International law against "slandering religion"?

Post Reply New Topic

And all of it is why hate crime legislation is a load of BS anyway. how can a crime be any worse because of a person's race, gender, or religion? Crime is crime, f**k the semantics.

Yes but these laws are in relation to the countries own religion, the US laws are about Christianity and the Pakistani laws are about Islam. So how can there exist a common law between these two countries if they both believe their own beliefs to be the only true beliefs? Doesn't Christainity and Islam each consider the other to be blasphemous?

Anyone?

That's exactly how I predicted people would miss the point. Read again, please.
It's not about the why, it's about the fact that it will. And that makes it impractical in hetero society.
Again, people can whine and strive and make sound and fury,
but that discord is all that such protests will ever produce. Peace will not occur.

Well, "fallacy" or not, it's true. Look around you, while opening your eyes, and you just might see the obvious.
Gay marriage is controversial and contentious. It will always be controversial and contentious.

Last edited by Ragtime on 05 Jun 2008, 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You should talk to your own government. The United States does not uniformly believe that its laws stop at the border. It has prosecuted foreign and US nationals for various crimes committed outside the US, including violation of drug laws, sex tourism involving underage children that have never been in the US, visiting Cuba, and offering bribes to win contracts. The US has attempted to enforce various civil laws internationally, including anti-bias in hiring, copyright, and anti-trust laws. People that run an internet betting business in Antigua (which is perfectly legal there) have warrants out on them for violating US gambling law.

So I suppose that you are opposed to racketeering laws, too? How can crime be any worse if it is organized? If someone beats the crap out of another human being, should it matter if it is part of an isolated bar fight, or part of a mafia pattern to take control of all the waste hauling businesses in an entire state?

I think there is a difference.

Last edited by monty on 05 Jun 2008, 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Take a thing called the internet. Ever heard of that? The US apparently thinks it can prosecute anyone it likes under its laws because its citizens can be offended/affected by what they read. The US fails to comprehend that they are not the only country using the net, and therefore the other 99.9% of the world (remeber that place?) DO NOT fall under US laws and jurisdiction. So even though this site may appear to be set up on an American server, by Americans, I as an Australian can say whatever I want within regards to my own country's law, and not have to worry about the consequences in your own. If I said that Reverend Parsley was a closet gay, that is my opinion. If he wanted to sue me for defamation, he'd have a hard time getting me extradited.

So how can an international law over religion have as much validity? Answer, it can't.

Ragtime, there was no point missed - you assert that it "will" without stating or explaining "why"... that's smacks of faith, and what little I possess lies in myself and in the greater whole of existence. I'm sorry, but I don't have 'faith' in you. If you can not substantiate your statement, then it is not a practical component of this conversation. The foundations of your arguments have been proven false time and again as old prejudices began to be wiped away. Whether it was outside the tribe, caste, et al, these arguments have been made for centuries without basis. You make assertions without substance; these are your beliefs, but when your words change them from belief to fact then it comes out foolishly.


M.

They could never pass a law like that. The christian, muslim, and zionist extremist couldnd't go 5 minutes without badmouthing other faiths by claiming their own faiths are the one true path respectively.

And how much "strife" has there been in the state of Massachussetts over the past four years, exactly? That's a pretty poor rational. People can change and adjust. The post-Civil Rights Act South was certainly in "strife," but somehow the situation has improved. And those changes were much more immediate and drastic than simply allowing gay couples to obtain a marriage license at the local city hall.

As for hate crime laws, there's a very practical justification. People who commit hate crimes are more likely to repeat. If you commit a crime because of a personal vendetta, that's terrible and deserves punishment. But if you cannot refrain from beating up every "gay-seeming" guy you come across, you pose an even more serious threat to society.

Last edited by srriv345 on 05 Jun 2008, 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Use good judgement when slandering religion.

Is disagreeing with or questioning a religion slander? I'm curious what peoples thoughts are on this topic.


M.

Why must I do your research for you? I told you what will happen, i.e. the same thing that is already happening, and I pointed to the omni-obvious fact that gay marriage produces argument, strife, and uproar everywhere it goes.
That is more than enough for you to run with. When I grew up, we didn't have the internet. Now we do. Yay! Go use it please.

Ragtime, you've edited the quote to remove some salient details... tsk tsk. I'm not asking you to do my research, I'm asking you to substantiate your claims - you introduced them, now back them up or drop the claim. Yes, there are >individuals< who have a problem with this - however, their offense doesn't outweigh the individuals freedom to express, love, and marry. For example, the only one between us experiencing strife between us is you... I'm very happy for my friends who are now able to express their feelings in a manner that they choose. Now, being an adult yourself, please grow past the insults and developed some basis for your arguments other than "because I'm right."


M.

I did. Quit playing games.

Ragtime keeps claiming that gay marriage produces "uproar" everywhere it goes, but still hasn't said anything about Massachusetts, or Canada, or any of the many European countries who have legalized gay marriage.