oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 5, 2008 23:48:48 GMT -5
OK, this question is for Val and the other few non-Christians that are still left on the board.
The question is: Now that Obama has won the White House the federal Hate Crime Bill is sure to pass. Would you support arresting Christians who preach against homosexuality under this "hate crime" legislation?
|
|
|
Post by thegooddoctorwho on Nov 6, 2008 0:16:42 GMT -5
It's not now, nor will it ever be illegal to say things. That includes "homosexuality is wrong." Hate crime refers to some of your more bigoted "Christian brothers and sisters" who think that they are preaching the word of God by beating and otherwise harming people for being homosexual.
Again, words are not illegal. Say whatever you like, but remember that everyone else has the right to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Nov 6, 2008 10:25:44 GMT -5
nope, never supported people being locked away for saying things. tell homosexuals that they're going to hell all you want.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Nov 6, 2008 15:44:29 GMT -5
I do tell them. I was once a lesbian before I found the light.
|
|
|
Post by thegooddoctorwho on Nov 6, 2008 16:57:10 GMT -5
Hot.
Seriously, though, did you just not believe in God before you were "turned" or what? I'm curious about your story.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Nov 6, 2008 20:36:53 GMT -5
I will run my story on a future post after the weekend as I will be gone for the weekend and not online. I' d like to hear all of your stories also, if just as people and not why you refuse to be saved. Let;s start things from scracth then. I will tell you a little on myself and how I came to know the Lord next week but let's go back to a seperate thread to do this.
It is not that I did not believe in God in the old days, but did not care.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 6, 2008 22:38:21 GMT -5
OK, this question is for Val and the other few non-Christians that are still left on the board. The question is: Now that Obama has won the White House the federal Hate Crime Bill is sure to pass. Would you support arresting Christians who preach against homosexuality under this "hate crime" legislation? I don't know the bill and am too busy hoping he gets rid of DOMA to really care about this, but it depends on the nature of the "preaching against homosexuality." The right to swing your hand ends where my nose begins. You have a right to express your opinion, but you do not have a right to violate the rights of others because of said opinion. Publicly declaring yourself a bigoted homophobic douchebag is not and shouldn't ever be a crime. Harassing, threatening, orotherwise harming gay people in any way should absolutely be one, for which I would absolutely support prosecution as tough as the law will allow.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 7, 2008 0:45:09 GMT -5
I don't think it is questioned that Christians should be nonviolent in general (just wars, executions, and self-defense aside, but that's not what we're talking about). Reading Romans 1 or other verses condemning homosexuality in public, though, is entirely different.
I also do not see why people are so sure that this bill is going to pass. Use the power that you have as a citizen, contact your representatives, etc.
We also don't need to be super upset about how the election turned out. Yes, abortion is horrible. If there was a single-issue I voted because of, that was it. But God is in control of this, and my hopes are not particularly high that abortion is going to go away in this country anytime soon, if ever, although it could. Would McCain have done it? I don't know. He would have supported overturning Roe v. Wade, but then simply leaving the matter to the states, which would be a step in the right direction, but anyway...
The Republicans kind of deserved to get owned.
God is sovereign - for us to doubt His wisdom in putting Obama in this position of power would be wrong. Obama, after all, is just a pawn.
If anybody has a link to the actual text of this bill, that would be useful.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 7, 2008 20:21:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 7, 2008 21:49:45 GMT -5
We already have laws against commiting violence against people.
Aren't white people commiting violent crimes against other white people motivated by hate?
Aren't black people commiting violent crimes against other black people motivated by hate?
I am glad though you do not have a problem with preaching preaching the Bible and preaching that homosexuality is a sin. I hope most Americans see it the same way you do.
The last time Barney Frankenstein and his homo buddies tried to pass that legislation we did not even need the president to veto it. It did not get much support.
I am somewhat hopeful but not overconfident such a law will not be passed for some time.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 7, 2008 23:43:51 GMT -5
I do not think it is going to be passed, it could, but there is a lot we can do to fight it. I have some friends who are convinced that it is just going to happen now that Obama has been elected - I am not.
Not all of the dems are like that. I doubt Ben Nelson (D-NE) or Johanns (R-NE) will support it (this is where I'm from). Frankly, I don't think I will have much input into this, because all but one of my congressmen are Republicans, and the other is Ben Nelson, who is pretty conservative for a Democrat.
