Confessional Lutheran theology, hagiography, philosophy, music, culture, sports, education,
and whatever else is on the fevered mind of Orycteropus Afer
20 September 2005
Hate Crime?
Of Course!
Any Christian hates crime. Is crime an expression of hatred? Many are. Should there be a special category of offenses designated as hate crimes? Now there's the rub.
Our U.S. House of Representatives passed a "Children's Safety Act" (H.R.3132) a few days ago. The initial bill was aimed at protecting our young people from sexual predators. An ammendment proposed by Rep. John Conyers passed and became part of the act. This ammendment has nothing at all to do with sex offenders attacking children and everything to do with special-interest pandering, promoting homosexual "rights," and allowing the federal government to intrude even more in local and state government.
Title X of the Act is now "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention." Following previously established language, a "hate crime" is "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." Such language prioritizes the heinousness of offenses over and above the actions themselves merely by the perpetrator's choice of victims and his feelings about a certain group of people.
My concerns are several. First of all, I consider any crime of violence to be one of hate. Second, I think that the bill far outsteps the (already stretched beyond belief) constitutional limits for federal jurisdiction. Third, the bill's fuzzy language ("perception" is used 7 times in Title X) leaves it open to broad and intrusive interpretation. Fourth, the bill especially addresses issues of sexual orientation and "gender identity," providing special protection for those choosing to wallow in immoral behavior. Finally, the bill is, in my opinion, a classic "slippery slope" and provides a rallying point for those who would tighten the screws against verbal and written condemnations of deviant lifestyles.
You'll probably find any number of blogs and news items concerning the bill. Before that, read its entire content and explore its background through Thomas — U.S. Congress on the Internet. To get started, just copy and paste H.R.3132 in the Thomas search field, click "Enter bill number," and "Search."
As for me, I've written the following letter to my two senators:
Am I an alarmist? Consider that our "neighbor to the north" has moved on to a subsequent legislative step and is regulating "hate speech." Already a Canadian pastor, Stephen Boissoin of Alberta, faces his province's Human Rights Tribunal because of a letter published in a newspaper, the Red Deer Advocate.
Boissoin's letter didn't call for violence, boycotting, or any other damaging actions against Canadian citizens. He merely challenged the unbalanced promotion of homosexuality in public education. A sample sentence from his letter reads, "Children as young as 5 and 6 years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."
All of this stems from a new (April 2004) Canadian law initially sponsored by homosexual MP Svend Robinson. The law includes a "harassment by communication" — meaning that one could be censured, fined, and even imprisoned for calling homosexually "deviant" or "morally wrong." While Robinson himself claimed that the law will protect religious expression, he sounds as if that really doesn't matter: Instead, he paints rallying behind free speech and religious expression as "a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why they don't want to include sexual orientation in the law."
I honestly think that Conyer's ammendment to the Children's Safety Act places U.S. law on the precipice down which Canadian jurisprudence has already tumbled. ¶ 23:18 |
Any Christian hates crime. Is crime an expression of hatred? Many are. Should there be a special category of offenses designated as hate crimes? Now there's the rub.
Our U.S. House of Representatives passed a "Children's Safety Act" (H.R.3132) a few days ago. The initial bill was aimed at protecting our young people from sexual predators. An ammendment proposed by Rep. John Conyers passed and became part of the act. This ammendment has nothing at all to do with sex offenders attacking children and everything to do with special-interest pandering, promoting homosexual "rights," and allowing the federal government to intrude even more in local and state government.
Title X of the Act is now "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention." Following previously established language, a "hate crime" is "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." Such language prioritizes the heinousness of offenses over and above the actions themselves merely by the perpetrator's choice of victims and his feelings about a certain group of people.
My concerns are several. First of all, I consider any crime of violence to be one of hate. Second, I think that the bill far outsteps the (already stretched beyond belief) constitutional limits for federal jurisdiction. Third, the bill's fuzzy language ("perception" is used 7 times in Title X) leaves it open to broad and intrusive interpretation. Fourth, the bill especially addresses issues of sexual orientation and "gender identity," providing special protection for those choosing to wallow in immoral behavior. Finally, the bill is, in my opinion, a classic "slippery slope" and provides a rallying point for those who would tighten the screws against verbal and written condemnations of deviant lifestyles.
