Is this Freaky Friday or something? Expanded Hate Crimes Bill?
Posted by: The BoBo // Category: A Nation at Risk, America, Christian, Civil Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Liberals
Good lord, people. Did I wake up this morning in an alternate universe? I just read that those idiots in Congress expanded the hate crimes law (The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill) by attaching it to our defense budget for 2010.
Congress Acts to Extend Hate Crimes to Cover Gays
Seriously? What the fuck people? This has got to be another joke. It has already been proven that the death of Matthew Shepard was a drug related. His killers just wanted his money so they could buy drugs.
This is despicable. This bill couldn’t pass on it’s own – so – they piggyback it with the needs of our military. This bill is EXTREMELY dangerous in that it makes religious speech (a First Amendment Right) a federal crime if you oppose homosexuals. Not only that, but it protects pedophiles.
This bill is completely unnecessary since there are already state laws in place for this (other than providing federal protection for pedophiles). This is just more of those idiot liberals in D.C. pushing an agenda that the majority of America oppose.
I hope there is someone in D.C. with the balls to challenge this bill and bring it before SCOTUS. Last time I heard there are supposed to be checks and balances in our government to prevent unconstitutional laws like this from passing.
I can’t wait for November 2010 to get here!
Sphere: Related ContentTags: Anti-Christian, Constitution, government, homosexual, Liberals, Politics, Religion
October 9th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Yes, BoBo, we all woke this morning into a bizarro world where Obama wins the Nobel Prize for having done absolutely nothing, and God fearing good people who believe and teach the word of God are criminals. It’s a good thing that we who are clinging to our religion with one hand, are also clinging to a gun with the other. :0)
da Patriot´s last blog ..Nobel Prize is Worthless Now
Reply to da Patriot
October 9th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“If you want to get naked and howl at the moon it’s your business, If you want to do it in my front yard, that’s different. The first one you can let pass, the other one you’re forced to do something about.” (From the movie “Hoosiers”). Maybe not the exact words but these liberal leftist are in our front yard and we need to do something about it. Vote Republican in 2010 and 2012! The gay lifestyle dosen’t fit my agenda. Live your life but don’t force me to accept it. Even worse, don’t put it on the backs of the military.
Edisto Joe´s last blog ..AFGHAN WAR COUNCIL: PAUSE FOR PEACE PRIZE!
Reply to Edisto Joe
October 9th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Just making sure! At least I now know I’m not the only one out there.
Reply to The BoBo
October 10th, 2009 at 6:52 am
This is just insane!!! I am NOT a homophobe but I am homo concerned!! I think Edisto Joe said it best; agree whole heartedly!!
Reply to Raider Steve
October 10th, 2009 at 10:12 am
@RaiderSteve – welcome back! Been busy I take it? I’m with ya on this one too – I’m no homophobe – but if this bill can’t pass on it’s own, it’s a freakin shame to put this on the backs of our military needs. These idiots in D.C. have no shame.
Reply to The BoBo
October 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Do you think a minister in church saying homosexuality is wrong is the same as a couple of jack-booted thugs (gawd, I love that phrase) kicking a fag to death are the same thing? I think you are making some errors in logic.
I am also interested in the particular biblical passages that condemn homosexuality – not because I do not think they exist but because of the other prohibitions on the same page that no one pays any attention to.
There is no federal protection for pedophiles – there is actually no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality.
The edit-timer is preventing me from cites – more later.
Reply to Grumpy Old Man
October 13th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@Grumpy – first – if you read the post – you would see that Matthew Shepard wasn’t killed because he was gay. He was killed for drug money.
As for the bible and homosexuality – it is very clear:
Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman,
both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put
to death”
Corinthians 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals”
1 Timothy 1:9-10 ” realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man,
but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and
sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers
or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and
kidnappers and liars and perjurers”
If you’d like I can continue. A Christian preacher, and any Christian followers, who speak out against homosexuality are absolutely exercising their first amendment rights to freedom of religion. This bill would make that a hate crime.
I didn’t say that pedophilia was correlated to homosexuality. This bill protects gays, lesbians, transgenders, and pedophiles.
Reply to The BoBo
October 15th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I actually was not directly feferring to Matthew; I was referring to all the people who are kicked to death by people shouting homophobic slurs but let us take Matthew Shepard”s case: The sherif who arrested McKinney and Henderson and investigated the case – he adamantly believes it was ‘gay bashing’, Matthew was a homosexual male 5’3″ and 105 – he was out. Those 2 chose him because he was gay and an easy target; they flirted with him and offered him a ride. They claimed ‘gay rage’ as a defense stating that they were so enraged by his coming on to them that the crime should only be manslaughter not murder. Granted, later they said that they killed him in a ‘meth-fueld’ rage to try to get the charges/sentence reduced but…. There was a really bad 20/20 segment on the killing that tried to change the conversation but the sherif says that the show excluded anything that disagreed with their premise and made up stuff to support it (ie, the killers had no drugs on them, had no drugs in them, etc).
How does the bill protect pedophiles? I will need a link and a direct quote, if you do not mind.
