Posted on 07/17/2007 3:50:58 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Never judge a book by its cover, so goes the old expression. But what’s true about books is even more true about legislation. For example, a bill pending before the Senate is titled the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.” Since few people want to promote “hate crimes,” preventing hate crimes sounds like a laudable goal. Right?
Not if you read what’s between the covers: The title of this bill ought to be the “Thought Control Act of 2007.”
I told “BreakPoint” listeners and readers about the bill when it was pending before the House. Unfortunately, that bill passed the House and now faces Senate ratification—this time, in typical Washington fashion, as an amendment tacked on to the National Defense Authorization Act.
The law is just as dangerous now as it was then.
This bill would give the federal government jurisdiction over local criminal offenses believed to be “motivated by prejudice.” Not just any prejudice, mind you, but prejudice based on “race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.”
Watch those phrases sexual orientation and gender identity, because they tell you which groups are pushing hardest for this bill. The committee rejected amendments that would include other groups, like veterans, the homeless, and senior citizens.
That still leaves us with “why?” Do crimes against homosexuals go unpunished? Are people free to attack gays with impunity?
Of course not. There are already laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than 1 percent.
For the bill’s supporters, it is not enough to walk down the street in complete safety. Nor is it enough to be able to work and live wherever you please. Like the state song of Kansas, they want a place where “seldom is heard a discouraging word” about homosexuality.
See, the bill is not about crime prevention or even civil rights. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. That’s why the House judiciary committee rejected an amendment stipulating that nothing in this law would limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.
We’ve seen where laws like this can lead: Hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate-crime laws in England, Sweden, and Canada. And in Pennsylvania, 11 Christians were prosecuted under the state’s hate crime law for preaching on a street corner against homosexuality.
Please go to the phones. Call your senators or e-mail them. Urge them to vote against the Kennedy Hate Crimes amendment. You can visit the links below to find more information about this radical law.
If we do nothing, the book under the seemingly innocuous cover will turn out to be "1984"—and it will no longer be fiction, but the law of the land.
AND, they’re both good, AND they’re each a matter of preference, not sin.
...and (since I got my threads crossed, here) I must clarify this: The “both good” and “matter of preference” analysis applies to the “other” thread.
Apples/Oranges applies to this thread as a matter of asserting that the point at issue is fundamentally different from the one in the “other” thread.
“My church/your church” issues, where both churches are founded upon the core apostolic creed, are simply matters of personal preference.
“My church/your church” issues, where one church is founded upon the core apostolic creed, and the other is hostile to it, are not simply matters of preference.
“My faith/your faith” issues, where one faith is The Faith and the other is not, are matters of eternal Heaven and Hell.
The “other” thread has the nature of the first kind of issue; this thread has the nature of the second and/or third.
In none of the three types of issues ought speech be at all repressed as a matter of Law.
That's your opinion, to which you are entitled. Ultimately, GOD will be the judge of what is sin and what is not, what is good and what is not. He will separate the sheep from the goats. Meanwhile, He has some pretty interesting warnings to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation!
It is troubling, however, to see that our religious liberty may be shut down at any moment, if the Gospel is determined to be "hate speech" by power of law. (It's already law in Canada.) In Sweden they actually jailed a minister (Rev. Ake Green) for preaching against homosexuality. It would be chilling if the Body of Christ allowed that to happen here. It would muzzle our ministers in the pulpit, and the laity who go forth and proclaim the Good News to all.
If this were to happen, we may be sitting at the prison table before going to God's table. The Adversary would like nothing better than to silence those who belong to Jesus.
Yes, and YOU, as a saved person, sealed and imbued with the very Spirit of YHVH, can READ His word for yourself and understand -- with His Divine aid -- what is sinful, and what is not. That is part of what Jesus meant when, describing the indwelling Spirit of God, he said, "...and He will guide you into all Truth". God does, ultimately, decide, but he ALSO tells us what He's decided by the testimony of His Spirit within us.
It would be chilling if the Body of Christ allowed that to happen here.
True. And with THAT grave issue hanging over our heads like the new "sword of Damocles", does not NOW seem like a REALLY good time to shove aside perhaps everything but the barenaked Apostle's Creed and quit making mountains out of the molehills that we've allowed to divide us? If ever there were an appropriate juncture in which to exhort the Body to take action "For Christ's sake...!" does THIS not rise to that degree of urgency?
As I noted somewhere before, I've been constrained in the Spirit to continue reading, and conversing with YHVH about I John 4:7-21. You couple that text with Jesus "New Commandment" in John 13:34, and we who are in Christ just flat do NOT have ANY excuse to stiff-arm other brothers and sisters. Less so as the days grow dark.
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.