The New Hate Crimes Bill..Plan to remove Freedom of Religion

Paving the Way for Homosexuals to gain civil rights as a protected class

Published on June 28, 2007 By Moderateman In Current Events

Our government is a republic, and in a republic we elect men and women to represent us, {piss poor job that they do} in our legislative bodies and we elect executives to make sure that laws passed by the legislatures are carried out. If our laws are not upheld, anarchy would be the result.

We citizens vote and MOST of us are looking for honest and wise representatives who will RESPECT the consent of the GOVERNED. However it is becoming almost impossible to find these people with so many "self seekers" among those elected to high office.

Last May the Democratic run House passed a bill {Federal Hate Crimes} that mandates further penalties for crimes involving sexual orientation or gender identity. If it passes the Senate it will make Homosexuality and Gender Identity a civil rights issue.

I believe this is a very dangerous bill as it would have ramification on Religion, meaning if a pastor, priest, rabbi says from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin they could be tried for a hate crime.

Representative Lamar Smith {R TEXAS} said of this bill that " criminal killing a Homosexual will be treated more harshly that a criminal that kills a cop, or a child or a senior citizen or any other person" I believe all people should be treated equally under the eyes of the law.

The republicans offered 25 amendments to clarify and and improve the bill but were denied by the Democratic run house to even be heard.

Dan Lundgren {R CALIFORNIA} asked for further clarification of gender identity, the Democrats refused to discuss it.

Randy Forbes {R VIRGINIA} said that "our military is being attacked in America, being spit on and beaten, in several areas are told not to wear their uniforms while on pass or leave" He wanted to include the military in this hate crimes bill, once again the Democrats refused to discuss it. So much for "looking out and supporting out men and women in uniform huh?"

Other Republican representatives wanted to add senior citizens to this bill, once again the Democrats refused to discuss it. So much for the Liberals taking care of "out honored old folk"

Other Republicans wanted to add pregnant women to the bill, Once again the Democrats that have no problem with murdering children in the womb would not allow discussion about protecting the expectant mothers.

Representative Mike Pence {R INDIANA} presented an important amendment about freedom of religion, concerned about the possibility of religious folk being tried for hate crimes by being faithful to their religion and espousing that homosexuality is a sin, again denied By the Democrats.

Rev. Lou Sheldon head of the Traditional Values Coalition {who was present at the bills vote} said " By refusing to accept any of these amendments the Democrats have Proven their purpose of removing freedom of religion from the constitution. I heartily Agree.

AS Thomas Jefferson once warned "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." We need to remember his words and see that laws passed by our representative are fair to everyone.

Comments (Page 2)

Moderateman

on Jun 29, 2007

Reply By: LocamamaPosted: Thursday, June 28, 2007
that is your idea of fair right?

no, it gives added federal financial support to local law enforcement. It doesn't mean that other violent crimes will not continue to be prosecuted.

yes but not prosecuted the same way or with the same penalities. Now do not be dense Amy I knowe better.

Moderateman

on Jun 29, 2007

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Friday, June 29, 2007
The Philadelphia Eleven were later exonerated of all charges.

WWW Link

ah but if this federal bill passes they just might not.

Dr Guy

on Jun 29, 2007

ah but if this federal bill passes they just might not.

Exonerated or not, Lawyers do not work Pro Bono. Their speech was curtailed by the arrest and the cost of defending themselves against what essentially is a violation of the First Amendment.

The law is still on the books, has been used, and may well be used again. My point was in contradicting Stillkoontz's arguement that it was a "jump" to assume it would be used that way, when in fact it already had been.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 29, 2007

Just another example of passing more laws instead of enforcing those already on the books. Last I checked, assault and battery is already illegal, why pass laws making it More Illegal in certain circumstances?

Cikomyr

on Jun 29, 2007

There is the possibility that is some area of America, assaulting an homosexual, while illegal, is not considered immoral by the majority. Homosexualy, while legal, is considered immoral by the majority.

Which means that if someone assaulting an homosexual is tried by a jury of his peers, he has a lot more chance to get out of the loop. Religious group could pressure the jury into findind the smallest technicality to allow the assaulter walk away scott free, just like white people who killed black were allowed in the past.

The bill do not protect pregnant woman, cops, eldery or the military because in no region of america is it somewhat morally acceptable to assault one of these group. So, if someone assault a pregnant woman, I can't see any pressure group pushing for the freedom of the attacker.

I can't say the same about homosexual. Some of them really live a dangerous live just by being what they are. Not because they are gay, but because the society around them won't accept what they are, and find acceptance in violently harrassing them.

You just want to bash the Dems.

Dr Guy

on Jun 29, 2007

Which means that if someone assaulting an homosexual is tried by a jury of his peers, he has a lot more chance to get out of the loop. Religious group could pressure the jury into findind the smallest technicality to allow the assaulter walk away scott free, just like white people who killed black were allowed in the past.

If there is a predisposition to allow a perpertrator to walk, slapping on additional charges are not going to change their minds.

And it is not a question of "wanting" to bash dems. It is the unavoidable way they set themselves up for it.

Cikomyr

on Jun 29, 2007

If there is a predisposition to allow a perpertrator to walk, slapping on additional charges are not going to change their minds.

