By their love…
OT TO LAUGH At the so-called “Christians” out there… Senate passes hate crimes bill that would extend protection to gays, lesbians… and the right-wingnuts say…
“‘Expanding hate crimes puts America in lock step with the stated agenda of homosexual activists who will turn next to the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, followed by the repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military and then the Defense of Marriage Act,’ the Family Research Council warned on its Web site.”
Translation….
HOLY CRAP! Now we can’t lynch ‘em anymore.
Next we’ll have to give’em jobs and stop treating them like second class people!
First the left makes it illegal to hate coloreds, and now it’s illegal to hate fags too.
Next they’ll make it illegal for us to hate Muslims and pagans!
It’s like they want us to love everyone!
Damn Commies.
Tags: evolutionary throwbacks, hate speech, regressives, rightwingers | Category: Teh Gay, politics, rightwingers
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
GRIN, do us brownies get a hug too?
However, thinking of the military reminds me of an old feminist joke that had to do with whether they really really wanted to be free to go to combat, all things considered. And, no, my memory is that it was not an anti-feminist joke, it was a joke by feminists. But, sigh, my memory has holes, and I cannot remember the joke well enough to post it. Of course, it was a Viet Nam era joke. (The old fart priest starts mumbling to himself . . .)
Yah, not much that’s coming from the right makes much sense to me these days. Just read an insane article in the National Review by Victor Davis Hanson, where he says that Obama must essentially become a Republican president or else he won’t be successful. More than likely, he’ll continue to do what he’s been doing, like courting the unions, gays, and minorities (as if doing such a thing was evil). Hanson thinks that such actions on Obama’s part will only further polarize the country – interpretation: won’t bring us white, straight, racist, rich folks together as one nation. Man I need to stop reading right wing periodicals. Not good for my spiritual health. Or blood pressure, for that matter.
Counter-argument: Hate-crimes laws (piling on charges and sentences based on motive to make you feel better) are thoughtcrime laws. See the unintended consequences? Do you want to give the state that power over all which by definition includes you? Those laws are PC moral preening/grandstanding unnecessary under existing laws against murder (that covers lynching), assault, theft etc. People who point all that out don’t necessarily hate gays. I thought you knew that; you’re smarter than the average bear. :)
See, rights go both ways. :) You and Brodie have a right to live in peace (no harm to your bodies or property) but guess what? So do ‘coloureds’ and the people who hate them as long as they don’t violate each other’s rights. (One day the haters will answer to God. None of my or the state’s business.) Discrimination ought to be decriminalised for two reasons: 1) freedom of association and 2) in a truly free society with a free market it’s self-correcting as the great von Mises (an Austrian Jew) explained. Everybody’s money’s the same colour and orientation, and those who refuse your dollars ultimately put themselves out of business.
Good point, Father: sending women into combat is a mistake for several reasons (they’re not as strong as men soldiers and illicit sex there ruins discipline) including, yes, women too get to be sent to kill and be killed in immoral wars and be used for sex on the front by the men (that’s what happens). Pig heaven marketed as empowerment. Then again feminism is part of the left, which has never really been for peace (Wilsonian wars for humanity’s own good).
BTW unlike today’s state-worshippers, before the 1930s fundamentalists were peace Christians.
“Toughtcrime” is a cultural tag from Orwell… not quite valid here. You’re still allowed to think stupid things, hateful things, even murderous things. You’re not allowed to act on them, ever. And we already base sentencing on motive: terrorism is one example, types of killing are ranked based on motive, etc. Classes of people are protected differently (cops).
Does not being allowed to act on hateful thoughts include speech? If so, I would agree with this.
I’m not sure how to respond. Be a little more clear?
but isn’t this just an example of how there is hate on both sides?
one side is fearful that their perceived way of life is ending and they hate the changes being made in society and hate those who are making those changes. and the other side hates the others for not accepting and loving them and wants to let others know how stupid and bigoted they are.
it just depends on what side of the fence you’re on.
You are missing the point… Hating someone is not the same as acting out that hate in a violent manner and/or inciting others to act on that hate.
If a Christian were to get tied to a fence post and pistol whipped for being a Christian, left out there bloody and near death… it would be a hate crime. I don’t think that’s happened in the USA recently. Maybe… but I’m not aware of it (I am aware of certain right wing preachers to claim to have rec’d death threats in the mail, and that is also included in hate crime law, I believe. )
I think a line is crossed when you go from “We must avoid the sin of X” and go to “We must punish those who commit the sin of x”. If the sin of X is legal… keep your religion in your church and preach to your people to stay pure. The rest of us will eat shellfish, wear our mixed weavings and boink whom we wish in peace. And no, you don’t have the right to deny housing to us or jobs or to beat us up in the name of religion. Nor do we you.
While I know there are unfair practices coming from all sides, I think it’s amusing and sad that some Christians can’t see that distinction.
i understand your point.
i was just reminded that the Lord Jesus Christ said that if we hate someone in our hearts, it’s the same as killing them.
we are not supposed to hate anyone – even if the cause is just.
…Should saying something like “homosexuality is a sin” and other “hate the sin but love the sinner” sayings be included as hateful actions?
While I know some think that “hate speech” should be covered by “hate crime” laws I’m not one to say so – although I do believe in labeling such as hate speech. The rules it takes to play a game are set by the game, not by the culture (not-be-sexually-active-gay being such a game rule). It’s not a hate-crime to require that all Major-League baseball players use a regulation bat and baseball instead of a football.
Within the game of Major League Baseball there are rules governing such activity and it is not a hate crime to enforce the rules. It would be, however, bad form to enforce baseball rules on a girls’ soccer team. And offering religious rules as if they should be government law is the same bad form. Teach whatsoever you wish. It is up for debate, critique and lampooning.
But when citing such rules results in criminal activity (that is, let’s be frank, supported by the same texts of scripture) then I think we’ve crossed the line from hate speech to hate crime. It’s perfectly sensible for you, Fr James of Chicago, to expect your congregation to follow the rules you teach. But only them and no one else. If you send your people out to enforce those rules on others… welp… you’ve crossed a line.