Christians attempt to silence non-religious messages at Christmas

[Father Time]

Calling it bigotry hatered and intolerance for insulting a belief system is absolutely insane.

Under that pathetic logic it would be hateful for me to attack the idea that aliens come to Earth on a regular basis or attack the idea that Elvis is still alive.

How is what they are saying hateful to people who practice religion? Where does it say those who follow religion are stupid, inferior or in any way lesser beings? I want to know because you keep going ON AND ON AND ON about how you and your faith were personally turned into a victim because a bunch of atheists wanted to put up a sign near the holidays.

In fact you were so quick to mark yourself for martyrdom that you all ready assumed I was out to get Christianity blah blah blah without hearing nary a word from me on the matter. I'm not out to kill Christianity but to call this sign hate speech and then compare it to a Nazi speech (nice use of Godwin's law) is just stupid.

The government provided a forum for speech it can't reject one religious view and then keep another it's a first amendment issue.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hmmm...atheists should be able to put up signs, but Christians shouldn't.

Christians should be muzzled and not allowed to refer to their religion in public, and if they belong to a particular religion, they should not be allowed in office.

These are things atheists want. It's substituting separation of church and state with the religion of atheism, which will allow discrimination and intimidation against the faithful.

In addition, they are battling to have certain passages of the bible declared "hate speech" which will effectively muzzle pastors, churches and Christians, even in their own churches.

Kiss my ass with your minimalizing b.s. regarding martyrs. Christians die every day and assholes like you could give a shit.

 

[Father Time]

Hmmm...atheists should be able to put up signs, but Christians shouldn't.

If you could point me out to the place where people actually said that I would appreciate it.

In addition, they are battling to have certain passages of the bible declared "hate speech" which will effectively muzzle pastors, churches and Christians, even in their own churches.

Who is this 'they' you refer to? I mean specifically what is this group that is trying to get religious texts labeled hate speech? And do you REALLY think that they (whoever they are) have any chance in hell of succeeding?

Those people (and by those people I mean you) have such a huge persecution complex. They are out to get us, They are trying to force us to abandon Chrsitianity, They are waging a war against Chrsitians. Remember it's us vs. the evil THEY.

Kiss my ass with your minimalizing b.s. regarding martyrs. Christians die every day and assholes like you could give a shit.

People of every religion die every day. The Grim Reaper doesn't seem to care what religion you have.

 

[Patriot2009]

What I find interesting and unfortunate is how people who do not share the Christian point of view often find it necessary to engage in hyperbole and outright lying to support their point of view instead of trying to make their case on the merits! Take, for example Mr. Bakers comments in the article where he makes the ridiculous claim that a Christmas Nativity Scene on the city lawn says that “…we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus,” adding that ”…we should be at the table to share our views."

The fact is that no Nativity Scene I have ever seen in my nearly 60 years has ever said anything of the sort. And, it happens to be the case that his complaint that his group should get to be “at the table” with their point of view has been rejected by the courts. Basically, what the courts have held is that it simply isn’t practical to let everybody put up displays on the “Public Square”. To hold otherwise would be to throw open the city hall lawn to every other crackpot in the land and abroad.

The next thing we know, Bin Laden himself would be backing his terrorist followers efforts to place a display celebrating 911 there as well!

And, then, who would be calling to complain?

BTW, I'd be interested to see where the police or authorities at the Capitol have come forward with any real evidence that the person or persons who stole the atheists' display was a disgruntled Christian. It could just as easily have been an atheist bent on getting publicity for their “cause”! It seems to me that you are jumping to unfounded conclusions…

What really interests me about this is the way that Christians, who've won the war to have a nativity placed on the state capitol's grounds, are fighting to SILENCE atheist messages.

Interesting. "Free speech, but only for me."

...the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.

"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.

"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."

As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.

"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."

The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.

The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.

"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."

For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.

"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."

The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.

"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

 

[Againsheila]

Just a note...

again, the part of the sign I object to basically said, all religions are stupid and hateful.

I am paraphrasing there.

I also think it's interesting that in this last month there has been a hate crime at a catholic church near that area where the stained glass windows were broken and hate messages were painted on the outside walls.

