|
1) Hate crime isn't about the feelings of the victim, but the intent of the criminal. It is VERY similar to the distinction in murder 1 and murder 2.
2) This legislation would make GLBT folks a protected group and not outright make the Bible hate speech. Specific uses of the book could be considered hate speech, even here in America we have ruled that groups like the KKK have used the Bible in a manner that made what they said hate speech. This is not a threat to the Bible or Christianity
3) I agree that for the most part people should be able to say what they want. However, I agree with the Supreme Court of the US that when speech brings about a clear and present danger (such as FIRE in a theatre or enciting to violence against an individual or group) then it ought be restricted by law. Hate speech by definition tries to encite violence, in one form or another, against an individual or group.
4) I hope no one takes my arguments as offensive, but I do feel this is a simple and logical issue turned upside down by some reactionary journalist for a web magazine. He wants to make it appear that expanding marriage and civil rights to GLBT persons is a religious stand against Christianity. It is the same argument used when rights were expanded to women and African Americans in our country and furthermore it is not true. The Bible can be used for hateful things, its a historical fact and it needs to be prevented by law if necessary. But this doesn't spell the end of Christianity or the Bible nor their true purpose which is faith, hope, and love. If anything rulings against using the Bible for such things should strengthen Christianity by returning it to its more noble values.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
|