Hate Crimes Prevention Act: Snopes.com Debunking

I am a huge proponent of the American Family Association. Very recently they sent out an email to people on their email list pertaining to H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 in which Donald E. Wildmon makes no bones that the Congressional legislation would make it a “Hate Crime” for pastors and Christians to preach and publicly share Christian principles from Biblically morality. Frankly I have heard this from other sources as well.

When I posted the AFA “Action Alert” as a kind of spreading the word action on my part, I received a comment claiming the AFA “Action Alert” was a hoax. The comment was posted a from a “Anonymous.” I always hate that cowardice however I do allow it at my blog.

Anonymous gave me a link to Snopes.com to back up the “hoax claim. Snopes.com debunking of AFA alert is well written with the precision of a cutting knife.

I went to the AFA website and asked about this in the contact section. I asked for a refutation to the Snopes.com post. Until I receive such from the AFA I am forced to put the Snopes.com “Urban Legend” post here. If the AFA sends me a response, I will post it as well.

 
I would like to mention that Snopes.com is very good at reporting that which is public facts. What Snopes.com is not good at educated assumptions between the lines. For example the discharging of General Pace from the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be presented in a politically correct positive light. It is interesting that General Pace is “gone” after he made public his feelings on homosexuality.

It is true that the legislation proposed above is related to violent crime; however a Secular Humanist Left Winger (Prosecutor or Judge) may feel free to interpret the law that Christian morality may be cause to incite violence against homosexuals and thus opening the Christian or Christian minister to prosecution for breaking the law.

JRH
************************************

Hate Crimes Prevention Act


Snopes.com
Last updated: 18 June 2007

Claim: A bill before Congress would make it a "hate crime" for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality.


Status: False.


Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2007]


A Petition To Congress In Defense Of Religious Freedom

Be one of one million Americans willing to take a stand in defense of two of our most precious freedoms — freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Here's why:

A California lawsuit which is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" a "hate speech" crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, was fired because of his publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.

A bill now before Congress (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105) would criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a "hate crime" punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison. This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion.

Origins: The above referenced Action Alert issued by the American Family Association (AFA) in June 2007 warns readers that a bill currently before Congress would "criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a 'hate crime' punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison." This claim, as well as the Action Alert's bulleted references to court cases, news items, and current legislation, are gross and misleading distortions of information:

The court case referenced in the first item dealt with a woman who complained about anti-homosexual material posted on a bulletin board at her workplace (the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency). After the material was removed, the persons who had posted it filed a lawsuit claiming that their free speech rights had been violated. The court ruled against the plaintiffs, noting that they "do not have a privileged First Amendment right to communicate their message to their officemates," and that the employer has an "'administrative interest' in avoiding situations that distract employees from their jobs." The lawsuit had nothing to do classifying certain words or phrases as "hate speech" or establishing their usage as a "crime."

The Washington Post's front-page coverage of the announcement that Marine Gen. Peter Pace would be stepping down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when his term expired in September did not claim that Pace was "fired because of his publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior." The Post's 9 June 2007 article on the subject mentioned in passing, in its 18th paragraph, that some congressional staffers "said Pace's recent comments to reporters at the Chicago Tribune about the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, in which he said homosexuality was immoral, would also be a distracting issue" at his confirmation hearing. (The primary reason expressed in the article for Pace's dismissal was "concern from both parties that Pace's confirmation hearing could evoke bitter debate about Iraq war policy.")

Likewise, CNN's television coverage of the story that same day cited "the political debate about the war and the rising death rate for U.S. troops" and "progress [in Iraq that] has been too little and too slow" as the main stumbling blocks to Gen. Pace's re-confirmation, noting secondarily that other factors ("his recent statements that he believed homosexual behavior was immoral" and his writing "a letter to the judge in the 'Scooter' Libby case attesting to Libby's character") posed problems for the general "in addition to the war."

The proposed "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007" (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105) currently before Congress would not "criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality." The bill seeks to amend Title 18, Chapter 13 of the U.S. Code by adding a section on "Hate crime acts" that specifies criminal penalties for:

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person —

i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if —
(I) death results from the offense; or
(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

The bill addresses "willfully causing bodily injury to any person" (as well as "attempts to cause bodily injury to any person") because of "actual or perceived ... gender, sexual orientation, [or] gender identity." The bill does not "criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality," nor would it make "calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit a 'hate crime'." The bill has nothing to do with the issue of speech; it only prescribes criminal penalties for the willful infliction of bodily injury on others. In fact, the version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives on 3 May 2007 includes a clause that specifically precludes it from applying to conduct protected by the free speech and free exercise of religion provisions of the Constitution:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.