Full Version: Philadelphia 5
QUOTE(Government Mule @ Jan 17 2005, 04:22 PM)
QUOTE
Which, if you've ever attended a "gay pride" event in a major city, is not so far-fetched.
Well, I have never ATTENDED one. Have lived in a handful of major cities. Could you please elaborate on the Gay Pride events that you have attended? Thanks in advance.
I've been to gay-friendly events like North Halsted St. Market days in Chicago and gay pride events like the parade in Chicago and Southern Decadence in New Orleans over Labor Day. If you were ever to attend, you would see the curious, vulgar and absurd on display along side regular gay folks celebrating. These things bring out the extremes, which is interesting. In a parade, I once saw a guy inside a bathroom stall on wheels, complete with "glory hole" and, in case anyone didn't know what that was for, it featured a sign indicating which appendage to insert. Countless drag queens, costumes, you name it. And of course you do occasionally see vulgar displays, like perhaps a man exposing his, um, private jewlery, simulated sex acts, that sort of thing. Lots of stuff that would make most people blush, not just the church-going ones.
QUOTE(gov't mule)
QUOTE
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Does that ASSEMBLE bit only pertain to religious groups?
Sorry, I was not kidding. that is how I truly feel about this topic. Sorry that you don't like it.
I don't understand your point here. The first amendment allows gays to assemble, religious people to disagree with them and express their views, and for both parties to petition for redress of grievances in court. That's as simple and elegant of a validation of our Bill of Rights as I have ever seen.
Here's something everything seems to be missing from the first link (Snopes):
Enough Said is the footage you all saw, but the footage the police have has not been released yet. To put it simply, this group could very well have went above and beyond to get arrested here, and we simply don't see it. The group is obviously biased in representing itself, it has to be, and the sad truth is until some REAL journalism is done on this subject or this bunch actually goes to trial, it is impossible to make an objective judgement on these people.
And jeesh, I never thought I'd say this, but when it comes to the issue of "how far is too far" I don't think I could put it better than Mr. Bill O'Reilly himself:
QUOTE
The Philadelphia 11 claim these acts violated their right of free speech and point to excerpts from film taken by Enough Said Productions (which had been there that day to shoot a documentary) as proof of their charges. Yet police have a videotape of their own which they say demonstrates the proselytizing Christians were disorderly and did indeed fail to obey the officers' orders.
Enough Said is the footage you all saw, but the footage the police have has not been released yet. To put it simply, this group could very well have went above and beyond to get arrested here, and we simply don't see it. The group is obviously biased in representing itself, it has to be, and the sad truth is until some REAL journalism is done on this subject or this bunch actually goes to trial, it is impossible to make an objective judgement on these people.
And jeesh, I never thought I'd say this, but when it comes to the issue of "how far is too far" I don't think I could put it better than Mr. Bill O'Reilly himself:
QUOTE
But I still — I'm still very troubled, Mr. Fahling, with all due respect. I don't know whether this kind of a confrontation serves Christianity by telling somebody they're going to go to hell, that they're an abomination.
We're all Americans here. You may disagree with their lifestyle, you may think it's sinful, but to go in and to confront somebody in that fashion seems to me to be overly aggressive and anti-Christian.
We're all Americans here. You may disagree with their lifestyle, you may think it's sinful, but to go in and to confront somebody in that fashion seems to me to be overly aggressive and anti-Christian.
Let's not get too personal in our discussions here.
Questions for Debate:
(1) Is it too much to charge these protesters with felony charges and not simple misdemeanors?
(2) Is it ever appropriate to charge someone with hate speech when the speech is quotations from the bible
What Philidelphia has done has turned a simple protest arrest into a major first amendment issue. Personally, the best thing that could happen to Repent America is to be convicted. It would be overturned on appeal and might even end up in the Supreme Court and that is like Mecca for an activist. What is more the police not only did this in front of a camera held by someone making a documentary, they nearly arrested him. It was only when he showed them his ID and said he was from the most openly gay city in America that they let him go. Mike Shaw, the camera man, is now planning a documentary on the arrest of the protestors. He is going to spin it like Rodney King all over again, Philidelphia doesn't need that.
Its one thing to raise cain when your civil rights or civil liberties are threatened but it takes a lot more character to stand up for the rights of someone you can't stand. I can understand them being arrested, the police just wanted to keep the peace, but the trumped up charges are a disgrace. Believe it or not, like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not, these charges are excessive and should be dropped. Unless Philidelphia wants to take this to the Supreme Court and lose they had better soften their tone. They will undoubtable lose if it comes to that.
Edited to add:
By the way there is not 100 yard law that I am aware of, there was a condition of their bail that they stay 100 yards from the OutFest and they wanted that condition taken out.
Its one thing to raise cain when your civil rights or civil liberties are threatened but it takes a lot more character to stand up for the rights of someone you can't stand. I can understand them being arrested, the police just wanted to keep the peace, but the trumped up charges are a disgrace. Believe it or not, like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not, these charges are excessive and should be dropped. Unless Philidelphia wants to take this to the Supreme Court and lose they had better soften their tone. They will undoubtable lose if it comes to that.
Edited to add:
By the way there is not 100 yard law that I am aware of, there was a condition of their bail that they stay 100 yards from the OutFest and they wanted that condition taken out.
(2) Is it ever appropriate to charge someone with hate speech when the speech is quotations from the bible
First of all, what is the Bible? It was written over many years, by writers using many different literary styles. Even what books constitute the Bible is questionable. There are books like “Wisdom” that are in the Catholic version that protestants don't recognize. Martin Luther didn’t think certain books should be included. Two of them were “James,” which I find rather practical, and “The Revelation” which I think is hideous. Thomas Jefferson cut passages from the New Testament he didn't agree with.
Then, there’s the matter of translation. With discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, earlier manuscripts were discovered. Earlier manuscripts meant they had been copied fewer times and were deemed more accurate. At times older manuscripts changed the meanings of some texts. Hence, newer, post Dead Sea Scrolls versions, like the NIV and Oxford English Bible became preferred in some circles while others doggedly held to the KJV.
Further, the Bible can be and is interpreted in so many ways, that with only a small grain of hyperbole one can argue that people can get anything they want from it.
I kind of laugh when I read Proverbs 21:9 “It is better to dwell in a corner of a housetop [on the flat oriental roof, exposed to all kinds of weather] than in a house shared with a nagging, quarrelsome and fault finding woman” Amplified Version
Yet the same words I laugh about when reading, could be rather hateful if a man becomes angry with his wife and recites them to her before stomping off to a beer joint or golf course. It’s context.
In the context of this thread, the most often quoted text dealing with homosexual relations is Paul’s letter to the Romans (1:27) “And the men also turn from natural relations with women and were set ablaze [burned out, consumed] with lust for one another, men committing shameful acts with men.” Amplified Version
In the context of this thread, I would suggest such words are hate filled.
Some, however, think that this is just Paul’s biased based on his own life and frustration. Paul talked about a "thorn" in the flesh. Some have suggested that Paul, who never married, was impotent. Had Viagra been available to Paul, he may never have written these words.
Religion can be peaceful and gentle or mean and hateful. In my younger days, I belonged to a rather conservative Baptist Church. Even then, I was somewhat of a free thinker, which didn’t always set well with some of the other members, mostly the seminary crowd. On more than one occasion, one of them told me “I’ll put you on my prayer list” when they didn’t agree with a position I took. I interpreted this as a way of saying “you poor little thing, you don’t understand,” as both condescending and hateful. I came up with a response that further angered them, “Good, I keep a list people who are praying for me.”
Then there was something that happened at Borders about five years ago. Someone began drawing swastikas on the walls in the men’s restroom. I complained to the manage about the matter, reminding him that many of the individuals and families who hung out in the coffee bar were Jewish and that they didn’t need to see this kind of crap. The manager got a poster of John Lennon and hung it up over the swastikas. The graffiti artist then drew a circler with a line leading to John Lennon’s mouth. Inside the circle he wrote the Bible verse Galatians 6:7 “Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow himself to be sneered at—scorned, disdained or mocked.” Amplified Version This was in obvious reference to Lennon’s comment about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus. The implication, of course, was that god had ordained Lennon’s assassination.
Eventually, the poster got covered up with hate graffiti, so the manager took it down. The original swastikas and epithets were again visible. One Sunday afternoon I went to the help desk and complained about the graffiti. I asked about painting over the offending words and symbols. The clerk told me that he didn’t think painting was “in the budget” I asked for the manager. When he appeared I again reminded him that many of the coffee bar’s customer’s were Jewish and asked that it be painted over. I told him that it weren’t in the budget, I would buy the damned paint if they would do the labor. The manager then looked at the clerk and said, “Don’t we have some paint in the back?” The clerk said “yes” and that very day they painted over the graffiti. When the wall got filled up again, management covered it with some graffiti resistant material.
In writing all this, I’m probably revealing a bit too much of myself. I am more restrained on this board than I am in person, but then the inteligence level here is much higher than in the general public and free thinkers are more the norm than the exception. If Borders' management gets a little nervous when I enter the store, fine. There are some things that are definitely worth raising hell about. The religious hate stuff IS one of them.
Again, to answer the question, both religion and the Bible can be used in such hateful and hurtful ways that that it needs to be stopped.
First of all, what is the Bible? It was written over many years, by writers using many different literary styles. Even what books constitute the Bible is questionable. There are books like “Wisdom” that are in the Catholic version that protestants don't recognize. Martin Luther didn’t think certain books should be included. Two of them were “James,” which I find rather practical, and “The Revelation” which I think is hideous. Thomas Jefferson cut passages from the New Testament he didn't agree with.
Then, there’s the matter of translation. With discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, earlier manuscripts were discovered. Earlier manuscripts meant they had been copied fewer times and were deemed more accurate. At times older manuscripts changed the meanings of some texts. Hence, newer, post Dead Sea Scrolls versions, like the NIV and Oxford English Bible became preferred in some circles while others doggedly held to the KJV.
Further, the Bible can be and is interpreted in so many ways, that with only a small grain of hyperbole one can argue that people can get anything they want from it.
I kind of laugh when I read Proverbs 21:9 “It is better to dwell in a corner of a housetop [on the flat oriental roof, exposed to all kinds of weather] than in a house shared with a nagging, quarrelsome and fault finding woman” Amplified Version
Yet the same words I laugh about when reading, could be rather hateful if a man becomes angry with his wife and recites them to her before stomping off to a beer joint or golf course. It’s context.
In the context of this thread, the most often quoted text dealing with homosexual relations is Paul’s letter to the Romans (1:27) “And the men also turn from natural relations with women and were set ablaze [burned out, consumed] with lust for one another, men committing shameful acts with men.” Amplified Version
In the context of this thread, I would suggest such words are hate filled.
Some, however, think that this is just Paul’s biased based on his own life and frustration. Paul talked about a "thorn" in the flesh. Some have suggested that Paul, who never married, was impotent. Had Viagra been available to Paul, he may never have written these words.
Religion can be peaceful and gentle or mean and hateful. In my younger days, I belonged to a rather conservative Baptist Church. Even then, I was somewhat of a free thinker, which didn’t always set well with some of the other members, mostly the seminary crowd. On more than one occasion, one of them told me “I’ll put you on my prayer list” when they didn’t agree with a position I took. I interpreted this as a way of saying “you poor little thing, you don’t understand,” as both condescending and hateful. I came up with a response that further angered them, “Good, I keep a list people who are praying for me.”
Then there was something that happened at Borders about five years ago. Someone began drawing swastikas on the walls in the men’s restroom. I complained to the manage about the matter, reminding him that many of the individuals and families who hung out in the coffee bar were Jewish and that they didn’t need to see this kind of crap. The manager got a poster of John Lennon and hung it up over the swastikas. The graffiti artist then drew a circler with a line leading to John Lennon’s mouth. Inside the circle he wrote the Bible verse Galatians 6:7 “Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow himself to be sneered at—scorned, disdained or mocked.” Amplified Version This was in obvious reference to Lennon’s comment about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus. The implication, of course, was that god had ordained Lennon’s assassination.
Eventually, the poster got covered up with hate graffiti, so the manager took it down. The original swastikas and epithets were again visible. One Sunday afternoon I went to the help desk and complained about the graffiti. I asked about painting over the offending words and symbols. The clerk told me that he didn’t think painting was “in the budget” I asked for the manager. When he appeared I again reminded him that many of the coffee bar’s customer’s were Jewish and asked that it be painted over. I told him that it weren’t in the budget, I would buy the damned paint if they would do the labor. The manager then looked at the clerk and said, “Don’t we have some paint in the back?” The clerk said “yes” and that very day they painted over the graffiti. When the wall got filled up again, management covered it with some graffiti resistant material.
In writing all this, I’m probably revealing a bit too much of myself. I am more restrained on this board than I am in person, but then the inteligence level here is much higher than in the general public and free thinkers are more the norm than the exception. If Borders' management gets a little nervous when I enter the store, fine. There are some things that are definitely worth raising hell about. The religious hate stuff IS one of them.
Again, to answer the question, both religion and the Bible can be used in such hateful and hurtful ways that that it needs to be stopped.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jan 18 2005, 05:57 PM)
(2) Is it ever appropriate to charge someone with hate speech when the speech is quotations from the bible
Again, to answer the question, both religion and the Bible can be used in such hateful and hurtful ways that that it needs to be stopped.
Again, to answer the question, both religion and the Bible can be used in such hateful and hurtful ways that that it needs to be stopped.
Great post BoF, and very interesting insights. I disagree in that I believe there is no such thing as hate speech, and even if there is, it isn't a crime. I also disagree that it needs to be stopped.
Someone can quote the Bible in speech that is perceived to be hateful. Telling someone that they are going to hell could be construed as hateful by the hellbound victim. But it is NEVER appropriate to charge them with anything. They are just words, after all, and zealots quoting (or mis-quoting) the bible was exactly the type of speech that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect by writing the first amendment.
We do not need to "stop" hate speech. We need to listen to as much of it as we can in order to expose the fallacies, mis-statements, wrong-headedness of the haters in this country. For example, giving air time to Daniel Carver "the Klan guy" on Howard Stern's radio show has done more to show the stupidity of racism than muzzling him ever could.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jan 18 2005, 06:37 PM)
We do not need to "stop" hate speech. We need to listen to as much of it as we can in order to expose the fallacies, mis-statements, wrong-headedness of the haters in this country.
I understand your point. Do you think that Borders should have left the hate graffiti in the men's room or removed it? Borders is, as we all know, a private business. Some businesses have chalkboads in public restrooms for graffiti. Is the kind of stuff in Borders' restroom appropriate?
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jan 18 2005, 07:37 PM)
Someone can quote the Bible in speech that is perceived to be hateful. Telling someone that they are going to hell could be construed as hateful by the hellbound victim. But it is NEVER appropriate to charge them with anything. They are just words, after all, and zealots quoting (or mis-quoting) the bible was exactly the type of speech that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect by writing the first amendment.
We do not need to "stop" hate speech. We need to listen to as much of it as we can in order to expose the fallacies, mis-statements, wrong-headedness of the haters in this country. For example, giving air time to Daniel Carver "the Klan guy" on Howard Stern's radio show has done more to show the stupidity of racism than muzzling him ever could.
We do not need to "stop" hate speech. We need to listen to as much of it as we can in order to expose the fallacies, mis-statements, wrong-headedness of the haters in this country. For example, giving air time to Daniel Carver "the Klan guy" on Howard Stern's radio show has done more to show the stupidity of racism than muzzling him ever could.
While I agree carlitoswhey that sunlight is the best disinfectant against bigotry, I do believe that there is such a thing as hate speech and I've persused enough racist web sites to know it exists.
I've heard Daniel Carver on Howard Stern and don't find the segments the least bit educational, illuminating or entertaining. The bile spewed forth by the likes of people like Carver is an unflushed toliet that reeks of anger, stupidity and a misplaced sense of supremacy.
Dumping on gays and lesbians under the cloak of religion is just plain ol' homophobia under a different guise. Please tell me what is the least bit edifying about filth such as this:
Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 2291 days.
Diane Whipple has been in hell for 1454 days.
Deal with it! All else is trivial and unimportant. All the fag caterwauling, candlelight vigils, court orders, etc., can't buy these perverts one drop of water to cool their tongues.
or what is to be gleaned from this kind of insane rant:
Do you realize that among the dead and missing are 20,000 Swedes and over 3,000 Americans? Filthy Swedes went to Thailand - world epicenter of child sex traffic - to rape and sodomize little Thai boys and girls. 20,000 dead Swedes is to Sweden's population of 9 million as 650,000 would be to America's 290 million population. We sincerely hope and pray that all 20,000 Swedes are dead, their bodies bloated on the ground or in mass graves or floating at sea feeding sharks and fishes or in the bellies of thousands of crocodiles washed ashore by tsunamis. These filthy, faggot Swedes have a satanic, draconian law criminalizing Gospel preaching, under which they prosecuted, convicted and sentenced Pastor Ake Green to jail - thereby incurring God's irreversible wrath: "He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Psa. 105:14,15. America, who is awash in diseased fag feces & semen, and is an apostate land of the sodomite damned. Let us pray that God will send a massive Tsunami to totally devastate the North American continent with 1000-foot walls of water doing 500 mph -- even as islands in southern Asia have recently been laid waste, with but a small remnant surviving. And you wonder if this is the wrath of God?
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html#Tsunami
Hate speech is real and to the extent that it influences a sick mind to put words into deed, yes, it should be monitored. I don't want to criminalize this kind of unchecked ignorance and drive it underground where it can breed like vermin.
But please don't tell me I need to listen to this kind of garbage.
