Reply to Dr Grant Hodges

Let me first say that I am not the prophecy expert on this subject, however, I have spent many hours researching the accepted teaching of the Rapture as taught by many evangelicals.  I was taught the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the rebuilding of the temple, the importance of the Red Heifer in the sacrifices, and all the other teaching on the Second Coming.

What I have found, and it satisfies what I believe is something different than I was taught to believe.  If I am wrong, I don’t believe the LORD will send me to hell for having it wrong.  If I am right, then there are going to be many Christians whose faith will be shaken.

So here goes the short version.

In the 16th century, a new view of Bible prophecy was devised by a Jesuit priest to stop the Reformers from teaching that the Catholic Church was probably the whore of Babylon of Revelation 17:3-6 and the pope the antichrist. (A view still taught by many evangelicals) In 1591AD, the Jesuit Ribera invented a futurist view. He claimed that Revelation would not be fulfilled until the end of the Christian Era.

Ribera taught:
 a rebuilt Babylon, the actual city
a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and an end-time Antichrist.

Ribera is the father of the prophetic views taught by many major denominations today. But Ribera is only part of the story. In 1731, a Spanish family was living in Chili named the de Lacunzas, who had a boy named Manuel. After fifteen years at home, young  Manuel decided to become a Catholic priest, so he boarded a ship to Spain. Thirty-six years later (when the Jesuits were expelled from that country because of their brutality) the now Father Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz had to move to Imola, Italy, where he remained for the rest of his life. In Imola, de Lacunza claimed to be a converted Jew named Rabbi Juan Jushafat Ben-Ezra. Under that alias, he wrote a 900-page book titled *The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty. In it, Lacunza theorized that the Church would be taken to be with the Lord some 45 days before Jesus final return to Earth.

* www.birthpangs.org/articles/prophetic/Lacunza_vol1.pdf

During that 45 days (while the Church was in heaven), God was supposedly going to pour out His wrath upon the wicked remaining on Earth. It was from this Chilean Jesuit, a.k.a. a Jewish Rabbi theorized the earliest mini-trib, pre-trib-rapture view on record.  De Lacunza died in Imola in 1801, and that should have been the end of it. But after his death, Lacunzas views were taught in Spain. In 1812 his book was published in Spanish. Fourteen years later, it was translated into English by a radical cultist named Edward Irving. Lacunzas views could have died there, too, for most in England saw Irving as a heretic. About the same time, an  Irvingite evangelist named Robert Norton met a little Scottish girl named Margaret Macdonald who supposedly had a vision of the church being secretly raptured. Norton was so charmed by the idea that he preached her vision all over England

 (Though not so well known, an 18th century American pastor, Morgan Edwards, may have published a pre-trib rapture paper slightly earlier than de Lacunza.)

Now enters Darby.

John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, became interested in this new doctrine, so he attended several Irvingite meetings. In his letters, Darby states that he had come to an understanding of this new truth and made no secret of the fact that he had been influenced by de Lacunzas writings. Darby, however, wasn't satisfied with the rather simplistic Lacunza-Irving 45-day tribulation idea, so he devised a more elaborate scheme. Darby thought the last week of Daniels 70 weeks (Dan 9:24-27) was still unfulfilled so he theorized that the 70th week might actually be a future seven-year-tribulation that would take place at the end of the Christian Era. To make his idea fit world history, he also invented a 2000 year gap between Daniels 69th and 70th weeks. It was all guesswork theology, but there you have it, the true origin of the seven-year-tribulation and pre-trib rapture doctrines! Upon that dubious foundation, Darby and his associates then added a few of Jesuit Ribera's wrinkles:
1.  That a Jewish temple would be rebuilt and animal sacrifices reestablished.
2.  That Antichrist would appear and rule the world for seven years.
3.  That after 3‰ years of good rule, this supposed Antichrist would turn against the Jews, stop the sacrifices, and start the battle of Armageddon.

All based upon Darbys imaginary 2000 year gap theory and the seven-year-tribulation he conjured up from Daniels 70th week. If Darby hadn't visited the United States, his seven-year idea could have died right then, too. After all, there weren't many Darbyites around. But while visiting the United States, Darby met C. I. Scofield. C. I. was so taken by the Ribera-Lacunza-Macdonald-Darby ideas that he decided to include them in the annotated Bible he was working on. Sound Bible scholars of the day like A. J. Gordon, Charles R. Erdman, and W.G. Moorhead tried to dissuade him. Three members of the Scofield's revision committee even resigned because of his unswerving support for the view.

 Dr. Harry Ironside of Moody Bible Institute, himself an ardent supporter of the Ribera-Lacunza-Macdonald-Darby-Scofield eschatological scheme, admitted in his Mysteries of God, p.50: . . . until brought to the fore through the writings of . . . Mr. J. N. Darby, the doctrine taught by Dr. Scofield [i.e., the Seven-Year Tribulation theory] is scarcely to be found in a single book throughout a period of 1600 years. If any doubt this statement, let them search, as the writer has in measure done, the remarks of the so-called Fathers, both pre- and post-Nicene, the theological treatises of the scholastic divines . . . the literature of the Reformation . . . The Puritans. He will find the mystery conspicuous by its absence.

The futurist view, contrived by the Jesuit priest Ribera in 1591AD, was the foundation for Lacunzas tribulation musings. Ribera theorized a future antichrist, a rebuilt Babylon and a Jewish temple in Jerusalem at the end of this age. The Praeterist view, conceived by the Jesuit priest Alcaqzar in 1614AD, claimed just the opposite - that the book of Revelation was fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Both views were in opposition to the linear historical view that until then had been the generally accepted position of the true church. Those two innovative Jesuit positions succeeded in excluding fifteen centuries of unsavory Roman Church history from the scrutiny the Bible prophecies.

I believe at the Last Trump the dead in Christ will be raised from their graves and caught up to meet the coming LORD and that those who are alive and remain will be transformed at His coming and meet the LORD in the air.  There is only one coming of the LORD.  No stages, no continual resurrection, only one coming at the Last Trump.

As long as this discussion remains intelligent I will answer what I can.

Don't Forget Syria

While our attention has been placed of MAGA hats, and young white boy "confronting" a man of questionable character, and the government shut down it is easy to forget the number of Christians who are still being persecuted by Muslims in Syria.

On several occasions, I have voiced my feelings about the US government involvement in Syria.  I was pleased to hear that President Trump was pulling out of Syria.  The regime change policy of the past administration has not worked to the advantage of the citizens of the countries we have invaded. 

On July 2. 2013, I wrote an open letter to the Christians in Syria here is an excerpt from that letter:

I am ashamed of my country’s leaders and the total disregard they have for the human rights of Christians around the world.  In over 40 nations Christians are being persecuted because of their faith.  Men, women, and children are imprisoned, driven from their homes and murdered.  These people are not criminals but Christians--who for their faith in Jesus Christ are made to suffer unjustly.  What makes this worse is that the American government gives aid and support to many of these nations without protecting the human rights of Christians-- your country is one of those made to suffer.
Why is American fighting Christians in Syria? Because America has turned against God, God no longer blesses America.  What has happened to America is found in Paul’s letter to the Romans, “... .although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
The world has turned Topsy-turvy, I am ashamed that lawmakers in Russia are concerned about Christians in Syria and American lawmakers are supporting the jihadist.  Russian lawmakers have been working with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on a report aimed to bring an end to the violence in Syria.  They say, “We, parliamentarians, are very concerned about the development of the crisis in Syria, which is turning into an ethnic and religious conflict. Crimes against representatives of religious minorities have recently become frequent in Syria, and that poses a threat to Christian minorities not only in Syria but also in the Middle-East in general.” I trust their efforts will come quickly to end the war on Christians in Syria.

For years the American Christian has viewed themselves as the supporter of the Christian faith around the world.  We took pride in the fact we were a Christian nation founded upon the principles based on God’s Word.  All of that changed when the US government got into the regime changing business.  There was a total disregard for Christians living in the countries we invaded. 

When the US government got involved in Syria, there were Christians who thought America would give help from the invading rebels.  These Christians believed the US had the power to stop the conflict –if they wanted to.  Back in 2013 Syrian Christians were desperate to convince the US and its allies to stop supporting the rebel forces that were killing Christians.  Our government was so intent on replacing the Syrian government that they increased their support of the rebels that was killing Christians daily. 

The pray of the Syrian Christian was answered not from the “Great Defender of the Faith” America, but a nation the MSM, our government leaders, and religious leaders have despised—Russian.  Russian air power turned the tide, and Syrian government-aligned troops drove the rebels from the area.

Russian intervention on behalf of the Syrian Christians has pricked the conscience of many American evangelicals.  The prophecy experts were at a loss as to how to explain Russia was becoming a defender of the faith and America the persecutor of the righteous.  Russia was to be the end-time boogie man and America the great Deliverer.  Outside of the American MSM, the news that Russian troops are bringing peace to the region is difficult for American Christians to digest.

It is hard for American Christians to accept Putin as a supporter of Christians, yet it was the support of evangelicals that helped to give him the election to be Russia’s president.  Both Evangelicals and Orthodox support Russia’s efforts to protect Christians in the Middle East.  Many Christians outside of America don’t understand the actions and statements being made by American politicians who claim to be Christian.  The Syrian Christians know if it had not been for the intervention of Russia the Syrian Christians would not survive.

What is so confusing to the Russian Christians is the evil intent of the US government toward both Syria and Russia.  Many Russian Christians view the US as their enemy while many American Christian sees Russian as the enemy.  It is not hard to understand the confusion.  While Russia is trying to stop the spread of Islam to keep it from spilling over into their country the US government is supporting the Muslim terrorist and allowing them in the US.

American Christians who are a strong supporter of Israel cannot view Russian as a “defender of the faith” because that will not fit their worldview on prophecy.  For years the American Christian has been taught that Russia will invade Israel before the return of the LORD.  If Russia is viewed as a supporter of Christians, it shatters years of prophetic teaching of the end-times.

Can you imagine the power Christians would have all over the world if they only united in the cause of Christ and not the politics of those who wish to bring about destruction and world domination?
My prayers and support are for the Christians who are paying the ultimate price for their beliefs.  May the LORD protect you and may you find peace and May God forgive America for her crimes against the followers of Jesus Christ in Syria.

Will The American Pull Out Of Syria Aid In The Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy?

Again, I am not a prophet nor am I making a prophecy.  I am only asking the question considering proposed policies of the United States government. 

Syria has never been a threat to the United States.  It has been a means of getting back at Iran.  The whole Syrian conflict has been a cover to destroy Iran’s political power in the region.

For over thirty years the Islamic Republic of Iran has been an enemy of the US government.  Iran has been the thorn in the side of US policies in the Middle East.  Americans have been led to believe that Iran is the greatest threat to American security.  The facts are Iran has never been an actual threat to the United States.  It has no desire to make the US territory, has never conducted a terrorist operation aimed at the American homeland, and if they were to gain nuclear weapons, they have no delivery system to threaten the US.  The economy of Iran is weak, and they will never become a challenger to the US.

So, why is the US government so involved in the Middle East?  The danger from Syria and Iran has never been towards the US but towards Israel.   For years there has been a consensus in Israel that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. From left to right across the political spectrum, a great many Israelis see a threat to their very survival from a nuclear Iran. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, “Israel will not tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of people who say openly, explicitly and publicly that they want to wipe Israel off the map.” In his first speech to the Knesset after being sworn in as prime minister, Binyamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu said, “We cannot afford to take lightly megalomaniac tyrants who threaten to annihilate us.” Other Israeli leaders fear that Israel’s strategic room for maneuver in the region would be constrained by an Iranian nuclear deterrent. The success of Iranian-backed terrorist groups, Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, in the last few years has only added to Israel’s concern.

The Israeli leadership is concerned that if Iran gains nuclear weapons, they will attack Israel and the international community will do nothing.  Israel, however, is not sitting back waiting for the first strike from Iran.  They have been planning for a military operation to prevent Iran from ever gaining nuclear weapons.  It should be noted that Israel has the nuclear weapons needed to stop Iran in its tracks and will no doubt use that option if they feel it is required. So, there is a considerable reason to believe that under the right (or wrong) set of circumstances, Israel would launch an attack—principally airstrikes, but possibly backed by special forces operations—to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.  This could create either an opportunity for or a threat to American interests about Iran and the broader Middle East. It could constitute a chance, and thus a possible policy option if the United States would like to see Iran’s nuclear program destroyed but prefers not to do it. It could be a threat if the United States believes that an Israeli attack would destabilize the region and would not advance (or would harm) American interests concerning Iran. 

For years I have heard Zionist Christians who have expressed the hope that Israel would strike Iran— that Jerusalem would have the “guts” to do what Washington does not. Other Americans regard the prospect with horror, believing that an Israeli attack would bring about Armageddon.

Since the US government would like to appear to have clean hands encouraging or even assisting Israel in conducting the strike would deflect away from the US international criticism and place it on Israel.  With the increase in anti-Semitism around the world, Israel would be blamed and condemned by the world.

By pulling out of Syria and bringing our troops home from the Middle-East the US government is opening the door for both Israel and Turkey to get involved in Syria and Iran.  Turkey is ready to move on Syria, along with Israel.

Syria is the first step to an air strike on Iran.  Israel would not need to secure regional support for such an operation.  They could move very fast to implement an attack.  There are, however, some problems if this happens.

Israel cannot avoid flying through someone’s airspace.  The most direct route from Israel to Iran’s Natanz facility is roughly 1,750 kilometers across Jordan and Iraq. As the occupying power in Iraq, the United States is responsible for defending Iraqi airspace. The alternatives via Turkish airspace (over 2,200 kilometers) or Saudi airspace (over 2,400 kilometers) would also put the attack force into the skies of US. Allies equipped with American-supplied air defenses and fighter aircraft. In the case of turkey, an Israeli overflight would be further complicated by the fact that Turkey is a NATO ally that the United States has a commitment to defend, and it hosts a large, joint Turkish-American airbase along the most likely route of attack.

 For political and military reasons, Israel’s need to overfly Turkish, Iraqi-Jordanian, or Saudi airspace creates two problems. First, an Israeli strike must achieve surprise so that Israeli planes are not intercepted by the air defenses and fighters of those countries. Second, in part based on reason number one, the Israelis would get basically one shot at Iran. On the first pass, they likely would surprise any of those countries and be able to reach Iran and return before the Turks, Saudis, or Jordanians could activate their air defenses; but a second wave would meet alerted air defenses, creating military and political problems that Israel would likely find insurmountable. An initial Israeli attack across Iraqi territory would severely complicate the US military presence there; a repeat performance would likely compromise it all together. So, after the first round of strikes, Israel would have nothing but its small fleet of ballistic missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles for follow-on attacks, and because the ballistic missiles are such valuable assets, Jerusalem would not likely squander them on anything but the highest value Iranian targets. 

 If for whatever reason Israel carries out missions against Syria and Iran will they then face Turkey who will no doubt have gained control over a large portion of Syria?  Turkey is no friend of Israel and with Syria and Iran weakened will Turkey become the uniting force to bring about the desired Islamic Caliphate that will unite the Muslim countries against Israel?

These are just a few thoughts that should be considered about what is taking place in the Middle-East today.  I do support President Trump in getting out of the Middle-East.  Regardless of what Turkey and Israel do or the outcome of their actions, we are moving closer to the final judgment God will bring on the wicked.  It is important that as Christians we warn others to be prepared for the coming of the LORD as we see the day approaching.

Courage to Speak The Truth

Moral courage involves the willingness to speak out and do that which is right in the face of forces that would lead a person to act in some other way.  For one to have moral courage they must first have the courage to stand for the core values of the Christian doctrine.  Many Christians have an aversion to speaking about their faith, much less standing up for what they believe.  Moral courage is essentially an act that reflects one’s character.

Moral courage comes from moral wisdom.  The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD.  The fear of the LORD is foundational to true understanding.  All other types of learning are worthless unless built upon a knowledge of the LORD Himself. 

Solomon understood the importance of building the right foundation when he wrote Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”  A wise person fears/reverences/obeys the LORD; a fool despises God’s instruction and cannot be told what to do.  The wise person has a foundation on which to build the moral wisdom to have the moral courage to do what is right.