I'm sure that signed encouraged someone.

 

[Patriot2009]

OK, Father time, let’s take your post a piece at a time.

First, there are numerous examples of cases where atheists have gone to court to prohibit Nativity scenes on public property. So, unless you’re just ignorant or you’re being disingenuous, the answer to your question is easily found. If you are serious about examples, just do a Google search using the words “nativity scene court cases” What you’ll find are cases upholding both sides of the debate, wherein people and groups have attacked the idea that a Nativity Scene can or should be allowed on public property.

Next, as for your implication that there aren’t any people who are trying to “muzzle” Christians, I invite your attention to the fact that there has been and is expected to be legislation before Congress with the aim of doing just that. Last year such a bill was defeated after President Bush indicated that he would veto it if was sent to his desk. Now that we have a new president in office who is beholden to the Homosexual lobby, it is expected that the bill will be reintroduced by its lead sponsor Barney Frank . With a President in office who is friendly to the homosexuals, the answer to your question regarding he likelihood of its becoming law should be obvious.

And, the fact is that some states have already passed similar bills and signed them into law. One such example is a draconian law passed in Colorado and signed by Gov. Bill Ritter last year that actually could be read as outlawing publication of the Bible in the state because of its injunctions against homosexuality.

The bottom line is that while some states are passing laws protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, others are drifting in the other direction by passing laws designed to “muzzle” Christians in the exercise of their religion, or even worse…put them in jail for speaking out against sin.

A model law for the atheists is the one that was signed into law in Canada. Under that law, authorities have gone so far as to tell a Christian pastor he must recant his faith because of the legislation that bans statements that can be "perceived" as condemning another person. There can be little doubt but that “they”, the atheists, would love to have just such an aggressive law passed here.

The question becomes, once “they” get their law passed, who will come along behind them with a law designed to shut you up and whom do you hope will come to your defense???

Hmmm...atheists should be able to put up signs, but Christians shouldn't.

If you could point me out to the place where people actually said that I would appreciate it.

In addition, they are battling to have certain passages of the bible declared "hate speech" which will effectively muzzle pastors, churches and Christians, even in their own churches.

Who is this 'they' you refer to? I mean specifically what is this group that is trying to get religious texts labeled hate speech? And do you REALLY think that they (whoever they are) have any chance in hell of succeeding?

Those people (and by those people I mean you) have such a huge persecution complex. They are out to get us, They are trying to force us to abandon Chrsitianity, They are waging a war against Chrsitians. Remember it's us vs. the evil THEY.

Kiss my ass with your minimalizing b.s. regarding martyrs. Christians die every day and assholes like you could give a shit.

People of every religion die every day. The Grim Reaper doesn't seem to care what religion you have.

 

[YWN666]

Next, as for your implication that there aren’t any people who are trying to “muzzle” Christians, I invite your attention to the fact that there has been and is expected to be legislation before Congress with the aim of doing just that. Last year such a bill was defeated after President Bush indicated that he would veto it if was sent to his desk. Now that we have a new president in office who is beholden to the Homosexual lobby, it is expected that the bill will be reintroduced by its lead sponsor Barney Frank . With a President in office who is friendly to the homosexuals, the answer to your question regarding he likelihood of its becoming law should be obvious.

Exactly what bill are you referring to and how does it muzzle christians?

And, the fact is that some states have already passed similar bills and signed them into law. One such example is a draconian law passed in Colorado and signed by Gov. Bill Ritter last year that actually could be read as outlawing publication of the Bible in the state because of its injunctions against homosexuality.

What a bunch of crap.

The bottom line is that while some states are passing laws protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, others are drifting in the other direction by passing laws designed to “muzzle” Christians in the exercise of their religion, or even worse…put them in jail for speaking out against sin.

..and yet more crap.

A model law for the atheists is the one that was signed into law in Canada. Under that law, authorities have gone so far as to tell a Christian pastor he must recant his faith because of the legislation that bans statements that can be "perceived" as condemning another person. There can be little doubt but that “they”, the atheists, would love to have just such an aggressive law passed here.

