I've heard and read this claim repeatedly in recent years, including from several people here on myLot - the "hate crime" legislation supported by Democrats including Presidential nominee Barack Obama would silence pastors from speaking out against homosexuality in their sermons. I've never agreed with this opinion and I certainly wouldn't be in favor of any legislation that would do that regardless of my personal opinions on the subject. We still have free speech in this country and I'll defend that right until the day I die whether I agree with what is said or not! On the other hand, certainly if a pastor or anyone else were to incite people to go out and commit violent acts against homosexuals or any other group of people, that would be a whole different story, but that isn't what any hate crime legislation I've heard of is about. here's what Snopes has to say about it:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/hatecrime.asp
Let's discuss it in a civil manner, if possible. What do you think, do you really believe a law against hate crimes which includes homosexuality would silence pastors?
Annie
[question posted by anniepa]responses and comments:
Well, the next thing you know they will make preaching the 10 commandments a hate crime because Polititians want to sleep with their aides and secretaries. And they may want to skim a little off the top of their campaign contributions and that would definitely be a hate crime to preach against that. Of course, they may want to sleep with a constituants spouse on the campaign trail too, you have to take that into consideration. Yeah you have to cover all bases with those nasty preachers and their hate crimes. Being Jewish I am very sensitive to things said from pulpits and podiums. I know the power weilded in these places. I know that some preachers are trying to just read from "the good book" and interpret it the way they think is right. As long as that is all they are doing I do not think the Government has the right to step in and stop them, just like they do not have the right to stop the Gay rights marches and speachs from their podiums. If, however, these preachers are in any way inciting folks to "DO" anything about what the preacher is saying, then LOCK THEM UP and throw away the key. No one has the right to harm or invade the space of another in the name of religion or G'd! No one! No one has the right to force their beliefs onto another person! No one! Shalom~Adoniah [Adoniah]
I don't think it would. They feel it too strongly. I wouldn't agree with that legislation either. Even though you know I think their doing that is so wrong. .it's their church. Wouldn't it going so far as to preach outright violence towards another be a crime of another kind anyway? Some kind of aiding or abetting or inciting to or something? Hmm. [MoonlightSerenade]
Well I am simply against hate crime legislation. I think the punishment should fit the crime. I think the motivating factors in a crime should be taken into consideration during sentencing, but I think hate crime legislation violates equal rights since it gives special rights to people based on race and other factors. If someone commits a crime he should get the appropriate sentence regardless of the race of his victim. These days being opposed to hate crime legislation gets one accused of being racist. I remember all the slanderous ads run by the NAACP about George W. Bush for opposing hate crime legislation when they blamed him for the dragging death of a black man. The conveniently left out the fact that the murderers in that case got the death penalty. Would they have been fried twice if he had supported hate crimes? [Taskr36]
You addressed it but free speech doesn't apply when it is discriminatory to a group or a person. I don't think it would silence anyone with that kind of hatred. The laws in this country don't seem to deter people with crime in their minds and hate in their hearts. Unfortunately, I wish I could say hate crime legislation would be helpful but it wouldn't. It would still go on in those that are that narrow minded. [skinnychick]
Actually free speech does apply when it is discriminatory. At least it does here in the US. I know France will punish people for such things. If it didn't apply then people like Obama's pastor would be in jail for their speeches. The only exceptions to free speeches are those that could put someone in danger or violate the rights of others. Spouting hateful crap isn't illegal until you instruct people to do actual harm to others. [Taskr36]
In Canada, if someone says something against homosexuality, writes an article that homosexuality is a sin, and quotes Romans 1, talks of Sodom and Gomorrah, quotes those verses in Leviticus, they are considered guilty of a hate crime, because it is assumed that they may incite someone to violence against homosexuals even if it never happened. As for pastors, yes, it could happen but that is because our Human Rights Commission is one hundred percent fill of Christian hating, homosexual loving people and does not have a balance. A law against homosexuality would not silence pastors, because even if they were told not preach against it, they would do it, even if they were threatened with enormous fines, jail time, torture, or death. However I would not want to risk passing a law that says it is a hate crime if you kill someone who is a homosexual, and not a hate crime if you kill someone else. I figure that any crime is a hate crime. You hate that person who makes more money than you, you hate that guy who glared at you, you hate that successful person, you hate that man because he reminds you of that bully who beat you up as a kid, etc. So every crime is a hate crime. But if I someone killed a child in a horrific way, and also killed someone else and said he did it because he was a 'q*ueer' and the first person got ten years and the last got thirty years without parole, I would be very angry. [suspenseful]
