Black Ministers vs Gay Rights...

Carlene · 05-02-2007, 10:10 AM

Should this bill pass, or not? Wouldn't you think that a group of black Christians would be the first to uphold the rights of, and seek protection for, other minorities? What about white Christians? Is it so important to you that your minister be allowed to preach against gays that you would oppose this legislation, which might actually save lives?

Ministers oppose shield for gays

By HAMIL R. HARRIS
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- A coalition of conservative African-American religious leaders is lobbying Congress to reject a bill that would extend federal hate-crimes laws to cover gays, saying they fear it would prevent them from preaching against homosexuality.
Several ministers last week urged House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., a sponsor of the bill, and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
They say it would pin the hate-crime label on their sermons against homosexuality, which they consider a sin.
"This bill will offer a status for gays, lesbians and transgender people under the equal protection status that can muzzle the black church," said Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in suburban Lanham, Md.
Gay activists compare the bill to civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

Sunta · 05-02-2007, 01:54 PM

I will be voting against the Hate crimes law.

Super! One more vote towards protecting people like the ones who murdered Mathew Sheppard!

Good for you!

TommyO · 05-02-2007, 02:10 PM

Hate crime laws prevent people who preach hatred from hiding behind freedom of speech laws. If you are not preaching hate you have nothing to fear from hate crime laws. If you are preaching hatred you should be punished. I can not help but think that anyone who is apposed to laws that protect us from hate do so because they spew hatred and want to continue to stand at the pulpit and spew a message of hate.
IMHO If you are against hate crime laws then you are for hate. I know that Nazi's, Skin Heads, the KKK and right wing Christians will disagree with me but it's just my opinion.

Carlene · 05-02-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leatha_g

I will be voting against the Hate crimes law.

We don't actually get to vote....it's a bill already before Congress. But how about if they exclude from prosecution any ordained minister who preaches against homosexuality from the pulpit....would you be in favor of it then?

faithmd · 05-02-2007, 02:45 PM

I think it would have to go back to how it was spoken about. If a religion believes it is a sin, then that is what they believe and if that is what they wish to preach to their parishoners, then let them preach it...
With a caveat:
It should be spoken about as merely something they do not believe in, homosexuality/transgenered persons should never be called awful names, nor should the ministers spew hatred or make disparaging comments like it is an abomination or things such as that.
We all have different belief systems, that is what makes the world go around, but just because you believe differently from me, doesn't mean I should be taught to HATE you. That's crossing the line and should never be tolerated, no matter what the law.

For the record, I have marched in many a gay pride parade and have loaned many of my former clubbing outfits to friends who do drag. I do not believe it is a sin, nor an abomination. I just believe that if you do and are a minister speaking to your congregation, you should have the right to teach what your church's beliefs are. As long as you are not preaching HATRED.

lisah25 · 05-02-2007, 03:06 PM

Hum, interesting. I think if they simply say that they believe homsexuality is a sin, that's not hate speech.

It's interesting to me that this is such a big deal to them. "Muzzle" the churches? Do they talk about nothing else?

wavydaby · 05-02-2007, 03:06 PM

I dont like hate crime laws. I think they are unecessary. We already have laws that are supposed to punish people who do things like those that savagely killed Matthew.
We should enforce the laws we have.
What about a person who hits me because I am fat?
Should they be charged a hate crime? I dont see that covered on the bill.
And yes, as a child I was hit and picked on because I was fat.
No special coverage there...

Sunta · 05-02-2007, 03:14 PM

I am really confused as to what leg these ministers have to stand on with regard to the anti-hate legislation.

The legislation does not seek to limit people from saying "being Gay is against what we believe", it seeks penalties if someone has a violent crime committed against them becauseof their being Gay.

So am I to assume that Black ministers want to committ violent crimes against Gays, or that they want to incite others to inflict violent crimes against Gays? Yes, that is what I will assume for now, since that is what this bill seeks to provide protection against.

It has nothing to do with speech, whatsoever. Ministers and others will still be allowed to spew their ignorant, biased crap against Gays, so why are they worried?

Just another feather in the cap of blatant Christian hypocrisy.

I wonder how these Black ministers would feel if Blacks became suddenly not protected under the current hate crimes legislation?

