Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Rampant, Irresponsible Religion Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by WillieStealAndHow
    Saying that free speech is being restrained when the government has the audacity to create and pass a bill that puts a buffer zone around federal cemetaries that are used to bury fallen soldiers because some hate group under the auspices of a "church" decide to picket a funeral to make their point, is bullshit.
    Well, actually....my *point* was that the federal government should never have passed any such law in the first place because they should bloody well have better things to do with their time. After that was the comment that it's likely never to be enforced in the first place because the ACLU was already planning to block it in court. Which ties up even more of my taxpayer dollar while they fight it out and by the time it's all decided, that silly church will have dried up and blown away unnoticed.

    Jan
    "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

    Comment


    • Free speech isn't being curbed. They have the right to spout their hate from the pulpit. They can spout it on the internet.

      With cemetaries, there is now a buffer zone, similar to that of a restraining order, which places a limit on where they can hold their funeral protests on federally owned cemetaries.

      A town in Indiana passed a similar law for their cemetaries when they heard this church was going to protest the funeral of a fallen soldier that was from that town. The church said they were going to show up anyway, even if it passed.

      The law passed with no opposition, and this church was nowhere to be seen.

      I don't care if it may seem like a waste of time. I agree entirely with the spirit of this law.

      And since every single family that has a loved one in the military would view a protest of their loved one's funeral as harassment, I side with the families.
      RIP Coach Larry Finch
      Thank you Memphis Grizzlies for a great season.
      Play like your fake girlfriend died today - new Notre Dame motivational sign

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Andrew_Swallow
        Yes. These days blacks are allowed to buy guns. I like problems that solve themselves.
        Not in NYC, no one is allowed to buy guns here and only criminals are allowed to use them.
        ---
        Co-host of The Second Time Around podcast
        www.benedictfamily.org/podcast

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jan
          Well, actually....my *point* was that the federal government should never have passed any such law in the first place because they should bloody well have better things to do with their time.
          Actually, no brainer laws like this pass pretty quickly, using very little time. And I think it's a great use of time.

          After that was the comment that it's likely never to be enforced in the first place because the ACLU was already planning to block it in court. Which ties up even more of my taxpayer dollar while they fight it out and by the time it's all decided, that silly church will have dried up and blown away unnoticed.
          The ACLU doesn't set policy. Let it go to the SCOTUS. Roberts~! Alito~!
          Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

          Comment


          • Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility for what you say. It does not mean you are protected against violent response. It means you have the right to say it, and then be held accountable for it. It implicitly prevents brain-washing and such techniques, but it doesn't protect you from the results of your words.

            Use your freedom of speech to call another man's wife an old toothless hag and you still get punched in the face.

            Or am I missing something here?
            "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

            Comment


            • Free speech isn't being curbed. They have the right to spout their hate from the pulpit. They can spout it on the internet.
              It is being curbed - this is a restriction or a ban being passed after all - it's just a matter of, in the situation, you think that's a bad thing.

              Use your freedom of speech to call another man's wife an old toothless hag and you still get punched in the face.

              Or am I missing something here?
              Depends on how tough the local codes are on provocation as a defense to assault.
              Radhil Trebors
              Persona Under Construction

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Towelmaster
                Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility for what you say. It does not mean you are protected against violent response.
                No, other laws cover that nicely. I can't think of any case where a defense for assault of "what s/he said offended me" successful.

                Use your freedom of speech to call another man's wife an old toothless hag and you still get punched in the face.

                Or am I missing something here?
                Yup. A little thing called assault. And there's no federal law against the example you cite. Other than that, not a thing.

                Face it, this is going nowhere. I just hope you'll all remember this conversation when congress passes a law forbidding something you want to do.

                Jan
                "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jan
                  Well, actually....my *point* was that the federal government should never have passed any such law in the first place because they should bloody well have better things to do with their time.
                  Such as? At least this is the government actually reacting to a problem for its constituents.

                  Besides, I addressed this a couple pages back. People seem to think that the First Amendment is this shield which just lets them get away with all sorts of crap without any sort of retribution. Not so. Freedom of Speech is FAR from absolute. This is especially true of federal property. The government is allowed more discretion in applying speech restrictions on federal property.

                  Free speech isn't being curbed. They have the right to spout their hate from the pulpit. They can spout it on the internet.
                  I'd have to see the exact legislation, but yes, this is true. The government can place time / place / manner regulations on speech, especially with regards to federal property. I would imagine that this legislation does something along those lines, restricting these hatemongers from protesting federal cemeteries at least while an actual funeral is taking place.
                  "I don't find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don't know what it is not to have freedom." ---Ayaan Hirsi Ali

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Karachi Vyce
                    Such as?
                    Oh, I dunno...balancing the budget...figuring out what to do with Social Security...silly, frivolous things that actually take work and foresight and leadership? Just a thought... Unfortunately, ZD's right--knee jerk lawmaking takes no brains, no effort and little time.

                    Posturing doesn't impress me whether it's online, in person or performed by politicians.

                    Jan
                    "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jan
                      No, other laws cover that nicely. I can't think of any case where a defense for assault of "what s/he said offended me" successful.

                      ...

                      Yup. A little thing called assault. And there's no federal law against the example you cite. Other than that, not a thing.

                      Face it, this is going nowhere. I just hope you'll all remember this conversation when congress passes a law forbidding something you want to do.

