SkipCaptcha
3,995
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: − + − + − + − Hate crime legislation is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws.+ − − The [[gay rights]] movement currently attempts to equate racism and [[anti-Semitism]] with the condemnation of homosexual lifestyle. They claim that, like race, sexual orientation is 100% inherited and immutable but there are studies that question this claim [citation needed]. − − Nonetheless, the strategy of activists is to insist that condemnation of sin is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate". − − There is a misinterpretation of a sermon by Jesus, who told people not to "hate" their enemies used in favor of the argument. What hate crimes legislation ignores is that Jesus never hesitated to condemn sin and frequently criticized wrongdoers. Line 47:
Line 41: − + Line 57:
Line 51: +
→Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda: tighten up discussion
==Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda==
==Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda==
Liberals promote hate crime legislation to legitimize certain lifestyles by declaring them to be protected by law, and to chill [[free speech]] that criticizes those lifestyles.
Liberals promote hate crime legislation to legitimize certain lifestyles by declaring them to be protected by law, and to chill [[free speech]] that criticizes those lifestyles. Their reasoning is that if someone makes hateful statements and later commits a crime targeting a member of the group that was discussed, then the person would be subject to a higher penalty than if he had kept his thoughts unvoiced. So, criminals will feel less free to speak their minds. However, people who are sufficiently filled with hate to engage in violence against the target of their hate, are probably not going to have their speech curtailed in response to such legislation.
Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of [[First Amendment]] guarantees of freedom of religion, [[free speech]], and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice.
Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of [[First Amendment]] guarantees of freedom of religion, [[free speech]], and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice. Proponents claim that the law should consider that hate crime harm society as a whole more than just random violence, thereby justifying a higher penalty.
Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice".
Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice" without making "hate speech" a separate crime.
Some critics claim that hate crime legislation is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws. However, many states have enacted hate crime statutes without then taking the separate step of amending anti-discrimination laws.
A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:
A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle. [citation needed]
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle. [citation needed]
Additionally, some have argued that hate crimes should be applied in extreme cases, but that existing legislation is far too broad. For instance, they argue that merely telling a homosexual that he will go to [[hell]] if he does not repent should not be a "hate crime", but that actually killing that person (which in the opinion of the murderer, would send them to hell) should be classified as a "hate crime". This is generally seen as a more moderately conservative to centrist view on the issue.
Additionally, some have argued that hate crime laws should be applied in extreme cases, but that existing legislation is far too broad. For instance, they argue that merely telling a homosexual that he will go to [[hell]] if he does not repent should not be a "hate crime", but that actually killing that person (which in the opinion of the murderer, would send them to hell) should be classified as a "hate crime". This is generally seen as a more moderately conservative to centrist view on the issue, and is the approach taken in the hate crime laws that have been enacted.
===Legislative history===
===Legislative history===
In July 2007, [[Ted Kennedy]] bypassed a committee vote and attached hate crimes legislation to a massive defense appropriation bill requested by the President, in an effort to compel him to sign the hate crimes legislation.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702 Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill] 'Shameless attempt to push [[homosexual agenda]] ... by exploiting soldiers', Bob Unruh, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 17, 2007.</ref>
In July 2007, [[Ted Kennedy]] bypassed a committee vote and attached hate crimes legislation to a massive defense appropriation bill requested by the President, in an effort to compel him to sign the hate crimes legislation.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702 Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill] 'Shameless attempt to push [[homosexual agenda]] ... by exploiting soldiers', Bob Unruh, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 17, 2007.</ref>
== Hate crimes in the United States against atheists/agnostics are very low in number ==
== Hate crimes in the United States against atheists/agnostics are very low in number ==