# Illegal for pastors to speak against homosexuality



## PresReformed (Jun 15, 2007)

A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality

http://www.afa.net/hatecrime2.asp


----------



## jawyman (Jun 15, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality
> 
> http://www.afa.net/hatecrime2.asp



Currently in the UK it already is illegal for a pastor to speak out against homosexuality. It is a _hate crime._


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 15, 2007)

Well, I guess we'll all meet in jail...


----------



## jawyman (Jun 15, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Well, I guess we'll all meet in jail...



I would rather be in jail preaching the Gospel and calling people to repentance, than be in Hell for all eternity.


----------



## BJClark (Jun 15, 2007)

LadyFlynt;



> Well, I guess we'll all meet in jail...



Or maybe we can call our Congressmen and Senators urging them to VOTE NO on these two Bills..

Also contact your local news stations and share with them how this also effects the First Amendment "Freedom of Speech" they hold so dearly...(even though they may not see the ramifications of it right now) consider if they call a crime evil on their nightly news broadcast..it would apply to them as well...because no longer would evil be evil and good good...in the eyes of the land...


----------



## govols (Jun 15, 2007)

Why can't someone proclaim that God's Word says that homosexuality is an abomination or that God says that it is.

I am not saying (as a pastor preaching) this, God has written in the Bible, the Truth, if you have a problem with Him saying this then ...


----------



## BJClark (Jun 15, 2007)

govols;



> Why can't someone proclaim that God's Word says that homosexuality is an abomination or that God says that it is.
> 
> I am not saying (as a pastor preaching) this, God has written in the Bible, the Truth, if you have a problem with Him saying this then ...



Does your congressman and senator profess at ALL to be Christians?? If SO, Then e-mail them and confront them concerning what they proclaim they believe...maybe share with them how it will APPLY to them as well..

And who knows maybe as Christians we could also file charges against those who speak out against Christianity???? And how that is also a HATE Crime..

Maybe we should also contact the churches they belong to and implore the pastors to Immediately inact the the Matthew 18 Process on these men and women!!! Should it matter that we are NOT members of their congregations? As we are supposed to be ONE BODY??? And if they refuse should we not publically address this issue to the entire Body of Christ of those Pastors reactions??


----------



## govols (Jun 15, 2007)

What I was saying that if I'm a pastor I would say that God's Word proclaims that homosexuality is sin and if you have a problem with God's Word don't blame me, seek Him.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 15, 2007)

jawyman said:


> I would rather be in jail preaching the Gospel and calling people to repentance, than be in Hell for all eternity.


Amen!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jun 15, 2007)

BJClark said:


> LadyFlynt;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm sure they'll listen to us serfs. They are going to jam scamnesty for illegals down our throats like it or not. Hate speech laws are coming.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 15, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I'm sure they'll listen to us serfs.


My feelings, precisely. They are no longer "representing" the common people. They are representing corporations, lobbyists of the worst kind, and themselves. "vote us in so we can mess you over"...sure.


----------



## BJClark (Jun 15, 2007)

here is a letter I wrote to my sentator..

Dear Sentator Nelson,

As a Christian, and one in your voting area, I am VERY Disappointed concerning your stance on these hate Crime Bills.

It appears our Congressmen and Senators have forgotten the very First Amendment written in our Consititution concerning the Freedom of Speech!!!

Do you even realize how these bills will effect YOUR church? Your Children? Your Grandchildren? Your Great Grand Children??
I honestly doubt any one of you who voted in favor of this are looking at long term ramifications on this Nation and it's citizens.

Not one single one you will be able to speak out against ANY EVIL being evil either!! Be it Islam, or Moslem Laws in other countries, Lest YOU personally be charged with a hate Crime!! But then you don't see that side of it do you?? Consider all those who voted in favor of ANY War or Sanctions against another country, would those not also be considered HATE Crimes???

Consider your grandchild getting in a fight at school and calling someone a name in the heat of the fight, that person could in turn charge your grandchild with a hate crime..But do any of your see these things? Apparently not, Your eyes are blinded to the deeper ramifications of this Bill or any Bill like it.

