Hello, everyone.

At this very moment, America and the Lord’s church are at a crossroads – one that I believe too many Christians are either ignoring or unaware of. The HR 1913 version of the Hate Crime Bill has already passed the House. (You can read my analysis of it below.) Its cousin, S 909, was supposed to fly through the Senate almost unabatedly. Yet, opposition is mounting against it, and there are signs that it may be stalling.

These Bills are insidious. The WorldNetDaily report quoted Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) as saying, “Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law. You can't talk like that once this becomes law,” he said. These Bills criminalize constitutionally-protected speech for merely criticizing sexual preferences, whether they induce anyone to harm another.

If this Bill was supposed to sail through the Senate, why does it appear to be stalling? The WorldNetDaily began a letter campaign that I am encouraging every Christian on Pleo to consider and join. For only $10.95, the WorldNetDaily will FedEx 100 letters, one to each Senator, signed by you, and stating your opposition to this insidious attack on our religious beliefs, as well as our constitutional freedoms. So far, 5,000 people have joined this campaign and WorldNetDaily has sent over 500,000 letters to the Senate opposing S 909. Apparently, the Senate is listening.

Now, you might be thinking that if the Bill is stalling, you don’t need to take action. In fact, this is a crucial time to take action to encourage Senators who may be wavering to take a morally correct stance and defeat this Bill. If you are inclined to support the attempt to quash this unbiblical and unconstitutional legislation, click here.

This is a cultural war, and it affects our speech, freedoms, churches and futures, especially for our children. We have a Scriptural duty to be involved and a moral duty to use every means available to us to defeat those who want to impose homosexuality on us (Proverbs 29:2). Please, get involved!

If you need any help or want more information, just let me know.

Scripture provides us with tremendous insight not only into the human heart but into human society as well. The Bible reveals that it is able to judge or discern between the thought and intention of why we as humans do what we do especially when it comes to sin. The basis for this claim is that there is nothing hidden from God and he has decided to provide us with some of his insight in written form (Hebrew’s 4:12-13).

Scriptural insight reveals that homosexuality is not genetically caused. Interesting, even if homosexuality were genetically based, it would have to be considered a mutation and mutations are harmful. Instead, homosexuality is a choice driven by a desire to suppress truth, reject the true story of nature, be a Biblical fool, exchange God’s glory for the creature’s, dishonor their bodies, serve the creature, refuse to acknowledge God and be filled with all manner of unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-29). These passages provide us with the thoughts and intents of the heart of a human who chooses to be homosexual. The thought is to remove God from the mind and the intent is to defy humanity.

Scripture also provides us insight into society. We all remember Noah. Only he and seven others were faithful to the Lord and for this reason they survived the flood through God’s intervention and Noah became the heir of righteousness (Hebrews 11:7). What we ought to learn from Biblical history is that all societies eventually succumb to temptation and eventually what is considered Biblically evil becomes the social norm. We could examine the time prior to the flood, Israel’s history, Rome’s history, and now we can even include the history of the United States to see this is true. Paul succinctly articulates this history when he stated, “But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:13). The leavening effect of sin can be documented in every aspect of the Legislative, Judiciary and Executive branches of our government from the State to the Federal levels. One reason for this state of affairs is not necessarily that good was overcome by evil, although this may be true in individual cases, but because good people decided to withdraw from the political field leaving evil unhindered. It is clear that the Biblical values of this nation are slowly, although more rapidly under President Obama, eroded away and replaced by Marxian economic theory rather than truth. Eventually, Marxian theory will create a class war that I believe is already in the making. A great case study that a class war is already brewing is the Chrysler bailout. The restructuring of Chrysler is merely to give the supposed have-nots, the unions, greater power over the supposed haves, the stock holders. It is the Marxian idea of spreading the wealth which is in reality total redistribution. When Hedge fund members held out for more than a mere, twenty cents on the dollar President Obama publically humiliated them blaming them for the crisis. But this is the heart of liberalism. Liberalism is inherently intrusive and oppressive. I am afraid that this class warfare will eventually and necessarily engulf the Lord’s church, as she was during the Civil War, unless hearts are changed. A faithful Christian cannot support a politically liberal caucus. Each vote hands liberal politicians the rope with which to hang the church by supporting liberal policies that corrode, erode, and dissolve both our political and religious freedoms eventually shutting down the church. H.R. 1913 is a great example.

