Condemning Violence, Bigotry, and Hateful Rhetoric Towards Christians In The United States

Today we review of an example house resolution which should protect Christians from the hateful rhetoric (such as right wing terrorist rhetoric) and limit the hateful speech of atheists and Progressives from making ludicrous accusations about our faith

This will most probably be the first step in limiting speech against criticism of religion and of course classifying dissent as "Blasphemy". I do not believe the Government should be limiting feedback either negative or positive about a religion.

Promoters of this bill will undoubtedly want to use this to drive a "protection classification" on religious ideals.

What is everyone's take on this one? Let's review the pros and cons.

Many say it is needed due to the rampant attacks on Churches. The last data here is from 2008 so it could be much higher today:

www.icpsr.umich.edu...

2008 FBI Archive for Church/Synagogue

7852 - Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property
5239 - Burglary/Breaking and Entering
2043 - Theft from building
398 - Intimidation
136 - Arson



The RESOLUTION:

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Christians in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Christian hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Christian or believed to be Christian;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Christians in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Christian community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Christians are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Christians who wear crosses, crucifixes, or other religious articles or clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Christian speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by anti-Christian groups of Progressive's hatred of Christianity, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Christian hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against churches, Christians, or those perceived to be Christian;

(4) recognizes that the United States Christian community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Christians in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

a reply to: infolurker

I agree with most of this. I sometimes wince when I hear some of the things said in a blanketed fashion about Christians. I wince because we expect Christians to adhere to a basic level of decency in regards to non-Christians and those who live in a fashion they find unacceptable. When they step out of line, many are quick to put them in their place. When a Christian is actually on the receiving end of this, people often overlook it in the way a person overlooks the cruel things we say about celebrities (because they are privileged and therefore must not have feelings).

From a heathen witch that believes your religion is every bit as evil as you likely think mine is, I promise to be better about catching these moments and being vocal when I hear about it. I've had Christians defend my faith before in arguments (as well as my sexual orientation and marriage). It felt surreal and somehow more important than any other advocacy I had received from expected allies. Likewise, I love the look on a Christian's face when they see somebody wearing a pentagram defending them from unfair generalizations.

That's the key. When we start defending each other from each other, hate loses its meaning. When an atheist begins to defend Christians, when Christians begin to defend Muslims, and when Muslims begin to defend LGBT folks... that's when there will be no more leashes for those in power to easily corral and control us.

So, yes. I think we can all do a better job. Especially me. I'm working on it.

a reply to: infolurker
I think there is a plan in the works. The answer to all the worlds problems is explained in Equilibrium. They will regulate everything you think or do, and your thought, and sense offenses, will bring a world of hurt on your behind.


Too many think the world is supposed too be revolving to the tune of Kumbaya, it is not in us to automatically turn the other cheek, and love everyone as ourselves.

That doesn't even play out in the religious text. The average response is, "If you kill my dog, I am going to kill your cat, or my God commanded me to kill you.

Religious text is fraught with killing in the name of their God. Most based a book that supposedly, is the written words of God, straight fom his own mouth. It would have been more believable, if he spoke the words directly into everyone's mind, in each and every language, so we wouldn't have to take the word of someone else, because I can assure you, men just aren't that reliable, or always honest, for that matter.

Well to each his own, but I am not believing it until God hands me an autogaphed copy of the text, and he himself gives me confirmation it is true, andexactly from his own mouth, every word written.

You can't regulate the heart. You can brainwash anyone, or make them an offer they can't refuse, but you can't regulate how people feel. Though I am positive they will try.

The road to hell is paved with religion.

I do not agree with "special" laws for crimes we already have laws for. Arson , assault, theft, even slander already have laws. We all so have this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --- And that is supposed to be stronger than a law.

Ok, strawman time: If we are going to give special attention to crimes against Christians, why not give special attention to crimes against Muslims/atheists/rich/anyone we personally like?

Yes I realize that we have the term hate crime. But how has that term helped any of the victims of one?

Whereas I am not a Christian, I suppose I should just keep my nose out of this, and,
Whereas you address your post to Christians only, and,
Whereas I can find no relationship to your assertions in the link you provide, I

Therefore will only point out that I can find no reference to the House Bill number so believers and or non believers can check check it out.

a reply to: Abysha



They should have titled the motion Condemning Violence, Bigotry, and Hateful Rhetoric and left it at that.

That would have shut an awful lot of people down who needed it.

What you said about those moments when you, as a member of your faith, found yourself being defended by persons of another, and how surreal and important it is...I can only say I feel the same way. I am a Christian, but for me, that means being given a mandate from the almighty to love my fellow human beings, because being guilty of fault as I surely am, I have no right to judge others. I believe it is my duty to ensure the freedom of everyone around me, to practice faith, or not, as they see fit. Free will, according to my faith, is God given, and causing trouble for those who do not worship in a way I find familiar is an interference with that free will choice. I am not only unwilling to prevent others worshiping or not as they see fit, and worshiping whatever they fancy to, but I am against anyone who believes it is their duty to prevent people exercising their freedom of choice when it comes to faith, or lack thereof.

I have been upheld far more often by atheists, polytheists of various traditions, Wicca practitioners, and the like, than I have been by those who profess to share my beliefs.

And I think you are right when you say that when we defend one another, from one another hate loses its power. I think it is fair to say that in this instance, the word "defend" is synonymous with the word "love".

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: infolurker
. . . That's the key. When we start defending each other from each other, hate loses its meaning. When an atheist begins to defend Christians, when Christians begin to defend Muslims, and when Muslims begin to defend LGBT folks... that's when there will be no more leashes for those in power to easily corral and control us.

So, yes. I think we can all do a better job. Especially me. I'm working on it.

Excellent course of action defending each other's rights and freewill. There is common ground for the moral agreement of all humans against a violation of their human rights for any reason. It is unfortunate that sometimes some people believe they are the only ones with rights.

originally posted by: infolurker
Today we review of an example house resolution which should protect Christians from the hateful rhetoric (such as right wing terrorist rhetoric) and limit the hateful speech of atheists and Progressives from making ludicrous accusations about our faith

This will most probably be the first step in limiting speech against criticism of religion and of course classifying dissent as "Blasphemy". I do not believe the Government should be limiting feedback either negative or positive about a religion.

Promoters of this bill will undoubtedly want to use this to drive a "protection classification" on religious ideals.

What is everyone's take on this one? Let's review the pros and cons.

Many say it is needed due to the rampant attacks on Churches. The last data here is from 2008 so it could be much higher today:

www.icpsr.umich.edu...

2008 FBI Archive for Church/Synagogue

7852 - Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property
5239 - Burglary/Breaking and Entering
2043 - Theft from building
398 - Intimidation
136 - Arson



The RESOLUTION:

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Christians in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Christian hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Christian or believed to be Christian;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Christians in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Christian community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Christians are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Christians who wear crosses, crucifixes, or other religious articles or clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Christian speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by anti-Christian groups of Progressive's hatred of Christianity, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Christian hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against churches, Christians, or those perceived to be Christian;

(4) recognizes that the United States Christian community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Christians in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

I'm just curious, since you didn't actually link the House Resolution itself, did you read the bill or are you pulling a bait and switch to see if anyone else actually reads it? The reason I ask is that the language of the actual bill doesn't reference Christianity once. It does however refer to Muslims. Every single place where you wrote "Christianity" says "Muslims" in HR 569. For reference, here is the actual bill...
www.congress.gov...

I found it rather ironic that instead of celebrating these protections for Christians, nearly every link I saw referring to this legislation claims that the House Democrats are taking the first step towards implementing Sharia Law in the United States.

And a comparison of what the bill states in reality compared to what you presented in your OP

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—


(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;



(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;



(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;



(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;



(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;



(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and



(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

So was your source material incorrect or is the OP a big bluff? And more importantly, why has nobody else looked at the actual legislation prior to commenting? Is due diligence a long lost art form in this day and age?

