What do you think about that bill in congress banning preaching against homosexuals?

Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
What do you think about that bill in congress banning preaching against homosexuals?

Personally I think it violates seperation of Church and state./


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
You have a link? It is a

You have a link?

It is a ban on religious institutions preaching against homosexuality? That does sound like a violation of separation of church and state. 


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
http://www.afa.net/hatecrime2

ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Forget seperation of church

Forget seperation of church and state. The issue is freedom of speech. I'm offended by the very concept of "hate speech" being an offence. Words hurt nothing but feelings and nowhere do you have the right to not have your feelings hurt.

People should have the freedom to say what they think about homosexuals, heterosexuals, christians, muslims, atheists, blacks, whites, asians, obese people, skinny people, democrats, republicans and libertarians.

When you move from expressing an opinion to acting on that opinon is when the law can get involved.

I can't stand this current banning of unpopular ideas. It stifles freedom of thought and really only makes homophobic or racist attitudes fester. It forces them underground and justifys them with some sort of martyr complex - making people who whold those opinions more likely to do something other than express them with nice safe (if somethimes hurtful) words.

Let "hate speech" be spoken openly. Let it be debated. Let people see the flaws and if it it has no merit it will go away of it's own accord (not completely, but mostly) and more people will genuinely not be bigotted rather than simply hiding their bigotry for fear of punnishment.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Forget seperation of church and state. The issue is freedom of speech. I'm offended by the very concept of "hate speech" being an offence. Words hurt nothing but feelings and nowhere do you have the right to not have your feelings hurt.

People should have the freedom to say what they think about homosexuals, heterosexuals, christians, muslims, atheists, blacks, whites, asians, obese people, skinny people, democrats, republicans and libertarians.

When you move from expressing an opinion to acting on that opinon is when the law can get involved.

I can't stand this current banning of unpopular ideas. It stifles freedom of thought and really only makes homophobic or racist attitudes fester. It forces them underground and justifys them with some sort of martyr complex - making people who whold those opinions more likely to do something other than express them with nice safe (if somethimes hurtful) words.

Let "hate speech" be spoken openly. Let it be debated. Let people see the flaws and if it it has no merit it will go away of it's own accord (not completely, but mostly) and more people will genuinely not be bigotted rather than simply hiding their bigotry for fear of punnishment.

 

Well said. I'm always baffled by the idea that cleaning up speech changes the underlying attitudes. I always thought that we should teach to not hate, then there would be no hate speech.  


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Hmm.. I'm not seeing

Hmm.. I'm not seeing anything in the bill that would prevent churches from preaching against homosexuality. It seems they are simply adding physical violence motivated by things like sexual orientation and disability to the existing hate crime laws, and creating grants for law enforcement agencies that do not have the funds to enforce hate crime laws.

You can see the bill here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.1105:

Section 9 also states:

Quote:
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
(Churches would be protected by the 1st amendment)

Also note the summary:

Quote:

Amends the federal criminal code to impose criminal penalties for causing (or attempting to cause) bodily injury to any person using fire, a firearm, or any explosive or incendiary device because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person.

Amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to require Attorney General to: (1) acquire data on crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on gender and gender identity; and (2) include in an annual summary of such data crimes committed by, and against, juveniles.

From the summary of the "parent" bill (H.R. 1592) available here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.1592:

Quote:
(Sec. 8 ) Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit expressive conduct or activities protected by the First Amendment.

 

 

I did, however, see this open letter to the senate about the misunderstanding some christians are having about it:
http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/

Quote:
The first untruth being spread is that this is a "thought crimes bill", rather than an extension of the current hate-crimes law. This argument is being made by the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and the Traditional Values Coalition, among others. In an audio message on their website the Family Research Council erroneously implies that this bill criminalizes thought and that "Christians are the major targets." [iii] In fact, however, after addressing offenses of bodily injury, Section 8 of this bill as passed by the House of Representatives specifically reiterates protection of the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution:

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

And a completely different criticism, but that makes specific note of the fact that it's about physical violence - http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat19.htm

A news story about the same controversy of HR 1592, the "parent" bill -
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200704/CUL20070426b.html
(Of course it was already shown that HR 1592 was changed to specify that it doesn't include free expression, just physical violence.)

