Free speech for some

But only if you’re considered ‘tolerant’. By groups with power and influence who don’t happen to tolerate views that are grounded in religious teaching and tradition.

What’s going on here?

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee will vote on a controversial legislation [this] week that seeks to add homosexual and transgender people to the list of classes federally protected from hate crimes.

H.R. 1913, named the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009, is expected to be passed by the committee [this] week and come to the House floor for a vote in the spring, announced Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the original co-sponsor of the bill and an openly gay member of Congress, on his website.

This has been tried before, though surreptitiously.

An identical legislation (H.R. 1592) was passed by the U.S. House in 2007. The Senate later attached the hate crimes legislation to a high-priority defense spending bill, which included funding for the Iraq War, in a political maneuver to pressure former president George W. Bush to pass the amendment.

But Bush said the spending bill and the hate crime legislation were two separate issues and vetoed the bill including the legislation.

These things need to stand alone and have a fair hearing, on their own merits, with full ‘daylight’ for public comment.

The hate crimes measure seeks to add violence against individuals based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability to the list of federal hate crimes. Current federal law covers crimes committed on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. If passed, the federal government would be more involved and have greater power to investigate alleged hate crimes.

This thing is rife with potential for abuse in its application. Especially against clergy.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:
 
“The idea of being prosecuted for reading Scripture may seem delirious, but it is just as crazy to think it couldn’t happen. Consider the facts. When this bill was being considered in 2007, Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas asked Alabama Rep. Art Davis (his amendment is in the bill) the following question: ‘If a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and a woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?’ Davis, who supports the bill, replied, ‘No.’
 
“In other words, if a deranged person hears a priest, minister or rabbi quote Leviticus 18:22, ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination,’ and he then proceeds to assault a homosexual at a gay event—telling the arresting officer he was just following through on what he heard in his house of worship—the clergyman could arguably be charged with a hate crime. The very prospect of something like this happening should be enough to make any reasonable person wonder what is going on.
 
“The problem in general with hate crimes legislation is that it invites the government to probe way beyond motive. And in instances like this, it trespasses on free speech and religious liberty. This is a road no defender of liberty should ever want to go down.”

There’s precedent for these warnings.

“All freedom loving Americans must voice their opposition to this bill,” said Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. “If this bill passes it lays the foundation for censoring Christians. In other countries, Like in Canada and Sweden, where these types of hate crime laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been jailed and fined for their faithful adherence to the biblical values.”

And by the way, what is a hate crime?

What makes a “hate crime” different from other crimes? The proposed “hate crime” legislation seeks to judge the “evil” of a crime based on who committed the crime and who was the victim, rather than the nature of the crime itself. This divides people in to classes of those protected under hate crime law and those who are not. These “classes” will be based on categories such as race, sexual orientation or maybe even religion.

But only certain members of certain religions?

Not only are these protected species of people able to have a different legal standing than the unprotected species, they will also become eligible to receive assistance based on who they are rather than based on their need. Does this sound fair? Does this sound like equality?