I recommend to every man considering marriage to spend at least one day listening to family court trials. Then ask yourself. Is it worth it? Marriage may have made sense before feminism, but it makes no sense now. Why take the risk of being financially destroyed, separated from your own children, and possibly imprisoned? Wait until women turn away from feminism and clean up their mess. The risks are too great.Now, I honestly am not writing this to discuss either the merits of the article or the merits of Mr. Knight's (Wintery to his friends) conclusion. I am simply using it to point to a bigger question. Here's the question: How much does risk play into our decisions as Christians?
Look around you. The article I mentioned talks about how tough it is these days financially and more when marriages crumble. The conclusion is "The risks are too great", and I can understand that. Divorce rates are around 50%. Crime rates are bad. Economics are rotten. Our lives are a pile of risk. Then there's the whole turn society is taking these days to make it illegal for you to have a viewpoint that says that homosexual behavior is a sin. Yes, illegal. It is moving toward the "hate crime" label. So if you hold that position, you are at risk. Or maybe you're one of us who believe that it is mandatory for a loving parent to use spanking as a necessary tool for discipline. That is almost universally viewed as child abuse these days, and if you do it, you are taking a risk. The whole home-schooling group of parents know that they are constantly at risk because of certain elements of our society believe it is bad (morally evil, not just unwise) to allow parents to be the sole determiner of what their children learn. It's brainwashing, don't you know? So home-schoolers continue to take risks.
I could go on, but you're getting the idea, I hope. As Christians, we live in a perilous place. On one hand we have commands from God that tell us to do things that are not entirely acceptable in today's world. On the other, the world is opposed. In 2004, eleven Christians were arrested in Philadelphia (ironic, isn't it, since "philadelphia" means "brotherly love"). They were charged with criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and obstructing highways. (The "ethnic intimidation" was because Pennsylvania has an "Ethnic Intimidation and Institutional Vandalism Act" which classifies "sexual orientation" as an ethnicity.) Their crime? They were preaching the Gospel at an event called "Outfest" celebrating homosexual behavior. Risky.
Some people are questioning the viability of basic structures like marriage or even the Church. Are you concerned about that? So many places are seeing a watering down of the Gospel until it is no longer the Gospel. Does that worry you? It is said, these days, that a good church is hard to find. Is that a concern? Someone asked me a few years ago, "Where will it all end? What happens if Christianity disappears?" And I could understand his fears.
Do we make our choices based on that kind of risk? Do we determine what we will do based on these factors? Now, it is true that we are to count the cost. That's only wise. Know the risks. That's only reasonable. Still, when we are commanded to preach the Gospel or to honor marriage or to recognize sin as sin, the risks become secondary. Obedience is primary. After all, while many people live in a random world run by coincidence and chaos, we don't. Ours is a world ordered by God, held together in Christ, without a maverick molecule. You may think it looks like the end, but it's not. Remember, then, obedience first because God is in charge and should be obeyed and will command the outcome. Risk is secondary.
22 comments:
Stan said...
Their crime? They were preaching the Gospel at an event called "Outfest" celebrating homosexual behavior.
I'm sure you must have heard some incorrect information on the Outfest arrests. The "preachers" were arrested for refusing to follow police orders, acting belligerently, and threatening the peace by antagonizing a large crowd of people (or, as you noted correctly, "criminal conspiracy, obstructing a highway, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and violating Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law, referred to as ethnic intimidation.")
From the PFAW website:
The court found that among other things the protesters “blocked access to vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.”
The First Amendment allows equality advocates to rally, and allows those with a different point of view to protest. But it doesn’t mean that the protesters have the right to disrupt the rally or drown out its speakers. It is universally recognized that public safety officials can place reasonable “time, place, or manner” restrictions on people exercising their First Amendment rights in order to preserve public order and prevent one group from trampling another’s rights.
They WERE initially charged with hate crimes, but the court system worked, in that it decided that they had not committed any hate crimes and those charges were dismissed. They were arrested and charged, then, with disorderly conduct and refusing to obey police orders, not for their preaching, as you indicate their crime was, and not for hate crimes, in the end.
It's one thing to preach, it's another thing to do so in the middle of the street, without a permit, blocking the public access, when the police have asked you to cease and desist, in a manner that antagonizes a crowd. That's not preaching. That's disorderly conduct and they were rightly arrested for it. Do you think the police ought not arrest people for disorderly conduct and refusing to follow directions?
Now, I fully support civil disobedience as a tool for protest. But if you break the law, then you go to jail. All CD demonstrators know this is a possibility and accept it as the price for CD.
Regardless, their "Crime" was not "preaching the Gospel." They were arrested and charged for legitimate crimes.
As a Christian, I am sure you would not want to repeat false information. So, now you have the right information, you can correct your story above.
Thanks!
Oh, by the way, here's a line from the Hate Crimes Law clearing up any misunderstanding:
"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 free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
On the topic, though, I DO agree with you. Following Christ involves risk. Loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek, overcoming evil with good, laying down one's life for a friend, pouring out one's life for and with the "least of these," all of these have risks attached to them.
Living life on the mean streets, confronting authorities, speaking prophetically against the evils of the wealthy and powerful, all of these have risks attached to them.
Lord, give us strength and joy to face these risks in Jesus' steps!
I'm just curious, Dan. You have a source that disgrees with what I said. You assume that what I said was false information because ... ? I can find pro-gay sources that tell me that they were being rotten people and I can find other sources that say they were arrested for preaching the Gospel. You Tube shows a group (called "pink angels" in the pro-gay reports) blocking the sidewalk to prevent anyone from hearing the "Philadelphia Eleven", not vice versa. Multiple news sources (here, here, and here as examples) disagree with your source. But you're quite sure that these sources are lying and your source is honest and my referencing these sources is perpetuating a lie.
The real problem with "hate crimes legislation" is this. The crimes in question are crimes. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act will expand existing legislation to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Now, Matthew Shepard was a young gay man in Wyoming who was killed because he was gay. His murderers were caught, tried, and convicted of murder -- as they should be -- avoiding the death penalty by a deal from Shepard's parents and now serving consecutive life sentences without possibility of parole. All of this without "hate crime legislation". James Byrd, Jr., was a black man in Texas who was dragged to death by three racists. They were caught and convicted. Two got the death penalty and the third was given life in prison. So ... the crime (murder) was committed, the criminals were convicted, and justice was done. What will "hate crimes legislation" give us? Indeed, what is a "hate crime" as differentiated from other crimes? Well, it is a crime motivated by hate. But it is a crime first.
In the case of the Philadelphia Eleven, they were arrested (by all accounts) for hate crimes ("ethnic intimidation") among other things. In other words, they expressed their view that homosexual behavior was a sin and told people at the Outfest that Christ could free them from that sin and for that they were blocked, encircled, drowned out, and arrested. You assure me that the hate crimes legislation coming up now won't affect free speech. While we would both decry "hate", when you criminalize it (to include "people who hold a negative view regarding the actions of others"), we are either limiting free speech or raising a very real threat to it. Think of it like this. Someone is convinced by Scripture that homosexual activity is a sin. I know, I know, you don't agree. Not the point. Or, rather, very much the point. If they express that view, they are "suspicious" simply for holding that view. If they are arrested for expressing that view, even if the charges are dropped, there are two likelihoods. Either they will stop expressing that view (and free speech is suppressed) or they will express it more loudly (and get arrested again). You're quite sure that "hate crimes legislation" won't affect free speech. I'm quite sure that that is a naive viewpoint.
(By the way, the quote from the Act doesn't help. It says "expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition" which means that some free speech is not legally protected. You are not, for instance, allowed to walk into a crowded theater and shout "Fire". That free speech is not protected. So the government is free to not protect free speech in all cases and prosecution for a dissenting opinion on this topic is possible.)
All of this without "hate crime legislation". James Byrd, Jr., was a black man in Texas who was dragged to death by three racists. They were caught and convicted. Two got the death penalty and the third was given life in prison. So ... the crime (murder) was committed, the criminals were convicted, and justice was done. What will "hate crimes legislation" give us? Indeed, what is a "hate crime" as differentiated from other crimes?
A hate crime is an ADDITIONAL crime. If a man is killed, the crime is murder. If a black man is killed because he is black (or gay man because he is gay), there is the murder AND there is the crime of intimidation of a specific community, giving rise to a fear that they, too, may be killed if they're too uppity, too gay, too black. It is a chilling thing that effects the whole community in a way above and beyond "just" a normal murder does (which is bad enough).
It is an ADDITIONAL crime and thus, an additional charge is warranted.
We have this already in other arenas. If someone is convicted of blowing up a building, they may also be charged with terrorism. Why do we do this? Isn't arresting them for destruction of property or charging them with murder (if people die) enough? Why the additional crime of "terrorism"? Why? Because an ADDITIONAL crime has been committed.
The murder by bomb is one crime. The chilling effect of terrorism is a second affect - designed to terrorize and intimidate a particular group of people - Americans, in our case.
Terrorism is a separate charge because it is a separate crime. Hate crimes are a separate charge because there is separate crime.
