Jailhouse Stripes for Thoughts?

[Giaour]

What if a preacher has a sermon on homosexuality being a sin and abomination, then a parishoner goes out and beats up a gay, can the preacher be cited for inciting violence?

[apothanein kerdos]

What if a preacher has a sermon on homosexuality being a sin and abomination, then a parishoner goes out and beats up a gay, can the preacher be cited for inciting violence?

That's a good question.

I guess my question to that is, can't that technically occur now under the law? Not that any prosecutor would actually take the case, but, hypothetically could it happen?

For instance, if a Mullah calls for the death of a congressman, and someone in his congregation kills that congressman, I'm 99% sure that the law states the Mullah can be tried for conspiracy in link to the murder (I'm not sure).

Could a clever prosecutor show that, by a preacher saying "Homosexuality is a sin," he was in a way telling his congregation to kill homosexuals? If that how the law works now?

Regardless to that answer, I'm curious about the answer to Giaour's question.

[Giaour]

Sweeden has already crossed this line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green

[apothanein kerdos]

Sweeden has already crossed this line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green

Not surprising. Sweden is the most atheistic/agnostic nation in the world (85% of their population doesn't believe in God). Wherever atheism/agnosticism reigns, personal freedoms begin to diminish. Notice the only reason Sweden never took the case higher is because they knew that the EU Court would rule against Sweden.

As a side note, the USA is around 43 or 44 on atheist populations. Things might be getting bad here spiritually, but man, it could be way worse.

[papasangel]

ok serious question here . Should I wear the orange jumpsuit or the stripes and do the stripes make me look fat? (LOL could not resist this folks) If a person is jailed for what he or she is "thinking" then soon there will be no one left on the outside of a prison cell. IMO this is just another time wasting, money spending piece of legslation that has bee dreamed up by those with too much time on their hands and not enough concern for their constituents. I do hope that every christian here stands up for what is right and not what is "fashionalby right" Christ warned us that christians would be persecuted in His name near the end times. It seems the end times are actually now as the birth pangs have been going on for quite a while. Meanwhile Israel will prevail as God promised and christians should be looking forward to Christ's returns rather than worry about what must happen first.

[Giaour]

Vertical stripes are slimming so go with the stripes, I am. If they are horizontal, go for the orange.

[LadyRaven]

Part of an original posted on my blog (www.ladyravensrantings.blogspot.com)

.....There needs to be things which are deemed too wrong or unheard of to do. There needs to be things that are typically done in order to assure cultural and moral cohesion.

However, the most effective government is self government. People are taught by the home, the church, the culture, not by the state, that it's wrong to hate people. We limit behaviour, we criminalise behaviour and we punish behaviour. The thoughts behind behaviour cannot be legislated. It doesn't work and it's anathema to a free society. You cannot make people like each other, you cannot make people think a certain way in a free country. All you can do is restrain the behaviour the thoughts produce. Most of us have people or things which we hate, because we're human and therefore prone to error, but we know better than to act on those feelings. Those who can't control themselves get punished, or should anyway. That's the way a free society works.

Now, recently, the House passed HR 1592. It is both ludicrious and an assault on individual liberty. Below is why:

It violates the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government. The tenth amendment limits the powers of the federal government to those things specifically listed in the constitution (piracy, treason, counterfieting in this case). There is no constitutional reason for the imposition of hate crime legislation upon the state and local governments. Any time the feds attempt this it is unconstitutional no matter how lovely it all sounds and we should oppose it even if it is done for all the morally appropriate reasons.

It also violates the First Amendment, and has the seed of thought control with it. pc bull gone haywire. Hate crime laws would criminalise speech that some powerhungry muckdy muck thinks is hateful. This speech would contribute, supposedly, to active "hate crimes" and injure someone in some non specific way as defined loosely enough for the government to decide to restrict it. It could and most likely will lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. This isn't the "slipperly slope logical fallacy" arguement, this is a prediction based on past events.

Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion, both of which are guaranteed by the constitution, on a state and local level. A Pennsylvania hate crime law was used to silence religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592

[MorningGlory]

I read the text of the bill also and it DOESN"T mention anything about being arrested for 'thoughts'. I interpreted the thing to be pretty much what already exists with the addition of "perceived" identity, i.e., violence against someone because they are 'perceived' to be a member of a certain group. Such as the Seikh who was shot in Oklahoma in 2001 because he was 'perceived' to be a Muslim. The bill also leaves the enforcement of the proposed law in the hands of the states unless jurisdiction is vacated in favor of the federal government or if the crime involves interstate travel to commit the crime or the transportation of weapons.

[LadyRaven]

I read the text of the bill also and it DOESN"T mention anything about being arrested for 'thoughts'. I interpreted the thing to be pretty much what already exists with the addition of "perceived" identity, i.e., violence against someone because they are 'perceived' to be a member of a certain group. Such as the Seikh who was shot in Oklahoma in 2001 because he was 'perceived' to be a Muslim. The bill also leaves the enforcement of the proposed law in the hands of the states unless jurisdiction is vacated in favor of the federal government or if the crime involves interstate travel to commit the crime or the transportation of weapons.

If it can be identified that some sort of "hate" (whatever that means in legalese) was the motivation behind a crime then you are being tried both for your actions (the crime) and the 'hate' (thoughts). Such things already have taken place in states which have these laws already on the books. When a skinhead kills someone he thinks is beneath him he committed murder. That's what he should be punished for. There is no need and no reason to care that he killed because he had any specific thoughts about anything. He killed. Period. There are no new laws necessary for this. It is also a violation of the constitution for this law to exist, as i have already pointed out.

The fact that the unconstitutional law would leave the enforcement to the states is nothing grand, it shouldn't have taken the right of LEGISLATION from them. There are only specific crimes, constitutionally, allowed for the Federal government. Honestly, how good is any of this if the Federal government is no longer bound by the law of the land (the constitution?).

[None]

It sounds like more government paranoia to me, as usual, to put more people under closer guard and destroy all privacy and peace of mind for the believer whatsoever. Unless a person expresses a need to act out his/her violent thoughts or criminal behavior, there's no reason to punish them for a religious belief. That should be very obvious.