"PEDOPHILE PROTECTION ACT"

Are you paranoid or are you just paranoid? I'm not gay but I hope one of your kids are.

Gordon James Klingenschmitt=fanical religious bigot.

Why does a person have to be paranoid in your eyes to oppose homosexuality?

Or to be FOR religious freedoms?

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

This is what the bill defines as "Hate Crime"... which includes protecting against hate crimes based on religion or perceived religious identity. So how can you say the bill is against religious freedom? Which is what you imply in your above comment.

Because Gays vs. Freedom of Religious speech....guess who ALWAYS COMES OUT AHEAD OF THE OTHER BY LAW????????????????
Please don't pretend to be stupid here...you know this is the case 100% of the time...I have NEVER ONCE EVER seen religious freedom win out against homosexuality EVER!!!!!!!!!!! If you have, please show me where.

They threw that part in for "show"...it means NOTHING (unless maybe you are Muslim, then you might have a chance to speak freely)!

Why in the WORLD do you care what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms?!? And there is NOTHING in that bill that makes incest OR pedophilia.  That's just hysterical nonsense.  What REALLY bothers me is that I believe you KNOW it's nonsense, and you're deliberately and cynically promulgating it to garner support.

Have you READ the bill? It DOES de-criminalize acts of sexual violence towards children...THAT'S what makes me care!

It also infringes upon MY religious freedoms, in order to "accomodate" deviance.

Again, WHY do you care what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom?

Pedophilia - sex with an underage child, another crime
* Zoophilia - bestiality, a crime in numerous states
* Voyeurism - a criminal offense in most states

How is this consent between 2 adults???

STOP making assumptions and READ the bill before you comment!

Elizabeth M Jun 18, 2009, 8:58pm EDT

Why does a person have to be paranoid in your eyes to oppose homosexuality?

THIS is what we are refering to, no assumptions, you SAID you oppose homosexuality which is between consenting adults. 

I have read it.  Unless you're planning violence against pedophiles (which is, in fact, already illegal), they're not protected.

Elizabeth (Soap Opera) O..."homosexuality" is a broad term that encompasses all persons who are attracted to the same sex...it does not necessarily mean that one, or all, are "adults" and similarly, it doesn't mean always consenting either.  It could encompass all the catagories I listed. 

By your definition that would include, hetero and bisexual people as well.  Because you don't have to be gay to rape, molest, or have sex with a consenting underage minor.

{{a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn}}

But homosexuals and all others who claim protection under "Sexual orientation" are protected, not heterosexuals...they are not protected.

Elizabeth M.

I haven't read all of the comments yet but I would like you to clarify something here... do you honestly believe ALL Homosexuals are Pedophiles?  OR is it that all Pedophiles are Homosexuals??

"It also infringes upon MY religious freedoms, in order to "accomodate" deviance."

Hold it right there, girlie. Who in hell is physically being deviant with you and forcing you to accomodate it? If no one is doing that physically to you then you have no right to run your mouth and holler religious freedom or any other freedom for that matter. Man, how you love to bury yourself under special groups protection, don't you? Fraud!

"...STOP making assumptions..."

God, girl, this whole post is based COMPLETELY on assumptions. Yours and the group of --------- (fill in the blank) storytellers who put together this hogwash.

@  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text Text of S.909 as Introduced in Senate

Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act A bill to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

current 111st session of congress

Back to Bill Details

Version History

Loading Bill Text

S 909 IS 

111th CONGRESS 

1st Session 

S. 909 

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

 

April 28, 2009 Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. REED, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DODD, Mr. BAYH, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. CASEY, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. AKAKA)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

 

A BILL

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

•  
  •  

    2(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence. 

    2(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity. 

    (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

  • (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence. 

    (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce. 

  • 7(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem. 

    2(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

• 2(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

   2(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem. 

  2(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected. 

  (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

• (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude. 

  2(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct 'races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 

  2(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. 

  (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes. 

• Congress makes the following findings: 

 

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

•  

  (1) the term 'crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code; 

  2(2) the term 'hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

• (3) the term 'local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State. 

• In this Act-- 

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

•  
  •  

    (A) constitutes a crime of violence; 

    (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and 

    (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws. 

  • (1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that-- 

    (2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

  •  
    •  

      (i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

       (ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime; 

      (iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and 

      (iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection. 

    • (A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require. 

      (B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

      (C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--

  • (1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. 

    (2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

     (3) APPLICATION- 

    (4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application. 

    (5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period. 

    (6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2010, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended. 

