The Standard, Who Says?

Without God, things will get confusing.

It's Gods Law or chaos.....below is a column, which pokes holes in the hate-crime thing, it is a good place to work out some real world questions. Our God has said, "come let us reason together." He wants us to use our minds, to think with Him, even like Him. Ours is a reasonable faith. This nation and culture is desperate for people who can think God's thoughts after Him. But first some comments on, "When our God has been removed from the equation..."

By what authority are definitions such as hate-crimes made? Says who? Why should we care what they think and say? By what standard? Who's standard? Where did it come from and why is it binding on anyone? Who died and made them king? Or god.

Did they come down from some mountain with stone tablets... from whom? Once you remove God from His throne anything goes. But without God everyone else can just yawn and say so what? That's why Government Schools and culture work hard to inculcate into us the desire to fit in. Then you can feel relevant. Which they will remind you is important. Part of this is fear of man as the Word says....We don't want to be seen as what? Not caring? But if there is no God so what. Except for us wanting to be seen to fit in. The belief also must be instilled in us from an early age that our government is intrinsically good. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Without God you had better make your government buildings look like huge greek replicas of buildings that inscribe sub-consciously that they represent and reek of real authority. Which should be obeyed. You need the illusion of real authority. For the most part most believers would think that our U.S. laws are more legitimate than God's Laws. It's not an accident that the buildings in Washington D.C. look the way they do. At the founding of our nation it wasn't this way. Because the authority rested on God and His Word, not the institution of state itself. They for the most part enforced God's Law, most of our Law came from the English Common Law which was grounded in God's word.

But without this foundation those who want us to follow and embrace this alternative value system that is based on the whims of man must continually try to shame or embarrass those who "refuse to bow down when the horns are blown". In the Soviet Union those who wouldn't repeat back the State said were labeled as insane. The mental institutions were filled with Christians. Eventually they would just be sent to the gulags.

But if they can get us to accede and nod the head when there is no more threat than public disapproval...or to intimidate you that your words might hurt somones feelings.....or gasp! that by what you say, your causing people to not feel included.... and we all know how evil that is! Then without even having to threaten us with imprisonment they will have won.

All of this is also part of taking every thought captive to Christ.

September 12, 2007 "Hate" Is Worse Than The Crime Itself? Steven M. Warshawsky

...The focus of the AP story was not on the crime itself, however, but on allegations (made by the victim's mother) that the attackers used the "n-word" every time they assaulted the victim. Thus, the crime was not merely a heinous, brutal victimization of a young woman -- it was a "hate crime." According to the story, the FBI "is looking into possible civil rights violations." As if being beaten, stabbed, and raped is not a "civil rights violation."
The article clearly implies that the use of racial slurs was the most serious transgression committed by the perpetrators. As the lede states:

"A woman who authorities said was sexually abused, beaten and stabbed while held captive for at least a week was repeatedly called a racial slur during the attacks, the victim's mother said."
It is the allegation that racial slurs were uttered by the white perpetrators, not the crime itself, that is supposed to trigger an outraged response from readers.

The notion of a "hate crime" -- which, in essence, seeks to punish impure thoughts, rather than unjust deeds -- has been criticized on the grounds that such laws are unnecessary because the criminal conduct itself is punishable, that they treat crime victims unequally depending on whether the victims enjoy "protected" or "non-protected" status, and that they infringe on individual freedom and impose a form of thought-control on citizens.
I think these criticisms are valid, but miss a more important point: Hate crime laws, by elevating the perceived seriousness of crimes when allegations of bias or bigotry are involved, have the perverse result of diminishing the perceived seriousness of crimes when no such allegations are involved.

In this case, the AP story about this terrible crime clearly implies that had no racial slurs been uttered, the crime itself would not have been as wrong. Instead, it probably would have been described as simply a "tragic" and "senseless" act. This makes no sense, logically or morally....
Read more>>

This from the ones who insist you cannot legislate morality......