Originally posted by Starhawk
Read back and read more closely.
I have quoted every post you made after I asked the questions didn't see the answers, so just quote your post where you answer my questions. Or just admit that you are a liar, everybody here can see that already.
Originally posted by Starhawk
If you can bring them up as part of the debate before I post them so can I, it works both ways.
only you started takling about them first, you can hardly blame this on us.
Originally posted by Starhawk
No I did answer, just no the way you like or in a way that agrees with you, so you ignore it.And yes I can blame you, you could be patient and wait but your ego can't.
You blame me for not agreeing with your so called evidence when it doesn't exist?
I have shown you prove that the justice department doesn't post these statistics, I have shown you prove that the FBI does and I have shown you the FBI statistics, you completely ignored them all. You also haven't answered my questions. You posted something that was completely irrelevant and quoted somebody else while doing it.
Originally posted by Fishy
You blame me for not agreeing with your so called evidence when it doesn't exist?I have shown you prove that the justice department doesn't post these statistics, I have shown you prove that the FBI does and I have shown you the FBI statistics, you completely ignored them all. You also haven't answered my questions. You posted something that was completely irrelevant and quoted somebody else while doing it.
I have answered you questions, just not in the manner you like. And you need to be patient and wait until I post the scans like grown ups do.
Originally posted by Starhawk
I have answered you questions, just not in the manner you like. And you need to be patient and wait until I post the scans like grown ups do.
Posting the exact same thing over and over again doesn't make you right...
It also shows how big of a hypocrite you are. You say people should always be able to answer simple yes or no questions when you refuse to do so yourself. But whatever you post your evidence then I'll prove it wrong once again.
Originally posted by Starhawk
So again, you have the close minded opinion, that no matter what evidence someone posts, you are always right? Again, thats a train of logic on par with Bush.
No, I have shown evidence from the justice department and FBI, who are the official sources on the matter. I have asked you questions that you haven't answered even though you say it should be easy and should be done more often. You on the other hand continue to post without showing evidence without answering my questions or the points I make in my posts and for some reason think that makes you good at debating...
Originally spoken by Mike Pence[/i]
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk numbered MV_072.The amendment that I offer today makes it clear that the hate crimes bill we are considering will not affect the constitutional right to religious freedom and will ensure that future courts will not construe this statute to infringe on a person’s religious liberty.
First of all, I believe that a hate crimes bill is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them, and there is no evidence that the underlying violent crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the states. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for their thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.Some of these thoughts, beliefs or attitudes such as racism and sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them. However, the hate crimes bill is broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount in our minds as we consider this bill.
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” America was founded upon the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion is at the core of the American experiment in democracy.
Of great concern to me is that hate crimes laws could be used to target religious groups. Of the 9,430 “hate crimes” recorded by the FBI in 1999, by far the largest group was labeled “intimidation.” The “intimidation” category does not even exist for ordinary crimes. This vague concept is already being abused by some local governments, which target speech in favor of traditional morality as “hate speech.”
The road we could be led down is one in which pastors, religious broadcasters and evangelical leaders who are speaking their own personal convictions could be prosecuted under hate crimes statutes.
For example, in New York, a pastor who had rented billboards and posted biblical quotations on sexual morality had them taken down by city officials, who cited hate crimes principles as justification.
In San Francisco, the city council enacted a resolution urging local broadcast media not to run advertisements by a pro-family group. No viewpoint should be suppressed simply because someone disagrees with it.
Finally, pro-homosexual activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign have stated their belief that an ad campaign by pro-family groups showing that many former homosexual people had found happiness in a heterosexual lifestyle, contributed to the tragic 1998 murder of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard. There is no evidence that his killers even knew about the ads, and Shepard’s killers told ABC’s 20/20 that they were motivated by money and drugs. However, the danger here is that people use a hate crimes bill to silence the freedom of religious leaders to speak out against homosexuality.
There is a real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or section 2 of title 18, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission; or one who “willfully causes an act to be done” by another.
It is easy to imagine a situation in which a prosecutor may seek to link “hateful” speech to causing hateful violent acts. For example, in a 2004 case in Philadelphia, 11 individuals were arrested at OutFest, a gay pride festival. The individuals held signs and were reading segments of the Bible. They were arrested after protesting peacefully, charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors. Their felony charges included “possession of instruments of crime” (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading passages from the Bible related to homosexuality).
Whether or not a riot occurred involving the Christians was debatable, and even so they faced $90,000 in fines and possible 47-year prison sentences.
To guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws, this amendment clarifies and re-emphasizes the importance of religious freedom in our country and the respect of that freedom. It makes clear that people and groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom taken away.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Let us follow Mr. Jefferson’s lead and pass this amendment to make clear that this statute does not seek to criminalize religious thoughts.
"Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution."
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”Chairman John Conyers and Congressional Democrats kept evading the issue, providing reasons why they could not accept the amendment until Rep. Lundgren demanded, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
At that point Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama candidly said, “Yes.”
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) offered an amendment to include military personnel as a protected class. He noted that troops in uniform often find themselves targets of hate and physical attack.Republicans also proposed making senior citizens a protected class, pointing to crimes against elderly people. Likewise, why not extend hate crimes protection to pregnant women, who may be battered by boyfriends or husbands when they become pregnant, Republican proposed.
Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida offered an amendment to give homeless people hate crimes protection.
(Re-posted since people clearly are missing the issue--the Democrats are designing the bill to give special privileges to GLBT people alone and there is evidence of their intention to eventually remove the right of people to say that homosexuality is morally wrong.)
That's nice. It's wrong, but it's nice.
Stating what some people "wanted" to do and passing it off as though it were factually a part of this legislation is misleading.
Also, you'll notice the last two quotes illustrate a sense of humor on the part of those republicans mentioned. It's not funny, but it shows they're sarcastic. What they intended to do by proposing those groups be classified as "protected" is to muddy the waters, to attempt to show that homosexuals are being offered exclusivity by the law. This is not the case.
Originally posted by StarhawkW-wait a second. You are claiming that when it comes to collecting data and statistics on crime, there is a higher source that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Department of Justice? And that you, a Canadian law student, have access to this source?
It doesn't prove I'm wrong as I have proof from a source higher up then yours.
Just leave, Starhawk. You are an idiot beyond all imagination. On top of being wrong.
Originally posted by Strangelove
W-wait a second. You are claiming that when it comes to collecting data and statistics on crime, there is a higher source that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Department of Justice? And that you, a [b]Canadian law student, have access to this source?Just leave, Starhawk. You are an idiot beyond all imagination. On top of being wrong. [/B]
No Strangelove, learn proper english, what I said was that the US department of justice was higher up then the FBI.
And watch the idiot comments, its getting to the point of bashing.
Originally posted by Starhawk
No Strangelove, learn proper english, what I said was that the US department of justice was higher up then the FBI.And watch the idiot comments, its getting to the point of bashing.
'Then' instead of 'than'. I think you're the one who needs to learn proper English my friend.
Originally posted by StarhawkThe FBI is the investigative arm of the Department of Justice. They have the exact same data.
No Strangelove, learn proper english, what I said was that the US department of justice was higher up then the FBI.And watch the idiot comments, its getting to the point of bashing.
And I could care less if you think I'm bashing or what, but you are absolutely bonkers if you think that you have a leg to stand on in this issue. You have been proved wrong at every turn, and yet you continue to spout the same (incorrect) opinions. And when you have nothing to say, you try and redirect the issue to "scold" us for bashing. It's not going to work, buddy.