I have been fighting the urge to weigh in here and bring up the notion of a mosque being built within ear shot of 9/11 Ground Zero but I wanted to see what others felt about it. President Obama said last week, "As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances." To which a spokeswoman for one of the 9/11 victim's group retorted, "Barrack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see." Plus, the mosque's construction "is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah" (http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/08/14/obama-backs-mosque-at-ground-zero/).
Newt Gingrich weighed into the mosque debate by saying, "Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy" (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38282). The Right has been beating the drum against the mosque by looking into the Imam that will lead the mosque. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf central tenet to his teachings has been the use of Sharia Law and has been questioned about who is funding the construction of the 13-story mosque.
Is this an issue of religious freedom or is it about the respect of those that died on 9/11?
We don't hold all christians accountable for the actions of Eric Rudolph and his ilk, why would we hold all muslims accountable for the actions of terrorists?
ReplyDeleteThe constitution is clear, all americans have the freedom to practice their religion free of obstruction - that means all religions not just the ones we like.
Has anyone disputed the constitutional right to build it? From what I've seen, the issue is about whether it is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Muslims die in the buildings, outside the terrorists? What about the respect for them?
Would a community center and chapel built by a Christian group two blocks from the Oklahoma City bombing site be an issue? Would that be offensive? Would it show a lack of respect?
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing I think everyone who is rational and has half a brain agrees on - islam didn't bring down those buildings, terrorists did.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that politicians are whipping up the less educated and terror stricken public into believing that islam is the root cause when the root cause is a combination of poverty, US interventionism, etc. The twisted form of islam that these men worship is only the tool used to brainwash them - not the reason.
This is a case of the republicans playing to the lowest common denominator here - hate. And it speaks volumes for them.
I agree, it's totally about banking on hate and fear. Why does no one object to the 100 other mosques in NY City? Or how about the fact that Muslims pray everyday at the Pentagon?
ReplyDeleteIs Ground Zero really a battleground? How is just this particular mosque a provocative act? How will it create bloodshed?
I think it's ironic that Newt acknowledged that these were radical Islamist who attacked us, as in not the norm or mainstream or a representative of the majority, yet he lumps everyone else into the group in his opposition.
I think it's ironic that Fox news was "following the money" and pointing to a "radical saudi" who they have concerns will fund the mosque with terror dollars.
ReplyDeleteI guess they forgot that this same Saudi is the second largest owner of NewsCorp (Fox's parent company).
So basically they called their boss a terrorist. Doesn't that make them terrorists?
Applying their own guilt by association logic, most definitely.
ReplyDeleteThis is the same man the FBI brought in 6 years ago to speak to their agents about ways to improve relations. The same man the Bush administartion worked with to improve relations.
I agree that on the level of the Constitution the objection of the mosque being built holds no water. As Anonymous pointed out , I don't believe the conversation is about the right to build more the appropriateness of the mosque so close to Ground Zero.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure if any muslims died, outside of those on the plane, died at Ground Zero. Statistically one would believe some had. It is true that Islam itself did not bring down the Trade Towers but let's not lose sight of the fact that Radical Islam did. Radical Islam is not like saying the far Right or Left when it comes to Christian religions. Radical Islam is more mainstream then American's or our Government will let on.
Plus, Republicans are not the only ones speaking out against the mosque. Sen. Reid came out against it and other American Imam's have as well. This is not a Right vs. Left issue - that is what people want to boil it down to.
Truman - Is it type of US intervention? The reason I ask it that Pakistan, and others in the region, expect that the United States will bring them food and rescue them from flood and starvation.
Anonymous - I think the reason why other mosque's are not being questioned has to do with location. I don't think many are arguing the fact of the mosque rather are a bit disturbed by the proximity to Ground Zero.
The beauty of the Free Market is that anyone can buy stock in any public company. That doesn't bring in guilt by association.
