The Agenda -- How Satan Spreads His Lies

In light of the tragic passage of hate crimes legislation to include those engaging in sinful behavior as a special and protected class of victims, the following is particularly meaningful.

Big Hat Tip to Abbey-Roads and to the author, Father Dwight Longenecker

The Slippery Slope

Here is how Satan spreads his lies:

1. Natural Law is ignored, undermined or made to look stupid by particular instances where it seems not apply.

2. Subsequently religious and civil authorities have their laws questioned because they are 'too strict' too 'black and white', 'unworkable' or 'lacking in compassion'.

3. Relativism is therefore introduced. An understanding gradually grows that 'there are no objective rule' that apply to all people at all times.

4. Individualism is the next step. 'I guess I have to decide what is right for me in my situation.'

5. Sentimentalism: People who live in a sinful situation demand that they not be judged. They deserve compassion and understanding. They are nice people really...but they have a problem. They're sick. They're wounded. Who are you to judge?

6. Dialogue is demanded. "You need to listen to us and to our stories. Then you will understand we are just like you."

7. Once sympathy is won, the goalposts are moved. Now they are not 'sick' or 'wounded' they're just 'different'. They expect to be accepted despite their 'differences'.

8. Equal rights are expected by those who are acting against God's law. "We are not asking you to approve us. We are simply asking you to tolerate a difference of opinion. Simply allow us to be who we are!"

9. Equal rights are demanded. Legislation and lobbying and protests are now in order. The pressure group for sin starts to get aggressive. They do so out of 'hurt' and 'woundedness.' Once they get their 'rights' (they claim) they will be happy and won't be so aggressive.

10. Tolerance being won, they will not stop. They now demand not only that you tolerate, but that you approve. They've moved from being 'sick' or 'wounded' or 'disabled' by their condition to tolerance, and now they proclaim their condition to be 'good'. As Thomas More was not allowed to remain silent on the King's 'great matter' but had to approve, so the presssure group insists on approval.

11. What was once tolerated now becomes mandatory. Society must integrate the new morality into every level--right down to schools and churches and scout groups. Everyone must adopt the new morality or suffer.

12. Persecution of those who resist.

13. Devil's real happy.

This process happens on an individual level, a family level, a community level and a societal level. The bigger the level the longer it takes, and for it to take effect at the societal, community and family level it must first work on the individual level.

This means you and I must watch for the signs in our own moral life and be alert. Any of us can go down this path, and any of us may be victims of those who are already well down the path of evil and darkness.

Senate Votes to Expand Federal 'Hate Crimes;' Senator DeMint Speaks in Opposition

From OneNewsNow

WASHINGTON- People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of "hate crimes" law. The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue those acts deemed to be hate crimes.

Senate Democrats insist the hate-crimes amendment (S. 909) they attached to the defense appropriations bill won't criminalize preaching or speaking out against homosexuality.

Washington Sen. Patty Murray suggested the measure could actually protect people of faith by boosting penalties for hate crimes motivated by anti-religious bias. "Burning down a building is a crime -- but that crime takes on a new character when that building is a church or a synagogue or a mosque," she stated. "It's wrong when one person attacks another person on the street, for sure; but it has a different meaning when violence occurs because a victim is a different race or religion or sexual orientation."

But Sen. Jim DeMint said that since opposition to homosexuality is "a biblical concept," the measure could "serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views lest the federal law enforcement come knocking at their door." The South Carolina Republican asked, "Can priests, pastors, rabbis be sure that their preaching will not be prosecuted?

Michigan Democrat Carl Levin responded that only biased acts of violence, and not speech, would be prosecuted as hate crimes.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Controversial Homosexual "Hate Crimes" Act Set for Senate Vote Tomorrow

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

Senate Democrats announced on Monday that the Senate would consider a homosexual "hate crimes" proposal as an attached amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, and will likely vote on the bill tomorrow.

In addition to adding "sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" to the list of federally-protected classes, S.909, also known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also expands the reach of hate crimes law by eliminating the restriction that such crimes disrupt federally protected activities.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said Monday he would introduce S.909 as a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization measure, thereby easing passage of the hotly debated bill.

Last year the Senate approved hate crimes legislation also as part of the military bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill, and met with opposition from the Bush White House. However, Obama expressed support for the legislation in April, urging the House to quickly pass its version.

Critics have warned that the bill is bound to chill religious free speech against homosexuality, saying that similar laws in other countries have facilitated the prosecution of Christians who criticize homosexuality, particularly in Canada and the U.K.

In addition the House version of the bill, titled the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, was met with alarm by conservative lawmakers after the House Judiciary Committee refused an amendment proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to specifically exclude pedophiles from the protection.

As the committee had also refused to define or restrict the definition of the term "sexual orientation," one Democrat representative lauded the bill as granting heightened federal protection for all of the 547 "paraphilias" or sexual aberrations documented by the American Psychological Association.

In the House debate, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) urged passage of the bill with the understanding it would grant all known sexual fetishes heightened federal protection.

"This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, or - (Hastings here lifted a several-page document) - all of these '-philias' and fetishes and '-isms' that were put forward, need not live in fear because of who they are."

The Senate received hundreds of thousands of letters from citizens protesting the bill in a campaign sponsored by WorldNetDaily last month.

To contact your Senator:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm

U.S. Capitol switchboard:
202.224.3121

Conservatives Urged to Protest 'Hate-Crimes' Bill Today

Today is National "Stop S. 909" Day. Call Your Senator at (202) 224-3121

From OneNewsNow
By Jim Brown

The American Family Association, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and other conservative activist groups are urging their supporters to call, e-mail, fax, or visit their senators today to express their disapproval of S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Senate Bill 909). The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., a member of the conservative coalition known as the Arlington Group, says the measure would have a chilling effect on the religious liberty of pastors.

"Back in 2006, [Democratic Representative] Artur Davis from Alabama, who will be running for governor by the way in that great state, made a statement to [Representative] Louie Gohmert [R-Texas] in a [House] subcommittee meeting that a pastor could be held liable or [as] a co-conspirator of sorts in a hate crime if we found out that his preaching and teaching incited -- according to their thinking -- someone to commit a violent act against someone that is gay," Jackson explains.

In the previous Congress, Senate Democrats tried to add hate-crimes legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. Many conservative activists expect that will be attempted again before the August recess.

From Our Mail: Urgent Action Needed on ‘Jail-a-Pastor/Protect-a-Pedophile’ Bill

From: Traditional Values Coalition

Re: Urgent Action Needed

Your immediate help is needed!!! -- The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on the so-called hate crimes bill (S. 909), the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, this coming Thursday at 10 a.m.

Take Action Immediately To Defeat This Bill!

• S. 909 is a “jail-a-pastor/protect-a-pedophile,” bill. It will add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected minority groups under federal law. Neither of these terms are defined in the bill.
  
  
• S. 909, the so-called hate crimes bill will protect a multitude of bizarre sexual orientations – including pedophiles and sexual sadists – but will threaten pastors who may give a Biblical teaching on the gay agenda. It ensures that crimes against a transgender, drag queen, gay man or lesbian are treated more harshly than a sexual assault on a child. Under this measure, pedophiles are a protected class. As a result, if a parent assaults a pedophile for molesting a child, the parent can be convicted of a hate crime and receive an enhanced sentence.
  
  
• The Senate version is based on fake “Findings” to justify federal intrusion into local law enforcement.
  
  
• The Senate version has no religious protection at all. The House version contained fake protections. A pastor’s sermon could be considered ‘hate speech’ under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on ‘sexual orientation.’ The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”
  
  
• During debate over the House version of this bill (H.R. 1913), Democrat Alcee Hastings (FL) admitted that this bill will protect a multitude of bizarre sexual orientations!

Don’t be misled. Representatives and Senators are sending out misinformation about this legislation and what it will do or not do. Claims that it protects religious freedom are false; claims that it doesn’t protect a multitude of bizarre sexual orientations are also false.

(Watch the webcast of this hearing on Thursday morning.)

TAKE ACTION: Action is needed immediately to defeat the so-called hate crimes bill, S. 909.

• If your Senator is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee call him/her immediately to urge a NO vote out of committee. Click here for list of Senate Judiciary Committee members.
  
  
• You should also email both your Senators.
  
  
• If your Senator is not on the committee, email him/her to vote NO when it comes to the floor for a vote.
  
  
• It is very important to alert others. Please forward this email to 10 friends/relatives/co-workers.
  
