(Analyst's note: Absolutely must read. Please note that this ... That would be defined as not criticizing Islam...)
I (and many others) have warned the Christian community for years that ‘Hate Crimes’ legislation was coming down the pike to silence and punish those who attempt to bring to repentance people who are caught up in the homosexual lifestyle. Well folks, last month – on October 28th to be precise – President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which creates additional penalties for violent crimes motivated by the victim’s “actual or perceived” gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
In an incredibly underhanded, deceitful and purposeful move by the Democrat leadership, the new Hate Crimes law was attached to the $680-billion Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. The political purpose of this despicable move was to force any Congressman or Senator (Republican or Democrat) to vote for the bill out of fear of being labeled as unpatriotic and/or not being supportive of our armed forces.
The following is a list of Missouri and Illinois U.S. Senators and Congressmen listed by their party affiliation (R=Republican, D=Democrat) followed by the State Congressional District (the number), which they represent, and how they voted on the Defense Authorization Bill.
Keep in mind, a “Yes” vote was to pass the Defense Bill with the Hate Crimes Act attached. A “No” vote was not to pass/approve the Defense Bill with the Hate Crimes Act attached.
Missouri Senators
Sen. Christopher Bond (R) - Yes
Sen. Clair McCaskill (D) - Yes
Illinois Senators
Sen. Roland Burris (D) – Yes
Sen. Richard Durbin (D) – Yes
Missouri Congressmen
Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-1) - Yes
Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) – No
Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-3) – Yes
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-4) - Yes
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-5) - Yes
Rep. Sam Graves (R-6) – No
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-7) – No
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-8) – No
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9) – Yes
Illinois Congressmen
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-1) - Yes
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-2) – No
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-3) - Yes
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-4) – Yes
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-5) – Yes
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-6) – No
Rep. Danny Davis (D-7) – Yes
Rep. Melissa Bean (D-8) – Yes
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-9) – Yes
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10) – Yes
Rep. Deborah Halvorson (D-11) – Yes
Rep. Jerry Costello (D-12) - Yes
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-13 - Yes
Rep. Bill Foster (D-14) – Yes
Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-15) - No
Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-16) – No
Rep. Phil Hare (D-17) - Yes
Rep. Aaron Schock (R-18) – No
Rep. John Shimkus (R-19) - No
The End of the 1st Amendment?
Aside from being totally unconstitutional because of the fact that it’s a direct violation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, this bill can be utilized to legitimize the creation of more laws that will completely obliterate our freedom of speech under the 1st 
Amendment to the Constitution. It is one of the most dangerous laws in the history of the United States.
According to an article recently posted on Alex Jones’ InfoWars website, “Any ‘hate crimes’ bill is just a step towards the end of the 1st Amendment and stepping into the direction of a totalitarian government which hands out fines and puts people in prison for what they ‘say’ [and think]. What this hate crimes bill will do is open the door for other tyrannical regulations that will criminalize any type of speech.
“This bill could lead to an age of ‘Pre-Crime’ and ‘Preventative Detentions,’ if say the FBI suspects you of potentially committing a hate crime you can be prosecuted and detained even if no crime was even committed. It can also lead to cyber-bullying laws which could mean an expensive fine or prison-time for internet bullying. This bill can also lead to ‘political hate laws’ where any dissent against the government or its policies could make you a political prisoner.
“The White House already has an ‘enemies list’ where any dissent against its policies can land many into a permanent White House database. The U.S. Government and Homeland Security have established their hatred for dissidents in this country and have established that anti-New World Order groups, alternative media outlets (like this one) are potential violent terrorist tools. Anything about the U.S. Constitution, any partisan activists or any civil disobedience of any kind is now considered potential violent extremism by Homeland Security.
“An unclassified Homeland Security memo even says people who are concerned about loss of U.S. sovereignty, illegal immigration and gun-control who are genuinely upset about encroachments upon our freedoms may be considered a potential insurgent against the U.S. government! Even liberal environmental activism and anti-war activism is considered potential violent extremism.
“When you think of the phrase ‘hate crimes’ remember that hate speech is a form of free speech and protected by the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The whole point of free speech is to protect unpopular speech like hate speech. When Obama signed the hate crimes bill into law the government officially turned free speech into a criminal act, and soon it will become a terrorist/extremist act if Homeland Security gets its way.”
Silencing the Truth
It poses a real threat for pastors, ministries, Christian news media and Christian broadcasters who proclaim the Truth of the matter, which is that homosexuality is a sin. The fact that God has proclaimed that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes. A sin however which can be overcome and repented of (turned away from) with the power of the Holy Spirit.
For those mentioned above (pastors, ministries, Christian news media and Christian broadcasters) who believe Section 4710 within the Hate Crimes amendment will protect them from lawsuits, persecution and prosecution, they better think again. Section 4710 reads as follows:
“SEC. 4710. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
For purposes of construing this division and the amendments made by this division the following shall apply:
“(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow a court, in any criminal trial for an offense described under this 
division or an amendment made by this division, in the absence of a stipulation by the parties, to admit evidence of speech, beliefs, association, group membership, or expressive conduct unless that evidence is relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this division is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.
“(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This division applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim.
“(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
“(5) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
“(6) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration.”
Don’t Be Fooled
Section 4710 sounds great, doesn’t it. However, in an excellent article by Charlie Butss of OneNewsNow, who interviewed Craig Parshall, the Chief Counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), Parshall makes several important observations.
Butss states, “Appended to the hate crimes amendment was a statement ensuring that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the bases if his or her speech, beliefs, or association.
“Craig Parshall, chief counsel for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), discounts that statement, pointing out that such laws in other countries have been used to silence people of faith. He believes the law approved by Congress is potentially dangerous as it relates to comments made about homosexuality or another religion.
“‘Under the criminal law of incitement, if something is said in a broadcast that another person uses as a motivation to go out and commit an act of what they call ‘bodily injury’ in the statute, then a broadcaster could be held criminally liable,’ he explains.
“‘Or an outspoken broadcaster could be held to be a co-conspirator,’ adds Parshall. He says the supposed bodily injury could be something as insignificant as someone being jostled during a rally or shoved in a protest march.
“Parshall acknowledges the amendment that was passed to provide some degree of protection for Christians, but points out that interpretations of 
such statements are ultimately left up to the court.
“‘And that’s always a problem,’ he laments. ‘We have a court system that has been notorious for getting it wrong when it pits the power of government on one hand and the free exercise of religious rights of individuals on the other.’
“According to the NRB attorney, there could also be repercussions in agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Parshall says the FCC, for example, could develop rules on what broadcasters can and cannot say about homosexuality, possibly jeopardizing their licenses.
“‘Public school curriculum could be built entirely on the idea of what is illegal hate in our culture,’ says the attorney. ‘And our children could be indoctrinated [to believe that] if you criticize another religion or mention Jesus as being the only way, that’s hateful-- [or] if you say that homosexuality is a sin, that’s hateful.’
“And then there is the IRS, which Parshall says could apply the hate crimes law as a national policy on homosexuality and other world religions. ‘And [they] could start taking a look at Christian non-profit ministries and [telling them if they] want to be tax exempt, [they] can’t speak hatefully about other groups,’ he suggests. ‘That would be defined as not criticizing Islam or not being critical of the homosexual lifestyle. Those are just a few of the ripple-out effects.’
“Parshall contends that an examination of the motive behind the hate crimes law reveals it is not about hate -- and will have no effect on stopping crime, because that is already outlawed in all 50 states. In his opinion, it is designed to shut up the opposition -- Christians specifically -- and close down any debate against the homosexual lifestyle.
Conclusion
Let us pray that through whatever lawsuits are filed as Parshall expects, this despicable Hate Crimes law will be declared unconstitutional and removed from the law books. That of course will take time.
In the mean time, those who proclaim the name of Jesus as their Lord and Savior – particularly pastors, ministry leaders and those in Christian media – have a choice to make. Those choices are, “Do I preach and minister the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes reaching out to homosexuals with the message that they are living in sin, that God loves them but hates their sin, and that they must repent and turn away from that sin to avoid God’s wrath?” or, “Should I avoid talking about homosexuality because I could be sued or put into jail for hate speech?”
I cannot speak for anyone but myself but this much I will say: “And if it seems evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)
