Thought Crime ('Hate Crime') Laws: Unnecessary and a Threat to Free Speech

Thought Crime ('Hate Crime') Laws: Unnecessary and a Threat to Free Speech

1. Penalizing Thoughts Instead of Actions. So-called "hate crime" legislation would have a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings.

• Currently proposed federal "hate crime" legislation would only authorize direct federal prosecution of those who cause or attempt to cause "bodily injury." However, such acts are already crimes, regularly prosecuted and punished under state or local laws. The offender's politically incorrect thoughts or opinions alone would make such crimes a federal offense.
• The proposed bill would allow federal authorities to assist in state or local prosecution of any "crime of violence," which is interpreted more broadly and includes even offenses where no physical force is used, but there is merely a "risk that physical force . . . may be used."
• The Hate Crimes Reporting Act of 1990 mandated that the statistics collected by the FBI define "hate crimes" more broadly still, to include even acts of "intimidation" (which can be as simple as name-calling). Approximately half the "hate crimes" in the FBI statistics are in this category. Once the principle of punishing thoughts as well as actions is established, it will be a simple matter to broaden definitions until thoughts and speech alone trigger prosecution.
• "Intimidation" has already been broadly interpreted to include the public criticism of homosexuality, as in the case of 11 Christian protesters charged under a Pennsylvania "ethnic intimidation" law on Oct. 10, 2004. The defendants were charged for peacefully protesting at a "gay pride" rally and faced imprisonment and huge fines before their case was dismissed.
• Michael McGough, senior editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, writes "The best argument against 'enhanced penalty' laws is the constitutional one. In the United States, we are taught, you can be sent to prison for what you do but not for what you think. Not only that, if government picks and chooses which crimes are the most serious based on the motivation behind them or the ethnic background of the victim, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment, isn't it?" ("There's little to like about hate-crime laws," Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2007).

2. Federal Intrusion into State & Local Law Enforcement. Currently proposed "Hate Crime" legislation empowers the federal government to intervene and prosecute alleged "hate crimes" anywhere in the country, thus usurping the prerogative of state and local law enforcement. Federal hate crimes bureaucrats can intervene and claim jurisdiction in localities which lack "hate crime" laws, or where those laws are judged not to be zealously enforced.

3. Sexual Orientation "Hate Crimes" - A Manufactured Crisis. According to FBI data (Crime in the United States, 2004, and Hate Crime Statistics, 2004), anti-homosexual "hate crimes" account for a miniscule fraction of total crimes in the United States:

• Of the 16,137 murders that occurred in 2004, one (.006 percent) was classified as a "bias motivation" because of the sexual orientation of the victim.
• None of the 94,635 forcible rapes that occurred in 2004 (0 percent) were reported as being a result of bias motivation because of the victim's sexual orientation.
• Of the 854,911 aggravated assaults in 2004, 181 (.02 percent) were classified as bias motivation because of the victim's sexual orientation.

4. Most Alleged "Hate Crimes" are Not Serious Violent Crimes.

• Intimidation: One-half (50.1 percent) of all bias-motivated offenses against persons involved the crime of intimidation, defined as the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without using a weapon or subjecting the individual to actual physical attack.
• Simple assault: Another 31 percent of bias-motivated offenses involved simple assault, which is a physical attack not involving the use of a weapon, and where the victim does not suffer obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury.

Does the rare incidence of violent "hate crimes" justify the creation through legislation of an entire new class of crime?

5. The Myth that 'Hate Crimes' Are Not Being Prosecuted. Proponents of "hate crime" legislation have not substantiated the assertion that state and local authorities are failing to prosecute such crimes. Ironically, in the most high profile case for hate crimes legislation, the murder of Matthew Shepard, the killers were convicted and sentenced to double life sentences without parole. Only the pleas of Shepard's parents persuaded the judge to spare Henderson and McKinney the death penalty.

Timothy J. Dailey is Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies, at the Family Research Council.

