But conservative Christian groups, who've led the charge against expanding the federal hate crimes law since the mid-1990s, are stepping up warnings that the bill threatens religious liberties, including the freedom of clergy to condemn homosexuality. "What you say from the pulpit could literally become illegal," the Family Research Council wrote in a recent letter to pastors. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund has received more calls and E-mails on what the hate crimes bill means for pastors than on any other issue in recent months.
As religious conservatives mount a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, however, legal experts say the legislation narrowly focuses on violent acts and that pastors' speech remains protected by the First Amendment. And some religious activists acknowledge that they're less concerned about the immediate effects of expanding hate crimes protections than about the broader message it sends. "This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans—that homosexuality is sinful," says Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "It's more of a slippery slope argument than about the law itself."
According to the FBI, 16 percent of the roughly 9,000 hate crimes committed in 2007, the most recent year for which statistics are available, targeted the LGBT community. The two more common types of bias-motivated crimes, those based on race and religion, are already covered by the federal hate crimes law, adopted in 1968.
Expanding the law would authorize the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute violent crimes whose victims were allegedly chosen because of their sexual orientation in state or local jurisdictions unable or unwilling to do so. The bill moving through Congress also adds women and the disabled to the list of those covered by the law. Advocates say hate crimes laws are necessary because bias-motivated crimes terrorize entire communities.
But religious conservatives say that all crimes are motivated by hate and that gay victims shouldn't be accorded special status. Religious liberties are a much bigger concern. "When you have pastors being called to testify about what they taught or preached to a person convicted of a hate crime, that's going to send a shock wave through the religious community," says Stanley. "It will lead to a chill on speech and free exercise of religion as it relates to homosexual behavior."
Legal experts note that under the hate crimes bill, a person's religious beliefs about homosexuality become relevant only once he or she is accused of a violent crime against someone from the LGBT community. The bill prohibits a defendant's religious expressions and associations from being introduced as substantive evidence at trial, though the information can be used to help determine whether the defendant was motivated by bias. "Your penalty is being enhanced because of your religious beliefs," says Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School. "But you're being prosecuted for the crime."
Proponents of an expanded hate crimes law say religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny if they lead to violence. "Even the strongest proponents of religious freedom do not claim that religious liberty means the right to beat people up," says Prof. Andrew Koppelman of the Northwestern University School of Law.
Conservative religious activists, meanwhile, point to recent developments in Australia, Canada, and Sweden, where religious conservatives have been penalized for so-called hate speech, even where such speech did not lead to violence. But legal scholars note that those countries lack the robust free speech protections of the First Amendment. And even opponents of expanding the hate crimes law acknowledge that statutes widely adopted by individual states have not resulted in litigation over religious liberty or free speech violations—though many cover the LGBT community.
"If somebody had been prosecuted simply for speech, we would have heard about it by now," says Laycock.
Religious conservatives say they'll continue their long-shot effort as part of a broader strategy to stymie the gay rights movement. "Homosexual groups are not going to be satisfied with hate crimes, so this is just a down payment for them from the Democrats," says Tom McClusky, vice president of Family Research Council Action. "Maybe 'don't ask, don't tell' will come next year." Gay rights advocates, of course, hope he's right.
BAPTIST PRESS
by Kelly Boggs
One reason I am chewing my cabbage twice, as it were, is to ensure the details of the situation are conveyed correctly. Another is to stress the serious nature of the prosecution taking place in the City of Brotherly Love.
In October, 11 members of Repent America were arrested while demonstrating during OutFest, a public celebration of homosexuality held annually in Philadelphia. Charges against six of the protestors have been dropped.
As it stands now, four of the demonstrators have been charged with eight crimes. If convicted, each of what has been dubbed the "Philadelphia Four" could receive a sentence of up to 47 years in prison. A fifth person, a teenage demonstrator, may be dealt with via the juvenile justice system.
Of the crimes the four are charged with, the most troubling are possession of instruments of crime and ethnic intimidation.
Video of the demonstration, captured by documentary filmmakers from San Francisco, reveals that members of Repent America had in their possession Bibles, a bullhorn and signs. The most prominent message conveyed via the signs was: "Homosexuality Is Sin, Christ Can Set You Free."
How do Bibles, a bullhorn and signs constitute instruments of crime? From what I viewed the Bibles were not thrown, the bullhorn was not used to convey threats and the signs were not used as clubs. What rationale did the district attorney use in charging Repent America with possession of instruments of crime?
According to the Internet news site WorldNetDaily, the DA characterized Repent America's preaching and signs as "hateful, disgusting, despicable words," that constituted "fighting words."
Fighting words -- which are not protected by the First Amendment -- are understood as speech that is abusive and threatening, delivered in person, with the intent of inciting violence toward a specific individual or group.
I am quite certain that those attending OutFest found the message of Repent America offensive. I am equally sure they found the signs irritating and insulting. However, for the DA to describe messages from the Bible -- displayed on signs -- as fighting words, thus rendering them instruments of crime, is outrageous.
The First Amendment does not shield from offense, insult and irritation. In fact, the opposite is true. "Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word," observed Secretary of State Colin Powell. To live in America is to risk exposure to words and ideas that offend, insult and irritate.
While I do not endorse the tactics of Repent America, they -- like any other group -- have the right to express their beliefs in public. As long as the demonstration is peaceful and absent of violence and the threat of violence, almost any message can be conveyed.
Pennsylvania, like many other states, has hate crime legislation that places offenses committed against members of specific groups into a special category. In 2002, legislators in the Keystone State added an individual's "actual or perceived sexual orientation" and "gender or gender identity" to the list that deserves special attention under the law.
According to the Philadelphia District Attorney, a biblical message that homosexuality is sin and that change is possible constitutes a hate crime. A simple message delivered in a calm and non-threatening manner, by 11 people, is so pernicious that it constitutes "ethnic intimidation."
If the four members of Repent America are convicted of the aforementioned charges, it will set a precedent with consequences that will be far-reaching.
If the Philadelphia DA is successful, what will prevent someone from accusing a pastor of a hate crime for preaching that homosexuality is a sin? It can be argued that a church is quasi public space. After all, everyone is invited and welcome to attend.
The charge that some churches preach hate already is occurring. Soulforce, a homosexual advocacy group, routinely protests the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, accusing member churches of committing "spiritual violence" against homosexuals.
Criminal charges will not even have to be filed. All an enterprising homosexual group will have to do is file a lawsuit against a church, charging civil rights violations because of a congregation's "message of hate." Most churches are small and would be hard pressed to fund an adequate defense.
It is time for Christians to unite in the defense of truth. While Repent America is being singled out for prosecution today, it could be your pastor and your church tomorrow.
--------------------
Kelly Boggs is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Ore. His column appears each Friday in Baptist Press.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.17/2242 - Release Date: 07/16/09 18:00:00
Posts
"Hate Bill" Favoritism
ReplyDeleteIf "hate bill"-obsessed Congress can't protect Christians from "gays" as much as it wants to protect "gays" from Christians, will Congress be surprised if it can't protect itself from most everyone? If "hate bills" are forced on captive Americans, they'll still find ways to sneakily continue to "plant" Biblical messages everywhere. By doing so they'll hasten God's judgment on their oppressors as revealed in Proverbs 19:1. (See related web items including "David Letterman's Hate, Etc.," "Separation of Raunch and State," "Michael the Narc-Angel," and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.") Since Congress can't seem to legislate "morality," it's making up for it by legislating "immorality"!