Suspense, Site your source. You have made this claim many times but have yet to prove it. [cyntrow]
I don't think it would silence pastors and I'm not for silencing pastors in their own church. Once they get going they get going. [elmiko]
Hey anniepa, how's it going? No, I don't think that any hate crime legislation would prohibit ministers from preaching what they believe to be right as the freedom of speech is one of the basic rights of Americans. [TCampbell]
You know what? This is a case where separation of church and state may come into play. I have always been willing to die to defend this separation. No law will change some religions view on homosexuality.Fortunately there are branches of the same religions who accept homosexuals.Anyway, the main reason for the separation is that the government can't tell any religion what they can and can't believe.It is sad but there will always be some people who believe being gay is sinful. They are free to be this backward. What they can't do is attack a person they perceive to be gay.And if anyone, preacher or non preacher, provokes someone to hurt or kill someone just because of who they are, the person is breaking the law.But to tell any religion what to preach is a violation of the separation of church and state.It works both ways. If we have the freedom of religion, meaning that the government can't tell us which church we must go to, then the government can't tell any religion what they must believe. [sarahruthbeth22]
That's exactly how I see it - minister or pastor should be able to preach anything as long as it's not actually provoking or inciting harm to someone. I don't agree with their beliefs about homosexuals but they still have the right to call them sinners, say it's wrong, say they're going to he11 if they want to but when it crosses the line over to being a "hate crime" is if the minister says something to the effect that "God wants you to kill them". Since there's always the chance some nutcase will be listening, that should be illegal, in my opinion. Annie [anniepa]
I think homosexuals should be left alone to do what they please. But a law about it is too much over. We don't have those here in our country. Homosexuals roam free here. [p3halliwel2005]
I agree that restricting the someones freedom of speech isn't a good thing at all, we all need to remember that churches are tax-exempt, and that saves them alot of money. Just like many feel that we shouldn't have tax payer dollars funding abortions, we shouldn't have taxpayer dollars supporting hate speech in any form. I do think a hate crime law should include homosexuals, and it is well known that some pastors do use their churches to promote their anti-homosexuality feelings. I wouldn't want to tell pastors how to do their job, but if you are going to use hate speech, then you should lose your tax-exempt status. I think that is far. [toledomark1975]
I could not feel comfortable calling God the creator of heaven and earth backwards. The whole matter of homosexuality we would know nothing much about had God not himself judged this whole matter centuries ago. Had God the creator not taken the first snap shot of what a real marriage was to look like their in the garden of Eden,we would not even know what marriage was. But God in his goodness joined together a man and woman in the garden of Eden,so we do know the perfect will of God is for a marriage to be between a male and female. The matter of two men or two women engaged in sex/marriage, God calls and abomination. In regard to ministers standing upon the word of God calling homosexuality a sin,according to God it is a sin. In my opinion if a minister is quoting the Holy scriptures,say on the subject of homosexuality how can people consider this as a hate crime? In my opinion tax payers should not be force to pay for sinful behavior such as homosexuality and abortion. God's ten commandment found in his Holy word,plainly says "Thou Shall Not Kill",people can cut it any way they want,the bottom line abortion comes down to taking a human life. The government takes hard earned tax payers dollars to murder sleeping infants with in it's mother womb,matter a fact in the United States this is done possibly a million times a year,if not even more times a year. As a Christian I deeply resent my tax dollars being used to murder innocent unborn children,but the government gives me no choice,with that said God knows I'm not guilty of murdering innocent sleeping infants with in their mothers womb. People that claim they are Christians support and vote for abortion,I guess it don't matter to these people that the God they say they love and serve has told them they are not to kill. God,goes on to say "If ye love me keep my commandments. Christians that are true Christians will be found obeying the ten Holy commandments of God. I really think any one that has a arugment with either homosexuality or abortion needs to take it up with God,being God has spoke on both of these grave matters condemning both a very long time ago. Far as any government arresting ministers any where for preaching God's truth,these things was done back in Paul's days,as Paul spend much time behind stone prison walls for preaching Christ and the Holy law of God,so as Solomon tells us there is nothing new under the sun. Millions of Americans have complains about our government. Rightfully so as we most know our government is not a Bible based organization. Take for instances what has happen to the smokers in this country. If you missed it this week on the news employers are beginning to adopt a new by law, employees that smoke cigarettes outside of their place of employment,can be fired. Smokers can not smoke on their lunch hour,at home over the