'Hate crimes' law challenged for cracking down on biblical beliefs

From WND a very important case...


Officials with the Thomas More Law Center say they have appealed their lawsuit over the "hate crimes" law to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, raising pointed questions including why will the law attack Bible-following Christians who follow its instructions....


...In fact, during congressional debate on the issue, supporters admitted that a homosexual attacking a Christian pastor would be protected from the law's enhanced penalties that would apply should a Christian pastor attack a homosexual.

"Under the guise of enforcing 'niceness' and promoting 'tolerance,' homosexual advocacy groups have mobilized their financial power to purchase political clout which they now use to shut down any criticism of their deviant lifestyle. The truth is they are one of the most intolerant groups in our society and viciously attack anyone who opposes their point of view," said Richard Thompson, chief of the law center.

"The sole purpose of this law is to use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically based religious belief that homosexual conduct is an abomination and a sin."

The center confirmed that statistics from homosexual advocacy groups reveal that the greatest threat of violence to homosexuals comes not from Christians but from other homosexuals. More

Girl, 15, Arrested Over Alleged Koran Burning

Yes its in Britain...for now:

From AOL News:

LONDON (Nov. 25) -- A 15-year-old British girl has been arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after she allegedly set fire to an English-language copy of the Koran and posted footage of the incident on Facebook.  more

School Makes Boy Take American Flag Off Bike

From Fox40

13-year-old Cody Alicea rides with an American flag on the back of his bike. He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He's had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.

A school official at Denair Middle School told Cody some students had been complaining about the flag and it was no longer allowed on school property.

Order since rescinded but the fact that it could be made with a straight face to begin with speaks volumes...

Sharia Law in America

Under Sharia law non-Muslims are not allowed to proclaim their beliefs to Muslims. Nice to see they have the Dearborn police to help them enforce this.

If this is what it looks like, replete with cops confiscating video cameras to keep what happened off the record, it’s one of the most ridiculous First Amendment violations you’ll ever see. H/T  and more over at HotAir

This is an ongoing issue and you can read more details at WND and a link to last years video which is even more disturbing.

Some color for the story over at Touchstone:

"...There are no Muslims who do not need the Gospel, and no Christians, Arab or otherwise, who can live without it. Why should we be silent? The Gospel can be shared always, but not always welcomed. Jesus wasn't in the end; why should we be?" More

Freedom of Speech threatened in Europe

The Death Knell of Freedom of Expression in Austria

H/T Europe News

The International Civil Liberties Alliance 3 February 2010

A legislative manoeuvre is being prepared in Austria that will effectively abolish freedom of expression.  This is the sort of law that would have been familiar to those living under the Soviet yoke.
This measure will consolidate the already unpopular doctrine of political correctness and at the same time it will undermine traditional Western freedoms.  Inevitably this kind of law will spread like a pathogen to the rest of the EU.  The powers that be are in the process of creating a political environment where it will be illegal to question or criticize the policies and beliefs of the rulers.
Gates of Vienna has published an article entitled ‘Constricting the Nucleus of Freedom’ which provides more information on this development in Austria.
The following essay by AMT also shows how Austria is sinking into the tyrannical abyss:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire

As many of us are aware — some more than others — freedom of speech has been changing. Those of us who believe in and fight to protect the concept of democracy can clearly recognize the gradual erosion of this noble and important freedom. There is growing concern that freedom of speech and its provisions in the law are being used more and more to do stifle opinions, and — even more worrying — truth. (More)

Kulturkampf- Quebec government declares "war" against homophobia

I'm sure its just a matter of time before such wrong headed thought crosses our border. already the agenda is taught in the schools and preached on TV and other media outlets. Outlawing "homophobia"( i.e those who disagree with the LGBT  agenda ) and "heterosexism".


...The document focuses on combating “homophobia,” but Farrow says that “we cannot get the measure of this document” without a grasp of what he says the government sees as homophobia's 'twin evil': “heterosexism.”  “Heterosexism,” according to the policy, is “affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm or the highest form of sexual orientation.”