I went back and listened to the tape again and I didn't hear the Bible quoted once. At one point, someone bellows 'Why did God destroy Sodom'? Aside from that this guy is walking around singing Blessed be the name of the Lord. No big deal really one of the gay guys started dancing to it and tried to dance with the chief of police who was escorting them around. There didn't seem to be a problem until they were blocking the vending areas and the police told them to move along. They wanted to go one way and the police said no, everybody come this way.
This is definitely not the kind of publicity new hate crimes legislation needs right now. There are real crimes out there that could help to stop malicious acts of violence that are ethniclly motivated but yelling why did God destroy Sodom is not one of them. Christian groups have been saying for a year now that the hate crimes bill would give special consideration to gay groups and this pretty much shows what these bills are designed to do.
I just don't get it, I didn't see anything criminal about what they did. A little obnoxious but being obnoxious isn't a crime. I remember there were groups like them that would stand on the steps of Monument Circle here in Indianapolis and they were just ignored, unless they had a bullhorn, then they had to leave. We also had a big mess downtown when our Govoner, in his infinite wisdom, decided that the Statehouse steps would be a great place to let the KKK have a rally. Of course the protestors were out in force and there were a few scuffles but no big deal really. When the KKK returned soon after the message from the radios, tv, and activist groups was stay home.
This will do nothing but encourge groups like Repent America. These laws are going to be tested in the Supreme Court eventually, I don't see any way of avoiding it.
This is definitely not the kind of publicity new hate crimes legislation needs right now. There are real crimes out there that could help to stop malicious acts of violence that are ethniclly motivated but yelling why did God destroy Sodom is not one of them. Christian groups have been saying for a year now that the hate crimes bill would give special consideration to gay groups and this pretty much shows what these bills are designed to do.
I just don't get it, I didn't see anything criminal about what they did. A little obnoxious but being obnoxious isn't a crime. I remember there were groups like them that would stand on the steps of Monument Circle here in Indianapolis and they were just ignored, unless they had a bullhorn, then they had to leave. We also had a big mess downtown when our Govoner, in his infinite wisdom, decided that the Statehouse steps would be a great place to let the KKK have a rally. Of course the protestors were out in force and there were a few scuffles but no big deal really. When the KKK returned soon after the message from the radios, tv, and activist groups was stay home.
This will do nothing but encourge groups like Repent America. These laws are going to be tested in the Supreme Court eventually, I don't see any way of avoiding it.
QUOTE
Amlord:
Let's not get too personal in our discussions here.
Let's not get too personal in our discussions here.
How not to get too personal? Where can this reality finally be discussed without beating around the bush of bullcrap. Most of us have been accosted by a Christian group at least once in our lifetime, if they have not come to our houses and rang our doorbells they have come up to us on the street, charging hellfire and damnation for all us 'sinners'. I have been accused and harrassed on the street by groups of Christians of being a 'sinner' for taking fashion photos, and my subjects were young want-to-be models, fully dressed and I was just taking their picture, in full city view, nothing lewd or nasty, but these Christians go about looking for some sinner, surrounded us and we had to move.
I have NEVER been adressed in public or in private by a gay group, or any other group or individual to adhere, address, allow or approve of their lifestyle or convert to it, however we have to constantly be accosted and accused by Christians, even at our front doors, of the houses we own, of being sinners, or on our city streets, where I work and I pay taxes. Its a plague. I am not free from these people, and there are no others doing this, its specific, directed harrassment and I want a law against it.
Some people think that Christians are being persecuted in this country, I say its
truly the opposite. We of any religion are being persecuted by Christians. Zealotry is the same whether its white, black, purple or the Bible, however it seems to be the Bible that wins approval in that all of us to have to relinquish to the mental and emotional cruelty of submission through constant bombardment from Christians, despite our desire to be left alone to believe what we wish, or to go to hell if we wish, or have a gay 'out' party, with permits.
I am all for freedom of speech, but at one time all the freedom of speech was against black people having any rights, crosses (funny that christian thing) were burned on peoples lawns and houses were burned down and lynchings just happened and that was not hate crime, nor were the rallies that preceded these events- hate speech, nor incitement. Its true, it was not a hate crime nor hate speech, it was just the real definition of terrorism.
I love it when youth today says 'hate speech is ok, I dont believe in it'. Thats because noone remembers when hate speech caused the lynchings of blacks in this country or the seeds of Naziism in Europe. Hate groups MUST be monitored. In my mind Christian fundamentalist hate is just as bad as Islamic fundamentalist hate, they just came to it later.
But also, zealots better be careful because, its difficult to say what is hate speech, but I will say that when I meet someone who tries to preach Christ to me, and I ask them to step aside, and they tell me I will burn in hell because I chose NOT to listen to their bull, they are very lucky that both of us dont land in jail. I am getting sick to death of this scenario, which puts me at an extreme disadvantage in the levels of my tolerance. What Christians dont seem to understand is, they are really stepping on peoples toes with it and it takes some restraint not to react.
Sorry but I think this should be an open topic to discuss, but there is no religious forum on this board.
QUOTE
Some people think that Christians are being persecuted in this country, I say its truly the opposite. We of any religion are being persecuted by Christians. Zealotry is the same whether its white, black, purple or the Bible, however it seems to be the Bible that wins approval in that all of us to have to relinquish to the mental and emotional cruelty of submission through constant bombardment from Christians, despite our desire to be left alone to believe what we wish, or to go to hell if we wish, or have a gay 'out' party, with permits.
Given the context of the arrest I would say that you are the one that has it backwards. Now its quoting Scripture tommorow it might be you who has to say 'thank you big brother'!. This was not a hate crime and gays are not an ethnic group, and freedom of speech is protected under the first amendment. Christians were right that hate crimes legislation were not designed to prevent crime, it is meant to censor Christians.
By the way, no one is immune to the emotional poison of hatred:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in you own eye?" (Matthew 7:3)
QUOTE(Artemise @ Jan 19 2005, 09:48 AM)
What Christians dont seem to understand is, they are really stepping on peoples toes with it and it takes some restraint not to react. Sorry but I think this should be an open topic to discuss, but there is no religious forum on this board.
While I don’t think this board should get into doctrinal discussions, I do think it is appropriate to discuss how religion operates in relation to public policy. Broad and vocal support for Bush among religious conservatives has set a pattern which will not be reversed, at least any time soon.
Further, any culture or sub-culture, that attempts to impose its will on others should be fair game. It seems to me that fundamentalist and evangelicals (there is overlap in these two groups, though they are not the same in all cases) want to eat their cake and have it too (if you are the Unabomber) otherwise "have your cake and eat it too"—that is, they should be free to criticize, to pass judgment and to set norms, but don’t want to be criticized or have their beliefs scrutinized.
QUOTE(Artemise)
How not to get too personal? Where can this reality finally be discussed without beating around the bush of bullcrap. Most of us have been accosted by a Christian group at least once in our lifetime, if they have not come to our houses and rang our doorbells they have come up to us on the street, charging hellfire and damnation for all us 'sinners'. I have been accused and harrassed on the street by groups of Christians of being a 'sinner' for taking fashion photos, and my subjects were young want-to-be models, fully dressed and I was just taking their picture, in full city view, nothing lewd or nasty, but these Christians go about looking for some sinner, surrounded us and we had to move
Artemise has nailed this one. Evangelicals do not even follow the advice given in the Bible they take so literally. Peter gave the following advice, “Always be willing to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully." [some translations use the words meekness and gentleness] I Peter 3:15 Amplified Version
The problem I have encountered on many occasions, is that the person intent on “selling” their religion to someone else, rarely if ever, waits to be asked. Instead of acting with respect or gentility, the approach is often like running over someone with a Mack truck.
Here are a few examples to back up what Artemise has said. In the 1970s and 1980s I rode a bicycle nearly everyday. One evening I was riding and a guy stopped me and asked about my “racing” bike. I explained that it was touring bike and I had recently gone on a tour of New England with the Fort Worth Bicycling Association. His question about the bike was just a way to get his foot in the door. He then asked me “Do you know where you would go if you died tonight?” I answered, “I guess they’d take my body to the morgue” and rode off.
One Sunday afternoon I was sitting on my father’s front porch. Watching NFL football on Sunday afternoon was a ritual I enjoyed with my father until his death in 1981. As I was sitting on the porch, two of those guys, who ride around on bicycles with sports coat and tie and no helmet, came up. They introduced themselves as “the missionaries” and asked if we could talk. I told them “No, the Cowboy game is about to start and I want to go in and watch it.” One of them then asked, “Do you think a football game is more important than your eternal soul?” I told them “Right now seeing the game and visiting my father is more important than whatever you want to talk about.”
Then there was the Saturday morning that the Jehovahs’ Witnesses came to the door. I was in the shower, so I got out and went to the door and hollered, “Who is it?” They identified themselves and requested that I open the door. I told them that unless they wanted to see me “butt naked” that that wouldn’t be a good idea. They then asked if they could leave some literature and I told them that I didn’t read “Watchtowers."
