“Hate crimes”—concluding thoughts, part 15
Tonight, I am concluding my series on “hate crimes” legislation presenting being considered by the U.S. Senate after already being passed by the U.S. House.
“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)
What response would you give if fellow Christians made the following statements?
1) “As a church, we have certain restrictions placed on us in order to protect our non-profit status. One of those restrictions is to not become involved in such projects as trying to stop the passage of “hate crimes” legislation in Congress. Including a flier, or even mentioning this in the bulletin could be construed as our congregation supporting this effort.”
2) “If someone in a position of power, perhaps a pulpit, advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals, I would argue this exceeds the bounds of free speech.”
My response would be as follows:
1) “As a church, we have certain restrictions placed on us in order to protect our non-profit status. One of those restrictions is to not become involved in such projects as trying to stop the passage of “hate crimes” legislation in Congress. Including a flier, or even mentioning this in the bulletin could be construed as our congregation supporting this effort.”
Respectfully, I disagree with this assessment. It is used, however, by the forces of evil to attempt to SILENCE Christian opposition to their sinful plans and schemes. And yet, I have seen pictures—both in news print and on TV—of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 while campaigning for the Presidency standing in a church pulpit speaking to the congregation. By definition, when a political candidate including a Presidential candidate is speaking to an audience he is campaigning for that office. I don’t think he is telling the audience to vote for the other guy!
However, even if true, so what? What is the purpose of the body? Is it to placate man in order to protect a non-profit status or to serve GOD and teach and preach his unadulterated WORD!
Imagine Peter and the other apostles in the 1st century, standing before the Sanhedrin—the same Sanhedrin who earlier was, in a large measure, responsible for their CHRIST’S MURDER. “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’
Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We profusely apologize! We did not mean to violate your orders! We do not want to lose our place in Jewish society or lose our non-profit status. Forgive us this wrong!’”
NO! Instead, “Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must OBEY (My capitalization—my addition) God rather than men!’” What a difference the second declaration made instead of the appeasement demonstrated in the first example. What has happened to the church and its will to obey GOD rather than men?
2) “If someone in a position of power, perhaps a pulpit, advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals, I would argue this exceeds the bounds of free speech.”
Are there already laws on the book to prosecute any individual who advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals? The problem, as I see it, is that we as Christians have abdicated our responsibility to be obedient to GOD in all areas of our life. We have separated spheres of activities into our own separate boxes and have placed politics—the affairs of government—into a separate box which is not our concern as a Christian.
But, in fact, there are only two groups in any society—those who are Christians and those who are not; those who are trying to be obedient to GOD, and those who are not. If we have indeed abdicated politics to others, then only those who are not Christians are making vital decisions which greatly influence the affairs of the society and the morality or immorality of the society. Those who have evil intents are aware of this and that is why they have pushed so long and hard for the Supreme Court’s illegal, incorrect, and immoral decision that the First Amendment requires a “separation of church and State.” No such provision exists in the Constitution and no such provision was intended at the adoption of the First Amendment. In fact, the writers of the Declaration of Independence, including Jefferson, recognized and acknowledged that our rights come from the CREATOR. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And yet, we as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that the “separation of church and State” is the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that there is a “right of privacy” within the Constitution, although the word is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and therefore this “right to privacy” is the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that this “right of privacy” established that mothers have the “right” to MURDER their unborn children and, therefore, these Court sanctioned MURDERS are the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that the people involved in immoral and sinful homosexual behavior can not be held accountable in a court of law and, therefore, homosexual behavior is the “law of the land.”
All of these immoral and sinful behaviors were sanctioned by a 9 member, unelected Court because the advocates of these positions could not convince Congress, whose members are, to some extent, held accountable by the people, the “correctness” of their position. However, now both Houses of Congress and the Presidency are occupied by a majority of members of one Party and that Party, as a Party, advocates the same immoral positions. The “hate crimes” bill is a test case for that Party to determine if they have the political strength to pass their immoral positions legislatively rather than through judicial fiat.