  
• Donate to TVC. We have worked hard and long to defeat this bill giving information to Senators and House Members and alerting the grassroots. We do need your financial help.

S. 909 is a very dangerous bill. It will threaten religious freedom, is built on lies and will protect bizarre sexual attractions. Following are articles based on the House version, which is virtually the same as the Senate version.

• Pastor’s Threatened By Hate Crime Legislation
• So-Called hate crime bill threatens religious freedom
• Here We Go Again: Ridiculous ‘Hate Crime’ Legislation
• Protecting 30 Bizarre “Sexual Orientations” And “Gender Identity” -- Ever-Expanding Definitions
• Democrats Refuse To Exclude Pedophiles In ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill
• Is Your Minister a ‘Hate Crime’ Peddler?
• Misleading ‘Hate Crime’ Statistics
• Democrat Admits ‘Hate Crime’ Bill Will Protect 30 Sexual Orientations

Federal Civil Rights Commission Warns Hate Crimes Bill Poses “Menace” to Civil Liberties

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

The US Commission on Civil Rights has now weighed in the hate crimes debate, imploring the Senate to vote against the measure, which would not only make homosexuals a protected group, but more importantly would allow the federal government to have an individual prosecuted a second time under its rules for the same crime.

The federal commission sent the communiqué, dated June 16, to sixteen leaders in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which was then posted by National Review’s blog, the Corner, by Peter Kirsanow.

The letter comes just as leading Senate Democrats have confirmed that a vote on Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (MSHCPA - S. 909) will come sometime before the end of the August recess, but not this week, contradicting an earlier report based on information provided by an unnamed source to the Washington Blade. The letter is a reiteration of the commissioners concerns, which were delivered to House leaders back in April.

“We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm,” states the commissioners’ letter, warning that, “Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries — as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago.”

The commissioners’ letter stated that although the US Constitution forbids an individual from “double jeopardy” – being tried by the government twice for the same offense – there are no protections in place under the Constitution for prosecution by “dual sovereigns” - indicating that the “hate crimes” bill opens up an individual to a double prosecution by state and federal government, violating the spirit of the law, but technically not the letter.

“We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties,” stated the commissioners. They pointed out that the loophole to “double jeopardy” exists because the authors of the Bill of Rights “never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses.”

They continue that the law as written does not merely require “the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict.” Instead, “It is sufficient if he acts ‘because of’ someone’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”

The letter indicates that “prosecutors will have ‘two bites at the apple’ for a very large number of crimes,” because the objective language of the law opens up the possibility that individuals accused of a crime that is perceived to fill any one of the “hate crimes” criteria could face trial twice. The letter gives the example that those accused with rape or robbing a disabled victim, could face trial twice for the same crime, because the victims in these circumstances “literally … are chosen ‘because of’ their gender or disability.”

“DOJ [Department of Justice] officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain convictions,” continued the letter.

“Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial.”

The Senate bill (S. 909), along with its companion legislation in the House (H.R. 1913), adds "sexual orientation" and “gender identity” as well as race, religion, class, gender, and disability to categories that are protected as "hate crimes.” Under this legislation, crimes against individuals who belong to the protected classes receive stiffer penalties than crimes against other groups not mentioned by the bill, a fact that critics charge makes “second class citizens” out of those not covered by the law.

Christian leaders have expressed particular concern that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization have failed. Among many rejected proposals for the bill was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" simply because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the Congressman who introduced H.R. 1913, claimed the bill posed no danger to Christian free speech, saying that it "only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way." Section 10 of H.R. 1913 states: "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."

Yet free speech advocates have pointed out that under current U.S. law, any action that "abets, counsels, commands, [or] induces" a perceived "hate crime" shares in the guilt of that crime, and is therefore punishable.

Legislators opposed to the measure have also called it the "pedophile protection act," after House members refused to approve an amendment specifying that the bill define “sexual orientation,” an oversight that some legislators charge could lead to a too broad interpretation – since the term is used by the American Psychiatric Association to encompass over 547 sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.

WorldNetDaily reports that sources in the Senate tell them the campaign protesting the passage of “hate crimes” – which has generated at least 625,000 letters sent to Senators – has altered the dynamics in the Senate, where they had expected the vote on the bill to proceed smoothly.

Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You

A reader has asked why it is important to oppose the "hate crimes" legislation now before the United States Senate, since it applies to violent crime involving a weapon. The following article explains why this "Trojan horse" legislation is so insidious and threatens American freedoms.

The irrelevant and inaccurate claim that this bill will not abridge your freedom of speech

By Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Proponents of the current “hate crimes” bill before the U.S. Senate argue that it is a lie that this bill will abridge in any way free speech protections for those who publicly express opposition to homosexual practice without causing, or attempting to cause, bodily harm. This claim is both irrelevant and inaccurate.

The first step of getting “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in federal law

It is irrelevant because, as noted in Part 1, this bill does most of its damage in creating, for the first time in federal law, the special legal-protective categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The first hurdle is the biggest: getting the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the books. A “hate crimes” bill functions as—no double entendre intended—the Trojan horse of an aggressive gay/transgender lobby, offering to the public the “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” law least likely to meet with massive public resistance.

Once the Trojan Horse is within the city walls, the rest of the task is relatively easy. If “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are special civil rights categories in federal law, then many other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws must be passed if society is going to turn back the “homophobic hate” and “discrimination” that makes bodily crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons possible in the first place. President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already indicated their eagerness to advance this agenda.

Removing the explicit free-speech protection in the bill

The claim that this bill will not lead to an abridgement of free speech is not only irrelevant but also inaccurate. It is inaccurate, first, because the bill itself does not provide much in the way of protection of free speech rights. When it was first introduced into the House the bill contained this provision:

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.

Democrats in committee removed the material in boldface so that what was voted on by the full House no longer contained the explicit mention of free speech and free exercise. The remaining phrase “expressive conduct protected …by the Constitution” begs the question about what “expressive conduct” is protected. No piece of legislation could abridge the Constitution anyway so the phrase is useless. The issue is what constitutes abridgement and that is not spelled out in this bill.

U.S. Code stipulating that inducement is as liable as commission

Second, it is inaccurate to claim that free speech will not be abridged inasmuch as other existing legislation requires an extension beyond actual physical violence.

United States Code Title 18, Section 2, stipulates that “whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” Statements that “abet,” “counsel,” or “induce the commission” of bodily injury are thus not protected by the Constitution.

The omission of “any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses” makes it that much easier to prosecute strong statements against homosexual practice as abetting or counseling violence or as inducing its commission. There is nothing in this bill that explicitly prevents any homosexualist-activist judge, of which there are many, from ruling that calling homosexual acts a grave “abomination” by appeal to Levitical prohibitions constitutes an inducement to violence.

The existence of state and local “hate crimes” law that include mere disturbance

Third, this “hate crimes” bill puts free speech in jeopardy because some state and local “hate crime” laws already make simple assault or intimidation prosecutable offenses.

For example, the Illinois Hate Crime Law permits prosecution for mere assault (i.e., a threat or action that puts a person in apprehension of bodily harm prior to any actual harm), property trespass, “disorderly conduct,” or “harassment by telephone” or “electronic communications.” “Disorderly conduct” is defined in Illinois law as a person who “does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace.”

In 2007 two 16-year old girls from Crystal Lake South High School (Ill.) were arrested on felony hate crime charges for distributing about 40 fliers on cars in the student parking lot of their high school. The fliers contained an anti-homosex slur (the media have not reported what precisely the slur was) and a photo of two boys kissing, one of whom was identified as a classmate. The fliers contained no threats of violence. One of the girls was apparently getting back at a boy with whom she had once been best friend.

Assistant state’s attorney for McHenry County, Thomas Carroll, commented: “You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person's race, creed, gender, or perceived sexual orientation.” Another assistant state’s attorney, Robert Windon, said: “We do not feel this type of behavior is what the First Amendment protects.” State’s attorney Lou Bianchi insisted: “This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state legislature was directing the law against. This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity.”

The girls spent 18 days in jail (a juvenile detention center) and appeared in court for their hearing with shackles on their ankles. They were ordered by the judge to remain in home detention on electronic monitoring until the court sentenced them some months later. Relieved that they would be allowed to return home for the time being, the girls sobbed uncontrollably in court. Prosecutors eventually dropped the felony hate-crime charge in exchange for a plea bargain, in which the girls pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest (the girls fled the scene when a police officer arrived; they did not strike an officer).