The question becomes, once “they” get their law passed, who will come along behind them with a law designed to shut you up and whom do you hope will come to your defense???

Let's see the specifics of these alleged laws. I suspect you're doing he WorldNetDaily twist and this legislation says nothing like you are implying it does. Can you back up any of what you're saying?

 

[AllieBaba]

It's muzzling when you prohibit Christians from worshiping publicly, when you attempt to prohibit them from running for office, and when you prevent them from making any references to their religion in public.

 

[AllieBaba]

"H.R. 254, introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is another version of proposed legislation passed by the House in 2005 and the Senate in 2004. Only strong public outcry and a Republican controlled Congress kept this type of legislation from becoming law. Now that Democrats are in charge there's a tough fight ahead to keep this dangerous bill from passing. H.R. 254 would make certain types of speech a federal offense.

So-called 'hate crimes' legislation is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. 'Hate crime' laws would allow federal "thought police" to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and localities - something our founders were clear was NOT to be allowed.

H.R. 254 would require every state to pass and enforce 'anti-hate' laws. It would outlaw stating a "bias" against certain 'federally protected' groups such as homosexuals.

Constitution Party National Chairman Jim Clymer warned "So-called 'hate crime' laws could mean the Bible would be considered 'hate literature' and preaching from it would be 'hate speech' because of references to religious teachings on homosexuality or other behaviors. The Orwellian implications of these types of laws mean Bible-believing Christians could become criminals simply because spoke out about their beliefs."

Citing a 2004 case in Philadelphia, where 11 Christians were charged under a 'hate-crimes' statute for peacefully protesting at a gay rights rally, Mr. Clymer, a practicing attorney, said "Law-abiding Americans became criminals because they exercised a right our forebears fought and died for".
slantright.com :: Because anything else would just be wrong

 

[AllieBaba]

And before someone whines about the link and decides to ignore the content:

GovTrack: H.R. 254 [110th]: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House

 

[frazzledgear]

Calling it bigotry hatered and intolerance for insulting a belief system is absolutely insane.

Under that pathetic logic it would be hateful for me to attack the idea that aliens come to Earth on a regular basis or attack the idea that Elvis is still alive.

How is what they are saying hateful to people who practice religion? Where does it say those who follow religion are stupid, inferior or in any way lesser beings? I want to know because you keep going ON AND ON AND ON about how you and your faith were personally turned into a victim because a bunch of atheists wanted to put up a sign near the holidays.

In fact you were so quick to mark yourself for martyrdom that you all ready assumed I was out to get Christianity blah blah blah without hearing nary a word from me on the matter. I'm not out to kill Christianity but to call this sign hate speech and then compare it to a Nazi speech (nice use of Godwin's law) is just stupid.

The government provided a forum for speech it can't reject one religious view and then keep another it's a first amendment issue.

And you no doubt believe that anti-semitic statements have nothing to do with attacking people for their religious beliefs either, right? LOL

In what way is it "hateful" for you to have an opinion opposing the notion that aliens came to earth or that Elvis was still alive? This was NOT about having different opinions. But is there a special day for those who believe aliens did come to earth or believe Elvis is still alive - AND were you invited by government to post a message in their public display for the specific purpose of attacking and insulting their beliefs? NO. MY examples were much more relevant. A governor allowing pro-KKK messages at a public display about the Emancipation or allowing anti-semitic messages at a public display about the Holocaust is NOT a "celebration" of "tolerance" and "free speech". It is a demand that government provide a public forum for statements of hatred and bigotry -when it has no such obligation whatsoever. While people like you insist -if, and ONLY if, such intolerant statements are made by those with whom you happen to agree - it is something to be admired and celebrated. And insist that unless government provides them a public forum for such statements it is somehow violating their free speech rights. While demanding that those being attacked and insulted, the targets of such statements -just shut up. And THEN have the balls to insist THAT is what "real" tolerance looks like. Gee, do you also think government is obligated to provide a public forum for the KKK to spew their filth? Isn't that something we should all be "celebrating" and insisting government must do -all while insisting that those being targeted in the statements of the KKK should just "shut up" as well? Or just for those spewing the filth you personally happen to agree with?