How will our jails, state finances and courts be able to handle the increase in cases and criminals?? Where will tax dollars come from in order to house all those 'new' criminals? Oh wait, they will have to reinstate the death penality in order to make room for them or let other criminals out of jail in order to house the new. 

How will Homeland security be able to monitor all of these new criminals?

Will our military be brought back to America and used as a Police Force, making US a Policed State now and not a Free People??

Looking at and considering ALL of these things, do You see the deeper ramifications of Your vote in favor of this Bill?

Honestly, I do NOT expect a reply, just as I have not recieved any reply from my previous e-mail to you concerning these same issues, but I guess that is to be expected as I do not hold to the same views as you, as I'm sure your staff withholds this type of correspondence from you.

I challenge you Senator, to consider Your claim to be a follower of Christ, 
from your actions and your voting record you do not live out what You claim to believe. Consider these verses.

Luke 6:46

"Why do you call me "Lord, Lord" and do not do what I say?"

1 John 14:21

"The man who says "I know him" but does NOT do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in Him."

But most importantly take note of Romans 1:18-32 specifically verse 32.

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only those who do the same, but those who have pleasure in them that do them."

Do you not take seriously the judgment of God? Or are they just words to you, written by some men thousands of years ago, not to be taken seriously? What is it that you really believe to be true about the God you claim to follow and love? Do you believe He is ONLY a God of Love but not also a God of judgment? If you only believe He is about Love, then you make Him into a God of your own making--Because He is Both a God who loves and a God who will judge those who sin against Him.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 15, 2007)

BJClark said:


> here is a letter I wrote to my sentator..
> 
> Dear Sentator Nelson,


 If you're going to misspell Senator, then I would misspell it as _Sin_ator.


----------



## BJClark (Jun 15, 2007)

LadyFlynt;



> My feelings, precisely. They are no longer "representing" the common people. They are representing corporations, lobbyists of the worst kind, and themselves. "vote us in so we can mess you over"...sure.



There was something on Fox News the other night about how many of the lobbyist are also family members of these congressmen and senators who are paid thousands of dollars by these people in office to lobby them..


----------



## BJClark (Jun 15, 2007)

Puritanhead;



> If you're going to misspell Senator, then I would misspell it as _Sin_ator.:


 

Thanks for the edit...


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 15, 2007)

I share everyone's outrage about adding "gender identity" to the list of protected classes that increase the penalty for crimes, but has anyone else actually read the bill? It does not outlaw preaching or speech. It applies to _bodily injury _or _attempt to commit bodily injury _with a weapon based upon "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person. . . ."

Here is the applicable language of H. R. 1592 as referred to the Senate:
. . .

Sec. 8, (a)(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

(Underlines are mine).

Unless there is some other bill out there, nothing is on the table to outlaw preaching against homosexuality. You are just prohibited from physically injurying them or attempting to injure them with a specified weapon. So if you are preaching, don't punch anyone or threaten them with a gun or a bomb.

By the way, the last part of the bill makes it clear that it doesn't apply to free speech without violent acts: 

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
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.

I don't like the bill, but let us attack it honestly instead of bringing up a false enemy.

The link to the text is below, but it is only temporary. If it goes dead, go to the thomas.loc.gov website and do a search on the Bill number 1592. Pick either the "engrossed" bill or the "referred to Senate" bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110PKMWuJ::


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 15, 2007)

jawyman said:


> Currently in the UK it already is illegal for a pastor to speak out against homosexuality. It is a _hate crime._



I do not believe that you are 100% correct here but there have been moves to try to make it so - Equality Act 2006 and the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2006 see here. 

You may wish to refer here: http://www.christian.org.uk/home.htm


----------



## Davidius (Jun 15, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I share everyone's outrage about adding "gender identity" to the list of protected classes that increase the penalty for crimes, but has anyone else actually read the bill? It does not outlaw preaching or speech. It applies to _bodily injury _or _attempt to commit bodily injury _with a weapon based upon "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person. . . ."
> 
> Here is the applicable language of H. R. 1592 as referred to the Senate:
> . . .
> ...