One morning about 2:00 a.m., I was sitting in Denny’s reading a book. There were two guys that looked to be about college age sitting in another booth. One of them got up and made his way to my table and asked, “Has anyone ever clearly presented the gospel of Jesus Christ to you?” ( Can anyone who has lived their entire life in what H. L. Mencken called the "buckle on the Bible Belt" not have heard it) Without even thinking I told him in my best school teacher tone, “Go sit down!” Fortunately, he said, "Ok" and made his way back to his table.
One afternoon, when I had just gotten home from school, a young girl rang the doorbell and identified herself as a member of a rather conservative church. I asked her how old she was. She said twelve. Fearing for her safety, I asked if there were an adult with her. She said “yes” and I asked her to go fetch the adult. The adult turned out to be a male, who looked like he was maybe 17-years-old. I told them to go back and tell their pastor, or whoever sent them, that I was 58-years-old and didn’t need children coming by to explain the mysteries of life to me.
In retrospect, the most humorous incident occurred about three years ago in a downtown coffee shop. One of the customers routinely brought in a bag full of Bibles and other religious books. He was also a chess player (I’m not) and about the only time he wasn’t reading his books or trying to convert others was when someone engaged him in a chess game. That morning I had taken some of my Billboard books to the coffee shop and was doing some research on pop music. He asked what I was doing, I told him and then he said “you need to quit working on that and get yourself in the word of god for 2 or 3 hours a day.” I told him I wasn’t interested in the word of god, at which point he jumped up from his table, came over to mine and said, “You are a fool, you have always been a fool, I’ve been trying to show you the truth for three years and you don’t listen.” He then pointed to a verse in The Revelation and quoted something about taking away from or adding to and assured me I was on a fast track to hell. The guy described himself as a messianic Jew. A few weeks before he had jumped all over the owner of another coffee shop for putting bacon on a sandwich he had ordered. The owner, whom I believe, said it was an accident and she had made him another sandwich, but he claimed it was intentional and intended as an affront to his Jewish heritage. Despite the fact that he was now Christian (or a Christianized or Messianic Jew) he still followed the Old Testament strictures against eating pork. While he was still ranting, I said, “I haven’t had lunch. I’m going next door to Tommy’s (a hamburger joint) to get a bacon cheese burger. Do you want to join me?" He didn’t opt for a cheesburger, and although I usually don’t eat burgers, never did one taste sooooooooooo!! Good.
The point of all this is that the clause in the Constitution that provides for freedom of religion must imply that we also have freedom from religion.
I have no quarrel with people worshipping as they please, where they please, when they please or not "worshipping" at all. What I, and I think Artemise, detest is having people try to shove their version of truth down our throats.
BTW: Haranguing, bludgeoning, intimidating someone with your beliefs, especially when they are not interested, is a form of hate speech. No, it shouldn’t be criminalized, but it’s practitioners should be sensitive enough not to intrude where they are not wanted.
Artemise wrote:
I am sorry Artemise-- but aren't you exagerating just a little bit? I have never been "persecuted" by Christians or have had to "relinquish" to their "bombardment" of "mental and emotional cruelty". Sure, I have had Jehovah's witnesses knocking at my door in the past, or been met by someone on the street distributing literature, but so what? I politely tell them I am not interested. End of story. Your view of "Christians" strikes me as extremely intolerant.
Artemise wrote:
Why do you lump all Christians into the category of Nazis or Islamic Fundamentalists? That is absurd. There are extreme elements in every society in every sphere. Some of these extremes manifest themselves in the political realm (like with Hitler or environmental terrorists or the IRA) or in the religious realm (with Bin Laden or with people who kill abortion doctors). The problem with your statement that Hate Groups must be monitored-- is that you are lumping all Christians in as part of hate groups. I cannot believe that is what you meant to say. Nor can I belive that you would analogize Christian Fundamentalists (i.e. those that belive the bible literally) to the Al Quaida terrorists that attacked our country.
QUOTE
Some people think that Christians are being persecuted in this country, I say its
truly the opposite. We of any religion are being persecuted by Christians. Zealotry is the same whether its white, black, purple or the Bible, however it seems to be the Bible that wins approval in that all of us to have to relinquish to the mental and emotional cruelty of submission through constant bombardment from Christians, despite our desire to be left alone to believe what we wish, or to go to hell if we wish, or have a gay 'out' party, with permits.
truly the opposite. We of any religion are being persecuted by Christians. Zealotry is the same whether its white, black, purple or the Bible, however it seems to be the Bible that wins approval in that all of us to have to relinquish to the mental and emotional cruelty of submission through constant bombardment from Christians, despite our desire to be left alone to believe what we wish, or to go to hell if we wish, or have a gay 'out' party, with permits.
I am sorry Artemise-- but aren't you exagerating just a little bit? I have never been "persecuted" by Christians or have had to "relinquish" to their "bombardment" of "mental and emotional cruelty". Sure, I have had Jehovah's witnesses knocking at my door in the past, or been met by someone on the street distributing literature, but so what? I politely tell them I am not interested. End of story. Your view of "Christians" strikes me as extremely intolerant.
Artemise wrote:
QUOTE
I love it when youth today says 'hate speech is ok, I dont believe in it'. Thats because noone remembers when hate speech caused the lynchings of blacks in this country or the seeds of Naziism in Europe. Hate groups MUST be monitored. In my mind Christian fundamentalist hate is just as bad as Islamic fundamentalist hate, they just came to it later.
Why do you lump all Christians into the category of Nazis or Islamic Fundamentalists? That is absurd. There are extreme elements in every society in every sphere. Some of these extremes manifest themselves in the political realm (like with Hitler or environmental terrorists or the IRA) or in the religious realm (with Bin Laden or with people who kill abortion doctors). The problem with your statement that Hate Groups must be monitored-- is that you are lumping all Christians in as part of hate groups. I cannot believe that is what you meant to say. Nor can I belive that you would analogize Christian Fundamentalists (i.e. those that belive the bible literally) to the Al Quaida terrorists that attacked our country.
Bof wrote
I absolutely agree Bof that freedom of religion means also freedom from religion. We all have the right to "believe" or not.
Your examples are sad but true (also pretty funny
). There will always always be people who just don't get it. They have found the "truth" -- whatever that may be-- an it is not always religious-- and they are hell bent (excuse the pun) on convincing everyone else to jump on the band wagon. I think that is human nature unfortunately.
Unless this sort of person is truly inciting violence, though, I believe strongly in their freedom to express their beliefs. But, as you point out reasonable restrictions are in order otherwise the freedoms of other are infringed on. That is why permits are required to protest etc.
QUOTE
The point of all this is that the clause in the Constitution that provides for freedom of religion must imply that we also have freedom from religion.
I have no quarrel with people worshipping as they please, where they please, when they please or not "worshipping" at all. What I, and I think Artemise, detest is having people try to shove their version of truth down our throats.
BTW: Haranguing, bludgeoning, intimidating someone with your beliefs, especially when they are not interested, is a form of hate speech. No, it shouldn’t be criminalized, but it’s practitioners should be sensitive enough not to intrude where they are not wanted.
I have no quarrel with people worshipping as they please, where they please, when they please or not "worshipping" at all. What I, and I think Artemise, detest is having people try to shove their version of truth down our throats.
BTW: Haranguing, bludgeoning, intimidating someone with your beliefs, especially when they are not interested, is a form of hate speech. No, it shouldn’t be criminalized, but it’s practitioners should be sensitive enough not to intrude where they are not wanted.
I absolutely agree Bof that freedom of religion means also freedom from religion. We all have the right to "believe" or not.
Your examples are sad but true (also pretty funny
). There will always always be people who just don't get it. They have found the "truth" -- whatever that may be-- an it is not always religious-- and they are hell bent (excuse the pun) on convincing everyone else to jump on the band wagon. I think that is human nature unfortunately. Unless this sort of person is truly inciting violence, though, I believe strongly in their freedom to express their beliefs. But, as you point out reasonable restrictions are in order otherwise the freedoms of other are infringed on. That is why permits are required to protest etc.
IMO the crux of the problem is this: our government is as qualified to discern the motive of someones heart (that is hate) as it is qualified on knowing which art should be tax supported. These are ethereal concepts, not concrete and objective. The tone or motive of what someone says should not be brought to bear in criminal law. It really borders on the absurd as this video clip demonstrates. Let manslaughter be manslaughter. Let assault be assault. Let disorderly conduct be disorderly conduct. To do otherwise requires our judiciary to have metaphysical insight.
The venom spewed by some who call themselves Christians, is it any more offensive than the venom spewed indiscriminately on Christians? Can this also be considered anything less than hate in some cases. God forbid (ha-ha tyork made a pun) we should criminalize hating Christians.
