Comments for Religious Right Spreads Lies About Hate Crimes Bill »
Posted By Spadecaller 8 months ago in ReligionNew hate crime legislation will soon be under consideration by Congress and the religious right is flipping out about it. When a crime that results in death or serious injury is committed against any American because of the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, the proposed legislation would grant the U.S. Justice Department the authority to offer assistance. Religious Right leaders keep playing the "your-pastor-will-go-to-jail" card. "An offended homosexual could accuse a pastor, Sunday School teacher of broadcaster of causing emotional injury simply by expressing the Biblical view that homosexuality is sinful," blares the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association in an e-mail alert. Are their fears of censorship credible?
Read Full Story at talk2action.org »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 189
-
68%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is censorship a realistic fear in reaction to this legislation? I think not. On the other hand, perhaps the paranoid homophobic right wing religious zealots out there really do have something to worry about. What if pedophiles who use the church setting to prey on children were to be prosecuted more effectively? That could become a real damper on the business of selling God.
Reply-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
-
-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
73%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of them do not want to admit it to themselves and some lead secret lives and use the safety of the church to hide away what they feel is shameful. And some are involved in abuse. But I think that the Church is less concerned for the most part about saving souls and more often about saving money and membership; they do not want the publicity that comes with offenders - especially when they are right wing members of their church.
Reply -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
56%
hyperbola8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Censorship is already a serious problem in America (see below) and "hate crimes" legislation will make it worse. We do not need to reduce tellers of truth about the corruption of America to be reduced to "american samizdat" - we already have too much suppression of real information in America.
Reply
The Pulitzer-winning Investigation that US TV Censored
The New York Times' David Barstow won a richly deserved Pulitzer Prize yesterday for two articles that, despite being featured as major news stories on the front page of The Paper of Record, were completely suppressed by virtually every network and cable news show, which to this day have never informed their viewers about what Barstow uncovered. Here is how the Pulitzer Committee described Barstow's exposés:
Awarded to David Barstow of The New York Times for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.
By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. They kept completely silent about Barstow's story even though it sparked Congressional inquiries, vehement objections from the then-leading Democratic presidential candidates, and allegations that the Pentagon program violated legal prohibitions on domestic propaganda programs. The Pentagon's secret collaboration with these "independent analysts" shaped multiple news stories from each of these outlets on a variety of critical topics. Most amazingly, many of them continue to employ as so-called "independent analysts" the very retired generals at the heart of Barstow's story, yet still refuse to inform their viewers about any part of this story.
And even now that Barstow yesterday won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting -- one of the most prestigious awards any news story can win -- these revelations still may not be uttered on television and are actively censored.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/21/the-puli...-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
-
33%
hyperbola8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Furthermore, we already have numerous examples of zionists like Spadecaller attempting to use chants of "hate crime" to cover up zionist crimes against humanity. Frankly I suspect that this "campaign for hate crime legislation" is mainly supported and financed by rich israel-first billionaires that are scared shiitless that Americans may wake up to what the rest of the world already recognizes. Did you see this news on your "mainstream" media news tonight?NO creation of more excuses for more censorship in America.
Reply
Norway: 10 Israelis named in war crimes complaint
A group of Norwegian lawyers filed a complaint Wednesday accusing 10 Israelis of war crimes in Gaza under the country's new universal jurisdiction law, officials said.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and opposition leader Tzipi Livni were among those named in the complaint, the lawyers said.
In a statement, the lawyers claim that Olmert, Livni, Barak and seven Israel military officers shared responsibility for "massive terror attacks primarily directed at Gaza's population."....
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/23/norway-1... -
-
0%
truthfirst8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller -
Reply
I have noticed that you just love this type of so called reporting. You seem to scour the Internet looking for articles that bash Christians. I find this appalling and consider it a hate crime against my personal belief as a believer in Jesus Christ. James 4:4 says, "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."
Spadecaller, you a treading on dangerous ground and I would warn you of the disastrous results if you continue down this path, because God will not be mocked. By your actions it is obvious that you hate God and anyone who believes in Him. Your hatred for Christians and Jesus is based on what John 7:7, "...the world hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil."
The Scripture is very clear that homosexuality is a sin and it time that people stop trying to justify their sin by saying that it something other than it is. There is coming a day when you will be standing before God to give an account for your hatred towards Him and His followers. So my advice to you is to repent of your sin and turn to Christ for forgiveness. -
33%
galletta61218 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He who denies me, shall be denied a place with my father!
Reply
You could bash religion all you want, but you will find yourself alone and without comfort at the time of your death. And it will be here for you Spadecaller, sooner then you know. -
33%
galletta61218 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Liberal seeks to dominate any institution that can interfere with, weaken or destroy individual parental rights. Thus you will note that Liberals completely control and dominate public schools, child abuse agencies, pediatric associations, welfare departments, social service agencies and all NGO's that feign concern for the welfare of children. Why? Because in order for Liberals to impose socialism upon a people, they must undermine the ability of the people to govern themselves according to God's moral law. To accomplish this they must weaken the main support of morality. Strong families are one of the greatest threats to the final goals of Liberalism. The total disintegration of the American family in recent decades among some ethnic communities has occurred as a direct result of the design and intention of Liberals.
Reply
-
-
82%
CHAM8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.populistamerica.com/the_thought_police_...
Reply
The above is an article about what can happen to you or me if we say the wrong thing when there are zealous prosecutors and judges out there trying to make a name for themselves.
Be very careful about supporting "Hate Crimes" legislation. If there were some way to keep the law from being abused it might be OK but as the link provides, well judge for yourself.-
77%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
<<The bill penalizes assault and physical violence, not speech. In fact, the legislation makes it clear that free speech is protected. Section 10 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.">>
Reply
One must read the specific language of the bill to understand that it does not threaten free speech.-
44%
KISA452a8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Doesn't prohibit any expressive conduct... Just if you say something wrong while acting then the speech becomes a crime... I guess a lawyer could lie his way around that, but I think a rational person would see that the speech is punished.
Reply
-
-
73%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
<<The bill penalizes assault and physical violence, not speech. In fact, the legislation makes it clear that free speech is protected. Section 10 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.">>
Reply
It is certainly wise to be concerned about free speech; however if you read the bill, it is designed to offer local courts assistance with hate crimes and does not jeopardize free speech. One must read the bill as it is written.-
0%
hyperbola8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree. If physical assault or violence has to exist, then there is no need for a hate crimes bill - such actions are already crimes and can already be prosecuted.
Reply
This legislation is the thin edge of vastly increased "control" and censorship by the government (and/or corrupt elites than can buy politicians). We should resist such legislation vigorously. You of all people should know that Spade.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
-
-
-
-
91%
Ciera-Marie8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What do you expect when they get their info from the American Family Association? They're against deregulation of the Oil Industry (how does that promote Christian Family Values?); are against the Employee Free Choice Act (in other words against employees participating in, forming, joining, or assisting labor unions.); among other things that they're against.
Reply
The more I read on them the more I realize how people are being indoctrinated who listen to AFA broadcasting (they own radio stations.) and are a big lobbyist.-
88%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. what concerns me is also that hate crimes are going up; not down. WE have communities where the problem has become so bad that one must rely on outside help (not local municipalities) because some of the perpetrators are local police.
Reply
Racial profiling and ripping off motorists of their money by threats of imprisonment from law enforcement official have been reported in numerous cases recently and in more than one community.
Nonetheless, this bill refers to physical violence and death due to hate crimes and is extremely careful in its language to make sure that it avoids impinging on anyone's right to free speech. Unfortunately, we have a serious back lash by some people in this country and the victims of hate crimes are escalating.-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
0%
galletta61218 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberals claim to be against violence, but make excuses for Liberals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro who murder and torture political dissidents. Liberals claim to be against violence, but they seek to disarm individuals and render them powerless before the thugs, thieves and murderer's who rule the inner cities. Liberals claim to be against violence, but they are liars. Liberals only oppose violence when it fits their agenda, but they are perfectly willing to use violence to advance their agenda.
Reply
-
-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
-
85%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
Reply
In this Act--
(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(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); and
(3) the term ‘local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.
------------------------------------------------
Because the legislation only refers to victims of violent crime, it is a complete fabrication by those who oppose it on the grounds that one can be prosecuted for speaking against gays or any other group specified.-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
63%
hyperbola8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If physical assault or violence has to exist, then there is no need for a hate crimes bill - such actions are already crimes and can already be prosecuted.
Reply
This legislation is the thin edge of vastly increased "control" and censorship by the government (and/or corrupt elites that can buy politicians). We should resist such legislation vigorously. You of all people should know that Spade.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
-
-
91%
Dionys8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" the Biblical view that homosexuality is sinful"
Reply
This isn't the Biblical view. This is an ideological interpretation of Biblical passages all while ignoring other passages that wouldn't pass muster in similar sections. The Bible says nothing about homosexuality (in the original language), only a few things about specific homosexual acts between men.
Moreover the Gospels say nothing about homosexuality and Christ says nothing about homosexuality.
Additionally if you embrace the Levitican justification of an anti-homosexual act, you have to embrace all the other awful parts of Leviticus and Exodus (such as the rules governing what kind of slaves you can own and how to treat your Jew slaves), or you're a prooftexting hypocrite.-
77%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys
Reply
<<" the Biblical view that homosexuality is sinful"
This isn't the Biblical view. This is an ideological interpretation...>>
I agree. Nonetheless, this interpretation is a dominant theme among many Church goers ... but then again, Jesus was not known to be an avid church goer either. I don't care to get into the various ways that the Bible is viewed. Some ignore it entirely, some take what they want and leave the rest, some exploit it for their own profit, some believe every word is from God, some believe it is legend, and some interpret it symbolically with the reservation that they could be wrong.
As you must have ascertained, the thrust of the article focuses on those right wing ideologues who oppose this hate crime legislation and who are purposely mischaracterizing the bill as it is written.-
-
100%
Dionys8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As you must have ascertained, the thrust of the article focuses on those right wing ideologues who oppose this hate crime legislation and who are purposely mischaracterizing the bill as it is written."
Reply
Which is pretty typical of the right. But unfortunate.
-
-
-
92%
pokydoke8 months ago
-
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
56%
dailyblueberry8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wasn't most of this covered under the constitution..."provide for the common defence, promote the General welfare..." Why do we need another law that WILL be broken? Criminals are not scared of our government defining the word "local." Enforce the laws we have.
Reply
Granted, there are boneheads everywhere, including law enforcement, but we have ways of changing this government without needing new laws that are a waste of time.-
71%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dailyblueberry
Reply
<<Granted, there are boneheads everywhere, including law enforcement, but we have ways of changing this government without needing new laws that are a waste of time.>>
Considering that there has been a marked rise of hate crimes throughout the United States (and Canada), what ways do you recommend to change our government without legislation that will address this problem?-
71%
dailyblueberry8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How many hate crime related bills have been passed since the Civil Rights era? And yet hate crimes are up.
Reply
Its people, Spadecaller. "We the 'freakin' people." It starts with you and me. We have to wake up each morning and say, "What am I going to do to improve the life of another person today?" Then you have to do it. We have too many saying, "how can I get ahead today?" And now we a government system that says, "I'll get you ahead today, don't worry about it, we have this covered."
Yeah, a selfless movement like this ts not easy. Yeah it will take time to spread a movement. But it will happen, when we don't give up. Don't give up, Spadecaller. I'm rooten for ya.-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What action are you recommending that would address the problem in communities where the local police forces have been cited for carrying out racial profiling. I would like to paint your skin black and put you on the road in TENAHA, Texas. Then will see about what you are going to do about life in the real world. But here is good solid legislation that would give aid to those victims of communities like these, who are now at the mercy of racist hoodlums, and you object to it. Amazing.
Reply -
-
-
43%
beavith18 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'm with dailyblueberry.
Reply
while i'm sure it makes folks feel good that they are doing something 'good,' its already covered.
you allude to this not being a free speech issue. i think it IS a free speech issue.
are there any lawyers here? i was under the impression that "assault and battery" are not the same thing. i can verbally assault you by calling you names, its when i slug you that it becomes battery.
the way this is written, it doesn't infringe on my right to free speech, but if i call you a so and so, i have now verbally assaulted you.
its more of that mealy kind of political correctness that works out to be a Lawyer's Full Employment Act.
no negs or pozzes on this one. i'm not sure who its serving except lawyers.
-
-
-
75%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, the right wing religious nuts are obviously FUBAR, but I must admit I'm not a big fan of hate crime legislation. A murder is a murder, it doesn't become more heinous just because it was committed against a protected class. The motive behind a crime is just that, the motive. Will people that commit these horrendous acts be less likely to do so if their crimes are punishable by life in prison vs. being punishable by life in prison? I don't think so. If they were, does that not imply that they are rational? Anyone that commits these acts is, by definition, not rational.
Reply-
-
89%
jordan118 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, the right wing religious nuts are obviously FUBAR, but I must admit I'm not a big fan of hate crime legislation.>>>>
Reply
I am. If you take a black man or a gay man & plop them into a population of non bigoted people, what are the odds they would be targeted by a kook vs the odds if they're plopped into a population of bigots? And if a kook allows the hate rhetoric to take him or her over the top that infringes on the rights of another person, what would be the best way to give the kook a lesson that he or she is unable to reason because of their own lack of conscience?
Here's an example; My son who is gay has a neighbor. One day when clearing weeds from a common hillside, she decided my son's partner had pulled weeds on 'her' property. So she stormed over to my son's home, and began railing at the man, throwing in expletives about his sexuality. My son drove up, got out of his car, and asked what was going on. She turned and clipped him on the chin, calling him a "filthy f*g." He grabbed her wrists, and waited for the police. The DA implored my son to file hate crime charges. NO ONE should have to live in that kind of an environment, and NO ONE should be allowed to cross that line. Had they not been 'gay', the b*tch would not have reacted that way. She and every other bigot who look for an excuse to rail against those they hate, NEED to have consequences. You can't tell what might set off a psychopath, but hate crimes ARE something you can be proactive about.-
-
67%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If a kook commits a crime it's a crime whether motivated by hate for a particular group or not.
Reply
Let's take your example. Two things. Firstly, I'm assuming (which I know I shouldn't do) that your son's partner was not being restrained from leaving the vicinity in any way. If he was not, why did he remain to be yelled at? If he was concerned about possible harassment or assault (including threats against his person) why did he not call the police? I would have.
Secondly, when the woman in question hit your son, she was guilty of assault and battery. This is a crime whatever your son's sexual orientation.
Increasing the penalty for a crime committed by someone driven by hate for homosexuals doesn't do anything to stop the bigotry. If that were the case the death penalty would be a deterrent against murder and that has not been shown to be the case.
We should try to treat everyone equally, regardless of who they might be. When we protect some groups and not others we are arguing that we are not all equal. I don't think that's the case.-
100%
jordan118 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If he was not, why did he remain to be yelled at? >>>>
Reply
Are you seriously suggesting he should leave his own home to get away from a bigot who came on his property to sling trash mouth expletives???
Obviously my points went over your head. We'll just leave it at that.
-
-
-
-
67%
JEBUS088 months ago
-
70%
Spadecaller8 months ago
-
100%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gustaf Adolphus' Sweden? Imperial Germany? The Wiemar Republic? Poland?
Reply
Nice try, but it was never a slogan of the NAZI's.
And JEBUS08, please lay off the Jesus Juice, it's made you think funny. This government is not there to do God's work, but rather the Peoples.-
-
-
100%
aceofspades18 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jebus - just shows you how literal people take things here - there's a psychological test that asks questions like -" What does it mean you say people in glass houses should n"t throw stones?'
Reply
Bet lots of these people would answer - "you'll get cut" - abstract thinking is beyond their ability -
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nonsense! My father came home after marching through Germany at the end of the war and had photos of German Nazi soldiers wearing those buckles. And before he died a few months ago, he talked about how many intercepted radio messages contained statements from Nazi soldiers that included the phrase "Gott mit uns" My father was an officer in the radio corp. He told stories about how many Germans were blinded by the insane belief that they belonged to the Aryan race and were made superior by God.
Reply-
-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, if the soldiers were fighting Hitler's war and you do not consider them Nazis, I really don't think your critique is relevant to the point that you were objecting to.
Reply
Concerning American soldiers in WWII, did they care if a German soldier fighting and killing on behalf of Hitler believed in Nazism. If they are killing Americans, Jews, or Russians, and wearing a buckle that states that "God is with us," would it not be understandable to refer to them as Nazis?
Would you prefer to describe them as German soldiers who expressed their belief that God was on their side? However you need to impress me with your specific knowledge of Nazi artifacts does not alter the meaning and intent of my comment.-
100%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not unless they were members of the NAZI Party, which the vast majority of the Army was not.
Reply
A distinction should be made. As I mentioned below, it's like suggesting that a U.S. Army private is just as dirty for starting a pre-emptive war in Iraq as is the Republican Administration that got us there. I don't think that's true.
And yes, I would prefer it that way. That would be both historically and factually accurate.
And since we're actually talking about a Wehrmacht artifact and not a NAZI one, I don't have a need to impress you with my knowledge.
-
-
-
100%
Natureboy8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He told stories about how many Germans were blinded by the insane belief that they belonged to the Aryan race and were made superior by God."
Reply
Kind of like how we Americans believe we are a beacon unto the world and have God on our side when we go forth to slaughter. -
-
-
-
-
-
83%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The most common display of the term "Gott mit uns" came in the form of German belt buckles. It was allso a motto used by the Nazis and other armies. Of course most warring nations have insisted that God was with them ... as today when people insist that God is with their cause and not their opposition.
Reply
http://www.germanhelmet.com/4092.htm-
50%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was NOT used by the NAZI's. The NAZI's, as I've stated repeatedly, were a political party. Most of the Wehrmacht (the German Army) was not NAZI.
Reply
That doesn't dilute your point that many nations have suggested that God is with them when they go to war.-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
AS you stated repeatedly means nothing to me. I have seen it in photos that my father brought back from Germany after we invaded Germany at the end of the war. I have heard it first hand from him and survivors too. You are mistaken.
Reply-
33%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm glad.
Reply
Sure you've seen it in photos, but not on NAZI soldiers. There are two reasons this is so. Waffen SS (NAZI's all) were issued belt buckles with a different phrase. Usually this was, "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" although occasionally other phrases were used. It is also possible that Luftwaffe ground units had designations on their belt buckles, but I believe most of these were a swastika in leaves.
Most of the belt buckles worn with the phrase "Gott mit uns" were worn by the Wehrmacht, the vast majority of whom (even the high command) were not NAZI's.-
-
50%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't make it true.
Reply
I'm not trying to be a clown here, by the way. But, what you're saying is kind of like saying that a private in the U.S. Army fighting in Iraq is just as dirty as the Republican Administration that got us there. I, personally, think a distinction should be made.-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WE are going in circles. I must say that I do not need you to agree nor do i need you to believe what I've seen with my own eyes. However, if you really wanted to find out what I know from first hand accounts, you can also find more about on your own... if you want to..
Reply
Perhaps there are some personal issues that make it difficult for you to evaluate my comment without going out of your way to find something to criticize. Who knows...
Maybe since I am an admitted alcoholic that has been sober for over thirty years has something to do with your aggressiveness towards me. Maybe you have personal experience with a family member and you are stimulated by my background.
Whatever is your problem, the only distinction that should be made is that your comments about me were out of place and inappropriate for this discussion as I am sure mine are becoming...-
50%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just once it would be nice if you would actually pay attention to what someone else is saying rather than trying to twist things around.
Reply
If you want to be taken seriously, you should at least try to have your facts correct. I was pointing out that you were wrong in characterizing all of the millions of Germans who defended the Fatherland in World War II as NAZI's. It's incorrect morally, factually and historically. If that is being aggressive, you know, in trying to make sure that the record is correct, then you're right. I will continue to do so.
As for the rest of your comments, well, I'll leave that for others to decide.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What some people do not realize regarding this legislation is that it addresses crimes that get ignored on the local level do to shared bigotry among the perpetrators. Unfortunately there are groups of people that share the same hatred for blacks, Hispanics, Mexicans, Jews, and Gays and when the local police force deals with crimes committed by their friends and relatives, they often get buried away. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, there are local police forces in some communities that routinely rely on racial profiling motorists to make money through intimidation.
Reply-
43%
dailyblueberry8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
call a spade a spade, man. name those "local police forces" and those "crimes" and let's get something done about it today, let's not wait.
Reply
Government will have to formulate the law, send the law to a committee for review, vote on the law, send the law up for a vote, edit the law, vote on the law, local law enforcement will have to read the law, understand the law, and enforce the law. Criminals will then be prosecuted by the law, will then automatically appeal the law, blah, blah, blah...this makes me tired.-
SpadecallerComment removed: Spam
-
-
0%
onememphis8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok Spade. I can't let that last comment go. "...there are local police forces in some communities that routinely rely on racial profiling motorists to make money through intimidation."
Reply
Q: What communities? Name one.
People can hate Gays. (No crime) People can hate Conservatives. (No Crime) Problem is...you must prove that this hate was a motivating factor in an assault. That is most always, subjective at best, and at worst, ripe for manipulation by any overzealous, politically climbing prosecutor. This is a perversion of justice, where proof is required (criminal court) beyond reasonable doubt, for a conviction.
Just re-read the comments of Jordan 11. "...Had they not been 'gay', the b*tch would not have reacted that way. She and every other bigot who look for an excuse to rail against those they hate, NEED to have consequences." Purely SUBJECTIVE. The Justice system was not designed to allow you a means for retribution for perceived slights. It is designed to provide JUSTICE.
No Jordan. I have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to rail against anyone, or group, I wish. Its called Freedom of Speech. I'll be Damned if I'll let you try to take it without a fight. (No Name-calling needed.)
-
-
30%
cheif8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did the legislation define exactly who comprises the 'protected' groups?
Reply
I'd like to find out if white men are included in this list, because, according to everything I've read, we're responsible for every crime ever committed because we hate everybody...or is it the other way around?
We had over 250 murders in St. Louis last year...90% were committed by black people - same as in Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans...etc...they'll non-discriminatory and will kill ANY
person to get what they want; sorry to say it's their own kind
in 90% of the cases...should each one of these crimes be defined as hate crimes because black people are one of the 'protected' groups?
It's time for decent people in those hoods
to arm themselves and shoot back at these idiots...a hate crime
designation hasn't, will not, and will never protect any of these people...or anyone else - just like our police forces -
have NEVER protected anyone; they're 'clean-up' crews who come
in after the fact and try to make some money for the city out of the tragedy.... -
71%
Spadecaller8 months ago
-
60%
Bkumm8 months ago
-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is not a question of equal rights; it is a question of equal application of law enforcement.
Reply
It is overcoming the cronyism and the ineffective and unjust enforcement of the laws in certain local communities, where minorities are not treated the same as others.-
100%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand what you're trying to say, but maybe you should just say that instead of playing the KKK and Aryan Nation card. Most people that are racists don't belong to either of those organizations.
Reply
However, when you say (however obliquely) that the KKK and white supremacists should not be protected from hate crimes, don't you think you're just trying to frame the discussion rather than discussing the merits or lack thereof? If we're all protected then we're all equal, which I think is your ultimate goal. Saying that some should be protected and not others for what they think or believe is, by definition, unequal.-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not playing a card, my friend. Of course, "Most people that are racists don't belong to either of those organizations." Should that make people happy that only some of the racists and bigots belong to hate groups. You are right; many people who do not belong to hate groups just remain in their cozy closets and pontificate about how racism and antisemitism rarely occurs and that it does not need to be addressed.
Reply-
100%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You most certainly are. You are trying to frame the debate in such a way as to demonize any opposition. Just because someone disagrees with you or your points does not make them a member of the KKK or a NAZI.
Reply
And it isn't the point whether or not people are "happy" about bigots and racists. What is the point is whether or nor we all deserve the right to be treated equally. I think we do and if we are to be treated equally no group deserves any more protection, under the law, than any other group.-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Never stated that to oppose this legislation makes anyone a nazi or a member of the KKK. That there are right wing members of those organization that oppose this legislation is also true. You even admitted that earlier.
Reply
To state that those who are victims of hate crimes do not deserve more protection under the law is absurd.. Of course they do. Police are suppose to respond to those in need. Period. Do more blacks get pulled over on the highways? Of course they do. Do more minorities get poorly treated by bigoted public servants. Of course they do.
If one community suffers from more fires, should we tell the fire department to only respond to an equal number of calls in each community. Of course not. Effective enforcement of the laws must be applied according to need.
My goodness, I hope that you do not run out of your protection quota during your lifetime.-
0%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, you did not explicitly state that. As I said.
Reply
People that are victims of crimes deserve justice under the law. The motive for the crime is irrelevant unless there are circumstances that would be lawful (self-defense, ext). The answer is not to enact legislation that punishes some crimes by their motivation more than others.
By doing so, we reinforce the idea that somehow a person attacked for being a Pastafarian is somehow different than a person attacked because he owed his cousin money. There is no difference in the crime and neither is worse or better than the other. If Blacks are "profiled" more in certain areas than others, that is already an issue for the Federal courts, just as if people are treated differently by public servants. Further, neither of those instances would be changed by the legislation in question.
Your third paragraph is off point.
And your fourth is offensive. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned11 Replies
-
-
20%
hyperbola8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well if we are going down the "master race" pathway Spade, how about adding in the "zionist master race". Their recent record of crimes against humanity (7 million christian and moslem victims in Palestine - which is the world's biggest refugee problem) stick out like a sore thumb and in the US they certainly have their legions of "preachers" of continued hate crimes against christians and moslems.
Reply -
-
-
-
SpadecallerComment removed: Spam
-
83%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dailyblue:
Reply
Howard Witt, Chicago Tribune, March 10, 2009 <<TENAHA, Texas—You can drive into this dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana border if you’re African-American, but you might not be able to drive out of it—at least not with your car, your cash, your jewelry or other valuables.
That’s because the police here allegedly have found a way to strip motorists, many of them black, of their property without ever charging them with a crime. Instead they offer out-of-towners a grim choice: voluntarily sign over your belongings to the town, or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.>>
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/03/highw...
<<BELLAIRE, Texas -- City Council prepared Monday to review a racial profiling report, adding new layers of controversy in the shooting of an unarmed black resident, Local 2 Investigates reported Monday.
: Racial Profiling Report Released
The routine annual report is presented to council members each year as required by a Texas law passed eight years ago to cut down on police stopping motorists because of race. This year's report is raising new questions in the wake of December's shooting of Robert Tolan.
The unarmed resident was shot outside his home after Bellaire police said they mistakenly thought he was in a stolen car. The son of a former pro-baseball player is now suing Bellaire police, claiming a pattern of racial profiling was behind his shooting.>>
"call a spade a spade, man. name those "local police forces" and those "crimes" and let's get something done about it today, let's not wait."
Yeah right...-
83%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Black motorists claim Texas police illegally seize valuables among them were
Reply
140 people who all alleged police in the town of Tenaha took their property without charging them with any crime.
The other cited article is here:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/18837247/detail....-
33%
dailyblueberry8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Looks like the only claims that can be made about that "routine" report are that Hispanics are pulled over 3% more than whites and whites are pulled over 10% more than blacks.
Reply
The cop made a poor judgment call when Tolan got up to protect his mother. He didn't have to shoot the guy at that moment, but it does not show his bias. The cop was indicted under the current law, so we have no need for any more laws.-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you for responding to that one only. I expected that. How come you failed to acknowledge the first story about the 140 African Americans? You had asked for proof of the police depts involved ( and not in the most polite tone)... and I provided it for you. Nonetheless, you chose to ignore that and then went after the decoy. Predictable.
Reply-
0%
dailyblueberry8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Predictable, only in the sense that I get distracted. I read the articles and it does seem that there is something crooked going on, but the article never specifies 140 blacks, it says..."many of them black...More than 140 people," It sounds to me that evidence is lacking for racial profiling, but is sufficient for charges on blackmailing. Also, charges have been filed under the current law. Again, I say, no new laws need to be written.
Reply
ps. How do I fashion polite tone in writing? I'm as polite as I can be over on this end.
-
-
-
-
dailyblueberryComment removed: Spam
-
-
100%
jordan118 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obviously, the unfortunate aspect of all this is that propaganda works. Too many people believe what they hear, & don't bother with investigating whether or not they're being lied to. That's how the republicans kept power when they were clearly taking us down the road to ruin. And if people refuse to listen to facts, not a whole lot can be done about it.
Reply -
100%
canadianrancher578 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We already have hate crime laws up here in Canada and we are seeing more people charged under them but there are some problems that can be involved with such laws, the one problem that I have seen is when a person states what is their own opinion which may be offensive but does not promote hatred.Some of thes cases when they go to court are thrown out but some end up going all the way to the supreme court to be settled.
Reply
My heritage came from Scotland so I will pick on myself to show what I am talking about, last summer I heard a person make the comment that the Scottish were nothing but a dirty, hairy bunch of thugs and the world would have been a better place if the Brithish had wiped them out years ago. Now this was an opinion of a person and under our laws he likely could have been charged with a hate crime since he implied that the world might have been better without us Scotish people, to me he was not inciting hatred towards us but merely making an ignorant statement.
Hopefully if your country does p*******e crime laws the line between ones opinion and an actual crime are well defined.
The only way that any of these types of laws have any success if to make sure that the punishment is severe enough to discourage others from doing something similiar, in most cases it is the punishment that makes such laws a joke and nothing really changes. -
100%
dailyblueberry8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Third times a charm. The other two comments got spammed.
Reply
The only thing the "routine" report shows is that Hispanics were pulled over 3% more than whites and whites were pulled over 10% more than blacks.
The cop made a poor judgment call when Tolan got up to protect his mother. He didn't have to shoot the guy, but I don't believe it shows a racial bias. Further, the cop is indicted under the current law, so no further law needs formulated. -
-
-
-
Neutral
PainGoddess8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I got this "what if" question while debating law and theory.
Reply
In Utah if you kill a person with your car it is a misdemeanor.
(unless you are drunk)(fact).
There are a lot of opportunities to commit "hate Crimes" .
Maybe another law (that won't apply in Utah) will do good elsewhere.
Can death by automobile (on purpose) be considered a hate crime if the driver just happened to hate homosexuals and ran over a person purported to be one? -
100%
RedstateLib8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The issue that most of you are missing are that hate crimes are committed against individuals as a means of intimidating an entire group of people. In a hate crime situation you person or persons will attack one black, gay, jew, catholic, ect in order to express anger, hatred and violence towards the entire community. That is what makes hate crimes different than a drunk punching out some guy who ticks him of in a bar.
Reply-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Agreed. There are also communities that target blacks, gays, Jews, Mexicans, etc. and where the enforcement of laws and courts do not do justicie by its minority members. For this reason, it is wise to have the availability of outside agencies when hate crimes take place. The law should not be just equal to everyone in theory, it needs to be equal in its application. People of color in some communities are targeted by policie officere when they are driving. After they are pulled over they are sometimes harassed and threatened. Should they react to this unfair treatment, they are arrested. Is this equal application of the same laws that are administered to others?
Reply -
-
25%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How so? If some guy punches me because he doesn't like short, fat guys (not a protected class) is that a hate crime? Based on what I hear you saying, it would be. But, regardless of why he did it, it's still assault and battery. It's still a crime. Why should it be punished more harshly just because the motive is different?
Reply
The problem is that it's actually counter intuitive. We want people to be treated equally, yet we want crimes against certain groups punished more simply for the reason that the crimes were committed against those groups. But, is that not the very definition of being unequal?
It's a real conundrum.-
100%
RedstateLib8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When blacks were lynched throughout our history it was not only a means of attacking the individual it was a means of sending a message to all other blacks within the community, "know our place and stay in it or else". That is what makes theses crimes different.
Reply
If some guy punches me because he doesn't like short, fat guys (not a protected class) is that a hate crime?
Is there a history of large numbers of Americans who have worked to deny "short, fat guys" their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I have missed this widespread historical hate addressed at this group of people? When was the last time a man was tied to a fence, beaten and left to die for simply being short and fat? When was the last time the short fat community was afraid to walk down the streets after dark for fear they would be attacked for being short and fat. When was the last time the local authorities chose to look the other way when these short fat men were attacked. When was the last time citizens on a local jury refused to convict assailants because it was the victims own fault for being short and fat or for not knowing short fat men shouldn't be in that neighborhood. When you can give me examples of when these things became a problem in our society then your short fat man argument has some merit until then you are just parroting right wing( Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh) talking points since each of them has made the same argument as you did over the years.-
0%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
None of your points are relevant. Either it is a hate crime to go after someone for what they are or it isn't. Your points are interesting, but they aren't relevant. Under your suggestion a person who is not a protected class would not be able to have someone persecuted under the hate crime legislation regardless of whether or not they were attacked for being who they are.
Reply
That doesn't seem like equality to me. A crime is a crime regardless of the motives, except inasmuch as those motives may be construed as legal by a reasonable jury or judge (self defense comes to mind).-
100%
RedstateLib8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Laws are meant to prevent and punish the ills of society. When groups of people are intimidated by hatred directed at them simply because they are in the minority then the society as a whole must step in to take action to stop it. If the local sheriff does not want to pursue the assailant of a minority because of his own bigotry where is the equal protection under the law supposed to come from if not Federal Law Enforcement. You can honestly say that if local authorities, as has occurred many times in our history, choose to look the other way then that is just to bad for the victim. Where do you suggest they turn for equal protection?
Reply
"None of your points are relevant"
All of my points are relevant. The use of violence to intimidate an entire group of people is in no way the same as punching a drunk in the mouth. It is not the same crime whatsoever. Standing outside a club, or cruising through neighborhood frequented by minorities looking to jump the first one you see, in order to show those black, gay, jew, *******, ect b@st@rds whose country this is, is a lot different than punching out your brother in law because he's a G D Redsox's fan.-
0%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The point is, Red, that whether or not a person is attacked for being X it doesn't matter. It's still a crime. Now, the persecution of that crime may be a problem, but it doesn't matter who the crime happened to, only that it happened. The whys and wherefores are not relevant, unless that action would otherwise be determined to be lawful (self-defense). So, rather than pass a law making X crime against Y group a crime, perhaps we should make failure to prosecute a crime. That would solve the problem, would it not?
Reply
And yes, it is the same crime. If I drive around a neighborhood looking to beat up X group and do, I'm still guilty of the same crime as if I'd beat up a guy in a bar. However, under hate crime legislation, I'm suddenly finding myself under a greater penalty than if I'd just punched some guy in a bar. So, not equal punishment based upon the same crime. That' s not equality under the law.-
100%
RedstateLib8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then why is it a capital murder to kill a law enforcement officer while committing another crime? Why are an murders capital murders? As you say what makes one worse than the other? Capital murders are usually determined by who was the victim and what was the motive for the crime. Why do we have degrees of murder based on the intent of the criminal? 1st degree, 2nd degree, Manslaughter, negligent homicide. All of these are distinguished by the intent of the offender. So if the intent of the offender is to intimidate a group of people through violence why does that not create circumstances requiring harsher punishment? Sorry your argument holds no water based on the reality of the existing legal system. NEXT
Reply-
0%
Bkumm8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There should not be a different penalty for killing a police officer than for killing your neighbor.
Reply
And actually you're missing the point. I don't know if it's on purpose or not, but I'll play along. It isn't the crime that's being changed it's the PENALTY for that crime. So, if X person kills Y person and it's later determined that X person did it because Y belonged to the Alternative Church of Ignorant Radicals (Reformed) and that X had a real problem with the ACIRR, then X will be sentenced differently than if he hadn't had a problem with the ACIRR. That's the problem. THAT's the issue. Why should one group (and I include police officers in this) be singled out and it be said that they are somehow more deserving of "justice" than other people?
That's the argument. I'm afraid your "NEXT" might have been a bit premature.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
galletta61218 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Today we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is "tolerance and diversity." Indeed, the multicultural revolution works subversion everywhere, just as Communist revolutions did: judicial activism undermines the rule of law; "tolerance" weakens the conditions that make real tolerance possible; universities, which should be havens of free inquiry, practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At the same time, we find a relentless drive for equality:
Reply
the Bible, Shakespeare, and rap "music" are just texts with "equally valid perspectives;" deviant and criminal behavior is an "alternative life-style."
-
-
-
-
0%
lloydm658 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wouldn't have a problem if a woman wanted to walk down the isle with a Shetland pony,as long as it was a male pony.I care even less if a man does it with a pretty young lamb,again if it a female lamb. Man,and woman are by God's design.He Say's it is wrong,i believe it,end of discussion
Reply -
-
40%
CHAM8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the beginning of this thread , I linked an actual case where a woman was convicted of a hate crime because she wrote a note to her black neighbors and told them to quit acting like "N......
Reply
No need try to get the word printed even using it to show what was said. Her punishment was 6 months in Jail, then 6 months in home detention, then one year shackled with an ankle monitor, and following that, classes in anger management. She was mad at the neighbors for actions of their son.
What do you think the verdict would have been if the black family had sent her a note and told her to stop acting like whitey? Or what would have been a verdict if two blacks got into a fight and called each other the N word? You and I both know the answer is - nothing! So why was she prosecuted? Because she was white, no other reason.
This is a classic true case of why we don't need hate crime laws. Even if it is well intentioned there are despicable Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys who will abuse the law or ignore it.
We don't need this type of BS on the books. Just uphold the law against crime fairly, that's all that is needed.-
80%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cham
Reply
My friend, I respectfully disagree, but celebrate your right to do so.
RedstateLib described it best, in my honest opinion:
<<When blacks were lynched throughout our history it was not only a means of attacking the individual it was a means of sending a message to all other blacks within the community, "know our place and stay in it or else". That is what makes theses crimes different.
If some guy punches me because he doesn't like short, fat guys (not a protected class) is that a hate crime?
Is there a history of large numbers of Americans who have worked to deny "short, fat guys" their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I have missed this widespread historical hate addressed at this group of people? When was the last time a man was tied to a fence, beaten and left to die for simply being short and fat? When was the last time the short fat community was afraid to walk down the streets after dark for fear they would be attacked for being short and fat. When was the last time the local authorities chose to look the other way when these short fat men were attacked. When was the last time citizens on a local jury refused to convict assailants because it was the victims own fault for being short and fat or for not knowing short fat men shouldn't be in that neighborhood. When you can give me examples of when these things became a problem in our society then your short fat man argument has some merit until then you are just parroting right wing( Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh) talking points since each of them has made the same argument as you did over the years.>> -
-
100%
Natureboy8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is an issue only if you ignore history and cultural context.
Reply
For example - when I was a kid, theaters in Phoenix still had a "whites only" section. When I was a teen, blacks and hispanics who crossed "the presidents" (Van Buren, Jefferson streets) to travel into the "white" part of Phoenix risked being falsely arrested and beaten by police.
In some parts of the country at the same time being black and saying or doing the wrong thing could get you killed, and in a very bad way. Things have changed since, but not all that much.
A hate crime is a crime not only against one person, but against a person who is a member of a historically targeted class, and the intent is not just to intimidate and harm the person, but all members of the class. Thus, burning a cross on a black family's lawn is not just a crime against that family, it is aimed at resurrecting the specter of KKK, lynchings etc and is intended to intimidate all black people, put them in remembrance of burning churches and young black men swinging at the end of ropes. This is why a hate crime is something bigger than just a random act of aggression against an individual.
I think that mainstream folks have a hard time getting this, because if you are white, male, straight, you are ALREADY a protected class. The cops are your friends, and you are enfranchised. Imagine something terrible is done to you, and because you are black brown gay whatever you are afraid to even call the cops because the odds are fairly good that instead of protection you will get more of the same. -
-
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
33%
FREEDOM4AMERICA8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of you people have NO CLUE as to what is in the "HATE CRIMES" legislation. I suggest you go and read the bill for yourself. I think instead of listening to the MSNBarackObamaCommunist TV Station, who by the way, were instructed NOT To say anything bad about obamaination, by their president..JEFFREY IMMELT, who also ran GE into the ground, you young folks need to stop listening to others, and start reading the TRUTH! The hate crimes legislation DOES IN FACT, GO AGAINST THE HOLY WORD OF THE LIVING GOD. IF passed, PASTORS will be FORCED, FORCED to not preach the WORD OF GOD about Homosexuality. WHICH GOD says in HIS WORD, IS WRONG! IF pastors do this, they will have to have a HOMOSEXUAL come in and give the other side. IF KEITH BLABBERMAN and RACHEL MADDOG, think is GREAT, guess what? KEITH and RACHEL both will have to have CONSERVATIVES on to give the "other" side of the story. You folks have NO IDEA how dangerous this bill really is!!!! IT IS EVIL! AND I WILL NEVER BOW TO THIS BILL! PERIOD! Watch FoxNews for the ONLY TRUE COVERAGE ABOUT THIS BILL! STOP LISTENING TO THE LIBERALS. Obama is out to DESTROY AMERICA. Don't believe me? Just wait....it is coming...and when it does, DON'T COMPLAIN...just do what you are told to do! Good luck...you LIBERALS will need it!
Reply -
0%
lloydm658 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nothing is as bad as gay marriage.I can't imagine a child living in such a place.Most gays are nothing more than men that can't make it unless it's perverted.God has warned us,and I thank him for being long suffering,but he will not be mocked
Reply-
100%
dailyblueberry8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree lloydm65. What about a house that has two alcoholics, or two drug addicts, those have got to be worse.
Reply
Be careful my friend when you speak as if you are a messenger of God. God, I believe, labeled many sins to be equal. Have you ever been drunk? Have you ever looked at a man or woman with lust? Have you ever rounded a number in your favor on your taxes? Each is a sin and deserving of "separation from God." -
-
-
100%
ptaray8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think many argue the "sin" status of homosexuality in christianity, but the problem lies in the lack of comassion and the hate aimed at gay folks. if the churches allowed gays to be part of their services, rather than outcasts, they might just prove the part most folks get confused about christianity... compassion and inclusive ness, non judgemental and unconditional love, that was the message, not the self-righteous finger pointing that the zealots and semi-theocratic leadership that rules the supposed moral folks now....
Reply -
100%
ptaray8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All of your arguements about gays being sinners and god hating them is flawed. god might condemn homosexuality, but it is for him to find justice, not for any other man/woman to decide who is burning or who is not, so when you or your church exclude anyone from services, based on them being sinners, you are in fact denying the very purpose of god, and thus dooming yourselves while convincing your own egos that you are righteous and in fact will no doubt be judged as equals to those you condemn as sinners... won't that suck when many of you are in the same burning hell with the very gay sinners you judged and many of those gays will be vindicated by god for at least attmpting to get his word... ironic huh?
Reply -
0%
galletta61218 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The purpose of these anti-God, anti-right multi-cultural campaigns is to destroy the self. The mouth moves, the right gestures follow, but they are the mouth and gestures of a zombie, the new Soviet man or, today, Politically Correct man. And once enough people have been conditioned this way, violence is no longer necessary. We reach steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.
Reply
The "devils" are radical students of the middle and upper classes flirting with something they do not understand. The ruling class tries to ingratiate itself with them. The universities have essentially declared war on society at large. The great cry of the student radicals is freedom: freedom from the established norms of society, freedom from manners, freedom from inequality, freedom from the past.
Russia's descent into vice and insanity is a powerful warning of what happens when a nation declares war on the past in the hope of building a terrestrial paradise called the liberal utopia. -
0%
Icantwait8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Americans: I probably will go along with this law, not that we don't have enough as it is, but because if will cut out on a lot of name calling. Bashing the Bush administration would be a crime because it expresses hate. Here are some others. Anyone putting down someones religion, which I have noticed a great deal of lately, such as, Christianity is bad. Negative Jewish responses most noticeably offensive. Ridiculing the rich, imprisonment offense. Anti-Right-Wing conversation should be a hanging offense. Negative Anti American News Reporting such as contained in most of the previous comments by Liars like, Ok! Story tellers, Spadecaller, Bkumm, Chama, well you know who those fanatics are. As a matter of fact we could even include all the News Stations except for Fox. So better clean up your acts News Media. The Real American
Reply -
0%
Icantwait8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Americans: I probably will go along with this law, not that we don't have enough as it is, but because if will cut out on a lot of name calling. Bashing the Bush administration would be a crime because it expresses hate. Here are some others. Anyone putting down someones religion, which I have noticed a great deal of lately, such as, Christianity is bad. Negative Jewish responses most noticeably offensive. Ridiculing the rich, imprisonment offense. Anti-Right-Wing conversation should be a hanging offense. Negative Anti American News Reporting such as contained in most of the previous comments by Liars like, Ok! Story tellers, Spadecaller, Bkumm, Chama, well you know who those fanatics are. As a matter of fact we could even include all the News Stations except for Fox. So better clean up your acts News Media. The Real American
Reply -
100%
scott42618 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You'd think that this would be a no-brainer after Matthew Shepard's murder over 10 years ago. And if sexual orientation and gender identity were not included in this bill, this wouldn't even be an issue for these religious nutballs.
Reply
But speech isn't the issue and it isn't a prosecutable offense....even though hatred in the name of God is offensive on so many levels. But bigotry fueled violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period. -
100%
Natureboy8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the thing - even ignoring the fact that this bill targets violent acts and not speech - If your pastor says he fears such legislation because he could be arrested for hate crimes, isn't it time for some deep and somber reflection over what he has been feeding you from the pulpit? Have you been swallowing the bitter pill of hate on Sundays, mislabeled by the clergy as the teachings of the Lord of Love? Is your "faith" a dogged adherence to what your heart tells you is small and mean? If so, get clean, brothers and sisters, get clean.
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.