What Do You All Think Of This Hate Crimes Stuff?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Budge' post='1257797' date='Apr 27 2007, 07:57 AM']Im not talking about defamation of individuals but of religions.

They want people not to able to criticize beliefs they believe are untrue.

Some Muslims felt defamed by your Pope.

You all need to be more consistent on this. First you agree with me then you dont.

I want everyone to have freedom of speech. that means with stuff I disagree with even. So that means I support your freedom to write, publish books, and speak even against my religious beliefs.

Be consistent here.[/quote]
1) I never agreed with you. Read the thread.

2) He's talking about unjust defamation. We can handle any sort of criticism you have of us, just play by the rules

3) You're changing this argument as you make it. First, it's "the Vatican supports hate crimes." Then it's "The Vatican is opposed to free speech." You need to be more consistent. This shifting arguments doesn't reflect well on your ability to debate.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]
[quote name='Budge' post='1257793' date='Apr 27 2007, 08:53 AM']I condemn all violence.

BUT THE article I posted above isnt just talking about VIOLENT acts but those of SPEECH...
The above remarks about religious offense are not about violent acts but about SPEECH.

Your Pope supposely was "religiously offensive" to some Muslims wasnt he?[/quote]


I like how you said "supposedly"... Budge, answer me one thing... did you actually even read the speech given by the Pope for his supposed "insult" to the Muslims?

Be truthful Budge.

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[Budge]

I dont think he was insulting to them.

He just read a quote that they were insulted by,

I talk about Islam openly enough here. Why would I put down your Pope for warning about aspects of islam?

Ask yourself why the UN and the Holy See should be united together on having the UN deal with "religious offense" and what a blow to free speech that would be.

[Budge]

I dont think he was insulting to them.

He just read a quote that they were insulted by.

I talk about Islam openly enough here. Why would I put down your Pope for warning about aspects of islam? That is one thing he got right even if the later prayers in a mosque were horrid.

Ask yourself why the UN and the Holy See should be united together on having the UN deal with "religious offense" and what a blow to free speech that would be.

Notice how this could be abused if the right group is offended enough.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]“Abuse of rights of believers, even outright violence against them, state restrictions, undue impositions and persecution, public insult to religious feelings, unfortunately persist and call for remedy,” he said.

{That one would make it illegal to "offend" anyone about their religion}[/quote]

Budge, the Archbishop's words do not support the statement that you are trying to make. All those things that are listed amount to more than just having an opinion about a particular religion. They amount to 'artists' submerging an image of Christ in a bowl of urine at a London exhibition, vandals smearing pig blood on the doors of synagogues, and Muslims being taunted by other passengers on public transport. One of my friends was alone on a late-night bus recently. Some drunken lads on board the bus were calling out things like, "It's the Taliban! Curry-breath! Raghead! Gonna blow us up?" She has a right to take the bus without being subject to that kind of abuse, and I for one would support legislation that would outlaw it. Freedom of speech has to go hand in hand with responsibility.

[Budge]

[quote]Budge, the Archbishop's words do not support the statement that you are trying to make. All those things that are listed amount to more than just having an opinion about a particular religion. They amount to 'artists' submerging an image of Christ in a bowl of urine at a London exhibition, vandals smearing pig blood on the doors of synagogues, and Muslims being taunted by other passengers on public transport. One of my friends was alone on a late-night bus recently. Some drunken lads on board the bus were calling out things like, "It's the Taliban! Curry-breath! Raghead! Gonna blow us up?" She has a right to take the bus without being subject to that kind of abuse, and I for one would support legislation that would outlaw it. Freedom of speech has to go hand in hand with responsibility.[/quote]

Do you think people should go to jail or be fined or imprisoned for TAUNTS?

It is interesting what groups are protected and those that are not. For example are they going to outlaw anyone screaming HEY FATSO< LARD BUTT! or HEY FOUR EYES! but I betcha if its some homosexuals upset because someone call them a name theyd be taking them instantly.

"some animals are more equal then others"

I once read about Englands Diversity Directoriates, George Orwell couldnt even have come up with a better name, they went out and rounded up 100 people who spoke against homosexuality including some Christians to fine and jail them.
[u]
Vandalism, violence etc, is already against the law.[/u]

Im talking about SPEECH. Our jails are full enough without rounding up every jerk that insults someone.

By the way Im consistent here. Lets say I get on a bus, and have a bunch of jerks say Hey you Bible banging White Trash Hick!