Hate "Hate Crimes" Legislation

Americans have observed with horror how hate crimes legislation overseas has been used as a license to persecute Christians. Here at home, the U.S. House is poised to make those fears a reality by expanding the current "hate crimes" law. This--more than any other issue--could destroy the freedom of speech as we know it. Hate crime laws trample free speech, lead to baseless arrests, and censor speech. More and more, liberals are trying to make it so that Christians have a harder time impacting America. When it all comes down to where the "rubber meats the road", "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29b)

Another Win for HUMAN LIFE

We applaud our friends on the Hill for catching and turning back a deceptive bill by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo). Wednesday night DeGette attempted to sneak a bill through the process which she promoted as a human cloning ban. She put the bill into the legislative schedule at a time when no amendments (and relatively no debate) could be offered. Then, she and other liberals lobbied their colleagues by claiming that the bill would outlaw human cloning, when in fact, it would have given scientists carte blanch to clone embryos as long as the clones were destroyed. In other words, the legislation would have not only allowed cloning but required killing. The bill was so unpopular that Democrats couldn't even convince a majority to vote for their measure, let alone find the two-thirds votes necessary to move the bill forward. And it is no wonder, since 86% of the American people oppose the very cloning this bill pushed. Today, the House is poised to vote on S. 5, another bill that would require the destruction of human embryos for research. Considering yesterday's announcement that scientists had successfully transformed skin cells into stem cells that could eventually treat disease, expanding funds for unethical research seems seriously misguided. Money should be directed to pro-life alternatives that are treating people now. Rather than siphon money away from adult stem cell treatments which are actually benefiting patients, we should focus our resources on results.

Popular Science? Congress Revisits Stem Cells

Congress hopes to cast another vote on the bill to expand taxpayer funds for research that destroys human embryos. In the House, leaders will decide whether or not to sign on to the Senate version of the bill, S. 5, which includes slight changes to the initial legislation. Since the House already approved an earlier bill, the vote is simply political theater. In an effort to preemptively rebuke the President's veto, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is using the vote as a public relations stunt to showcase Congress's approval for the research. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which owns the patents to human embryonic stem cells as well as to the process of destroying embryos to get the cells, is fighting to maintain its grisly monopoly after the Patent & Trade Office has indicated it could revoke the patents. The patents provide significant royalties, allowing WARF to profit, with government sanction, from their original embryo destructive research--even if it never yields useful treatments. Is it just me or is something wrong with that picture? While Congress fritters away its time on science that has yielded little in the way of real treatments, the journal Cell Proliferation has published a study on adult stem cells extracted from the umbilical cords of newborns. According to the article, those "adult" cells have been successfully engineered to produce insulin and could soon be used to treat diabetes patients. If Congress is going to spend our hard-earned money, I suggest they put it to better use and fund true progress like this!

Great Must-Read Article

Please take time and read the following article written by Ronnie Wolfe, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Harrison, OH.

Jerimiah 5:21

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation

What is Constitutional Interpretation?: The Supreme Court has the difficult job of applying the U.S. Constitution to situations in today's world. Constitutional Interpretation is the specific way that judges understand the text of the Constitution - what they believe it means.

Each of the Supreme Court judges uses one of several different judicial philosophies when hearing and deciding controversial cases. Variations in the judges' philosophies have led to important split decisions in recent years.

For example:

In Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Court voted 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortions.

In Lee v. Weisman(1992), the Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that public school officials violated the First Amendment if they sponsored religious prayers at graduation ceremonies.

The Philosophies: This article will look at four basic philosophies, or methods, of constitutional interpretation:

Conservative:

• The Originalist Philosophy
• The Literalist Philosophy
  Liberal:
• The Modernist Philosophy
• The Instrumentalist Philosophy

The Originalist / Original Intent Philosophy: Originalists interpret the Constitution to mean what the framers intended it to mean when they wrote it. The Constitution is a legal document, they argue. It's a contract. It's original intent is everything. Originalists go to the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings to understand the original meaning of the Constitution.

Originalists on the Supreme Court: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

The Literalist / Strict Constructionist Philosophy: Strict Constructionists read the law according to the literal definitions of the words involved. They do not try to infer the Framers' intent behind the words, but stick to the meanings of the actual words used.