    (7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

• (a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-(b) Grants-

   

 

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

 

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

 'Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

•  
  •  
    •  

      2'(i) death results from the offense; or

       

      2'(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

       

    • '(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

       

      '(B) 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 kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

         

      • '(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) across a State line or national border; or 

        '(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

        '(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

         '(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

         

      • '(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

         3'(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

        '(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

         '(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

         

    • '(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, 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--

       '(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

  • '(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

  • '(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY- 

    '(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs. 

  •   '(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

     '(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction; 

    '(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

     '(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

  • '(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that-- 

  • '(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section. 

    '(1) the term 'bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

     '(2) the term 'explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

     '(3) the term 'firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

    '(4) the term 'gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.'. 

    '249. Hate crime acts.'.

     '(a) In General- 

• '(b) Certification Requirement-

   '(c) Definitions- In this section-- 

  (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

SEC. 8. STATISTICS. SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY. SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

•  

  (1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence. 

  (2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

• (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. 

  7(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

• For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

   

  (1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence. 

  (2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim. 

  (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

  7(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Oh no Kathy not facts!

You will only make her bigoted pea sized brain explode.

 

Gordon James Klingenschmitt=religious bigot.

Thank you Kathy. I'm afraid, though, that it is not the actual wording of the bill, but a whole lot of feverish disease that group reads INTO it. That stuff she posts and screams about exists in hers and her cohorts minds only. They all seem to live in a world of nightmares.

Okay, you zany girl!  No where in the entire text do the words pedophile, pedophilia, or sexual deviant appear.  No where. 

So, Exactly WHAT, precisely, in this bill upsets you?  Quote it from the bill above, not some hate mongering, narrow-minded overly xtian "interpreter's email"

And read the last four points, for sure...they are in direct conflict with the nonsense you just spouted in your article.

Wilka 

Thanks Kathy for including that. I'd like to see Elizabeth quote from the bill and annotate what exactly she has a problem with. How about it Elizabeth?

Could we use last name initials?  I don't want people getting confused.

THANKS!

The wording of the new bill will protect sex offenders, in this way: sexual orientation and gender identity will include those who are attracted to children, are voyeurs, flashers, pedophiles, etc. (it is simply a matter of interpretation, left up to the discretion of the person who is listed under a "protected class")

Think about it...if a man exposes himself to a woman and she slaps him back, the man could be charged with a misdemeanor and the woman could be charged with a federal felony offense.

If a boy gets raped by a man, and the boy goes to the police, his hands are tied, because this man falls into a"protected class" and his attorney could argue that point, stating this new law, in his favor...

So you are going to have all the things listed in my original post, including pedophilia, and incest, and voyeurism becoming a matter of "sexual orientation" which will be a new class that is protected by federal law...

New funding incentives will be given (as it clearly states in the bill) to local law enforcement for procescuting crimes as "hate crimes", thus the incentive is there for concluding in favor of "a hate crime" to the exclusion of any other "less protected" victims...

Now, after reading this bill, answer me this question...

How does this bill keep from trampling on my rights to religious freedom of speech? 

If I decide to quote from the scriptures against homosexuality, and a gay person attacks my son and we get into a fight over it, and let's say that I beat the crap out of this gay guy...who do you think will be federally prosecuted?

You think they will do anything to him, even if he throws the first blows? Of course not...because the thought police will label it as a hate crime against him...plain and simple...

If that were not the case, why did Congress have a problem with placing an exception clause into the bill that would EXCLUDE pedophiles specifically???

"Rep. Steve King, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and others offered and argued persuasively for several amendments all of which were defeated.  One that was particularly interesting was Steve King's amendment to merely exclude pedophiles from the protected class based on "sexual orientation" - it was voted down 13-10" (Professor Shawn Akers)

A very comprehensive analysis of the mirror bill HR 1913:

http://americansfortruth.com/news/analysis-of-2009-hate-crimes-bill-hr-1913.html

 

 Point #1:  Your name for the bill:  This is how you guys create new logic, right?    First off, the bill does not contain any language regarding protecting criminals--the stretch-the-immagination of including the American Psychiatric organization's definition of "deviant behavior"  There is no part of the APA's definition of sexual identity being deviant in this bill.  What a bridge to nowhere...THIS is how the sheeple are misled with ringing phrases and disconnected illogic.

W

She claimed that pedophiles would not be defined within "sexual orientation," but wouldn't put that in writing, and refused to define that phrase "sexual orientation," which according to the American Psychiatric Association includes all 547 sexual deviances listed in their DSM-III manual of clinical psychoses, including pedophilia, so now thanks to most Democrats, child molesters will be protected by federal law.  

Point #2:  Your quote:  If I decide to quote from the scriptures against homosexuality, and a gay person attacks my son and we get into a fight over it, and let's say that I beat the crap out of this gay guy...who do you think will be federally prosecuted?

