Will New Hate Crimes Law
Silence the Church?
Choose
You This Day Whom You Will Serve
News Analysis by Jim
Day
I (and many others) have warned the Christian
community for years that ‘Hate Crimes’ legislation was coming down the pike
to silence and punish those who attempt to bring to repentance people who
are caught up in the homosexual lifestyle. Well folks, last month – on October
28th to be precise – President Obama signed into
law the Matthew Shepard
and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which creates additional
penalties for violent crimes motivated by the victim’s “actual or perceived”
gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
In an incredibly underhanded, deceitful and
purposeful move by the Democrat leadership, the new Hate Crimes law was
attached to the $680-billion Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. The
political purpose of this despicable move was to force any Congressman or
Senator (Republican or Democrat) to vote for the bill out of fear of being
labeled as unpatriotic and/or not being supportive of our armed forces.
The
following is a list of Missouri and Illinois U.S. Senators and Congressmen
listed by their party affiliation (R=Republican, D=Democrat) followed by the
State Congressional District (the number), which they represent, and how they
voted on the Defense Authorization Bill.
Keep in mind, a “Yes” vote was to pass the
Defense Bill with the Hate Crimes Act attached. A “No” vote was not to
pass/approve the Defense Bill with the Hate Crimes Act attached.
Missouri Senators
Sen. Christopher Bond
(R) - Yes
Sen. Clair McCaskill (D) - Yes
Illinois Senators
Sen. Roland Burris (D)
– Yes
Sen. Richard Durbin
(D) – Yes
Missouri Congressmen
Rep. William Lacy Clay
(D-1) - Yes
Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) –
No
Rep. Russ Carnahan
(D-3) – Yes
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-4)
- Yes
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
II (D-5) - Yes
Rep. Sam Graves (R-6)
– No
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-7) –
No
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson
(R-8) – No
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9) – Yes
Illinois Congressmen
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-1)
- Yes
Rep. Jesse Jackson,
Jr. (D-2) – No
Rep. Daniel Lipinski
(D-3) - Yes
Rep. Luis Gutierrez
(D-4) – Yes
Rep. Mike Quigley
(D-5) – Yes
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-6) – No
Rep. Danny Davis (D-7)
– Yes
Rep. Melissa Bean
(D-8) – Yes
Rep. Janice Schakowsky
(D-9) – Yes
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10)
– Yes
Rep. Deborah Halvorson
(D-11) – Yes
Rep. Jerry Costello
(D-12) - Yes
Rep. Judy Biggert
(R-13 - Yes
Rep. Bill Foster
(D-14) – Yes
Rep. Timothy Johnson
(R-15) - No
Rep. Donald Manzullo
(R-16) – No
Rep. Phil Hare (D-17)
- Yes
Rep. Aaron Schock (R-18) – No
Rep. John Shimkus
(R-19) - No
The End of the 1st
Amendment?
Aside from being totally
unconstitutional because of the fact that it’s a direct violation of equal
protection under the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution, this bill can be utilized to legitimize the
creation of more laws that will completely obliterate our freedom of speech
under the 1st 
Amendment
to the Constitution. It is one of the most dangerous laws in the history of the
United States.
According to an article recently posted
on Alex Jones’ InfoWars website, “Any ‘hate crimes’
bill is just a step towards the end of the 1st
Amendment and stepping into the direction of a totalitarian government
which hands out fines and puts people in prison for what they ‘say’ [and think].
What this hate crimes bill will do is open the door for other tyrannical
regulations that will criminalize any type of speech.
“This bill could lead to an age of ‘Pre-Crime’
and ‘Preventative Detentions,’ if say the FBI suspects you of potentially committing
a hate crime you can be prosecuted and detained even if no crime was even
committed. It can also lead to cyber-bullying laws which could mean an
expensive fine or prison-time for internet bullying. This bill can also lead to
‘political hate laws’ where any dissent against the government or its policies
could make you a political prisoner.
“The White House already has an ‘enemies
list’ where any dissent against its policies can land many into a permanent
White House database. The U.S. Government and Homeland Security have
established their hatred for dissidents in this country and have established
that anti-New World Order groups, alternative media outlets (like this one) are
potential violent terrorist tools. Anything about the U.S. Constitution, any partisan activists or any civil disobedience
of any kind is now considered potential violent extremism by Homeland Security.
