PFAW on the litany of right wing fringe lies about hate crimes legislation

Here's the letter FRC sent to preachers

before the July 5th Call 2 Fall brainwashing sunday.

A Dangerous Course, An Urgent Choice ...

Congress

1. House passes "hate crimes" bill giving special class status to various forms of sexual perversion: homosexuality, cross-dressing, and gender manipulation/mutilation. Pedophilia not excluded from language of bill.

Right.  Bike riding and tennis also not excluded from the bill because those activities have nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 15:50:44 PM CDT

"Where do you see pastors in shackles in this language from the bill"

there will be so many disappointed preachers who can't martyr themselves in jail, lol!  i have yet to hear one of this lot explain why, for example, kris mineau or brian camenker aren't in jail right now in massachusetts.  after all, massachusetts has a hate crimes bill.  or how about my oln ken hutcherson?  we have an includive lgbt hate crimes law here in washington state, yet he roams free going on and on about how he'll gladly be arrested when hate crimes bills pass.  well they're here already buddy, lol!

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 15:56:45 PM CDT

Where do I see pastors in shackles?

It is in this sentence from the quote you made from the statute, Pam:

The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

These Christianists are telling us that the Matthew Shepard Act, if enacted, violates their religious freedom to call from the pulpit, for the killing of wiccans, gays, wiccans, adulterers and Jews, using the appropriate biblical quotes, such as:

Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Matthew 27:25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

I note that Leviticus, notably chapter 20, contains a whole lot of things that require putting people to death.  These people think they should be protected in advocating that people take up stones to kill their neighbor because their neighbor is different, just because they can find a bible quote and justify it on the basis of their "freedom of religion."

There is no other rational way to interpret their position - the law would clearly exempt religious belief, but would carve out incitement to murder or violence, even if it is from the pulpit.  If they are arguing against the law on the basis that it would stifle their right to preach as they see fit, it is this incitement, this whipping up, this lust for the blood of the people they despise, that they wish to protect.

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 16:23:27 PM CDT

Not so sure

Under the current constitutional standard, not all speech that seems to favor violence constitutes a punishable "incitement to violence".  Branzburg: In order to fall outside constitutional protection, speech must both be directed at imminent lawless action AND be likely to incite such lawless action.

Disgusting as it is, plain old hateful preaching that doesn't call on people to kill will fail on the direction requirement.  And, sick as it is, even preaching that recites historical acts of violence or speculates as to God's wrath will probably not be seen as likely to incite your average churchgoer.

Granted, I don't deny that there ARE Christianistas who'd run afoul of the Branzburg standard.  Michael Marcavage (Repent America) comes IMMEDIATELY to mind.  Standing in a crowd with a bullhorn, under stressful, confrontational circumstances, and advocating directly for violence against queer folks, easily qualifies for both prongs of the test.  But it won't take a hate-crime enhancement to punish that - he'll already be nailed under existing disorderly-conduct and incitement to riot statutes.

With respect to pure speech, the hate crime enhancements won't do anything that isn't already being done.  And with respect to conduct, there has never BEEN a constitutional right to go around acting violently upon one's beliefs.  The hate-crime laws won't punish anything until there's an act which is already criminal - and then they simply enhance the punishment if this criminal act is proven (as an element, and thus to the full criminal standard of proof) to have been motivated by bias.  The religious loons are just being paranoid.

---

by: CubPaws2008 @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 17:16:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the clarification

I agree especially with your conclusion:

The religious loons are just being paranoid.

Let's say that there is speech behavior from the pulpit that already meets the Branzburg standard - perhaps they might see the Matthew Shepard Act (which isn't a classic hate crimes law, it only provides for beefed-up federal assistance to local law enforcement to investigate hate crimes) as creating an environment in which prosecutors and the public might be more likely to interpret their speech which crosses the line as being beyond the pale.

I also see a more insidious goal - the Dominionist Christianists have the ultimate goal of imposing their religious beliefs on the nation by adopting what one might describe as a Christianist analogy to Islamic law (Shariah).  In Muslim nations that have adopted Shariah, it impacts both religious and secular life.  In some of these countries, religious leaders have no compunction about whipping up their followers to violence against those perceived to be sinners.

To these Dominionists, the Matthew Shepard Act is a step in the wrong direction, actually providing investigative tools to help prosecute those who they see as only following their religious duty to exterminate classes of people they see as sinners.

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 14:26:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Daddy Dobson...didn't he used to be someone?

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 17:27:52 PM CDT

yup!

Same thing with "Loony Lou" Sheldon and his gang of nutcases!

Listen to "TransTalk" every Thursday at 4-5pm ET on http://www.falconradio.org

---

by: Marlene @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 18:15:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wish there wasn't that big photo of Perkins

He's not good for my blood pressure. If I wrote even half of what I'd like to see befall that racist pig, I wouldn't be in the civility clubhouse.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 17:30:51 PM CDT

worked off some of my distaste for Perkins

   http://img.villagephotos.com/p...

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 21:25:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It seems to me that "conservative churches" have done an amazing job

of protecting pedophilia for many decades. After all, I've never seen any of them push hard for constitutional amendments to dissolve the marriages of heterosexual pedophiles who produce their own children to abuse - in fact, I'm not sure any state requires those marriages be dissolved once someone is discovered to be a pedophile.

And since we certainly know of the amazing effort the Catholic Church created to cover up criminal child sexual abuse, it isn't disingenuous to wonder if it wasn't subtle church policy to protect perpetrators. It isn't even too far of a hop to imagine there were pedophile priests marrying heterosexual pedophiles right at the altar. One wonders how many of these marriages have ever been forcibly dissolved by the Church once the practice came out.

While it wasn't considered pedophilia, many states which claim to be the most concerned about morality are the same ones which allowed young teens to marry. Georgia's law comes to mind immediately - a state which, while the legislature and the wingnuts went hysterical about banning gay marriage in the constitution, politicians acted surprised when a year or so later, parents of a 13 or 14 year old could do nothing to prevent the marriage of a boy to his friends mama, cuz she was pregnant - and state law didn't require parental permission. Legislators pleaded complete ignorance of the law, of course, and got rid of it....though surprisingly I think that effort was led by the sole open lesbian legislator whose right to marry had just been banned in the state constitution.

It amazes me when these religious wingnuts try to throw in the "pedophile" claim into things like these hate crimes laws. . .because their own history of protecting child sexual abuse is rather sad. And after all, these are the same 'religious" organizations who will claim God allows them to commit any sin or crime they like (such as adultery) for as long as they like - or until the public finds out. . .and then they are magically forgiven.

But then we come to the crap about pastors being unable to preach against homosexuality, easily the number one "sin" (well, perhaps tied with being a woman who controls her own body) in these hetersupremacist penis-worshipping "churches." Never mind that these same churches rail against the Mormon menace, or the Catholic evil, or the Islamic satan and none of them ever get arrested.

And of course these are the same "religious" organizations who also created a cabal of legal firms to "protect" their own "special class" status, including their self-taught right to impose their "religious" doctrine on all others through the law.  

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 19:33:43 PM CDT

GOPUSA: Aren't They All 'Hate' Crimes?

From Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA:

As the Senate debates the final provisions of a $680 billion defense bill, Democrats are trying to poison the water by adding a hate crimes bill to the package. It's quite obvious that hate crimes legislation and a defense authorization bill have nothing in common and should not be voted on together.

In addition, where is it written that one group, one gender, one class of people are more special and worthy of more protection than another group? Only in left-wing America. Equal protection under the law? Not any more.

The federal hate crimes bill which is sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) has been attached as an amendment by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to the defense appropriations bill. As noted in The Boston Globe, "Most Republicans oppose the legislation, saying it infringes on states' rights or could lead to the criminalization of religious expressions of opposition to homosexuality."...

Well, if not senators on the floor...The GOP is apparently picking up the talking points from the same groups that PFAW was highlighting.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 20:33:27 PM CDT