From PolitiFact...

Here's how the bill reads now:

"Nothing in this division ... shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor shall anything in this division ... be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, or association" unless prosecutors can demonstrate that the speech was intended to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."

It's that last part that concerns some Republican leaders like Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana.

"As has been previously stated by Judge Carter of Texas, under Section 2 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code today, an individual may be held criminally liable who 'aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures' in the commission of a federal crime," Pence said from the House floor on Oct. 8. "Therefore, to put a fine point on it, any pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, or imam, who may give a sermon out of their moral traditions about sexual practices, could presumably under this legislation be found to have aided, abetted or induced in the commission of a federal crime. This will have a chilling effect on religious expression, from the pulpits, in our temples, in our mosques and in our churches. And it must be undone."

But we quote more from the bill: "Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration."

Again, the bill notes, "The Constitution of the United States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence."

In other words, you can preach that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but you can't encourage violence against gay people.

Brian Moulton, chief legislative counsel for the Human Rights Coalition, said this language makes "exceedingly clear" that the kind of thing talked about by Kline, Pence and others is "just not possible under this legislation."

"I don't see how anyone who has read the language of the legislation could come to that conclusion," Moulton said.

We certainly think it's fair for Republicans to criticize the decision to add this controversial hate crime provision to a bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we also think it's wrong for opponents of the bill to again raise the scare tactic that it might lead to the prosecution of preachers who condemn homosexuality from the pulpit. The language of the bill makes abundantly clear that it would not. And we rule Kline's statement False.

My concerns, and others I fully expect, are not assuaged. If experience with the Left teaches us anything - it demonstrates that words - and the redefining of words is important. For example, "Hate Speech" is now common in the modern American lexicon. It is a modern invention. Nowhere in the constitution is "hate speech" mentioned. But the average American, after years of a constant metronome-like bleating of the word now knows what it is - or what he thinks it is.

I personally think that Hate Crimes Legislation is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Constitution and is unnecessary and superfluous. There is no such thing as a "love crime."

Hate Speech is actually free speech that the Left doesn't like or agree with. We borrowed another gem from socialist Europe.

Additionally, given the Left's well known love for the judiciary over referendi, they will incrementally litigate this to death - establishing precedent after precedent in federal appellate courts until we arrive at where we now are with homosexual marriage.

It's emotion over law and principle again. I guarantee you that as soon as this abomination becomes law, suits will break out all over the nation against anyone with the audacity to say homosexuality is a disordered passion or a sin.

And the National Assisted Suicide continues unabated.

I am against hate crime laws, as I think they border on Orwellian thought control. If someone commits an assault against a homosexual, they should be prosecuted for that assault, not their thoughts. That being said, Priests and ministers should be allowed to preach against homosexual acts from the pulpit, but must not in any way, encourage violence towards homosexuals. Nor should they wink at violence towards homosexuals.

I have never seen a Catholic Priest encourage violence towards homosexuals, but I have seen a couple of Evangelical ministers wink at violence towards Homosexuals and this is wrong, period.
We may disapprove of homosexual acts, but homosexuals are citizens too and may not be assaulted with impunity, just like any other citizen.

The Bishops seem to get this, unfortunately, some of the Evangelicals seem to be lukewarm on the subject of violence towards homosexuals, regarding it as some sort of harmless prank. We can and should speak up in disapproval of homosexual acts, but must also speak up against violence towards homosexuals, and while we disapprove of hate crimes laws, we strongly approve of prosecution of violent offenders who assault homosexuals. We should not wink at these assaults, as they are a crime and should be prosecuted.

To: "Living in Wingnuttiaville (TX)"

Herein lies the real danger. The "Two Step" approach of the new censors.Is this a tactic of new "Cultural Revolutionaries"?

The Catholic position on homosexual sexual practices and the growing efforts to undermine true marriage through what we should all begin to call the "Homosexual Equivalency Movement" - the movement which wants to call what can never be a marriage a marriage and then use the Police Power of the State to force all of us to do the same - is rooted in the Natural Law which binds all men and women!It is a "truth" calim in an age which was properly called a "dictatorship of Relativism" by then Joseph cardinal Ratzinger before he assumed the Chair of Peter. He has repeated them since then.