Farrow points out the fact that, in rejecting “heterosexism,” “the Government of Quebec has rejected heterosexuality as a social norm!” and he says that it is there where “the full scope of this absurd war begin[s] to appear.”  He relates the obvious fact that Quebec society, as all others, was built on ancestors “who all took heterosexuality as the social norm.”... 

...Farrow concludes by urging his fellow citizens to stand up against the government's attack.  “War has been declared, and war there will be,” he states.  “Let those who intend to fight, fight now. Let them fight with the weapons of St Benedict, yes, but with the weapons of Martin Luther King, Jr, too.  Let them meet and consult, and determine to act publicly and in concert, laying aside their customary deference, which has no place in a time of war.” (more from Lifesite)


In the preface to his statement, with notes, Professor Farrow states:

Before I begin, let it be noted that nothing I have to say here is directed at or against people of homosexual inclination, among whom I too have friends and colleagues, some of whom would agree with the main thrust of my argument even while disagreeing strenuously on points of substance or of detail, whether in morals or politics or in social phenomena....
 .....they do not wish to find themselves in a society where it is not possible to enquire openly about the causes and consequences of sexual behaviour, or to make moral claims about sexual behaviour that do not suit the people in power. And they can see that this is where we are headed; that the new moralists (as I have elsewhere referred to them) are in some ways much more rigid and prone to persecute than the old. They may not like it, for example, if an institution or an individual refers to their condition as “disordered” or their behaviour as immoral, but they would defend the right to hold such a view, to live by it, and even to argue for a polity that takes it into account.

 That right is just what is threatened by the Québec policy against homophobia. 
                       
                                              Download complete article, including notes.

- Douglas Farrow is Professor of Christian Thought at McGill University.

Administration Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

Well, I guess this means they aren't totally beholden to Obama after all, much to the Administration's chagrin I suspect.... But should this not scare the hell out of all of us? True, Presidents have a history of getting in pissing matches with certain members of the news media and have been vocal and more about those the were displeased with, but to attempt to completely exclude a news outlet? That is extreme no matter which side you're on- at least it should be.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. (more from Fox)

From one “radical, extremist, un-American, mobster” to another:

Washington D.C.’s response to the voice of the people: Name calling! How childish! How rude. How intimidating…. But that's not getting the job done...Obama sends out the SEIU thugs. How effective will it be? For how many years has the voice of the people been silent? Will our politicians’ tactic work at again silencing the voice of the “silent majority?”

One crisis after another has been created by Washington politicians to secure our consent and deflect attention from their unconstitutional actions. Now, finally…after a long slumber…at last the sleeping giant has been awakened by the audacity, the unbelievable presumptions of this congress and president.

What the politicians are seeing and what they fear is the formation of a 3rd political party in America. They are frightened not by what we are saying. They are afraid of what we are doing. Obama, a community organizer by experience who cut his teeth in Chicago, the heartland of political corruption...is most aware of what is happening.

We, the People are organizing against this administration's big government, "Big Brother" socialistic ideology! And we are at last on the road to creating a viable alternative to “business as usual” in Washington D.C.

It should be no surprise Washington D.C. fears that which they have been able to prevent since the founding of our nation: a viable new political party that will enforce constitutional constraints on Washington.

Have no doubt. Do not be dissuaded by the political rhetoric of those whose primary interest is sustaining their political power over us. If we fail in this attempt to stop progressive socialism…we may in the very near future wake up to a nation no longer a Republic, but rather a Totalitarian Democracy ruled by a new elite and all-powerful politician class.

With Obama's Chicago political machine past, and his former and current supporters from that mindset...there is little that we should not expect to be possible in what they will do to implement his vision of "change" for America.

There are without question actions being taken in this country that are unworthy of our American traditions…that are “un-American,” but these actions are not the voices, the courage of the protestors who are standing up for what once was common place in America…blind justice and fair and equal treatment for all regardless of gender, race, religious or political beliefs.

What amazes me is that in a time where we have chosen to assure equal rights for people based upon “sexual preferences” which many of us are morally opposed to, and many in congress are doing everything in their power to grant near full citizenship benefits to illegal aliens... we are now being told that it is right and just to take equal rights and benefits from a much larger group of people…from those who have grown up being called “baby boomers,” men and women who have honorably served in our military and paid Social Security taxes throughout their lives. As fate would have it... it is our generation that has the opportunity and power to decide whether or not we judge age to be a disqualification for equal and fair treatment in America.

The communist ideals of “social equality” through redistribution of wealth away from those who have earned it may not have bothered some of us, but the retroactive decision to disenfranchise seniors from the readily available best heath care services in the world on the bases that they are no longer a good investment by the government is unconscionable. If this does not make you MAD AS HELL, then what will?

If we allow our government to reapportion "entitlement" to medical care …the benefits that we have all paid for over a lifetime…then we are liable for the foreshortening of our own lives and dramatically undermining the quality of life for our remaining years . We, the people, the rightful sovereigns of this nation…we now are forced to decide if...through our own irresponsible, apathetic, failures to rule ourselves honorably if we are now also determined to destroy that which we spent a lifetime building… the greatest nation on earth.

Yes, there are without question a lot of people today who are guilty of “un-American” activities…but one group that is definitely NOT being un-American. And that group is the patriots, the moms and pops, the grandfathers and grandmothers who are only guilty of attempting to have their voices heard by politicians who refuse to remove the wax from their ears…politicians who would demonize their own constituents for the lawful demands for redress of grievances. God Bless America with courage to overthrow tyrants and those who would “transform” America into a second-rate world power and a third-world economy. May God bless and give strength to all the true patriots in America today.

A "stealth enactment" of the Fairness Doctrine

Watch for the "Fairness Doctrine" debate to be replaced by the term "localism." Though this is nothing new per-se Judicial Watch has the documents from the FCC showing it has not gone away and is still very much a consideration:

While President Obama is on record opposing the return of the Fairness Doctrine, which is viewed by many as an attempt to squelch the free speech of conservatives in the media, these documents show that the FCC is considering alternative proposals that may also regulate free speech in the media under the professed goal of "diversity."

For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are licensed to serve." These proposed measures, highlighted in a document entitled, "The Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Approved Rulemaking," included a requirement that broadcasters, "provide 3 hours per week of locally-produced program," and that licensees establish "permanent advisory boards (including representatives of underserved community segments)." The FCC noted that these measures would become part of the application renewal process to make sure broadcasters "meet their responsibilities."

Problems with "localism" are highlighted in a legal memo written by Kathleen Kirby of the law firm Wiley Rein and submitted to Rosemary Harold, serving as legal counsel to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell. In the document, which was distributed internally at the FCC, Ms. Kirby advises that the Fairness Doctrine "would do well to stay dead." Ms. Kirby then turns her attention to "localism," advising that such a policy could represent a "stealth enactment" of the Fairness Doctrine. (more)

The First Amendment in Peril

The other morning as I arrived at work I received a call from my 13 year old son. It was a little past 7:00. His bus arrives at 7:30. I was concerned that he was ill or, more likely the case, had lost something he needed for school.

"I was just thinking how Obama is like Hitler," he said. "Well, not exactly but somethings he's doing," he explained.

"OK" I said, relieved it was nothing too serious and preparing myself for what can sometimes be the tortured logic of a 13 year old's mind.

"In Nazi Germany, they tried to restrict what radio broadcasts the people listened to," he explained. (His class has been studying the Holocaust.) "Hitler handed out radios that only broadcasted the governments views," he continued, "and some of the propaganda posters showed a person listening to other broadcasts with the word "Verrater" (Traitor) at the bottom." The poster depicted an activity the Nazis considered to be treason, the highest crime against a state and its people.


Indeed, as the US Holocaust Memorial Museum points out:

Goebbels's ministry recognized the tremendous promise of radio for propaganda. It heavily subsidized the production of the inexpensive "People's Receiver" (Volksempfänger) to facilitate sales. By early 1938, the number of radios in German homes surpassed more than 9 million, roughly one for every two German households. Three years later, this figure rose to almost 15 million, providing 50 million Germans with regular radio reception.

