Will your thoughts be subject to ‘hate crimes’ law?
Emergency campaigns seek messages to Washington

Article: World Net Daily

A “hate crimes” law is looming in Washington, and at least two organizations are urging Americans to contact their representatives and even the president to express their concern over the plan’s potential “thought control” aspects.

WND has reported on the proposal numerous times, most recently just weeks ago when a key Senate vote happened in the wee hours when most Americans were asleep and a warning followed.

The proposal – which creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens – has been added to a defense spending bill.

The U.S. House voted yesterday to approve the plan, and the Senate has expressed support. Once approved, it would head to President Obama, who is anxious to satisfy homosexual supporters who have complained he has not done enough for them.

When the Senate earlier approved a key move, Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said, “In … months President Obama and the Democratic-led Congress have forced on the American people the most radical and and immoral agenda.

“The administration and the Democratic-led Congress are out of touch with the mainstream. They represent the most fringe extreme elements of America. They will not be able to continue their efforts to undermine moral values, socialize the economy and trash American pride and heritage.

“The people will not remain silent forever,” he said.

The House vote prompted the American Family Association to alert its constituents and create a procedure for them to send e-mails to Washington about the plan.

“In its never-ending quest to shred America’s Judeo-Christian value system, the left is planning to hurriedly push through a ‘thought crimes’ bill,” the alert said. “So-called ‘hate crimes’ laws are really laws that criminalize thought, because they punish an individual not for what he did but for what he thought. Politically incorrect thoughts about homosexual behavior will result in enhanced criminal sanctions under this law.”

The AFA said, “Everywhere hate crimes laws have gone into effect, they have been quickly used to intimidate, silence and punish people of faith who express deeply held religious objections to the normalization of homosexuality.

“Such laws not only punish officially disapproved speech and thought, they create two tiers of victims. Under hate crimes laws, some victims get more protections than others, which violates the fundamental American principle of equality under the law,” the alert said. “In fact, such laws actively discriminate against heterosexual Christians who are victims of crime, since they will get less legal protection than homosexual victims.”

The American Family Association said since “sexual orientation” nowhere is defined in the law, “this law will give pedophiles, voyeurs, and exhibitionists special protections, which is why the bill has correctly been called ‘The Pedophile Protection Act.’”

Also offering an online “contact Washington” process is the organization Pray in Jesus Name, founded by former U.S. Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who was involuntarily removed from the U.S. military after he prayed “in Jesus name.”

His organization submitted via fax almost 400,000 petitions to Washington opposing the “hate crimes” law.

Also, a separate larger Fed Ex campaign to warn U.S. Senate members of the dangers of the “hate crimes” plan dispatched more than 705,000 letters to senators.

The letter-writing effort was organized by WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry. It allowed citizens to send individually addressed letters to all 100 senators over their own “signature” for only $10.95.

Concerned individuals may e-mail their respective senators or call 1(877) 851-6437 or 1(202) 224-3121.

Klingenschmitt said, “Please call 202-456-1111 today, and tell White House comment line operators: ‘Mr. President, please keep your promise and veto the F-35 second engine in the Pentagon Budget, 2010 Defense Authorization Act.’”

“Several months ago, President Obama promised to veto the Pentagon budget if it contained funding for the F-22 or a second engine for the F-35. The Senate killed the F-22, but after receiving nearly 22,000 faxes from us in the last 48 hours, the House ignored Obama’s veto threat and voted Thursday to fully fund a second engine for F-35s. The House also sadly attached the pro-homosexual ‘Hate Crimes’ bill, which had nothing to do with Pentagon spending, to the budget as a poison pill.

“If President Obama vetoes the F-35 second engine, as he promised when speaking in Phoenix last spring, he will ironically kill the homosexual agenda and their evil ‘Pedophile Protection Act,’” he wrote.

Attempts by Republicans to add amendments stating “pedophilia is not protected as a sexual orientation” were blocked by House Democrats.

In fact, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected.

“This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule,” he said.

Further, the proposal has a broad definition of “intimidation,” so a Christian pastor’s sermon could be considered ‘hate speech” if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against someone based on “sexual orientation.”

The pastor, Klingenschmitt said, could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime” or “inciting violence against gays” for quoting the Bible.

As it went through the House, the version was H.R. 1913, or the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The Senate then worked on its own version, and it ultimately was added as an amendment to a defense spending plan.

As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.

The revelations came from Holder’s June testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was taking comments on the proposal. The measure also was the subject of discussion on talk radio host Rush Limbaugh’s July 3 show.

“This is the question,” Limbaugh said. “(Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked … by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality. Is the minister protected?”

No, said Holder.

“Well, the statute would not – would not necessarily cover that,” Holder stated. “We’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover. We don’t have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person’s desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute.”

Continued Limbaugh, “In other words: ministers and whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis, groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation. So hate crimes are reserved exclusively for blacks and homosexuals. Everybody else can get to the back of the bus on this one.”

The bill was nicknamed “The Pedophile Protection Act” when Rep. Steve King proposed an amendment during its trek through the U.S. House that would specify pedophiles could not use the law to protect their activities.

Majority Democrats flatly refused.

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, told WND the move is alarming because “this would be the very first governmental and societal disapproval of a sincerely held religious belief, held by a majority of Americans, namely that homosexual behavior is immoral.

“It’s the first time the federal government is writing into law a disapproval of that belief,” he said.

While he said he doesn’t believe there will be “immediate” prosecutions of pastors and churches for teaching the biblical injunction that homosexual behavior is sin, “I think the effect on speech and religious speech is nonetheless real.”

