tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post2137721862369571582..comments2023-12-06T02:22:41.121-06:00Comments on The Hamburg Post: Mosque: Insult or Non-issuetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-1506191611837201602010-08-27T17:44:11.458-05:002010-08-27T17:44:11.458-05:00Great point Truman.
TedGreat point Truman. <br /><br />TedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-91558677093473481702010-08-27T13:03:22.296-05:002010-08-27T13:03:22.296-05:00I'll make a prediction.
This topic will die o...I'll make a prediction.<br /><br />This 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.<br /><br />And that's all this is about - polarization and energization.Trumannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-90899787432082197432010-08-27T09:37:36.313-05:002010-08-27T09:37:36.313-05:00"Manslaughter = no intent, murder = intent - ..."Manslaughter = no intent, murder = intent - Right?"<br /><br />Actually, they are as follows:<br /><br />MANSLAUGHTER<br />The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.<br /><br />MURDER, FIRST DEGREE<br />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. <br /><br />To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life. <br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Trumannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-72127595025656095282010-08-27T08:10:31.650-05:002010-08-27T08:10:31.650-05:00I have to ask, and forgive my derailing - Chris yo...I 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.<br /><br />Now 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.<br /><br />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.... <br /><br />TedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-11513667980957417962010-08-26T22:41:12.336-05:002010-08-26T22:41:12.336-05:00Manslaughter = no intent, murder = intent - Right?...Manslaughter = no intent, murder = intent - Right?tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-65526774175541827182010-08-26T22:39:41.758-05:002010-08-26T22:39:41.758-05:00Yes, there is a difference. That difference is in...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? <br /><br />First, 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.<br /><br />Horse, dead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-50969676859724343682010-08-26T22:34:19.618-05:002010-08-26T22:34:19.618-05:00Anonymous - Murder is different than manslaughter....Anonymous - Murder is different than manslaughter. The both result in death but there is a difference. <br /><br />The 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.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-39401186280934743582010-08-26T22:30:39.137-05:002010-08-26T22:30:39.137-05:00You want to remove intent from race crimes. Inten...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? <br /><br />A 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. <br /><br />Those opposed to gay marriage aren't going to all of sudden be in favor of everyone having life time committed relationship license. <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-41591604420027212942010-08-26T22:00:07.932-05:002010-08-26T22:00:07.932-05:00Anonymous - child, a conversation for another time...Anonymous - child, a conversation for another time.<br /><br />On 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.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-34623798752976780642010-08-26T21:53:39.914-05:002010-08-26T21:53:39.914-05:00Anonymous - There is a difference in manslaughter ...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. <br /><br />Now if that person in the car is [insert race] runs down another [insert different race] and the other person dies - it is murder.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-75540771455296799192010-08-26T21:49:27.347-05:002010-08-26T21:49:27.347-05:00Drug possession is different that distribution. On...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. <br /><br />As 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.<br /><br />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.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-69222752989909118682010-08-26T21:48:45.494-05:002010-08-26T21:48:45.494-05:00Well, it's not a child yet, to be fair.
So if...Well, it's not a child yet, to be fair.<br /><br />So 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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-89038660118732506712010-08-26T21:45:21.851-05:002010-08-26T21:45:21.851-05:00Oh, and intent is a factor in a lot of crimes. If...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-51111060953622241382010-08-26T21:44:13.000-05:002010-08-26T21:44:13.000-05:00Anonymous - As for abortion, I am dead set against...Anonymous - As for abortion, I am dead set against it from a personal stance but I recognize it the choice of parents of that child. <br /><br />As 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.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-57001292141988276792010-08-26T21:41:30.726-05:002010-08-26T21:41:30.726-05:00" In the end the crime is the same regardless..." 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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-36799200100718116932010-08-26T21:38:47.939-05:002010-08-26T21:38:47.939-05:00That's fine Viper, then everyone should be all...That's fine Viper, then everyone should be allowed to have an abortion without restrictions. We can agree on that, then.<br /><br />i 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-11269321259178662432010-08-26T21:29:36.274-05:002010-08-26T21:29:36.274-05:00Truman - I agree that fear is not a reason to remo...Truman - 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?tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-57666541356490490432010-08-26T21:26:43.725-05:002010-08-26T21:26:43.725-05:00Anonymous - Marriage and abortion are private issu...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.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-58975502100857978092010-08-26T20:40:06.526-05:002010-08-26T20:40:06.526-05:00"Abortion isn't a religious issue, it'..."Abortion isn't a religious issue, it's a privacy issue that some argue with religious beliefs."<br /><br />A strict constructionist of the constitution would say "there is no right to privacy". <br /><br />This is a major issue for some conservatives since many of their arguments are based upon the "right to privacy".Trumannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-7633843234339311642010-08-26T20:37:46.628-05:002010-08-26T20:37:46.628-05:00PS - Not all jews convicted serve their sentences ...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.<br /><br />But 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.<br /><br />Why is there a difference?<br /><br />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?Trumannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-21925976177380669022010-08-26T20:33:46.335-05:002010-08-26T20:33:46.335-05:00"Truman - I did not know that Jews had a sepa..."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?"<br /><br />There are Rabbinical courts (Beit Din) in 15 states and DC. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?Trumannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-64587601168304324852010-08-26T18:58:17.152-05:002010-08-26T18:58:17.152-05:00It's not a separation issue as it's not en...It'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. <br /><br />Abortion 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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />But that was beat into the ground already. <br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-15598470601535426942010-08-26T18:44:32.667-05:002010-08-26T18:44:32.667-05:00Truman - I did not know that Jews had a separate c...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?tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-30124711751960826872010-08-26T18:43:09.038-05:002010-08-26T18:43:09.038-05:00Anonymous - I do subscribe to the separation of c...Anonymous - 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. <br /><br />Now, 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.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-70922343079856492872010-08-26T18:37:51.106-05:002010-08-26T18:37:51.106-05:00please answer:"Is it an issue when those on t...please answer:"Is it an issue when those on the religious right exert influence on politicians?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com