Gays Hate for Religious Freedom and Free Speech on the March

Liberals and Feminists talk about “diversity” up and down. Yet, if you don’t agree with them then YOU ARE THE ONE whom is “intolerant!” Yet, they never want “diversity” of ideas. Either, believe what they believe or shut the *&%$ up. They certainly don’t want debate and go to great lengths to curtail it. With intimidation, law suits, lace curtain, et al.

Personally, I detest hate crime laws as they make it seem that one version of a crime is worse than the exact same thing when it is does to another group. There may be constitutional limitations on the expression of faith in the public square, but as one may recall, the public square was more akin to a meeting hall. The term should not apply to general public spaces like parks or sidewalks.

Tolerance works both ways. While I have no love for religion, essentially banning the public expression of it–while allowing the public expression of sexual identities–goes beyond what the Founding Fathers intended.

Last time I checked I have the constitutionally protected right to HATE what ever I want and I can talk about my hate to anyone who will listen.

Virtue: Indeed. Whether or not hate is good is not the point, a recognition that man is a creature of reason who makes moral judgments regarding good and evil, superior and inferior, and protecting his right to make such judgments is fundamental to the First Amendment, and what it means to be human.

Hate ought to be discouraged by moral people, and this is best accomplished by loving one’s neighbor, living true to some value system or another, protecting the freedom to promote moral and religious viewpoints (along with every other viewpoint), and working to promote the private spread of information on religion, morality, philosophy, and science among all peoples (which will help tare down ignorance, superstition, and extreme prejudice), but never should hate be prohibited by the state. Not only is it impossible, for no one can control another’s thoughts, but the very attempt to control another’s thoughts will in and of itself promote hate, hatred from the protected groups against the unprotected groups and visa versa, and then again, hatred, if only it silently lurks in the background of the “controlled” waiting for an opportunity to strike back at the revolutionary bullies and tyrants who think they have the right to enslave them.

What is even more ridiculous is for anyone to suppose that criminal acts are moral in the first place, and that a man inspired by hatred for a particular group has committed a crime greater than one who does the same nefarious act because of hatred for a spouse, or personal greed, or a quest for power, or as an act of revenge or unchecked passion. It is noteworthy that certain crimes have for ages been described as crimes against humanity because of their enormity, and for the belief that if they were tolerated they would overthrow the rule of law, and with it civilization … and so again, they are crimes against humanity, for man cannot live without law. And so isn’t that a crime against humanity fundamentally greater than a crime against the favored group of the moment?

I wonder also what this says about the motives of Hate Crime legislation that there is no such thing as a hate crime against Christians and their beliefs … or Constitutionalists and their beliefs, and Capitalists and their beliefs, when there is certainly plenty of hatred and organized resistance out their to them? Finally, I wonder why so many of us continue to sustain legislators in either party, and scholars at so many of our universities, who are certain smart enough to see through this sham, but who lack the moral backbone to reject such a revolutionary assault on our liberties?

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council yesterday referred to a Canadian pastor who wrote in a local newspaper that individuals need to “take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness of the homosexual machine.”

Two weeks later, in the same town, a young homosexual man was beaten, and this pastor has now been dragged in front of the Human Rights Commission and formally charged with “exposing people to hatred” through his letter, which means, under Canada’s “thought crimes” laws, it is not protected speech.

You see, if you teach homosexuality is morally wrong according to the Judeo-Christian ethic, and ought to work to uproot it with all the energy of our souls, we have committed a hate crime, for someone might interpret that as hatred for the homosexual himself, and inspiration to do violent acts.

Under such a broad interpretation of a pastor’s comments, and with a window of opportunity given the state, the ACLU, and radical judges, the destruction of religious freedom as we know it is the real target.