Yes, this position is confirmed by Revelation, as is evident in the Sacred scripture and the Tradition. However, Catholic Christians insist that the Natural Law can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason.Further that it presents truths which should inform our life together.

Further, Catholic Christians insist that these objective truths, revealed in the Natural Law, are the foundation of any truly just society and inform a true humanism which will help us all to live together in peace, promoting human floruishing. In so doing, Catholic Christians are simply following the example of people like St Paul in his letter to the Romans and the unbroken teaching of the early Church.

So, regarding your taking some comfort in language such as "...you can preach that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong". I suggest that it is at best naieve.

I further insist that the "two step" is already underway. First, relegate our truth claims concerning marriage and the family founded upon it to simply being a "religious position." Then require that our truth claims be confined within our Church Walls or we will face the Police power of the State.

We need to wake up! There is a Cultural Revolution brewing with two conflicting visions of the human person, human freedom, human flourishing and marriage and the family founded upon it as the first cell of a truly just society.

The real possibility looms that today's Catholic positions on matters of imporatnce for all men and women, including those of other faiths or no faith at all, will be censored from the public debate or, worse yet, made the subject of a new form of censorship. Remember, the early Christians were not persecuted for "religion" but as "enemies of the State" and for "hatred of the human race".

The implications of the address by our President to the "Human Rights campaign" last Saturday night in Washington D.C. are ominous. The experience of our brethren in Canada and some other Nations are equally so. All of which Deal's article aptly addresses. This is cause for a serious reflection, discussion.

Deacon Keith Fournier

A real example of "hate crime" is abundently clear in the "finding " of the Massachusetts Supreme Juducial Court's decision supporting the "same sex marriage" passed unfortunately here in Massachusetts. Anyone reading the decision would truly identify the hate the court has for those voters who challanged the legislation.

Read it... could the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court be brought to court, sorry , to its own court and be charged with Hate Speech?

To: Living in Wingnuttiaville (TX)

Laws already exist today to cover violent crimes. Anyone that committs such a crime must be prosecuted to the fullest extent regardless of motivation.

This is just one more way of a certain segment of the population to force acceptance of what others deem to be immoral. As Christians, it is our duty to stand up for truth, but herein lies the problem. Others want to take away our ability to speak truth. If anyone really thinks the language in the bill is going to protect those who speak out against homosexual relationships or the acts that take place within them where no violence ensues is misled. At one point violent crime was considered violent crime. Here we are carving out a specific law geared to one segement of the population on violent crime.

Deacon Keith is right: a massive censorship of Christianity is well along. I think many censorship codes and enforcements are likely to be law within the next 5 to 10 years if Democrats hold on to Congress and the White House. These anti free speech codes are presently in play via "political correctness" strictures, and also through acts of intimidation, bullying and harassment. But it will be better for the Left to impose censorship by law and simply fine and jail violators for nonsense crimes like "hate speech" and the like. That's the raw power move that they seek.

Deacon Keith, as I have noted elsewhere, these dire issues of our time are not going to be decided by reasoned debate; they are going to be imposed via power tactics at the governmental decision making level.

Therefore, the Christians (and all good people in this country) must form strategic action networks that plot, plan, and scheme ways to outsmart and outmaneuver the increasing fascism of the Left. There are perhaps hundreds of moral, clever organizing-and-resistance plans that would render anti-Christian legislation null and void, from legal abortion and gay marriage to the socialized medicine and unconstitutional use of Federal power. Creeping fascism can be easily stopped by well organized resistance power groups. Basically, our strategies on the Right must be as creative as the tactics we see from the Left.

Many power-based organizing strategies are moral and 100% effective. The Left is way ahead of the Right in using these protocol-bending tactics, but we can catch up if we devout laymen get organized (and funded).

I meant to add, Deacon Keith, that good people everywhere must begin to wield their decision making authority aggressively, socially, and *within well-coordinated action groups.*

Well-organized collectives comprised of top decision makers from a range of targeted industries (whether healthcare, or entertainment, or business, or radio, or state-level governments) can act together to peacefully resist or enact just about anything.

