All Comments for: Christian Groups Eye Hate Crimes Bill | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > July (Web-only)

Christianity Today, July (Web-only), 2009 |

Christian Groups Eye Hate Crimes Bill

Leaders appear divided over whether the law would hinder their right to address homosexuality.

Paige Winfield in Washington, D.C | posted 7/16/2009 11:19AM

Leaders of conservative Christian groups are wringing their hands over pending approval of a federal hate crimes bill, but opinions are divided on whether their fears are justified.

More than a decade ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 40 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

David Hardy

Posted: July 23, 2009 4:09 PM

mattg Posted: July 23, 2009 12:31 PM One big question is: Would the evangelical supporters of this bill support a similar bill protecting Christians from hate speech? Probably not. Similarily, would detractors of this bill support a bill protecting Christians from hate speech. Probably. Contradictions and double standards galore. ....... In your personally fabricated fantasy there are "Contradictions and double standards galore"..... The pesky thing is... Your personally fabricated fantasy... Is not actual reality.... .

mattg

Posted: July 23, 2009 12:31 PM


One big question is: Would the evangelical supporters of this bill support a similar bill protecting Christians from hate speech? Probably not. Similarily, would detractors of this bill support a bill protecting Christians from hate speech. Probably. Contradictions and double standards galore.

Truthmeister

Posted: July 22, 2009 5:10 PM

Christian Lawyer, you said I called you a "name." What was the "name" that I called you? I, along with some others, have rationally refuted your arguments and you get defensive about it, imagining that we've called you a "name." Face it, you are much more interested in trying to win an argument that illuminating facts. In prior posts I've seen you refer to those who disagree with you, in extremely arrogant prose, as "hopelessly ignorant." What might you think that says about you?

David Hardy

Posted: July 22, 2009 10:18 AM

Christian Lawyer Posted: July 21, 2009 9:13 PM D. Hardy and TM -- you can call me all the names you want, which likely says more about you than it does about me, but you're still wrong on the law and the facts......... Nice try, no brass ring... As a "lawyer" you should know that this one sentence.... The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence..... Leaves a big enough hole for those who seek to tie anyone, who has said anything as.... "planning" to "commit a violent act." ... As for name calling... Prove it... As for pointing out the obvious about your dubious "credentials"..... I leave you with this... Matthew 7:20 Yes, the way to identify a tree or a person is by the kind of fruit that is produced..... It is very apparent that your fruits are those that are produced by a poisoned tree... .

Zach	Posted: July 22, 2009 8:34 AM

To Sable: Um, wow. That's the kind of language that creates animosity between Evangelicals and the World. These days, the world doesn't hate us because of Christ (that's how it should be), rather they hate us because people say stupid things all the time like "(Jews) have a long standing animosity for the western white christian world and people need to see this for what it is." If I were a non-christian reading that, it would completely fly in the face of what Christianity claims to be. And as far as this bill goes, so what? Even if it did (unlikely) lead to Christians being thrown in prison for teaching scripture, God is above all that and will bless them even more. Seems to me like persecution and endurance lead to much greater blessing than having the good life. The government can never ever ever ever pass anything that poses any threat to Christ my Savior who is and was and is to come. The Alpha and the Omega, the Creator, and the Deliverer, no bill can ever pose a threat to Him.

Christian Lawyer

Posted: July 21, 2009 9:13 PM

D. Hardy and TM -- you can call me all the names you want, which likely says more about you than it does about me, but you're still wrong on the law and the facts. The sentence that has you in a tizzy is merely a statement about what the Constitution already does or does not protect. Even if that statement is wrong, i.e. it does not offer enough protection for speech, a mere statute such as the federal hate crimes bill cannot lessen the protections actually afforded by the Constitution. You've also ignored the next sentence in the bill: "(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act 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." If all a preacher is doing is preaching his view of the Bible, that cannot constitute "planning" to "commit a violent act."

Sable

Posted: July 21, 2009 3:51 PM

People should never forget just who is always at the forefront of these laws that will one day result in the criminalization of speech. It is jewish groups like the ADL. It is not politically correct to say but they admit it right on their own websites. These people are not your friends. They have a long standing animosity for the western white christian world and people need to see this for what it is.

