speech is speech,whether driven by hate or not. Can you name one precedent in law that curtails "hate speech" (excluding when the person is acting in a certain position, such as a teacher)? I don't believe it exists, but I'm not an expert in law.
this may be the most profound thing I have heard you say in the short time I have been here.
For this you have my respect
S
Shai Gar
I'll take fundie's concerns on the sacrosanctness of marriage seriously, just as soon as they find a spiffy solution to fixing the 40%-70% divorce rate among heterosexual couples. I'd say that's more of a perversion of their definition of marriage than same sex partners, or even group marriage.
S
Shai Gar
No. It's the masses, not any particular religion.
It was the masses, who are stupid, that demanded the release of Barabbas, on the say so of the "Authorities".
Blaming the Jews for that is completely misunderstanding the nature of society and the mob.
It was the masses, who are stupid, that demanded the release of Barabbas, on the say so of the "Authorities".
Blaming the Jews for that is completely misunderstanding the nature of society and the mob.
First of all, Christians did not even EXIST at the time, so this statement is redundant and obvious. [the apostles were still considered Jews]
Second, you're totally missing his point. He meant that the behavior of the people in question is akin to the behavior of the masses demanding the release of Barabbas in favor of Jesus.
--edit: Also, blaming the jews as a whole bespeaks a potential anti-jewish element of thought. Just to set you straight in case you forgot, Jesus was a jew and there are no indications that he wanted people to stop being jewish. Its possible, if judaism as Jesus preached it is true, that all modern christians have lost their way and won't make it past the "bouncers to the party in heaven" so to speak. Modern christians most likely do not follow the tenets of judaism as they existed in those times, as the christian churches have all made concessions to their respective cultures, and they no longer keep the traditions associated with Judaism.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
Actually, like Martin Luther, Jesus wanted to reform the religion, rather than form a new one.
I'm suprised that people don't bring that up more often. If jesus saw the christianity of today he'd probably think it an abomination, considering religious practices of 2000 years ago were quite a bit harsher than today's and he expected people to follow the jewish religious laws and traditions, albeit with compassion and less vindictive punishments.
S
Shai Gar
Jesus was harsh on Jews who were supposed to be practising Judaism. He didn't mention "Heathens".
It's strange. The biggest difference I've noticed between Christianity and Islam is that the former targeted the religious leaders whereas the latter targeted the non believers. I suppose that is the difference between a reformist religion and an original religion. Islam is probably more comparable to Judaism, but I've never studied Judaism in detail, so I wouldn't know. It's clear that fundamentalist Christians are pretty much Orthodox Jews.
Last edited:
I would agree except that the orthodox jews probably would take issue with this idea. Only 1 type of christian group that I know of makes any attempt to keep the jewish traditions alive, the eastern orthodox church.
You can't execute someone more.
In most American States there is a death penalty for what we call Murder in the First Degree, which is premeditated murder. Hate crime killings would have to be included in this definition, and therefore those who perform them would be subject to the same sentence - execution.
The distinction between hate crime and non-hate crime would either require a way to execute someone more, or a lessened sentence for non-hate crime 1st degree murders which would likely consist of life sentences, which in America mean about 10 years in prison with parole. The people who are pushing for hate crime legislation are concerned with placing hate crime in the current top spots for sentencing, and reducing sentencing for non-hate crime because they feel that there is a distinction between the exact same crimes when there is the possibility of involvement with a prejudice of some sort. This is as ridiculous as sentencing someone more harshly for killing someone with a handgun than killing them with a chainsaw - because of a personal vendetta against handguns. The crime is still murder, and to be honest, I think it would be much less painful to be shot in the head and instantly killed than chainsawed to death. However, this is yet another instance where people's feelings on a hotbed issue causes them to overreact and project into a sphere where there is no merit.
If someone commits violent crime, it doesn't matter why they committed it. Someone else is a victim, and that victim (which represents society) deserves the same justice as any other victim of the same crime, regardless of the motive.
Assuming that motives can be a factor in sentencing is a slippery slope, and not one that will end in a cushion of pillows. First of all, you have to prove motives, which means you have to prove what someone was thinking. From there, this train of logic assumes it is ethically and morally acceptable to punish someone for what they thought, rather than what they did. This is just not acceptable in the free world, no matter how depraved someone's thoughts were. We are judged by our actions, not our thoughts, lest we all be judged - and most likely unjustly.
Hate crime legislation is thought policing, pure and simple. I'm against it, and I always will be.
Edit: As a side note, and as politically incorrect as it may be... in this same nation that is pushing for hate crime legislation, white people are 13 times more likely to be the victim of violent crime by non-white people than non-white people are likely to be the victim of violent crime by white people. If hate crime legislation were passed, a huge population of violent crime would be applicable simply because it crossed racial lines, and would end up being more harmful to many of the minority groups it was trying to protect than not.
Hate crime legislation is short sighted and only capable of creating precedent for the government to assert more control over the masses. Passing it will only result in a massive backfire.
Last edited: