|
Post by jaredtaylor on Nov 12, 2008 14:04:18 GMT -5
I'm not looking forward to see what happens with this from Obama.com
"Expand Hate Crimes Statutes Obama and Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section".
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 12, 2008 15:56:12 GMT -5
You aren't interested in seeing expanded prosecution of hate crimes?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 12, 2008 16:38:49 GMT -5
Prosecute violent crimes of all kinds, sure. But should you then make it a matter of thoughtcrime, too?
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 12, 2008 20:28:22 GMT -5
You aren't interested in seeing expanded prosecution of hate crimes? All crime is a hate crime......
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Nov 12, 2008 22:04:14 GMT -5
You aren't interested in seeing expanded prosecution of hate crimes? All crime is a hate crime...... Here I agree with Pac.
|
|
|
Post by jaredtaylor on Nov 13, 2008 3:05:16 GMT -5
"James Dobson, founder of socially conservative lobbying group Focus on the Family, opposed the Act, arguing that it would effectively "muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act).
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 13, 2008 10:28:16 GMT -5
"James Dobson, founder of socially conservative lobbying group Focus on the Family, opposed the Act, arguing that it would effectively "muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act). Jared, can you explain why you chose not to include the very next sentence in that Wiki entry?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 13, 2008 10:35:59 GMT -5
That's okay, Tony, if he won't quote it, I will:
However, HR 1592 contains a "Rule of Construction" which specifically provides that "Nothing in 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."
Jared's post is example #3298738594539472395739275 of fundies twisting the truth to fit their radical Christian agenda. Oh yes, that's right, I went there.
Tony, I am somewhat frightened by the fact that we have agreed on the last few posts you've made .
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 13, 2008 12:16:53 GMT -5
The problem is, supporters, lawmakers, and law enforcement will ignore that part as well, this is proven time and again, daily in fact, on that very issue, not to mention abortion, which is part of this new "democratic" (HA!) push. We all need to look out and hold on for the persecution that is coming, like firebombing churches in CA because the homosexual agenda did not pass (true colors, anyone?) it's happened before over the same issue, and look at how they are pushing there own "morality" on people's children, and parents are being arrested for simply trying to say "We'd like to be the people that discuss this with our children, after all, they're FIVE YEARS OLD"!!!!!
|
|
cjhh
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by cjhh on Nov 13, 2008 12:41:30 GMT -5
i think the biggest fear is this bill will be amended so that it includes open air preaching as a hate crime. we already have laws against everything that is in this bill so really what is the point? is it to make harsher punishments for these crimes? why not make it all the offenses that are listed there equally harsh. all crimes are hate crimes.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 13, 2008 14:53:04 GMT -5
Two problems here.
First, you combined two issues (abortion and hate crime legislation) to ramp up the Christian objection. One has nothing to do with the other.
Secondly, your entire statement is fear based (a great Republican tactic by the way). Any statements that beging with "yeah, but what they will actually do" is misrepresenting the people involved in the legislation. The entire reason the additional statement was part of the law was to protect people in your position. If what you are saying is being "proved daily" please provide some facts that back that up.
Vally.....Sorry, I'll try to disagree with you soon :-) As about the only Christian I know that voted from Obama, some of my posts may be pretty contrary to the positions of my Brothers and Sisters here.
I understand what you are saying, but I agree with the premise of harsher punishment for targeted crimes. There is more premeditation around hate crimes, and there is just something particulary henious (in my estimation) about a crime against a person based soley on race, gender or sexual orientation. Hopefully it gets the attention of hate groups and reduces crimes commited by their members.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 13, 2008 15:26:20 GMT -5
Tony, it's historical fact, what is said and what is done, here is my post from the other hate crimes forum:
"There are people in [the U.S.] right now suffering because of this. In Colorado, the gov. signed the gender "anti-discrimination" law banning "publication of statements that can be perceived as being negative toward those individuals choosing alternative sexual lifestyles". Umm, that's the bible, and that's where this is headed, hands down, say what you want, the actions speak louder than words, proof in the pudding, etc.
Canada already has a "hate crimes" law, and they've actually told a Christian pastor that he has to recant his Christianity because of the law, because the law bans statements that might be "perceived" as condemning homosexuals...
In New Mexico there is a photography company run by Christians and they were fined over $6000 for refusing to photograph a mock lesbian "marriage" ceremony.
There's more, if you want, and I haven't even hit on abortion yet, which involves actual jail time for friends I know."
...
|
|
|
Post by jaredtaylor on Nov 13, 2008 16:19:03 GMT -5
There was a case in Utah with some of my friends where if you merely sneeze and it offends you are braking the law. Last I heard the ADF was suing over the unconstitutional law, but It was brought up and had some significance in the case. The case was surrounding murder mill sidewalk counseling.
|
|
kenm
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by kenm on Nov 13, 2008 17:45:09 GMT -5
If we continue to sleep, by the time we wake up we will not be able to say or do anything about it because we will be breaking he law. Ironic that we are headed for the very thing that people died for in this country fighting against.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 13, 2008 17:53:36 GMT -5
Tony, it's historical fact, what is said and what is done, here is my post from the other hate crimes forum: "There are people in [the U.S.] right now suffering because of this. In Colorado, the gov. signed the gender "anti-discrimination" law banning "publication of statements that can be perceived as being negative toward those individuals choosing alternative sexual lifestyles". Umm, that's the bible, and that's where this is headed, hands down, say what you want, the actions speak louder than words, proof in the pudding, etc. Canada already has a "hate crimes" law, and they've actually told a Christian pastor that he has to recant his Christianity because of the law, because the law bans statements that might be "perceived" as condemning homosexuals... In New Mexico there is a photography company run by Christians and they were fined over $6000 for refusing to photograph a mock lesbian "marriage" ceremony. There's more, if you want, and I haven't even hit on abortion yet, which involves actual jail time for friends I know." ... Tony, do you see now why we get so frustrated when we make legitimate points to you guys and you just keep saying the same nonsense over and over andoverandoverandoverandover? But possessthegates, what if *I* want to be the one to teach my children about the heinousness of street preachers? After all, they're FIVE YEARS OLD. I'm fine with you practicing your Christian lifestyle at home where my kids can't see it, but there should be laws against furthering your radical Christian agenda in the streets where the children will be forced to see it. See how this game is played? (FTR I do not like Obama and didn't vote for him. I'm a Libertarian. Although I have to say that if you were the only Christian who voted for him, he would never have won.)
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 13, 2008 18:14:56 GMT -5
Who exactly is suffering? The bill was signed into law in May and from what I can find, not one person has been prosecuted using this law.
First....we are not in Canada. Second, could you provide a source for this? The Government told him that he had to recant Christainity? Really??? There used to be a rather colorful guy on the board from Canada who does open air preaching and I don't believe that he has had any trouble with the law. He even had the RCMP support his rights to preach in a public market.
I would agree that New Mexico is a bit of a mess, but I would also be interested in seeing what New Mexico's commerical laws are for right of refusal for goods and services. There well may be a law that does not allow refusal of service based on sexual orientation. Laws like this are designed to prevent a gay (or black, or a woman, etc) from being refused service for basic needs. Imagine a gay couple needing to get gas in the middle of nowhere and the gas station attendant saying "Get out of here...I'm not helping gay people" This type of thing prevents us from having situations like we did with black people back in the 50's and 60's.
