I'm a little behind with this, but there's still a chance to act (i.e. contact your congressfolk) - the homosexual lobby has gotten incredible momentum behind The Hate Crimes or “Thought Crimes” bill - (H.R. – 1592, “The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act) and it's likely that it'll go to the floor for voting soon. While at first blush, the idea of preventing hate crimes sounds admirable, when you read what it's really preventing, it's aimed at making anyone who criticizes homosexuality in any way (even in a thoughtful, calm, conversational manner or even a pastor reading from the Bible about how it is unnatural and not sanctioned by God) subject to fines and/or imprisonment as a perpetrator of a hate crime. Essentially it means that the government decides what opinion you're going to hold on the issue of homosexuality.
Other folks have written about it far more eloquently that I have time to do tonight - but please take the time to do some reading and then contact your representatives to stop this legislation that dictates hate toward anyone with a Christian worldview.
Focus on the Family
Townhall.com (Colson)
Breakpoint (Colson - with more links for action at the bottom)
Family Research Council Fact Sheet (with petition)
Traditional Values Coalition Fact Sheet
Even if you disagree with a Christian world view, a bill like this should worry any American who cherishes freedom.
2 days ago
Yep, 1984 here we come! lgp
ReplyDeleteI wrote some comments earlier disagreeing with you and u didn't publish them.
ReplyDeleteWas it because my comments refuted your hysteria about hate crimes legislation. I can't do anything about what you did but please rest assured, it is a matter of personal integrity. If you call yourself a religious person, then what you did should bother you.
IF she chose not to have your comments on her PERSONAL blog, so what? You were not jailed nor fined for having your thoughts. You were not accused of a "hate crime". So the two incidents are COMPLETELY different. You are welcome to have free speech on someone ELSEs blog.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, then she is being a hypocrite and i will tell you why.
ReplyDeleteif you had taken the time to read the bill rather than listen to religious conservative lies you would know that the bill deals with violent action rather than thought. in fact there is a provision in the bill that specifies that no one be persecuted for their religious and personal beliefs.
It's all there for you if you take time to read it.
That is the gist of what I said. Now tell me just how ethical is it for her to make a claim and then not print a refutation of that claim.
So much for being ethical and Christian
Blacktsunami - I don't moderate or censor my comments -- if you posted a comment and it didn't publish, please look to a technical issue either with Blogger or your personal setup (browser, whatever) for the issue rather than calling into question the character of someone you don't know simply because you disagree with them. If you'd like to republish a thoughtful, non-hysterical comment with your opinion on the legislation, I'd be happy to have it as part of this discussion, but from the bile you spew when you believe you're being censored I'm not sure that you'd do anything other than what you're accusing me of - that is, reply hysterically with the liberal propaganda about how "innocuous" this legislation is.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to say, as one who supports censorship legislation it's amusing how bent out of shape you become the instant you believe you've been censored.
I still stand by what I said in my original comment. I printed a detailed refutation of your argument and it was not posted to your site. That is not the problem of my site or my computer. It is a problem on your end, whether intentional or not.
ReplyDeleteIt is relatively easy to call something "liberal bile" rather than refute it, isnt it?
You keep claiming that the bill censors thought even though it specifically speaks on violent action rather than speech and that there are provisions specifically addressing the fact that people will not be penalized because of speech.
You say you find me hysterical. I find it even more hysterical that you continue to believe what you want about this bill even though the facts refute you.
Once again, this bill is NOT about speech but violent action. And it merely adds lgbts to the categories that already include race and religion.
Again please read the original bill before making accusations.
I need to do some more homework on this, I guess, as I've read none of the commentaries about the bill in question. However, I have read the text of the bill itself and I'm puzzled about what it contains that leads to the "thought crime" label. Everything I saw seemed to relate directly to direct physical violence against a person.
ReplyDeletePlus, the bill ends with this language:
"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."
I'm not a lawyer (yay!) so I freely grant that I may be missing something.
Eric - the main issue is that violent crimes are already prohibited by law (and punishable by law as well). If you assault someone, you pay for it. If you commit arson, etc. there are laws to govern it. The problem with any "hate crime" legislation is that it gives the government the authority to judge your motivation for commiting violence. Therefore, they're judging (rightfully or not) your thoughts by presuming that because the victim of violence happens to fit into one of their arbitrary protected groups (why are the elderly not protected? why are the unborn not protected? why are pregnant women not protected?) then they're going to deem that you committed a worse crime of violence than if you had attacked someone who doesn't happen to have a big enough lobby to make them protected. Whereas our laws are already adequate - commit violence be held accountable. Regardless of WHY you did it. In fact, I would venture to say that statistically some of these protected groups are going to be victims of violence randomly - but now, because they're protected, somehow the violence to them was worse than to a non-protected group? And why is the government allowed to judge motives? What proof, other than the protected status of the victim, is necessary for them to consider it a hate crime? From my reading of the bill, nothing. THAT is why this is a bad law - because it's extraneous. We have laws to punish violent offenders. They're enough.
ReplyDeleteUS President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
ReplyDelete