Posted on 01/08/2005 4:57:49 PM PST by Cedar
UPDATE: Homosexual Attorneys from Justice Department Advise Philadelphia Police On Arresting Christians One Internet news service says not to expect an investigation because of the involvement of the Justice Department homosexual attorneys
A few days ago I wrote you about the situation in Philadelphia in which four Christians were arrested. They are charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred.
They face a possible 47 years in prison and fines of $90,000 each. Now we have learned more about this horrible travesty of justice.
According to WorldNetDaily, "Homosexual attorneys from the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division not only attended (the) large homosexual event…but they advised police on the scene who arrested 11 Christian protesters, says a source in the agency." (Charges against some of the Christians have been dropped.)
The WorldNetDaily article went on to say the U.S. Justice Department is "not likely to take up the cause of the five criminally charged Christians who believe Philadelphia officials violated their civil rights."
Did you catch that? The Justice Department will refuse to investigate the treatment of the arrested Christians because some homosexual attorneys from the Justice Department were advising the Philadelphia police on how to arrest the Christians!!!!
WorldNetDaily, quoting their source inside the Justice Department, said the Christians were charged with "ethic intimidation (hate crimes) 'at the recommendation of some of our (Department of Justice) attorneys who were at the march.'"
In fact, Chief Inspector Tiano, who serves as liaison to the homosexual community, testified at the preliminary hearing that he met at least four times with the organizers of the Outfest event in anticipation of the protesters' activities, presumably to discuss how to handle the "Christians" when they showed up at the event. He also said he had 40 officers on site that day. He did not meet with any of the Christians!
There appears to be collusion in this travesty of justice that goes to high levels of both the Justice Department and Philadelphia. A trail date will be set soon.
Would you stand with these Christians who are defending our constitutional right of free speech? We are asking you to stand with these four Christians.
But you have once again failed to see the inherent fallacy of your entire argument. After so many words, so much bloviating, the simple fact is that you are trying to use the power of the U.S. government to confirm your own moral opinions and judgements (some of which are not shared by others), which are taken from the Bible.
Whatever God may or may not say is a sin IS NOT in and of itself an appropriate or justifiable basis for molding law here on Earth. If I were to say to you (honestly) that I believe that you are quite possibly a few cards short of a full deck for your loony "There's a battle going on" comment about homosexuality (really man, what were you thinking?), does that give me the right to have you locked up in a mental hospital? No, because it's just your opinion, and I have mine as well. And the gays have theirs as well. And, yes, no religious or moral opinion is LEGALLY more valid than any other unless it is acted upon in a way that brings physical harm to another person or their property, no matter how stupid or dangerous I might consider them.
My own opinion (just that) is that while homosexuality may be a sin, it is not a crime of any sort, and that it is a horrendous breach of the government's powers to impose their views on the issue on the individual citizens of America. Therefore I actively oppose ANY legislation on the matter, from the unilateral decision of the liberal Massachussetts Supreme Court to the proposed Constitutional Amendment our (mostly) conservative President proposed.
The government which governs best, governs least.
Very good words. I'm glad you were the one to answer the poster before I did.
I couldn't have said it as well as you did!
Apparently you have to be a "member" of AFA for your email to be accepted. I wrote but it came right back telling me I'm not a member. Any info?
"it is a horrendous breach of the government's powers to impose their views on the issue on the individual citizens of America."
Oh, okay. So maybe the government can just look the other way while marriage between 3 or 4 partners starts happening. Or marriage between mother & son, or father & daughter..........
Yeah, we would just hate it if the government imposed those "old-fashioned" views of just a one man/one woman marriage on everyone. Sure....let everyone be "free"..........
Sorry, that just won't work. There's a lot of us out here who just won't go along with the 'anything-goes' type of thinking.
Thanks, Cedar. I don't know; maybe I'm missing the point.
I just don't understand why so many FReepers think that they have the right to invade the bedrooms of their neighbors, or to force other adults to conform to their views of sexual morality. My opinion is mine alone, and I'd rather be shot than turn into someone so arrogant, so drunk on my own "holiness" as several of the posters on this thread are.
"Conservative" position, Hell!
The only real conservative position on sexual behaviors between consenting adults is to get the government out of them-- off our backs, out of our bedrooms, and out of our wallets.
I had the same thing happen. I receive AFA's newsletter anyway and enjoy their ministry. So I just signed up to send the email.
I think the reason for signing up is they have a "network" of people whom they will send emails to when there is an action alert (like this Philadelphia arrest).
I guess if you don't want to receive the alerts, you can just email the Justice Dept. directly at the Dept.'s website.
Thanks for your efforts on this.
RE: "Sorry, that just won't work. There's a lot of us out here who just won't go along with the 'anything-goes' type of thinking."
There are an unfortunate ammount of armchair fascists and totalitarians out there who call themselves conservatives too.
The truth is, you don't have anymore control over marriage as an "institution" than I do. The difference is that I don't pretend to legally strong-arm my views on marriage onto others.
You think I'll change my argument because of your strong-man? You're off your rocker then, pal, because it's not my business if ma and son wanna get hitched (though it is ugly and perverted) or if three or more want to get married. As far as I'm concerned, marriage has outlived it's usefulness as anything more than a religious custom now that OVER HALF of all U.S. marriages end in divorce.
BTW: I misunderstood one of your above posts. I retract my kind words and thanks towards you in my last post. You don't deserve my respect.
Maybe you misunderstood my point.