                      Jan
                      If you punch someone for insulting you/your wife/etc., you'll probably get nailed with a battery charge. If the other person is constantly insulting you with the purpose of provoking a fight, there's a pretty good chance they'll get nailed for harassment and/or assault, especially if there are witnesses that will testify that the other person was purposely provoking you. Keep in mind that you give up your right to free speech when you say something solely to cause trouble (the cliche of yelling "fire" in a movie theater). Personally, I'd love to throw anyone like these people out an airlock and get them out of the gene pool, but it's a very blurry line on what limits there should be on freedom of speech.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jan
                        No, other laws cover that nicely. I can't think of any case where a defense for assault of "what s/he said offended me" successful.

                        Yup. A little thing called assault. And there's no federal law against the example you cite. Other than that, not a thing.

                        Face it, this is going nowhere. I just hope you'll all remember this conversation when congress passes a law forbidding something you want to do.

                        Jan
                        Jan, You are missing my point.

                        I understand that you are talking about the law. I was not exactly doing that, as I believe that there is no such thing as a perfect law, meaning a law that everyone will obey, and which is abolutely flawless.
                        I am therefor talking about the practical aspects. What happens in a society where there is freedom of speech?

                        Of course anyone can start a law-suit after they've been hit by an angry husband(as in my example) who took offense. But by then the deed is already done, you have already caused the consequences by insulting someone. And you already have a black eye. The fact that someone is punished for that doesn't take that black eye away. Laws are theoretical, though of course based on real life(well they should be...).

                        What I meant was, that freedom of speech makes it possible for you to say what you wish, but you will have to accept the consequences. And those consequences may be a kick in the head, verbal abuse, or whatever. Only then does it become possible to prosecute the culprit for assault. After the fact. The damage has already been done.

                        So I wonder why so many people say "You can't hit me, I am only exercising my right to freedom of speech!" as - to their great surprise! - they are being bludgeoned to death because of their stupid insults. Theory and practice are a long way apart.

                        And to illustrate that and get back to the religious angle somewhat : Let's : take Theo van Gogh as an example :

                        1. Exercised his right to be as insulting as he wanted to be. Completely and utterly insulted whole groups of the population.

                        2. Was killed by an insane idiot who thought he could play the part of Allah's executioner.

                        3. The murderer was sentenced to life in jail(which really IS life in jail here in the Netherlands, no parole, no nothing).

                        4. Theo van Gogh is still dead because of what he said.

                        The law threw the murderer in jail. The law can't bring Theo van Gogh back.

                        And in that light I put down that posting/definition of freedom of speech.

                        Laws are logical, most of the times people are not. Theory and practice...
                        "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Towelmaster
                          What I meant was, that freedom of speech makes it possible for you to say what you wish, but you will have to accept the consequences. And those consequences may be a kick in the head, verbal abuse, or whatever. Only then does it become possible to prosecute the culprit for assault. After the fact. The damage has already been done.
                          But by that token, people should be afraid to express any unpopular viewpoint 'just in case'. Sorry, I don't agree in any way, shape or form because that just leads to blaming the victim for other people's actions.

                          Face it, *nothing* protects *anybody* from violent outbursts from unstable social maladroits whether it's due to an opinion or encountering road rage or a myriad or other causes. Does that mean we should never leave our house? Never have an opinion? Never work for a cause? Never help somebody for fear of the consequences? Not for me, thanks.

                          Jan
                          "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jan
                            But by that token, people should be afraid to express any unpopular viewpoint 'just in case'.
                            Nobody is listening. They can do it elsewhere. There is nothing that says they are guaranteed to be able to do it on a military cemetary. If they feel so strongly about it, let them do it anyways, and we will see them arrested.
                            Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Towelmaster
                              Jan,
                              I understand that you are talking about the law. I was not exactly doing that, as I believe that there is no such thing as a perfect law, meaning a law that everyone will obey, and which is absolutely flawless.
                              I am therefore talking about the practical aspects. What happens in a society where there is freedom of speech?
                              The debate of freedom of speech to a degree is often seen as a problem when the government gets involvedà The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but the spirit of the law was meant to restrict the government from prosecuting someone for something they may have said (i.e. citizens who hate Bush) that may conflict with both local and the federal government.

                              While this group (whether they are offensive or not to me) is being protected and allowed to protest by law enforcement personnel (the police) without impurity, what about the rights of their victims? How are they being protected? Do they have a say in what is being said or forced to hear? Do they have a right to peace?

                              I always thought ôfreedom of speechö meant that a person can peaceably protest without fear of being arrested for what is being said, but if this protest can lead to violent outbursts and riotsà donÆt you think there should be something to curb or side with caution.

                              Originally posted by Jan
                              But by that token, people should be afraid to express any unpopular viewpoint 'just in case'.
                              True, and it has always been that way unless local and federal government get involved to force people to bear it. While it may be unpopular to hear anti-war protesters during solders funerals, some things should have more precedence then othersà mainly the right to peaceably bury a loved one without being harassed. ThatÆs just my opinion.

                              I wonder if (god forbid) they have a funeral/burial and there are protesters rallying around their cemetery yelling hateful things, do you think they would call the police to complain in kind?

                              [By the way great thread, thanks for allowing me to voice my opinion]


                              WillieStealAndHow Signature IMHO explains it.
                              Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. - Robert E. Howard
                              "The world is a dangerous place---not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it" --Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rallytbk
                                I always thought ôfreedom of speechö meant that a person can peaceably protest without fear of being arrested for what is being said,...
                                Freedom of speech is *far* more sweeping than that. Freedom of the press for instance.

                                but if this protest can lead to violent outbursts and riotsà donÆt you think there should be something to curb or side with caution.
                                There are already laws about inciting to riot. However, *nobody* has a right to be protected from being offended. That's a large part of my original point-that there are other ways of dealing with those people without the federal government getting involved.

                                WillieStealAndHow Signature IMHO explains it.
                                Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. - Robert E. Howard
                                Ah, ain't it the truth!
                                "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X