PDA

View Full Version : US House Members refuse to protect Christian pastors...



megimoo
04-24-2009, 10:35 AM
Judiciary Committee greenlights 'hate crimes': Members refuse to protect Christian pastors...

"Looks like the 'Queer Lobby" Has Put a Bunch of New Money Into This One !

There are 23 Democrats and 16 Republicans on the committee during the 111th Congress.!"

Members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today rejected an opportunity to protect Christian pastors who preach the biblical condemnation of homosexuality and approved on a 15-12 vote a "hate crimes" bill that supporters admit could be used to bring charges against religious leaders.

The bill, H.R. 1913, now will be considered by the full House of Representatives. The committee rejected a number of amendments offered by several members seeking to protect religious liberty, to protect the unborn, to protect against violence by illegal aliens, and to clarify the bill's meanings of "gender identity" and "sexual orientation." One of the...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95923

linda22003
04-24-2009, 10:52 AM
You read the full text of the legislation, right, Megi? You wouldn't just go off half-cocked because of something you read in World Nuts Daily, right? :rolleyes:

Here's the text. It has nothing to do with a minister saying homosexuality is wrong. It's about promoting and advocating violent acts against people because of their race, creed, or orientation. It's hard to imagine a minister of the gospel doing that, but then, I don't know about the specific church you go to.

It could certainly apply to radical Islamic Imams, I suppose, if they incited violence against non-Muslims. Does that change your outlook at all?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1913:

wilbur
04-24-2009, 12:15 PM
See? Lying and faux victimization isnt just for left wingers anymore...

Odysseus
04-24-2009, 12:36 PM
See? Lying and faux victimization isnt just for left wingers anymore...

But they are still the undisputed masters of the technique.

I'd be more concerned that the Federal government now claims jurisdiction in all "crimes of violence" in which race may have been a factor. That's a blatant power grab, and far more dangerous to the entire nation.

FlaGator
04-24-2009, 01:43 PM
You read the full text of the legislation, right, Megi? You wouldn't just go off half-cocked because of something you read in World Nuts Daily, right? :rolleyes:

Here's the text. It has nothing to do with a minister saying homosexuality is wrong. It's about promoting and advocating violent acts against people because of their race, creed, or orientation. It's hard to imagine a minister of the gospel doing that, but then, I don't know about the specific church you go to.

It could certainly apply to radical Islamic Imams, I suppose, if they incited violence against non-Muslims. Does that change your outlook at all?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1913:

That right there is very much open to the interpretation of a prosecutor, judge and potential jury. If the minister in question is quoting from Leviticus the passage about the stoning of homosexuals then would that be considered a violation of the law? Would the Bible itself be ruled as a book that promotes hate?

FlaGator
04-24-2009, 01:45 PM
See? Lying and faux victimization isnt just for left wingers anymore...

I propose to you the same question I asked Linda.

If the minister in question is quoting from Leviticus the passage about the stoning of homosexuals then would that be considered a violation of the law? Would the Bible itself be ruled as a book that promotes hate?


How do you anwser this and way?

linda22003
04-24-2009, 01:58 PM
I propose to you the same question I asked Linda.

If the minister in question is quoting from Leviticus the passage about the stoning of homosexuals then would that be considered a violation of the law? Would the Bible itself be ruled as a book that promotes hate?


How do you anwser this and way?

I don't know the passage you mean, but I find it hard to believe it would be preached from the standpoint of "go thou and do likewise."

wilbur
04-24-2009, 02:51 PM
I don't know the passage you mean, but I find it hard to believe it would be preached from the standpoint of "go thou and do likewise."

Uh yea... your post Fla makes it sound like you actually want a preacher to have the right to incite the stoning of homosexuals.... if framed as a serious threat, it could be persecuted now without any new laws.

I do wonder why one feels the need to defend such barbarism. It seems obvious that the Bible passage itself is flawed, and doesn't merit any kind of defense what-so-ever.

Jfor
04-24-2009, 02:53 PM
So explain to me why there needs to be "hate crimes"??? If somebody assaults or kills somebody, isn't that already illegal. So buy making it a hate crime, we are in effect, making more illegaler? :D

wilbur
04-24-2009, 03:07 PM
So explain to me why there needs to be "hate crimes"??? If somebody assaults or kills somebody, isn't that already illegal. So buy making it a hate crime, we are in effect, making more illegaler? :D

The philosophy is that certain crimes cause more harm if they are driven by prejudice.

For example... suppose I spray-paint my name on the side of a Jewish temple. Not a whole lot of harm done, except an inconvenience and some property damage. But if I spray paint a swastika instead, it will cause significant fear, and unrest for the entire Jewish community surrounding that temple. Hate-crimes supposedly cause additional harm above and beyond crimes motivated for different reasons, and possibly warrant harsher punishments.

Such is the theory anyways.

I think it might hold true for examples like the graffiti one, but not so much in the case of a murder... where a random murder is just as likely to cause fear, unrest and emotional harm to a community just as much as an 'hate' driven murder may.

lacarnut
04-24-2009, 03:16 PM
I don't know the passage you mean, but I find it hard to believe it would be preached from the standpoint of "go thou and do likewise."

This legislation is the first step to conforming with our neighbors to the north. Blasphemy against Christians OK. Blasphemy against Muslim's and queers, not OK.

tacitus
04-24-2009, 03:19 PM
It's about promoting and advocating violent acts against people because of their race, creed, or orientation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1913:


But would it apply to people like Rev. Wright and Rev Jackson not to mention Farrakan.

Gingersnap
04-24-2009, 03:45 PM
So explain to me why there needs to be "hate crimes"??? If somebody assaults or kills somebody, isn't that already illegal. So buy making it a hate crime, we are in effect, making more illegaler? :D

There isn't any need for hate crimes legislation. This was another good intention that simply paved another foot of Hell.

People should be punished for what they do that is illegal, not for what they may have been thinking at the moment.