And the whole thing with Jesus! All due respect to Overlandsailor but if we are to believe the gospel accounts he had a lot to say about hell. And he caused riots. He is much too complicated to be just the comforting Good Shepherd or Righteous Judge. Or fifty other things. I don't know that if I was his contemporary I wouldn't be hailing him as a hero one day and calling out for his blood later in the week. How could we expect less diversity of response from his saintly, hateful, loving, fearful, bombastic, rich, poor, narrow, bigoted, generous, liberal followers? Which ones should be made criminals?
I guess all I am saying is give protest a chance.
The venom spewed by some who call themselves Christians, is it any more offensive than the venom spewed indiscriminately on Christians? Can this also be considered anything less than hate in some cases. God forbid (ha-ha tyork made a pun) we should criminalize hating Christians.
And the whole thing with Jesus! All due respect to Overlandsailor but if we are to believe the gospel accounts he had a lot to say about hell. And he caused riots. He is much too complicated to be just the comforting Good Shepherd or Righteous Judge. Or fifty other things. I don't know that if I was his contemporary I wouldn't be hailing him as a hero one day and calling out for his blood later in the week. How could we expect less diversity of response from his saintly, hateful, loving, fearful, bombastic, rich, poor, narrow, bigoted, generous, liberal followers? Which ones should be made criminals?
I guess all I am saying is give protest a chance.
Here's my take on "hate speech".
If the Biblethumpers stand around at a gay rally saying "Homosexuality is a sin and a deviation and God will punish you" that's just an expressed opinion, however misguided/stupid/hateful one might or might not think it is, and as such it has to be allowable under freedom of speech.
If, on the other hand, they stand around at the same rally saying "Homosexuality is a sin and a deviation and God wants all good Christians to punish you. All Christians listening to this message of the Lord's truth must take it upon themselves to punish these ungodly men and women", well - that's pretty much incitement to violence. It evidences no more hate than before, but it does exhort people to act on that hate and so it should be a criminal offence akin to incitement.
It's like the old chestnut of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre - if it's intended to cause real physical harm, or if it's obvious to any reasonable person that harm would likely be caused even if none were intended, then it's not something that should be tolerated under the law.
Alternatively, it's true that sticks and stones break no bones, but if instead the rhetoric urges people to go get sticks and stones and break some bones - that's the sort of hate speech that should be illegal, IMO.
So there are two types of "hate speech" - acceptable and unnacceptable. I don't know the law on your side of the pond, and if laws on incitement to violence and/or hatred exist.
Over here, we have specific laws against incitement to racial hatred, and a mooted extension to cover religious hatred and that aimed at different sexual orientations. Under the existing law, it isn't illegal to for a white man to call a black man "nigger" (though it is one of the least socially acceptable things to do in modern Britain, thankfully - more so even than almost all forms of sexual profanity), but it is illegal for him to stand up in public and say "Kill niggers". I think that this approach is a reasonable middle path between freedom of thought and speech, and freedom from persecution.
In this specific example, it seems that we do not have the full story - we have a video of some of the things that were being said, but apparently the police have another one that will be used as prosecution evidence should the case come to trial. Since none of us were actually present, until we see the full story, we cannot know whether the hate speech being used was of the acceptable or unacceptable kinds.
My prejudices, like many people's here, lead me to be sceptical about the motives of the Christian protesters, and to be more willing to believe that they were being unacceptably hateful. Others are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. None of us will know who is "right" until we get a fuller picture.
If the Biblethumpers stand around at a gay rally saying "Homosexuality is a sin and a deviation and God will punish you" that's just an expressed opinion, however misguided/stupid/hateful one might or might not think it is, and as such it has to be allowable under freedom of speech.
If, on the other hand, they stand around at the same rally saying "Homosexuality is a sin and a deviation and God wants all good Christians to punish you. All Christians listening to this message of the Lord's truth must take it upon themselves to punish these ungodly men and women", well - that's pretty much incitement to violence. It evidences no more hate than before, but it does exhort people to act on that hate and so it should be a criminal offence akin to incitement.
It's like the old chestnut of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre - if it's intended to cause real physical harm, or if it's obvious to any reasonable person that harm would likely be caused even if none were intended, then it's not something that should be tolerated under the law.
Alternatively, it's true that sticks and stones break no bones, but if instead the rhetoric urges people to go get sticks and stones and break some bones - that's the sort of hate speech that should be illegal, IMO.
So there are two types of "hate speech" - acceptable and unnacceptable. I don't know the law on your side of the pond, and if laws on incitement to violence and/or hatred exist.
Over here, we have specific laws against incitement to racial hatred, and a mooted extension to cover religious hatred and that aimed at different sexual orientations. Under the existing law, it isn't illegal to for a white man to call a black man "nigger" (though it is one of the least socially acceptable things to do in modern Britain, thankfully - more so even than almost all forms of sexual profanity), but it is illegal for him to stand up in public and say "Kill niggers". I think that this approach is a reasonable middle path between freedom of thought and speech, and freedom from persecution.
In this specific example, it seems that we do not have the full story - we have a video of some of the things that were being said, but apparently the police have another one that will be used as prosecution evidence should the case come to trial. Since none of us were actually present, until we see the full story, we cannot know whether the hate speech being used was of the acceptable or unacceptable kinds.
My prejudices, like many people's here, lead me to be sceptical about the motives of the Christian protesters, and to be more willing to believe that they were being unacceptably hateful. Others are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. None of us will know who is "right" until we get a fuller picture.
I've watched the video a couple of times and saying 'Why did God destory Sodom' is not hatefull. Actually its a good question that was meant to make them think. They were not inciting violence, they never said anything that would suggest that. Now I haven't seen the police video and I would love to but if it is anything like what I seen then the Philidelphia police department is going to be badly embarassed by this. Like I said, I saw protestors flying the bird like a flag at the rally I went to, isnt that hatefull?
There is a definite trend in our country that is giving preferance to openly gay demonstrations and it is gaining momentum. When offered the conservative compromise of gay unions it was flatly rejected and all it was suppose to do is discern the difference between heterosexual unions and traditional marriage. Gay activists don't want equality they want to be accepted as normal which is what Limbaugh describes as defining deviancy down. I don't like Limbaugh but I think he is right on this one.
What the demonstrators did was distastfull but I have no credible evidence that what they did was hatefull. Suppose I decided to wear a shirt that said, 'Aids is just recompense for wrong behavior Romans 1:27', would that be a hate crime? Now suppose I wore this to a gay pride rally and the crowd got angry as they did in the demonstration we saw? It was the reaction to their statements that made the situation volitle, not the substance of the statement.
There is a definite trend in our country that is giving preferance to openly gay demonstrations and it is gaining momentum. When offered the conservative compromise of gay unions it was flatly rejected and all it was suppose to do is discern the difference between heterosexual unions and traditional marriage. Gay activists don't want equality they want to be accepted as normal which is what Limbaugh describes as defining deviancy down. I don't like Limbaugh but I think he is right on this one.
What the demonstrators did was distastfull but I have no credible evidence that what they did was hatefull. Suppose I decided to wear a shirt that said, 'Aids is just recompense for wrong behavior Romans 1:27', would that be a hate crime? Now suppose I wore this to a gay pride rally and the crowd got angry as they did in the demonstration we saw? It was the reaction to their statements that made the situation volitle, not the substance of the statement.
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 20 2005, 01:09 PM)
Gay activists don't want equality they want to be accepted as normal which is what Limbaugh describes as defining deviancy down. I don't like Limbaugh but I think he is right on this one.
The American Psychological Association has long disowned the proposition that gays are not “normal.”
Here is a statement from their webpage
QUOTE(APA webpage)
Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, homosexuality is not a mental disorder. For close to 30 years, both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel this myth.
No, homosexuality is not a mental disorder. For close to 30 years, both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel this myth.
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/lgbfamilybrf604.html
So, once again the “dumbed down” or better "smarted up" Rush Limbaugh, a college dropout, has trumped the professionals in the field. I fear Limbaugh’s only virtue is being more irrational than anyone else on the planet and using that golden microphone to out shout voices of reason.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jan 20 2005, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 20 2005, 01:09 PM)
Gay activists don't want equality they want to be accepted as normal which is what Limbaugh describes as defining deviancy down. I don't like Limbaugh but I think he is right on this one.
The American Psychological Association has long disowned the proposition that gays are not “normal.”
Here is a statement from their web page
QUOTE(APA webpage)
Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, homosexuality is not a mental disorder. For close to 30 years, both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel this myth.
No, homosexuality is not a mental disorder. For close to 30 years, both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel this myth.
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/lgbfamilybrf604.html
I never said that it was a mental disorder but that it was a deviant lifestyle. What is more they are not an ethnic group they are perverting the natural use of their bodies. Honestly I am glad that the sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional but that still does not make this lifestyle normal or natural. I never believed that this was a mental disorder, I just think it is perverse and should not be confused with the natural use of the body.
QUOTE
So, once again the “dumbed down” or better "smarted up" Rush Limbaugh, a college dropout, has trumped the professionals” in the field. I fear Limbaugh’s only virtue is being more irrational and using that golden microphone to out shout voices of reason.
I simply said that I agee with Limbaugh on this point, I never said that he had credible academic creditials. Limbaugh is load and obnoxious and his golden microphone may well be a platform for egotistical rants, but that is completely beside the point.
Without restraint the government can impose unduly harsh penalties and this is a prime example of how this can happen. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 20 2005, 01:09 PM)
Gay activists don't want equality they want to be accepted as normal
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 20 2005, 01:50 PM)
I never said that it was a mental disorder but that it was a deviant lifestyle.
This has gotten away from the original thread, but I feel compelled to answer.
You yourself used the word “normal.” We know that human sexuality is a mixture of the psychological as well as the physiological. With heterosexuals, why does one person prefer a mate with blonde hair and blue eyes, while someone else prefers darker features? I would suggest that that is the psychological element at work. Hence, the referenced to the APA statement is fitting.
My personal position on all this is laissez faire. If it’s between two consenting adult and it has no impact on my personal freedom, or does not violate criminal law, then why should I care. This doesn’t exactly have the gravitas of a serial killer on the loose.
I am glad you don’t like Limbaugh, but on this question, he merely gets his listeners' emotions boiling, rather than providing anything worth noting. And that, I would suggest, is the case more often than not.
I only want to clear up my last post.
I said
I never grouped all Christians together, but I didnt in my post put the '..' marks in, my error.
I was very radical in my post because I have been accosted by Christians many times in my life, including at a clinic once. They did not know why I was there, but I got the entire barrage and treatment of the baby killer on my way to hell. I got into a screaming ideological battle with them, but you are really outnumbered and I must admit very shaken.
Trust me that if you ever have to go for an exam or other at a women's clinic in many states, you will know what this mental and emotional cruelty is, or if youve ever been to an abortion doctor that has had to go underground for fear of their life.
Or if you have ever been surrounded on the street as they roam looking for some sinner, like a fashion photographer and a model. (bad people we are it seems! My model was a minor and it freaked her out completely.)
Or if you have them screaming at you in a restaurant, as per BOF's story.
Its just not right, nor fair to ANYBODY but the people that the law allows to do it.
As a child Baptists came to our houses and told children, if we were not saved we would go to hell. Its a terrible image for a child that has no idea whats going on but has some concept of hell. Im being unfair to Christians you say? No, I have never been unfair to them, I never looked for them and never asked anything of them but to be left alone to live my life.
In the case of the Phila 5 , I think its now 4, we dont have all the facts yet.
I am, as I said, upholding that they were within their rights and the charges will likely go nowhere, but I also think its within ones rights as well not to be harrassed by any group serving up the hellfire and damnation of the day to anyone, at anytime on the street.
Its extremely disturbing when it happens to you.
My point is more philosophical than about the law. I dont see any way around this currently by law, but I think perhaps this should be dealt with in some way, if not by law, then by talking to people and asking them to reflect and comprehend what it feels like.
I said
QUOTE
In my mind 'Christian fundamentalist hate' is just as bad as 'Islamic fundamentalist hate', they just came to it later.
I never grouped all Christians together, but I didnt in my post put the '..' marks in, my error.
I was very radical in my post because I have been accosted by Christians many times in my life, including at a clinic once. They did not know why I was there, but I got the entire barrage and treatment of the baby killer on my way to hell. I got into a screaming ideological battle with them, but you are really outnumbered and I must admit very shaken.
QUOTE
I have never been "persecuted" by Christians or have had to "relinquish" to their "bombardment" of "mental and emotional cruelty".
Trust me that if you ever have to go for an exam or other at a women's clinic in many states, you will know what this mental and emotional cruelty is, or if youve ever been to an abortion doctor that has had to go underground for fear of their life.
Or if you have ever been surrounded on the street as they roam looking for some sinner, like a fashion photographer and a model. (bad people we are it seems! My model was a minor and it freaked her out completely.)
Or if you have them screaming at you in a restaurant, as per BOF's story.
Its just not right, nor fair to ANYBODY but the people that the law allows to do it.
As a child Baptists came to our houses and told children, if we were not saved we would go to hell. Its a terrible image for a child that has no idea whats going on but has some concept of hell. Im being unfair to Christians you say? No, I have never been unfair to them, I never looked for them and never asked anything of them but to be left alone to live my life.
In the case of the Phila 5 , I think its now 4, we dont have all the facts yet.
I am, as I said, upholding that they were within their rights and the charges will likely go nowhere, but I also think its within ones rights as well not to be harrassed by any group serving up the hellfire and damnation of the day to anyone, at anytime on the street.
Its extremely disturbing when it happens to you.
My point is more philosophical than about the law. I dont see any way around this currently by law, but I think perhaps this should be dealt with in some way, if not by law, then by talking to people and asking them to reflect and comprehend what it feels like.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jan 20 2005, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 20 2005, 01:09 PM)
Gay activists don't want equality they want to be accepted as normal
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 20 2005, 01:50 PM)
I never said that it was a mental disorder but that it was a deviant lifestyle.
This has gotten away from the original thread, but I feel compelled to answer.
You yourself used the word “normal.” We know that human sexuality is a mixture of the psychological as well as the physiological. With heterosexuals, why does one person prefer a mate with blonde hair and blue eyes, while someone else prefers darker features? I would suggest that that is the psychological element at work. Hence, the referenced to the APA statement is fitting.
Sexual preferance while it is a legally allowed choice is not an ethnic issue. That is exactly what the hate crimes legislation treats it as and that is just plain wrong. I don't care what kind of choices a person makes in their personal life but when someone calls it sin and warns them that they could be eternally condemned for it that does not make them criminals. They may well be wrong but they were well within their rights to protest a gay pride event. I'm not trying to defend their behaviour as being anything other then obnoxious. Gays want to blame Christians for the hatred of people who would do them harm but there was no call for violence in their protests.
QUOTE
My personal position on all this is laissez faire. If it’s between two consenting adult and it has no impact on my personal freedom, or does not violate criminal law, then why should I care. This doesn’t exactly have the gravitas of a serial killer on the loose.
This is not about personal choices, its about criminal charges that clearly violate someones right to free speach. I don't like being told that I'm a sinner and I don't like someone telling me I'm homophobic but I believe in a persons right to express an opinion, even if they are wrong. Ben Franklin said that a fool should be encourged to speak, otherwise he is thought to be wise. The mark of someone really concerned about the right to free speach is not how they react to statements they agree with, its what they do when they hear something they deeply disagree with. That's the American moral concensus and I would just love it if the Philidelphia 5 were actually prosecuted, that would be the end of hate speach legislation that gives preferential treatment to gays.
QUOTE
I am glad you don’t like Limbaugh, but on this question, he merely gets his listeners' emotions boiling, rather than providing anything worth noting. And that, I would suggest, is the case more often than not.
You missed the point, I agree with Rush about defining devancy down. Limbaugh is at least articulate and open about what he thinks, I think he is egotistical, but that doesnt mean I don't appreciate his point of view. Emotionalism is part of every effective media personality in modern America. Every newscast is riddled with it and if they fail to appeal to emotional reactions they wont be on the air very long.
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 21 2005, 12:13 PM)
This is not about personal choices, its about criminal charges that clearly violate someones right to free speach. I don't like being told that I'm a sinner and I don't like someone telling me I'm homophobic but I believe in a persons right to express an opinion, even if they are wrong. Ben Franklin said that a fool should be encourged to speak, otherwise he is thought to be wise. The mark of someone really concerned about the right to free speach is not how they react to statements they agree with, its what they do when they hear something they deeply disagree with. That's the American moral concensus and I would just love it if the Philidelphia 5 were actually prosecuted, that would be the end of hate speach legislation that gives preferential treatment to gays.
phaedrus,
It is you who is misssing the point. You are also putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about gays being an "ethnic" group.
The main thrust of my posts was to dispute your off topic assertion that gays are not "normal."
Again, to refresh your memory:
QUOTE(phaedrus)
Gay activists don't want equality they want to be accepted as normal
This was the only issue I was addressing in my posts to you.
The 100' "law" was a condition of their bail, after the fact. Of course, few of those so outraged that these intolerant, bigoted "Christians" would violate the 100' "law", and thus deserved to be arrested, ever corrected themselves.
The 100' condition has been tossed by Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe
The 100' condition has been tossed by Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe
QUOTE
We cannot restrict people's right to speak or to be near those who might not wish to hear them into the future," Dembe said. The limit had been put in place last month by Municipal Court Judge William A. Meehan against the demonstrators, who are affiliated with a local group called Repent America and who say their opposition to homosexuality is Bible-based.
After viewing a 22-minute videotape of the events leading to the defendants' arrest, Dembe said: "It all amounted to annoyance on both sides, but it did not amount to criminal behavior that I can see."