I went to AFA's site where they were calling the legions to action but was unable to find any quotes from the bill or any links to what it actually says. It only says "the bill provides for (blah blah blah)." Does anyone know whether I missed it? Is the text of the bill itself, or even a direct quote, available on AFA's page?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 15, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I went to AFA's site where they were calling the legions to action but was unable to find any quotes from the bill or any links to what it actually says. It only says "the bill provides for (blah blah blah)." Does anyone know whether I missed it? Is the text of the bill itself, or even a direct quote, available on AFA's page?



A link is buried in their website.

It is essentially a link to the thomas link I gave above:

http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1592:

If you click on the engrossed version, you'll see the same language as what I quoted. 

The AFA does not quote from the bill text that I can see. This sort of alarmism based upon misstated facts bothers me and gives Christians a bad name. It is false witness.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 15, 2007)

I'm confused. Is this one of those inferential thought crimes incidental to committing a real tangible crime like homicide? Or does it include simply making blanket statements such as condemning a person for their immoral lifestyle? I understand in Canada, teleevangelists / pastors have to edit their broadcasts to conform to Canada's evolving human rights standards, which makes offensive speech against sheltered minorities (i.e., Moslems, homosexuals) into a crime.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 15, 2007)

Thanks for taking the time to research this, Vic. If this is all there is to it then you are definitely right. Is the AFA just trying to get more money, or what? Before I unsubscribed from their mailing list there was always a little jab for a donation at the end...



Puritanhead said:


> I'm confused. Is this one of those inferential thought crimes incidental to committing a real tangible crime like homicide? Or does it include simply making blanket statements such as condemning a person for their immoral lifestyle? I understand in Canada, teleevangelists / pastors have to edit their broadcasts to conform to Canada's evolving human rights standards, which makes offensive speech against sheltered minorities (i.e., Moslems, homosexuals) into a crime.



According to the text of the bill it only includes doing bodily harm or attempting to do bodily harm.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 15, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> I'm confused. Is this one of those inferential thought crimes incidental to committing a real tangible crime like homicide? Or does it include simply making blanket statements such as condemning a person for their immoral lifestyle? I understand in Canada, teleevangelists / pastors have to edit their broadcasts to conform to Canada's evolving human rights standards, which makes offensive speech against sheltered minorities (i.e., Moslems, homosexuals) into a crime.



It's the first, Ryan. It applies to actual violent crimes and adds "gender identity" to the other protected classes, such as race or religion. It does not apply to statements that are not accompanied by bodily harm or threats of violence with a specified weapon.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 15, 2007)

jawyman said:


> Currently in the UK it already is illegal for a pastor to speak out against homosexuality. It is a _hate crime._



Hmm. Well I have done it a couple of times this year. No-one has arrested me yet. 

JH


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jun 15, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Well, I guess we'll all meet in jail...



If our freedom to speak the truth is abridged, I'll gladly go. 

See y'all there.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 15, 2007)

http://overcriminalized.com/?PrettyID=4334

Republican lawmakers are apparently making a joke out of it, by tacking on amendments for their favorite constituents.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jun 15, 2007)

I do not understand what the issue is. Surely the Word is to be preached in season and out of season. It is God who sets the agenda! If we want the Church to grow and pray for it, then persecution may be the means. Will we then stop praying / preaching? Are we to rob men of the transforming power of the Gospel (which also extends to immoral people, see Ro.1:16, 1.Cor.6:9f.) by our guilty silence? We need not fear men if we fear God. 
Let it be said in passing that homosexuality is not the only sin listed in Scripture. I have only ever heard one preacher condemn gluttony (and that may apply to some of us). Christ's fiercest condemnation is reserved for another category, see Mt.23. 
If they want to ban the Bible – well, what about Juvenal? It would be rude to print his views. Here in the UK I have not heard the Muslim community speaking out – which is rather strange. 
This is not a time to be discouraged. Things are bad – they may get worse, but the best is still to come.