ReplyDeleteWhat difference does it make where it's built? Why should 2 blocks be bad but 5 be good? I can't think of one good rational reason. Either it should be built, or it shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteTo me this is an issue of people fearing what they don't understand and blindly following the lead of what people in front of a camera tell them.
It's another example of the notion of America being this wonderful melting pot where we preach tolerance and acceptance of all being a bunch of crap.
I see this similar to the flack southern states get for flying the Confederate Flag. Why is the Left so bent on the Confederate Flag being a symbol of hatred while those touched by 9/11 cannot demand the same view on the mosque being proposed by a radical Imam?
ReplyDeleteViper,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to answer your points with an analogous question.
The KKK has admittedly been involved in heinous crimes against Blacks/Jews. Furthermore, their support of the Nazi agenda and their claims of the Holocaust being a myth are of great offense to many Jews.
Based upon all that, should we limit their right to freedom of speech in order to protect the sensitivities of the Jews/Blacks whom they offend?
In 1977, the KKK marched in Skokie, a jewish community and they did it because they had the right to freedom of assembly and speech. A right guaranteed to all in the USA by the constitution.
Should we have considered the sensitivities to the Jews in the community or do liberties supercede sensitivities?
I would say that the moment you put caveats on your liberties, you have already sacrificed them because sooner or later you will be included in one of those caveats.
"The beauty of the Free Market is that anyone can buy stock in any public company. That doesn't bring in guilt by association."
ReplyDeleteIt does when the Fox commentators are accusing their owner of funding terrorism. This means, effectively, Fox News is funding terrorism since Fox news is generating income for this man, which they then accuse him of turning around and funding terror projects.
It's an absurd argument on it's face.
"same view on the mosque being proposed by a radical Imam? "
Explain to me how he's a "radical imam"? What makes him radical? This is an imam that the FBI and Bush administration leveraged to better understand the Muslim faith and community after 9/11. Based upon your comments, Bush and Co and the FBI were getting advice from radicals who support terrorism.
That's another absurd argument on it's face.
Either we support the constitution or we don't. There are no qualifications for who gets rights within this country - the constitution is clear, all are equal. Therefore, they can and should build the mosque. If you don't like it, don't go pray there.
Any American or politician has the right to be opposed to builidng the mosque out of respect. They don't, however, have any right to stop it from happening unless it is based on some law or regulation that applies equally to everyone and has been equally enforced.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to like it, but that's a seperate question. The respect you talk about is a political question, I think, not a legal one.
Truman
ReplyDeleteWhat question are you answer of mine with your analogous question?
I do not believe we should limit our freedom but we watch them restricted nearly every time the government passes a bill. An example of that is Obamacare. Do you see no trouble in the government requiring you to buy a specific product? Do you think that it is okay for the government to tell a private business owner that they cannot cater to their clients - i.e. smoking bans? Do you think it's a restriction on our freedom of choice in wearing a seat belt? All of these questions have restricted our freedoms. I agree with you that we cannot limit our freedoms.
Anonymous - I agree we have two questions here. The first being religous freedoms which I think we all agree allows the mosque. The second, being respectful - now that one is up for debate.
ReplyDeleteViper, your argument about the supposed infringement of rights (supposed because the SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet) based upon seat belt laws and insurance is a red herring argument. It has no bearing here.
ReplyDeleteThe questions were raised, do they have the right to build the mosque and second, should they? The answer has clearly been yes to #1. The second, I address below.
"The second, being respectful - now that one is up for debate."
It's up for debate only if you're willing to apply conditions to constitutional rights that everyone agrees they have by answering yes to #1.
The SCOTUS decided in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the rights of citizens to exercise their freedoms cannot be infringed upon based solely upon the mere dislike or social unpopularity of the groups views, beliefs or speech.
That applies here. So if you are in support of the constitution, this is not even a question worthy of discussion because to discuss it does two things - 1 constitutional and 1 social.
A) it contradicts the very beliefs this nation was founded on - freedom of ideas.