This power-based activity must be done now, or else all of your dire predictions here and elsewhere will take place, and Catholics will be censored, fined, and even jailed, all because a *small-but-powerful minority* used their offices and institutions to impose their anti-christian views upon the masses through the instrument of law and enforcement.

Catholic and even conservative talk, no matter how well-reasoned and persuasive, is powerless in the face of Left wing decision makers bent on imposing their agenda via legislative instruments. Sadly, the Constitution is not really enforceable anymore to restrain Leftist moves, especially when so many activist left-wing judges are in charge of enforcement. See, decision making power trumps everything, so long as it's done in a coordinated collective fashion.

Anne,

I agree with your alarm, except that I don't think any of this is the end of the world. (The end of the world is probably a million years away, and all guesswork on the timing of that end has proven wayward and counterproductive.)

BUT, this could be the end of Catholic/christian freedom of religion in America for the next century. The legal noose is tightening, and many Catholic teachings could be illegal soon and not to be uttered without hefty fines and punishment.

"...unless prosecutors can demonstrate that the speech was intended to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" - Living in Wingnuttiaville (TX)

Hypothetically, let's say a state legislator publicly advocates the passage of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. He passionately states his belief that same-sex marriage is contrary to the natural law and therefore should not be recognized under state law. He recommends that supporters of the measure undertake grassroots action to help pass the amendment. He warns his supporters to "prepare for violent physical attacks" against them by adversaries of the proposed amendment.

Query: Can the FBI charge the state legislator with a hate crime under the new federal law? After all, the speech prepared his supporters for physical violence. Will the legislator have to hire the finest criminal/constitutional lawyers to have any chance of acquittal?

It's getting quite chilly in the public arena these days.

State Legislator

Legislator:

If law enforcement and the military don't uphold the Constitution (as they pledge to do) then anything can happen.

In my experience though, the majority of the citizenry is still Godly and in possession of common sense (marriage between to of the same sex?? Huh??). So those who speak out will find many, many Americans watching their back. People naturally gravitate to truth. We only, literally, have to fear FEAR.

Greg, I think we're way further down the road than you think.
Pope JP II said the Gospel had been preached throughout the world way back in 2002, I believe. Knowledge has increased, assaults on life have reached a crescendo. God's 'first commandment' to be fruitful and multiply is now almost considered criminal against the GREEN movement.

Trim thy lamps.

Maureen: In my experience though, the majority of the citizenry is still Godly and in possession of common sense (marriage between to of the same sex?? Huh??).

But the Christians are entirely out of power in the U.S., and the secularists are using law to beat them into submission. The only way to stop this is to (1) regain control of decision-making government offices or (2) form resistance coalitions among influential conservative leaders and institutions that organize to peacefully resist warped legislation that threatens well-being.


Maureen: I think we're way further down the road than you think.

We would be wise to remember the standard Catholic teaching that no one knows. In fact, 100% of those who have engaged in speculation on this topic have failed. Perhaps more importantly, it's counterproductive to the cause of the gospel to engage in end-of-time speculation and the concomitant determinism that typically comes with that.

Here's my list Greg -

#1 Pray.

#2 Speak the truth.

All the best to you, In Christ....

Several times while discussing homosexuality as disorderd, I've heard Catholic Priests and Bishops speak out against gay bashing. The two themes seem to go together well; together they provide an excellent teaching moment on "love the sinner, hate the sin".
Bishop William Skystad wrote this in the October 20, 2005 edition of the Inland Register:


Of course, in some ways, he was trying to prevent gay bashing of priests- whom modern American society, in worship of sexual orientation, already suspect of being gay merely because they are celibate. But I've heard the same thing since high school- "The Body of Christ, has AIDS" was the name of a candlelight vigil I attended in when in college in the utterly homophobic town of Klamath Falls, OR (at the time, the entire city government came from a minor party opposing homosexuality).

The upshot of all of this? I can make a pretty darn good case that Catholics, while believing that homosexuality is a mental disorder (I do myself, even though I believe it to have an evolutionary cause as well- a dead-end mutation as it were) have *NOT* crossed into hate speech territory for the most part, and in fact, preach against the use of violence against any sinner.

