Disturbing news from Philly, not Scout related

[Rooster7 11]

Protesting a peaceful gathering, using words that may not directly say hate, but incite hate and are announced in a hateful manner is considered a hate-crime.

 

WOW! Whos to judge what words do this - Words that may not directly say hate, but incite hate and are announced in a hateful manner is considered a hate-crime?

 

This is scaryand its unconstitutional as well. Whether or not judges in Philadelphia understand the Constitution is another matter though.

 

If Christians really want to convert people to Christianity, or if a person of any religion for that matter wants to convert and/or being in new followers, the I'm Right Your Wrong so go to hell, approach isn't the right way to go. You'll make more enemies than friends that way.

 

First, Christians dont convert peoplethey merely pass along the message. God changes the heart of the unbeliever. This may not make sense to you, but it is the reality that we (Christians) recognize.

 

Second, while you may not personally appreciate a harsh message, hell is a reality that Christians recognize and many feel obligated to warn others about it.

 

Third, Gods children are not instructed to go and make friends. We were told to spread the Word of the Gospel. Anyone who reads the Gospel understands that hell is a reality that Jesus recognized, and quite often at that.

 

Having said all of the above, if this guy is actually saying, Go to hell, then he is obviously not telling the truth in love. We are clearly instructed to show Gods love, even to those who hate us. So, with this point, I agree.

 

Yet, I have no problem with anyone delivering a message that others find to be harsh or unpleasant. With the many ambiguous and subjective definitions of hate crimes being created these days, I have no doubt that many supporters of these types of laws would also seek to have Jesus arrested if he were preaching in the streets today.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Hunt 11]

I would suggest that everybody spend a little time at www.aclu.org before making too many statements about what ACLU does and does not do. They have several cases going on now in which they are defending churches from actions by the government, and in their history they have often defended religious groups who were being denied their rights of free exercise. That being said, there is no doubt that ACLU is a mostly liberal group, supporting gay rights, abortion rights, etc. If you are a conservative, you will find plenty on their site to annoy you. But they generally do a good job of sticking with their principles. (For example, here's a recent news release: "The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The students entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.") They also recently defended Republican candidates' free speech rights. As another example, they have supported both flag-burners and cross-burners on free speech grounds.

In the Philadelphia case, it appears to me that the preacher probably has a pretty good First Amendment defense to claims of "ethnic intimidation" (if that really is one of the charges), but may have a bigger problem with charges of disorderly conduct and failure to obey police orders--the government can restrict the time and place of speech, and blocking or disrupting a permitted event can probably be penalized, within limits.

 

[Trevorum 24]

"I have no doubt that many supporters of these types of laws would also seek to have Jesus arrested if he were preaching in the streets today. "

 

You're right! That's because he was a liberal who spread a seditious message of social change which threatened those who held political and military power.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE says:

 

Not being acclimated to all the groups that do legal things for groups I apologize if I misunderstood the ACLU mission, I thought it was for everyone. At the very least the ACLU gets the most publicity

 

Well, it certainly is the most criticized, especially in this forum.

 

As for whether it is for "everyone," that strikes me as sort of ironic in light of the idea that some of us used to have that the Boy Scouts were for "everyone," not convicted felons or those who had actually harmed someone of course, but just about everyone else. Apparently it isn't for "everyone" anymore. And neither, I suppose, is the ACLU. They take the cases they take. If they believe that your First Amendment rights have been violated they then have to decide whether to actually take the case, but I am not sure that these peoples' rights were violated. It depends on which version you believe.

 

I think we get in a slippery slide if Free Speech isn't free, it cant have restrictions on it as far as what is hate, taunting, whatever, they had a right to speak and the other side had a right to ignore or speak back.

 

Again, this case may not just be about "speech." It may be about other things as well. One thing people need to remember about "civil disobediance" is that when you block a street or "sit in" or ignore the orders of a police officer to vacate the area, regardless of how just your cause may be, you are breaking the law. Some people decide that the "protest" is worth the risk of getting arrested. But you can't have it both ways. If the videotape shows you doing more than "speech" and breaking the law, it's not just a matter of freedom of speech. That's all I'm saying. You seem to accept the first half of the web page you linked to, while ignoring the "other side of the story" in the second half of the page.

 

Having said all that, if it really was just a matter of "hate speech," I agree with you. I have a big problem with prosecuting people for what they say or think. I can see an enhanced penalty for a violent crime motivated by hatred of a particular group, but if the "hate" is being expressed simply by protesting, the penalty should be whatever it is for the offense itself. But that doesn't change the fact that there may be a valid penalty for the "non-expressive" parts of your conduct.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster says:

 

We are clearly instructed to show Gods love, even to those who hate us.

 

Yeah, Rooster, when I read your posts I can just feel "God's love" dripping off every word.

[Rooster7 11]

Yeah, Rooster, when I read your posts I can just feel "God's love" dripping off every word.

 

I presume that's sarcasm. If you think "God's love" means never having to present an argument, which some may find offensive then you are sorely mistaken. Furthermore, while I strive to be Christ-like, I never claimed to mirror His character. So, yes, occasionally I fail. Is this what youre looking foran acknowledgement that I do not measure up to Christ? If so, there you have it.

 

Now, what exactly drips off your words?

 

[firstpusk 10]

Humility and compassion is what drips off of yours. And if anyone buys that Rooster, I have a bridge for sale.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

[Rooster7 11]

Firstpusk,

 

Through this forum, you know some of my thoughts. You may or may not agree with them. What qualifies you, to infer anything about my character? Why do you feel compelled to do so?

[firstpusk 10]

"Firstpusk,

 

Through this forum, you know some of my thoughts. You may or may not agree with them. What qualifies you, to infer anything about my character? Why do you feel compelled to do so?"

 

I happened to be criticizing the words and tone of your posts. If you want to take it to heart and address the issue of your character, more power to you. I find it fascinating that the first person I always expect to impugn the integrity of fellow scouter - that is most certainly you, Rooster - is the quickest draw at the martyrdom card. If you had an introspective nature at all, you would understand why this thread was started in the first place.

 

Yes, sometimes one has no choice to offend another. I will not argue that your point is absolutely false. However, when one does it with the frequency and apparent relish you exhibit, it might be time for a bit of introspection. Cheers!

[Rooster7 11]

Firstpusk,

 

Im fairly certain that I am guilty of dishing out a few barbs here and there. I never claimed otherwise. I cant say for sure. But if you say so, Im sure there are a few to be found.

 

However, if you review my posts, I think youll find that the vast majority of my remarks are directly related to the topic of discussion and/or a splitter issue. I dont recall ever making a post merely with the intent to offend someone, especially when I had not been participating in the discussion previously. Conversely, I find that many of your remarks (at least in the Politics and Issues threads) are aimed at the poster and have little to say about the issue. I offered some thoughts on this thread, which apparently prompted you to join the fray...but not with any kind of argument, just an affront directed towards me. While I dont feel like a victim, I have to wonder - what is your motivation?

 

In short, if ever the pot called the kettle blackthis is it!

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[BadenP 93]

This is very interesting to me for a number of reasons. First the so called Christian Right has been pushing their agenda for years , especially in this last election and now a judge in Philly states they have gone too far in this case and calls them on it. When does free speech become a hate crime? Look at the KKK and Neo Nazi rallies that promote bigotry and hate as their main message and yet they are allowed because of the 1st Amendment, I do not think this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. I never see the Christian Right ever protesting at either of these types of rallies, which are far more dangerous than a gay rights rally, why is that?

 

To Rooster and his supporters your statements are hypocritical because a Christian is supposed to be against all evil in the world, not a select few, and while I do not agree with the gay lifestyle I do not see them as a real threat to our society as I do the KKK or Neo Nazis. So to these Christian protesters all I have to say is that you need to refocus your protests to the truly evil groups in our society, and there are many to choose from. In other words pick your battles more carefully than you have. Rooster, Gods main message to us is to love one another, and in your posts I find it hard to find that Christian love in your replies, you preach a vengeful and dictatorial God which is not in line with the main body of scripture.

[Rooster7 11]

To Rooster and his supporters your statements are hypocritical because a Christian is supposed to be against all evil in the world, not a select few, and while I do not agree with the gay lifestyle I do not see them as a real threat to our society as I do the KKK or Neo Nazis. So to these Christian protesters all I have to say is that you need to refocus your protests to the truly evil groups in our society, and there are many to choose from. In other words pick your battles more carefully than you have.

 

I never said I appreciated or agreed with these protesters' tactics? It's quite possible that I do, but I really have no idea because I was not there. My remarks were directed at hate crime laws and the presumptions that some people make about how Christians should preach Gods Word.

 

Rooster, Gods main message to us is to love one another, and in your posts I find it hard to find that Christian love in your replies, you preach a vengeful and dictatorial God which is not in line with the main body of scripture.

 

My God is who He is. What scriptures would you like for me to quote? What scriptures would you like for me to ignore? I believe in all of Gods Word not just the ones that allow me to live as I please. Are Jesus own words in line with the main body of scripture? If so, read the red-letter text in your New Testament and tell me where my doctrinal views fail to live up to Christian love.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

The point that I see, is that they were arrested. It doesn't matter the venue. The KKK and Neo-Nazis have a right to express themselves in our country. I used to live in Bloomington, Illinois which is a sister city to Normal, Illinois and Normal is the birthplace of George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party. Every year on the date of his birth you could see brown shirts and black SS uniforms at his birthplace site extolling the virtures of White Supremacy. This was back in the early 80's and I saw anti-Nazi demonstratotors, some with Christian messages. No one was arrested unless there was physical violence, which did occur every year. The Nazi's would hold a ceremony, place a wreath on the ground where Rockwell's house had been (now the campus of a hospital) and would leave. The wreath would be destroyed rather quickly thereafter. No one was ever arrsted for speaking their minds, and it got hot I can tell you. Have we changed so much from the early 80's?

[BadenP 93]

OGE

I agree with you and the idea of being arrested for speaking your mind is appalling to me as well. To answer your question, I feel we have changed a lot since the 80's, our society currently lives in a climate of fear that we have not seen since the 50's when we were building bomb shelters in our backyards for fear of Cuba and Russia bombing the USA. Much of our current crisis is due to a non exsistent foreign policy, and a superior attitude which has made our country hated around the world. If Bush really does bring peace between Israel and Palestine then I will sing his praises loud and strong, but I am not holding my breath.

 

Rooster, Rooster, Rooster, what can I say, your simplistic approach to understanding the Word of God is a constant source of amusement to me. Let me remind you, those red letter editions of Jesus quotes are an interpretation of an ancient language Aramaic that Jesus spoke. Many of those red letter translations are poor attempts of deciphering the ancient texts. Even the ancient Greek of the New Testament bears little to no resemblance of modern day Greek. So please don't claim to be speaking for God to me or others because you do not, nor do you really understand the true meaning of God's word by quoting a line of scripture out of context, which you so often do. Every book in the Bible was written for a particular time in history to a specific group of people. While there may be application for us today 2,000+ years later that was not the original intent of the writers. I suggest you talk to an actual ordained minister who went to an accredited seminary and ask them for guidance on how to PROPERLY read and understand the Holy Bible, instead of constantly misinterpreting it as you so often do.

[johndaigler 10]

Instead of discussing the disturbing news, WE are in danger of BECOMING the disturbing news.