Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill

Excellent!

 

Good.

Last I checked, there weren't any violent crimes that were crimes of love. (Passion, maybe.)

If this bill passes, expect the thought police to show up on your doorstep the next time you preach against homosexuality, etc.

The Patriot Act was bad enough. We don't need to compound the problem.

 

Amen!

With respect to homosexuality the goal - with considerable support within government - remains to forcefully make it acceptable and protected conduct. The real hate is being directed towards God and His followers. Those that advocate homosexuality can't stand the fact that God said it was very wrong. They want His record changed to reflect how they believe it should be. Making any expression against homosexuality a matter of "hate" is a tool towards being able to use the force of law to squelch that expression.

 

With respect to homosexuality

 

Abso-tootin-lootly.

Seems the credence society places on homosexuality is an indicator of the stage of collapse of that culture. (sorry. poorly worded)

 

Yikes! One can never be too careful about the unintended but implied meaning of words and phrases!

Perhaps, "With disrespect to homosexuality ..." would have been more literally correct but I wouldn't want to infer hatefulness by the word "disrespect"!

So how about: "The goal of homosexual advocates - with considerable support within government - remains to forcefully make it acceptable and protected conduct."?

 

The thing about it is that homosexuality is already "accepted" by the government.

They want to be thought police and force individuals to not only accept it, but embrace it!

 

Yes, and they also what to teach our children and grandchildren that's it okay - just an alternate lifestyle - to make sure they're primed to rebel against all they've been taught. May the Lord help us to keep the truth in their hearts.

 

I wish we had a President who could harbor an original thought.

 

Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms [By Ron Paul]

May 7, 2007

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto. ​

 

I pray we could have a President who harbors the thoughts of Christ given in His word. Originality does not make good leadership. Following God's word brings the blessings! Pro-life, liberating the oppressed, meeting the needs of the poor, providing equal opportunity for all.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Hmmm...I must have missed those qualifications for President in the Constitution.

 

Christian voting is not first and foremost about the President. God will place into power whom He pleases. My Christian vote is about me. It is I who will give a personal account for my deeds. Did I do my part biblically to give a Christlike attempt to elect a man who upholds God's moral laws. Did I vote for a pro-murderer for example. Will God accept a "lesser of two evils" argument. I think not. Any candidate who flat out opposses a moral value of our God's should not be considered from a Christian perspective. Let the lost vote them in and let the lost give their own account for it one day. Christians should know better and I believe many do but have become just like the lost caught up into towing party lines rather than holding their vote accountable to God.

God Bless!

 

This reminds me of a song:

"I'm coming back to the heart of worship,
It's all about me, all about me, Jesus.
I'm sorry, Lord, if You can't understand that
It's all about me, all about me, Jesus."

:laugh:

 

Here is my full quote, i don't think it is talking about worshipping me :thumbs: ..........

"My Christian vote is about me. It is I who will give a personal account for my deeds. Did I do my part biblically to give a Christlike attempt to elect a man who upholds God's moral laws. Did I vote for a pro-murderer for example. Will God accept a "lesser of two evils" argument. I think not."

God Bless! :wavey:

 

Why can't you treat him as a brother in Christ? He sometimes doesn't communicate his thoughts that well, but he makes sound decisions and is unaffected by poles and liberal rantings. Compare his GPA in college with your former favorite, Algore.

 

Al Gore was never a favorite of mine.

As far as Bush's Christianity, it's all well and good. He governs like someone who hasn't a clue, though, and that is what I address.

 

Funny how narrowly you apply the principle, there.

 

Not funny at all. Context is everything. :thumbs:

Maybe I should have structured my sentence better. As, my Christian vote is about me, who will give a personal account for my deeds.

I think most everyone still knows the meaning of what I fully posted.

God Bless! :wavey: