Hate Crimes

We've compiled the "highlights" of the right-wing anti-hate crimes rally held earlier this week:

Pay particular attention to the segment featuring Gracy Harley, who claims that she used to be a lesbian but that God made her straight and cites Luke 13:13:

And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

There is a reason she cites the King James Version, and that is because in other translations, the passage says "straightened up," which make sense considering that story is about Jesus healing a woman who was "crippled," not gay: 

10 On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues

11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all.

12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity."

13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

As something of a follow-up to my last post, Rick Scarborough just issued yet another press release about the upcoming press conference challenging hate crimes legislation in which he compared those participating in the event to Martin Luther King:

On October 28, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure extending the federal hate crimes statute to include so-called sexual orientation. The ministers believe this will criminalize all criticism of homosexual behavior, including that contained in the Bible.

To test this belief and protest a clear violation of First Amendment freedom of speech and religion, various clergy will preach short sermons and read passages from the Bible regarding homosexual behavior. Like Dr. Martin Luther King and the Sixties Civil Rights movement, they will engage in civil disobedience to protest injustice.

On a semi-related note, here's another short clip of Scarborough on Janet Porter's radio program saying what while President Obama was "so careful in choosing his words and calling for caution" after the shooting at Fort Hood, "he threw all that to the wind when George Tiller was shot in his church ... There was no hesitancy in this particular presidency to immediately assume that there were conspirators ... There was a quick jump to judgment in that issue":

For the record, here is President Obama's statement on the murder of Tiller:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

• Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews NOM's Brian Brown and Frank Schubert says he hopes he's remembered for more than being the PR mastermind behind the Right's anti-gay initiatives.
• The American Family Association is now boycotting the Gap.
• The Club for Growth has endorsed Marco Rubio.
• The CADC pleads for donations so they can pay for their anti-hate crimes protest.
• Sen. John Ensign has moved out of the house on C Street.
• The Family Research Council is launching a campaign called "Adult Stem Cells Saved My Life."
• Islam is God's reality check for America?
• Finally, Don Feder writes that it is time for the GOP to "purge the party."

As we noted last week, various Religious Right groups will be holding an event next Monday designed to challenge the expansion of hate crimes laws to include protections for sexual orientation.   At the moment, it is unknown just how they intend to go about challenging this, though openly calling for violence against gays seems to be pretty much their only option.

Now organizers have unveiled a website:

The intention of the rally the group is to assert the freedom of speech of ministers and Christians in general to declare biblical truth in the public square. The Rally will also expose the unconstitutional nature of the hate law.

Ministers from various denominations will preach from the Bible, especially those parts that speak to the sin of homosexuality. This will serve to reassure ministers and Christians that they are free to do the same.

According to the website, participants are set to include the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Liberty Counsel, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, S.T.A.N.D., Vision America, and Jim Garlow.

The militantly anti-gay views of CADC and Vision America are already relatively well-known to readers of this blog, as is Mat Staver and his Liberty Counsel.  But S.T.A.N.D is a relatively new organization and Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ is a recent resurrection of the defunct Center for Reclaiming America for Christ effort founded by the late D. James Kennedy, while Garlow was a leader in the right-wing campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California.

Gossip Boy has a good run down of all the participating organizations and individuals, and we are going to keep tracking these developments to try and get a sense of just what they intend to do in order to "challenge" this legislation and what, if any, "specific legal challenges" they intend to bring.

Last week, when President Obama signed the legislation expanding hate crimes protections, various fringe activists vowed to challenge it by engaging in some pointless grandstanding.  And, by gum, that is exactly what they are going to do:

A rally is being planned in Washington to raise the alarm over the nation's new "hate crimes" law and to force Attorney General Eric Holder to confront the unconstitutionality of the measure's "thought" penalties, according to a Christian leader working on the event.

Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission told WND there are a series of approaches being considered to challenge the restrictions on expression of religion and speech contained in the law signed last week by President Obama.

At the rally, set for 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 16, ministers will preach from the Bible on the prohibition against homosexuality, then will present a letter to Holder demanding that the religious liberty of all Americans be respected.

Specific legal challenges to the restrictions of the "hate crimes" plan also may be announced then, Cass said.

The "Rally for Religious Freedom" in front of the Department of Justice in Washington is intended to force Holder either to address the issues or be put in a position of ignoring those who say they are violating the provisions of the federal law, Cass said.

"We're basically going to defy the law, and challenge it," Cass told WND. "We're going to declare the whole counsel of God, including those parts that some may consider 'inciting a hate crime' to see if the attorney general is going to come down and arrest a group of peaceful clergy exercising their First Amendment rights."

Of course, as we pointed out last time, the legislation contained explicit free speech and religious liberty protections, so they run no risk of prosecution and they know it.  Unless, that is, they intend to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."