If marriage is not defined (as it has been since the beginning of time) as ONLY between one man and one woman, then the door is open for any type of "joinings" being considered "marriage" --- maybe 3 people want to get "married" to each other and have a "trio marriage." What would happen to the basic, moral boundaries?
What if some perverted mother wants to "marry" her son? Or a twisted father "marry" his daughter?
If gay people want to shack up with each other, then no one can stop them (except God, of course).
But no one wants the definition of marriage (both morally and legally) changed for their "lifestyle."
Surely you can understand this point, yes?
Thanks for posting that link. Appreciate that!
Thanks for your link too. Good info.
Maybe you failed to read my previous post, so I will make my position as clearly and loudly as I can make it.
(*cough* *cough*) Marry a man. Marry a tranny. Marry your grandma. Marry your daughter (if she is of the age of consent). Marry 2 people. Marry 9 people.
You are sick, you are perverted. Maybe you will even go to Hell. Don't expect an invitation to dinner at my house, but it's IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS!!!
And it's none of the federal government's either.
BTW: Flame on if you will, but I'm done for the day with the Internet (gotta go make dinner, you know). I'll douse your fire tomorrow.
Even so, Goodnight all.
ping
Sorry, I don't think you're dousing anyone's fire with your way of thinking.
I'm hoping other 22 year olds in this country don't share your point of view. Maybe some do. Probably as they mature their views will change. I hope yours will too.
I appreciate the fact that you are against big government. I don't like big government either. But your viewpoint that society doesn't need any (normal) moral boundaries is pretty disturbing.
As I said, as you grow older, your views will most likely change.
In the meantime, we might get back to the original point of the thread---that Christians, who were protesting legally according to the US Constitution, were arrested and face serious charges; and the arresting police were advised beforehand by gay attorneys from the Justice Department on how exactly to deal with protesters.
NO! He knows exactly what he's talking about.
You're not going to last long around here as a sodomy cheereleader. You need to read the statement of the founder of FR.
You sem to be trying to wage some type of cultural war against gays simply because you think the Bible supports it. Well, the Bible supports stoning gays to death as well-- you for that? How about adulterers? How about severely punishing anyone who lifts an object larger than an egg on the Sabbath for "working"?
Yet another Bible illiterate proceeds to lecture about things they only learned about on pro homosexual websites. Here's something that will open your eyes only if you are honest and open to the truth.
Homosexual Theologians teach that if the Levitical law against homosexuality still stands, then the dietary prohibitions on eating lobster, rare steak, rabbit, and so forth also still stands.
Finally, they say, if the law against Homosexuality is reinstated, then the punishment of death by stoning is still valid.
As a Biblical Literalist, I always look at the context of a verse in order to interpret it's meaning. In Leviticus 18, homosexuality is one of three sins mentioned, each given equal precedence as sinful. In order, God condemns child sacrifice (shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire), homosexuality (shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind), and bestiality (Neither shalt thou lie with any beast).
God then groups all three sins under the same warning: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you. In other words, God said "I destroyed the other nations that used to be in this land because of these sins, and the same warning applies to you"!
IF we are to say that homosexuality was given equal billing with child sacrifice and bestiality, and IF we are to believe that homosexuality is now acceptable to God in this current age, then we must believe that child sacrifice and bestiality are also acceptable in our current age. You cannot have it both ways: either homosexuality, bestiality, and child sacrifice are forever sinful abominable acts in God's sight, or all three are acceptable "alternative lifestyles".
A conservative, common sense interpretation of Leviticus 18 demands that we understand that all three acts were and are sinful in God's sight, contrary to His Will for mankind. Leviticus 20 is even more specific. The sins listed as forbidden are, in order, adultery (adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death), incest (man that lieth with his father's wife), non related incest (man lie with his daughter in law), homosexuality (man also lie with mankind), and intra-family fornication (man take a wife and her mother). All are given equal billing, all are equally evil in God's eyes.
If homosexuality was only temporarily forbidden, then we can conclude that incest between parent and child is now acceptable. How foolish! None of these sins were temporarily forbidden, all were and are abominations in God's sight.
As to the Homosexual theologian charge that the dietary laws would have to be enforced if we enforce the Levitical code against homosexuality, this is mere smoke and mirrors. First, the dietary laws are not even represented in these Bible texts. Second, the dietary laws were just that, dietary laws, they were not moral laws (which the above texts represent).
God Himself rescinded the dietary laws for the sake of the Gentiles (Acts 10.14-15). But He never rescinded the command against these sins, in particular, the sin of homosexuality.
Finally, the reason that homosexuality (like adultery and incest) is no longer a sin that you must be stoned for is that we live in the era of Grace. Christ paid the penalty for all sin on the Cross of Calvary, even the sin of the homosexual.
In this era we do not stone sinners, we preach the Gospel of Christ to them. The homosexual, like the adulterer, needs the salvation that Christ can bring. They do not need to be stoned, they need to be saved so that they can "go and sin no more".
The last two paragraphs in your post about fundamentalist, Bible legislation, and live and let live rhetoric is total BS. Homosexual sodomy and homosexual marriage etc. have never been an inalienable right in this country. to the contrary it was illegal up until activists judges decided to legislate from the bench. they struck down laws that our founders had in place that outlawed homosexual behavior.
"Freedom doesn't mean you get to engage in whatever immoral behavior you feel like."
Just thought those words needed to be repeated one more time!
Isn't that great; our entire point of reference in society regarding what is sin, is from the bible. So do we not discriminate against thieves or murderers because their sin is listed in the Word?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.