Congress to Revive Hate Crime Bill to Censor Christians

reply to post by tamusan


I also served in the U.S. Army and swore to:

"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Our Constitution is being ripped apart right before our eyes. : (

Freedom of Speech gone? Watch what you write on the internet > Americans!



[edit on 4/6/09 by cindy22761]

reply to post by mystiq


The only way I could see it affecting other Nations would be for setting a precedent for new equal rights under the law. But you are right, in this instance, US law does not extend over it's boarders and does not apply to anybody who isn't a citizen living outside the US.

~Keeper

sorry .... posted this twice.

have not figured out the edit button.

Thanks for your patience.

[edit on 4/6/09 by cindy22761]

In my example of Leviticus 20:13, would you really support even the more hardcore interpretations, such as:

# NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

? TO me that's calling for someones death, I thought even in the USA that was going too far, your freedom of speech isn't completely absolute, "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is one that isn't allowed.

Calling for peoples deaths is OK?

Censoring a majority of the population of the United States? A majority of Americans practise some form of Christianity. Conspiring to silence a majority of Americans doesn't strike me as too bright...

[edit on 6-4-2009 by hephalump]

I think hate-speech laws are beyond the slippery slope type of dangerous abrogations of liberty. Unpopular speech should be protected.

Given international precedent (which unfortunately matters in these waning days of the American once-republic-now-empire) religious groups should be concerned. Would a sermon against homo-sexuality constitute hate-speech? I've heard sermons against homosexuality, alcohol, rock-and-roll, divorce, non-protestant Christianity, Catholicism, and Socialism. None of these things are illegal but certain denominations consider them sinful. Is it hate-speech to speak against any practice or act that your faith considers sinful?

Personally I believe both the government and religion should remain as far separate as possible. However, certain sue happy elements on the left like the ACLU, go so far as to totally alienate me from their causes that because of their evidenced hostility to people of faith, I can't support them even when I agree with them on some issues.

Oh noes! A Christian can't drag a gay man to death any more for being gay? What ever shall we do! Why, what's next making it a crime to burn a Muslim to death for being a Muslim? What is this world coming to! :@@Pure Sarcasm)

Good job, stop hatred and bigotry from ruining other peoples lives.

Originally posted by jefwane
I think hate-speech laws are beyond the slippery slope type of dangerous abrogations of liberty. Unpopular speech should be protected.

Is it hate-speech to speak against any practice or act that your faith considers sinful?

Personally I'm not a big fan of the kind of hate speech laws that have come in in Europe. If I was making the rules, it would be ok to be generally anti-gay, or racist, or whatever, and it's the responsibility of everyone else to give better arguments for why the anti-gays/racists are wrong. I don't think suppressing things like that really helps, it just drives that kind of talk underground, where those who don't like it can't attempt to overcome it with what they feel are better arguments.

I'd rather try and defeat bigotry with strong arguments than suppression.

I do draw the line though at saying people must be killed.

[edit on 6/4/2009 by RubberBaron]

A few thoughts.

Originally posted by RubberBaron
In my example of Leviticus 20:13, would you really support even the more hardcore interpretations, such as:

# NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

It's all in the translation, or rather in referring to the text as closely to the original as possible. The "must" (or "certainly", "surely", "will be" in various translations) is a rendering of the Hebrew "kiy" which is conceptual and denotes a causal relationship. So, homosexual activity causes "death." The concept is used many times in the OT and in Chapter 20 of Leviticus alone 9 times. In certain cases the manner of their death is prescribed as a punishment.

For Christians the punishment is not ours to carry out, death as the wages of sin is in hte life to come where repentence is lacking. The sinner themselves, in rejecting God, become their own judge and executioner as it were.

Those "Christians" who might persist in calling for death at human hands for any such sinners should read a few verses before 13, verse 10. That should immediately call to mind the woman caught in adultery and Christ's "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:1-11). As this applies to that particular verse it clearly applies to the other in the context of the whole Gospels and the opportunity afforded to all to repent. Homosexual activity is intrinsically evil, as is adultery, the punishment is not anyone's to render except God - or more particularly the individual themselves who does not take the opportunities to repent give (and a few other caveats from the grace and mercy of God!) Leviticus 20 is not nullified by Christ but completed - the dire warning against such behaviour remains while the proper executor of punishment is "changed."

Hate crimes do need to be legislated against but always with caution regarding who decides what is a hate crime. Quoting Leviticus is not a hate crime where properly understood, using Leviticus as a means of encouraging violence against homosexuals is. There's where we get into a very difficult area. If someone does an act of violence against a homosexual and claims their pastor said they had to, if that does not correspond with the pastor's intent why should the pastor be charged with a hate crime? If people's interpretation of another's words is grounds for proclaiming such words as hate crimes then Hollywood better look out - "the movie told me to do it."

One final point, the Matthew Shepherd Act includes disability - will Planned Parenthood be guilty of hate crimes then when they enable the abortion of disabled children? Will doctors who recommend terminations? Will President Obama? Will any here who justify/accept abortion on the grounds of health?

The voiceless unborn have hate speech and actions directed against them individually and collectively day after day in the western world. Sort that out first which imperils our claim to be civilised and lead to the disrespect for life which permeates culture, diminishes us all, and lends to the unstable a justification for their hate filled attacks against people they don't like or want.

reply to post by JMasters

Oh noes! A Christian can't drag a gay man to death any more for being gay? What ever shall we do! Why, what's next making it a crime to burn a Muslim to death for being a Muslim? What is this world coming to! :@@Pure Sarcasm)

Stereotype much? Using the actions of a few detestable, and diobolicle, individuals to color the vast number of innocent Christians who would no more do that than I would. How does this make you any different from those you protest? Hmmm?

