Read this column in new book coming out Oct. 2011: "The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence," by Allan Erickson, Tate Publishing.
UPDATE TODAY: ADF ATTORNEY ALAN SEARS WITH MICHAEL MEDVED HERE.
Parenthood is a delicate ballet -- especially when the dance floor is covered in Lego pieces. Offer your kids some building...
PHOTOS: t.co/dL2LdDez Kate Upton is 2012 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit cover girl #Video Via @SquirrelChatter
Just because you’re single don’t boycott Valentine’s Day t.co/mmYiH0xA #VDay
Powerful Category 4 Cyclone Giovanna slams Madagascar; kills at least one t.co/oAzTSzPO
Examiner.com is the inside source for everything local. We are powered by Examiners, the largest pool of passionate contributors in the world.
Examiners provide unique and original content to enhance life in your local city wherever that may be. Examiners come from all walks of life and contribute original content to entertain, inform, and inspire.
Comments
This is a sad day in America Allan. All the more reason to get rid of this toxic crew in 2010 and get the new bunch to repeal all the damaging legislation signed by these slimeballs. (Ooooh! I just committed a hate crime!)
Watch yer step Simpson! The gremlins have been deployed!
Allan,
I used to be just like you, then I learned about what hate crimes are and I've concluded many people who oppose hate crimes simply misunderstand them. First, this places no restrictions on free expression. Harming others though is not free expression. With a hate crime, their intent isn't to just inflict harm on those they hurt directly, but to harm indirectly everyone of that characteristic through the symbolism of the crime. I prefer the term "threat crime" as that's a better description.
Put another way, do you consider 9/11 to be merely 3,000 murders and serious sabotage (property term)? I certainly don't. All those things were involved and are atrocious, but 9/11 can't be quantified or reduced to simply that. 9/11 was an attack on all of us. Their actions go beyond the victims they hurt, they meant to terrorize all of us. The difference between hate crimes and 9/11 is quantitative. The difference between typical crime and 9/11 is quantitative and qualitative.
Two other things. Prosecuting hate crimes is far more complicated than your simple explanation. Hate crimes occur far more often than they are prosecuted, because they are very difficult to prove in court. The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the defendant did the action, but that the defendant meant to terrorize others of a similar characteristic. If the victim happens to be different and the perpetrator happens to be prejudice, that is not enough.
And lastly, regardless of my opinion of hate crime laws, I think your opposition is misdirected. The Matthew Shepard Act represents a minor change to what we have now, as the hate crime infrastructure is already set up, and we just added sexual orientation. Even when I was just like you, I was for adding sexual orientation as long as hate crime laws existed. The opposition to this based on opposition to hate crime laws is overblown, and should be directed toward a repeal of all hate crime laws.
Ben,
The problem you ignore (or miss) is giving more power to the federal government, overruling states which already have hate crimes laws, the opening of Pandora's box in crossing the line, allowing government to prosecute intent rather than behavior, and the potential for use of the criminal code to persecute anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing popular sentiment. In other words, we have now entered a world where justice is no longer measured according to principle and behavior, but rather, according to prejudice and sentiment. Justice will now be whatever Big Brother says it is, and the politically incorrect will be marginalized even further, but now, by the arm of law. Welcome to Oceania.
One other thing: Sunday morning the pastor preaches about what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Someone in attendance takes what he preaches, misapplies it, goes out, injures a homosexual, and guess what? That's right, the pastor gets prosecuted, and the church gets sued. Welcome to Oceania.
Allan,
We punish intent all the time. We punish murder more severely than manslaughter even though they both result in a dead body. Why? Intent. The same is true with a hate crime: the intent is not just to injure the person or people directly, but to terrorize everyone who shares that characteristic. And what's your answer to my question: should we treat 9/11 as merely 3,000 murders and severe sabotage?
As far as your church example, I don't know if that's a hypothetical or an actual. If it's an actual, that's wrong. It's irrelevant to the bill in question anyway, as it makes clear...
"Nothing in this division ... shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor shall anything in this division ... be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, or association" unless prosecutors can demonstrate that the speech was intended to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."
"Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration."
NEWS ITEM: Appended to the hate crimes amendment was a statement ensuring that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the bases if his or her speech, beliefs, or association.
But Craig Parshall, chief counsel for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), discounts that statement, pointing out that such laws in other countries have been used to silence people of faith. He believes the law approved by Congress is potentially dangerous as it relates to comments made about homosexuality or another religion.
"Under the criminal law of incitement, if something is said in a broadcast that another person uses as a motivation to go out and commit an act of what they call 'bodily injury' in the statute, then a broadcaster could be held criminally liable," he explains.
Or an outspoken broadcaster could be held to be co-conspirator, adds Parshall.
ITEM:
Parshall contends that an examination of the motive behind the hate crimes law reveals it is not about hate -- and will have no effect on stopping crime, because that is already outlawed in all 50 states. In his opinion, it is designed to shut up the opposition -- Christians specifically -- and close down any debate against the homosexual lifestyle.
ITEM:
Google: Pensioner-complained-gay-pride-march-warned-police-hate-crime UK Daily Mail
"Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy." Chuck Colson
Related Item today:
International religious freedom observers mostly praised Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's opposition to anti-defamation policies because such restrictions would limit free speech.
The United Nations General Assembly is expected to vote soon on a pending anti-defamation resolution sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Clinton said at a press conference on Monday. "I strongly disagree."
Related item:
Google- How the FCC and liberal churches are scheming to shut you up, Malkin
Allan,
Spare me and everyone this "sky is falling" rhetoric. We've had federal hate crime laws for 15 years now and the sky is still up there, and I find it funny that those you're citing aren't refuting the idea that we have hate crime laws at all, just now that they're covering sexual orientation
Ben,
It's one thing to have hate crimes laws on the books state-to-state. Having federal teeth is quite another matter.
Does it matter to you that only 1% of aggravated assaults can be classified hate crimes?
Does it matter to you Matthew Sheppard's killers didn't even know he was homosexual, that his death had to do with a drug deal gone wrong apparently?
The thing is so obviously politically motivated and designed to promote a PC agenda to the detriment of majority sentiment resulting in loss of liberty, I'm surprised more people are not more concerned.
But, if you boil the frog slowly enough, he'll just stay in the pan, until he is dead.
Ben,
Amazing how you ask for evidence and logical argument, you get it, then ignore it, and try to characterize your adversary as hysterial. That about sums up the entire Leftist approach to everything: first appear rational, if that doesn't work, cry, if that doesn't work go vicious, then try hysterical again.
One other thought comes to mind: the only one who has ever successfully dealt with hate in the human heart is God, and not just any god, the God of love. One supposes the federal government now assumes it can replace God in this arena. Ah, not gonna happen.
(Sorry, can't help it. Things keep coming to mind!) One other thought! Doesn't it bother anyone that Reid and Pelosi and the rest stuffed this legislation into the Defense Authorization Bill, hiding it behind military spending, obviously a move to ram the bill through, avoid debate and scrutiny, a cynical contradiction of majority opinion and a clear disrespect for the Constitution? It seems to me the Executive and the Legislative branches have combined to create a new monarchy. And everybody is OK with this?
Oh Ben,
Something else for you to chew on. During committee deliberations on hate crimes, Republicans suggested with cover military personnel and Christians, both groups experiencing assault and persecution at much higher rates than homosexuals. Guess what? Democrats canned those suggestions. Wonder why? So this is really only about protecting citizens unduly treated to hateful criminal activity? HA!
And shame on me . . . there's also that little matter of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, all that equal protection stuff:
WSJ
Law Blog
10.23.09
"Does the Hate Crimes Bill Have 14th Amendment Problems?"
Allan,
Hate crime laws have been on the federal books for about 15 years. Not just states. Again, opposition is misdirected
As for Matthew Shepard, that is patently false. That episode of 20/20 had a predetermined conclusion, willing to cherry-pick and take things out of context, which they did.
As far as the 1%, irrelevant. I don't care how rare it is, that doesn't change whether it should be a crime.
