| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"SueDoeCyAnts" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2008 10:10:46 AM |
| Object: |
Church/State Separation Embraced by House Conservatives |
It's true, neither deception or game.
On May 3, 2007, Mike Pence (R-IN), speaking offically for The
House Republican Conservative Caucus, The Republican Study
Committee, as its chairman, forcibly advanced a dissent against
legislation, based upon his belief that it was a Constitutional
violation, which violated the 1st Amendment's Establishment
Clause, and grounded this assertion by directly citing Thomas
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists
Association dated January 1, 1802.
The cause of this sudden reversal from Modern Conservatives'
long-standing opposition to a Wall of Separation Between Church
and State being accepted as Original Constitutional Intent, to a
scurrying flee to a protected position behind Jefferson's wall,
was their opposition to legislation which extended hate crimes to
include violent acts in which the victims were chosen because of
sexual prefences or gender identity:
H.R.1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007
|-----------------------------------|
|------>begin text transcript<------|
|-----------------------------------|
------------------------------------------------------
From the Congressional Record:
May 3, 2007 (House) - Pages H4471-H4475
GPO Access - DOCID:cr03my07-81
<http://tinyurl.com/2ls6cp>
HTML version:
<http://tinyurl.com/2b8n7w>
---------------------------------
Republican Study Group - Mike Pence (R-IN)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minority Leader for affording not only
myself, but other members of the Republican Study Committee, the
House conservative caucus on the Republican side of the aisle, the
opportunity to take advantage of these opportunities on the House
floor periodically in the form of a Special Order.
While I come to the floor today with the objective, Mr. Speaker,
of addressing this week's momentous events concerning the
President's second veto in the history of this administration and
the war supplemental bill, I wanted to also speak about an issue
that House conservatives have been heard on and have been active
on in the course of this week, and it has to do with today's
passage, by a vote of 237- 180, of H.R. 1592, the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation passed
the House today, but not without the strenuous opposition of both
the Republican Study Committee, and virtually all of its members
who represented a lion's share of the 180 Members who opposed this
legislation.
And to lead is to be misunderstood. And it is very likely, Mr.
Speaker, that both yourself and maybe others that might be looking
in would question why anyone would oppose hate crimes legislation.
And I thought I might, before I move on to the attendant topic of
the day, address the concerns that House conservatives had with
this legislation and why, last night, with the leadership of our
caucus chairman, Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and with the support of
myself as a former chairman of our caucus, Mrs. Sue Myrick of
North Carolina, a former chairman of our conference, and John
Shadegg of Arizona, we urged the President of the United States to
issue a veto threat of this hate crimes legislation, which he did
so earlier today by way of a statement of administration policy.
So let me speak to our concerns about this bill before I move on
to the topic of the Iraq supplemental. Thomas Jefferson said,
famously, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other
for his faith or his worship, that the legislative power of
government reach actions only, and not opinions," Jefferson went
on to say, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of
the whole American people which declared that their legislature
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of
separation between church and state."
Again, Thomas Jefferson, framing, as perhaps only he in American
history could, the issue that grounded conservative concern in the
hate crimes legislation today, that legislative powers of
government should reach actions only and not opinions, and then
reflected on that as the core central logic behind the first
amendment protections of the freedom of religion.
In the case of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, we did not meet that standard today, Mr. Speaker. I believe
this legislation was bad public policy, and unnecessary, and many
House conservatives in the Republican Study Committee agreed.
Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal,
regardless of the motive behind them. And there is no evidence
presented on the floor today or before the Judiciary Committee, on
which I serve, that underlying violent crimes at issue are not
already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the States.
Therefore, hate crimes laws truly serve no practical purpose and
instead serve to penalize people for thoughts, for belief, for
opinions.
Now, let's grant the point. Some thoughts, beliefs and opinions,
like racism or sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them and
condemn them. However, hate crimes bills, as the one we passed
today, are broad enough also to include legitimate beliefs, and
protecting the rights of freedom and speech and religion must be
paramount in cases like the bill we consider today.