Whether the irrational belief system of the left wing greenies goes along with it, though, remains to be seen; but I suggest on this we take the narrow road instead, and let their own illogical court system cause its own thought processes to be cast into doubt.

Only as long as the politicians and voters that support that position are still in existence. We're already the *ONLY* reason that the United States still has a growing population, and at the rate they're going, my child will live to see the last of the human eugenicists die.

I don't like making the attitude of the criminal a separate crime in and of itself, and consequently oppose hate crime legislation. I do, however, think the motivation of the criminal should be considered in sentencing. Someone who assaults another person because the criminal believes his victim is gay and intends his actions to intimidate the entire gay community, then certainly that warrants a longer sentence for the original assault. The difference between my proposal and this bill is that my law would not add any new crimes to the books, only allow enhanced sentences where the intent was to intimidate a large group of people. Advocating anything isn't a crime now and wouldn't be a crime under this proposal.

{The hate-crimes legislation passed recently in the House, attached to a defense spending bill, is explicitly designed to combat hate crimes based on sexual orientation and "gender identity."}
The culture of death and our congress play by the same rules. “Death comes like a thief in the night.”

The real criminal hate that is so obviously prevalent in the country today, especially in the media and the ultra liberal groups supporting their democrat leaders in congress, is the ever more popular anti-Christian cultist and their jihad directed at Christ’s Church.
It has become a well established and accepted practice among the elite leaders of the new “social justice” civilian army (otherwise known as community organizations, congressional committee leaders, union leaders, and presidential Czars) assembled by our prince of politics occupying the Palace on the Potomac, formerly the White House.

Thank you advocate Doug Kmeic, Notre Dame, and all of our compromising academics and clerics in and outside of the USCCB who still to this day dare not tarnish their politically correct Christian credentials with the truth, tears, and the blood of Christ’s Passion least you be considered too Catholic for comfort in the ever more secular American society you are helping to perpetuate.

I don't like making the attitude of the criminal a separate crime in and of itself, and consequently oppose hate crime legislation. I do, however, think the motivation of the criminal should be considered in sentencing. Someone who assaults another person because the criminal believes his victim is gay and intends his actions to intimidate the entire gay community, then certainly that warrants a longer sentence for the original assault. The difference between my proposal and this bill is that my law would not add any new crimes to the books, only allow enhanced sentences where the intent was to intimidate a large group of people. Advocating anything isn't a crime now and wouldn't be a crime under this proposal.

People err when assuming that expanding the hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way) will “criminalize” a person’s thoughts. The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them.

But there is a BIG difference between expressing personal prejudice against a group, and being motivated by that prejudice to attack someone’s person or property. I don’t care if Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sean Hannity or Lou Sheldon hurl their anti-Gay invective until the cows come home; but if someone uses Scripture as a justification for beating up someone who is Gay, that’s a different story.

Likewise when it comes to delineating between different crimes against property: There’s a big moral and ethical difference between someone who spraypaints a “tag” on a highway overpass, and someone who spraypaints swastikas on the front of a synagogue.

Until conservatives mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, I’ll continue to see their arguments against the legislation now being considered as pretty disingenuous.

People err when assuming that expanding the hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way) will “criminalize” a person’s thoughts. The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them.

But there is a BIG difference between expressing personal prejudice against a group, and being motivated by that prejudice to attack someone’s person or property. I don’t care if Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sean Hannity or Lou Sheldon hurl their anti-Gay invective until the cows come home; but if someone uses Scripture as a justification for beating up someone who is Gay, that’s a different story.

Likewise when it comes to delineating between different crimes against property: There’s a big moral and ethical difference between someone who spraypaints a “tag” on a highway overpass, and someone who spraypaints swastikas on the front of a synagogue.

Until conservatives mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, I’ll continue to see their arguments against the legislation now being considered as pretty disingenuous.

With respect, I don't find it disingenuous at all. Incrementalism is one of the great constants of the Left. The original legislation, which I oppose on principle, covered race, color, religion, ethnicity and national origin. It only applied if the victim of a crime was engaged in one of six federally protected activities such as interstate commerce or voting.

