March 29, 2017

April 24, 2009

Christian View On Homosexual Activity Soon To Be A Crime?

Read for yourself and see what you think. 

Proponents of the hate crimes bill claim that Christians and others who speak out publicly against homosexuality are not threatened with the same type of prosecution that criminals would face for committing acts of violence against homosexuals and transgender people.

In response, Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan), a co-sponsor of the measure, stated: “The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way.”

However, during the Judiciary Committee markup yesterday, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) reinforced the notion that people could be prosecuted for having a particular belief. “We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts,” said the Democratic lawmaker. 

  Decisions, decisions.  Who do we believe?

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, offered several amendments that would have provided religious-freedom protections from hate crimes prosecution, but they were all rejected by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

  Looks like Ms. Jackson-Lee wins by a mile.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Oh, this legislation looks double-plus good!

[1] Posted by Jeffersonian on 4-24-2009 at 12:16 PM · [top]

Christ our Lord told us that in the later days we would be persecuted for our beliefs, so this comes as no surprise. I suspect it will only get worse before it gets better. From a secular perspective , this seems to be a potential attack on free speech rights depending on how they choose to enforce the law (should it pass). The law states that it is considered hate speech if the oratory specifically stirs someone to violence. I don’t think that most Christian ministers’ do that, but it seems that the law may be broadly interpreted and then who knows.

[2] Posted by Another Pilgrim on 4-24-2009 at 12:39 PM · [top]

I’m not scared; Matthew 10.  They’ve been trying for thousands of years to silence the Word.  I’ve read the back of the Book; YHWH wins.

[3] Posted by Just_Me on 4-24-2009 at 12:44 PM · [top]

Maybe it’s a crazy idea, but you could try reading the bill.

[4] Posted by LongGone on 4-24-2009 at 12:55 PM · [top]

It would therefore follow that homosexuals who commit hate crimes against heterosexual folk should also be penalized with all sorts of punishments.  That would include homosexuals trying to force Christians to do things (such as refusing their services as photographers at ‘gay’ weddings) that go against their conscience.  also committing violent acts and intimidation against folk who, say, vote against proposition 8 or sing hymns in homosexual territory in San Francisco.  It means that judges like the Hilton aka Lavandereia (means ‘washerwoman’ in Spanish) guy can be critical against Miss USA runner ups, but not commit slander against her by calling her a ‘bitch’.

[5] Posted by Bill C on 4-24-2009 at 01:02 PM · [top]

“Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) reinforced the notion that people could be prosecuted for having a particular belief. “We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts,” said the Democratic lawmaker.” Hummmmmmmm…If this were true most Americans could never talk about Congress…

[6] Posted by FrVan on 4-24-2009 at 01:09 PM · [top]

We should punish the crime. Period. Who can say when “hate” applies and when it doesn’t? Granted, it’s obvious sometimes, but this kind of law calls for judges and juries to make determinations that they aren’t qualified to make. Stick to punishing the crime - and when the crime is heinous, step up the punishment. But don’t make into law something that will be, by nature, undefinable and undeterminable.

[7] Posted by oscewicee on 4-24-2009 at 01:18 PM · [top]

I have no doubt that there are those of you who harbor ill will towards me for who I am - as Lincoln said something about pleasing all of the people all of the time…  That said, this type of legislation is about upping the sentence if one of you decided to come to my home and beat me to death with a hammer screaming, “God hates fags.”  Similarly it is about increasing the sentencing against a group of men who might string up an African-American outside of town and hang a sign around his neck that reads, “Die nigger.”  That is the impetous behind hate crimes legislation.

However, do I as a gay man necessarily support the concept of “hate crimes?”  No.  I think the concept of hate crimes has grown out of a history of lax enforcement of existing crime statutes, and it is an abberent growth at best.  Murder is murder - whether you hated the individual for his money, his race, his perceived sexual orientation, or the color of his shirt…it’s murder and should be prosecuted as such.  As much as the Orwellian comments grate a bit - I fully understand the references.  There is a very frightening “thought crime” essence in this type of legislation.

[8] Posted by renzinthewoods on 4-24-2009 at 01:26 PM · [top]

And we need to tell our legislators to think long and hard about the implications of this bill if it passes.  I’d say they need to table it for a season; give them time to thoroughly think it through before voting on it.