A)  You want to teach hate in your own home to your own kids, that's your business. 

B) If your kid goes out and mouths off that kind of hate to the wrong person, and gets the $heet kicked out of him.  That's a likely result.

C)  If you go beat up the kid who beat up your kid.  That's against the law.

Now, do you see the root cause of this problem?  It is all caused by your intolerance and hate.

Point #3:  Pedophiliacs are considered to have a mental illness.  Thank the goddess it is considered a crime, as it falls under the statutory rape laws.  ANYone under 17 is protected (willing or not) from engaging in sex with an adult.  NOW, it won't keep it from happening, but it will punish the offender.  Now, if we could only incarcerate the pedophiles for life/no parole, (we might actually agree on something there.)  There is a town in Alaska that needs jobs.  I say we ship all the Peds to Alaska and keep them there, on bread and water--for life.

THINK AGAIN....According to Iowa law, anyone who is 14 and over, can have sex with anyone who is up to 6 yrs older than them (20 yrs old)...and the parent can't do a thing about it, so now, under this new law, with sexual orientation being a "protected class" of people, a 14 yr old boy could be raped by a 20 yr old guy and if the perpetrator gets the right attorney, he gets off scott free.  

Point #2...You need to go back and read what I wrote to begin with on this....you did not describe the scenario I mentioned...you danced all around it, but missed what I was saying...

Here is what I said: "If I decide to quote from the scriptures against homosexuality (this is NOT Hate speech, it is God's WORD! and I have the right to recite it in the streets if I wanted to), and a gay person attacks my son (without my son saying anything to him about it, just simply because he wants to get back at ME over what I believe) and we get into a fight over it, and let's say that I beat the crap out of this gay guy (after he started the fight with ME)...who do you think will be federally prosecuted?

That has nothing to do with me doing anything wrong, but if he interprets any of what I am doing or saying as "hate speech", he is allowed to react anyway he wants and he is protected by the law.

And that, my friend, tramples all over my religious freedom rights.

My religion has strong proscriptions against lying and stupidity, so you're trampling all over my religious freedom rights.

Watch out, I'm going to have the NSA start to monitor your communications with pseudoreligiousmorons.com.

 

"THINK AGAIN....According to Iowa law, anyone who is 14 and over, can have sex with anyone who is up to 6 yrs older than them (20 yrs old)...and the parent can't do a thing about it, so now, under this new law, with sexual orientation being a "protected class" of people, a 14 yr old boy could be raped by a 20 yr old guy and if the perpetrator gets the right attorney, he gets off scott free."

Nope, Rape is Rape is Rape!    

"Here is what I said: "If I decide to quote from the scriptures against homosexuality (this is NOT Hate speech, it is God's WORD! and I have the right to recite it in the streets if I wanted to), and a gay person attacks my son (without my son saying anything to him about it, just simply because he wants to get back at ME over what I believe) and we get into a fight over it, and let's say that I beat the crap out of this gay guy (after he started the fight with ME)...who do you think will be federally prosecuted?"

Not classified as a hate crime.  You did not attack him because of his sexual orientation but because you were angry with him because he attacked your son.  Of course if you  were to call the police and report the attack, take him to court for his behavior you would not have a concern at all.

In an ideal world Grem, you would be correct; however, we all have seen how the court system has failed to bring justice, where justice is due, time and time again...think about it...how do you think this story would be reported? It would be all over the news as a HATE crime, regardless of how the situation REALLY transpired...and then it would be near impossible to find a jusry that was not biased and then get a fair trial...the victim would be portrayed as a hate mongerer towards gays and the gay would be the victim in everyone's eyes...GUARANTEED!

I mean come on...all I have to do is MENTION my opinion on here and look what happens...people come out of the woodwork to spit on me and call me names....

ANd the names don't even reflect correct thought..."homophobia" means a fear of homosexuals...I am not afraid of them...and neither is anyone else I know who is against homosexuality...we simply believe what they are doing is wrong (as per our religious beliefs) and we do not want our children to be taught that what they are doing is ok in God's eyes...THAT is NOT fear, that is being a responsible parent in my mind.  I do not teach my children to hate homosexuals or anyone else who I believe is wrong...they can reason for themselves that what it says in the scriptures and what is taking place in our society is a contradiction...I teach them that what consenting ADULTS do in private, is of no concern to anyone, accept God...but when they bring it out into the open and try to force it down our throats as "normal", then it becomes an issue to be dealt with. period. 

I believe that this legislation is another way to further "protect" a broader definition of certain classes of people, which the govt should never do in any way, shape or form...a person is a person...the law already says you can't hurt people, so why does it now have to say that if you hurt certain types of people, it is worse than others...???

