Pastors Test Expanded Hate Crimes Law

PhatDajuan »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:28 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show DEAR SLACKER: Although the federal hate crimes law was amended to include "sexual orientation" (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way) only the past month, the original law was enacted in 1969. And again, never has it been used to persecute Christians for the preaching we have all come to expect from them. So when Pat Robertson went absolutely BALLISTIC when Muslim clerics were first invited to deliver invocations before sessions of Congress, was he prosecuted under the hate crimes law? No. When Christian protesters in the gallery at the U.S. Capitol Building started screaming at a Hindu holy man when HE was delivering the invocation, were THEY prosecuted under the hate crimes law? No. When members of the KKK and the National Socialist White People's Party spew their hatred toward Blacks and Jews, are THEY prosecuted under the hate crimes law? No. When the late Southern Baptist Convention president Bailey Smith famously said, in 1987, "God does not hear the prayer of a Jew," was HE prosecuted under the hate crimes law? No. Things aren't gong to change now that the hate crimes law includes "sexual orientation" along with race, religion, and national origin. I don't care how much venom Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, Lou Sheldon or Bill O'Reilly care to spit at Gay people like myself. I'm used to it, and it only make them look silly ... as illustrated by that botched rally on Capitol Hill. hide

Pastors Test Expanded Hate Crimes Law

PhatDajuan »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:46 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 4

Flagged as inappropriate. show Boy, what a joke that rally turned out to be! When the guy hired to provide the sound system for the anti-Gay preachers found out what his customers stood for, he donated his fee back to the Gay activists counter-protesting the event and even let them use the haters' own microphone! The Washington Post reported thusly: Instead of getting arrested, the ministers got something else: A couple of dozen Gay activists, surrounding them with rainbow flags and signs. By the end, the Gay people had taken over the lectern and the sound system and were holding their own news conference denouncing the ministers. So the organizer of the anti-Gay rally, Gary Cass, turned angrily to the AV guy. "We're not on the clock, are we?" He turned with equal anger to one of the Gay men who had appropriated the sound system: "You guys gonna help us pay for the microphones?" The Gay activist smiled. "God," he said, "works in mysterious ways." In this case, God took the form of Chuck Fazio, from DC Podiums. Fazio was hired by the religious conservatives to provide the sound system for the event, but upon learning of their cause, he decided to donate his proceeds to the Gay rights activists and to give them a chance at the microphone before shutting down the amplifiers. YAY! The bigger point here, of course, is that the federal hate crimes law was NEVER intented to criminalize anti-Gay sentiments (or anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, or anti-Black sentiments, for that matter). In the 40 years the law has been in effect, never has it been used to persecute conservative Christians for venting their spleens. Poor anti-Gay Christians. They expected to get arrested for preaching against Gay Americans, and instead they got a lesson in what the law ISN'T supposed to do. hide

ACLU Demands End to Jail's Anti-Religion Censorship

PhatDajuan »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:17 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

There is no "catch" to the ACLU's siding with freedom of religious expression. The ACLU has always taken a very strict view of our first amendment freedoms and equal protection under the law.

Unfortunately it's that "equal protection" aspect that often makes conservative Christians angry. They think that Christianity is the be-all and end-all of religious faith, and that all other religions need to stay out of the way. They don't like being on a level legal playing field with people of other faiths, because that means they aren't superior. They don't like it when the ACLU defends forms of speech that they perceive to be indecent, irreverent, or unpatriotic. And they get ESPECIALLY angry when the ACLU support equal treatment for both Gay and Straight Americans.

Bottom line: Conservative Christians love the ACLU when they're defending the rights of conservative Christians, but they hate the ACLU when they're defending anyone else.

ACLU Demands End to Jail's Anti-Religion Censorship

PhatDajuan »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:16 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

"In our public schools they do not teach creationism and Darwinism. Only Evolution false science. Where is the level playing field there? Why not give our kid's a opportunity to choose between the two?"

