NC Pastor Says To Break Bones of Gay Children

[Aqueous Id]

YoungTurks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gjm7W-hDLc&feature=related

Recording
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGn2r6tRYG0

Is Pastor Sean Harris' Violent Sermon Against Children Protected Speech?

In an angry tirade during a church sermon, Pastor Sean Harris says to break the bones of children and punch them.

I would like to talk about the criminality of such statements and weather or not this type is speech is protected or should or should not be protected?

Should this Pastor Sean Harris be in jail right? If so, what is his crime?

Protected speech would only come up if he were being thwarted in his attempt to publish his ideas. Obviously, he made the news, so the opposite is true.

Criminality is another issue. He would have to violate all of the elements of a crime to be charged. You are probably recognizing that part of what he said sounds like an element of a crime, like assault or injury to a child. In most states, a direct threat to do bodily injury would probably constitute a serious crime with jail time. Of course he did not make a direct threat, he just advised the parents that they may do so, and that they should do so. It was a speech (a "sermon") and it was addressed to no one in particular, so there's probably no violation there. The other crime that comes to mind is something along the lines of inciting a crowd to do violence, which is probably marginal at best.

Next is the issue of a hate crime. Here, when a person commits a crime on account of race, religion, gender, disability or sexual preference, this law kicks in and gives more room for punishment. However, someone would have to first do the actual crime, such as assault, before it would be applicable. And presumably that would go against the parent committing the assault.

Last is whether he should be allowed to say this. The answer is yes. Even at risk that some fool will be reinforced in their hatred of gays, gay children, or children in general, it is extremely important to maintain free speech in this country. Once one domino falls, so fall the rest.

Apart from the religious homophobia, some things came to my mind about how we might get churches out of the child abuse business. I think there should be a system of reporting set up whereby a civilian court determines that a complaint against a church or its leaders has merit. The first step, after being found guilty, would be a conference with church representatives, to give the organization a way to recover from the misconduct or crimes of individual preachers or priests. The expectation would be that the evidence was sufficient to warrant dismissal. The church would be allowed to fire the person and set up a recovery for the innocent people who are either victimized or else just soaking up the bad advice. The law already handles the serious crimes, this is for borderline cases like this, or any unproven claims of a more sordid nature. The church would have to report back to the court, and an independent investigator could watch over them as they fix the problem. If, after all this, the church fails to meet the minimum expectation of this new law, then they should lose their tax-exempt status. The rationale for this is that they are not practicing an actual religion, but something shady and corrupt that merely pretends to uphold religious values.

As for his fundamentalist Christian homophobia, it advocates for the congregation to violate the Civil Rights Act, so any church which professes that scripture requires their hatred of gays, the church should be blacklisted and removed from tax exempt status. I think the tax code and the Civil Rights Act could be amended with a paragraph or two elucidating these provisions. He was quite blatant about not only sexual preference discrimination, but gender discrimination itself, demanding that girls "dress up, look pretty, smell good" which are offensive by themselves.

Another program that might be helpful would be to require that Church leaders take a federal training course covering legal issues, cultural sensitivity training, and the matter of responsible leadership, all from the perspective of ethical and legal considerations. The churches would have to pay for it, and without it they lose their tax exempt status.

One more thing. I would require them to take a section on the ethical and legal ramifications of opposing the teaching of evolution, or interfering in any woman's personal choice concerning contraception or abortion. They would be taught that their speech is protected, up to the point where they advocate for or incite others to do actual harm, and at that point they deviate from the legal definition of a religion, and lose their tax exempt status.

 

[Asguard]

Again, do you believe someone should be arrested for a personal belief?

If they keep them to themselves no, if they are encoraging others to follow those beliefs and they are ciminal actions YES. Now i know there are grey areas such as euthanaisa where a lot of people (myself included) belive the law itself is wrong but for something like this? yes i have no problem seeing the son of a bitch go to jail and we shouldnt have to wait till someone hurts a CHILD because of what he has already said to do something about it.

Let me ask you this bells. If a sniper fires a bullet at someones head do you say action alone is worthy of going to jail wether it hits or not?

He has fired his bullet, he has incited the rable. Now why do you think that it should wait on someone ELSE's actions as to wether he should be charged? what your saying is that the law is like currently is schrodinger's cat. He has both commited a crime and not commited a crime at the same time until someone external beats a child to a pulp and says "but paster x said to do it" and then the wave form collapses. HIS actions havent chanegd at all, its only someone elses which have.

 

[Michael]

Again, do you believe someone should be arrested for a personal belief?

Thought crime - now that's scary.

 

[Bells]

If they keep them to themselves no, if they are encoraging others to follow those beliefs and they are ciminal actions YES. Now i know there are grey areas such as euthanaisa where a lot of people (myself included) belive the law itself is wrong but for something like this? yes i have no problem seeing the son of a bitch go to jail and we shouldnt have to wait till someone hurts a CHILD because of what he has already said to do something about it.

And he believes the laws concerning homosexuality is wrong..

He expressed his thoughts and beliefs to his flock. Priests who speak of the abomination of homosexuality and politicians who cite bible passages that state that homosexual men should be put to death are prime examples..

As revolting as the speech is, it is still free speech.

Once you start policing what people say, think or believe, then we enter a very dangerous area that you don't want to go into.

Let me ask you this bells. If a sniper fires a bullet at someones head do you say action alone is worthy of going to jail wether it hits or not?

The action alone..

In this instance, firing a gun at someone's head is illegal as it is tantamount to attempted murder, which is a crime.

He has fired his bullet, he has incited the rable.

And how many of his flock or "rabble" have beaten their children or broken their bones because they appear to be homosexual?

Now why do you think that it should wait on someone ELSE's actions as to wether he should be charged? Now why do you think that it should wait on someone ELSE's actions as to wether he should be charged? what your saying is that the law is like currently is schrodinger's cat. He has both commited a crime and not commited a crime at the same time until someone external beats a child to a pulp and says "but paster x said to do it" and then the wave form collapses. HIS actions havent chanegd at all, its only someone elses which have.

Because no one has taken him up on his advice. No one has committed this crime because he told them to or gave them justification to. You can't arrest someone for saying something that may influence someone to beating a child. If we did, then every single story which reports on child abuse and buffoons like this individual would also be liable for inciting violence because they are distributing the 'bullet'..

It is a nasty slippery slope and it would effectively shut down free speech entirely. Think North Korea..

It would mean that JDawg, for example, should be jailed for saying that the guy's knuckles should be broken for example. And Iceaura brings up an important point too. It would mean any show, movie or story which depicts child abuse could also be used as being something that incites child abuse.. Do you see how bad we can go with this?

Lets say you watch Law and Order and in that show there is a depiction of someone who makes a similar statement of this pastor. Should the writers, actors, directors involved also face a similar charge because they portrayed the incitement to violence? Because that show could incite some lunatic out there to beat their child?

And as much as I would personally like to see people like him behind bars.. You cannot pre-emptively arrest someone for saying something stupid and hateful because someone out there might act on it. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Asguard]

Actually what you are suggesting makes it MORE likly that video game writers or TV show writers would be arested years down the track because insted of the action being judged on the basis of that action (ie him telling people to beat up children) your waiting for someone to take him up on that before charging him. So then you have the "video games made me do it" defense. He incited a crime, this is compleatly seprate from someone else carrying out that crime. Actually i came up with a better example than the sniper, person x tells, begs and cajoles person y into killing person x's spouse, even tells them that he will forgive them if they do so and that they will have a place in heaven. If person y chickens out and doesnt do it, should person x be let off the hook?

 

[Asguard]

BTW bells, did you read about that idiot from the herald sun who was charged under the racial discrimination act? Seems we DO limit "free" speach and we havent become North Korea

 

[Bells]

BTW bells, did you read about that idiot from the herald sun who was charged under the racial discrimination act? Seems we DO limit "free" speach and we havent become North Korea

We have hate speech and hate crime laws.

The US does not.

But even that is quite restrictive as well.

 

[Tiassa]

It's not worth it

Hes not advocating the rights of the terminally ill here (i use that because euthasia is also a crime), he is advocating parents beat there children into a bloody pulp because there son happens to like dolls (not even being gay, because he is to girly) or there daughter happens to like to play rough like the boys.

And in the United States of America, you have the right to say all sorts of crazy shit. Very few of us are willing to trade that right just to see some charlatan we don't like thrown in jail.

This is one of those cultural things I cannot be certain about. In most issues, you come across as liberal on the American spectrum. So here's the deal: My side of the argument in American political culture has been trounced by the law over the years. The Haymarket Martyrs, for instance, were not hanged because they were guilty—they weren't. Rather, according to the judge who sentenced them, they were hanged because they were Anarchists.

Labor organizers were routinely murdered in the early twentieth century.

Emma Goldman was thrown in jail for advocating draft resistance, and on at least one occasion for promoting the use of birth control.

Suspected Communists were hauled into Congress, kicked out of universities, and fired from their jobs. We even passed a law that said no Communist could work for the federal government.

In my lifetime, California, of all states, prosecuted a witch. Yes, in 1975, in California, a woman was convicted in a witch trial.

Now, in the twenty-first century, what am I supposed to say? What is anybody supposed to say? That none of that mattered? Why? Because then we get to throw a moron in jail?

It's not worth it.

And this is why we let Nazis march in the streets.

This is why John Hagee gets to blame Katrina on being too nice to gays. This is why Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell get to say insane things like 9/11 was God's punishment because Americans are too nice to gays and women.

This is why Karl Rove gets to make a living lying to people.

This is why, even among some atheists, Anne Hutchinson has a special place in the American heritage.

We've come too far to throw it away just so we can have the satisfaction of tossing this useless cyst on the hindquarters of the human endeavor in jail for saying something insanely stupid.

 

[Bells]

Actually i came up with a better example than the sniper, person x tells, begs and cajoles person y into killing person x's spouse, even tells them that he will forgive them if they do so and that they will have a place in heaven. If person y chickens out and doesnt do it, should person x be let off the hook?

Is that what happened in this case?

It's not is it?

The Pastor did not go up to one person and say or beg them 'you have to beat your son/daughter up for being gay'.. What he did was posit his personal beliefs of what parents in general should do. The example you gave is basically contracting someone to commit a crime.

It's a thin grey line Asguard. I am not denying that. And I'm not denying it doesn't suck either..

 

[Nasor]

As for his fundamentalist Christian homophobia, it advocates for the congregation to violate the Civil Rights Act, so any church which professes that scripture requires their hatred of gays, the church should be blacklisted and removed from tax exempt status. I think the tax code and the Civil Rights Act could be amended with a paragraph or two elucidating these provisions. He was quite blatant about not only sexual preference discrimination, but gender discrimination itself, demanding that girls "dress up, look pretty, smell good" which are offensive by themselves.

What civil rights act are you talking about? I believe the "Civil Rights Act" in the US only covers housing discrimination, and unfortunately doesn't protect against discrimination baded on sexuality.

 

[Tiassa]

One problem with this aspect of the debate

One problem with this aspect of the debate is that in discussing whether or not this pastor is worth trashing the First Amendment for would be the observation that this is how important homophobia is to some Americans. This is what the heterosupremacist movement is about. These are the folks you throw your lot in with when you oppose marriage equality.

The pastor isn't some outlier. Violence against homosexuals, and even people merely suspected of being gay is common in the United States. And, to consider the idea of hate crimes, why do people object so vociferously to considering motivation and state of mind during the commission of a crime?

Because being gay means you deserve to be beaten or murdered. It isn't really about "thought crime". Homophobes aim to exclude gays from humanity. It isn't really about hate crime, but, rather, that beating or killing a suspected queer shouldn't be a crime.

Think about it for a moment. Gay marriage, in general, merely by existing, threatens your heterosexual marriage? What utter rubbish. That sort of insecurity suggests you're not psychiatrically competent to consent to marriage in the first place. Of course, throwing your lot in with this kind of hatemonger in the first place suggests you're not competent to participate in the discussion.

Those who want to whine about their Christian faith need to pause long enough to figure out whether they really believe in God, Christ, the Bible, and judgment. And then they need to figure out just how they're going to explain to God that they have such great faith as to usurp His authority in order to judge others in such a manner.

For the rest, it's simply a question of whether or not people should respect your participation in this hypocritical swindle intended to dehumanized your fellow human beings because a bunch of allegedly faithful religious people want to justify their hatred of God and humanity alike.

 

[Grumpy]

Here's a thought...


Regressives have pushed "Stand Your Ground" legislation in many states. This law says you do not have to back away from someone who threatens your life, that you are justified in employing lethal force if they confront you.

Wouldn't that mean that any gay person would be justified in popping a cap in this yahoos ass on sight? He has already said to break your children's wrists(assault and child abuse), other similar Neandertals have called for putting gays in camps ringed by electric fences so they will soon die out(Oh, we'll drop in some food every once in a while, when we remember, if it doesn't cost too much.)