ReaganForRus
04-24-2009, 04:00 PM
This is an attempt to criminalize thought............given Miss California's response last Sunday she could be indicted for a "hate crime" because her answer could be construed as being "hateful" to the gay community.:rolleyes:

Jfor
04-24-2009, 04:03 PM
They better come arrest me now then cause the way I am thinking is would be felonies in several states.

Odysseus
04-24-2009, 04:06 PM
I do wonder why one feels the need to defend such barbarism. It seems obvious that the Bible passage itself is flawed, and doesn't merit any kind of defense what-so-ever.
And just when did you complete your course in biblical scholarship?

The philosophy is that certain crimes cause more harm if they are driven by prejudice.

For example... suppose I spray-paint my name on the side of a Jewish temple. Not a whole lot of harm done, except an inconvenience and some property damage. But if I spray paint a swastika instead, it will cause significant fear, and unrest for the entire Jewish community surrounding that temple. Hate-crimes supposedly cause additional harm above and beyond crimes motivated for different reasons, and possibly warrant harsher punishments.

Such is the theory anyways.

I think it might hold true for examples like the graffiti one, but not so much in the case of a murder... where a random murder is just as likely to cause fear, unrest and emotional harm to a community just as much as an 'hate' driven murder may.

You mean that individuals motivated by racial or religious hatred don't inflict deeper wounds as a matter of principle?

Bias crimes units on police forces make sense, because the motivations and psychology of the offenders is distinct enough from other felons that they require different investigative techniques (different databases, different means of infiltration and more extensive investigations of group ties) which makes bias crimes investigation similar to, but still distinct from, organized crime and gang investigations. But, by creating a separate class of crimes based on the possible motives of the perpetrator and the status of the victim, they establish a number of disturbing precedents. First, by criminalizing certain attitudes, no matter how repugnant, hate crime laws enshrine those attitudes and the corresponding violence as acts of dissent, rather than simple thuggery. They also create a separate and unequal protection of the laws, with attacks on preferred classes of victims resulting in harsher sentences. Finally, they accomplish very little. Lemrick Nelson's murder of Yankel Rosenbaum during the Crown Heights riot was clearly a hate crime, as was the mob assault on Reginald Denny during the LA riots, both of which resulted in sympathetic juries nullifying the charges despite tremendous evidence of guilt.

But, as I said before, the real issue here, and the one that should give all advocates of federalism and separation of powers concern, is that this takes a whole class of violent, criminal acts and puts them under federal jurisdiction. Now, whenever there is a violent act within one of the states, the feds will reserve the right to try the case if the perp and the victim are of different races, religions, sexual orientations or genders. Under this statute, all rapes could be defined as gender-bias crimes and federalized. This goes a long way towards giving the federal government the kind of police powers that the French and British governments exercise, and while military personnel are still prohibited from civil law enforcement, federal uniformed police will now have the authority to act in yet another previously denied sphere, which violates the spirit, if not the letter of the Posse Commitatus Act.

FlaGator
04-24-2009, 04:38 PM
Uh yea... your post Fla makes it sound like you actually want a preacher to have the right to incite the stoning of homosexuals.... if framed as a serious threat, it could be persecuted now without any new laws.

I do wonder why one feels the need to defend such barbarism. It seems obvious that the Bible passage itself is flawed, and doesn't merit any kind of defense what-so-ever.

Ignorance is biss isn't it.

FlaGator
04-24-2009, 04:49 PM
Uh yea... your post Fla makes it sound like you actually want a preacher to have the right to incite the stoning of homosexuals.... if framed as a serious threat, it could be persecuted now without any new laws.

I do wonder why one feels the need to defend such barbarism. It seems obvious that the Bible passage itself is flawed, and doesn't merit any kind of defense what-so-ever.

Now you are just full of it. You know my feeling on homosexuality so why would you say such a disgusting lie. We are talking judgement of others who are unfamiliar with Scripture. For example, if a minister is doing a reading (just reading, Linda being an Episcopalian is familar with the Sunday readings). reads the following passage


ev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you;
Lev 18:25 and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Lev 18:26 Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you;
Lev 18:27 (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled);
Lev 18:28 that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
Lev 18:29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
Lev 18:30 Therefore shall ye keep my charge, that ye practise not any of these abominable customs, which were practised before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am Jehovah your God.

Someone in the congregation interprets the bolded portion as permission to kill anyone engaging in the acts above, has the minister engaged in hate speech? Has he incited someone to kill?

Molon Labe
04-24-2009, 04:54 PM
The philosophy is that certain crimes cause more harm if they are driven by prejudice.

For example... suppose I spray-paint my name on the side of a Jewish temple. Not a whole lot of harm done, except an inconvenience and some property damage. But if I spray paint a swastika instead, it will cause significant fear, and unrest for the entire Jewish community surrounding that temple. Hate-crimes supposedly cause additional harm above and beyond crimes motivated for different reasons, and possibly warrant harsher punishments.

Such is the theory anyways.

I think it might hold true for examples like the graffiti one, but not so much in the case of a murder... where a random murder is just as likely to cause fear, unrest and emotional harm to a community just as much as an 'hate' driven murder may.

But watch how difficult it is to prosecute and convict someone when you try to get beyond actions. For example, I recently saw a case of murder get Nolle Pros. for the fact that it was a charge of Capital murder during Rape. Do you know how difficult it is to connect the two? Trying to prove he killed someone as a "result" of rape? This was just based on actions. Now add a thought crime to the mix.

Now try to prove that he murdered and raped her because she was "insert any thought here". It's Orwellian and it's better the less we try to prove "thoughts".

Now this guy, who probably murdered the girl, get's a pass because of the stupid phrasing of the charge because we've just made it that more difficult to convict.

Fear is a natural consequence of living in a free society.

FlaGator
04-24-2009, 04:56 PM
There isn't any need for hate crimes legislation. This was another good intention that simply paved another foot of Hell.

