Jude 2

I received this email from Rod Parsley. Is this legitimate?

Liberals are taking aim at people of faith - again - through legislation called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The bill came dangerously close to reaching the president's desk in the most recent session of Congress, and supporters expect Barack Obama to eagerly sign a proposed law that George W. Bush surely would have vetoed.

CMC urges its members and all Christians to oppose H.R. 1913, which could come to a vote in the full House later this spring. Hurry - the full House could vote on this bill before the end of April! Click here to make your views known to your elected representatives, and click here to support CMC in its efforts to block this ill-considered legislation.

yep! it's legit!

See here....http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1913:

arm yourselves with faith, righteousness, and your weapon of choice

stevenson wrote:yep! it's legit!

See here....http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1913:

Those of you who want your religious freedom to "willfully cause bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempt to cause bodily injury to any person" should be very, very afraid. This piece of legislation aimed at taking away your right to cause bodily harm is an inexcusable outrage!

Tim Elston wrote:

stevenson wrote:yep! it's legit!

See here....http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1913:

Those of you who want your religious freedom to "willfully cause bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempt to cause bodily injury to any person" should be very, very afraid. This piece of legislation aimed at taking away your right to cause bodily harm is an inexcusable outrage!

Whatever the aim is irrelevant as it will travel well beyond the intended purpose in scope. The persecution that Miss California received from Perez Hilton will seem like child's play if this passes.

pa

pastorables wrote:Whatever the aim is irrelevant as it will travel well beyond the intended purpose in scope.

Kind of like fearmongering knows no limits, isn't it?

Oh, just wait until the 9th Circuit Court gets a test case enabling them to interpret "willfully cause bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempt to cause bodily injury to any person"

A sermon in which the minister declares homosexuality to be a sinful abomination could be broadly construed to incite hatred and indirectly lead to someone "willfully caus(ing) bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempt to cause bodily injury to any person." How long do you thing it will take before linkage is established between Christian doctrine re perverted sexuality and some isolated hate crime against a gay person?

Fear-mongering or reality?

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18752/stephen-boissoin

http://www.narth.com/docs/trumps.html

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=20055

There is an active effort afoot to intimidate the opponents of homosexual normalization into silence. For every Miss California who boldly (and lovingly) speaks her heart and pays the price, there will be dozens of appeasers who will go along to get along.

Tim Elston wrote:

pastorables wrote:Whatever the aim is irrelevant as it will travel well beyond the intended purpose in scope.

Kind of like fearmongering knows no limits, isn't it?

Yea Tim, because the liberal courts, media, and homosexual ajenda would never try to overstep the intented purpose of this bill and silence the oppositional christian voice.......never!!

Gary, please don't ban me for asking, but are your responses to my comments an implicit indication that I can talk to you now? Has the gag been lifted without me being told, or do you consider yourself quite the champion in arguments with people over whose mouths you have applied duct tape?

Tim Elston wrote:Gary, please don't ban me for asking, but are your responses to my comments...

There's that roaring huge egocentricity again: I didn't respond to YOU, never mentioned your name, and made no direct reference to your post.

I posted my thoughts on the topic being discussed, as I will from time to time -- and I will not avoid topics of interest to me just because you happen to also post in the thread.

I have never banned you. You have voluntarily left before, just as you voluntarily returned.

Pastor Gary wrote:There's that roaring huge egocentricity again: I didn't respond to YOU, never mentioned your name, and made no direct reference to your post.

That's such a lie, Gary. That's right, a lie. I said, "Kind of like fearmongering knows no limits, isn't it?" And you said, "Fear-mongering or reality?" You wonder why I react disrespectfully to these kinds of cheap maneuvres? Your post was a response to what I said.

I have never banned you. You have voluntarily left before, just as you voluntarily returned.

I asked you whether I am still banned from speaking to you. You forbade me from doing so on threat of being banned. But since that time you have directly replied to me on three or four occasions. It was on the board for all to see.

I take from your reply that I'm still gagged. Carry on, then. Everyone with half an eye open good and well knows when you are replying to me. I have little respect for your cheap, disingenuous reactions to me, so it's probably best that you gag me, anyway.

Tim Elston wrote:

Pastor Gary wrote:There's that roaring huge egocentricity again: I didn't respond to YOU, never mentioned your name, and made no direct reference to your post.

That's such a lie, Gary. That's right, a lie. I said, "Kind of like fearmongering knows no limits, isn't it?" And you said, "Fear-mongering or reality?" You wonder why I react disrespectfully to these kinds of cheap maneuvres? Your post was a response to what I said.

I have never banned you. You have voluntarily left before, just as you voluntarily returned.

I asked you whether I am still banned from speaking to you. You forbade me from doing so on threat of being banned. But since that time you have directly replied to me on three or four occasions. It was on the board for all to see.

I take from your reply that I'm still gagged. Carry on, then. Everyone with half an eye open good and well knows when you are replying to me. I have little respect for your cheap, disingenuous reactions to me, so it's probably best that you gag me, anyway.

Since you have such obvious disdain for me, persist in calling me a liar, making remarks about my methods and character, why do you hang around in my living room?

You don't like me. I get it. My friends discount what you say, for they know you well, and I couldn't care less what my enemies think.

Well Tim I think the fear is I have heard some people that are wanting to use this "hate speech bill" to end any preaching that claims homosexuality is a sin. Worse then that is if one read out of Leviticus saying that it is a abomination unto DEATH.
That could be used against preachers through that bill.

I am against all hate crimes and violence. I have no respect for racist and despise the slightest remark that reflects color or the character of someone based on color. Matter of fact the famous words start out like this

" I am not a racist but...."
Not always but most of the time a racist comment follows.

Sorry for getting side tracked but the issue is the effects this bill could later have.
What if someone in a mega church did preach about homosexuality being a sin and read that verse calling it a "abomination unto death" then later that week someone in the 10,000 member church kills a homosexual and happened to be in that service? Do you not think they could then connect the two? What could this bill then do to preachers? I ask this because I see your point 100% and that is why I want your response I am curious if you believe that this could never happen.
I am sure, or at least hope, everyone here is against any hate crimes.


I know this is really not my business but a observation:

Gary said:

Fear-mongering or reality?

which was a direct response to Tim's comment that said:

Kind of like fearmongering knows no limits, isn't it?

So it does appear that you were responding to him PG and I am far from your enemy, I love ya Brother and I would hope by my actions you know that
I do not discount everything Tim says!

Nor am I Tim's enemy either I think he is a great guy that is really intelligent. I enjoy his post regardless if others do not and I count him as a friend and have nothing but love for him as well.

I must have missed something here or this was before my time. I have no idea why there are these battle lines drawn that you are either a enemy of PG if you do not discount Tim, or a friend of PG and have to discount Tim..... I think that is really strange but please correct me, I must have missed something here.

May God bless

one love wrote:I know this is really not my business but a observation:

Gary said:

Fear-mongering or reality?

which was a direct response to Tim's comment that said:

Kind of like fearmongering knows no limits, isn't it?

So it does appear that you were responding to him PG and I am far from your enemy, I love ya Brother and I would hope by my actions you know that

My apologies for choosing to use a word that Mr. Elston also used. I failed to see the copyright symbol next to his reference. How about this --

"Unjustified fear, or reality?" Better?