Liberty Counsel Wants to Exclude LGBTQ from Anti-Lynching Bill


My daughter showed me this earlier today - absolutely disgusting.


My last post was too political. Let’s try one more time:

Horrendous, immoral, disgusting and a couple of other choice words I can’t use right now.

There, no politics involved.


I guess they think it is “Biblical” to support lynchings in some cases - I bet if you asked they could rattle off a bunch of proof texts. But only “moral” lynchings, you see. What lunatics from the fever swamps of fanaticism.


If only they could ignore the New Testament, huh?

But, no, seriously, what the hell is wrong with some people? They don’t like people from LGBT community? Fine, no one’s asking them to. But they can at least agree that they should have equal rights and respect as everyone else. Especially, or, at least when it comes to safety.


As long as we’re at it, let’s bring back witch burnings too.

I note that by any Biblical standard, communicating with far away spirits (ie: cell phones) should qualify as witchcraft. :-/

1 Like

It is worth noting that many people who think homosexuality is wrong would also simultaneously be just as appalled as everyone else about this.


Sadly, when I first saw the headline in Patrick’s OP post, I thought it was an article from The Onion satirical website. (After all, who could ever want some people-group excluded from the protections of an anti-lynching bill?) The fact that the backdrop in the photo says, “Liberty Counsel” made it all the more bizarre—although I suppose somebody might want the personal liberty to lynch particular groups of people who they don’t like.


Before the lyncing is the accusation of evil against the accused. So calling a group a HATE GROUP starts the historic process in lyching on the planet.
Ther is a anti-lynching law??? Say it ain’t so! thats absurd!
There is only to be laws against murder. Lyching is murder because its done without due process of law before conviction and without laws punishment giuidelines.
i suspect a anti-lynching law is like hate laws. Its not about lyching but about motives behind the lynching.
In other words lyncjing this identity or that one is more HATEFUL, or unacceptablen , then lynching this or that group.
Its a rejection of the equality of the lynched/murdered. its about motivations behind motivations.
Its not the intent and action of lynching but why are you doing it.
surely this is evil and illegal and like hate laws etc must be ended.
If, how foolish indeed, one must have a lynching law then just say anyone lynched for any reason will be treated equally in the courts!!
I can;t believe it yet it follows a curve of thought already from hate crime legislation.
Some punches in face are worse then others they are teaching. NOPE! THE SAME intent to immoraly punch and do it must get the same punishment. (of coarse left wing liberalism is against punishment but only for correction/improvement etc )

I’m in no way disputing that.

And I hope you didn’t take my comment to mean that, there’s a world of difference between that, and what this guy is proposing here.

1 Like

Their attitude seems to be “liberty for me but not for thee” (which means that they don’t really understand liberty).


Robert, in an ideal world the laws against murder might be enough. But the realities of American history tells us that such laws are not enough. Justice at the local level has often been thwarted by biased prosecutors, juries, and even judges! There are so many egregious examples of this during the Jim Crow era and even more recently such that I don’t think I need to list them here.

Another reason is one that I find most people are unaware: that in many parts of the USA, especially in less affluent communities (such as in the rural communities of the Deep South in the USA) even just one murder case can virtually bankrupt a county. Murder prosecution is astronomically expensive and that’s just for the Constitutionally required aspects: the court costs, public defender fees, the costs of endless appeals, especially in capital punishment cases. And there is rarely much money for intensive investigation, witness interviews, and forensic evidence collection that is necessary when even entire communities are sheltering the offenders (which may be entire gangs or large mobs which carried out vigilante anarchy.) When local prosecution fails or there simply aren’t sufficient resources or unbiased participants to aggressively pursue justice against the lynchers, there must be a “back up” system which gets the job done. That is among the reasons why federal pursuit of justice can be so very important.

In many areas of the country, the justice system relies heavily on local property taxes, a tax base already strained in trying to provide basic services such as police, fire protection, sanitation systems, water lines, and the public schools. A single capital murder case can easily take years and destroy a less affluent county’s ability to function.

Here’s just one example where lawmakers are trying to address the extreme limitations and financial strains of capital murder cases:

Prosecuting lynching cases can be even more difficult and expensive. That is yet another reason why state governments and the federal government have had to step in and see that justice is not only pursued but that justice is even possible.

As to special laws for particular kinds of murder victims (i.e., protected classes under law), I personally would like to see every victim of a lynching or other types of mob actions and vigilante “justice” covered by federal law—and not only those of the federally protected classes. Even so, I do understand why there are urgent reasons for passing special laws in order to protect especially disadvantaged groups (i.e., those who have been most frequently targeted due to racism, bigotry, and bias.) No justice system is perfect and no legislation is perfect. Special laws to address especially onerous problems are at least a very good start at pursuing more consistent justice.


Exactly. I have seen a relatively rapid change in many christian communities on this very topic, which is very encouraging. There are still those who cling to the bankrupt ideas of ages past, but it would appear that many congregations are gladly moving towards protecting everyone in their communities, even those they may not agree with.


History has taught us that for anybody to be safe, everybody has to be protected. Types of bias may change over time and the particular people groups held in lowest regard may shift. So for any given individual to feel truly protected under law in the long term, everyone must be accorded their full civil rights at all times. Today it might be a LGBTQ needing extra-careful protections. Tomorrow it may be a pacifist conscientious objector—or an Hispanic adult who doesn’t speak Spanish who was brought to the USA as an infant and could hardly survive if sent back to the Central American nation of his parents. (!)

(I’m not trying to get political here. I’m just saying that Americans need to consider The Golden Rule taught by Jesus and many other famous teachers of various religious traditions and no religion at all: protect others just as you would wish to be protected. Surely we can all agree on the primacy of this ethic.)


What history has also taught us is that people often forget what has happened in the past, and the immediacy of the present along with a popular majority can reek havoc on civil rights. This is why we must teach every generation those lessons and fight discrimination whenever it raises its ugly head.

I think there is also another factor at play. The christian church can lose legitimacy if it argues against civil rights protections for the LGBTQ community. I think there was some real soul searching over the last 20 years within the christian church, and that is still ongoing. As our media access and access to other people grows, how does the church fit into this ever evolving society? It’s a tough question, and a tough process. However, I am grateful that there are christians like yourself and others who see the worth of civil protections for all. That is definitely some worthwhile common ground.


Indeed. And not only is there the danger of forgetting that history, there is the enormous problem of disinformation campaigns which fabricate false histories. I get furious over denials that the Civil War was about slavery—when all they would need to do is read the state constitutions and secession documents of the various Confederate states. Here’s a great article on forgotten history and distorted history:

Taxpayers still subsidize and honor “The Lost Cause”, a racist ideology which continues to perpetuate racism and bigotry in general:

The aforementioned articles seem particularly relevant in a thread about an Anti-Lynching Bill.


I love the fact that Jesus was willing to make changes in some of the old rules of Leviticus!

Lev 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

But then we turn to John 8:7, 10-12

Unchecked Copy Box Jhn 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her…

[Without Jesus ever proving to outrank Moses, or that he had any authority in the matter, all the Jews who would have otherwise followed Leviticus, turned away from the adulterer and departed!]

“When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

The death penalty for sexual crimes has been lifted, for we all know that nobody is without some sin in their life… this is the wisdom of the New Testament … and of Reform Judaism!


Nice. I, myself, always liked:

" You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. "

Even though I’m not always good and following that one.



Yes, my good and Orthodox friend, that is a wise alternative to “an eye for an eye”.

But the reason I featured this particular text is that it goes right to the question of what to do with sexual crimes in general.

New Testament zealots attempt to claim the Old Testament rules for homosexuality… but do not expect to be stoned for their own adulteries. Nor do they expect to be put to death for labor on the Sabbath (whether it be Saturday or Sunday in their view!).

Those who would single out homosexuality are today’s version of the Pharisees of old … “hypocrites under the law”.


This is too important for posturing. There are many Christians that think homosexuality is wrong and nonetheless would vigourously support their civil rights. That is to be commended, not lumped in with bigots and pharasees.