Thinking About Thought Crimes: A Response to HRC

How would one know my thoughts? How would you prosecute me for my thoughts if you do not know them? Well I guess I would have to speak them first. Wait doesn't our US constitution protect us so we can speak freely? Then how can our lawmakers write a law to take that away? As a US born citizen I strongly disagree with though crimes. Can this happen? Yes it can and probably will. Can we stop it? Well God says if my people called by my name will repent (That is to turn from their wicked ways) and call my name, I will hear them. Our only hope is to do just that. Obey God and turn to him, he is our only hope.

God Bless his people,
Rich

"." So does Joe Solmonese think that if a Christian views a "gay pride" parade and yells at a homosexual, "You'd be better off if you stopped engaging in homosexual sex!" she should be charged with "intimidation" and prosecuted for a “hate crime?” "

Is FRC going to come to the defense of Rev Fred Phelps to picket the funerals of US Soldiers killed in Iraq and call them faggots burning in hell? Shouldn't it?

"Solmonese is actually right in saying that H.R.1592, this year’s version of Thought Crimes in the U.S. House, would only create new, direct federal prosecution of cases in which someone “willfully causes bodily injury” or “attempts to cause bodily injury” because of certain characteristics of the victim. But this is an entirely new category of offense under federal law, not just an expansion of existing “protected classes,” as Solmonese implies."

So, this doesn't criminality speech - its essentially a modification to sentencing guidelines. If someone commits an act that is already a crime, they may get a harsher sentence if their motivation is related to the victim's sexuality? This isn't even particually new... the motive is always taken into account to some extent in sentencing for any crime. In this case, its even justified - people dont change their views on homosexuality easily, so its a motive that would be quite likely to lead to further attacks in future.

“Same-Sex-Marriage” Impossible
Please try to visualize my smile and the warmth of God’s love in my heart as I type this letter of concern; this is love language, not “hate language.” (By the way, just like you, I too am offended “hate language” - by preachers who minister condemnation with bigotry, anger, and hatred). About 32 years ago “I believed the report” (the gospel of Jesus Christ) and “the arm of the Lord” (Isaiah 53:1) lifted me out of a darkened world of selfish lusts and pride, and filled my heart with His love joy and holiness. So, by the grace of God I am the faithful husband of one wife (31 years), and father of five normal boys and girls. Therefore, I would love to see all “Marriage Protection legislation” in Indiana and America worded so accurately, that there is no possibility of misinterpretation by selfish, dishonest domineering minorities, trying wrongly to achieve “protected minority” status.
I have been thinking about this for a long time, and recently our pastor preached a great message about marriage that confirmed my thoughts; so I feel good expressing it. Marriage is not just the legal license, or gowns and tuxes, or a ceremony and public vows, or rings. But in the eyes of God who created marriage, it begins with sexual intimacy between a man and a woman with personal commitment to remain faithful lifelong partners – grow old together. Also, it is a relationship that is separated from their original families, and noticeable to (and should be respected by) others.
Thus, the terms “Same-sex Marriage” and "Gay Marriage" are unrealistic (dishonestly ignoring reality). Here's why. In the electronics industry, it is impossible for 2 male plugs or 2 female connectors to be "mated" or used together for the purpose intended by their designer. Only 1 male and 1 female connector can be physically and functionally related as 1 complete connecting set to complete the circuit.
Likewise, there is no such thing as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage," because it is impossible for 2 homosexuals or 2 lesbians to "marry" or fulfill the purpose of their Designer. God created us “male and female,” with many attractive physical and functional gender distinctions, so that only 1 masculine man and 1 feminine woman can "marry," fit together as a complete set, to produce another generation of normal boys and girls.
Because of my love for normal marriage, I am grievously disappointed to see “marriage,” the name of the most sacred human relationship on earth, profaned by selfish, dishonest people who try to redefine it and associate it with immoral acts.

Here you go again. The Family Research Council is an organization that dedicates much of its time trying to legislate gay people and our families out of existence. At every turn, you have opposed any step toward equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) Americans, whether in employment opportunity or family protection. Now you have turned your attention to much-needed federal legislation to combat bias-motivated violence, citing legalistic concerns that you hope will mask your true motivation, which is to undermine GLBT rights.

