America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
The Bane of our existences
Published on December 11, 2008 By Moderateman In Politics

We have a new President-Elect in Barak Hussein Obama. He will make hundreds of federal court appointments, and we will pray for him that he will take this responsibility very seriously. The audacity of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the State Courts, in many of their decisions, has shocked most of us. For Instance.

In 1962, Prayer was restricted in the public schools.

In 1973, the Court found that the "right to personal privacy" which erroneously included to unrestricted abortion {the case was called Roe V Wade and now 45 Million babies have been sacrificed on the "alter of choice"}

In 1985, the court overturned a state law setting aside a moment of " silence for voluntary prayer in public schools." {the favorite weapon of these Judges, and those that support them, is the well known "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The courts have so twisted these words that those that call themselves "liberals" and so-called "moderates" are convinced that the Establishment Clause means that there should be a "separation of church and state" of course the term itself CANNOT BE FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. But today it is quoted as IF it is part of the Constitution!

In 2002, the court overruled a Texas law allowing high school students to pray at athletic events.

In 2000, The SCOTUS struck down Nebraska's law banning Partial-birth Abortion{ it was not until 2007 after a long protracted court battle, that the court finally upheld the federal ban on this ruling}

In 2003, SCOTUS ruled that Homosexuals have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to commit SODOMY, writing for the Majority Justice Anthony Kennedy said "we have to look at Foreign law" {so now our rights are no longer dependent on a long revered moral tradition, but on legal trends in other nations!

The list of Judges running amok and legislating from the bench is just to long to list, when will Americans stand up and say ENOUGH!!!!


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 15, 2008

But I see what you're saying, I just don't think we will ever agree on it.

Hey!  I dont need converts, but appreciate the understanding.

It's not like you would be forcibly stopping me in the street to preach the word of jesus to me, I have the ability to walk away from you if I so choose.

I take it you have never been in SF when the Hari Krishnas are out and about.

But it was my understanding in the student led prayer case that it was read aloud over the PA and everyone in the crowd was expected to join in.

I am sure there are cases of that.  In this particular case, however, the student (class president I think) decided on his own to say a prayer to open the game.  No one was forced, nor was it a planned event.  The court, wrongly in my opinion, ruled that was unconstitutional.  I say it was his freedom of speech.  He did it on his own, and was asked to say a few words.  Not as an authority of the school. Nor was it forced on anyone to participate (being Catholic, I dont always participate in Protestant prayers either - but I respectfully remain silent during their prayer).

 

on Dec 16, 2008

 Again, I disagree.  QUite simply, the inference and practice are not conducive to reality.  By your reasoning, we all must root for the home team at a sporting event since the majority of the participants are and there would be "fear" of not fitting in.

Last time I read about someone who was cheering for the "wrong team" on the soccer stands they were lynched...

And I have come across some school prayer, its divisive and alienating. And has no basis in the bible anyways. The quran actually REQIRES muslims to pray 6 times a day. Most christians who pray regularly do so in the morning and in the evening, and neither should have anything to do with school.

Plus god has better things to do then make you win your football match (ugh, i hated the football team "moment of silence"... praying for victory in a GAME? if I was religion i'd be apalled at the blasphemy)

on Dec 16, 2008

Last time I read about someone who was cheering for the "wrong team" on the soccer stands they were lynched...

That is why Soccer is not a national sport in the US, just the "civilized" European countries.

on Dec 16, 2008

I take it you have never been in SF when the Hari Krishnas are out and about.

Nope.  I have spent most of my life on the east coast.  I visited an Aunt in Washington State once and I was in New Mexico for about 2 weeks one summer but those were my only trips out west.

I am sure there are cases of that. In this particular case, however, the student (class president I think) decided on his own to say a prayer to open the game. No one was forced, nor was it a planned event. The court, wrongly in my opinion, ruled that was unconstitutional. I say it was his freedom of speech. He did it on his own, and was asked to say a few words. Not as an authority of the school. Nor was it forced on anyone to participate (being Catholic, I dont always participate in Protestant prayers either - but I respectfully remain silent during their prayer).

If it was just a case of a student getting up and praying on his own then the court was way out of line.  If it became a regular event over the PA at the school however then I still maintain my position.

on Dec 16, 2008

I would still argue that a crime driven out of a hate for a given group of people is deserving of a harsher punishment.

Why? If I beat a guy to death with a bat, how does my reason for doing it make it any more or less brutal? Any more or less a crime? 

 

on Dec 17, 2008

Why? If I beat a guy to death with a bat, how does my reason for doing it make it any more or less brutal? Any more or less a crime?

In a way yes because your crime wasn't just on the individual victim(s) of your crime but on the group that they belong to.  Take the KKK when they were lynching people left and right, the victim of those crimes weren't just the people that were lynched but all black people because the KKK were trying to send a message.  The same can be said today when a skinhead beats down a homosexual, it isn't just the individual who is affected but the group.

on Dec 17, 2008

In a way yes

The man is still dead.  WOuld he be less dead if it was dispassionately?

on Dec 17, 2008

The man is still dead. WOuld he be less dead if it was dispassionately?