An Overview of Hate Crimes Bills.

This is not the first time the House has attempted to muffle faithful Christians who believe they have a God-given responsibility to speak out against sinful activities. The heart of a Hate Crime, also known as a bias crime, is an unnecessary hatred toward someone who has done nothing wrong or is incapable of doing something wrong. Yet, the very definition of the word crime is that hate in some fashion is involved. In 1994 the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act was proposed. The United States Sentencing Commission increased penalties for “hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.” The increased penalties were for Federal crimes only. This bill ultimately failed because President Bush promised to veto it and it died in the Senate.

H.R. 1913 entitled the “Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” also known as the Matthew Shepherd Act. Matthew Shepherd was a homosexual student at the University of Wyoming who was supposedly murdered because of his sexual choice. The fact is we will never know the truth for the real reason for his death because he is the poster child for every Hate Crimes Bill initiated. Do not read something into this statement that is not there. If in fact he was murdered because he was homosexual the individuals who committed the crime ought to put to death. No Christian ought to support, encourage, or take an active part in any event whether verbal or physical which demeans, unnecessarily embarrasses another human being or physically harms them. What I do question is the honesty of homosexuals and their supporters (read liberals) because time and again history has unequivocally revealed they will do whatever is necessary to promote their sexual choice.

There are two other categories of hate crimes on a local level. The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997 requires campus security to collect and report any hate crimes on U.S. campuses. In addition, forty-five states and the District of Columbia also have Hate Crimes Bills as well. Thirty-one of these states and the District of Columbia allowed civil action in addition to the criminal penalty acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia require the state to collect stats on hate crimes and sixteen of these include sexual orientations as a part of this whether they actually have a Hate Bill or not.

The reason I listed this information was not to make your eyes glaze as you try to read these stats. My purpose is to impress upon you that there are already Federal, State and local laws which make a crime bias providing criminal and civil punishment. Yet, H.R. 1913 states Section 2, “Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.” The question is, what is missing in both the Federal and State laws that can only be supplied by H.R. 1913?

The Heart of the Hate Crimes Bill

Section 2.

I do not intend to cover every aspect of H. R. 1913. Instead, I will examine sections 2, 7 (d) and 10. If you are interested in reading the Bill itself, you can download it at http://thomas.loc.cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1913. In addition, I will use the term homosexual(ity) throughout this article to describe all alternative sexual choices. H. R. 1913 covers thirty (30) alternative sexual orientations including NAMBLA or the National Man Boy Love Association. NAMBLA is simply a bunch of old men who want to have sexual intimacy with little boys.

Let us examine the first six subsections of Section 2 first. This section is called FINDINGS. This section provides the supposed factual data that supports the actions recommended to Congress in the Bill.

The evidence present tells us criminal bias is a “serious national problem” (1), “disrupts community” (2) and “existing Federal law is inadequate” (4). It continues to argue that a violent crime is motivated by bias which savages “victim and community” (5) and affects “interstate commerce” (6). The subsection of Section 2 (6) tells us that those in the targeted groups have impeded movement, must flee across State borders to escape persecution, are prevented from buying necessities of life, are ravished by instruments of interstate commerce are being used in the commission of such crimes, and are chased by the perpetrators who pursue their victims across state lines.

Actually, the evidence from the FBI does not support the contention that this is a serious nation problem. According to FBI statics in 2007 there were 9,535 violent acts of bias crimes. These crimes include sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, disability and multiple-bias incidents. Out of the 9, 535 crimes only 1,521 are crimes against sexual orientation when broken down include 335 crimes involving intimidation, 448 crimes including simple assault, and 242 crimes involving aggravated assault. Now, also get this. Twenty-seven of the 242 bias crimes were against heterosexuals. Hey, why are we in this special group? In actuality, bias-based crimes against sexual orientation are only 0.0282757 percent of all aggravated assaults! This is not an epidemic but a construct by liberals.

