Welcome to Liberated Text's "Faith of Our Conservatives"

It is a mark-up of the Congressional Records relevant to
H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007 - An Act to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

H.R. 1592 was introduced by John Conyers Jr. (D-NY) on March 20, 2007 (Congressional Records Extension of Remarks March 21, 2007, Pages E600, E601). It had 171 Cosponsors.

The Bill was passed May 3, 2007, in House Roll Call Vote No 299: 237 Yeas, 180 Nays and 16 No Votes, largely along partisan lines with Republicans generally opposed to, and Democrats generally in favor of the Hate Crimes Legislation.

The Committee on the Judiciary published House Report 110-113 (GPO PDF File 396K), on April 30, 2007 to accompany H.R. 1592. Eight Congressman signed onto a dissent published in the Report. They were:

1. Chris Cannon (R-Utah 3rd)
2. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio 1st)
3. Tom Feeney (R-Florida 24th)
4. Trent Franks (R-Arizona 2nd)
5. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio 4th)
6. Ric Keller (R-Florida 8th)
7. Mike Pence (R-Indiana 6th)
8. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas 21st)

The dissent began with:

We oppose H.R. 1592 as an unconstitutional threat to religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal justice under law and basic federalism principles.

Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims. Under the Democrats' hate crime bill, H.R. 1592, criminals who kill a homosexual, transvestite or transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen, or any other person. Hate crimes legislation hands out punishment according to the victim's race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status. The only trait that should matter is the victim's humanity.

Although this sounds quite laudable, a quick perusal of The 2004 Federal Sentencing Guideline Manual should cause anyone to wonder just what held these Representatives' tongues before the 110th Congressional Session.

Chapter 3 - PART A - VICTIM-RELATED ADJUSTMENTS
§3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim

(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.

(b) (1) If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.

(2) If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.

(c) Special Instruction

(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of this subsection.

Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.

The definition of vulnerable person in Application Note 2 seems to cover the dissent's concerns regarding victims who are children or aged.

Chapter 3 - PART A - VICTIM-RELATED ADJUSTMENTS
§3A1.2. Official Victim

(Apply the greatest):

(a) If (1) the victim was (A) a government officer or employee; (B) a former government officer or employee; or (C) a member of the immediate family of a person described in subdivision (A) or (B); and (2) the offense of conviction was motivated by such status, increase by 3 levels.

(b) If subsection (a)(1) and (2) apply, and the applicable Chapter Two guideline is from Chapter Two, Part A (Offenses Against the Person), increase by 6 levels.

(c) If, in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, the defendant or a person for whose conduct the defendant is otherwise accountable-

(1) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that a person was a law enforcement officer, assaulted such officer during the course of the offense or immediate flight therefrom; or

(2) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that a person was a prison official, assaulted such official while the defendant (or a person for whose conduct the defendant is otherwise accountable) was in the custody or control of a prison or other correctional facility,

increase by 6 levels.

This indicates that contrary to what the dissent has stated, police officers as victims of violent crime already are considered to possess a "protected status", and that the sentencing of persons who knowingly committed violent crimes against them is not "blind to the personal traits of victims".

A little investigation into the dissenters' statements find that they are really opposed to the extension of Hate Crimes to cover a victim targeted because they were a "homosexual, transvestite or transsexual", but just could not directly state this for the record.

Even more bewildering is these Contemporary Conservatives' assertions that this act in some way violates the First Amendment's Free Speech and Religious Establishment clauses. It would be a great new leap in Constitutional Law's application to protect speech or religious practises that conspired to commit, or directly incited, acts of violence upon an unwitting human being. H.R. 1592 seems to have anticipated the possibility that the enactment could be abused in a manner that violated the Constitution's First Amendment, and addressed these concerns in two separate sections:

Sec. 7. Prohibition Of Certain Hate Crime Acts; § 249. Hate Crime Acts;
(D) Rule Of Evidence-In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

Sec. 11. Rule Of Construction
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Contemporary Conservatives' dissents to H.R. 1592 stated on the House Floor ranged from the comical, to ground breaking conservative theory.

Louie Gohmert's (R-Texas 1st) exceedingly improbable visions of Day of the Living Transvestites as analogy is farcically absurd:

"...if someone opposed to your position that, perhaps, was having gender identity issues, like a transvestite, got between you and your office, and there were numbers of them, and you tried to get through to your office, then, as has happened in other places, he may be inclined now to go to the Federal Government, file a criminal complaint for which you could be arrested, and that would be bodily injury sufficient to rise to that level."

