Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1913)	8/22/2003 1:10:07 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

And as for the comments from Liam Reid, the operative words are "warned" and "could lead". Those words suggest a paper tiger warning. When there is an actual law calling for prison terms then it is not a paper tiger. Even if such laws are rarely enforced they would be like the sodomy laws, where they are paper tiger? If so does that mean they are not big deal and homosexuals in Texas and elsewhere should have just lived with them? First the two acts are very different. One is between consenting adults; the other is perpetrated against a particular group/minority. Secondly, its not clear whether the Vatican materials would be justification for prosecution under Ireland's Anti Hate law of 1989. Liam suggest they might be. However, under the TX sodomy laws, there was no question you could be prosecuted. Thirdly, if the Vatican was prosecuted under the 1989 law, they would be treated with civility. Under the sodomy laws, gays were treated very badly..........many were seriously injured in the process of being arrested and detained. Conclusion: there is very little similarity between the two examples. One last comment.......the Vatican needs to stick to things religious, not secular. The example involving the Catholic hierarchy that I mentions was a case of Bishops dealing with matters of religious doctrine, theology and opinion. Their own personal stance on pedophilia within the church has been nothing short of offensive so that when it comes to sexuality These stance hasn't been very offensive, its their practice that has been. Both the actions of the guilty individuals and those who covered it up later. Excuse me, their stance HAS been offensive and one of the contributing factors to why this BS went on for decades. I don't want to get into but do some reading on the subject or talk to a victim of one of the priestly pedophiles and you will find that the Church's position was to mostly ignore the problem or participate in a kind of conspiracy or to send these wayward priests to a institutions hoping they would be cured and then putting them back into situations where they were close to kids. Its disgusting what the American Archbishops allowed to go on in their churches. Their practice AND stance have made this problem much worse. But crimes committed by church officials does not and should not mean that Catholics lose their freedoms of speech and religious practice. It wasn't Catholics, it was the Vatican hierarchy from the Pope on down. There is one thing I am very consistent about and that's not liking people telling me where to stick it. I don't like people telling me what to do either. But that idea hardly is a good defense for things I am criticizing. I am criticizing laws that tell other people what they can and can't do. You don't have right to yell fire in a crowded theater and you don't have the right to yell Nigger in a pep rally. The reason for both is the same.......people might get hurt. The justification for the 2nd is far worse then the first. Anything could potentially anger someone and cause them to commit violence. The crime is in the commission of the violence. In any case the things I am talking about wouldn't fall under the idea of "fighting words". It would be more like writing "nigger" on SI, or in a newspaper article or letter at worst, most of it isn't even like that, but rather expressing opinions about ethics, philosophy and religion. Sorry........denigrating a particular group of people for many of us is the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It depends on the employment. This guy was teaching children. That's very different from making boxes. We had a teacher here fired for politicizing the war and recommending his students should participate in anti war rallies. Something he was doing with the students, possibly on school grounds or during school hours. Would you support that he be suspended for a month without pay if he wrote a letter to the editor of a paper expressing distaste for Bush and opposition to the war, because it was thought that if he is against the war he MIGHT lead students in anti war rallies? That would be the equivalent of the example I quoted. No, emphatically! You still don't seem to get it. Very few bigots are able to compartmentalize their feelings. If they are a bigot in their private lives, they will very likely be bigots in the classroom. Why take that risk? People have been taken to court for saying "Nigger" in public. "That's also wrong." Why is it wrong? Because it strikes at freedom of speech. Saying negative things in public against a minority is a crime. Not in the US it isn't. We still have the 1st amendment. You are right that it is in some places but it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be by your standards, but not mine. By my standards, marriage between gays should not be denied but it is and we have a president actively working to prevent it. I don't think that's very fair and I happen to think its more unfair than your concern but life's a bitch and then you die. So what.......that doesn't give you the right to disparage gays in public. It doesn't give me the right, and I have not been exercising that right but I do have the right, just like you have the right to disparage the religious right or Rush Limbaugh has the right to disparage liberal democrats. To disparage someone who is a minority is not the same as disparaging someone for their ideology. So what..........in TX, who listens to the Supreme Ct.? OK tell me the next time someone is convicted of (voluntary) sodomy in Texas. The law has been found to be unconstitutional and it will not be enforced. Maybe not in Houston but I bet in a town like Crawford it will be. The people who want to read the bible....wish to do so in public settings like a school or gov't bldg. No it wasn't in a government facility. They could be arrested and possibly imprisoned for reading certain sections of the Bible or calling homosexual acts immoral at any location including in their own churches. Also do you really think someone should get sent to prison for reading the Bible in school? No, I think they should be warned and then fined. If they persist, then yes, they should go to jail. They are breaking the law. In the same way, I think those people who refuse to let the ten commandments be removed from an Alabama courthouse should be thrown in jail for obstruction of justice. No one I've ever read on the subject has provided any evidence that he wants to turn us in to a theocracy. Maybe not to you but it sures sound like it to me. Those people make my skin crawl. We have continually moved toward a system where religion is pushed further and further from public life. A theocracy in the US is now less likely as a communist dictatorship. Maybe so but there has been a recent resurgence in the past few years that is very disturbing. Also that isn't a defense of the actions I am condemning. Even if he does want to turn us in to a theocracy it doesn't change the fact that the actions I condemned are outrageous, extreme, and wrong. Not if you believe the guy want to turn us into a theocracy; not if a guy is condemning a minority No even then. If we can't condemn minorities (or majorities for that matter) without facing a prison term, or if the mere belief that you might like a theocracy is considered justification for sending someone to prison then we no longer live in a free country. Fortunately those laws are not in place in the US, but you seem to be arguing that they should be. That makes MY skin crawl. When you break the law, there are consequences. When you want exceptions to the law such as you propose, then that can lead to anarchy. You claim disparaging a minority in public is not against the law. My understanding is that it is. Neither of us are an attorney so I am not sure where to take the argument. ted