Brookfield Basics

I agree completely.  Our family has Jewish ancestry, and we've read important books like "Night" by Elie Wiesel (as seen on Oprah). And yet, those who would treat people as groups rather individuals... whether in perpetrating a crime... or touting our victimhood status like an endangered species... we are lessening our humanity and our ability to connect in meaningful, supportive ways.  I believe there should be equality in the eyes of the law. I believe this law takes us back a step.  

Well written Tom, and I agree too.  The liberals and homosexual activists have gained control over the libraries and the NEA.  With that control they have been indoctrinating our children into accepting homosexuality as "normal" inspite of the fact that we may be taking them to church where they are taught that God thinks it's an "abomination" and a clear sign of man's complete decadence.  The labeling of crimes against minorities as "hate" crimes is just what you have stated...mind control to make one doubt their own convictions.  If an divorced person kills their ex because they "hate" them, it's not labelled a "hate crime" even though that is the exact motivation for it.  This acceptance of such nonsense by our politicians indicates just how wimpy we have become!

My bible says many things, including "do not judge".  For me personally it would be impossible to disregard any individual because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".  I would imagine all s-e-x outside of marriage, whether adulterous, pre-marital, or any other may be equally wrong in God's eyes.  Yet in our society we glorify it in many respects.  Perhaps in an attempt to whitewash our sins we begin to say, at least I'm not doing what so-and-so is doing! Lets stop talking about our sex lives.  Unless we are in the life stage of specifically choosing a mate and planning our future family, we ought not to care whether one is a virgin, celebate, hetero, homo, vasectomized, hysterectomized, fertile, sterile, or whatever. If we are living our own lives as we believe, there is so much more to discover and discuss than sins of the flesh.  Let's uplift ourselves and eachother to better quality of discussion.  We can all find something of value to have in common with each and every person we meet.  When we can follow the golden rule in how we treat eachother, we may have more positive influence.  We'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar, so let's act like we believe there is a loving albiet wrathful God... wrath is not ours.  

Regarding "minorities", I believe monogomous married couples (one marriage, not divorced) are a minority?

Ah, a liberal Christian that uses the "do not judge" argument without knowing the context.  Perhaps you need to read the story in I Cor. 5 of the young man in the church who was having a sexual relationship with his stepmother and the steps "the church" (that's believers) is to take in regards to his immorality.  The first step obviously is to make the "judgement" that what he is doing is sinning openly and unrepentently.  Beyond that your post is liberal gibberish!

Ok, I think I get it.

Context, a continuation of the Sermon On the Mount 7:1-5. Judge not, that you may not be judged.  For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?  Thou hypocrite, out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

5:1-2. It is absolutely heard that there is fornication among you and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens: one should have his father’s wife. And you are puffed up and have not rather mourned: that he might be taken away from among you that hath done this thing.

NEA: Puff thineself up in thy sin and mourn not, calling it no longer sin but choice, and I shall call ye a victim like as unto the world has not seen since the holocaust, but a victim in name only, and thou shalt suffer not in this life but shall be a protected species in thy job and in thy quarrels and thou shalt be promoted, and awarded cash compensation, and hired unto teaching the young of those who repent of their sins.   And those who repent of their sins shall revile that their young are led to declare a choice to follow in your way for their financial gain.  If anyone speaks to you of sin, or of leading their children astray, they shall be called hatemongers and shall be punished in this life.

First let me reiterate my opinion that you are a liberal Christian (that is not strictly Bible-believing) by your original remark.  That said, if you bother to look up Matt. 7 in a Greek-English interlinear Bible and a Greek dictionary, you will see that there are many possible meanings in Greek for the word translated as "judge" in this passage.  Several meanings are the equivalent of what happens in a court after the testimony is heard and the judge passes sentence.  I think a careful examination of the various uses of the root word in

this passage makes it clear that this is how the word is being used.

That is, we are not to pass sentence, condemn, avenge, etc.  since God is the judge.  We are however to determine, decide, conclude, etc. whether someone is sinning.  If we didn't how could we ever encourage someone to "repent and be baptized"?  

I wonder why you reacted so strongly to the topic of homosexuality if  you know the Bible as you want me to believe.  There is not a single instance of homosexuality being portrayed as anything other than the absolute moral decadence of mankind.  It should not be being taught as acceptable to our children!  It is clear that when it is tolerated universally in the church there is no further hope for mankind and the return of Christ is imminent.  In that regard I suppose we could hope that day is hastened by the liberalism and rejection of God that is taking place in our society.  

This is my last exchange with you on this because I know that liberals believe what man has devised rather than what God has said and my words are meaningless to you.  Hopefully they have had some significance to someone else without being a turn-off.

From Wikipedia (with citations:) Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues. Classical liberals emphasize free private enterprise, individual property rights, laissez-faire economic policy, and freedom of contract, and opposes the welfare state. Classical liberals support equality before the law, but hold that economic inequality, arising from competition in the free market, does not justify wealth redistribution by governments. [4] Social liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence to protect individual rights (in a broad sense), often in the form of anti-discrimination laws. Social liberals support universal education, and many also support the provision of welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick, all supported by progressive taxation.

I call myself a liberal and am proud of it.

Dear Intwedem,

You got way ahead of me here.  I did not understand until reading your first post here that "hate crimes" was not intended to indicate racial or national origin type of hate crimes.  I suppose it was my background and the possibly the Frank Jude story on the news for the past two years which afforded me my previous "hate crime" understanding. Thank you for enlightening me.  

Once enlightened, I then tried to convey that I've worked with homosexual individuals and find it's only when someone points them out as homosexual that they have power. If one acknowledges something in these coworkers other than their orientation, these individuals gain no power. It is that simple.

If the person themselves brings it up because no one else does, I am wise to object to the topic of s-e-x being brought up in the workplace, not to the person's individual orientation.  Again, this approach does not give them power.  It is in this spirit that I suggest one not judge. (BTW, divorced, adulterous, etc, all seem to have "clubs" at work, so one is wise to go about their business and not point out where we differ, but find something to agree about.)

I was surprised about your reference to 1Cor5 because that was a different sexual abomination altogether.

Do I dare make reference to not casting the first stone?  Or weeds growing among the wheat until harvest? Jesus spent time with sinners and they were moved by His greater love to leave their former lives behind. ?

I thought my King-James rendition of the NEA viewpoint, given with my new understanding of the topic, was humorous.  I guess it was not.  I will be quick to apologize.

At no point did I feel offended, or defensive.  I think if we object appropriately and consistently to sexual speech or body language, we will have impact.  But I do not think we will be effective if we allow/accept/encourage hetero vulgarity while discouraging homo displays.  On a human level, this would give them ammo; On a higher level, I believe God wants people to be pure. I also believe this approach would stem the liberalism and changes taking place in our society. I still agree with the original blog, and I still disagree with the NEA. I also agree we are on a slippery slope.

Perhaps the NEA is on board because of a  concern about the school violence that has been occurring. In most instances it is hate related. Perhaps without the hate crime laws you would have nothing or very little to prosecute if the student was stopped in the planning or fantasizing part of the plan. Having a book to throw at these individuals is a nice tool instead of having to wait for the damage to be done. I would have to admit this is a very slippery slope because some people could be imprisoned for their thoughts and not their actions. Whenever these crimes are carried out there is always a large cry from conservatives and liberals to do something. I think that's why we end up with these hate crime laws. So what do you do ?

The school crime I am aware of is Columbine, in which a few unfortunate students went on a shooting spree and asked whether someone was Christian before killing her. The man at the Amish school last year was also attacking people of faith.  Are there other instances occuring that I'm not aware of?  Are people attacking others due to other affiliations?  Due to orientation?  If attackers are saying something, such as at Columbine, then their behavior (speech) is at issue, not their thoughts.

What do we do?  We follow the advice of the good book, loving our neighbor as ourself, and loving God above all things.  It's really that simple.

Yes, other instances have occurred that you are not aware of.

I did want to make it clear that I know that the "11th commandment" is to "love one another, etc." and I am not advocating to hate the sinner.  I am trying to make it clear that we are to recognize and expose sin that God has clearly revealed to us in the Bible.  The Bible was not for "then" and our supposed wisdom is for "now".  I stand completely on the word of God for my spiritual guide and I stand against all of man's tolerant views of sin.  I agree that all sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, but homosexuality is the only one that is called an abomination and apparently is abhorent to God as a sign of complete and abject debauchery.  These are not my "opinions" but rather the clear and concise findings contained in the Bible.  That all said, I personally find it very hard to love the "in your face" homosexuals that perform indecent acts of perversion in public places, etc.  I also condemn those who are trying to lead our children into this painful lifestyle.