If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings is a proposed bill to repeal the “Defense of Marriage Law” which specifically states that States do not have to accept the “marriage” of homosexuals approved by other States. At the present time, there are five States that accept “marriage” between homosexuals all of which have originally been initiated in each State by the respective court of that State. The Constitution is clear: “Article IV, Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
If the “Defense of Marriage Law” is repealed, then every State, including the thirty who have currently specifically and constitutionally declared that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, MUST accept the “marriage” of a homosexual “couple” in their State or be in violation of constitutional law. Consequently, a couple can live in Massachusetts for the required period of time, get “married,” and move to Arizona and that “marriage” MUST be recognized in Arizona even though Arizona passed an initiative defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is a Constitutional FACT!
If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings in Congress is a proposed bill to legalize through Congressional law the MURDER of unborn babies including the use of the so-called method of “partial birth abortion” which has been banned by Congress and this ban has been ruled constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. In a “partial birth abortion,” the doctor delivers the head of the baby, rams a pointed spike into the base of the baby’s brain, and then sucks out the baby’s brain in the name of a mother’s “right” to MURDER her unborn baby. It is speculated by some (yes, I know it has not been proven) that this method was developed so that the unborn babies’ organs could be harvested (and yes, it has been proven to my satisfaction that unborn, aborted babies’ organs have been harvested).
If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings in Congress is a proposed bill to define as an act of discrimination the refusal of any non-profit organization to hire a practicing homosexual because of that individual’s “sexual orientation.” That means that any church could be held, in a civil federal court, to be in violation of the law for refusing to hire a homosexual because of his homosexual orientation as determined by the COURT and forced to hire that individual. The Boy Scouts of America was sued to force them to hire practicing homosexuals and barely escaped that result on a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court. Be prepared to hire homosexuals!
Cancers are more easily eradicated if detected early and treated early. We, as a church, have eschewed our moral responsibility to teach the sin of homosexual behavior and to work to prevent its growth. Consequently, it has become more visible, been supported as a “right” by more people, and is growing as the sin cancer it is. When are we going to draw a line in the sand and say “No more!” Every day that this sin increases is a day when more and more people may be lost eternally because they refuse to repent.
“The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. NOR did they REPENT of their MURDERS, their magic arts, their SEXUAL IMMORALITY (my capitalization for all capitalized words—my addition) or their thefts.” Revelation 9: 20-21 (NIV)
In I Timothy, chapter 1, the apostle Paul gives the best definition I have seen for the purpose of laws. Although he probably was referring to the law of GOD, it also holds true for the law of man. Law is for those who violate the law. He lists some groups that need to be governed by law including murderers and perverts—other translations translate perverts as homosexual offenders. We know that in relation to any given law (i.e. the law against murdering your unborn baby and the law against homosexual behavior), in our consideration, three things will happen. There are some that will never commit the act because it is against their nature whether or not it is the law. There are some who will commit the act whether or not it is the law because they don’t accept that particular regulation. And then, there are those who will commit the act if it is not against the law and will NOT commit the act if it is against the law. Thus, we have women who will and have murdered their unborn baby since it is NOT illegal and we have people who have given into the temptation of homosexual behavior because it is NOT against the law. The lack of any law is similar to sanctioning the act.
So, how many baptized Christians and other non-Christians will be lost, perhaps for eternity, for eternity if they do not repent before we begin to once again boldly proclaim the entire truth of Christ including the sin of homosexuality without being concerned about protecting our non-profit status? Do we continue to placate man or do we boldly please God by preaching and teaching the whole of HIS gospel? Jesus proclaimed that the society of his day was a wicked and adulterous generation. Is not our society, when it MURDERS its unborn children and accepts and supports sexual immorality including homosexual behavior, also a wicked and adulterous generation? In my opinion, the body of Christ will not be the SPIRIT led force of righteousness that GOD intended and wants unless we again boldly proclaim the full truth of CHRIST.
We are at war with evil. The forces of evil realize that fact and act accordingly. When are we going to do the same? Paul realized this fact! “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, 1) with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, 2) with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 3) and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, 4) take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 5) Take the helmet of salvation and the 6) sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 7) And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.” (My numbering—my addition) Ephesians 6: 10-18 (NIV)
“Love” is an action verb. “Go” is an action verb. “Preach” is an action verse. “Teach” is an action verb. Is “to protect our non-profit status” an action verb? Is it the action that GOD commanded us to do?
Look at the actual bill that passed the House of Representatives (“Hate crimes” part 3):
1) “In this Act—(1) …; (2) the term ‘‘hate crime’’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note)” There has been NO NEW definition of a “hate crime.”
2) “(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that—(A) constitutes a crime of violence; (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws. (Sexual orientation—i.e. homosexual—and, I believe also, gender identity are new in the classification of a “hate crime” at the federal level—my addition)” What is new is that the federal government will be helping States and local governments with State and local government crime and providing money for said help.
3) ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—‘‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and ‘‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—‘‘(I) death results from the offense; or ‘‘(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.” The punishments for such crimes have been increased. Consequently, the same act done to you and punished would be punished more severely if a “hate crime” has been determined to have occurred. You are not protected to the same level as is someone who is a victim of a “hate crime” even though the offense is the same.
4) ‘‘(b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that—‘‘(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and ‘‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that—‘‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction; ‘‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction; ‘‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or ‘‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.” Crime that historically have always been State and local crimes may now be classified as a federal crime also.
Consider this scenario:
You cut a big, burly guy off for a parking space. There are no witnesses. He angrily races to your car, pulls you out, and beats you unconscious without saying a word. Before losing consciousness, you memorize his license plate number and report it to the police. He is arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years in prison.
A homosexual cuts a big, burly guy off for a parking space. There are no witnesses. He angrily races to the homosexual’s car, pulls him out, and beats him unconscious without saying a word. Before losing consciousness, he memorizes his license plate number and reports it to the police. He is arrested and tried.
However, the homosexual knows about this newly passed law. To get even with the defendant, the homosexual claims the attack was motivated by “hate” since the defendant repeatedly called him inappropriate homosexual names. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to five years in prison because the jury did not believe the testimony of the victim about the homosexually motivated action.
“the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.” The federal prosecutor, after pressure from homosexual groups and the media, decides that this provision of the new law occurred. He disagrees with the State’s jury decision.
Federal law and State law are two distinct jurisdictions. Double jeopardy does NOT apply. A person can be convicted in both a State court and a federal court for the exact same crime if both jurisdictions have laws against that crime. The case is tried in federal court. The prosecutor convinces this jury that the crime was a “hate crime.” The defendant is convicted and sentenced to ten years in jail to occur after the five years are served at the State level.
The exact same crime but two different sentences because one crime was determined to be a “hate crime” by one of the two courts. Think it can’t happen. Ask the people who have been sent to jail in Illinois for a crime they did not commit. Ask all the MURDERED unborn babies. Wait! You can’t ask them since they have been MURDERED by a government sanctioned action!
5) “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 Constitution.” This section is the argument that freedom of speech will be protected. Yet, we know that Courts don’t always rule the way laws are written or intended. Again, Ask all the MURDERED unborn babies. Wait! You can’t ask them since they have been MURDERED by a government sanctioned action!
There is nothing in this law that is necessary to prevent crime! It is intended to provide special protection for an immoral behavior. And it is a TEST law to see how much Congress can immorally pass before the voters rise up in opposition, if ever! STOP the cancer NOW before it spreads so far it becomes too difficult to stop.
Finally, if the courts do allow Christians to be arrested and convicted for speaking out against homosexuality, will that then be the time when we draw the line in the sand? Or, will we, as Christians, simply acquiesce and say so be it—that is the “law of the land.” Therefore, we will not say that homosexual behavior is a sin. We don’t want to lose our non-profit status.
I’m just asking. When should we stand up against immorality?
I would rather be united with the body in our fight against evil. However, united or not, I will continue to fight this war against evil regardless of the possible persecution, the LORD willing!
WE ARE AT WAR! BE BOLD in the LORD!
Tonight, I am concluding my series on “hate crimes” legislation presenting being considered by the U.S. Senate after already being passed by the U.S. House.
“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)
What response would you give if fellow Christians made the following statements?
1) “As a church, we have certain restrictions placed on us in order to protect our non-profit status. One of those restrictions is to not become involved in such projects as trying to stop the passage of “hate crimes” legislation in Congress. Including a flier, or even mentioning this in the bulletin could be construed as our congregation supporting this effort.”
2) “If someone in a position of power, perhaps a pulpit, advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals, I would argue this exceeds the bounds of free speech.”
My response would be as follows:
1) “As a church, we have certain restrictions placed on us in order to protect our non-profit status. One of those restrictions is to not become involved in such projects as trying to stop the passage of “hate crimes” legislation in Congress. Including a flier, or even mentioning this in the bulletin could be construed as our congregation supporting this effort.”
Respectfully, I disagree with this assessment. It is used, however, by the forces of evil to attempt to SILENCE Christian opposition to their sinful plans and schemes. And yet, I have seen pictures—both in news print and on TV—of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 while campaigning for the Presidency standing in a church pulpit speaking to the congregation. By definition, when a political candidate including a Presidential candidate is speaking to an audience he is campaigning for that office. I don’t think he is telling the audience to vote for the other guy!
However, even if true, so what? What is the purpose of the body? Is it to placate man in order to protect a non-profit status or to serve GOD and teach and preach his unadulterated WORD!
Imagine Peter and the other apostles in the 1st century, standing before the Sanhedrin—the same Sanhedrin who earlier was, in a large measure, responsible for their CHRIST’S MURDER. “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’
Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We profusely apologize! We did not mean to violate your orders! We do not want to lose our place in Jewish society or lose our non-profit status. Forgive us this wrong!’”
NO! Instead, “Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must OBEY (My capitalization—my addition) God rather than men!’” What a difference the second declaration made instead of the appeasement demonstrated in the first example. What has happened to the church and its will to obey GOD rather than men?
2) “If someone in a position of power, perhaps a pulpit, advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals, I would argue this exceeds the bounds of free speech.”
Are there already laws on the book to prosecute any individual who advocates violence against any group of people, including homosexuals? The problem, as I see it, is that we as Christians have abdicated our responsibility to be obedient to GOD in all areas of our life. We have separated spheres of activities into our own separate boxes and have placed politics—the affairs of government—into a separate box which is not our concern as a Christian.
But, in fact, there are only two groups in any society—those who are Christians and those who are not; those who are trying to be obedient to GOD, and those who are not. If we have indeed abdicated politics to others, then only those who are not Christians are making vital decisions which greatly influence the affairs of the society and the morality or immorality of the society. Those who have evil intents are aware of this and that is why they have pushed so long and hard for the Supreme Court’s illegal, incorrect, and immoral decision that the First Amendment requires a “separation of church and State.” No such provision exists in the Constitution and no such provision was intended at the adoption of the First Amendment. In fact, the writers of the Declaration of Independence, including Jefferson, recognized and acknowledged that our rights come from the CREATOR. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And yet, we as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that the “separation of church and State” is the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that there is a “right of privacy” within the Constitution, although the word is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and therefore this “right to privacy” is the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that this “right of privacy” established that mothers have the “right” to MURDER their unborn children and, therefore, these Court sanctioned MURDERS are the “law of the land.” We as Christians have allowed and remained basically silent when 9 unelected lawyers dictated that the people involved in immoral and sinful homosexual behavior can not be held accountable in a court of law and, therefore, homosexual behavior is the “law of the land.”
All of these immoral and sinful behaviors were sanctioned by a 9 member, unelected Court because the advocates of these positions could not convince Congress, whose members are, to some extent, held accountable by the people, the “correctness” of their position. However, now both Houses of Congress and the Presidency are occupied by a majority of members of one Party and that Party, as a Party, advocates the same immoral positions. The “hate crimes” bill is a test case for that Party to determine if they have the political strength to pass their immoral positions legislatively rather than through judicial fiat.
If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings is a proposed bill to repeal the “Defense of Marriage Law” which specifically states that States do not have to accept the “marriage” of homosexuals approved by other States. At the present time, there are five States that accept “marriage” between homosexuals all of which have originally been initiated in each State by the respective court of that State. The Constitution is clear: “Article IV, Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
If the “Defense of Marriage Law” is repealed, then every State, including the thirty who have currently specifically and constitutionally declared that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, MUST accept the “marriage” of a homosexual “couple” in their State or be in violation of constitutional law. Consequently, a couple can live in Massachusetts for the required period of time, get “married,” and move to Arizona and that “marriage” MUST be recognized in Arizona even though Arizona passed an initiative defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is a Constitutional FACT!
If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings in Congress is a proposed bill to legalize through Congressional law the MURDER of unborn babies including the use of the so-called method of “partial birth abortion” which has been banned by Congress and this ban has been ruled constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. In a “partial birth abortion,” the doctor delivers the head of the baby, rams a pointed spike into the base of the baby’s brain, and then sucks out the baby’s brain in the name of a mother’s “right” to MURDER her unborn baby. It is speculated by some (yes, I know it has not been proven) that this method was developed so that the unborn babies’ organs could be harvested (and yes, it has been proven to my satisfaction that unborn, aborted babies’ organs have been harvested).
If the “hate crimes” bill is passed and signed into law, waiting in the wings in Congress is a proposed bill to define as an act of discrimination the refusal of any non-profit organization to hire a practicing homosexual because of that individual’s “sexual orientation.” That means that any church could be held, in a civil federal court, to be in violation of the law for refusing to hire a homosexual because of his homosexual orientation as determined by the COURT and forced to hire that individual. The Boy Scouts of America was sued to force them to hire practicing homosexuals and barely escaped that result on a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court. Be prepared to hire homosexuals!
Cancers are more easily eradicated if detected early and treated early. We, as a church, have eschewed our moral responsibility to teach the sin of homosexual behavior and to work to prevent its growth. Consequently, it has become more visible, been supported as a “right” by more people, and is growing as the sin cancer it is. When are we going to draw a line in the sand and say “No more!” Every day that this sin increases is a day when more and more people may be lost eternally because they refuse to repent.
“The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. NOR did they REPENT of their MURDERS, their magic arts, their SEXUAL IMMORALITY (my capitalization for all capitalized words—my addition) or their thefts.” Revelation 9: 20-21 (NIV)
In I Timothy, chapter 1, the apostle Paul gives the best definition I have seen for the purpose of laws. Although he probably was referring to the law of GOD, it also holds true for the law of man. Law is for those who violate the law. He lists some groups that need to be governed by law including murderers and perverts—other translations translate perverts as homosexual offenders. We know that in relation to any given law (i.e. the law against murdering your unborn baby and the law against homosexual behavior), in our consideration, three things will happen. There are some that will never commit the act because it is against their nature whether or not it is the law. There are some who will commit the act whether or not it is the law because they don’t accept that particular regulation. And then, there are those who will commit the act if it is not against the law and will NOT commit the act if it is against the law. Thus, we have women who will and have murdered their unborn baby since it is NOT illegal and we have people who have given into the temptation of homosexual behavior because it is NOT against the law. The lack of any law is similar to sanctioning the act.
So, how many baptized Christians and other non-Christians will be lost, perhaps for eternity, for eternity if they do not repent before we begin to once again boldly proclaim the entire truth of Christ including the sin of homosexuality without being concerned about protecting our non-profit status? Do we continue to placate man or do we boldly please God by preaching and teaching the whole of HIS gospel? Jesus proclaimed that the society of his day was a wicked and adulterous generation. Is not our society, when it MURDERS its unborn children and accepts and supports sexual immorality including homosexual behavior, also a wicked and adulterous generation? In my opinion, the body of Christ will not be the SPIRIT led force of righteousness that GOD intended and wants unless we again boldly proclaim the full truth of CHRIST.