So is that was Cass and company are planning to do?  "Defy" the hate crimes law by calling for acts of physical violence against gays? 

This video and post by David Neiwert of Pat Robertson blasting the inclusion of protections for "sexual orientation" in federal hate crimes legislation tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the Religious Right's fundamental ignorance about the issue:

Then, of course, there's the Religious Right, which is holding its collective breath and pouting over the event. Case in point: Pat Robertson at The 700 Club, ripping into the new law both yesterday and today on his show.

His basis for opposing the law, however, is completely detached from reality. For instance, Robertson argues:

Robertson: You know, there’s a law – what about a law that says it’s a federal crime to attack somebody because of his religious beliefs? Not a chance!

Robertson seems completely unaware that in fact religious bias is one of the categories of bias crime covered by hate-crime laws -- and it has been from the very start, since these laws were first enacted on the state level in the early 1980s!

I had made this point time and time and time and time and time again and just assumed that the Religious Right leaders and activists were simply lying about this basic point ... but apparently they are genuinely ignorant of the fact that there already is a law "that says it’s a federal crime to attack somebody because of his religious beliefs." 

And yet people still continue to take the Right's claims seriously.  Amazing.

President Obama hasn't even signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act yet, but right-wing activists are already "challenging" it ... or at least their warped version of it.

Here is the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission vowing to defy the legislation:

"The fact the hate bill had to be passed in such an unscrupulous and cynical manner (attaching it to the Defense Authorization Act) reveals the depth of President Obama's commitment to a radical, anti-Christian agenda. He will stop at nothing to undermine the will of the majority of Americans to pay back militant homosexual activists who raised millions of dollars for his campaign and worked to get him elected."

"To sign the bill in the Rose Garden is another slap in the face and shows the level of contempt President Obama has for the majority of Americans who oppose the "homosexualization" of marriage and public education."

"The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission will soon be announcing its plans, along with other leading pro-family groups, to defy, counter and challenge this unconstitutional attack on our religious liberty."

And here is Gordon Klingenschmitt daring Obama to prosecute him:

In other words, A) pastors may quote the Bible publicly if their "intention" is the free exercise of religion or speech, but B) pastors may not quote the Bible publicly if their "intention" is to conspire with listeners to commit an act of violence. This begs the question, if the pastor never announces whether the unspoken "intention" of his heart is A or B, how can any prosecutor, judge, or jury know whether the pastor's secret thoughts intended A) free exercise or B) conspiracy? Without revealing the secret intention of my own heart, whether A or B, I hereby publicly quote both Romans 1:32 and Leviticus 20:13:

Romans 1:32 -- "Men with men working that which is unseemly...who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death."

Leviticus 20:13 -- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I further invite President Barack Obama, as the chief law enforcement official of America, to discern the secret thoughts and intentions of my heart, and to prosecute me for conspiracy or inciting the violent crimes of others who might read my words and act upon them, if he dares to think he knows or can prove my motives were not pursuant to the free exercise of religion or speech.

Of course, neither CADC or Klingenschmitt nor anybody else is going to be prosecuted for speaking out or "defying" this and they know it.  After all, the legislation expressly protects free speech and religious freedom:

(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. The Constitution of the United States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

But just because the legislation poses no threat to their religious freedom or right to free speech, amazingly that is not going to stop some on the Right from trying to use the legislation to turn paint themselves as martyrs.

Yesterday, I wrote a post taking issue with right-wing outlets that were claiming that people were giving Matt Barber's new book, "The Right Hook: From The Ring To The Culture War," negative reviews without have read it, claiming that the book isn't even going to be released until next week.

As I noted, I already received a copy that I ordered from Amazon last week.  But now that I've started to read it, I made an interesting discovery: namely, that anybody who has read his columns doesn't need to actually read the book before they review it ... because they have literally already read it, since the book consists entirely of his republished columns! 

Nowhere on the publisher's website or the Amazon page is there any sort of disclaimer that this "book" is really just a collection of Barber's past columns.  Had that been made clear, I certainly would have saved myself the $32.00 I spent on this bound edition of his inane columns.

So, to save prevent anyone else who was thinking of buying this "book" from getting conned and ripped-off, here is the entire Barber book in links:

The Religious Right's willingness to blatantly lie about hate crimes legislation never ceases to amaze - from a recent American Family Association "Action Alert":

Such laws not only punish officially disapproved speech and thought, they create two tiers of victims. Under hate crimes laws, some victims get more protections than others, which violates the fundamental American principle of equality under the law.

In fact, such laws actively discriminate against heterosexual Christians who are victims of crime, since they will get less legal protection than homosexual victims.

So giving the same protection to gays as already exists for religion somehow lessens legal protections for Christians?

Sadly, now that the legislation is on its way to the President, this sort of hyperbolic lying will probably only increase.