Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

Outlawing Opinion

Rate this topic


John81
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Outlawing Opinion
by Chuck Norris

05/19/2009


It greatly alarms me that Americans' constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.

Several years ago, I watched then-"20/20" correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics. Surprisingly naive of America's constitutional basis, Saddam asked, "Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?" (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -- and somewhat at a loss for words herself -- Diane quipped back in answering his question, "They host television talk shows!" Saddam's facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.

Sounds so far-out, doesn't it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.


For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.

If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: "Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government."

The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents' Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function? When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine -- which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation -- is right around the corner.

Government isn't the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean's -- who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up -- giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions, she's been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.

I don't care what your cause is. I don't care what your mission is. I don't care what the issue is. I don't care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen's constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone's offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?

It's simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam's Iraq!

When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we've drifted from our roots. Isn't it time we returned home to the Constitution?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31927

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Senant Bill 909 has nothing to do with speech. It merely adds to the already existing Hate Crimes Law. The Hate Crimes Law provides for increased sentencing for crimes committed against persons based his or her race, religion, gender or national origin. For example, if you beat up your sons baseball coach for not playing your son in the 9th inning, you are guilty of assualt and may be sentenced for, lets say, 5 years imprisonment. If you beat the coach up because he is a Mormon, you may be senteced for, lets say, 7 years imprisonment. The reason what is commonly referred to as the "radical right" is so opposed to Senate Bill 909 is that it adds sexual orientation to the already existing protected class.

If S.B. 909 is passed, it will have absolutely no affect on your already existing rights to protest against gay marriage, or even your ability to exhibit the most vile and disgusting forms of bigotry that you want. However, if you decide that you want to committ a crime against a gay person, based solely on that person's "gayness", then not only will you receive the normal sentence, you will also receive additional sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.

I find it strange that Chuck Norriss, if he is really only concerned with his freedom of speech, had nothing to say when the Hate Crimes Law was first proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In my opinion, no class of person should be valued more than another (in the eyes of law) to the point that when someone commits a crime against them the sentencing is more or less severe based upon some artificial "protected" class or status.

The person who kills a "WASP" should not be treated any differently than the person who kills someone of color, or a woman, or someone who is gay! It is all a crime against humanity and should be treated equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
In my opinion, no class of person should be valued more than another (in the eyes of law) to the point that when someone commits a crime against them the sentencing is more or less severe based upon some artificial "protected" class or status.

The person who kills a "WASP" should not be treated any differently than the person who kills someone of color, or a woman, or someone who is gay! It is all a crime against humanity and should be treated equally.


If the WASP is killed BECAUSE he is a WASP (i.g., for his race and religion), the murderer will face the increased sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1st degree murder is first degree murder. The government has no business adding additional penalties based on who was murdered and the reasoning believed to be behind it. If they would execute all convicted first degree murders in a reasonable period of time as they should it wouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


If the WASP is killed BECAUSE he is a WASP (i.g., for his race and religion), the murderer will face the increased sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.


And if the victim is a black Jewish gay man, that would be three times the sentence? Do you even see how ridiculous the whole thing is. As Revelation said, "1st degree murder is first degree murder."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1st degree murder is first degree murder. The government has no business adding additional penalties based on who was murdered and the reasoning believed to be behind it. If they would execute all convicted first degree murders in a reasonable period of time as they should it wouldn't matter.


So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense?
The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense?
The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.


Last I knew, the killing of another in defense of one's life is not called murder!

Also, I'm not saying that circumstances of a crime should never be considered in the sentencing. I am saying the color of one's skin, their religious affiliation, their gender, nor their sexual proclivities (which is not my business) should be a basis for a special law which values one more or less important than another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense? The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.


I said first degree murder. The circumstances are considered at the trial to determine if it was first degree murder or not. Self defense that results in the death of the aggressor is not murder. Accidentally killing someone is not first degree murder either. First degree murder from Cain's murder of his brother down to the present is very often due to hate anyway. Fortunately it is still fairly rare for someone to walk up and kill someone they do not know for no reason at all and when it does happen that person often hates humanity as a whole. I submit if someone intentionally killed an innocent person not worthy of death outside of a war or the line of duty then it should not matter if they killed them because they didn't like their race, their religion, for their money, for the car they were driving, or if they killed them for no reason at all or because they were having a bad day. As I said, if the law would execute all those found guilty of first degree murder within a reasonable period of time( perhaps no more than a year or two at the max) as they should "extra" penalties would not be an issue and it would save the state from paying to keep them alive in prison for twenty or thirty years. Our society is far to easy on those who commit serious crimes worthy of death, and the legal system takes far longer than it should. What ever happened to the right to a quick and speedy trial? That should apply to both the innocent and the guilty. Isn't there an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied? There is no reason why murder cases should still be being appealed and fought over five, ten, and twenty years after they first came to trial. One way or another it should be over by then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


Well let's say it isn't murder. Let's say it is theft. What if the perp steals from Jewish owned jewelry stores for the sole purpose that they are owned by Jews. Now can you see the difference? Not only will the perp receive the standard sentence for theft, but he or she will have additional time added on due to the fact that their crimes were committed against the victims based solely on the victims religion. The illegality and risk of imprisonment is there to deter the crime itself. The hate crimes law is there to deter the hate. I'm not say this is right or its wrong. I'm saying Chuck Norris, as good of a guy and Christian as he is, doesn't know what he is talking about in this case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Well let's say it isn't murder. Let's say it is theft. What if the perp steals from Jewish owned jewelry stores for the sole purpose that they are owned by Jews. Now can you see the difference?


Morally? No. Why he stole from them should not matter legally. The theft is what matters.

Not only will the perp receive the standard sentence for theft, but he or she will have additional time added on due to the fact that their crimes were committed against the victims based solely on the victims religion.


I understand that, and that is wrong. Thoughts are not a crime, maybe the person doesn't like Jews maybe they don't like Christians, that isn't and shouldn't be a crime in and of itself until they actually do an evil act. If they do a evil act that act is what should be criminal not their motives. What "hate crime" laws do is destroy the principle of equal justice for all under the law. Some people under hate crime laws become deserving of more punishment because of what they think rather than because of what they actually did. "Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries.

. Murder is murder no matter the skin color or sexual orientation. God does not differentiate in these matters, and neither should we


How politically correct phrases can slip into our vocabulary. "Sexual orientation" is not a biblical phrase because it implies that perversion is not a matter of sinful choice but rather how you were born as the sodomites say. I agree with your statement in concept though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Hate crime laws will lead to suppression of a lot of things. Theft is theft' date=' no matter the motive. Murder is murder no matter the skin color or sexual orientation. God does not differentiate in these matters, and neither should we.[/quote']

No one is differentiating anything. Imagine two theifs stealing two different loafs of bread from the same person. Theif #1 stole the bread from the victim because he was hungary. Theif #2, solely because the victim was a white woman. Both theifs will be subject to the exact same sentence for stealing the bread. Theif #2 will be subject to further sentencing because he also violated the hate crimes law. Do you see the difference? No one is differentiating between the crimes that were committed by both theifs. The difference comes from the fact that Theif #2 committed an additional crime.

I agree that it should not (and it is not, by the way) be a crime to hate someone for what ever reason you so choose. However, if that hate leads to a crime, which would not have happened absent the hate, then their should be consequences.

Although we have all used a bunch of examples, the Hate Crimes Law rarely comes up in cases which do not involve violence. For the most part, it is only used to prosecute people who committ senseless acts of violence against others based solely on their race, gender, religion or national origin. The most recent case I can think of happened right after 9/11 when a few college students attacked a muslim man for no reason at all. The Feds also wanted to use it against one of the men who were just recently prosecuted for a civil rights era murder, but the District Court refused to consider it because the law was not in effect at the time of the killings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

"Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries."

I understand this is the propoganda being spread in opposition to the expansion of the Hate Crimes Law. However, I'm yet to see one piece of factual evidence to substantiate it. I tried to find something myself, but could find nothing whatsoever. If you have such information, please direct me to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
"Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries."

I understand this is the propoganda being spread in opposition to the expansion of the Hate Crimes Law. However, I'm yet to see one piece of factual evidence to substantiate it. I tried to find something myself, but could find nothing whatsoever. If you have such information, please direct me to it.


You don't have to look far.

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


Ok. I'll concede that reasonable people may differ on what that consider to be legitmate or valid citations. However, the first link is to a newsletter (a webletter at that) that is admittedly a propoganda compaign against the proposed legislation, which does nothing more than list occurences which it expects the believer to accept as true without any indept factual information or legal citation to the legal proceedings it references. The only purpose behind the cite is to feed those who already have a predisposed mindset, with a list of situations which are supposed to justify that mindset. I would not be allowed to cite that article if I were making a legal argument either for, or against, the proposed legislation. Furthermore, and assuming the occurences listed actually occurred, the judicial proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, in nature. They are causes of action brought by one private citizen against another for things that have been done or said which either offend or disparage the person. We already have such causes of action in the U.S., we call them "libel" and "slander." Of course, in the U.S., one cannot be found liable for libel for merely printing bible verses in a newspaper. However, if the verses were a part of an article or ad that would otherwise be libel, then the same thing would happen here. That's just it about the citation. There is absolutely no way to know all the facts based on a three sentence blurb purposely written with a certain slant.

The second site is a blog which does the same thing as the first with a lot more personal opinion thrown in the mix.

I would not be comfortable basing my opinion of this issue on either of those references. I would ask for something by a credible scholarly author written from an unbiased prospective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 42 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...