Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is attempting to pass hate crime legislation by maliciously attaching it to the must-pass defense authorization bill.
Follow this link to the original source: "Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill"
Earlier this year grassroots organizations sent out legislative action alerts on a hate crimes bill that would designate certain crimes a hate crime and therefore place the crime under federal jurisdiction. The bill never passed Congress and was a seemingly dead issue for several months. In a new effort to revive the legislation, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has attached the widely unpopular legislation as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill (H.R. 1585).
Since President Bush has threatened to veto hate crimes laws, it is no surprise that Senator Kennedy would choose to attach the legislation as an amendment to a must-pass defense authorization bill. Critics of the Kennedy amendment have called the Senator's actions as "shockingly manipulative," and a way to "push the homosexual agenda on the American people by exploiting American soldiers who are currently in harm's way...."
If hate crime laws were enacted, they would federalize certain crimes that have traditionally been prosecuted under local jurisdiction. Furthermore, such laws would not only punish the criminal and his actions, but also the presumed thoughts behind them. Hate crime laws have already limited the freedom of speech for certain individuals and religious groups across America. Here are some examples as cited in the article linked to above:
• Madison, Wisconsin. David Ott, a former homosexual, was arrested for a "hate crime" for sharing his testimony with a homosexual at a gas station. He faced a $10,000 fine and one year behind bars. Seven thousand dollars in legal fees later, [he] was ordered to attend re-education classes at the University of Wisconsin conducted by a lesbian.
• St. Petersburg, Florida. Five Christians, including two pastors, were arrested at a homosexual rally for stepping onto the public sidewalk instead staying caged in their officially designated "free speech zone."
• Elmira, New York. The Elmira police arrested seven Christians for praying in a public park where a homosexual festival was getting started.
• Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two 16-year-old girls are facing felony "hate crime" charges for the content of their flyers.
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 (along with nine others), were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.
The laws we currently have in place already protect all individuals from the crimes that would encompass Kennedy's proposed hate crimes legislation. Please visit this site frequently for updates on the status of this amendment.
Mary Benoit is a Research Associate for the John Birch Society.
The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom - on July 18, 2007, 1:55pmby Mary Benoit from
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)