|
|
|
Post by jaredtaylor on Nov 13, 2008 21:55:55 GMT -5
Le 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 13, 2008 22:36:42 GMT -5
Le 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Yeah, you heard the Bible, Jared! Get out there and start killin'! Of course, the US government might have something to say about that, but hey, that's just an attack on your freedom of religion. And bonus: you can move to several Middle Eastern countries where the government won't even bat an eyelash! Go forth and spread the "love" of Christ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jaredtaylor on Nov 14, 2008 0:32:17 GMT -5
Thursday, June 05, 2008 The Bible Prohibited in Colorado Senate Bill 200 After 400 years of religious freedom for those who wanted to own and distribute Bibles on their own property in America, the Governor of Colorado has put an end to it. SB08-200, signed into law last week will prohibit the issuing, circulating, and distributing of Leviticus 20:13. While churches are exempted for now, Christian schools, Christian book stores, private business, etc. are not. www.generationswithvision.com/
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 14, 2008 10:26:43 GMT -5
Just for fun, I called a Lifeway Christian Bookstore in Denver. I asked the question. Are you guys allowed to sell Bibles? They responded....after a short pause which I assume was to try to figure out if I was serious....Yes, we do. I then asked, "did you guys have to remove Leviticus 20:13 from them?" She responded, "Are you a reporter?" I said, "no, just curious about the law that was passed in CO." She laughed and said, "No, that was blown out of porportion."
Your quote (which I realize was from another source) was kind of devious. It is reported as fact, but is actually a assumption based on the writers interpetation of the situation. That is a big no, no in journalism.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 14, 2008 16:09:28 GMT -5
Wow, Tony, you just gained about five hundred respect points from me. Never on this board have I seen a fundie actually make a serious attempt to verify facts when verification might not coincide with their Radical Christian Agenda. In fact, I might have to remove you from the category of 'fundie,' since a large part of what makes up a fundie is selectively ignoring facts to push their agenda on everyone else.
My paradigm shift, let me show you it.
(Someone who actually looked into this and understood a faulty argument versus a solid one seems like they wouldn't buy the "homosexuality is a choice" arguments, either. I will be impressed if that is the case.)
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 14, 2008 17:07:56 GMT -5
Tony,
I am not saying I agree with all the hysteria over this law but the colorful guy you mentioned from Canada probably never had any trouble with the law because he preached so vague and indirect that no one was offended because no one understood his message.
He is a poor example to use.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 14, 2008 18:29:04 GMT -5
Tony - Who is suffering? If you mean physical pain, not many in the US yet... I'll get the source for the Canada story next week when I return home and have more time, may have been WND . But I've heard from people on mission trips to China that things are fine there, but ask VOM and they'll tell you different. Canada's laws may be more recent than your friend's experience, it may be enforced more radically in different areas, etc etc, but our court system is increasingly looking to foreign law for excuses to push their agendas, and really, Canada is not that far ahead of us on the same path. If the photographers were Jewish and a Nazi organization wanted to hire them to photograph their Extermination 2010 meeting, they should be able to say, "Go find another company". If they were African American and the Klan wanted them to photograph their mock lynching, or just their hooded meeting, they should have the right to refuse service, and if the Company was gay, they should be able to say, "Find another company to do your little church yearbook". Photographs are not basic needs, refusal of basic needs is a different issue altogether, it's a bad law, and historically, bad laws lead to more bad laws lead to ...ad infinitum.
Valentine, I am not advocating that the government school take the kids to see a street preacher against their parents will, that's what is happening in my home state with the gay wedding issue, and it's only going to get worse, there IS a gay agenda, they DO want to take away our freedom of speech, I see this with homosexual representatives where I live now, and watch just one episode of "In the Life" and you will find that they outright admit it. If they want to preach that homosexuality is "ok" in public, fine, as long as the same standards are upheld, no profanity, etc, but I've yet to meet a gay person that is not profane. It is not a game, they want us imprisoned for preaching the gospel, and not for trying to incite people to put homosexuals to death - they are *deserving* of death but so are liars and thieves and adulterers - we preach repentance and change of heart and I'm glad that when I was a lying perverted adulterous thief I wasn't put to death, I had the chance to repent and so do they! So do you!