That is specialized treatment, not acceptable...it is no worse to drag a heterosexual man behind a car than it is to drag a homosexual behind a car, and vice versa...period.  The law should not have any bearing on WHY you did a crime, but simply THAT you did the crime, so you should be punished for it. period.

Speaking of the laws that say we can't hurt people...why doesn't that include people who are not born yet?  Why should deviants get special treatment over babies?  Kind of backa$$wards, don't you think?

Grems....Statutory rape does not apply in IA anymore unless you are under 14.

My Gosh, EM, but your imagination is filled with such negativity! Would of - could of... C'mon. You are too full of hate motivated daydreams.

REALLY? Since when is it wrong to look past your nose? Especially when signing bills into law????

Nor is the word:  Zoophilia nor bestiality, nor Voyeurism anywhere listed in this article.

Where, exactly are the words that upset you so?

W

They all fall under the protection umbrella of "sexual orientation"

Only by definition of the APA, which is NOT congress.

I can tell you exactly what happens when the law goes after pedophiles...  It is when citizens take the laws into their own hands (which is exactly the point you're missing in all this...) that the Hate Bill might come into play.

 

I am a citizen who has taken the law into my own hands if I slap a guy for making advances.

What do you suppose this criminal's attorney will claim in court, when there is a law, at his disposal, that protects his client?

They do not fall under the label of sexual orientation, they fall under the category of Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders.  They are within the subcategory of paraphilias.  These disorders have nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

"Gender Identity" and "Disability" are both listed in the bill as protected classes of people, and a shrewd attorney would have a hay day with this one in the scenario you describe: a client with a disorder (a "disability" that falls under "gender identity")...what more could a criminal ask for?

El. M. You are afraid of your own shadow! For Pete sakes, If you paid more attention to your own life and that of your family, you wouldn't have to espouse such ultra extremist fascist thoughts. You and your crowd are actually endangering your own and your families' lives. Get help.

"...I am a citizen who has taken the law into my own hands if I slap a guy for making advances..."


Tsk Tsk. more hypertheticals... WHAT IF they threw a war and nobody showed up?

IF you did that, you broke the law.

Ever hear the old saying, "IF the dog didn't stop to poop, he would have caught a rabbit"?

Joyce...you are such a bright shade of "pinko"!

I particulary like the fantasy elements in the article: "They were literally threatened with 50 years in jail for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ on a public sidewalk, because it offended gays."

Was that a state or federal statute that mandates a half-century jail term for "preaching the Gospel?"

Fantasy elements? Read the bill Robert.

There are a few crazy Jesus-preaching hobos in Boston.  There's Boston Common crazy hobo Jesus guy, there's Bike-riding crazy hobo Jesus guy...Everybody knows exactly where to find them and they just ignore them.  No police officers have ever bothered them, much less arrested them. 

I really think these crazy preachin' Jesus people give themselves too much credit.  Everybody I've ever seen simply ignores them on the streets, as they do any other insane person.  Unless that insane person threatens somebody else, then they will alert a police officer, as any good citizen would.

Is Jeremiah Wright on that list of crazy preachers?

In my book yes.,

Well I agree with you on this one Grems.

Well Sheryl...let's see what happens to one of them when a "gay" person has a problem with what he is saying...maybe he doesn't seem to be a threat because the gays are ignoring him, but when they start paying attention and wanting him gone, he'll be gone. Guarranteed. That's how a "protected class" gets what they want...they make noise until they are appeased...meanwhile, the guy who is preaching may not be any different totday than he was yesterday...what changed? The protected class' attitude toward him.

and Elizabeth, why do you have to "oppose homosexuality?" If you're not a homosexual, there's no point to opposition, unless you're trying to control someone else's life.

Why should the govt give "special" rights to homosexuals?

Why can I not state what my religion teaches without fear of imprisonment?

You can.  In your own home.  You can say whatever you want to say there.  But if you harm others with your speech, or incite others to harm other people--it is against the law.

Pretty simple, right?

"harm others with my speech"...

Ok, so tell me this...why weren't the gays and lesbians who so blatantly harmed and threatened members of the Mormon church (simply because of how they voted), arrested and prosecuted for hate crimes?

BS, if there is a gay person who is withion earshot of my statement and they get offended, then I have committed a crime, but it seems they can do anything they want to me, as a Christian, without fear of being in trouble with the law.

Prop 8 PROVED THAT ONE!

Religious freedom does not end at the threshold of my front door, not according to the US Constitution! It follows me wherever I am within the 50 United States. period.

It will be particularly interesting to see how Muslims are handled when they start protesting against this being a violation of THEIR religious rights.

Elizabeth M: Why can I not state what my religion teaches without fear of imprisonment?

Kathy W: You can.  In your own home.  You can say whatever you want to say there.  But if you harm others with your speech, or incite others to harm other people--it is against the law.  Pretty simple, right?

Ok, Kathy...then why don't homosexuals have to keep thier acts inside the bedroom? Why are they allowed to shove their perversions fdown my throat and my children's throats without fear of imprisonment?

their speech is harming my family, spiritually, and possibly even physically if they decide to become homosexual because of the influence, then their risk for AIDS goes through the roof. 

If somebody is shoving something down your throat, it sounds like a personal problem.

If you honestly think that someone can "influence" another person to be gay, you're more deranged than I thought you were.

what a nasty religion you have this is the most disgusting God I've ever herd of. this is your idea of LOVE?

Hussein...you have no idea...you think it is something we are born with, it is not...it is a CHOICE!

Darren...God does not love sin.

what is sin but the judgment of your own mind, I fine no condemnation in gay , bisexual or transgendredd person. the sin you refer to is make believe social dominance clocked in purity. it is a mockery of Christ. your fake religion is a transgression of the truth.

Darren...Try using spellcheck ok? Or check your grammar; your comments are hard to read when you butcher the English language...I could understand if you were just typing too fast and transposed (or left off) a letter here and there, but come on! CLOCKED IS NOT CLOAKED and FINE IS NOT FIND...obviously, you are another product of our tax dollars hard at work in public education...another area where the govt has failed miserably...

But to address your comment...

Just because you REFUSE to believe God's word, does not dimish His authority over you, it just makes you a spoiled little brat who refuses to listen to his Father...

I DO find all the above that you mentioned to be condemnable sin, and I want no part of it (as per MY religious freedom in this country) to affect me or my family in anyway...that means if someone wants to practice it, fine...IN PRIVATE, but not in my face, and I do have to let them teach my children in school, that it is ok, or accept it in any shape or form, giving them special rights over others; therefore, it is a violation of religious freedom and freedom of speech, to shove this atrocity in ANY Christian's face...or to tell a Christian they cannot express their opinion against this atrocity! It is not hate speech...it is GOD's word. Just because you think it is invalid, does not make it so. God has more authority than man. Just because some brats want to sin and want others to LIKE IT...wanting others to commend them for it, does not give them any special authority whatsoever over my First Amendment rights. Get over it.

Truth is truth...it is non-negotiable.

and here i thought you was educated.. well i been wrong before. but looky how nasty is your response. shows were your heart is

And, Robert?  I think somebody WANTED to be kicked out of the service in 2007...

Kinda like Corp'l Klinger in M*A*S*H...  A cross-dresser, seeking a Section 8.

He's preaching to a "mix-of-religion crowd..." and he's quoting John 3:36...which is (roughly translated) Believe in Jesus, or you will die.  

I imagine that didn't go over real well with the people of Jewish faith.

American King James Version
He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God stays on him.

What?!?

Are you confused Chuck?

Sorry, busy sending faxes to the following: 

16 Democrats below, who are NOT YET committed as co-sponsors of S. 909, so please call them today, asking to Strongly Support any amendment to any bill that resembles S. 909.  

 

And thank you faxes to "two Republicans (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, R-ME) have joined 43 Democrats by co-sponsoring this pro-homosexual bill" for thinking like constitutionally-loving people, not xtians.

Wilka

The term "crime of violence" means- (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.   [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000016----000-.html]

and   H.R.3355  Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.

(a) DEFINITION- In this section, 'hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT- Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.

@  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103hCc86O:e927518:

 Just two of the definitions where they refered to other documents without including the text in the new bill itself.  Here's the definition SOMEbody has a problem with:  'hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.   THAT doesn't sound like it goes against the consitution!  In fact, it sounds a lot like something I can stand behind proudly.

Wilka 

As I said before, a shrewd attorney could argue that a slap across the face is an act of violence against some guy who rubs up against a woman to get his jollies.

A shrewd attorney also got a woman millions of dollars for spilling coffee into her own lap...

That's what god invented high heels for.  But officer, I was just trying to get away, and I accidently perforated his left foot with my heel.  Then his right foot.  Then his left foot again...

Pretty simple.

The woman is NOT a "protected class" of people under this law, that is what is so disturbing...the types of persons who could claim "protection" under the law!

This fantasy COULD word of yours keeps you drowning in your own sludge! Get rid of your stove, now!!! It COULD catch fire. It COULD burn your toddler's fingers.

Stop fantasizing about what COULD happen. According to your imagination, all Americans need your wisdom and protection because we have regressed to stone agers. Will your groupies be introducing laws against rocks soon?

Well, why would you want to open the legal door to thousands of deviants?

Why are all the shrewd attorneys making all that money for dumb folks who don't drink and drive very well...when we got a whole congress of not-so-shrewd attorneys making laws for the country?  Riddle me that one, please? EO! 