My son continued, "Isn't Obama trying to do the same thing by trying to shut down talk radio?"

What he was referring to of course if the so called "Fairness Doctrine," a subject we will no doubt be hearing more about as the Dems approach a filibuster proof majority.

Perhaps the call was more serious than I thought.

From WND:

This isn't the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

It's much worse.

Here's what you can expect in the coming weeks and months:

• a new appointment to the position of chairman of the Federal Communications Commission who will implement a plan to create "community advisory boards" of community activists to monitor the content of talk-radio programs, threatening stations that carry dissenting content with broadcast license challenges;

• billions of additional dollars to be invested in so-called "public broadcasting" – those entities already funded and controlled by government;

• bailouts of failing newspapers perceived as essential propaganda tools for the party.

The FCC is currently composed of two Democrat and two Republican commissioners. Obama has nominated a new chairman, Julius Genachowski, which would give Democrats a 3-2 majority once he is confirmed.

But the nominee is not just another Democrat. He's a Democrat with a plan.
Genachowski advocates creating new media ownership rules that promote a diversity of voices on the airwaves. In fact, Genachowski is credited with helping craft the Obama technology agenda, which states: "Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."
Translation? Government control of broadcast media – particularly the kind of talk radio Democrats find so annoying.

The party in power wants to remain in power perpetually. And to do so, like so many other power-hungry parties of the past, it seeks to control the debate and stifle dissent. (more)

To Demonize and Criminalize Thought

Fair warning from Townhall:

...Lovers of free speech and free exercise of religion should awaken to the relentless effort of radical homosexual activists to validate their lifestyle by demonizing, criminalizing and silencing those who disagree with them. ...


... the House Judiciary Committee has already approved Barney Frank's bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The full House is expected to vote on the bill April 29, and various liberal groups, from gay activists to liberal religious organizations, are engaged in a full-court press to get this bill passed. ...

...I think the main purpose of this bill is to demonize and criminalize thought, especially the politically incorrect belief that homosexual behavior is either abnormal or sinful. It is to make an emphatic societal statement that this belief constitutes "hate" and possibly to lay the groundwork for outlawing speech expressing this belief, including from the pulpit.

I hardly think I'm being hysterical here. The practice of criminalizing peaceful expression of this belief has already occurred in other nations -- including Sweden, Canada and Great Britain -- and even in our own Philadelphia.

New York City authorities ordered the removal of billboards -- citing an anti-harassment ordinance -- that displayed various biblical versions of Leviticus 18:22, such as the New International Version's rendering, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari reportedly publicly condemned the language in the displayed verse as "mean-spirited" and "hate speech."

Irrespective of your opinion on homosexual behavior, it is a distortion of the English language to say that it is hateful to believe it is somehow abnormal or even sinful. One can disapprove of behavior without hating those engaging in it; indeed, the Bible exhorts Christians to love, not hate. One can oppose hate crime legislation or same-sex marriage without being a homophobe -- another distortion of the language to paint the opposition as irrationally and immorally fearful of homosexuals. ... (more)

Contact your representative now re H.R. 1913

H/T Bioethike
From Dr. Robert Gagnon:

Dear friends who live in the United States,
(Please feel free to circulate this correspondence widely and rapidly)
This is a matter of great urgency. Please take a moment to contact your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives and express your opposition to the homosexual “hate crimes” bill (H.R. 1913) that will likely be voted on sometime tomorrow (Wednesday). Call 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or contact your representatives through http://www.congress.org/.

Support for a “hate” bill that enshrines “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into federal law (note that it is not yet so enshrined) does not mean merely that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers. Laws are already in place protecting persons who identify as homosexual or transgendered. They are the same laws that protect all of us from violent physical or verbal attacks.

Support for such a bill means, in effect, that you are in favor of the federal government taking an official, legal stance that opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism of any sort is hatred and bigotry akin to virulent racism and liable to state prosecution. Any statement against such homosexual practice or transgenderism could be prosecuted as an “incitement” or “inducement” of others to violence, no matter how loving and rationale that expression of opposition may be.

