Posted on 01/19/2005 5:59:46 AM PST by Jay777
Almost everybody is against hate. So what's wrong with the huge federal "anti-hate" bill, "The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act," which was rejected by Congress, Oct. 8th, but will surely be reintroduced this spring?
The problem is the government's definition of hate. It's not the same as Webster's. In its "anti-hate" educational program, the government endorses the idea that "hate equals bias against homosexuality" (homophobia).
What document is the most biased against homosexuality? The Holy Bible. Bible-believing evangelical Christians are thus the ultimate target of the twisted definition of "hate" upon which the federal hate bill is based.
If the LLEEA is passed this spring, it will begin to criminalize criticism of homosexuality. It will quickly broaden to address the grievances of homosexuals, not just concerning physical safety from violent hate crimes, but emotional safety. Through enabling legislation and judicial precedent, hate crimes will soon come to mean "hate speech", just as it does in Canada, Sweden, France, Ireland, etc.....
(Excerpt) Read more at hatelawsexposed.org ...
'thought crimes' are so obviously wrong they have been rejected out of hand for a long time.
True. Factors of aggravation and mitigation, such as motive, however, have always been germane to sentencing though.
I hate those laws
Guilty! Off with your head!!!
They came for the KKK, and I applauded.
They came for the Nazis, and I jumped with joy.
They came for the Atheists, and I thought "God be with them".
Then, they came for me and when I looked around, there was nobody left to help me.
Reminds me of the Royal Flap about the Nazi costume.
While I think Nazis are nut-cases, to make it illegal to show the symbol is even more crazy. What next, the cross?
If someone says "But the cross is a symbol of love", just as a homosexual activist what it represents to them.
I resist the gay/straight code speak whenever I can. When the situation demands it, I call it what it is.
Disagreement and disapproval are redefined as hate.
Will Mel Brooks be allowed to stage EU performances of The Producers?
Hate is not always wrong. I believe it is good to hate that which is evil. I know that Jesus said to "love your enemy", but I think he meant to be merciful and forgiving to your fellow man. If hate is defined to a person, then it is wrong, but hating the evil that a person does is right. So, I don't hate the individual who is a homosexual, I hate their decision to do so. I don't hate the democrats, I just hate so many of their views. Despite this, the over-ruling factor in my opinion is freedom. Despite whether hate is right or wrong, which could be debated all day, the freedom to hate and express it vocally is right. This freedom needs to be protected. I'm not against hate crime laws that are limited to criminal actions resulting from hate...but speaking your mind, even if it is hateful, is not a crime.
> Almost everybody is against hate.
Not me.
"Hate" is a useful emotion, just as "fear" and "anger" are.
This is the crux of the problem.
When the government defines our language anything can happen - and probably will. Anyone who looks at how the Civil Rights Act has been corrupted can see that.
So, the author of this article has a point, and there's just enough politicians out there to go along with anything that "feels good", and can get them some more votes.
ping
Philadelphia is currently prosecuting 5 Christians who were sharing scripture and singing hymns at Outfest in Oct 2003 for 'ethnic intimidation' which is part of their 'hate crimes' legislation.
Makes you sick, doesn't it?
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.
