Tweet
From Focus On The Family:
Today, during the Focus on the Family daily broadcast, Dr. Dobson and a panel of experts express grave concern over hate-crimes legislation that recently passed in the U.S. House.
The dangerous bill, awaiting Senate consideration, would create a new class of crimes based on the victim’s “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Those who speak out against homosexuality, including pastors, could face prosecution for “inciting” violence against gay individuals.
Even more concerning, the legislation could create special protection for pedophiles. Democrats voted down an amendment to the bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of “sexual orientation.”
…”Legislation that should shock the nation – if people were paying attention – is being rushed into law,” he said. “Things are being done that will undermine the rule of law and seriously damage morality and decency in the culture.”
I’ve made the argument against this horrid and discusting “thought crime” meme in the Pam’s House Blend diaries Was Allen Ray Andrade Expressing The Kind Of Christian Free Speech That FOTF Is Talking About? and More “Thought Crime” Meme, But This Time From A Pulitzer Prize Winning Editorialist.
So, my belief sill is the misrepresentations by conservative “Christian” leaders — leaders which now directly include James Dobson — of how federal hate crime legislation is “thought crime” legislation are reprehensible.
We can now add James Dobson to those who now really own convicted bias crime murder Allen Ray Andrade’s “Gay things must die” and “It’s not like I went up to a schoolteacher and shot her in the head or … killed a law-abiding straight citizen.” The “free speech” of the man convicted of the bias motivated, first degree murder of Angie Zapata is exactly the kind of “thought crime” speech connected to a brutal killing that Dr. Dobson wants to protect.
You too, Mr. Dobson, can now choke on Allen Ray Andrade’s “free speech.”
15 Comments
hey, AutumnHere’s another article where FotF people make a claim, but there’s no substantiation for it.
http://mixed-fruits.blogspot.c…
Dobson is fake ChristianA real Christian would be extra careful to tell the truth and not bare false witness against anyone. Even if they are LGBT.
But he’ll rather say (lie) and do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing in. Gotta maintain that level of luxury and leisure him and his family have become accustomed to.
I’m guessing just before he shuffles off this mortal coil, he’ll repent. Gotta collect that Get Out Of Hell Free Card to cancel out all the decades of hate and lies he’s spewed.
In the meantime, Dobson and his types have hurt the truly innocent.
No wonder I’m allergic to Christianity.
Dena
Isn’t it ironicThe religious reicht/American Taliban have been whining about these bills since their inception, claiming “thought police” and other such nonsense.
Yet they do not hesitate one nanosecond in gleefully dictating how society American as a whole is to conform to their narrow-minded and bigoted beliefs.
The reicht have attempted to insert their way of thinking by having their religious beliefs written into secular law, and training American Taliban lawyers so they can eventually be judges and legislators.
Once again, the reicht proves they are modern-day Pharisees.
They are simply liars – willing to say whatever it takes to keep the cashflow on track.
If they were selling cars, they’d be the same guys rolling back the odometer, filling the transmission with that stuff that will make it sound good for two weeks, then fall out.
Of course, with the folks in this industry – they keep selling you more stuff to try to fix up the shitty car they sold you in the first place. Let’s face it, existing customers are more profitable anyhow.
ALL CHRISTERS ARE LIARS AND MANIPULATORSI have never met a Christer that i can stomach. Their lies are so thick with hate and with venom and bile that it literally makes me want to chuck my guts. But they know this. Whats that old saying?…. “A lie can run around the world six times while the truth is still trying to put on its pants.” They know this and that is why they keep spouting their lies and untruths. Do not ever be nice to these christer people. They are fake liar liars and you need to call their bullshit what it is and to their face if it is available. That will make for good relief for the soul and also know most of them are truly dumber than a bucket of hair and are really scared and cower during confrontation. I have witnessed this many times with gay pride protesters and protesters at events like southern decadence.
Be brave. Be bold. Be quick witted. – c
The thought crime logic…isn’t just a right-wing talking point. Andrew Sullivan seems to have major issues with hate crimes bills for this reason.
What I don’t get though, is that even without hate crimes legislation, we’ve been adjusting civil punishments according to “thought crime” logic for years. That’s what delineates the difference between 1st & 2nd degree murder, for instance.
Either we punish thought or we don’t, and if we punish thought, hate crimes legislation should include any suspect class minority group in its wording.
Christer?Define.
I, as a Christian gay woman, might be offended.
I think it is absolutely correct….… to make them OWN this meme they claim in its entirety.
Yep.Maybe you might be offended then. mazel tov.
I got that one in a quick hit……but yeah, it’s just as bad when a LGBT person puts forward the same “thought crime” argument — although to be fair, Sullivan didn’t refer to it with the term “thought crime.” He’s drawing a distinction between motivation and intent in a way that we already draw in the law, and saying we shouldn’t do that because the HRC will have a donation campaign running on this.
However, we already treat manslaughter as a lesser crime than first degree murder, and the distinction between these different degrees of homicide is motivation and intent. On that level too, I think arguing that motivation shouldn’t matter is already a point decided in how homicide is divided up in every state into different degrees of culpability with different degrees of punishment for each level, and that SCOTUS has already stated in that laws basing punishment of a crime based on the “free speech” of a defendant are permissible:
The comment above was stated in a SCOTUS 1993 ruling on the legality of hate crime enhancements, and the opinion was itself was written by Associate Justice Antony Scalia — not exactly someone considered to be a liberal by anyone.
Link to the quick hit is here.
Lies, Lies, and More Lies…
This line of BullPuckey has already been retracted because it is untrue, yet they keep bearing false witness. [my emphasis added]
The right wing motto:
Since we can’t dazzle them with brilliance, we’ll baffle them with BullSh!t.
You may be surprisedbut in criminal law, Scalia’s position sometimes parts way with the conservative wing. It’s interesting actually, ’cause I don’t believe anyone has been able to discern why that happens in an overarching way.
Scalia is as close toa “Strict Constitutionalist” as you’ll find on the court. In most of the opinions of his I’ve read, he rules based on what the law, and Constitution say, not what he’d like them to say.
Personally, he may be a conservative, and is usually in concurrence with the Conservative bloc of the court, but he hasn’t let that colour his decisions in any major way, that I’ve been able to discern. At least not on Criminal Law. Civil matters, his personal feelings certainly come to light.
I’ve already had some successGetting some to retract. Not IFI, but others.
I used the following line:
DOBSON CLAIMS PEDOPHILIA IS A LEGITIMATE “SEXUAL ORIENTATION”
If called on that, I point out that he’s said that in debate about a legislative act, legitimate “sexual orientation” includes pedophiles. I also pointed out the number of Baptist preachers (not to say Catholic priests) implicated in child sexual abuse cases, and that such statements will cause people to question just how far NAMBLA has infiltrated these organisations if such statements aren’t immediately retracted.
That’s open for debatewhat Strict Constitutionalism is. But I am not about to get into this debate here and now.