[9] Posted by Cennydd on 4-24-2009 at 01:31 PM · [top]

Dear renzinthewoods:
There is a difference in someone being murdered, or even someone being threatened with murder, and the right to voice an opinion about a life style—-your expectation of “ill will” notwithstanding…God bless.

[10] Posted by FrVan on 4-24-2009 at 01:34 PM · [top]

It’s another nail in the coffin, of what once was, a great Christian nation.

[11] Posted by Anvil on 4-24-2009 at 01:37 PM · [top]

I will be unsurprised if, in say 20 years, preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin will be punishable by secular law as will, perhaps, the refusal to employ non-celibate homosexual staff and the refusal to officiate at “gay weddings”.

I think these laws will be seen as just and good by the broad majority of Americans and orthodox Christians will be seen as bigots.

We need to be prepared to go to jail and/or pay heavy fines and be vilified by our national leaders.

That’s just the way we are headed as a culture and unless God intervenes, I don’t see any reason to hope for better.

Which is okay with me. It is most likely precisely the sort of discipline the western Church needs.

[12] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-24-2009 at 01:41 PM · [top]

Beginning of this bill says:  “Congress makes the following findings:
1(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”

Since when has this been a serious national problem?  Actually, I would like to see any statistics that show the percentage of crime in the US related to violence based on spite for any of the categories listed.  I’ll bet dollars to donuts that only a very small percentage is in any way related.  There is more possibility of this law being used against blacks and gays for crimes against whites and heteroes than the other way around.  Like the other hate crime laws, this one is purely politically driven and will be ill-defined, misused, and finally not used.  But I did not find anything in it that would punish someone for speech or thought, anymore than yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre would be a punishable crime.

[13] Posted by Billy on 4-24-2009 at 01:45 PM · [top]

Correct, #8 renzinthewoods.  I sincerely hope the things you mention ever happen to you.  But if they did, would the intent of your murderer really make any difference to you?  What used to be wrong with law enforcement in various parts of our country at various times was that crimes would go unpunished because of the identity of the victim.  That has changed, thank God, and so now someone who is the victim of a violent crime or a property crime can reasonably expect the perpetrator to be prosecuted.  Murder is murder, theft is theft, assault is assault, without regard to who the victim is.

But laws cannot make us all approve of each other or agree with each other.  You should be free to criticize my opinions, and I yours, and so long as neither of us calls on our friends to commit crimes against the other, the law should let us disagree.

[14] Posted by Katherine on 4-24-2009 at 01:46 PM · [top]

Yeah, Christians face no crimes, right? Like having your kids removed from your house because your belief in corporal punishment (but Sharia discipline is ok)? Or having your kid be told no, you can’t present that poem in public school because it uses the name Jesus? Or being forced to hire a person who is diametrically opposed to one belief - Christianity. Or being fined or fired for being a physician who refuses to consul a person on abortion - because your Christian faith says it is morally wrong. Or being a school counselor and being told to provide outercourse, condom, or homosexual sex education materials to students - or be fired. Yeah - like that would never happen with conscience of faith, would it?

[15] Posted by Festivus on 4-24-2009 at 01:54 PM · [top]

Good grief.  I edited my second sentence above and made it say the opposite of what I mean.  I hope these horrible things DON’T happen to you.  Slapping myself.  Ouch.

[16] Posted by Katherine on 4-24-2009 at 01:54 PM · [top]

longGone #4, I remember well when “equal rights” was NOT going to mean women in the front lines or armed services, when there were NOT going to be unisex bathrooms, and all sorts of other things were NOT going to happen but there was only going to be “equal work for equal pay”.  You might wish to view reality rather than the limited understanding you wish to import into the bill.  Just a thought, of course. Then, consider the penumbra of the Constitution of the USA for awhile… and explain that to the 40 million abortees since the Supreme Court ruled in R vs W.  Another random thought or two about judicial interpretation of plain language, and you are off to the races with this bill.

[17] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 4-24-2009 at 02:29 PM · [top]

As a Christian I feel threatened by those who do not like Christians and especially those who are trying to incarcerate me for my beliefs. Who is to say that a gay/homosexual/bi-sexual/transgendered person doesn’t hate me and would wish me ill because I do not hold to the same beliefs as they do and would rather see me dead? No one can speak for all the GLBT persons to say that they would never do that….I tell you they have! They are no better than those who do the same who claim Christian values! They would love nothing more than to have us Christians/conservative traditionalists out of the way of their agenda to legalize in all respects their way of living, being, thinking, doing and speaking! 

Maybe we Christians should be fearing the GLBT and those who support them and back them financially!

Personally I think they are a bigger threat than Christians!

[18] Posted by TLDillon on 4-24-2009 at 03:00 PM · [top]

I’d not fret about Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee’s comments.  She is as ill-informed as ever.  The reason the amendments were voted down were likely because there in fact is nothing in the bill that reflects her inane views.  It is, in fact, a bill proscribing and punishing certain acts.  Plus, the First Amendment would certainly make her totalitarian reflexes unconstitutional, whether a court is liberal or conservative. 

Of course there are many reasons to oppose this bill, including the increasing, and wholly unnecessary, federalization of the criminal law.  Moreover, at some point the piling-on of categories of “hate” tends to diminish the horror of these crimes (which almost always have an element of hate, do they not?) for those not fortunate enough to be in one of these special categories.  Hate and bigotry should certainly be included as sentencing factors.  But will making a new “hate crime” really deter?  If not, one wonders why this is necessary.

[19] Posted by RomeAnglican on 4-24-2009 at 03:00 PM · [top]

Thank you for making the pther point that is so important to put out there. Our Christian values that this Country was founded on and our money that clearly says “In God We Trust” not “In VGR We Trust” or “In Obama We Trust”, we have and for the majority of our existence of our Country have been a Christian Nation, but not so much any more because we have allowed to many like this legislator to remove our Christian core values and now we even have president that has stated to other countries on his World Tour of Apology for America that we are not a Christian Country!

Come Lord Jesus Come!

[20] Posted by TLDillon on 4-24-2009 at 03:09 PM · [top]

The findings section of this bill is a complete joke.  My prediction is that after legislation like this is passed, the same activists pushing this bill will provoke an incident or incidents that proves just how bad right wing extremists are. To protect the good, law-abiding citizens from right-wing extremists, our federal government will be forced to create a civilian security corps modeled after the AmeriCorps.  I bet the community organizers and fellow travelers at Acorn are already getting measured for their brown shirts.

[21] Posted by Daniel on 4-24-2009 at 03:10 PM · [top]

When Jesus walked the earth, He berated those who couldnt discern the signs of the times.
If those of us in America who are called by the name of Jesus Christ cant see the kettle beginning to boil all around us, then we’re sleepwalking.
Janet Napolitano has declared that individuals & groups that involve themselves with endtime prophesy [I count myself a part of that group], pro-lifers [ditto], and those who believe that the immigration laws already on the books should be enforced [again, ditto] are domestic terrorists.
The Brave New World - coming soon to a country near you!

[22] Posted by GSP98 on 4-24-2009 at 03:29 PM · [top]

I have no doubt that there are those of you who harbor ill will towards me for who I am

Who might you be speaking to, and what are you that I would hold ill will towards you?  I think you are the same as I am:  A sinner.  I wish nothing for you that I don’t wish for myself:  Faith, repentence, obedience to God and salvation.

[23] Posted by AndrewA on 4-24-2009 at 03:36 PM · [top]

Yes, FrVan, I agree. (#10)
Katherine, as a frequent maker of typo’s I knew what you meant, not to worry. (#16)
Andrew, I am an openly gay Deacon in the church, I do not always agree with some of what I read on this blog and was simply acknowledging that “who I am” may be upsetting to some folk that post here.  Nothing more and not trying to berate anyone for their views.  I would defy any one who posts on this blog to sit down to dinner with me and not find common ground from which we can move forward.  I am very very tired by all the divisiveness I see in the country - and that comes just as loud and intense from the left as from the right.  It’s not that I’m saying folks should feel passionate about their respective opinions; it’s just that I’d rather find space to exist together and respect each other, if not respect our differences.
As for hate crimes legislation evolving into empowering “bigot police” - issuing citations for improper thought…  I think we may be drifting into a dystopian way of thinking…lot’s of fear but not a whole lot of reality.  However, it is important to continue to put pressure on legislators to tell them that hate crime legislation is a slippery slope to “thought monitoring.”