So that, you know, it would suddenly become just fine to burn a cross on their lawn, or drag them by a rope from a speeding truck, or discriminate against them in housing, because they are Black? That would be just fine with them, huh?

We shouldn't have more tough penalities for people who would committ such crimes, right? And they're already "protected enough" with no "special" law for them, right?

So it's ok for criminals to target people based on their race and also sexual orientation, right? And no special protection is needed?

Ok, let's do away with all the protections then, that currently exist on the books.

Carlene · 05-02-2007, 03:48 PM

My own feeling is that anti-hate laws, by definition, should extend their protection to all persecuted minorities. It's not okay to act on one's hatred for blacks....or gays...or Muslims, or anyone else.

lisah25 · 05-02-2007, 03:59 PM

I have mixed feelings actually. I don't know that acts that would be crimes no matter who the victim was, like dragging someone behind a truck, should have different punishments.

I do strongly believe in laws preventing discrimination in matters that aren't criminal, like housing.

Sunta · 05-02-2007, 04:11 PM

I don't know that acts that would be crimes no matter who the victim was, like dragging someone behind a truck, should have different punishments.

Well I think the argument is that by making ethnic minorities a protected status, and by then having a more harsh penalty, that it deters people from committing such crimes based on a person's race.

For example, if someone was of the mindset to say... burn a cross on a Black family's lawn, but they know that the penalty for that is hefty jail time as opposed to parole, it would deter them from doing it.

How can this be a bad thing?

I don't understand why anyone would vote against the bill, I really don't.

Why would anyone not want a minority to have some additional protection against being targeted for a crime based on their race? Anything that has the potential to deter criminals from committing crime like that is good in my book.

lisah25 · 05-02-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunta

I don't know that acts that would be crimes no matter who the victim was, like dragging someone behind a truck, should have different punishments.

Well I think the argument is that by making ethnic minorities a protected status, and by then having a more harsh penalty, that it deters people from committing such crimes based on a person's race.

For example, if someone was of the mindset to say... burn a cross on a Black family's lawn, but they know that the penalty for that is hefty jail time as opposed to parole, it would deter them from doing it.

How can this be a bad thing?

I don't understand why anyone would vote against the bill, I really don't.

Why would anyone not want a minority to have some additional protection against being targeted for a crime based on their race? Anything that has the potential to deter criminals from committing crime like that is good in my book.

Then we should make the punishment harsh enough that the motive of the offender doesn't matter. So that anyone thinking about killing someone, or beating them, for any reason will think twice.

Sunta · 05-02-2007, 04:25 PM

Then we should make the punishment harsh enough that the motive of the offender doesn't matter. So that anyone thinking about killing someone, or beating them, for any reason will think twice.

But I don't understand what the harm is in inflicting harsher penalties on someone who would target someone due to their race?

What negative effect does the current law have?

ousooner · 05-02-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlene

My own feeling is that anti-hate laws, by definition, should extend their protection to all persecuted minorities. It's not okay to act on one's hatred for blacks....or gays...or Muslims, or anyone else.

Why limit it to minorities. All crimes done out of hatred should be covered.

TommyO · 05-02-2007, 06:46 PM

Hate Crime laws are created for a number of reasons and one of those reasons is to send a message to society that certain atitudes will not be tolerated. It is no less wrong to drag a person behind a car because you don't like them as it is to drag them behind a car because they are Gay. The reason society creates hate crime laws is to send a message to any would be perpatrators.

The statements regarding the ADL are irelevant, what the ADL does or does not want to do, has no imapct on whether or not Gays should be protected under Hate Crime laws. The ADL might want to make sure no one ever uses the word purple again that has nothing to do with the legislation.

The Virginia Tech tragedy however terrible is also a red herring. That young man was mentally unstable and he did a terrible thing but because his actions do not constitute a hate crime is no reason for the removal of hate crimes.

I will never understand how people come to some of their conclusions, this thread is a great example. If, because I am fat, people have treated me with prejudice I can't imagine how that experience would lead me to conclude it is then okay to treat others the same way. I would hope that my experience would teach me that treating people poorly is wrong. I am happy that protection is being given to others who need it. I may be upset that there is no protection for me but glad that things are moving in the right direction.. To say Hate crime laws don't protect me so why should Gay people be protected just seems so short sited.