Reply to Grumpy Old Man
October 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
@Grumpy – okay – here’s the link to the text of the bill:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text
Section 249(a)(2)
“OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-”
Pedophilia falls under the definition of sexual orientation. Here is how sexual orientation is measured:
Varying definitions and strong social norms about sexuality can make sexual orientation difficult to quantify. Researchers may use
different markers of sexual orientation, including self-labeling,
sexual behaviour, sexual fantasy or a pattern of erotic arousal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
So – it can be argued – and pedophile organizations even argue – that theirs is an orientation and not a deviant behavior.
Reply to The BoBo
October 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
@BoBo – I hope you appreciate that I am burning up a lot of my (relatively) rare free-time talking with you. So let me now turn to the bible:
Leviticus:
9 - For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
I understand that the bible forbids a lot of things and holds them to be terrible in the eyes of god but my point is that using the bible in one instance and not in another is just silly. The bible thinks ‘spilling your seed on the ground’ is a worse crime that murder. The bible thinnks that it is appropriate for god to send bears to rip apart children for mocking his prophet for being bald.
The bible is a giant rorschach test that people use to pick and choose what they are against and how it is used changes (the bible was often quoted to support slavery).
And I do not have any problem with Chrstian (or any other) preachers speaking out against homosexuality. But that in no way makes it okay to kick someone to death because you think they are homosexual. There are laws against murder but it is acceptable (???) for a Christian preacher to publicly state that he prays for the death of the POTUS. Just so you make the connection, just because there is a law against kicking a homo to death because he is a homo, it is still legal for a Christian preacher to preach that he hopes all homosexuals die or are kicked to death. But, some of these examples actually go the other way – like it is generally considered bad form now to publicly preach about killing all jews or all blacks or all ethnics – but it is still done.
Do not assume one isolated instance will be treated differently from general whole. Freedom of speach is not under fire. Nor is this a case of ‘thought crimes’ – when the prosecution tries to prove murder, the defendents state of mind is considered important to the level of murder.
Reply to Grumpy Old Man
October 15th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
@Grumpy – indeed – I do appreciate you taking the time to stop by and comment. Personally, I enjoy the back and forth banter knowing that I will never move you to my side and you know you’ll never get me to move to your side – yet – we can still discuss the issues throwing out competing facts to support both sides. It just goes to show that anybody can manipulate the information out there to fit their own point of view and interpretation. While I know mine is the correct interpretation – I won’t hold it against you when you try anyway!
Reply to The BoBo
October 15th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Pedophilia is not a protected class nor is it a protected sexual orientation in the same way that rapists are not a protected class nor it is not a protected sexual orientation.Pedophilia is wrong and unprotected on so many different levels that i can’t imagine how you think it is protected.And, yeah, the give and take is fun and I do learn things – just not the things you are trying to teach me.
Reply to Grumpy Old Man
October 15th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Oh and this image goes along with my favorite bumpersticker “After the Rapture, can I have your car?”
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwYI/Ss_LLpdL2CI/AAAAAAAAG6U/GCbQuQWlub8/s1600-h/if+only.jpg
Reply to Grumpy Old Man
October 16th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
are you one of those non-believers also?
Reply to The BoBo
October 18th, 2009 at 3:59 am
Yes.
Reply to Grumpy Old Man
October 18th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Okay – that explains it.
Reply to The BoBo
October 18th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Explains what? There is no biblical support for the Rapture – that is some crazy shit made up by a really crazy person in the mid-1800s
Reply to Grumpy Old Man
October 18th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
@Grumpy – no, not the rapture – you – why you seem so jaded to the point you think only government can take care of the people and why you fall for that liberal propaganda instead of believing in the individual. When you put your life and faith in the hands of God, the individual can succeed where no government can.
Reply to The BoBo
October 19th, 2009 at 2:07 am You mis-read me completely. I have made no statements wrt state vs individual. I am arguing with YOU about things that I perceive that YOU believe. This is not a forum, it is a blog so all I can do is respond to you. I do make comments speak to larger issues but usually I am speaking with you concerning something you have brought up. I will also admit that sometimes read your side, consider the middle, then move an equal distance to the left but I never misrepresent what I think or believe (equal but opposite reaction). I do not consider myself ‘jaded’ but I do consider myself a liberal. I know that you will take that in a simplistic 2-d way but liberalism is more than individualism vs altruism (in purest sense of 100% one or 100% the other); it can also be on a line between Democracy vs Constitutionalism; or even Competition vs. Cooperation. I could go on but I do not want to bore you.
Reply to Grumpy Old Man
October 20th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Just for the record – I never thought you ever misrepresented yourself. It’s just that we have differing beliefs. And..you’re right – I do have a very simplistic view of liberalism – while it certainly has its merits – that ideology has been hijacked by progressives who believe in the socialization of America. Our founding fathers were liberals and libertarians. However, their ideology of liberalism is today’s conservatism. Liberals have moved so far to the left of our founding fathers you can’t even recognize it any longer.
Reply to The BoBo