Stop it Louie! You're slaying us with convulsions of laughter! Here's the scene set-up:

   The Protagonist pulls into his assigned parking space at the office...
   He sees a transvestite...between his car and his office...he looks about fearfully...
   His fear transcends to terror as he spots another transvestite...
   then numbers of them...blocking his path to work...
   All are suffering from a bad wig day...
   Even more horrifying, there's not one competent aesthetician amongst them...
   The protagonist opens his vehicle's trunk, and its emptiness causes him to remember...
   that his wife said she needed their Mary Kay Cosmetics Sales Rep Sampler Kit today...
   He's forced to face the gauntlet alone, and without any lures...
   knowing that his fate is sealed if any manage to cop a feel...
   he'll start having having gender identity issues, and then become a transvestite too...
     Oh, the horror...the humanity.

Mr. Gohmert; please offer us specific documented instances where this "has happened in other places", other than the recesses of your mind.

It is difficult to decide whether to mock or pity Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas 4th) after reading his statement against H.R. 1592:

"The 14th Amendment affords equal protection under the law to all citizens. H.R. 1592 defies this principle by ranking victims according to nebulous categories like 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' that are based on behavior and are not easily definable."

The only persons who find the concepts of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to be "nebulous" and "not easily definable" are persons who have run in fear from investigating their sexuality, deeply repressing it, where it can only manifest itself subconsciously with soft-shoe routines performed in bus, train and airport terminals' public restrooms.

Mr. Tiahrt continued:

"It is ironic that this bill came to the floor on the National Day of Prayer. I am worried that this bill will unfairly target people of faith. Under this bill, Christians and clergy may be targets for prosecution if their traditional teachings on sexuality are considered an inducement to violence of people based on 'sexual orientation' or 'gender identity' whether real or perceived."

It is ironic that Tiahrt, whose state Kansas is home to the venomous homophobe, Fred Phelps, who claims he has a Constitutional and Religious right to hate gay persons, would even think about advancing this argument in a public statement given on The House Floor.

The most astounding of the Contemporary Conservatives' dissents to H.R. 1592 without a doubt is found in the position of the House GOP Conservative caucus, The Republican Study Group, and their newfound warm embrace as original intent of "The Wall of Separation Between Church and State" found in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists Association dated January 1, 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Speaking for The Republican Study Group, its Chairman Mike Pence (R-Indiana 6th) said on May 3, 2007:

Thomas Jefferson said, famously, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative power of government reach actions only, and not opinions," Jefferson went on to say, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Again, Thomas Jefferson, framing, as perhaps only he in American history could, the issue that grounded conservative concern in the hate crimes legislation today, that legislative powers of government should reach actions only and not opinions, and then reflected on that as the core central logic behind the first amendment protections of the freedom of religion.

In the case of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, we did not meet that standard today, Mr. Speaker. I believe this legislation was bad public policy, and unnecessary, and many House conservatives in the Republican Study Committee agreed.

[. . .]

Members of the Republican Study Committee came together late last night, called on President George W. Bush to veto this legislation should it reach his desk. And as I mentioned earlier today, the administration, in no small measure, due to House conservatives and the leadership of the Republican Study Committee, the administration issued a veto threat pertaining to the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. They did so as House conservatives did, out of a belief that this bill threatens religious freedom by criminalizing ultimately religious thought.

Will this ground breaking assumption of The Separation of Church and State as dogma by contemporary conservatives be expressed through their strong belief in equal application and cause them to dissent vigorously against Faith Based Initiatives? The Editors at Liberated Text won't be holding our breaths. Contemporary Conservatives are not motivated by a desire to Separate Church from State, but instead a desire to tear down The Wall between Church and Hate.

It would be difficult to express our feelings regarding this reprehensible posturing better that Alcee L. Hastings (D-Florida 23rd) did:

"The fact is, hate toward people in our country who are deemed different remains copious and persistent.

What is not fact, however, is the campaign of mistruths right-wing extremists with a megaphone have instigated against this bill. They claim, for instance, that passage of this bill will be used to persecute anti-gay churches. To which I say, I don't know of any pastor or minister who would advocate tying a man to a split-rail fence, beating him brutally, and leaving him to die in the cold of the night for no reason other than he was gay.

This legislation addresses long overdue deficiencies in current federal hate crimes law. It extends protections to even more groups of targeted minorities. And it ensures that when states are unwilling or unable to prosecute hate crimes, justice will be served."

Well-spoken sir. Godspeed Congressman Alcee L. Hastings.