It could lead, and did lead, and is leading, to legislation such as the Hate Crimes Act (S909) otherwise known as the Pedophile Protection Act.
Political Pistachio asked:
"'But how does this bill protect pedophiles?' one may ask."
"Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, submitted that a simple sentence, an amendment, to H.R. 1913 in the House Judiciary Committee to read the following:"
"The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."
"His suggestion was rejected."
"As the bill stands, if it passes for law, if you catch an adult in the act of raping a child, and use force to remove that person from the child, the pedophile can turn around and accuse you of assault, and claim it was a hate crime."
"Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., in response to the outcry by King, and others, stated that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or "Paraphilias" listed by the APA."
We see that a special class of people have been created and worse, protected, from so-called "hate crimes" that barely or do not exist. As a matter of fact, FBI statistics consistently show that hate crimes are overwhelmingly about race, and secondly, religion. Crimes against gays for their sexual orientation are only third down the line, and in 2007 there were only 1265 incidents. 1265 incidents against a population, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, of 23 million constituents strong.
The bill would create a special class of people, including people who exhibit "behaviours generally involve children or non-consenting partners, non-human objects, or the humiliation or suffering of a partner or oneself..."and then this bill enhances their protection in the justice system, even though no known studies show that hate crime against them is higher than any other class of people and is in fact, lower.
In response to Maine's affirmative vote for homosexual marriage, Pat Robertson said:
"ROBERTSON: Lee, we haven’t taken this to its ultimate conclusion. You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is illegal when you say that homosexual marriage is legal. What is it about polygamy that’s different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards. But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about the other? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent."
He is right. It is abhorrent. In S909 we see the downward slide hastening to its inevitable conclusion ... judgment.
It is not too late. Those suffering in a sinful lifestyle whether it be sexual or other, can and must repent. Ask the Lord to forgive your transgressions and ask the Holy Spirit to give you strength to withstand these heinous temptations. Because if S909 passes and these specially created and protected class of people breathe a sigh of relief, thinking they are secure and protected forever, they are not. It is only for a whisper of time, and then they will face the Holy God and account to Him for their sins. There is no protection at the Judgment Seat.
2 comments:
It bothers me when people ignore the text of a bill, all legal precedent and common sense to come up with a hypothetical to scare everybody. If you saw a hispanic Jewish woman robbing a bank and you forcibly stopped her, could you be prosecuted for a hate crime? Obviously not. You are allowed to stop someone from raping a child. Give me a break.
If the US Congress adhered to legal precedent and common sense this bill would never have been introduced in the first place.
Yes, the results are exactly what they mean: slapping a flasher means the flasher gets a misdemeanor for flashing and a hate crime is attributed to the flashee, which is a Federal crime. This is EXACTLY what the text says, so do not ignore it. These and other UN-intended consequences are what opponents are trying to bring out.
The text of the bill means just what it says it means, though statistics, common sense and the US Constitution already say we do not need this bill, the bill was introduced anyway.
Give us a break.
Post a Comment