I took a
moment this afternoon for a political exercise.
Feel
free to follow what I did below if you'd like.
Step 1:
This is in my email from the county Republican party leadership
"Two bills are coming before the Michigan House of
Representatives that pose a serious threat to freedom of religion and freedom
of speech in Michigan. HB4474 and its companion bill, HB4475, which both aim
to criminalize hate speech. These bills, if passed in to law, would be used
to criminalize any vocal opposition to the democrats woke agenda. For
example, vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting
or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday
morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills
became law. Simply put, if passed, it would make it a felony for any one of
us to speak out against the LGBTQ community, causing "mental
anguish" to a protected class as outlined by the expanded Elliot Larson
Act. If found guilty, one could face inprisionment for not more than 5 years,
a $10,000 fine, or both. These are dangerous pieces of legislation that seek
to interfere with the God-given freedom of speech and freedom of religion
that are ours in Christ Jesus.
We are asking that each of you write a
letter addressed to State Representative Jennifer Conlin urging her to vote
"NO" on this legislation."
At the end, they include the actual legislation documents. Helpful!
2. I go to read the summary, which is here. I'll
pause while you go and read...
3. I'm confused, and a bit disturbed. The legislation does not look to ME
like it criminalizes my next sermon on Romans 1, as claimed above.
4. I send the following to my esteemed local party leaders:
Hello,
I'm a conservative pastor in Howell, and just read your letter, and the
document summary of HB4474.
I believe you are mistaken to claim that
"vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting
or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday
morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills
became law."
Any
opposition to CRT/LGBT should be done respectfully, without threats that
intimidate anyone. We should oppose the idea, but not threaten the
person. The language I read doesn't allow prosecution just because
someone feels threatened. See especially the definition of intimidate on
pg 2, allowing constitutionally protected speech. "I felt
traumatized because they said something I disagreed with" doesn't seem
allowed, here.
The law is mistaken to categorize trans people as ethnicities, and should be
opposed. And adding "intimidate" IS a bad idea. But it
should be opposed because it is unnecessary. It does not criminalize my
sermon from Romans 1.
I'm asking you to reconsider your rhetoric and rationale - sending the rank and
file to state reps with questionable objections to a bill, is a tactic that
will backfire in the long run.
5. After sending and thinking about it for 2 minutes, I realize.
"Huh. If I'm going to critique their approach, I'd better show them
how I think it should be done." So I write and send a letter to our
State Representative, thusly.
"June 15, 2023
Dear Representative Conlin,
I am writing to ask you to vote NO on HB4474 and 4475.
Including gender identity and expression alongside sexual orientation is
unnecessary. The former is included in the latter phrase.
Adding the behavior of “intimidate” to a hate crime is dangerously
ambiguous. Expressing an opinion in anger is enough for many to feel
intimidated, today. Can they sue, now? I see some
guardrails in the law: “cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized,
etc.” “Intimidate would not include constitutionally protected activity.”
But that makes adding “intimidate” to the law unnecessary, and
unwise. Hate crimes should be limited to violence and specific
threats of it, not expanded to include FEELING intimidated.
Thank you for your consideration.
6. This
is what sane political interaction looks like, in my mind. NOT mimicking
the antics and over-the-top rhetoric of your favorite entertainer-podcasters
online. I'd love to know if you think I'm off base.
I took a
moment this afternoon for a political exercise.
|
"Two bills are coming before the Michigan House of
Representatives that pose a serious threat to freedom of religion and freedom
of speech in Michigan. HB4474 and its companion bill, HB4475, which both aim
to criminalize hate speech. These bills, if passed in to law, would be used
to criminalize any vocal opposition to the democrats woke agenda. For
example, vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting
or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday
morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills
became law. Simply put, if passed, it would make it a felony for any one of
us to speak out against the LGBTQ community, causing "mental
anguish" to a protected class as outlined by the expanded Elliot Larson
Act. If found guilty, one could face inprisionment for not more than 5 years,
a $10,000 fine, or both. These are dangerous pieces of legislation that seek
to interfere with the God-given freedom of speech and freedom of religion
that are ours in Christ Jesus. |
2. I go to read the summary, which is here. I'll pause while you go and read...
3. I'm confused, and a bit disturbed. The legislation does not look to ME
like it criminalizes my next sermon on Romans 1, as claimed above.
4. I send the following to my esteemed local party leaders:
Hello,
I'm a conservative pastor in Howell, and just read your letter, and the
document summary of HB4474.
I believe you are mistaken to claim that
"vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting
or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday
morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills
became law."
Any
opposition to CRT/LGBT should be done respectfully, without threats that
intimidate anyone. We should oppose the idea, but not threaten the
person. The language I read doesn't allow prosecution just because
someone feels threatened. See especially the definition of intimidate on
pg 2, allowing constitutionally protected speech. "I felt
traumatized because they said something I disagreed with" doesn't seem
allowed, here.
The law is mistaken to categorize trans people as ethnicities, and should be
opposed. And adding "intimidate" IS a bad idea. But it
should be opposed because it is unnecessary. It does not criminalize my
sermon from Romans 1.
I'm asking you to reconsider your rhetoric and rationale - sending the rank and
file to state reps with questionable objections to a bill, is a tactic that
will backfire in the long run.
5. After sending and thinking about it for 2 minutes, I realize.
"Huh. If I'm going to critique their approach, I'd better show them
how I think it should be done." So I write and send a letter to our
State Representative, thusly.
"June 15, 2023
Dear Representative Conlin,
I am writing to ask you to vote NO on HB4474 and 4475.
Including gender identity and expression alongside sexual orientation is
unnecessary. The former is included in the latter phrase.
Adding the behavior of “intimidate” to a hate crime is dangerously
ambiguous. Expressing an opinion in anger is enough for many to feel
intimidated, today. Can they sue, now? I see some
guardrails in the law: “cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized,
etc.” “Intimidate would not include constitutionally protected activity.”
But that makes adding “intimidate” to the law unnecessary, and
unwise. Hate crimes should be limited to violence and specific
threats of it, not expanded to include FEELING intimidated.
Thank you for your consideration.
6. This is what sane political interaction looks like, in my mind. NOT mimicking the antics and over-the-top rhetoric of your favorite entertainer-podcasters online. I'd love to know if you think I'm off base.
No comments:
Post a Comment