Sure, and while we're at it, we can allow kids in public schools to choose between the Theory of Gravitation and the Theory of Invisible Rubber Bands.

ACLU Demands End to Jail's Anti-Religion Censorship

PhatDajuan »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:52 am Agree: 11   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show There is no "catch" to the ACLU's siding with freedom of religious expression. The ACLU has always taken a very strict view of our first amendment freedoms and equal protection under the law. Unfortunately it's that "equal protection" aspect that often makes conservative Christians angry. They think that Christianity is the be-all and end-all of religious faith, and that all other religions need to stay out of the way. They don't like being on a level legal playing field with people of other faiths, because that means they aren't superior. They don't like it when the ACLU defends forms of speech that they perceive to be indecent, irreverent, or unpatriotic. And they get ESPECIALLY angry when the ACLU support equal treatment for both Gay and Straight Americans. Bottom line: Conservative Christians love the ACLU when they're defending the rights of conservative Christians, but they hate the ACLU when they're defending anyone else. hide

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

PhatDajuan »

Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:37 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 0

Uh, RIGHT. All of Creation took place about 6,000 years ago. Seedbearing plants were created BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and stars. Human beings walked side by side with dinosaurs. Yeah, we're supposed to believe this.

Gay Marriages Now Recognized in D.C.

PhatDajuan »

Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

"Imagine if we could vote on whether or not we want to discriminate racial minorities..."

Imagine if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been put up for a popular vote in the Deep South. They'd still have separate drinking fountains down there today.

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

PhatDajuan »

Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:53 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show Uh, RIGHT. All of Creation took place about 6,000 years ago. Seedbearing plants were created BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and stars. Human beings walked side by side with dinosaurs. Yeah, we're supposed to believe this. hide

Gay Marriages Now Recognized in D.C.

PhatDajuan »

Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:35 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 5

The only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two people in the relationship. It has nothing to do with bestiality, incest, polygamy, or the violation of existing "age of consent" laws. You can go through all the theological contortions and make all the slippery-slope arguments you want, but the fact remains that there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted. I don't care if you call it a "marriage" or a "civil union," all I care about is equal treatment as specified by the 14th Amendment.

If your belief is that Gay folks are committing an abominable sin and will face fiery judgment from their maker, well then that's your right, and you're certainly welcome to conduct your own personal life accordingly. But co-opting the law to force people to do your bidding is the real abomination.

Most Americans Still Against Legalizing Gay Marriage

PhatDajuan »

Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:23 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Maggie Gallagher's comment that "children need mothers and fathers" is so completely irrelevant to the debate over marriage equality for these reasons:

1: A couple does not legally require a marriage license to make babies.

2: The ability to desire to make babies is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

3: Single persons are not prohibited from adopting children.

4: Many Gay couples have children through adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc.

But really, who cares what Maggie Gallagher thinks? With every passing year Americans have become more accepting and supportive of their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers ... and even if their continues to be discomfort with the idea of marriage equality, that discomfort is fading with each new generation. Mark Morford is right.

Report: Obamas Find Church Community to Call Home

PhatDajuan »

Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:39 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

"Interesting that Obama would choose a church where everyone there is under his command...."

Shall we assume that's why President Bush Jr. chose the same place?

Christian Clergy Rally on Opposite Sides of Gay Marriage Debate

PhatDajuan »

Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:07 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 1

This article begs the question: If our First Amenment freedom of religion is so sacrosanct, and if some churches are more than willing to marry Gay couples, does the government's refusal to grant those couples marriage licenses infringe on that freedom of religion?

Theistic Evolutionist Francis Collins Eyed to Lead NIH

PhatDajuan »

Fri May 29, 2009 9:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Isn't Theistic Evolution the same thing as Intelligent Design?

Most Americans Still Against Legalizing Gay Marriage

PhatDajuan »

Wed May 27, 2009 2:31 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 6

Exodus' Randy Thomas says, "A lot of gay identified people are going to be very angry and not understand our perspective."

What exactly is there to understand?

That Straight couples are free to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... but for Gay couples to do the same is somehow a BAD thing?

That law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples are obligated to financially support all the benefits that married couples take for granted, while being denied participation in those incentives ourselves?

That it is better to push Gay people to the societal fringe, relegating them to lives of loneliness and/or promiscuity?

This is what Randy Thomas thinks we fail to understand? And this makes him SAD???

Poor guy.

Christian Attorneys Urge Senate to Vote Against 'Hate Crimes' Bill

PhatDajuan »

Mon May 04, 2009 10:20 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

People err when assuming that expanding the hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way) will "criminalize" a person's thoughts. The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them.

But there is a BIG difference between expressing personal prejudice against a group, and being motivated by that prejudice to attack a person's person or property. I don't care if Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sean Hannity or Lou Sheldon hurl their anti-Gay invective until the cows come home; but if someone uses Scripture as a justification for beating up someone who is Gay, that's a different story.

Likewise when it comes to delineating between different crimes against property: There's a big moral and ethical difference between someone who spraypaints a "tag" on a highway overpass, and someone who spraypaints swastikas on the front of a synagogue.

Until conservatives mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, I'll continue to see their arguments against the legislation now being considered as pretty disengenuous.

Miley Versus Jesus on Marriage

PhatDajuan »

Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:24 pm Agree: 95   Disagree: 105

DEAR RANDY THOMASSON:

Here is my advice to you: Your faith is a personal matter. And if your personal faith informs you that Gay relationships (no matter how monogamous or long-term) are anathema, you are welcome to conduct your personal life as you see fit. You do not have the right to demand that persons of other faiths do the same.

When marriage equality for Gay couples finally becomes a reality (and it eventually will), I can promise you with 100% certainty that it will not affect your life, your marriage, your church, or your children ONE BIT. You will never have to worry about being denied a job or your love because of YOUR sexual orientation. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples.

Perhaps the best thing for you to do when it comes to your dealings with Gay individuals and couples is simply to obey The Golden Rule: Treat them as you yourself would wish to be treated.

Why Congress Should Reject Federal 'Hate Crimes' Bill

PhatDajuan »

Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet writes, "The hate crime bill is a farce."

Do you mean the existing federal hate crimes law, or just the proposal to include sexual orientation as a protected category?

Were you aware that the federal law, as it is currently written, prescribes stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by prejudice against WHITES, and against CHRSTIANS?

If you object to the law as it is currently written, SAY SO. Work for its repeal. But don't get all bent out of shape about it ONLY when Gay and Straight Americans seek the same protections that White people and Christians have taken for granted.

Why Congress Should Reject Federal 'Hate Crimes' Bill

PhatDajuan »

Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet writes, "Then killing a straight man should carry the same penalty as killing a gay man."

I absolutely agree. And under the proposal to expand the existing federal hate crimes law, the penalty would be the same, whether the crime is motivated by anti-STRAIGHT or anti-GAY prejudice.

Why Congress Should Reject Federal 'Hate Crimes' Bill

PhatDajuan »

Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet writes, "What Phat is saying is that a gay man's life is worth more than the average man at the bar."

Uh, NO. I do not consider a Gay man's life to be worth any more than a Straight man's life. What I AM saying is that I support efforts to include sexual orientation in the existing federal hate crimes statute. The proposal in question would cover Gay and Straight people equally. I support that. If a couple of Gay guys beat up a Straight guy they caught coming out of a Straight bar, and if a jury determined that the assault was motivated by bigotry against Straight people, I want that crime covered by the existing federal hate crimes law.

Hate Crimes Bill Headed for Vote in House Committee

PhatDajuan »

Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:06 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

vsedriver writes, "So what you are saying is that assault on a gay man is worse than assault on a straight man."

Not at all. The proposal in question would expand the existing federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation. And the thing about sexual orientation is, EVERYBODY HAS ONE!

So if a couple of Gay men decided to beat up someone for being Straight, the law would apply as well.