The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Hate Crime Legislation

Hate Crime Legislation

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"The Criminalization of Christianity"

For those who think I'm 'hysterical' over some issues, you may wonder about how I and fellow Christians feel about this:

IF.... the hate crimes legislation being considered by the US Congress is passed by the next president, the following could happen in regard to Christian broadcasters.

1/ Denouncing homosexual behavior would be a 'hate crime'.
2/ Describing non Christian religions as 'false' would be a 'hate crime'.
3/ The re-instatement of a broadcasting 'fairness' rule would mean that a Christian broadcasting body would have to provide free of charge, "equal time" for anti Christian material, to balance what was said by Christians.

Presumably, the same would apply to Muslim broadcasts ? Or Hindu Broadcasts? and Homosexual broadcasts?

Would it be EQUALLY a hate crime to denounce those who denounce homosexual behavior?
Would it EQUALLY be a hate crime to denounce those who denounce Christianity?

One would surely hope so, but given the track record of such legislation in Victoria and my extreme cycnicsm about the real objectives of "secularists" (who are sometimes driven by other groups)
I'm not very optomistic.

According to Justice Renquist (US Supreme court)

"bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

ER..sure, bias motivated CRIMES..but to criminalize CREEDS which do not advocate criminal or violent behavior? is treading on dangerous ground.

I DO support the criminalization of creeds which support and advocate violence (communal or domestice) and child sexual abuse.

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR. I've always maintained that the Gay agenda is NOT about 'equality', but 'power'.

Step 1 "Legalize Homosexual behavior"
Step 2 "Criminalize criticism of homosexual behavior"

They go together likes peas in a pod.

For Christians, the NEXT step might be "Statements made in everyday conversations.. sharing of faith, which include negative statements about various behaviors(which may include 'idol worship') would be criminalized"

How close are we to Orwellian 1984 social control right now with this?

So, if you wonder why people are passionate and speak in 'warlike' terminology at times.. this is one rather contemporary reason.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 10 March 2008 10:08:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy, it's hard to make an informed comment without knowing exactly what legislation you're talking about. Are you referring to the so-called Matthew Shepard Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act)?

If not, please provide a link so we can discuss this on an informed rather than emotive basis.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 10 March 2008 11:21:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz I am sure people have told you this before but people dont choose to be gay. I didnít choose to be straight it just happened that way.

Your attacks on gay people real are a cross to bear for your religion as it lowers its status to that of a stone age tribe. If you want to be respected be critical of things people can change about themselves not of things that are to them human nature.

Besides I think being gay is great! Less competition means more pretty girls for me! Actually I think I should encourage men to be gay!

Yes I know its not the topic at hand but I thought I would comment anyway.
Posted by EasyTimes, Monday, 10 March 2008 11:42:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it must be that one CJ.

Here's a link to the text which, I strongly suspect, Boaz hasn't actually read.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

If he had, he might have noticed this:

"SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

So his "concerns" are nothing more than an excuse to let us know, yet again, that he is anti-gay. Much like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I suppose, once again showing that there are more similarities between Christianity and Islam than there are differences.

For a start, Boaz, your concerns over being summarily despatched to chokey for "denouncing" anything would seem to be misplaced. You can "denounce" anything you damn well please.

What you should not be allowed to do is to use your religion as a pulpit from which to incite hatred and fear of other people, a stricture that you find extremely difficult to live with for some reason.

>>So, if you wonder why people are passionate and speak in 'warlike' terminology at times.. this is one rather contemporary reason.<<

Here's another challenge, Boaz.

I fully expect that it will go the way of all the rest - you will bluster about a bit, change the subject, introduce a Wookie then fall silent - but it should be good for you just to attempt an answer.

Given that you now have access to the text of the Bill, would you please quote verbatim from that Bill, and tell us exactly what it is that you disagree with?

Your time starts... now.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 March 2008 1:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that we rapidly hurtling toward a totalitarian regime of thought police, I thought I might take my last opportunity to say, loud and proud, I don't understand people who don't like poofs. Oftentimes, it's enough to put me off them entirely.

To be honest, at least Boazy has a reason. God hates fags, it's true, he jotted it down in his silly book.

My favourite dumb reasons for hating fags is thusly: "Once you give them their rights, they'll lower the age of consent (because they'll rule the whole country by then, presumably) and make it legal for them to have sex with six year old boys!"

Closely followed by:

"They'll try to have sex with me in public toilets."

Boazy: "I've always maintained that the Gay agenda is NOT about 'equality', but 'power'."
Yes Boazy, you have always maintained that, haven't you? It's never worried you that you're entirely wrong?
Posted by Vanilla, Monday, 10 March 2008 3:43:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed.. the legislation is found here. (Highlights)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1592&tab=summary

It specifically states that the bill is against VIOLENT acts.

It ends with this:

Section 8 -
Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit expressive conduct or activities protected by the First Amendment.

FREE SPEECH protected?

You could be forgiven for thinking so. So why am I 'hysterical' about this?

Its all in the 'interpretation/implementation'. Just as for the RRT2001 in Vic.. which was applied and interpreted in very surreal ways.

It's only a very short step from 'violent' hate crimes to 'spoken' hate crimes. The whole concept of 'hate crimes' is rediculous. If violence is carried on another person..its called 'assault' no matter what the reasons were. Some people assault others simply because they don't like their look. Hate crime ?

2 Grannies were arrested and Jailed over night for their activities at a gay rally in Pennsylvania. There activities included sharing the Gospel with passers by.

The Conservative press jumped on this and portrayed it as "Grannies arrested for sharing the Gospel on sidewalk, face 47 yrs jail"

The Liberal press points out, that the Grannies were arrested because they refused to move to the perimeter/edge of the gathering.

Fox news made the statement 'equal time for anti Christian voices' etc.. so its egg on their face if the story turns out to be baseless.

We should not forget where 'hate crime' laws can lead. The USA is not the only one making them. Sweden has them, and a pastor HAS been jailed for denouncing homosexual behavior from the pulpit of his own church.

So, in summary, I am absolutely opposed to the idea of 'hate crimes' because of where they will in all likelihood 'lead'.

It cannot be said that "the law will only prevent violence" when in other places in the world, it also covers speech.

Lets say "In the USA free speech is constitutionally protected"..but what about Australia? After all, this is where I live.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 10 March 2008 4:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy