Ernie : Fact Check is valuable here, but not the last word. I am glad you brought this to my attention, and everyone else's attention, but there are problems with it. Anything that moves us in the direction of Canadian or European standards as far as acceptance of sexual deviations and opposition to standards of heterosexual normality and desirability, is a serious threat. The bill (s) in question is in this category even if, as Fact Check correctly points out, assertions about the measure (s) happen to be excessive and sometimes are misleading. Heck, at least a couple of assertions may, on reflection, be dishonest. Regardless, the perceived danger is real enough. Christians in America look across the border and see Canadian believers under criminal threat for openly opposing any sexual perversions. And Canada seems to be the "gold standard" for the proponents of the bill (s) in the Congress. In other words, the opposition expressed in the Human Events article is an expression of justifiable fear. Here is a classic wedge intended, it is reasonable to think, to open the door to Canadian style values across America. That door already is ajar, of course, so a better metaphor might be that the bill (s) seeks to accelerate the process. I don't know how many college campuses you have been on recently but, while there are no laws as such to this effect, almost any criticism of homosexuality and related phenomena is often met with hostility and with threats of various kinds to silence the speakers. None of this is good news. Billy -------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 6/27/2009 11:38:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
I think Fact Check deconstructed this meme pretty thoroughly: _http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_the_hate_crimes_bill_make_it.ht ml_ (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_the_hate_crimes_bill_make_it.html) -- Ernie P. On Jun 27, 2009, at 11:31 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: It is likely that parts of the following essay are over the top. That is, exaggerated, unqualified about various particulars, and less than totally objective. It was placed in Human Events for a fee. Clearly it reflects a conservative agenda. Nonetheless, Human Events is reputable and will not publish anything deemed untrustworthy. This being the case, even if we discount as much as a 1/3rd of the following paper ( no real reason to discount a third, but for the sake of argument ). we are still left with a massive indictment of Obama social policy. Will the MSM as much as report about this ? Not likely. The death of Michael Jackson is "too important." the death of a child abuser matters too much. Let me be candid, when news of Michael Jackson's death was announced I could not help myself. Spontaneously, I cheered, with enthusiasm. The death of someone who has done as much to damage American culture as anyone alive was good news, indeed. Alas, the same kind of warped mentality that now is in evidence everywhere in numerous tributes to Jackson will, in all probability, work to censor the news which the Human Events article discusses. Billy Rojas ======================================== Human Events June 26, 2009 JUDICIARY HEARING CONFIRMS "PUNISH PASTORS, PROTECT PEDOPHILES." WITNESSES BIASED: 4 FOR "HATE CRIMES," 2 CONSERVATIVES ALLOWED. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings Thursday from 10 am on the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act," (which is better known to conservatives as the "Pedophile Protection Act,"), but did not vote on S.909 as a stand-alone bill, and did not yet forward to the full Senate, giving us a few more days to act. The bill broadly defines many "sexual orientations" requiring protection by federal prosecutors, endangering free speech. The pro-homosexual, anti-faith bill, is sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and 43 Democrats (and 2 Liberal Republicans from Maine), and is pushed hard by President Obama's Administration, but it faced such strong resistance by conservatives (including threat of filibuster or faith-protecting amendments by pro-faith Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC), so instead Democrats had announced they would try to hide the bill as an amendment to another "must-move" bill, denying committee hearings, and completely side-stepping the Republicans right to debate and amend. But now thanks to your participation in fax campaigns like this one, our public pressure forced a minimal 2-hour public debate, which exposed more anti-Christian bias, but Democrats so far have not permitted amendments. Only 2 conservative testimonies were permitted at the hearings, versus 4 pro-gay liberals. * Attorney General Eric Holder linked the bill to illegal immigrant rights, but "national origin" is already protected by 1994 law, and 75% of Hispanics oppose gay marriage. Holder also admitted Christian pastors would not be protected if assaulted by violent homosexuals. * Janet Langhart Cohen, wife of former SECDEF Wm Cohen, supported the pro-hate bill. * Dr. Mark Achtemeier, a liberal theology professor made homosexual-friendly statements. * Gail Heriot, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 6 of 8 leaders members oppose hate bill. * Brian W. Walsh, The Heritage Foundation, a good legal voice opposing the hate bill. * Michael Lieberman, counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, originator of the hate bill. * Senator Leahy tried to link the bill to a shooting at the Holocaust museum, but "religion" is already protected by the 1994 hate-crimes bill, and shouldn't be tied to homosexual rights. * Senator Feinstein hailed Matthew Shepard's case, but ABC News 20/20 quotes the lead investigator: "sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in [Shepard's] homicide." 