Some predisposition are open to interpretation. Slapping more charges on such perpretor will justly make it less likely that a population brainwashed by itolerance against homosexual won't allow someone to get out unpunished.

Hell, these supplemental charges may even completely remove any way out of jail because of biaised support from the jury.

And I think it's a pretty coureageous thing they do, the Dems. They really want to protect an oppressed minority that tries to live in many area where their lives are threathened, and leave themselves open to vicious attack such as this blog in the process. Because people won't try to see the reason behind the bill.

Moderateman

on Jun 29, 2007

(Citizen)Dr GuyJune 29, 2007 10:57:03

ah but if this federal bill passes they just might not.

Exonerated or not, Lawyers do not work Pro Bono. Their speech was curtailed by the arrest and the cost of defending themselves against what essentially is a violation of the First Amendment.
The law is still on the books, has been used, and may well be used again. My point was in contradicting Stillkoontz's arguement that it was a "jump" to assume it would be used that way, when in fact it already had been.

And Imagine the cost of fighting this in the Federal court system.

Dr Guy

on Jun 29, 2007

If they are going to let them walk in the first place due to percieved biases, telling them it was "a hate" crime, since they are already biased against the victims, is not going to sway them.

Reverse the field. If someone were brought up on charges for defending a gay person from attack, and that person was then charged with an additional hate crime, would you vote to convict them?

And courage is not defined by trampling on the Bill or rights. If that were so, Napolean and Snowball (along with Stalin and Lenin) would be the most courageous individuals that ever lived. (or existed in a work of fiction).

Moderateman

on Jun 29, 2007

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, June 29, 2007
Just another example of passing more laws instead of enforcing those already on the books. Last I checked, assault and battery is already illegal, why pass laws making it More Illegal in certain circumstances?

I do not know and My letters and e-mails to big bucks Diane Finestein and Barbara Boxer about this have gone unanswered.

Moderateman

on Jun 29, 2007

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Friday, June 29, 2007
There is the possibility that is some area of America, assaulting an homosexual, while illegal, is not considered immoral by the majority. Homosexualy, while legal, is considered immoral by the majority.

Which means that if someone assaulting an homosexual is tried by a jury of his peers, he has a lot more chance to get out of the loop. Religious group could pressure the jury into findind the smallest technicality to allow the assaulter walk away scott free, just like white people who killed black were allowed in the past.

The bill do not protect pregnant woman, cops, eldery or the military because in no region of america is it somewhat morally acceptable to assault one of these group. So, if someone assault a pregnant woman, I can't see any pressure group pushing for the freedom of the attacker.

I can't say the same about homosexual. Some of them really live a dangerous live just by being what they are. Not because they are gay, but because the society around them won't accept what they are, and find acceptance in violently harrassing them.

You just want to bash the Dems.

that's a whole lot of supposition. but maybe you might want to gamble YOUR FREEDOM on the off chnnce of getting a jury that thinks like you do.

On me bashing the Democrats.. There own behavior Much like Bush and Cheneys behavior condemns themselves.

Cikomyr

on Jun 29, 2007

If they are going to let them walk in the first place due to percieved biases, telling them it was "a hate" crime, since they are already biased against the victims, is not going to sway them.

No, but it can lock the defendant of such hate crime into an undefendable position. The prosecution could have more ground for appeal, if they think the offendant was judged unfairly by his peers.

Reverse the field. If someone were brought up on charges for defending a gay person from attack, and that person was then charged with an additional hate crime, would you vote to convict them?

I am not sure I understand the question. But that is because of my less-than-perfect mastery of english, I'm sorry. Can you rephrase? (no sarcasm intended)

And courage is not defined by trampling on the Bill or rights. If that were so, Napolean and Snowball (along with Stalin and Lenin) would be the most courageous individuals that ever lived. (or existed in a work of fiction).

Trampling it in a legal, un-dictatorial way? Yhea, it takes courage. And Napoleon and Snowball (who's Snowball..?), Stalin included, simply took over a whole government.

Cikomyr

on Jun 29, 2007

that's a whole lot of supposition. but maybe you might want to gamble YOUR FREEDOM on the off chnnce of getting a jury that thinks like you do.

If you are going to by tried in your community, sourrounded by the people who goes to the same church than you, and hear the same speeches about how Homosexuality is a sin, a deviance..

Than I think you didn't had much to gamble.

Not to forget the policemen who turn a blind eye to violence against gays.

Dr Guy

on Jun 29, 2007

The prosecution could have more ground for appeal, if they think the offendant was judged unfairly by his peers.

The prosecution cannot appeal. It is called double jeopardy and is another one of those nasty amendments in the bill of rights.

I am not sure I understand the question. But that is because of my less-than-perfect mastery of english, I'm sorry. Can you rephrase? (no sarcasm intended)

The defendant is accused of defending a person because he was gay (think of a country where they do not have rights). The government then says "besides beating up this attacker attacking a non-person, he is clearly showing a hatred for those who do not like gay people, and therefore we are charging him with a hate crime".

Given that you think Gay people are people too, and that the defendant had every right to defend the gay person, would you then vote to convict him on the hate crime alone?

I tend to think not. If you are not going to convict someone of the real crime, you are not going to convict them because of an additional charge that in essence says "I dont like the victim".

Dr Guy

on Jun 29, 2007

And Napoleon and Snowball (who's Snowball..?),

Animal farm.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!