The Interstate Commerce claim is important. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was originally created to prevent unfair business practices in the railroad industry. It took power from the State to control this and gave it to the Federal government. Answers.com explains, “The Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) of 1887 (24 Stat. 379) targeted unfair practices in the railroad industry by attempting to eliminate discrimination against small markets, outlawing pools and rebates, and establishing a “reasonable and just” price standard.” The heart of the Act is discrimination. Homosexuals and their supporters are asking the Federal government to allow the Act to evolve to include discrimination not of prices but of practices, in this case, verbal and physical practices, real or otherwise, against homosexuals. They argue that any negative mention of homosexuality is discrimination and this discrimination is happening across state lines and this justifies the Federal government to overwrite and overrule State laws. A Federal crime is greater than a mere State crime carrying greater weight, higher fines and longer sentences. Fear of the Fed is the key to silencing free speech.

Now let us examine the subsections of Section 2. There is simply no evidence of a mass exodus across State lines of either homosexuals escaping persecution or of persecutors who are pursuing their prey. There is no overwhelming evidence that the movements of these groups are impeded nor that they are unable to purchase goods and services nor that any instrumentalities of interstate commerce are being used to commit these crimes. I am not saying that there are no actual cases of this happening. I am only saying that there is no epidemic of such cases happening. In addition, there are already laws on the books to address the few, yes few, instances in which these crimes actually take place.

The beginning of Section 2 says, “Congress makes the following findings: . . . ” The reality is there is not a shred of evidence in support of these findings. Homosexuals and their supporters conjured these “facts” out of thin air for the sole purpose to support the policy they want Congress to believe and to act upon. The implications of this Bill are greater than merely what will happen to Christians per se. This implication of this Bill coincides with a number of other ongoing efforts to chill, if not, suspend our First Amendment rights of free speech.

Section 2 (7) through (10) attempts to turn Homosexuality into a race and to define any discriminatory act against these races as slavery. Section 2 (7) attempts to argue that homosexuality is a race because (1) the institutions of slavery are historically described by race, color, and ancestry held in bondage, (2) the 13th Amendment was created to eliminate public and private violence against a person based on race, color, an ancestry, (3) eliminating racially motivated violence helps to eliminate the relics of slavery and involuntary servitude and (4) members of certain religions and national origin groups are perceived to be distinct races.

The heart of this section is the claim of ancestry which is tied to genetics. There have been a number of studies in which American Scientists have sought to prove that homosexuality is genetically based. If homosexuality has a genetic origin, then when a homosexual is born he is part of the ancestry of that homosexual family. Since homosexuality can be described in terms of ancestry, as is the case with Caucasians and African Americans, then homosexuality is no longer a mere sexual act but a race. Here is what liberals would like you to swallow. No Christian, may I add in his right mind, would go up to an African American, Asian, Hispanic, or any other race and say, “You must change your color before you can become a Christian.” An African American or someone of any race is what he or she is due to genetics. Now, liberals would like to believe that it is just as absurd to tell a homosexual, “You must change your lifestyle before you become a Christian.” Liberals are right if and only if homosexuality is genetically based.

There are two interesting side notes to this argument. Homosexuality is the only alternative sexual choice the scientific community (read Evolutionists) has attempted to try to a genetic cause. This leaves out the other twenty-nine sexual choices in H.R. 1913. The rest of these perverted sexual categories are simply trying to ride the homosexual coattails. Also, scientists in Sweden, which has the most liberal laws concerning homosexuality, attempted to reduplicate the genetic tests done by American Evolutionary scientists and failed. The heart of the scientific method is that an experiment must be duplicatable. If not, something must be changed and in this case the premise is simply false. Homosexuality is not genetic.

The heart of Section 2 is to redefine homosexuality from being a sexual act to becoming a race. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments (Reconstruction era) to the Constitution were added to bring about equality among all races. If Congress accepts this inept and indefensible argument that homosexuality is a race then the Federal government can bring to bear its total forces against those who discriminate against homosexuals.

Sections 7 (d) and 10

I will begin with Section 10 because liberals argue that H.R. 1913 does not infringe on the free speech clause of the First Amendment. It reads:

“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 nay activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

At face value it seems that the authors of H.R. 1913 do not want to take away our Constitutional right to free speech. Earlier in this article I mentioned H.R. 1913 claimed that Federal law was not doing enough to deal with this supposed crisis. I asked the question, what is missing in both the Federal and State laws that can only be supplied by H.R. 1913?

Section 7 (d) answers this question. It is what gives life to H.R. 1913 by attempting to supply what is missing in Federal law. The subsection reads:

“(d) Rule of Evidence – In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence as trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.”

This subsection underhandedly limits Section 10. Now, not all speech is protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. There are various forms and categories of speech that are harmful to human relationships. Jesus discussed some of these forms in Matthew 5:22. Various writers of the Epistles also deal with language, both positively and negatively, as in Colossians 3:8 and Ephesians 4:29. Section 7(d) first states that no expression or association may be introduced into a court of law as evidence against a person unless that expression or association specifically relates to the crimes listed in H.R. 1913. So, despite the supposed promise that our speech is protected by Section 10, Section 7 (d) pinpoints a particular phrase or related phrases of our daily speech, which incidently was protected prior to April 29, pulls it out of the free speech clause the First Amendment and criminalizes it as a bias crime.

There is a category of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. A simple example is yelling “fire” in a public place when there is no fire. This form of speech is not Constitutional protected because it serves no useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous. On the other hand, if a person yells “fire” in a public place and there is a fire it is considered lifesaving. In both cases, what is at the heart of the use of the word is the ability of that certain words possess to promote an action which in the first case might lead to someone being harmed while in the second case it might lead to someone being saved even if they are harmed in the process. Supporters of H.R. 1913 argue that a person’s speech is protected by the First Amendment and would like you to assume they mean all speech. What they try to hide from the public is that they are trying to remove from the First Amendment any statement which casts a negative light on homosexuals. It is imperative the reader understands that H.R. 1913 does not take into consideration a disclaimer a person might make prior to a negative statement, an explanation of why homosexuality is wrong, where the person’s heart is, nor that a person is concerned for that individual’s soul. In fact, H.R. 1913 is directed at the conservative religious world. The term hate refers merely to the actual articulated utterance not the heart’s condition behind the words. Yet, H.R. 1913 does not apply to the privileged classes. Perez Hilton did not commit a hate crime when he degraded the runner-up Miss American, Carrie Prejean, for believing in traditional marriage but Ms. Prejean, despite her qualifiers to the contrary, committed a hate crime when she argued for traditional marriage. H.R. 1913 makes heros out of the morally inept while criminalizing the morally correct.

If a person yells “fire”in a public place and what is said compels a person to run for safety and in the process harms either himself or another he can be held criminally liable. Now, according to H.R. 1913, if a Christian were to say “Homosexuality is sinful” and this phrase compels a person to harm a homosexual physically or verbally the speaker is now considered to be a part of a conspiracy against homosexuals with the person who caused the actual harm. Thus, the speaker is guilty of slavery, discrimination and a bias crime. Now, since the bill does not require any evidence to be presented to show that a crime was actually committed it, means a homosexual could merely claim he was the object of a crime and the Federal government would have to step in. This means prosecution will be “willy-nilly.” This is in itself a terrifying thought.

Editoral.

H.R. 1913 had 119 cosponsors in which 113 were Democrats and six were Republicans if my count was correct. The issue here is not party affiliation but a person’s philosophy described as either conservative or liberal. The cosponsors as well as those who voted for the final form of the bill crossed the aisle nevertheless, not one politically conservative person voted to support H.R. 1913. This is bill was conceived, constructed, presented and supported by Liberal politicians.