A “sexual orientation hate” crime bill does virtually all its damage in establishing “sexual orientation” as a category of being that is worth the federal government’s vigorous special protection. A person who has a problem with the behavior arising from homosexual “orientation” will be legally established as a “bigot,” even if he or she does not commit a violent crime. That status becomes codified in law. Your opposition to homosexual practice, no matter how loving and rationale, puts you in the category of a virulent racist who regards African Americans as morally inferior beings.

In establishing an official “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” protection category, “sexual orientation” hate laws make inevitable, so-called “employment nondiscrimination acts” for “sexual orientation” that turn out to be “employment discrimination acts” against people in the workplace who do not want to support a homosexualist agenda. Together they make inevitable the passage of legislation that mandates acceptance of “gay marriage.” It is not possible to be for a “sexual orientation thought-crime” bill and not also be for the enforcement of “gay marriage” because the former leads inevitably to the latter. That is how the courts in Massachusetts and, recently Iowa, operated. They moved from “sexual orientation” laws in “hate crime” and “employment” to treating as intrinsically discriminatory any opposition to “gay marriage.”

Look at how far things have already gone in Canada. Among those recently fined thousands of dollars are: Father Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight Magazine for speaking against homosexual behavior; Bill Whatcott, a Catholic activist, for producing pamphlets that called homosexual practice immoral (Whatcott was also “banned for life” from criticizing homosexuality); Stephen Boisson, a pastor, for a letter to a newspaper denouncing homosexual practice as immoral (also ordered to desist from expressing his views on homosexual practice in any public forum).

Can’t happen in the United States? Even though some high court justices have already made appeals to precedents in foreign law to support the homosexualist agenda here? Tell that to the freelance female photographer who on the grounds that it violated her Christian belief declined to photograph a lesbian wedding and, as a result, was ordered by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission to pay over $6000 to the lesbian couple.

This past year an African-American woman Crystal Dixon was removed from her position as associate vice president for human resources at the University of Toledo simply because she wrote an editorial in a newspaper saying that homosexual behavior should not be compared to being black.

Rolf Szabo, Richard Peterson, Kenneth Gee, Annie Coffey-Montes, and Albert Buonanno were all fired from their corporate or government jobs in the United States for not wanting to “celebrate” at their work station “sexual orientation” diversity.

A Christian ministry in New Jersey has been subject to state investigation for refusing to allow a lesbian civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property.

In California affirmation of homosexual practice is now mandatory for public schools from the earliest grades on up; teachers who refuse to go along are subject to termination.

Need more examples of this juggernaut of intolerance? Go to my online postings at http://www.robgagnon.net/AlleghenyCountyHomosexualBill.htm or http://www.robgagnon.net/ObamaWarOnChristians.htm.

I commend to you also an analysis by law professor Shawn Akers posted at http://americansfortruth.com/news/analysis-of-2009-hate-crimes-bill-hr-1913.html.

As Akers notes,
“This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (emphasis added). This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener. Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence. This argument is misleading and naïve in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they physically contributed to the act….

“In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, HR 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed. As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought….

“Tellingly, in the April 23, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearings on HR 1913, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said unequivocally that “We need to protect victims against hateful words, hateful acts and even violent acts.”

Please contact your representative in Congress now.
Thank you,
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.Author of : The Bible and Homosexual Practice : Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press).

Fairness Doctrine 'unconstitutional'

From WND some possible good news on attempts to stifle free speech:

For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench. (more)

CNN Vs Bloggers

No doubt you remember this shameful bit of reporting by CNN.

Well it turns out that CNN was so impressed by it that they had YouTube pull it, ostensibly because of "copyright" violations.

Well the BS meter went off over at Founding Bloggers and they are fighting the action.

The folks over at Copyrights and Campaigns have a nice summary:

Founding Bloggers, the conservative web site that had its video critical of CNN's reporting on a Chicago "tea party" removed by YouTube after the cable network sent a DMCA takedown notice, is not backing down. On Thursday, Founding Bloggers submitted a DMCA counternotice to YouTube, starting the clock ticking toward a possible re-posting by YouTube -- or a lawsuit that could establish important legal precedent regarding the contours of copyright law's fair use doctrine, especially as it applies to use of news video by political bloggers. "We're not going to let this just go away," Andrew Marcus of Founding Bloggers told C&C in an interview earlier today.