 

A lot of the criminals are IN Congress!

Ok, here's a scenario for you, (under this law)...

Let's say I am a male pedohpile and I have had my eye on cute little Johnny down the street for quite some time now...his father (who just happens to be a Christian) is suspicious of me, but can't prove anything, they are just his suspicions...then he catches me trying to "lure" little Johnny into my car one day as he was walking home...he confronts me and a fight ensues...I come out on the short end of the stick...I hire an attorney who decides to use this law in my defense, and to "claim" that this was a crime motivated against me, simply because this man hates me because I have a "sexual orientation" that is not heterosexual...in this case, I am represented as a simple homosexual who is a victim of a hate crime...wow, how easy was that?

 

AND local law enforcement officials get extra federal dollars for treating it as such! What a win win for all huh? EXCEPT THE REAL VICTIM!

The assumption that pedophilia = homosexuality is simply wrong.  Most pedophiles are heterosexuals.  And this also assumes (making and ass out of u and well, you), that the opposing attorney is an absolute imbecile, and that existing statutes don't cover the initial crime, i.e. child enticement.  So you're wrong on all counts.

You're guilty of wasting air and taking up space on a crowded planet.

Ali....

And history tells you this is the way it works?  Oh Yeah right! Might I remind you that OJ got away with MURDER, honey! All it takes is money...we don't have a justice system in America, we have a LEGAL system! BIG difference...money will buy you all the personal justice you could want.

Ok, you just keep your head in the sand dear ostrich, and we'll see when the cases start rolling through the courts...

Of course, nothing will have changed in your head, with the way you people see things, you'll probably say those are "lies from the right" too.

Oh good Lord Elizabeth, you weave such webs of fantasy that do not even take into consideration reality.

I know it is hard to swallow that our court system has failed us so miserably, but the reality is Grems, that OJ DID get away with murder...if you have the money to get the best attorneys, you can BUY your way through the legal system...that's a fact.

"...OJ DID get away with murder..."

He was declared innocent by due process. Your attempt to be judge and jury fails. Just what makes you so great that you can lord it over everyone and demand laws to fit in with what you want? There is a term for that, and also help, too. Get it.

You have got to be kidding me....I can't believe you are so stupid, that you just said that!

HE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT!!!!
HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!!!
BIG DIFFERENCE, JOYCE!!!!!

He was guilty as hell, they knew it, EVERYONE KNEW IT! The prosecuters were wussies and did a poor job trying to prove it, AND he BOUGHT his way through the LEGAL SYSTEM, with the assembly-line of attorneys he hired!!!

Everyone KNOWS he was guilty, and since he got away with murder, his cockiness finally did him in...he felt he was so above the law, that he wrote that damning book "IF" I HAD DONE IT, (DUH!) HERE'S HOW I "WOULD HAVE" DONE IT!

Joyce, are you really so DUMB that you believed him???!!!

God help YOU!

"PASTORS NOT PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT"

About damned time!

Well, that is succinct! 

And Sandy, if they're politicizing and politicking and lobbying from the pulpit?  I want them taxed.  This dude who is a minister and wrote this article?  Tax his religious income; because he ain't spouting religion, he's spouting politics.  They BETTER get out of being in bed together.  Talk about rape?  Get your religions off my government...out of my schools, and put it where it belongs. 

A-hem.  In your hearts, in your homes, etc. 

Or else, you risk the chance that our fair and balanced method of government will be turned into just another religious-fanatic-driven hate machine.  Witness Elizabeth here...

Very scary.

Wilka

"Tax his religious income; because he ain't spouting religion, he's spouting politics"

Can we start with Rev Wright?  Yes   please  please  please  say yes!

Bravo, Sandy and Kathy!

I want all of them taxed. It costs absolutely NOTHING to pray at home, read the bible or WatchTower at home, adore and praise silently, anywhere a person happens to be. Why should religious business receive tax exemption?

Then, we can use the church taxes and the revocation of the Bush tax cuts to pay for health care.

Jeremiah Wright....need I say more?

Yes, FALDWELL!!

Televangelists are NOT correct in their teachings...it's all a dog and pony show, to collect money from the masses that want salvation from a TV screen in their living room...look at Jim and Tammy Baker! But that is my opinion and is irrelevant to this issue...

They all still have the right to say what they want about who they want, and so does Jeremiah Wright, as inflammatory as he is...

Many soldiers have died to give us all that right...

I do not believe that those who flaunt their flagrant acts of perversion should have "preference in the public square" over those who speak out about their religious beliefs...plain and simple. 

