Veterans Appeal to Americans to Protect Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:33 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Al,

There is NO group that has that much power in the US. If you believe there is, than you are a bigger conspiracy nut than the alien people.

House Approves Hate Crimes Provision in Defense Bill

amaranth »

Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:29 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

DP,

I agree to some extent. However, the increase in sentence terms because of this legislation is severely disproportional. Because of this legislation, some offenses that normally carry a 3-5 year sentence now can carry a 6-10 year sentence if the court accepts the speculation that the crime was a "hate crime."

House Approves Hate Crimes Provision in Defense Bill

amaranth »

Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:25 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

Mike,

I'm sure that's true. Just as there are thousands of robberies, assaults and rapes that go unreported every year. There are also many murders that go unresolved and victims that remain unfound and, therefore, unknown.

I don't refute the fact that these things happen. I refute the need for a law that singles out a group of people for extra protection under the law. If the law was meant to give extra protection to white, female protestants, I'd be against that as well. Special consideration should not be given based on unprovable (in a lot of cases) speculation about the motives behind an act of violence. Whether the act was premeditated (and/or conspired about) or not should be the only extra factor that matters.

House Approves Hate Crimes Provision in Defense Bill

amaranth »

Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:57 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

Mike,

I said the NUMBER of crimes committed against the LGBT community is miniscule - not the crimes themselves. Please don't put words in my mouth.

"Hate crimes" against anyone based on sexual orientation (which includes against straight people and members of the LGBT community) represent roughly **.09%** of all violent crimes committed in America each year according to FBI crime statistics.

All "hate crimes" account for roughly **.5%** of all violent crimes committed each year in America. Neither of those numbers are representative of a situation requiring this drastic intervention.

The following are "Hate Crime Statictics" from the FBI's website: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm
These numbers include EVERY kind of "hate crime" for EVERY reason they track (race, religion, disability and sexual orientation).

In 2007, there were 7,624 hate crime incidents involving 9,006 offenses.

There were 7,621 single-bias incidents that involved 8,999 offenses, 9,527 victims, and 6,962 offenders.

The 3 multiple­-bias incidents reported in 2007 involved 7 offenses, 8 victims, and 3 known offenders.

****There were 1,265 incidents based on sexual orientation. That means that **16.5%** of ALL "hate crimes" were based on sexual orientation - including those against straight people****

1,400 of those incidents occurred in California alone!!

They are the only state whose numbers went over 748 (New Jersey). Their super liberal laws are working really well out there!!
Texas is the closest to California in state size and population and they only had 242 incidents. Wow. And they're super conservative for the most part. Interesting............

Here's where to find the number of incidents by state: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_12.htm

Nationwide totals FOR ALL VIOLENT CRIMES (regardless of motive) were gathered from here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

An estimated 1,408,337 violent crimes occurred in 2007.

There were an estimated 466.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants.

In conclusion, the comparatively miniscule number of incidents involving "hate crimes" of all sorts does NOT, in any way, justify the requirment of passing of a Hate Crimes Law. More education about accepting PEOPLE (not necessarily their actions) should be done to combat the problem that does exist.

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:05 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Al,

It's not an Establishment Clause issue because no LAW was written. It is a violation of the first ammendment rights of the individual not being heard. It is a misuse of power on the part of the city council members. They should be prosecuted for intimidation and harassment.

However, no part of that scenario has happened anywhere - except when they tell you that you have no right to say a prayer on your own. According to you, if I was on the city council and prayed silently at my seat, that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause. I am disagreeing with you and your interpretation.

Quote from a law dictionary taken from this site: http://www.answers.com/topic/establishment-clause#

"That provision in the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting the enactment of laws respecting "the establishment of religion." The Supreme Court has stated that the establishment clause "means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. . . . No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAS BEEN DONE. THEREFORE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS BASELESS AND INCORRECT.

House Approves Hate Crimes Provision in Defense Bill

amaranth »

Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:44 am Agree: 11   Disagree: 20

Mike, Al and GG,

The belief that no one should ever be persecuted by anyone simply because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason is one that is shared by everyone here. No one here has ever condoned violence against anyone for any reason.

The fact is that hate crime laws that already exist are routinely misapplied already. In Albany, NY, there was a case a couple of years ago where a bunch of black kids in a panther-esque gang severely beat a white kid to the point that he required extensive hospitalization. The anti-white sentiment of the group of attackers was well known and they even stated it in court. Yet hate crime legislation was never used against these kids and they all received very minor sentences in comparison with what they had done. There was another case in that area where a white guy was mad because another man (who was black)hit on his girlfriend. The two men got in a fight and the white guy one. The black guy pressed charges. When it went to court, they decided that it was a hate crime. Even though they had absolutely NO evidence that the white guy was racist or that his motives were racially charged - which they weren't. He had friends that were black and he'd been in trouble before for beating up white guys that hit on his girlfriend, too. I don't have the links to articles about this because I have a job to do and, though I remember the fervor and media attention and public outrage these cases garnered, I do not remember what year they happened in.

The fact is that there are violent people on this earth and some of them use discriminatory reasons to weed out their victims. However, most do not. If I don't like someone and I find out later that they're gay, it doesn't mean that I didn't like them because they were gay. It means I didn't like them. Under this law, the fact that the other person is gay and I am straight would be all the reason they need to convict me of a hate crime.

The number of violent crimes committed against the LGBT community that are based solely on gender identity or sexual orientation is miniscule. They should not happen at all. However, there are already legal protections in place against discrimination and laws in place against violence. Anything more than that IS overkill and IS creating a special, protected class of citizens - which is unlawful. All men (and women) are created equal and are afforded equal protection under the law. Let's keep it that way.

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:22 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

Al,

You brought up people attacking other people based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation and the hiring practices of private institutions as "evidence" of the government persecuting people for their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. That is what I was refuting when I said individual actions do not represent the motives of the government.

Here is the actual text of the First Amendment - since you seem a bit confused.

"Amendment I
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."

Please read this again and realize that a person (whether a government employee or representative or not) saying a prayer does NOT constitute "making a LAW respecting an establishment of religion."

Please also note that, by you telling someone that they have no right to express their beliefs (in verbal form, in art form (which includes masonry, etc), you ARE violating the 1st amendment rights of your fellow citizens by "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Maybe it's time to re-read those law books you love so much.

House Approves Hate Crimes Provision in Defense Bill

amaranth »

Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:53 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 16

Minneapolitian,

If you actually read anything written by the majority of the "religious people" on this site, you would know that they don't support Hate Crime Laws that give special consideration to ANYONE. Hate Crime legislation doesn't help anyone. It serves to persecute people for real or imagined offenses. A crime is a crime. Aside from whether a crime can be proven to be pre-meditated, no other form of motive should be admissable in court since that generally amounts to speculation.

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:32 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Al,

Yes, telling someone that they are only free to pray or talk about their faith inside the confines of their homes or places of worship IS a direct infringement on the right of freedom of religious expression and IS the imposition of atheistic views upon people of different theologies. Therefore, doing that IS establishing the anti-God stance of a minority group of citizens on the majority of citizens that disagree. How is that fair? If only 15% claim to be some version of "Nones," how do you condone that 15% telling the other 85% what they can and cannot do or say?

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:32 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Al,

How is an individual's behavior representative of the government? How does one person deciding to dislike someone or lash out against someone - for any reason - reflect the intentions of the government? How does a private institution's hiring practice reflect the motives of the government?

I am not mistaken. I did take and pass a US History class. Thank you for stooping (again) to personal attacks. Guess what? Someone disagreeing with you does NOT mean that they're wrong and it doesn't mean that they're stupid.

If the Establishment Clause was meant to be interpreted as being "Separation of Church and State" - as you claim - they would've written that language in. They also wouldn't have gone on to allow designers and architects of government buildings or monuments to put religious-themes on these things (which the people did out of personal conviction - not governmental mandate) as it would've violated what they had just penned into law. They did allow this to happen. Why? Because that's NOT how they intended it to be interpreted. The US government does not - in any way, shape or form - run a church, temple or mosque. It does not oversee the dealings of such institutions. It did not help to revise any of the sacred texts of any religion. It does not penalize people for their choice in faith or their choice to not have one.

All 12 of the schools I attended (like every other one I know of) taught about every religion just as you specified that they should. Imagine that. Every major religion was identified, major tenets of that religion were explained. That was it. There was no placing of one above the other. They were each given equal class time. Therefore, the Establishment Clause was NOT violated.