We are at war with evil. The forces of evil realize that fact and act accordingly. When are we going to do the same? Paul realized this fact! “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, 1) with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, 2) with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 3) and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, 4) take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 5) Take the helmet of salvation and the 6) sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 7) And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.” (My numbering—my addition) Ephesians 6: 10-18 (NIV)
“Love” is an action verb. “Go” is an action verb. “Preach” is an action verse. “Teach” is an action verb. Is “to protect our non-profit status” an action verb? Is it the action that GOD commanded us to do?
Look at the actual bill that passed the House of Representatives (“Hate crimes” part 3):
1) “In this Act—(1) …; (2) the term ‘‘hate crime’’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note)” There has been NO NEW definition of a “hate crime.”
2) “(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that—(A) constitutes a crime of violence; (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws. (Sexual orientation—i.e. homosexual—and, I believe also, gender identity are new in the classification of a “hate crime” at the federal level—my addition)” What is new is that the federal government will be helping States and local governments with State and local government crime and providing money for said help.
3) ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—‘‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and ‘‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—‘‘(I) death results from the offense; or ‘‘(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.” The punishments for such crimes have been increased. Consequently, the same act done to you and punished would be punished more severely if a “hate crime” has been determined to have occurred. You are not protected to the same level as is someone who is a victim of a “hate crime” even though the offense is the same.
4) ‘‘(b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that—‘‘(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and ‘‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that—‘‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction; ‘‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction; ‘‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or ‘‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.” Crime that historically have always been State and local crimes may now be classified as a federal crime also.
Consider this scenario:
You cut a big, burly guy off for a parking space. There are no witnesses. He angrily races to your car, pulls you out, and beats you unconscious without saying a word. Before losing consciousness, you memorize his license plate number and report it to the police. He is arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years in prison.
A homosexual cuts a big, burly guy off for a parking space. There are no witnesses. He angrily races to the homosexual’s car, pulls him out, and beats him unconscious without saying a word. Before losing consciousness, he memorizes his license plate number and reports it to the police. He is arrested and tried.
However, the homosexual knows about this newly passed law. To get even with the defendant, the homosexual claims the attack was motivated by “hate” since the defendant repeatedly called him inappropriate homosexual names. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to five years in prison because the jury did not believe the testimony of the victim about the homosexually motivated action.
“the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.” The federal prosecutor, after pressure from homosexual groups and the media, decides that this provision of the new law occurred. He disagrees with the State’s jury decision.
Federal law and State law are two distinct jurisdictions. Double jeopardy does NOT apply. A person can be convicted in both a State court and a federal court for the exact same crime if both jurisdictions have laws against that crime. The case is tried in federal court. The prosecutor convinces this jury that the crime was a “hate crime.” The defendant is convicted and sentenced to ten years in jail to occur after the five years are served at the State level.
The exact same crime but two different sentences because one crime was determined to be a “hate crime” by one of the two courts. Think it can’t happen. Ask the people who have been sent to jail in Illinois for a crime they did not commit. Ask all the MURDERED unborn babies. Wait! You can’t ask them since they have been MURDERED by a government sanctioned action!
5) “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 Constitution.” This section is the argument that freedom of speech will be protected. Yet, we know that Courts don’t always rule the way laws are written or intended. Again, Ask all the MURDERED unborn babies. Wait! You can’t ask them since they have been MURDERED by a government sanctioned action!
There is nothing in this law that is necessary to prevent crime! It is intended to provide special protection for an immoral behavior. And it is a TEST law to see how much Congress can immorally pass before the voters rise up in opposition, if ever! STOP the cancer NOW before it spreads so far it becomes too difficult to stop.
Finally, if the courts do allow Christians to be arrested and convicted for speaking out against homosexuality, will that then be the time when we draw the line in the sand? Or, will we, as Christians, simply acquiesce and say so be it—that is the “law of the land.” Therefore, we will not say that homosexual behavior is a sin. We don’t want to lose our non-profit status.
I’m just asking. When should we stand up against immorality?
I would rather be united with the body in our fight against evil. However, united or not, I will continue to fight this war against evil regardless of the possible persecution, the LORD willing!
WE ARE AT WAR! BE BOLD in the LORD!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home