Could adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crime law pose a threat to the freedom of religious expression?

 

This is a completely ridiculous assertion. The First Amendent does not recognize acts of brutality and other forms of reprisal as acts of religious expression. Acts of this nature, are, rather, dire felonies, which are subject to the authority of Congress to enforce by legislation.

The boast of our USA Christian Nation is that we provided a refuge from the religious strife of the European Reformation, wherein neighbor-vs.-neighbor mayhem was normalized under the justification of Christian sectarian & theological purity. The Beauty of the First Amendment is that it provided a way for religionists & non-religionists of all persuadions to live together in a harmonious society. We have been relatively free from sectarian strife to this day.

As for Gay Rights, well, mine is also a non-traditional household, identified by economic synergy rather than sexual relationships. So their rights are my rights as well. Government cannot prefer or not prefer Traditional Christain vs. non-traditional households.

As for attacking anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, I can think of no religion which condones this, except the religion of false teachers & prophets, who are liars and opposed to God.

 

 

E. Duane Howard:

I've read this question over and over and for the life of me I totally do not understand the connection...."

I'm with you on this one, Mr. Howard, and will have to do some homework.  Maybe it's because I've been in a "bubble" for the past week, too busy to read or watch the news while preoccupied by a business trip to Florida (not a vacation, Clonnie). 

Off the top of my head, no.  If a minister uses the pulpit to incite violence against homosexuals, that is an abuse of the First Amendment.  If a homophobe commits an act of violence upon a person because of the victim's sexual orientation, and his defense is the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment, I doubt that the best attorney in the country could make that case.

Hate crime laws  are among the stupidest laws ever enacted. Do my thoughts at the time of my crime somehow make me more guilty? Does the  fact that I'm a homophobic ,racist , antisemitic jerk make me more guilty than a pure bred born again white boy committing the same crime? Those who commit crimes of violence out of hatred of a group are ,to me, obviously insane. With these moronic laws I can envision some future lawyer getting his client off on grounds of mental incompetence.

 

I'll be gone all week, so this is my one contribution to the topic. 

Luanne Traud:

Could adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crime law pose a threat to the freedom of religious expression?

Before we investigate the topic of adding another at-risk group to the list of several getting protection, it may be wise to discuss the merits of the law (United States Code: Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 245) itself.  For those so inclined, the actual text of the law can be found at http://tinyurl.com/ylbp5zj.  Among other offenses, this 1969 law has been used to end the practice of lynching.  It allowed the Federal government to bypass the inaction of state and local courts when local biases acted to prevent justice.  In short, it worked.

But is this an appropriate response in this case?  It's certainly arguable that the murder of a *** by a straight man is no less horrible when the reason is an unpaid debt rather than her sexual orientation.  The crimes being addressed are already crimes.  So the issue really comes down to the difference in why the crime was committed, and what society thinks about it.  In the case of a bad debt, the motivation is anger.  That's a strong emotion, but anger can abate.  Hate, on the other hand, tends to persist - especially when local norms make the reason for hating acceptable.

So is that the case here?  I think it is.  As a whole, the country is as enlightened about sexual orientation as it is about race.  Unfortunately, the general rule does not apply everywhere.  Given that there are still pockets of strongly held opinion on the subject, it's wise to add this category to the list of race, color, religion and national origin.  Let's hope that a conflict between protected classes never arises.  In fact, let's hope that a need for the law never arises again.

Could adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crime law pose a threat to the freedom of religious expression?

It may be too late as this addenda to the "hate crime" law was buried in a military appropriations bill already passed by the House. How's that for the "transparency" and "most ethical Congress" we were promised? The whole idea of "hate crimes" is abhorrent to me as it is a precursor to the coming of the thought police. Does not government have enough control of its citizens without legislating extra punishment for thoughts and ideas? While the concept sounds all touchy-feely, it is a very slippery slope to start down.

Perhaps this week's question would make more sense if worded "a threat to  freedom of thought." Already many media outlets have made a cottage industry of referring to opposition of proposed policies as "hate speech." What's the next step? Hate thought? Oops, too late.

David Horn:

Before we investigate the topic of adding another at-risk group to the list of several getting protection, it may be wise to discuss the merits of the law (United States Code: Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 245) itself.  For those so inclined, the actual text of the law can be found at http://tinyurl.com/ylbp5zj.  Among other offenses, this 1969 law has been used to end the practice of lynching.  It allowed the Federal government to bypass the inaction of state and local courts when local biases acted to prevent justice.  In short, it worked.

I suppose its purpose is to enable federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute attacks on homosexuals in cases where local officials seem disinclined to do so.  In that sense it is very similar to everything from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 to the anti-lynching law of 1969 to the modern hate crimes act.  It's common for states to complain about federal intervention in such matters, but the best way to deter that intrusion is by acting responsibly at the local level. 

I further suppose that its purpose also could be to substitute, at least temporarily, for action on ending the silly "don't ask, don't tell" policy that we discussed last summer.  In other words, it's a bone tossed out in lieu of starting a dog fight with Congress, the armed forces, and veterans groups.  I'm still scratching my head about how freedom of religion fits into this.

bobchristenson:

Hate crime laws  are among the stupidest laws ever enacted. Do my thoughts at the time of my crime somehow make me more guilty?

 

Go Bob! Welcome to my page. Well said.

Nick

 

My initial thought is to agree with you E. Duane since I do not see how adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crime law is connected with freedom of religious expression. According to news reports, some Conservatives and religious groups see a connection (e.g., James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Donald Wildmon). The sky is not falling and I see no reason for their concern. A federal hate crimes bill was long overdue and it is sad that it was added to another bill. I suspect our elected officials knew it was time, but had little confidence in bipartisan support. That is more likely when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is up for a vote. 

If the thought is that some people or religions will use their freedom of religious expression against those they disagree with, that is sadly all to possible. Do we really want to leave treatment of individual citizens up to religions? I think freedom of religious expression is more about the value of one's own traditions and less about judging others. While we respect cultural and religious traditions, it all ends when someone's personal beliefs cause harm to another. This may eventually come down to separation of church and state. We are talking rights and safety of individuals versus any particular religions that may view sexual orientation as an excuse to judge and discriminate. Murder and other crimes against innocent people because of their sexual orientation cannot be dismissed because of freedom of religious expression...or anything else. It should not be a battle between a federal hate crimes bill and freedom of religious expression. Crimes committed out of hate should not be tolerated. It is time for this bill, but many will be slow to accept it.

Fine Panel, and the million's of loyal reader's world wide out there around this mostly blue marble who choose to make us their particular daily "go to" news source...what?...Ponder the following if you dare, unless it's a stupid thought. First, there must be a "Given:" such as "Given: All born are equal, let our Creator judge the rest." If we agree this "Given:" is an absolute, we do not need the redundancy of the particular issues which fall well under the prior mentioned "Given:" blanket. Can't we all just get along? Gip

I will admit that the Fred Phelps led sickos and the Bill White case both popped into my mind as I read this question but yes, I suppose that such an inclusion could impact the pretense of religious freedom that hate groups enjoy but I fail to see how allowing people to trample all over freedom of speech so that the rest of us can enjoy it is good for our society.  We have rules and restrictions on many of our "freedoms" and for good reason.  We prove every day that some of us will take anything to the extreme.  I think it is disingenuous to pretend we could not tell the difference.  If there is legitimate reason to believe something was not a hate crime that should also be something we can distinguish.  I have never seen hate in a vacuum or as a one time phenomenon. 

I most certainly believe that there is a difference in killing someone in the "heat of the moment" and killing someone or targeting someone specifically for the hatred you harbor against that group of people.  Yes, they are both a crime, but frankly one is more aberrant, more abhorrent than the other IMO.  You can take this to the edge of sense and say well what about killing people because they are old, blind or blonde, but that does not diminish that the minorities and groups most discriminated against are also the ones most likely to be the victim of a hate crime.  It makes me feel the weight of the "she asked for it" defense from rapists (which I consider a hate crime).  "That fa**ot deserved it" makes the crime worse to me because it is an offense against a group as well as an individual and the fear and anxiety this causes in that group or community is not to be discounted either.  I see a difference clearly and I see the logic and importance of extra condemnation and extra shame as well as extra punishment for such crimes.  This is a tactic that goes back to the origins of the KKK and other hate groups and it needs to be named, shamed and blamed.