Now, because a chain store can still sell a bible does not make this law even close to a good law, so what is the point? More and more of this type of restrictive legislation is being pushed and there is your proof right there, it has already been happening.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 14, 2008 18:57:56 GMT -5
Valentine, I am not advocating that the government school take the kids to see a street preacher against their parents will, that's what is happening in my home state with the gay wedding issue, I assume you mean the California wedding that the Yes on 8 lied about in their "campaign." 1.) The parents of all children who went on the trip were notified and signed permission forms allowing it. 2.) California has opt-out laws that provide for parents to withdraw their kids from lessons they do not wish for them to experience. Two parents took advantage of this law in the issue you are referencing. 3.) The kids didn't actually attend the ceremony; they waited outside to congratulate their teacher. 4.) Perhaps the most worrisome: The Yes on 8 campaign used images of these children WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' PERMISSION in their ads to further their homophobic agenda. The parents of these children requested that Yes on 8 remove their children's images from the ads. YES ON 8 REFUSED and CONTINUED RUNNING THE ADS IN SPITE OF THE PARENTS' WISHES. Protecting "family"? Protecting "the children"? Letting parents make decisions about their kids? ONLY WHEN THE CHRISTIAN AGENDA AGREES WITH THE DECISIONS THE PARENTS ARE MAKING. 5.) Tony called you out on your main point, so now you backpeddle and say that it wasn't really relevant. You are an idiot. Go push your Christian agenda on someone who wants it.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 14, 2008 19:04:35 GMT -5
Valentine, I am not advocating that the government school take the kids to see a street preacher against their parents will, that's what is happening in my home state with the gay wedding issue, I assume you mean the California wedding that the Yes on 8 lied about in their "campaign." 1.) The parents of all children who went on the trip were notified and signed permission forms allowing it. 2.) California has opt-out laws that provide for parents to withdraw their kids from lessons they do not wish for them to experience. Two parents took advantage of this law in the issue you are referencing. 3.) The kids didn't actually attend the ceremony; they waited outside to congratulate their teacher. 4.) Perhaps the most worrisome: The Yes on 8 campaign used images of these children WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' PERMISSION in their ads to further their homophobic agenda. The parents of these children requested that Yes on 8 remove their children's images from the ads. YES ON 8 REFUSED and CONTINUED RUNNING THE ADS IN SPITE OF THE PARENTS' WISHES. Protecting "family"? Protecting "the children"? Letting parents make decisions about their kids? ONLY WHEN THE CHRISTIAN AGENDA AGREES WITH THE DECISIONS THE PARENTS ARE MAKING. 5.) Tony called you out on your main point, so now you backpeddle and say that it wasn't really relevant. You are an idiot. Go push your Christian agenda on someone who wants it. Do you take notice that we are at complete and total war with the other side. A spiritual war it may be, But Tony the fact that you don't appear to understand this. Makes me question your convictions.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 14, 2008 19:09:33 GMT -5
Don't see where I backpeddled, I'll take a look again and give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I am an idiot, but there are a few separate incidents from CA and in one a father was charged with trespassing because he would not leave until he got an answer about why his child was included. I'll find the sources but with your attitude I can say right now that I think you won't accept them no matter what they are, you've got your agenda it's obvious.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 14, 2008 19:38:24 GMT -5
Pacp, I am not part of your "we," and I thank you not to address me as if I were. No, peaches. You may indeed think you are "at war," but it is a war you will never win because the US government is not and NEVER HAS BEEN on your side. If you want to live in a theocracy, there are some fine Middle Eastern nations that will be more than happy to accommodate you. Go ahead. We won't miss you. ...Really. Don't see where I backpeddled, I'll take a look again and give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I am an idiot, but there are a few separate incidents from CA and in one a father was charged with trespassing because he would not leave until he got an answer about why his child was included. I'll find the sources but with your attitude I can say right now that I think you won't accept them no matter what they are, you've got your agenda it's obvious. Yeah, in "a few separate incidents," this guy in Colorado was kidnapped, beaten, tortured, and left on a fence post to die. Maybe you've heard of him. His name was Matthew Shepard. Your pathetic attempts to defend this necessary bill by fishing for pity when the person the bill is named for suffered as he did is... well, pathetic. Not to mention offensive. "Oooohhhh noes, I might not be able to try and convince angry mobs to stone homosexuals to death, my pooooor religious freedoms!!!1" Cry me a river and take your Christian agenda elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 14, 2008 22:23:42 GMT -5
Thanks for giving me so much credit! I forgot that you know me personally, and I forgot about those fine Christian Brothers of mine that beat Mr. Shepard to death, and I forgot about the time I tried to get an angry mob to stone someone! Really, we need to grow up rather than make such benign comments. There are already laws against what happened to him, and honestly I think those laws should be stiffened. But don't take away other freedoms in the name of protection. BTW, there are already laws against inciting an angry mob to kill...
