Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: If you hate it so much, why’d you come out, dudes? Previous entry: Sunday Sermon: Does morality come from in or outside?

The Religious Right: bearing false witness over and over about hate crimes legislation

Religious Right leaders’ portrayal of the hate crimes bill as an attack on religious liberty is false; it reflects a larger political strategy to portray equality advocates as enemies of faith and freedom.
—Right Wing Watch’s report on the continual lies coming out of the mouths of bible-beaters, “Right Sounds False Alarm On Hate Crimes Legislation”

Isn’t that the truth? This document over at People for the American Way’s Right Wing Watch is a great primer to download and have on hand when you encounter anyone who has been fed the lies being e-blasted out there by the professional anti-gay set.

The fact is that the majority of Americans support expanding the federal hate crimes law, repealing DADT and anti-discrimination legislation, but the fundies don’t have many cards left to play. So they’ve lately chosen to slow the pace of demonization rhetoric and focus on the phantom “religious freedom” argument (which ironically blew up in their faces recently with that hilariously mocked NOM “storm is coming” ad).

But as I said, it’s really all they have left, and it isn’t even true.

This is part of a larger political strategy by Religious Right leaders to advance their policy goals and mobilize supporters with alarmist claims that Christians in America are on the verge of being jailed for their religious beliefs.

As we have noted before, there’s a dangerously cynical motive at the core of this strategy.  It is easier to convince Americans to support discrimination – even to oppose laws designed to discourage violent hate crimes – if you have first convinced them that their gay neighbors want to shut down their church and throw their pastor in jail for reading the Bible.

Leading the way with the most laughably extremist, lying declarations of The Homosexual Agenda’s war on faith has been Tony Perkins of the FRC:

When hate crimes legislation came before the House of Representatives in 2007, Religious Right leaders went ballistic.  Family Research Council President Tony Perkins insisted that its only effect would be “to gag people of faith and conviction who disagree with the homosexual agenda.”  Perkins’ ally Bishop Harry Jackson recruited other African American pastors to appear at a press conference and in a newspaper ad claiming that hate crimes legislation would “muzzle” black preachers and deny them the freedom to preach about homosexuality.  Rev. Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network called a hate crimes bill “the most dangerous legislation ever to come before Congress.”  Not to be outdone, the Traditional Values Coalition’s Andrea Lafferty said “Most Christians might as well rip the pages which condemn homosexuality right out of their Bibles because this bill will make it illegal to publicly express the dictates of their religious beliefs.” The same combination of misinformation and willful deception is being rolled out this year, led by Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council.  One alert to its members on March 31 claimed that a federal hate crimes law “could lead to the criminalization of the biblical view of homosexuality in sermons and elsewhere.”  Said Perkins:   “A ‘hate crimes’ law is really a ‘thought crime’ law that punishes a person’s beliefs – part of the Left’s intolerant agenda to silence the voice of Christians and conservatives in America and eliminate moral restraint.” Perkins’ messages to activists in March make it clear that the alarmist rhetoric against legislation to fight hate crimes is part of a larger political strategy to convince conservative Christians that President Obama and the Democratic Party are enemies of religion and religious freedom.  One note urged activists to “Stop President Obama’s Agenda to Silence Your Beliefs” and another spoke of an “Obama-Pelosi-Reid” agenda as “a blueprint of their dangerous vision of an anti-faith, anti-family vision for America.”
The truth is below the fold. And here’s the truth:
It’s pretty simple.  The federal hate crimes law doesn’t create something called a “thought” crime or somehow create “special rights” for a particular group of people.  It strengthens law enforcement’s ability to fight violent crime – not vigorous debate, not sermons against homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the infamous “God hates fags” protesters, not the spreading of misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere.  Conservatives often say they want judges to focus on exactly what a law says.  Well, here’s exactly what the law says:
  “Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
Another section of the law makes it clear that federal courts could not rely on evidence of a person’s outlook or statements to convict someone of a hate crime unless those expressions were directly related to the commission of the violent crime in question:
  “In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness.”
Could it be any clearer that this has nothing to do with silencing preachers or punishing thoughts, and everything to do with discouraging and prosecuting violent hate crimes? 
Definitely check out the rest.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 12:13 PM • (21) Comments

If one preached against homosexuality but did not want to see anyone killed wouldn’t that person be all for this legislation?  It emphasizes that no matter what you think of another person’s lifestyle, you can’t actually harm them. 

I fear the right identifies more with the Allen Andrades of the world than it admits in public.

Comment #1: semi_factual  on  04/26  at  01:00 PM

The most disturbing thing about this (and, not uncoincidentally, the right’s shit-fit about the DHS report a couple of weeks ago) is that they’re essentially copping to being exactly what the bill opposes. It’s a sad fact that there aren’t enough people in this country willing to call them out on this.

Comment #2: BrianX  on  04/26  at  01:41 PM

Intent is a very important consideration in punishing violent offenders.  We have separated murder charges by degrees for a very long time and you don’t hear a lot of whinging about that.