B) it validates the bigoted idea that all muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
We no more hold Christians accountable for the actions of Eric Rudolph than we should Muslims for the actions of Mohammad Atta.
And as to what quesiton I was making an analagous reference to, was as follows:
Should we have considered the sensitivities to the Jews in the community or do liberties supercede sensitivities?
Except in this situation, the question would be:
Should we consider the sensitivities of those who feel that the WTC site is sacred or do liberties supercede sensitivities?
The answer to both is no, liberties supercede sensitivities whether it's sensitivity to speech, religion, press, etc.
In other words, your rights end where mine begin, which is precisely why your smoking ban argument was fallacious on it's face.
Truman, I completely disagree with you on smoking or seat belts being "fallacious on it's face" as you have no right to enter a private business. If a business owner wants to offer an area within their business or the entire business to allow patrons to use a legal substance they ought to have that right. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to tell a business they cannot allow a legal substance to be used within their business. I am not a smoker but I do recognize that this issue was based more on emotions than allowing private businesses to operate.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you, and others, accuse Viper of only looking out for his own benefit. Are you not doing the same in regards to the smoking ban?
Truman
ReplyDeleteI agree the Constitutional aspect of the conversation is settled which is why my tag line was worded in the manner it was. I think more people are invoking emotion into the debate. President Obama had my praise when he came out on Friday and discussed the issue on Constitutional basis but he should his lack of leadership when he allowed himself to weigh in on the non-Constitutional aspect of this debate. Our President should have simply stated, as Obama did, and then back it up with continued conversation of the debate on Constitutional basis while empathizing with those that are debating the topic on emotionally level. That is leadership. We do not have that with Obama.
"I completely disagree with you on smoking or seat belts being "fallacious on it's face" as you have no right to enter a private business."
ReplyDeleteAgreed, you have no right to enter a private business and within reason, private businesses have the right to behave as they choose. However, private property does not exempt the business from legal/constitutional obligations. If this wasn't true, things like sexual harassment laws in the workplace would be moot, because they would be unenforceable in a private workplace. Why? Because by your assertion, it's private and they can do as they please in the operation of their business.
The reason that private workplaces aren't exempt is simple - your rights end where mine begin, regardless of locale. Thankfully SCOTUS has ruled on this (and in other cases refused to hear suits) so it's settled law.
"There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to tell a business they cannot allow a legal substance to be used within their business."
You are arguing about a law vs. a constitutional right. A right is something enshrined in the constitution. A law is something codified in legislation. The difference is profound since one is universal and un-usurpable and the other can come and go over time.
But to reply, there's nothing in the constitution that states that marijuana is illegal either and yet it is. Again, this deals with a law, and one that has passed challenge in front of SCOTUS. Regarding smoking bans, you may have the right to smoke wherever you please, but your right to smoke ends where my right to be free of smoke begins. This is the crux of why the SCOTUS has not overturned smoking bans.
"Are you not doing the same in regards to the smoking ban?"
Again, this is a red herring argument not pertinent to the conversation here regarding the mosque - however, I find it odd that you accuse me of selfishness for defending my constitutional rights. Do you waffle on yours or relinquish them based upon social pressure? If so, I think the issue is yours, not mine.
"President Obama had my praise..."
ReplyDeleteI actually dislike how he's handled it. He should have stayed out of it. All his involvement does, whatever the form, is legitimize the discussion and feed the flames. This shouldn't even be a discussion - they have the right and they've already been worshiping there for 1.5 years. If they choose to show sensitivity to those opposed, that's their choice. But they should not be pressured into changing their plans simply BECAUSE of those sensitivities.
"That is leadership. We do not have that with Obama."
On this I'm in full agreement. Perhaps not on this issue - I'm less forgiving of his handling of it. But while he's a great orator, he's a miserable leader. Reagan was a brilliant orator AND inspiring. It was charisma that cannot be taught. His speech after the challenger disaster proves this most brilliantly.
Truman, I don't waffle on my Constitutional Rights. We have allowed Progressives and the ruling class for to long get away with "interpreting" our freedoms away. SCOTUS is part of that ruling elite that has expanded the freedom restrictions not granted within the United States. Whether or not you believe the smoking ban correlates with religious freedoms it does. Your right to demand a business change it's business practices in regards to a legal product, tobacco, is an infringement upon the private business owners right to pursue happiness through revenue generated by the private business.
ReplyDeleteNo one is forcing you to go into the business. If you enter into the business and it offers a smoking option, you willingly are participating thus giving up your right. It amazes me that you are all for religious freedoms, freedoms for same-sex marriages but when it comes to private business owners to run their businesses in accordance to providing a safe working environment while selling a legal service or product that you balk. Why the double standard? Remind yourself that you check your right to be in a smoke free environment when you knowingly step into a business that offers smoking.
Anon,
ReplyDeletePlease cite SCOTUS case law that supports this statement:
"SCOTUS is part of that ruling elite that has expanded the freedom restrictions not granted within the United States."
"Your right to demand a business change it's business practices in regards to a legal product, tobacco, is an infringement upon the private business owners right to pursue happiness through revenue generated by the private business."
So let's use an analogy to illuminate your argument.
I'm a business owner, and I enjoy "pursuing the happiness" that my profits generate.
By extrapolating your your logic, the employees in my factory have no right to complain about the mercury poisoning or the sexual harrassment because they are not "required" to enter my place of business where I "pursue happiness".
However, the constitution doesn't grant rights to businesses, only citizens. And the constitution does grant equal protections, which means your rights don't preclude mine.
Furthermore, as a citizen, my rights cannot be abridged by "privacy" concerns. This is in part, because no where in the constitution is the "right to privacy" enshrined. You must use a progressive interpretation to believe in that "right".
So again, your rights end where mine begin - citizen to citizen. If you don't understand that, I guess I can't help you.
Now, can we please get back to the topic at hand and quit discussing these red herrings? I was actually enjoying Viper's discussion.
Truman, what makes your right not to be in a smokey establishment trump my right to smoke in said establishment when it is well known that is something one may encounter when entering?
ReplyDeleteI agree we need safe working environments for employees and those that patronize the private businesses but banning smoking is not one of those items government should have the right to ban. Regulate air quality sure but to ban a legal substance to be consumed in a private business is not governments role.
"Truman, what makes your right not to be in a smokey establishment trump my right to smoke in said establishment when it is well known that is something one may encounter when entering?"
ReplyDeleteIts the same right that says you cannot pollute your property with arsenic if it will contaminate the water supply. I don't know how much more clear I can be - your rights end where mine begin.
What is so absurd about your argument is that you admit by saying that smoking is a legally available product that it could be illegal. IE - the government has the right to limit access in totality.
However, you say that while they can restrict your access completely, they cannot limit where or how you consume it if they make it legal.
Can they limit your access to morphine and where or when you can use it? Can they restrict drinking age? Can they restrict smoking age? Can they restrict your drinking and driving? Alcohol, morphine and cigarettes are all legal products. Why can they limit who can use them or where they can use them? What I'm trying to say is that you can't admit that the government can limit access to a product but cannot limit where you can access that product. It's two contradictory positions on the same subject.
I have to be honest, I'm at the point now where if you don't get it, I can't make you get it. You'll just have to accept your beliefs and I'll accept the fact that they're wrong, but you're entitled to be wrong. That's the beauty of America.
You don't have a right to smoke. You have the privilege of smoking. Rights typically can't be restricted. As Truman pointed out, smoking is very restricted. Otherwise, we would still smoke in offices, schools and on planes. It's not a right. As far as the business owners right to pursue happiness, no one is infringing that, either. The owner can still own and operate the restaurant. If anything, the patrons are making it difficult by not going to it. It's no more a restriction, if even less, then restricting hours of operation or health standards or labor laws.
ReplyDeleteLet's just say you do have a right to smoke. Now, shouldn't we balance that right with my right to not be around it? Is your right to engage in a dangerous act that harms others and strains health care costs, a right that can be down freely elsewhere, just outside, or at home, more important to my right to not possible get cancer? To not have to work in those unhealthy conditions? Is it different then measures taken to protect miners? Or any other work place safety measure?
Sure, I could get a different job, but so can all those other industries. So there has to be something greater. Such as the right to being safe being greater.
But like I said, I don't see how smoking is a right at all.
Viper, what proof do you have of radical Islam being "more mainstream" than Americans or our government will let on? What did you mean by this? Can you attach a percentage to this?
ReplyDeleteJohn Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in cordination with Gallup Center for Muslim Studies reported 37% of Muslims are "radical".
ReplyDeleteAccording to relgioustolerance.org reports that 20% of the estimated 1.226 billion Muslims are "radical"
Unfortunately I have not been able to find a trend line to see if it is becoming greater. Neither groups above talked about it either. If we use the benchmark that 10% of every crowd is fringe then these numbers may indicate that it is becoming more "mainstream".
Thoughts....
And for the record, I'm of the mind that the proposed mosque and community center in lower Manhattan should be a non-issue. I'd also say that the proximity of the proposed mosque and community center to Ground Zero is a convenient excuse to criticize Islam and paint all Muslims with a broad (and inaccurate) brush. This does not mean that people's emotional reaction to it is unjustified. However, there is ample proof of this story being used for political gain. There is also ample proof of a wider distrust or hatred of Islam throughout the country. To me, that is the most troubling revelation.
ReplyDeleteIs it a non-issue when Imam's of differing Mosque's start talking about Sharia Law and exert the influence on politicians?
ReplyDeleteIs it an issue when those on the religious right exert influence on politicians?
ReplyDeleteViper, thanks for the numbers. I'll look into those. Do you know how either of those studies defined "radical"?
ReplyDeleteTo your second point, what aspects of Sharia law are these imams discussing? I've read articles stating that much of what is in our Constitution or in the books as laws is in line with Sharia law. Again, it's this broad brush mentality or oversimplification that bothers me. Sharia = Bad; Muslim = Bad; Christian = Good; Bible = Good.
What if the imams you speak of were advocating for the adoption of that portion of Sharia law which requires you to love your neighbor or honor your mother and father or not murder or not steal?
Clark - I didn't see where they defined "radical". I have been told by a few of my Muslim friends that radical to Westerners is more like Moderate to those in the Muslim world. I'd be interested in finding out exactly what definition is being used.
ReplyDeleteAs for Sharia Law, my understanding the Imam in question right now wants to segregate out Muslims from the United States penal system and have them be tried under Sharia Law. I am going to work on a blog posting about Sharia Law over the weekend and hope to post by Monday.
"Is it a non-issue when Imam's of differing Mosque's start talking about Sharia Law and exert the influence on politicians?"
ReplyDeleteHow is this any different than when Christians and jews exert their influence on politics? If it wasn't for religion, abortion, marriage, etc would be non-issues. Seems kind of at odds with the idea of religious tollerance to say that one group has the right to influence whereas another does not.
"As for Sharia Law, my understanding the Imam in question right now wants to segregate out Muslims from the United States penal system and have them be tried under Sharia Law."
How is this different from Jews being re-patriated to Israel to serve their sentences after being convicted in US courts? Or Jewish Rabinical courts in the US that decide civil matters?
What I'm saying is that this already exists in many forms and you aren't up in arms about it. Why is islam so scary? After all, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all worshiping the same God - the God of Abraham.
please answer:"Is it an issue when those on the religious right exert influence on politicians?"
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - I do subscribe to the separation of church and state. This is why I don't think the definition of marriage or the application of abortion ought to be a decision government should rule upon. These are just two quick examples.
