Should this bill pass, or not? Wouldn't you think that a group of black Christians would be the first to uphold the rights of, and seek protection for, other minorities? What about white Christians? Is it so important to you that your minister be allowed to preach against gays that you would oppose this legislation, which might actually save lives?

Ministers oppose shield for gays

By HAMIL R. HARRIS

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- A coalition of conservative African-American religious leaders is lobbying Congress to reject a bill that would extend federal hate-crimes laws to cover gays, saying they fear it would prevent them from preaching against homosexuality.

Several ministers last week urged House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., a sponsor of the bill, and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

They say it would pin the hate-crime label on their sermons against homosexuality, which they consider a sin.

"This bill will offer a status for gays, lesbians and transgender people under the equal protection status that can muzzle the black church," said Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in suburban Lanham, Md.

Gay activists compare the bill to civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

When having a friendly discussion about ideas, it seems a bit harsh to state "I personally don't care if you agree with me or not." I would certainly assume that your life would not revolve around whether or not I agree with you. But that's not the point. We are just talking about issues for the fun of it.

By the way, I agree that we should reconsider whether crimes against women, because they are women, should be considered hate crimes. I agree with that.

But just because one bill does not include every possible category of hate crimes does not make it a bad bill. There is no need to take care of every problem in one bill.

The fact is, there is a huge problem with hate crimes against gay people. Why not do something about it?

I believe that the answer lies in the fact that people who are against this bill, in their heart, really despise gay people. The people who are against this bill, in their hearts, believe that gay people are going against the Bible, that they are sinners, that they are choosing a life of "abomination," and that essentially they pretty much deserve whatever "hate" comes their way.

The thing that I don't understand is this: If religious conservatives have such views, that gay people are sinners and deserve what they get, why not just stand up and say so? Why argue that this is a "flawed" bill. Why not just acknowledge that you believe that gay people are choosing a life of sin, and if they want to avoid hate crimes, all they have to do is change their evil ways. If that is what people believe in their hearts, why not just stand up and say so?

I believe that the answer lies in the fact that people who are against this bill, in their heart, really despise gay people. The people who are against this bill, in their hearts, believe that gay people are going against the Bible, that they are sinners, that they are choosing a life of "abomination," and that essentially they pretty much deserve whatever "hate" comes their way.

The thing that I don't understand is this: If religious conservatives have such views, that gay people are sinners and deserve what they get, why not just stand up and say so? Why argue that this is a "flawed" bill. Why not just acknowledge that you believe that gay people are choosing a life of sin, and if they want to avoid hate crimes, all they have to do is change their evil ways. If that is what people believe in their hearts, why not just stand up and say so?

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

Your argument about the lottery is a red herring and has not logical flow.

Actually, it wasn't an "argument" about the lottery, it was an example of an idea that was similar to yours. Are you saying the two ideas are not similar?

You said that the detriment of the law is that it does not protect you.

That is the same as saying "If it doesn't protect me, then no one should be protected".

And you don't think that's similar to saying "If I don't win, no one should win."

?

Sorry, but in terms of "logical flow" I think my illustration is far more logical that Christians saying the law should be opposed because it's not perfect.

Still no one can tell me how it directly negatively affects them. Christians are not the victims of hate crimes for being Christians on a widespread basis, unless I'm missing some major news stories. They are not an often targeted minority.

Really, Marjon9 has said it all. Christians simply don't like Gays, period.

So let's stop all the nonsense about "it's an unnecessary law" and just tell it like it is.

Really, Marjon9 has said it all. Christians simply don't like Gays, period.

And today on Lapband talk I learned that I am apperently not a Christian.

Maybe saying some Christians or even most Christians would be a better idea than lumping those of us who do have open minds with those who don't.

Or, perhaps one person can't have all the answers? Novel idea.

I have plenty of gay friends who I love dearly. I am a Christian. In fact, many gays think some of this is totally ridiculous.

