King: "Thought Crimes" Bill Will Damage Religious Freedom in America

Congressman Steve King (IA) discusses the Democrats' "Hate Crimes" bill on FOXNews on April 29, 2009.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Steve King
• H.R. 1913
• Hate Crimes

[DamNationDiplomat]

I don't believe his reasoning regarding ministers is in any way correct. There are hate crime laws on the books for discrimination based on race, but the KKK is still considered a legal and legitimate organization despite its blatantly racist beliefs. Therefore, obviously hate crime laws are not being used to impugn individual beliefs unless they are accompanied by criminal acts. Intent is part of any criminal investigation; this is the reason manslaughter and murder are separate offenses.

[Guest4000]

lol... I love it when you people get all crazy-go-nuts with the insane rhetoric; makes everyone else look even better by comparison (and, of course, it's funny in its own right). :)

[mooninquirer]

The condemnation of homosexuality in biology is far, far more intense than in what the vast majority of Christians preach. Almost always, Christians say to love the sinner but hate the sin, and they would welcome a repentant sinner.

BUT in evolution, there is no specific heaven or hell, apart from the extinction of an organism's bloodline or an organism succeeding in reproducing and passing its genes onto another generation.

[thegoochieguy]

since preachers have been trampling upon the rights and freedoms of millions of americans since its inception, i believe they have shown us that they can take what they have given!

[libbie7777]

I do believe in years to come christian wil get thrown in jail for standing against immorality. in 1979 i new of this because the holysprit had revealed it to the church. and the bible also gives up true of persecution of all christians in the last days.

[Flyermac]

They are using the differences and the manipulated differences to silent the voices of the good people. But at the end, everyone conservative or anarchist will be in the same "trap". That is it folks. You guys that were perverted to become gays to dissimulate a pretext for those bandits to make up prision-dictatorship in America, were used and maculated by them!

[scheis123]

This is anti-gay propaganda by pro-hate crimes folks.

[SoberFan]

Defendants don't have to prove anything because they're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Victims perception is irrelevant beyond his/her belief that s/he is a victim and then files charges. If victim perception did matter, all defendants would be guilty the second a crime is alleged. But, that's why evidence is required to prove guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt. Everyone has a right to hate or love but no one has special rights b/c someone else does, according to the Constitution.

[DamNationDiplomat]

Perception is almost always what is on trial. For instance, in the case of self-defense, it is only permissible if the person perceived themselves to be under a direct threat, and they must prove that that perception was a reasonable conclusion. The perception of a crime's victim is always the subject of a trial. Whether or not it's the best system, HR 1913 does nothing that isn't already common in the judiciary.

Oh, and condescension doesn't belong in any 'solid discussion'.

[SoberFan]

Intent is not synonymous with "perceived". Whether intent exists is question of facts, not speculation; 1st degree murder vs. manslaughter. You've got a lot more terms to look up before saying any more.

Purporting oneself as an attorney is a felony. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but that's sure how I perceive your double entry rant.

Very impressive to cite your legal research paper. Was it 8th grade or freshman poli sci? Good luck on the LSAT.

[DamNationDiplomat]

in Michigan, for instance, there is a crime known as 'entering without breaking' which is a felony committed by a person who enters a dwelling without damaging it with the INTENT to commit theft, and, in fact, in a paper I wrote for a legal research class on this subject, I argued that the man in the given scenario could not be prosecuted under this statute because his intent could not be proven. Still, intent is ALWAYS something we look at in criminal law, and it is not in any way unprecedented

[DamNationDiplomat]

Intent is a very important concept within US law; a full two columns of my copy of Black's Law Dictionary are devoted to different legally recognized forms of it. You're very right in asserting that it's impossible to know what's going on in the perpetrator's head, and perhaps intent shouldn't be part of the equation in any legal analysis, but, as it stands, intent is a big part of the penal code, and not just when speaking of hate crimes (contd.)