Gibson Brown:

Ponder the following if you dare, unless it's a stupid thought. First, there must be a "Given:" such as "Given: All born are equal, let our Creator judge the rest." If we agree this "Given:" is an absolute, we do not need the redundancy of the particular issues which fall well under the prior mentioned "Given:" blanket. Can't we all just get along?

If everyone would subscribe to that simple advice, living by the Golden Rule and leaving it to the Almighty to judge the "sinners," we would need few laws.  But from the time of King Hammurabi 3,750 years ago, governments have presumed to understand the will of God with regard to day to day human interaction, and have put God's stamp on codes of law and punishment. 

Some Christians and Muslims insist homosexuality is an unacceptable sin.  Some people who are not necessarily religious think two women having sex is cool but two men doing it is creepy, so they want to beat up on the "perverts."  Some well-meaning people think homosexuality is a "misguided choice" or a form of mental illness linked to child abuse.  They want to "save" the sinners.  Then there are many people, an increasing number thankfully, who subscribe to your philosophy, Gip: live and let live. 

Homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle, like living in the country or being a vegetarian.  It might seem strange and immoral to heterosexuals, but the same could be said for oral sex (a felony in Virginia) and other "crimes against nature" I won't mention.  Society and its government make the rules: sex in the middle of the street is not allowed; sex with children is not allowed; rape and incest are not allowed.  Sex between consenting adults of the same gender is legal, and people who have a problem with that can pray, preach, and pontificate, but they cannot take it upon themselves to punish the "perverts" because it's none of their business. 

The bottom line: as long as some bigots hate homosexuals and want to hurt them, laws and law enforcement officials will need to step in.  Call it a hate crime, or not.  Hate is legal.  Vandalism, arson, harassment, assault, and homicide are unacceptable.

Could adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crime law pose a threat to the freedom of religious expression?

I’m not a big fan of the notion of a hate crime.  I think people should be punished for their actions, provided they knew what they were doing.  The question of motive, I think, should come in supporting or rebutting claims of mitigation or extenuation.  But, of course, it is not an ideal world and one of the reasons we have the category of hate crime is that crimes against the despised have, in some times and places, been ignored or even condoned.  I can see no objection to extending the list of the frequently despised to include those with minority sexual orientation.  There is no doubt that these people are often the targets of abuse.

But hate crime legislation does not criminalize any activity that was not already criminal.  Instead it typically increases the range of possible penalties, and, crucially, allows transfer of cases from local jurisdiction to the state or federal level. 

So modifying hate crime legislation in this way couldn’t threaten anyone’s freedom of religious expression unless that includes actions that are already illegal.  If your notion of free religious expression includes human sacrifice, forcible mutilation, or the murder of apostates, then you’re out of luck.  And that’s a very good thing.

 OK, guys. My visiting son, the computer security specialist, was finally able to clear the virus so it's safe to join in and help defend the few who resist socialism, not that this week's question seems to be generating very intense disagreement.

Although Ms Sandi Saunders manages to come remarkably close to justifying "hate" crimes I have to say that Nick Prout hit a homer with his suggestion that the question could have been worded "a threat to freedom of thought." Like Nick I have a serious fear of thought crimes/thought police.

Yes, I've seen pretty nearly all types of acts committed against people for their differences and, fortunately, was raised to abhore all such crimes even though growing up in a "bottom of the economy" family in Jim Crow Norfolk starting in the early thirties. I even, once, had my bike stomped for being too light skinned and riding through a "wrong" neighborhood. I still think we can make life for everyone a lot more dangerous the more we ignore Madison's warnings in his Federalist Paper 51 and Lord Acton's warning about corruption by power.