week end and at no time period. The smoker has been targeted for a number of years. Smokers have laid down and acted like they are already dead. Did you caught on film Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drinking ice cold beer or enjoying a mixed drink while out on the campaign trail awhile back. In this government it appears to me drinking is favorable behavior but smoking is considered a crime. Just to portray how loop sided this is take the person that stops after work at the local bar and has six drinks. Then take the person that has six cigarettes after work,which of these two people have the higher risk of driving to their home and not making it alive or killing another person on the way? I'm not implying either drinking or smoke is a good thing for any one. The point is people in high places like their booze so of course they would not pass a law that will surely effect their personal choice. This thing about slapping a gag order on pastors,minister is only one more way to stifle the Holy word of God. The liberals have taken Christ out of Christmas,the meaning of Christmas removed from the windows at the local mall,our schools and the list is just endless. They claim it is to not upset people that don't believe in the Lord. The American people lay down and play dead as the few move everything decent and good right out the back door,they call good bad and bad good. In the event of Barack Obama being a twenty year plus supportive and active member of the Trinity church which is very well known for anti-government preaching,no church should be preaching on the level as this church has for many years. This breeds bitterness and hate and just the opposite reason most people go to church. Preaching against same sex marriage or murder is not preaching either hate or bitterness but God's truth. In my opinion I don't think anti-government churches should be allowed to preach pure hate but they do have protection under our laws of free speech. This in no way makes it right but churches such as the Trinity church understand they can get away with all they have gotten away with over the years cause this is American. I would think Chicago has enough blood running it it's streets and surely dose not need a bitter and hate fill church spreading even more bitterness and hate against any one. In our once beloved nation where honey and milk did flow is not our country today, the people have turned their faces from God,and because of this we live in grave fear of every kind,danger for our wifes,husbands,children,parents,grand parents,non are safe sleeping in their own bed at night. Presently we see the wealthy of the American people being sucked up as fast as they can make. Some think one man is going to make a different in their daily life's,won't even come close to happening, to little and it's way to late,time to pay the piper. The people that stand up boldly for the Holy word of God will be commended by the Godless and so it will be until the end comes. [kennyrose]
I do not believe that any hate crime law will ever silence hate mongers period Annie. Hate is alive and well in America and the world and we will all have to deal with it and I feel in a big way very soon. [OceanTiara]
You are right. It only applies if they incite people to do harm to persons in the "hated" group. And there have been cases of that. There are the people who blow up abortion clinics, kill doctors who perform abortions because of hate filled rhetoric. There is a difference between hating a behavior and hating the persons who behave that way. I don't think preachers should be preaching hate, no matter what they think of the sin. Love the sinner. We can disagree with ideas but I don't think we can actually hate an idea. We can disagree with it, even see it as unpleasant. But love and hate are emotions that are about persons. My two cents worth. happy [youdontsay]
I totally agree with you and thank you for pointing out the difference between those two. As I said before, I am agnostic, but I do know a little about the Bible and doesn't it say "Love thy neighbor?" That being said, according to the bible homosexuality is a sin but would God want people to speak out hatefully about it? Isn't he supposed to be the one who judges? However, the government has no place to intercede there either. People mistakenly think that they have power that they really don't and/or shouldn't have. [zhuuraan]
If the religious book that the people study from frowns upon something, such as homosexuality, legislation shouldnt be able to stop that. I thought we had separation of church and state? If you dont agree with what a church is saying, go to a different one! The church has freedom of speech and has the right to say what they want. [cobracar]
That's my point, they'll still have that right as long as they're not telling their congregation to go and kill or beat somebody. Frankly, I think it's wrong to do that no matter who you are. Annie [anniepa]
Well since the "rumor" of said legislation is based on a falsehood we have nothing to worry about. A paster in his own church may say anything he likes. He may interprete the Bible in any way that he chooses, rightly or wrongly. When he is in his church preaching to his congregation he is in his house and what he says there is his and his "families" business. If he uses his position of authority, his position as head of his house to incite violence against others, whether based upon gender, race, orientation or anything else then he must be held responsible for his actions. While I understand others views on Hate Crimes I hold a different view. I am a supporter of "special" sentencing for Hate Crimes. I believe strongly that where the special circumstance exists there needs to be available option for added punishment / determent. As a victim of a Hate Crime I know how powerful this issue is to victims and their families, what long lasting affect a Hate Crime has. In my opinion there needs to be equally long lasting punishment. [lvaldean]