So, unless I'm missing something, basically it looks like the hate crime bill is already there, specifically excludes free expression so that religion is not being stifled, but the religious are lying and saying it does so that assaulting a gay person can't be called a hate crime. In doing so they could cut out people with disabilities in the process, and deny funding to law enforcement agencies that need it. Besides, if it were about speech, I would think that the hate groups would have made a huge stink by now.

 IF it really were a ban on hate speech I would oppose it. People should be allowed to say what they want to so long as it's not something like a death threat. I may not like hearing it, but I don't think someone should be imprisioned for having disagreeable ideas.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
These idiots dont need to

These idiots dont need to write more laws, they simply need to inforce the ones already there.

You cant advocate violence, be it against your neighbor, spouse or group.

There is no such thing as a "Jelocy Crime" laws. There are laws that say you cant kill someone because you caught them in bed with your spouse. The law is quite simple, you cant kill someone because you dont like them or something they did.

BUT our goverment cant punish you because of your thoughts or your emotions. They should only detain you when YOU violate someone else's rights. But they cant and should not create laws punishing you for your thoughts.

Congress unfortunatly seems to value popular demand over the First Amendment.

I dont like the fact that some preachers condemn homosexuality. I dont like that they condemn me for being an atheist. But if they are just saying, "Atheists will go to hell" that is their right and IS NOT a call to violence even if I find it offensive.

You should not be punished MORE OR LESS severly than say if you had assaulted or murderd your spouse.

No one is obligated to like me and I damn sure dont want to live under a goverment that plays thought police.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm one of the first to come

I'm one of the first to come in swinging in defense of the first amendment, but I read the bill too, and like ABx, see nothing that tries to restrict what churches teach, or what anyone says. In fact, that seems like an extreme distortion. All it seems to do is provide funding and coordination for enforcing hate crime legislation. This is sensationalism.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: I'm one of

rexlunae wrote:
I'm one of the first to come in swinging in defense of the first amendment, but I read the bill too, and like ABx, see nothing that tries to restrict what churches teach, or what anyone says. In fact, that seems like an extreme distortion. All it seems to do is provide funding and coordination for enforcing hate crime legislation. This is sensationalism.

I only read the article, not the bill. I hope you're right. Unfortunately here in Australia we don't have the same protections for freedom of speech and we are a little too prepared to give up individual freedoms to make sure noone's offended.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I think a lot of the

I think a lot of the Christian objections may come from ideas outside of the bill itself. I don't remember where I read this but

Someone[I think it may have been another congressman] asked a congressman if a preacher preached against homosexualty in the morning and then someone that heard it went out and killed a homosexual if the preacher could be charged for [something]. The congressman said yes. 

I don't know how true that stament is, but I think thats where the fear comes in. 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:
I think a lot of the Christian objections may come from ideas outside of the bill itself. I don't remember where I read this but

Someone[I think it may have been another congressman] asked a congressman if a preacher preached against homosexualty in the morning and then someone that heard it went out and killed a homosexual if the preacher could be charged for [something]. The congressman said yes.

I don't know how true that stament is, but I think thats where the fear comes in.

I think thats where things get a bit fuzzy. Its wrong to kill someone, but telling someone to kill someone is a bit different.

Apparently fighting words are a part of the limits of "free"speech. So that kinda makes a lot of the laws we have right now and creating, apparently, over kill.

I think people should be warry of advocating violence, but its not like revolutions get very far without it. Of course thats treason till you win Eye-wink 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: simple

Voiderest wrote:
simple theist wrote:
I think a lot of the Christian objections may come from ideas outside of the bill itself. I don't remember where I read this but

Someone[I think it may have been another congressman] asked a congressman if a preacher preached against homosexualty in the morning and then someone that heard it went out and killed a homosexual if the preacher could be charged for [something]. The congressman said yes.

I don't know how true that stament is, but I think thats where the fear comes in.

I think thats where things get a bit fuzzy. Its wrong to kill someone, but telling someone to kill someone is a bit different.

Apparently fighting words are a part of the limits of "free"speech. So that kinda makes a lot of the laws we have right now and creating, apparently, over kill.

I think people should be warry of advocating violence, but its not like revolutions get very far without it. Of course thats treason till you win Eye-wink

I should point out that at no point the preacher would say "now go kill them" or anything of that sort. (Unless your name last name is Phelps and then who knows-- of course I think he is the first group that 100% of all Christians is against) and Just that homosexually is a sin. Also teaching someone to hate a homosexual or to hate anyone is against Christianity.

Another common objection to the bill is that hate crime laws already exist and so any new bill should include everyone and not specific groups of people. 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I think anti-discrimination

I think anti-discrimination laws are a good thing. I am generally a proponent of freedom of speech unless such speech is harmful to other's liberty, based upon irrelevant natural differences. It's the same reason you have to stamp out bullying in schools. I'm quite glad there are discrimination laws in my country. Generally the consequences of such laws are a good thing, everyone generally gets along quite fine, racism, facism, homophobia are culturally frowned upon. There is a drive towards multi-cultural harmony.

I was bullied for most of my time in primary school and high school. Even today if someone says something not altogether nice to me, even if it is a joke I can't treat it as such. There are quite probably some issues I haven't quite put behind me there. The point is that I don't see that there is all that big a difference between discrimination based on irrelevant differences and playground bullying.

You would want to stop the playground bully calling the class nerd a worthless little shit or whatever. In fact he would be punished for it. So why does it apply any differently for adults?


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Jacob, if I punch you or if

Jacob, if I punch you or if I punch some random white guy on the street, I still punched someone. (Unless it was self-defense) Why I punched you shouldn't matter in my punishment. I should be punished the same in both cases.

There is no fair way to determine why I punched you. I am a Christain, so it may have been because you are an atheist, it could have been because you are part of the RRS, or it could have been that you were some random guy on the street and I felt lie hitting someone. Who is to say for what reason I punched you? If I get a stricter punishment for the the first two cases, I'm going to probably claim that it was the last case.

It will add time to court cases for trying to figure out why I did something.

Granted stricter punishment for discriminating crimes may help lower crime, but it may also give some people like Fred Phelps an additional reason to hate people. 

I think everyone should be treated the same way and the punishment should be the same reguardless of why I did the crime.

I should also mention I haven't read the bill. 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think

Quote:

I think anti-discrimination laws are a good thing. I am generally a proponent of freedom of speech unless such speech is harmful to other's liberty, based upon irrelevant natural differences.

 

Someone expresing a belief that homosexuals are disgusting is not discrimination. It's hurtful and it's ignorant but unless they are acting on that belief it is not discrimination.

 

Quote:

It's the same reason you have to stamp out bullying in schools.

There are a few differences between the two situations.

1) Bullying in schools involves children. Children shoudl be protected from things adults can be expected to deal with.

2) Bullying is directed at an individual, hate speech or discrimination is directed at groups.

3) Children are stuck in school. They are required to attend and forced to share classes with other children who may be bullying them. They cannot get away from it if they don't like it. If someone is giving a speech that offends you you can usually leave or change the channel.

 

Quote:

Generally the consequences of such laws are a good thing, everyone generally gets along quite fine, racism, facism, homophobia are culturally frowned upon. There is a drive towards multi-cultural harmony.

You cannot force harmony with social engineering. Bad ideas need to die in their own time, not just be hidden away so they cannot be discussed.This just leads to bitterness on the part of those who still hold those ideas and makes them less likely to outgrow them.