Changing the title of this thread from its original title doesn't change anything -and was nothing but a contrived and deceptive move. But I guess the original one didn't display Christians in a bad enough light for the original poster -who felt obligated to distort the original story even more. By claiming Christians were trying to SILENCE non-religious messages. TOTAL BULLSHIT. I guess at least one liberal whacko really doesn't know that Santa Claus, Christmas trees, snowmen are all non-religious -and have absolutely nothing to do with the religious day of Christmas. Non-religious Christmas messages are BENIGN. They neither support nor denigrate the religious beliefs of anyone else. No one with an IQ higher than a rock can claim the atheist message was a benign one. It specifically DENIGRATED and INSULTED the religious beliefs of others. Unlike any other display there. Anti-religious messages are statements of HATRED, BIGOTRY and INTOLERANCE for those who do not share their atheist beliefs. Just because those targeted was EVERYONE with religious beliefs is no different from targeting those of just a specific religious belief.

Real "tolerance" is not determined by whether it is your ox being gored or not, not determined by whether you happen to share the same opinions as those doing the goring. Those insisting that Christianity and Christmas are not under attack are just flat-out liars. The problem those of you insisting otherwise have -is the fact that I grew up at a time when neither Christians nor Christmas were ever attacked -but Jews were instead. So I can recognize the difference between statements of "tolerance" and "intolerance" in a millisecond. In spite of of the fact you apparently cannot.

History has repeatedly shown that when the majority of people in a society can no longer tell the difference - it doesn't bode well for for a whole lot of other human beings.

 

[YWN666]

It's muzzling when you prohibit Christians from worshiping publicly, when you attempt to prohibit them from running for office, and when you prevent them from making any references to their religion in public.

No one is doing any such thing in the US

 

[YWN666]

Well Well now heres a link that should wet the appetite of you anti-christ...
CRIMINALIZING CHRISTIANITY

WorldNetDaily?? Bwaaaahaaahaaahaa!!!!

I thought you were being serious there for a moment

 

[YWN666]

And before someone whines about the link and decides to ignore the content:

GovTrack: H.R. 254 [110th]: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House

All I see there is a proposed law to make physical violence illegal. I see nothing about making it illegal to read the bible. Can you point out where in this law it says that?

 

[Patriot2009]

Next, as for your implication that there aren’t any people who are trying to “muzzle” Christians, I invite your attention to the fact that there has been and is expected to be legislation before Congress with the aim of doing just that. Last year such a bill was defeated after President Bush indicated that he would veto it if was sent to his desk. Now that we have a new president in office who is beholden to the Homosexual lobby, it is expected that the bill will be reintroduced by its lead sponsor Barney Frank . With a President in office who is friendly to the homosexuals, the answer to your question regarding he likelihood of its becoming law should be obvious.

Exactly what bill are you referring to and how does it muzzle christians?

I’m glad you asked!

It isn’t the bill you pointed to earlier. It is the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007 (H.R. 1592).

The act specifically states:

"SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”

Now, before you go to whining that the law does not specify the Bible or more specifically, the preaching of the Bible, you should know about a law called the “Law of Principles” that is a part of the Federal Code and in the statutes of most States.

What that law says is that whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures a crime's commission is punishable, just as the principal i.e., the principle accused perpetrator. So, the very real fact is that a Pastor who preaches the Biblical principles against homosexuality can be prosecuted for so-called “hate speech” under the provisions of H.R. 1592 and the Law of Principles!