As for military personnel, I can't speak for them. What we're talking about anyway is the practical impact of the law Same with the rider. I'm for a single subject rule. I won't defend how it came to be, but these sky is falling notions of the impact are ridiculous
Hate crime laws involve equal protection. It doesn't say "black," "gay" or anything of the sort, it says "race," and "sexual orientation."
As for hate, this has nothing to do with people's personal feelings. It's everything to do with their INTENT.
You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer: should we treat 9/11 like 3,000 murders and severe sabotage
Ben,
I think the entire hate crimes thing is politically motivated and a tool for the Left to engineer society and marginalize the opposition, and I think the facts demonstrate that is obvious. Hate crimes laws are duplicative and appear to violate the 14th Amendment, so we shall see. The fact prosecutors will have a very difficult time proving someone's intent to incite, or that a perp was motivated by hate, begs the question. Besides, how will be determine a victim's sexual orientation, by their word alone? And what of the slippery slope of people claiming they were assaulted for their sexual orientation simply because they want publicity? I refer you to Perez Hilton in Toronto not long ago.
Seems we still don't know how to treat 9/11. As far as I'm concerned it was an act of war, not a law enforcement issue. The more we treat Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement issue, the more we play into their hands, using our sense of fair play and justice against us.
Besides, as a practical matter, setting up special classes of victims invites chaos and discrimination, hence the concern about violating the 14th Amendment.
And if the Democrats were really interested in across-the-board confrontation of hate crimes, they'd include those crimes against Christians and our military personnel, but they refused to do so, and thus, reveal their bigotry.
Are you as concerned about hate crimes perpetrated against Christians as you are those perpetrated against homosexuals?
Equal protection under law is the issue. Creating special classes is inherently discriminatory. Allowing law to be used as a tool to promote ideology is wrong on its face. It is tyrannical. If you can remain casual in the face of liberty lost, and blithely accept corruption of our legal system and gross favoritism, then I suggest you are either blind, unconscious or willfully ignorant about what is happening in this country and elsewhere.
Wilders and Savage banned from Great Britain for nothing other than having opinions.
Mark Steyn brought up on charges before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for having an opinion.
The U.S. bowing to pressure from Islam to make it a crime to criticize or otherwise insult Islam, and by the way, preaching the Gospel is considered an insult to Islam.
These incidents do not concern you in the slightest?
How about these?
[Google: Christians arrested gay]
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Christians Arrested for Standing in Public with
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Christians Arrested for Standing in Public with Sign "If they arrest us for proclaiming the word of God, what will they arrest us for next?
Cops versus preachers on public sidewalk" by Chelsea Schilling C 2009 WorldNetDaily 8/27/09
Jun/23/08 11:01 Filed in: Persecution, fbns@wayoflife dot org "HATE CRIMES" LAWS USED AGAINST CHRISTIANS IN CANADA David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service Port Huron, MI
866-295-4143
Public Nudity Tolerated as Angry Mob Assaults Peaceful Christians at Chicago 'Gay Pride' Parade Americans for Truth 6.27.07
Pastor arrested at gay pride festival (Handed out flyer: Homosexuality is a
sin)
kansas.com ^ | 06.30.08 | DANIEL MCCOY
For the second consecutive year, a gay pride parade and festival was marked by the arrest of a Wichita pastor.
Born again Christians arrested for handing out bibles at Gay Pride festival (wcco.com), June 09
Christian arrested for handing out leaflets at homosexual rally. South W
Allan,
I'm going to start numbering my arguments as it's likely easier:
1. Their actual sexual orientation is irrelevant. If you attack someone for their perceived sexual orientation, even if they turned out not to be it, it's still a hate crime. And again, hate crimes occur far more often than they are prosecuted, because they are very hard to prove. A mere claim of the victim is never enough, even for a violent crime let alone a hate crime
2. I don't get your point about 9/11. Do you consider it to be quantified as 3,000 murders and sabotage or do you think it was that and a crime against all of us?
3. Christians are ALREADY protected under hate crime laws. Religion has been a category likely since the beginning.
4. Hate crime laws apply to everyone equally, so the equal protection notion is false.
As for hate crimes against Christians vs. against gays, I think they're equally atrocious.