Comment #3: saraeanderson  on  04/26  at  02:07 PM

We had a similar thing in the UK recently with some regulations coming out that required businesses not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.  There were loud screeches from Catholic Right Wingers about how this would mean that B & B owners would be required to let teh gays into their fine establishments. Well, yeah.  Sorry, but suck it up.

The regulations went through and civilisation thus far hasn’t fallen apart.

Comment #4: Katherine  on  04/26  at  03:21 PM

We have separated murder charges by degrees for a very long time and you don’t hear a lot of whinging about that.

Exactly. the Glibertarian position of “doesn’t a guy who kills his wife’s lover hate him, and thus isn’t all crime a hate crime?” (fuck you very much, Parker and Stone.)

A little thought experiment:

Bill is dead with a gunshot wound to the head. Bill is in fact an undercover police officer.

Was he killed by an investigation subject Carl, out of fear that he was going to squeal as a civilian? That’s Murder 1, killing the witness of a felony. Was it retaliation, Carl having caught Bill stealing some samples (Carl doesn’t know this was attempting to sample for evidence, and Bill did not announce his position as an officer before his death) That would be a lower charge, although likely prosecuted higher based on a competing theory of the crime.

Turns out that it wasn’t Carl’s gun. and Carl has an alibi. Bill was shot by Alice, his wife. Who may have been jealous of Bill’s routine adultery. A lower charge still. And wait, it wasn’t that. It’s that he was violent and abusive, and his demonstrated police skills and previous attempts to flee were unsuccessful, so shooting him in his sleep was her only option. lower still, possibly dismissal as self defense, depending on the political leanings of the court.

But it turns out, Bill had a stroke in his sleep. Alice shot a corpse and didn’t know it. which makes it attempted murder, which due to her circumstances, would likely be ignored or reduced to a charges stemming from corpse mutilation.

The single act of a gunshot to the head is a couple dozen different crimes, depending on intent and circumstance.

I see no reason why “He was shot because he was a cop as a message to all pigs coming onto our turf” should carry a different penalty than “He was shot because he was a queer as a message to all fags coming into our bar.”

Comment #5: karpad  on  04/26  at  03:23 PM

I have to wonder if these people have ever heard of the KKK or Neo-Nazis.  There are hate crime laws about race, yet these groups are still given police protection when they talk about how terrible minorities are.  How is sexuality or gender identity going to be any different?

Comment #6: Calla  on  04/26  at  05:29 PM

I think one of the main issues that the “anti-hate crime” advocates ignore is deterrence/recidivism factor.

If my motive for murder is “I killed my boyfriend because I caught him sleeping with my sister”, what are the odds that I will murder someone else after I get out of prison? How often will a specific motive for murder re-occur in someone’s life? And if 1000 other women, inspired by my example, internalize my motive and decide to murder their boyfriends if they ever catch them having sex with their sisters, how many other dead boyfriends will we see?

On the other hand, if my motive for murder is “I killed my boyfriend because he’s left-handed, and left-handed people are tools of Satan*”, that exact same motive will re-occur in my life about 1 out of 11 boyfriends. Likewise, my 1000 hypothetical copycats will produce somewhere around 70 to 100 dead boyfriends.

Aren’t criminal punishments about protecting society and deterring future crimes? At least, that what a lot of death-penalty advocates tell me.

*I know—in a sane society, this kind of thought process would usually be an indication of mental illness, not “hate”. But the difference between hating left-handed people and hating gays, women, PoC, etc. is…what, exactly?

Comment #7: Dorothy  on  04/26  at  08:40 PM

hey, it wasn’t that long ago that people readdly DID believe that being left-handed was a sigh that you were evil…

Comment #8: denelian  on  04/26  at  09:31 PM

Hate crimes pretty much fall under the definition of terrorism (violence aimed at political ends such as intimidating a particular group), so maybe we should just rename the legislation…

Comment #9: paul  on  04/26  at  09:32 PM

Indeed, denelian:

sin⋅is⋅ter
   /ˈsɪnəstər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sin-uh-ster] Show IPA
–adjective
1.    threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous: a sinister remark.
2.    bad, evil, base, or wicked; fell: his sinister purposes.
3.    unfortunate; disastrous; unfavorable: a sinister accident.
4.    of or on the left side; left.
5.    Heraldry. noting the side of an escutcheon or achievement of arms that is to the left of the bearer (opposed to dexter ).
Origin:
1375–1425; late ME < L: on the left hand or side, hence unfavorable, injurious

Comment #10: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/26  at  11:30 PM

I agree completely, Paul.
We wouldn’t be losing our framing by renaming it the Domestic Terrorism Deterrent Act. We’d be making it clearer what this is about.

Comment #11: Samantha Vimes  on  04/27  at  12:04 AM

But the difference between hating left-handed people and hating gays, women, PoC, etc. is…what, exactly?
Dorothy on 04/26 at 03:40 PM

The former is either a random mental quirk or, at most, an extrapolation of ideology. The latter usual victim’s roster reflects the functional needs of a dominator society predicated on cultivating authoritarian behavior in general via routine, ritualized demonization of scapegoats—scapegoats chosen because their Othering also serves other purposes of the social machine.

