'Gays' Mock Jesus with Last Supper Take-Off

Of course, the New Testament equating homosexuality to murder is no "provocation" against gays and lesbians.

Lies, all lies.

1. The hate-crimes expansion covers violent crime with a specific motivation. It has absolutly nothing to do with speech, nor advertising.

2. ENDA covers employment non-discrimination. It has absolutly nothing to do with speech, nor advertising.

3. Both hate-crimes and non-discrimination legislation already cover racial group. Notice that, many decades after the first legal protection for racial groups appeared, Americans are still free to write any racist material they wish (Though may have problems finding a publisher), or just to shout it on the streets if they dont disrupt traffic.

4. Any law which actually did prohibit hate speech would be rapidly struck down by the courts.

5. Both hate-crimes and ENDA do not cover homosexuality specificly: They cover sexual orientation. This means that it would be illegal for someone to fire an employee because they were gay, but it would be equally illegal for someone to fire an employee because they were straight.

6. ENDA has an exception for religious organisations. If it didn't have this exception, the courts would probably strike it down.

When the Muslims got upset over those cartoons what struck me as peculiar was the amount of people who claim to stand for "religious freedom" that cried foul on the Muslim reaction.
Instead of condemning the artist for anti religious work they attacked the publishers that refused to publish it. Publications that refused to print the cartoon were denounced as being censors. The loudest complaints not coming from secularists, who complained but with different motives, but from conservative Christians. The secularist because of censorship in general and the Christians because we shouldn't give into the demands of Muslims.
Either way the aim was to make sure those anti religion cartoons were shown.

So now we have a group that is continuously told by Christians that they are immoral, that they should not have equal rights or protections (they are not after special just equal no matter how some try to say otherwise), that they cannot fight for their country and they shouldn't have the "special hate crimes" protection that Christians enjoy (why isn't there a campaign to remove the religious category or at least a more vocal one? Religion is after all a lifestyle choice), making a parody of a Christian themed painting and we get all precious.

Don't get me wrong, I think the picture is in bad taste and offensive to a lot of people, but let's be honest here. Did anyone expect that homosexuals would not mock or fight back against the people trying to oppress their freedoms?
Surely if ever hate crimes include hate speech pictures like this would be included. Religion is already a protected category, so how would hate against Christians get a pass? It would work both ways. The only question is what would count as hate speech. Some people have more delicate ears than others.

This is not supposed to be a combative post, although it may come across as being so.

onee thing I wonder if the FRC could get involved in it zis something that is not a plecent subject RAPE or other words there wasa covver up of rapes at the Air force accodemy Col Springs CO. this is bad there was somethingthast there is a pro\gram for victems of rapo whoes headss were messted up by it and what does it have to do with the hate v crimes bill?? Judy Shepard claims that Matthew was gaanged raped on a school trip to MOrocao it messed his head up and he was she said nevver the same well there is litle infomration ON same sex rapes but I am srue they happen more then we think so for it must be the most unreported crime and us tax [ayers have to pay if its a service conected disabillity congress should demand answers???

"Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy."
That is one of FRC's "core principles," which explains why you're so upset when people, such as homosexuals, exercise their constitutional right to free speech. Governement has no duty to promote marriage any more than it has a duty to grant special protections to homosexuals. If you really want to ensure that stupid laws like the "hate crimes" legislation don't pass, you should be defending the homosexuals' right to engage in such speech, even if it's personally offensive to you. But alas, you have your own agenda, just like the gay activists... why am I wasting my time posting this?

Donohue. With an "o," not an "a."

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/09/wherein-we-laun.html

It's typical. They want to destroy everything that reminds them of their sin. And the liberal Democrats are helping them out.

Thanks for sharing about this. I pray that we will be a church that loves the gay community even in the midst of this terrible blasphemy. May they see the truth and grace of Jesus and the love of christians.

Ken

David: Ow, that hurts my brain. Do you see the key just above return with an arrow pointing left? Learn to use it.

Steve: The FRC has always lived in a fantasy where the role of government is concerned.

They still claim that the constitution gives government a duty to promote Christianity over all other religions, dispite the lack of a single mention of Christ or God anywhere in it.

They dont support the family so much as worship it as the perfect and infallable solution to all problems. I remember an article once published by them saying that the way to end poverty is to encourage poor people to marry each other.

They are the same class of people who once argued that permitting women to attend higher education would be the downfall of society, because it would dry up the supply of wives.

The New Testament says that no matter what our sin is we find grace and forgivness in Christ.
If a group of Christians did something similiar it would be called a hate crime.

http://www.myspace.com/freedomispossible

Sorry Mary, you're woefully uneducated as to what constitutes a hate crime.

If a group of Christians took a painting depicting homosexuals in a negative light and then beat a homosexual to death with it because of his or her sexual orientation, THAT would be a hate crime.

However, if a Christian man named Fred Phelps wants to make posters saying "Matt in Hell" and display them in front of a grieving family, it is his free speech right.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Well, "Mary," a group of Christians have done something much worse than the advertisements in question (The second sentence of your post clearly implies that no group of Christians have done anything even similiar, much less worse). The Westboro Baptist Church, led by is-this-guy-for-real Fred Phelps, have gone around the country protesting at the funerals of fallen American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because they believe that America is not worth dying for because it is too "pro-gay."

No, hate-crime is a very specific legal term: It only applies to acts of violence in which the motivation is hate driven by a protected characteristic of the victim.

Not a hate crime: Insulting Christians.
Not a hate crime: Attacking a christian to mug him.
Hate crime: Attacking a christian *because* he is a christian, or because he holds a particular religious view.

The determination of motive is left to the courts.

I cant remember all the characteristics protected. It includes religion, race, national origin and gender, at least. If Bush's veto of the hate-crimes law is somehow overridden (Slim chance, but just about possible), then it will also include sexual orientation.

IT DOESNT STOP WITH THE LAST SUPPER. THIS IS GAY HATE SPEECH.....

http://flickr.com/photos/cstrasse/1466988334/

Alas, homosexuals will never learn, I fear.

Something must be done!

Give it up...You religous conservatives are some of the most hateful people in the world and always have been. First women were not equal, then blacks or any other ethnic group were not people now its gays who are sub-human. Stop hating people...and following a book that was written hundreds of years after any of the stories took place...think maybe there will be some errors, exaggerations, mis-quotes...probably not hey.

No doubt when Leonardo presented his original work many Christians conservatives claimed it was hateful and blaphemous because all the men in the picture wore dresses.

But please, let me fully welcome FRC to the Cult of Victimization.

Seems to me like the hate crimes legislation would protect Christians like me from being subject to a poster of this nature. To be honest, I would be careful not to try to lump all gays into this category of trying to mock the Last Supper portrait as Tony tries to do with the headline. It is probably the work of a very small number of twisted people who have a lousy taste in humor.

But, what has caused these two or three people who made the poster to be so revengeful and upset? Think about that... And why not show us the actual poster? Until you do, I am a little suspect at the motives.

As to the poster of course it is offensive. I expect non-Christians to act like non-Christians. I do have a problem when Christians act like non-Christians. By this I am talking about all the claims that these bills will limit speech or criminalize speech. Has anyone actually read these bills? There is nothing about speech in these bills except this from HR1152:

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Even if it did not have this clause, no bill is going to prevent us from having free speech in this country. At least 24 states have hate crime laws on the books now that include orientation. I have not seen it hurt anyone's free speech except when people are being disruptive.

DW

Stevie: Nope. The poster has nothing to do with hate-crimes at all, and so - pass or fail - the those who made the poster remain free to mock christianity. Conversly, though, you remain equally free to mock them. So long as neither you nor they do anything violent, no crime takes place.

Thats free speech: The first ammendment ensures that everyone has a right to say what they want, even if what they want to say is offensive, blastphemous, insulting or just stupid.

The FRC is by far the worst organisation I have see for misrepresenting the effects of the hate-crimes legislation. In numerous occasions I have seen on this blog or read in their email news claims that it would threaten speech. The phrase 'silence Christians' seems to appear frequently. It is also common to see completly different non-american laws given as examples of what the hate-crimes act would do, even though there is no resemblence beyond the fact that they are related to homosexuality.

The FRC has also refused to admit that the hate-crimes proposal does absolutly nothing for any group that has not already been done in law for racial or religious groups - a fact that seriously weakens their 'equal protection' argument.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16)
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.