We have the 1st Amendment protection, I don't buy slippery slope
1. So in other words, in the interests of equal protection, if a homosexual attacks a heterosexual because he/she is heterosexual, the homosexual will be prosecuted for a hate crime? Mere claims are routinely enough when it comes to political correctness.
2. I realize you are trying to pigeon-hole me with the 9/11 incident in this discussion of hate crimes. It was an act of war as I've stated. Call it murder, as were the murders at Pearl Harbor. I don't see sabotage. Call it a crime against humanity. I would not agree it compares to calling someone a name.
3. Christians are protected in word, but not in deed, and certainly not in popular opinion or culture. Just the other night I heard Chris Matthews compare conservative Christians to the Taliban, agreeing with Bill Moyers and Robert Reich. Do you agree we have a double-standard when it comes to hate speech, and what of the examples I cited of Christians arrested for holding signs, or handing out literature?
4.
4. In real practice hate crimes most certainly do not apply equally and you know it. Simply stating a contrary position does not erase reality. If hate crimes actually applied equally there would be thousands of Muslim before the bench, here, and in Europe. Where are they?
As to slippery slopes:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, I was alone, and there was no one left to speak out.
Lutheran Pastor Niemöller
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Christian Photographer Sued by Lesbians
From "ADF attorney available to media following hearing in complaint against N.M. photographer" posted 1/25/08 at AllianceDefenseFund.org
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence will be available for media interviews following a hearing before the New Mexico Human Rights Division Monday and Tuesday. ADF attorneys represent a Christian photographer being tried under state antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”
Be sure to see the update at the top of the column featuring a discussion between Alan Sears and Michael Medved.
1. Yes. And no, mere claims are not enough for a conviction and you know that
2. Sabotage: Destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in time of war. No sabotage, really? 9/11 was a hate crime on a massive scale, plain and simple. And for the last time, CALLING SOMEONE A NAME IS NOT A HATE CRIME. A hate crime is a crime directed at a person or persons on the basis of characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The key word is "a crime." This law doesn't make any actions into crimes that were not crimes already. Stop creating straw men.
3. Irrelevant due to what I described in 2.
4. The death penalty doesn't apply equally in practice either. Something is to be said about times where a black person committing a crime against a white person and getting the death penalty, while a white does it against a black and gets life in prison. Should we get rid of the death penalty for that reason? I say no
And are you seriously comparing our hate crime laws to Nazi Germany?
Mere claims are sufficient to have the police visit your home, sufficient to get you wrapped up in court, sufficient to have you hauled before a 'human rights commission,' sufficient to force you to spend time and money defending yourself against frivolous charges, sufficient to have your reputation destroyed, and sufficient to injure your ability to make a living.
3. Irrelevant when enforcement is selective? Christians arrested for handing out literature peacefully. Black Panthers threaten voters at the polls and are virtually ignored by law enforcement? Christians hold signs at homosexual rallies and are arrested. Homosexuals invade churches and threaten people and they are ignored by law enforcement. Homosexuals hang Sarah Palin in effigy last Halloween, and they are ignored by law enforcement. Christians are jailed for exercising free speech. I'll put the coffee on, you take a whiff.
Verbal violence: hate speech--prosecuted in Canada and Europe. Hate crimes here paves the way. Straw man?
Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.
By Adam Liptak
June 11, 2008
British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.
Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.
Hate crimes pit one group against another using the force of law to allow one group power over another, precursor to tyranny, similar to the progression in German in the 30s. Do you know how to boil a frog?
1. This doesn't add to that
3. So again, do you think the death penalty should be abolished because it's unfairly administered? Or better yet, should our justice system be abolished entirely because it's biased toward rich and good looking people?
And no, for the last time, hate crime laws don't pit one group against another. We've already covered this territory
Yes I know how to boil a frog, and that is a ridiculous comparison for our purposes right now. Great job breaking Godwin's law
Hate crimes: duckspeak.
pun intended?
Quack.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!