If you lived in another nation and Christians (or white guys) were regularly targeted for murder and abuse specifically because of their faith or white-ness, you might appreciate better how chilling that can be to one's community.
A question: Do you think that terrorists ought to be charged with a separate crime (terrorism), or is merely charging them with the original crime sufficient?
It appears that most Americans agree that separate crimes are happening with terrorism and hate crimes and thus, the separate charge is warranted.
As to the links to the Philadelphia story, thanks. I'll check them out. I couldn't find any independent news stories to verify the case one way or the other. In my experience, I've found PFAW to be trustworthy, so I do tend to trust their stories, but I will certainly check out the others. I will note that at least two of your sources, though, also have an agenda, and Fox News tends to be a bit suspect. In looking at it, the Fox News does not support either charge - it merely states that the religious group says it was trying to preach and the prosecutor says they were breaking the law in other ways.
It looks like the Christian Post affirms what I was saying: That they were charged with hate crimes, but those were dropped as unwarranted. The system worked. We had an overly zealous prosecutor, it appears, who charged them with hate crimes, but those charges were dropped. They were ultimately arrested and convicted of the disorderly conduct and refusing to comply with the police, which by all accounts, is what happened.
Thank you for the reminder that as God's children we shouldn't operate out of fear. "After all, while many people live in a random world run by coincidence and chaos, we don't. Ours is a world ordered by God, held together in Christ, without a maverick molecule."
I got married late in life. A woman co-worker, older than I, who thought that I was the typical guy who didn’t want to get tied down (which was true up until not long before this encounter, and is the only reason it took me so long to get married) asked me way why I wasn’t married. “Because you can’t find anyone perfect enough?” she accused. I understood her tone, and it was not unwarranted given our interminably pubescent culture. When I informed her that I indeed desired to get married, her next accusing question was “just what kind of woman would be good enough for you?”. She was noticeably shocked at my answer. I said that I was looking for a woman who loved God with all her heart mind soul and strength.
I had dated a few women in church, and although they gave God good lip service, and they were regularly in church, they didn’t in my estimation truly love God; and I knew if they didn’t, they couldn’t love me. Sure the bliss would have whisk us into marriage and get us through that first half decade or so, but what then? I foresaw a nightmare of child visitation rights and a different daddy tucking my children in at night except for Fridays and Saturdays, and my children’s world torn asunder by self centered parents.
I am not my own. If I look for a wife to satisfy something that I no longer own, and is by nature temporary, then my marriage will fit that bill. I’m convinced the difference in the way people see marriage today, and the way they saw it only a century ago, is like the difference in a game of checkers and a college exam. We have no connection with our past as it pertains to honor and the spiritual. We must break out of modern thought like Neo out of The Matrix, or perhaps better put, we must not conform to current thinking, but renew our minds, a task more easily stated than accomplished, but still possible with God working in and through us.. This excellent post touches on that reality. Good work.
Dan Trabue: "A hate crime is an ADDITIONAL crime. If a man is killed, the crime is murder."
So, two of the three murderers of James Byrd received the death penalty and the third received life in prison. Now, if the hate crimes legislation had been in effect, we could have ... given them all the death penalty? What more do you want?
Consider this. Tolerance: "The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions." Or, at least that's what it used to mean. Now it means "not speaking out against objectionable actions or views; the removal of the expression of differences of opinion." It was once "tolerant" to say "I do not approve of your actions, but I will defend your right to do them." Now it is "intolerant" to say, "I do not approve of your actions ..." The meaning has shifted. Indeed, those who favor "tolerance" have become violently intolerant of those who disagree with them ... and they do it in the name of "tolerance".
Now, consider the word, "hate". The dictionary defines it as "to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest." Without even stepping to the (expected) redefinition, if "hate" is now made a crime, then we are all guilty of a crime. Now, of course, that's nonsense and I know it. "Hate" as a crime is being narrowly defined as being against certain persons for certain reasons. Still, here's where you end up if you make "hate" its own crime. I am passionately opposed to homosexual behavior. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it is sin. I believe, then, that it does harm to those who practice it and I hate it (by the above definition). So ... I should expect a knock on my door if this legislation passes because I am guilty of a "hate crime" under its own steam. I haven't done anything to anyone. I wouldn't do anything to anyone. But I hate a particular activity that falls under the categories listed, so, without having actually having intended or done any harm to anyone, I am guilty of criminal activity.
You may consider that extreme, that I'm taking it too far. I disagree. In Canada a pastor who wrote a letter to a newspaper saying that he thought the homosexual agenda was evil was arrested for the hate crime. Others have been arrested in this country for handing out flyers or speaking out against it. There are other crimes listed, of course. It is "ethnic intimidation" or "harassment" or all sorts of things, but the arrest isn't initiated for these other things; it is initiated because someone is speaking passionately against these views. Make it a crime, and the subterfuge can go away. I mean, seriously, we are now going to make it illegal to dislike something or someone intensely or passionately? Do we really want to go there?
Stan said...
I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it is sin. I believe, then, that it does harm to those who practice it and I hate it (by the above definition).
Hating a behavior is not covered under hate crime laws. If you speak out on licentiousness, or orgies, or promiscuity, you will have committed no crime. Speak out against sin as much as you wish and you are completely safe.
However, if you speak out against a group of people - "All gays are bad because...," "Gay people are perverted...," "Black folk are evil...," "Christians ought to be killed..." - then you have moved from speaking about behavior and instead targeted a group of people.
Keep in mind, too, that hate crimes are assessed (as I understand it) on TOP of other crimes to cover this other behavior. That is, if you merely hate blacks, you have not committed a hate crime. If you hate black folk AND you kill someone because they are black, you have committed two crimes: Murder and a hate crime against black folk.
So ... I should expect a knock on my door if this legislation passes because I am guilty of a "hate crime" under its own steam. I haven't done anything to anyone... But I hate a particular activity that falls under the categories listed, so, without having actually having intended or done any harm to anyone, I am guilty of criminal activity.
No. You're mistaken.
Expressing disapproval of a behavior is not considered a hate crime. Actual hating a group of people is not a hate crime. You're safe, no need to fear (or fear-monger) that "the gov't" is going to come knocking at your door because you disapprove of a behavior.
I would ask you again: Do you think that terrorists ought to be charged with terrorism charges IN ADDITION to whatever crime they have committed?
Stan said/asked...
Make it a crime, and the subterfuge can go away. I mean, seriously, we are now going to make it illegal to dislike something or someone intensely or passionately? Do we really want to go there?
No. We don't. No one does. Not conservatives. Not liberals. Remember, liberals are the free speech advocates. We are not talking about limiting free speech. On the other hand, we probably both agree that limiting DANGEROUS free speech is reasonable. You can't yell "Fire," in a crowded theater.
Liberals hate certain behaviors and often, wrongly, by extension speak passionately against certain people/groups - the GOP, the Religous Right, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, etc. Liberals don't want to and will not go down that road where the ability to merely criticize behaviors or even individuals are limited. As noted, it's not against the law currently. If someone proposed making "hating" someone or some behavior illegal, we will all join together against such legislation.
No worries. By all means, keep alert and mobilize if such a law DOES get proposed, but I don't think you have anything to worry about on that front.
Dan Trabue: "Expressing disapproval of a behavior is not considered a hate crime."
Perhaps, in your idyllic world, that's the case. I've already seen otherwise.
Terrorism is a different crime, so it should be charged as such. It causes its own damage. The intent is to terrorize. (Really, I made that up myself.)
Dan Trabue: "Remember, liberals are the free speech advocates."
Now that's funny. But I suppose liberals would laugh at conservatives when they say, "Remember, conservatives are the free speech advocates."
You haven't been to the universities that I have been to. They are 1) politically liberal and 2) prone to silence those that don't agree with the party line. Before you take up arms against my comments, here's what I think. Liberals see themselves as protectors of free speech and conservatives see themselves as protectors of free speech and too many on both sides are willing to try to force the other side to shut up.
Terrorism is a different crime, so it should be charged as such. It causes its own damage.
Exactly. This is true for hate crimes, as well. They cause their own damage.
Perhaps "in your idyllic world" a murder is a murder. In my urban world, black folk and gay folk know that they are not welcome some places and that they may well be killed in some places and we know this to be true.
Hate crimes are a sort of terrorism and, as such, a different, separate crime. Hence the charge.
And the charge is NOT levelled against folk for preaching or being opposed to a particular behavior - that's not the intent. If you have even one example of someone being successfully prosecuted for only preaching or for only hating a behavior, by all means, present it and I will join with you in condemning that.
I don't believe there is even one case in the US where this has happened and it won't happen. Because, as I've said, we liberals would not allow it, since we're supportive of free speech.
On this point:
too many on both sides are willing to try to force the other side to shut up.
we agree.
You haven't been to the universities that I have been to. They are 1) politically liberal and 2) prone to silence those that don't agree with the party line.
Not unless you have been to Murray State University, University of Louisville or Jefferson Community College (not necessarily in that order). Nor, I reckon, have you attended the universities I've attended. Mine were 1. politically liberal at a time while I was still fairly 2. politically/religiously conservative.
