You don’t appear concerned enough to listen to those Christ sent either.I think the claim that this legislation is about hate speech is unfounded. Al, could you cite the provision in the bill which is about hate speech?
This seems to be one of the aims. To continue, I don’t think it just stops at preachers or priests.I think I’ve heard about this on the christian radio station I listen to. It’s my understanding that under this “law” a preacher can’t speak out against homosexuality during his sermon/homily without getting into trouble.
The Truth is “unfounded” in Iowa. A state that just remove husband and wife from the marriage vows and now says “Part a and Party b”.I think the claim that this legislation is about hate speech is unfounded. Al, could you cite the provision in the bill which is about hate speech?
That is a remarkably uncharitable thing to say, since you have no grounds to say it.You don’t appear concerned enough to listen to those Christ sent either.
Again, I would have to ask exactly what provisions in the bill would do such thing. That claim sounds like fear-mongering.I think I’ve heard about this on the christian radio station I listen to. It’s my understanding that under this “law” a preacher can’t speak out against homosexuality during his sermon/homily without getting into trouble.
Really? Well first thing to establish for your benefit, is that genuine charity must be at the service of the truth. I have told you the truth, which if you respected and obeyed universal truth, would lead you closer to God. For your own sake, I recommend that you please adopt a little humility and proceed as Christ asked. There are solid grounds for me telling you this.That is a remarkably uncharitable thing to say, since you have no grounds to say it.
Okay, you are entitled to that opinion. But it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the claim of this thread: that HR 1913 is about hate speech.If you followed those whom Christ sent, and obeyed Christ, you would be Catholic.
Rather than some knee-jerk ad hominem, you might want to read the article. This does appear to be a lie someone started. The bill does not address hate speech, but hate crime and specifies two criteria, that it is a felony and that it is violent.You don’t appear concerned enough to listen to those Christ sent either.
OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- 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 race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–
Actually, it doesn’t quite require violence; only that it causes bodily harm. “Mental/Physical” cases abound in the law. That is, cases in which a mental stress causes a physical reaction (e.g., headache, vomiting, physical pain or discomfort of any kind). Those are considered “bodily harm”, even though there might be no physical contact at all.Rather than some knee-jerk ad hominem, you might want to read the article. This does appear to be a lie someone started. The bill does not address hate speech, but hate crime and specifies two criteria, that it is a felony and that it is violent.
Not by any definition I have ever heard. While you are right about mental anguish, legally bodily harm is used to specify harm to ones body. I would think that the modifiers of fire, explosive devices, firearms, would make this clear.Actually, it doesn’t quite require violence; only that it causes bodily harm. “Mental/Physical” cases abound in the law. That is, cases in which a mental stress causes a physical reaction (e.g., headache, vomiting, physical pain or discomfort of any kind). Those are considered “bodily harm”, even though there might be no physical contact at all.
Yes, ChristyBeth, but if you read the bill it isn’t about hate speech. The title is in error.The title of this thread includes the words “Hate speech.” So, wouldn’t that mean that if someone was insulted due to what a preacher said, couldn’t that person call it that?
I checked out your sites. They seemed concerned over things other than this particular bill, either the one attempted under Bush or the slippery slope that a hate speech bill may follow. I did not see any quotes from the bill yet, here or there, that justifies that fear, though.But many are concerned that the law is vaguely written and will lead to hate-speech prosecutions.
cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47052
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, agreed, saying the legal framework that the bill establishes will virtually guarantee the eventual prosecution of religious leaders who speak against homosexuality.
“H.R. 1913 broadly defines ‘intimidation,’” Lafferty said. “A pastor’s sermon could be considered ‘hate speech’ under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any sexual orientation. The pastor could be prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to commit a hate crime.’ ”
Lafferty told CNSNews.com that during committee markup of identical legislation in 2007, one of the bill’s cosponsors, Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), admitted that the hate-crime legislation would not exempt a pastor from prosecution in that scenario.
I read the full article. I went back and did a search. The bill does not define intimidation. It does not even mention it. I did a search on several variations of the word and can not find it. Again,** in the bill**, where is speech or an sort of verbal anything even mentioned?“H.R. 1913 broadly defines ‘intimidation,’” Lafferty said. “A pastor’s sermon could be considered ‘hate speech’ under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any sexual orientation. The pastor could be prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to commit a hate crime.’ ”