It won’t work.

Why? Because what you are saying is not true, because you know you it’s not true, because you have admitted that it’s not true, and because you can’t convince the American people or this Congress that you are doing anything but grasping at straws here.

Your most tired refrain is that hate crimes laws are actually “thought crimes” laws. In your most recent blog post, you claim that the pending legislation punishes offenders “for the politically incorrect thoughts that they were thinking while committing the action.” The Supreme Court disagrees. In an opinion by the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, it ruled in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that a state sentence-enhancement statute that taking bias motivation into account does amount to punishing thought (the LLEHCPA is not a sentencing enhancement statute, but this does not affect the relevance of the First Amendment analysis Mitchell case).

FRC knows that this hate crime bill would not punish thought. Elsewhere on your site, you inform your readers that:

The bills that have been introduced in Congress in recent years target only violent actions, not peaceful expressions of opinion (only someone who "willfully causes bodily injury" or "attempts to cause bodily injury" could be charged).

So you’ve read the bill. Good.

But apparently because the truth doesn’t do much for your cause, you resort to scare tactics, baldly claiming without support that:

by ratifying the Thought Crimes mentality, this bill paves the way for future expansions of its scope in ways that could eventually threaten freedom of speech and religion.

For the slow reader: there’s nothing inherently wrong with this law, but we can’t pass it because we don’t want to pass other, scarier laws.

What kinds of laws, pray tell, does FRC find threatening to freedom speech and religion? Here’s what your site says:

We oppose all Thought Crime laws in principle, because penalizing people specifically for their thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes--even ones abhorrent to us and to the vast majority of Americans, such as racism--would undermine the freedom of speech and thought at the heart of our democracy.

However, we have a particular concern regarding such laws when they include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" (a reference to cross-dressing and sex-change operations) among the categories of protection. This sends the false message that deviant sexual behaviors are somehow equivalent to other categories of protection such as race or sex. In fact, the very term "hate crime" is offensive in this context, in that it implies that mere disapproval of homosexual behavior constitutes a form of "hate" equivalent to racial bigotry. (Emphasis added).

It’s the gays, stupid. Even a law protecting GLBT people from violent crimes is “offensive” to the FRC. That’s because GLBT people are not so much people as perpetrators of “deviant sexual behaviors.”

Who’s offensive now?

But you asks your members and members of Congress to take action against the bill, you don’t whip out these bald anti-gay rhetoric because, well, that just sounds bad.

So instead, you attempt to finesse it legally. Your legal arguments—which I’ll address—are not why you oppose this law. You oppose protecting gay people in any way, from anything, including hate violence.

But if you want to lawyer the issue, we’ll lawyer right back.

Claim one: 18 U.S.C. § 245 is not a hate crimes law. Your reasoning: the word “hate crime” is not found in the statute. Nonetheless, the Department of Justice’s “bias crimes” webpage, explicitly refers to 18 U.S.C. 245. The agency charged with enforcing the statute presumably knows what it is. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “hate crime” as “any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation).” You argue that § 245 should be read to focus primarily on the interference with protected federal civil rights such as voting and not on the intentional selection of victims based upon their race, color, religion, or national origin. Section 245 was not enacted in a vacuum. Congress did not decide out of the blue that rights such as voting needed special federal protection. Rather, Congress acted in response to an epidemic of violence, primarily against African Americans, for exercising their rights as citizens. Call it a civil rights law. Call it an anti-lynching law. Call it a hate crime law. At its core, § 245 punishes crimes motivated by hostility to the victim.

Claim two: this law creates “protections based on the characteristics of the victim alone.” This bill does not create a new federal protection based upon the victim’s characteristics (unlike the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” which FRC supported). Rather, it focuses upon the perpetrator’s motivations. As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in the Mitchell decision, consideration of the defendant’s motives is a practice deeply ingrained in our legal system.

Claim three: experience from other jurisdictions demonstrate that hate crimes statutes are a threat to freedom of speech or religion. You cite a case in Philadelphia, where protesters at a pride celebration were arrested. You neglect to mention that in that case, not only were there no prosecutions or convictions, but a judge dismissed the protesters’ subsequent civil suit, finding that it was their actions, not the content of their speech, that led to their arrests. Ironically, a video the protesters filmed undermined their own claims by revealing their disruptive, confrontational actions. You also refer to Sweden. Setting aside the fact that the United States is uniquely protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, Sweden’s high court concluded that its own statute did not cover religious expression in opposition to homosexuality.

Quite simply, you haven’t got a leg to stand on—whether in your criticism of the LLEHCPA or of HRC’s characterization of it. It’s a necessary law whose time has come.

If the bill did not provide the GLBT community with the same protections that it provides to Christians, Jews, African Americans, persons with disabilities, and others, we would not be engaged in this dialogue at all, because the bill would not be on your radar screen.

We stand by our claim that you have been dishonest. Not only about the bill, but about your motives for opposing it.

Well said David. By the way...does anyone else ever feel sorry for Tony Perkins? He wants so bad to be relevant. It's so sad.

This bill can be explain anyway in which the person who is explaining it believes it. The truth of the matter is that the bill is unnecessary. There are already many hate crimes bills in law. The only thing different from this bill is that an agenda is behind it. Homosexuals do not want to be preached to about what God says about homosexuality. All they want to do is prevent the teachings against homosexuality in the churches. Once that is done, what will be next. It is sad that they just do not understand that we Christians love them. We do not want to see their souls condenm to eternal fire. We do not push our beliefs, we just state them, if they turn from their ways, we rejoice, if they don't we just pray for them. What harm is in that. God says that we are not to add or delete from His word...we are to preach it in love. So with love I say to you, humble yourself, pray and seek Gods face...read the scriptures...let the Lord guide your life.

This bill can be explain anyway in which the person who is explaining it believes it. The truth of the matter is that the bill is unnecessary. There are already many hate crimes bills in law. The only thing different from this bill is that an agenda is behind it. Homosexuals do not want to be preached to about what God says about homosexuality. All they want to do is prevent the teachings against homosexuality in the churches. Once that is done, what will be next. It is sad that they just do not understand that we Christians love them. We do not want to see their souls condenm to eternal fire. We do not push our beliefs, we just state them, if they turn from their ways, we rejoice, if they don't we just pray for them. What harm is in that? God says that we are not to add or delete from His word...we are to preach it in love. So with love I say to you, humble yourself, pray and seek Gods face...read the scriptures...let the Lord guide your life, if you change your ways, we'll rejoice, if you don't we will still continue to love you and pray.

David Smith writes: It’s the gays, stupid. I'm sure he could lawyer it away, but a reasonable man would say he's calling Perkins or Sprigg stupid.
Daniel follows up David's comments by writing: By the way...does anyone else ever feel sorry for Tony Perkins? He wants so bad to be relevant. It's so sad.
Someone riddle me this--if being a Christian was a "characteristic" and became a protected class by law, then if David and Daniel were to perpetrate a crime against Perkins or Sprigg, would they not receive a harsher sentence? What if the merely saying a Christian is stupid or irrelevant constituted a crime because such language could potentially incite violence against this protected class? Now if David and Daniel were to say that they called these gentlemen stupid or irrelevant, not because they are Christians, but because they disagreed with Perkins' and Sprigg's views, then keep in mind, that in a world where thoughts, biases and motivations determine sentencing, these 2 gentlemen might have a hard time convincing a judge and jury otherwise. Fortunately, we don't live in a society like that...yet..or do we?

David Smith said -"Here you go again. The Family Research Council is an organization that dedicates much of its time trying to legislate gay people and our families out of existence...”

Sigh. Here YOU go again. GLBT people already have the same rights as the rest of us, and as a group often have way more education, money and better jobs than ordinary working heterosexual men trying to support families. You can't live in Atlanta without knowing gay people, and I know many successful, witty, articulate, compassionate GLBT people who are delightful company. And REALLY well off financially. So I don't see where there is a particular hardship going on.