Does this not strike eerie and sick echos of 1930s Germany? They, too, sent homosexuals into camps, along with intelligencia, the mentally ill, Jews, Gypsys, Slavs and anyone else not just like themselves. And this occurred in a supposedly civilized country only 70 some years ago, there are still people who were in those camps living today! The hatred being preached in our churches today is in no way different in kind to that preached in Nazi Germany. Hitler did not invent his antisemitism, he soaked it up from the Catholic Church(he was a life long Catholic), but the protestants preached the same message, straight from the lips of Martin Luther...

"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...
Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...
Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...
Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it..."

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

What is going on in the church today is dangerous, we saw where such behavior led in the second world war. So you will have to excuse me if I treat this pastor as the Facist that he is.

Grumpy

 

[quadraphonics]

We have hate speech and hate crime laws.

The US does not.

USA has hate crime laws, just not hate speech laws.

The hate crime laws are sentencing laws - if you get convicted of a crime, and it can be demonstrated that you perpetrated the crime in order to victimize someone over their race/gender/nationality/whatever, then you are eligible for a much harsher sentence.

 

[quadraphonics]

What civil rights act are you talking about? I believe the "Civil Rights Act" in the US only covers housing discrimination,.

LOL wut?

and unfortunately doesn't protect against discrimination baded on sexuality.

That part is true, however.

 

[Balerion]

Here's a thought...


Regressives have pushed "Stand Your Ground" legislation in many states. This law says you do not have to back away from someone who threatens your life, that you are justified in employing lethal force if they confront you.

Wouldn't that mean that any gay person would be justified in popping a cap in this yahoos ass on sight? He has already said to break your children's wrists(assault and child abuse), other similar Neandertals have called for putting gays in camps ringed by electric fences so they will soon die out(Oh, we'll drop in some food every once in a while, when we remember, if it doesn't cost too much.)

No, it would not give you (or anyone else) justification to kill the pastor.

Does this not strike eerie and sick echos of 1930s Germany? They, too, sent homosexuals into camps, along with intelligencia, the mentally ill, Jews, Gypsys, Slavs and anyone else not just like themselves. And this occurred in a supposedly civilized country only 70 some years ago, there are still people who were in those camps living today! The hatred being preached in our churches today is in no way different in kind to that preached in Nazi Germany. Hitler did not invent his antisemitism, he soaked it up from the Catholic Church(he was a life long Catholic), but the protestants preached the same message, straight from the lips of Martin Luther...

Hatred of the Jews dates back much further than Nazi Germany. In fact, the Holocaust can trace its roots back to medieval pogroms at least nine hundred years prior. In other words, it was not simply the fiery words of a little Austrian man, but a millennium of fear and hatred combined with that little man, plus the perfect circumstances for him to rise to power.

What would murdering these idiots do, except make them martyrs? The problem isn't just the pastor, but the source material. As long as people believe in the Bible, there's going to be divine warrant for bigotry and hatred. Making the speech illegal or the speakers shooting targets won't change that. In fact, it could have the opposite effect.

What is going on in the church today is dangerous, we saw where such behavior led in the second world war. So you will have to excuse me if I treat this pastor as the Facist that he is.

Grumpy

No one is denying you your right to anger, or your right to call a spade a spade. These people are scum. But unpopular and vulgar ideas can't be made illegal.

 

[steampunk]

If you can imagine the terror and imminent threat of bodily harm of a child or young adult in that congregation who fits the pastors description of who should be punished, you may see this from a different point of view. We discuss this while we ignore how terrifying such threats are to a child or young adult. For the same reason, there is unprotected speech and expression from an adult to a child or young adult. I think this is one of them, because the sermon was meant to incite physical abuse against them.

These statements fit the definition of terrorist threats toward children and young adults as to create a chilling effect against their personal choices and attitudes. It also incites hatred against homosexuals and advocates violence against homosexuals.

 

[steampunk]

The problem isn't just the pastor, but the source material. As long as people believe in the Bible, there's going to be divine warrant for bigotry and hatred. Making the speech illegal or the speakers shooting targets won't change that. In fact, it could have the opposite effect.

There is plenty of speech that is not protected. Advocating child abuse on the grounds of a persons genetic make-up or social choices, and then making terroristic threats toward them is not the kind of speech I want to protect. As far as I"m concerned if there isn't a law that puts this shitfuck in jail, I want there to be one.

