Ever since House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan) introduced legislation to expand hate crime protection to homosexuals, Rev. Lou Sheldon of the wingnut fringe Traditional Values Coalition (labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group, accurately no doubt) has been screaming and raging as if he’s fighting for his very survival.
Today, Sheldon took his wingnuttia a step forward. He found an ally in like-minded Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). The two held a press conference today to cite their opposition to the bill. Fortunately, Lauren Smith and Kevin Lingerfelt of Americans United were there to at least attempt to offer some of their sanity to the needy congressman and reverend. Sheldon and Gohmert had none of it, but at least they tried.
Religious Right leader and bill opponent Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, who in late March dubbed the measure the “Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen ‘Hate Crime’ Bill,” held a press conference today urging its defeat. The bill is to be considered this afternoon by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism & Homeland Security.
AU’s New Media Developer Kevin Lingerfelt and I had the privilege of attending this morning’s event. What we heard from Sheldon, a Presbyterian minister, and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) was nothing short of outrageous. Most of it was downright false, in fact.
Chief among Sheldon and Gohmert’s concerns is that the bill will criminalize Christianity. They claim to genuinely believe that preaching the Gospel, either from the pulpit or a public sidewalk, will constitute a “hate crime” under this legislation.
No kidding. They both think protecting victims of brutal or otherwise violent crimes (assault, murder and all that stuff that everyone believes should be illegal) will make it illegal to believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins.
They handed out a handy sheet of “25 Reasons to Oppose So-Called Hate Crime Legislation” to the few press in attendance.
Here are some of their “reasons:”
“Large fines and eventually jail time for anyone who publicly speaks out against homosexual activity or transgenderism, even as a minister…. This includes messages that cite Scripture….”
“Termination from one’s job if one does not support ‘coming out’ celebrations or ‘gay pride’ observances in the workplace, or if one does not attend mandatory ‘sensitivity’ or ‘diversity’ training sessions that espouse acceptance of homosexuality.”
“…[T]he threat of loss of accreditation for Christian colleges that do not condone homosexual behavior and transgenderism.”
“Having one’s child (whether a foster child, adopted child, or, eventually biological child) removed from one’s house if the parent opposes the child’s declaration of homosexual identity and activity.”
“Fines for any persons with rooms for rent in their home (e.g., a bed and breakfast) if they refuse to rent to a homosexual couple intent on having homosexual sex on the premises.”
Lingerfelt and Smith try their best…
When I reminded Gohmert that the bill only deals with acts of physical violence, not speech, association or thought, he wiggled around and said that any act that that causes “physical harm” to person or property could be considered a violent “hate crime.” He said that “nudging someone” in a crowd, or doing something while “trying to get off a piece of property” could be a hate crime if it hurt the person or property. I tried to follow up with a question about the bill’s ACLU-approved free speech protections, but the good reverend wouldn’t let me.
The language of the legislation does not include “nudging someone” or “doing something while ‘trying to get off a piece of property,’” so I don’t know what he’s talking about. But this is where he sinks to record lows:
Gohmert even exploited yesterday’s horrific shooting at Virginia Tech to push his point. Expressing his concern that the hate crimes legislation makes some victims “more important” than others, Gohmert said homosexuals would receive more protection than the students murdered yesterday, because they “only” suffered a random act of violence.
That nut didn’t kill students at Virginia Tech because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or whatever. Whether a defendant can be prosecuted for hate crimes depends on the defendant’s motivation (assuming he or her is guilty, of course). A white person can only be charged with a hate crime if he kills a black person because he/she was black, for example. But anyway, nice going Gohmert. Maybe next time you can crack a joke about the Holocaust. Some of the wingnuts you work tirelessly to appease would be the first to laugh, including Sheldon.
Update: When Sheldon’s veins start to bulge out of his head, sometimes I laugh at how he expresses it. Continuing the “Criminalizing Christianity” talking point, the Traditional Values Coalition put this together. They must be suffering from watching Conyers’s legislation move through the House with great bipartisan support, but they took their anger and put it to good use by making my day. Thanks, fundies.
Cross-posted at The Flying Fascist.
I'm against this bill for the same reason that I'm against hate crime legislation in general: it's essentially thoughtcrime. You are prosecuting someone for their motives, not their actions. Regardless of how reprehensible their thought processes might be, as a nation that panders free speech, we should also promote free thought, even if that thought is based on ignorance and intolerance.
--Mike