"PASTOR ARRESTED FOR PREACHING"

"NEW YORK CITY: The Rev. Joseph Jenkins was arrested today as he preached to his congregation of 500. As he said, ‘The Bible says it is a sin for a man to lie with a man!’ four federal undercover agents rose from their seats in the crowded church and handcuffed the pastor.

He was later charged before a US Magistrate under the federal ‘Hate Crimes’ law.“

"Far-fetched! Impossible! That will never happen!“ Not at all. There are forces at work in this nation to deny every citizen the right to say, publicly or privately, what they know or believe to be true if it does not fit within politically correct guidelines. Ministers or rabbis who proclaim the clear teachings of the Bible regarding homosexuality will be jailed if these forces have their way. Anyone who expresses an unpopular ideology will be persecuted.

Recently one of our readers sent me a short note. All it said was, "Tom, you are a Watchman on the Wall.“ Of course he was referring to the fact that in ancient Israel many cities had walls around them to protect the inhabitants from enemies. Since most attacks could be expected to come at night, when the citizens were asleep and unprepared, watchmen were appointed to stand on the city walls and warn the populace of danger so that they could prepare to defend themselves.

If I am indeed a "Watchman on the Wall,“ I can think of few dangers more grave about which I can warn America than the so-called "Hate Crimes“ legislation that is springing up everywhere. The idea behind these laws is that we can look into people’s hearts and determine what they were thinking when they committed a crime. That is a dangerous notion.

Years ago novels were written about government "Thought Police“ controlling what citizens were and were not allowed to believe and think. "Hate Crimes“ laws will make such an improbable concept very probable if America does not heed the warnings of the serious danger of this kind of legislation.

Any clear-thinking American can see that these laws are unconstitutional, immoral, and just plain stupid. Then why are politicians falling over each other to endorse "Hate Crimes“ laws? A clue can be found in the article, "The Hate Crime Express.“ (See the RESOURCES Section below.)

This article states, "Texas Gov. Rick Perry didn't really want a ‘hate-crimes’ bill to land on his desk. But when it did, he signed it inside of three hours.“ Why? The name of the bill was "The James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act.“ James Byrd was the black man who was dragged behind a pickup truck by three white men. Hate crime activists had cynically seized upon the suffering of Mr. Byrd’s family to promote their agenda.

What is wrong with "Hate Crimes“ laws? They violate the constitutional concepts of equal justice and equal protection under the law. Let’s look at a couple of examples, one hypothetical, and one from the news.

To illustrate the inequality of justice that will inevitably result from "Hate Crimes“ laws, let’s imagine an altercation between two men at a soccer game. One is a middle-aged sports fan; the other a homosexual dressed in a feminine manner. They get into a fistfight over which team is best, and police arrive to arrest them. Both are charged with the misdemeanor offense of disturbing the peace, and released, right? Wrong. The homosexual claims that the other man called him a "homo.“ The homosexual (now a "victim“) is set free, and the other man is charged with a serious "Hate Crime“ which could land him in prison for many years.

Here’s one from the news to illustrate the loss of equal protection that will result from „Hate Crimes“ laws. (For more details on this story, see the article "Dual Murders…“ in the RESOURCES section below.) Two students are found murdered at a school for the deaf. One is a homosexual. Homosexual activists immediately trumpet the „fact“ that this student was murdered because he was a homosexual. When the truth emerges, we find that another student murdered both boys for their money.

If the murderer had been convicted using "Hate Crimes“ laws, his punishment would have been much more severe for the murder of the homosexual than for the straight student. Does this mean that heterosexuals’ lives are worth less than those of homosexuals? Apparently so, if you listen to homosexual activists.

These activists know that homosexuality is not popular, so they have seized on the strategy of using black people to advance their crusade for "Hate Crimes“ laws. Fortunately for the nation, their wild claims of widespread "Hate Crimes“ perpetrated by whites against blacks have been proven false, as this excerpt shows: "African-Americans who thought that hate crime laws would protect them against rampaging white racists are in for a shock: A new FBI study reveals that blacks are proportionally one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for hate crimes against whites than vice versa.“ (The complete article can be found in the RESOURCES section.)

Let’s face facts. EVERY murder is a hate crime; people don’t murder people they like! Every physical ATTACK is a hate crime; you don’t hit someone on the head with a brick to demonstrate love. We have thousands of laws against these crimes. We don’t need to double the penalties for existing crimes because the Thought Police believe the perpetrator might have been thinking hateful thoughts during the crime.

Then what is this all about? In very simple terms, homosexual activists are determined to make it a crime for Christians and Jews to say what the Bible so clearly says - that it is against the laws of God and nature for people of the same gender to have sex with one another. They will not be satisfied until the law says that homosexuals are more equal than heterosexuals.