Do I want them to go to jail for it? {if they are violent and try to beat me up, hey that is already against the law}

NO, they are jerks, leave it at that.

I have the freedom of speech to respond.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Budge

[Socrates]

Apples and oranges. Speaking against religious defamation is not the same as supporting "hate crimes" laws giving homosexuals and other sexual deviants special legal protection. Religious persecution is a very real and serious matter in many parts of the world - including against Christians, including against fundamentalist "Bible Christians" like Budge.
Much as Budge will try to twist things to equate the two - they are different matters.

And while Budge's opinion may support an absolute right to "free speech" - to say absolutely anything anywhere - such an opinion is merely an opinion, and is certainly not Biblical doctrine.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]I once read about Englands Diversity Directoriates, George Orwell couldnt even have come up with a better name, they went out and rounded up 100 people who spoke against homosexuality including some Christians to fine and jail them.[/quote]Source and evidence, please.

A diversity directorate is a policy tailored to each establishment (such as a school or a workplace) to ensure equal opportunities. In college, for example, the directorate would ensure anonymous and unbiased marking of examination papers. As each institution or establishment has the right to draw up its own directorate, the system is potentially open to abuse. But most directorates are very helpful things. As a disabled person, I know that I appreciate the anti-discrimination rules that are in place at Cambridge. A lot of our policies here aren't implemented on a national level, which makes life very difficult for me at times.

[quote]Do you think people should go to jail or be fined or imprisoned for TAUNTS?[/quote]

Who said anything about imprisonment? There are different ways to stop people from behaving badly, like community service. A few days of hard work sweeping the streets would teach them not to be so bad-mannered. We pay to use the bus; we should not have to share it with a bunch of foulmouths. And I certainly do think that people should be liable to such punishment for verbal abuse, as it can be just as painful and upsetting as physical assault. People need to learn not to behave like bullies.

Also, please bear in mind that this was a late-night bus, the guys involved were drunk, and my friend was the only woman on board. A few weeks ago a young North London boy was stabbed to death by a group of yobs as he was getting off the bus in a similar incident. In a climate like that, verbal abuse is enough to make anybody feel intimidated. It should be stopped.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Budge]

[quote]Apples and oranges. Speaking against religious defamation is not the same as supporting "hate crimes" laws giving homosexuals and other sexual deviants special legal protection. Religious persecution is a very real and serious matter in many parts of the world - including against Christians, including against fundamentalist "Bible Christians" like Budge.
Much as Budge will try to twist things to equate the two - they are different matters.
[/quote]Why? NO they are not.

The homosexuals have their own "religion" as it were, anyhow the religious spectrum also includes Wiccans and out and out Satanists. I guess they could make their claim for religious defamation when a priest preaches against Satan.


[quote]

And while Budge's opinion may support an absolute right to "free speech" - to say absolutely anything anywhere - such an opinion is merely an opinion, and is certainly not Biblical doctrine.[/quote]

I dont believe that someone should be allowed to scream FIRE in a crowded theatre without repercussions.
[b]
but this whole religious defemation stuff is nonsense. Did Jesus say get the government involved when someone insults your religion? or faith?[/b] {No that is the Vatican's historical teaching not Jesus's

By the way the Roman Catholic church INVENTED "HATE CRIME PUNISHMENTS"

"The Vatican, the ORIGINAL punish you for saying something they didn't like crowd" and you can thank Augustine for that policy...

Edited April 29, 2007 by Budge

[Budge]

[quote]QUOTE
I once read about Englands Diversity Directoriates, George Orwell couldnt even have come up with a better name, they went out and rounded up 100 people who spoke against homosexuality including some Christians to fine and jail them.
[b]Source and evidence, please[/b].[/quote]

Sure....

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2457429.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2457429.stm[/url]

I remember the number wrong it wasnt 100, it was 150! and included "racists" too. {this was [b]5[/b] years ago}

Rounded up for speech with exception of the domestic abuse cases.

[quote]

A diversity directorate is a policy tailored to each establishment (such as a school or a workplace) to ensure equal opportunities[/quote].

Sure for some.
[quote]
Do you think people should go to jail or be fined or imprisoned for TAUNTS?


Who said anything about imprisonment? [b]There are different ways to stop people from behaving badly, like community service[/b].[/quote]

Sheesh talk about being a supporter of NANNY government.

"You bad man, you said something naughty, report to the #20 correction station at 8:am pronto and get out your broom says the boomnig voice over the surveillance camera.

I know England is further a long the police state highway, but wow!

[quote]And I certainly do think that people should be liable to such punishment for verbal abuse, as it can be just as painful and upsetting as physical assault. People need to learn not to behave like bullies.[/quote]

one word...WOW.

So someone gets in an argument with you and you want to LOCK em up and get the police involved?

They already HAVE laws against disturbing the peace, and harrasment on the books it seems you want to take things way too far.

[Budge]

bump

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]I remember the number wrong it wasnt 100, it was 150! and included "racists" too. {this was 5 years ago}[/quote]From the article itself, emphasis my own:

[quote]Police investigating allegations of racism, homophobia and domestic violence have raided about 150 addresses across London. Twenty-seven people have been charged, including one for [b]rape[/b] but most have been arrested on suspicion of [b]making racist threats[/b] and of homophobic [b]harassment[/b]."[/quote]

There is a huge amount of difference between expressing an opinion and making a threat, and you know it. So take the 'racists' out of inverted commas.

Secondly...the article says nothing about Christians being arrested for preaching against homosexuality. You said that there were some. The article, on the other hand, says that the police were called in to deal with [i]harassment[/i] - which would involve a breach of a current law. Where are these Christians that you spoke of, Budge?

[quote] Sheesh talk about being a supporter of NANNY government.

"You bad man, you said something naughty, report to the #20 correction station at 8:am pronto and get out your broom says the boomnig voice over the surveillance camera.[/quote]That's not what community service is, at least not in this country. You don't have to be an offender to participate in community service. I sometimes do it of my own choice. It's a way of taking responsibility for your community, taking pride in it, and keeping it a decent place to live.

But maybe this is a 'nanny' government. Maybe I am wrong to be lobbying for stricter punishments for verbal abuse. Maybe I should just ignore the fact that three of my young disabled friends tried to commit suicide as a result of verbal abuse that they received on a daily basis. After all, the bullies didn't do [i]much[/i]. They only 'said something naughty'. If three fourteen-year-old youngsters get upset to the point where they want to take their own lives, fine. Let's uphold freedom of speech!

But hold on a minute. What about the freedom of that trio to go to school and learn in peace without getting viciously insulted for something they can't help? Should their quality of life be sacrified to the 'right' of some complete idiots to spew out offensive remarks?

[quote]So someone gets in an argument with you and you want to LOCK em up and get the police involved?

They already HAVE laws against disturbing the peace, and harrasment on the books it seems you want to take things way too far.[/quote]

There is a big difference between a legitimate argument and vicious insult. As a disabled person myself, I've learned to tell the difference between the two. And no, the laws that are already in place aren't always enough to protect you. I've found this out the hard way. You want to try being autistic and apraxic and having a 'simple' task like supermarket shopping to complete before you make statements about the efficacy of the current laws.

Secondly, I repeat yet again: prison is not an answer for situations like this, and it is not a solution I've ever advocated. Community-based iniatives are far better, although it appears that you don't know what they are. Perhaps the programmes are different in America.

[quote]bump[/quote]

Now you have got the time to bump up threads, perhaps you will post answers to all those arguments that you keep abandoning. I know there are several questions waiting for you in other threads, but you seem to mysteriously vanish into the ether for a day or two whenever the pressure gets too much...

Edited April 29, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1259257' date='Apr 28 2007, 08:33 PM']Why? NO they are not.

The homosexuals have their own "religion" as it were, anyhow the religious spectrum also includes Wiccans and out and out Satanists. I guess they could make their claim for religious defamation when a priest preaches against Satan.[/quote]
Blah, blah, blah . . .

Your original topic was "hate crimes" laws regarding homosexuals. The Church has not, does not, and will not endorse such laws. Once again, you are inventing silly and ridiculous straw-men scenarios and attacking them, rather than dealing with what anyone has actually said or argued.

[Budge]

So hate crime laws are NOT ok, when it coems to homosexuals {Im against all of hate crime laws}

and OK, when it comes to disabilities, religion and other differences.

Thats not being very consistent.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]So hate crime laws are NOT ok, when it coems to homosexuals {Im against all of hate crime laws}

and OK, when it comes to disabilities, religion and other differences.

Thats not being very consistent.[/quote]

We're being perfectly consistent if only you engage with what we are actually saying rather than with what you want us to be saying.

