Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,293
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,706
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,293
Tom 3,300
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 20
Pilgrim 15
John_C 2
Recent Posts
Law and Grace
by Pilgrim. Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:19 PM
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#15394 - Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:48 AM Hate Crimes Legislation  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Tuesday the Senate approved a hate crimes bill that goes beyond judging law breakers for the crimes they have committed to expanding the laws to include judging motives and preferences. This legislation could potentially remove some of our freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

For those of you who follow these sort of things you know its motivated by the homosexual community but it can also be used against racial, religious, and gender preferences. This gives special status to those who promote the homosexual agenda by giving them protection under law not so much for crimes committed against them but enabling them to silence those who dislike what they do by making it illegal to speak out against them. That may be considered a hate crime. Wouldn't it be great if Christians had such laws protecting them? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" />

The hate crimes bill was sponsored by Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR).

People who speak out about biblical truth in opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are now closer to being arrested. Biblical Truth is not something people should be arrested for. In other countries, pastors are being charged with hate crimes for teaching scripture, soon this may be happening here.


Quote
Fiscal 2005 Defense Authorization - Hate Crimes

June 15, 2004 Senate Roll Call Vote 114 S 2400

Smith, R-Ore., amendment no. 3183 that would permit certain cases of hate crimes motivated by the victim's race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or national origin to be prosecuted in federal courts. It also would require the Justice Department to certify that hate was a motivating factor in the crime and that state or local law enforcement officials have been consulted and the state does not object to the federal government assuming jurisdiction. It also would authorize $5 million per year for fiscal 2005 and 2006 for the Justice Department to assist states and local authorities in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

Adopted by a vote of 65-33:
Republicans 18-33
Democrats 47-0
Independents 0-0


Senator John Kerry didn't vote.



Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
#15395 - Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:36 PM Re: Hate Crimes Legislation [Re: Wes]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Wes

That sounds a lot like Bill C250 up here in Canada.
I had a feeling that the USA was going to get similar laws, but I didn't think it would happen this fast.

Tom

#15396 - Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:44 PM Re: Hate Crimes Legislation [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Tom,

My concern is that this law will actually take away freedoms we now enjoy. After all the courts already can weigh the facts of each case and punish according to the crime committed. If the crime is more violent the jury can always recommend the maximum punishment. Unfortunately this law favors those who choose an alternative lifestyle. It will probably hurt those who use biblical terms to describe homosexuals. If you give sexual perverts a special class of protection how are you going to avoid their advances or refuse them access to our children?


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
#15397 - Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:26 PM Re: Hate Crimes Legislation [Re: Wes]  
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
gnarley Offline
Member
gnarley  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
Western Oregon
Gordon Smith is our most conservative senator from here in the People's Republic of Oregon. (That should give you a pretty good picture of things in this state) He has led the charge for this legislation, along with Kennedy for several years. The first thing I too thought of was the situation in Canada. If it comes to that an interesting, and fearful question will be: How many churches will weasel around in order to find some justification to maintain their tax exempt status etc.? We could very likely end up in home churches like the early Christians, and today's Chinese church. Even so come Lord Jesus. It just might be a means of seperating the wheat from the tares. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />


gil
#15398 - Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:33 AM Re: Hate Crimes Legislation [Re: Wes]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Wes

I agree with your concerns.
Up here in Canada, politicians are telling Christians we have absolutely nothing to worry about. They say our rights to preach are covered by the charter of rights and freedoms.
However, lawyers are saying they are wrong, because the wording of the new Bill is open to the interpretation of judges.
Something tells me that the lawyers are correct on this one.

The only thing that gives me a little hope (not that my hope is in politicians) is that the Conservatives are ahead in the poles and the leader of the party (Steven Harper) has said that he is going to make absolutely sure that Churches are going to be protected.

Tom

#15399 - Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:12 AM Re: Hate Crimes Legislation [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,294
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,294
NH, USA
Tom,

Enough of the speculation. Here in Canada, and to a much lesser extent in the U.S., courts are writing laws rather than interpreting them. This is something which Harper realizes and thus is taking the stand that if the Legislature voted against abortion, he would favor it and let it pass, thus effectively over ruling something which the courts have created outside of Parliament, which has the obligation and responsibility for creating law and of which the courts are supposed to administer.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ranton.gif" alt="" /> After watching all 2 hours of the "Debate" (English), is it no wonder that this country is in the sad condition it is in? The current Prime Minister, Paul Martin and that sad excuse for a man who is the NDP candidate (it is too painful to type out his name) put on such a disgusting display of ignorance, lying, avoidance and most of all disrespect toward their opponents that I no longer have any questions as to why the entire world laughs at Canada. And the way they allow such unfettered yelling, screaming and even physical assaults to go on in Parliament when it meets is nothing short of shameful and embarrassing. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rantoff.gif" alt="" />

Personally, I couldn't care less what they put into law or how the courts are going to "intepret" it. I'm simply going to go on speaking the truth in love and if that gets me thrown in jail, so be it. What's all the worry about? Are pastors worried about going to jail and missing "Entertainment tonight" for 30 days? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> What ever happened to "Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross. . . ."? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#15400 - Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:18 PM Re: Hate Crimes Legislation [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
RefDoc Offline
Enthusiast
RefDoc  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
West Michigan
"In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." John 16:33b


[Linked Image]
#15401 - Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:26 PM Re: Hate Crimes Legislation [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim

You said: "Personally, I couldn't care less what they put into law or how the courts are going to "intepret" it. I'm simply going to go on speaking the truth in love and if that gets me thrown in jail, so be it. What's all the worry about? Are pastors worried about going to jail and missing "Entertainment tonight" for 30 days? What ever happened to "Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross. . . ."? "

I have to say that I do care what they put into law, however regardless of what they put into law, it will not change how I preach the gospel.
In a resent conversation I had with my pastor, he said the same thing.

Tom

#15402 - Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:02 AM A Little Good News [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
A friend of mine just sent the following to me.

I believe a few of you might be pleased to see this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

June 30, 2004


EFC APPLAUDS SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM



The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) is pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the importance of religious freedom in two judgments handed down today.



The Supreme Court of Canada has come out strongly in favour of accommodating personal religious beliefs and practices in a case involving the Jewish observance of Succat, a nine day religious observance.



In the first judgment, Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, the court ruled that Orthodox Jews must be permitted to build succah huts on the balconies of their high-rise condominiums so long as they are not a threat to safety.



"This decision makes it clear that religious practice must be accommodated and that religious freedom cannot be trumped by matters of taste or personal preference," says Bruce Clemenger, president of the EFC.



The Supreme Court also makes it clear that courts must not inquire into the validity of an individual's religious beliefs or practices. "It is not within the expertise and purview of secular courts to adjudicate questions of religious doctrine," stated Justice Iaobucci.



"We have seen courts making decisions on issues of doctrine," says Janet Epp Buckingham, director of Law and Public Policy for the EFC. "This decision makes it clear that the courts are not the arbiters of religious thought and practice."



Justice Iacobucci also made it clear courts should not make a distinction between "obligatory" religious practices and those that are merely "optional."



"We are very pleased to see that the Supreme Court has done away with the obligatory/optional distinction in the protection for religious freedom," says Buckingham. "This will have a significant impact on other situations, for example where public officials have denied Christians the right to meet together for Bible study and prayer because it is considered an optional religious practice."



In the second judgment, the EFC is disappointed that the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada chose to base their decision in the case Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village) on an issue that was not even before the court. The appellants, a Jehovah's Witness congregation, asked the court to decide whether the municipality of Lafontaine had infringed their religious freedom by refusing their request for rezoning land in order to build a house of worship.



The majority decision in the Supreme Court of Canada ruled instead on administrative law grounds. Chief Justice McLachlin ruled that the municipality should have given written reasons for its refusal. She therefore referred the matter back to the municipality.



"The building of churches is obviously a very significant issue for our community," says Buckingham. ""We are pleased to see that the Chief Justice noted the importance of building houses of worship but it is disappointing to see that the court did not address this issue more directly."





For more information or an interview contact:

Janet Epp Buckingham

Director, Law and Public Policy

613-233-9868, ext. 225



Gail Reid

Director, Communications

905-479-5885, ext. 227


Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 17 guests, and 95 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
johncalvinhall, ReformedStudent
Popular Topics(Views)
650,998 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.045s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 2.6181 MB (Peak: 2.9117 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-20 02:11:19 UTC