ReplyDeleteNow, I don't mean to make it sound that an religious groups or any other group for that matter ought not have the right to assemble to push their beliefs. At the Federal level the government should stay away, the proper place is at the local level.
Truman - I did not know that Jews had a separate civil court or are taken to Israel if convicted in the US court. Why do we allow that?
ReplyDeleteIt's not a separation issue as it's not endorsement. It's no different then any other lobbying group. If Target can donate to who they want to achieve their goals so should anyone else.
ReplyDeleteAbortion isn't a religious issue, it's a privacy issue that some argue with religious beliefs. There is no religious doctrine involved in abortion. The marriage right sought is one of a government definition, not religious, so that's not an issue. I was at a wedding this weekend and the judge said: "By the power vested me by the STATE of MINNESOTA, I now pronounce you husband and wife." There was nothing religious about it. And in any religious ceremony, the vows are just that, a religious exchange. The signing of the marriage documents is what creates the marriage, not the vows. So really, only those who want to bring religion into it are creating a religious issue out of something that is.
The problem is the religious groups want to apply a religious angle to groups that only want a government recognition of a non-religious relationship, just in the same way that the legal recognition of your marriage is by the state.
But that was beat into the ground already.
So churches have a say on abortion? "This is why I don't think the definition of marriage or the application of abortion ought to be a decision government should rule upon" since when do religions make our laws?
"Truman - I did not know that Jews had a separate civil court or are taken to Israel if convicted in the US court. Why do we allow that?"
ReplyDeleteThere are Rabbinical courts (Beit Din) in 15 states and DC.
They settle matters such as religious divorces (same as Catholic annulments). Rabbinical courts are part of the practice of the Judaic religion. Since we are a country that honors freedom of religion, it seems fitting that they be allowed to practice their religion. And as long as they don't conflict with US law, it seems reasonable.
As to allowing US Citizens who are convicted of crimes to serve out their sentences in Israel, it is a courtesy we grant to an ally. We've done the same with allowing countries to repatriate citizens held at Guantanamo for years to serve out their sentences once convicted of terrorism.
Since this is the case, where we allow the application of religious laws within the US boundaries why would Sharia law be any different as long as it's only applied to muslims and not in conflict with US laws?
After all, I've never read anything from a respectable moderate muslim Imam in the US saying that they want to apply Sharia law to ALL americans. That is simply how right wing radio/tv hosts spin it in order to whip up their base.
But that's no different than me taking a sentence you write here out of context to make you look liberal. It doesn't make it true but it sure makes for a good soundbite doesn't it?
PS - Not all jews convicted serve their sentences in Israel. It's more a political function than anything else. But the "right of return" which is part of the Jewish/Israeli belief for Jews plays a significant role in this, and since Jews carry clout in voting circles in some regions, politics wins over US sovereign rights.
ReplyDeleteBut there are rarely protests over this, probably because we don't lump all jews into a stereotypical category if one of them murders people - as happened recently with the stabbing serial killer.
Why is there a difference?
IMO, it has to do with fear not rationally or logically derived conclusions. But fear is no reason to strip a group of their constitutional rights is it?
"Abortion isn't a religious issue, it's a privacy issue that some argue with religious beliefs."
ReplyDeleteA strict constructionist of the constitution would say "there is no right to privacy".
This is a major issue for some conservatives since many of their arguments are based upon the "right to privacy".
Anonymous - Marriage and abortion are private issues. To not get to far off topic here, I don't see any reason why either topic should be ruled over by the Government. The aspect of marriage should be removed from all aspects of Government institutions. Leave the rite of marriage up to the individual dogma's that exist within our borders. As with abortion, it is a topic for one to decide and the only part in which Government ought to be involved is ensuring, as with any other medical procedure, the safetiness of the process.
ReplyDeleteTruman - I agree that fear is not a reason to remove Constitutional Rights much in the same manner that crafting law to punish one for thought crimes, i.e. hate crimes. What ever the reason one attacks another should not be cause for longer or shorter sentences. In the end the crime is the same regardless of reasons or thought put in, right?
ReplyDeleteThat's fine Viper, then everyone should be allowed to have an abortion without restrictions. We can agree on that, then.
ReplyDeletei understand your take on marriage, but the government isn't going to get out of it. They aren't going to do away with the legal standing of marriage. Do you not agree? Very few members of Congress are going to get rid of it, on both sides.
Again, I don't care about religious rites. You have a marriage license issued by the state, right? If two people privately decide they want the same, should they not be allowed to get it? Then they have all of the same legal rights that straight couples currently do and no one's privacy is infringed.
I don't think you've ever have given a straight answer on this. Do you acknowledge two types of marriage in this discussion? The legal one and the religious one?
" In the end the crime is the same regardless of reasons or thought put in, right?" Then you would remove any intent to distribute factors in drug possession, right? The crime of possession is the only one provable. Or all inaccuracies on a tax return should be treated the same? Or you wouldn't have a defense of insanity or heat of passion in murder cases?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - As for abortion, I am dead set against it from a personal stance but I recognize it the choice of parents of that child.
ReplyDeleteAs for marriage, one can obtain the same legal standing of married couples already. This is why I do not understand the push for same-sex marriage. One can enter into a legal partnership with another that is expedited by the marriage license. Which is another reason why I do not see why Government needs to be involved. Marriage has become a rite within various religious dogmas and our Government has Co-opted marriage to expedite the formation of legal partnerships.
Oh, and intent is a factor in a lot of crimes. If you crash into a car on accident and kill the person you are charged with one crime. If you purposefully did it, another. The crime is the same at the most basic level, killing someone, so the charge should be the same, right?
ReplyDeleteWell, it's not a child yet, to be fair.
ReplyDeleteSo if they can obtain the same standing, why not make it easy and let them do it the same way? Why pay thousands of dollars for lawyers to draft up complicated detailed yet open ended documents to grant the same rights? Thanks for keeping lawyers employed. Oh, and who enforces those contracts, a court, which now will likely be litigated more by upset family costing more money and getting the government more involved.
Why not allow them the same easy avenue with defined rights and obligations? Did your church issue you a marriage license? No, the state did. Do away with religion and you still have marriage. Atheists get married without the religious aspect.
Drug possession is different that distribution. One has a gram of cocaine is more apt to use it, now if someone has 1 lb of cocaine then distribution is more likely.
ReplyDeleteAs for taxes, I am not sure I am following this one. If one makes a material error than yes, but if it is clerical then no. There is a legal difference there.
I do struggle with the temporary insanity defense. Now if the person is permanently insane that would be a different story. The addition of a thought crime is just another way to divide classes of society.
Anonymous - There is a difference in manslaughter and murder. Both are a result of death but are rooted in the nature of happening. One driving a car that skids out of control and slams into another car that results in a death is not murder. Now if someone runs another person down with the car that is murder. You can see the difference right.
ReplyDeleteNow if that person in the car is [insert race] runs down another [insert different race] and the other person dies - it is murder.
Anonymous - child, a conversation for another time.
ReplyDeleteOn the marriage aspect, I have proposed a few times on the blog site my replacement to the marriage license. I have even written to several GLBT groups as an alternative to make everyone happy. I get scolded a lot for sticking to my original point and not compromising, why don't we compromise on marriage? Remove the marriage license, marriage tax, all of it and replace it with a stream line process to gain legal status that the license provides. No lawyers needed. A simple form that names all partners involved and the new relationship.
You want to remove intent from race crimes. Intent is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter, typically. Remove the intent and you are left with the same thing, killing someone. Intent often makes all the difference. You argue that the crime is the same in hate crime regardless of the why and the why shouldn't matter. So why does the reason matter when a person is killed?
ReplyDeleteA form that includes what? Doesn't the license provide those things you want to take out? What is the all of it? What is left? If it's the legal status and rights outside of the taxes, all you have done is replaced one legal document with another that provides the same rights as the first but changed the name.
