Will someone please explain why the WordPress spell check feature doesn’t recognize the word blog, not to mention the word WordPress? Just kidding. I love WordPress.
—
Mom Loves Being At Home has a lot of posts on home schooling that offer great advice and address many of the myths surrounding it. We’re excited that our youngest will be home schooling her last two years.
—
Oprah’s fact-free assertions about the alleged growing new trend of women abandoning relationships with men to go with women. Someone should tell her that these anecdotes sure get in the way of the “born that way” canard.
It is possible that the rate is increasing, but that would just prove out Romans 1 that much more:
Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
—
Did Obama snub Christians over the National Day of Prayer celebration? Who cares?! Whether it was a snub or not, Christians should not complain about such a thing. Just spend the time praying some more. I am glad anytime the clear distinction is made between authentic, biblical Christianity and whatever it is that Obama & Co. believe.
—
UPDATE: Apparently there is some confusion about the next article. DJBA has some insights that address the legal language. My apologies if the source was not accurate. They are usually quite reliable. Of course, at least I didn’t get the information from Wikipedia and then fail to correct it like the MSM does 
.
More importantly, I think the Dems lose either way on this.
The act of pedophilia is a crime, but is the orientation towards pedophilia a crime? If someone hates pedophiles — whether they are practicing pedophiles or not — and beats them up because of it, it that a lesser crime than beating up someone who happens to be gay? (whether or not you knew he was gay)
I’m pretty sure that if the pedophiles had a lobby as well funded as the gays they could convince you populace that they were “born that way” and that is was an orientation.
Hate crime protection for pedophiles! – Part of the problem with superfluous legislation like this, which is primarily driven to silence free speech and the authentic church, is that you have to be very precise about what is included and what is excluded. And by favoring sexual perversions that Democrats like, they are, by default, saying it is legally acceptable to hate people with less favored perversions. But if you provide extra protections for all the perversions then you look like a real freak. Wait a minute, now this is starting to make sense!
And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they’ve committed a misdemeanor, you’ve committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.
—–
Who are these people? Good is evil and evil is good. Good luck with that super majority, America.
I love WordPress too Neil, especially since they’ve added the “follow comment” feature which was the biggest thing to me. I was getting ready to pay for customization just to add that…but now I get to save some much needed money!
Good comment on Oprah and the scripture to remind these women why they shouldn’t be leaving their men for same sex unions!
Obama – yes, we’re wasting our time complaining about the things he DOESN’T do to support Christ. Let’s just continue our own prayers for him, our government and people.
These hate crimes laws are getting sillier by the day! Can’t we just dropped all these ‘extra’ laws and let the laws we already have be sufficient? No human being should be subjected to anything harmful and we have enough laws just for that!
Geesh!
Just wanted to make sure I took time out and give a shout out on your most excellent blog Neil! Great work you do here!
Thanks for the link, Neil!
Great articles you’ve linked to here! It definitely shows the sad state of America doesn’t it.
“Can’t we just dropped all these ‘extra’ laws and let the laws we already have be sufficient? No human being should be subjected to anything harmful and we have enough laws just for that!”
So you’re saying that all sentencing enhancements should be done away with? Why? I personally don’t see anything wrong with having sentencing enhancements for gang violence, using a firearm in the commission of a crime, or threatening a minority community via a hate crime. There is a very long history in American jurisprudence of having sentencing enhancements for violent crimes.
Joanne, do you think assault against a pedophile deserves a more severe sentence than an assault against a normal person?
Using a firearm in a crime is different than not using a firearm, so those distinctions are fine.
Carlotta and “Mom” — thanks!
“Joanne, do you think assault against a pedophile deserves a more severe sentence than an assault against a normal person?”
You know full well that the proposed bill does nothing of the sort. I don’t understand why conservatives continue to try to convince people that this bill protects illegal activities. Acting on pedophilia is a crime under both state and federal law. The proposed bill protects sexual orientations, not paraphilias. But, of course, you already knew that.
Joanne, please re-read the post and my comment. I did not say that the bill protects illegal activities. The bill increases punishments for “hate” crimes and includes sexual preferences. Whether the preferences are legal or not, if someone beats up a pedophile because they hate pedophiles does that warrant a further punishment?
“Whether the preferences are legal or not, if someone beats up a pedophile because they hate pedophiles does that warrant a further punishment?”
No, of course not. Your statement is a complete non-sequitor. Pedophilia is a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation, and would in no way, shape, or form be protected under this hate crimes bill. To associate it with this legislation is bordering on the dishonest.
Sounds like you hate pedophiles and think that assaults against them deserve lesser punishments than for your preferred perversions.
BTW, I hate the act of pedophilia, of course, but don’t condone laws that would permit people to attack them.
“Sounds like you hate pedophiles and think that assaults against them deserve lesser punishments than for your preferred perversions.”
And yet another total non-sequitor.
Hi Joanne,
First, please see the update I made to the post:
“UPDATE: Apparently there is some confusion about the next article. DJBA has some insights that address the legal language. My apologies if the source was not accurate. They are usually quite reliable. Of course, at least I didn’t get the information from Wikipedia and then fail to correct it like the MSM does
.
More importantly, I think the Dems lose either way on this.
The act of pedophilia is a crime, but is the orientation towards pedophilia a crime? If someone hates pedophiles — whether they are practicing pedophiles or not — and beats them up because of it, it that a lesser crime than beating up someone who happens to be gay? (whether or not you knew he was gay)
I’m pretty sure that if the pedophiles had a lobby as well funded as the gays they could convince you populace that they were “born that way” and that is was an orientation.”
So I’ll concede that the Dems may have voted down the pedophile clause because they thought it was unnecessary.
Now, back to your non-sequitor claims. We’re talking about pedophiles, who I’m pretty sure would claim is their orientation. Practicing it is illegal, as it should be. But what about a pedophile who isn’t practicing? Why do you think beating him up should be a lesser crime than beating up a gay person?
While we’re on the topic, let’s pretend that Matthew Shepherd was murdered for being gay (I disagree with that, but for argument’s sake I’ll concede it for now).
I’m OK with the death penalty for the murderers. Most liberals are not, yet they are the ones asking for more serious punishments for “hate crimes.” That makes no sense to me.
“We’re talking about pedophiles, who I’m pretty sure would claim is their orientation.”
They may claim that, but the APA (American Psychological Association) and every other mental health organization sees it as a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation.
“While we’re on the topic, let’s pretend that Matthew Shepherd was murdered for being gay (I disagree with that, but for argument’s sake I’ll concede it for now).”
The rationale behind added sentencing enhancements for hate crimes is that the crime does more damage to the public than a simply assault because it creates terror in a minority community. When an African-American (or religious minority) is murdered because of their identity, that strikes fear into that entire community. A simply assault may strike fear into the victim, but does not have the same effect on the community at large.
“But what about a pedophile who isn’t practicing? Why do you think beating him up should be a lesser crime than beating up a gay person?”
The law has no interest in protecting pedophilia from the disdain of society. Pedophilia is non-consensual (as minors are unable to consent) and always harmful.
Seems to me the APA changes their minds from time to time. Is it your claim that homosexuality was never considered a disorder? How do you know that you aren’t just behind the times and that the change is inevitable? Seriously, I know pedophilia is evil, but so is sodomy. And pedophiles can at least claim that their feelings were normal at one point (what could be more normal than an 11 yr. old having a crush on an 11 yr. old?). They’d just need to claim that they didn’t grow out of it.
Re. hate crime rationale — but what about crimes against Christians? Why wouldn’t those be hate crimes? Face it, any crime done for any reason could be construed as hate.
If you are so concerned about the consent of minors can you confirm that you strongly endorse parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions?
Are you aghast at Planned Parenthood’s systematic cover-ups of statutory rape?
“Re. hate crime rationale — but what about crimes against Christians? Why wouldn’t those be hate crimes? Face it, any crime done for any reason could be construed as hate.”
Umm, they are. You do realize that religion is already a protected class under existing hate crime laws? More than that, we have sentencing enhancements for those who burn down churches, etc. When you attack a person because of their religious affiliation, or you burn down a church, there are sentencing enhancements for both. If you harass those entering into a church, the penalties are greater than simply disturbing the peace.
“If you are so concerned about the consent of minors can you confirm that you strongly endorse parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions?”
You are certainly on a non-sequitor roll this morning. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
“Seriously, I know pedophilia is evil, but so is sodomy.”
Yes, according to your religion. The APA uses a different criteria to make these decisions.
Joanne, you can keep crying non-sequitor all you like, but I’ve made the linkage every time. You just ignore it to avoid conceding your inconsistency.
“but I’ve made the linkage every time”
Linkage to what? Hates crimes and abortion are linked? I guess we just don’t speak the same language, Neil.
Joanne,
I’d bet if pedophiles had the same representation within the APA as did homosexuals when the APA changed their tune due to homsexual activism, pedophilia might possibly have some of the same safeguards sought by homosexuals. There are still psychologists that consider homosexuality a disorder and enough ex-homosexuals to support their opinion.
As far as hate crimes and the terror felt by a minority community, I’ve got news for you. If the black guy next door to me wakes up to a huge cross burning in his front yard, I guarantee you I, as a white guy, will feel terrorized as well.
The whole hate crimes argument is crap. It flies in the face of the concept of equal justice by creating special classes upon whom it is MORE unlawful to inflict harm. Real Americans must reject this travesty and demand serious thought by our legislators. Proposals such as this is mere pandering by politicians seeking favor from the protected groups.
“The whole hate crimes argument is crap. It flies in the face of the concept of equal justice by creating special classes upon whom it is MORE unlawful to inflict harm. Real Americans must reject this travesty and demand serious thought by our legislators. Proposals such as this is mere pandering by politicians seeking favor from the protected groups.”
Well, then obviously you would like to see the existing protections for religiously based hate crimes removed, right? No enhanced sentencing for burning down a church (that should be simple arson) and harassing people at a church should simply be disturbing the peace?
Yes.
I’d be happy if the justice system would enforce existing laws when hateful pro-gay groups harass churches who teach the whole Bible and who sponsor conferences such as “Love Won Out.”
I’m confused.
You’re answering “yes” that you want those protections removed, but then say you want them enforced. Which is it?
Do you want religion removed from hate crime sentencing enhancements or do you want them enforced? You can’t selectively have them enforced for some groups and not others.
I meant, “Yes, I’d be fine if they removed those “protections,” especially since they aren’t being enforced anyway.
Remember, I’m OK with stronger punishments for Matthew Shepherd’s killers than most liberals are.
“I meant, “Yes, I’d be fine if they removed those “protections,” especially since they aren’t being enforced anyway.”
I think those in prisons for burning down churches would disagree with you. The penalties for vandalizing a religious building, burning it down, or harassing worshipers are quite heavy. And I believe they should be. When you terrorize a religious community, there is more social harm than if you burned down your ex-girlfriend’s house. Remember, American criminal law has always had various degrees of punishment based on the social harm the crime produces. That is the way it should be. There is nothing new about sentencing enhancement for hate crimes.
There are many things wrong with it, including the lack of equal protection. Gays who hate straights get lesser crimes than straights who may or may not even know their victim is gay.
“Gays who hate straights get lesser crimes than straights who may or may not even know their victim is gay.”
Again, that’s wrong. ALL sexual orientations, including heterosexuality, would be included in this bill. Perhaps you should read the bill before you post an article on your blog about it. It would probably help.
“who may or may not even know their victim is gay”
This is also wrong. These sentencing enhancements are an element of the mens rea of the offense. A prosecutor would need to demonstrate that the crime was intentional, volitional, and based upon the victim’s identity in a protected group.