As it stands the following numbers you cite are all illegal and have laws against them currently, furthermore, while some rhetoric may be distasteful and in some cases, disgusting, legislation of this nature is an abhoration and stands in defiance of the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech. I didn't destroy my body and become a 42 year old cripple so that I could come home and see the entire constitution trampled on because nobody can deal with someone else's words. The rest, is all illegal already. A huge waste of a legislative session in my opinion.

a reply to: peter vlar
You are right about me. I did not read the bill, mainly for many of the reasons you included in your post.

I don't feel there is any need for additional government influence in the practice of any religion.

I think the manipulating of the masses in this fight between Christians and Muslims is a ploy to regulate our speech and our actions.

They are playing right into their hands, and if the don't stop being so damn predictable, they can just kiss their behinds goodbye.

Who decides what is hate speech? Here on ATS you can go post to post and see where someone had become offended by something someone has said, because they read something into what was posted, that was never said, outside of their own minds.

So what is next? People will be fined and jailed because of what people "think" is in someone else's mind and heart?

This is extremely dangerous territory we are walking in, and there are land mines everywhere.

Muslims and Christians alike are too emotionally involved to see the prestidigitation taking place here. The government does not care about any of us. Any time you see them rallying for a cause, you had better look very closely and follow the money. Forget about watching their hands and listening to there lies.

Listen to me. The government is not our friend. It doesn't give a damn about us. We are just a commodity. They see us as just another marketable source like wheat or pork bellies.

Please don't believe a word that I say. Get so pissed off with me that you go and search every nook and cranny of anything I say or anyone else says. Do not believe anything you see or hear. Research it to its base level.

This is not Kansas anymore, and Oz is not what you think it is. I hope you are sick and tired of hearing people say "Wake up!" So do it already.

a reply to: infolurker

Well played!

There is no place in our legal/justice system, nor in our society as a whole, for special protections for certain people, whether for race, religion or whatever. If it's wrong to do it to one (or for one) then it's wrong to do it to/for all.

Just one more example of divide-and-conquer.

a reply to: Abysha

Thank you. That is the most heart-warming and encouraging post I've ever seen on ATS -- or anywhere. Let's hope your sentiments are contagious.

a reply to: infolurker

It's called tyranny and it's against the entire core meaning of Freedom of Speech.

Not only that but it's against the 14th Amendment as it doesn't provide equal protection under the law. It puts Christians into a special protected class but offers no protection against speech geared toward others.

It's complete and total BS and is against everything this country stands for.

Christians spew just as much if not more hate speech toward others as they receive and this will only make matters worse.

a reply to: peter vlar

Good call on your part. My guess is that changing it to Christian instead of Muslim was part of his plan to prove some kind of point to everyone who answered in a certain way. Not sure if that worked out like he planned or not though.

I don't care who this bill is for be it Christian or Muslim or Druid Frog Worshipers. It's still BS and needs to be scrapped and the member who created it should lose their position in Gov.

a reply to: mOjOm

Exactly, the language or group in question is entirely irrelevant. Creating any protected class is antithetical to what this country was founded on(despite black people only counting as 3/5 of a person and women and non landowners being excluded from voting but that's a whole separate discussion), the first and 14th amendments. Anyone from any party pushing for such should be ashamed of themselves for wasting precious time in an already cramped legislative session with this tripe.

a reply to: infolurker

when people offer " statistics " that do not provide any diffrentiation between :

attacks on christian churches

AND

attacks on jewish synagougues

i have a suspicion that thier " facts " are bollox

Awesome, just what we need, ANOTHER law.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's not actually a prospective law, just a resolution calling for condemnation of violence and bigotry towards Muslims. It's a waste of time in a legislative session no matter what it is though.

originally posted by: peter vlar
It's not actually a prospective law, just a resolution calling for condemnation of violence and bigotry towards Muslims. It's a waste of time in a legislative session no matter what it is though.

I agree. These 'symbolic gestures' seem to be more divisive than their desired outcome of acceptance and are a total waste of time.

a reply to: mOjOm

Christian or Muslim or Druid Frog Worshipers.

Nice grouping!

a reply to: randyvs

Well, ya know those Druid Frog Worshipers never seem to catch a break ya know.