|
|
|
In a message dated 7/1/2004 pcmike@email.com writes: A Jew-designed law in Pennsylvania may be used to silence pastors in the pulpit, but Christians have vowed to fight for the right to speak to the truth. We've heard of laws in the Netherlands and Jew-controlled Canada that penalize preachers for using the Bible to condemn Queerdom. Now it's happening in America. The Jews of Pennsylvania has added an amendment to its hate-crimes law that covers something called "harassment by communication." Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said the new provisions could open clergy to the possibility of prosecution for preaching on God's views of Queers and Jews. "The threat is very real and something that needs to be addressed," Geer said. "The pulpit should be definitely a free-speech zone in the Jew-controlled United States of America and in Pennsylvania." Anthony Picarello, chief counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, agreed that the law may be tailored to intimidate pastors, priests, but he said his group is ready to defend any pastor who might be charged by the Jew government for speaking out. "The wording is broad enough that it could be applied (to religious speakers)," Picarello said, "and that's something . . . that the people who crafted the language had in mind." The offer of free legal help from the Becket Fund to pastors was backed up with 9,000 letters to all houses of worship in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, some pastors are thinking about insurance to cover their sermons. FOR MORE INFORMATION: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Web site contains more information about the Pennsylvania law
— and its implications. Dear Religious Leader: It is a measure of our times that religious leaders have lately considered taking out liability insurance to cover remarks made from the pulpit. As you’re probably aware, concerns like these reached a peak recently when Pennsylvania broadened its hate crimes law to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as motivations that trigger heavier penalties, if one is found guilty of “harassment.” This development was all the more ominous in light of another amendment passed at the same time: the legal definition of “harassment” was expanded to include “harassment by communication,” suggesting that one might be found guilty of harassment simply on the basis of spoken words. Although legislators expressly disavowed the motive at the time, one might be forgiven the impression that one purpose of this legislation was to generate a fear of prosecution among those who would preach and teach in favor of the traditional prohibition on homosexual behavior – a teaching so common to so many faiths. Whether intended or not, this new law should not be allowed to create such a “chilling effect” on core religious speech. The Becket Fund is a bipartisan, interfaith, public interest law firm that was founded to protect the free, public expression of all religious traditions. We defend religious freedom for everyone in American courts of law, as a recognized non-governmental organization (NGO) at the United Nations, in the academy, and in the media. We specialize in constitutional law and have been involved in scores of cases nationwide, in state and federal courts at all levels. 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 605 Accordingly, we are writing now in order to counteract, in two ways, any chilling effect created by the recent changes in Pennsylvania’s hate-speech law. First, as we explain briefly below, the new law is unlikely to be applied against this type of religious speech in the first place, and the First Amendment is likely to prohibit any such mischievous application. Second, if you are threatened with prosecution under this law because of something you’ve said from the pulpit, contact us. We will defend, free of charge, anything said from the pulpit, conservative or liberal, wisdom or nonsense, so long as it is a religious message given in good faith. The new law is unlikely to be applied to preaching against homosexual conduct. The Pennsylvania crime of “harassment” must involve “intent to harass, annoy or alarm another,” plus one of the following: •“strik[ing], shov[ing], kick[ing] or otherwise subject[ing] another person to physical contact, or attempt[ing] or threaten[ing] to do the same”; •“follow[ing] the other person in or about a public place or places”; •“engag[ing] in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit[ing] acts which serve no legitimate purpose”; or •“convey[ing] a message without intent of legitimate communication.…” It is difficult to imagine a religious sermon or other verbal communication that would satisfy these requirements for prosecution. So it comes as no surprise that, even though the harassment statute has covered religious leaders (and everyone else) for years, the state appears never to have brought a prosecution under the statute against religiously motivated speech or conduct. And even with the addition of communication as a basis for prosecution, it remains unlikely that speech from the pulpit would be prosecuted, even under the terms of the statute itself. That is because the statute requires that the message be conveyed “without intent of legitimate communication,” and that condition simply does not apply to religious preaching in good faith. While the addition of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the factors in the “ethnic intimidation law” (hate crime law) is a source of some concern, it applies only once a criminal conviction for “harassment” has been obtained – then it imposes a more severe penalty. Without a harassment conviction, the recent amendment simply has no effect. Applying the new law to preaching against homosexual conduct would be unconstitutional. As a general matter, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of any religious minister – rabbi, reverend, imam or other – to preach about anything at all without the threat of government sanction. Indeed, the language of the Pennsylvania harassment statute recognizes this constitutional limitation, stating explicitly that it “shall not apply . . . to any constitutionally protected activity.” Freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are unquestionably protected by the First Amendment, and in at least two cases brought under the Pennsylvania harassment statute, convictions were overturned precisely because they involved constitutionally protected speech. (Neither case involved religious expression – one involved wording on a T-shirt, the other a sign on a truck.) This letter, of course, is both brief and general. It’s not legal advice. It is an overview of the law in Pennsylvania with regard to constitutionally-protected religious speech. If you are interested in a formal, detailed account of the law, please contact us – either by fax, or by e-mail at mail@becketfund.org – and we will gladly provide it. And if you should ever find yourself confronted with the threat of prosecution because of a sermon or other religious communication, I urge you to contact us at once so that we can investigate your case.
+++ http://www.pafamily.org/temp%20pages/GetRelease.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: National Desk Contact: Rebecca L. Riggs of Concerned Women for America, 202-488-7000 ext. 126, Web: http://media.cwfa.org WASHINGTON, June 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) warned that the Senate's passage today of Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Gordon Smith's 'hate crimes' amendment lays the groundwork for the persecution of Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and others. "Using similar laws, the mere criticism of homosexuality is considered a 'hate crime' in Sweden and Canada," said Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture and Family Institute. "The idea of a 'hate crime' is completely contrary to the American principles of free speech and equal protection under the law. Any Senator who voted for this is setting up our children and grandchildren for persecution as activist courts rule that biblical morality is 'bigotry.' "Equal protection means your grandma and your friend who lives as a homosexual have the same rights when they walk down the street. Under a hate crimes law, someone who mugs your grandmother will not be prosecuted as vigorously as someone who commits the same crime against a homosexual. This says to criminals: 'Mug Grandma; It's less risky.' Hate crimes laws aren't about justice; they are about favoritism and special rights. "As the beacon of freedom to the world, America must resist this trend toward thought control and the twisting of the legal system into a grab bag of 'group rights' and special claims. There is no evidence that police and prosecutors are not enforcing the law against those who would prey on homosexuals or any other citizens. Nobody in America should live in fear, and all should have equal protection under the law. "This is more proof that while being Republican led, the Senate is not a conservative body. We will rely on the House leadership to keep this harmful language from reaching the President's desk, and we will encourage our members to look at their senators' votes on this bill as they consider who they will support and oppose in November."
|