I myself despise the right that the church had to tell me I would burn in pain for all eternity for committing their moral sins. This fucked up my head for a very long time. It is nothing short of child abuse. I would be more than happy to usurp that divine warrant and put their ass in jail or make war if that means civil war. Give me a gun, I will be ready to break that commandment too and kill. It's just too bad I'm in the minority, because I support democracy.

 

[Balerion]

There is plenty of speech that is not protected. Advocating child abuse on the grounds of a persons genetic make-up or social choices, and then making terroristic threats toward them is not the kind of speech I want to protect. As far as I"m concerned if there isn't a law that puts this shitfuck in jail, I want there to be one.

The good thing is that it doesn't matter what speech you want to protect. The Framers already took care of that. And making terrorist threats may be illegal, but that's not what this is. He's advocating abuse, sure, but that is neither a threat nor illegal.

I myself despise the right that the church had to tell me I would burn in pain for all eternity for committing their moral sins. This fucked up my head for a very long time. It is nothing short of child abuse. I would be more than happy to usurp that divine warrant and put their ass in jail or make war if that means civil war. Give me a gun, I will be ready to break that commandment too and kill. It's just too bad I'm in the minority, because I support democracy.

Unless someone disagrees with you, in which case you advocate murdering them. Your words here are no better than the pastor's, just on the other side of the argument. In fact, if you had your own way, you'd have just committed a crime. Thankfully, (at least here in the US) your speech is protected by the First Amendment.

 

[steampunk]

The good thing is that it doesn't matter what speech you want to protect. The Framers already took care of that. And making terrorist threats may be illegal, but that's not what this is. He's advocating abuse, sure, but that is neither a threat nor illegal.



Unless someone disagrees with you, in which case you advocate murdering them. Your words here are no better than the pastor's, just on the other side of the argument. In fact, if you had your own way, you'd have just committed a crime. Thankfully, (at least here in the US) your speech is protected by the First Amendment.

This is terrorist threat. Take for example Texas law:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/

No my speech is different. I'm asking everyone to take a vote first. I wouldn't just kill this guy out of the blue. If it came to a civil war, then I'd kill. He's the one who has taken it upon himself and given everyone a free pass in his congregation to abuse children. He never advocated changing the law. I know the religious are serious and will act out their abuse; they've been doing it for thousands of years!

It's much like threatening the president. You could suggest a law that ok's it. But, you can't threaten while a law prohibits it.

Do you think you should be able to threaten the president? If not, how is this different?

 

[Balerion]

This is terrorist threat. Take for example Texas law:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/

From your own link:

A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

The pastor's comments do not fit this description. For one, he wasn't threatening anyone. He was advocating physical punishment for gay children by parents. By no definition of the word is this a threat, let alone a threat of the terrorist variety. Secondly, by your definition, if I advise parents that corporal punishment is the best way to raise their children, I would also be engaging in terrorist activities. This is ludicrous.

No my speech is different. I'm asking everyone to take a vote first. I wouldn't just kill this guy out of the blue. If it came to a civil war, then I'd kill.

You're asking everyone to vote on whether or not this pastor should live or die? Who is "everyone"? Is his life on the ballot, or something, or are you just polling us? And how would an affirmative vote give you the right to take his life?

The pastor, too, sets out parameters. He doesn't advocate cracking the wrists of just any child, but a very specific kind of child. And he, like you, thinks this will serve the greater good. So tell me, how exactly are you different?

He's the one who has taken it upon himself and given everyone a free pass in his congregation to abuse children. He never advocated changing the law.

So that's the difference? That he didn't first try to make the acts he advocates legal? Because you seek a majority vote, you're somehow better?

I think this pastor is as big a scumbag as it gets, but the things you're saying here are no better. Just because you want to make his murder legal (even at the cost of making civil war!) doesn't mean that you're any less of an extremist.

I know the religious are serious and will act out their abuse; they've been doing it for thousands of years!

I don't doubt it.

It's much like threatening the president. You could suggest a law that ok's it. But, you can't threaten while a law prohibits it.

Do you think you should be able to threaten the president? If not, how is this different?

This is different because it isn't a threat. If the pastor had said to a parent that if their child was gay he would break their wrists, that is a threat. But that's not what he did. He advocated the parents do that to their children. That is not a threat, it's advice.