But I can only imagine the stink you would be raising if this bill singled out Christians as a group that could never be spoken ill of or intimidated in any way, or if it was Christian beliefs and lifestyle that were being promoted to school children from kindergarten onward. That would be considered indoctrination and unfair protection. But since it is your speech and actions that are being protected, you cannot imagine - nor do you seem to particularly care - that HR 1592 paves the way for Christian people and their families to be legislated out of existence.

Your status is primarily known by what you say or do - otherwise, as someone said above "how can I know your thoughts?" so how would I know you are gay unless you tell me, or you flaunt your status in some way, or I see you engaging in some sexual behavior. GLBT people already have the right to say and do these things, and many of them are happy to say and do them in my face in as obnoxious a way as possible, regardless of whether it offends me. That is one of the risks (and rewards) of a free society, and a principle that Americans have fought and died for.

My status is determined by my beliefs about my relationship with God, my love for Jesus Christ, and how my life reflects that. Hopefully it also is known by what I say and do. I would hope that if you met me you would find me to be a loving person who treats everyone with respect, and has the ability to "agree to disagree." Believe me, I often have to "agree to disagree" with my gay friends and other friends of the sort that would have once been called "publicans and sinners."

I believe what the Bible says, and one of the things it says is:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor 6:9-10)

That is strong stuff, and certainly could get some people angry who don't want to hear that what they are doing is sin. Before I became a Christian I was a feminist of a particularly venomous variety, a socialist who voted Democratic, sexually immoral, greedy, a drunkard and a swindler, and I dabbled in homosexual activity in the aftermath of a failed relationship. I also spent several years in a relationship with a bisexual man who drew me into his world of peep shows, gay pornography and eventually actually watching him have gay sex. I know that all of those things caused me endless grief, embarrassment, financial ruin, and health problems including an incurable STD.

So when I tell someone that behavior is dangerous and they should not do it, I know what I am talking about. Experience confirmed for me the truth of this passage: that what I was doing was inherently wrong and offensive to a holy God, and that God's restrictions concerning those things were for my good, not to keep me from having fun, or "being who I really am." My gay friends know I believe this, and know that when I talk about it, it is because I love them and am compelled to warn them that they are playing with fire. My greedy friends in the financial industry, my adulterer friends, my fornicating single friends, my lying and idolatrous friends also all know I believe this. But even when we vehemently disagree, we don't consider our dialogues to achieve the level of "hate speech".

So even forgetting for a moment the question of whether the Bible is ACTUALLY true, let's talk about the potential consequences to me if I were to quote this passage to someone who did not want to hear it and registered a complaint against me. I BELIEVE it to be true for a lot of personal reasons, but none of those reasons is that I hate gay people, or feel that their sin is worse than any other. But HR 1592 would enable someone to accuse me of "hate speech" if I say this, even though it is my love for God and for people that compels me to warn them not to follow the same path I did. Even if the Bible were not true, the fact that I BELIEVE that it is would become the basis for my crime. I also BELIEVE that salvation through Jesus Christ is good news, and so I want to share it with people. But if there is no sin, than who cares that Jesus died? So any discussion of salvation necessarily includes discussion of sin, which may include this passage or others like it.

So now, if I do not wish to take a chance on offending someone, I stop talking about the Person Who is the very basis for my existence. And forget blogging, or responding to articles like this one, because there is sure to be someone out there who considers me hateful because of what I BELIEVE, rather than because they know me personally and can testify that I am actually hateful. I am effectively silenced, turned into someone who does NOT have the same rights as others. That silencing won't happen today, but once the Pandora's Box is opened it is only a matter of time before it does happen. Who would have ever believed Gitmo could happen? or the Patriot Act? But they are happening today, right now.

People are being fired from their jobs for blogging about Christian topics on their own time. Kids are being suspended from school because of inappropriate pictures or thoughts they post on MySpace. College administrators say that 35% of college bound candidates are rejected because of things they have posted on the internet that it never occurred to them the colleges would use against them in the admissions process. So don’t say it can’t happen, because it is already happening.

This should be anathema to anyone who loves what little freedom we have left in this country.

No one wants to stop you from preaching what you preach in church? Who really believes that? Come on.

You are entitled to believe whatever it is you believe. You are not entitled to make it public policy that impacts everyone.