This is precisely the reason that some Congressmen, particularly Rep. Gohmert of Texas, oppose this bill. In a statement before Congress he stated it thusly:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this body will take up legislation that is referred to as hate crime legislation. On its face that sounds pretty innocuous, something we should all agree on. We are against hate .
Those of us who believe in the Bible would say that is not something that anyone should engage in. Hate . But the fact is there are laws across America that deal with crimes . What hate crime legislation does is carve out essential exemptions, special punishments for people who commit offenses.
In the past, hate crimes have been limited to felonies that involve serious bodily injury, that kind of thing, in most areas. But here for the first time, we are not going to enhance punishment, we are not going to just only spend money of Federal dollars to help other jurisdictions enforce their hate crime legislation. Now we created a special Federal crime that will allow the full weight of the Federal Government to go after those who, according to the law we will vote on tomorrow, in any circumstance, basically, willfully causes bodily injury to any person.
Now, most hate crime laws refer to serious bodily injury, but not in this legislation. We refer to bodily injury. We have lowered the bar dramatically. There are some jurisdictions that would say bodily injury can be temporary, no matter how temporary. It can be a touching, a pushing.
So, in other words, if someone opposed to your position that, perhaps, was having gender identity issues, like a transvestite, got between you and your office, and there were numbers of them, and you tried to get through to your office, then, as has happened in other places, he may be inclined now to go to the Federal Government, file a criminal complaint for which you could be arrested, and that would be bodily injury sufficient to rise to that level.
Now, some have said, in our committee, that this does not affect any speech, this is only actions. But the trouble is existing Federal law, under 18 U.S. Code 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code, and I have taken an excerpt from it, says: ``Whoever aids ..... abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures'' a crime's commission is punishable as if they had committed the crime itself.
That's referred to in most jurisdictions as the law of principals. It's not a conspiracy law, it's a law of principals.
Therefore, as I ask about a hypothetical in committee, if a minister were to preach from the Bible or simply read from the Bible, or a rabbi were to read from the Torah or teach from it, or an imam was to read from the Koran, indicating that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of the marriage of a man and a woman; if someone heard that and went out and committed an offense causing bodily injury, shooting someone, and then when they were questioned, they said, well, my minister, rabbi or imam said this was wrong, and this is what induced me to do this, well, under existing Federal law, when coupled with the law the majority wants to pass tomorrow, that minister could be charged under the law as a principal, as having shot the victim. That would mean that any sermons, any Bible teachings, any Koran or any Torah teachings that were perhaps on file at the home, in the office, on the hard drive, would then be admissible, because that is evidence that this individual taught and preached how wrong this was, which induced the individual to commit the crime.”

And, the fact is that some states have already passed similar bills and signed them into law. One such example is a draconian law passed in Colorado and signed by Gov. Bill Ritter last year that actually could be read as outlawing publication of the Bible in the state because of its injunctions against homosexuality.

What a bunch of crap.

I’ll accept your remark as your recognition that you're unable to argue this on the merits…

The bottom line is that while some states are passing laws protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, others are drifting in the other direction by passing laws designed to “muzzle” Christians in the exercise of their religion, or even worse…put them in jail for speaking out against sin.

..and yet more crap.

Again, I’ll accept your remark as your recognition that you're unable argue this on the merits. Otherwise, instead of resorting to tasteless and juvinile declarations you would have done so.

A model law for the atheists is the one that was signed into law in Canada. Under that law, authorities have gone so far as to tell a Christian pastor he must recant his faith because of the legislation that bans statements that can be "perceived" as condemning another person. There can be little doubt but that “they”, the atheists, would love to have just such an aggressive law passed here.

The question becomes, once “they” get their law passed, who will come along behind them with a law designed to shut you up and whom do you hope will come to your defense???

Let's see the specifics of these alleged laws. I suspect you're doing he WorldNetDaily twist and this legislation says nothing like you are implying it does. Can you back up any of what you're saying?

See my remarks at the top…they answered this as well.

The fact is that the homosexual lobby is doing exactly what they complain in the CNN headline Christians are doing to them, trying to muzzle them...from speaking out against what they see as sinful activity.

 

[YWN666]

Next, as for your implication that there aren’t any people who are trying to “muzzle” Christians, I invite your attention to the fact that there has been and is expected to be legislation before Congress with the aim of doing just that. Last year such a bill was defeated after President Bush indicated that he would veto it if was sent to his desk. Now that we have a new president in office who is beholden to the Homosexual lobby, it is expected that the bill will be reintroduced by its lead sponsor Barney Frank . With a President in office who is friendly to the homosexuals, the answer to your question regarding he likelihood of its becoming law should be obvious.

