Does the Hate Crimes Bill violate free speech rights?

Yes

1 of 17

by Kathrine Mills

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

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.