----------



## jawyman (Jun 15, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I do not believe that you are 100% correct here but there have been moves to try to make it so - Equality Act 2006 and the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2006 see here.
> 
> You may wish to refer here: http://www.christian.org.uk/home.htm



Oh. We had a visiting professor from Scotland in a month ago and Dr. Murray said it had passed and that if a pastor spoke out against homosexuals, it was a hate crime. I apologise if I am wrong.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jun 15, 2007)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

It's just a matter of time till speech against sodomites will be punished. Here is a precident that should scare all. This guy went to jail for 3 years for questioning the official numbers in the holocaust. They can put you in jail for something you say about history.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 15, 2007)

jawyman said:


> Oh. We had a visiting professor from Scotland in a month ago and Dr. Murray said it had passed and that if a pastor spoke out against homosexuals, it was a hate crime. I apologise if I am wrong.



It depends what you say in that if you incite hatred then that would be illegal (I think). I am a little out of the loop at the moment so you could be correct.

BTW: Was it John J Murray who was visiting?


----------



## jawyman (Jun 15, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> It depends what you say in that if you incite hatred then that would be illegal (I think). I am a little out of the loop at the moment so you could be correct.
> 
> BTW: Was it John J Murray who was visiting?



Well, according to the Brits I am wrong and since it is their country, I'll take it I was missinformed.

Our new professor is Dr. David P. Murray of Stornoway Free Church of Scotland.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 15, 2007)

jawyman said:


> Our new professor is Dr. David P. Murray of Stornoway Free Church of Scotland.



I loved his series on OT worship found here: http://www.freekirkcontinuing.co.uk/FCC/Witness and Explorer_files/WitnessSept-Small.pdf (page 14)


----------



## calgal (Jun 15, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
> 
> It's just a matter of time till speech against sodomites will be punished. Here is a precident that should scare all. This guy went to jail for 3 years for questioning the official numbers in the holocaust. They can put you in jail for something you say about history.



Actually he denied there were any gas chambers in the death camps and denied any mass murder of Jews. In Austria which does have well known stringent laws regarding nazis. As does Germany. They are paranoid but their fear has a visible component. It is called Dachau. As for the OP, frankly the AFA is irresponsible: unfounded hysteria will make folks a lot less likely to believe them if and when "hate crimes" laws are overextended for real. They need to reread Chicken Little.


----------



## Augusta (Jun 15, 2007)

jawyman said:


> Well, according to the Brits I am wrong and since it is their country, I'll take it I was missinformed.
> 
> Our new professor is Dr. David P. Murray of Stornoway Free Church of Scotland.



Well we're all about to find out. Presbyterian Moderator, Dr John Finlay, made this state that made the news in the following news in the Belfast Telegraph: "If the Lord Jesus excludes homosexuals from the Church of which He is the head, why does the Moderator see no reason why they cannot be members of the Presbyterian Church?"


Link to the article: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/article2652494.ece


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Jun 15, 2007)

Is it illegal for people to speak against people who speak against homosexuality? Is it a hate crime too?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 16, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I share everyone's outrage about adding "gender identity" to the list of protected classes that increase the penalty for crimes, but has anyone else actually read the bill? It does not outlaw preaching or speech. It applies to _bodily injury _or _attempt to commit bodily injury _with a weapon based upon "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person. . . ."
> 
> Here is the applicable language of H. R. 1592 as referred to the Senate:
> . . .
> ...



This is what irks me about this issue. Nowhere in the bills at all can you find any language that addresses speech, so I haven't a clue why the AFA and others are so up in arms about it. I, too, think the bill is a ridiculous example of overlegislation (murder is murder, and why a person murders should not make a whit of difference in their punishment) but I cannot find any reason to argue against the bill on First Amendment grounds, since it doesn't seem to apply at all.

I wrote the AFA on this, asking them to explain why they are stirring people up over this matter when the bill seems at least in its text not to have anything to do with speech. I have no response as yet.

Todd


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 16, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> This is what irks me about this issue. Nowhere in the bills at all can you find any language that addresses speech, so I haven't a clue why the AFA and others are so up in arms about it. I, too, think the bill is a ridiculous example of overlegislation (murder is murder, and why a person murders should not make a whit of difference in their punishment) but I cannot find any reason to argue against the bill on First Amendment grounds, since it doesn't seem to apply at all.
> 
> I wrote the AFA on this, asking them to explain why they are stirring people up over this matter when the bill seems at least in its text not to have anything to do with speech. I have no response as yet.
> 
> Todd



Right, I think it is plain fear mongering. It hurts credibility. 