 

Quote:

I was bullied for most of my time in primary school and high school. Even today if someone says something not altogether nice to me, even if it is a joke I can't treat it as such. There are quite probably some issues I haven't quite put behind me there.

I was too. I was terrified of going to school. I think that my academic and social development were affected greatly by the bullying. I still have difficulty dealing with people.

In school, my only goal was to get to the end of the day, I never did anything but the bare minimum of homework because my attitude was I'd already suffered through the school day so I wasn't going to bring any part of it into the time I had away from that helhole. I made it into university (fortunately my intelligence compensated for my lazyness) but even there, where there was no bullying I found it very difficult to look at classes as something other than time I just had to survive until the end of.

At parties (when I  forget that I hate them and go anyway), or any other social situation with lots of people I don't know, I find it close to impossible to even start a conversation.

So I agree, bullying sucks. But what I did learn growing up is that authority figures doing something to stop the bullying only stopped it when the authority figure was looking. In some cases it encouraged it because it became a challenge to sneak in as much bullying as they could when the teacher's back was turned.

Respect does not come from being ordered to respect someone. 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Jacob, if I punch

Quote:
Jacob, if I punch you or if I punch some random white guy on the street, I still punched someone. (Unless it was self-defense) Why I punched you shouldn't matter in my punishment. I should be punished the same in both cases.

I agree. I've never understood why murdering someone because you didn't like them is somehow seen as not quite as bad as murdering someone because they are gay.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic, I don't

ParanoidAgnostic, I don't know how to deal with your comment here

Quote:
Someone expresing a belief that homosexuals are disgusting is not discrimination. It's hurtful and it's ignorant but unless they are acting on that belief it is not discrimination.
 

On one hand, I must say that my belief that homosexualty is wrong is not ignorant. It 100% based on the bible (which I hold as 100% true and reflects God's beliefs on any given subject.) So I have a belief that only God can determine what is Good. He has determined homosexualty is not good. Therefore, I must be against it and must consider it wrong.  As for being hurtful, sometimes the truth hurts, but it is still the truth.

However, your use of the word disgusting makes me think that maybe you wasn't directly refering to my beliefs and maybe ment it in a more extreme case like Fred Phelps.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

Jacob, if I punch you or if I punch some random white guy on the street, I still punched someone. (Unless it was self-defense) Why I punched you shouldn't matter in my punishment. I should be punished the same in both cases.

There is no fair way to determine why I punched you. I am a Christain, so it may have been because you are an atheist, it could have been because you are part of the RRS, or it could have been that you were some random guy on the street and I felt lie hitting someone. Who is to say for what reason I punched you? If I get a stricter punishment for the the first two cases, I'm going to probably claim that it was the last case.

It will add time to court cases for trying to figure out why I did something.

Granted stricter punishment for discriminating crimes may help lower crime, but it may also give some people like Fred Phelps an additional reason to hate people.

I think everyone should be treated the same way and the punishment should be the same reguardless of why I did the crime.

I should also mention I haven't read the bill.

Agreed. The punishment for punching your spouse should be the same as punching some stranger on the street.

"Why" does matter, but NOT for those reasons.

1. Premeditation

Or

2. Sudden act of passion.

That is what deterimines the severity of the punishment. Premeditation gets more punishment wherearas a sudden act of passion "heat of the moment" gets less time.

But that can both be applied to assaulting a spouse who cheated on you and harming someone because you dont like that they are an atheist or Muslim or Christian. The law should be applied equally and the law is already in place to deal with these situations.

I am glad other people in the thread get it to."hate crime" laws are a bad idea.

Some well intended people dont understand is that they may not be in the position of power deciding what the laws are. They may not be the  judge or prosicutor or congressmen overseeing or writing or making decisions as to what the laws are and what "hate" is.

Read my signature. It is offensive I am sure to some Christians. I wrote it not out of hate toward all Christians, but as sarcasim to the claim a disimbodied being got a girl pregnant. It makes no sense to me. If the "hate crime" people had their way that sig could be censored.

So to the atheist who likes "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws, are you telling me you'd be for a law that would allow a Christian to censor my sig or have me arrested for saying it?

Be carefull what you wish for, your good intent of ending bigotry can come and bite you on the butt. ATHEISTS are not in the majority and we dont have a majority . Since that is the case I dont want my goverment making laws about what I can or cannot say.

It is nice in those rare moments to have a theist agree with me, especially when it comes to issues of "free speech". I wont use government to stop you from telling me I am going to hell as long as you dont use government to stop me from calling your god fiction.

I think these pollitically correct people dont understand the dammage they will cause, even to their own speech rights if they get what they want. It is not a matter of intent, it is a matter of using goverment to play thought police. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Hey Brian37, sorry it's

Hey Brian37, sorry it's late (we'll actually its early, but I haven't been asleep) I should have included a lot more exceptions then what I did when it comes to why you did something, becuase as you stated it does matter more then I said. Clearly some "why's" do matter, but I don't think discrimination should be one of them. 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

ParanoidAgnostic, I don't know how to deal with your comment here

Quote:
Someone expresing a belief that homosexuals are disgusting is not discrimination. It's hurtful and it's ignorant but unless they are acting on that belief it is not discrimination.

On one hand, I must say that my belief that homosexualty is wrong is not ignorant. It 100% based on the bible (which I hold as 100% true and reflects God's beliefs on any given subject.) So I have a belief that only God can determine what is Good. He has determined homosexualty is not good. Therefore, I must be against it and must consider it wrong. As for being hurtful, sometimes the truth hurts, but it is still the truth.

However, your use of the word disgusting makes me think that maybe you wasn't directly refering to my beliefs and maybe ment it in a more extreme case like Fred Phelps.

My comment was not aimed at anyone, or even about homosexuality. I was only using hatred of homosexulaity as a specific example of a broader concept.

But since you bring it up, You have every right (as far as I'm concerned) to say that homosexuality is wrong.  However by expressing those opinions you open yourself to my responding to them. This is the true beauty of free speech. You can tell my what you think and I can tell you that I think you are wrong, maybe even ignorant for thinking that. I can also tell you that I think the bible is a collection of myths, passed down by word of mouth for generations before finally being written down and when they were finally brought together in one volume contradicted eachother. From that point it has been interpreted by people with various agendas to support a great many bad ideas.

So I'll let you tell me homosexuality offends God so long as you let me tell you that your god doesn't even exist?

Everyone wins 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:

I think a lot of the Christian objections may come from ideas outside of the bill itself. I don't remember where I read this but

Someone[I think it may have been another congressman] asked a congressman if a preacher preached against homosexualty in the morning and then someone that heard it went out and killed a homosexual if the preacher could be charged for [something]. The congressman said yes.

I don't know how true that stament is, but I think thats where the fear comes in.

Well that cut both ways. Many posters here post passioate posts about fighting absurd claims and talk about the dammage religion has caused world wide. But I would hope most here take personal responsibility for their own actions and understand that criticising, blaspheming or poking fun of something DOES NOT INTITLE ANYONE to take the law into their own hands or act out in violence because you dont like something.

If I had a nickle for every time I was called a peice of scum for not believing in god. If I had a nickle for every time I read a post equating atheists to hitler or promotion of pediophilia. That would not intitle any Christian to cause me phisical harm simple because they heard someone else say, "I dont like those atheists". Nor would it give me the right to punch them in the face for saying mean things.

IT CUTS BOTH WAYS. So my answer is simple. NO, that preacher is not responsible for what someone else does unless he is saying, "Go beat up gays" or "go kill gays". THAT IS A CRIME

Just as it would be a crime to say, "Go beat up my wife" or "go kill my wife".