Thus, homophobia also serves to reinforce gender roles; racism also serves to keep large numbers of people in undesirable economic roles and “justifies” a political double standard as well. And misogyny (including its sugar-coated “separate spheres” manifestations) is arguably the baseline, original polarization seized upon by the earliest dominator societies. As well as having tremendous economic significance of course—undervaluing “women’s work” from childbirth to housecleaning is a deep and pervasive foundation of our whole economic order.

But while I’ve heard of persecution of left-handed people (from jokes about nuns hitting kids on the hand with a ruler saying “No! Not the left hand! It is the Devil’s hand!” which my sister told me she’d actually seen happen in a school I didn’t go to myself, to a chilling anecdote by science-fiction author Joe Haldeman about his visit to the Soviet Union, where he asked a school-teacher where all the left-handed students were and was told there were no such people in the USSR…) it has never really caught on as a major polarization for a society to hang its contradictions on. Except maybe in Soviet Russia, but I imagine the teacher was just embarrassed at maybe being accused of some shortcoming or other by his Western visitor and put out a cheap Potemkin Village defense.

In my opinion, if we didn’t have the basic framework of the dominator paradigm none of what I’m calling the “secondary” reasons for particular institutionalized bigotries, no matter how weighty they are, would prevail over general human empathy in those situations. In a non-dominator society, there might be people with bigoted bees in their bonnets, but they would be random and clearly nutcases in the opinion of their neighbors—so they’d either keep their quirky hatreds harmless or be checked, rebuked, or punished by their peers if someone seemed likely to get hurt or actually was.

But then, the “secondary” considerations often are weighty—early British colonialists could hardly have made the huge profits they did on the sugar, tobacco, and other such plantation crops without some institution of forced labor or other, for instance. This is why we have dominator societies in the first place—to enable systematic social exploitation.

Comment #12: Mark Foxwell  on  04/27  at  12:28 AM

Fuck ‘em. They kill….they fry.

I’m still not clear if you’re actually a troll, or just stupid.

Your standard is impossible on its face. If “You kill, you fry, no exceptions” then the guy who does the executing is similarly going to be executed.

Of course, if you allow exceptions for killing for self defense, or because the government told you to, well, alright, but then you reintroduce motive into it. Which means the “thought crime” bullshit you keep going on about comes back into play. Did you actually kill in self defense, or was it because you just didn’t like him?

Nevermind that without consideration of such things, without room for mercy, there is no such thing as justice.

Comment #13: karpad  on  04/27  at  02:08 AM

Conservative Christians should rest assured that federal hate crime laws will not prevent them from continuing to practice their Old Testament bigotry against GLBT citizens. What it will do is require them to contain their bigotry within the cesspool of hate they call a church.  It’s their lobbying for the disenfranchisement of over 10% of their fellow citizens that will no longer be tolerated in the public square.

Comment #14: BobbyV  on  04/27  at  07:53 AM

It’s their lobbying for the disenfranchisement of over 10% of their fellow citizens that will no longer be tolerated in the public square.

Well, no, the hate crimes statute wouldn’t stop that, either—after all, you’re giving an example of political speach, however wrongheaded.

What it punishes are hatecrimes—it doexsn’t make noncriminal acts crimes—it increaases the punishment for certain types of crimes, with a particular motive.

Comment #15: rea  on  04/27  at  08:48 AM

“Most Christians might as well rip the pages which condemn homosexuality right out of their Bibles because this bill will make it illegal to publicly express the dictates of their religious beliefs.”

This will also conveniently remove the stuff prohibiting me from eating shrimp, because those verses are on the very same pages.  What a relief!  Now I won’t have to throw away that shrimp I have in my freezer.  In other news, it seems that conservative Christians have already ripped out all of those pages about love, tolerance, peace, and non-judgment.  Hypocrisy is so annoying.

Comment #16: bananacat  on  04/27  at  10:13 AM

“What I would like to see, instead, is ALL killings with the harshest punsishment. That would eliminate this argument of “thought crime”.

Fuck ‘em. They kill….they fry. “

That sounds like an excellent way to get yourself elected state representative, but a bad way to run society.

Comment #17: witless chum  on  04/27  at  10:53 AM

A) They did discourage and stop left-handedness back in the day.  My grandmother was left-handed, but, in school, they wouldn’t let her write with her left hand, and so, to her dying day, she had terrible handwriting no matter what hand she wrote with.  When my left-handed mother came home with a note from school saying that she was left-handed and this needed to be fixed, there was absolute hell to pay from my grandmother, and my mom got to write with her left hand.  I’m right-handed, but it looks like my daughter will be left-handed, and I’m grateful that she won’t have to go through that shit.

B) If we’re not in this to silence the churches, that totally takes the fun out of it!  I don’t want to do gay rights anymore - what a buzzkill, not oppressing people.

Comment #18: Atheist Feminazi  on  04/27  at  11:51 AM

Karpad:  I’m not sure I understand the intent of your thought experiment.  Are you saying that hate crime legislation is not necessary?  Because current consideration of intent already covers it?

Comment #19: salvador dalai llama  on  04/28  at  02:40 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.