Pastors and the hate crime laws

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by Crisco

I suppose it makes sense when you read it there.

I'm just wondering how far the leftists will take it. I think it should be hate crime to hurt someone because their gay. Granted all crimes should be considered hate crimes so the whole point is moot.

I think this is a step to trying to legitimize the gay lifestyle as normal and just like any other ethnicity. It can definately lead to a slippery slop is applied poorly.

Well, no offense bro, but we are already there. Being Gay may not be a completely accepted activity by most people, but in almost ALL social settings homosexuals are tolerated and left alone nowadays.

I understand your point about "hate crimes", but the idea of making a special set of laws focused around specific "hate crimes" is to help act as a deterrent. How well that works is arguable, but that is beside the point. If you read about Matthew Shepard, the guy who they named the act after, you see how a brutal act of violence can generate worldwide attention to issues like this.

The same thing happened when a bill sponsored by Bill O'Reilly called "Jessica's Law" got national attention after a little girl in Florida was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by her pedophile neighbor. That bill was much stricter in nature than this one in that it proposed mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years for violence or sexual crimes against young children. Many states have since passed that into law even though a few hardcore liberal states have held back.

That is the problem.The political posturing is in our country right now is ridiculous. People need to stop making everything a left wing and right wing issue and start using common sense to decide what is right. There is nothing in this act that is going to hinder our freedom of speech. That is just right wing lunacy. Sure, anything can be a slippery slope when applied poorly, and thats what the left wing nuts were screaming when Bush wanted to tap some phone calls to the Middle East without a warrant. Now it's the same type of crap coming from the other side just gift wrapped with different paper.

Everybody needs to CHILL.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

Who cares if it's hurtful? Saying that you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't offend anyone or hurt their feelings, is basically saying that you don't have freedom of speech at all.

This isnt about being hurtful...its about inspiring others to committ hate crimes

I dont think any Church really does that. Firstly...they would have to be preaching outside of a Church, and secondly...they would have to be advocating the use of force against homosexuals

Tell me...which Minister has ever told you to go beat up a homosexual???

It just doesnt happen At least not in Christianity. Sure, some churches are frightfully mean about homosexuals...but they arent like Islam...in that they dont tell their congregation to go find their nearest Homosexual and hang them

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by NateR

This is the big liberal thing now to declare anyone who opposes their legislation as conspiracy theorists. It's a dishonest accusation and I thought someone like you would be too smart to stoop to those tactics.

Clearly you are a Christian who is afraid to take his head out of the sand.

You act like Satan is not actively and relentlessly trying to destroy Christianity. Also, if you read about how these kinds of laws are being enforced in other countries, it's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You do sound like a conspiracy theorist. Sorry. Don't act like I am doing the "big liberal thing" by saying it either. I have watched you do it on this forum to others, and I have done it too.

Afraid to take my head out of the sand? I think not. I am just not as pessimistic as you are when it comes to every single thing that Obama or liberals support. You will pick anything apart in debate if it comes from the other side. There is very little sway with you.

I know damn well that Satan is real and working his powers, you can see him and hear him in this world everyday. However, that was not what we are talking about. We were talking about freedom of speech in the USA, not any other countries either.

Tell me again because I know it has been discussed but I forget, what was your stance on the people from Westboro Baptist Church?

JB- If you think the bill as it read now will be the same that passes I got some ocean front property in OKlahoma I want to sell you. That bill will be amended to death.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake

Tell me again because I know it has been discussed but I forget, what was your stance on the people from Westboro Baptist Church?

Those people are despicable. They're heretics and have no knowledge of Christianity.

HOWEVER, if we pass laws that can silence one church, then it's just a matter of time before that same law will be used to silence all churches.

The government has no right to step in and censor anybody no matter how hateful their speech is. That's why the KKK is still allowed to congregate.

In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldiers' funerals, just have the police turn their backs and lets the soldier's family members and veterans groups in the area take care of them. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

Allowing the government the ability to legislate what speech is protected under Freedom of Speech and what isn't, is essentially erasing Freedom of Speech completely.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by Chris F

JB- If you think the bill as it read now will be the same that passes I got some ocean front property in OKlahoma I want to sell you. That bill will be amended to death.

What is your point?

It's still completely hypothetical to assume that this bill is going to be used to shut down Churches for simply preaching against homosexuality in their Church. Show me some links to where pastors have been arrested for peacefully preaching the gospel in their church, because I have never heard of that.