After viewing a 22-minute videotape of the events leading to the defendants' arrest, Dembe said: "It all amounted to annoyance on both sides, but it did not amount to criminal behavior that I can see."
QUOTE(BoF @ Jan 18 2005, 06:41 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jan 18 2005, 06:37 PM)
We do not need to "stop" hate speech. We need to listen to as much of it as we can in order to expose the fallacies, mis-statements, wrong-headedness of the haters in this country.
I understand your point. Do you think that Borders should have left the hate graffiti in the men's room or removed it? Borders is, as we all know, a private business. Some businesses have chalkboads in public restrooms for graffiti. Is the kind of stuff in Borders' restroom appropriate?
Much as it is already a crime to assault or kill someone, it is already a crime to vandalize a restroom. "Hate" doesn't make someone any more dead, injured, or property-damaged.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jan 18 2005, 07:12 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jan 18 2005, 07:37 PM)
Someone can quote the Bible in speech that is perceived to be hateful. Telling someone that they are going to hell could be construed as hateful by the hellbound victim. But it is NEVER appropriate to charge them with anything. They are just words, after all, and zealots quoting (or mis-quoting) the bible was exactly the type of speech that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect by writing the first amendment.
We do not need to "stop" hate speech. We need to listen to as much of it as we can in order to expose the fallacies, mis-statements, wrong-headedness of the haters in this country. For example, giving air time to Daniel Carver "the Klan guy" on Howard Stern's radio show has done more to show the stupidity of racism than muzzling him ever could.
We do not need to "stop" hate speech. We need to listen to as much of it as we can in order to expose the fallacies, mis-statements, wrong-headedness of the haters in this country. For example, giving air time to Daniel Carver "the Klan guy" on Howard Stern's radio show has done more to show the stupidity of racism than muzzling him ever could.
While I agree carlitoswhey that sunlight is the best disinfectant against bigotry, I do believe that there is such a thing as hate speech and I've persused enough racist web sites to know it exists.
I've heard Daniel Carver on Howard Stern and don't find the segments the least bit educational, illuminating or entertaining. The bile spewed forth by the likes of people like Carver is an unflushed toliet that reeks of anger, stupidity and a misplaced sense of supremacy.
Dumping on gays and lesbians under the cloak of religion is just plain ol' homophobia under a different guise. Please tell me what is the least bit edifying about filth such as this:
Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 2291 days.
Diane Whipple has been in hell for 1454 days.
Deal with it! All else is trivial and unimportant. All the fag caterwauling, candlelight vigils, court orders, etc., can't buy these perverts one drop of water to cool their tongues.
or what is to be gleaned from this kind of insane rant:
Do you realize that among the dead and missing are 20,000 Swedes and over 3,000 Americans? Filthy Swedes went to Thailand - world epicenter of child sex traffic - to rape and sodomize little Thai boys and girls. 20,000 dead Swedes is to Sweden's population of 9 million as 650,000 would be to America's 290 million population. We sincerely hope and pray that all 20,000 Swedes are dead, their bodies bloated on the ground or in mass graves or floating at sea feeding sharks and fishes or in the bellies of thousands of crocodiles washed ashore by tsunamis. These filthy, faggot Swedes have a satanic, draconian law criminalizing Gospel preaching, under which they prosecuted, convicted and sentenced Pastor Ake Green to jail - thereby incurring God's irreversible wrath: "He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Psa. 105:14,15. America, who is awash in diseased fag feces & semen, and is an apostate land of the sodomite damned. Let us pray that God will send a massive Tsunami to totally devastate the North American continent with 1000-foot walls of water doing 500 mph -- even as islands in southern Asia have recently been laid waste, with but a small remnant surviving. And you wonder if this is the wrath of God?
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html#Tsunami
Hate speech is real and to the extent that it influences a sick mind to put words into deed, yes, it should be monitored. I don't want to criminalize this kind of unchecked ignorance and drive it underground where it can breed like vermin.
But please don't tell me I need to listen to this kind of garbage.
I don't say that you have to listen to anything. I am merely saying that having this speech "out there" is, as you say, the best disinfectant. I would no sooner censor the democratic underground threads about how Bush = Hitler, or Castro is a great guy, than I would an aryan nation or godhatesfags website.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jan 21 2005, 03:51 PM)
It is you who is misssing the point. You are also putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about gays being an "ethnic" group.
The main thrust of my posts was to dispute your off topic assertion that gays are not "normal."
The main thrust of my posts was to dispute your off topic assertion that gays are not "normal."
In hate crimes legislation they are treated the same as ethnic groups, that was the main point. I said that they are not concerned with civil rights but with civil liberties. I think you missed the point that sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional based on the right to privacy. This changes the dynamics when viewed in the context of public life and, like I said, if you don't like being wet then get out of the rain.
QUOTE
Again, to refresh your memory:
This was the only issue I was addressing in my posts to you.
QUOTE(phaedrus)
Gay activists don't want equality they want to be accepted as normal
This was the only issue I was addressing in my posts to you.
Ok, I must have missed something here. The right to privacy was the basis of striking down the sodomy laws that I think we can agree was a reasonable decision. What we are faced with is the problem of personal choice in the public arena. Being gay is not normal but neither is being a genius. Any departure from the norm is considered deviant. To clear up the point, the issue is not whether or not being gay is normal, the issue is whether or not we should view protestors as criminals because we don't like what they have to say.
Let me ask you this, did the Philadelphia 5 do what they did because of hate or out of love? There is nothing hateful about asking why God destroyed Sodom, it was just meant to make them think.
QUOTE(Ol Sarge @ Jan 14 2005, 06:27 PM)
Questions for Debate:
(1) Is it too much to charge these protesters with felony charges and not simple misdemeanors?
(2) Is it ever appropriate to charge someone with hate speech when the speech is quotations from the bible
1. The probable cause for a violation is totally in the judgment of the DA on most any violation of law, from accounts I’ve heard on Fox News the DA is biased against Christians.
Your link didn’t work and the only thing I saw on Fox News was a clip of the Christians on bullhorns and the gay group gathering around them with foam insulation to obscure the bullhorn.
The accounts on the O’Reilly program didn’t sound as if the Christians had said anything to incite a riot but was really raining on the parade for the gays.
I think these people should get very good legal council and I think the city should consider not issuing permits for the gay activities until appropriate police control be established to handle a half dozen militant Christians. My nephew was in that parade maybe he has a link of the full incident? I’ll be back.
2. I wasn’t even aware there was such a thing as hate speech, how does that fit into the constitution? I know screaming fire in a theater is an instance where freedom of speech is limited but a person cannot say unpleasant words about another person? Guess that will have to be addressed in the high courts whether the “hateful” words were just made up or read from the bible. Is it against the law to call a gay an “F” word? How about a black person an “N” word? Are the rules the same if you are also gay or black or black and gay or do you still break the law?
Doesn’t this sound like a convention of 2,000 bald guys being solicited by a half dozen aggressive hair transplant specialist?
(1) Is it too much to charge these protesters with felony charges and not simple misdemeanors?
(2) Is it ever appropriate to charge someone with hate speech when the speech is quotations from the bible
1. The probable cause for a violation is totally in the judgment of the DA on most any violation of law, from accounts I’ve heard on Fox News the DA is biased against Christians.
Your link didn’t work and the only thing I saw on Fox News was a clip of the Christians on bullhorns and the gay group gathering around them with foam insulation to obscure the bullhorn.
The accounts on the O’Reilly program didn’t sound as if the Christians had said anything to incite a riot but was really raining on the parade for the gays.
I think these people should get very good legal council and I think the city should consider not issuing permits for the gay activities until appropriate police control be established to handle a half dozen militant Christians. My nephew was in that parade maybe he has a link of the full incident? I’ll be back.
2. I wasn’t even aware there was such a thing as hate speech, how does that fit into the constitution? I know screaming fire in a theater is an instance where freedom of speech is limited but a person cannot say unpleasant words about another person? Guess that will have to be addressed in the high courts whether the “hateful” words were just made up or read from the bible. Is it against the law to call a gay an “F” word? How about a black person an “N” word? Are the rules the same if you are also gay or black or black and gay or do you still break the law?
Doesn’t this sound like a convention of 2,000 bald guys being solicited by a half dozen aggressive hair transplant specialist?
The DA is biased against Christians? Methinks he is simply prosecuting people who break the law. The felony charges were because they were in the middle of the parade and not just encroaching on the 100' protesting distance limit.
As far as the "F" word. Lately, that has come to epitomize the Fox News Channel, which is leaning SO far in ONE direction, it is getting ready to "F"all over. I've come to enjoy the humor on Comedy Central almost as much as seeing the "Fair and Balanced" slogan on the "F" channel.
And O'Reilly on 'sexual behavior'? To quote Gleason at his sarcastic best, "Hardy, Har, Har!"
As far as a felony or no felony - tag 'em!
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 26 2005, 07:16 PM)
Let me ask you this, did the Philadelphia 5 do what they did because of hate or out of love? There is nothing hateful about asking why God destroyed Sodom, it was just meant to make them think.
There are a lot of ways to make people think. Yelling at them and calling them f**s hardly has that effect. Those groups NEVER do that out of LOVE. They ALWAYS do it out of the fear they have for those groups. One needs only to look back at other demonstrations against other causes to ferret out their motivation.
As far as the Bible verses being "hate speech", how does a four-year-old child hold up a racially inflammatory sign in a 50's newsreel of civil rights marches? How? His mommy or daddy TAUGHT him to do that and to hate black people. To think sexual orientation is mostly governed by CHOICE is to jump right into that 50's newsreel and live there. Remember when Bob Jones University was condemning inter-racial dating on their campus? That was LOVE? Sure. It was more like parental fear that a son or daughter would marry across racial lines.
The gay subject has been cussed and discussed for years and WHO would CHOOSE to WANT to have sex with a person of the same sex and bargain for the pain and persecution that came with it? The answer, of course is NO ONE would.
I'm not saying the feeling can't be repressed but I AM saying it isn't a conscious choice. I always go back to Rock Hudson. Who, in all of movie history, had more offers from women? Probably no one. If he weren't wired that way, he would have had as many women as Errol Flynn, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson or anyone else you can name. When does ANYONE wake up and make the decision that one sex or the other will turn him or her on? The answer is they don't. It just happens. You could show me revealing pictures of Johnny Depp for 20 years and not change my mind.
Bible-thumpers are doing what they do best - JUDGING while their own Holy Scripture tells them not to judge.
Many of these "fringe ministers" latch onto a group of followers and develop their own "ministry" to line their pockets (ie. "Flip" Benham and his anti-abortion group).
Another group is donating money to a legal fight to put the word "theory" into evolution curriculum. It is ALWAYS about the money and it always has to do with the pot stirrers stirring the pot so the zealots will join in "The Cause" and donate money to put a stop to whatever is the downfall du jour.
Back to pictures of celebrities. Show me pictures of Bill O'Reilly and I'll chuck up faster than the first guy out in the Lutefish eating festival.
PACPanzer wrote:
If that is your view-- then, methinks you haven't thought it through. The issue is not whether they are being charged under the law, but the degree to which they are being charged.
A felony is a very serious crime and it is not normally charged for this type of conduct. True, the christians broke the judge's order to stay 100 feet away and they should be charged for breaking the law. But it is not reasonable to bring felony charges. And if felony charges are brought, it would clearly be an indication of a bias in the DA's office against the group that is protesting. I can't see any other reason why such a charging decision would come down from the DA.
If the protesting group was one whose views you agreed with-- would you be as harsh in your judgment?
QUOTE
The DA is biased against Christians? Methinks he is simply prosecuting people who break the law. The felony charges were because they were in the middle of the parade and not just encroaching on the 100' protesting distance limit.
If that is your view-- then, methinks you haven't thought it through. The issue is not whether they are being charged under the law, but the degree to which they are being charged.
A felony is a very serious crime and it is not normally charged for this type of conduct. True, the christians broke the judge's order to stay 100 feet away and they should be charged for breaking the law. But it is not reasonable to bring felony charges. And if felony charges are brought, it would clearly be an indication of a bias in the DA's office against the group that is protesting. I can't see any other reason why such a charging decision would come down from the DA.
QUOTE
As far as a felony or no felony - tag 'em!
If the protesting group was one whose views you agreed with-- would you be as harsh in your judgment?
QUOTE
But it is not reasonable to bring felony charges. And if felony charges are brought, it would clearly be an indication of a bias in the DA's office against the group that is protesting. I can't see any other reason why such a charging decision would come down from the DA.
There is also the possibility that the DA's intent is to make an example of these people to send a message to all would be disrupting types (be they christians disrupting a gay pride event, or homosexuals disrupting a christian event, or anyone else) to type to avoid what could become a tragic riot in the future.
just a thought.
QUOTE(PACPanzer @ Jan 30 2005, 05:38 AM)
There are a lot of ways to make people think. Yelling at them and calling them f**s hardly has that effect. Those groups NEVER do that out of LOVE. They ALWAYS do it out of the fear they have for those groups. One needs only to look back at other demonstrations against other causes to ferret out their motivation.
Not to be rude, but you should read the story / watch the video again because you are obviously mistaken. "F**" was never uttered nor was anything close. So there goes the adverb "always." Also, Lynn Abraham (DA) is a woman.
And sometimes even the most extreme of these groups spew these statements because they honestly want to help the people they're confronting (I think it's misguided myself). For instance, the Rev. Fred Phelps (a former very liberal political figure, surprisingly enough) protested Matt Shepard's funeral with signs like "Matt is burning in hell." Unbelievable as it may seem, his intentions for doing this were because that he cares so much for homosexuals as people that he wants to shock and warn them so they will change their behavior. This is not false; this is what the guy really believes. Personally, I think saying he's wacked and misguided is the understatement of understatements. But the point is he does not "fear" homosexuals.
In regard to this issue, this will be thrown out if it hasn't already. (Unless the Christian group violated a 100ft law, in that case they should be fined.) Free speech means just that. And the Constitutional test for incitement is extremely high. There must be (1) intent to cause physical harm, (2) a likelihood of physical harm, and (3) an intimate link between 1 and 2--that is that the words themselves are likly to provoke people to physically harm others. What happened here isn't close.
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 19 2005, 01:18 PM)
Given the context of the arrest I would say that you are the one that has it backwards. Now its quoting Scripture tommorow it might be you who has to say 'thank you big brother'!. This was not a hate crime and gays are not an ethnic group, and freedom of speech is protected under the first amendment. Christians were right that hate crimes legislation were not designed to prevent crime, it is meant to censor Christians.
First, having watched the video, Michael Marcavage is incorrect in saying the pink styrofoam is obstruction. There is no law mandating a person's free speech rights can not be obstructed by another person. The law states that Congress shall make no law--there's nothing on the books stating another person, unaffiliated with the government, can block said message. The Pink Angels had a good idea which was just as protected by the First Amendment as the Christian 11's idea. The Pink Angels holding up signs in front of the Christian 11 is part of their free speech rights.
Second, the Christian 11 group should not be charged, since they did nothing wrong. I highly doubt anything will come of this. If it does, the judge will laugh it out of court.
Lastly, at my local Gay Pride event last summer, there were several protestors whose messages were very hateful. They stayed outside of the pride event, behind chain-link fences. Lots of gay men and women mocked the protestors, but most gay citizens will argue that the protestors have a Constitutional right to protest. We may not have agreed with their message, but we let them say what they wanted. That said, I have to wonder why anyone would intentionally attend an event just to criticize. Oftentimes we have protestors at the LDS Church's General Conferences. I'm just as against those as I am against the Gay Pride protestors. Protesting should be limited to problems with the government. That's just my opinion though.
On one of my propaganda emails that comes automatically when you subscribe with the RNC site sent me some action information on the subject of this post and I thought I’d share it with you. Web site address to the Traditional Values is: http://www.traditionalvalues.org They also have a very vigorous agenda on gay movement countermeasures also. The particular article on the Philadelphia Five is a PDF file, which may be accessed at this link directly. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/inserts/0...delphiaFive.pdf
Christians 1 – Gays 0 Appears the case is closed!
The Right Decision: Judge Drops Charges Against Philadelphia 5 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2145
The Right Decision: Judge Drops Charges Against Philadelphia 5 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2145
Just another update on the Philadelphia event, it seems it is going to be Christians 2 and gay agenda-city backed action 0. I just received another update on the topic today indicating the Christians are suing the city of Philadelphia for false arrest and violation to their first amendment rights. In fact they are selling a DVD or video, which is tax-deductible donation for their effort.
You can view the information by clicking the American Family Association, AFA site and then the flashing message on the left side near the top, link http://www.afa.net/ There are quite a number of issues on this site and regardless of which side of the issue you stand on I would recommend you sign up for their newsletter on the right column on the same page for automatic updates.
Note: Hillary really needs to hook up with these folks for 08 when you consider the other issues on the front page of this site.
You can view the information by clicking the American Family Association, AFA site and then the flashing message on the left side near the top, link http://www.afa.net/ There are quite a number of issues on this site and regardless of which side of the issue you stand on I would recommend you sign up for their newsletter on the right column on the same page for automatic updates.
Note: Hillary really needs to hook up with these folks for 08 when you consider the other issues on the front page of this site.
This is more proof that you can not persecute any religious group in this country unless they are Christains
QUOTE(ClemsonFan @ Feb 28 2005, 05:58 PM)
This is more proof that you can not persecute any religious group in this country unless they are Christains
Welcome ClemsonFan - since you're new you likely didn't realize one-liners are against the Rules because they are not constructive. Please remember to bring substance to the debates, which includes documenting your sources. This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.