“An unclassified Homeland Security memo
even says people who are concerned about loss of U.S. sovereignty, illegal
immigration and gun-control who are genuinely upset about encroachments upon
our freedoms may be considered a potential insurgent against the U.S.
government! Even liberal environmental activism and anti-war activism is
considered potential violent extremism.
“When you think of the phrase
‘hate crimes’ remember that hate speech is a form of free speech and protected
by the 1st Amendment in the Bill
of Rights. The whole point of free speech is to protect unpopular
speech like hate speech. When Obama signed the hate crimes bill into law the government
officially turned free speech into a criminal act, and soon it will become
a terrorist/extremist act if Homeland Security gets its way.”
Silencing the Truth
It poses a real threat for pastors,
ministries, Christian news media and Christian broadcasters who proclaim the
Truth of the matter, which is that homosexuality is a
sin. The fact that God has proclaimed that homosexuality is an abomination in
His eyes. A sin however which can be overcome and repented of
(turned away from) with the power of the Holy Spirit.
For those mentioned above (pastors,
ministries, Christian news media and Christian broadcasters) who believe Section 4710 within the Hate Crimes amendment will protect them from lawsuits,
persecution and prosecution, they better think again. Section 4710 reads as
follows:
“SEC.
4710.
RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
For purposes of
construing this division and the amendments made by this division the following
shall apply:
“(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing
in this division shall be construed to allow a court, in any criminal trial
for an offense described under this 
division
or an amendment made by this division, in the absence of a stipulation by
the parties, to admit evidence of speech, beliefs, association, group membership,
or expressive conduct unless that evidence is relevant and admissible under
the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this division is intended to affect
the existing rules of evidence.
“(2) VIOLENT ACTS-
This division applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race,
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability of a victim.
“(4) FREE
EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution
based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political,
or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group
advocating or espousing such beliefs.
“(5) FIRST
AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division,
shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
“(6) CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any
constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless
of whether compelled by, or 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.”
Don’t Be Fooled
Section 4710 sounds great, doesn’t it. However, in an excellent article by Charlie Butss of OneNewsNow, who
interviewed Craig Parshall, the Chief Counsel for the
National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), Parshall makes
several important observations.
Butss states, “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.
“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 a co-conspirator,’ adds Parshall. He says the
supposed bodily injury could be something as insignificant as someone being
jostled during a rally or shoved in a protest march.
“Parshall acknowledges
the amendment that was passed to provide some degree of protection for Christians,
but points out that interpretations of 
such
statements are ultimately left up to the court.
“‘And that’s always a problem,’ he laments. ‘We
have a court system that has been notorious for getting it wrong when it pits
the power of government on one hand and the free exercise of religious rights
of individuals on the other.’
“According to the NRB attorney, there could
also be repercussions in agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission
and the Internal Revenue Service. Parshall says the
FCC, for example, could develop rules on what broadcasters can and cannot say
about homosexuality, possibly jeopardizing their licenses.
“‘Public school curriculum could be built entirely
on the idea of what is illegal hate in our culture,’ says the attorney. ‘And
our children could be indoctrinated [to believe that] if you criticize another
religion or mention Jesus as being the only way, that’s hateful-- [or] if
you say that homosexuality is a sin, that’s hateful.’
“And then there is the IRS, which Parshall says could apply the hate crimes law as a national
policy on homosexuality and other world religions. ‘And [they] could start
taking a look at Christian non-profit ministries and [telling them if they]
want to be tax exempt, [they] can’t speak hatefully about other groups,’ he
suggests. ‘That would be defined as not criticizing Islam or not being critical
of the homosexual lifestyle. Those are just a few of the ripple-out effects.’
“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.
Conclusion
Let us pray that through whatever lawsuits
are filed as Parshall expects,
this despicable Hate Crimes law will be declared unconstitutional and removed
from the law books. That of course will take time.
In the mean time, those who proclaim the
name of Jesus as their Lord and Savior – particularly pastors, ministry leaders
and those in Christian media – have a choice to make. Those choices are, “Do I
preach and minister the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes reaching
out to homosexuals with the message that they are living in sin, that God loves
them but hates their sin, and that they must repent and turn away from that sin
to avoid God’s wrath?” or, “Should I avoid talking about homosexuality because
I could be sued or put into jail for hate speech?”
I cannot speak for anyone but myself but this
much I will say: “And if it seems evil
unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether
the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood,
or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell; but as for me and my
house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua
24:15)