The connection between the fear of God and wisdom means we cannot possess wisdom if we recreate God in our image. Too often people want to “tame” God into a non-threatening nobody. But, if we redefine the LORD as a god that makes us feel comfortable, a permissive “buddy” who exists to bless us and give us what we want, we will not fear Him in the way He deserves to be feared. The Lord God Almighty is far greater than that, and the fear of the Lord begins when we see Him in His majesty and glory.

The amount of moral courage we have is directly related to our certainty.  When we lack certainty in what we believe is shows in our communication skills. It takes moral courage to stand for what is right without compromise. The individual with the greatest amount of certainty is better equipped to deal with hostility, defensiveness and a variety of tactics used by our adversaries to prevent us from acting in a morally courageous manner.  This is what made the Apostle Paul such a force for the Gospel.  He said to Timothy, “God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and love and discipline.  Be not ashamed therefore of the testimony of our Lord,.. : but suffer hardship with the gospel according to the power of God; who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus… For which cause, I suffer also these things: yet I am not ashamed; for I know him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he can guard that which I have committed unto him against that day.

False Christians Will Not Remain Loyal

 “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19)

In the story of Esther, we have Mordecai who remained faithful and stood by her even when her life was in danger.   Paul in writing to Timothy tells of a different story. (2Tim. 4:10)   

There was a young man by the name of Demas who had at one time been one of Paul’s “fellow workers” in the gospel ministry along with Mark, Luke, and others (Philemon 1:24). During Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, Demas was also in Rome (Colossians 4:14).

We are not given the details, but something happened. Demas deserted Paul and abandoned the ministry. Paul wrote: “Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica” (2 Timothy 4:10).

The Greek verb used in the original implies that Demas had not merely left Paul but had left him “in the lurch”; that is, Demas had abandoned Paul in a time of need. The apostle was in prison, facing a death sentence, and that’s when Demas chose to cut ties and run. Undoubtedly, Paul was deeply let down by Demas. It’s never easy to see a friend and associate in whom you’ve placed your trust forsake you during hardship.

The separation caused by Demas’ desertion of Paul was not merely physical but spiritual. Demas left Rome because he fell in love with the world. In other words, Demas chose the world rather than Jesus.

Demas like so many today was saying by his actions, I tried Jesus, but he was not for me.”  Some might even say Demas was never born-again.  First John 2:15 is clear about the spiritual state of those who love the world: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.” Nowhere in the Bible do we read of the restoration of Demas.

The tragedy of Demas is still being lived out today by those who choose the temporary benefits of this world over the eternal riches of heaven. Today there are still those who seem to receive the Word but then “the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful” (Matthew 13:22). Past service is no guarantee of future faithfulness; we must depend on the Lord, our Strength (Psalm 28:8). We must be born again (John 3:3); otherwise, we have no foundation of faith.  It is that foundation that allows us to stand with fellow believers when they are facing adversity.

What Happened To Loyalty and Kindness?

Proverbs 3:1-3 My child, never forget the things I have taught you. Store my commands in your heart. If you do this, you will live for many years, and your life will be satisfying. Never let loyalty and kindness leave you! Tie them around your neck as a reminder. Write them deep within your heart.

Solomon was teaching his child the importance of being loyal and kind.  This is in contrast to what Jesus said would happen in the last days where loyalty and kindness would cease to exist in the family.

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:53

One of the indicators that we are living in the end times is the way families have become divided.   There is a great divide between the younger generation and their parents; whether God’s commandments are valid and worth obeying or rejecting. We see it in how families are broken and dysfunctional.  

There is a very definite division between the generations, but mainly even among families who were raised in a Christian family or consider themselves Christian. Young people hook up, they do not follow God’s commandments concerning sexual purity and marriage; this is true in Christian as well as non-Christian contexts. The words “I hate God” and “I hate Christ,” and “I hate you” may not have been said yet in so many words from their mouths, but their lives and their actions shout it out to all who have ears to hear.

 In the past, elders’ experiences were valued, and their children listened to them. Estrangement did happen, but it appeared to be reserved for parents cutting off a wayward child — the “black sheep” of the family.

After WWII, parents became more flexible and affectionate with their children.  Previous conventional wisdom had been that child-rearing should focus more on building discipline.  So, maybe the seed of children cutting off their parents started with us. We boomers were the first generation with parents who were ultra-concerned about making sure their children had a “better” childhood than they had.

A familiar story among parents who have estranged adult children is how much they had focused on their children, how much they did to make sure their children had all the best advantages, made them the center of the family universe — and often how they treated them more like an equal or an adult than a child.

Has a change in parenting style led to the rise of narcissism in subsequent generations over time, resulting in the ability of children to cut off their parents without much thought or concern for the consequences?  The society we live in is one where if someone no longer supports the view you have of yourself — get rid of them!

Developing the character of loyalty and kindness starts in the home adjusting our schedule to meet the spiritual needs of our children.

Hate Crime Prevention Law

Once again, the topic of hate crime legislation is in the news.  Indiana is one of five states without a Hate Crime Prevention Law. The Governor is pushing for the passing of such legislation.  I am expressing my opinion and this is not directed at any race religion or sexual identity. 

Since the anti-lynching laws our country has struggled to deal with hate shown towards race, religion and not towards sexual identity.  It has been in the news ever since Matthew Shepard’s brutal murder in Wyoming in 1998 hate crime legislation has been expanded to include "sexual preference" the main focus of hate crime bills.  The intent is to curb attacks against the LGBT community.   Despite its proper purpose to control these attacks, such legislation is ill-conceived.

Indiana does not have many hate crimes.  To read the headlines, it sounds like there is a crime spree taking place in the state of Indiana.  Last year there were a total of 55 hate crimes reported in Indiana.  Compare this to 360 murders, or the 14,364 aggravated assaults or the tens time the number of human traffic crimes as hate crimes-- makes hate crimes small compared to other crimes.  It could be argued that all crimes are hate crimes that start in the unregenerate heart.  Even if it were only one hate crime it is not acceptable. All crimes are an affront to any civilized people and should be addressed.

Jesus said, Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.  Matt 5:21-22

He goes on to say,  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.   But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matt:43-45

Hate starts in the heart and is a spiritual matter. Hatred will not be abolished with a law nor will any law protect a person from being hated.

I am against crimes of hate, but I also am against hate crime laws for three reasons.

•    First, they criminalize thought, not behavior. Hate crimes laws are an attempt at thought control.  Keep in mind the intent of the Hate Crime Law is the prevention of a crime before it happens based on thought, not behavior.  Where would Jimmy Carter be if thoughts were crimes?  Remember when he said in a Playboy interview, "I've looked at a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times." Why do we need a thought control law when offenses like -- murder, assault, intimidation -- are already crimes and there are laws against each.  The legislation seeks to increase penalties when they are motivated by bias. The extra punishment isn't for what the perpetrator did, but what he was thinking while he was doing it. It criminalizes beliefs. Hate crimes also make a mockery of equality under the law by creating a dual standard of justice.  If you're battered, bruised and bleeding because your assailant has a personal grudge against you, the attacker gets one sentence. But if the same injuries are inflicted because of your race or religion or sexual preference, the punishment is more stringent.  Is the victim hurt, humiliated or traumatized less than the target of a group? If not, why is one crime more deserving of punishment than the other?

Even the ACLU is concerned that hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, arguing that it should not be a crime to think or articulate hurtful statements. Hurting someone’s feelings may be offensive, even emotionally painful, but it shouldn’t be against the law.

•    Second, they do not protect individuals, but instead, select classes of people.  The purpose of a hate crime law is to give the courts the authority to provide harsher sentencing.   Harsher sentencing does not decrease the number of hate crimes being committed. A focus on sentence enhancement for these crimes does nothing for prevention. Putting our energy toward promoting harsher sentencing takes it away from the more difficult and more important work of changing our culture so that no one wants to kill another person because of their perceived membership in a marginalized identity group.  Incarceration is supposed to deter crime, and harsher sentencing for hate crimes is supposed to prevent crime even more. However, this is not the reality. Longer time spent in prison increases recidivism. Our current system of imprisonment is producing more violence, not less. Hate crime verdicts will only add to this sad reality.

The mainstream LGBT movement—including national groups such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Lambda Legal Defense, as well as many local state advocacy groups—often disagrees within itself on political priorities, policy implementation and even basic strategies regarding social justice issues. But the one thing that almost all of them agree on is that hate crime laws are good for LGBT people, that they work to deter crime and that LGBT people are safer because of them. These groups are not out of line with liberal American thinking. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) both support hate crime legislation.

What is interesting to me is that the LGBT community is a strong supporter of hate crime legislation.  Have they looked at the statistics?  While good statistics are hard to come by, at least 30% of the transgender community has been incarcerated at some point. Trans folk are usually assigned to prison based on the gender assigned to them at birth. While in prison they are disproportionately targeted by violence, including rape and sexual assault because trans people are so unsafe in general population they are often put in solitary confinement, itself a harsh form of punishment. Hate crimes sentencing opens more trans people to violence within the prison, a place we seldom think about when considering where a violent crime takes place.  I would think the LGBT community would be asking the questions: Do these laws work? Do they deter violence against LGBT people? Do they make LGBT people safer? And, most important, are they fair and just?

In the case of Matthew Shepard, we will never know for sure if Shepard was murdered because he was gay. The two men convicted claimed to be gay.  They drove him in a truck to a remote spot and beat Shepard mercilessly. His skull was smashed with a handgun. His hands and face were cut, and his body was burned. Strung up on the fence, he was exposed overnight to 30-degree temperatures. His life was hanging by a thread. A few days later, at a hospital in Fort Collins Colorado, 22-year-old Matthew Shepard died. What is a fact in this case is both of his killers were given two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole without a hate crime law on the books? Even if there had been a state or federal hate crime law in place, it is also highly likely it would not have prevented the murder.

The public outcry created by the Matthew Shepard case to include LGBT people as protected categories in existing hate crime laws was not based on criminology or logic but emotion.

•    Third, Hate Crime Laws encourage hostility towards one group of people, Christians. Hate Crime Laws will have a significant impact on individuals who have a sincere belief that homosexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism violate their religious tenets. This encompasses a broad group of religions and religious beliefs. Those religions that believe these alternative lifestyles are wrong are compelled by their religious beliefs to speak out and to oppose the promotion of such lifestyles actively. So, the Hate Crimes Bill must be viewed from the perspective of those who believe they must actively oppose an immoral lifestyle. Care should be taken to distinguish those who advocate bodily harm and even death for those who participate in a sinful lifestyle from those who hold a sincere religious belief that they can do nothing to promote or accept an immoral lifestyle, and indeed, must actively, though legally, oppose such lifestyles. Hate is never justifiable to inflict bodily harm on another especially if the only justification for the injury is just because an individual does not agree with another’s lifestyle. The Hate Crimes Bill must be assessed in its legal impact on any religious group who attempts to peacefully and lawfully live out their religious beliefs and advocate against what their religious beliefs prohibit.

There is a change in this country towards Christianity.  For more than a decade now, those who proclaim allegiance to Christianity have been facing an increasingly hostile environment.  A good example is the War on Christmas.

As far back as 2003, an article published by World Net Daily highlighted a raging dispute that resulted in New York City over whether schools may be allowed to display religious symbols. Jewish menorahs and Islamic crescents were permitted, but nativity scenes depicting the birth of Christ were not allowed.

New York City lawyers maintained that the Jewish and Islamic symbols have a secular dimension, while the latter is “purely religious.” According to the WND article, one rationale for the objection to the nativity displays is that “the birth of Christ does not represent a historical event.”

The birth of Jesus Christ is not a fictional contrivance. It is one of the most firmly established events of ancient history. It is laughable even to hint otherwise. What does the “A.D.” used in the designation of the year mean?

Since the exact year of Jesus’ birth is unknown, it certainly is not probable that Christ was born on December 25. It is believed that this date was adopted, possibly in the second century A.D., because it corresponded to the “winter solstice” — when the daylight period begins to lengthen. December may have been adopted at that time as a symbol of the coming of the “sun of righteousness”.

Clement of Alexandria set the date of Christ’s birth on November 18, 3 B.C. Other ancient writers placed the time at May 20, 3/2 B.C., or on April 19 or 20 of the same year. The ancient record is a mass of confusion relative to the precise date of Jesus’ birth.

There is not the slightest evidence that there is any authorization for creating a sacred celebration of the birth of Christ. There is no instruction within the New Testament to ceremonially honor the Savior’s birth, and there is no indication that the Christians of the apostolic age did so.  There seems to have been no movement to formally celebrate the birth of Christ until about the first half of the third century A.D., when Hippolytus, “Bishop” of Rome selected January 2 as the day of commemoration.

All I know is that Jesus was born, was a real person lived died and was resurrected on the third day, and now sits at the right hand of the Father.  To suggest, however, that the Hebrew menorah and the Islamic crescent have a “secular significance” that lifts them above any religious association is absurd.

The menorah [Hebrew for “candelabrum”] has its origin in the book of Exodus (see Ex. 25:31-40; 37:17-24), where it was constructed by divine direction as one of the items of furniture in the Tabernacle’s holy place. It is considered the symbol of Judaism.

There is no doubt but that the crescent moon has become a symbol of the Islamic religion. In an article designed to dispute the claim of some, that the Muslim name for God (Allah) was originally a designation for a moon god, a follower of Mohammed readily concedes that “Muslims use the crescent as the symbol of Islam” (Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi, What is the Significance of the Crescent Moon in Islam?)

New York authorities have adopted a double standard. Both Jews and Muslims are accommodated by a tolerance for their religious paraphernalia, while those who profess an affiliation with Christ become the victims of legal persecution.

Could it be that the New York authorities are committing a hate crime against Christians?  How many of those who made this ruling were Jews or Muslims?

Christians in the early 21st century are the world's most persecuted religious group. According to the secular International Society for Human Rights, 80 percent of violations of religious freedom in the world today are directed against Christians. We are witnessing the rise of a new generation of martyrs. Underlying the global war on Christians is the demographic reality that more than two-thirds of the world's 2.3 billion Christians now live outside the West, often as a beleaguered minority up against a hostile majority. Whether it's Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia, Hindu radicalism in India, or state-imposed atheism in China and North Korea or Jewish hatred of Christians in Israel. In Europe and North America, Christians face political and legal challenges to religious freedom.

Most people in the West have little idea persecution is even happening: The global war on Christians has come to America.  There are legal oppression, social harassment, and direct physical violence, with Christians as its leading victims. 

Here in Indiana, Memories Pizza -- the first Indiana business to declare it would refuse to cater a gay wedding because of their religious belief was immediately flooded by threatening phone calls, and social media postings.  A lesbian teacher from Concord Community Schools suggested burning down Memories Pizza.  The gay community exhibited its hatred toward this Christian businessman who only answered a hypothetical question.  Did Mr. O’Conner act in a hateful manner and threaten to burn down a gay business?  No, he did not.  Did he call anyone a bigot? No, he did not.  Did he care that a gay man bought a pizza and served it at a gay wedding?  No.  He did not care what they did with the pizza after he sold it.  It is a fact that Memories Pizza served a man regardless of his sexual relationships. Its owners did not deny him service. They didn’t “turn him away.” They didn’t quiz the man when he came in, asking whether he identified as a homosexual or how he would use the pizza
Christians are interested in exercising the teachings of their faith regarding marriage, and in continuing to live quiet and peaceful lives in harmony with their communities, as we have been doing for years. We haven’t sought a fight; it has come to us out of hatred from a community that wants Christians to “bless their sin.”  If this is not hatred, why have we not heard of Muslim or Jewish businesses being targeted?

Christianity is not the only religion that does not accept homosexuality other religions like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikh, Bahai, Druze, and Zoroastrianism all are against homosexuality.  So, why target Christians?

I fear that a Hate Crime Prevention Law will be a tool used by the anti-Christian groups to silence the message of Christianity.  I am opposed to this law and would hope that our elected Representatives will oppose any Hate Crime legislation.  These are my opinions and are not directed at any race, religion, or sexual identity.