http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/23/D8M6KVQG0.html

In my opinion, this man is deranged and is in no way representative of atheists, agnostics, and other secular people. The man's protest was over the Kern High School board in San Joaquin Valley (near Bakersfield) changing the names of Winter and Spring breaks to Christmas and Easter breaks, respectively. The man first set fire to a Christmas tree in a public area and then doused himself in gasoline as police officers approached. He had a sign that read, "(expletive) THE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT AND KHSD."

He's perfect for roasting chestnuts (on).

I love the US flag and Liberty Bell part, too.

Maybe next year he can BE the yule log (they have the same IQ)

Seriously, I'm sure his family is enjoying spending the holidays in the burn unit. Jerk.

I wonder if it was Wayner???

Sounds like a terrorist jihadist in the War on Christmas.....

WHEN IT'S NOT SAFE TO FREAK OUT ABOUT THE PHRASE "HAPPY HOLIDAYS," THEN THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!!!

BTW, we seem to be in a Cease Fire On Christmas now. How long do you think it will last? Perhaps ten months, 'til right after Halloween?

Until the aclu attempts to deprive Americans of their right to celebrate a NATIONAL HOLIDAY in the manner they so choose.

Herb

Yeah, when I tried hanging stockings on the mantle, the Secular Humanist Police busted into my house and took me away to Diversity Prison.

If the aclu has their way, preaching the Bible will be 'hate-speech.'

It happened in Canada and Scandinavia. It can happen here.

Herb

Sorry, I flat-out don't believe any of that.

Jeez, Herb, can't you give it a break until after Christmas/Solstice/New Year's Day?

Talk about "Ham-Fisted™"!

"Sorry, I flat-out don't believe any of that."

There are none so blind as those who will not see:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517961/posts

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=8/5/2004

http://news.adventist.org/data/2004/04/1083692992/index.html.en

And to those who insist it cannot happen here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40774

Herbert M.

Me thinks Herb spends waaaay too much time finding links and not enough time celebrating everyday life. Get out of the house more Herb! There is a world to explore and people to meet who think completely differently from you and I who make life intersting and festive. Life is to be lived....it's the ultimate gift.

Sutton hadn't received the memo.

Herb

Good grief.

Chris, I competely agree.

Let's take a look at these, in brief:

---

quote:

Sweden passed a constitutional amendment during 2002 which included sexual orientation among a list of groups protected from being targeted by "unfavorable speech." The law protects persons of all sexual orientations equally: heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals. In practice, it will probably only be used to criminalize verbal attacks on homosexuals and those bisexuals who engage in same-sex behavior.

On 2004-JUN-29, a Pentecostal pastor was convicted of directing hate speech against homosexuals during a 2003-JUL-20 sermon in his church. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail by a district court. An appeals court overturned his conviction. However, the prosecutor has appealed the case to the Supreme Court and has asked that the pastor be given a sentence of six months. The Supreme Court heard the case in 2006-NOV and is expected to issue its ruling in 2006.

Many in the conservative Christian community in North America were alarmed at this development. They feared that a similar threat might materialize against their personal freedom to cite their beliefs that homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation are sinful and immoral.

---

---

quote:

Seventh-day Adventists in Canada are casting a wary eye on their sermon notes and publications in light of the enactment Apr. 29 of Canadian Bill C-250, which adds "sexual orientation" to a list of "hate crimes" for which perpetrators can be charged with an "indictable offense," equal to a felony in the United States.

Under the amendment to the law, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada said sexual orientation is added to the prohibited grounds for "advocating genocide," or advocating or promoting genocide; "public incitement of hatred" which is defined as communicating statements in a public place that incite hatred; and the "willful promotion of hatred," which the Canadian law defines as communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group.

---

---

quote:

The House of Representatives has voted to urge a conference committee to add "sexual orientation, gender and disability" to federal hate-crimes law, a development some observers say would muzzle Christians who speak out against homosexuality.

On Sept. 28, the House voted 213-186 to pass a procedural motion encouraging a conference committee to include the hate-crimes legislation in the final version of the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4200).

In June, Sens. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced the new language meant to protect homosexuals as an amendment to the Senate's version of the Defense Authorization Act. The Senate measured passed by a vote of 65-33.

The bill imposes special fines for those who commit a "hate crime" against a protected class and provides federal assistance to those prosecuting such crimes. Existing hate-crimes law provides federal help to states and localities in prosecuting crimes based only on the victim's race, religion or national origin.

Christian activists believe that if passed and signed into law, the legislation could be used to target Americans who voice their opposition to the homosexual lifestyle – including pastors preaching and reading the Bible.

---

"this law does force the discussion onto the right topic..."

Sure. To those who don't believe the Bible.