Some of you probably live in more blue-ish states, so maybe contacting representatives would at least do something. I share Micah's opinion on this.
By the way, thanks for the link, pacp.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Nov 8, 2008 18:26:28 GMT -5
I pray this bill never comes to pass.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 9, 2008 23:34:42 GMT -5
Um. Dudes. This is what it actually SAYS:
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, [1] aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR DISABILITY-
[2] `(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
[3] `(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or [4] an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
You want the right to "willfully cause bodily injury" to homosexuals? Kindly die in a fire.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 10, 2008 1:38:29 GMT -5
I have not read the text of the bill. It is something that has been spreading through hearsay, honestly. Will look more into it later, probably
Edit: I read the text of the bill as posted by pacp above, mostly ignoring the red commentary text. Frankly I do not see where this bill would prohibit the preaching of something like Romans 1.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 10, 2008 9:05:40 GMT -5
^ I think there is a point where "preaching" can become harassment if you will not let it go when people exercise their right to walk away and/or if anyone can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your words are a clear and present danger. Which, in the case of the WBC, isn't entirely unlikely, as much of their "preaching" does suggest violence against minorities. If it ever happened in an area where people were likely to do as WBC suggests, then yes, I could see them prosecuted under this bill, but in that case, they absolutely should be.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 10, 2008 10:59:56 GMT -5
Val,
I do not know any preachers who follow homosexuals around. We are preaching on public property where people have the opportunity to listen or leave.
I do know many times the angry sinners, hypocrites, and homosexuals will follow the preacher after he leaves. That is the harrassment.
On a side note, oftentimes liberal campuses with liberal students seem to be much more open to the exercise of free speech than some in the bible belt.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 11, 2008 1:45:18 GMT -5
Under this bill if a person preaches against homosexuality and some nut goes out and gay bashes someone. Then the preacher can be charged with a hate crime with triple penalties.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 11, 2008 8:37:33 GMT -5
can you point out the part that says that.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 11, 2008 19:45:52 GMT -5
Under this bill if a person preaches against homosexuality and some nut goes out and gay bashes someone. Then the preacher can be charged with a hate crime with triple penalties. If your words are a clear and present danger and there's significant evidence that you influenced this person, then darn right you and he should be prosecuted. Don't yell "fire!" in a theater and you have nothing to worry about.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 11, 2008 21:56:47 GMT -5
tbxi, I will look for the exact section and sub section.
Val, you are very certainly in favor of the criminalization of Christianity. In other words if a person preaches and says what homosexuality is, a wicked sin, then you think it's a hate crime?
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 11, 2008 22:01:42 GMT -5
In the case of the philly 11 the underlying crime was riot (I believe). They said that they caused a riot by their preaching and the bases was that they were preaching against homosexuality The government decided that that was hateful.....and charged them with a hate crime.
We just had a case where a college student pushed a homosexual and said, f*g**t and was charged with a hate crime. The underlying crime was assault or harassment and the use of the word f*g**t made it into a hate crime. Do you see where this is going?
All they need is a crime and if they think "hatred" was the root cause...presto your a hate criminal. It applies mostly to Jews and homosexuals though.....
If someone said....something anti-Christian and assaulted someone...I seriously doubt that it would be considered a hate crime. Probably just amansapation......
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 11, 2008 23:15:58 GMT -5
No, I am not, and that is NOT what I said, but thanks for reminding me how much you enjoy putting words in my mouth.
If you preach "Homosexuals are wicked sinners, and as they say in Leviticus 20:13, we must put them to death!" in such a way that you are likely to incite others to follow your words and actually kill homosexuals, then CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE COMMITTED A HATE CRIME. Again, you can preach about how awesome you think fire is, but you cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. This has already been in the Constitution for a long, long time, pacp. It is not news. See the clear and present danger clause and Schenck vs the United States.
It doesn't MATTER if you get your words from the Bible or the Koran or Gone With the Wind. If your words are likely to incite lawless action, you can be charged. Causing a riot would be lawless action. Not lawless action anywhere near that of encouraging people to kill homosexuals, of course, but still lawless action. That is what I said, not what you accuse me of saying. Again, this is not news. Read the Constitution that you like so much.
ETA: For the record, vandalism against churches by No on 8 supporters is also a hate crime, and I support prosecution for these individuals and do not condone their actions.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 11, 2008 23:53:41 GMT -5
Yes, but all sin leads to death.
I would say, "homosexuals are wicked sinners and their sin will lead to their own death". This is what the Bible teaches....
I would not limit this message to or single out homosexuals though.
If we can't say this we can't prerach the Gospel. That is my contention.....
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 11, 2008 23:55:36 GMT -5
Then, like I said, you have nothing to worry about. Feel free to go back to your regularly-scheduled douchery. This act needs to pass, and, seriously, Matthew Shepard is not funny, guys. You really should cut the persecution shenanigans; it makes you look ridiculous given the point of the act and who it's named for, and it's kind of disrespectful.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 12, 2008 0:11:59 GMT -5
Then, like I said, you have nothing to worry about. Feel free to go back to your regularly-scheduled douchery. This act needs to pass, and, seriously, Matthew Shepard is not funny, guys. You really should cut the persecution shenanigans; it makes you look ridiculous given the point of the act and who it's named for, and it's kind of disrespectful. HU MM.... well I'm not out to disrespect anyone. But not everyone thinks like you. See it was the message of the philly 11 to repent and believe and they were charged with a hate crime.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 12, 2008 9:55:31 GMT -5
Not this again my friend. :-)
What PACP never points out was while the Philly 11 was CHARGED with a hate crime buy a bunch of insane law enforcement officers, it was thrown out as being unconstitutional. This law neither increases or decreases the ability of law enforcement to obtain convictions for free speech activities.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 12, 2008 20:17:33 GMT -5
No they were charged by a District Attorney who is also heavily involved with The Jewish Anti Defamation League. The same group (ADL) that drafted the hate crime laws and also brought us the wonderful 'diversity training" that is currently being used to brainwash Val and her friends.
It was not thrown out as being unconstutional....thank God they had a video and it showed they committed no underlying crime.
Had they committed a crime then the charge would have stuck. The hate crime was meant to punish their thoughts....in this case being the message of repent and believe.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 12, 2008 22:19:52 GMT -5
I think the issue was anti-homosexuality. I have no problem with what the guys were preaching (except that they are one of these groups who seem to go out of their way to bring persecution upon themselves) but lets call it for what it was. Whether the message was focused on repenting or not, the clear perception that they were creating was of a anti homosexual agenda. EXACTLY!!!! If you commit a crime targeting a specific lifestyle, race, etc than you can be charged for commiting a hate crime.....what is the problem with this? If I beat up a black man and it was discovered that I was a neo-nazi and recieved 10 extra years because of it.......what is the problem? If you are preaching and not commiting any crimes this law isn't going to effect you.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 12, 2008 22:27:31 GMT -5
I think the issue was anti-homosexuality. I have no problem with what the guys were preaching (except that they are one of these groups who seem to go out of their way to bring persecution upon themselves) but lets call it for what it was. Whether the message was focused on repenting or not, the clear perception that they were creating was of a anti homosexual agenda. EXACTLY!!!! If you commit a crime targeting a specific lifestyle, race, etc than you can be charged for commiting a hate crime.....what is the problem with this? If I beat up a black man and it was discovered that I was a neo-nazi and recieved 10 extra years because of it.......what is the problem? If you are preaching and not commiting any crimes this law isn't going to effect you. Two things....1) there was no anti-homosexuality.. other than it is sinful and 2) it's not just what you do..but also what someone else may do and say that your message provoked it.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 13, 2008 18:30:33 GMT -5
There are people in Colorado 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. If you go to possessthegates.com/ and search the subject category "abortion" you'll see several articles that WILL be banned as hate speech under this legislation, no matter what the wording of the law is, because it comes down to what those enforcing it WANT to do. And like I said, there's more examples of this in action if you want to see it. [opening statement should read "Colorado and elsewhere"] Pics or it didn't happen. As Jay Spears says: If ya wanna live in a theocracy, maybe ya Oughta move to Saudi Arabia (Oh, c'mon, Tony, even you can appreciate that, I know. Pacp, I'm not so sure, but I can count on you, can't I?)
|
|