Joe Biden Slammed For Declaring Easter Sunday Be ‘Trans Day of Visibility’ 2024

Joe Biden Slammed For Declaring Easter Sunday Be ‘Trans Day of Visibility’ 2024 "He/She/They/Ze Is Risen!” Critics Ripped President Biden Saturday For Proclaiming March 31 2024 Easter Sunday This Year Easter Falls On Transgender Day Of Visibility And GOD In The Bible Could Be Considered As Hate Speech.

Show more

“I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., Your Pedophile President Of The United States Of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2024, as Transgender Day of Visibility,” the White House announced Friday.

“I call upon all Americans to join us in lifting up the lives and voices of transgender people throughout our Nation and to work toward eliminating violence and discrimination against all transgender, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary people.”

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump called Biden’s announcement which was simply a formality since the day has been in place since 2009 and always falls on March 31 2024 part of the “administration’s years-long assault on the Christian faith.”

The White House proclaimed Transgender Day of Visibility is to fall on Easter Sunday, 2024.

Biden is completely compromised, controlled, and not worth a passing sneeze. Congress won't do anything, so regular people need to file lawsuits now. Obviously, that is much easier and cheaper if you are a lawyer yourself. Declaring certain days of the year as "holidays" with attached unlawful mandates, reverse discrimination, or whatever other nonsense is the basis for the case.

The separation of church and state in the United States is a doctrine derived from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits coercion in religious matters and the expectation to support a religion against one's will. Citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism. Although the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the First Amendment, the establishment clause was intended to separate church from state, but not religion from politics or public life. The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the wall separating church and state in a series of new rulings, eroding American legal traditions intended to prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith. Separation of church and state refers to the attempt to keep government from influencing religion and religion from influencing government to the greatest extent possible, given the complexities of both.

“We call on Joe Biden’s failing campaign and White House to issue an apology to the millions of Catholics and Christians across America who believe tomorrow is for one celebration only the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” said Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s national press secretary.

Christian academics also scoffed at the announcement.

“In my expert theological opinion, Mr. Biden has repeatedly demonstrated that he’s far more committed to the progressive faith than the Catholic one,” Chad C. Pecknold, a professor of theology at Catholic University told The Post.

"The decision touched on different aspects of freedom of religion and concluded that the Bible could not be considered as hate speech. The court is clear that Bible passages, biblical beliefs and the principles derived from those beliefs can be legally and reasonably advanced in in public discourse.

Governor Kathy Hochul today issued a proclamation declaring March 31, 2024 Transgender Day of Visibility, celebrating the trans community in New York State and across the country. The Governor also announced that New York State landmarks will be lit light pink, white and light blue tomorrow, March 31, in celebration of Transgender Day of Visibility.

“Today we celebrate Transgender Day of Visibility by acknowledging the contributions that members of the transgender community have made in New York State and across the country,” Governor Hochulsaid. “I am proud of the strength transgender New Yorkers display every day and want to make one thing clear: you are always welcome in New York. You are loved.”

Commentary: Trans Day of Visibility falls on Easter this year, and LGBTQ+ people need ‘a resurrection moment’

https://www.queerevents.ca/notable-lgbtq-dates

Every year, Trans Day of Visibility is recognized on March 31. In 2024, Easter falls on the same date. Reflecting on this overlap, the United Church of Christ’s Minister for Gender and Sexuality Justice Ministries, Rachael Ward, offers a commentary on the significance of Easter this year for LGBTQ+ people — and trans and non-binary people in particular.

Trans Day of Visibility (TDOV) rests within Easter this year, and LGBTQ+ people need a resurrection moment where death does not have the word and love transcends hate.

TDOV was created in 2010 as trans advocates noticed a lack of celebration of trans lives as opposed to only reporting the violence against trans individuals. 

Christ’s death is brutal, stemming from prosecution of difference, led by empire. And Christ’s resurrection continues to be a place queer folks find hope in their bodies, minds, and spirits, transcending moments of injustice and surges of hate.

The resurrection story holds for LGBTQ+ people of faith the ultimate promise and truth: God is constantly coming out for your love and your personhood. And God knows intimately the ways it aches when those around us deny us of our rights to be human and in relationship to each other. 

Resurrection this Easter Sunday can look like uplifting not just the disparities trans and non-binary siblings are facing, but offering space for their gifts from God to be celebrated. 

For TDOV this year, I’m reflecting on what it means for trans siblings to resurrect into their joy — right here, right now — on this earth. For trans siblings to no longer be tucked in a tomb, forced to wear clothing that doesn’t share who they are through and through. No longer tucked in a tomb, forced to hide their names and pronouns for fear of being bullied. No longer tucked in a tomb, forced to adhere to legislation attempting to disembody the Imago Dei within them. 

This year, for TDOV, Easter’s resurrection is a rainbow of queer joy and resistance. Easter’s resurrection is an invitation and reminder that when God came out for humanity in full love, God meant every single one of us.

Advocacy for trans and non-binary rights
Transgender and non-binary individuals are beloved by God, created in the image of God, and deserving of dignity and equal protection under the law.

You can take action to support trans and non-binary people by urging Congress to pass the Transgender Bill of Rights and the Equality Act.

The Transgender Bill of Rights (HR 269/SR 144) recognizes the federal government’s duty in protecting and codifying the rights of transgender and non-binary people, and ensuring they have access to medical care, shelter, safety, and economic security. The Equality Act (HB 15/SB 5) would provide consistent anti-discrimination protections for all LGBTQ+ individuals across key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service.

There are over 9.6 million trans, non-binary and gender-expansive youth (age 13+) and adults across the United States. We are parents and family members. We are your coworkers, your neighbors and your friends. We are a diverse community, representing all racial and ethnic backgrounds as well as all faith traditions.

While we have made significant progress in recent years, with more visibility than ever before, we are still fighting for basic human rights for the community. Today we are experiencing significant political attacks by extremists legislating hate in the states and in Congress. We also face an ongoing epidemic of fatal violence, especially against Black and Brown trans women.

Today and every day, we must celebrate all trans and non-binary people everywhere and combat disinformation, discrimination and hate impacting our community.

Transgender Day of Visibility is an international event on March 31 dedicated to recognizing the resilience and accomplishments of the transgender community. On this day, we celebrate the transgender population amongst us, raise awareness about the struggles that they face, and advocate for more protected rights for them in a bid to reform society and empower this community as it so rightfully deserves. Let’s join hands together with the trans community to celebrate not ‘fitting in’ when we all yearn to stand out!

Caitlyn Jenner slams Biden for proclaiming Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter, but the days coincided by chance. Caitlyn Jenner is being blasted for lashing out at Joe Biden for proclaiming Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter, even though the dates coincided by chance.

Caitlyn Jenner is being blasted on social media for lashing out at president Joe Biden for proclaiming Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter. Notably, the two days have coincided this year only by chance. While the Transgender Day of Visibility is held on March 31 annually, the date of Easter changes from year to year.

“I am absolutely disgusted that Joe Biden has declared the most Holy of Holy days - a self proclaimed devout Catholic - as Transgender Day of Visibility. The only thing you should be declaring on this day is ‘HE is Risen’,” Jenner wrote on X.

‘Education is the problem all the way around’
X users were quick to blast her in the comment section, calling out her ignorance and lack of knowledge. “It’s been March 31st for over a decade. Also You do know that Easter is on a different date each year…..you’ll do anything for attention,” one user said. “Easter doesn’t fall on March 31 every year. How could You NOT know that!?” one user said, while another wrote, “Don’t weaponize your own stupidity like this. March 31st is TDOV every year, and Google is free.” “Joe Biden didn't choose March 31st as Transgender Day of Visibility, it just happened to fall on Easter this year, which it has before, including when Trump was in office,” said one user.

“Caitlyn, you’re a smart woman. You know that Transgender Day of Visibility has been held on March 31st since 2009. It was held on March 31st last year but no one cared or noticed because Easter was on April 9th. It is the height of hypocrisy and unchristian behavior to claim that Biden is in any way responsible that transgender day of visibility and Easter just randomly happen to fall on the same day this year. Joe Biden will be in church, as usual, and gladly celebrating “HE is risen.” There are enough real things to gripe about. No need to make up this foolish sh**,” one user wrote. “March 31st annually is Transgender visibility day since 2021.I am glad you now know this. Easter as most Catholics and all other humans know is celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon equinox. It seems education is the problem all the way around,” said one, while another wrote, “Easter falls on a different day ever year. Transgender day is always March 31st. As a practicing Catholic on my way to Easter Vigil service Caitlyn Jenner, I totally fine with this day. But do go on with your sick need for attention.”

The White House recently shared a statement to honour “the extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans and reaffirm our Nation’s commitment to forming a more perfect Union — where all people are created equal and treated equally throughout their lives.”

“Today, we send a message to all transgender Americans: You are loved. You are heard. You are understood. You belong. You are America, and my entire Administration and I have your back,” the statement said, in part.

HISTORY OF TRANSGENDER DAY OF VISIBILITY
There is no doubt that the transgender community continues to face discrimination worldwide. Be it in the workplace, schools, or society, it has been subjected to immense harassment and inequality in every part of the world for the ‘sin’ of being born different.

Rachel Crandall, a U.S.-based transgender activist, founded this day in 2009 to raise awareness for the incredible burden of discrimination the community faces in every setting imaginable. The need to bring a day of ‘visibility’ for the transgender community is indicative of the oppression they face in many sectors of life. Crandall wanted to highlight the fact that the only transgender-centric day that is internationally recognized is Transgender Day of Remembrance, which is in mourning of members of the community who had lost their lives, and that there was no day to pay homage to living transgender people. By 2014, the day was observed by activists in Ireland and Scotland while, in 2015, many transgender people took part in the event by participating in social media campaigns. They successfully made the day go viral by posting selfies and personal stories.

Therefore, on Transgender Day of Visibility on March 31, annually, we recognize and revere their contributions, successes, and relentless resilience in standing tall and strong in the face of injustice. Through this Day of Visibility, we hope to induce moral responsibility and tolerance, and lift the restrictions on the rights of transgender people.

Oppositional Religious Speech: Understanding Hate Preaching Hate preaching is capable of constituting both hate crime and hate speech, lies at the centre of many religions’ understanding of the manifestation of their religion, and frequently raises the contentious issue of regulation of the use of sacred scriptures. This brief article explores the regulation of hate preaching by criminal law, discussing the particular problems posed by oppositional religious speech, before concluding with suggestions for a number of ways to reduce these problems.

INTRODUCTION
In February 2017 two Christians were convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence – a hate crime – for street preaching. The prosecutor emphasised that the defendants had quoted from the King James Bible: ‘although the words preached are included in a version of the Bible in 1611, this does not mean that they are incapable of amounting to a public order offence in 2016’. In a two-day hearing before Bristol Crown Court, the convictions were quashed, on the basis that the defendants had not been hostile towards another religious group, but had been doing no more than expressing their sincerely held religious beliefs. Cases such as theirs reveal the complexity of hate preaching. Hate preaching is capable of constituting both hate crime and hate speech, lies at the centre of many religions’ understanding of the manifestation of their religion, and frequently raises the contentious issue of regulation of the use of sacred scriptures.

This article will explore the regulation of hate preaching by criminal law, with a particular focus on hate law. It begins with an introduction to oppositional religious speech and the possibility of such speech being hateful. This is followed by a brief discussion of hate law, with a focus on hate speech and hate crime which can be committed by speech. The article then shows the particular problems posed by the regulation of oppositional religious speech as hate speech, before concluding with a consideration of ways forward.

OPPOSITIONAL RELIGIOUS SPEECH
One important definition of religion requires a belief system that ‘teach[es] its adherents how they are to live their lives’. This emphasis on a code of conduct is sometimes used to distinguish religion and race. A code of conduct may fit neatly with state values at any given time. Of much more significance are the occasions when the religious values clash with state values.

Consideration of this sort of clash tends to focus on the benefits of expression to the speaker, the costs to the speaker of restricting their expression, and the costs to targets of such expressions and others. The recent Law Commission report on hate crime rarely discusses religiously motivated conduct, but the clearest example is chosen to bring this out:

D, a preacher, says that gender reassignment surgery is an abomination in the eyes of God, and compares those who undergo it to the cult eunuchs of pagan religion. This is an argument that certain behavior is sinful and abhorrent but, without more (for example, a demand that transgender people should be executed), would be protected by the right to freedom of expression (and freedom of religion).

This neglects the bigger picture. Religious critique is one way in which the values of a particular society may be challenged, and perhaps come to be changed, through ‘influential, voluntary contributions to debate on matters of profound public controversy’. As Gozdecka puts it, ‘Pluralism in its thickest form is … a dynamic force that allows for constant challenges and creates a space for all forms of renegotiation that can slowly transform and shake the status quo.’ Critique provided by religious communities should be seen as a public good. No human society is perfect, and some religious traditions see challenging social imperfections as an important contribution that religious individuals and communities can make to their societies. Religious critique is one way in which the values of a particular society may be challenged, and perhaps come to be changed, through ‘influential, voluntary contributions to debate on matters of profound public controversy’. Accepting critique as a public good is not the same as accepting that it should always be permitted. In particular, critique can have an individualized cost borne by those subject to the critique. Taking proper account of these costs means that it does not always follow that victims ‘who detest hate speech should just learn to live with it’. It does mean, however, that oppositional religious speech has particular value because it is oppositional.

The same perspective sees critique of religious values as a community good. The importance of such critiques has been recognized by, for instance, the European Court of Human Rights in Otto-Preminger Institut v Austria, where the court found that.

Those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion … cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith.

Recognizing the value of critique of shared values makes this more than simply a burden to be borne, instead constructing it as a private good to the religious community. Such critique can come from outside a religious community but also from within the community itself. Religious resources can be, and are, used not only as a critique of secular values but also as a critique of the values of co-religionists. I return to this below.

This oppositional religious speech may be based upon religious scripture, which can be central to understanding the beliefs of a community. It is possible to identify a wide range of instances in which religious scripture appears to justify or require hostility towards a protected group, or their practices, in a way which fails to mirror current state policy on equality and non-discrimination. Particular religious practices are condemned by the Qur'an; racial discrimination has been justified by reference to the scripture of the Latter-Day Saints; and despising disabled people has been justified by reference to Hindu scripture. Turning to the highest-profile contemporary issue, on sexual orientation many Jews and Christians would treat as scripture the passage in Leviticus which states ‘Thou shalt not lie down with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.’

The status of this scripture will vary enormously, even within those communities which see it as an authentic part of their religious worldview. So self-identifying Christians will give varying weight to, for instance, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the teachings of the Catholic Church, the prophetic insights of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints and the conscience of the individual. Similarly, the origins of scripture will vary enormously across different religions. The largest world religions have significant bodies of scripture which were generated in the distant past, but others have created their bodies of scripture within living memory. Particularly in the case of the older bodies of scripture, however, interpretation of them has been a substantial intellectual project, in some cases one that has taken place over millennia. This project will, on occasions, generate an understanding of the body of scripture which may differ considerably from that of an outsider exposed to the bare words of the text for the first time.

These factors run counter to a monolithic view of particular religious people, religions or families of religions. The examples above are intended to illustrate the resources available to those within or without the community which, on a bare reading of the text, may be apt to show that the religion is hateful. It should be stressed, however, that these examples should not be taken as indicating that every person who self-identifies as a member of the religious group in question would condemn in the terms outlined. There are, for instance, self-identifying Christians who do not see any distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, including but not limited to LGBT Christians; and there are Jews who do not regard witchcraft as contrary to their religion, including Jew itches who identify as both Jews and witches. Nonetheless, it is clear that there is real potential for preaching of scriptures revered by significant communities in the UK to constitute condemnation of groups, and practices by members of those groups, protected by comparative recent developments in equality law. One thread of equality law is the protection of groups sharing a protected characteristic from hate speech and hate crime. The next section considers the development of this area of law.

INTRODUCING HATE SPEECH AND HATE CRIME COMMITTED BY SPEECH
Hatred law in England and Wales has two main branches: hate crime and hate speech. A hate crime is a crime aggravated by the existence of a proscribed type of hostility. Some crimes can be committed by speech alone, and in those cases the speech crime may constitute a hate crime. Thus hate crime blurs easily into hate speech. The distinctive feature of hate speech is communication apt to create hatred in the minds of others in relation to a prohibited ground. In purely numerical terms, prosecutions and convictions for hate speech offences are very much less common than hate crimes.

Before 2001 only hostility on the grounds of race could form the basis of a hate crime. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (hereafter CDA 1998) took two distinct routes to increase the punishment of racial hate crime. It created substantive hate crimes, which required racial aggravation of a particular basic offence and carried substantially higher maximum sentences. The basic offences included public order offences involving harassment, alarm, distress, fear or provocation of violence, as well as the statutory offences defined under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This part of the Act was focused on offending previously identified by the judiciary as meriting extra punishment if racially motivated. For almost all other offences, the legislation provided that racial aggravation was to be treated as a factor increasing the seriousness of the offence, with no change to the maximum penalty. The racial hatred provisions were intended to apply to ethno-religions such as Judaism, but not to religions such as Islam, categorized as ‘a poly-ethnic religious community and not a racial group’. The concept of hate crime has been expanded into grounds other than race: religion in 2001, sexual orientation and disability in 2003 and transgender identity in 2012. Only for religion was the distinction between aggravated offences and sentence enhancement retained, despite arguments for parity across the different grounds.

