Northern Ireland’s first lady is being investigated by police following allegations she committed a hate crime by launching a withering attack on homosexuality.  A homosexual activist has brought charges against her under “hate crimes” laws and police are investigating her.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23491888-details/Northern%20Ireland’s%20′first%20lady’%20probed%20by%20police%20over%20gay%20hate%20rant%20on%20BBC%20radio%20show/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

In a diverse community that holds free speech in high esteem, we must remember that there  is not a “right” to not be offended. Free speech does not depend on how certain groups or individuals “feel” about the comments being made, any more than political discourse during an election relies for legality on whether it hurts the opposing candidates feelings or not. Free speech and freedom of religion rights trump  minority groups “feelings” about what is said of them. If Christians say they love the sinner but hate the sin, and then preach what their Gospel says about particular sins such as homosexuality, they have a right to, and should not be muzzled in the name of political correctness or accused of hate crimes. Have you ever wondered why a  homosexual activist can say anything he wants about Christians and get away with it, including calling for violent attacks? Because they are not held to the same standard of PC speech code they wish to enforce on others. Same with the Muslim community, they want to have the EU outlaw speech deemed offensive to Muslims, but then turn around and want to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims and threaten violence and death to all who disagree. It is not Christians who are Fascists, my friends, it is the homosexual activists and radical Islamists who would force everybody to conform to their worldview on pain of fines, incarceration or death.  Perhaps the Muslims and homosexuals would like to be judged by the same laws they wish to inflict on others? Here’s the key: they are only tolerant of their own views, and wish to outlaw all others, which is why hate crime legislation is such a pernicious evil as it becomes a club by which deviant minorities can bludgeon society into accepting their lifestyle without the niceties of voting or persuasion.

Hi Rich, I wanted to commend you on your article, it has some excellent points. There are, however, some other points that need to be addressed more fully. First of all, I agree that the way the FLDS church practiced polygamy was just as you described it: a system for older dominant males to take advantage of young girls while excluding the teenage boys from the society. That is not, however, the way polygamy developed or was instituted in the original LDS church in the 19th century. I must also point out that for Christians, it is very hard to refute the premise of polygamy being a divinely sanctioned institution, as Jacob, Moses, and many other Old Testament patriarchs practiced polygamy and still received the approval of God. Jacob, later called Israel, had twelve sons by four different mothers. These twelve sons have their names inscribed on the walls of the heavenly city as the twelve patriarchs of Israel. God approved of them, yet our society would term most of them bastards of illegitimate birth. At the time of Christ it was accepted law that if a man's brother dies and his wife had no children, it was the surviving brother's duty under Mosaic law to marry the widow and raise up seed unto his brother, that his name and inheritance would not perish from the land. Christ, as Jehovah of the Old Testament, gave that law, and in His mortal ministry did not refute it (which would have been highly illogical anyway, as it would have implied He told men to do something wrong).) The only New Testament teaching that specifically states that men should have one wife is the admonition that Bishops be the husband of one wife, but the underlying meaning points more to the exclusion of unmarried males from being a Bishop on the grounds of maturity and experience, rather than a prohibition against a plurality of wives. Polygamy was an accepted practice in the time of Christ. As for our day? Well, as part the LDS canon, the Book of Mormon specifically states that unless the Lord commands the people to raise up seed unto Him (as was the case in the Mosaic law mentioned earlier) the practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited as an abomination precisely because of abuses like that seen in the RLDS example. So, God has not said that He requires that practice at this time, therefore it is not sanctioned and is, indeed, an abomination. As a conservative, I completely agree with this part of your article, " "It's just like in any society in America," one woman at the ranch told a reporter, by way of explaining the confusion over the children. "A mother might have been in two or three relationships, and a child may be confused about what name to give." There's some truth underneath that self-justification. Family relationships in America have become broken and convoluted -- although nothing on the order of the bizarre sect led by Warren Jeffs, now serving time for forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her 19-year-old cousin. But with so many people divorced or having children out of wedlock, it's easier to elide questions of family structure and focus on child abuse. "

You also made the point that, "Now, polygamists are trying to ride on the liberal wave of nonjudgmentalism and of hostility to traditional marriage. Who are we to say what marriage is? As liberal democrats, we've said it before, and have to again. "

While I completely agree about the moral relativist part, I am not so sure about the last sentence and can only assume you meant to say "conservative republicans", becausethey stand for traditional marriage. If a man is legally able to have one wife and as many mistresses (Jesse Jackson), hookups(Larry Craig, to show I am bipartisan), affairs (David Paterson), prostitutes(Eliot Spitzer) or White House interns(Bill, who else?) as he wants, and still be socially acceptable, I would argue that society is already at the point of accepting polygamy at face value. When a man can begat children and leave the mother, yet still think he deserves the title "father", and gay couples that think  two moms, or two dads constitute a normal family, any fundamental value the institution of marriage has to stabilize society is already seriously diminished. I would like to close with one other observation. You said , "In the 19th century, when the Mormon Church still supported polygamy, the U.S. government harried it mercilessly. As Stanley Kurtz points out, the campaign against polygamy related to the effort to democratize Utah."

While completely correct that the U.S. government (and every state the Mormons had been in since the church started in 1830) were merciless in their harassment of the LDS people, (directly contrary to the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws and the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution barring Congress from oppressing religious freedom,) you erred in saying that the harassment was an "effort to democratize Utah". After all, as soon as Utah became a territory in 1850, free elections were immediately held, and every woman who wanted to could vote her own mind ( and own property in her own name): This was the case in Utah more than a half century before suffragettes gained the universal right for women to vote in the 1920's! By that standard, Utah was more democratic than the patriarchal prigs who denied women the right to vote in the United States of America. Thank you for your time, I look forward to any comments you might have. Sincerely, Brian Norton

Dr. Mohler, I read the account of your interview of African-American pastor Eric Redmond with great interest and had an observation or two to make. First is actually a question: What happened to the traditional Gospel of Christ that used to be preached, the one that taught redemption from sin by faith and repentance on Christ and His mercy and power? It is bad enough that Wright uses his bully pulpit to preach jihad against the USA, or more specifically, white people, but to have the main body of the black church preaching health and wealth theology is even worse, as it treads perilously close to idolatry. In the context of saying that is what the Savior preached, it is more like wolves in sheep’s clothing, or false prophets and priestcraft. Are there none left who preach Christ crucified and Risen the third day? It seems to me if this is the plight of the black churches in America, it is no wonder blacks vote so predominately Democratic: they, like the Clinton’s, are unable to understand truth, but having itching ears, turn away therefrom, and are turned to fables. Honor, integrity, self reliance, marriage, and faith in God are politically incorrect concepts because they don’t allow one to be a victim and always get what one wants. Blacks need more than hope and "yes we can!", they need accountability and the dignity to see themselves as children of God who can be joint heirs with Christ if they "do His word". That, in my eyes, is a lot better than a welfare victim, subsidized by big government, being told you can either chase after the twin idols of wealth and the perfect body, or being permanently angry about white oppression. Black liberation theology teaches that if God doesn’t want to destroy whites, than He himself needs to be killed, because blacks need a black god! That is more than racist, that is genocidal..., imagine David Duke saying he needs a "white God" who will destroy all the blacks? Can you say "hate crimes and life imprisonment", for that is what Sharpton, Jackson et al would be crying for. Free speech, with all its attendant rights and responsibilities, needs to apply equally to blacks and whites. If Pastor Wright is truly mainstream black theology, there needs to be a black religious exorcism.