Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Political Issues
Results so far:
| Yes | 37% | 176 votes | Total: 470 votes | |
| No | 63% | 294 votes |
Yes
Created on: October 13, 2009 Last Updated: October 18, 2009
The 2010 Defense Authorization Bill was successful in the House, passing by 281 to 146. Hiding beneath the heavy weight of debate on various defense topics was the new hate crimes bill that targets sexual behavior specifically. The bill adds violence against any person based on disability, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation to those acts defined as hate crimes.
The bill goes to the Senate, possibly this week and if it passes, it will authorize $5 million for fiscal years 2010-11 for Justice Department grants of up to $100,000 to state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials so that they are able to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. As of now, the Senate has given the thumbs up for the attachment. The President promises that if it passes through the Senate, he will sign it into law.
"Hate crimes legislation ... would elevate homosexuals who are victims of violent crimes to special, protected status under the law based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." - Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
Many pastors are growing tense on this move because they fear that their first amendment rights will not be protected. A pastor's job is to preach and teach others about scriptural topics, homosexuality is one addressed in scripture multiple times and thus it must be covered. The fear is, like with gay marriage, that if a pastor speaks about what their denomination or even simple personal conviction tells them the scriptures mean, that they will be prosecuted under the law that is been referred to as "thought crime" legislation.
"This measure is about giving special rights based solely on sexual behavior. All of our citizens deserve equal justice under the law. Do we somehow care less about victims violently assaulted in the act of robbery or during a personal dispute than we do about those assaulted because they belong in a federally designated, politically motivated category." - Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council
Another part of the fears held by those opposing the bill is that their rights are going to be hanging on a law enforcement officials opinion. Let's imagine you get in a heated discussion with someone who just so happens to be on this list of new additions. One thing leads to another and it becomes physical and they call the police. Now, you are left to fend for yourself because all any person has to say is that you were trying to hurt them because they are gay or because they are trans-gender.
This leaves it a situation where your word is being pitted against theirs. If you are openly a Christian and it is known by the officer or witnesses, you may be pegged a hater.
Most Christians already are labeled "homo-phobes" regardless of their actual comfort level with that people group. An officer has to use his opinion of the scene to figure out what to write in the report, and whatever he decides, sticks until you have gone through a rigorous court battle to prove your innocence. How can one prove his true opinions in court?
All you would be able to do would be to present character witnesses which won't hold up necessarily against "evidence" submitted by the police officer. Most lawyers will tell you that your opinions really don't stand as evidence to prove your innocence. Thus an entire people group is put at risk of their rights being violated.
Senator McCain addressed the issue on the floor in the Senate saying that it would be "absolutely wrong" to treat crimes that are identical in nature differently based on the police officer or prosecutor's determination of a persons' political, philosophical, or religious beliefs.
Another argument being presented is that it is wrong to make a special category that separates these hate crimes and gives more rigorous punishments for offenders. They feel it places more value on people who fall victim to hate crimes than others who don't fall under this legislation. Many feel that this is giving preferential treatment to a specific people group that is based on politics.
Many are contending that it is just the beginning of "slippery slope" and that we will be barring religions from preaching anything that is considered "hateful" by someone.
While the fears of most have been respected and addressed by those in the house and senate, the fears will not go away. There is little proof that just because a bill is written with a certain intention, that it will ultimately fulfill that intention. The fact of the matter is that this addition is unnecessary because hate crimes should already be prosecuted under the protection that every American receives equally through the constitution.
However the Christians who don't share the opinion that the lifestyle is acceptable, will be losing their first amendment right to speak freely of their religious beliefs as long as they don't try to slander, libel, or physically assault anyone because of their lifestyle.
This law would make it so that somewhere down the road, it would be possible for anyone to say that a person who is preaching a sermon, speaking, blogging, or otherwise sharing their view point, to be accused and convicted of spreading hate, thus becoming a hate crime.
Few of the bills supports or adversaries believe that it will be used this way immediately, however, the protection of all parties, long term, should be the ultimate goal. Fear will always be an issue in this world because we are all human. Our rights and freedoms are a gift and in this country we must face that we will always find conflict between beliefs, feelings, and lifestyles. As Americans and followers of whatever it is we believe in, we must unite to find a common ground of love.
