Really? I mean ... really? Don't get me wrong, I know Jesus probably wasn't white... He incarnated in the Middle East for crying out loud, of course He wasn't "white." At the same time, and it isn't particular to you, I have never understood why people get offended over portrayals of Jesus as different races. I mean... He created the different races... we all bear His image so wouldn't we all see Him in a familiar way until we actually see Him face to face? Granted, I see Jesus as an Israeli Jewish man but when I worship Him, He is something altogether transcendent of race. It's hard to explain. Anyway, I am not trying to minimize your offense in any way. I have just run into this type of anger several times in my life and I truly don't understand the offense. The first time I experienced it was as a non-believer and someone (another non-believer) was upset about a painting of a black Jesus with a fro. I thought they were silly back then and today it truly doesn't bother me. I will be honest in that I think it doesn't bother God either. He doesn't place any emphasis on Jesus' characteristics. anyway, my response is longer than I wanted and I want to make sure you know I am not trying to be combative.
Michael
· 2 years ago
I'm glad that incidents like these billboards can't be prosecuted as hate crimes, because the federal hate crimes law is limited to violent crimes (felony assault or worse). Speaking of free speech, I received this from the Family Research Council today:
As the House conducts a contentious mark-up on the "hate crimes" bill today, last week's tragedy reinforces the serious questions about the wisdom of this "hate crimes" bill. Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called "hate crimes." If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week's massacre. Despite what its advocates say, this is not about crime--it's about special treatment.
It's true that HR1592 expands the range of special treatment to include more people. But the existing federal law (which 1592 amends) already treats victims of racial and religious crimes better than the 32 people who were killed in Virginia. So why won't the Family Research Council call for repeal of the existing law. Didn't Exodus? Would anyone like to help me write polite letters to the Family Research Council?
Steve
· 2 years ago
That image they used to represent Jesus is just as offensive as their message. We don't know what he looks like, but people have no problem portraying him as a white man.
Steve
· 2 years ago
That image they used to represent Jesus is just as offensive as their message.
We don't know what he looks like, but people have no problem portraying him as a white man.
Randy
· 2 years ago
Really? I mean ... really?
Don't get me wrong, I know Jesus probably wasn't white... He incarnated in the Middle East for crying out loud, of course He wasn't "white."
At the same time, and it isn't particular to you, I have never understood why people get offended over portrayals of Jesus as different races. I mean... He created the different races... we all bear His image so wouldn't we all see Him in a familiar way until we actually see Him face to face?
Granted, I see Jesus as an Israeli Jewish man but when I worship Him, He is something altogether transcendent of race. It's hard to explain.
Anyway, I am not trying to minimize your offense in any way. I have just run into this type of anger several times in my life and I truly don't understand the offense. The first time I experienced it was as a non-believer and someone (another non-believer) was upset about a painting of a black Jesus with a fro. I thought they were silly back then and today it truly doesn't bother me. I will be honest in that I think it doesn't bother God either. He doesn't place any emphasis on Jesus' characteristics.
anyway, my response is longer than I wanted and I want to make sure you know I am not trying to be combative.
Michael
· 2 years ago
I'm glad that incidents like these billboards can't be prosecuted as hate crimes, because the federal hate crimes law is limited to violent crimes (felony assault or worse).
Speaking of free speech, I received this from the Family Research Council today:
As the House conducts a contentious mark-up on the "hate crimes" bill today, last week's tragedy reinforces the serious questions about the wisdom of this "hate crimes" bill. Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called "hate crimes." If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week's massacre. Despite what its advocates say, this is not about crime--it's about special treatment.
It's true that HR1592 expands the range of special treatment to include more people. But the existing federal law (which 1592 amends) already treats victims of racial and religious crimes better than the 32 people who were killed in Virginia.
So why won't the Family Research Council call for repeal of the existing law. Didn't Exodus?
Would anyone like to help me write polite letters to the Family Research Council?
Jonathan
· 2 years ago
Hmmmm... I'm not particularly sure I agree with the interpretation of these particular billboards. Then again, I don't particularly agree with the message that Exodus billboards put out either. I add to what Mike Ensley said as I think they probably both prey on the rampant Biblical illiteracy in and out of the church. Wasn't that the universal Jesus for Anglo-Americans for many years. Certainly if you look in a lot of pictorial Bibles, you'll find that Jesus gazing back at you. Mike, are you sure CS Lewis described Jesus as a cat? Unless you are alluding to Aslan, then I'm certain I don't get it. A nun sent Lewis a copy of the Shroud of Turin and this is his response... "Thank you so much for the head of Our Lord from the shroud. It has grown upon me wonderfully. I don't commit myself to the genuineness. One can never be quite certain. But the great value is to make one realise that He was a man, and once even a dead man. There is so much difference between a doctrine and a realisation." - Volumn II, Collected Letters. j.
Mike Ensley
· 2 years ago
Randy, good post. These billboards highlight some of the more ludicrous pro-gay misinterpretations of the Bible. What's concerns me is how it preys on Biblical illiteracy (which is pretty rampant, even in the church). However, I agree that whoever's defacing them is an idiot and they're committing a crime that should be punished. As for how we depict Jesus--if it's wrong to be inaccurate, then we really shouldn't be making any paintings or movies about him. CS Lewis--who himself depicted Jesus as a big cat--said that any image we have of God is only that--an image. It's worth is really in how it encourages you to draw closer to him.
Michael
· 2 years ago
I'm afraid you might be mistaken, Randy. The text of HR1592 states that the bill responds to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The 1994 law defines a hate crime and requires that guidelines be established to enhance sentencing of crimes that meet the 1994 law's definition of hate crime. The 1994 law says, "In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." HR1592 simply answers the requirement of the 1994 law, by specifying specific sentences for violent crimes. However, the text of HR1592 restrains the scope of the 1994 definition of "hate crime" so that it describes violent crimes otherwise punishable as a felony.
Mike Ensley
· 2 years ago
Randy, good post. These billboards highlight some of the more ludicrous pro-gay misinterpretations of the Bible. What's concerns me is how it preys on Biblical illiteracy (which is pretty rampant, even in the church).
However, I agree that whoever's defacing them is an idiot and they're committing a crime that should be punished.
As for how we depict Jesus--if it's wrong to be inaccurate, then we really shouldn't be making any paintings or movies about him. CS Lewis--who himself depicted Jesus as a big cat--said that any image we have of God is only that--an image. It's worth is really in how it encourages you to draw closer to him.
Randy
· 2 years ago
Actually, HR 1592 is not an ammendment to the Civil Rights act of 1964. It is it's own bill in conflict with the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Ammendment.
There isn't any thought crime legislation on the books (federal level.)
The civil rights act ensures that the 14th ammendment is applied fairly to African Americans, Women, Muslims ... etc. HR 1592 wouldn't ammend it, it would redefine the legal definition of protected class status for groups that do not qualify for it (sexual orientation and gender identity aka transgender issues).
it is definitely about thoughts and giving special treatment.
I am against all crime and existing laws, the Civil Rights act and the 14th ammendment already cover the issue well.
The 1994 law defines a hate crime and requires that guidelines be established to enhance sentencing of crimes that meet the 1994 law's definition of hate crime.
The 1994 law says, "In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
HR1592 simply answers the requirement of the 1994 law, by specifying specific sentences for violent crimes.
However, the text of HR1592 restrains the scope of the 1994 definition of "hate crime" so that it describes violent crimes otherwise punishable as a felony.
Randy
· 2 years ago
The 1994 legislation only directed that the statistical gathering of hate crimes should be collected and reported. That move has also provided data that the rare instances of hate crimes have actually decreased over the past 13 years. HR 1592 uses the definition from that law but stands on it's own in criminalizing thought.
Also, it makes a violent crime against a gay identified man more punishable than it would be against an average person maliciously attacked. All violent crime is violent and some should not receive more justice than others.
Plus, every single instance where thought crime legislation has passed brought with it the suppression of religious liberty to disagree with politically correct pro-gay ideology.
It may not be overt in the language but it is sure to come. Example, the language also doesn't define sexual orientation either. According to the DSM there are over 20 sexual orientations, this legislation is begging for a lawsuit by NAMBLA. Who gets to decide what sexual orientation means?
How do you apply fair justice to a "perception?"
It's unfair and unconstitutional.
Randy
· 2 years ago
Wasn't this thread about pro-gay billboards?
Please get back to that.
Randy
· 2 years ago
Oh and Hi Mike... Thanks for your comments and adding to the discussion :)
Randy
· 2 years ago
oh wait a minute Michael... you are right and I am right too... I will make a new post about it all later today.
Randy
· 2 years ago
I was mixing up the 1990 and 1994 legislation. I found the following though that should make everything clear: http://tinyurl.com/3662rx
Questions and Answers: What's Wrong with Thought Crimes ('Hate Crimes') Laws? by: Peter Sprigg
What are "hate crimes?"
A federal law passed in 1994 (Public Law 103-322) defines a "hate crime" as "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
Why do you call them "thought crimes"?
Violent attacks upon people or property are already illegal, regardless of the motive behind them. With "hate crime" laws, however, people are essentially given one penalty for the actions they engaged in, and an additional penalty for the politically incorrect thoughts that allegedly motivated those actions.
Isn't there already a federal "hate crime" law?
A 1990 law (Public Law 101-275) required the federal government to begin collecting statistics on so-called "hate crimes" from states and local governments, but did not provide for any federal prosecution of them. A 1994 law (Public Law 103-322) provided for "sentencing enhancement" (that is, higher penalties) for existing federal offenses that are found to be motivated by "hate," but did not actually create a new category of offense.
So what's different about the currently proposed federal Thought Crime law?
This law, for the first time, would allow the federal government to prosecute any alleged "hate crime" that occurs anywhere in the country, regardless of the other circumstances--thus effectively usurping the primary responsibility of states and localities for law enforcement.
The above link also answers many other questions pertinent to Thought Crime legislation. Now, back to those billboards :)
Jonathan
· 2 years ago
Hmmmm...
I'm not particularly sure I agree with the interpretation of these particular billboards. Then again, I don't particularly agree with the message that Exodus billboards put out either. I add to what Mike Ensley said as I think they probably both prey on the rampant Biblical illiteracy in and out of the church.
Wasn't that the universal Jesus for Anglo-Americans for many years. Certainly if you look in a lot of pictorial Bibles, you'll find that Jesus gazing back at you.
Mike, are you sure CS Lewis described Jesus as a cat? Unless you are alluding to Aslan, then I'm certain I don't get it. A nun sent Lewis a copy of the Shroud of Turin and this is his response...
"Thank you so much for the head of Our Lord from the shroud. It has grown upon me wonderfully. I don't commit myself to the genuineness. One can never be quite certain. But the great value is to make one realise that He was a man, and once even a dead man. There is so much difference between a doctrine and a realisation." - Volumn II, Collected Letters.
All Comments
Don't get me wrong, I know Jesus probably wasn't white... He incarnated in the Middle East for crying out loud, of course He wasn't "white."
At the same time, and it isn't particular to you, I have never understood why people get offended over portrayals of Jesus as different races. I mean... He created the different races... we all bear His image so wouldn't we all see Him in a familiar way until we actually see Him face to face?
Granted, I see Jesus as an Israeli Jewish man but when I worship Him, He is something altogether transcendent of race. It's hard to explain.
Anyway, I am not trying to minimize your offense in any way. I have just run into this type of anger several times in my life and I truly don't understand the offense. The first time I experienced it was as a non-believer and someone (another non-believer) was upset about a painting of a black Jesus with a fro. I thought they were silly back then and today it truly doesn't bother me. I will be honest in that I think it doesn't bother God either. He doesn't place any emphasis on Jesus' characteristics.
anyway, my response is longer than I wanted and I want to make sure you know I am not trying to be combative.
Speaking of free speech, I received this from the Family Research Council today:
It's true that HR1592 expands the range of special treatment to include more people. But the existing federal law (which 1592 amends) already treats victims of racial and religious crimes better than the 32 people who were killed in Virginia.
So why won't the Family Research Council call for repeal of the existing law. Didn't Exodus?
Would anyone like to help me write polite letters to the Family Research Council?
We don't know what he looks like, but people have no problem portraying him as a white man.
We don't know what he looks like, but people have no problem portraying him as a white man.
Don't get me wrong, I know Jesus probably wasn't white... He incarnated in the Middle East for crying out loud, of course He wasn't "white."
At the same time, and it isn't particular to you, I have never understood why people get offended over portrayals of Jesus as different races. I mean... He created the different races... we all bear His image so wouldn't we all see Him in a familiar way until we actually see Him face to face?
Granted, I see Jesus as an Israeli Jewish man but when I worship Him, He is something altogether transcendent of race. It's hard to explain.
Anyway, I am not trying to minimize your offense in any way. I have just run into this type of anger several times in my life and I truly don't understand the offense. The first time I experienced it was as a non-believer and someone (another non-believer) was upset about a painting of a black Jesus with a fro. I thought they were silly back then and today it truly doesn't bother me. I will be honest in that I think it doesn't bother God either. He doesn't place any emphasis on Jesus' characteristics.
anyway, my response is longer than I wanted and I want to make sure you know I am not trying to be combative.
Speaking of free speech, I received this from the Family Research Council today:
It's true that HR1592 expands the range of special treatment to include more people. But the existing federal law (which 1592 amends) already treats victims of racial and religious crimes better than the 32 people who were killed in Virginia.
So why won't the Family Research Council call for repeal of the existing law. Didn't Exodus?
Would anyone like to help me write polite letters to the Family Research Council?
I'm not particularly sure I agree with the interpretation of these particular billboards. Then again, I don't particularly agree with the message that Exodus billboards put out either. I add to what Mike Ensley said as I think they probably both prey on the rampant Biblical illiteracy in and out of the church.
Wasn't that the universal Jesus for Anglo-Americans for many years. Certainly if you look in a lot of pictorial Bibles, you'll find that Jesus gazing back at you.
Mike, are you sure CS Lewis described Jesus as a cat? Unless you are alluding to Aslan, then I'm certain I don't get it. A nun sent Lewis a copy of the Shroud of Turin and this is his response...
"Thank you so much for the head of Our Lord from the shroud. It has grown upon me wonderfully. I don't commit myself to the genuineness. One can never be quite certain. But the great value is to make one realise that He was a man, and once even a dead man. There is so much difference between a doctrine and a realisation." - Volumn II, Collected Letters.
j.
However, I agree that whoever's defacing them is an idiot and they're committing a crime that should be punished.
As for how we depict Jesus--if it's wrong to be inaccurate, then we really shouldn't be making any paintings or movies about him. CS Lewis--who himself depicted Jesus as a big cat--said that any image we have of God is only that--an image. It's worth is really in how it encourages you to draw closer to him.
The text of HR1592 states that the bill responds to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The 1994 law defines a hate crime and requires that guidelines be established to enhance sentencing of crimes that meet the 1994 law's definition of hate crime.
The 1994 law says, "In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
HR1592 simply answers the requirement of the 1994 law, by specifying specific sentences for violent crimes.
However, the text of HR1592 restrains the scope of the 1994 definition of "hate crime" so that it describes violent crimes otherwise punishable as a felony.
However, I agree that whoever's defacing them is an idiot and they're committing a crime that should be punished.
As for how we depict Jesus--if it's wrong to be inaccurate, then we really shouldn't be making any paintings or movies about him. CS Lewis--who himself depicted Jesus as a big cat--said that any image we have of God is only that--an image. It's worth is really in how it encourages you to draw closer to him.
There isn't any thought crime legislation on the books (federal level.)
The civil rights act ensures that the 14th ammendment is applied fairly to African Americans, Women, Muslims ... etc. HR 1592 wouldn't ammend it, it would redefine the legal definition of protected class status for groups that do not qualify for it (sexual orientation and gender identity aka transgender issues).
it is definitely about thoughts and giving special treatment.
I am against all crime and existing laws, the Civil Rights act and the 14th ammendment already cover the issue well.
The text of HR1592 states that the bill responds to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The 1994 law defines a hate crime and requires that guidelines be established to enhance sentencing of crimes that meet the 1994 law's definition of hate crime.
The 1994 law says, "In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
HR1592 simply answers the requirement of the 1994 law, by specifying specific sentences for violent crimes.
However, the text of HR1592 restrains the scope of the 1994 definition of "hate crime" so that it describes violent crimes otherwise punishable as a felony.
Also, it makes a violent crime against a gay identified man more punishable than it would be against an average person maliciously attacked. All violent crime is violent and some should not receive more justice than others.
Plus, every single instance where thought crime legislation has passed brought with it the suppression of religious liberty to disagree with politically correct pro-gay ideology.
It may not be overt in the language but it is sure to come. Example, the language also doesn't define sexual orientation either. According to the DSM there are over 20 sexual orientations, this legislation is begging for a lawsuit by NAMBLA. Who gets to decide what sexual orientation means?
How do you apply fair justice to a "perception?"
It's unfair and unconstitutional.
Please get back to that.
The above link also answers many other questions pertinent to Thought Crime legislation. Now, back to those billboards :)
I'm not particularly sure I agree with the interpretation of these particular billboards. Then again, I don't particularly agree with the message that Exodus billboards put out either. I add to what Mike Ensley said as I think they probably both prey on the rampant Biblical illiteracy in and out of the church.
Wasn't that the universal Jesus for Anglo-Americans for many years. Certainly if you look in a lot of pictorial Bibles, you'll find that Jesus gazing back at you.
Mike, are you sure CS Lewis described Jesus as a cat? Unless you are alluding to Aslan, then I'm certain I don't get it. A nun sent Lewis a copy of the Shroud of Turin and this is his response...
"Thank you so much for the head of Our Lord from the shroud. It has grown upon me wonderfully. I don't commit myself to the genuineness. One can never be quite certain. But the great value is to make one realise that He was a man, and once even a dead man. There is so much difference between a doctrine and a realisation." - Volumn II, Collected Letters.
j.