What exactly is a hate crime? Isn't some element of hate involved in every crime?Can I be the referee to decide what speech is "hate speech"?Free speech is one of the bulwarks of our society and should not be infringed upon by legislators, judges or anyone else.If someone doesn't like what they hear,they can always walk away.Public opinion does a very good job of regulating outrageous speech.These idiots (politicians) always go for the low hanging fruit and let the real problems slide. [john_galt44]
It is not speech but thought that is criminalized. I went into more detail in my own response, but basically if you treat a crime differently depending on what the criminal was thinking, then you would say that the common part of the punishment is for the crime itself and the additional punishment levied by the hate crime legislation is for the thought behind the crime. When it comes to giving gifts, it is the thought that counts. When it comes to punishing crime, it is not permissible for the though to be considered. [tizzo692]
I hadn't heard this before, and I couldn't imagine a pastor being prosecuted for what he says from the pulpit -- at least not today. The problem with hate crime legislation is that it opens the door. Hate crime legislation, in case you are not aware, is legislation that causes an act that is already a crime (usually violence) to be treated differently (usually more harshly) if it was committed in the name of hate (IE committed against a certain minority group by someone with a suspected bias against that minority group) than it would be otherwise. For example, if you kill someone because they black, you would get a more severe sentence than if you killed someone because they witnessed you committing some other crime. As such, it is legislation that punishes thought and feeling rather than deed, which is a clear violation of the constitution. With precedent being held as the highest of judicial standards these days, all it takes is one such law to be challenged and allowed to stand, and it could then be considered to override the US Constitution. And that, I suspect, is where the paranoid (or maybe not so paranoid) might see the danger. It isn't that hate crime legislation itself would be used against pastors or others exercising free speech. It is that the precedent set by allowing hate crime legislation to stand would open the door for additional legislation that could be used against other exercises of free speech. So, for example, you pass a hate crime law that says you get a harsher punishment for assaulting a black person if you are doing so because you're prejudiced against that person. The law is challenged as unconstitutional, but is upheld by the judicial system. A couple of years later a new law is passed saying that not only physical criminal activity is illegal, but so is incitement, as long as it is done in the name of hate or bigotry. That law is also challenged, but on the basis of the first law being deemed constitutional, it is also upheld. The argument would be that it isn't possible for the first law to be constitutional and the second law to be unconstitutional, because the first law by differentiating between a hate crime and non hate crime specifically criminalizes certain thoughts, and by upholding the law the judicial system opened the door for additional laws criminalizing thoughts. The free speech of those inciting is not being infringed because they're not being punished for their speech, but their thoughts -- their speech is simply the evidence of their illegal thoughts. Anyway, I don't know where the people you referred to are coming from for sure, but the above is plausible. What I do know for certain is that hate crime legislation criminalizes thought, and as such is not permissible under the US Constitution. The thought that is criminalized is repugnant to be sure, but the government is not permitted to punish it. [tizzo692]
Yes, Annie, that makes sense. But hate crime legislation isn't about speech, whether it rises to the definition of incitement or not. It refers exclusively to legislation that makes the penalty for acts that are already criminal more severe if the motivation for the crime is "hate". So you have to actually commit a crime in order to be punished under a hate crime law. The problem comes in because the penalty for the crime is dependent on the motivation. And that means that you're actually defining two different crimes with different penalties -- and which crime you're guilty of depends on your motivation. And that means that motivation is an element of the crime. And that means that thought is regulated. And there's no gray area there, the government is strictly prohibited from engaging in such behavior. I'll put my stick away now, since that horse isn't going to get any more dead. [tizzo692]
First off, I by no means support this bill. I do believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That being said, I don't think it should be a crime to say such things, but it is just plain rude and homosexuals shouldn't have to hear thenselves being trashed like that, especially because it is not exclusively in churches. There are times when religious representatives go to public places like parking lots and ramble their beliefs and I don't particularly like that. Obviously I can't do anything about that since they are expressing their freedom of speech, but they could at least have the respect and courtesy to restrict themselves to public speeches that do not demean other people. As for the bill passing stopping these people from speaking out, it may stop some but probably not most. It has been my experience that a lot of serious religious people will stop at nothing to spread the word of their faith. They would not care if jail time and fines were the punishment for voicing their thoughts. I am not Christian myself, or anything else. I am agnostic. But I do know that a lot of Christians I know believe strongly in spreading the word of God. Most of the people I know are courteous enough to only talk about that sort of thing if asked, so that they know the person wants to hear about it, and then they will open up and tell you anything you want to know, but for preachers, no law is going to stop them from answering their "calling." Sorry for the long response but you gave me a decent amount to say on this one. Thanks! I like discussions that make me think! [zhuuraan]