It's easy to understand why we have laws on the books that define hate crimes and dish out suitable punishments for them. It's also easy to understand why homosexuals should be included in that definition. Arguing about hidden agendas that may or may not exist is just silly. It's the same type of argument people used against George W. Bush time and time again. If something makes sense to do we should not be worried about fighting against it under "hypothetical" pretenses simply because we don't always like the political side of the spectrum it comes from.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by NateR

Those people are despicable. They're heretics and have no knowledge of Christianity.

HOWEVER, if we pass laws that can silence one church, then it's just a matter of time before that same law will be used to silence all churches.

The government has no right to step in and censor anybody no matter how hateful their speech is. That's why the KKK is still allowed to congregate.

In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldiers' funerals, just have the police turn their backs and lets the soldier's family members and veterans groups in the area take care of them. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

Allowing the government the ability to legislate what speech is protected under Freedom of Speech and what isn't, is essentially erasing Freedom of Speech completely.

Thats the catch, we never silenced their church, and I agree that we cannot just take their right to speak their opinion away. However, in cases were they are causing a public commotion with a negative and hateful overtone then we should be able to force them to disperse.

Allowing those kind of people to do that is just wrong, no matter what the constitution says. The founding fathers may have wanted everybody to be able to speak their mind freely, but I am almost sure our Father in Heaven would not mind if we made some heathens and false prophets shut their mouths from time to time.

Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake

What is your point?

It's still completely hypothetical to assume that this bill is going to be used to shut down Churches for simply preaching against homosexuality in their Church. Show me some links to where pastors have been arrested for peacefully preaching the gospel in their church, because I have never heard of that.

It's easy to understand why we have laws on the books that define hate crimes and dish out suitable punishments for them. It's also easy to understand why homosexuals should be included in that definition. Arguing about hidden agendas that may or may not exist is just silly. It's the same type of argument people used against George W. Bush time and time again. If something makes sense to do we should not be worried about fighting against it under "hypothetical" pretenses simply because we don't always like the political side of the spectrum it comes from.

My MY aren't we naive of the political process. Why should ones choice be protected by laws. Next all fat people should get free gym memberships because they are discriminated against. Or how about we federally protect all lazy people by giving them a paycheck for doing nothing. Wait we already do that never mind.

Homosexulaity is a choice. They have no right to have additional protection that every other citizen does not have. That is insane.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake

Allowing those kind of people to do that is just wrong, no matter what the constitution says. The founding fathers may have wanted everybody to be able to speak their mind freely, but I am almost sure our Father in Heaven would not mind if we made some heathens and false prophets shut their mouths from time to time.

There are plenty of things that the people of that area can do to shut up the Westboro Church. I just don't want the Federal government getting involved. It's a local matter that should be dealt with locally.

The Constitution is only meant to restrict the Federal government. There is nothing that says that a neighborhood or a family must respect someone's Freedom of Speech.

I've heard of biker gangs who surround the Westboro protests and rev their motors so that no one can hear them. That's perfectly legal. As would be pelting them with rotten fruit, eggs or paint.

[J.B.]

Originally Posted by Chris F

My MY aren't we naive of the political process. Why should ones choice be protected by laws. Next all fat people should get free gym memberships because they are discriminated against. Or how about we federally protect all lazy people by giving them a paycheck for doing nothing. Wait we already do that never mind.

Homosexulaity is a choice. They have no right to have additional protection that every other citizen does not have. That is insane.

Thats exactly the problem, you are incapable of seeing it for what it is without spinning it into a "where does it end" scenario. That is no different than what far left loons did for eight years. Also, you have no basis to call me naive of the political process. Every point I have raised is completely valid.

We already have laws on the books that distinguish hate crimes. The reason we have those is to deter crazy people from going out and hurting people solely based on race, religion, etc. Those laws should include homosexual people. Religion is a choice too, but we protect that under hate crimes laws. It only makes sense.

You can sit and make hypothetical arguments about what COULD happen if the bill was misused, but it does not change the fact that having homosexuals included in the hate crimes laws is fundamentaly the right thing to do. This is not on the same level as gay marriage. This is a pretty black and white issue. We should not tolerate people acting out violently against other people solely based on bigotry and hatred, no matter what group is targeted. Stiff laws should be in place to deter such behavior, and since a lot of that has happened to homosexuals over the years it only makes sense that we should include them in those laws.

If you believe that allowing that to be law is going be the end of Church as we know it in America then you are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.