Hold on....
Wasn't the Emancipation Act supposed to separate Church and "state", or was that only a British thing?? I don't see where the government can declare a law outlawing the burning of any relgious icon, outside of the obvious fire hazard implications. If they're trying to step in and stop headbutting between various religious sects, then I think they're going about the wrong way. The KKK burns it as a symbol of their "Pure Christianity" (IIRC, i may totally have me head up me arse on this one). I've never seen a cross burned by any group other then the KKK, but I'm sure there might be some Muslim or other non-christian groups that may do it as an act of non-submittal. Even the rioting between Catholics and Protestants back home doesn't get to that degree.. (we just throw rocks and stuff at each other...
)
I dunno.. it just seems to me like the government is trying to butt in where they shouldn't.. What's next, Shrub declares himself Pope and beheads his wife???
Wasn't the Emancipation Act supposed to separate Church and "state", or was that only a British thing?? I don't see where the government can declare a law outlawing the burning of any relgious icon, outside of the obvious fire hazard implications. If they're trying to step in and stop headbutting between various religious sects, then I think they're going about the wrong way. The KKK burns it as a symbol of their "Pure Christianity" (IIRC, i may totally have me head up me arse on this one). I've never seen a cross burned by any group other then the KKK, but I'm sure there might be some Muslim or other non-christian groups that may do it as an act of non-submittal. Even the rioting between Catholics and Protestants back home doesn't get to that degree.. (we just throw rocks and stuff at each other...
) I dunno.. it just seems to me like the government is trying to butt in where they shouldn't.. What's next, Shrub declares himself Pope and beheads his wife???
I didn't have to take US history in Ireland...
If i'm wrong... what was the correct definition of the Act??
EDIT
Just looked up Emancipation...
In Ireland we had one based on religious discrimination, in which Catholics could not sit on any government body, as we were ruled by the British at the time.
the US version, in DC, abolished slavery...
My bad... though I still stand by separation of Church and State, even if I don't know what the correct term is..
If i'm wrong... what was the correct definition of the Act??
EDIT
Just looked up Emancipation...
In Ireland we had one based on religious discrimination, in which Catholics could not sit on any government body, as we were ruled by the British at the time.
the US version, in DC, abolished slavery...
My bad... though I still stand by separation of Church and State, even if I don't know what the correct term is..
Reminds me of the Southpark episode where all the black celebrities moved into Southpark and had taken over the town. There was discrimination where the rich black people had bars that the other citizens couldn't get into. The chased them out in town by dressing up as ghosts and burning lower case T's in their yard.
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
The Bill of Rights is not really law, it is an enumeration of rights, a limitation on governmental infringement. Actually, if you read the First Amendment, it's sort of anti-law.
Besides this is a freedom of speech/expression issue, not freedom of religion.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,455
- 19,924
- 146
"Separation of church and state" is the clear intention of the First Amendment. It was the phrase used by the author of the Amendment, and many other Founding Fathers to describe what the establishment clause of the First Amendment meant.
The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power. They are laws holding the government in check.
Did anybody see the quote from the VA attorney general?"
"If you see a burning cross, you will probably call the police. It is nothing short of domestic terrorism."
I think the word "terrorism" is far too overused today in the post-Sept. 11th generation. Terrorism is defined as the use of VIOLENCE against a certain government, group, or other organization by another group with the intention of intimidation. While cross burning may be a form of intimidation, it's a far call from violence.
Oh yes...and it's definitely an expression of free speech.
"If you see a burning cross, you will probably call the police. It is nothing short of domestic terrorism."
I think the word "terrorism" is far too overused today in the post-Sept. 11th generation. Terrorism is defined as the use of VIOLENCE against a certain government, group, or other organization by another group with the intention of intimidation. While cross burning may be a form of intimidation, it's a far call from violence.
Oh yes...and it's definitely an expression of free speech.
When I was a kid, I was scared of Batman. For my neighbor's 5th birthday party, his uncle dressed up as Batman for him. Apparently, I was so scared that I hid under the table and wouldn't come out until they got my mom.
I hope you are married, because good luck getting a date after that's put on TV. "Local man 'Amused' has a flag and cross burning rally at his home in protest of the latest Supreme Court decision, film at 11." I see your bandwith use going up dramatically.
Burning a cross on someones lawn is already illegal. Its called criminal trespassing, and know what, after dark, if someone trespasses on your lawn in Texas, its open season on them.
There are laws that already punish people that burn crosses on people yards.
And yes you sure as hell can go up to someone and call them a racial slur. They really cant do anything back either but say something. Theres nothing illegal about calling someone a racial slur. Might get you, your ass kicked, legal they would be the one in trouble if they resorted to anything more than words. Calling some a racial slur isnt a threat. Its rude, but not a threat or illegal.
There are laws that already punish people that burn crosses on people yards.
And yes you sure as hell can go up to someone and call them a racial slur. They really cant do anything back either but say something. Theres nothing illegal about calling someone a racial slur. Might get you, your ass kicked, legal they would be the one in trouble if they resorted to anything more than words. Calling some a racial slur isnt a threat. Its rude, but not a threat or illegal.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter