Does secularization promote statism and a profusion of laws, as civil rule eclipses biblically informed conscience in the land?
It is one of several seminal questions percolating in the matter of a federal anti-bias bill ? deemed narrow and needed by some, but unnecessary and subversive of fundamental democratic principles by others.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592) ? a bill extending federal jurisdiction to violent crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability ? passed 237-180 in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives May 3 and is now before the Senate.
Co-sponsored by both of Maryland?s senators and supported in the House by representatives of Baltimore-area congressional districts, the bill?s Senate version may be fast-tracked for passage before the legislature?s summer recess. It has counterparts in a score of states, including Maryland.
“Our position on the [bill] is that it is a necessary piece of legislation that will help prevent the scourge of hate crimes affecting many communities around the country,” said Julie Fernandes, senior counsel for Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a landmark civil rights coalition of some 200 affiliated groups defending the bill. “This bill is not about chilling anyone?s speech. It?s about conduct.”
Citing FBI statistics showing no national rash of hate crimes, but indicating that most crimes against gays are committed by other gays, opponents ? led by a coalition of black evangelical ministers ? say the bill corrodes equal protection and free-speech guarantees.
Some even say it is a stealth culture-war assault on local governance and traditional religion, and cite overreaching hate-law-inspired suppressions of anti-sodomy sermons and pamphleteering as reasons for their concerns.
“The concern is … that pastors can be prosecuted if there?s a sense that their words are commanding, directing or enticing people to do harm,” said Bishop Harry Jackson of Lanham?s Hope Christian Church and the issue-highlighting High Impact Leadership Coalition. “The chilling effect is major.”
Jackson, who stresses that he is biblically opposed to homosexual conduct, not homosexuals, is unimpressed by bill language prohibiting prosecution of “expressive conduct” or “activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
“We know that the First Amendment free-speech clause does not protect speech that might incite violence,” said Matthew Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the Concerned Women for America.