True that man is dead no matter what but the hate comes in that it was essentailly a threat or warning to a group of people not just one individual thus making the crime more than just the murder.

Also hate crimes involve more than just physical assaults, think of burning crosses on someone's lawn.  That is more than just vandalism it is a threat on members of a particular group.

on Dec 17, 2008

On the one hand, what is NOT a hate crime? when was the last time a person bashed someone's head with a bat because they loved them? The whole thing seemed rediculous.

On the other hand, it seems rediculous because it is ill explained... Look at a criminal as a potential danger to society. A person who murders someone not because of a personal reason, but merely his group association, is comitting to murder every last member of that group. When the KKK lynches a black guy they are comitting to murdering every black skinned person.

On the other-other hand. A guy who randomly commits murder of a passerby is showing his willingness to randomly kill EVERYONE of EVERY color.

on Dec 17, 2008

taltamir
On the one hand, what is NOT a hate crime? when was the last time a person bashed someone's head with a bat because they loved them? The whole thing seemed rediculous.

On the other hand, it seems rediculous because it is ill explained... Look at a criminal as a potential danger to society. A person who murders someone not because of a personal reason, but merely his group association, is comitting to murder every last member of that group. When the KKK lynches a black guy they are comitting to murdering every black skinned person.

On the other-other hand. A guy who randomly commits murder of a passerby is showing his willingness to randomly kill EVERYONE of EVERY color.

It is not about hate of an individual but hate of a group and attempting to intimidate that group through actions.

Look I don't deny that the term "hate crime" is overused and probably over-applied when trying cases, but I do feel that there are some crimes worthy of the term "hate crime" that should have more severe punishments assigned to them.  Maybe there needs to be a moritorium on "hate crimes" for the time being until a better legal definition can be found.

on Dec 17, 2008

Also hate crimes involve more than just physical assaults, think of burning crosses on someone's lawn. That is more than just vandalism it is a threat on members of a particular group.

If someone burns a cross on my lawn, that is a crime.  I can care less if he does not like freckle faced nerds or bozos.  Convict of the crime, dont convict twice.  WHy should the guy get a lesser sentence for killing me than he does my neighbor?  Hate crime laws are just plain stupid.  Crimes are crimes.

on Dec 17, 2008

It is not about hate of an individual but hate of a group and attempting to intimidate that group through actions.

That's conspiracy. It's already covered without hate crime laws.

Look I don't deny that the term "hatecrime" is overused and probably over-applied when trying cases

And that's what makes hate crime laws stupid. Any crime can be called a hate crime. If I kill a guy, then I pretty much hate him. If I intend to kill everybody like that guy, then I can be charged with conspiracy. Adding hate crime laws to the mix is edging into the territory of criminalizing people's thoughts.

on Dec 17, 2008

good point... threatening an entire group? we have a law for it its called conspiracy... burn a cross on someone's lawn? its a death threat, vandalism, etc... What does it matter what color skin the perpetrator and the victim is? You make death threats in the form of burned crosses to a white guy you are going to jail anyways. Or the inverse... why should it be LESS of an offense to burn a cross in the yard of a white guy then it is of a black/jewish/whatever one? It is the same death threat.

 

Take rape for example, the three major causes of rape, the ones into which almost every case can be distilled according to psychologists, are:

1. Deriving enjoyment at the suffering of others.

2. Seeking revenge/punishment of an individual or a group. (ex: "she shouldn't have been such a bitch to me")

3. Bigotry (hate of women/lesbians/blacks/whites/hispanics/asians/jews/whatever.)


Hate crime laws mean either that you over punish or underpunish one and two... that 1 and 2 are somehow more valid acceptable reasons for rape and require less of a punishment.

on Dec 17, 2008

PS. the biggest issue is that it is thought control... The jury THINKS they know your beleifs and thus the REASONS why you comitted a crime, and based on those reasons increase or decrease your punishment.

While there is some room for "mitigating factors". the whole thing is very unreliable and is too easily abused.

on Dec 17, 2008

PPS... practical example:

1. Joe rapes judie because he is a sadist, he planned it, ambushed her, beats her, rapes her, and laughes at her before leaving her broken and crying.

2. Jeff got fired, he angerly follows his boss, salie home. He has no plan, just rage, at the spur of the moment he assults and rapes her.

3. Sam rapes shaniqua because she is black and he is a bigot.

 

If you take the hate crime approach, Joe and Jeff will get 5 years in prison each while sam gets 10 because his was a "hate-crime". Why do you think such a thing is justified? (personally I would say all three should be put to death, but if not, then at least give them the same punishment)

3 Pages1 2 3