Good for Founding Bloggers

Miss California's Warning for All of Us

I haven't been much interested in the Miss USA pageant since I quit salivating over the lingerie adds in the newspaper back in Jr High. But unless you've been under a rock the last few days you have no doubt been hearing of the brouhaha over Miss California's response to the question on same sex "marriage."

A nice summary can be found over at Pearl Diver:

So Miss California got baited and reeled in at the Miss USA Pageant. And, of course, now she’s being fried by the oh-so-neutral mainstream media we’ve all come to know and love. I am so proud to be a Californian right now! First, We the People speak our minds and establish that in California, marriage is between one man and one woman. Then, our “little Miss,” responds to a loaded question posed by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, with a very diplomatic, but firm response, “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.” (more)

Pearl goes on to discuss an interesting phenomenon with the searches on the subject focusing on the possibility that Miss C might be a Mormon. It's an interesting read as is the rest the blog over at Pearl's place.

But something caught my eye while reading the comments section. Avery interesting comment from Opine Editorials that said this:

"Miss Prejean is currently a student at San Diego Christian College, which is associated with Shadow Mountain Community Church at whose International Ministry Center Miss Prejean has volunteered. While virtually any faith would be proud to count Miss Prejean a member, it appears she is currently affiliated Southern Baptist.Here's the wrinkle: Miss Prejean's educational background would have been part of her application for the Miss USA pageant, to which all judges would have been given access. Mr. Hilton likely knew Miss Prejean's Christian faith when he targeted his highly divisive question at her. Donald Trump, the pageant owner, attributes the question to her "bad luck." I'm not so sure."

And I think he is on to something here. I think Miss California was targeted specifically for her views on this subject and I think it bodes ill for all of us.

STR says this:

The fact is, decent Americans are the ones being bullied here, citizens who are people of conscience, overflowing with tolerance in the classic sense, but are being pushed around and oppressed because they disagree with the extreme views of the minority. Instead of making the case for traditional marriage, maybe we should also point out what's really going on behind the rhetoric that appeals to fairness and equality.

Let me tell you what’s really going on here.
Good people with honest differences with the Homosexual agenda are being bullied.

First, Americans are incredibly tolerant of homosexuality, especially considering the moral concerns lots of folks have with it. Same-sex couples have been getting married for years in private ceremonies. No one interferes, and no one should.

Americans are happy to give equal rights, and that is done virtually everywhere. However, they do not want their arms twisted into approving something they do not think is good for America or for families. That’s the real issue. (more)

The expansion of hate law legislation ( a dubious idea to begin with) only adds to the concern for the loss of religious freedom and free speech.
Hate Crimes Legislation Draws Criticism from Christian Groups

And in order to pass the legislation proponents often (surprise) play fast and loose with the facts.

From OneNewsNow
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, notes that Democrats were forced to eliminate a key portion of the bill -- the findings section. "We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders -- and that claim was the foundation of the bill," she notes. "They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that's a lie." Lafferty says during yesterday's markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America -- a country of 300 million people -- there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people. (more)

Lifesite shows us what may be at stake:

...In a motion almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, the Judiciary Committee voted 15-12 to allow the hotly contested H.R. 1913, known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009, to go forward.

The measure would grant the federal government a new authority to prosecute any violent crime anywhere in the country that is perceived to be "motivated by prejudice" against a number of protected characteristics, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
Christian leaders are particularly concerned that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization have failed. Among many rejected proposals for the bill was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Congressman who introduced the bill, claimed the bill posed no danger to Christian free speech, saying that it "only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way." Section 10 of H.R. 1913 states: "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Yet free speech advocates have pointed out that under current U.S. law, any action that "abets, counsels, commands, [or] induces" a perceived "hate crime" shares in the guilt of that crime, and is therefore punishable.

