New law would turn our church leaders into criminals

[Sir_Knight]

A new bill (HR1592), cleared committee for a full vote by the House, threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements. Click here to read the entire bill.

So much for religious freedom.

 

[Aleii]

Are you reading the text of these or am I just blind? I see nothing of which you refer to. This is what I read from it:

“Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person.”

I for one am glad that any church leaders who cause bodily injury to another because they are gay will have to face the law for it.

 

[JLSacred]

I don’t understand why they need to have this legislation. Isn’t causing someone bodily injury already a crime?

 

[adrift]

I don’t understand why they need to have this legislation. Isn’t causing someone bodily injury already a crime?

It is to make it s a Federal Crime. There are those who see it as an attempt to silence those who are against homosexuals.

(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), 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–

The question is can those who say homosexuality is wrong be prosecuted for a hate crime.

“If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” Artur Davis (D-AL) anwsered “yes.”

ReligiousTolerance

 

[drafdog]

I dunno. Is there something wrong with being deemed a criminal? Isn’t that what happened to the first guy? Seems they went so far as to publically execute the poor guy. Didn’t he also say that the main followers would get the same treatment? Why should we be surprised? Mark of a good Christian I’d say.
But if we’re gonna be called criminals, let’s find something classier than gay bashing to go down for.

Matthew

 

[DanteAlighieri]

This is redundant legislation. The constitution specifically delegates all powers not enumerated therein to the states, and EVERY state has laws forbidding one from deliberately causing someone else bodily harm, regardless of the motive.

There was a time when such legislation was necessary: the Civil Rights Ammendment ensured that, even where state and local laws were not being applied uniformly due to racial bigotry, there was still recourse against those who murdered, tormented, and menaced blacks.

Unless someone can show me that murder, torment, and menacing of gays outstrips that of the general public, and that such is due to an unfair application of state and local laws due to anti-gay bigotry, I must conclude that the time is gone in which the federal government must supplement state laws in this manner.

Peace,
Dante

 

[abu_kamoon]

In case some of you haven’t noticed, we are loosing our freedom in this country. The First Amendment was turned on its head by the Supreme Court. The First Amendment places NO restrictions on the individual, all restrictions are on the state. The Supreme Court is wrong. The Second Amendment (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) has been under attack for four decades. The USA PATRIOT Act are violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (unreasonable search, open public jury, the right to face your accuser, no cruel or unusual punishment). Now, this law to control speech. We had better wake up. We are fast becoming a police state.

abu kamoon
ابو كمون

 

[GreenJeans]

A new bill (HR1592), cleared committee for a full vote by the House, threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements. Click here to read the entire bill.

So much for religious freedom.

Here’s what the bill says.

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), 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–

www3.capwiz.com/afanet/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1592:

 

[Sir_Knight]

As was stated above …

“If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” Artur Davis (D-AL) anwsered “yes.”

religioustolerance.org/hom_hat15.htm

 

[Dale_M]

As was stated above …

“If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” Artur Davis (D-AL) anwsered “yes.”

With all due respect to Congressman Davis, and to the members of this forum who have quoted him, that sounds like hogwash.

Please point to the passage in the bill which can be interpreted in that way.

 

[Sir_Knight]

One would think that a lawmaker would have a better understanding of the law that he is trying to pass than those of us who are not lawmakers. Yes? No?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Regardless of the specifics of this bill, the times of the Roman catacombs will be here within a decade or two.

Be prepared.

 

[GreenJeans]

One would think that a lawmaker would have a better understanding of the law that he is trying to pass than those of us who are not lawmakers. Yes? No?

No. I can read the bill just as well, and probably better, than the congressman. The law doesn’t say what you and the congressman claim. We are not subject to the claims of congressmen, we would be subject to the law as written were it passed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

First off, it isn’t what I say but what a LAWMAKER says and if a lawmaker can understand it incorrectly, then so can a judge and that’s where the problems come in.

 

[GreenJeans]

First off, it isn’t what I say but what a LAWMAKER says and if a lawmaker can understand it incorrectly, then so can a judge and that’s where the problems come in.

No. The lawmaker can read the bill just like you or I can read the bill. It is very clear. There is no reason to think judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are as stupid as this lawmaker. We are subject to the law, not his incorrect opinions.

 

[RyanL]

No. The lawmaker can read the bill just like you or I can read the bill. It is very clear. There is no reason to think judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are as stupid as this lawmaker. We are subject to the law, not his incorrect opinions.

Um…ever heard of the term “legislative intent”? That’s what the judges look to when interpreting a statute. Go to findlaw.com and search for “legislative intent” or “intent of the legislature”. You’ll get more hits than you can read.

Besides – the question wasn’t whether he could be charged with a hate crime, but rather whether he could be charged with INCITEMENT to a hate crime.

And the answer would seem to be “yes”.

The bill as written provides no religious exemption to prevent the charge of incitement, and therefore it would apply. Amendments were proposed, but they were shot down in the name of inclusivity.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[GreenJeans]

Um…ever heard of the term “legislative intent”? That’s what the judges look to when interpreting a statute. Go to findlaw.com and search for “legislative intent” or “intent of the legislature”. You’ll get more hits than you can read.

Besides – the question wasn’t whether he could be charged with a hate crime, but rather whether he could be charged with INCITEMENT to a hate crime.

And the answer would seem to be “yes”.

The bill as written provides no religious exemption to prevent the charge of incitement, and therefore it would apply. Amendments were proposed, but they were shot down in the name of inclusivity.

God Bless,
RyanL

Legislative intent has to be supported by the text of the law. When the text provides no support, we are not subject to the desires of the legislator.

Incitement is not mentioned in this law. Many laws do include incitement. This one does not. That would have to be covered under a different statute.

I agree the law does not provide a religious exemption because it specifically addresses bodily harm. Why should the religious be exempt?

 

[gmarie21]

One would think that a lawmaker would have a better understanding of the law that he is trying to pass than those of us who are not lawmakers. Yes? No?

Why would you think this when it was his staff, not him, and the legislative counsel who wrote this and who read this? Most of the time the reps. just know only what their staff told them about the legislation (the staff usually are the ones who read it, not the reps. or senators)

 

[jack_hawkins]

They are trying to pass a law of religious hatred in the UK. The laws that were used to prosecute people criticising Muslims wree however used to prosecute Muslim hate preachers (which may well have been the intended target all along) so there is good and bad there.

 

[RyanL]

Legislative intent has to be supported by the text of the law. When the text provides no support, we are not subject to the desires of the legislator.

Lol. You would certainly think so. Unfortunately, this has demonstrably not been the case in American jurisprudence.

Incitement is not mentioned in this law. Many laws do include incitement. This one does not. That would have to be covered under a different statute.

Yup. It would be covered under a state or federal code which read something like this:

(a) Whoever commits an offense or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

  (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

If hate crimes are a legal offense, I don’t see a reason why you couldn’t prosecute the preacher who tells the violent guy that the Bible teaches that homosexual acts are an abomination in the eyes of God. In fact, you could probably prosecute him as a principal actor and sentence him accordingly.

Do you see any way around it?

Bottom line: publicly reading certain parts of the Bible will be effectually banned, under pain of imprisonment if some wing-nut you don’t know decides to hurt someone. He just has to be in the congregation when you read it. If he’s there, you go to jail for a very long time.

So much for freedom of religion.

I agree the law does not provide a religious exemption because it specifically addresses bodily harm. Why should the religious be exempt?

No, silly, an exemption from prosecution for incitement with regards to this specific felony on the basis of religious teachings.

Please, tell me, why aren’t assault or battery charges sufficient to redress these problems?

God Bless,
RyanL