The Hate Crimes Express http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0016964.html

Hate Crime Moves Could Criminalize Biblical Opposition to Homosexuality http://www.charismanews.com/online/articledisplay.pl?ArticleID=1763

Dual Murders Show Injustice of Hate Crime Laws http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200102\COM20010221e.html

Fake Hate Crime Charges Cast Doubt On Need For Federal Legislation http://www.traditionalvalues.org/article.php?sid=64

'Hate' Label - Tools of Homosexual Activists? http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/302001b.asp

I Hate Hate (Editorial Commentary) http://www.commonconservative.com/shanahan/shan014.html

Shocking FBI study: Blacks are more likely to be arrested for hate crimes http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=184

Petition to Protect Free Speech in America’s Houses of Worship http://www.libertypetitions.com/petition.html?name=hr_2357

TAKE THE NEW CONSERVATIVE TRUTH POLL. To participate in our subscriber poll, just click www.ConservativeTruth.org www.conservativetruth.org - the poll question is at the bottom of the left column. The current question is: "Do you believe it is just to punish an individual more severely for the same crime if he is said to ‘hate’ the victim of the crime?“ Please visit and vote.

THE BEST OF THE BEST: For great conservative commentary, visit our website to see what outstanding conservative authors (many of whom write only for this site) have to say about what is happening in our world. Below are previews of the new articles that are posted late every Saturday evening. To read the entire articles, go to our website (click HERE: www.conservativetruth.org ). Don’t forget to check out the new commentary that is posted every Wednesday afternoon in our mid-week issue on the website.

Why? by Charles E. Perry - July 28, 2002 Over the last month there have been a number of cases of children being kidnapped and murdered. People I speak with are generally outraged about it, and I hear a number of unique and painful punishments proposed, some quite inventive, and others just crude. But the one question I hear constantly is a question no one seems to have an answer for; why this is happening? Well, I've given it some thought, and I'll share my answer with you... (To read the rest of this article, please visit www.conservativetruth.org.)

Free The Radio!! by John K. Bates - July 28, 2002 Clear Channel Communications, the largest owner of radio stations in America and the enemy of everything that used to be good about radio in America, is in the news a lot these days. In Colorado, they are being sued (successfully, so far) by a small concert promoter, Nobody In Particular Presents, for allegedly creating a monopoly by linking radio airplay to their concert promotions businesses. (To read the rest of this article, please visit www.conservativetruth.org.)

E Pluribus Unum by Brian W. Peterson - July 28, 2002 To the politically correct crowd, people with opposing views simply must have nefarious ulterior motives. They’re racists; they want to starve children; they’re only for the wealthy; they want big corporations to pave the planet; on and on go the epithets and insults for those who disagree with liberals on any subject. (To read the rest of this article, please visit www.conservativetruth.org.)

The War on Clarity by Bruce Walker - July 28, 2002 The problems in this world are not cured by complex thinking but by committed moral will. Courage and faith cannot be stolen from the innocent or hoarded by greedy. The simple answers to hard problems require a life vigilant against the lazy lanes of popularity and compromise, and dedicated to the often-lonely path of doing what is right. (To read the rest of this article, please visit www.conservativetruth.org.)

A Democrat Vision for America by Christopher G. Adamo - July 28, 2002 Throughout history, those with a blind ambition for power frequently resorted to the exploitation of crisis. Significantly worse however, are those individuals who purposefully create crisis in order to enhance their own political fortunes. The caterwauling Democrats in the House and Senate, far from acting out of any true concern for the plight of stock investors and retirees, are in reality engaging in just such reprehensible conduct. (To read the rest of this article, please visit www.conservativetruth.org.)

Enron, WorldCom, Sitcom by John F. Schmidt - July 28, 2002 It would be funny if it were not tragic. High level people are calling for high level regulations to catch high level executives paying high level lawyers to skirt existing high level regulations. Around and around it goes. (To read the rest of this article, please visit www.conservativetruth.org.)

VISIT OUR WEBSITE at www.conservativetruth.org for daily updates of Conservative news and to view our archives. Also, please take a few moments to check out our sister site, www.Opinionet.com. NOTE: If you don't wish to receive these e-letters, just write to Unsubscribe@ConservativeTruth.org. To be added, please write to Subscribe@ConservativeTruth.org. To change the address on your existing subscription, write to Change@ConservativeTruth.org. We often give our readers links to web sites. We visit every web site we link to, but we cannot and do not review every page of those web sites; they are offered as a resource because they contain information we believe will be useful to our subscribers.

‘The Bible says it is a sin for a man to lie with a man!’

I fail to see anything hateful in that. It is an instruction that has been given out for eons. What I hate is the statistics that shows the distruction caused by AIDS. If this instructions were followed AIDSs would be a rare condition or maybe even non existant.

Every physical ATTACK is a hate crime; you don’t hit someone on the head with a brick to demonstrate love.

This begs for a sarcastic comment regarding BDSM, but instead I'll focus on one of the major faults I find with arguments against hate crime legislation.

A hate crime is an accusation of a specific act. Under US law, an accusation of a hate crime would have to be proven -- that is, it would need to be demonstrated that the crime was motivated by race/religion/sexual orientation/etc just as much as it would need to be demonstrated that the crime existed in the first place. Further, the legal wording of hate crime statutes do not set aside specific minorities -- it isn't just "blacks" or "homosexuals" who are protected, the law applies based on "race" or "sexual orientation", meaning that a white man could accuse a black man of a hate crime or a heterosexual could accuse a homsoexual of a sexual orientation biased hate crim.

Of course, I know better than to believe that prosecutors will ever bother to charge a black man with a race-based hate crime, and I don't see fault in pointing out specific examples where obvious crimes of that nature have occured. I also oppose hate crimes on principle, but I at least try to get the facts right before spouting off on them.

Dimensio, what you say is true. But the danger of misdirected punishment is extreme, in my opinion. The examples in this article are right on target. A man hurts someone and calls him a 'homo'. He will be hit with hate crime law, even though the that may well have had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the crime. This marks an insidious descent into a world with thought police. And beside, it's truly absurd in the minds of most to have smaller punishment for heinous acts, as long as juries think they can discern that the criminal in the case was thinking OK thoughts.

In the event this ever did happen, I think the congregation that did not get to its feet and lock the doors to prevent this sort of "kidnapping" of its theological leader should be taken to task.

Four PC Guestappo agents vs. 500 Believers in God's word? I wouldn't want to be in the four agent's shoes!

This says "Could Happen" not "Did Happen"

What Complete Complete Crap

The First Amendment trumps any "Hate Crime Law" and anyone with at least a third grade education knows it. This is either complete stupidity or grotesque scare tactics

So9

Whatever happened to the right of freedom of association? Personally, I do not wish to associate with homosexuals. I don't hate them, but I do hate what they do and do not wish to see it displayed at every turn. And let's just say for the sake of discussion that I did hate them. Am I to believe that emotions are now being legislated and that I no longer have the right to hate something or someone?

Bringing that argument a little close to where most of us live, the fact is that there are people who hate other people because of their race. At the risk of sounding insensitive, I say "so what?" As long as they do not commit a crime against the object of their hatred, do they not have the right to hate? I am not suggesting that hate is a good or healthy thing mind you, but simply that they have the right to feel the way they do whatever the reason.

And where do you draw the line. I hate the Clintons. Am I a criminal? I hate liberalism (although not all liberals). I say that makes me smart, not a criminal. I hate terrorism. Terrorism springs from Islam and is bred in the mideast. And while I am always willing to be convinced that there are exceptions, and I'm sure there are, that hatred doubtless shows in the way I look at them when I see them on the street. I could use other examples, but the point is, at the rate our freedoms are being taken away, soon we will be little more than caged animals working our entire lives to add to the government coffers. I for one, will not go down quietly. That is not the life I want for my child and grandchild.

"A hate crime is an accusation of a specific act"

I beg to differ, Dimensio. A hate crime accusation is an accusation of a specific thought. That's where the danger lies in hate crime legislation: an idividual's thoughts are no longer his/her private territory. Futhermore, the accused has to prove that He or She was not thinking the forbidden thought. How does one prove such a thing?

Most likely the "church" is a 501c3 corporation. The creator of a corporation is the state. A creation must obey it's creator, therefore all 501c3 churches must obey their "god" which is the state. The 501c3 "god" (state) says don't preach against homosexualism, the "creation" (church) must obey or face the consequences, (arrest of the preacher, loss of 501c3 tax "exemption", etc).

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

Charitably assuming that the misunderstanding some of you seem to have is a sincere misunderstanding, let me put it another way. This has helped clarify the matter for some who had approached it as you seem to.

Two people commit the SAME EXACT CRIME
ONE ONLY of the acts is judged to be a "hate crime"
The person who committed the "hate crime" is punished more severely than the person who in committing an identical act committed a garden-variety, unmodified crime
Therefore, to the degree the "hate criminal" is punished more severely, he is being punished for what he thought

If your misunderstanding is sincere, that should clear it up. If we can punish people for what they think — and "hate-crime" supporters necessarily say we can — then the premise of this article is perfectly valid.

Dan

I am not misunderstanding anything. In the case of a hate crime, the person is being punished both for their action and their motive for the action. Without the action, there is no crime and there are no charges, thus the thought alone isn't going to put someone in jail.

I'm not saying that I like it, but I do at least try to understand it before criticizing 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.

Direct link to source.