by user Rmthunter
A continuation of Pam Spaulding's interview with Joe Murray, formerly of the American Family Association. This section is pretty hard-hitting. Look at Murray's comments on the current fight against expanding the federal Hate Crimes Act to include sexual orientation:
And these folks know that Christians will not be arrested if this law is passed, which is why they condition such comments with "may be" or "could possibly be." Such tactics are nothing more than trickery and is down right shameful.
Why is it shameful? Because these groups show Christians in handcuffs and half naked gays frolicking in the streets and then imply that the hate crimes law may result in the censoring of Christianity. Thus, some pro-family organizations fan the flames of fear and then quietly say this might happen. But most people don't get to the "might happen" because the images are so powerful that they overshadow the meager words and nuances. This type of behavior is expected on K Street, but not by those claiming the mantle of Christianity.
Murray has written this OpEd calling it like it is
. . . . he also sees the blatant hypocrisy that exists when people, who are protected by current hate crimes laws, vehemently seek to exclude groups, like the LGBT community, from the same benefits.
If hate crimes is to be law, than why exclude gays? It is one thing to be against hate crimes, it is another to intentionally deny protection to a class of individuals when one enjoys the protection he is denying.
Lots of reading for you. The guy makes sense, and I'm really glad to have this voice coming from the Christian right -- and make no mistake: Joe Murray has not become a liberal. He is simply, like most Christians, more human than those who claim to represent him.
(Crossposted at Hunter at Random)