Liberal political philosophy is dangerous to our society and freedoms. Liberalism is inherently intrusive and oppressive and its moral philosophy is always antithetical to God’s moral philosophy. H.R. 1913, the Fairness Doctrine, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Assessment are unequivocal examples of intrusive and oppressive governmental policies calling right, wrong and wrong, right. H.R. 1913 intrudes into our churches and pontificates to us what Christians can read or talk about publically. This Bill criminalizing reading specific Biblical passages because they describe homosexuality in a negative light. If Christians and preachers speak the truth Liberalism creates oppressive regulations to cause enough fear so to stifle or chill our speech. H.R. 1913 is just the beginning. This intrusiveness and oppression will continue to spread into various areas of the church as well as our individual lives. Liberals will not stop until they control every aspect of your life including your thoughts. Cheap Trick might well have been prophetic.

But it doesn’t have to be because we live in a country which allows us to be a part of the solution. Christians have a moral and Biblical responsibility to be involved in our political processes. But someone might say, “It doesn’t really matter. I am a Christian and I am supposed to spread the gospel.” Absolutely. A faithful Christian is free in the Lord and no external force can take away that relationship (Romans 8:31-36). Nevertheless, a government can restrict my freedoms in various ways. Nevertheless, you and I live in the U.S. and this privilege provides us with political and legal avenues we can use to keep a rogue government from hindering our activities. The Bible argues that Christians are supposed to interact with their government. Scripture tells us that governing authorities are instituted by God (Romans 13:1-2). Ask yourself, what would a government instituted by God ethically look like? David tells us a blessed nation is one in which God is their Lord. This would include, among other things, Christians interacting the democratic processes that have been created. Solomon said, “When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.” (Proverbs 29:2) The context is about governmental rule. The increase refers to the righteous increasing numerically within the political process being a part of the government. God used Paul’s political standing as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:5) and the political standing of Israel’s religion as an accepted religion in the Roman empire (Acts 24:14-15, 26:6-7) to further the cause of the gospel.

The Bible does not speak directly to the political structure we have constructed in America. Romans 13 speaks indirectly describing merely why we ought to obey whatever government exists. While Romans 13 and Scripture do forbid certain forms of government, it does not necessarily support any form which is permissible. The form of government we live under provides us with a number of institutions to which we can bring our grievances, by which to make governmental changes, or simply change the entire government. America is worth trying to save. I am a realist believing that every nation eventually dies including American. Nevertheless, America has more Christians than any other nation. She has more Christians who give more money to the Lord’s work than any other nation. She has more Christians who are willing to go to other countries to spread the gospel than any other nation. If our freedoms are restricted or taken away, it will greatly hinder the Lord’s work at home and abroad.

So, Christians need to stand up. We need to reject the policies of liberal political parties and mandate our government to implement policies which will support our attempts to spread the gospel to a dying world. This will secure not only our freedom but will secure a free nation for our children.

Constitutionally every bill must be ratified by both the House, which represents the people’s interests, and the Senate, which represents the State’s interests. There is still a chance to stop it before we have to resort to an ever increasingly liberal Supreme court. Contact your Senator and demand that he or she vote to kill this offensive and hate-filled bill once and for all. To do this you need to write or call your Senator.

Summary.

One day Bill Clinton was sitting next to a pastor whom he believed agreed with his liberal philosophies. They were discussing the Supreme court case which was challenging the Boy Scouts’ right to exclude homosexuals and atheists. During the discussion Mr. Clinton said:

“We’re not going to win this case, but that’s OK. Once we get ‘hate crime’ laws on the books, we’re going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots.”

H.R. 1913 attempts to criminalize speech that was constitutionally protected prior to April 29, 2009 by creating a special racial category to include 30 different sexual orientations as well as others. H.R. 1913 defines the term homosexual as a race not a sexual act due to supposed ancestry based on genetics and declares any criticism of their sexual choice as a bias crime. This bill was created and supported by Liberal ideology and faithful Christians must band together to fight this, reject supporting political parties which promote Liberal ideology, and push for conservative legislation to be passed which will support our attempts to share the Truth with a spiritually and physically dying world.

NOTE: The Senate Judicary Committee will consider S 909 this Tuesday. S 909 is the Senate version of H.R. 1913.