Exactly what bill are you referring to and how does it muzzle christians?

I’m glad you asked!

It isn’t the bill you pointed to earlier. It is the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007 (H.R. 1592).

The act specifically states:

"SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”

Now, before you go to whining that the law does not specify the Bible or more specifically, the preaching of the Bible, you should know about a law called the “Law of Principles” that is a part of the Federal Code and in the statutes of most States.

What that law says is that whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures a crime's commission is punishable, just as the principal i.e., the principle accused perpetrator. So, the very real fact is that a Pastor who preaches the Biblical principles against homosexuality can be prosecuted for so-called “hate speech” under the provisions of H.R. 1592 and the Law of Principles!

This is precisely the reason that some Congressmen, particularly Rep. Gohmert of Texas, oppose this bill. In a statement before Congress he stated it thusly:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this body will take up legislation that is referred to as hate crime legislation. On its face that sounds pretty innocuous, something we should all agree on. We are against hate .
Those of us who believe in the Bible would say that is not something that anyone should engage in. Hate . But the fact is there are laws across America that deal with crimes . What hate crime legislation does is carve out essential exemptions, special punishments for people who commit offenses.
In the past, hate crimes have been limited to felonies that involve serious bodily injury, that kind of thing, in most areas. But here for the first time, we are not going to enhance punishment, we are not going to just only spend money of Federal dollars to help other jurisdictions enforce their hate crime legislation. Now we created a special Federal crime that will allow the full weight of the Federal Government to go after those who, according to the law we will vote on tomorrow, in any circumstance, basically, willfully causes bodily injury to any person.
Now, most hate crime laws refer to serious bodily injury, but not in this legislation. We refer to bodily injury. We have lowered the bar dramatically. There are some jurisdictions that would say bodily injury can be temporary, no matter how temporary. It can be a touching, a pushing.
So, in other words, if someone opposed to your position that, perhaps, was having gender identity issues, like a transvestite, got between you and your office, and there were numbers of them, and you tried to get through to your office, then, as has happened in other places, he may be inclined now to go to the Federal Government, file a criminal complaint for which you could be arrested, and that would be bodily injury sufficient to rise to that level.
Now, some have said, in our committee, that this does not affect any speech, this is only actions. But the trouble is existing Federal law, under 18 U.S. Code 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code, and I have taken an excerpt from it, says: ``Whoever aids ..... abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures'' a crime's commission is punishable as if they had committed the crime itself.
That's referred to in most jurisdictions as the law of principals. It's not a conspiracy law, it's a law of principals.
Therefore, as I ask about a hypothetical in committee, if a minister were to preach from the Bible or simply read from the Bible, or a rabbi were to read from the Torah or teach from it, or an imam was to read from the Koran, indicating that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of the marriage of a man and a woman; if someone heard that and went out and committed an offense causing bodily injury, shooting someone, and then when they were questioned, they said, well, my minister, rabbi or imam said this was wrong, and this is what induced me to do this, well, under existing Federal law, when coupled with the law the majority wants to pass tomorrow, that minister could be charged under the law as a principal, as having shot the victim. That would mean that any sermons, any Bible teachings, any Koran or any Torah teachings that were perhaps on file at the home, in the office, on the hard drive, would then be admissible, because that is evidence that this individual taught and preached how wrong this was, which induced the individual to commit the crime.”

Wow, that's quite a ridiculous stretch you're making there from a law prohibiting bodily injury to being arrested for reading the bible. Quite comical, actually. I'd expect to read such bullshit in WND whose motto should be "whatever spinning it takes to make us look like poor persecuted victims". Your "explanation" is just what I expected.

Look up the phrase "slippery slope" and you'll find a definition of your silly argument.

 

[Patriot2009]

Wow, that's quite a ridiculous stretch you're making there from a law prohibiting bodily injury to being arrested for reading the bible. Quite comical, actually. I'd expect to read such bullshit in WND whose motto should be "whatever spinning it takes to make us look like poor persecuted victims". Your "explanation" is just what I expected.

