Why is Christianity loosing the cultural war ?

[soleil10]

No, the current legislation does nothing whatsoever to create a system in any way analogous to the human-rights tribunals in Canada and England. I told you what the content of the legislation actually was; you paid no attention, since you seem to have no interest in the reality at all.

Originally Posted by soleil10
Meanwhile pedophilia is now protected as a sexual orientation in the bogus hate crime law designed to silence free speech against homosexuality and punish Xristians primarily like in Canada and England.
There is not one true thing in this sentence from first to last. The kind of "Christianity" he represents is dominated by delusion, dishonesty, and hostility, all powerful turn-offs to the up-and-coming generations.

Box you wrote that there was not one true thing in my sentence. This is why I had to deal with Canada. I never got to speak about England.
These tribunals in Canada are separate from the Justice department. It is free for the plaintiff. The defendant has to pay his or legal expenses and the judgement money goes to the plaintiff who always win. Basically injustice institutionalized.

Now for America, have you read the law that was just passed by the US congress, especially the rule of evidence section ? It will certainly affect free speech. It is an hate speech law.Sorry. All the trends of homofacism are moving in that direction.

the likes of you.[/B] I have only had two people ever try to kill me, both of them Christians. I would like that to stop.

I do not know who can call them self a Christian and threaten your life.
I have not threaten your life but apparently I am guilty by association (just like the hate crime law now passed)

They don't have the right to donate in secret. It is a public action. Those who disagree with that public action have a perfect right to say so, and to withhold their business from you.

OK, does it means they should receive threatening emails, death threat, hate mails and threats on their job by intimidation on their employers.
I have never seen as much hate speech, vandalization of specific church buildings, private properties and other hate crimes than after prop 8 passed in California by the people who now want special protection under an hate crime law. A total hypocrisy. E harmony a business became a victim of homofacism

What exactly, happened to her? She's made more money and gotten more fame. A lot of people did call her opinions stupid: poor, poor baby.

.
All she said is that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Based on your words and concept, when someone is killed, we should be happy because his or her family got the life insurance money.
Your values change with the wind depending who is the victim.

I just like to add that I have nothing personally against people who struggle with same sex attraction. They are the first victims of homofacism.

 

[soleil10]

Considering the position that the U.S. is in and California in particular, you might want to add democracy and capitalism to you list of flawed ideologies that come with great consequence and suffering.

If you want to equate Nazism and Communism to democracy and capitalism, I think you need to study history

All systems are flawed because of man's fallen nature but totalitarian godless dictatorships are the worst and most inhuman systems.

I am sure you know that

 

[bob x]

Box you wrote that there was not one true thing in my sentence. This is why I had to deal with Canada.

What you sentenced claimed was that the recent legislation was like Canada. There is no resemblance whatsoever between the recent legislation, which creates no "tribunals" of any kind, and what happens in Canada. I told you what the legislation actually consisted of, and you pay no attention whatsoever.

Now for America, have you read the law that was just passed by the US congress, especially the rule of evidence section ?

Yes, I have read the legislation. I told you what it consisted of. It does not have anything to do with anything that you are talking about. It does not contain a "rule of evidence section".

It will certainly affect free speech. It is an hate speech law.

No. It does not refer to "hate speech" at all. It does not create any offenses. It offers assistance to local jurisdictions in covering the expenses of prosecuting and investigating certain crimes of violence.

I do not know who can call them self a Christian and threaten your life.

Nobody EXCEPT Christians ever threaten me.

I have not threaten your life but apparently I am guilty by association (just like the hate crime law now passed)

No, there is nothing remotely like that in the law just passed. But whether or not you are personally capable of violence (I would have no way of knowing), your spreading of wild baseless accusations that have no connection to reality does increase the danger that other crazed people will act in such manners.

OK, does it means they should receive threatening emails, death threat, hate mails and threats on their job by intimidation on their employers.

I do not approve of death threats. But certainly I have no obligation to give them my business, nor would I want to have such people in my employ. Why should a part of my money go to attacks against myself?

All she said is that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

And all that happened was that some people said they strongly disagreed with her, while others said they strongly agreed.

Based on your words and concept, when someone is killed, we should be happy because his or her family got the life insurance money.

Nobody killed her, nor did anybody threaten to. What in the world are you talking about?

Your values change with the wind depending who is the victim.

In what sense was she a "victim"? A victim how, exactly? She did not lose anything, not even her dubiously-meaningful Miss California title, and she has gained a great deal.

I just like to add that I have nothing personally against people who struggle with same sex attraction. They are the first victims of homofacism.

And now you are calling ME a "victim"? A victim how, exactly? I have love and joy in my life, and that is what I am a "victim" of?

 

[seattlegal]

If you want to equate Nazism and Communism to democracy and capitalism, I think you need to study history

All systems are flawed because of man's fallen nature but totalitarian godless dictatorships are the worst and most inhuman systems.

I am sure you know that

So you are trying to blame hate crime legislation for "Christianity losing the cultural war" instead of acknowledging that your lack of a coherent argument for the specific issues might have more to do with it?

{Please keep in mind that I'm not a fan of hate-crime legislation. It goes against the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Amendment, imo. I guess that some are just more equal than others, according to hate-crime legislation proponents.}

 

[Avi]

{Please keep in mind that I'm not a fan of hate-crime legislation. It goes against the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Amendment, imo. I guess that some are just more equal than others, according to hate-crime legislation proponents.}

SG, please explain what you mean above ?

Here is a brief summary of the "hate-crime legislation", the Matthew Shepard Act:

The Matthew Shepard Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 or LLEHCPA), H.R. 1592 was a proposed federal bill that would expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

I do not see any double standard. It simply includes crimes of the nature described.

Ref: Matthew Shepard Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[seattlegal]

SG, please explain what you mean above ?

Here is a brief summary of the "hate-crime legislation", the Matthew Shepard Act:

The Matthew Shepard Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 or LLEHCPA), H.R. 1592 was a proposed federal bill that would expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

I do not see any double standard. It simply includes crimes of the nature described.

Ref: Matthew Shepard Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I prefer to call it what it is. Compare the above to this:

from dictionary.com
ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
​

I see hate crime legislation as the other side of the coin of the US PATRIOT Act.

 

[Avi]

I prefer to call it what it is.

I see hate crime legislation as the other side of the coin of the US PATRIOT Act.

Lets take a look at what the ACLU thinks about the Patriot Act (1) :

The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the PATRIOT 2 Act of 2003, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism. The ACLU believes such legislation violates either the letter or the spirit of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

And here is what they think of Matthew Shepard (2) :

The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded the passage of the Matthew Shepard Amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill that for the first time punishes hate crimes without infringing on free speech. The amendment, offered by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR), will broaden the definition of hate crimes and give more resources to local districts unable to investigate them single-handedly.

By the way, the ACLU is one of my favorite organizations !!

Refs: (1) American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(2) American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Cheers Free-Speech Friendly Hate Crimes Legislation

 

[iBrian]

soleil, why are you so focused on homosexuality? Aren't there enough *real* problems in the world to deal with?

 

[seattlegal]

Lets take a look at what the ACLU thinks about the Patriot Act (1) :



And here is what they think of Matthew Shepard (2) :



By the way, the ACLU is one of my favorite organizations !!

Refs: (1) American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(2) American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Cheers Free-Speech Friendly Hate Crimes Legislation

Now, how long will it be before the Feds use the US PATRIOT Act and Hate Crimes Legislation in such a manner to show partiality (favoring one group over another, or to hide a real group, or to create the illusion of a terrorist group existing where one doesn't exist) in the prosecution of the same type of criminal act that only differ by circumstance?

 

[soleil10]

What you sentenced claimed was that the recent legislation was like Canada. It does not contain a "rule of evidence section".

Yes, it does. Read it.

It condemns expression if someone can connect it to a "crime"
This means any one can make that claim and go after anybody.The door is wide open

All you need is activists judges and they are plenty this day

 

[Marsh]

Until somebody put his nose in your business

I still wouldn't go to war over someone putting their nose into my business. I'd just turn the other nostril.

By the way, if there actually is a cultural war going on, and if Christianity is losing it, perhaps that just means that it's been selected by nature for extinction in its current form. If there's any lesson to be learned from the histories of the OT, it's that God prospers the faithful, and abandons the proud. There's a reason why there are so many empty churches in the West these days, and it has little to do with other people...

 

[Marsh]

If you want to equate Nazism and Communism to democracy and capitalism, I think you need to study history

All systems are flawed because of man's fallen nature but totalitarian godless dictatorships are the worst and most inhuman systems.

I am sure you know that

I basically agree that our system is not as bad (right now) as the Nazi or Soviet systems of government. However, did you know that in Nazi Germany, school children were taught that Communism and Democracy were the worst systems? And in the Soviet Union, that Fascism and Democracy were the worst systems? Anyone who studies history knows that it's written by the winners, and just because no Western democracy has instituted purges on the scale of the Nazis or the Soviets doesn't mean that it won't happen someday...

 

[citizenzen]

Yes, it does. Read it.

It condemns expression if someone can connect it to a "crime"
This means any one can make that claim and go after anybody.The door is wide open

Text of H.R. 1913: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

US CODE: Title 18,16. Crime of violence defined

16. Crime of violence defined
The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

(2) the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note);

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.

(a) DEFINITION- In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

(e) 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.

===============================================

So there you go, you have to have committed a "crime of violence" as defined by the U.S. Code and the "expression of hate" must specifically relate to that offense.

That door is a long way from being "wide open" soleil10. It looks like you have nothing to worry about... so long as you aren't planning any violent crimes in the near future.

Anyway, thanks for helping to motivate me to research this a little more deeply. I had a feeling your argument was baseless, but it's always nice to actually confirm it.

 

[bob x]

{Please keep in mind that I'm not a fan of hate-crime legislation. It goes against the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Amendment, imo. I guess that some are just more equal than others, according to hate-crime legislation proponents.}

It does not violate equal protection to sentence crimes differently depending on the motive and the degree of continuing danger presented by the defendants. We do this all the time: someone who kills accidentally is not treated the same as someone who kills intentionally; do you have a problem with that?

Consider these cases:

A. Alan spray-paints "I [heart] U MARCY 4EVER" on a freeway overpass

B. Bill spray-paints "MR JOHNSON SUCKS DEAD DONKEYS" on a wall facing the assistant principal's house

C. Charley spray-paints "ALL YIDS MUST DIE [swastika]" on the gateway to the Jewish cemetary

D. Danny spray-paints "ALL NIGS MUST DIE [noose]" on the African Methodist Episcopal church

E. Eddie spray-paints "ALL **** MUST DIE [baseball bat cracking skull]" on a gay nightclub

In every jurisdiction, Alan will be treated differently from Bill: both have committed the same offense of vandalism, but Alan has no hostile intent, and simply needs to be taught to express his love some other way, and will probably get a little community service, cleaning up public property; while Bill is verbally attacking a person, and is a danger of escalating to more serious property damage and even assault, so depending on whether he expresses proper remorse he might have to do some days in jail.

Charley, Danny, and Eddie have not verbally attacked any particular person; rather they have attacked a group. Unless the law allows the judge to consider this as an aggravating factor, they will have to be sentenced like Alan, not like Bill. Actually, however, they are far more serious dangers than Bill, of escalating to assaults or even murder. In most jurisdictions, Charley and Danny can be sentenced more severely than Alan because the element of group intimidation can be taken into account at sentencing, if the group is racial or religious. However, Eddie cannot be sentenced any more severely than Alan, because the motive of group intimidation cannot be counted as an aggravating factor when the group is based on sexual orientation (in most states); the good Christians have made sure to keep it that way, even though group intimidation directed against us is an accelerating trend (Eddie's case would now be more common than Charley's, though not yet as common as Danny's).

 

[soleil10]

(e) 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.
So there you go, you have to have committed a "crime of violence" as defined by the U.S. Code and the "expression of hate" must specifically relate to that offense.

1)Citizen, thank you for proving to Box that the rule of evidence clause is in the law.
2) You also made my claim for me. The law can be misused to punish free speech and it will. The bill is also about hate speech, not just hate crime.

Once again, this clause can be misused very easily against a targeted person or group and it will mark my word.

I also like to add this:Homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan admits Hate Crimes Bill a scam.The Daily Dish May 13, 2009 | Andrew Sullivan
Posted on Fri May 15 2009 by DesertRenegade

The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that - and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time. The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for HRC, more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It's very, very powerful as a money-making tool - which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn't passed (if it passes, however, I'll keep a close eye on whether it is ever used).

(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...

 

[bob x]

1)Citizen, thank you for proving to Box that the rule of evidence clause is in the law.

There wasn't such a clause in the text of the bill as it was introduced. It was apparently added in an attempt to deal with people like you who were concerned about "hate speech" issues.

2) You also made my claim for me. The law can be misused to punish free speech and it will.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Read that evidence clause again. What it says is that speech MAY NOT be introduced into the case. Repeat, it MAY NOT be brought into the case at all.
What was the point of putting a clause into the bill making sure that everybody would know this was not about hate speech, when people like you are just going to misread it as saying the exact opposite?

The bill is also about hate speech, not just hate crime.

It never was about hate speech in the first place. But because a bunch of liars kept saying that it was, the bill was amended to include this clause saying hate speech will be kept out of it. But there is no way of satisfying you, is there?

Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time.

And the town of Laramie, Wyoming was nearly bankrupted, since they were not prepared to have to prosecute a case of such magnitude. Which is why this bill was introduced into the Congress: all that it does is to provide assistance to towns like Laramie if they are faced with such cases in the future.

 

[soleil10]

There wasn't such a clause in the text of the bill as it was introduced. It was apparently added in an attempt to deal with people like you who were concerned about "hate speech" issues.

That is why it is good not to insult and mistreat others before you check

IS WRONG WITH YOU? Read that evidence clause again. What it says is that speech MAY NOT be introduced into the case. Repeat, it MAY NOT be brought into the case at all.

Unless you think it is related to the crime. That is a door open to abuse. We have criminal laws already. As we say in grammar "the exception confirm the rule

And the town of Laramie, Wyoming was nearly bankrupted, since they were not prepared to have to prosecute a case of such magnitude. Which is why this bill was introduced into the Congress: all that it does is to provide assistance to towns like Laramie if they are faced with such cases in the future.

And it has come to light that this crime was not a hate crime against an homosexual to begin with. ABC TV made it clear. The killers were prosecuted for their crime.

Anyway, Box, I have no hate against you. I would appreciate that you stop mistreating me. It does not make your point a view stronger.
Have a great weekend

 

[citizenzen]

Soleil10,

there's an easy way to avoid going to prison for a hate crime:

• don't push
• don't shove
• don't punch
• don't choke
• don't bludgeon
• don't stab
• don't shoot
• don't threaten
• don't bully
• don't destroy

Keep that short list handy and refer to it whenever you feel that red-hot ball of hate rising in your throat. It may just keep you out of the "big house".

I've lived for 48 years and have managed to avoid engaging in any of these acts. With a little effort, you can too. But just in case you need a little more guidance (and I think your fear of this law indicates that you do) here's a few tips on how to behave:

• respect fellow human beings
• embrace diversity
• cultivate compassion
• be guided by wisdom
• live peacefully
• respect the law
• learn how to relax

There. I even color coded them for easy reference. Green means "GO!" red means "STOP!". Stick with the green and I guarantee that you won't be convicted of a hate crime. Give it a try. Let me know how it works out for you.

And if you're worried about any family, friends or neighbors getting convicted of hate crimes, just pass this list on to them too. If this message is gets around enough, it could help a lot of people.

Will you do your part to spread it around?

 

[soleil10]

What is "Homofacism"? Not liking your own face?

Homofacism is an ideology that want to break down biological parenting and spread gender confusion.
It basically wants to destroy the 2 biological parents child relationship, destroy the concept of blood lineage and descendants. It want to institutionalize one parent orphan "marriage"

Like Communism and Nazism, it wants to target children and youth first and infiltrate public schools, media and political spheres etc

It is against God's blueprint and design for the family. It wants to block God's love.

It will use deception, force and hide by playing the victim while accusing other of intolerance. It will misuse the concept of equality to gain superiority and become a legally select protected class.

Satan uses it to break up God's plan for humanity.

All humans want love. Love is the strongest force in the universe. Love can bring life or death if it is misused.

 

[citizenzen]

Homofacism is an ideology that want to break down biological parenting and spread gender confusion.