Thursday, April 26, 2007
"Hate Crimes" Bill Poses Threat to Christians
Dear Readers,
As publisher of Ministry Today, I want to bring to your attention a serious threat to religious freedom in this country. H.R. 1592, the so-called "Hate Crimes Bill," would expand the federal definition of hate crimes to include "sexual orientation." If this bill passes, all anti-homosexual language could potentially be considered "inflammatory speech" and would be a crime. The implications for the pastors of this country are obvious.
The bill passed the Judiciary Committee Wednesday night, with all 17 Republicans voting against it and all 23 Democrats voting for it. It will hit the House floor for consideration next week. The Traditional Values Coalition is in Washington right now following the bill's progress and fighting its passage. Read their report to understand more about the urgent threat H.R. 1592 poses to the United States.
As a Christian and a believer in free speech, I urge you to call your representative and do all you can to prevent this bill from becoming a law.
In Christ,
Steve Strang
Founder and Publisher
INTERACT: What do you think of H.R. 1592? Is the threat in this bill real or is it being exaggerated? What, if anything, should we do about it? Weigh in with your comments below.
More Perspectives: If you'd like to see a few more perspectives on this controversial issue, check out these links:
As publisher of Ministry Today, I want to bring to your attention a serious threat to religious freedom in this country. H.R. 1592, the so-called "Hate Crimes Bill," would expand the federal definition of hate crimes to include "sexual orientation." If this bill passes, all anti-homosexual language could potentially be considered "inflammatory speech" and would be a crime. The implications for the pastors of this country are obvious.
The bill passed the Judiciary Committee Wednesday night, with all 17 Republicans voting against it and all 23 Democrats voting for it. It will hit the House floor for consideration next week. The Traditional Values Coalition is in Washington right now following the bill's progress and fighting its passage. Read their report to understand more about the urgent threat H.R. 1592 poses to the United States.
As a Christian and a believer in free speech, I urge you to call your representative and do all you can to prevent this bill from becoming a law.
In Christ,
Steve Strang
Founder and Publisher
INTERACT: What do you think of H.R. 1592? Is the threat in this bill real or is it being exaggerated? What, if anything, should we do about it? Weigh in with your comments below.
More Perspectives: If you'd like to see a few more perspectives on this controversial issue, check out these links:
- H.R. 1592 - The actual document
- Report from the Judiciary Committee hearing - From the Traditional Values Coalition, this goes into detail about the problems the Republicans had with the bill and the debates the bill went through
- Overall Picture - This news story provides a good view of both the supporters' and detractors' positions
- Monday Morning Insight's Post - The view from Todd Rhoades' excellent Christian leadership blog
- The View From the Other Side - An argument for the bill from a gay rights group
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I find it very sad that Strang communications would lower itself to the gutter level of TVC and provide the warped bile that flows from that organization as legitimate support for opposition to this bill. Truth is the first thing to be ignored when fanatics aren't getting their way. If you truly fear this bill then perhaps you should take a closer look at your words and actions to see why you think it would affect you at all. Dave
# posted by 
: 5:33 AM
: 5:33 AM
>>closer look at your words<<
In a country that allows free speech... should we have to watch our words?
What harm is there in saying, "What you are doing is wrong" -- people are either free to change their minds on the subject or ignore the speaker (doesn't matter the subject) -
And if WE have to "watch our words", who else should have to do the same? And on what subjects should speech be restricted?
Perhaps we should all become faceless, opinionless puppets.
Just some freely-spoken thoughts :)
In a country that allows free speech... should we have to watch our words?
What harm is there in saying, "What you are doing is wrong" -- people are either free to change their minds on the subject or ignore the speaker (doesn't matter the subject) -
And if WE have to "watch our words", who else should have to do the same? And on what subjects should speech be restricted?
Perhaps we should all become faceless, opinionless puppets.
Just some freely-spoken thoughts :)
Is the area below what we should be concerned about? What can we do? How can we verify that our preaching will fall into this law? Thanks!
(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--
`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
`(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.
Pastor Roger Barcus
StPaulApostolic.com
(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--
`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
`(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.
Pastor Roger Barcus
StPaulApostolic.com
Does "hate speech" or "inflamatory speech" belong in our pulpits? I think not!
Why do we need to be protected to maintain the right to do something that is not Christ-like?
The only "hate speech" or "inflamatory speech" that came out of the mouth of Jesus was directed towards religious hypocrites, never the sinner.
Maybe it's time for us to re-examine what we call "preaching" and see if it fits the New Testament model.
Why do we need to be protected to maintain the right to do something that is not Christ-like?
The only "hate speech" or "inflamatory speech" that came out of the mouth of Jesus was directed towards religious hypocrites, never the sinner.
Maybe it's time for us to re-examine what we call "preaching" and see if it fits the New Testament model.
# posted by : 7:44 PM
: 7:44 PM
Anonymous:
It's all a matter of interpretation. Call sin, sin and someone who likes that sin will take offense. Should they have they right to drag you to court or have you thrown in jail because their sensibilities or conscience has been singed and they can call it inflammatory? I think not. Get a clue.
It's all a matter of interpretation. Call sin, sin and someone who likes that sin will take offense. Should they have they right to drag you to court or have you thrown in jail because their sensibilities or conscience has been singed and they can call it inflammatory? I think not. Get a clue.
# posted by : 7:20 AM
: 7:20 AM
If a minister of the Gospel makes a distinction between what is truth and what is error, between what is right and what is wrong, whether it's in Wal-mart, on the job or from behind a pulpit, it is not "hateful" or "inflammatory" in any way, shape or form - The Word of God calls this the preaching of righteousness. The Word of God encourages believers to discern the difference between the pure and the impure, the clean and the unclean. If Charles Finney, George Whitfield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Noah, Paul or Jude (who, by the way, were all preachers of righteousness) were alive, in the flesh today, they would call sin sin - they would call homosexuality an abomination to God; then they would pray for the sinner to be born again and filled with the HOLY Spirit of God and it would happen, just as in times past.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