As far as Christianity is concerned, God said they will know us by our love. If we aren't willing to love people enough to protect them from violence, regardless of their sin, then we are leaving them at the side of the road, like the story of the travelers who saw the man lying in the ditch, bloody and dying from being mugged. God expects us to be like the Samaritan who picked him up and took care of him until he was better.
If we expect to see change, we must first outreach from our cozy little fortresses we call churches and bring in those who are lost. Then God will work with them, and change them. Scriptures also makes clear that we are not to force those of the world to follow our standards because the only reason we can do it or even truly be convicted that it's wrong and still love, is because of our daily relationship with Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Learn more about this author, Kathrine Mills.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Created on: March 10, 2010 Last Updated: March 11, 2010
'To help protect our citizens from violence on what they look like, who they love or how they pray'. {President Obama, 2010}
There is a massive difference between free speech and those that say the Hate Crimes Bill somehow violates their right to 'slur' people. Because let us be in no doubt that that is what this is all about, the right to slur and to slander people, whether it be because of their race, colour or creed. America has always been in a conundrum here when it comes to free speech.
On the one hand the country was built on free speech, people being able to say anything they wished to say without any comeback at all. But, as the years went on, America proved to the world that democracy within that land was only for some and not for all.
Where was democracy and free speech for the American Red Indians forced from their lands into what amounted to little more than concentration camps? Where was the democracy for African Americans who where ripped from their homeland to be sold as slaves, and also to work upon the plantations and cotton fields, an industry - along with the vile trade in human cargo {the Slave Trade} that made America rich?
Where was the democracy and free speech for those that happened to be gay? And where is the democracy and free speech that ALL peoples should have, and not just a chosen few? The only Rights that this Bill violates are the Rights of those that did not want the Bill to go through in the first place. And why would they not want that?
The answer to that is simple enough, they wanted to be able to continue to threaten, beat up, murder and maim innocent men, women and children based on their race, colour, religion or creed. They wanted free reign to be able to say and do anything they so wished to anyone who looked even remotely 'different'.
This Bill is a step in the right direction in terms of Human Rights in America. It has to be noted that this Bill does not, and will not prosecute people who spout racist, homophobic and religious hatred - and inflammatory rhetoric. This Bill only comes into play when violent acts are based on bias.
This is a pity, because racist and homophobic speeches nearly always lead to attacks on minorities. One has to remember that the gift of free speech comes at a cost, and the cost is the millions of lives that have been lost because of hateful speeches that groups such as the Klan and other American hate groups - such as the Neo-Nazis have spouted over the years.
It is the type of hateful free speech that ruled with an iron fist the Deep South, during those dark days of Apartheid and Segregation in America. It is the type of free speech that resulted in a black man {James Byrd Jnr} being tied to the back of a truck in Texas and dragged to his death until he was decapitated in a murder that shocked the world.
Or the type of hateful free speech in which Matthew Shepard, a young teenager who happened to be gay, was kidnapped and so severely beaten that he died of his injuries. Is this the type of democracy that has made America great? Is this the type of democracy that the world wants to see?
This Bill does not go far enough. Yes, people can have free speech and say whatever they want to say. But the bottom line is when that free speech talks of hatred against people for whatever reason, you can be sure that in the vast majority of cases, murder will follow.
Free speech comes at a price, and the price is the lives of those who are affected the most, by the vile attacks. The lives of people to be able to live without fear of being slaughtered, because of someones 'free speech' is of paramount importance.
If this Bill does violate free speech then so be it, because at the end of the day, it is so-called free speech that has seen black men and women hung from trees in the democracy that is America. It is so-called free speech that has seen gay men and women, cut down in their prime, beaten senseless in the 'democracy' that is America.
From the indigenous peoples {American Red Indians} that did not have any free speech at all, to other minority groups, the Hate Crimes Bill does not go anywhere near far enough in order to protect those that need protecting.
Learn more about this author, Wayne Leon Learmond.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.