R Sanders

Posted: July 21, 2009 12:30 PM

It is already illegal to assault or kill a person (and those are State, not Federal laws). What this is trying to do is criminalize speech and thought. Imagine if two people walked up to you and punched you in the face. The first person said nothing but the second man said, "take that you stupid Christian!" Did the second man really commit a more serious crime? This law says yes. But if I'm getting hit in the face, I don't care why. Both men should go to jail for the same amount of time since they committed the same crime. Also, do we really want to have judges and juries guessing intent? The facts in the Matthew Shepard case show that a drug addict was killed was by other drug addicts while trying to buy drugs. But since he was a homosexual, we must ignore facts for the sake of political activism?

R Sanders

Posted: July 21, 2009 12:29 PM

R Sanders

Posted: July 21, 2009 11:02 AM

Fr. Ian Yorston

Posted: July 21, 2009 8:40 AM


It is certainly a good thing to protect citizens from the hateful actions of others, but where do we stop.?Do we add an am

Fr. Ian Yorston

Posted: July 21, 2009 8:40 AM

It is certainly a good thing to protect citizens from the hateful actions of others, but where do we stop.?Do we add an ammendment for pro-life advocates that are surely hated by their opponents? Do we include evangelical Christians who are surely hated by those that may be the subject of their preaching? This law sounds like it is doing the right thing, but in the wrong hands it could be lethal for liberty and freedom. It's language sounds like it is too broad and open to various interpretations, depending on worldview. If we know anything about worldview lately, it appears to be heading left of center.

David Hardy

Posted: July 20, 2009 12:44 PM

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act 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 and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. It is the wording of the last sentence in this paragraph that throws the door wide open to denying first amendment rights to all who speak out against homosexuality... Truthmeister spaeks the truth and I am also very inclined to believe that "Christian Lawyer" Is not either one... .

Truthmeister

Posted: July 20, 2009 8:33 AM

Christian Lawyer, it's very hard, if not disturbing, to believe you are a practicing attorney since you have mischaracterized not only the law but what I think are some pretty clear points I made using the English language. In contradistinction to what you suggest, I NEVER said hate crimes laws are new, I said they are not needed. They add an extraneous layer of complexity to the law. The Matthew Sheperd case is a good example because the actual motive is STILL in question. Again, in contradistinction to your assertions, I NEVER said courts don't try to determine motive, states of mind, etc., as they clearly try to do that, when necessary, on frequent occasions. You are utterly incorrect in suggesting that this law does not have the potential to criminalize speech that some activist judge may view as "planning" an attack on a person owing to the "perception" that it's due to sexual orientation. This really does open up a can of worms attacking the 1st amendment.

Resist Ignorance

Posted: July 19, 2009 9:35 PM


There are already protections for religious speech. It is called the first amendment to the Constitution of United States! This amendment also protects the free speech of similar groups such as : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WBC_20051202_sacco-topeka5.jpg an d : http://k53.pbase.com/o6/04/318004/1/73285000.Ld6kJRg8.66547060601013.j pg

Christian Lawyer

Posted: July 19, 2009 9:13 PM

Truthmeister doesn't seem to understand that when judges and juries routinely decide questions of motive, intent, and other state of mind questions, it means that it's not too difficult for them to handle. The claims involved in the area of law in which I practice all have an intent element. This is just not something new and different. And, no, there is NOT already a hate SPEECH law. Truthmeister must have overlooked the First Amendment. For K Brown -- that the laws currently on the books already protect religious affiliation does not mean that those laws provide any protection for sexual orientation. That's why the new legislation is needed. For those who believe every horror story purporting to come out of Canada or Europe, please note that those countries do not have our First Amendment. Those who claim that this would prohibit preaching of any kind are just fearmongering.

Truthmeister

Posted: July 18, 2009 4:10 PM


This is ALREADY a hate speech law. Faith considerations aside, it is unconstitutional. What we should really be concerned about are potential "hate thought" laws. (Hello George Orwell!)

JohnthePecan

Posted: July 18, 2009 3:06 PM

It's not too far a slide from hate crimes law to hate speech laws, as we all know. What happened in Sweden a few years ago is an example of the direction the U.S. is headed. Christians must boldly and wisely proclaim the truth of God's Word with as much love as we can muster, no matter what the consequence. If the prophesies of scripture are true, there will be grave consequences indeed the closer we come to the full revelation of God's kingdom on this earth. Homosexuals must hear that the behavior is a terrible sin in the eyes of the God who loves them and is willing and able to forgive because of the works of Jesus. How can the Spirit convict them of the truth otherwise?

