The current Left is employing a strategy of incrementalism that will eventually criminalize the preaching of the gospel, which may not matter to Catholics, having abandoned it during the Council of Trent, but does matter to Protestants.The gospel is the most offensive thing of all to natural man and of course the American government would love to outlaw it. In their recent collusion with CAIR, I’d say the left is well on it’s way. Shari’ah law has plenty to say about the preaching of the gospel, erecting churches, proselytizing, and so on.

And appealing to Soren Kierkegaard as some kind of example of Christian thought is simply ridiculous. He was a theological liberal not at all representative of historic, orthodox Christianity. I would venture to say that Kierkegaard doesn’t understand the Bible’s position on Genesis 22 at all.

So what does “moral relativism” mean? In short, it is the idea that moral principles are based on your culture (such as where and when you live, your education, your age, and your level of wealth) and therefore subject to individual choice.

Cultural relativism is not the same as moral relativism – at least not the moral relativism that Dobson is (likely) describing. Everybody but the most ardent absolutists believe in cultural relativism, what Dobson is referring to is the moral relativism that says that there is nothing objectively different from Mother Theresa vs. Hitler, for example. Do you believe in that form of moral relativism? If not, than you are not the moral relativist Dobson is referring to.

However, as it was the “Christianizing” that provided the rationalization for annihilating millions of “heathen” Native Americans and the Filipino “savages,” it was the type of evangelical thinking that rationalized the brutal and fatal beating Satendar Singh because his physical affections towards other men did not align with the Church’s views on homosexuality.

This is a repeated and worn out canard, you and I both know that “Christianizing” didn’t provide the rationale for annihilating millions of Native Americans – diseases did. The same can be said of your other claims. Also, Christianity has also contributed to some serious social justice in the world and in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr and most of the abolitionist movement for example, based its authority and foundation on Christianity. To speak of Christianity as if it has only contributed negatively to the United States is to be soo one sided that you lose credibility.

Your psychological analysis on Christianity and leadership aside, I think the real reason Dobson and others are against Hate Crime laws expanding to include homosexuality is because they strongly feel that homosexuality should not be singled out as a federally protected group – an area I strongly agree with them on.

In fact, I would go further than many on the Dobson side and argue that all Hate Crime laws should be removed. I believe that in the United States you have a right, indeed a fundamental right, to believe and think whatever you want – if you believe in racism, sexism, ‘homophobism’, communism, fascism, atheism, and anarchism, that is your fundamental right to do so and nobody should prohibit you of such rights. Remember, even communists (arguably the most anti-free speech group in history) believe in free speech when it benefits them, the true test in whether you believe in free speech is when you find the message repugnant.

Of course this doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you want – of course there should be laws against crime, excessive use of force, and intimidation. Nobody is arguing against that. But that punishment should be based on the crime, the excessive use of force, and the intimidation, not the thought behind it. If you equally beat someone because he is a homosexual or because he is a polygamist, I think you should get the same punishment – period. Your thoughts behind such acts are your own and should (and are, IMO) constitutional protected.

In other words, I believe it is your moral, constitutional, and patriotic duty to fight against this Hate Crime extension, and all Hate Crime laws already on the books.

While some feel we are far better off developing thicker skins than creating laws that stifle free expression, there comes a time when we must develop tools that can provide assistance in helping us from falling under an agentic state that pressures us to say and think what our leaders and peers demand.

This is a very telling remark on your part and I think it exemplifies the drastic change the left has taken over the years. What used to be the bastion of free speech is now the strongest force against free speech. Whether it is the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act, the upcoming ‘Fairness in Media’ legislation going through congress, or the recent Hate Crime addition, the strongest attackers on free speech seems to be from the left.

I guess the left believes that free speech should only be protected when it is used to defend flag burning and communists defenders, eh?