Once precedent is established, it is used as a foundation or lower story for which to build toward another tier. This particular addition to the foundation is a quantum leap. Anyone who compares the two knows it is a quantum leap. It was a different country in 1969. It is particularly insidious because it was attached to a Defense Appropriations bill that was sure to pass because it was essential now. To have voted against it, which I urged my representatives to do, was tantamount to political suicide. It is highly unlikely to have passed standing on its own demerits. It compares homosexuality to a racial group or ethnicity. Most common sense people would not agree with that comparison.

Moreover, to say it is disingenuous to disagree with this because there is already existing hate crimes law is analogous to saying I cannot disagree with nationalized healthcare because we already have Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would say we have enough government healthcare and we don't need anymore.

As for repealing federal hate crimes legislation: I'm all for it based on the Constitution. But we all know it would be labeled as racist which is why virtually no one in congress would dare bring it up. Once racism is applied and the inherent emotional vitriol that accompanies the word, the original principle would be obscured and ultimately disappear.

Speaking as an American and life-long Catholic, this sort of not-so-subtle attempted hijacking really bothers me. As far as I am concerned, the only true hate speech is that which is antithetical to the First Amendment. In other words, my personal definition of hate speech includes this sort of legislation. The oily method employed herein is the reference to perception of speech having a given effect. If I were to say to someone, "nice day, isn't it?," and that individual perceived it, for whatever reason, as an attempt to coerce them to paint their shoes blue, that would, without question, be entirely reliant on their interpretation, not my feeble conversational skills. But when laws of this sort are passed, the lack of proper interpretive abilities can be one of the casualties. Those who follow the progressive line often seem to have religion in their sights, and they like this sort of grey area, especially if control of it's interpretation is in their hands. It's even more noisome that they love to couch such evil work in ersatz sheep's clothing, usually either terminally cute of equally banal language. I do not, under ANY circumstances, trust them to do the right thing, especially since our belief is anathema to them.

I don't know to what extent the champions of this legislation
truly defend gay people. My suspicion is that more important
to them is the destruction to traditional judeo-christian
principles this is meant to be. It is thus an attack on
the God Who created marriage in the image He wanted it
to be.
People are fascinated by "redistribution of wealth".
This administration is redistributing more than just the
wealth that money is. It is redistributing the privilige
of speech, morals, and other traditons reserved for virtuous
people. The redistribution does not necessarily affect the
leaders on the top and their cronies.

The article referenced a single case of a priest and bishop called before the human rights tribunal in which the charge was eventually dropped. But I seem to remember having read of a man convicted - confirmed upon his appeal - under their hate speech law for attempting to preach biblically on homosexuality (no violence, just the morality of the action). Our president is a snake oil salesman, and he has a majority party to help him out, but there is a silver lining. Usually when politicians lie (which is often) you only find out their real intentions after the fact. The manifest lies of this president are so bold, however, that those with ears to hear and eyes to see can move to oppose his perceived ends concealed under his senseless rhetoric.

From Michael O'Brien, Catholic Canadian writer/artist, on Canada's passage of hate speech laws:

The New Totalitarianism, "hate crime," and same-sex "marriage"

In Canada, the recent passage of a new “hate crime law”...is a case in point, and the looming “same-sex marriage” bill...now before Parliament is another. A number of aspects of the hate crimes law are especially disturbing...Parliament simply decreed that henceforth any negative public reference to homosexuality must be considered a possible hate crime against homosexual persons, prosecutable and (where a verdict of guilty is delivered) punishable by a jail sentence...

...activist homosexual groups have been bombarding a number of pro-family, pro-life organizations in Canada with mockery and threats, and planning strategies (in open forums) for neutralizing all opposition, warning that those who don’t keep silent on homosexuality will go to court, and to jail. The high level of emotional violence in homosexual militants’ strategy is at times astounding. They seem consumed with hatred and determined to bring about an entire social revolution in their favor...

...For example, a printing company that declined to print Toronto’s annual gay pride day literature was sued under the human rights law, fined heavily, and forced to print the material or close their business. A Catholic school was coerced by a court order to admit an openly homosexual teenage boy and his older male lover to the school prom; the court also refused the school board permission to cancel the prom...

Clearly the new law will be used not so much to protect homosexual persons against unjust discrimination as it will be wielded as a cudgel to intimidate those who simply disagree with them and to punish those who are outspoken about it. It will also be used as a wedge to further invade the education systems and potentially invade the life of all families, disrupting the formation of the coming generations. Under this law, how can we object?...

Read the entire piece here:

http://tinyurl.com/yj4t6ol

If all that you cherish about your catholic faith is that you are free to demean other people from the pulpit then it really isn't much of a faith. Is this really what Jesus died for; so that you could rant about gay people? Seriously. You're spitting on the sacrifice of Jesus with your ranting about this.

Deacon Keith - I've yet to read an uplifting blog post from you or hear an encouraging word. You seem to be a spiritually depressed person. I'm sorry that you feel the need to respond with anger to a national outcry for decent civil behavior. Surely we can expect civility from Men of God? If we cannot, then I think the church is in trouble.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act."

-George Orwell

I think this pretty much sums up Deacon Keith's eloquent assessment of what, or perhaps who, we are up against.

Thank you sir. And thank you for your vocation in a time when the enemies of the Church seek to silence her.

PS: Great post, by the way.

re: anne

It is a reflection of weak arguements that you feel the need to pump up the ego of your compatriot Ken rather than contest the validity of the case against his rationalization of bigotry. It is vulgarity such as this; that, in passing itself off as free expression of religion is dragging the church down into a tabloid cesspool of Fail.

Here's what I hate: sodomy and fist-(fill in blank). I don't hate same-sex attracted people or child-attracted persons or persons with corpse arousal ... but I can say, emphatically, that there are sexual practices that I "hate". By "hate", I mean "to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest". So, okay, that pretty well describes the way I "feel" about referenced practices. I can explain it rationally, I can separate the emotion if need be. But I am totally okay with the word "hate" with respect to behaviors.

So, I am okay with "hate crimes" legislation, because we should not ever hate each other. And, as Christians, we should be able to distinguish between hateful behaviors and the person who is, for whatever period of time, engaging in them.

Prosecute me for hating sodomy. Prosecute me for hating leashed, leather whipping or chained sex or dildo strapped rape, but, it's not the person I hate. It's the behavior (and Satan behind it.)

I think this is the distinction hate crimes legislation is striving to make ... whether it's effective or not. It makes sense in a very Christian way, in my opinion.

BTW, it seems to me it can benefit Catholics in the long run, as our "behaviors" become increasing "hateful" to so many people. Don't we want the protection of "hate crime" motivated against us?

Veritas,

You know not what or of whom you speak. We would be hard-pressed, indeed, to find a more inspired and hope-filled man than the good Deacon. He is inspired because he knows the truth; he knows the Lord who IS truth. He is hope-filled because he knows the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's Church.

He is not, however, naive. He knows we must fight and defend the truth against the lies and deception of the enemy. And by enemy, I mean the only real enemy -- Satan.

I hear no one "ranting" against gay people. This is about a godless state attempting to brand the truth as hate speech and give themselves the power to prosecute and penalize those who dare speak out against homosexuality. Not homosexual people -- homosexual practice.

I believe Deal's article is correct, and the Deacon is correct we he calls us to wise up and open our eyes.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but it seems you are the one who is angry here. It is you who lashes out in hate and personal attacks.

If *everyone*, including Catholics, will benefit from this legislation then the legislation is redundant.

Groups lobby for laws that specifically benefit said group; they know precisely which bills, etc. will accomplish the end they seek. Hate crimes/speech laws are promoted aggressively by gay activists because they will specifically benefit the gay community - community which is friendly to the perversions you listed above, as no distinctions are made between groups with "regular" gay behavior and groups with more obvious perversions.

Gay rights include rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender/transvestite and everyone other group which marches in the gay pride parades. All will benefit, ultimately even NAMBLA, also a marcher in the parades.

Catholics will not benefit from these laws. On the contrary, Catholics are specifically targeted as the last enemy standing. This is fundamental to a full understanding of what is at stake.

Just one recent example: The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network recently gave an award to a prominent and wealthy gay business man. Read some excerpts from his acceptance speech:

“Among our greatest adversaries who actively work against us are the leaders of the Catholic, Mormon, and evangelical churches who seek to deny equal protection for us and for our children...It’s time we raise our children to be independent thinkers and deeply suspicious of bible beating organized religion...”

