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 ...
I can agree with you up to this point.
Once you endorse any crime as a hate crime you open the door for lesser than criminal hate crimes. Apparently those criminal "hate crimes" are exactly what homosexuals are using now in their quest for civil hate crimes.
Hate crimes are unnecessary. Civilization has punished criminals for centuries without a special dispensation for homosexuals. Just follow the laws already on the books.
Does this mean that we can lock up almost half of the people for hating G.W.Bush?
What about that guy that nearly ran over Katherine Harris in his oldsmobile during the campaigning period in OCT 2004?
Definitely! Sick is an understatement. It's almost like the courts are the "police" in a police state environment. No matter how large or factual the outcry against their rulings may be, they do as they please and no one can do anything about it!
"As it is written'Jacob have I loved,but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:10-14)
A similar case in Colorado several years ago where some
women were taken to court for protesting on the sidewalk
outside an abortion clinic.They too were Christians- the judge decided they were protected by the First Amendment.
Pray the same will happen in Philly -as it should -problem is the message has been sent that in the city named from the Bible Christianity is no longer welcome -except behind closed doors-most especially when the reprobate roam
the street like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour.
So-called "hate" crimes are those crimes committed against any protected minority. So far, in everything I have read or heard, the only non-protected group in the US is white Christian men.
Black on black crime doesn't constitute "hate crime", nor does black on white. If a white woman (protected minority) commits a crime against a black woman (another protected minority), it isn't a "hate crime". If a white homosexual male commits a crime against a white heterosexual male, it isn't a "hate crime".
Nope. It's ONLY a "hate crime" when ANY crime is committed by a white Christian male against ANY protected group (including spotted owls).
In essence, then, those who write or sponsor "hate crime" legislation are, themselves, perpetrating hate.
And, yes, the next generation of "hate crime" legislation is thought police. Remember, these are "legislators" and they have to keep coming up with new fields of criminal behavior to write laws against in order to justify their jobs in the Congress and state legislatures.
I'm glad the Co case had a good judge. I don't expect them to get off in Philly though unless there is a huge outcry against this case proceding. The judge has even banned the Philly5 from evangelizing within 100ft of any homosexual event! It is absolutely prejudice against Christians and the message of Christ.
Exactly! Government has turned its enumerated power to 'define punishments for crime' into defining what it wants AS it wants!
Like marriage - the Biblical definition of being between a man and a woman isn't good enough (separation of church and state, don'cha know) now they want it to be two consenting adults of either sex.
My particular favorite is this 'redefinition' from law.com:
crime
A type of behavior that is has been defined by the state, as deserving of punishment which usually includes imprisonment. Crimes and their punishments are defined by Congress and state legislatures.
Goody! No longer is 'crime' defined by Commandments six through ten, it's whatever government WANTS it to be.
I agree-- I fear that if,when this goes to trial -if they
are not released -it may have unintended consequences.
The Honorable Roy S.Moore was done dirty in court --but
he may well become Gov. of Alabama.And the action against
Moore has motivated some to travel with Roys'Rock to
educate the Ignorant. And thiat too may weigh into any
decision in Philly.My prayers with these Christians.
This hate crime thing is just total nonsense in light of the fact that the "authorities" seemingly refuse to label any minority attack on a white person as a hate crime even though the stats show the frequency of such events to be quite high. In one case, my nephew and girlfriend (both white) were attacked by a group of 5 hispanics and beaten to a pulp (the girl had a broken nose and needed reconstructive dental surgery) yet the most the prosecutors pushed for was "ethnic intimidation".......just pure, frigggin', bulls--t!
I don't mind our legislature having the power to define crimes as long as our president can veto their laws and the constitution over-rides that legislation.
What bothers me is...
1) Laws made that don't follow the constitution
2) Judges creating law or crushing law in absense of true constitutional authority
Banning words and symbols because they signify "hate" is problematic because its too easy to say "that is hate" without any substance. I think homosexual activists hate society and that drives their activism.. should they be jailed for it?
I do think though that the "intent" as far as homosexuals want things to be is for anything said against homosexuality to be a 'hate crime'.
It would be a fine thing for Moore to become governor, especially after the way he was treated.
Wow, that's bad! Sound more like attmpted murder, but I guess 'intent' would have to be proven but I'm no expert.
Great post! We have a huge problem in the USA with judges. The media doesn't help the situation either when they either ignore reporting certain things or report with bias.
If judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional then the legislature becomes ineffective.
The more govts try to enforce mind control the more the citizens will rebel - you cant legislate morality. And the groups that try to tell people what to think will ultimately loose that battle.
This legislation is for the radical homosexuals - first and foremost. We knew this was coming just as it has in the other countries mentioned in the article.
hate is an emotion, how do you outlaw an emotion?
how do you legally force an emotion? (ie you must love that which disgusts you)
(hint: the courts have NEVER messed with love in marrige because they don't have the ability to examine emotions)
Hate crime is just a popularity contest with the government saying what is allowed and not allowed to be popular. The advocates of hate crime law might as well say only blond haired blue eyed people are allowed to be popular. Oh wait the left has already done that in the past, they are just repeating themselves.
This isn't universally true. The first individuals prosecuted and convicted of a "hate" crime in Wisconsin, were a group of young black men who assaulted a "honkey." This was several years ago in Kenosha.
If hate is defined to a person, then it is wrong, but hating the evil that a person does is right.
As a non-Christian, I take a different view. For example, I hate UBL, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il personally, not just their actions.
The other important point about "hate" crimes is that these carry "enhanced" sentences because of the motivation of the criminal. In other words, a rape of a black woman by a black man is worthy of a lesser punishment than the rape of a black woman by a white man (who has expressed bias). I reject this differentiation based on presumed motive. It is the physical crime that incurs the social debt, not the motivation.
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.