I just received an email from the American Family Association. They have someone who works there named Bryan Fischer. He is the director of issues analysis. Here is what he (and the article) has to say about the Hate Crime Bill that was passed in the House on Thursday and now has a very good chance of becoming law:
The bill passed by the House, he says, is alarming. (The vote on HR 2647 — the Defense Authorization bill to which the hate crimes legislation was attached — was 281-146; see roll call vote)
"For the first time in American history we are criminalizing thought," Fischer laments. "Thomas Jefferson said the reach of legislation should extend to actions only and not to opinions — and now we are punishing people not just for what they did, but what they were thinking when they did it.
"It’s also going to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, especially religious speech. And [in] other places where these hate crimes bills have gone into effect, pastors have wound up in jail or fined for preaching a biblical view of homosexuality."
I think Mr. Fischer isn’t quite up to his job as someone who analyzes issues. For one thing, he says that for the first time in our history we will have a bill that criminalizes thought. This is an outright lie and the bill itself states that it has everything to do with physical violence and nothing to do with speech. So much for analyzing the issue. Mr. Fischer doesn’t seem to understand that race, religion (which most definitely is a choice) and gender has been in the hate crime legislation. It doesn’t criminalize thoughts—even though a person has to think about committing a crime against a person of a certain religion—it only punishes that person once physical violence occurs. Most crimes in this country are thought about before they happen—this is the basis of having separate punishments. First degree murder happens when someone plans out the murder. This is different than 2nd degree murder and manslaughter and so on.
As I said, so much for being able to analyze issues. There is a big difference between thinking about an issue and lying about it. Unless of course Mr. Fischer hasn’t bothered to read the legislation—then he is still lying. He just hopes that his lies take hold.
He also states: “I think he wants this scalp on his belt walking into that dinner.” Hmm.
And note to Gary: Mr. Fischer is thinking about overturning the legislation in the future:
He also has concerns about overturning such legislation in the near future. "Something like this is going to be very difficult to repeal," Fischer admits. "It’s doable, but again [there’s] a slim chance that Republicans or conservatives will have control of either the House or Senate in 2010 — so we’ll be fighting a rear-guard battle for some time now."
So a law will be passed and some will try to overturn it in the future. Hmm. Sounds like fascism, if you ask me (I say sarcastically).
And imagining what the Republican Party must really be like if a law is passed to protect people is then repealed. I would bet money that they won’t try to repeal the whole thing—just the part regarding the glbt community. They certainly wouldn’t want to take out religion—they would be eaten alive.