Look up the phrase "slippery slope" and you'll find a definition of your silly argument.

Slippery slope eh? Let's consider a hypothetical then?

Let's say that a fellow operates a dog fighting operation in the suburbs of Atlanta. He has a friend who goes into town and distributes flyers but doesn’t actually participate in, or attend, the dog fighting. The law specifically prohibits the conduct of a dog fight.

Should the friend be prosecuted for his part? The law of principles would apply there as well.

Would the prosecutor be embarking on the old slippery slope?

BTW, I didn't originate the theory of the Law of Principles. It is codified into the Federal Law and in the laws of most states. And, it has been applied plenty of times. There is absolutely no reason to believe that an overzelous prosecutor would hesitate to use it in conjunction with this hate crimes bill if enacted. And, the argument in my post wasn't posited by Worldnet Daily. It was made by a U.S. Congressman concerned that it will be applied in precisely this manner. He is concerned because he asked the question of another Congressman who was supporting the Bill in Committee hearings and received confirmation that it could be so interpreted and applied! The Congressman who gave that confirmation was Congressman Arthur Davis (D-Alabama), a co-sponsor of the bill.

If you think its a ridiculous stretch you should send him a letter!

 

[WhiteLion]

Wow, that's quite a ridiculous stretch you're making there from a law prohibiting bodily injury to being arrested for reading the bible. Quite comical, actually. I'd expect to read such bullshit in WND whose motto should be "whatever spinning it takes to make us look like poor persecuted victims". Your "explanation" is just what I expected.

Look up the phrase "slippery slope" and you'll find a definition of your silly argument.

Slippery slope eh? Let's consider a hypothetical then?

Let's say that a fellow operates a dog fighting operation in the suburbs of Atlanta. He has a friend who goes into town and distributes flyers but doesn’t actually participate in, or attend, the dog fighting. The law specifically prohibits the conduct of a dog fight.

Should the friend be prosecuted for his part? The law of principles would apply there as well.

Would the prosecutor be embarking on the old slippery slope?

BTW, I didn't originate the theory of the Law of Principles. It is codified into the Federal Law and in the laws of most states. And, it has been applied plenty of times. There is absolutely no reason to believe that an overzelous prosecutor would hesitate to use it in conjunction with this hate crimes bill if enacted. And, the argument in my post wasn't posited by Worldnet Daily. It was made by a U.S. Congressman concerned that it will be applied in precisely this manner. He is concerned because he asked the question of another Congressman who was supporting the Bill in Committee hearings and received confirmation that it could be so interpreted and applied! The Congressman who gave that confirmation was Congressman Arthur Davis (D-Alabama), a co-sponsor of the bill.

If you think its a ridiculous stretch you should send him a letter!

All this's predicted in the Bible
Home

Booklet > The Book of Revelation Unveiled > Satan's War Against the People of God

The links speak for themselves, weather or not you beleive, we are, in the beginning of a holocaust thatll make Hitlars appear like childs play,, not one single prophesy has fail all have been fulfilled except for the return of Jesus The Christ

 

[YWN666]

All this's predicted in the Bible
Home

Booklet > The Book of Revelation Unveiled > Satan's War Against the People of God

The links speak for themselves, weather or not you beleive, we are, in the beginning of a holocaust thatll make Hitlars appear like childs play,, not one single prophesy has fail all have been fulfilled except for the return of Jesus The Christ

Prophecy is a load of bunk.

 

[WhiteLion]

All this's predicted in the Bible
Home

Booklet > The Book of Revelation Unveiled > Satan's War Against the People of God

The links speak for themselves, weather or not you beleive, we are, in the beginning of a holocaust thatll make Hitlars appear like childs play,, not one single prophesy has fail all have been fulfilled except for the return of Jesus The Christ

Prophecy is a load of bunk.

You're no doubt an ANTI-CHRIST so i inherently understand your blind logic.. go out now and decieve more like Satan your father, the father of liers you know your time is limited... Heres a link just for you if you got the guts..
War On The Saints - Chapter 1 (Part 3 of 3)
As for me, my chat with you is over........