They did not try to silence me. At all. I voiced my opinion contrary to the standard liberal line. In my speech classes, I gave thinly veiled sermons. They listened, graded me and life went on.
I even wrote a Christian-themed column for the school newspaper at JCC.
But maybe Louisville and Kentucky's liberal colleges are more, well, liberal in that regards than whatever colleges you attended.
Dan Trabue: "And the charge is NOT levelled against folk for preaching or being opposed to a particular behavior - that's not the intent."
Since it has been used in exactly that manner, I'll have to disagree.
And I've seen too many "liberal universities" take too many steps to shut down the free speech of dissenting voices to agree on the "liberals are supportive of free speech" idea. Maybe where you've been. Not where I've been.
Since it has been used in exactly that manner, I'll have to disagree.
Could you demonstrate an example? That would help support your case.
Dan Trabue: "Could you demonstrate an example?"
Oh, okay ... how about the Philadelphia Eleven who were charged with "ethnic intimidation"? There. That was an easy one.
The charge was dismissed as it apparently should have been. The system worked.
That someone is charged with terrorism or a hate crime who was not guilty of such is not evidence that terrorism or hate crime rules are badly written. If someone is actually CONVICTED unjustly for such, THAT would be evidence that the laws were wrongly written.
As it stands, there is no evidence that anyone is being convicted of hate crimes in the US for merely opposing a behavior, for merely preaching, for merely thinking that homosexuality is a sin. No evidence because it has not happened.
Fear not.
Convicted? No. Arrested? Yes. Now, if someone is arrested for a hate crime in which they are passing out flyers that say, "Homosexual behavior is a sin; Jesus is the answer" and they are hauled off to jail for 10 days until the accusation is dismissed, you would argue "Their free speech was not impinged, and there was no harm done" ... right?
My point was that it has already been used to silence opponents. Charges dismissed or not, it effectively silenced the opponent and warned others against holding the same views.
Now, if someone is arrested for a hate crime in which they are passing out flyers that say, "Homosexual behavior is a sin; Jesus is the answer" and they are hauled off to jail for 10 days until the accusation is dismissed, you would argue "Their free speech was not impinged, and there was no harm done" ... right?
They were charged with disorderly conduct and refusing to follow police orders. They committed civil disobedience and suffered the consequences. If they had not been committing these OTHER crimes that they WERE committing, then they would not have been charged (wrongly) with the hate crime.
It is a mistake to say that they were arrested for preaching or for passing out brochures. They were arrested for legitimate crimes. Period.
I wonder what happens in your world when you find out you're wrong. No, no, maybe never happens, but I imagine that would be quite a problem. For instance, your news sources are reliable, but mine are not. What would happen if you found out that a U.S. District judge actually ruled that a city permit grants the right to silence speech? Or how about this? According to all I can discover, all charges were dropped. So while you classify "disorderly conduct and refusing to follow police orders" as genuine crimes while the charge of "ethnic intimidation" is not (because it was dropped), by your standard of measure they were arrested for no crimes.
I'm pretty sure that most people who would be arrested for "ethnic intimidation" and spend some time in jail, whether or not the charges are dropped, would tell you that their free speech was impinged.
Hi. Was directed here from a link found within a debate between Dan Trabue and another. Dan thinks PFAW is a reliable source. He thinks all left-leaning sources are reliable because he distrusts any sources not left-leaning.
Terrorism is a seperate issue. Terrorism suggests a network or group of individuals working from a particular plan, an organized one at that. The Klan is a terrorist group. But an individual or a small isolated group of racists aren't necessarily terrorists, even though violence perpetrated against anyone terrorizes the victim as well as law abiding people who witness or hear of the crime.
Hate crimes gives more value to the victim of the crime. For a racist to beat up an individual terrorizes color blind people of all races, but the harm inflicted upon the actual victim is not made any greater by the racist intention. If I was given the exact same beating by someone of my same race, his sentence would not be as severe. Why not? Did I not suffer as did the first man? Were witnesses any less terrorized by the thought of such an event taking place before their eyes? Were witnesses any less traumatized?
The idea of hate crimes legislation is an unequal application of the law. It makes it a worse crime to victimize one person than another simply because of the category the law and society place either individual. Dan likes it because he thinks it will protect the sinners he enables because HIS sources tells him they are victimized more often. There aren't enough of them for that to be true.
Wait ... you're suggesting that Dan's sources may not be as reliable as he thinks they are? How can that be??
Shocking, but true.
Post a Comment