Again, prayer does NOT "establish" any religion. And, again, no one is required to participate. If I went to a City Council meeting (as a Christian) and one of the members was a Satanist and decided that he would give a Satanic prayer before the commencement of the meeting, I would not feel as though he just forced me to join his religion. Nor would I feel that the entire council just established Satan as the "god" of the land. I would be aware (as a rational human being) that someone got up and expressed the belief they have every right to have. Just because I disagree does NOT mean that I have been wronged. That is where you are not grasping the distinction. "Promotion" (even when unintentional) does NOT equal "establishment." These words describe two very distinct actions. One is most often benign, while the other generally carries a consequence.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

amaranth »

Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer,

I lived in central PA for about 5 months and I have a lot of family in western PA. It definitely is a beautiful state! Wasn't impressed with living there, but I liked driving through it. :)

Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation

amaranth »

Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:04 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 3

Cheisa,

I've never read any passage where Jesus or His disciples baptized children before they could speak. All the people that were baptized in the Bible were adults and it only happened AFTER they made the DECISION to follow God's teachings. Having carvings, paintings, statues or whatever is not the problem. The FACT that many Catholics DO kneel before and pray to these things is what the problem is.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

amaranth »

Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Very true, Believer! We have the same "seasons" here. lol When I lived in Las Vegas, an area about 20 minutes north of where I lived - called Summerlin - actually received about an inch or two of snow. Where we were, it was 65-70 degrees out. People who lived in the area were sent home from work early. haha It was bizarre but, like you said, no one knew how to function in it. It's not like Las Vegas keeps plows on the ready! Coming from here, I was like "Oh my gosh, people!!" It was somewhat entertaining if you didn't have anywhere to go.

I like Virginia. You get all 4 seasons, but no real extremes of any. That's what I want. Or, I'm good with living in the desert. I just really hate cold weather!

Veterans Appeal to Americans to Protect Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:54 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

All of you are right. The ACLU is ridiculous. I can't believe there are actually people that still think they merely stand up for civil liberties. They are proposing a major insult to veterans because of their ignorance and drive to remove all religion from every aspect of our lives.

'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit

amaranth »

Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:31 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

DP,

I'm glad your son is back safe. :) God Bless!

When my sister was in the Air Force, she had a good friend that was a Democrat (why do they even bother joining the military? jk) that was staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq and fully bought into every lie the media force-fed her about the "poor Iraqis who didn't want the evil Americans there." Guess what? She was deployed to Iraq and realized real quick how incredibly wrong the media was and just how much propoganda was being fed to her. She said she was overwhelmed *every day* by Iraqi women, children and men coming up to her and thanking her for coming to help them. She came back from there completely changed and finally understanding why we went there in the first place.

Has anyone read That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis? There is a quote in there that says (very much paraphrased - emphasis mine), "We do not have to worry about the college educated people who read the papers and watch the news. They believe whatever we tell them to. We have to watch out for the uneducated people who KNOW that ALL OF IT (media) IS PROPOGANDA."

I don't trust most major news sources. When I research political candidates, I go to the Library of Congress' website and look up their voting record to see where they really stand on issues I care about. That way, the information I obtain is completely unbiased and I know that I am only seeing the cold, hard facts. When I want to know what's happening in Europe, I ask my friends that live there what's going on around them. When I want to know what's going on in the Middle East, I ask the many friends that I have that are stationed there (all over Iraq and Afghanistan) what is going on around them. I have at least 10 friends that are currently stationed elsewhere with the military and at least 10 that have come back from the Middle East. I haven't met a single soldier who has come back from the Middle East that actually thinks that we should never have gone there or that we aren't doing a lot of good there.

I am in the minority in my web of friends. I am one of the rare conservatives. Most of my friends are liberals and some are ultra-liberal. So, the consensus of this varied group on these matters can be trusted (in my opinion) because all of their views are different and not the same as mine.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

amaranth »

Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer,

What's wrong with you?! How can you miss all that snow?! I can't wait to get away from it! lol I live in a suburb of Albany, NY. I think snow is great in pictures and would be ok if it naturally appeared warm and only fell on trees and houses. No shoveling and plowing that way! Just the beauty of snow covered landscapes. Alas, it is only a dream.... hahaha

I'm trying to find a new job to transfer to somewhere down south where it's at least warmer.

:)

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:58 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Al,

In case you failed to see the refutations I gave already, here you are. Again.

Pretty much every religion prays to some deity or another. So, saying that the National Day of Prayer violates the establishment clause would mean that the government was establishing almost every religion as a main religion and requiring people to join them. Wow. That's pretty interesting. I would imagine that would be a pretty hard feat to accomplish. Especially considering that the day itself is not something that people are required to observe in any way, shape or form.

Praying before a council meeting is not establishing a religion as no one is forced to participate. Also, most religions call their deity "God." So, technically, all religious persons could be represented in that saying of a prayer - which is generally why none of them complain. Only the atheists - who can leave the room or ignore the act - ever complain. Again, no one is forced to participate in the prayer.