Turning to hate speech, again the crime was initially restricted to racial hatred. The key modern legislation, the Public Order Act 1986 (hereafter POA 1986), created a number of offences, of which the most significant is the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior which is either intended to stir up racial hatred or is likely to stir up racial hatred. This incitement offence requires that the defendant intended to stir up racial hatred, or was reckless as to whether this was the result. Also significant to later discussion is the offence of possessing written material or audio-visual recordings which are threatening, which the person holds with a view to distribution or publication, and which the person intends to use to stir up hatred. Such materials may be seized and forfeited. The original provisions did not cover religion, but were extended to religion in 2006 and to sexual orientation in 2008.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 added a new Part IIIA to the 1986 Act, which includes both the use of threatening or abusive words and behavior which are intended to stir up religious hatred, and a range of ancillary offences. Incitement to religious hatred represents ‘a considerable dilution of earlier and parallel incitement to “racial hatred” laws’. Incitement to racial hatred can be committed by merely insulting or abusive words or behavior, while incitement to religious hatred cannot. Incitement to racial hatred can be committed intentionally or recklessly, while incitement to religious hatred can only be committed intentionally. Additionally, the religious incitement provision has a special saving clause in section 29J, which provides that nothing in Part IIIA prohibits or restricts

discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytizing or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practicing their religion or belief system.

OPPOSITIONAL RELIGIOUS SPEECH, SCRIPTURAL CITATION AND HATE LAW
Applying hate law to oppositional religious speech based upon scriptural citation brings out potential problems, some of which may be capable of being resolved by particular interpretations of the current law, while others are not.

Criminal prosecution for citation of scripture
In Kirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church, the Kirk Session had placed a newspaper advert condemning homosexual acts, making use of biblical quotations. The Advertising Standards Authority initially upheld complaints that the advert was homophobic and had caused serious offence. The independent reviewer noted that the advert used ‘selective quotations from the Bible’, noting particularly the omission of the call for execution in Leviticus 20:13. He also thought that ‘it was reasonable for the Council to consider that codes of conduct and sanctions laid down in biblical works from several millennia ago cannot be communicated verbatim and indiscriminately in twenty first century advertising’. The Kirk Session was thus criticized for both selectivity and lack of discrimination. The Kirk Session appealed, the key issue being whether the restriction was proportionate.

The judge noted that the ‘essence’ of the applicant's religious beliefs was based on scripture: ‘One effect of the impugned decision is to materially interfere with and inhibit their use of certain biblical scripture.’ The judge found that the restriction was disproportionate, in part because the advertisement ‘constituted a genuine attempt to stand up for their religious beliefs and to encourage others to similarly bear witness and did so by citing well known portions of scripture which underpinned their religious faith and their call to witness’. The court in Kirk Session treated the use of scriptural quotations as criticism as significantly different even from religiously motivated criticism simpliciter. How would this scenario be dealt with by hate law?

The provisions regarding the stirring up of hatred would not apply. The provisions on stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation have demanding men's rea and actus reus requirements. Reinforcing this view is the specific statutory provision which states that ‘for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or the urging of persons to refrain from or to modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening’. The exclusion of this scenario from hate crime is, however, much less obvious. If the citation of the scripture was in circumstances which rendered it a criminal offence, most likely as a public order offence, then the words of the scripture could be read as a demonstration of hostility towards the protected group. Hate crime, in sharp contrast to hate speech, does not require that hostility actually exists (discussed more fully below), nor does it provide the statutory saving for criticism of sexual conduct or practices found in hate speech law.

As well as being cited, scripture has a physical existence. In Kirk Session, the speakers omitted a scriptural call for execution contained in the Bible. Is it a crime to possess a scripture containing such a call? Hate crime has little application here, but hate speech may. For stirring up racial hatred, the law criminalizes the possession of written material or audio-visual recordings which are threatening, which the person holds with a view to distribution or publication, and which the person intends to use to stir up hatred. A similar offence was later added for stirring up religious hatred, and for stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. The later additions are, however, subject to the specific saving clauses (quoted above) which protect criticism of practice. Calls for the death of those who carry out particular sexual practices would seem to go well beyond the type of speech envisaged by the statutory savings, however, and could easily constitute threatening materials: the key issue will then be the men's rea of the person possessing the scripture.

Misconstruing hostility towards a protected characteristic
A growing concern in the UK is the relative lack of religious literacy in a complex, religiously plural, society. Religious speech may be perceived, when shorn of context, as prohibited hostility when it is not intended in this way at all. A holy symbol of the Raelian Movement is an intertwining of the Star of David with the Swastika. Although positive and sacred to Raelians, others see it as a tremendously offensive symbol. How would displaying the symbol be treated?

Religious hate speech is unlikely to apply. A Raelian displaying the symbol would be able to argue that the display did not reach the level of threatening words and, crucially, that they lacked the intention to stir up religious hated. Jewish communities, however, are an example of ethno-religions, where the community is defined simultaneously as an ethnic group and a religion. The law on inciting racial hatred is notably less protective of the speaker than that of religious hatred – in particular, the men's rea requirement is satisfied by recklessness as to stirring up racial hatred; and merely insulting or abusive conduct can constitute the actus reus. A finder of fact may be prepared to find that in this scenario the defendant was reckless as to stirring up racial hatred against Jewish people, and that the display was insulting to Jewish people.

In relation to hate speech, this scenario is only problematic because of the ethno-religious status of Judaism. The application of hate crime, however, goes wider. Under section 28(1)(a) of the CDA, religious and racial hate crime can be satisfied by a demonstration of hostility even in the absence of actual hostility. Not all offences can be based upon demonstrating hostility towards the victim of the offence, but the religiously or racially aggravated public order offences involving harassment, alarm, distress, fear or provocation can. In these cases, the aggravated penalty would be applicable if the display of the holy symbol was found to demonstrate racial or religious hostility, even if the defense were to prove the absence of any hostile motivation.

Misconstruing the religious element in desacralized symbols and language
What of scripture which has become unmoored from its religious context and is being used simply as a convenient mode of expressing hostility towards an individual? Hare has suggested that ‘[all] members of the criminal justice system must … be very wary of reading alleged statements out of the context in which they were originally articulated’. This is particularly important in relation to language derived from some religious traditions but which has retained a secular meaning that may be divorced entirely from any religious context. The Italian government in Lautsi argued for a desacralized meaning of the crucifix. If a crucifix can be desacralized, what of religious language and citation of scripture?

During the passage of the 2001 legislation, the example was given of a footballer abused as ‘Judas’ because he had changed clubs.Footnote61 ‘Judas’ may be a desacralized equivalent to ‘betrayer’. If there is no recognition of the desacralization of prima facie religious language, the scope of demonstration may be considerably expanded. In that case it may not be enough to find that the defendant was not consciously aware of the religious connotations of the term, as cases on racial epithets have suggested that this is irrelevant in determining their liability under demonstration.

State involvement in intra-communal disputes
Oppositional religious speech can be a communal good generated by disputes within a religious community. Additionally, there is a strong theme in court decisions on the importance of the autonomy of religious organizations, which suggests that the state should be particularly cautious to intervene in a doctrinal dispute within a religious community. The courts have found that hostility towards an individual on the basis of their membership of a group can occur even where the defendant is also a member of that group. One positive feature of this approach is that complex issues of religious identity – for instance, whether Protestants and Catholics share a religion – do not need to be resolved in order to apply hate law to a scenario.

The inclusion of intra-group interaction may fairly be seen as a recognition of the ongoing, intimate, nature of some hate crime offending. In relation to intra-religious conflict, however, it could lead to the state punishing conflict within a religious group more seriously than other conflict. In this scenario, the state is not acting to protect members of the group from outsiders, but instead from one another. This raises significant issues concerning the autonomy of religious communities to determine their internal values and structures free from state control.

WAYS FORWARD?
The previous sections raised concerns around two important elements of religious liberty: the right to manifest religious belief, and the right to autonomy of religious organizations and communities. We should consider ways to minimize the burden on the religious preacher and their community while giving proper weight to the importance of hate law. An emphasis on religious rights can justify departing from balances of proportionality struck for freedom of expression alone, and directs attention to specific features of the preaching moment which are relevant to proportionality. There are five features that a court should be mindful of in this proportionality exercise.

First, the significance of the exercise of religious rights by the preacher needs to be recognized. The general cases on mixed motives, would suggest that an intention to manifest religion is irrelevant if it can be shown that there is any element of the prohibited mental element or, for hate crime, a demonstration of hostility even in the absence of actual hostility. To give proper weight to freedom of religion, however, the courts should be prepared to depart from this and to accept that the required hostility or intent to stir up hatred can be entirely displaced by the intention to manifest religion; and that what is prime facie a demonstration of hostility can best be understood as a manifestation of religion. The context in which a statement is made – which can include, for instance, being ‘the wider context and circumstance of him delivering a sermon wherein he was trying to communicate strong and robust beliefs that the God in which he believed was the only true God and that the worship of any other god was idolatrous’ is crucial to understanding whether hate law applies. In particular, the courts need to be sensitive to the context when deciding whether a particular manifestation of religion constitutes a demonstration of hostility under hate crime law. Sensitivity is also needed around desacralized language.

Second, one of the specific concerns raised above was the application of hate law to internal conflicts and debates within a religious community. If, as I have suggested, it is possible to understand a transaction as turning not on prohibited hostility but on an intent to manifest religion or belief, it is at least as easy to understand intra-group hostility as based on personal animus, or personal conduct, to the exclusion of the shared group identity. Emphasizing, once again, the distinctive place of freedom of religion, it would be possible for the courts to depart from this line and to favor an approach where, for intra-religious offending, the natural finding of fact in most cases would be to exclude the transaction from the reach of hate law.

Third, some religious people who use biblical texts to condemn same-sex activity distinguish strongly between condemning a person and condemning their actions. One way of putting this is to talk of hating sin but loving sinners. It may be easier to justify the condemned sharing the cost of condemnation when it is possible for them to respond to the condemnation. This is not necessarily because they are to be held at fault, so that they have a duty to change. Rather, it is because the public good of being condemned is something which it is comparatively easy for them to take advantage of. A smoker who is convinced by the condemnation that they are at fault can take advantage of this by ceasing to be a smoker. It is notably less easy for a person who becomes convinced that they should not be a man, or that they are homosexually orientated, to take advantage of a condemnation of either of those characteristics. This absence of a benefit to the target of the criticism should be taken into account in gauging proportionality.

Fourth, the court should not take account of the religious methodology of a user of scripture. It is tempting to treat scriptural citation as an exercise of scientific judgement. Taking this approach, a speaker who makes fair use of their sources may be able to rely upon their reporting of these sources, while one who distorts the sources by unfair use may not. This approach would entangle the state in determining the true reading, or range of true readings, of religious texts – a function it is not well placed to carry out.

Finally, the court needs to be aware that the citation of scripture is a contemporary moment, regardless of the antiquity of the source used. The court needs to keep a focus on the actions and motivation of the human being making use of the sources and may find it useful to consider the extent to which the speaker owns the scripture. This focus on ownership has an important implication for the discussion on materials given above. An individual must take ownership of the condemnatory words to be held to account for them. In the examples given above, the particularly condemnatory words form part of a considerable corpus of sacred texts. An individual may distribute this corpus without necessarily owning every part of it, even if in principle they would assert that they do. This emphasis on ownership would not be a complete innovation in religious hate law: for the offence of presenting a play intended to stir up religious hatred, an actor is only liable if they make the hateful performance their own by ignoring direction.

Even if the courts were prepared to take the principles outlined in this section and apply them as fully as possible to preachers faced with prosecutions under hate law, the current statutory framework is itself problematic. Offences of stirring up hatred have particular protection for oppositional speech, in relation to the specific saving clauses for religion and sexual orientation. There is an argument, made particularly pressing by the position of the ethno-religions, for considering whether inciting hatred against racial practices should have similar savings to those for religious and sexual orientation practices. There is also an argument for considering whether speech which would fall within a saving clause in relation to hate speech should be excluded from the context which may be used to find a hate crime. Such reforms are likely to be very contentious, particularly if they are understood as protecting oppositional religious speech against the application of state values. The key point here is that the conflict between oppositional religious speech and state values is only on the surface. Recognition of the special status of religion or belief in the life of our fellow citizens, and accommodation – in appropriate circumstances – of their religious interests, is a fundamental state value in the UK.

The Supreme Court Benches the Separation of Church and State
The court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether.

In two cases this term, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there’s little room for the separation of church and state in its regressive constitutional framework. For nearly 75 years, the court has recognized that both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses are vital to protecting religious freedom: The Establishment Clause protects against governmental endorsement and imposition of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause ensures the right to practice your faith without harming others. No more. The court has increasingly treated the Establishment Clause as a historical footnote, threatening both the independence of religion and the religious neutrality of the state.

In Carson v. Makin, the court held for the first time that a state must fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. Maine’s tuition assistance program pays for students in rural areas with no public high school to attend another public or private school. Concerned with maintaining a strong separation between religion and government, Maine has long prohibited the use of public funds to finance religious instruction and indoctrination. Many other states have adopted similar provisions, in some instances dating back two centuries. And with good reason: Avoiding compulsory taxpayer support for religion lies at the heart of the Constitution’s religious liberty protections. In fact, James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, explicitly warned against taxpayer funding of religion, including religious education, because it would be the first step in allowing the government to force citizens to conform to the preferred faith of those in power.

The Supreme Court’s rulings in Carson and Kennedy lead “us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.”

For these reasons, the Supreme Court has previously respected states’ ability to restrict taxpayer support for religious educational activities. Indeed, for decades, the court rejected efforts to direct government funds to religious uses. In Carson, however, six justices disregarded these longstanding, historical church-state concerns. According to the court, state funding of religious indoctrination is not only permissible, but now required in some circumstances. The Carson majority thus firmly placed the free-exercise rights of the Christian plaintiffs over the Establishment Clause rights of the broader populace.

One week later, it did the same in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the court ruled in favor of a Christian public-school football coach who prayed with his players while on duty. Ignoring well-established precedent that prohibits school officials from participating in prayer with students, the majority embraced what one lower court judge called a “deceitful narrative” spun by Kennedy and his lawyers. The court characterized the coach’s prayers as “quiet” and “personal,” but they were nothing of the sort; Coach Kennedy delivered his prayers audibly, at the 50-yard line, immediately after games, often surrounded by students.

The court said that Kennedy had abandoned any intent to pray with students, but in fact he repeatedly demanded that he be able to continue praying with his students, declaring that he was “helping these kids be better people.” The court also claimed that no students were coerced into prayer, but the record shows that at least some players joined Kennedy in prayer solely to avoid separating themselves from their team. And in any event, that misses the broader point: As the court had recognized for over a half-century, merely forcing students to choose between participating in teacher-led prayer, protesting, or avoiding certain school activities where official prayer occurs is inherently coercive and therefore unconstitutional.

Taken together, the court’s rulings in Carson and Kennedy lead “us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized in her Carson dissent. These rulings suggest that enforcement of the Establishment Clause is somehow hostile to religion. But the opposite is true: Many people of faith, including Christians and adherents of minority faiths, strongly support the separation of church and state as a core component of religious liberty. They recognize, as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other of our nation’s founders, that religious freedom thrives best when government officials don’t tip the scales toward their favored religious beliefs.

Nevertheless, in recent years, the court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether. The court has permitted official, nearly exclusively Christian prayer at government meetings and has allowed the government to display giant religious symbols, like a 40-foot Latin cross. The Supreme Court has also sided with those who, in the name of religion, discriminate against customers, employees, and recipients of government-funded social services. With this month’s decisions, the court has now required that government funds be diverted from a secular education program to support religious education and indoctrination and has allowed school officials to impose religion on public-school students. The ruling in Kennedy is particularly disturbing because, until now, the court has repeatedly recognized that students are impressionable, much more vulnerable to religious coercion, and, thus, deserving of the highest levels of constitutional protection. Instead, the court subverted students’ religious liberty to the religious demands of school staff.

The Carson decision could also open the door to broader government funding of religious activities more generally, and Kennedy will likely embolden government employees in other contexts to claim a similar right to promote religion while on duty, even if it infringes on the religious freedom of others. This attack on the Establishment Clause is as unwise as it is infuriating. As Justice O’Connor shrewdly observed 17 years ago, “[a]t a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government … [o]ur regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish.”

She warned that “[t]hose who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” It’s a question this Supreme Court majority has not deigned to answer, perhaps because there’s no good reason to abandon the separation of church and state, and every reason to ensure that it remains strong.

The ‘Age of Innocence’ is over hate speech is on the rise USA (MNN) – Open any social media platform, and you get an eyeful of ugly. Hate speech, fake news, social media trolling, political arguments, bullying, rudeness, and incivility—at times, it feels like the ‘Age of Innocence,’ an internet era of finding long-lost friends and sharing baby pictures, is long gone.

Is it your imagination? Not entirely. Between last week’s brouhaha involving President Donald Trump’s tweets and rally and France’s National Assembly taking Facebook to task, the issue of internet civility is raising concerns.

The Data
A Barna Group study released on July 16 reveals that 70% of U.S. adults believe hate speech and hate crimes have increased in the past five years. 22% say they have stayed the same, and just 3% believe it has declined. Barna’s researchers defined hate speech/crime as “speech or crimes that are motivated by racial, sexual or other prejudice.”

When asked about causes behind the perceived increase, two of the top four responses related to the internet and social media.

The breakdown is as follows:

• 65%-“Politicians are encouraging or feeding it”

• 62%-“Social media and the internet have amplified and encouraged it”

• 61%-“America is more divided as a country”

• 57%-“The internet has provided a forum for hate groups to multiply and grow”

Some observations
Many parents, when presented with this information, struggle with how to protect their children while at the same time helping them learn to defend themselves. Keys For Kids’ executive director Greg Yoder says this is a timely discussion for families. First, he observes that people THINK hate speech is on the increase because there are more accusations of racism, homophobia, and bigotry. Many times it is merely a different political view.

However, he adds, “One thing that I think is increasing is hate speech against Christians. I think here the United States especially, we’re seeing more and more people who view our Judeo Christian ethic as being intolerant. I think, in their minds, I think that’s hateful.” That perspective doesn’t improve when Christians go on the defensive in a conversation and wind up sounding militant as a result. “They’re wanting to stand their ground. They’re saying Truth, but they’re not necessarily doing it in love, as Christ would have done.”

When asked how followers of Christ can be part of the solution, he responded, “What does Jesus say? ‘Love your enemies.’ We need to talk to our Christian kids about how to defend our beliefs and becoming more of apologists and asking questions, rather than flinging Christian insults at people or preaching at them or quoting a Bible verse out of context or something.”

Be part of the solution
Get familiar with what the Bible says, suggests Yoder, because that directs worldview. “The bottom line is that we’re pointing young people and families to Christ through His Word. And, frankly, that is the only way you’re going to build a foundation, ready to answer some of the world’s questions, especially in light of the hate that is present out there. God isn’t one of those gods of hate. He is a God of love…He’s a God of judgment, but He is (also) a God of love. And we need to tell people about that.”

Keys For Kids offers tools to help families develop the discipline of studying God’s Word together. They offer devotional booklets (print and electronic), audio programming (via internet radio and mp3 players), Keys For Camps devotionals, Unlocked (for teens) and the new Storyteller ministry.

These tools support parents as they teach their children about their faith, Yoder adds. “It’s pointing to real life, anecdotal situations, that tell kids about the Scripture that kind of goes behind that, and then how to apply it to your life.”

Moving forward
The point: to ignite a passion for Christ and a natural outgrowth of ‘what would Jesus Do?’ Then, confrontation has the potential to become an exchange of ideas and Truth rather than the polarization we see now. “Once you can apply biblical principles to your life, and then begin practicing them, that’s when you get grounded. And that’s when you realize there’s more to this faith than just reading a story and reading the Word. It’s actually practicing what you’re reading and understanding it that way, and then sharing it.”

Is it really that simple? Well, nothing is ‘simple’ when it comes to a world without hope. However, being part of the solution starts with one heart at a time.

Yoder concludes with this thought: “If you’re struggling– you don’t know what to say to people when they ask these tough questions–maybe you should start reading the Word and digging in. You Version has some great ways for you to begin digging into the Word.”

What Everyone Should Know About Trans Day of Visibility March 31 is Transgender Day of Visibility. International Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV) was started by transgender advocate Rachel Crandall in 2010 as a response to trans visibility (through media, news, etc.) as either heavily focused on violence, or it dismisses trans identity as part of “culture wars.” TDOV is a day to celebrate the lives, the contributions (and the joy!) of trans people, while also bringing awareness that this remains a very marginalized community that needs our support.

Last year alone, over 400 anti-trans laws were filed many impacting trans youth. The American Library Association reported that “titles representing the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals made up 47% of those targeted in censorship attempts.”

According to Gallup (via GLAAD), only 30% of Americans personally know a trans person. This is in addition to recognizing that due to discrimination, many trans people cannot safely be visible. TDOV is more important than ever not just for the trans community. If we read, watch, or listen to stories that leave out trans voices, we are all missing out. Why? Because, authenticity matters. The more authentic stories we have from people with lived experience, the more stories we have overall! As Kind, Connected Humans, we want to hear everyone’s voices—because we can only connect when we truly see someone for who they are.

Over 300 Anti-LGBTQ+ Bills Have Already Been Filed in 2023 It’s only February and we’ve nearly surpassed last year’s total of 315 bills.

Less than two full months into 2023, over 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have now been introduced in state legislatures around the country.

Legislative researcher Allison Chapman made note of the grim statistic on Twitter on Thursday, including a screenshot of the LGBTQ+ Legislative Tracking spreadsheet compiled by her and fellow trans activists Alejandra Caraballo and Erin Reed. Chapman wrote that the largest number of bills, 91, aim to ban gender-affirming care, followed by 44 “Don’t Say Gay” style bills, 39 trans sports bans, and 27 drag bans. Other categories of bills include trans bathroom bans, birth certificate change bans, and forced misgendering.

“We are in truly unprecedented times,” Chapman wrote.

Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of GLAAD noted in a statement that this number is “nearly the entirety of bills introduced during the whole 2022 legislative session.” In 2022, 315 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced in states across the nation, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

The LGBTQ+ Legislative Tracking spreadsheet also includes a map that shows where anti-LGBTQ+ bills are most concentrated, and a map that ranks states by their anti-trans laws. Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama and Florida are classified as having the “worst active anti-trans laws,” with Texas, Alabama, and Montana additionally ranked as having introduced the highest number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills this year thus far.

Ricardo Martinez, CEO of Equality Texas, said in a statement via GLAAD that anti-LGBTQ+ Texas lawmakers “are pursuing an agenda that attacks Texas families, neighbors, youth, and fellow community members who are simply trying to live and thrive in our state.”

“LGBTQ+ Texans deserve to have peace, safety, and leaders who will prioritize improving the lives of Texans,” Martinez said.

Chris Sanders, the executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, also said in a statement via GLAAD that his state’s “slate of hate” would “hurt countless LGBTQ youth and families” and urge lawmakers instead to focus on other issues plaguing Tennessee, rather than “perpetuate myths and distractions around drag performances and basic healthcare access for transgender people.”

It is worth noting that a recent report from the Human Rights Campaign found that of the 315 anti-LGBTQ+ bills that were introduced in 2022, 91% failed to actually become law.

Still, Ellis emphasized that whether or not the bills advance, they will have a detrimental effect on all LGBTQ+ people, but especially LGBTQ+ youth. “As our community's dignity and safety are under attack,” Ellis said, “we need every lawmaker and voter to speak up in support of LGBTQ people and in support of ensuring protections against discrimination so we can all feel safe and free.”

All Hunter Biden Sex Crime Report On My Laptop Missing 100s Prostitutes Body's - https://rumble.com/v4hir8u-all-hunter-biden-sex-crime-report-on-my-laptop-missing-100s-prostitutes-bod.html - Hunter Biden Sex Crime Report On My Laptop Missing 100s Missing Or Dead Prostitutes Body Etc.

Pedophile Joe Biden Said About His Son Hunter Biden Is A Parasitic Monsters - https://rumble.com/v4hhtyk-pedophile-joe-biden-said-about-his-son-hunter-biden-is-a-parasitic-monsters.html - Pedophile Joe Biden Said About His Sick Son Hunter Biden Is A Parasitic Monsters Literally and Predatory Sociopath is Feeding Off 9.6 Million Dead Or Children Gone Missing Each Year Around World.

Male to Female Sex Reassignment Surgery Live ** Very Graphic ** Think Twice Guys ? - https://rumble.com/v2hpw3e-male-to-female-sex-reassignment-surgery-live-very-graphic-think-twice-guys-.html

WoW This Looks Fun Lady's Keyhole Top Surgery For Female to Male Transgender -- https://rumble.com/v2zsoao-wow-this-looks-fun-ladys-keyhole-top-surgery-for-female-to-male-transgender.html

New Mandate Law To Force All U.S.A. Female To Get Sex Genital Mutilation Survivors - https://rumble.com/v2hjog8-new-mandate-law-to-force-all-u.s.a.-female-to-get-sex-genital-mutilation-su.html

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a non-medical procedure that involves partial or total removal of the external female genitalia. It is most often carried out on young girls between infancy and age 15 and has no health benefits for girls and women, causing severe bleeding and problems urinating, cysts, infections as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.

Emergency Childbirth 1961 US Navy Vintage Educational Film ** GRAPHIC ** - https://rumble.com/v281x8a-emergency-childbirth-1961-us-navy-vintage-educational-film-graphic-.html

Maternity Care (US Navy, 1963) Vintage Educational Film ** GRAPHIC ** - https://rumble.com/v281uwo-maternity-care-us-navy-1963-vintage-educational-film-graphic-.html

Truth Behind Meat Production Chicken Waffle Beef Burger An Eye-Opening Exploration - https://rumble.com/v2mmrac-truth-behind-meat-production-chicken-waffle-beef-burger-an-eye-opening-expl.html

Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People? - https://rumble.com/v2qf2nk-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-people-will-threaten-the-live-of-vaccinated-pe.html

You Will Never Trust Another Celebrity After Watching This Corrupt U.S.A. Governments - https://rumble.com/v2kq5mw-you-will-never-trust-another-celebrity-after-watching-this-corrupt-u.s.a.-g.html

Maxine Waters, Antifa-BLM, God Bless America's Blacks Killing Blacks Candace Owen - https://rumble.com/v3bvmo1-maxine-waters-antifa-blm-god-bless-americas-blacks-killing-blacks-candace-o.html

Why Federal Police, State Police, Local Police Some Are Bad This Federal Propaganda - https://rumble.com/v2ndh2g-why-federal-police-state-police-local-police-some-are-bad-this-federal-prop.html

Why Are Police In The USA So Terrified? What’s the difference between Federal Police, State Police, and Local Police? This video will answer that question for you!

We The People Of The New World Order Year Zero Thank You Let's Stop All Wars Now - https://rumble.com/v3omcs3-we-the-people-of-the-new-world-order-year-zero-thank-you-lets-stop-all-wars.html

U.S.A. Drug Enforcement Administration & Department of Justice With Help From FBI & CIA & Local Police And Sheriff Dept. All Over U.S.A. Our Killing Thousands America Citizens Right Now Today. No One Is A Missing Person At All. If You Get Pulled Over By Police States In A Car Or Truck With Money You Have A 20% Change You Will Be Killed For The Money Or Sold As A Sex Slave. This Statement Is No Joke At All... You Will Be Killed By U.S.A. Government And Yes This Is Real Information From New World Order Today.

Reports suggest that the government has lost track of 85,000 sex slave and migrant children, and some of them are dead now and many have been forced into sex labor in the U.S. The Biden administration has allowed 250,000 and sold unaccompanied minors to cross the southern border in the last two years, and at least 85,000+ of these children have gone missing under their watch real numbers are closer to 132,000+ sold by U.S.A. Government. The Biden Pedophile's Administration has been accused of killing and rape children presiding over the abuse of these unaccompanied minors in federal facilities for years, and local communities are left in the dark about the minors' length of stay or their fate once released. Congress is investigating this issue, and hearings are expected to be part of a series of congressional efforts.

U.S.A. Government & Police States Are Seizing Tens Of Billions U.S. Money And Killing Of Thousands People Our Killed Or Missing Or Dead And All The Money Is Gone Now. Highway robbery with badges. That is what Empyreal Logistics, a national armored car company, has been the victim of multiple times within the last year. Five times, drivers with the company have been pulled over for flimsy reasons with officers seizing the cash they were transporting on behalf of customers a total of three times.

Per DOA-DOJ-FBI-CIA-Etc. Every U.S.A. Person Or America Citizens Right Now Today As of Oct 2023 Need To Be In Jail Or Pay $$$ Fines Now. Per federal and local agencies. All The America People Break The Law Ave. 3 Times Everyday with A Ave. Fine of $512 dollars a day. it add up to 512 x 365 days a year add up to $186,880 Dollars per year in fines per person right now. also federal and local agencies issue an average of 27 rules for every law over the past decade.

However, the rules issued in a given year are typically not substantively related to the current year’s laws, as agency output represents ongoing implementation of earlier legislation. According to a 2020 article, the more than 300,000+ laws and regulatory crimes on the federal law books serve little purpose other than inviting arbitrary enforcement by providing prosecutors the tools to charge nearly anyone with violating some long-forgotten regulation and pay the fines now or go to jail for everyone in the U.S.A..

Show less