The first amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Now, America was founded on the notion that the government should
not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens.
Constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion are
at the very core of the American experiment in democracy.
But what does that have to do with the hate crimes bill? Well,
there is a real possibility that this bill, as written, religious
leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted
criminally, based on their speech and protected activities under
conspiracy law or section 2 of title XVIII, which holds criminally
liable anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands or induces or
procures its commission, or one who willfully causes an act to be
done by another.
In the debate in the Judiciary Committee, much was made of the
fact that there was an amendment adopted by my friend and
colleague, Mr. Davis of Alabama. But that amendment did not go far
enough in making it clear that this bill would not limit religious
freedom. The sponsor of the amendment even admitted in open markup
testimony before the committee, that a pastor could,
theoretically, still be targeted under the bill for incitement of
violence for simply preaching his religious beliefs having to do
with moral issues related to life or family or sexual preference.
For example, if a pastor included a statement in a sermon that
sexual relations outside of marriage are morally wrong, and even
quoted the Bible to make that point, and then a member of perverse
intention in that congregation caused bodily injury to a person
having such relations, that sermon could be used as evidence
against that pastor.
Now, the real world effect of this, in addition to the possibility
of prosecution, is the much greater and geometric possibility of a
chilling effect. Putting a chill on pastors' words or religious
broadcasters' programming or an evangelical leader's message, or
even the leader of a small group Bible study is quite simply a
blatant attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom
of religion.
Now, last week, when the Judiciary Committee took up the bill, I
offered an amendment in good faith to make it clear, crystal
clear, that this bill would not affect the constitutional right to
freedom of religion. The Pence amendment stated plainly, "Nothing
in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or
group under the Constitution." Unfortunately, the Pence amendment
was defeated and rejected by the majority of the Judiciary
Committee.
Yesterday, I took another bite at the apple. I submitted the Pence
religious freedom amendment to the Rules Committee for
consideration. But, again, that committee chose to adopt a closed
rule, effectively blocking my amendment and many other good
amendments offered for consideration.
Now, I would say very emphatically, we must guard against the
potential for abuse of hate crimes laws. And very humbly put, the
Pence amendment would have done so by stating once and for all
that people and groups will not have their constitutionally
guaranteed right to religious freedom taken away, even as an
addendum to or unintentionally as a result of the aiding and
abetting clause of current law.
Mr. Speaker, House conservatives rose, as one man and one woman
today, in opposition to this legislation. But it did pass. Again,
Congress today adopted legislation, 237-180, but not without a
fight.
Members of the Republican Study Committee came together late last
night, called on President George W. Bush to veto this legislation
should it reach his desk. And as I mentioned earlier today, the
administration, in no small measure, due to House conservatives
and the leadership of the Republican Study Committee, the
administration issued a veto threat pertaining to the Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. They did so as
House conservatives did, out of a belief that this bill threatens
religious freedom by criminalizing ultimately religious thought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|---------------------------------|
|------>end text transcript<------|
|---------------------------------|
Questions beg to be asked of each and every member of the
Republican Study Committee in a inquiry to discover:
* Which religions have ministers who need protection
from facing charges of conspiracy and incitement to violence,
that are elements of violent crimes perpetrated against
an unsuspecting victim?
* How this immense extension of the 1st Amendment's
religious establishment clause, that confers immunity
from being rightfully being charged for criminal acts
which occurred within the Sovereign Territory
of the United States be Copnstitutionally justified?
* Exactly where the ***** could this evil acquiescence
to perpetrators of hateful violence be grounded
in Original Constitutional Intent?
.
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Church/State Separation Embraced by House Conservatives |
24 Jan 2008 02:47:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:10:46 +0000, SueDoeCyAnts wrote:
It's true, neither deception or game.
Nice to see politicans returning to original intent and defying
redefinition of labels. "Conservative" does not mean "religious" although
the religionists have tried to hijack the term along with "patriot,"
"compassion" and "liberal".
Our language is all the poorer for these wars of ideology and the sheeple
more confused than ever. Perhaps that is the point.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
