4:07 PM
Yesterday I received a forwarded e-mail containing a plea from the American Family Association. The e-mail informed me that "Congress is set to give legally protected status to 30 'sexual orientations', including INCEST, PROSTITUTION, and PEDOPHILIA!"
Yes, that's right! From the sound of it, these folks are apparently going to start getting government grants, special treatment at colleges, and then where will we be? We won't even be able to talk bad about prostitutes! (Mercifully, lawyers have not gotten their own resolution started in Congress.)
The e-mail from the AFA talked about a resolution that's going to be voted on in Congress -- H.R. 1913 -- but the odd thing was, the resolution didn't contain what the AFA's "Action Alert" reported. As I read the resolution, it would grant federal funds (right... don't get me started) to the states in order to prosecute "hate crimes". It also names a number of groups that, if ever physically attacked, would bring down the fury of the thought police: race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
I agree that this House Resolution is a bad idea (see my sarcastic "thought police" comment above). I am not against H.R. 1913 because I think that it will give us the slippery slope to granting special legal rights to pedophiles. That's not going to happen. But the very idea of "hate crimes" is off-base to me. Punish someone if they did wrong. Don't add extra years to the sentence in an effort to legislate Americans into not hating one another based on things like race.
But the funny thing about the AFA's e-mail... it doesn't say anything like "this could be a slippery slope..." or "this resolution could theoretically..." or "if history proves true..." Rather, it bluntly asserts that Congress is about to grant federal protection to a bunch of sick groups of felons.
Well, Congress is not about to grant them "federal protection" (here I pause to say that this may be a legally accurate description, but a terrible way to mislead us non-legal, ignorant people -- I'm sure the AFA has retained expert counsel to make sure they aren't sued).
Another one of the statements in the e-mail is that Congress is endorsing and respecting a number of sexual perversions by not defining a list of what those perversions are. However, if Congress had defined what is meant by "sexual orientation", I've no doubt that the AFA would have opposed that, too. A lose/lose situation.
In the resolution, lawmakers do lump sexual predators into a group of people over whom (after this resolution) you'll really get in trouble for physically or violently attacking. I'm not arguing that this is not the case. Adding sexual perverts to the list of existing "hate crimes" targets? Well... okay. Fine with me. Jesus said that I'm not supposed to violently hit anyone with a baseball bat. I think it's safe to say that He included perverted people and homosexuals on that list, too, along with other people Christians tend to hate (as evidenced by our actions) and then claim we love. I'm sure that's not at all sending mixed signals to anyone.
The AFA's alert is shameful. While I'm sometimes in their court, I'm beyond disappointed in them for this e-mail alert that intentionally misrepresents the resolution. Again, I have no disagreement that the resolution is un-good, but to use a questionable (at best) means in order to achieve an end is not at all worthy of an organization that promotes itself as Biblical.
I want to encourage believers to live with joy in the world, living the freedom that comes from Christ. We want to see people's minds tranformed and renewed from within by a relationship with Jesus Christ; it's not going to happen through legislation like this -- imposing penalties on those who commit violence against groups of people (no matter what group they're in). It's likely that the only way that many people who engage in sexual perversions will ever change is if they see that "Christians" are people who care about them; not as a group that hates them.
I avoided linking to any atheists' blogs on this subject, though I was tempted. It's not like I give them extra credence, but if an "insider" (that'd be me) sees this AFA thing as mortifying, just imagine how outsiders -- you know, those people that we love, that we're "witnessing" to -- view it.
You want to call your Congressman/Congresswoman to tell them to vote it down? Me, too! Go for it! It's a crazy resolution! Just please, for the love of God (and I mean that very literally), don't mention the AFA's e-mail in a positive way!
By the way, please don't pull red herrings like, "So you're saying we shouldn't call sin 'sin'?" or, "So you're saying you agree that if I'm Hispanic, it's basically the equivalent having some weird sexual predisposition to make obscene phone calls to umbrellas or something?!" That's not what I'm saying. I'll be glad to clarify as needed.
Let's behave and speak (and e-mail) in a way that accurately represents God.
Yes, that's right! From the sound of it, these folks are apparently going to start getting government grants, special treatment at colleges, and then where will we be? We won't even be able to talk bad about prostitutes! (Mercifully, lawyers have not gotten their own resolution started in Congress.)
The e-mail from the AFA talked about a resolution that's going to be voted on in Congress -- H.R. 1913 -- but the odd thing was, the resolution didn't contain what the AFA's "Action Alert" reported. As I read the resolution, it would grant federal funds (right... don't get me started) to the states in order to prosecute "hate crimes". It also names a number of groups that, if ever physically attacked, would bring down the fury of the thought police: race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
I agree that this House Resolution is a bad idea (see my sarcastic "thought police" comment above). I am not against H.R. 1913 because I think that it will give us the slippery slope to granting special legal rights to pedophiles. That's not going to happen. But the very idea of "hate crimes" is off-base to me. Punish someone if they did wrong. Don't add extra years to the sentence in an effort to legislate Americans into not hating one another based on things like race.
But the funny thing about the AFA's e-mail... it doesn't say anything like "this could be a slippery slope..." or "this resolution could theoretically..." or "if history proves true..." Rather, it bluntly asserts that Congress is about to grant federal protection to a bunch of sick groups of felons.
Well, Congress is not about to grant them "federal protection" (here I pause to say that this may be a legally accurate description, but a terrible way to mislead us non-legal, ignorant people -- I'm sure the AFA has retained expert counsel to make sure they aren't sued).
Another one of the statements in the e-mail is that Congress is endorsing and respecting a number of sexual perversions by not defining a list of what those perversions are. However, if Congress had defined what is meant by "sexual orientation", I've no doubt that the AFA would have opposed that, too. A lose/lose situation.
In the resolution, lawmakers do lump sexual predators into a group of people over whom (after this resolution) you'll really get in trouble for physically or violently attacking. I'm not arguing that this is not the case. Adding sexual perverts to the list of existing "hate crimes" targets? Well... okay. Fine with me. Jesus said that I'm not supposed to violently hit anyone with a baseball bat. I think it's safe to say that He included perverted people and homosexuals on that list, too, along with other people Christians tend to hate (as evidenced by our actions) and then claim we love. I'm sure that's not at all sending mixed signals to anyone.
The AFA's alert is shameful. While I'm sometimes in their court, I'm beyond disappointed in them for this e-mail alert that intentionally misrepresents the resolution. Again, I have no disagreement that the resolution is un-good, but to use a questionable (at best) means in order to achieve an end is not at all worthy of an organization that promotes itself as Biblical.
I want to encourage believers to live with joy in the world, living the freedom that comes from Christ. We want to see people's minds tranformed and renewed from within by a relationship with Jesus Christ; it's not going to happen through legislation like this -- imposing penalties on those who commit violence against groups of people (no matter what group they're in). It's likely that the only way that many people who engage in sexual perversions will ever change is if they see that "Christians" are people who care about them; not as a group that hates them.
I avoided linking to any atheists' blogs on this subject, though I was tempted. It's not like I give them extra credence, but if an "insider" (that'd be me) sees this AFA thing as mortifying, just imagine how outsiders -- you know, those people that we love, that we're "witnessing" to -- view it.
You want to call your Congressman/Congresswoman to tell them to vote it down? Me, too! Go for it! It's a crazy resolution! Just please, for the love of God (and I mean that very literally), don't mention the AFA's e-mail in a positive way!
By the way, please don't pull red herrings like, "So you're saying we shouldn't call sin 'sin'?" or, "So you're saying you agree that if I'm Hispanic, it's basically the equivalent having some weird sexual predisposition to make obscene phone calls to umbrellas or something?!" That's not what I'm saying. I'll be glad to clarify as needed.
Let's behave and speak (and e-mail) in a way that accurately represents God.