Literalists on the Supreme Court: John Roberts and the late great William Rehnquist

The Modernist Philosophy: Modernists look at the Constitution as a "living" document. Its intents and purposes are free to change with the society it governs. Modernists argue that the Framers had no ability to foresee the various ways that future citizens might be oppressed. Judges have the responsibility to "fill in the gaps" to protect Americans from legislative tyranny by striking down laws that restrict fundamental human rights.

Instrumentalist Philosophy: Instrumentalists also see the Constitution as a living document. Instrumentalists try to apply the Constitution in the way that is most practical for contemporary society, regardless of the original intent of the document or strict definitions of its words.

Modernists/Instrumentalists on the Supreme Court: John Paul Stevens, David Hackett Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer

Liberal Swipes: Modernists consider the Originalist approach too rigid. The overwhelming purpose of the Constitution, they argue, is to protect liberty. Judges can head off a potential crisis by dealing with "bad" laws quickly, rather than waiting for the long amendment process to bring about what they consider a needed change.

Conservative Parries: Originalists and Constitutional Constructionists contend that the Constitution is a legal document, and is meant to provide rigidity. That's what structure is all about. They believe that Modernists usurp power that belongs to Congress by legislating from the bench. Non-elected judges, they argue, should not be making moral or ethical decisions for the country. Those decisions should be made by the elected representatives in the Legislative Branch - who answer to the citizens.

Conclusion:

Let's say Betsy agrees to take care of Joe's tortoise under the condition that she keep it in a "cool" location - that is, a moderately cold spot away from her furnace. It would be unfair for Joe to later say, "Hey. You need to jazz up my tortoise's tank per the 'cool' clause of our agreement." It might be good for the tortoise to have a jazzed up tank, but that was not part of the bargain Joe and Betsy made.

The Constitution is a contract between the states and the U.S. federal government. The terms of the contract need to retain the same meaning they had when the contract was signed, or it loses its true authority. The elected members of Congress are capable of writing the laws necessary to deal with a changing society. Non-elected justices should not step in and take that power for themselves.

"If you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year;… if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society — if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask."

- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Public Schools And Religious Freedom

Introduction: While there are certain guidelines to follow, religion is still a legitimate subject for the classroom, one that both teachers and students may discuss. The "separation of church and state" crowd has worked to completely remove God from the school setting, but students and teachers still have the right to bring Him in – in many ways:

Freedom Of Speech: The Supreme Court has ruled that students retain their freedom of speech when they walk through the school doors. According to the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, a school may only silence students if they are actually disrupting school discipline. So, a student may not harass other students about religion or interrupt class with Moses impressions.

Free Time: However, during free time, students are at liberty to:

• Read their Bibles
• Talk to peers about religion and pray with their peers
• Wear clothing with religious symbols and messages
• Even pass out religious tracts

As long as students are not acting out in a disruptive manner, they retain their freedom of expression.

Equal Access: According to the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, faith-based clubs have the same rights to public school facilities as other noncurriculum clubs (like the chess club or the classical music club). Religious clubs are also guaranteed official recognition, which means the school must allow them access to the school newspaper, bulletin boards, and the public announcement system.

Any Exceptions?: Religious clubs must be student-initiated and student-led. The students may invite outside speakers, but the club must be organized and led by the students themselves.

In the Classroom: Religion is a major influence in history, politics, and the human experience in general. Because it has educational value, students and teachers may discuss religion in class. Teachers must maintain a neutral position with the students, but students are free to offer their own personal opinions on religious matters.

What About Assignments?: Students may write papers on religious subjects, including the Bible. The Bible has had an enormous impact on history and literature and is an important book to know, even from a secular viewpoint. Literature from Shakespeare to Faulkner is full of allusions that can only be fully appreciated with a working knowledge of the biblical text.

Teachers: Teachers represent the government while in the public school classroom and at school events. Teachers do not lose their First Amendment rights at school, and may discuss religious topics with their own peers, but they must be careful not to "force their religion" on the students. At the same time, teachers may not discourage students' religious activity when it falls within legal guidelines.

Can They Teach About Religion?: Teachers do have a lot of freedom to teach about religion for educational purposes. They may teach on comparative religions, including Christianity. They may discuss the impact religion has had on history and science and literature. They may even discuss religion with students one-on-one, if the student initiates and maintains the conversation and is not compelled to agree with the teacher's position.

In Conclusion: There is a growing understanding that the intellect is not the only part of the human person, but that students do have a spiritual side that also needs to be fed. Schools have the freedom to allow students to express their spiritual side and to seek to nourish it.

The 180 Days????

Christians in Politics

More and more, Christians are expressing concern over the moral drift of our nation and an increasing frustration over not knowing what they can do about it. Many wonder about the role of the pastor, the role of the local church, and the role of the individual believer. This section is intended to provide some answers on this important subject.

Why should Christians get involved?

A consistent trait throughout history is that societies to break down, decay, and eventually disappear. It is also true that a society cannot operate long in a moral vacuum. When people of good conscience fail to influence society with their values, other influences will fill the gap. This has happened in America. In the past one hundred years, most fundamental Christians have left the political arena, considering it "worldly" and outside the legitimate realm of Christian influence.

What have been the results?

Tragic consequences abound: Divorce rates, epidemics in drug and alcohol abuse, the horror of abortion and the widespread acceptance of nearly every form of sexual perversion. We can also add to this list the growing corruption within government itself and the increasingly hostile attitude of the state toward the Church.

Christians need to be involved in the political process in order to have a positive effect on the future of our communities and our nation. It is poor citizenship and poor Christian stewardship to permit this great nation to plunge on toward destruction by default.

Is political involvement Scriptural?

Much is made of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned specifically that Christians should participate in politics. The assumption is made that unless the Bible clearly says we should - we should not. However, integrity to Scripture demands that we acknowledge that the Bible nowhere condemns involvement in politics. According to Romans 13:6,7, Paul's view of government was positive, that it is a God-given instrument for the promotion of good and a restraint to evil. I Timothy 2:1-2 records Paul's admonition that we pray for our government leaders. It is a serious mistake to take this passage as only having application to the Sunday morning pastoral prayer. Paul surely meant our prayers for civil leaders should encompass more than a general petition for God's blessing. In Romans 16:23, Paul relates a greeting from Erastus, the city treasurer. Some commentators say that this was an elected position which gave the official responsibility over all public works as well as the city treasury. There is not the slightest indication that Paul considered Erastus outside the will of God.

Politics, in the strict sense, relates to the art of governing. It is doubtful that any Christian would advocate a total absence of government. Of all the people who should hold positions of authority, it should be those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and committed to the absolute authority of Scripture.

What about separation of Church and State?

Our national constitution was not framed with a view toward excluding Christians from civil affairs. Rather, it was written to exclude the formation of a state church or religion. Furthermore, separation of church and state cannot be taken to mean that when a Christian seeks public office he must place his faith into a blind trust. To do so would be to compartmentalize Christianity - separate life into the secular and sacred, which is impossible for the committed Christian.

What does federal law allow churches to do?

For the most part, fundamental churches are recognized by the IRS as non-profit, tax-exempt religious organizations. Within the guidelines for 501(c)3 organizations it is legal for churches to engage in the following activities:

• Voter registration and education. A church may engage in or spend money for non-partisan voter registration and voter education activities, so long as those activities are not intended to benefit any particular candidate or political party.
  
  
• Conduct public candidate forums. A church may hold public political forums for the purpose of discussing election issues, debating political or social matters, or hearing several candidates present their views, so long as all viable candidates for that office are invited.
  
  
• Introduce candidates at services. The candidate may only be introduced, or invited to deliver a message, lead in prayer, or read Scripture. The candidate may not ask for support or funds to be used in his campaign.
  
  
• Circulate petitions and lobby. A church may spend up to twenty percent of its time and annual budget circulating petitions and engaging in other legislative activities, such as lobbying. Such steps are intended to influence the outcome of legislation.

What does federal law prohibit?

Briefly, federal law prohibits 501(c)3 organizations from engaging in activities designed to specifically influence the outcome of elections:

• Establish a political action committee (PAC)
  
  
• Contribute to political parties or candidates
  
  
• Endorse candidates.

Nothing, however, prohibits individuals in the church (including the pastor) from participation in any of these activities.