Ped o philes a protected group under Hate Crimes S.909? Call Senators!
Believe it or not, 30 sexual orientations, including ped o phelia (spacing done to avoid google search) will be protected under the new Hate Crime law, S. 909. The list is posted on American Family Associations web page. I don't care to go into describing these, as most are too disgusting, but 2nd on the list seems to be the dangerous practice actor David Carrnadine might have been involved with when he was found dead in the closet.
The list was taken from the "'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders', which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders."
The disturbing thing is that all of these 30 perversions were deemed as needing special protection under the Hate Crimes laws by those crafting the bill in the Senate.
I believe all crime is a hate crime. A person doesn't murder someone or beat them up because they admire them. So why do we need special sentencing if the victim is one of these 30 sexual orientations? The United States already has laws in place to "punish violent crime."
The AFA cited this example, given by Rep. Gohmert, of how this legislation, if passed, could impact us. "If a mother hears that their child has been raped, and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class," said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas."
The other result of this bill would be to halt any opposition to homosexuality. "If the legislation passes, pastors could be prosecuted under the federal inducement statute for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. For example, a person could commit an act of violence against a homosexual individual and blame it on the pastor's sermon. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad." I have heard this is already the case in Canada.
The US Senate is to vote on S. 909 any time. We need to contact our 2 Senators about voting against it. Need talking points? Herb Kohl 202 224-5653 and Russ Feingold 202 224-5323.
Read more about it: Next on Senate agenda? 'Ped o phile Protection Act' Hate crimes' law definitions would protect 547 sex 'phil ias'
The list was taken from the "'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders', which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders."
The disturbing thing is that all of these 30 perversions were deemed as needing special protection under the Hate Crimes laws by those crafting the bill in the Senate.
I believe all crime is a hate crime. A person doesn't murder someone or beat them up because they admire them. So why do we need special sentencing if the victim is one of these 30 sexual orientations? The United States already has laws in place to "punish violent crime."
The AFA cited this example, given by Rep. Gohmert, of how this legislation, if passed, could impact us. "If a mother hears that their child has been raped, and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class," said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas."
The other result of this bill would be to halt any opposition to homosexuality. "If the legislation passes, pastors could be prosecuted under the federal inducement statute for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. For example, a person could commit an act of violence against a homosexual individual and blame it on the pastor's sermon. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad." I have heard this is already the case in Canada.
The US Senate is to vote on S. 909 any time. We need to contact our 2 Senators about voting against it. Need talking points? Herb Kohl 202 224-5653 and Russ Feingold 202 224-5323.
Read more about it: Next on Senate agenda? 'Ped o phile Protection Act' Hate crimes' law definitions would protect 547 sex 'phil ias'
Links:
Practically Speaking, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, RandyMelchert, CNS News, Jay Weber, Mark Levin, Vicki McKenna Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, The Heritage Foundation
Labels: Government/Bureaucracy, Homosexual agenda, Legislation, Religion/Atheism, United States
posted by KYLE PRAST | 10:31 AM
3 Comments:
Friend, I respect your right to believe as you please. I (and, I believe, the vast majority of Americans) will always vigorously defend your right to do so. However, I think a responsible American needs to be well-informed, and there are few talking points that you make that need clarification: (1) the Congress has refused to define sexual orientation because it is already legally defined. All of the 30 aberrations you list are indeed in the DSM-IV, and should be. However, homosexuality is not and hasn't been for nearly 40 years. The scientific community overwhelming agrees on this point, to the same degree that they agree that Darwinian Natural Selection is the best explanation for the origin of species. There is no need to define sexual orientation as excluding these aberrations because they are already illegal - being homosexual is not and never has been; (2)there is no "federal inducement statute," never has been and never will be. If you disagree, I challenge you and your friends at the AFA to produce the statute code -- because AFA is the only one who is promoting this assertion, while all other sites (such as yours) are merely distributing it. You cannot compare what has happened in Canada to the United States for an important and fundamental reason: Canada has never had the kind of strong first amendment rights, particular of free speech, that the U.S. enjoys. (Canada actually tried at one point to convince the U.S. to block their television transmission signals because 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of our border and love our culture, but the Canadian government wanted more authority over what Canadians could watch.) That will NEVER happen in the U.S.; no American, liberal or conservative, would stand for it; (3) the AFA knows full well that the Matthew Shepard Act exempts religious bodies from prosecution, or imposes an inability, for teaching their congregants that their faith dictates that homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and/or inherently wrong. All the bill does is say you cannot call for or incite violence against a particular group of people (in this case, LGBT persons), slander or libel them, etc. because of specifically what they are and no other reason, absent of any wrongdoing; and finally (4) these protections already exist for race, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, etc. All the Matthew Shepard Act does is extend such protections already in place for decades to LGBT Americans. America has not fallen apart because we protected classes that just several decades ago were disgustingly marginalized. Knowing this, but refusing to acknowledge its truth, is equivalent to AFA and all of its e-mouthpieces saying that its OK to protect all of those other classes, but not gays and lesbians... we are somehow exempt from equal protection under law, even though we are clearly what our courts have deemed to be a "suspect class," a group historically facing oppression and discrimination. You are also using fear, ignorance, and misinformation to accomplish the goal of enshrining into law second-class citizenship on others. We won't even bother discussing the other points (e.g. choice v. orientation, hate crimes being more serious in nature because they are directed at a group, and a perceived representative of that group, for purposes of terrorizing and intimidating that group...like using a handgun in the commission of a crime, it is an aggravating circumstance deserving of additional sentencing, separate from that called for by the crime itself.) Thank you for the equal time and your thoughtful consideration of the facts.
Abracadaver, I am not as confident as you that we are not headed to trouble here, or that at some point our freedom of speech/religion will be hampered, but I do appreciate the way you respectfully disagreed.
Thank you, also. The free exchange of ideas is what we should be all about.
I would like you to take hope that there are lots of us out there, of all stripes, just like you and me who will always remain vigilant against the erosion of freedom that directly flows from the rule of law. Predatory, sociopathic behavior will never be legal in the U.S. We will never "protect" those who would prey on the most vulnerable of us. It simply isn't American. Besides, who can you think of that needs to fear this law other than people who know inside that they should be worried about this legislation based on what they'd like to do to, or see happen, to another person? I can tell you are thoughtful enough to realize this, also. Decent folk don't fear being prosecuted for being hateful because they wouldn't do anything hateful to another person, regardless of how they feel them. Right? Peace, man.
Post a Comment
<< Home