Good job, stop hatred and bigotry from ruining other peoples lives.

You don't stop hate with legislation, or punitive laws. You use knowledge...the haters have to want to change, otherwise nothing can be done.



[edit on 6-4-2009 by hephalump]

The First Amendment says that every citizen in the United States has the right to say anything. Period. No matter how bigoted, idiotic, irrational or inflammatory it may be, ALL speech is protected by the Constitution. I don't think hate speech is a jim dandy idea, in fact i think it's just plain wrong, but i don't have the right to tell anyone to not engage in this type of speech. This is a very slippery slope that we don't need to start sliding down.


TheAssociate

I think any speech should be protected. Even if it is unpopular or could be viewed as hate speech. Making speech against gays or Jews, etc... does not change how some people feel about them. They just go underground. Look at it this way. If you have people running around saying kill them, etc... and then someone ends up dead, there is a list of suspects to start with. Infringing freedom of speech will not keep everyone safe from the bigots and haters. It will only make it more difficult to know who they are when it is time to place some blame.

This is just a case of people crying because they heard something they don't want to. Don't listen or read if it offends or if you do pay attention, maybe you will learn your enemy before it is too late.

reply to post by tamusan

I think any speech should be protected.

Not that I don't disagree, because I don't. However, where does the line get drawn, or does it get drawn? Is there a line?

As I said, I don't disagree with the premise of your statement, I just think that perhaps that's a statement with more than a touch of hyperbole. I know where my limit is...I'm curious as to where yours might be...

We shouldn't need laws to stop people from spouting hate speech in public or inciting others to violence, people should know better.
But people these days have no common sense or sense of decency so these kinds of laws have to be implemented.
And these laws are not religious suppression laws, but they will limit some people who hide their hate behind a shield of faith from committing more hate crimes.
They will be implemented under the guise of protecting the public, but in reality they will be just another attack on freedom and liberties, setting the stage for the next step in the process of economic slavery and abolishment of rights for all human beings.

PS Mystiq, these laws are just a hop, skip and a jump away from being implemented in Canada. PM Steven Harper and the Conservative party are selling us Canadians out to international corporations just like the American government is doing to it's own people.
And part of that process is the erosion of our civil liberties and personal freedoms.
The Harper government is pro-corporation, anti-consumer.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Thinkmore]

If you are a Christian you have no business spewing hate.

Your whole argument is riddled with sloppy logic...

you assume that it is directed towards Christians but instead it is aimed to all expressions of hate.. from believers to atheists... from KKK to neo-nazi's... from rabidly right wing funnymentalist Christians to rabidly right wing funnymentalist Muslims.

You have the freedom to express yourself however you please but when your hate is directed towards someone... that is a beast of an entirely different color...

... you presume to be Christian... what the hell are you defending hate speech for?

Are people really so idiotic that they think censoring hate speech, will affect their ability to practice whatever religion they wish??
Are people really so dumb that they feel their hate speech towards gays or Muslims is "the truth" ?

Do people really believe that the inability to speak about harm to others, and brainwashing their children to do the same, is their right because they are religious?

Lame people, we are all in this together. This country is about diversity. We all look and think different, but come together under the same flag. That is what this country is about.

An organized group of people calling for any kind of harm or less rights for other human beings, makes me sick. How can someone believe that they are so holy that others must be treated as 2nd class citizens?

Well, anyway... I don't agree with 'hate speech', as in I would not do it. But we should not be limited in what opinions we are allowed to speak. It is a slippery slope, to start limiting what topics of conversation we are allowed to engage in.

I am against any bill or law that tries to limit us, in any way. Each of these bills only exist to take away a little freedom at a time, making us think it is for the "greater good".

EDIT: Typed too fast... typo.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by LostNemesis]

Originally posted by cindy22761
Many of you non-Christians will be happy to know that Christians are about to be censored.

No, as a Christian I have no problem with this. The hatred of gays isn't something Jesus would have wanted, he doesn't even mention homosexuality. Not all Christians hate gays.

reply to post by hephalump

I know where my limit is...I'm curious as to where yours might be...

I would like to say that I do not have a limit. I am uncertain if I do or not. I am a very tolerant person. I don't care what you say to me. Touch me, my family, or anyone that I care about and Hyde will come out, but talk all you want.

When I am in Japan, I could buy a book on any subject (not that I do) at a bookstore. Do you hate Jews? They will sell a book about it. Do you hate Gays? They will sell a book about it, too. Even if you hate Japanese. They will have a book for you. Does it mean that it is popular to hate any of these people in Japan? Of course not. What does it mean? It means that censorship is expressly forbidden by the constitution of Japan. Freedom of speech is absolute.

The constitution in Japan is under attack, too. Not for hate speech. Pornography is being censored.

Originally posted by skeptic1
From your source:

No more will your pastor be able to declare the truth about Islam or homosexuality because it will be considered a hate crime.

I am all for free speech, but not for hate speech.

I don't think people should be thrown into jail for their views, but spewing hatred and bigotry and ignorance has no positive impact on society.

Who defines hate speech? Freedom of speech is freedom of all speech, there are laws to prevent slander and libel, but otherwise it's free game.

reply to post by yellowcard


I don't think hate speech is difficult to define. I don't think ignorance and bigotry are difficult to define.

I am all for free speech......but hate speech adds nothing to society.

Hence the whole point of the post you quoted.

And, that was the speech that the OP referenced in their post......the "truth" will no longer be able to be spewed from the pulpit. :shk:

[edit on 4/6/2009 by skeptic1]