The girls were sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to write letters of apology for distributing anti-gay fliers to the boy and the arresting officer, required to do 40 hours of community service, and given a two-week suspended sentence in the McHenry County Jail (to be implemented if the girls violated probation). The girls told the court that the whole matter was a joke that they took too far. State Attorney Louis Bianchi told the press that he still felt the hate crime charge was justified, while acknowledging that the plea bargain was fair for juveniles.

Conclusion

Claims that the homosexual and transsexual “hate crimes” bill soon to be voted on by the U.S. Senate will not lead to an abridgement of free speech rights and other liberties are both irrelevant and inaccurate.

They are irrelevant because the primary purpose of this bill is not to reduce “hate crimes” against homosexual and transgendered persons (laws against violent acts are already in place) but rather to establish “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as specially protected classifications in federal law. This establishment will make possible—indeed, inevitable—an avalanche of other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws that in turn make “hateful bigots” of anyone who opposes homosexual and transsexual behavior.

They are inaccurate because (1) the bill has already had stripped from it explicit free-speech protection; (2) the U.S. legal code already stipulates that verbal “inducement” of a crime makes the inducer “punishable as a principal”; and (3) the federal “hate crimes” law will work in tandem with state and local “hate crime” laws, some of which already make prosecutable any “alarming” or “disturbing” of another.

Grassroots Need to Defuse 'Hate Crimes' Ploy

From OneNewsNow
By Jim Brown

A leading conservative lawmaker says the only way "hate crimes" legislation can be stopped in the U.S. Senate is if senators believe that when they return home there will be some "pain" associated with a vote in favor of the controversial measure.

Flanked by representatives of liberal groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the Anti-Defamation League, and La Raza, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) announced Monday at a Capitol Hill press conference that he is committed to holding a vote on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act before the August recess. The bill would add gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

Conservative groups anticipate Reid will try to attach that legislation as an amendment to another measure -- possibly the Defense Authorization bill -- sometime in the next few weeks.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) has pledged to do everything in his power to stop the hate crimes bill. He says his colleagues, especially red-state Democrats, need to be bombarded with at least 1,000 calls or emails from constituents who oppose the legislation.

DeMint argues the hate crimes bill violates free speech and the free practice of religion in America. He suggests that comments by pastors condemning a certain kind of lifestyle or behavior could be classified as hate speech under hate crimes legislation.

"And that's where we're headed, [that's] where we're losing our right to say that things are wrong," says the senator. "And in a society where you can't say things are wrong, you no longer have a moral society -- you no longer have minimum standards and high aspirations."

DeMint says people of faith cannot wait until a cloture motion is filed two days before a vote, or it will be too late to stop the effort by Harry Reid and other Democrats to "extort" votes by attaching the hate crimes measure as an amendment to another bill.

More Attacks on Religious Freedom

From Christianity Today Australia
By Bill Muehlenberg

Throughout the Western world rights talk is being used to promote the agendas of activist minority groups, and to silence Christians from publically affirming their faith. This takes many forms: hate crimes legislation, equal opportunity laws, anti-discrimination legislation, and so on.

The militant homosexual lobby especially likes these laws, because under the guise of “fairness” and “human rights” they are seeing the rights of believers to uphold their conscience in the public arena taken away, while they manage to get special rights granted to themselves by governments.

Of course the militant activists know that the two main institutions standing in the way of their agendas are the church and the family. That is why both are under such ferocious assault recently. Examples of this abound. Here in Victoria for example the activist government is holding an inquiry into its Equal Opportunity Act, and is looking to remove religious exemptions to it.

The entire 173-page document is a worry, but the main concern involves sections 75 to 77 (pp. 106-131). These sections specifically have to do with religious exemptions. I offer a link to the document below. It is vital that all concerned Victorians look at the document and put in a submission on this.

A good way to see how dangerous such moves are is to look overseas where similar attacks on religious freedom have been occurring. Chuck Colson recently had a two-part commentary on how Christians are increasingly losing their freedoms as militant homosexuals use rights legislation to silence dissent and force conformity to their lifestyle. He offers the following stories:

Read the rest of this entry >>

Focus on the Family's Dobson on Hate Crimes Bill: "Utter Evil" Coming out of Congress

From LifeSiteNews
By Alex Bush

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, stated on his daily radio program, Focus on the Family Daily, that "utter evil" is coming out of the United States Congress. He made the remark in reference to the recently passed Hate Crimes Bill, H.R.1913, which makes "sexual orientation," as well as race, religion, class, gender or disability, categories that are protected from "hate crimes."