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 14, 2008 22:40:55 GMT -5
Pacp, I am not part of your "we," and I thank you not to address me as if I were. No, peaches. You may indeed think you are "at war," but it is a war you will never win because the US government is not and NEVER HAS BEEN on your side. If you want to live in a theocracy, there are some fine Middle Eastern nations that will be more than happy to accommodate you. Go ahead. We won't miss you. ...Really. Don't see where I backpeddled, I'll take a look again and give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I am an idiot, but there are a few separate incidents from CA and in one a father was charged with trespassing because he would not leave until he got an answer about why his child was included. I'll find the sources but with your attitude I can say right now that I think you won't accept them no matter what they are, you've got your agenda it's obvious. Yeah, in "a few separate incidents," this guy in Colorado was kidnapped, beaten, tortured, and left on a fence post to die. Maybe you've heard of him. His name was Matthew Shepard. Your pathetic attempts to defend this necessary bill by fishing for pity when the person the bill is named for suffered as he did is... well, pathetic. Not to mention offensive. "Oooohhhh noes, I might not be able to try and convince angry mobs to stone homosexuals to death, my pooooor religious freedoms!!!1" Cry me a river and take your Christian agenda elsewhere. We know how it's going to end: Rev 19: And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. white horse Zech 6:3, Rev 6:2 Verse 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. name Rev 2:17, Rev 3:12 Verse 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Verse 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Verse 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Verse 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 14, 2008 23:02:09 GMT -5
Ahh, pacp, eloquent as always. When you have an actual argument that isn't apocalyptic self-entitled wallowing in your deluded persecution complex, I'll be waiting to discuss legitimate points. Thanks for giving me so much credit! I forgot that you know me personally, and I forgot about those fine Christian Brothers of mine that beat Mr. Shepard to death, and I forgot about the time I tried to get an angry mob to stone someone! Really, we need to grow up rather than make such benign comments. There are already laws against what happened to him, and honestly I think those laws should be stiffened. But don't take away other freedoms in the name of protection. BTW, there are already laws against inciting an angry mob to kill... Wow, missing the point for $1000, Alex. But what can you expect from a fundie? You were whining about "isolated incidents" that you didn't even have sources for, which apparently mean that this act is bad and shouldn't pass. I brought up my own "isolated incident," which, by the way, was by no means isolated and has been documented and resolved, demonstrating the exact opposite of what you were arguing. You screaming that, if this act passes, stores in Colorado will get their Bibles snatched from their greasy fundie fingers is just as ridiculous as me telling you that if it doesn't pass, every gay person will immediately end up like Matthew. See, hyperbole can be my friend, too! My point, as you can see above, actually had absolutely nothing to do with you OR Christians, but now that you mention it, your fellow Christians did have a little something to say about Matthew. Or, as they call him, and I quote from their site, "a filthy little twenty-three-year-old f*g**t." Charming, aren't they? (ETA-- That stupid filter will screw with the link; you'll have to manually replace the asterisk with the appropriate letter. I'm sure you know how it's spelled.) Benign? You're right about one thing: I have absolutely been "benign" up until now. But if you want me to stop being benign, I can absolutely do that. I find it more likely that you don't actually know what that means, but if that's really what you want, I can probably arrange it. You have killed your own argument, is the hilarious thing, and I didn't even have to do it for you. If you aren't trying to stone people or incite angry mobs, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. This law will not stop you from publicly proclaiming your ignorant douchery, which has been my entire point all along. If you haven't stoned any homosexuals lately in your "preaching," take a chill pill and quit playing the victim. You "think those laws should be stiffened"? Welcome to what this act is trying to do.
|
|