If there is one thing I hate more than bigotry is the idea that goverment can solve the problem through playing thought police. If someone says something to me I dont like, I cant harm them. But I can use my own voice to counter their garbage.

I hate polliticall correctness. Again, it is not the intent of the "lets get along". It is using goverment as part of the tactic to play thought police.

No one should be forced to supress their emotions. But everyone is required by law to control their physicall actions and neither the atheist or Christian, Jew or gay is allowed to call for physical harm. Nor are we allowed to react in violence because someone offends us.

Well intended theists and atheists are going to screw everyone out of "free speech" with their pollitically correct attitudes. These people, as I said before, dont understand that they may not be the one in power deciding what is "offensive" or what "hate" is.

I would rather stick to common law and agree not to physically harm my neighbor no matter what is said. I am allowed to like or dislike whom I want and I should be able to express my blasphemy. Nor do I expect every Christian to like my by government force. But both sides should agree not to act out in physicall violence because the other side says something the other side doesnt like.

THE LAWS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE, we dont need thought police being our concious via government force. It is a bad idea and everyone will get screwed with that attitude. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I agree that this

I agree that this legislation is un-needed.  What is needed is enforcement of current laws.  Don't most states already outlaw incitement to violence?  Can't many people who cause violent acts through their words be cahrged under existing "accessory" laws of some sort.

Further, I think the whole slippery slope argument applies here.  Next it could be speech against religion, or against atheism, or against abortion, or against choice that's outlawed.

Finally, how can we identify organizations or persons whose views we disagree with unless their freely allowed to tell us what those views are?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: I'm one of

rexlunae wrote:
I'm one of the first to come in swinging in defense of the first amendment, but I read the bill too, and like ABx, see nothing that tries to restrict what churches teach, or what anyone says. In fact, that seems like an extreme distortion. All it seems to do is provide funding and coordination for enforcing hate crime legislation. This is sensationalism.

For the very reasons I state above putting the word "hate" as part of law language is a BAD IDEA. You are trying to justify the intent and I am talking about the exicution.

I have the right to hate whom I want. I can call Pat Robertson a peice of scum and there isnt a damned thing he can do about it. He can call me a peice of scum and there is not a damned thing I can do about it.

Using that kind of language in law is distructive long term no matter how good the intent is.

And again, for the reasons stated above.

If you kill someone because they cheated on you and it is pre meditated that is no different than killing someone pre meditated because they are gay or Jew or atheist. THE LAWS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE!

You dont get a pass because you have a "cant we all just get allong" attitude. What I am talking about is long term and cuts to the core of what kind of government we want to live under and what kind of laws we want to live under.

This is not sensationalism. Many of the same politically correct people want to put an end  to shows  like South Park. Many of these same pollitically correct people have attacked music like Alice Cooper, Marlyn Manson and rap music.

If you want to put people behind bars for not controling their behaivor and acting out in violence. I AM ALL WITH YOU, but I am not for any law language that promotes the idea or implys in any way that it is the goverment's right to "send a messages" as to what the thoughts in my head should be.

"hate crime" and "hate speech" are nothing but doublespeek lingo out of 1984. Go read it and maybe you'll understand why I am against your good intent. 

The law as it stands before this pollitically correct trend is simple. DONT PHYSICALLY HARM OTHER PEOPLE! That is language a monkey can understand. And doesnt need the word "hate" built into it.

I have the right to hate you and you have the right to hate me and there is no law keeping you or I free from expressing that hate nor should there be. BOTH of us should be mature enough without goverment becoming the playground police like we are little kids.

People are going to like you, or they wont and it shows a complete lack of personal responsibility to demand through goverment force to make someone like you.

It is not your intent, it is the growing long term trend in law language that I find dangerous to everyone's freedom. Again, your good intent is going to eventually bite you in the ass if laws like this continue to be made.

No well intended theist or atheist gets a pass on this issue simply because I think getting along is a good idea. This is about HOW laws are written AND WHO is in the position of writing and interpreting those laws that WE live under. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: rexlunae

Brian37 wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
I'm one of the first to come in swinging in defense of the first amendment, but I read the bill too, and like ABx, see nothing that tries to restrict what churches teach, or what anyone says. In fact, that seems like an extreme distortion. All it seems to do is provide funding and coordination for enforcing hate crime legislation. This is sensationalism.
For the very reasons I state above putting the word "hate" as part of law language is a BAD IDEA. You are trying to justify the intent and I am talking about the exicution.

I'm not. I am making a limited defense of this bill in that the OP and the linked article near the top misrepresent it very badly, and I think honesty requires that the bill be clarified. The issue of the validity of hate crime legislation was not what I was dicsussing, nor was it the only thing being discussed at the time. I agree that the concept of a "hate crime" is inappropriate, and a person's feelings should not effect the punishment for a crime, but those laws are already on the books, and it was not my intent to discuss them.

Brian37 wrote:
This is not sensationalism. Many of the same politically correct people want to put an end to shows like South Park. Many of these same pollitically correct people have attacked music like Alice Cooper, Marlyn Manson and rap music.

It is sensationalism to fantisize that this law is going to ban preachers from speaking against homosexuality. It does no such thing. There is no basis in the text of the bill that I can see that comes even close to saying that, and I defy you to cite a passage of the bill that seeks to do so.

Brian37 wrote:
If you want to put people behind bars for not controling their behaivor and acting out in violence. I AM ALL WITH YOU, but I am not for any law language that promotes the idea or implys in any way that it is the goverment's right to "send a messages" as to what the thoughts in my head should be.

I don't think we disagree at all on this, just don't interpret what I say in the context of later posts and we'll be OK.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: simple

Voiderest wrote:
simple theist wrote:
I think a lot of the Christian objections may come from ideas outside of the bill itself. I don't remember where I read this but

Someone[I think it may have been another congressman] asked a congressman if a preacher preached against homosexualty in the morning and then someone that heard it went out and killed a homosexual if the preacher could be charged for [something]. The congressman said yes.

I don't know how true that stament is, but I think thats where the fear comes in.

I think thats where things get a bit fuzzy. Its wrong to kill someone, but telling someone to kill someone is a bit different.

Apparently fighting words are a part of the limits of "free"speech. So that kinda makes a lot of the laws we have right now and creating, apparently, over kill.

I think people should be warry of advocating violence, but its not like revolutions get very far without it. Of course thats treason till you win Eye-wink

 As far as I am concerned, we should be free to express our opinions. Let me alter the objective of what we are talking about slightly...

If we were to say such things as "Bush is a moron" - "I hate the President" - "Our current president should be in international prision" - that's fine and dandy... this allows the person to vent their anger - while harming no one...

now... if someone were to say, "Let's go assassinate the President" - hold the phone - this implies intent. No matter how much a person may hate Bush - I would never expect the government to tolerate allowing such utterances to go unchecked.

Let the bigots and homophobes say what they want - but - the line has been crossed completely when they start saying things to the liking of "Gays should die at our hands".


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:

now... if someone were to say, "Let's go assassinate the President" - hold the phone - this implies intent. No matter how much a person may hate Bush - I would never expect the government to tolerate allowing such utterances to go unchecked.

What if someone said "I think it would be good if someone assasinated the president" or maybe just jokingly said "Let's go assassinate the president" Is that not okay? Where is the line drawn? How do you distinguish support from intent from humor? I certainly don't want the president to have the authority to decide on that subject.

I think only actions should be punishable, not words. If you are preparing for an assassination then the govenrment has every right to step in and kick your arse, but not while you're just expressing an opinion that the assassination would be a good idea.

Otherwise marcusfish would be in a lot of trouble with his "vote with a bullet" comment. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/8335

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!