Bill H.R.1913 has been criticized by conservative commentators, who say that it could be used to prosecute religious leaders who simply defend traditional moral views on sexuality. Critics have also charged that the bill is redundant, since violent crimes are already punishable by law, and that the bill, by protecting special classes from "hate," effectively criminalizes thoughts rather than criminal actions.

Dobson was joined on his radio show by Congressmen Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Steve King, R-Iowa.

"Every case they bring up would not be affected one iota, not one bit, by this hate crimes legislation," Gohmert said, "What this bill does is, it starts saying [that] some classes, some types of people, are more important to protect than others. That divides America, it's un-American."

Bill H.R.1913 states that whoever "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" commits a hate crime.

Advocates of the bill, however, have responded to religious critics, pointing out that it includes a clause, in Section 10.4, saying that, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs."

In addition, it states that if one is charged with a hate crime under H.R.1913, "evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial." But Gohmert emphasizes the importance of the next line of the bill: "unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense."

According to Gohmert, if a religious leader teaches "that homosexuality is wrong and someone goes out and commits a crime of violence then [the religious leader] can be arrested for inducing that person to do it and under existing Federal Law you are as guilty as the one who committed the act of violence."

Dobson then quipped in response, "So much for the 1st amendment."

Dobson also expressed his concern that, "The broad definition [of sexual orientation] could mean anything including the 30 forms of sexual deviancy that are listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

Currently the term "sexual orientation" is not defined in the hate crimes bill, and is only defined in one law in the books, a law that is not referenced in the bill. Gohmert said that when a judge is trying to figure out how to define a term that is not defined in the law and does not reference another law, the judge gives the term the plain meaning.

"Some judge is going to finally say, 'Sexual orientation' means exactly what the words say: it is whatever you are oriented toward sexually."

Congressman King, in attempting to pre-empt this catch-all definition of "sexual orientation," proposed an amendment that would prevent pedophiles from being protected under H.R.1913. Pedophilia is one of the "sexual orientations" listed by the American Psychiatry Association. The amendment, however, was rejected. "We have a record roll-call vote that shows every Democrat on the judiciary committee voting to have pedophiles protected under sexual orientation," said King.

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, stated in April, after H.R.1913 passed through Committee but before being passed to the Senate for review, that the hate crimes bill is simply redundant, since "such acts [of violence] are already crimes under state law. What converts the acts targeted by this bill into a federal offense are the thoughts or opinions of the perpetrator alone."

H.R.1913 has passed through the House of Representatives and has been introduced to the Senate as bill S.909.

What If 'Hate Crimes' Law was Applied to Miss USA Fiasco?

From OneNewsNow
By Jim Brown

A Virginia congressman says the anti-Christian hatred and bigotry of homosexual blogger Perez Hilton and his supporters underscores one of the fallacies undergirding federal "hate crimes" legislation.

Congressional backers of the federal hate crimes bill that recently passed the House repeatedly claim that it will help ensure equal protection under the law for all Americans. They also argue that the bill does not threaten free speech, but merely punishes acts of violence motivated by hate.

Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) is a former ranking member of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, and founder of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. He recently took to the House floor and provided a powerful example of how the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" does not ensure equality under the law.

Congressman Forbes compared the protection Miss California Carrie Prejean would receive under the bill to the special protection homosexual blogger and Miss USA judge Perez Hilton would have been afforded.

"Had [Hilton] done what he said he would do and stormed that stage and pulled that tiara off [Prejean's] head and [inflicted] bodily harm when he did it, there would not have been one ounce of protection under this piece of legislation for that young girl," Forbes stated.

"But after he did it, if she had in response made a statement back about the very sexual orientation that had led him to his hatred and dislike for her, and if she had responded by slapping him or any physical injury, she would have had the potential of a ten-year federal piece of legislation coming against her."

The Virginia Republican also argued that if beauty contestant's father had rushed onto the stage at the Miss USA pageant and responded to Hilton's hatred in a physical way, he would have been open to prosecution under the hate crimes bill as well.