John	Posted: July 18, 2009 2:16 PM

Here are some things I learned recently on my local Christian radio station in Chicago: 1. Judges should not have empathy 2. a judge who recognizes one’s ethnic identity may play a role in thought processes and decision making is racist 3. there is no such thing as a hate crime and hate crime legislation is a demonic attempt to force Christians to accept “the homosexual agenda” or be persecuted. 4. the only god ordained economic system is free market capitalism-the fact that Obama is a socialist is one of the proofs that he is a fore-runner of the Anti-Christ.

pasturederelict

Posted: July 17, 2009 10:19 PM

Canada has been dealing with such legislation for awhile, so Americans be wary! As a motive, it hasn't created stiffer penalties for other crimes. Because it is not cleary defined with any permanence, it has created much confusion. Since we legalized gay marriage, pastors have had to be overly-concerned. This legislation didn't get amended to protect the clergy as promised. One minister from an independent denomination, who is also his town's justice of the peace, refused to marry a gay couple. He lost his license to marry altogether. Basically, a gay couple could target all churches who preach against it and then sue, and then there would be a lot of trouble. It is too reactionary to create a law that is already considered murder. Hate is already a motive to be considered during sentencing. This overlap only muddies the mud more.

Paula Ruth

Posted: July 17, 2009 10:03 PM


This link about an anti-gay video game in France provides an example for why we need Matthew Shepard: http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/killing_gay_people_should_n ot_be_a_video_game . In short, there are many people out there who fear gay people, think they are doing the right thing by knocking them off and probably are not parents or friends of gays.

Perplexed

Posted: July 17, 2009 8:02 PM

As a gay man I have always been careful to distinguish a religious / ethical objection to homosexuality and homophobia. I accept you can hold the former without being a bigoted person. I would have though the law too would be able to grasp this particular distinction. On a separate point there is no 'homosexual agenda,' this is a lazy polemical construct. Iit is as redundant as 'right wing conspiracy.' (!) Language is important; I will be personally happier if every preacher who feels called upon to preach against homosexuality (and there seem more pressing issues to preach on anyway) would be careful to be respectful of people while disagreeing with them.

David Hardy

Posted: July 17, 2009 4:31 PM

I suppose that S.909 will prosecute homosexuals as hate criminals for knowingly infecting other homosexuals with AIDS..... That one aspect alone would have most homosexual men behind bars.... And bankrupt the country for the costs associated with the treatment of AIDS all at once... Most persons living with HIV in the United States continue to be men. In 2006, men made up three quarters of people living with HIV (828,000 persons), and women made up one-quarter (278,400 persons). Nearly half of all people living with HIV in the U.S. in 2006 (48%, or 532,000 total persons) were men who have sex with men (MSM)1. Among men, MSM accounted for 64% of those living with HIV. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/prevale nce.htm If homosexuals are not prosecuted for infecting and murdering other homosexuals... Then the entire law is completely bogus... .

Donny

Posted: July 17, 2009 3:49 PM

So if there are little to no cases prosecuted on the existing laws, then there is clearly no need for a federal law. Crime-doers are already punished for their misdeeds. Furthermore, the whole Act is predicated on a lie: that Shepard was killed simply because he was homosexual. The truth of the matter is that he was robbed and beaten by the son of a lesbian and another man. All crimes are based on contempt. Exalting groups for special treatment is not equal justice under the law. People convicted of crimes are going to be punished anyway. This Act is merely a morsel thrown to the homosexual legal agenda and its ravenous pressure groups who want to punish any opposition to homosexuality. It is a special favor to special interest groups from the kings of special interests -- the Democratic Party. Oppose this.

K Brown

Posted: July 17, 2009 3:32 PM


Christian Lawyer while attempting to to refute my point, actually helped me make it - that there are already laws on the books that do precisely what this bill is supposed to do. So where, then is the necessity for this particular piece of legislation? If there are already laws on the books that address this problem, why add another (apparently unnecessary) one?

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment