Congress to Revive Hate Crime Bill to Censor Christians

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I'm very mixed about this. I do agree that Christianity, as well as other religions, regularly practice hate speech by declaring themselves right and everyone else evil sinners that must must MUST bow down and conform or suffer an eternity in hell. But it is free speech. I believe strongly in liberties for the individuals, even if I disagree with their message.

I do have to add... pastors, priests, etc should be held to a higher standard. They're in a position of trust and speak to large crowds (sometimes) and what they say does carry some weight with the followers. So if the pastor is giving a speech about how evil the Arabs are, he's inciting hatred and anger towards them. If he's talking about how evil homosexuality is, he's stirring up the same type of hatred and anger. But at the same time, they give those speeches, as close minded and hate filled as they are, in their own churches. No one is forced to stay.

My idealistic beliefs conflicting with my dislike of those who preach intolerance and hatred (which in itself is still free speech)

Of course, Christianity often tries to censor people all the time. Maybe it's fair play. They try to shut up anyone who disagrees and lash out when they're attacked, but they freak out if you attack them.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by DemonicAngelZero]




posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123


Again, this bill has nothing to do with reducing free speech.
You can mock all day every day.
What you can't do is assault a gay person because it won't just be assault anymore, it will also be a hate crime.
This just includes a new class of people in the hate crime legislation.



Surely, controlling the punishment on what I can say by law is an infringement on my free speech?
So I cannot assault a gay man by saying "Dude, your sense of fashion blows! Loser! I will smack some fashion sense into you."
Now I am not assaulting his sexual orientation, just his fashion because he happened to be wearing a ridiculous outfit. So that is now a hate crime?

No matter which way this is looked at, it is a farse.

"Dude! You are obese you fat [SNIP] and have eaten all the pies in the canteen. I will smack you for that."

So that is just a normal crime. This legislation is hate crime in itself, hate against those who are not included


edit: typo

[edit on 7-4-2009 by george_gaz]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by george_gaz

Originally posted by jfj123


Again, this bill has nothing to do with reducing free speech.
You can mock all day every day.
What you can't do is assault a gay person because it won't just be assault anymore, it will also be a hate crime.
This just includes a new class of people in the hate crime legislation.



Surely, controlling the punishment on what I can say by law is an infringement on my free speech?

Read the bill.
THE BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INFRINGING FREE SPEECH.

How many time do I have to say this??????

The OP MISREPRESENTED what was in the bill.

This is what the bill says, according to the OP's link


Titled the Matthew Shepard Act (formerly know as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007), this bill is an appropriate and measured response to the unrelenting and under-addressed problem of violent hate crimes committed against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability.

VIOLENT HATE CRIMES.....nothing about speech restrictions.


The Matthew Shepard Act would strengthen existing federal hate crime laws in three ways:

1) Expand the law to authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Current law only includes race, color, religion or national origin.

2) Eliminate a serious limitation on federal involvment under existing law which requires that a victim of a bias-motivated crime was attacked because he/she was engaged in a specified federally-protected activity such as voting, serving on a jury or attending school.

3) Add "gender" and "gender identity" to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act


This bill encompasses violent crimes against the above protected classes and has nothing to do with free speech.


So I cannot assault a gay man by saying "Dude, your sense of fashion blows! Loser! I will smack some fashion sense into you."

You cannot physically beat a gay man and say what you've quoted without being charged with a hate crime.


Now I am not assaulting his sexual orientation, just his fashion because he happened to be wearing a ridiculous outfit. So that is now a hate crime?

If you just say it to him, NO, no crime has been committed.


No matter which way this is looked at, it is a farse.

Before you decide that, try reading the bill.


"Dude! You are obese you fat [SNIP] and have eaten all the pies in the canteen. I will smack you for that."

If you beat him and say that, it's a hate crime if obese individuals are within that protected class. If you just insult him, nothing will happen to you as it's not a crime.

Hate crime legislation itself is pointless however, this thread was started under false pretenses. The OP has misrepresented the entire content of the bill to further a religious agenda.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I agree, In no way shape or form does it mention religion or obstruction of Freedom of speech.
for you way to go



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SemperParatusRJCC
I agree, In no way shape or form does it mention religion or obstruction of Freedom of speech.
for you way to go


I really don't understand why the religious REICH can't just abide by their own beliefs

"Judge not others lest ye be judged"

Yet the person who opened this thread has taken the opportunity to misrepresent the bill in question to further their own HATE agenda. Obviously this persons goal was to inflame people against this bill that would offer additional protection to gay people and other classes. Since that is the bills only goal and the OP knows that, they must be trying to suppress this bill ONLY because they hate those classes of people.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
I am all for free speech, but not for hate speech.

Then you are not for free speech. It's easy to defend speech you at least perceive as "nice." It takes integrity to defend speech you vehemently disagree with because it's the right thing to do, not because you support it.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Obviously this persons goal was to inflame people against this bill that would offer additional protection to gay people and other classes.

How is that even constitutional to begin with, regardless of what the ultimate ramifications are? I thought the hip thing was to stretch the EQUAL protection clause to mean as many things as possible.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123


So I cannot assault a gay man by saying "Dude, your sense of fashion blows! Loser! I will smack some fashion sense into you."
Now I am not assaulting his sexual orientation, just his fashion because he happened to be wearing a ridiculous outfit. So that is now a hate crime?


If you just say it to him, NO, no crime has been committed.


Actually, assault has been committed. I threatened him with physical violence. That is assault but under this law it is a hate crime.

Edit:fix quote

[edit on 7-4-2009 by george_gaz]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by jfj123
Obviously this persons goal was to inflame people against this bill that would offer additional protection to gay people and other classes.

How is that even constitutional to begin with, regardless of what the ultimate ramifications are? I thought the hip thing was to stretch the EQUAL protection clause to mean as many things as possible.


In my opinion hate crimes are irrelevant as most crimes are hate related.
In this particular case, the bill EXPANDS existing hate crime statutes to include other classes and not just religion, ethnic background, etc..

I'm not sure I understand why you have a problem with this??



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by george_gaz

Originally posted by jfj123


So I cannot assault a gay man by saying "Dude, your sense of fashion blows! Loser! I will smack some fashion sense into you."
Now I am not assaulting his sexual orientation, just his fashion because he happened to be wearing a ridiculous outfit. So that is now a hate crime?


If you just say it to him, NO, no crime has been committed.


Actually, assault has been committed. I threatened him with physical violence. That is assault but under this law it is a hate crime.

Edit:fix quote

[edit on 7-4-2009 by george_gaz]


Simply insulting someone is not assault. If that were the case, everyone would be in jail.


American common law has defined assault as an attempt to commit a battery.

Assault is typically treated as a misdemeanor and not as a felony (unless it involves a law enforcement officer). The more serious crime of aggravated assault is treated as a felony.

Four elements were required at common law:

1. The apparent, present ability to carry out;
2. An unlawful attempt;
3. To commit a violent injury;
4. Upon another.

Simple assault can be distinguished without the intent of injury upon another person. Simple assault can consist simply of the violation of one's personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate. (i.e. one's personal space consists of arm's reach.)

As the criminal law evolved, element one was weakened in most jurisdictions so that a reasonable fear of bodily injury would suffice. These four elements were eventually codified in most states.

Modern American statutes define assault as:

1. an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; or,
2. negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 7-4-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
In my opinion hate crimes are irrelevant as most crimes are hate related.
In this particular case, the bill EXPANDS existing hate crime statutes to include other classes and not just religion, ethnic background, etc..

I'm not sure I understand why you have a problem with this??

I have a problem with the very concept of protected classes in general. The whole point of the equal protection clause is that no one should receive extra protection under the law, but that's exactly what this bill (and its predecessor) is designed to do. Like you said, most crimes are full of "hate" anyway, so why should some "hate crimes" against specific groups be more punishable than others? If I attack someone because I hate the big honkin' hummer they drive (eco-terror?) then I haven't committed a hate crime against a "protected class" and I'm liable to be found guilty on fewer charges than someone who attacks a person in a "protected class," even if the extent of the actual damage and method of attack are in all other ways identical.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by skeptic1
I am all for free speech, but not for hate speech.

Then you are not for free speech. It's easy to defend speech you at least perceive as "nice." It takes integrity to defend speech you vehemently disagree with because it's the right thing to do, not because you support it.


I support free speech and I will fight for it.

I don't support hate speech, but as long it is free, I will fight for it, too.

Hate speech adds nothing to society. It drives people apart, and does nothing to bring them together. But, it is still covered under free speech. So, I will fight for it even though I see no use in it.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by jfj123
In my opinion hate crimes are irrelevant as most crimes are hate related.
In this particular case, the bill EXPANDS existing hate crime statutes to include other classes and not just religion, ethnic background, etc..

I'm not sure I understand why you have a problem with this??

I have a problem with the very concept of protected classes in general. The whole point of the equal protection clause is that no one should receive extra protection under the law, but that's exactly what this bill (and its predecessor) is designed to do. Like you said, most crimes are full of "hate" anyway, so why should some "hate crimes" against specific groups be more punishable than others? If I attack someone because I hate the big honkin' hummer they drive (eco-terror?) then I haven't committed a hate crime against a "protected class" and I'm guilty on fewer charges than someone who attacks a someone in a "protected class," even if the extent of the actual damage and method of attack are in all other ways identical.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by ngchunter]


First, hate crimes have been on the books for years.
Second, hate crimes legislation is designed to dissuade people from committing crimes against vulnerable minorities.
Third, as I mentioned, I'm not in favor of any hate crime legislation.

Finally,
Just as a general response, the title says
Congress to Revive Hate Crime Bill to Censor Christians
This is absolutely UNTRUE.
Either the OP didn't read their own postings or the OP KNOWINGLY lied.
Please keep this in mind as it goes to this persons future credibility here.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
I don't support hate speech, but as long it is free, I will fight for it, too.

Not to take away anything you just said and thank you for your honesty, but this part leaves me slightly confused. "as long as it is free..." does that mean you do not intend to fight for it to be free? I ask this honestly because it seems to conflict with your promise to fight for it too and I want to understand what you meant. In other words, if it were going to be outlawed, would you have a problem with that?

[edit on 7-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by SemperParatusRJCC
I agree, In no way shape or form does it mention religion or obstruction of Freedom of speech.
for you way to go


I really don't understand why the religious REICH can't just abide by their own beliefs

"Judge not others lest ye be judged"

Yet the person who opened this thread has taken the opportunity to misrepresent the bill in question to further their own HATE agenda. Obviously this persons goal was to inflame people against this bill that would offer additional protection to gay people and other classes. Since that is the bills only goal and the OP knows that, they must be trying to suppress this bill ONLY because they hate those classes of people.


OP do you hate me. because I am both a wiccan and BI. and not a bible loving christian. Im all peacible to everyone having their own religion and beliefs but when someone tries to start their own damned crusade to wipe us out, it pisses me off. You're no better than hitler himself.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I don't want it outlawed, but I do hope there comes a day when people realize that hate speech does nothing. It adds nothing.

It is useless.

But, one of our founding principles in this country is freedom of speech. If people want to use that freedom to spout hate and ignorance, that it up to them. I'll fight for their right to say it, but I sure as hell don't have to support what they are saying.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Simply insulting someone is not assault. If that were the case, everyone would be in jail.


Ahh, when I was a wee lad and studying law threatening behaviour and the threat of violence does constitute as assault.
Threatening Behaviour is classed as assault
Not the best source but I don't have my text books anymore
but if a lawyer says it then it has gotta be right



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by skeptic1
I am all for free speech, but not for hate speech.

Then you are not for free speech. It's easy to defend speech you at least perceive as "nice." It takes integrity to defend speech you vehemently disagree with because it's the right thing to do, not because you support it.


I support free speech and I will fight for it.

I don't support hate speech, but as long it is free, I will fight for it, too.

Hate speech adds nothing to society. It drives people apart, and does nothing to bring them together. But, it is still covered under free speech. So, I will fight for it even though I see no use in it.

What are you defining hate as? To say it adds nothing is a bit of a misnomer when, although it may be crude in its delivery, there may be a legitimate reason behind it.

If a white person were to say they are afraid of black people because they are disproportionately victimized by them, which is an indisputable fact, is that hateful? At what point are statistical facts considered hate? If that fear makes them not want to be around them, is that unreasonable? I don't know, and either do you. We can't just assign values to people and then berate them when they don't live up to them, which is what I believe you're proposing we do.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by george_gaz

Originally posted by jfj123

Simply insulting someone is not assault. If that were the case, everyone would be in jail.


Ahh, when I was a wee lad and studying law threatening behaviour and the threat of violence does constitute as assault.
Threatening Behaviour is classed as assault
Not the best source but I don't have my text books anymore
but if a lawyer says it then it has gotta be right


Threatening behavior and a threat of violence is a bit different then an insult and a threat does not necessarily constitute an assault in every state.

Some states also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

States vary whether it is possible to commit an "attempted assault" since it can be considered a double inchoate offense.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JensLekman

Originally posted by skeptic1

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by skeptic1
I am all for free speech, but not for hate speech.

Then you are not for free speech. It's easy to defend speech you at least perceive as "nice." It takes integrity to defend speech you vehemently disagree with because it's the right thing to do, not because you support it.


I support free speech and I will fight for it.

I don't support hate speech, but as long it is free, I will fight for it, too.

Hate speech adds nothing to society. It drives people apart, and does nothing to bring them together. But, it is still covered under free speech. So, I will fight for it even though I see no use in it.

What are you defining hate as? To say it adds nothing is a bit of a misnomer when, although it may be crude in its delivery, there may be a legitimate reason behind it.

If a white person were to say they are afraid of black people because they are disproportionately victimized by them, which is an indisputable fact, is that hateful? At what point are statistical facts considered hate? If that fear makes them not want to be around them, is that unreasonable? I don't know, and either do you. We can't just assign values to people and then berate them when they don't live up to them, which is what I believe you're proposing we do.


As example,
If you beat a black man and the motive is that you hate him, that constitute a hate crime.
Does that help?

Again, the legislation does not include limiting speech to protected classes.

For example, you can say you don't like black people all day and give reasons why, which may even be racist, and nothing will happen to you legally.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by jfj123]





top topics
 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join