And are you sitting there with a straight face Lidia, suggesting that hate groups like FRC, AFA, and TVC only want to preach what the bible says about homosexuality or are you just that dilluted?

Look at the million places on this website alone where this organization advocates trying to actively change someone's sexual orientation or attempts to influence policy that has anything to do with leveling the playing field for gays and lesbians. That's more than just sharing a message about your religion.

To Charles Sproull:

I am imagining that smile on your face. Actually, it looks more like a smirk to me. It's the self-satisfied smirk of being "normal". The kind of "normal" you took such pains to point out.

To Lidia Smith:

You'll pray for us. Thank you. That's nice. You will love us while you're attending a "Hell House" with your children. Or sending them to a militaristic "Jesus Camp." "We do not push our beliefs." HUH?! What, pray tell, is a Marriage Amendment? People have practised passive- aggressiveness for more than a millenium. The concept of saving one from sin is very passive-aggressive: "We'll save you. You who have been born rotten with original sin."

To ALL:

If you read FRC's newsletters, you will admit that Tony Perkins is a hate crime waiting to happen (although some of his ungrammatical articles are criminal to the English language). And from the looks of his photo, he enjoys it.

Dear GLBTQ community organizers, agitators, and know-it-alls: Tammy Bruce refers to you as the Gay Elite. 'The Death of Right and Wrong'

We do not hate you. We are tired of you - and your tactics.

The normal gays and lesbians want to be left alone.

You have re-defined the word 'hate' to mean 'having a difference of opinion' about sodomy, bi-sexual behaviors which spread HIV to women, and same-sex adoption.

You don't acknowledge the obvious - you live in a wonderfully free country. Nobody is forcing you to close bath houses, stop publishing gay books, gay bars, stop you from drinking out of public drinking fountains, or the like.

In other words, we do not feel sorry for you.

If somebody punches a pregnant woman in her belly - hate crime. If someone kills a pre-born baby - hate crime.

ALL CRIMES HAVE AN ELEMENT OF HATE.

Mary Stachowicz - brutally stabbed to death and sodomized by a gay male - hate crime. www.citizensofillinois.org Search the web for Mary Stachowicz.

All I can add is that pride goes before a fall...

If it is true that § 245 punishes crimes motivated by hostility to the victim, then doesn't logic follow that "all crimes are motivated by hostility"? If this law was really formulated to "protect", there would not be a discussion going on. This law was promoted to define the punishment for a particular type of offense.

Second point, our laws are based on the Constitutional framework of: all men are created equal and should enjoy the privileges of equal opportunity. When we failed to follow that premise (enforce our law), we opened the door to having to compensate the underprivileged classes, thus creating a "protected" class.

Now, certain groups have taken the microphone and screamed about every perceived injustice in order to impose their demands on the group. They want to become a "protected class". As they say, "The squeeky wheel gets the grease" and we legislate to the "crises", perceived or actual.

Bottom line, we are not enforcing our laws -- period. We have become lawless, reckless, bitter, forceful, proud and self-righteous. We don't practice courtesy or consider one another better than ourselves. Our politicians are power hungry and pander to the highest bidder. Our judges have become political pawns in a huge game of monopoly.

This whole issue is an example of our politicians chosing to participate in an unnecessary waste of time for political gain. For those who care about the direction or our country, there is much mud slinging and distrust. The rest of us have either become passive participants or observers to the demise of our nation.

As innocent as David Smith would make this legislation sound...this "much-needed" bill is not the most popular legislation by far in Washington. One would think that if 1592's sole purpose was to happily protect currently helpless Americans and strengthen our country by doing so, wouldn't it just be loved by everyone?

Apparently not. The proof of the hidden agenda is in the numbers: 43% of the Congresspeople we entrust to create our laws said no way to 1592, and I don't think it was because they are anti-gay or Christian. I think it was because 1592 is redundant...homosexuals, blacks, disabled persons, women, etc. are already protected from violent crimes like everyone else at their state levels, and to say that they deserve a little extra federal protection because of their "special" condition - I'm sorry , but that just doesn't sound like all men and women being created equal.

As long as you're dishing out extra protection, David Smith, this white male heterosexual Christian would like a little too. Put us on the bill, if you're not too worried about out thoughts.