Those opposed to gay marriage aren't going to all of sudden be in favor of everyone having life time committed relationship license.
The simple form you speak of is the current state issued marriage license that provides the property rights, health care decision rights, inheritance rights and various other obligations that I'm assuming what is provided in your legal status.
Anonymous - Murder is different than manslaughter. The both result in death but there is a difference.
ReplyDeleteThe argument around marriage is the term marriage. If we remove marriage from the equation and remove government from the equation in regards to marriage we find a solution that makes everyone happy. I don't think those that are against marriage of same-sex couples are against them to have property rights, health care decision rights, inheritance rights, etc...I think it is rooted around marriage itself.
Yes, there is a difference. That difference is intent. The same thing that distinguishes a race crime, the intent behind committing. Remove intent from murder, what are you left with?
ReplyDeleteFirst, only the government can give those rights. Second, yes, those opposed to gay marriage are opposed to it on moral grounds. They think it's evil and some how harms the relationship and society because two people of the same sex live together. Changing the label won't change the how those couples are viewed. That's why there is always opposition to domestic partnership status.
Horse, dead.
Manslaughter = no intent, murder = intent - Right?
ReplyDeleteI have to ask, and forgive my derailing - Chris you mentioned "another conversation", in reference to the debate on when a child actually becomes a child - would you be up for opening that discussion? Another post, yes, but definitely interested. And not from a political viewpoint - I agree that my views and what others have a right to do are and should be two different things. Anyway, sorry for already spending too many words on that in this topic.
ReplyDeleteNow to this topic. I don't think I'm imposing anything on anyone by saying it is in poor taste to build a mosque in that location. That does not change the fact that they have the right. I will say, however, that our wonderful American media, on both sides, has done an INCREDIBLE job at "marketing" this thing. Money is being made and ratings are being had over something that should (in my opinion) be relegated to conversations around the kitchen table, in forms like this, what have you. But instead it's become a hot topic where we can vilify anyone who says or neglects to say anything opposing or agreeing with our views. All the while creating more division and prejudice - and prejudice from all camps. Lefties, don't think you're not prejudice when you lump all righties together. Righties, same goes for you. And I have to fit in there somewhere, so I'm guilty of it as well.
So I would argue non-issue. However, it warrants discussion, in my opinion, on a smaller scale, where hopefully we can LEARN from and begin to understand each other. I don't think topics like this over-saturating our media outlets has done much to help bring us together as a people. Sadly, I don't think that was ever their intention....
Ted
"Manslaughter = no intent, murder = intent - Right?"
ReplyDeleteActually, they are as follows:
MANSLAUGHTER
The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE
In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.
To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.
And a person's intent is nearly always part of the legal analysis as to what they should be charged with. Since the person isn't likely to tell you their intent, it must be infered.
And thought crimes have long existed. Attempted Murder for example is the prosecution of what the person intended not what they did. Intent to distribute drugs does not require that the person be in the act of selling, only that they possess an amount that would likely justify no other reason.
And hate crimes have to do with intent that is reprehensible by social standards. Killing a man for being black (something he can't control) vs. killing him in a bar fight are two different things. Why are they different? Because society, through our elected officials, has deemed murder based solely upon hatred as more heinous.
It's an arguable position, but the intent is to discourage this type of behavior. Laws are used all the time in this fashion - such as capital crimes which carry the death penalty.
This is nothing new, and is perfectly legal. If it wasn't, why would we have different types of murder/manslaughter? Why would we have different penalties for different types of murders? Based upon the logic of "all crimes are equal" we should have one punishment to maintain equality.
I'll make a prediction.
ReplyDeleteThis topic will die out within 2 weeks of the elections in November. Why? Because it won't be of any benefit to politicians to energize their base.
And that's all this is about - polarization and energization.
Great point Truman.
ReplyDeleteTed