It's one thing to cry havoc over the trend-- that is fair enough. But the false claim that Congress is outlawing speech with this bill suggests that someone is more interested in donations than truth.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 16, 2007)

calgal said:


> Actually he denied there were any gas chambers in the death camps and denied any mass murder of Jews. In Austria which does have well known stringent laws regarding nazis. As does Germany. They are paranoid but their fear has a visible component. It is called Dachau. As for the OP, frankly the AFA is irresponsible: unfounded hysteria will make folks a lot less likely to believe them if and when "hate crimes" laws are overextended for real. They need to reread Chicken Little.



I thought it was "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." *shrug* 

The real problem is that most Americans are morons and have no idea that they're being swindled. They don't realize that the hysteria is unfounded.


----------



## calgal (Jun 16, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I thought it was "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." *shrug*
> 
> The real problem is that most Americans are morons and have no idea that they're being swindled. They don't realize that the hysteria is unfounded.


 That too! Chicken Little "the sky is falling" 

Exactly. Majoring in the minors is way too common in evangelical circles (and it is a terrible witness).


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 16, 2007)

calgal said:


> That too! Chicken Little "the sky is falling"
> 
> Exactly. Majoring in the minors is way too common in evangelical circles (and it is a terrible witness).



I'm not sure what the above remark means, but if it's being argued that speaking against homosexuality is an example of "majoring in the minors", I couldn't disagree more.


----------



## calgal (Jun 17, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> I'm not sure what the above remark means, but if it's being argued that speaking against homosexuality is an example of "majoring in the minors", I couldn't disagree more.


The issue raised in the OP would have been much more believable had the word ****** been outlawed or had any speaking against sodomites been outlawed. All that was proposed in the actual bill was not to beat up people for their lifestyles. The AFA did not read, stirred up the darkest fears of many otherwise intelligent folks and was irresponsible at best. They in this case majored in the minors. If the energy they put into this bill was directed at say Massachusetts or some other state that allowed gays to marry, maybe there would have been a real impact on society. As it stands, all the AFA did was play right into the hands of the gay activists.  We Christians can and MUST do better than that!


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 17, 2007)

calgal said:


> The issue raised in the OP would have been much more believable had the word ****** been outlawed or had any speaking against sodomites been outlawed. All that was proposed in the actual bill was not to beat up people for their lifestyles. The AFA did not read, stirred up the darkest fears of many otherwise intelligent folks and was irresponsible at best. They in this case majored in the minors. If the energy they put into this bill was directed at say Massachusetts or some other state that allowed gays to marry, maybe there would have been a real impact on society. As it stands, all the AFA did was play right into the hands of the gay activists.  We Christians can and MUST do better than that!



I'm still quite confused by your use of the phrase "majoring in the minors". Usually that's reserved for the critique of somebody taking a strong and restrictive stance on an issue that is of only secondary or tertiary importance. (like, for instance, calling up on church disciplinary charges those who read the NIV at home)

So in this case, I wouldn't say they're "majoring in the minors" - ultimately, this issue is of major importance (if the bill actually prohibited speech). Rather, they're guilty of fear-mongering and misrepresenting the nature of the bill they're opposing. Now if it is the case that this bill is one step toward outlawing such speech - or has provisions that in fact (even if not in the text itself) do tend to limit speech, then they have a duty as an organization to properly represent the case. They have NOT in this case, and that is where they have fallen short.