[24] Posted by renzinthewoods on 4-24-2009 at 04:10 PM · [top]

I would defy any one who posts on this blog to sit down to dinner with me and not find common ground from which we can move forward.  I am very very tired by all the divisiveness I see in the country - and that comes just as loud and intense from the left as from the right.

renzinthewoods, I’m sure we could find that common ground- for starters, I couldn’t agree more about the divisiveness/polarization. It seems like people don’t hear each other anymore, they just press the blue button or the red one automatically.

[25] Posted by oscewicee on 4-24-2009 at 04:16 PM · [top]

From #13, Beginning of this bill says:  “Congress makes the following findings:
1(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”

I am glad they see fit to protect those people, especially those with disabilities.

I would hope this can be used to increase the penalty for men who behead their wives (gender bias) and stone their daughters because of their barbaric tradition, a la the recent crime in NY State. 

I hope this will up the penalty for ‘Gay on Gay’ murders. 

The real need is to add ‘AGE’ as a category to protect the REAL victims in our society.  I’m very much in favor of exacting stiffer penalties for crimes against *children and elders* who cannot defend themselves against stronger aggressors, exploitation (physical, sexual, emotional abuse, molestation and financial scams) and violence.

The MOST HEINOUS AND ABHORRENT CRIME in the world is still the legalized murder of the unborn and viable infants.

[26] Posted by Theodora on 4-24-2009 at 04:22 PM · [top]

#4 great idea! I do I think I will apply for a grant. Lord know the violence done to children by abortion. I perceive it is an OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY(from the bill).

[27] Posted by Festivus on 4-24-2009 at 04:48 PM · [top]


Liking you (and I’m sure you are a very nice person) would not and cannot change God’s Word or the evidence in science or medicine.

I Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:18-32; Galatians 5:24; Hebrews 7:25 apply to all of us.

It would be a hate crime to affirm unhealthy and unholy acts. Affirming homosexual acts and leaving people in bondage to sin is cruelest thing a Church could do. This is the opposite of God’s purpose for His church.
Jesus intends His Body to be the place and the vehicle of His redeeming love, healing grace and transformation power, where we are being transformed by the renewing of our minds.

Thousands of people have left the lifestyle and have overcome the feelings and grown new identities in Christ because church people were loving enough to speak the truth and stand by them while they heal in a healthy Christian fellowship. Therapists say it is nearly impossible to heal and change without the love and support of the Body of Christ.

I am not being judgmental or condemning. My family and early life was a traumatic mess and conducive to a weak identity, shame, etc.

We are always wounded and disoriented by sin…both the sins of others to do us as well as our own.

If I had not had the love of Christian people at the right time growing up and if the cultural and spiritual climate was then as it is today, I could have fallen into this deception.

[28] Posted by Theodora on 4-24-2009 at 05:47 PM · [top]

Welcome to Canada.  We’ll have “human rights commissions” designed to placate every weenie who feels offended forcing folks who offer contrary opinions to liberal orthodoxy to hire lawyers and drown in debt under judicial tyranny.

This will episcopalize the United States.  The same left-loon nuts who run the TEO are now in charge of congress.  Hope’n'change everyone.  The republic is dead.

[29] Posted by Bill2 on 4-24-2009 at 05:47 PM · [top]

Thank you for the scriptural references, Floridian.  I am most familiar with them.  I do not feel you are being judgemental or condemning.  I believe you are sharing what is your heartfelt, true beliefs that are key to your understanding your faith and God.

And even with this difference in our beliefs, I would hope that if you were my neighbor, I could rely on you for a hot meal when I am feeling ill and you could rely on me to take you to the store if your car wasn’t working.  I would hope that we could occasionally share a beer over the fence.

I would hope that in doing this you would not feel you were affirming anything more than the love that is God between human beings.  For I truly believe that in the end it is most important how we treat those people who are in our lives for good or ill.


[30] Posted by renzinthewoods on 4-24-2009 at 06:05 PM · [top]

If the ACLU were a real Bill of Rights defense organization, protecting the individual against the over-reach of the state, it would be fighting these kinds of laws at every turn.

ACLU’s defense of the First Amendment will be no better than its defense of the Second or the Tenth.

[31] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 4-24-2009 at 07:18 PM · [top]

One of the many appalling things about this is that is promotes the idea that if someone murdered or assaulted a person for reasons that are “nothing personal, just buisness” that it is somehow less horrific and deserves to be punished less. 

BTW, race wise, the largest category of homicide is black on black.

[32] Posted by AndrewA on 4-24-2009 at 07:24 PM · [top]

I have two sons, the younger with an obvious developmental disability and the older “typical.”  If they were mugged (although the mugger would likely be a casualty thanks to the older kid), would the charges be just attempted robbery of one kid and a hate crime against the other?

Thought crimes do not belong on the books.  And those who are trying to get them enacted should beware of unintended consequences.  After while, some group with a hostile ideology will gain power.  And the laws you set up will be turned against you or people you care about - your thoughts on some matter will be fair game for criminalization.

[33] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 4-24-2009 at 07:34 PM · [top]

As a hard-core conservative with strong beliefs that differ from yours in the realm of sexual relations, I would bring you a warm meal if you were my ill neighbor and would enjoy having a beer with you on the same side of the fence.
It is most tragic that there is such contempt in this world.  I can assure you that there are still people out there who disagree 100% with your manner of living and are able to not let that disagreement interrupt the abundant flow of Christ’s love.  Peace be with you.

[34] Posted by Just_Me on 4-24-2009 at 07:48 PM · [top]

renzinthewoods - Hugs smile I would gladly have dinner with you, and you’re welcome to have dinner with me and mine (although I live in New Zealand so it’s a bit of a flight).

I too agree about common ground.

I think the most important thing is that violence is stopped. I don’t think that punishing the “thoughts” of the person is proper, but certainly the act itself must be judged. The law shound be blind, fair to all who come before justice. I know it isn’t. Therefore I think we need to work on directly making justice more just, if you will.

A victim of violence needs justice, no matter straight, gay, white, black, man or woman.

[35] Posted by kailash on 4-24-2009 at 09:39 PM · [top]

Remember Robert Gagnon’s election predictions about Obama’s plans to normalize homosexuality by force of law ( Gagnon will be one of the first criminals to be gagged or punished by the courts, but I predict his church or seminary will get there first.

[36] Posted by Stephen Noll on 4-24-2009 at 09:40 PM · [top]

Big smile for Just-Me - actually my “manner of living” is quite mundane and hermit-like living in a log home in the woods with just a couple of neighbors but lots of dogs. (but I know what you meant wink  My younger days?  That would be a different story, but that is probably true for a great many of us, eh?  Thanks to all the lovely posts and friendly comments.

[37] Posted by renzinthewoods on 4-24-2009 at 09:59 PM · [top]

[6] FrVan, you wrote

If this were true most Americans could never talk about Congress.

Apparently, you didn’t get the memo. You weren’t supposed to mention that until both houses have passed the legislation and it has been signed by the President. {winkie - winkie}

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[38] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 4-24-2009 at 11:39 PM · [top]

[17] dwstroudmd,

I have always thought highly of your comments on this site. I hope that your comment

I remember well when “equal rights” was NOT going to mean women in the front lines or armed services, when there were NOT going to be unisex bathrooms, and all sorts of other things were NOT going to happen but there was only going to be “equal work for equal pay”

does not mean that you once believed those blatant lies. You you have always struck me as having too much good sense for that.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[39] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 4-24-2009 at 11:47 PM · [top]

[37] renzinthewoods,

Like many of the others who have exchanged comments with you, including discussing your life choices (actions not orientation) and finding common ground, the only issues I have with your actions arise from concerns for your health (psychological, emotional and physical), and for the message your clerical status sends from the church to others. Inasmuch as I am no longer within Anglicanism, but am in the process of preparing for reception by the Catholic Church, as long as we are not discussing those aspects of your personal life, nor the corresponding aspects of mine, I am certain that we would find common ground.

Further, even with respect to the concerns I have already stated, I firmly believe that I have an obligation to respect your choices so long as they don’t violate what some call the “no harm” principle, i.e., so long as your actions, and the political actions you might advocate, do not involve the initiation of the use of force, fraud or coercion against another person or persons.

As just one example of our common ground, it is obvious that you and I share a very similar, if not identical, view of the very real danger of establishing “thought crime” laws. It seems to me that the danger of this nation slipping into some form of fascism, which history conclusively shows is a disease of the left, is greater now than it has been at any other time in m memory. I am 63-½ years old, so that portion of my life during which I have been aware of the political environment is something like four and a quarter decades. And, depending on a variety of social factors, that sort of thing can happen surprisingly quickly. It sounds to me as if you have a not substantially dissimilar concern.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[40] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 4-25-2009 at 12:14 AM · [top]

Interesting and enlightening video of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi on the BBC discussing homosexuality and whether people can change:

Dr. Nicolosi countered the BBC aggressive interviewer who was NOT a neutral journalist at all…she was pushing the party line.

Looks like a series at this site. 

I’ve read a lot of Nicolosi’s articles on the NARTH website and he’s worked in this area for many years.  NARTH is also an excellent site to get the truth.

As Dr. Nicolosi and others have said, the scientific evidence has been buried for political reasons, leaving people with no help.  Young teens are being pressured and told they are ‘gay’ in public schools.

The BBC interviewer and many others believe that societal and family acceptance, affirmation and approval of homosexual activity will make things fine for them.  This is a deception. 

Where homosexuality is approved and even celebrated, gay on gay abuse, addictions and health problems increase rather than decrease.  Sin always harms.  Here is the testimony of a former activist who has come to a life of freedom in Christ:

Here is a site with video testimonies of people who have come out of the lifestyle in the grace and power of Jesus Christ.  The videos are filmed and produced by a former Episcopal Priest, Rev. Dr. David Foster founder of Mastering Life Ministries, Jacksonville, FL and Nashville, TN:

[41] Posted by Theodora on 4-25-2009 at 05:46 AM · [top]

the scientific evidence has been buried for political reasons

something in common with man-made global warming!  also being pushed by secularists who substitute green living and moral eating for actually having spiritual values.

[42] Posted by elanor on 4-25-2009 at 06:56 AM · [top]

Anyone who thinks that the hate crimes bill will not put an end to reasoned debate and replace it with enforced “political correctness” need only look north to the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s treatment of Mark Steyn for his book “America Alone” or Ezra Levant who published the “Danish Cartoons”.  It will be the end of anything resembling free speech, as Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (“We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts,”) makes abundantly clear.  I am ok with being persecuted for my beliefs, I am not ok with the theft by Congress of the liberty our forefathers died to protect.  Yes indeed, elections do have consequences, sometimes disastrous ones.

[43] Posted by Edwin on 4-25-2009 at 09:36 AM · [top]

Our eldest is about to graduate from a Christin school and will be at a small Christian college persuing a liberal arts/pre-law degree. (He WANTED his undergraduate education from a biblical worldview, with no input from us)

News like this tells me why God has called him to persue law.  Watch out, world; he’s amazingly trained by godly mentors in thinking, logic, theology, etc.  And I suspect there is an army of young men and women like him who have seen clearly how much they are needed as God’s people mentoring to the world in law, ministry, education, etc.


[44] Posted by cityonahill on 4-25-2009 at 09:59 AM · [top]

Thank you, Floridian, for the links.
#s 42 and 43 - ditto for the sobering insight; and 44, for giving us all a ray of hope in these troubling times.
I suppose that the Bible has taught throughout that those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. From the days of Abel till now, it has been so. Even so, its heartbreaking to watch the United States, once such a great and godly nation, a force for good on this earth, and a land of boundless opportunity, very possibly die such an ignominious death at the hands of a perverted, capricious, and thoroughly misguided few. I pray that the triumphing of the wicked is indeed short.

[45] Posted by GSP98 on 4-25-2009 at 10:29 AM · [top]

This legislation confuses me.  Isn’t all murder a hate crime? 

When we start trying to read peoples’ souls (while maintaining in many cases that people don’t HAVE souls) then it all just fades into murkiness.

And the perpeptual victims who espouse this legislation need to remind themselves that they are also human and broken—in their persecution of those who disagree with them.  An hour’s surfing on certain websites will illustrate that rather well.

[46] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 4-25-2009 at 11:53 AM · [top]

39, Martial Artist, NO, I did not buy into the “equal pay for equal work” line used to shoe horn in all the other changes now evident.  I predicted they would come and argued against the notions.  I merely point out that once one has seen the shoehorn work, one should let others know what’s coming.  This sequence is historically verifiable.  Those who are inclined to trust that nothing else will happen should consult the history books of the USA and Germany and the USSR.

Don’t drink the KOOL-Aid, especially if you’re in Jonestown.

[47] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 4-25-2009 at 10:32 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.