sexual orientation, they are in no danger from this law.
Third, the legislation expressly provides that "nothing in this Act ... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected" by the First Amendment. In other words, indeed, in the most explicit words possible, the Act could not be applied to the pastors unless their sermons are unprotected by the First Amendment, a concept that is impossible to imagine.
The First Amendment protects the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, the right of racists to assert that blacks are inferior, the right of atheists to denounce Christianity, and the right of homophobes to condemn homosexuality. The argument of the pastors that the proposed legislation in any way threatens their right to preach their version of the Gospel is, to be frank, ridiculous.
Of course, there might be rational reasons to question the wisdom of this legislation. But the argument that it endangers the First Amendment rights of these Christian pastors is certainly not one of them.
Take f'rinstance, Religious Freedom Watch. It purports to be in defense of all religions, but strangely, only critics of Scientology are profiled.
http://religiousfreedomwatch.org/
The names listed under 'Religious Extremists' reads like a 'Who's Who' of Scientology criticism. Elronically, it is not the religious aspect people are concerned with. These pages are brought to you by the same people who have a 'Youth For Human Rights' front group. Human rights all 'round, except for the rights of people who don't agree with them.
What's to keep some whacky Scientologist from going out and hunting one of these people down?
With all due respect to all of you the point of Federal Hate Crimes is so that if States and local communities do not prosecute those who murder and threaten people because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation then the Federal Government can do it.
Back in the 1960s a church was bombed and four little girls were killed. It was clearly a hate crime and that's how the murderer was convicted.
It does disturb me that those people who benefit from Hate Crime legislation now seek to keep others from having access to it.
I do ask my Christian brothers and sisters, those who condone the hatred and murder of Matthew Shepherd and other gays and lesbians, how will you respond to Jesus when he says "When you did it to the least of these, my brothers, you did it unto me"?
I may have to answer for my homosexuality but you'll have to answer for your hatred. Good luck!
If you really believe that this imagined hate exists and that it is proper justification for eliminating freedom of religion then I guess you are beyond rational thought.
As for the Hate against gays/lesbians I can name dozens of murders and comatose victims of queer bashing, Matthew Sheperd, Alan Schindler, Barry Winchell, 5 bar patronns in MA bar hit with a hatchet, 5 lesbians kicked in the head on the sidewalk outside a Bar in st. Paul MN, on a New Years Eve,,,,
"They hate our Freedom."
If moderate people feel the extreme elements on BOTH sides are dividing this country to an alarming rate, the more they must speak out.
It certainly at least lowers my opinion of the religious groups that do it.
I find it so objectionable so closed minded - that I would almost be tempted to make it against the law. But yes the first amendment - what to do ???
As long as these pastors are not enciting their clergy to go out and shoot/beat up homosexuals, this really should be a moot point for them.
Hmmm. Or perhaps a nicer way to say it would be the "right of decent people to disagree over the issue of homosexuality." Which, believe it or not, decent people do.
However, saying that because of a persons sexual orientation they don't deserve the same right as others, guaranteed under our constitution is one thing. It is not the issue of religion but an issue of our constitutional rights.
Now, I'm not in favor of this actually happening, please understand. I'd hate it. But, when people say that gays have the choice of either remaining celibate or suppressing their homosexuality, it's the same argument, and I hate THAT, too.
If you are a homosexual there is nothing you can or should do to try to condem or silence a religion that believes its members should not engage in such activity or that such activity is a sin. It is not different than your trying to criminalize a person because he/she thinks Van Gogh's paintings are trash and you think they are wonderful. Art and religion are subjective. They are very personal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about them.
Currently, Christianity is largely: "telling someone they have no right to view Van Gogh paintings in the privacy of his own home."
But, Jesus did have his flock of sheep, leading them to the right path. AND
Some of these pastors are so lost, they can't find the right path to lead their sheep.