Getting Back to the ABCs... : June 2004

The Mug Grandma Law (aka Federal Hate Crimes Bill)

"Sexual Orientation" essentially means "erotic attraction". The American Psychiatric Association's current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lists over twenty "sexual orientations" besides homosexuality, many of which would shock the sensibilities of most Americans. Pedophilia is one such "sexual orientation."

Also shocking is the development that the U.S. Senate just passed a "hate crimes" bill recognizing "sexual orientation" as a category deserving of special protection. Supporters of this type of legislation hope to suppress free speech that opposes homosexuality.

The real danger of "hate-crime" laws is that they end up criminalizing thoughts and beliefs, rather than just actions. Homosexual activists would redefine any disagreement with homosexuality as "hate speech." Laws in Canada and Sweden already state that it is a hate crime to criticize homosexual behavior. For example, a Swedish pastor was recently arrested at his church when he read verses from the Bible that call homosexuality a sin.

Former Los Angeles Times news editor Bob Knight aptly observes that such "hate crime" laws create a multi-tiered system of justice, in which some crime victims' cases are taken more seriously than others, thus violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Knight observes, "Equal protection means your grandma and your friend who lives as a homosexual have the same rights when they walk down the street. Under a hate crimes law, someone who mugs your grandmother will not be prosecuted as vigorously as
someone who commits the same crime against a homosexual. This says to criminals: 'Mug Grandma; It's less risky.'

Hate crimes laws aren't about justice; they are about favoritism and special rights." And it can be expected that if such a federal law is passed, police and prosecutors are likely to define more and more cases as "hate crimes" in pursuit of federal dollars. After California enacted a "hate crimes" law, incidents went from 75 to 2,052 in four years.

Citizens who value freedom and the fundamental protections afforded by our legal system should see this latest drive for a federal "hate crimes" law for the Trojan horse that it is - an effort to criminalize thoughts and beliefs and lay the foundation for the persecution of Christians in this country whose opposition to homosexuality would be characterized as "hate speech."

We already have laws criminalizing speech that incites violence. Predictable under a "hate crimes" law would be the dominant media's portrayal of any incident involving a homosexual as the fault of people who have publicly opposed homosexual activism.

Any Senator who voted for this is setting up our children and grandchildren for persecution as activist courts rule that biblical morality is "bigotry."

Let's pray that more critical thinking prevails in the U.S. House.

Origins Toobox - All in One Place!

http://judgewhite.com/origins.html

"Same Sex Marriage" Debate - My Opponent's After-Action Report

Here's the take from my opponent when we debated "same-sex" pairings at Loyola University in New Orleans earlier this year.

click here (homosexual advocacy magazine)

Why ?

It's been said that good questions outrank easy answers. [Paul A. Samuelson] Accordingly, consider the following:

•Why is it that the Ten Commandments are the basis of American law (e.g. false swearing) but are considered by some federal judges to be "unlawful" for display in America's courtrooms?

•If the decisive point concerning abortion is whether it involves the killing of a human being instead the moral equivalent of an appendectomy, why don't we ever see an abortion performed on TV so viewers can judge for themselves?

•If condoms are really effective - as some sex educators suggest - why is 1 of every 4 young Americans now infected with an incurable STD?

•Why do we continue to hear that America was not founded as a Christian nation when secular studies show that 94% of our founding source documents come either directly or indirectly from the Bible?

•If America's founders wanted prayer and the Bible out of public schools, why didn't they take steps to remove them?

•If "gay blood" is so dangerous that it is quarantined, why are those who give the blood in the first place so specially protected? [Paul Cameron's FRI]

•If homosexuality is really ok, why do studies show male homosexuals, on average, are dying in their early 40's (or earlier if AIDS intervenes?

•With the spread of AIDS, why isn't the historical reason for our sodomy laws (public health) ever mentioned?

•Why isn't the pedophilic nature (and homosexual bias) of Alfred Kinsey's research ever mentioned by the dominant media?

•If secular humanism is, as Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) says, a "religion," why are its major themes (no creator, no creation, and no moral absolutes), permitted in the public schools?

•Why is it that Darwin's "Origin of Species" and many so-called "secular" biology text books can get away with mentioning "God" and "Creator" so long as it is done in a disparaging, uncomplimentary way?

•Why don't public school texts teach Darwinism critically - at least by telling students the full title of his book ("The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life")?

•Why is it that federal courts that declare "unconstitutional" the public acknowledgement of God [e.g., Ohio's state motto ("With God All Things Are Possible" and "under God" in the Pledge) are permitted to open their sessions by forcing attendees stand ("All Rise!") for an acknowledgment of God ("God save the United States and guide this honorable court")?

•Why is it that when home-school students fail to demonstrate satisfactory progress, educational bureaucrats insist that they be re-enrolled in public schools, but if they fail to demonstrate satisfactory progress in public schools, they are not sent home to be educated?

•Why is it that the free speech clause of First Amendment should protect computer simulations of adults having sex with little children [virtual child pornography] and not protect American citizens expressing their political opinions in the course of electing their representatives [Campaign Finance Reform Act]?

•Why is Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument on trial and not the monument in front of the federal courthouse, which includes the scales of justice and face of the Greek goddess of justice, Themis?

•In light of the conclusions of renowned psychiatrist Karl Meninger's 1973 book, "Whatever Became of Sin", why is it so unfashionable to mention "sin" as a societal reality?

•Why is it that in public schools, the mention of God's Name modifying "damn" is protected by the First Amendment's free speech clause, but speaking well of God is prohibited by the First Amendment's establishment clause? In other words, why does the same Constitution protect speaking ill of God while simultaneously prohibit speaking well of Him?

•If nude scenes are essential to movie plots, why isn't their absence from old classics felt as a shortcoming? And if "realism" demands nudity, why do we only see beautiful young women in the raw? Why don't we see more fat old men naked? [Joseph Sobran]

•(CONSTITUTIONAL RIDDLE) - Why is it that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution forbids any "religious test" for holding public office yet Congress - creator and sustainer of all federal courts except the supreme Court [original punctuation] - insists that federal judges invoke God's name by uttering the words "so help me God" (whether by oath or affirmation) before undertaking their duties of office? If that requirement in 28 U.S. Code 453 is "unconstitutional" ab initio, then how do we know any "awakening of conscience" [the hallmark of an oath/affirmation] has taken place at all?

•Why doesn't the same first amendment (free speech clause) that requires religious persons to accommodate the atheist's unfavorable or blasphemous mention of God's name require the atheist to accommodate religious speech by those who want to be part of the pluralism and diversity about which liberals regularly speak, but which is not broad enough to embrace people who believe in God? [adapted from Cal Thomas]

•Why is it that every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777 yet we hear about "separation of church and state" prohibiting any acknowledgement of God in public affairs?

•How come those critical of America's constitutional republic do not emigrate to Cuba to live under the form of government that they consider ideal? [Norman Liebmann]