People should be punished for what they do that is illegal, not for what they may have been thinking at the moment.

I also strongly believe that hate crime laws are a violation of the 14th amendment and gives greater protection to one group of people over another. If someone paints a swastika on my front door then a misdemeanor vandalism has been done. If I happen to be Jewish or Black then a felony is added on to the misdemeanor. That just makes no sense.

Jfor
04-24-2009, 06:36 PM
I also strongly believe that hate crime laws are a violation of the 14th amendment and gives greater protection to one group of people over another. If someone paints a swastika on my front door then a misdemeanor vandalism has been done. If I happen to be Jewish or Black then a felony is added on to the misdemeanor. That just makes no sense.


Bingo. Hit the nail on the head. Spot on. And every other form saying you are exactly right. Hate crimes are out there because homosexuals are trying to become an extremely protected class because of abnormal behavior.

MrsSmith
04-25-2009, 08:46 AM
The philosophy is that certain crimes cause more harm if they are driven by prejudice.

For example... suppose I spray-paint my name on the side of a Jewish temple. Not a whole lot of harm done, except an inconvenience and some property damage. But if I spray paint a swastika instead, it will cause significant fear, and unrest for the entire Jewish community surrounding that temple. Hate-crimes supposedly cause additional harm above and beyond crimes motivated for different reasons, and possibly warrant harsher punishments.

Such is the theory anyways.

I think it might hold true for examples like the graffiti one, but not so much in the case of a murder... where a random murder is just as likely to cause fear, unrest and emotional harm to a community just as much as an 'hate' driven murder may.


I don't know the passage you mean, but I find it hard to believe it would be preached from the standpoint of "go thou and do likewise."


So, if a preacher preachs the Leviticus passage that Flagator so kindly reproduced, exactly and correctly, (since it does not call for stoning), it still holds that a homosexual person can claim the sermon "cause(d) significant fear, and unrest for the entire (homosexual) community," and the pastor can be found guilty of a hate crime. As has been pointed out, this has happened in Canada and Europe. You have to have your head in the sand to ignore the fact that it will happen here, also.

linda22003
04-25-2009, 08:48 AM
I don't see inciting anyone to a particular action in that passage. I think there's a lot of fearmongering here. No one has answered my point about it applying to Imams who incite violence, though - and as we have seen in Britain, some most certainly do.

djones520
04-25-2009, 08:59 AM
I don't see inciting anyone to a particular action in that passage. I think there's a lot of fearmongering here. No one has answered my point about it applying to Imams who incite violence, though - and as we have seen in Britain, some most certainly do.

Have you heard of the 9th Circuit Court?

FlaGator
04-25-2009, 09:05 AM
I don't see inciting anyone to a particular action in that passage. I think there's a lot of fearmongering here. No one has answered my point about it applying to Imams who incite violence, though - and as we have seen in Britain, some most certainly do.

You must remember that the law deals with interpretions and feelings. If someone interprets a Christian reading as telling him to kill for God. A court could then decide that he was incited by the minister's words or by the Bible passage itself and rule one or both guilty of hate speech. Now lets look at another passage from the Bible. Would this be considered hate speech?


Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Lev 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

megimoo
04-25-2009, 09:29 AM
You must remember that the law deals with interpretions and feelings. If someone interprets a Christian reading as telling him to kill for God. A court could then decide that he was incited by the minister's words or by the Bible passage itself and rule one or both guilty of hate speech. Now lets look at another passage from the Bible. Would this be considered hate speech?Those passages alone sinks the entire 'Sodom By The Bay' Area into the Volcanic Inferno !

MrsSmith
04-25-2009, 11:45 AM
I don't see inciting anyone to a particular action in that passage. I think there's a lot of fearmongering here. No one has answered my point about it applying to Imams who incite violence, though - and as we have seen in Britain, some most certainly do.

You may not see it, but that doesn't change the fact that homosexual activists see it.

http://www.towncalleddobson.com/?p=668


Maybe preachers should stop with the Gay bashing? Hate crime is not a Constitutional right.

think White Fundamentalist Christians are just mad because they can’t lynch Blacks anymore.

Oh, and the clincher:

“This legislation strikes at the heart of free speech and freedom of religious expression,” said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition.

When did murdering gays become religious expression?


http://gayliberation.net/press/2008/1112wct_hallofshame.html

Although the demonstration had a large turnout, not all members of the LGBT community supported the protest. GLN co-founder Andy Thayer said that while some people did not understand why activists would want to bother protesting Dobson, brushed off as just another far-right bigot, he reminded those present that the Focus on the Family founder donated money to Proposition 8 and helped jump start the effort.

“Dobson's hate speech led to the retraction of our civil rights in California,” Thayer added. “Hate speech has real consequences.”




http://www.truthtellers.org/hate%20crimes/CANhatecrimesgag1.html

Have the anti-homosexual broadcasters responded with fear -- or with courage -- to this roar from the "ant-hate" tiger, a socialist system now devouring free speech in Canada? Recently, I called the Canadian headquarters of Dobson's "Focus on the Family." I was told that, while Dr. Dobson is still allowed to disagree with homosexuality, pointed criticisms against the "gay life style" or political agenda are now edited by "Focus on the Family, Canada." If there are too many of them, a different program by Dobson is substituted. In fact, "Focus on the Family" made it clear that if any American religious broadcast (Falwell, Kennedy, Robertson, etc.) is aired in Canada, it is only by avoidance of such criticisms of homosexuality.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon176.htm

They created a flyer which said: "Preserve our workplace with integrity. Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day, adding that GNEA was opposed "...to all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage, which is defined as a union of a man and a woman, according to California State law."

...

Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that because GNEA defined "traditional marriage" as a union between a man and a woman, that "...Plaintiffs' deposition testimony confrims the anti-homosexual import of their definition of a 'traditional family'." In Walker's view, by excluding homosexuals from inclusion in the definition of a "traditional family," GNEA engaged in hate speech and promoted a hate agenda.

You can keep your head in the sand, but that doesn't change reality.

lacarnut
04-25-2009, 12:57 PM
I don't see inciting anyone to a particular action in that passage. I think there's a lot of fearmongering here. No one has answered my point about it applying to Imams who incite violence, though - and as we have seen in Britain, some most certainly do.

Nothing fearmongering about the anit-Christinan sentiment that I see. Whether it be hate crime legislation or removing the word God from our money to our buildings.

Question for YOU: If this legislation is passed and a pastor is charged in CA for preaching that passage, would you bet the farm that he would not get convicted if it came before the 9th circuit? I say that he would be toast.

As far as your point about this legislation applying to Imams, the Justice Dept. gets to pick and choose which crimes are hate crimes. Including every swinging dick in hate crimes gets kinda scary. You don't really think that the Justice Dept would go after the same two religions with the same vigor do you?

MrsSmith
04-25-2009, 01:31 PM
Nothing fearmongering about the anit-Christinan sentiment that I see. Whether it be hate crime legislation or removing the word God from our money to our buildings.

Question for YOU: If this legislation is passed and a pastor is charged in CA for preaching that passage, would you bet the farm that he would not get convicted if it came before the 9th circuit? I say that he would be toast.

As far as your point about this legislation applying to Imams, the Justice Dept. gets to pick and choose which crimes are hate crimes. Including every swinging dick in hate crimes gets kinda scary. You don't really think that the Justice Dept would go after the same two religions with the same vigor do you?

There is also the point that, like racism, the majority or the class perceived to be in power supposedly cannot be threatened by hate speech from minorities or those perceived to have less power. Therefore, a rational, calm, non-hateful sermon by a minister perceived to be part of the majority can be perceived as hateful and threatening to those who embrace sin...while at the same time, a more powerful and threatening speech from someone perceived to lack power will garner sympathy instead of condemnation.

wilbur
04-25-2009, 04:20 PM
So, if a preacher preachs the Leviticus passage that Flagator so kindly reproduced, exactly and correctly, (since it does not call for stoning),

Actually, I was humbly deferring to FlaGator's scholorship on the matter, when he twice repeated that Leviticus calls for the stoning of homosexuals.



If the minister in question is quoting from Leviticus the passage about the stoning of homosexuals then would that be considered a violation of the law? Would the Bible itself be ruled as a book that promotes hate?

MrsSmith
04-25-2009, 04:43 PM
Actually, I was humbly deferring to FlaGator's scholorship on the matter, when he twice repeated that Leviticus calls for the stoning of homosexuals.

OK.

Do I take it that you've accepted the rest of my post as truth, then?

FlaGator
04-25-2009, 10:42 PM
Actually, I was humbly deferring to FlaGator's scholorship on the matter, when he twice repeated that Leviticus calls for the stoning of homosexuals.

And you never bother to answer the question. Are those examples of hate speech? By the way, the first example called for the offenders to be cut off from their people. Only the second actually called for stoning.

wilbur
04-26-2009, 12:17 AM
OK.

Do I take it that you've accepted the rest of my post as truth, then?


This part?



... it still holds that a homosexual person can claim the sermon "cause(d) significant fear, and unrest for the entire (homosexual) community," and the pastor can be found guilty of a hate crime. As has been pointed out, this has happened in Canada and Europe. You have to have your head in the sand to ignore the fact that it will happen here, also.


No, and I think it will be a cold day in hell before any sensible, reasonable words are ever uttered by you.. it surely hasnt happened yet.

And at present, one can already be prosecuted for engaging in threatening speech, pastor or not.

As it is, I've already said I don't really agree with hate crime philosophy, so I wouldn't really support this bill either, and perhaps Ody's points are valid as well. But I do feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy, when almost everyone on this board complains incessantly about the dishonest victimization tactics of other political interests... yet does the exact same thing.

wilbur
04-26-2009, 12:20 AM
And you never bother to answer the question. Are those examples of hate speech? By the way, the first example called for the offenders to be cut off from their people. Only the second actually called for stoning.

If it calls for the stoning of any group of people, regardless, I don't think it would be out of line to interpret it as a threat, depending on how it was delivered.

Yes, I think we should be able to investigate and possibly prosecute anyone who threatens to stone someone, even if they use a religious book to do it... call me crazy... (and we can already, bill or no bill)

Odysseus
04-26-2009, 11:45 AM
If it calls for the stoning of any group of people, regardless, I don't think it would be out of line to interpret it as a threat, depending on how it was delivered.

Yes, I think we should be able to investigate and possibly prosecute anyone who threatens to stone someone, even if they use a religious book to do it... call me crazy... (and we can already, bill or no bill)

So, by simply copying and pasting the passage, FlaGator should be investigated as a potential hate monger? I'd ask what part of the First Amendment you don't get, but it appears to be all of it.

wilbur
04-26-2009, 11:57 AM
So, by simply copying and pasting the passage, FlaGator should be investigated as a potential hate monger? I'd ask what part of the First Amendment you don't get, but it appears to be all of it.

Your just fishing for controversy here... there is nothing controversial about arresting someone for uttering a serious death threat... the law as it is now is already sufficient to do this.

If a pastor recited the abhorrent passage in question (which alone should make any person discount the divine origin of said book, for goodness sake) not in the context of a serious death threat, then no one has anything to worry about. If he actually demands that his congregation go out and literally stone homosexuals, we could arrest and prosecute him now, with or without this proposed law. Freedom of speech has never extended that far.

All hate crime classification does is add additional punishments to existing crimes... it doesn't create wholly new and separate crimes out of legal acts.

djones520
04-26-2009, 12:02 PM
Your just fishing for controversy here... there is nothing controversial about arresting someone for uttering a serious death threat... the law as it is now is already sufficient to do this.

If a pastor recited the abhorrent passage in question (which alone should make any person discount the divine origin of said book, for goodness sake) not in the context of a serious death threat, then no one has anything to worry about. If he actually demands that his congregation go out and literally stone homosexuals and we could arrest and prosecute him now, with or without this proposed law. Freedom of speech has never extended that far.

All hate crime classification does is add additional punishments to existing crimes... it doesn't create wholly new and separate crimes out of already legal acts.

Any reasonable person can agree with this. The problem is that unreasonable people can use this Hate Crimes legislation to cause serious damage. Have you ever been sued? I have. It's not a fun situation. Lots of stress is involved in it, even if your being sued by a complete and total nut bag. Dependant on how big the situation is, you may be forced to shell out a lot of money in legal issues. You may even be horribly unlucky to find that another nutbag is sitting on that bench, and rules against you. This stuff is not unheard of.

This is one more tool that has no real reason to exist, but can be used to harm the general populace by those agenda pushers.

wilbur
04-26-2009, 12:10 PM
Any reasonable person can agree with this. The problem is that unreasonable people can use this Hate Crimes legislation to cause serious damage. Have you ever been sued? I have. It's not a fun situation. Lots of stress is involved in it, even if your being sued by a complete and total nut bag. Dependant on how big the situation is, you may be forced to shell out a lot of money in legal issues. You may even be horribly unlucky to find that another nutbag is sitting on that bench, and rules against you. This stuff is not unheard of.

This is one more tool that has no real reason to exist, but can be used to harm the general populace by those agenda pushers.

For every law that is created, we can cite anecdotes of abuse, unjust applications, and people who were harmed by it unfairly. But again, hate crime designation does not actually create any new legally actionable offenses. Unjust lawsuits and charges were just as possible without hate crime laws.

In other words, not all crimes are hate-crimes, but all hate-crimes are crimes. There is no hate-crime that was not already a crime.

Perhaps the media frenzies that tend to swarm around crimes that get designated as 'hate-crimes' really encourages abuse of the laws... but I don't think that would really go away, even if we got rid of hate-crime laws.

FlaGator
04-26-2009, 01:56 PM
If it calls for the stoning of any group of people, regardless, I don't think it would be out of line to interpret it as a threat, depending on how it was delivered.

Yes, I think we should be able to investigate and possibly prosecute anyone who threatens to stone someone, even if they use a religious book to do it... call me crazy... (and we can already, bill or no bill)

Here is the problem with at view. When you look at just this one passage it would seem to be questionable, but you have to read that in the context of the whole Bible. It's like looking at just one scene in a movie and the making a determination on the whole movie''s theme, values and motivations. For example, if you where to see just the sex scene from the Terminator you might guess that you are seeing a light porn movie. However, it is a key piece to understanding the plot of a science fiction movie.

Likewise with Leviticus. If you view it as a stand alone then you misunderstand what it means in relation to the New Testament and the teaching of Christ. Leviticus defined these behaviors as sinful and the punishment for sins against God's will and nature is death. Individuals could not deal out the punishments by their own choosing. A court of law was held and witnesses where brought forth to validate that the sinful acts had taken place. Once proved guilty the punishment was imposed. This is no different than today's usage of the death penalty for crimes that we believe are detrimental to society. They just had more of them than we do.

Christ, however, told us to have compassion on sinners and though these behaviors described in Leviticus are still prohibited behaviors, Christ has asked us to forgive those who sin against God and ourselves and to leave the ultimate punishment up to the government in charge and God. If the government choses not to punish those behaviors (and governments should also exhibit mercy and compassion) then God will at a time of His choosing. For us individuals we are to pray for those we believe are enslaved to their sins and ask for God to free them.

In the context of the entire Bible, Leviticus shows us how much God detests these behaviors but Christ tells us to have compassion as God will ultimately deal with it. In this case the level of compassion that a believer exhibits can be measured by how abominable God deems these behaviors.

linda22003
04-26-2009, 02:28 PM
If a pastor recited the abhorrent passage in question (which alone should make any person discount the divine origin of said book, for goodness sake) not in the context of a serious death threat, then no one has anything to worry about.

I have never heard that passage of Leviticus preached in any context, and I'd be willing to bet the others here have not, either.

FlaGator
04-26-2009, 02:41 PM
I have never heard that passage of Leviticus preached in any context, and I'd be willing to bet the others here have not, either.

That might be a regular part of the worship at Westboro Baptist Church :eek:

linda22003
04-26-2009, 03:01 PM
That might be a regular part of the worship at Westboro Baptist Church :eek:

That's enough to make me favor the legislation, all by itself. :rolleyes: Those fuckwits were here in the DC area the other day, harassing students at Walt Whitman High School. Who more than held their own, I might add.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403461.html

FlaGator
04-26-2009, 03:36 PM
That's enough to make me favor the legislation, all by itself. :rolleyes: Those fuckwits were here in the DC area the other day, harassing students at Walt Whitman High School. Who more than held their own, I might add.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403461.html

Any one with a rudimentary understanding of the Bible can poke huge gaping holes in their "theology".

megimoo
04-26-2009, 03:39 PM
That might be a regular part of the worship at Westboro Baptist Church :eek:
It's amazing the number of Homosexual apologists we have here .The ancient Jews and Christianity has been against homosexual behavior since the days of Abraham .There have been restrictions in place to prevent two single young men herding sheep and sleeping together in the same tent.They ,the apologists,twist and turn looking for any excuse to explain away the bible passages but end up condemning those who point out the truth.

MrsSmith
04-26-2009, 04:11 PM
This part?



No, and I think it will be a cold day in hell before any sensible, reasonable words are ever uttered by you.. it surely hasnt happened yet.

And at present, one can already be prosecuted for engaging in threatening speech, pastor or not.

As it is, I've already said I don't really agree with hate crime philosophy, so I wouldn't really support this bill either, and perhaps Ody's points are valid as well. But I do feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy, when almost everyone on this board complains incessantly about the dishonest victimization tactics of other political interests... yet does the exact same thing.

Yep, can't be prosecuted...exact same thing... :rolleyes::rolleyes:


http://www.towncalleddobson.com/?p=668


Quote:
Maybe preachers should stop with the Gay bashing? Hate crime is not a Constitutional right.

think White Fundamentalist Christians are just mad because they can’t lynch Blacks anymore.

Oh, and the clincher:

“This legislation strikes at the heart of free speech and freedom of religious expression,” said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition.

When did murdering gays become religious expression?

http://gayliberation.net/press/2008/1112wct_hallofshame.html

Quote:
Although the demonstration had a large turnout, not all members of the LGBT community supported the protest. GLN co-founder Andy Thayer said that while some people did not understand why activists would want to bother protesting Dobson, brushed off as just another far-right bigot, he reminded those present that the Focus on the Family founder donated money to Proposition 8 and helped jump start the effort.

“Dobson's hate speech led to the retraction of our civil rights in California,” Thayer added. “Hate speech has real consequences.”



http://www.truthtellers.org/hate%20crimes/CANhatecrimesgag1.html

Quote:
Have the anti-homosexual broadcasters responded with fear -- or with courage -- to this roar from the "ant-hate" tiger, a socialist system now devouring free speech in Canada? Recently, I called the Canadian headquarters of Dobson's "Focus on the Family." I was told that, while Dr. Dobson is still allowed to disagree with homosexuality, pointed criticisms against the "gay life style" or political agenda are now edited by "Focus on the Family, Canada." If there are too many of them, a different program by Dobson is substituted. In fact, "Focus on the Family" made it clear that if any American religious broadcast (Falwell, Kennedy, Robertson, etc.) is aired in Canada, it is only by avoidance of such criticisms of homosexuality.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon176.htm

Quote:
They created a flyer which said: "Preserve our workplace with integrity. Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day, adding that GNEA was opposed "...to all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage, which is defined as a union of a man and a woman, according to California State law."

...

Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that because GNEA defined "traditional marriage" as a union between a man and a woman, that "...Plaintiffs' deposition testimony confrims the anti-homosexual import of their definition of a 'traditional family'." In Walker's view, by excluding homosexuals from inclusion in the definition of a "traditional family," GNEA engaged in hate speech and promoted a hate agenda.

According to your favorite author, they should be killed for their radical beliefs.

linda22003
04-26-2009, 04:12 PM
It's amazing the number of Homosexual apologists we have here .The ancient Jews and Christianity has been against homosexual behavior since the days of Abraham .There have been restrictions in place to prevent two single young men herding sheep and sleeping together in the same tent.They ,the apologists,twist and turn looking for any excuse to explain away the bible passages but end up condemning those who point out the truth.

Do you think laws should be re-enacted against it? What do you see as the remedy?

Runnindog
04-26-2009, 04:53 PM
The fact is that HATE is not and never will be a crime. Anyone has a right to hate whether or not anyone else thinks so. If the law violates or does not conform to the Constitution then it is no law at all. No matter who passes it. It should be defied with all diligence.

wilbur
04-26-2009, 05:13 PM
Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that because GNEA defined "traditional marriage" as a union between a man and a woman, that "...Plaintiffs' deposition testimony confrims the anti-homosexual import of their definition of a 'traditional family'." In Walker's view, by excluding homosexuals from inclusion in the definition of a "traditional family," GNEA engaged in hate speech and promoted a hate agenda.


Your case really seems to be related to discrimination law, not hate-crime laws. So please explain how it relates to the discussion at hand.... because it is quite irrelevant from what I can see. And you do understand that single anecdotes don't prove a widespread pattern? What am I thinking, of course you don't.



According to your favorite author, they should be killed for their radical beliefs.

I suppose he would think they should be killed, if those beliefs led them to murder homosexuals or people of non-traditional families and lifestyles and absolutely nothing could dissuade them of their beliefs... but that would be pretty justified, I think.. don't you?

wilbur
04-26-2009, 05:17 PM
The fact is that HATE is not and never will be a crime. Anyone has a right to hate whether or not anyone else thinks so. If the law violates or does not conform to the Constitution then it is no law at all. No matter who passes it. It should be defied with all diligence.

You do realize, there is no crime called 'hate'? You can't be charged with a 'count of hate'.

wilbur
04-26-2009, 05:36 PM
In the context of the entire Bible, Leviticus shows us how much God detests these behaviors but Christ tells us to have compassion as God will ultimately deal with it. In this case the level of compassion that a believer exhibits can be measured by how abominable God deems these behaviors.


I am aware of theological explanations that try to justify the harshness of the old covenant laws, and they have a long history in the church... which is precisely what makes it unlikely that a priest speaking of these passages in the context of those traditions would be convicted of a crime. In fact, to say that would be far-fetched is an understatement.

Read the bill, and you see why WND has taken everyone here for fools. There are no new types of crimes defined in the bill... this bill only seems to be related the role of federal jurisdiction/assistance in violent crimes, classified as hate-crimes.

Ody pointed out what seem to be some legitimate issues for states rights, but thats all there seems to be.

If you think priests are in danger by preaching leviticus, well.. this bill should affect absolutely zilch.

After examples such as this, I would expect everyone to think about adding the Wing Nut Daily to their list of media outlets to bash for their overt bias, fear mongering, and blatant untruths. This story is not an isolated incident. Doubtful such will be the case, however.

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 02:06 AM
I am aware of theological explanations that try to justify the harshness of the old covenant laws, and they have a long history in the church... which is precisely what makes it unlikely that a priest speaking of these passages in the context of those traditions would be convicted of a crime. In fact, to say that would be far-fetched is an understatement.

Read the bill, and you see why WND has taken everyone here for fools. There are no new types of crimes defined in the bill... this bill only seems to be related the role of federal jurisdiction/assistance in violent crimes, classified as hate-crimes.

Ody pointed out what seem to be some legitimate issues for states rights, but thats all there seems to be.

If you think priests are in danger by preaching leviticus, well.. this bill should affect absolutely zilch.

After examples such as this, I would expect everyone to think about adding the Wing Nut Daily to their list of media outlets to bash for their overt bias, fear mongering, and blatant untruths. This story is not an isolated incident. Doubtful such will be the case, however.

The law of unintended consequences. You never seem to want to account for it. Or that fact that some people will wish to misuse the bill (if it passes and the more I think about it, it is highly unlikely) to fulfill their agenda (whatever that my be) and they will possibly find a judge or two willing to take their point of view.

My whole point on this was not the preaching of Leviticus, it was that the law itself is so board that almost anything could be construed as a hate crime and be taken form the state courts and in to federal courts. It is an attempt of a power play with the states to procecute crimes that the state in question my not rule as a crime.

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 02:09 AM
It's amazing the number of Homosexual apologists we have here .The ancient Jews and Christianity has been against homosexual behavior since the days of Abraham .There have been restrictions in place to prevent two single young men herding sheep and sleeping together in the same tent.They ,the apologists,twist and turn looking for any excuse to explain away the bible passages but end up condemning those who point out the truth.

So you are saying that we are not suppose to show them compassion because of their inability to escape their sin?

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 02:10 AM
You do realize, there is no crime called 'hate'? You can't be charged with a 'count of hate'.

No but you can have a sentence or crime modfied on a ruling of the intention of hate.

megimoo
04-27-2009, 03:11 AM
So you are saying that we are not suppose to show them compassion because of their inability to escape their sin?

"So you are saying that we are not suppose to show them compassion because of their inability to escape their sin ."

I will try not to sound like a preacher but Compassion is our duty, It is not for we sinners to condemn others sins but we are required to point them out .

If the sinner argues that they are too weak unable to resist their sins what is our duty other than pray for them ?Are we suppose to teach our children to resist that same evil and speak against it as an abomination and condemned by GOD as evil ?

That is an interesting question !What would be the Lords response to such an argument be ? Lord forgive me my sins and evil desires because I am too weak and unable to resist my urges and lustful needs so I will continue in my sins !What do you suppose that his answer would be ? I Wonder if that argument would satisfy GOD ?

Love The Sinner Hate The sin ?To what extent and for how long ?Are we allowed to condone and accept an disgusting sexual lifestyle between two men and treat them brothers in the Lord ?Are we allowed to welcome such unrepentant behavior into our church gatherings and worship ?

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 08:59 AM
"So you are saying that we are not suppose to show them compassion because of their inability to escape their sin ."

I will try not to sound like a preacher but Compassion is our duty, It is not for we sinners to condemn others sins but we are required to point them out .

If the sinner argues that they are too weak unable to resist their sins what is our duty other than pray for them ?Are we suppose to teach our children to resist that same evil and speak against it as an abomination and condemned by GOD as evil ?

That is an interesting question !What would be the Lords response to such an argument be ? Lord forgive me my sins and evil desires because I am too weak and unable to resist my urges and lustful needs so I will continue in my sins !What do you suppose that his answer would be ? I Wonder if that argument would satisfy GOD ?

Love The Sinner Hate The sin ?To what extent and for how long ?Are we allowed to condone and accept an disgusting sexual lifestyle between two men and treat them brothers in the Lord ?Are we allowed to welcome such unrepentant behavior into our church gatherings and worship ?

You assumption is wrong. They don't know that the are weak or strong because they don't (or try not to)see their behavior as sinful. I've never heard one make the argument that they were weak. On the other hand from the Christian perspective we see them as weak and we pray that God will help them over come it. We comdemn the behavior as sinful but we feel compassion for those who are trapped in their sin.

How long are we to forgive? Christ said

Mat 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
Mat 18:22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.


They may not be our Christian brothers but I think the same command applies because if they repent then theywill become your brother or sister so treat the as such now. You are to welcome them to your church and show the compassion but it also must be made clear to them that they must repent in order to join your church and be accepted in to the body of Christ. If they refuse to do this they will probably not want to be there for too long. Remember that they are of the world and the we treat the worldly different that the Godly. Paul said


1Co 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
1Co 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
1Co 5:13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

I ask you, do you consider your name calling and put downs of homosexuals a Christian thing? Do you think that it sets a good example to people in general of what it is to be a Christian? Do you think that your behavior would intice a homosexual to repent of his sins and put that lifestyle behind him or her? As a Christian you are responsible to putting Christianity in a good light. Where as Christianity is an alternative for the world, do you feel your actions cause people to see Christians as being different from the world? These are questions you have to ask yourself and then evaluate you behavior in light of the answers. I do this daily and I often don't like the answers I give myself.

noonwitch
04-27-2009, 09:31 AM
In murder cases, where the defendant is facing the maximum sentence in a state regardless of whether his motive was racist or anti-gay, prosecuting for a hate crime is just a way for a prosecutor to try to up his conviction rate. It's overkill.

The same is true in an assault or other violent crime. The sentence should match the brutality of the crime.

I do see where there should be a difference in sentencing between crimes like graffiti. There is a big difference in intent between writing "John Loves Mary" on a wall, and burning a cross in a black family's front yard, or painting a swastika on a jewish family's garage door, and it goes to intent. I don't think that it necessarily needs to be a separate crime from the initial graffiti charge, but the judge should be able to hand down a harsher sentence.

linda22003
04-27-2009, 09:35 AM
I ask you, do you consider your name calling and put downs of homosexuals a Christian thing? Do you think that it sets a good example to people in general of what it is to be a Christian? Do you think that your behavior would intice a homosexual to repent of his sins and put that lifestyle behind him or her? As a Christian you are responsible to putting Christianity in a good light. Where as Christianity is an alternative for the world, do you feel your actions cause people to see Christians as being different from the world? These are questions you have to ask yourself and then evaluate you behavior in light of the answers. I do this daily and I often don't like the answers I give myself.