Todd


----------



## calgal (Jun 17, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> I'm still quite confused by your use of the phrase "majoring in the minors". Usually that's reserved for the critique of somebody taking a strong and restrictive stance on an issue that is of only secondary or tertiary importance. (like, for instance, calling up on church disciplinary charges those who read the NIV at home)
> 
> So in this case, I wouldn't say they're "majoring in the minors" - ultimately, this issue is of major importance (if the bill actually prohibited speech). Rather, they're guilty of fear-mongering and misrepresenting the nature of the bill they're opposing. Now if it is the case that this bill is one step toward outlawing such speech - or has provisions that in fact (even if not in the text itself) do tend to limit speech, then they have a duty as an organization to properly represent the case. They have NOT in this case, and that is where they have fallen short.
> 
> Todd



If they actually found a real threat to our freedom of speech, I would agree. On another note, where is the AFA (Ironic name for the group) helping any family in need? Any group claiming to speak for families should be front and center when families are in real need. *Cough Katrina cough.* I live in Michigan and know how bad things are up here right now. How nice would it be to have these folks spend a minute or a dollar helping local families in need? IMNSHO, that would be an amazing witness and would make these groups far more credible than whining about nonexistent threats to our freedom of speech.  Sorry Todd if I got frustrated. I just get tired of everything being a "vast left wing conspiracy"


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 17, 2007)

calgal said:


> IMNSHO, that would be an amazing witness and would make these groups far more credible than whining about nonexistent threats to our freedom of speech.



Little advice: Keep your eyes wide open over the next few years and you'll see just how EXISTENT these threats will be to our freedom of speech.


----------



## calgal (Jun 18, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> Little advice: Keep your eyes wide open over the next few years and you'll see just how EXISTENT these threats will be to our freedom of speech.



Little advice: fight the actual threats rather than crying like unto the inverse Hillary.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 18, 2007)

calgal said:


> Little advice: fight the actual threats rather than crying like unto the inverse Hillary.





I agree. Slippery slope fallacies are still fallacious even when they suit your argument. I have no doubt that the time is coming when it will be illegal to preach the Gospel but I don't agree with getting on bandwagons based on lies even when they're "in my corner".


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 18, 2007)

If I remember right, I believe the major concern about the bill was that it would not only allow violent perpetrators against homosexuals to be punished as a hate crime but also those who allegedly put the ideas in their head (i.e preachers). Correct me if I'm wrong on this.


----------



## BJClark (Jun 18, 2007)

In doing some added research I came up with...as some of the basic concerns of this law.

If I should seek permission to post the links let me know...

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Hate_Crimes1

http://www.nychristiancoalition.org/HateCrimesLaws.htm

A question, looking at one of the hate crimes bills it discusses Menacing in the first degree, second degree, and third degree..and maybe this is where those who are fighting against this bill concerning the freedom of speech comes in..

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm

So what is considered menacing? 

S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she
commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been
previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree
within the preceding ten years.
Menacing in the first degree is a class E felony.

S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person
in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death
by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to
be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
*2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of
conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally
placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of
physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or*
3. He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in
violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such
order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was
present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight
of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law,
or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in
another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the
respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose
behalf the order was issued.
Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

120.15 Menacing in the third degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical
menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another
person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical
injury. Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

Does a pastor preaching against sin (any kind of sin) and God's judgment against the sinner...pose a threat to a sinner? Most certainly it does.

So in that a sinner is told they will face God's judgment if they don't repent..
placing the pastor or whomever in the Menacing category, telling the sinner they are in deed in danger. Which without the hate crimes added in, would be considered a misdemeaner..with the hate crimes added in for sexual orientation..adds a penalty of about 10 years...so instead of being considered a misdemeanor it becomes a felony conviction.

I'm not sure if this IS what they are seeing, but it certainly seems to me to be a possiblity of what they could be looking at.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 18, 2007)

calgal said:


> Little advice: fight the actual threats rather than crying like unto the inverse Hillary.



I'm just saying, watch. That's all. I'm not going to sit here and argue about it all day though because that isn't exactly "fighting the actual threats" either, now is it?


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 18, 2007)

And I don't really see what the big deal is about the ministry of the AFA. Granted I don't agree with all the concerns they raise, but they have done some good over the years. And if that is how they believe God is using them for His purpose and Kingdom then who are some of you to say otherwise?!?

I get my stomach full of the arrogance on this board sometimes. If someone doesn't do things exactly the way you would or line up exactly the way you do then just write them off. Let's get over ourselves a little bit!


----------