He said he does expect that pastors soon will begin being called to testify in “hate crime” cases in court “as to what that pastor preaches, what the church teaches, what the Bible teaches.”

“When this happens, there will be a shock wave through pastorates in America,” he said.

Ultimately, he warned that the homosexual advocates who have pushed the “hate crimes” plan consider this law just the first step “toward silencing Christians.”

That development already has been observed not only with the enactment of “hate crimes” laws in other nations but in the “hate crime” related speech codes existing on many university campuses in the U.S., Stanley said.

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, has indicated he would like to see the legislation become law.

“I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance,” he said.

Guess what I’m thinking. Ohh snap.

Well, the latest fleeing-parent-and-child saga is over.  If you didn’t see it, there was a teenager from Minnesota who fled with his mom to avoid cancer chemotherapy.  The mom and child returned voluntarily, charges were dropped, and the parents now say that they agree that their son needs chemo.

Apparently, the mom joined some church that doesn’t believe in any form of medical intervention.  Several other denominations (notably Christ Scientist and Jehovah’s Witnesses) are against some or all “normal” medical procedures.  Her son has cancer; the doctors say that he would have a 90% survival chance if he got chemo.  The son says that he believes what his mom has taught him, and initial reports, at least, indicated that he didn’t want the chemo, either.  (This was very similar to a local case, which wound up getting dragged through the courts.  The kid started chemo, reacted very badly to it, and wanted to try alternative therapy.  Social services actually removed the child from the home to force him into chemo.  The kid lived, his parents divorced (presumably accelerated, if not caused, by the stress), the state walked away happy, and all other local parents were properly chastised that going against the state’s wishes would not be tolerated.)

So, the question is: is it “child abuse” to deny him treatment?  Does the state have the right to step in?

On the one hand, the argument goes, it is the parents’ duty to keep their child alive.  Since society at large has deemed their faith and its rejection of modern medicine ”unreasonable” or “abnormal”, well, then, society has a right to override that faith for the sake of the child.  Hey, we don’t want weirdo religions declaring it’s their religious belief that a child has to be starved to death or married at eight, right?  Therefore, society must step in.

Or does it?

Of course, as a Christian, I would argue that yes, it is part of our duty to keep our kids alive, but our primary duty is to do our best to lead our children to Heaven.  While I do not agree with the parents’ rejection of medicine, I don’t agree with where the argument against them is going, either.  Do we only have the state’s permission to raise our children as we deem best if our teachings correspond to the state-approved list?  They have/had that much “freedom” in China or the Soviet Union.  Most of us wouldn’t call that “freedom”.

Let’s recast the argument.  Say that your teenaged child was deathly ill.  The doctors tell you that they can cure your child, but only by using the remains of aborted fetuses.  Do you accept?

If you say, “No, I reject that option on religious grounds,” the doctors and social workers will haul you into court.  Even if your teenager testifies that she does not want the treatment because she believes life begins at conception and that it is gravely immoral to use aborted babies as cures for the born, the court may still order her to undergo the treatment.

Now whose rights are at play?

As one talking head on Fox News tonight put it, “Well, he doesn’t have a mature understanding, he hasn’t seen the world and how it works.  He only understands what his mother has indoctrinated him into.”

So, faith is an “immature” argument, and whatever science says it can do has to be done, whether or not the patient or those responsible for his care think it should be done.

Where does it end?

Do we really think this will end with life-or-death, relatively clear-cut cases?  Or will it be extended to lesser cases?  We’ve already swallowed mandatory vaccines, several of which are made using the tissues of aborted children (and it seems to be intentional that it’s very hard to determine which are and which aren’t, because some vary by manufacturer or date).  The dangerous (and occasionally lethal) Gardasil vaccine is being heavily pushed; on the logic that cervical cancer can be fatal, will the decision to opt out of the vaccine also be removed from parents’ “legitimate” religious objections?  Are we headed for a dictatorship of doctors who can order us onto chemo or off of life support, regardless of religious objections?

Are we already there?  It appears that the answer is, “Yes.”

When the government intrudes, it never leaves.

Even worse at overstaying its welcome and pushing its own omniscience is science (in this case, medicine specifically), which seems to have wholly forgotten where health and wisdom come from:

[1] Honor the physician with the honor due him, according to your need of him, for the Lord created him; [2] for healing comes from the Most High, and he will receive a gift from the king. [3] The skill of the physician lifts up his head, and in the presence of great men he is admired. [4] The Lord created medicines from the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them. [5] Was not water made sweet with a tree in order that his power might be known? [6] And he gave skill to men that he might be glorified in his marvelous works. [7] By them he heals and takes away pain; [8] the pharmacist makes of them a compound.  His works will never be finished; and from him health is upon the face of the earth. …[13] There is a time when success lies in the hands of physicians, [14] for they too will pray to the Lord
that he should grant them success in diagnosis and in healing, for the sake of preserving life.

Sirach 38:1-8

(Sirach is part of what is sometimes referred to as the Deuterocanonical Books, or Apocrypha.  Catholics still use the full canon that the early Church did, but the Deuterocanonical Books were removed from Protestant Bibles around the time of the Reformation, although some versions included them separately as the Apocrypha.)

Although I am glad that they finally decided to do chemo, wouldn’t this have been a non-issue if the government had been a little less heavy-handed and more respectful of the parents’ beliefs?  They seem to have been somewhat willing to consider the options, but strongly against the state dictating their decision.

I do not believe as this mother and son did; chemo is within what I would consider moral medical treatment.  But this is their decision, not mine.  And not the state’s, either.

From the Kelowna Capital News: