Originally posted by Alliance
Its also illegal to attack other races as being inferior, or other religions...so whats your point besides the fact that you're a raging hypocrite? You're behind the times. If this was 40 years ago youd be whining about how your right to hate black people is being infringed upon.Why is it your place to decide what society believes and what it shouldn't?
I never said it was, I simply said i wish we could, the Government decides that.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Well we know it is a liberal thing and I doubt it if they are going to go through it.This not only takes our freedom of speech away but other stuff as well.
The goverment as way too much power as it is.
A "government that tyakes away too much power". But you take no responsability in taking that power yourself.
You loose.
Originally posted by FeceMan
the law ought to have provisions
Not what this is addressing. The "provisions" are there from teh beginning.
Originally posted by Starhawk
good enough
"good enough" is not "good enough"
Originally posted by FeceMan
[B My single post in this thread is more valid and well thought-out than any of yours. [/B]
Not really. Especially considering that you have NOT addressed it as such
Let's not totally ignore the reality of the situation in favor of addressing the "argument". The argument doesn't address the reality at all. First amendment is one thing. The reality is another. Hence the reason that no one is willing to address the "first" amendment at all, in relation to this contention.
Critical thinking is one thing, but "critical thinking" is a whole different beast when considering this legislation.
Originally posted by FeceMan
What the hell are you on about? "Reality of the situation" vs. the "argument"?
That's not my argument. Nor is it the point of the legislation. No one here is talking about the legislation. Everyone is talking about "talking points". Don't argue based on that inncorrect asumption.
Originally posted by sithsaber408C'mon SS. You were reading an incredibly biased Op-Ed piece, not news.
See and this here is the point.Why does it even matter?
You charge the person for assault or whatever crime regardless of how they felt about a person's race, gender, orientation, etc....
It has no bearing on committing a crime, and the fact that this new bill focuses PURELY on adding homosexuality into it, without protection for troops being attacked for their service, or children/elderly for their ages, and that a clause introduced by the Republican congressman Mike Pence of Indiana which stated an "exception to the hate crimes law for Freedom of Religion" was flat-out rejected shows a [b]clear
bias and attempt to make it illegal to think homosexuality is wrong.If it wasn't, then why not just punish for whatever crime was committed rather than what the person's feelings/thoughts were?
Let's play what if.
What if:
A gay person (or couple) visits a local church. Just to check it out or whatever. Maybe they're spiritual, maybe they aren't.
And somewhere in the service, they mention things going on in the culture.
Things like porn, abortion, murder, and..... homosexuality... as being part of the devil's attempts to destroy this society.
That such things are part of spiritual warfare and must be combatted with prayer.
That they should vote for those who believe as they do. (churches aren't allowed to endorse a particular candidate by name, but often say: "find those who have the same values as you do."
So basically, the church has said: Being gay is wrong. It is from the devil. We should fight it spiritually and with our actions(non-violent), words, and with our votes.
Under this new law, will the gay person or couple be able to accuse the pastor of a hate crime?
Uncertain for now, but I can see it leading that way soon enough. [/B]
It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.Expressing an opinion that homosexuality is wrong has never been considered a hate crime. Writing a law that prevents hate crimes would not criminalize something that wasn't a hate crime before. It is to prevent hate crimes for which laws are already on the books.
Again, expressing an opinion is not against the law. Especially an opinion that is religiously based, because most liberals understand, unlike conservatives, that forcing values onto another group is a bad thing.
Bring us a reputable news source saying that this new law would criminalize any and all speech against homosexuals and maybe you'd only be standing on shaky ground.
Charles Wendell "Chuck" Colson was the chief counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and was one of the Watergate Seven, jailed for Watergate-related charges.
Colson's views are typically consistent with a politically conservative interpretation of evangelical Christianity. In his Christianity Today columns, for example, Colson has opposed same-sex marriage, argued that Darwinism is used to attack Christianity, and claimed that the Enron accounting scandals were a consequence of secularism. He has also argued against Darwinism and in favor of intelligent design, saying Darwinism helped cause forced sterilizations by eugenicists.🙄 I'm so glad this guy is fighting for us 🙄
Originally posted by Starhawk
Religion has caused much more suffering over the course of history. but as long as it does not teach hate speech there's nothing I can do about it.I am against organized religion, not all religion.
Much more suffering? Not even close to wars for land. Don't speak about things you have no idea about.
To actually get this somewhere, define "hate speech".
Originally posted by FeceManThat Darwinism is used to attack Christianity?
Erm...yeah, really, Colson would be accurate in saying that.
I'm sorry, but FAIL.
Scientists don't sit around and say "I wonder how we can best undermine Christianity today." They do what they do because they want to understand how things work. It's used to understand where we come from. Attacking Christianity is hardly a goal.
there are many Christians who study and research the theory of evolution.
they see the wonder and mystery of it as being far superior to the "God done it" response given by pro-creation advocates. To them, something as complex, yet incredibly simple, as evolution shows the glory of God.
lol, way off topic....
Well, in my country it is a crime to spread Nazi ideology, and I agree with it.
Freedom of speech doesn`t mean that you are irresponsible for your words. And no right quaranteed by constitution is unlimited, because it can clash with other rights and public safety. Though I am not American and not an expert on USA Constitution.
Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Well, in my country it is a crime to spread Nazi ideology, and I agree with it.Freedom of speech doesn`t mean that you are irresponsible for your words. And no right quaranteed by constitution is unlimited, because it can clash with other rights and public safety. Though I am not American and not an expert on USA Constitution.
Nazi ideals include preaching violence and asking people to hurt certain population groups. There is a huge difference between that and saying you think that all blacks suck and white people are great.