|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2004 : 12:50:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why do I have to bust out a read between the lines microscope for you fellas? I wasn't complaining about anything. I was saying in the politics thread that there are people in Europe that are being put in jail for not agreeing with Creation out load. They expressed that Christianity is not for them. Likewise a ID man could not openly express any vocal disagreement with the evolutionist.
That is not what I got from that artical. It was talking about something that wasn't a law yet, and that was aganst religious hatred. Now the discription of the messure makes me question the effectiveness of it, and it deffinetly will have an affect on free speech, but I don't see how you jumped to people being jailed for agreeing with Creation out loud from this artical. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 14:33:56 [Permalink]
|
But critics said the wording - which does not contain a definition of religion - was too loose and represented a threat to free speech. It says religious hatred "means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief''.
---------------------
That was right out of the article, they are trying to pass garabge through like this! What in order to be right we all have to swear aligance to the pope? Then you might ask the question who does the Pope answer to on earth? And its not God. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 14:43:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
That was right out of the article, they are trying to pass garabge through like this! What in order to be right we all have to swear aligance to the pope? Then you might ask the question who does the Pope answer to on earth? And its not God.
Indeed, the pope answers only to me, great headmaster of the illuminati conspiracy. And indeed you probably have never heard of the title, we aren't a conspiracy for nothing, are we? Now that you have found out and are trying to warn you, you are becoming too dangerous. So just keep sitting at home while our illuminati disposal teams will go to your house and pick you up. And don't try to run, it is futile, we will know where you are going anyway. For that matter, run if you think it is worth the trouble, it gives us a little fun in tracking you down. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 16:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
But critics said the wording - which does not contain a definition of religion - was too loose and represented a threat to free speech. It says religious hatred "means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief''.
---------------------
That was right out of the article, they are trying to pass garabge through like this! What in order to be right we all have to swear aligance to the pope? Then you might ask the question who does the Pope answer to on earth? And its not God.
So you want the right to hate? To spout religious redoric that will insight people to riot and kill? Because I think that is what they are trying to stop.
Now I agree it is not worded very well, and I am not to sure I want it as a law here, but they are trying to find a way to stop religious leaders from making people do criminal acts, like rioting and bombing. I don't think they intend to use it to censor religious views. It could be abused that way, but I think they would find it hard to enforce if they get that picky. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 18:35:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
But critics said the wording - which does not contain a definition of religion - was too loose and represented a threat to free speech. It says religious hatred "means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief''.
---------------------
That was right out of the article, they are trying to pass garabge through like this! What in order to be right we all have to swear aligance to the pope? Then you might ask the question who does the Pope answer to on earth? And its not God.
So you want the right to hate? To spout religious redoric that will insight people to riot and kill? Because I think that is what they are trying to stop.
Now I agree it is not worded very well, and I am not to sure I want it as a law here, but they are trying to find a way to stop religious leaders from making people do criminal acts, like rioting and bombing. I don't think they intend to use it to censor religious views. It could be abused that way, but I think they would find it hard to enforce if they get that picky.
So getting back to the title of the thread. We both are in trouble, both of us will loose free speech. It's awful! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 20:46:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So getting back to the title of the thread. We both are in trouble, both of us will loose free speech. It's awful!
Really Verlch, I was on topic. If you don't want to talk about the issues on the topic I have brought forth (no matter how baddly), don't post!
Anyway, it is a piss poor rule and will cause more trouble then it is worth or what it is trying to stop in the long run. Right now they think it is a good idea because they think it will let the nip terisom in the bud. But I think it will cause more problems then it is worth. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 21:02:14 [Permalink]
|
Paulos23 wrote:quote:
So you want the right to hate? To spout religious redoric that will insight people to riot and kill? Because I think that is what they are trying to stop.
Don't know about Europe, but in almost every US state there are already laws prohibiting incitement to violence and/or rioting and/or killing. Were a law passed here regarding "religious hate speech," it would surely just lengthen the penalties for what's already illegal, just like the racial "hate crimes" laws do.
In other words, it's already illegal to kill someone, but if it's done because they're of a certain race, the penalty will likely be more severe. If a religious version of this were to be enacted, it wouldn't criminalize anything new, it would simply increase the likely punishment.
On the other hand, if someone were to try to pass a law which stated that simply saying "atheists suck and should die" is illegal, that would clearly be unconstitutional. If speech rises to the level of incitement to riot, with or without religious basis, that's already illegal.
I have a hard time believing it's not already illegal in Europe.
Look, people will hate whatever they want, whether it's a right or not. Criminalizing all hatred would land 99% of the country in jail. Just criminalizing religious hatred wouldn't be much better. It would be like criminalizing zit-popping. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 21:11:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It would be like criminalizing zit-popping.
Eww.  And I'm usually such a big fan of your similes, Dave. :)
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 21:26:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Paulos23 wrote:quote:
So you want the right to hate? To spout religious redoric that will insight people to riot and kill? Because I think that is what they are trying to stop.
Don't know about Europe, but in almost every US state there are already laws prohibiting incitement to violence and/or rioting and/or killing. Were a law passed here regarding "religious hate speech," it would surely just lengthen the penalties for what's already illegal, just like the racial "hate crimes" laws do.
In other words, it's already illegal to kill someone, but if it's done because they're of a certain race, the penalty will likely be more severe. If a religious version of this were to be enacted, it wouldn't criminalize anything new, it would simply increase the likely punishment.
On the other hand, if someone were to try to pass a law which stated that simply saying "atheists suck and should die" is illegal, that would clearly be unconstitutional. If speech rises to the level of incitement to riot, with or without religious basis, that's already illegal.
I have a hard time believing it's not already illegal in Europe.
Look, people will hate whatever they want, whether it's a right or not. Criminalizing all hatred would land 99% of the country in jail. Just criminalizing religious hatred wouldn't be much better. It would be like criminalizing zit-popping.
You are right Dave. But it is the only thing I could think of that would explain what they thought they could stop to improve their security. I knew there where "hate crime" laws, but like you I didn't think they aplied to speach, but to crimes based on hate and bigitry. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 21:29:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It would be like criminalizing zit-popping.
Eww. And I'm usually such a big fan of your similes, Dave. :)
I'm terribly sorry that you find the idea that pimple-squeezing could be made illegal to be disgusting, H.
 |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 21:37:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm terribly sorry that you find the idea that pimple-squeezing could be made illegal to be disgusting, H.
Well, I'm glad you see it from my point of vie... Hey!
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 22:44:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Why do I have to bust out a read between the lines microscope for you fellas? I wasn't complaining about anything. I was saying in the politics thread that there are people in Europe that are being put in jail for not agreeing with Creation out load. They expressed that Christianity is not for them. Likewise a ID man could not openly express any vocal disagreement with the evolutionist.
Here's between the lines, so I believe that whatever happens in Europe is soon to happen here! I'm dead serious! I don't understand why you and your brain can't figure that out?
This will soon be American law that I cannot make fun of your beliefs and you can't make fun or express any distain for my beliefs. So there Mr. Not reading between the lines guy.
Zzzzzzzzz... huh? Oh, verlch was just changing the topic? And making stupid assumptions that involve huge leaps of faith that are based on nothing but a sad persecution complex the laughable premise of which is that Christians are a minority in the US subject to the whims of an atheist majority? Ok. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