547 SEXUAL DEVIANCES TO BE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL MARSHALS Even if mark-up amendments are permitted (which can be easily deleted in conference), the forthcoming S.909 will mirror a House bill H.R. 1913, already passed 249-175 along strict party lines, which makes "sexual orientation," "gender," and "gender identity" into federally-protected classes under the law, and codifies federal protection of up to 547 types of sexually deviant behaviors, including: * Incest - sex with one's offspring (a crime, of course) * Necrophilia - sexual relations with a corpse, also a crime * Pedophilia - sex with an underage child, another crime * Zoophilia - a crime in numerous states * Voyeurism - a criminal offense in most states * Fronteurism - a man rubbing against an unknown woman's buttocks * Coprophilia - sexual arousal from feces * Urophilia - sexual arousal from urine Attempts by House Republicans to add amendments stating "pedophilia is not protected as a sexual orientation" were specifically blocked and defeated by House Democrats. Lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) expressed opposition to excluding pedophiles from the bill, and Democrats voted with her to strike any child-protection amendment. She claimed that pedophiles would not be defined within "sexual orientation," but wouldn't put that in writing, and refused to define that phrase "sexual orientation," which Congressman Steve King (R-IA) said will include all 547 sexual deviances listed in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-III manual of clinical psychoses, including pedophilia, so now thanks to most Democrats, child molesters will be protected by federal law. In response on the House floor, Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) not only admitted it would, but defended that all 547 psychoses SHOULD be defended by this new law, saying, "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'isms' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule." QUOTING THE BIBLE IN CHURCH WILL BE PUNISHED Not only will sexually deviant behaviors gain legal protection, this legislation also lays the legal foundation to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, youth pastors, Bible teachers, and anyone else whose speech and thought is based upon and reflects the truths found in the Bible. How will this legislation over-rule the First Amendment? PASTORS NOT PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT S. 909 broadly defines "intimidation," thus a pastor's sermon could be considered "hate speech" if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any "sexual orientation." The pastor could be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" or for "inciting violence against gays" simply by quoting the Bible in church. And the First Amendment won't automatically protect pastors, since speech accused of "inciting violence" is not protected, and is punishable, under precedent of Supreme Court rulings. In 1993 Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a "hate speech" law providing enhanced punishments for violent crimes based on racial motives as revealed by speech of the accused, (which would now apply broadly to punish any "anti-gay motives" in the speech of accused pastor "co-conspirators.") But pastor, if a crazy person in your audience commits a crime against a heterosexual, don't worry, you'll get a comparative discount in your prison time. IS PRAYER IN JESUS' NAME A "HATE CRIME?" Any public prayer against the sin of homosexuality could be construed as "inciting violence" by easily offended listeners, especially if those prayers are offered "in Jesus name." When I served our country as a former Navy Chaplain, for example, I was told in writing by Chief of Chaplains Rear-Admiral Louis Iasiello, that "any chaplain's continued insistence on ending public prayers 'in Jesus' name'...could reasonably tend to denigrate those with different forms of faith." His policy prohibiting prayers "in Jesus name" was enforced against me at court-martial, before it was later rescinded by Congress in 2006. But this year I've already been falsely accused of "inciting violence" because I quoted verbatim from Psalm 109 in my public prayers, (for which secular activist Mikey Weinstein literally requested an FBI investigation against me!) Just imagine more anti-Christian aggression by law enforcement officials AFTER this hate-crimes bill becomes law. IS PREACHING AGAINST SIN A HATE CRIME? As a former Navy Chaplain who was punished (in writing, three times) for quoting the Bible in chapel during optionally-attended worship, I know exactly how they'll come after us. The enemies of religious liberty will simply declare certain gospel phrases "hateful" and "offensive" like my commanding officer who punished me for quoting John 3:36 in chapel, and was supported by government lawyers for "protecting" easily offended listeners from the "offensive" gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) agrees with me, saying pastors, rabbis, or imams could be charged with encouraging or inducing a "hate crime" if they preach against homosexuality. "Every preacher of the gospel, unless you cut out parts of it; every imam who mentions anything with regard to sexual immorality - they could be pursued, and in other countries they have been," says Gohmert. (Congressmen Gohmert is my personal advocate, with whom I preached last year at a pro-faith rally in Texas...and we both agree the gospel of freedom from sin really is "love speech" not "hate speech.") (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3174872:4305896784:m:4:142106702:6F9922A685F98D8F683A1B7A30F01E08) FREE SPEECH SUPPRESSED IN NORWAY Hate crimes laws protecting homosexuals from criticism are already silencing pastors in Norway, where these dangerous laws specifically empower law enforcement officials to prosecute "intimidation" of homosexuals. For example, Congressman Gohmert warned "I was talking to a guy from Norway who was telling me that people are even afraid to say Mary was a virgin, because just bringing up sexuality at all can raise problems with law enforcement." FREE SPEECH CRIMINALIZED IN SWEDEN In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green received a one-month jail sentence last year under a Swedish "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of those who participate in homosexual behavior. The Goeta Appeals Court later overturned the decision. The government demanded the pastor be punished by appealing the case to the Swedish Supreme Court, which ruled the law unconstitutional. Yet here in America, the Reid-Kennedy-Obama trio is pushing to pass and enforce this same type of "anti-free speech" law, despite their acknowledgment that any such enforcement would be unconstitutional in America too. (They why pass the bill in the first place?) FREE SPEECH CRIMINALIZED IN CANADA In Canada, where "hate crimes" laws already passed, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal actively forbid evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 "damages for pain and suffering" and apologize to the "human rights" activist who filed the complaint. His crime? In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as "wicked" and stated that: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights." The Canadian government tribunal ordered the Christian pastor to "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals." (This "re-education commission" reminds me of Big Brother from Orwell's 1984.) FREE SPEECH CRIMINALIZED IN PENNSYLVANIA Can't happen in America? It already has. In 2004 my friend Michael Marcavage was arrested along with ten other Christians (including two elderly grandmothers), and charged with violating Pennsylvania's "hate crimes" laws, because they carried signs conveying God's love at a Gay Pride rally. One member of "The Philadelphia Eleven," Arlene Elshinnawy, 75 year-old grandmother of three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," before she was hauled off to jail by police officers. They were literally threatened with 50 years in jail for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ on a public sidewalk, because it offended gays. That hate crimes law was so outrageous it was later found unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but now Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama want to pass essentially that same discredited law nationwide. WE CAN STILL DE-RAIL THIS TRAIN But together, we can still stop them. We've identified 16 Democrats below, who are NOT YET committed as co-sponsors of S. 909, so please call them today, asking to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER any amendment to any bill that resembles S. 909. Sadly two Republicans (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, R-ME) have joined 43 Democrats by co-sponsoring this pro-homosexual bill, so call them too, and ask them to switch. x Blanche Lincoln D- AR 202-224-4843 x Byron L. Dorgan D- ND 202-224-2551 x Herb Kohl D-WI 202-224-5653 x James Webb D- VA 202-224-4024 x Jon Tester D- MT 202-224-2644 x Kay Hagan D- NC 202-224-6342 x Kent Conrad D- ND 202-224-2043 x Mark Pryor D- AR 202-224-2353 x Mark Warner D- VA 202-224-2023 x Max Baucus D- MT 202-224-2651 x = undecided Democrat. x Michael Bennet D- CO 202-224-5852 x Robert C. Byrd D- WV 202-224-3954 x Russ Feingold D-WI 202-224-5323 x Ted Kaufman D-DE 202-224-5042 x Thomas Carper D- DE 202-224-2441 x Tom Udall D- NM 202-224-6621 y Olympia Snowe R-ME 202-224-5344 y Susan Collins R-ME 202-224-2523 y = co-sponsoring Republican. Thank you for reading our lengthy analysis............ God Bless you, in Jesus' name, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