Very good post. When it comes to setting an example, Megi is more in the "Terrible Warning" or "Don't Let This Happen to You" category.

megimoo
04-27-2009, 03:20 PM
You assumption is wrong. They don't know that the are weak or strong because they don't (or try not to)see their behavior as sinful. I've never heard one make the argument that they were weak. On the other hand from the Christian perspective we see them as weak and we pray that God will help them over come it. We comdemn the behavior as sinful but we feel compassion for those who are trapped in their sin.

How long are we to forgive? Christ said


They may not be our Christian brothers but I think the same command applies because if they repent then theywill become your brother or sister so treat the as such now. You are to welcome them to your church and show the compassion but it also must be made clear to them that they must repent in order to join your church and be accepted in to the body of Christ. If they refuse to do this they will probably not want to be there for too long. Remember that they are of the world and the we treat the worldly different that the Godly. Paul said



I ask you, do you consider your name calling and put downs of homosexuals a Christian thing? Do you think that it sets a good example to people in general of what it is to be a Christian? Do you think that your behavior would intice a homosexual to repent of his sins and put that lifestyle behind him or her? As a Christian you are responsible to putting Christianity in a good light. Where as Christianity is an alternative for the world, do you feel your actions cause people to see Christians as being different from the world? These are questions you have to ask yourself and then evaluate you behavior in light of the answers. I do this daily and I often don't like the answers I give myself.

No I don't consider my calling a sexual deviate a queer to be a very Christian thing but the use of the word is appropriate don't you think.After all their behavior is outside of the social norms of my generation and the word is still a valid description of abnormal behaved don't you agree ?Is the accepted descriptor of homosexual any better?It seems to add a certain legitimacy to the disease that I find unjustified .

I object to their attempts of a forced acceptance of their corruption as a valid lifestyle and that their aberrations are unavoidable as they are genetic conditions and must be tolerated by normal people.
There has never been any evidence of a genetic cause to their diseases but much evidence to it being a choice and was once described as an abnormal mental condition until redefined in 1973 by force of homosexual riots and fear for the safty of the APA doctors at the convention.

I feel from reading Paul of Tarsus that he was as harsh as I in condemning the abnormal lifestyle and separating the believers from it quickly .Not that I am anyway near as good as Saul but he too avoided 'gilding the Lilly ',so to speak !

"1Co 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

1Co 5:13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." "

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 04:28 PM
No I don't consider my calling a sexual deviate a queer to be a very Christian thing but the use of the word is appropriate don't you think.After all their behavior is outside of the social norms of my generation and the word is still a valid description of abnormal behaved don't you agree ?Is the accepted descriptor of homosexual any better?It seems to add a certain legitimacy to the disease that I find unjustified .

I object to their attempts of a forced acceptance of their corruption as a valid lifestyle and that their aberrations are unavoidable as they are genetic conditions and must be tolerated by normal people.
There has never been any evidence of a genetic cause to their diseases but much evidence to it being a choice and was once described as an abnormal mental condition until redefined in 1973 by force of homosexual riots and fear for the safty of the APA doctors at the convention.

I feel from reading Paul of Tarsus that he was as harsh as I in condemning the abnormal lifestyle and separating the believers from it quickly .Not that I am anyway near as good as Saul but he too avoided 'gilding the Lilly ',so to speak !

"1Co 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

1Co 5:13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." "

I noticed that you skipped 1 Corinthians 5:12... interesting.

I look at the duality of my existence. There is the world in which I exist and then there is the Kingdom of God where I live. The world can do I the world will do. I only have to tolerate it in the manner that Christ prescribed. As Paul said in the verse you did not include "who am I to judge the world?"

My only concern is that the Christian faith is not forced to comply with any decrees that run counter to it's moral point of view. If gays want to get married and society votes to allow it then let them. If they want to sing and dance naked in the town square and society says that's OK then that is fine by me. I will still pray for them and ask God to work with them. I will even state publicly that I view homosexuality as an immoral, deviant, unnatural act.

However, I will also treat them with kindness and respect because the are sinners just like me an you. They have different sins but in the eyes of God as I interpret Him all sins are the same and there are no minor sins. The difference between us and them is that we seek forgiveness for our sins and they aren't aware that they need forgiving. They are God's creation just as you and I are. To deal with them harshly is to criticize God's handy work and that I will do my best not to do. I will leave their fate in God's hands because He is the only one just enough to pass judgment on them.

megimoo
04-27-2009, 08:11 PM
I noticed that you skipped 1 Corinthians 5:12... interesting.

I look at the duality of my existence. There is the world in which I exist and then there is the Kingdom of God where I live. The world can do I the world will do. I only have to tolerate it in the manner that Christ prescribed. As Paul said in the verse you did not include "who am I to judge the world?"

My only concern is that the Christian faith is not forced to comply with any decrees that run counter to it's moral point of view. If gays want to get married and society votes to allow it then let them. If they want to sing and dance naked in the town square and society says that's OK then that is fine by me. I will still pray for them and ask God to work with them. I will even state publicly that I view homosexuality as an immoral, deviant, unnatural act.

However, I will also treat them with kindness and respect because the are sinners just like me an you. They have different sins but in the eyes of God as I interpret Him all sins are the same and there are no minor sins. The difference between us and them is that we seek forgiveness for our sins and they aren't aware that they need forgiving. They are God's creation just as you and I are. To deal with them harshly is to criticize God's handy work and that I will do my best not to do. I will leave their fate in God's hands because He is the only one just enough to pass judgment on them.

" 1Co 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? "

5:12 seemed to be obvious to me as a call to clean up my own house before judging others .and because I constantly sin I must constantly strive !

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 09:40 PM
" 1Co 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? "

5:12 seemed to be obvious to me as a call to clean up my own house before judging others .and because I constantly sin I must constantly strive !

You and I and every other Christian are no different. We are all sinners in need of God's forgiveness and we can all use a little house cleaning :)