You'll probably find any number of blogs and news items concerning the bill. Before that, read its entire content and explore its background through Thomas — U.S. Congress on the Internet. To get started, just copy and paste H.R.3132 in the Thomas search field, click "Enter bill number," and "Search."
As for me, I've written the following letter to my two senators:
Dear Senator ____,
While I laud the initial Children's Safety Act, I'm appalled and alarmed at the inclusion of the "hate crime" ammendment. It seems poorly written and intentionally vague, yet also intended to stifle moral and religious objection to certain behaviors and lifestyles.
I urge you and the Senate to please return the bill to its original form or reject it outright.
Am I an alarmist? Consider that our "neighbor to the north" has moved on to a subsequent legislative step and is regulating "hate speech." Already a Canadian pastor, Stephen Boissoin of Alberta, faces his province's Human Rights Tribunal because of a letter published in a newspaper, the Red Deer Advocate.
Boissoin's letter didn't call for violence, boycotting, or any other damaging actions against Canadian citizens. He merely challenged the unbalanced promotion of homosexuality in public education. A sample sentence from his letter reads, "Children as young as 5 and 6 years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."
All of this stems from a new (April 2004) Canadian law initially sponsored by homosexual MP Svend Robinson. The law includes a "harassment by communication" — meaning that one could be censured, fined, and even imprisoned for calling homosexually "deviant" or "morally wrong." While Robinson himself claimed that the law will protect religious expression, he sounds as if that really doesn't matter: Instead, he paints rallying behind free speech and religious expression as "a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why they don't want to include sexual orientation in the law."
I honestly think that Conyer's ammendment to the Children's Safety Act places U.S. law on the precipice down which Canadian jurisprudence has already tumbled. ¶ 23:18 |
Comments:
<< Home
You know I hear a lot of people like you talking about homsexuals "special rights"-and I'm here to tell you, I'm a lesbian and I sure don't have any special rights. In fact I don't have half of the rights every other American has. I do not have the right to get married. I do not have any legal protection from being fired from my job do to discimination. I don't have any legal protection from being kicked out of an apartment or house I might be renting if the landlord decides he/she just doesn't like the fact I'm gay--etc. If you had to walk a year in the shoes of a homosexual you would quickly discover that being one means you have to put up with discimination and bigotry from pretty much all sides. As for passing this hate crimes provision--all crimes may come from hate, but the first time your wearing the wrong clothes or walking funny and a bunch of guys decide you're queer and jump you for the "fun" of it and beat you or kill you, simply because you might be gay---then you can talk about how homosexuals don't need any legal "special" protection. You can hate homosexuality all you want, but that doesn't make it ok to make homosexuals in this country live as second class citizens and also fear for their very lives, because gay-bashing is condoned (albeit with a wink-of "oh no, that's bad-but we don't need any new discrimination laws").
A lesbian wrote:
"I do not have the right to get married."
That is pure poppycock. Of course you have the same right to marriage that every other woman in America has. You may marry anyone that any other single woman may marry. There is not one single man that you cannot marry.
Of course, your choices are limited to men who aren't currently married. So is every other woman in the country.
If there were people that you couldn't marry that other women could, then you'd have something. But you don't.
-Pastor Fickel
"I do not have the right to get married."
That is pure poppycock. Of course you have the same right to marriage that every other woman in America has. You may marry anyone that any other single woman may marry. There is not one single man that you cannot marry.
Of course, your choices are limited to men who aren't currently married. So is every other woman in the country.
If there were people that you couldn't marry that other women could, then you'd have something. But you don't.
-Pastor Fickel
# posted by 
: 20:00
: 20:00
Would Jesus approve of all of your actions and hatered of these people? If Jesus was around us today who would He be having supper with? How dare you call yourselves children of God and yet spout this anger and hatered in His name. What happened to Do good to your enemy? Read the verses below and reconsider the errors of your ways.
Job 38:2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
John 8
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
and again
Mark 2
15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to c
all the righteous, but sinners."
Post a Comment
Job 38:2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
John 8
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
and again
Mark 2
15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to c
all the righteous, but sinners."
<< Home
