Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Is Your Minister a 'Hate Crime' Peddler? - HUMAN EVENTS

Congress begins the attack on free speech.  Hello?  America?  Anyone out there???

Is Your Minister a 'Hate Crime' Peddler? - HUMAN EVENTS

by  Andrea Lafferty

04/21/2009

The George Orwell congress resumed its session yesterday.  Not content to attempt to end the secret ballot by the “Employee Free Choice Act,”  the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up and pass the equally-Orwellian “Hate Crimes” bill, HR 1913.
Just as the “Employee Free Choice Act” would end free choice, the “Hate Crimes” bill would criminalize free speech.  No, it’s not another version of the “Fairness Doctrine” – which is fair to all except conservatives.  The “Hate Crimes” bill wants to criminalize speech that insults politically-fashionable minorities, such as gays.

5 comments:

Sean said...

Though I find homosexuality repugnant, I believe you do the cause of free speech great harm by not telling the truth about H.R. 1913. It actually explicitly states at the end of the resolution that free speech will not be affected.

The sites founders. said...

Hi Sean,

Honestly, I have no problems with gays. And while I realize that was the focus of the article and at least a portion of the legislation, what concerns me more is the path of the government restricting speech. This becomes a gateway to all sorts of "hate". From a global perspective, this is knocking on the door of declaring criticism of Islam as a hate crime and restricted speech. All efforts to limit speech must be fought with vigor or we will hand our children where they will be expected to stand mute as special interest groups and religions of hate consume us. That is my issue. The fact that restrictions and definitions are even mentioned over ride the simple wording at the end of the resolution, at least to me. I simply do not believe you can restrict free speech, in any form, by just a little bit.

I appreciate your reply and thoughts.

Sean said...

Thanks for the reply. I do actually have a problems with homosexuals vs. other sinners because I never have sinners of other varieties try to tell me that the sin they commit is not a sin. They may try to justify it but in 23 years of being a Christian I have never experienced one trying to convince me that God's law actually promotes their sin. All that aside, I agree with you 100% that ALL Christians should be very leery of any attempt to infringe on speaking the truth via the 1st amendment. That said, I have found that when trying to make our case to the moderates in our society, distortions of the facts hurt our cause significantly. This resolution, though I do not think it necessary or prudent, does not in fact limit free speech but only increases the punishment when a violent crime is perpetrated solely because the victim falls into the protected class. Please understand that I feel crime is crime and the punishment should be significant and swift regardless who the victim is, the color of either, or the religion of either and etc. To single out the value of one human's suffering to be of greater consequence based on race or anything else is in my mind repugnant and goes against God's intention that all of mankind is special to him. Including sinners! The real facts of this whole debate and it is being ignored is that Islam will always be an infinitely greater threat to the homosexuals then Christianity has ever and will ever be. Sincerely.

The sites founders. said...

All good points. Time will tell where we are headed, but I confess that I do not feel the outcome will be good. We seem to have reached a tipping point as a society where the people expect the government to care for them and the government seems content to take over this nanny role - including that of being thought police. It just does not bode well from my point of view. I will take the time to re-read the proposed bill, obviously I am missing something. But, again, that was not what threw up the flag for me. As for trying to convince moderates, I do not think that is possible. A "moderate" - in many cases - uses the term to avoid making a decision or voicing an opinion. I am much more black and white and the 1st Amendment is simply black and white to me - very little if any grey.

Ah well, enjoyed your comments Sean.

chrissyrudd said...

Ah hem! As a "moderate" that "can't make up my mind", I would like to say that this bill does seem like a step in the wrong direction. Sean, you may find some day that referring to homosexuals as "sinners" will become "hate speech".