No more bashing these "homies".
Posted on 04/26/2007 1:34:30 AM PDT by Man50D
Edited on 04/26/2007 2:08:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn "thoughts, feelings, and beliefs" into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull's-eye, according to opponents.
"H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech," according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.
As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics, 'It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'" said Lavy.
The proposal has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137 sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter of days or weeks.
"This is a terrible thing, to criminalize thought or emotion or even speech," Lavy told WND, referring to H.R. 1592, now pending at the committee level in the U.S. House. Democrats there have been turning back amendments that would strip it of its worst provisions, according to an observer.
Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, said the plan, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act of 2007, is no more than "a surreptitious attempt by some in Congress to strip the nation of religious freedom and the ability to preach the gospel from our church pulpits."
"It will stamp all over our doctrine and practice of our faith," he said. "We believe what the Bible says. If you start there we've got a major problem."
*******
H. R. 1592 Sponsors an Full Text
*******
First Amendment should crush this as unconstitutional.
What's the problem?
But Jim, that's never stopped them from trying before.
Had Conyers had any sense, he'd have portrayed it as anti-terror legislation. Of course he might not want to offend a particular religion which does advocate religious, sex orientation, and race based violence overseas, just in case they want to bring those practices to our shores.
bump
Odd that sexual beliefs and the gender of clothes you CHOOSE to wear would be protected but political beliefs would not be protected by this legislation.
Man Makes Threats at Republican Headquarters (04/25/2007)
The director of the local Republican Party Headquarters says a man shoved a gun in his face.Zach Moyle says the guy threatened his life and his staff if President Bush didn't meet his demands.
Police arrested 31 year old Matthew Kramer. Moyle says Kramer showed interest in joining the party then had Moyle walk out to his car with him and showed him guns and put a shotgun in his face.
[snip]
Zach Moyle says the guy threatened his life and his staff if President Bush didn't meet his demands.
Police arrested 31 year old Matthew Kramer. Moyle says Kramer showed interest in joining the party then had Moyle walk out to his car with him and showed him guns and put a shotgun in his face.
He is charged with criminal syndicalism, assault with a deadly weapon and aiming a firearm at a person, police Officer Martin Wright said.
The charge of syndicalism may fall through since there is little expectation that this GOP official would have any genuine political sway with George W. Bush to get him to reconsider "vetoing" the troop withdrawl bill. But it is clear that this bigot targeted a Republican because of his extreme hatred of Republican politics.
Thanks for the ping, scripter!
I’m sorry - I read the details of the bill, and I don’t see where this bill threatens freedom of speech or religious view. The bill outlines the penalties of committing physical violence with intent to harm or kill against someone for the reason of race, gender, religion, etc. It doesn’t police anyone’s thoughts or speech.
No more bashing these "homies".
This bill - as it is presented - is not unconstitutional. What other law it SPAWNS may be. But this law, if you read the text, only applies to criminal, physical violence, not thoughts or speech or creed.
The ultimate goal of the Sex Positive Agenda (led by Kinsey, Reich, and feminists) is an end to all moral judgements over sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s). This is the goal, the Homosexual Agenda is just the battering ram to society's laws and social mores.
Where in this article does it say that Guiliani has anything to do with it?
Let them heed this.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.
Before they expunge this. Leviticus--18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
They'll have a fight on their hands if they try this. The majority in this country are religious.
Come on. If they commit an act in self defense, this law does not apply. You know better. Furthermore, there would have to be some sort of evidence that they sought to be mugged by a homosexual so they could kill him. This is a typical crap article from WND. When someone introduces legislation that legitimately prohibits speech, creed, thoughts, what have you, we can get hysterical. This is not the bill to go crazy over. It makes us look illiterate.
note the headline your post is tied to
Christians in bull’s-eye in new ‘hate crimes’ plan [Urgent we block Giuliani and gay agenda!]
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | April 26, 2007 | Bob Unruh
I hope that everyone who either voted for or gloated over the Democrat victory in 2006 will think very hard about the consequences of the far left wing running both houses of Congress.
I hardly think anybody knows about this potential legislation. World Net Daily is not a common website of most Americans. FREEPERS has a pretty large amount of people but not the majority of America...yet.
This law as written only covers violent acts or attempted violent acts. It does not cover interference with economic or business actions unless a violent act is the disruption.
This act is bad and should be defeated because it sets a precedent of defining certain acts as hate crimes, but in itself it only refers to violence against people when that violence is caused by or motivated by evil thoughts.
That’s what they said amout McBain Feinhole.
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.