Really, Marjon9 has said it all. Christians simply don't like Gays, period.

Huh, either you are painting with WAY to broad a brush, or I'm not really a Christian.

I personally am too involved in trying to live my own life to worry a lot about what other people do. Many other Christians are like me. The problem is, because we aren't as vocal as other Christians, we tend to be overlooked.

I have gay people in my life that I love.

And today on Lapband talk I learned that I am apperently not a Christian.

Maybe saying some Christians or even most Christians would be a better idea than lumping those of us who do have open minds with those who don't.

I'm not sure if you've been following this thread, and others like it, but it has been said many times that these discussions are not directed at "all" Christians. Sometimes you sort of get to where you assume that people understand that.

But if you have not been following the thread and just read that one post, I can see how you could get the impression from that post that it was directed at all Christians. But truly, it wasn't.

Now Leatha you know you can't be a Christian if you like gays.

I've heard that Christians don't like gays, period.

I'm not sure if you've been following this thread, and others like it, but it has been said many times that these discussions are not directed at "all" Christians. Sometimes you sort of get to where you assume that people understand that.

But if you have not been following the thread and just read that one post, I can see how you could get the impression from that post that it was directed at all Christians. But truly, it wasn't.

Sorry to give you the impression that my comment was directed toward you. It was directed toward the person who made it who kind of paraphrased what you said. I read your comment as more geared toward the very conservative religous people who tend to lean toward being anti-gay.

Because I am not infavor of one flawed bill being or not being passed I am now against gays?

Oh please.

Go find my other posts where I am totally in favor of gay marriage and I'm a Christian.

That is a big ole brush you got there, you're just as bad any other bigot.

I can't believe I forgot my traditional disclaimer. And I think you all know full well that I generally always put "some (NOT ALL! NOT ALL!)" before any comment about Christians.

But since you're all so quick to jump on me the moment I forgot to do so, I will rephrase.

I think the bottom line is that some (NOT ALL! NOT ALL!) Christians don't like Gays, period.

Ok, everyone, are you satisfied now?

Completely satisfied.

Well, it was the inferrance that since I was against this bill, i was a hater.

So, only if your disclamer says that Christians who are not infavor of this bill are not all haters.

Unless, of course, you still think that way about me.

Well, it was the inferrance that since I was against this bill, i was a hater.

So, only if your disclamer says that Christians who are not infavor of this bill are not all haters.

Unless, of course, you still think that way about me.

Speaking for myself, personally, I was not directing my comments toward any one person. But I do think it is fair to say that many religious conservatives are against the hate crime bill not because it is a flawed bill or because it does not contain enough categories of people to be protected. Many religious conservatives are against the bill because the believe gays have it coming based on their sinful acts. And even if that is not true, many do believe that to offer "protection" of gays in a hate crimes bill puts a stamp of approval on the gay "lifestyle" that they cannot accept. These points of view do exist. Yet religious conservatives do not state these points of view. Instead they argue that the bill should contain more categories of people to protect, and that those darned democrats did this or did that. I just don't understand why religious conservatives who oppose the gay "lifestyle" just don't publicly declare the true reasons why they are against the bill.

An attempt was made to add senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, the unborn, court witnesses and members of our armed forces to the bill, giving them the same “protected class” given homosexuals. The Democrats defeated all amendments, reserving the “protected class” for homosexuals only.

Matthew Shepard, Pfc Barry Winchell and Brandon Teena (to name just a few) were not brutally murdered because they were "senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, unborn, court witnesses or members of our armed forces" (although Pfc Winchell was in the Army, it was fellow soldiers who killed him). They were all murdered because they were Gay (Matthew Shepard & Barry Winchell) or Transgendered (Brandon Teena). I've never heard of anyone being murdered for any of those reasons you listed. As for the argument about a murder is a murder, etc, why are there varying degrees of murder, as well as manslaughter, etc depending on intent and circumstance? That reasoning is flawed.