Teaching about Christianity in schools is not establishing religion because schools teach about all the major religions. It is a matter of educating students on the basic tenets of each major faith. It does not promote one religion over another or force anyone to participate in any specific religion.

ID is a scientific theory that has proponents from ALL faiths - including some atheists and agnostics. So, that does not promote any specific religion or require anyone to join one.

Religious messages on public buildings do not force anyone to join a specific religion and most of the major religions hold certain truths across the board. It does not impose anything - and these things were usually done by the architects who designed the buildings, anyway. The government didn't mandate it.

Again, most major religions refer to their deity as "God." The word "God" on buildings, documents or currency does not promote any specific religion over another nor does the word itself require anyone to join a religion.

No one is persecuted by the government in our country for their choice in religion or lack of one. No one is asked to identify their religion as a prerequisite for a government job. No one is denied their rights simply because they subscribe to one religion or another or none. You Establishment Clause argument is, therefore, unfounded. Hope you had a great weekend. Take care.

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:57 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

Al,

I have given you the refutations you have requested and you did not respond to them. Where have you ever asked a question that I did not answer? Putting a cross in the desert to honor the lives given in defense of freedom does NOT force any religion on anyone!! Get over yourself and your self-righteous attempts to strip others of their rights because you simply don't agree with them.

Again, Congress came up with a compromise to transfer the land back to private ownership to acquiesce to pressure from the anti-religious groups that brought this ridiculous charge forth. Those people REFUSED to allow the compromise. By doing this, they ARE infringing on the rights of others to honor the fallen the way they have chosen to do so.

Not allowing anyone to publicly acknowledge their beliefs and forcing them to practice or profess their beliefs - whatever they are - in hiding IS the same as what is happening in China. I was not personally attacking you. I was saying that you might be happier there since they already agree with you about this. Enforcing the laws in a way that was NOT originally intended and in a way that severely infringes on people's rights, is NOT a concern for lawful justice. It is an attempt to silence those you don't agree with and that you don't want to hear.

FRC: Hate Crimes Bill to be Slipped into Defense Budget

amaranth »

Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:43 pm Agree: 13   Disagree: 11

The Hate Crimes laws create a special class of "protected" citizens. This completely contradicts the basis this country was founded on that "All men are created equal." By imposing stricter sentences based on what someone speculates someone else's motives to be, you open the flood gates for abuse of power. This has already been seen in the inequal implementation of the already existing legislation. Burglary is burglary. The only qualifiers that should impact sentencing are the ones that already exits - whether a weapon was involved, whether people were injured, etc. If the victim happens to be of one race, religion or sexual orientation and the perpetrator happens to be of another, the speculation on the motives of the perpetrator can be based solely on evidence that the perpetrator may have been unaware of at the time he attempted the crime. This is extremely dangerous territory.

In several European countries that have similar "Hate Crimes" laws, many Christians and pastors HAVE been dragged out of churches and homes and been arrested for merely stating an opinion or relaying scriptural verses that someone else didn't like. These people then are sentenced to prison terms because of those beliefs. Mind you, NOT ONE of the people I refer to was being violent, was speaking of violence or was endorsing violence in any way. This happened because someone decided they didn't like what the person said and reported them to authorities and the authorities arrested and convicted them simply for speaking.

If anyone in this country is foolish enough to believe that this legislation isn't one more step towards that end, then they really need to open their eyes.

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Mojave Desert Cross

amaranth »

Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:19 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Al,

Once again, you confuse the issue of Establishment Clause with your simple desire to see all symbols and expression of religion eradicated from our society completely. Please stop trying to say that you stand for upholdong the constitution when all of your arguments are FOR infringing on the beliefs and rights of others.

How does a cross in the middle of the desert impose religion on anyone? How does a cross in the middle of the desert demand that someone join that religion? How does a cross erected by a private group infringe on anything at all? It doesn't do any of those things.

Congress was willing to compromise and transfer ownership back to a private company or group (such as the one that originally erected it)and yet the court is blocking this from happening and saying that it needs to be dismantled. THAT would be directly infringing on the rights of the people who decided to erect it to honor the soldiers who DIED defending YOUR right to be ignorant!!

If you believe so strongly in no one being able to express religious views of any kind in any medium, why don't you just move to some random communist country where religion isn't allowed. Maybe you can go to China and join them as they persecute Christians and burn down their houses for the horrible violation of merely speaking the name of Christ in public or owning a Bible. They would love you and your rhetoric there.