And he means *all* children. This organization targets schoolchildren. From Wikipedia:

GSLEN - comprising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and allied individuals who wish to put an end to discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools.

The entire speech is here:

http://tinyurl.com/yjsyjvl

Let's learn from Canada's experience - reread post #26.

I think this whole legislation is crazy. How do you define hate speech or hate crimes? This politically correct world we live in now is out of control. You can't oppose the president on his political beliefs without a reference to being a racist. You can't believe in the bible if it offends someone's lifesyle. We really do need to wake up and wake up fast. Everything this country was based on is being redefined, relabeled and turned into a negative. This thing with Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example. You might not agree with his point of view, but to prevent him from buying a business not on actual statements he made but on false ones is just the beginning. Can this happen to the Church? Can this happen to us? When a Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can make a living promoting devision between people and still be call reverands, I think we need to reevaluate what is going on. This is an urgent matter. We just sit back and take it all the time. How we fight back I am not exactly sure, but I know this is a much more important and underlining matter that all of us need to concentrate on.

Okay, everyone. I'd like to offer this story from today's news as a a *generalized example of organized resistance* that works in response to any piece of oppressive or godless federal legislation. Though I have one caveat to offer. Here's the link:

"Arizona sheriff sweeps for illegals"
http://tinyurl.com/yzsu3dr


Now, when you read the story, you see that the sheriff is asserting his rights over against the Federal Government's attempt to remove his authority. In a word, he's is refusing to comply with the unconstitutional Federal power grab by Obama and Janet Napolitano. This civil resistance works, but with the caveat that *ONE CRITICAL THING* is missing from this man's strategy: he's acting alone, which is a big mistake (!), for he will be crushed if acting alone.

Therefore, he needs to make this move *in cooperation with multiple state police agencies and legal partners so it is a whole coalition resisting together, and not one man. If he is all alone in this act of resistance, he won't last---the Feds will crush him one way or another. But if he has a whole coalition committed to the civil resistance he is staging, the Federal Government cannot impose its oppressive orders.

Now, if Christians adopt these tactics they can refuse at the state level any oppressive, unconstitutional, and ungodly Federal orders. But it must, must be done as a coalition of authorized leaders and decision makers.

Now, if Christians adopt these tactics they can refuse at the state level any oppressive, unconstitutional, and ungodly Federal orders. But it must, must be done as a coalition of authorized leaders and decision makers.


So you're advocating for a coordinated taking away of civil rights? You do realize that this could backfire. It was not too long ago that Catholics were denied housing, and employment and lodging based on our faith. Even as you may argue that our faith is protected under the laws, it is a slippery slope from denying the protection of others to having our own protection denied using that same logic. Just as some claim that sexual orientation is subject to change and is therefore not protected conduct, so too must we remember that faith is subject to change as well. The fact that millions become new catholics every year proves this fact that the conduct of one's worship style and belief is very much subject to change.

CS said: So you're advocating for a coordinated taking away of civil rights?

GS: No.

CS: You do realize that this could backfire.

GS: We Catholics are already under international legal assault, so who cares if it does backfire---either way we would lose.

But in fact, it can't backfire if you look closely at what I said. Any federal legislation that is oppressive or evil can be easily denied implementation via the tactic I listed. All that it takes is coordinated resistance by relevant key institutions and decision makers. Catholics need to do more organized resistance and less talking. Talk is important, but organized action is where effective change takes place.

OBAMA LOVES HATE BILL

Go ahead, Mr. President. Sign the "hate" bill. By doing so you will help to fulfill the predicted repeat of the "days of Lot" in Luke 17 - days which today seem anxious to outperform their ancient counterparts! You have already been helping to fulfill the predicted repeat of the "days of Noah" in the same chapter - that is, violence towards the unborn which presently is matching, if not surpassing, the violence that forced God in Genesis 6 to announce that He would soon destroy everyone except Noah and his family. Mr. President, by helping to fulfill both of the above "days" you will discover that God has His Almighty veto over what you say and do!