If a man wants to walk down the street in a dress and makeup that should be perfectly fine, but it should also be perfectly fine to walk up to him and tell him what an abomination he is...if he feels shame because of others' opinions of him, so be it...too bad, so sad...(that's what they say to Christians about what offends them)...maybe if he wasn't a "protected class" he might decide to keep it at home from then on, if not, oh well, then he can deal with the ridicule...

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen...so far, only Christians have to abide by that rule and I think it is high time all people had to.

 

Tax all religious income and their churches. Fair is fair.

"...tell him what an abomination he is..."

In whose opinion? Judgmental horsecrap, this is. Twisted xtian.

In God's opinion...got a bible? Dig it out and read it!

And a lot of homsexual soldiers died to give those rights also

Oxymoron...by God's standards, to be called a soldier is an honor...to be called a homosexual, is a dishonor.
Why would you want to purposely defame an honorable title by using the person's sin as a "banner" in the title? Only people who either know nothing of God's word, or those who want to purposely disobey God, would do this...which are you?

Please Elizabeth M, tell me about your choice day.

I want to hear about the day the angels came down, annointed you, and asked you if you wanted to be gay or straight.

It must be a fascinating story.

What are you talking about Ali? Being gay is a CHOICE!

It's a matter of perspective...NO ONE is born gay...they may have gay "weaknesses" but God tells us we are supposed to overcome our weaknesses with His help...and He will NOT be mocked.

History teaches us a lot about God...Sodom and Gomorrah...where do you think the word "Sodomy" came from?  He has been MORE than patient with this generation of deviants!

Ali - don't YOU remember consciously choosing your sexual orientation?  I remember the day very well.  My momma sat me down on her knee (she wouldn't let me sit on daddy's knee, ya know) and told me that I better be straight cuz there were people like Elizabeth in the world and they'd just make my life miserable if I chose to be gay.

Oh dear supposed god that there is, Elizabeth is posting foolishness again!  I'd hate to be the one who tells God that he screwed up and made gays and lesbians. tisk tisk! I thought God was perfect. Being gay/lesbian is NOT a choice. Why would someone choose to have a person like Elizabeth putting them down all the time?

So, I guess Elizabeth was a virgin when she got married, did everyting her husband told her to do, did not read the good book cause women ain't supposed to, never questioned her husband's word, always did what she was told...ect...never looked at a luscious piece of man and thought to herself, "mmm mmm, I'd like a piece of that!!" nor has she ever chosen to divorce or consider it.

Hypocrites!

God would NOT tell us that choosing homosexuality is wrong, if He made us that way! DUH!

Thus, it IS A CHOICE! You get feelings, you either act on them or you don't...IT'S a CHOICE!!!

Since you believe in choice theory then you can choose to behave in a manner that accepts others in spite of their faults as God would have you do.

You get feelings.............uh, from where? What you are saying is the feelings are from GOD then GOD tells you to NOT act on the feelings HE gave you? So, GOD likes to play with our silly little emotions to get a good belly laugh?

Bunny;

You're actually expecting for Elizabeth to make sense and be coherent here?

Please lower your expectations, and quit acting on your feelings!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I know, I should stop that!!

Grems...We have power to choose for ourselves, good or evil...God does not expect us to "sustain" evil by giving it special rights over His word.

Bunny....feelings can come from satan as well as God...you have to discern which is the source act accordingly on the issue.

And simply because one might be an atheist who refuses to believe there IS a God, (thereby trying to excuse himself of responsibility to God), does not make it true...God Exists whether people choose to believe He exists or not, and His laws will stand the same...

Even satan acknowledges God and Christ's existence, so atheism is just a form of denial of the truth.

(think about what happened to all the people who didn't believe in God in Noah's day)

Ali Hussein...Maybe YOU should RAISE your expectations for yourself a little higher, maybe things would make more sense to you.

Yeah, well, you gotta believe in the mumbo jumbo of religion to really be able to justify hate and prejudice. I don't. I base my decision on facts and fact is, people who are gay are born that way. There is no choice. People like you choose to discrimainate and name call, you are choosing to be a hater or at minimum, a bigot.

And the mighty "Noah's ark" story was floating around way b4 Christianity hi-jacked it. It was told b4 Jewish times and it is just one of those stories that gets used over and over to make a point. It is just a parable, like the entire stories in the bible are. No fact behind them.

God is just a security notion..........think for a while.

Mumbo Jumbo to justify hate and prejudice?  And you supposedly base your decisions on fact? But you spit on the real facts and make up your own scenario and call that fact.

I know gays are not born that way...I know that because I know that God is consistent in His dealings with mankind.  He has ALWAYS said it is wrong, thus it is WRONG and it IS a choice.

We were sent here to experience what it is like to be "human", as spirits who existed with God all the time, we could not know what it was like to be human, thus we could not progress further because we had no reference point to consider...we were innocent and naive without the knowledge we needed to move forward...we have been sent here to learn by making mistakes and to gain further knowledge...in order to return back to God's presence, we have to learn to overcome our human weaknesses by making right choices...

From the beginning of time, the word of God has foretold the coming of a Savior for mankind (and I am NOT referring to BHO...LOL)...knowledge of our existence and what we should be doing here, were given to us as we could handle them...first the milk (the old testament) as we were babies in the world, needing to walk before we could crawl...then came the meat (the new testament) delivered by the Savior himself...so that we could understand why we were given the commandments in the first place...and to learn the "spirit" of the law, since we already knew the letter of the law...

Example: When children are just learning to walk, they first learn "Don't DO this or That" for their own safety...they NEED NOT, and CANNOT understand the WHY of everything yet, as their understanding and knowledge grows and they have learned that there are somethings that are ok and somethings that are not ok, then we explain things a little further, so that they can learn to discern for themselves what they should do and should not do...WHY do I not go out into the street when a car is coming? OH! Because I will get run over! AHA! Now, I get it! Now, I can decide for myself if I want to go out into the street,l knowing full well the consequences of my actions.

We are God's offspring...He loves us all and wants us all to return to Him, but He knows full well that some of our decisions will be wrong thus not allow us to return unless there is a price paid for the sins we commit, so He provided THE only way back for us...CHRIST...paid that price...the innocent sacrifice that would cover all the sins of mankind...so no one is left out, should he CHOOSE to want to come home to God...CHRIST is the only way because no one else paid that price, he is the "way and the truth and the life"...everything else is just a false road that will lead to someplace other than back to God's kingdom...it may sound good or look good, but it is false doctrine, made up by the father of lies himself, satan...in his efforts to deceive the children of God and bring down as many of them with him that he can in the end...he doesn't do this because he cares about us, he does it because he hates God and wants to hurt Him, and hurting His children is a way to do that...(as any parent can relate to)...

You mention Christianity as if it was "invented" at a certain time in history...the fact is, Christ was chosen and annointed to to accomplish his mission here on earth, long before the earth was in existence...

No fairytales, just plain and simple truth, that even a child can understand.

I can see that you're still trying to determine the difference between "belief" and "facts".

You haven't done it yet.

God's word IS a fact.  Just because the almighty Ali Hussein does not believe it, does not make it any less factual.

You, my dear are the one who is confused on fact vs belief.

What you're saying is that everyone who doesn't think like you is wrong.

You sound just like the Taliban, you must admire them so much!

GOD is JUST a NOTION......a BELIEF........a CULT ICON..........

and just LOOK at YOURSELF!!  Christ is the ONLY way..........so, what about the muslims who believe in god but who follow the last prophet of god? what about the jews who DO NOT BELIEVE in JESUS. are they gonna go to hell just cause your precious god has a favorite son named jesus who was, by all accounts, a bastard?

Are you a self hating gay Elizabeth? There is no way YOU can say that a person chooses to be gay or straight unless you have made that choice, so have you. Have you chosen to be 'straight' and have you chosen not to be gay?

Christ IS the only way Honey Bunny...just because there are many other ways to believe does not make them all true...God only endorses ONE way, and He will not be mocked, so by calling His Son, YOUR SAVIOR, a bastard, simply condemns you, not him.

THANK GOD JESUS' MOTHER MARY, WAS PROLIFE!

Why do people keep using the old Chicken Hawk argument? I don't have to have made the choice to know there IS a choice to be made by others.  All I have to know is what God says about it, and He is pretty darned clear.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand...why are we allowing special rights for certain groups of people? Aren't we a nation where all men are created equal?

 

What I am saying Hussie...errr Hussein, is that we don't need a law that protects deviants, we already have a law that protects everyone, why do they think they are MORE special than the rest of the citizens of the US?

"Anyway, back to the subject at hand...why are we allowing special rights for certain groups of people? Aren't we a nation where all men are created equal?"

Because people like you and your religious fanatic nutcases wont stop acting out against them, that's why. You make it necessary with your ill-willed, hate filled mouths to enact new laws to protect innocent men and women who do not think like you, see?

"We were sent here to experience what it is like to be "human", as spirits who existed with God all the time, we could not know what it was like to be human, thus we could not progress further because we had no reference point to consider...we were innocent and naive without the knowledge we needed to move forward...we have been sent here to learn by making mistakes and to gain further knowledge...in order to return back to God's presence, we have to learn to overcome our human weaknesses by making right choices..."

WTF ??? Show me where it says that in the Bible...Not some dumbazz interpretation, the actual words. I want Book, Chapter and Verses. I dare you.