I do not think people should be allowed to be abusive to homosexuals and neither does the Church. There is a great deal of difference between saying, "Your lifestyle is sinful and it needs to change" and hurling personal abuse at someone when they are on the bus or in a shop, making it difficult for them to go about their business. A 'hate crime' is defined as something much more serious and significant than merely expressing a thought.

Secondly, you say that you are against [i]all[/i] hate crime laws. So if somebody burned down the house of a black family because they were black, you would want the crime to be treated as pure arson and the motive to be ignored. That is basically the logical conclusion of what you are saying here.

[Budge]

Yes I would want it to be treated as pure arson.

why should crimes be punished [u]more[/u] because of what race the victims are?

If some white dude burns down a white persons house, why should they get less of a jail sentance, then the white dude who burns down a black dudes house, because the guy who owned the house happened to be black.

HATE is BEHIND BOTH CRIMES.

May be hate for different reasons...but still hate.

Crimes ACTIONS are to be punished NOT THOUGHTS.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Budge

[Sojourner]

So should we not have a crime of conspiracy? I'm reviewing for my criminal law exam on Friday and ran across this statement:

“That’s not to say, of course, that our criminal law doesn’t come perilously close to criminalizing thoughts in its expansive concept of conspiracy, particularly in jurisdictions that don’t require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Conspiracy punishes one man’s thought provided it is shared by another. In jurisdictions that follow the Model Penal Code in subscribing to the unilateral theory of conspiracy, it punishes one man’s thought as long as he thinks it is shared by another (e.g., an undercover police officer posing as a co-conspirator).”

Why is it OK to punish thoughts when they involve conspiracy, but not to enhance punishment of a crime because of a motive we find particularly despicable?

[Budge]

Conspiracy is ACTION not THOUGHT.

{ie someone is calling looking for a hit man, or arranging the crime--havent you seen those videos on TV, where they tape em making the plans}

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Yes I would want it to be treated as pure arson.

why should crimes be punished more because of what race the victims are?

If some white dude burns down a white persons house, why should they get less of a jail sentance, then the white dude who burns down a black dudes house, because the guy who owned the house happened to be black.

HATE is BEHIND BOTH CRIMES.

May be hate for different reasons...but still hate.

Crimes ACTIONS are to be punished NOT THOUGHTS.[/quote]

Arson is the simple act of burning down somebody else's property. By this logic, the teenager who burns down an empty and unused shed for misguided 'fun' is guilty of the same crime as someone who burns down a family's house with intent to intimidate and abuse because of the colour of their skin. In the scenario that you describe, where a white person burns the house of another white person, I [i]would[/i] expect the court to take into account the intention of the criminal and to punish accordingly. Intention can be crucial - the woman who kills a suspected rapist in self-defence is not committing the same crime as a woman who murders her husband in cold blood. Technically, their actions are the same. But their actions do not warrant the same degree of punishment.

[Budge]

Why does burning down a black man's house warrant more punishment then the burning down of a white mans house?
[b]
By the way, I used to be totally indoctrinated into the guilty white liberal syndrome. They used to teach me in the UU church there was no such thing as racism against whites, because whites were the majority group[/b]. . Interesting since one of my white co-workers {social worker} got beat down for daring to enter a section of the city, she was warned about. Her car was trashed, bottles, bricks and she was dragged out, to be beaten up, I dont know how she survived it, and none of them knew her at all personally, it was all racial. I was also in that same part of the city, but was not alone, had African American clients with me, they told me "if you werent with us, thered be a beat down". I believed them because I knew what had happened to her. {now laws against CRIMINAL ACTS already apply to what happened to her, so hate crime laws, being abritrarily applied, with some groups favored over others, that definitely will lead to WORSE PROBLEMS}

There was this one AFRICAN-AMERICAN minister in the UU church who made a stand AGAINST the liberal garbage regarding race, I respected her, wrote her a letter even. She talked about how all the guilty liberal garbage about race actually led to MORE VICTIMIZATION and division among races. She said that alot of this stuff ignored even the realities of class.

I doubt if this nonsense was passed that itd ever be applied to whites who suffer racism...{according to the liberal PC code, that doesnt exsist} and only certain disabilities and the gays are to be "protected" too.

The courts are already over over innudated without being given the responsiblity to read MINDS.

ACTIONS [actual CRIMES] is ALL they should be dealing with.

It is animal farm," some animals are more equal then others."