Thank YOU for a great response! First of all, the legislation in question at least on the surface does not make it a crime to speak one's mind. The law is against the actual acts of violence against someone from a particular group that is included in the hate crime legislation. As I understand it, the only way speech would apply would be if someone were to incite violence, for example if a pastor said straight out to his congregation to leave church and go beat or kill or gay person. I think that should be a crime whether it's said by a pastor about gays or by a store clerk about a rude customer. However, I do understand the point made by others who have said this kind of law could be interpreted differently by the courts. This is a fascinating and difficult topic, isn't it? Annie [anniepa]
First of all, most states already have hate crimes laws on the books. These laws specifically state that if a group or individual causes "physical harm" to an individual or group of individuals because of race, gender, religion, physical disability, or national origin, they are subject to harsher penalties. Sexual Orientataion is the only group that people are fighting to keep off the list and this is the excuse that they use. However, if we read the bill in it's entirety, it is ALWAYS stated that the bill is NOT to be used to infringe upon a person's right of free speech. This has actually been proven in GA and I will have to search for the link. I apologize for not having it on hand. But in this particular circumstance, a KKK leader held a rally, in which he spoke against black people. A couple of individuals in the group got riled up and went out and killed a black man. The state attempted to charge the leader with hate crimes. The charge was thrown out since the man had not told anyone to kill people. He just spoke how he felt about the group. The only people who ended up being convicted under hate crimes laws were the guys who actually killed the man. So, Fred Phelpps and his clan can continue to protest gay funerals because their hateful speech is protected. [cyntrow]
Cyn, I was hoping so much that you'd weight in on this and I'm so glad you did and you certainly didn't disappoint me. Thanks for your usual insightful and thoughtful response. Annie [anniepa]
What ever happened to freedom of speech? I may not like what they say, but if we want the right to say what we want, then we have to give that right to everyone else too. Not just the people we agree with. Too many people think there should be a law against offending people or voicing a view that is different from their own. There is not a law. Heck if there was no one would ever be able to say anything because SOMEONE would be offended by it. [lilwonders123]
I agree that hate crimes laws are not working. But that is no reason to keep one group off the list because of bigotry and then make a silly claim that it will keep preachers from preaching. The laws are not against speech of any kind. The laws are against doing physical harm to a person or group of people because of who they are. With these laws in place, Fred Phelpps can continue to hold signs saying "God hate's F@gs" but he cannot bomb a gay bar. And really, how do we know that it has not deterred people from committing these crimes? If a group of people were going to beat up a black man, who is to say that they wouldn't think twice if they knew their punishment would be worse? There have been no statistics, except FBI statistics that have shown that hate crimes in general have gone down. Could be coincidence. But hate crimes against the GLBT community have increased. since 2003 [cyntrow]
No, hate crime legislation would not silence pastors--or anyone for that matter--unless they plan to incite violence. I support hate crime legistlation because I remember the lessons of the Holocaust and the Civil Rights Movement here in the States. The Holocaust involved institutionalized, legalized bigotry against religious and ethnic minorities, the disabled, and gays and lesbians. By giving an extra layer of legal protection to such groups, I believe we help hold the line against this sort of behavior in our own country.
During the Civil Rights Movement, there were several instances where federal civil rights law trumped the willingness of local jurisdictions to ignore white-on-black crime. Federal civil rights legislation ensured that there were legal options for prosecution if bigotry rather justice prevailed on the local level. [LovesTravel]
In churches yes we do preach against homosexuality, that in the Bible it is described as a sin. But we also teach acceptance, love, and tolerance. Pastors are not telling parisioners that we should go out and harm or worse kill homosexuals. What we preach is nothing to that effect. We don't teach harming one another in fact we preach against such behavior! [rmuxagirl]
I dont think any pastor would have a problem with this, but I do see it being a problem for us. I mean we can't tell anyone who we like as far as the election goes. I think laws are starting to break the idea of seperation of church and state. [rmuxagirl]