To those who do, it is an infringement on the freedom of worship and freedom of speech.

You guys take this away from the faithful, then don't be surprised when someone says you can't badmouth a Republican.

Herbert

Firstly, the right does not own faith.

Secondly, it's a known reality the bible is not authoritative. It's a matter of faith; specifically, one that you have chosen to embrace. That's all good, you are free to do that. Frankly, I encourage you to do that and will defend your right to do that.

(I was there at one time, remember.)

Currently, I stand on the other side of the asile where faith is concerned, but you need to know my position is one of faith as well. Really, we have this in common.

(BTW: If there is a God, and I'm not sure there is, I identify with Paine in that there is one God only.)

So here's the dilemma. I do not want to do anything to infringe on your right to faith, as I would assume you would return the favor in like kind right?

Neither of us want to do harm either. That's an assumption, I hope I am correct in making.

A lot of the advocacy, being put forth from religious people regarding gay people, is not known to be harmless! Why? Because we don't yet have enough known truth in the matter of gay being a choice.

This is why I wrote what I did. Those making this kind of speech could be doing great harm, thus the law. Again, I think it's premature and I also think a free society should have enough tolerance to make such a law and a forcing of the issue completely unnecessary as well.

I gotta ask then. Is this about your own need for your faith to be the right one, or about the ability to advocate for it freely? If the latter, knowing you might be doing more harm than good, is that really effective advocacy in line with the teachings of Jesus in general?

Those are tough and ugly questions. I address them by defaulting on the side of tolerance. Life is easier that way, in that I can better focus on keeping my own house in order. If we are all accountable in the end, then shouldn't we be more focused on our own individual accountability first?

As you say, the risks are quite high right?

Advocacy that is harmful is a sin, just as other things are. Anyone advocating these issues in the way addressed by the laws detailed above, may well be sinning huge!

There is a case for that, no matter your general position --you gotta admit.

Put simply, ones faith is not in question here. It's not addressed by the law at all. What is being addressed is harm, and that's what law is for. That and property are the only just reasons for law, frankly. Freedom, in general, is checked by harm. Our right to it ends there, where harm begins.

Thus, the matter of choice is extremely relevant. Again, if being gay is a choice, then advocacy against that choice is just. If it's not a choice, then it's unjust in the same way advocacy against being black or a woman would be, for example.

Instead of crying, "freedom!" and claiming the law is foul, why not nail the issue for sure? An alternative would be to accept that we simply don't know the reality of it and therefore cannot know the harm, leaving moderation the basic rule of the day for everyones well being.

We can do this today. Our level of understanding is enough to bring some known truth to the matter of choice. I believe this, but could easily be wrong. So, I stick with moderation in that I know that path will keep my harm to others to an absolute minimum. At the end of the day, this is defensible.

It comes down to how much regard you have for others. If you say it's not a choice, where then is your proof?

If you don't know, why diminish the value of others with no solid justification?

Why not support research to better understand the issue, if it's really that important?

There are none so blind as those who will not see:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517961/posts

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=8/5/2004

http://news.adventist.org/data/2004/04/1083692992/index.html.en

And to those who insist it cannot happen here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40774


Sad to say, those are slanted articles about proposed laws that are considerably tamer than how they're described. Google them and get the actual facts. I could find you pieces from left-wing blogs that would be as extreme about other topics.

Hate speech (which has been outlawed against other groups) is never defined as simply saying critical things about certain groups of people. This being America, you are free to say terrible things about members of any group you want. No one can take you to taks for it.

However, if your actions result in certain consequences, then there's a price to pay for your decision.

If David Duke were the president of our neighborhood association, and I told him untruthfully that you ... my neighbor ... had African-American ancestors, he might start harrassing you to get you to move. I would not be free of all guilt in that case. I would probably be as deserving of punishment as Mr. Duke would be.

Now, let's say there's a very fundamentalist church in our neighborhood. If I tell the pastor there that you are gay, and you end up with protestors ruining your property, we're guilty there, too. If that pastor said, "God doesn't make gay people, and it's a sin to be gay," that's not hate speech. If one of us says "So-and-so is gay, that's a sin, and it's up to us to make sure he doesn't live in our neighborhood" ... and that gets acted on ... that's hate speech.

"a development some observers say would muzzle Christians who speak out against homosexuality."

Finally,I'd like to muzzle a few of them myself.
If I hear another one of these morons use the phrase "Adam and Steve" I'm gonna strangle them.

Come on everyone, let Herb have his crutch.

"So-and-so is gay, that's a sin"

I like your definition of hate speech, BTW.

Does this not devalue someone without solid justification for it?

"Come on everyone, let Herb have his crutch."

I don't think it's a crutch to take God's word seriously.

Nice try.

Herb

Last time God spoke to YOU????