The danger posed by the "hate crime" legislation to Christian ministers was confirmed when Congress considered practically identical legislation in 2007. Then, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the measure that it could be used to prosecute pastors for preaching the biblical perspective on homosexuality, given the perception that it may have "induced" a later hate crime. ...(more)

Intrinsically Disordered

A legal complaint has been filed against a Spanish bioethics professor who had the nerve to speak the truth.

LifeSite has the story but Secular Heretic has a number of good links including one speaking of the dangers of homosexuality to one's health and others outlining the dangers to the freedom of thought and religion that the homosexual activists pose to the rest of the world. Like this one:

David Booker an employee of the "English Churches Housing Group" has been suspended for answering questions about his faith to a colleague at work

Go over to Secular Heretic and have a look.

The Loss of Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech

As a follow up to a previous post, also by the Washington Post, on what the redefining of marriage will cost. World wide, the freedom of speech, long a cherished bullwark of western civilization, is under assault and any many cases has been killed.

For years, the Western world has listened aghast to stories out of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations of citizens being imprisoned or executed for questioning or offending Islam. Even the most seemingly minor infractions elicit draconian punishments. ...

...Among the new blasphemers is legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot, who was convicted last June of "inciting religious hatred" for a letter she wrote in 2006 to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that Muslims were ruining France. It was her fourth criminal citation for expressing intolerant views of Muslims and homosexuals. Other Western countries, including Canada and Britain, are also cracking down on religious critics.

Emblematic of the assault is the effort to pass an international ban on religious defamation supported by United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann. Brockmann is a suspended Roman Catholic priest who served as Nicaragua's foreign minister in the 1980s under the Sandinista regime, the socialist government that had a penchant for crushing civil liberties before it was tossed out of power in 1990.... (more)

Beetle has some examples of actual healthcare professionals who have been pressured to violate ethical standards.

And over at Get Religion they're also talking about the WaPo article and have pulled in a number of different viewpoints on the matter like this one from GayPatriot:

Ms. Salmon cites a number of examples where individuals, organizations and entrepreneurs were fired for, fimed for or barred from refusing service to or inclusion of gay people. Now, I personally think these groups are wrong to so exclude gays, but they’re not requiring me to buy their product or participate in their activities.

At the same time, if a gay group wanted to exclude Christians from its membership, it should be free to do so. Their right to do that would come from the First Amendment’s clause on “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” and also possibly the Ninth Amendment.

But, these constitutional protections don’t seem to be a barrier to gay groups in their zeal to reduce the freedom of private individuals and organizations. They are prevailing in courts according to Ms. Salmon “because an individual’s religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays’ right to equal treatment under the law.”

Say what? That’s not equal treatment under the law. That’s using the law to limit individuals’ freedom, just as it would be if Christians used the law to mandate that gay organizations include ex-gays or gay business serve the Christian Coalition. (more)

Online activists on the right, unite!

A warning from the Op-Ed section of the Washington Times..:


A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.

We must not let that go unanswered.

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.

Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way - all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its "idealism" in a most cynical fashion.

The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever.

Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that's called "vandalism." But in a political movement that embraces "graffiti" as avant-garde art , that's business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people's property in pursuit of electoral victory. ...(more)

President Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him

I'm not sure the entire blame can be placed on the staff. I mean, Obama is in charge, right? But it's an interesting article with some great lines (e.g. "that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package")showing that concerns with the administration runs from right to left...
From Salon and Camille Paglia, (my favorite lesbian/atheist/feminist writer):

Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.

Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)

First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery.

Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.

President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.

Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants. (more)

Self-censorship in the West

From the Economist:
Anxiety over causing religious offence limits freedom of speech in the West

...Two decades after the fatwa was imposed on Mr Rushdie, it appears that many Western artists, publishers and governments are more willing today to sacrifice some of their freedom of speech than was the case in 1989. To many critics that will be seen as self-censorship that has gone too far. But a difficult balance must be struck: no country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and the like. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups; equally the use of free speech should be tempered by a sense of responsibility. But that sense should not serve as a disguise for allowing extremists of any stripe to define what views can or cannot be aired. (entire article here)